Did East Germans hear Reagan's "tear down this wall speech"?

My position has always been that fundamentalism, religious or atheistic, is an enemy of the people. And that religion as it exists is mostly incompatible with socialism. The capitalists turned religion away from feudalism to capitalism when many said that was impossible. There is no reason we can't evolve religion once again.

The problem is just that Religion really won't be needed under communism. We won't need the Bible to tell us to share stuff, because there won't be property. We won't need the Qu'ran to tell us to be kind to poor people, because there won't be poor people. Why should you not love thy neighbor if he's not your competitor? Communism is at once the fulfillment and the abolition of the Abrahamic religions' moral code.

(And yeah, I'm a Christian.)

Mabool wrote:

The problem is just that Religion really won't be needed under communism.

Yeah because you know what will be needed under communism? I don't I'd like to know how you do.

Mabool wrote:

We won't need the Bible to tell us to share stuff, because there won't be property.

We'll be living it the bible rather than following it. Of course this will create far less cristians and religious people but growing up as a species leads to this kind of shit.

Mabool wrote:

We won't need the Qu'ran to tell us to be kind to poor people, because there won't be poor people.

Then our job will have already have been done.

Mabool wrote:

Why should you not love thy neighbor if he's not your competitor?

Because he's still a dick? I dunno there are all kinds of reasons to hate your neighbor besides your competition with him.

Mabool wrote:

Communism is at once the fulfillment and the abolition of the Abrahamic religions' moral code.

It's not its abolition at all, it's its realization which renders it socially and intellectually irrelevant. Its more like completion to be honest.

I've never spoken of the necessity of religion, but of the necessity of its inclusion into the socialist future so we can effectively castrate it. Alienating proletarians over an irrelevant metaphysical question is a dangerous absurdity.

Quote:

It's not its abolition at all, it's its realization which renders it socially and intellectually irrelevant. Its more like completion to be honest.

A moral code is a set of rules. When it's realized, it becomes unnecessary and disappears. This means its disappearance. We don't need a rule to tell us to breathe, either.

I think we've got a conflict in terms here. To me abolition implies a rejection of what is ending. I agree that the moral code will become irrelevant but that was supposed to be its purpose in the first place. This implies a completion of the code.

Also we have to consider the fact that a very small minority of humans will never stop rigidly following religions for whatever reason. Showing how our society and socialist culture are a realization of these values lends us their possible support rather than making them splinters in society.

A visual representation of what Harry said about the positioning:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ftbild.jpg

Here's Reagan:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... er_Tor.png

As for religion, there is nothing wrong with a strong atheist and rational stance, but what's completely wrong is the kind of "militant atheism" that's focused on attacking the religious in all spheres of life. People should be allowed to worship whatever they want, but none of these beliefs should influence the state. For instance, I think it's insane that our government funds Christian schools. When given a finger, they are likely to take a hand and demand "rights" like the ability to bar homosexuals from teaching.

I'd say communism ought to be anti-clerical rather than opposed to all the religious.

Matthijs wrote:

I'd say communism ought to be anti-clerical rather than opposed to all the religious.

This to the max. Clerics are pretty much the equivalent of the religious bourgeoisie (well for the clerical leaders).

Matthijs wrote:

For instance, I think it's insane that our government funds Christian schools. When given a finger, they are likely to take a hand and demand "rights" like the ability to bar homosexuals from teaching.

Yes, this is happening more and more in radical christian schools. I'm not sure whether we should ban religious schools altogether or just stop funding them.

Also, would anti-clerical imply anti-church?

Anti-clerical is more about being against clerical leaders becoming powers to contend with the state. I have no problem allowing clerics into the party so long as they are actually communists.

So the church should be a force on their own, but subordinate to the state?

Everything will be subordinate to the proletarian state.