Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Which Religion is the biggest threat to Communism?

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 25
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Apr 2014, 02:29
Pioneer
Post 08 May 2014, 20:30
So, I assume it is between Catholicism and Islam, Right?

Sorry if it is an immature question but I would like to know the answer.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2014, 20:50
Islam. No dags I'm not talking about your private pantheist version of it, I'm talking about it as a real phenomenon, ie Taliban. No dags it doesn't matter that Taliban aren't "real" Muslims in your opinion.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2014, 21:30
It's not just my opinion that wahabbis are anti-islamic rats in the service of western imperialism. Many muslims have opposed these types including the DRA and the entirety of Iranian leadership. Wahabbis are a threat to all workers, communist and muslim alike. But tell me more of this real Islam and how it is accepted across the muslim world.

Also I am not a pantheist.
Well I guess I kinda am since I am tolerant of other faiths as different avenues provided by God.

@OP: Pretty much all conventional religion is a threat to us. The bourgeoisie atheists among us would claim that we can "just" get rid of religion like that is an option.
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2014, 22:31
What the shit.
Catholicism is in no way a threat to capitalism, and Islam(ism) even less.
Please don't troll.

Quote:
Pretty much all conventional religion is a threat to us. The bourgeoisie atheists among us would claim that we can "just" get rid of religion like that is an option.

Pray tell what's the difference between "bourgeois atheism" and "communist atheism".
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2014, 22:41
Communist atheism is based in materialism and not stupid ideas like "end religion now", league of the militant godless are a good example of bourgeoisie atheism. Doesn't matter if they were "communists".
Image
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2014, 22:47
Materialism existed before "communism".

Quote:
league of the militant godless are a good example of bourgeoisie atheism. Doesn't matter if they were "communists".

What's wrong about it? It was a project of taking millions of illiterate peasants into the 21st century, starting with demolishing the slave owner religions in Russia. Sadly, those 19th century prejudices are still to be dealt with even in our 21st century, and not only in Russia which is seeing a renaissance of pseudo-Christianity but most of the 2nd and 3rd World as well.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14444
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 08 May 2014, 22:49
Yeah but it wasn't scientific.
Oh and what did they achieve? Nothing but more support for a corrupt and dying church.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2014, 04:16
Fundementalism
Communists are not opposed to Religion. Rather we are opposed to the Capitalist Class using religion as a control mechanism to keep the masses dosile. It is in opposition to radical fundamentalism that seeks to opress Gay, Transgender and Bisexual people and/or of other religions/no religions. It's opposed to people who want to combine Church and State to make a theocracy. There are moderate muslims and moderate christians (who make up the vast majority of the people practicing those religions). Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro were/are very religious Christians for example.

The thing that destroyed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1980s was a Fundementalist Christian (Reagan) arming, paying, training and supporting Fundementalist Islamists terrorist (Mujahideen).
Soviet cogitations: 25
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Apr 2014, 02:29
Pioneer
Post 19 May 2014, 05:51
Loz wrote:
What the shit.
Catholicism is in no way a threat to capitalism, and Islam(ism) even less.
Please don't troll. tn.


What does that have to do with anything? Please dont curse. If you drop the s bomb it means you aren't a very good communist.

The soviet union saw the church as a threat and was an antireligious empire.

I didnt know fidel castro was christian. Thank you whoever said that.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 22 May 2014, 21:33
RedGeek wrote:
Fundementalism
Communists are not opposed to Religion. Rather we are opposed to the Capitalist Class using religion as a control mechanism to keep the masses dosile. It is in opposition to radical fundamentalism that seeks to opress Gay, Transgender and Bisexual people and/or of other religions/no religions. It's opposed to people who want to combine Church and State to make a theocracy. There are moderate muslims and moderate christians (who make up the vast majority of the people practicing those religions). Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro were/are very religious Christians for example.

The thing that destroyed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1980s was a Fundementalist Christian (Reagan) arming, paying, training and supporting Fundementalist Islamists terrorist (Mujahideen).


I agree 100%. Religion is in itself no threat. The exploitation and misinterpretation of religious scripture (especially by the unfortunate, the poor, and the helpless) is the problem.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 23 May 2014, 00:17
Desclaimer: I am an Atheist (a real Richard Dawkins fan). Keep this in mind as you read the follow.

Islam is a diverse and vaired religion just as Christianity is and dominates the Middle East and North Africa. To understand the relationships that shape the middle east we must understand how Islam and the use of Islam does to the politics of nations and to wars of agression. The United States has used and support islamic fundementalism for many decades to serve it's own purposes. The primary example of this is when the United States funded, trained, armed, and essentially created Islamic militant groups including Al Queda and the Taliban so they could attack the Marxist-Leninist Government in Afghanistan. This was a secular government that allowed religious freedom and sent girls to school and was attempting to educate and modernize the country. However because of the Cold War and it's relations to the USSR the US supported these Islamic jihadists. Eventually they were successful in overthrowing the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and went on to found the Taliban Government in Afghanistan. This subsequently lead to the 9/11 attacks.

This was the perfect excuse to sell a War to the American public for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite the fact that plans were clearly in place for the Wars before 9/11. Saddam Hussain had stoped trading oil in the dollar and instead switched to the Euro. There were multiple reasons for defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan from spending on Military contractors to oil pipelines to installing a new US puppet regime. Saddam Hussain was a secular dictator who has now been replaced by civil war between Al Queda and the US puppet regime. This is ironic as Saddam Hussain had been supported by the United States during the Iraqi invasion of Iran in the 1980s.

Meanwhile Al Queda have only spread to Mali and other countries. In 2011 they United States and NATO invaded Libya and overthrew the Gaddafi Government (a secular government with a high standard of living gaurenteed to all, although not Socialist). To do this they once again supported Al Queda and Islamic Militants in overthrowing the government. This only made the conflict worse.

The United States is now supporting Al Queda and other Islamic radicals in overthrowing the Assad Government in Syria. While Assad is a dictator who I don't admire he is superior to the Islamic Terrorists trying to overthrow him. Atleast Syria has a secular government that sends girls to school, doesn't have sharia law and is religiously tolerant of Muslims and Christians.

The United States currently supports several Islamic Dictatorships in the middle east including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain and others. Often however, the US will also support secular dictatorships such as they did with the Mubarake Shah and Saddam Hussain in the 1980s.

Hence what we see is often the United States using and spreading Islamism (Afghanistan 1980s, Saddam's Iraq in the 2000s, Libya 2011, Syria present) or suppressing Islam (in the case of the Iran-Iraq War, Mubarake's Egypt, Saddam's Iraq in the 80s, the Shah's Iran, Afghanistan in the 2000s ect).

We as Marxist-Leninists should see this and fight against Imperialism where-ever we see it whether that is the suppression of Muslims or the radicalization of Muslims by the Imperialist Powers of Europe and America. Now they want to kill even more millions by invading Iran.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 23 May 2014, 00:53
The only difference this time is that a line has been drawn in Syria. This time all those imperialist puppets are being blown straight to hell.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
Soviet cogitations: 54
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 May 2014, 02:13
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Pioneer
Post 23 May 2014, 03:58
That's quite true. The Al Queda militants have been shown to make up 80% of the opposition, even the Liberals widely report on it and are against it. Diplomacy by Russia and China prevented cruise missiles from being sent in and now the opposition has lost Homs the Capitol of the "revolution". Thankfully I don't think they will be able to invade Iran either as it is backed by the Russians and Chinese.

Where the Americans have succeeded is in the capture of Ukraine (although it looks like they are getting a broken Ukraine in the middle of a Civil War instead of the shiny not-broken version they wanted). That isn't an entirely religious conflict although Neo-Nazis and Anti-semites are attacking and threatening Jews (along with ethnic Russians and Communists).
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 15
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Jun 2014, 03:12
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 13 Jun 2014, 05:15
RedGeek is utterly correct in saying
Quote:
The thing that destroyed the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the 1980s was a Fundementalist Christian (Reagan) arming, paying, training and supporting Fundementalist Islamists terrorist (Mujahideen).


I say that as a practicing Christian (yes and a Communist Party member).

When I hear of those hypocrites in the West talking about how women in Afghanistan should be able to go to school etc, they don't even blush or acknowledge in their training & funding of terrorists attacking the Democratic Socialist Afghan government and its society. Those #CIA and #USA funded terrorists made sure that women who worked were shot, girls who went to school were shot, and the teachers who tried to teach them were shot!

Such is the hellishness of western propaganda that none but the few who remember this happening, will know of the utter hypocrisy of the current Western media in trying to portray the current situation in the aftermath of NATO invasion as a success!

May the world one day learn the true face of NATO and Western Imperialism, and learn to condemn them as enemies of the people.
"When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why people are hungry, they call me a Communist." Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian Archbishop

Image
Soviet cogitations: 2
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jun 2014, 07:01
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 14 Jun 2014, 07:40
Viewing a religion as an abstraction and saying it is "a threat to communism" is un-Marxist and idealist. Religion must be critically analysed from the framework of historical materialism. In its early phase, Christianity was revolutionary; a mass movement of oppressed peoples and slaves subjugated by Rome. Engels wrote about this at length. The Christians were persecuted just as Communists have been persecuted. When Christianity became institutionalized by the Roman state it became a tool of the oppressor class.

The "new atheists" like Dawkins et al deal with the religion question in a bourgeois way detached from the class struggle; the root of religious suffering (which as Marx said is real suffering) lies in historical and economic conditions which the "new atheists"fail to explain. Of course I'm not opposed to scientific literature which refutes supernaturalism but the religious masses will not be enlightened by this alone when their economic conditions are worsening. Whilst I believe religious feeling will begin to evanesce with the expansion of science in the public sphere, it is important that the religious masses struggle against the forces of capitalism for a "heaven on earth" and not a heaven in the afterlife.

Advancing atheism in our platform and fomenting religious strife divides the working class, especially in areas where religious prejudices are still rife. That doesn't mean that we should not combat the inconsistencies of religious sects or advance a scientific outlook—and in any case where religion contradicts socialism it must be mercilessly smashed like in Albania—but really the religion question will solve itself when society is cleansed of bourgeois vestiges. Religion must be a completely private affair.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 25 Jun 2014, 06:37
I always did think of Jesus as the first true revolutionary.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4764
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2007, 06:59
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Forum Commissar
Post 27 Jun 2014, 06:20
Really? I have my doubts. He was more about internal change, of renounciation and other expressions of piety. He is not about the end of oppression, the changing of political systems. He simply said "follow me", that is, "change your life". That's what he said to the rich person who wanted to follow him.

He did indeed preach about equality, but among the converted, who create an alternate kingdom of god within the existing world. It's Utopian, and though you will get brotherhoods and sects and the like, you will not overthrow the chains of oppresions. The oppresors would have to convert en masse.

In a way, it's not that different from the Stoics or other movements of the time. As people lost autonomy, as empires asserted themselves, a common answer was to abstract away from the regime by positing a superior "internal" sphere of virtue or god.

The widespread adoption of Christianity has more to do with the Hellenic additions made by Paul, with the abstraction of nationalities, and with the advantages of a monotheistic faith towards a state and for a church structure.

And, c'mon, Spartacus was a true revolutionary and came before Jesus.
Image

"You say you have no enemies? How is this so? Have you never spoken the truth, never loved justice?" - Santiago Ramón y Cajal
Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 27 Jun 2014, 17:10
Praxi nailed it directly on the head. The logical next step beyond Jesus' abstractionist Utopia is to posit a Heaven on Earth, established by force. This is precisely why Saul the epileptic was so important. Christianity as a vehicle of spiritual-monopolist oppression in the hands of the Constantinian dynasty would be impossible without his contribution.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 13 Jul 2014, 18:21
I don't believe in God (except for when in times of extreme crisis or danger) but I always very much admired the teachings of Jesus. I think of him very much as a historic figure rather than as a religious one. I think of him as a revolutionary against the Roman empire and apart from the gospels, there are texts which seem to conclude just that. I will readily admit that my opinions are very biased because of my Catholic background and I simply choose which texts to believe. I basically see Jesus as I want to see him for a number of reasons.

I just love the fact he turned water to wine; but that's just my extreme fondness of the drink talking. I've even been to the village of Qana in south Lebanon where he supposedly performed that very first miracle.

Although my logic perfectly knows that this is all hogwash, I enjoy lying to myself every once in a while in order to get a taste of the magical. Otherwise you are both 100% right of-course.

praxicoide wrote:

And, c'mon, Spartacus was a true revolutionary and came before Jesus.


Right again. Spartacus is in fact one of my very favourite historical figures. I always thought that his story would make for a fantastic movie.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2507
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2004, 21:17
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Bureaucrat
Post 20 Jul 2014, 05:53
Islam and fundamentalism (namely the United States types, i.e. Southern Baptist Christianity).

I honestly don't think Marx would necessarily have advocated for the total destruction of religion as was seen in Stalinist Russia, and I feel that most of the resentment towards Christianity in the Soviet Union was due to to the power struggle that would have resulted if the Christian institutions were allowed to exist in the still-fragile developing Communist state.

Christianity, if looked at positively, is a very Socialist religion, and a friend of mine even regarded Jesus as being the "first socialist." Islam, as well, could be seen as peaceful, as well as Judaism and every single other religion out there from A to Z. The issue is who is interpreting it, and what institutions exist and to what aims they seek to strive towards.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.