State atheism?

What do ya'll think about state atheism? Ya or Na? Personally I'm not a fan of religion but I can't be assed to care about it in so far they aren't actually trying to force me to go to church, mosque or whatever. I won't say that state atheism can't work because of a few previous failures, and technically the U.S is the first State atheist country. In so far that we were the first not to have a state religion.

Other urls found in this thread:

We must be 100% secular.

Religion is fake news and people should be shamed for believing in nonsense.

Secularism in what way? The American model were the state can't be religious or favor a religion but you can have a religion(not saying religious nuts haven't captured our government) . Or in that we all have to be secularist in whatever way that is defined by the state. Also I would add my idea of the state is the monopoly of acceptable violence and cultural hegemony. I don't believe in statelessness, though I believe in state reconstitution when necessary.

This. Measures should be taken to be anti-religion but nothing too unsubtle. We can only point them away, not push them.

Religion is a spook.

State enforced, all churches should be collectivised and used as community grounds or open to the homeless while we get housing up.

Religion especially organised religion is a threat to our system see how csthlics side with facists all over and the church will be the first to condone gulaging rich people.


State atheism with marriages arranged by the state.

We should expose the big churches for what they are - exploitative corporations dedicated to money laundering and the concealment of pedophiles.

If anything, we might do some political among the small sects that oppose them (such as the jesuits, which are big here in Latin America and already hold leftist views most of the time). This is what the Bolsheviks did back then:

Could it be because you burn churches and rape nuns while the fashies don't?

State atheism made sense in post-revolutionary countries where the church was an institution in the previous regime. Letting the church continue to operate as it had been would have spelled doom for the revolution. It makes less sense in secular societies where the church has less involvement. That said, those mega churches and opulent cathedrals should probably get seized for the benefit of the masses.

somebody get this hot head outta here

None of that shit you anarkiddie. Nuclear family is one thing, but some hippy lifestylist communal family shit is retarded.

Nuclear family is domestic slavery of the wife. Read Origin of the family private property and the state.

Extended Family (i.e. the actual traditional family) > Everything Else

The communal family prevailed from the lower stages of savagery all the way too the invention of slavery and property rights.

Where did I argue for the Nuclear Family my g?

Communal families and communal raising eventually results in later generations as early as the second returning to the extended family model, read about communes like the Kibbutz


Its a non-issue from even a marxist standpoint


Seperation of church and state. The state should promote science and education, which is the natural enemy of religion, and fight against cults or highly organised religion, but not enforce atheism. People are free to be wrong and have different opinions, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights and safety of others or themselves.

Ideology is religion, and people who follow other religions are thus heretics.
You just have a "secular religion" instead of an abrahamic one, and the state is still a jealous theocracy enforcing it.

"Science" and religion/theology were never considered separate entities until the Enlightenment, no doubt partially out of chauvinism.

State atheism as in separation of church and state and general secular politics: great, every socialist state should adhere to this.
State atheism as in outlawing religion and Hoxha/Stalin-tier persecution of religious people: absolutely unacceptable and not compatible with individual liberties. Moreover, even if you'd think such repression can be argued in favor of, it's doomed to fail because attempts at repressing religion is only likely to stir more radical forms of religion. Individuals should enjoy unlimited freedom to choose their own worldview; religion and politics should simply not get mixed up.

My understanding is that such separation was done to spare the Church and its power from scientific inquiry (of course incursions into the realms of religion by science continued), not sure what you mean by chauvinism

Secularism > State Atheism

Fuck off.

Deny rights to people based on spooks that don't really affect anything is, dare I say it, spooked

why alienate all the possible christ/muhammadcommies over stupid BS

>religious establishments aren't seditious influences within every socialist state
Defending the workers > defending religion

There's no need to purge the church in the modern day and age. Religious workers are workers too, I don't want to live in a theocracy either but equally I don't want to purge people who want to go to worship. Repressing religion just makes it stronger, look at Russia vs West Europe.

Firstly, repressing individual religious freedom can't somehow be ethically justified. You're free to be atheist, hence others are free to be religious. A state that forces atheism onto everybody is just the atheist variety of a theocracy. The important thing is to keep religion and politics apart: therefore secularism is the way to go.
Secondly it's also pragmatically a bad thing to repress religion, since (as pointed out) this never really works out and will just lead to radicalization. That's pretty logical - imagine the state started imprisoning people who have communist ideas, would you willfully give them up or just become convinced of them to an even higher degree? Same goes for religion. Also, you won't persuade many people that your political system is the best one when the first thing you do is suppressing their elementary personal liberties. It's just a self-destructive thing to do.
I also don't see how "defending the workers" and "defending religion" would be two mutually exclusive things.

To the religious commies in the thread:

How do you ensure class loyalties remain prioritized over religious loyalties? For instance, a Muslim is not allowed to seize the private property of another Muslim, so why would Muslim proles engage in class struggle against Muslim porkies?

These things are not equally valid.

Religious institutions are reactionary, they always supported the reaction and they are going to get what's fucking coming to them.

It worked fine in Albania and Azerbaijan.

I'm not religious, but you can't realistically expect the entire population to help in/be supportive of the seizing of the means of production in the first place, right? There will inevitabily always be considerable parts of the population who aren't Marxist, no matter if they're Muslim or not.
That being said I don't think it's impossible to be both Muslim and Marxist either. Muslims can't smoke, but Turks are known for heavy smoking; Muslims can't listen to music, but a lot of them do, etc. Theory is one thing but in the real world everything's more complex. In the end muzzies, like all other demographics, are a very heterogeneous group of people who aren't all defined by a strict following of their religion to the same extent. So I think it's kind of a silly argument that none of them would engage in class struggle just because they follow Islam. The Arab spring illustrates that revolutions and social conflicts surely aren't impossible in the Muslim world. If such things can happen, and if radical Muslims can join ISIS or carry out terrorist attacks, there's no reason why they can't also be Marxist.

Leftist thought always renounces religion. Breaking rules of religion isn't hard. Renouncing it is.

Honestly, I wish it was possible to stamp religion away like that, but socialism itself shows you can't kill an idea, especially not if it has been fagging the world up for millenia. ultimately, the only ways to decrease religiosity is to just plain increase living standards and education, and that's that. Opiate of the people and whatnot.

Don't knock it till you try it.

Also shut down the temples, forbid proselytizing, broadcast anti-religious propaganda in the media, and exclude teaching religious thought from educational system. Analyzing it is fine, though.

I was raised Muslim and never heard this.

There's a lot of scholarly debate on the subject of music. Some scholars say it's haram, others say it isn't so as long as it doesn't promote anything un-Islamic. Women are generally not allowed to sing in front of men though.

The ones who take their religion seriously won't. They might blame the jooz or the west, but they'll be highly reluctant to go after rich Muslims on the basis that Islam is supposed to promote global unity among believers.

I could support reducing the power and influence of institutions, but eradicating those alltogether seems radical since they have a lot of personal importance for so many people. Moreover socialist governments haven't only fought against religious institutions, but also against religion on an individual level. Leaders like Hoxha engaged in literal medieval-tier practices like church burning. I hope you will at least agree this is an unacceptable violation of basic rights, as well as extremely hypocritic if you claim people are free under your system. Let people choose for themselves what they want to believe.
Azerbaijan possibly, but I do think in Albania religion always survived underground despite the totalitarian repression, and has become stronger again since the "end of communism".

I'm a leftist though and don't have a problem with religion. Highly influential leftists, such as Gaddafi, have been Muslims. Why do ☭TANKIE☭s find it so hard to grasp that others may have another conception of leftism than themselves yet still be leftist? Fucking gatekeepers.

Violates individual rights to believe what they want
This is a bit vague but I could agree
I don't see why the state should take any stance on this, religion in the end is a personal matter

My examples may have been simplistic because I admittedly don't have a deep knowledge about Islam. But still, I don't think the people who are deeply religious and accept all authority would be those who'd stand up against capitalism in the first place. I just don't believe religion is such a hugely important factor in this that it absolutely needs to be eradicated.

Enver Hoxha did nothing wrong.

I hope you're baiting but I'm afraid not
*tips fedora*



Albania had women as chattel slaves and tribalism. Now they don't.

75% of Azerbaijani today identify as irreligious.

Shitting on religion works just fine.

Tbh you could just fight that without fighting a fascist war against religion as a whole. Educating people would have done the job over time, no need to murder thousands of innocents.

Peak liberalism


But user that's not what leftism is all about, leftism is actually a satanic zionist plot against God and tradition, the edgy atheists on this thread confirm it.

Holla Forums was right again.

I can't even tell whether behind your memeing you're agreeing or disagreeing with me.



I don't know either lmao

No need to be confused, we know exactly who equates communists to fascists.

I don't see how you fail to understand that such large-scale repressive measures, even when they are successful in some way or another, can't ever be justified whatsoever.

Not saying that Hoxhaist Albania was fascist, but I do think targeting/trying to exterminate specific demographics (whether that be Jews, blacks, religious people, etc) fits the label "fascism".

never did that faggot

This is what nihilism leads to, my dude.

Relax people, we're on the same side here.

Can't close them all or reactionaries will react. Just make some lazy calculations as to how many temples would be enough to tend to all the faithful and seize all the rest. Montmartre and the site of Chirst The Savior Cathedral in particular ought to be made into radioactive waste deposits or something else fatal to all human life.

Too vague. I wouldn't support an attack on free speech.

As much as I'd love it, I think that making the State's anti-religiousness explicit would backfire. Gotta keep plausible deniability.

This one I can agree with 100%.


This is a more reasonable position, but closing any temples still isn't something a state that claims to guarantee freedom for its citizens should be doing. Try to convince me that's not hypocritical as fuck.
Apart from that, temples also have value as historical sites, so it's not acceptable to just demolish them like you would any banal apartment block.

Dude seriously, take a break from Holla Forums and go educate yourself a bit.


At the end of the day, religion is religion. It's distinct from politics, and it's an individual choice, not something the state should be allowed to interfere with.

Have you ever took your own suggestion and picked up a fucking history book?


Are you deliberately misunderstanding me at this point? Ignore the bigger historical scope for a moment and look at individuals. A lot of religious people aren't involved or interested in politics at all. Everyone has their own interpretations and conceptions of religion. While there is a strong connection to politics historically speaking, it would be extremely reductionist to say every religious individual experiences their religion on a political level. And since part of the question is whether individuals are allowed to freely practice their religion, it's valid to look primarily at the individual level here (inb4 muh ebil non-dialectical non-historical approach).
Moreover, my point was that the state should leave individuals alone in general. No one should be persecuted just for their views, even political ones tbh, if they don't do any actual harm. How are you gonna pretend your state has freedom of speech otherwise?


Why are you so obsessed with the idea that the only kind of religious views one can have are reactionary?

Frum communities are mutual aid-based, much unlike the cultures which exist in postmodernity.

see, I can do this greentext thing too :DDD

inb4 reddit spacing, I'm doing it just because you're probably the kind of guy who gets triggered by that beyond belief.




With the removal of the capitalist system and the general framework of capitalist social relations which allows people to wield economic power over other individuals (the only real power communists should care about), people will be free to associate themselves in whatever significant or petty way they wish. Whatever non-capitalist institutions wish to continue to exist will have to adapt to such a system of non-exploitation and thus become fully "voluntary", meaning that their continued actions are not be done with capitalist coercion, or be condemned to wither away. It is utopian (in the general definition) to think that all people will suddenly agree or like each other or that people won't form organic organizations out of their mutual enjoyment of something. Socialists already don't get along with each other period, what makes you think everyone will come together even in a purely atheistic socialist state. Tbh, I don't even pretend that all socialists will come together in communism until some kind of world spanning, centrally self-controlled AI is created. Whatever socialist movement of the future that comes will probably be some kind of loose united front built upon some kind of collective sectarian understanding that post-revolution the different factions will be separate and probably only interact in some kind of confederate parliament to discuss happenings

tl;dr Religion and general ideology IN COMMUNISM is a non-issue, though still remains a possible issue in capitalism

I actually care about safe-guarding the revolution and protecting the workers.

I really don't see how it's different from expropriating some bougie property or other. Nabbing a porky's mansion isn't keeping him from living somewhere else, just like demolishing a temple won't keep people from frequenting others.

Good point, but not all of them have such value. Besides, sometimes these old creeds, not just religion, get… overgrown. Frankly, demolishing a good chunk of Tibet's temple-palaces was a net positive, for example. People hear "temples" and immediately think of something like a church, where common folks gather together to ptay, whereas in Tibet they were the property of the elite class.

and that's why you could just as well let the others be there too? I don't really support this kind of violent suppression of religion at all. It won't gather a lot of support for the party that perpetrates this, either. You're attacking people in a field that, if they are genuinely religious, is extremely precious to them. There's no way this will sit well with anyone

First, I have no problem in doing what is necessary to secure a revolution and the resulting communist governance, but only what is strictly necessary. Going around removing whatever group of people you desire because they retain the slight possibility of acting in a manner which would be counter-revolutionary is not necessary. And posting an article which goes into how a secular and underground movement took refuge in eastern churches and then acted in opposition to the Berlin wall isn't by itself an argument against religion but more so how it may become necessary at moments to remove certain individuals which have actually become counter-revolutionary for the time being over statements of a still capitalist, don't pretend the DDR wasn't in a still capitalist transition period church and then self-critique as to the reason why certain individuals in a supposedly working society would work against such a society so as to actually adress the problem forming. No problem in safe guarding a revolution, but there is a difference between safe guarding and you going on a paranoia fueled power fantasy.

No state. No enforcing ideology on people. Free thinking, not free markets. Let the truth be free and people will find it themselves.


Where did I say we should engage in peaceful co-existence with liberals or SocDems? We're already implying that the governance is socialist so such matters are already settled assuming that the governance IS fully socialist and not some mutated amalgamation of SocDems and "socialists". And were we not just talking about general non-governing ideology in a communist society (though we could also apply this to a socialist society as well if you wish)? I believe I also mentioned that it may be necessary at times to remove certain individuals if they become counter-revolutionaries, what I objected to was removing individuals prior to them even becoming such. I also mentioned that it may be necessary as well to skirt through the objections of a church within what is a transitioning but still capitalist state to remove counter-revolutionaries, but with the condition that we self-critique and question why proles are developing such counter-revolutionary ideas in the first place in what should be a functioning socialist society (if you say "they just did", your not being materialist or economicly determinist as they shouldn't be exhibiting such reaction in the first place in a system that is fufilling their needs).
Also ">history of socialism isn't one of betrayal by" is ironic given whose talking

" Individuals should enjoy unlimited freedom to choose their own worldview"

What if their worldview is to help Israel take over large swaths of the middle east because they think they'll get sucked into a beam of light naked and Jesus will come down and start the apocalypses?

This isn't exactly a quirky worldview, this is a serious movement in the U.S and around the world trying to get their bonkers goals accomplished. We have multiple fundies in government. We're one Rick Santorum away from a nuclear armed theocracy that wants to bring about the end times.

Again I don't want the repression of religion in general but how would a "I assume you are" Libertarian government counter-act dangerous fundamentalism? Max freedom and choosing your own worldview sounds very idealistic and social un-cohesive in the long term. I do agree though that out-right repression could lead to a radicalization, but were already facing radical religious people in the U.S.

fuck off Holla Forums

Why the fuck would you waste time forcing people to believe or not believe in whatever?

Like "class consciousness"?

jfc you don't believe in class consciousness, it's a term to describe the rising political power that the proletariat class exerts on its path to recognise itself as the supreme class that will bring forth socialism.

So almost like how radical religious people overtake the non-radical ones?

Same dude btw

Perhaps if you reduce it to such simplistic dichotomies that things are only black and white.

Just using your logic, m8.


It's beautiful how throughout the entire thread, you always have to resort to memes and strawman fallacies to hide your lack of any real rational arguments. ☭TANKIE☭s should be banned