You are correct, but its important to understand that this stuff isn’t an absolute, there are certain tolerances that exist. Not every offended party will react the same, and sure the extremists will never change but the average religious person is still human, and will be motivated firstly by their material conditions, not whatever the clergy or imam says.
And in Afghanistan for example the tolerance for state atheism simply was not there. The people were not educated enough and saw the government’s policy as unacceptable. The soviet union however used a less heavy hand when dealing with their religious populations, someone else in the thread mentioned Stalin’s speech on Sharia as an example.
Agree mostly. So i must add we are mostly talking about the conditions we live in, that is, christianity tradition and domination. Note that i don’t mind (currently) for example ba’athists who are often religious, because there the contradictions look otherwise, social manifestation of religion is antiimperialist there and proimperialist here. But note the question of current Afghanistan. Nobody here said Taliban is cool, but we were still rooting for its victory against USA because it was a bigger contradiction. Now that this is mostly resolved, the lesser contradictions started to resurface in discussion.
And after Afghanistan we have KSA which is old school religious monarchy, then we have Iran when the issues of religious oppression are certainly legit despite being hijacked by libs, and so on and on.
Again, principles vs tactics, just as Lenin and Stalin did.
Ultimately, religious “marxists” and religious socialists are people we should not have any problem striking at the common enemy with, but we should be very wary that marching with them would not lead us in bog.
You are correct, but its important to understand that this stuff isn’t an absolute, there are certain tolerances that exist. Not every offended party will react the same, and sure the extremists will never change but the average religious person is still human, and will be motivated firstly by their material conditions, not whatever the clergy or imam says.
And in Afghanistan for example the tolerance for state atheism simply was not there. The people were not educated enough and saw the government’s policy as unacceptable. The soviet union however used a less heavy hand when dealing with their religious populations, someone else in the thread mentioned Stalin’s speech on Sharia as an example.
Agree mostly. So i must add we are mostly talking about the conditions we live in, that is, christianity tradition and domination. Note that i don’t mind (currently) for example ba’athists who are often religious, because there the contradictions look otherwise, social manifestation of religion is antiimperialist there and proimperialist here. But note the question of current Afghanistan. Nobody here said Taliban is cool, but we were still rooting for its victory against USA because it was a bigger contradiction. Now that this is mostly resolved, the lesser contradictions started to resurface in discussion.
And after Afghanistan we have KSA which is old school religious monarchy, then we have Iran when the issues of religious oppression are certainly legit despite being hijacked by libs, and so on and on.
Again, principles vs tactics, just as Lenin and Stalin did.
Ultimately, religious “marxists” and religious socialists are people we should not have any problem striking at the common enemy with, but we should be very wary that marching with them would not lead us in bog.