The Soviets might have gone a bit too far in their anti-clericalism at certain points but man, do I understand it sometimes.
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15897 readers
1 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
In pushing atheism maybe, but not in anti-clericalism
Nah it’s overstated.
The Orthodox Church and hierarchy was the direct hand of the tsars in the same way the modern Russian church is the direct hand of Russian nationalism and Putin.
There was not a separation of state and religion. You’re imposing an anachronism into your understanding of why the Orthodox hierarchy needed to be dismantled. It was very directly part of an absolute dictatorship that explicitly saw the tsar as the appointee of god and that pushed an ideology where the monarchy were a required part of the natural order of things.
Avoid the anachronism of thinking “religion is the opiate of the masses” is a vaguely Richard Dawkins type statement. The era in which that was stated was an era where religion was the ideology of government and religious hierarchies were directly an extension of state power.
Private practice of religion under Stalin was often ridiculed but always tolerated as a matter of individual right. Public religion was suppressed in the aftermath of the revolution for the same reason the Tsar was shot and the period of dismantling monasteries and cathedrals was limited.
There was official hostility to religion but this was limited to being portrayed as backwards and anti-empirical, anti-material, at odds with the scientific nature of socialism advocated by Lenin and Marx.
The anti-clericism was intense in the 1930s to be sure, but for good reason. They were agents of the Tsar in a very direct sense.
I remember arguing about this with libs a million years ago. The church was rightly seen as a political institution that was counter revolutionary. Before the revolution it was an arm of the tsarist state.
Counterpoint; false belief should be opposed everywhere and always.
Maybe the militant atheism of the 00s wasn't the right strategy. But the alternative can't be to just let delusional nutjobs go unchallenged, especially when they're in places of power and authority. There's a fine line between spiritualism and wingnut shit.
Is the US okay?
Never has been. Our corporate fascists are bickering with our theocratic fascists over the best way to turn the working class in to paste.
So Biden says nothing about pipeweed legalisation as usual!
I love the world we live in its totally cool and nothing is wrong at all
Because they're all mentions of "Allah".
Wall, immediately. Should be able to get some libs on board by arguing for the seperation of church and state.
I am uncomfortable when we are not about me?
Arizona delanda est
best thing about Arizona is that dope ass flag. shouldn't be too hard to make a commie version of it