Communism and state-enforced atheism

Post Reply New Topic

What are your thoughts on this? I used to be against the idea as a supporter of religious freedom, but after thinking about it I think maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea. I'd rather live under a government that truly severs the cord between church and state than live under a theocracy. I'm sure they would both suck in their own way, but at least we would not have archaic fairy tales and an imaginary god standing in the way of human progress.

As someone who has a lot of problems with religion, I approve. Many homosexual people have been disowned and many teen couples have been prevented from seeing each other because of parents religious beliefs, among many other things.

I'm now starting to root for China.

I'd like an agnostic government that does not encourage people to be religious, and isn't filled with religious propaganda...it just gets old after a while. I say let people believe what they want, but stay truly neutral, don't advocate for one religion or any religion necessarily at all. Point out that we all have things in common that are not based on religion, and those are the important things to consider. Religion deals with the supernatural and the spiritual, and that is somewhat at odds with the practical, human concerns of society as a whole.

I think the USA has attempted this and yet we still have politicians arguing about forcing kids to pray to Jesus in school and now we have a president who has banned people for being Muslim and he himself has been proclaimed as being "Chosen by God!! !!" by the Christian Right.

Not to mention that because of the bible this country is still doing everything in its power to prevent homosexuals like me from enjoying the same rights as everybody else. Hell I have to lie about being gay just to donate plasma.

It kinda doesn't matter, though.... Communism enforced atheism, but actually existing communist countries replaced it with their own mythology about "the people" and "progress" and atrocities were committed in the name of "the people" and "progress". Stalinist Russia was antisemitic AF and homophobic - but of course, this had nothing to do with religious beliefs, but rather with "scientific" doctrine of "degeneracy" and so on.

I think people just do whatever they feel like abd make stuff up as a reason fir doing so.
This may not be true for religious extremists, but for societies at large.

The problem with religious freedom always comes when some people take their religion seriously - more serious than merely manmade laws. Here, religion becomes a downright threat to the state, and religious groups become potentially anti-state.
That's what's going on in China with the Uyghurs - they are taking theor religion more seriously than they are taking the state - I guess, in northern Europe, religion has lost its appeal to an extent that even religious people act as if manmade laes were more important.

Considering the extent to which the US has to deal with religious extremists, I think they've been doing surprisingly well until now.

America tries and fails at this. It's a double standard. They act like they're religiously impartial, but clearly endorse and practice Christianity above other religions. The political right is significantly worse than the left at this, but both sides of government are guilty of it. This can be traced to the country's religious roots, which like other lingering effects of our country's past, don't seem to be going away. Both Democratic and Republican national conventions started with a clergyperson opening with a prayer. It has become, at this point, a matter of tradition, normalcy, and superstition. But we don't all agree with it. I say if you want to go to church, go to church; but that should really be the extent of religion's role in our society. It makes the rest of us feel like we're being lied to, as with the one hand, the government claims to value religious freedom, yet with the other, they attempt to strongarm us through their offensively and overtly Christian values and laws. We live in a schizophrenic, cognitively dissonant country that can't make up its mind about what it wants. So, many of us are relegated to implicit inferiority as we're condescended to by these heavy-handed shows of religious and ideological authority. Ironic, because upon the very bible they make you swear an oath to, the events ostensibly held therein would never stand up in a court of law. I get it that it's all about symbols etc., and they can have morality on their side...but they can be dangerous as well, and someone will be quick to use them for their agendas, and step into the power vacuum and say "I'm doing God's work". Maybe even most of the time they mean well and are doing good, but are they really doing good for the right reasons, or because they're superstitious, delusional, and self-righteous, feeling they're above others who are non-believers etc? I do wonder sometimes. And maybe I just take other people's religions too seriously and see them as worse than they really are. I think it's because I understand how dangerous it all is, and see how any religion can fall into cult-like dynamics. And do I recognize there's something potentially harmful to be said for a lack of spirituality etc as well? Sure. People need guidance and they need connection with things bigger than they are, they need meaning, I get it. But honestly, I feel that I do have my own kind of spirituality, faith, connection to something larger than myself, etc. it's just not a religion per se.

Know what I honestly think? Without being a smartass? I think we should go back to the hunter/gatherer days before it was ruined by industrialism and capitalistic greed.

As for religion and spirituality, it doesn't matter. Psychopaths claiming to be holy men have always used religion to control the masses. Life might be so much better if we abandoned organized religion, but it's never gonna happen.

I think government should stay out of all religious affairs.

Government should not promote, ban, restrict or interfer in religion in anyway.

Unless your talking about suicide cult or something.

Even though I have a soft spot for both (1) East Asian women and (2) women in uniform, I generally believe it would be better to base one's preference for a political system on the content of its character - and not on the curves of its comrades.

The Eastern half of Europe was ruled by atheistic communism for half of Century, and religion was banned. But religion is strong in Eastern Europe. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Islam, are all potent political forces in the Balkans and in Eastern Europe that oppose each other like its still the Fifteenth Century.

During that same time period the western half of Europe had democracies that not only did not suppress religion they tended to have actual official religions (like the "Church of England"). Have political parties with names like "the Christian Democrats", and even subsidize churches with taxpayer money.

The result? An almost total collapse of religion in western europe. Only six percent ever go to church. And most physical churches there today are abandoned buildings.

So... if you wanna promote religion...have the government BAN it!

And if you wanna get rid of religion...demand that the government support it!

Communism: no thanks, my property is my own, go away.

State-enforced atheism: no thanks. The state can tell me what I can and can't do within limits. It has no business telling me what to believe.

Separation of church and state: Yes. Non-negotiable.

I once heard in the eastern block era a torn page of the Bible would go for good money.Bosnian Muslims are very zealous Muslims but notoriously bad Muslims with a great love of sausage.

Well, communism doesn't work, so that is in itself a good idea why it shouldn't be used as a basis for government.

Governments with state-enforced atheism (Pol Pot's Cambodia, Stalin's Russia and Mao's China) are also responsible for some of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind… Bin Laden was a boy scout by comparison...

The purpose of a separation (mutual "none-of-your business") of religion and politics is thus not only to limit the oppressive potential of religion, but also the oppressive potential of politics.

I doubt that DeathEmperor himself would want to live under a communist system....

It's, frankly, social Darwinism at almost its very worst.

The elite under a communist system, in practice, tends to be more "elite" and exclusive than that found within capitalistic-oriented systems.

I just don't want to live under state-enforced theism, and I have a feeling we could be headed down that path. Like something out of The Handmaiden's Tale.