Hi comrades,
We’ve received some reports recently and so I’m making this announcement.
In our rules, Lemmygrad does not lean one way or the other towards religion. This means that in effect, we accept all communists no matter their religion or lack thereof.
However, this doesn’t mean we allow feuds or unprincipled criticism. This seems to come especially from our atheist comrades, who sometimes (from what has made its way to us) see it fit to remind religious comrades that religion shouldn’t exist.
While we appreciate that the criticism is about religion and not the particular beliefs of some comrades, this kind of discourse does not have its place on Lemmygrad as we effectively don’t lean one way or another and expect users to lean that way too.
edit: as such, this reminder also applies to religious comrades.
We’re very hands off with moderation and we’d like it to remain that way in a community as tight-knit as ours.
This doesn’t mean that you can’t criticize religion or atheism, as long as it comes in good faith and is done from a Marxist basis.
This principle also applies to other contentious topics that are prone to debate on our platform.
deleted by creator
Personally as an atheist who enjoys the company of our Muslim comrades, I will say that yes I understand religion to be an opiate of the masses, however, the particular dedication to the cause by those who follow the Muslim faith warrants respect, tolerance, and loyalty in return.
What atheist nutjobs are out there? There are nutjobs of almost every group, but nothing about atheism is related to nutjobbery. People like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are nutjobs because they are imperialist crackers.
I don’t respect religion, I tolerate it. And for the most part, while I don’t believe in the neoliberal idea of agree to disagree, this is my one exception.
I will say that most muslims I’ve met or talked to are very decent people, probably way better on average than Christians.
R*ddit athesists
deleted by creator
Those are exactly the same type of people Lenin criticized as vulgar materialists. And i never even heard about Harris, but i read the primary book of Dawkins and why is he even considered “atheist”? He had some good points against religion, but what was even the point when everything he spoke about science and evolution there reads like he was just replacing traditional religion with deified science?
I don’t think he worships science, and even if that was true, science would make the most sense of anything.
Can you elaborate on vulgar materialists?
Well he don’t exactly worship science, when asked he would say he’s an atheist, but he clearly attributes some idk how to put it, metaphysics or mysticism to particularly theory of evolution. Most likely because the audience he wanted to reach would understand such comparisons, and because fucking USA brainmush about creationism, but still i never thought such comparisons are a good thing.
Vulgar materialists in broadest sense are those who don’t follow dialectical materialism. Usually it is not used for pre-marxist (more like pre-Feuerbach really) materialists like for example Diderot, they were praised by Lenin for paving the way in the same way as Ricardo and Smith in economics, and particularly praised for atheism. Today vulgar materialism would be used mostly for the liberal materialism, though as Lenin noticed way more often, those are likely cryptoidealists.
Shukran and Salam my comrade, well said
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yeah i realize that my understanding of the term takfir was wrong - i thought you were referring to apostates not those who attack apostates. I deleted my comment but you must have seen it immediately after posting. I apologise comrade
apostate means kafir كافر, takfir تكفير is the action of labelling people as apostates. hope this helps.