socialism and advocacy of liberal ideals

I was watching a CNN (there was nothing better on) documentary on the mosque in Murfreesboro TN that was being set on fire and harassed and sued by reactionary locals.

This kind of thing used to make my blood boil, but halfway through the documentary I realized I don't give a shit, if these people are being persecuted for their religion, I feel no obligation to help them or feel sympathy. I used to look at the regrettable situation of christians in Iraq and feel bad, but now I just don't care. Religion is dumb and it's followers shouldn't be defended nor persecuted. why?

because religion is reactionary.

what is up with some leftist groups having a strong emphasis on marriage equality?

As a communist I am against all marriage. Isn't marriage reactionary?

Advocating marriage equality will not move us forward to socialism or expand class consciousness.

Burning mosques and harassing people going there is first and foremost fueled by racism, not opposition to reactionary ideologies or shit like that so hell yeah you should defend those people. Pretty much same for the Christians in Iraq really, there's a really frightening tendency in the left to shrug some serious problems as liberal issues; there's absolutely nothing liberal in defending people who're being otherized and persecuted by the society. In my books, it's a lot more reactionary to not give a shit about issues like that than to worship a deity.

We should speak out against all injustices:
"The Social-Democratic doctrine is one of struggle against all oppression, all robbery, all injustice. Only he who knows the causes of oppression and who all his life fights every case of oppression is a real Social-Democrat."
-Lenin

As soon as I read this I knew you were going to catch some shit for it. You are kind of right but so is Igor.

It would help if I knew exactly what was meant by defending. If it means getting angry at the TV and posting on Revleft saying how terrible it is then that is obviously useless as it has no material impact other than making you feel shitty. If by defending you mean organizing solidarity groups and campaigns then this is also pointless and leads to reformist politics. Solidarity acts never have the desired impact. Just look at the SWP-Respect fiasco. I'm not criticizing people who do things like this just that they are fooling themselves if they think it actually leads to socialist consciousness.

However, all worker on worker violence should be opposed. It's just we're powerless to do anything about it.

What the fuck is this Randian bullshit?

Your class reductionism/workerism is really obnoxious. It isn't just "worker on worker" violence that should be opposed. If somebody--yes, even a sacred worker--burns down a synagogue attended mostly by middle class Jews, or a mosque attended by mostly middle class Muslims, it isn't any less disgusting or reactionary or worthy of condemnation than it would be if the victims were working class. Its people like you guys that drive well-intentioned radicals away from communist politics.

I don't see it as an injustice to burn down the building of a reactionary ideology.

mosque/church/synagogue/temple burning =/= gay-bashing

Are you seriously completely blind to any context?

Mainly because not every religious person is 'an oppressor' nor is religion necessarily oppressive or reactionary. People twist religion all day every day to make it fit with their worldview, pacifistic or otherwise.

And yeah attacking some muslims isn't the same as attacking some billionaire fundamentalist christians in a mega church.

Enlighten us with your opinion of the Nazi scumfuck who took out a shitload of Sikhs a few weeks ago.

There is no such thing as marriage equality.

religion is a relic that should be done away with, those who know the dangers of following certain religions in hostile places, have made their decision, why should they be protected

the man is a terrorist, but I would not give a cent to help out the Sikh.

my concern is the working class, not promoting/protecting false identities(christian muslim sikh)

Man I wish Franz Fanonipants was still here, he'd have a field day with you

But it doesn't have anything to do with "promoting or protecting false identities". It isn't a question of endorsing religious beliefs, which no communist would do, but of opposing bigotry and acts of violence based on bigotry.

So just to make sure you are following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion: are you also indifferent to massacres and genocides where the victims are targeted due to their religion?

Are you fucking serious? You're seriously going with the "They had it coming" line? Fucking hell. I don't care if you think religion is stupid or not, it's pretty fucking important to care when racist dickheads harm other people because they believe in a different magical sky man. Fighting against racism and other prejudices that divide the working class is of paramount importance to the left.

NOW THAT'S WHAT I CALL EDGY

It's not a question of protecting religion. It's a question of having at least an ounce of sympathy for people that are being fucking persecuted by racist bigot fuckheads.

I seriously don't get where you're going with this line of reasoning other than to try to appear more prolier-than-thou.

Quite a blanket statement. Marx would disagree.

The defense of people being persecuted for no reason other than religious affiliation isn't a "promot[ion of] false identities." Perhaps maybe if you met some of the Sikh people that were victims or knew victims you would not be so ignorant.

Religion is less reactionary than not caring about ethnic minorities who are being harassed and endangered because of bigotry.

Also to add to this, I'm pretty sure that if they were atheists or Christians they still would have been shot at. Reactionary racists don't care what religion you are, they simply identify religion with culture and race and target accordingly. Also fuck the OP you privileged shit.

About the only thing more reactionary than religion is violently cracking down on people's religious beliefs.