| Theory |
|
Communists Against Religion--Part 1 May 17, 2003 by RedStar2000 |
It's been said that religion is like dandruff; people would rather scratch and fuss with it than simply wash their hair.
It's also been said that religion is one of those things that will just wither away with the passing of time...people will pay less and less attention to it until finally people simply act as if it doesn't exist at all.
Perhaps, five or ten centuries into the future, that will seem reasonable; it does not seem reasonable to me now.
These posts are primarily concerned not with the "truth" of religion--since there is none--but with the social role of religion under capitalism...and what place it should be permitted to occupy in a communist society.
=========================================
Maybe it would help to re-phrase the question. Can communism and astrology co-exist? Can one be a good communist and yet also believe in astrology? Should communist societies appoint and fund "official astrologers", set up "astrology colleges", build and maintain special "astrology buildings" with distinct architecture, etc., etc., etc.?
Should we do those things simply because a lot of people believe in astrology--in other words, should we follow an easy road to popularity?
Or should we say bluntly: no compromise with superstition! We will not endorse it; we will not fund it; we will not publicize it. In fact, we will prohibit the public exercise of it; we will tear down its buildings; and if we catch anybody taking money from people for astrological "predictions", we will charge them with a Class A Felony (Fraud). If we catch anybody teaching anyone under the age of 12 that astrology is true, that's felony child abuse. Anyone on a street-corner yelling at people about the virtues of astrology is guilty of a misdemeaner--disturbing the peace.
Get the picture?
Marx and Engels thought that superstitions would "wither away"...and, perhaps in the long run, they'll turn out to have been right. But our own era suggests that superstition is a very tough old bird...and needs to be fought hard.
(I highly recommend the late Carl Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World for good insight into the minds of the superstitious.)
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on November 12, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------
I don't care what people "believe"...I'm just concerned with what they do with that belief.
For example, believers do try to force their beliefs on others; it hasn't been that long ago that public observance of religious ritual was compulsory in western countries. As late as the early 1700s (I don't remember the exact year), a 21-year-old college student was hanged for expressing his opinion that Jesus was not a god--this happened in Scotland! Christians and Muslims are both explicitly commanded by their "Holy Books" to convert the heathen (that's me), if necessary at sword-point. In the "Old Testament", it's likewise plain that when the Yahvehists had the power to do so, they also converted people by force or else simply slaughtered them. Today's Hindu fundamentalists are up to the same tricks, etc. As far as I can tell, all religions preach tolerance until they sniff the opportunity to punish the "children of darkness" (that's me again)...and then the knives are drawn and the hangmen are summoned.
I am not out to punish their beliefs; I am going to permanently deprive them of their knives and ropes...and the opportunity to spread their disgusting anti-human lies.
People can, for all I care, "believe" that murder and cannibalism are good things...but if they try to exercise that belief publicly, they're going face severe consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on November 12, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
What gives a hardcore communist the right [to claim] that his theory is the best in the world and that his views might save the world from whatever?
In a word, evidence. In other words, not revelation, not a special visit from a supernatural being, not a visit by the "soul" to another, higher dimension.
Just ordinary evidence--what pretty much anyone who had the time and desire could gather for themselves. You don't need a "spiritual guru" to understand communism; you don't need to attend special meetings in special buildings to understand communism; you don't even need Marx and Engels to understand communism. With a couple of years of diligent study of capitalist economics and politics, you could arrive at a pretty fair approximation of Marxism.
The key to science (including Marxism) is that anyone can do it, if they want to. You don't have to be one of the lucky "winners" in "God's Lottery".
So it's really not a matter of "faith" in science or Marxism...it's something that can be verified as useful in explaining the real world.
Religion, on the contrary, can never be verified--for no matter what happens, no matter how unjust it is, no matter how inexplicable it seems to be, it's all a matter of the unknowable "Mind of God".
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on November 27, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...the human mind seeks out things to worship...
Mine never did, but maybe I was just lucky. How and why did human minds decide to worship? We all know, at least crudely, the answer to that; humans worshipped natural phenomena that they didn't understand in the hope of controlling them. Pray in the right way to the Storm God and avoid getting hit by lightning or having a hailstorm ruin your crops, etc. (All the big-time gods got their start as storm-gods, by the way, including Yahveh.)
Well, we do understand natural phenomena now...and yet probably 95%+ of the human race is still mired in a habit that no longer serves any rational purpose. What is the point?
Marx and Engels thought that religion served as consolation to the victims of an unjust society...but what consolation is it that you know you're going to live a horrible existence and then die and go to "heaven"? If people really believed that, then all of society's "losers" would commit suicide at once...why hang around for more shit?
I think it's time to "kick the habit" of worship. It serves no useful end that I can see...while providing endless excuses for unspeakable atrocities. "No hell below us," sang John Lennon, "and above us only sky."
He was right!
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on November 28, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------
I think there's something to what you say: in present society people do "worship" other things than "gods"--celebraties from the sports and entertainment media, politicians, self-proclaimed "holy men", etc.
Something needs to be done to put a stop to this servility and I'm open to suggestions...that is, any suggestion that doesn't involve compromising with it or trying to "use" it for "good purposes". There's nothing "good" about servility, humiliation, or degradation. It totally contradicts the heart of communist purpose: human liberation.
Nor am I impressed by any arguments of the type "it's human nature to worship". Even if that could be proven to be true (unlikely but possible), that is no excuse. Cannibalism and rape might well be part of "human nature"--that doesn't mean we accept them. We stop such behavior as best we can. At the very least, we should create a sense of shame in those who voluntarily submit to the degradation of worship.
As to merely closing religious buildings or converting them into museums or other uses, the Russians tried that and it didn't work. As soon as the heat was off, the god-suckers came crawling out from under their rocks, and within weeks of the end of the USSR there were parades carrying icons of "St. Nicholas the Martyr"--the last czar of the old Russian Empire.
Religious architecture is "propaganda in stone" and needs to be utterly destroyed. The empty sites afterwards can be used for any purpose; I would favor public parks, since most cities have far too few green spaces. But regardless of use, one should be able to live one's daily life without having to see monuments to torturers, murderers and witch-burners...just as one should be able to live one's daily life without having to watch someone eating shit. Both are equally disgusting!
I'd also like to say something about the "disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God" type of argument. The fact that one can find, here and there (it's rare), examples of people who fought for liberation with religious motivations is, I think, mostly a case of people who are/were confused.
Think, for example, of the American abolitionists, most of whom operated from religious motives; they believed that "slavery was an abomination in the eyes of God"...though the only slaves freed in the Bible are the Hebrew slaves in Egypt--the "good" Lord neglected to free all the Egyptian slaves in Egypt. Elsewhere, the Bible accepts slavery as perfectly normal. There is no commandment: Thou shalt not hold thy brother in chains. Nowhere in the christian gospels is a word raised against slavery; even though a guy who can "raise the dead" ought to find braking chains a fairly easy task.
I'm aware of so-called "liberation theology"--there are jewish and muslim variants, by the way; it's not just a christian thing. I think they all fall into the catagory of "save what can be saved and dump the rest"--that is, save the worship of god and obedience to his self-proclaimed servants and get rid of everything else that people will no longer accept anyway. I admire their cleverness but I am not fooled.
If you think that John Brown, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X were great fighters for human liberation, I won't dispute the point...except to ask you how much more they might have done had they been atheists and communists?
Or would you like to argue that they would have done less???
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on December 1, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...religion is the best way to teach values"--how so? Are we supposed to do good because "God" commanded it or because we fear the fires of "Hell"? Are values not self-evidently worthy and, if not, just how valuable are they?
"...in those religions where all people were intentionally made by God, the idea of equality is even stronger."--it certainly is not.
Are the "chosen people" equal to the various peoples they conquered and slaughtered? Are muslims "equal" to unbelievers? Are christians "equal" to the heretics they've tortured and murdered?
Quite the contrary, every religion makes a sharp distinction between the saved and the damned...and guess who gets the shitty end of the stick?
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on December 6, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------
"...religion has been given a bad name just like communism has been given a bad name"--sounds reasonable until you look at the time involved. Religions have been around 6,000 years (at least); the Communist Manifesto is just over 150 years old.
To put it crudely, who's got the worse track record here?
"You can't abolish religion, look at what happened in Russia." The Russians didn't abolish religion; they tried but not hard enough. Specifically, they didn't demolish all the churches.
Of course, killing people because they're religious would be both cruel and stupid. Nobody advocates that! And it's not even necessary.
All that's necessary is that it be removed from public life altogether. Don't see many Zeus worshippers around these days, do you? Think it might have something to do with the fact that all of his temples were shut down and all the public ceremonies in his honor were abolished?
What people (13 or older) do in the privacy of their own homes is of no interest to me; they can "worship" a pair of dirty gym shorts for all I care.
As it happens, no one knows what Yeshuah ben-Yosif (Jesus) taught; the "gospels" were all written at least 40 years after his death and pretty much said whatever the particular author wanted "Jesus" to say. There was no way, then, to go back and "look it up".
Yes, the mis-use (abuse) of drugs and alcohol has no doubt fucked up numerous lives; the appropriate use of drugs and alcohol has doubtless made many lives more pleasurable or, at least, endurable than would otherwise be the case. I realize I cannot speak for others, but the proposition that some superstitious mullah has the right to tell me not to have a drink because Muhammed the Illiterate said so is totally unacceptable.
Do people "need" religion as a "crutch" and therefore it's ok? Why shouldn't we rather teach people how to walk without crutches?
Wishing for a world without conflict is pointless; a world mostly without violent conflict is, I think, attainable. But it certainly won't happen as long as people persist in the conviction that their special version of "God" gives them to "right" to shit on everybody else.
When people are deprived of their illusions, they do indeed complain most bitterly. But, as Marx pointed out, to attack illusions (religion) is to attack a world that requires illusions...a necessary step towards changing it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on December 7, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------
You can always say that past failures may be overcome in the future in some fashion--and you might possibly say that about anything.
But, again, time is the crucial consideration. Thousands of years of history state bluntly: there is no "humane" or "just" form of slavery or serfdom.
Hundreds of years of history suggest that capitalism...has some problems, to say the least. It's speculative whether countries like Sweden or Denmark have "proven" that capitalism can have a "humane" form that will endure.
The first attempts at communism in the 20th century were unmitigated failures...that must be admitted by any honest observer.
Against these phenomena, compare religion. Thousands of years of history state bluntly that puritanical repression, mythology, attacks on any kind of rational philosophy, conversions at sword-point or gun-point, mass murder of heathens, exploitation of slave labor, apologetics for blood-sucking ruling classes, etc., etc., etc. are all as natural to religion as breathing. The exceptions seem to me to be trivial...involving small numbers and very brief periods of time. (If the "Acts of the Apostles" is accurate, the early christians practiced a rather rigorous communism amongst themselves...but only in Jerusalem and only until 70CE at the latest.)
The record is pretty clear.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on December 8, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------
What is the purpose of a public demonstration of religious belief?
You know the answer to that one: "Look at us, the saved; join us, or be damned."
And it's a very small step from that to: "join us or be killed!"
No, I will neither accept that nor will I compromise with it. And if the popular militia has to be called out to crack a few skulls, so be it!
And if all the god-suckers want to piss and moan about my "stalinist" methods on the internet, let them go to it.
I maintain that religion has shown itself to be the worst invention in the history of the human species--and while I'm willing to tolerate its private practice among consenting adults, any public manifestation of it is unacceptable under any circumstances.
And if my views have any influence on future generations of communists, that's the way it's going to be!
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on December 9, 2002
-------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that property was indeed another perverse invention. But before there was property, there was some tribal con man convincing other members of the tribe that he had a special "connection" to the supernatural realm...which he would gladly share with you for a hand ax and the leg of a dead zebra.
And the con has been going on ever since...until we stop it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on December 11, 2002
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are many paths to emancipation from religion. One of these paths is biblical criticism...forget that it's a "holy book" and read it just as you would read any other book, Aristotle, Plato, etc.
Putting aside miracle stories, historical inaccuracies, and internal contradictions, what about the morality of the "Bible"?
It's not good! But, as some would quickly point out, I mean "not good" by current standards of civilized behavior. By the standards of its own time, it was average. No worse and no better than hundreds of competing national faiths and universal religions.
As far as we can tell, whether a particular religion survives and grows or not seems to be an accident. That is, a conguence of random developments, none of which can "explain" by itself much of anything.
Think fish! Each fish lays millions of eggs, most of which are eaten by other predators. Only one or two survive long enough to reach sexual maturity and reproduce. For nature, that's sufficient. For ruling classes, it's not important which religion the people follow...just as long is there's at least one!
It is when we abandon religion altogether that we have a chance to confront and change the real world.
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 20, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
I can't speak for others, of course, but I can tell you why I personally keep arguing these matters concerning religion whenever a thread appears on the subject.
It has to do with a (whisper) gaping hole in Marxist theory.
According to Marx and Engels, the working class in the advanced capitalist countries should be the most class conscious and revolutionary of all. It hasn't (whisper again) happened, at least not yet.
Why? Bourgeois sociologists don't care what the reason or reasons might be...they're happy to dismiss Marx and Engels as a couple of wankers. But I care! And I think communists have to care about this issue.
My hypothesis: religion has proven to be a critical obstacle to the development of revolutionary working class consciousness.
I won't argue this now...it deserves a thread of its own and the presentation of some evidence and argument. I'll just say for now that I'm convinced that wide-spread atheism is crucial for the success of the communist project.
That's why I don't let the matter rest.
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 23, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
An "aggressive" religion probably has a "better shot" at growing than one that isn't...but I still think it's largely accidental.
The cult of Isis aggressively recruited in the Mediterranean world while Christianity was growing; likewise the cult of Mithras (the Bull). Neo-platonism was highly popular among the "intelligentsia". Had the Emperor Julian had a longer reign (instead of only a little over 3 years), the old classical religion might have made a huge come-back; his edict of toleration was instantly repealed by the next (Christian) emperor. Finally, Judaism also enjoyed a wide-spread reputation as a "more serious" religion; had it not been for the rite of circumcision, it might well have grown much larger and faster than it did.
In the Arabian Peninsula, Islam had no serious competition prior to the invasion of Persia...and the combination of the "warrior mentality" of the Arab tribes and Islam proved well-nigh irresistable.
I think it boils down to a whole series of factors that are largely accidents of history--things like the personality of the founder, the ease of conversion, how demanding are the rituals and commandments, what competition exists, are people "in the market" for new religions, the attitude of the public authorities, etc., etc.
Who would have predicted that the Mormons would do so well...and the Moonies so poorly?
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on January 24, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
"Separation of church and state" doesn't get the job done...that is, doesn't smash the hold that religion has on people. It helps, but it's not enough. Separation of church and state was written into the American constitution over two hundred years ago...and yet we have repeatedly suffered from and are suffering from waves of fundamentalist persecution. Things like the "war on drugs", the crusade against tobacco, the struggle to limit and ultimately abolish abortion rights for women, and even much of the official anti-communist ideology in this country have their roots in neo-puritanical religious fundamentalism...not to mention the role of religion as "justification" for U.S. imperialism.
I think history clearly demonstrates that, for the most part, religion has played a thoroughly reactionary role in every country in the world. I will grant rare exceptions...but even the exceptions don't look all that "exceptional" when viewed "close up."
This role does not change simply because you've made a revolution. Every progressive change that your new society proposes to introduce is likely to be opposed, openly or covertly, by the "church". And if your country happens to fall victim to counter-revolution, they will come crawling out in hordes...like cockroaches in a dark and filthy kitchen.
The ink wasn't dry on the law that abolished the USSR when they were parading through the streets of Moscow with pictures of "St. Nicholas the Martyr"--otherwise known to historians as "Bloody Nicholas", the last Czar of Russia.
My "stalinist" remedy: the removal of religion from public life altogether...making it a private concern, privately practiced, like using the toilet.
That means: no churches or religious architecture, no public religious demonstrations or ceremonies, changing the names of all public areas that have religious connotations (San Francisco goes back to its old name: Yerba Buena), no religious schools, no publication of religious works (except for critical scholarly works), etc. Taking money from people for performing religious ceremonies would be a class A felony...fraud. Teaching small children religious beliefs would be felony child abuse. Street preaching would be a misdemeanor...distrubing the peace. And so on.
People would be free only to worship in their own homes with their fellow believers. If they wish to communicate with other believers, they could do so on the internet...but no spamming non-religious boards.
Beyond this, I would attempt to create a "climate of opinion" that considered religious belief something shameful and disgraceful...rather like we would regard a "UFO nutball" or "flat earth nutball" now.
The idea is that over several generations, religion would essentially be forgotten...except by historians and a few nutballs.
Is such a dramatic transformation possible? Well, remember that in revolutionary situations, many things that formerly seemed unshakable "suddenly" become "paper tigers" (to use Mao's old term). A working class revolution is the most critical event in human history...nothing is "sacred" or beyond questioning.
And, of course, it has happened before. The Christians "abolished" the old classical religions so effectively that you'd look far and wide these days to find even one worshipper of Zeus or Isis. It can be done.
The task begins with communists...ourselves. We must rid ourselves of all foolish and romantic illusions about "Jesus", the Buddha, or any other such figure. They were not our forerunners in any way. We have nothing in common with them, much less with their followers. For the most part, serious religious believers are our open and declared enemies. They have shown that they will unite with anyone--even fascists and Nazis--to oppose us.
And, of course, they have tried and will try to copy us if they think that will work to defeat us. They had "worker priests" in France in the 1930s; they had the "Catholic Worker" outfit in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s; they have "liberation theology" now (the Jews and the Muslims, knowing a good tactic when they see one, now have their versions of "liberation theology" as well).
This should not "fool" any communist. They don't really mean it. What they really mean is that bosses should treat workers a little better and that small farmers in Central and South America should get a little plot of land for their own use...and that's about it. A real change in class relationships, the end of rule by capitalists and landed aristocrats is the last thing they really want! The end of class society threatens the end of their special role as "God's appointed representatives on Earth"...and that scares the "Hell" out of them. Their wealth, their authority, their prestige are all at stake...and like every ruling class, they will fight to the death to keep them.
At the root of all religious belief are three things: (1) Obedience to God's Will; (2) Obedience to God's duly-appointed representatives on Earth; (3) Obedience to those secular authorities deemed sufficiently "godly" by God's earthly representatives.
On Point 3, Hitler, Mussolini, and George W. Bush "qualify". We communists do not. Nor should we try!
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on February 8, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...treading a fine line between ideology and oppression there, redstar2000.
Well, it seems wide enough to me...at least to walk confortably. To serious religious believers, of course, what I propose is "outrageous Stalinist tyranny" and I am, no doubt, worse than the Emperor Nero...in their eyes.
But you see, my post was really addressed to people who are or who want to be communist revolutionaries. I think it's vital that communists be clear about the reactionary role of religion.
It's "no good" pretending that we can encouage class struggle while just ignoring things like religion and nationalism...people's minds just don't "work" like that. Since religion and nationalism are "childhood indoctrinations" and communism is an "adult conviction", the former influence, distort and even destroy the latter.
When World War I began, all of the "socialist" parties (Social Democracy) immediately forgot all about class struggle and plunged enthusiastically into the muck of nationalism and the joy of slaughtering their "inferior" neighbors. Same thing happened in the former Yugoslavia.
We communists can talk about class struggle until we're blue, or rather, red in the face...but it's strictly uphill while people remain stupified by their hopes of "Heaven"...or, worse, the conviction that their masters have been "appointed by God."
That doesn't mean class struggle doesn't take place...material reality imposes its own demands and they can sometimes outweigh even the most reactionary ideology (there was class struggle within the Nazi Party).
But religious beliefs and nationalist prejudices make everything SO much harder. It's like trying to run with a 50 kilogram weight on your shoulders...if you're strong enough, you can still do it, but you're not going to set any speed records. And don't forget, the longer class society lasts, the greater the sufferings of both ourselves and everyone else who's not part of the elite.
And, finally, religion and nationalism are just plain wrong, that is, incorrect ways of looking at the world. There is no "special" group of people who are "more human" than all other groups of people. And there are no gods, of any kind.
Before we can expect other people to understand these things...we communists first must understand them ourselves.
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on February 8, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
Well, there is an "absolutist civil libertarian" position, which evidently you endorse, that does permit "freedom of speech" even for Nazis.
It's just NOT my position.
As to the "existence of God", from my view, there's no "debate." No religion has ever produced scientifically verifible evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities. Do you believe in unicorns or elves? They are just as "real" as "God"--the same amount of evidence exists to support both.
The "con" is to get you to believe in something that doesn't exist...just as if I were to promise you a "hot new investment opportunity" that will "double your money in six months." You say that this belief has not made you into a robot; with all due respect, I would add "not yet" to your statement. ("robot" by the way, comes from a Czech word meaning worker.)
"Does religion have a part to play in a socialist society?" No. Even were they to take a "pro-socialist" position publicly, I would assume counter-revolutionary intent on their part and would watch them like a hawk. To rephrase slightly what I said earlier: real power in the hands of the working class to change the world means...who needs the religious hierarchies? Once people grasp as part of daily reality that the world can be changed to grant their desires, who will the clerical vampires feed off of?
Consequently, whatever church hierarchs say in public statements, privately they are bitterly opposed to socialist revolution. Usually, they say this publicly as well, but, in extremis, they have been known to lie.
"How do they oppose class struggle?" Well, let's be more specific; they have no objection to the class struggle waged by the ruling class against the workers. Has the Pope issued a "bull" (declaration) opposing privatization, de-regulation, abolition of welfare, etc.?
Are they supporting Chavez in Venezuela...or have they joined up with the old Venezuelan elite in a desperate attempt to prevent modest reforms of capitalism? (Chavez is not--yet--a socialist.)
In Argentina, do they condemn the IMF and the political/financial elite there...or do they say that the crisis there is the "fault" of the ordinary people "who have lost touch with God"?
If you really wanted to get in touch with the heart of modern Catholicism, you should try and read up some on Opus Dei--the semi-fascist order of rich bastards determined to preserve capitalism by any means necessary...the Pope just made it's founder a saint.
On what basis does religion directly attack class struggle? Because it divides humanity along different lines than we communists do. Religion says there are two groups of humans: the saved and the damned. (This is also, by the way, the problem with nationalism: it divides humanity into two groups: the "superior" group that I'm a member of and all the other "inferior" humans...who may not really be "human" at all.)
A consistent Christian cannot oppose a Christian boss...they are "brothers/sisters in Christ." That outweighs mere "earthly" concerns. Whenever a Christian worker nevertheless does oppose a Christian boss, s/he does it with a "bad conscience", s/he "feels guilty" about it...and s/he is therefore much less likely to see the need for total confrontation with and total victory over all bosses.
This also answers your question about "using religion as a vehicle for class struggle." It's been tried from time to time...usually in those rare situations where the priest/preacher is damn near as poor as his congregation. It never works.
I should warn you--if you haven't gathered it already--that I'm a lot worse than Marx and Engels on this topic. They spent little time discussing religion...they thought that capitalism itself would fatally weaken religion and that it would wither away spontaneously under socialism. Historical experience suggests a different conclusion--religion has become extremely important as a way of stupifying the working class and keeping the capitalist class in power...and there's big money behind it. I'm told this is not so much the case in the European Union as it is in the United States...and I hope that's true, because here it's awful!
Nationalism does indeed deserve its own thread(s)...I mentioned it because it does have striking parallels with religion and serves many of the same social purposes. And, it would have to be dealt with by many of the same measures that I proposed to remove religion from public life. All those statues of "great military leaders" are going to the scrap metal factory, etc.
Also, I've ridden the Buddhist merry-go-round before and don't want to again, if I can avoid it. Buddhism proposes that we should strive for "freedom from desire" as the road to liberation from "the wheel of existence"...the idea is that we stop suffering the pains of existence when we stop being reincarnated and thus stop existing.
Leaving aside that fact that there's no evidence for reincarnation, I think communist society exists for the purpose of fulfilling human desires. Thus, I find Buddhism rather | | |
