I went to Vietnam a couple times. If you hang out downtown in the city, you might get a random Jehovah’s Witness or Seventh Day Adventist* try to chat you up. “Oh, we can’t do missionary work out in the open, so we just do one-on-one conversations like this”. Despite the lack of “Jesus saves, die sinner” signs in Hanoi, you can definitely find Catholic and Protestant churches in Vietnam.
The Western press likes to piss and moan about settler nation missionaries that go, without proper visas mind you, to spread their Western versions of Christianity to the DPRK, only to get deported. So am I allowed to enter a white people country without a visa to stir up trouble and expect no consequences???
I’m the furthest thing from an expert on Myanmar. I get everything I know from Burmese friends. But if you look into the minority people situation, many of them are being heavily proselytised by the worst of the Amerikan type. I don’t want the Pat Robertson’s the world anywhere near struggling people.
*I’m definitely not saying that JWs and SDAs are anywhere near the worst as Christian sects go.
That’s an incredibly cold take. Here’s a hot one: Liberation theology is not sufficient to justify Christianity’s continued existence.
Liberation theology is cleaning off the one good apple you found in the rotting pile of filth. It does not justify keeping the pile around, the pile should still be removed, the floor beneath it mopped, and any evidence of it destroyed outside of monuments to the janitors that removed the pile. And no you shouldn’t eat the apple from the garbage pile even if it looks okay.
acab includes jehova
GOOD post
✔️ Anti-woman
✔️ Anti-gay
✔️ Pro-slavery
✔️ Pro-genocide
If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.
If you need moral discernment to figure out which parts of your religion’s holy book are useful and which should be ignored, then the holy book isn’t working as advertised.
I mean all the holy books are in Actually Existing Churches a tool to control the worshippers, so when the worshippers don’t have the moral discernment outside of what the book (and better yet, priests) says, then it’s working as intended.
That’s why liberation theology seems self-defeating to me. Cherry-picking out the parts where he says to sell all your stuff and give the proceeds to the poor is all well and good so long as no one follows it up with all the other passages that undermine or contradict those passages. Either the Bible is true and accurate (in which case the balance of history is decidedly not on the side of socialism) or it’s inaccurate and you have to use some sort of moral reasoning external to the book, which throws into question the whole idea of submitting to an unreachable, uncommunicative, and unquestionable supernatural moral authority in the first place.
It seems more intellectually honest to just start from the position of atheism.
Liberation theology is only good when compared to the infinite bog of the mainstream catholic church. Outside of that comparison, they are still at best going by social teachings of the church, which are class collaborative and antimarxist.
I agree there are people here who get their rocks off to muh liberation theology (including crassly projecting it on all sorts of inappropriate figures, including non-Christians!), but it seems like it could be a good tool for steering extremely religious communities toward pro-sociality on a temporary basis.
That’s my view on it. Religion in general is a very important factor in the lives of a lot of people throughout the globe, and for the most part most religions have some aspects that could map to socialism
Trying to insist on hard and fast atheism with people like that will cause pushback, where liberation theology could be used to get them on board with socialism and move later to an atheistic form
Hey it me
I think it’s pure idealism to think that a social phenomenon that predates class society will somehow go puff as soon as class society is abolished. Religion predates class society, so obviously whatever human need or social function it fulfills isn’t attached to class society.
Religion predates class society
Not exactly. Worship yes, but religion as institution everywhere tended to be the cornerstone of class society, archeological findings in Mesopotamia, Egypt and Americas clearly points on priests being the first unproductive class that started to exploit others and eventually also got political and military power and became aristocracy. Getting rid of classes and private property will not liquidate religion but it will greatly weaken it. On the other hand there would be very much need to help this process before liquidation of classes, since religion could be very much again a catalyst for the class society.
I guess my question would be what’s the difference between organized worship and (organized) religion. In a communist society, people would be far less alienated from each other and much more likely to participate in collective activities. This would range from creating art to playing sports to cooking to to collective study, but this could easily be applied to something like worship. It’s extraordinarily unlikely that people would do so many productive and recreational things collectively but choose to worship individually. And with any collective activity, there’s always going to be de facto veterans and leaders, so in the context of collective worship, this would lead to a de facto clergy.
I don’t really want to speculate anymore since we obviously aren’t close to a communist society, and I’m not making a definitive claim that worship/religion is an inherent part of the human condition. I just think people are getting way ahead of themselves when they say, “let’s abolish religion lmao.” Let’s focus on getting to socialism and communism first before we even think about abolishing religion.
In a communist society, people would be far less alienated from each other and much more likely to participate in collective activities
Yet this is exactly the condition that born religion once. If you didn’t noticed, most religions is based on collective activities and this is the base of their organisations and the danger they pose. We WANT religion to be purely individual, that would means its withering and removed danger from it.
It’s extraordinarily unlikely that people would do so many productive and recreational things collectively but choose to worship individually
Yes that’s why this needs to be at most, even in most basic stage of socialism, treated just as the art or sports or cooking club, anything more and you get religion undermining socialist state and leading to what happened in East Europe. At least because they WILL try to organise and EVERY religious organisation will by its very nature be against marxist state.
this would lead to a de facto clergy.
Yes, and during socialist stage, state having monopoly on violence could keep them in check, but what about later, in communism?
I’m not making a definitive claim that worship/religion is an inherent part of the human condition
We can see a time in the past where nothing like this existed, religion is as much natural as capitalism is, and just as we can eventually eliminate the latter, there’s no reason we can’t do it with the former, just we don’t yet know any successful methods, though some experiments were promising, for example in Czechia atheism stays high even despite dismantling socialism - in other words, state supression of religion works, we just did not did it long enough and made mistakes in it (For the records, i think both China and Cuba are making a mistake with current supportive politics, they just freeze and push back the reaction, once some kind of trouble stands, those will rise as center of opposition, just remember how churches acted as snitch points during the revolution in Cuba).
I just think people are getting way ahead of themselves when they say, “let’s abolish religion lmao.”
Depends what they means about it. Just press the button lol nope, just as in case of the class society which were born from and alongside religion. But i am of strong opinion that religion should be, just as class, combated by socialism with its eventual elimination actively sought of. I think Lenin was on the right way in his article about militant materialism (note the word chosen, not atheism, not antitheism, but militant materialism, as in promoting better alternative to combat trash of history just as promoting socialism to get rid of feudal and capitalist dregs).
Let’s focus on getting to socialism and communism first before we even think about abolishing religion.
No, as above we should strive to do it at the same time, i don’t belive communism could even be reached without getting rid of or at least completely neutralising religions.
I guess it goes back to whether you think worship is an inherent part of the human condition. If we broadly agree with worship -> collective worship -> organized religion, then communism would have to negate the impulse towards worship somehow. I’m not sure how you would get rid of worship. I would imagine that at a minimum, humanity would have to no longer fear their mortality and no longer feel anguish over other people’s deaths. So it’s not enough that you no longer fear death but you also no longer feel anguish other people’s death to the point where you would resort to coping mechanisms to process their deaths.
It’s not enough that material conditions get better for people to no longer fear death. In fact, I think it’s the exact opposite. As material conditions get better, people will have a greater sense of attachment and ownership over their material surroundings and a corresponding greater existential anxiety towards death which will be seen as an event that robs people of experiencing this wonderful material world. In other words, I believe there’s a contradiction between humanity creating heaven on Earth through communism and humanity’s understanding of death as robbing people of experiencing heaven on Earth. One form of cope would of course be a spiritual heaven that’s a mirror of material heaven.
I believe the general chain is fear of death/anguish over death -> worship as cope over the inevitability and painfulness of death -> collective worship -> organized religion. And I have absolutely no clue how humanity would get over death or whether it’s entirely possible. I don’t mean individuals but humanity as a collective whole. The only thing I could think of is some kind of transhumanism where (trans)humans can’t die. There would be no point in believing in a heaven or a soul if you can’t even get to heaven and your soul will never separate from your body by virtue of not dying. But this is complete speculation verging on worldbuilding of some fictional scifantasy world at this point.
The changing base recreates the superstructures upon it. I don’t disagree that it may not go “poof” and disappear, however the liberation of production and centralization of power in the hands of the workers creates new paradigms that may or may not undermine the foundation that foments religious belief I the first place.
This is also what i think, but note that historically religion was catalyst for class society, so i ccanot imagine classless society with priesthood existing in any form.
religion was catalyst for class society
It’s the other way around. Class society is the cause, not the effect, of religion.
Or rather, they both cause and result from each other… but the base is always more fundamental than the superstructure.
Otherwise we’re getting into territory where the basis of society is not economic, but religious. Which is not materialist but idealist, essentially Hegelian rather than Marxist.
AES states are not classless, therefore not without religion. But definitely working toward religious abolition indirectly through class abolition.
It’s the other way around. Class society is the cause, not the effect, of religion.
Society is the cause of religion, definitely, but at first it wasn’t class society. Hard to tell exactly because lack of infromation but first parasite classes almose everywhere were priests and for this didn’t happened for no reason. Remember that relation between base and superstructure isn’t completely one directional.
Or rather, they both cause and result from each other… but the base is always more fundamental than the superstructure.
Yes, the base was in every case control over distribution of goods, which then turned slowly into private property. And that distribution was based in religion, granaries were temples.
Otherwise we’re getting into territory where the basis of society is not economic, but religious.
I never implied that
AES states are not classless, therefore not without religion. But definitely working toward religious abolition indirectly through class abolition.
Yes, but working towards abolishing it should be more direct and proactive, just like getting rid of other non desirable superstructure elements.
👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
Jesus was pretty based but that doesn’t justify saying there’s much to learn from the rest of the book.
Many adults cling to Christianity because it can function as a crude coping mechanism in an uncaring society: the appeal of a higher power caring for someone is easy to see, and religious institutions in general can be convenient sources of community, especially for somebody trapped in an antisocial culture like the United States of America. I am irreligious yet I feel more comfortable revisiting a Presbertyrian church than approaching my own neighbors.
Liberation theology is not a desperate attempt to fit a square peg in a round hole. For some Abrahamists, it simply feels natural or logical to them. I am willing to agree that theology of any sort is unnecessary for emacipating oneself, but it is—at best—a waste of time trying to convince somebody to discard it since they are already on our side and their spiritual beliefs are harmless. If their beliefs remain a big deal to you, though, then you need to understand that they are symptomatic and that addressing them directly would be the wrong approach to take.
Yes, the Church has frequently been complicit in colonialism. Yes, aggressive proselytization is always wrong. Nevertheless, we also need to acknowledge that many lower‐class Christians have rebelled against their oppressors despite mainstream Church teachings, and that they are reluctant to let go of their beliefs since they are convenient sources of comfort, not necessarily because they are worried about retaliation. Religion is a double‐edged sword. The ruling class has used it as an instrument of oppression, but that does not mean that it has never backfired either.
If you want an example of what happens when unfettered far right megachurch discourse is left to run amuck, just look at Latin America and where it will be in a few decades.
Or Uganda
Or just look at what happened in Uganda.
Thinking about how we haven’t hit rock bottom in that sense is so fucking dreadful
That’s a pretty cold take, let me heat it up for you:
AES states should just outright ban Western religions. A Western country has a revolution? Yup, they ban their own religion.
I’m aggressively anti-Catholic and anti-Christian and I 100% agree with this statement.
Death to Christianity. The church is the biggest mafia of Poland, and this suck religion has caused untold amounts of harm.
inb4 “you are a reactionary bad take haver, religion can sometimes be good actually”
I don’t even fucking care no more, not after what the fuckers have done since 1989.
Alternatives to the bullshit shall be setup, every church (10357 of them) shall either be demolished or turned into museums.
Christians will be persecuted as bad as they think they were during PRL, Popiełuszko’s death will look like a fucking tea party.
Infinite genocide on the first world and every kkkrackkker defending it’s bullshit.
Rant overino :3333
Churches make great libraries with a little bit of remodeling
Hmmmm. Might save on construction costs too.
I think churches should remain as sites of cultural significance,the old ones at least
Bad institution or not,they are still part of the cultural heritage and had a lot of work and skill put into them
The institution of the church can go the way of the dodo however
Nevermind,re read the comment
A cathedral with ornaments up the wazoo? Saved.
The local village parish? 🧨🧨🧨🧨💥💥💥💥💥🚫⛪🚫
Fair enough
For me it’s a bit different, being in an Orthodox country,the small churches are really old and culturally significant, and the bigass cathedral in the capital city built in the last decade is the place that the next Ceausescu should build a House of the People on
In Norway as well there are some churches in the middle of nowhere that aren’t very big but are literally 1,000 years old or nearing on it. I’d see no problem with keeping these buildings but using them in practice as secular communal institutions. I’d see for that matter no issue with letting people read religious texts, provided that people know their proper context and historicity.
My views on religion otherwise still lack much form, however…
The Revolution will bring down the Jan Paweł II statues
Better yet, I’ll scrap them all into fridges and washing machines. (Dishwashers not included)
Aren’t they mostly out of stone?
Many went throwing cash making them out of metal. Like in Katowice for example. And many more exist, I’ve seen plenty, quite a few fridges could be made.
Lumalo goin in hard
Zero kurwa litości dla kościoła. Zero.
Popiełuszko’s death
It was actually a sabotage gorbachevists did to ferment unrest in Poland against military faction.
Best Lumalo post I have ever seen
:deng-salute:
Genuinely I believe Christianity is a scourge that must be eradicated. Many of its core beliefs (especially Catholicism and evangelical branches) are fundamentally at odds with building a good, healthy society that tries to improve life for all.
“Suffering is good for the soul” is too deeply ingrained, and it’s a belief that prevents doing literally anything good.
Credit where it is due, you did as advertised. That said, I think it is basically idealist to just ban western religions like they represent a significantly greater problem to the task of building communism than Eastern religions. There are some specific religions that need to be struggled against (the first step is probably not banning them), most notably Catholicism for its centralized organization around the reactionary institution of the Vatican, but it’s pure orientalism to think that whatever blase protestantism is really more of a threat to Vietnamese communism than Buddhism is.
Ah, I get it.
They should ban all earth-based religions and only allow ones that are introduced from space.
What I mean is that priority of aggression should clearly be given to the religions that wield or practically threaten to wield political power, like the Catholic or Orthodox churches, the evangelical bloc in America, and indeed many Eastern religious entities like, uh, Vajrayana Buddhism in Bhutan, for example, or the Tibetan church of old, before the PLA liberated Tibet. Unfortunately I think this puts Theravada on the chopping block since it has great clerical emphasis, but that’s just how it is. Reform Jews, miscellaneous protestants, the more decentralized branches of Mahayana, and other such religions are fine, we don’t need to gulag Shintoists unless they’re the Imperial kind.
But if you take my view as too liberal, then you may as well go banning space religions while you’re at it.
But if you take my view as too liberal, then you may as well go banning space religions while you’re at it.
spoiler
Sorry, I have to say this because you’re being so earnest in your responses, but I’m just trolling. I thought it was a completly absurd statement that nobody would take seriously… But a bunch of people ended up agreeing with me, so…
I think this board suffers pretty severely from orientalism, so it’s not that surprising. The fact that I struggled to condemn a specific Buddhism beyond the state religion of Bhutan is probably some evidence that I, too, orientalize a fair bit. My point is that, however joking you were, people are going to agree with it, so it deserves to be refuted to the extent that I’m able to refute it.
I’m not sure if it’s necessarily just Orientalism. Most posters here tend to be Western, white and have probably had some kind of Christianity-adjacent upbringing so they’re understandably wary about going off about non-Western religions they’re not that familiar with. I don’t think many people here would be comfortable declaring that we need to abolish Islam and Judaism either. They just don’t want to come across like a Western chauvinist
I think it’s just “grass is greener” thinking.
I don’t think it’s necessary to ban religion outright, but religious institutions need to be completely defanged and decoupled from the levers of power. I think we can keep the more historically and culturally significant traditions around as quaint cultural practices as long as they behave
Reform Jews, not Reformed
My bad. As you can see, it’s at the edge of my ken, I’ve only ever known Jewish people who are so secular that they aren’t even in a sect anymore.
It’s all good, even the Judaism subreddit (don’t go there, it’s ass) had a bot that would automatically make this correction when posted, its a common one even for people that are religious/deep in the sects
Comrade, they already evolved beyond the need of religion.
I think Protestantism is a greater threat than Buddhism in Vietnam because that Protestantism is just a means for the West (and more specifically the US because let’s face it the majority of evangelicals are USians) to worm their way (back) into Vietnamese society while Buddhism is just part of traditional Vietnamese society. And as we saw with the self-immolation of Thich Quang Duc, Buddhism has played a progressive role in Vietnamese society before while Christianity in the form of Catholicism has always played a reactionary role in Vietnamese society. Of course, the fact that Buddhism is a part of traditional Vietnamese society doesn’t give it a pass and there will be reactionary branches and schools that must be crushed.
Christianity isn’t a western religion, its western sects yes,but its origins are from the middle east
Have you read the bible? It’s written in English. Jesus spoke English when he wrote it
/s pleasespoiler
/s
Nah but you have to consider that the current bible is mediated through the cultural reconstruction of the Catholic church. Various books discarded and translated into brand new meanings.
Many evangelical Christians will harp on about reading the King James version without ever considering that he changed and censored much of the translation that occured.
King James believed British people were the decendants of the israelites
I don’t see how this is incongruent with what I said.
I’m adding context to how diabolical king James was
AES states have good reason to be wary of Western missionaries, since the missionary often accompanied the merchant as the tip of the capitalist spear that was trying to penetrate new markets. They were often then followed by the marine and the artilleryman. After which, the economist would survey the worth of the rubble that came in their wake.
Is this a quote or did you write this? 🔥✍️🔥
I came up with it on the fly.
That’s not a hot take. Any religion or pseudo religion that came out of the US (reinventions of Calvinism over and over) is milimetrically designed to rot the soul and the societies it infects
Long before the American empire, proselytizers had been the shock troops of colonization. Hence that quote about how when the Europeans showed up, they had the Bibles and the Africans had the minerals. Now the Europeans have the minerals and the Africans have the Bibles.
If I go to Vietnam and get one of these guys bothering me, can I call the cops and have them taken away?
Like theoretically
You’d probably run the risk of inciting an international incident if they’re foreign.
That’s my favorite kind of incident!
lmao i’m glad i’m not the only one who thought that would be the funniest response
Lmaooo 😂
Don’t be a cop-caller. Just tell them to fuck off.
I said theoretically.
But also what’s worse, a colonizer or calling the cops on a colonizer?
I don’t think it’s worse, but it’s still pretty weak imo.
this is the coldest of all possible takes
A take so cold it ended brat summer
The Sentinelese have the correct response to missionaries. First shoot their bibles as a warning then shoot them if they don’t leave.
I agree, Christians in the global south countries can become complete nutjobs because of foreigners.
How is this a hot take at all? Evangelicalism shouldn’t be allowed anywhere.
Fuck Evangelicals. Nobody should deal with their pestering or bothering.
Thanks for cooling things down with that mild take, I’ve been excited about fall coming for weeks now.
The primary issue where religiom becomes an issue is when it acts as an agent of state interests against the interests of revolution. It was part of the old guard against liberalism and in favor of colonialism and feudalism and has a many-faced character nowadays, Being leverageable both for recolutiin and against revlolution.
Abstractly, it is not an issue re: revolution. It only becomes relevant in terms of real world on-the-ground impacts that are best resolved by local revolutionaries that ask the right questions and do the right work.
Freedom of religion is a an important right to enshrine but it absolutely infuriates me that these predatory fucked up cults use that as a shield to continue to prey on people
If I were in charge I’d bulldoze every JW witness hall
Believe whatever you want but that’s not freedom to harass other or scam people via cults
