Remus Bleys

That's not what I mean. Class society has always been exploitative, and religion is often a way for people to deal with it. These religions will not be against class society necessarily because it acts merely as a pain-killer, and therefore creates acceptance of current society, or that a new society can be created (but in a utopian way as the utopian socialists believed). Now whether or not a certain church supports this government or whatever is more specific and is not what this is about.

By this sort of communism I mean Marxism, and the ultimate aim of communist society. Workers' will more likely simply agree that socialism and/or the party's demands are good ideas, and not understand them in a Marxist and scientific socialist context.

Correct, but a different mode of production that was still based on classes. Class society was not threatened.

And that is exactly my point about the Russian people.

The American and French revolutions were not workers' socialist revolutions. The Russian revolution was not caused by millions of dedicated Marxists necessarily looking for this sort of communism.

Religions do not cause people to be in class society. Class society creates religion. As class society is eroded, so too religion will be as well.

One can, of course, be a good revolutionary with flaws.

Because people aren't perfect and have flawed beliefs. Religious communists included. Marx and Engels, for example, were homophobes. Yet still communists.

The point I am making is that religion is inherently reactionary. In Marxism's view, religion is like a painkiller ('opium') to the people in class society and is therefore an inherently reactionary thing. Of course, then we can add in some of the horrible parts of religions (a prime example being in the Old Testament of the Bible) that are espoused by these powerful institutions.

But why, do you think, a lot of priests are reactionaries? And, not being reactionary involves much more than just not caring about what someone wore to Church.

And yes, that makes sense.

Why does power cause them to become reactionary? If they didn't have the 'power', then would already be reactionary, but merely powerless to serve the reaction.

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean.