Freedom of Religion vs. State Atheism vs. Theocracy

Which?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Freedom of religion, but only the freedom to practice in the privacy of your own home.

State atheism of course

Ask Socrates.

Freedom of religion ofc

Freedom of religion with laws against indoctrination and religious extremism.

My wife

present, to the supreme revolutionary council, the pros and cons of genociding those who refuse to acknowledge there is no god in public.
Pros: more resources for everyone, average intelligence goes up, humanity will not be distracted by thoughts of the afterlife, humanity has just taken a huge step towards the future, liberal tears, it attracts many young angsty oppressed youth to the cause
Cons: time making mass graves, guillotine sharpening, some cuties who would make good sex slaves may get executed(though it is extremely reactionary and not Marxists to keep sex slaves)
There is a strong historical precedent for genocide, why should communist deny this tool?
Let's face it communism is the most advanced creation mankind has ever created.
In this world Muslims are killing Muslims because they have a dispute over who of two dead guys was the prophet's successor. In the past Christian killed Christians because of minor doctrinal differences. Man has killed man for simply speaking another language or having the wrong last name.
Why do such minor unimportant reactionary ideas get to use brutal tactics while the communist tie their hands behind their back.
If you are a reactionary communism is you enemy. Communism isn't to be concealed and kept in the dark to supposedly fester and grow. Communism isn't a virus that kills you. Communism is beast that sinks it fangs into your neck, the beast does not care whether you see it or not, it only wants you dead.
If ye comrades be apprehensive about implementing effective techniques remember all the common people who rose up and fought for communism and died horrible deaths, lost family, lost years in order to achieve communism. How frustrated would they be to see their sacrifice was for naught. 60 years after the Greek comrades rose up, Greece is still oppressed. 60 years after Mao declared the Chinese people have stood up, the Chinese people are forgotten and exploited by the rulers. 80 years after the may 15th incident in Japan, Japan still lives under an emperor. 60 years after the Soviets defeated the fascists, there are no Soviets.
You may disagree with the leaders of the movements, but I don't ask you to take into consideration what they did. I ask you to think about the young man who walked away from the family house not knowing whether he would come back alive. Guided by the desire to liberate his fellow proletariat. What was his death for? And why has so little changed since then?

Well done.

You can't be the thought police so you may as well allow people to be religious. Suppressing religion is just asking for unnecessary tensions to arise and possibly encouraging counter rev activities where none would be before. That doesn't mean that religion won't be reformed to reflect the new society it finds itself in.

Who was this written by?

Freedom of religion

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/06/26.htm

State atheism

theocracy

Pragmatic answer: Freedom of religion

What I would love: State atheism.

I want full patriachal brocialism when all men can have universal free housewife/sexslaves provided by the state.

None of the above. State sanctioned religion, but no actual theocracy I.e. no laws based on it. State sanctioned religion must be stuffy and boring, deny science, and prohibit recreational drugs. Make it really undesirable and uncool and obviously wrong but force the kids to have to sit through it. This is the fastest way to make society atheist.

lol, i kinda unironically like this

I'm completely serious. Compare religiosity of Europe where this is basically the case to religiosity in the US where the state is explicitly secular.

what about
amirite

Freedom of religion is the only viable choice.

Violent repression of religion = religion gets ten times stronger

Theocracy = society heavily regresses

This. America's Freedom of Religion created a free market for religion, which has given us Joel Osteen's "Jesus wants you to be rich!" and the like. Sweden only allowed their boring crap religion that has no ideology and was a clear power grab by the Swedish king so everyone with a modicum of education doesn't believe in it.

On the other hand Eastern European countries tend to have even lower religiousity rates than Western ones, do not deny the power of expropriating the churches and having a propaganda campaign about there being no god.

Actual the "state-sanctioned" churches, which are few and only in parts of Germany, England, and Denmark, tend to be REALLY moderate and pro-science. They just tend to be so boring, non-intrusive, and weak that most people just see them more as a tradition than an actual belief system to fight for.

Meanwhile, Pope Francis (Not to be confused with Francis of the Filth) is doing the same to the Catholic Church.

France is VERY secular.

Now, I'm not neccessarily anti-religion, but I'm very anti-clerical. I'm fine if churches are democratic. (I prefer Cults of Reason/ some national/civic myth. Hell, have a Cult of the General Strike.) But, all non-democratic churches need to be purged or reformed into a democratic structure.

France managed to secularize very well. Laicite has worked very well.

You're focusing on the wrong part. Religion is usually somewhat anti-science. My scenario ramps that up to make it obviously wrong to the people who actually pay attention to it. My strategy modifies the existing conditions this way because I think it would effectively turn people off.

kill all religious people

theocratic communism sounds fun

Can the socialist state really afford to let people chose who they will marry? We want stability in society, therefor freedom to marry anyone you want must be abolished to project the collective form subversive elements (not to speak of social ills that single parent households are).

That's not how it works. The crazier the state religion, the more people believe in it. State-religions in England and Denmark usually leave science alone. It's the MODERATION of the religions that make them impotent.

The Anglican Church, for example, is VERY moderate and pro-science. Same with the tax-funded churches in Germany and Denmark's church. The rest of Europe is completely secular.

Basically, the only reason why those countries have state-religions is that no one gave a shit about officially making the country secular. That and it's something of a cultural tradition, especially with the Anglican Church.

Oh, well if that's the case then make it highly reasonable but still make it tedious and obligatory.