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.
I think I started this in the long-run.
That said: I will lay off for now.
I do not like religion as someone that has experienced religious trauma and I have a friend that especially got it worse in a way you can’t even imagine.
That said, I will leave it at that.
I think religion is not good overall, but often times, how I express myself regarding it can seem a bit curt and leave nothing up for discussion.
That is all for now. I do not consider religion and Marxism to be, by and large, compatible in most aspects of each other. So that’s my position. But, at the same token, I know that other religions besides Christianity have been attacked in a way that is racist, overly combative, and culturally insensitive. I can understand the context behind that, given that I’ve been the target of Islamophobia, especially during my youth.
Anyway, take care, y’all.
I was reading a book by Mohamed Boudiaf (Algerian president who got assassinated) Here’s a part that might be related from 15/07/1963
auto translate
working class, to organize themselves, to unite for to put down the bourgeoisie in all its forms, to eliminate injustices and to promote a new society from which class differentiation, income and life chances will be banned.
This socialism can only be based on the analysis objective reality, apart from any mystification, and reality can find its irrefutable meaning only in scientific demonstration.
It remains nevertheless true that scientific socialism must take into account each situation to discover the best ways to a rational application, the goals remaining the same and the objectives immutable.
To introduce the reality of our people by the only belief bias is distorting the problem. Moreover, in what way does our tolerant and just religion contradict a theory that tends to more justice, more freedom and the emancipation of man. It is time that we know that Islam (and I am a practicing Muslim) is not, cannot be a brake on progress or an alibi for those who want to preserve their privileged situation.
We must define ourselves politically, take a definitive option and commit to a path instead of wandering around looking for socialisms different from the only one that has proven itself. By remaining believers, who forbids us to fight for our society to be completely liberated, to be built up in the interest of all, and that everyone has the right to life, to work, to freedom and to a better well-being? Those who maintain that the Muslim religion opposes these noble goals, are not Muslims or are followers of a particular Islam, let’s say specific, which I personally deny.
I just find it interesting.
Thank you for sharing, quite fascinating, reconciling scientific socialism with Islam. I think it was a practice for some major Ba’athists too, right? Like “I’m Muslim, but any sect that finds itself tryna preserve exploitation even in the name of Allah boutta be excommunicated”.
In those exact words ofc. (/s)
I think that religion is a form of controlling the masses, it also influenced my sister, brother and me very badly in life with it being shoved it down everyone’s throats on every corner for the last 30+ years, especially on father’s side of family. It also completely opposes my lifestyle to the last bit and it doesn’t make any sense.
But still, anyone can believe what he/she/they wish and I’m totally good with it!
Yo! I don’t intend to invalidate your opinion of religion. But I would like to share a personal counter opinion of mine. In my 20s, I was an atheist and severely depressed. Life had no meaning, no objective, etc. And I saw that as a bad thing. After finding Buddhism, more specifically, Zen Buddhism, as described by Alan Watts, I found peace. With the knowledge that life was to be taken like a dance. Pointlessly going nowhere, but enjoying the trip. And so I’m still here. I use this as an anecdote of religion being good.
Of course, religion can be used to oppress, like anything else. Oppression using kindness as pretense exists. But I find it’s better to look at it in a case by case basis, rather than generalizing. If being religious helps you live life, then it’s good. If it doesn’t help you, then it’s bad. Those are my 2 cents on this, anyway.
I don’t know anything about Buddhism, but Christianity(either Orthodoxy or Catholicism) and Islam are extremely reactionary.
How would you even discuss materialism then in the first place? You know, the integral base of the philosophy of marxism. How do you want to not mention atheism around that? Because every mention is always causing shitstorm, in effect we can’t discuss atheism at all.
Even writing lenghty disclaimers about tactics and principles don’t work, every time i have to flagellate myself that i’m not Varg Vikernes.
This seems to come especially from our atheist comrades
You already banned everyone but me and some lurkers which maybe don’t want to tell anything because other than this part is a very nice space and most other communist spaces everywhere in anglo net also seems to have aggressive antiatheist moderation.
And i still remember last time where a person clearly needed some delicacy was banned and hounded off but people openly calling me, them (and Lenin) fedora reddit libs were not punished in any way. So pardon me if this post here seeming a little insincere. Maybe try that going in both ways and not alienating atheist comrades? Or maybe some more hands off, nobody is gonna eat anyone else here over this.
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.
Materialism is explicitly saying “your beliefs are based on nothing but the material conditions”. I don’t even know how you can put this in good faith, marxism is certainly pretty blunt with it.
The point of contention is not necessarily debates surrounding religion but how these are carried out. Going to a post mentioning religion and saying “Religion is bad” is something we want to avoid and it’s different from having the occasional debate. In the former case it’s an unnecessary comment.
If religious users went to posts that mention atheism and said “you should believe” everyone would also quickly grow tired of it. But so far I (personally, I emphasize that) have not seen anyone behave like this. That’s the reason I specifically mentioned our atheists, however I reiterate that the reminder goes for both religious and non-religious users.
Essentially, religious and non-religious comrades shouldn’t be harassed over it and shouldn’t have to defend themselves over their beliefs. I’m personally an atheist, and I think all of our admin team is, so it’s not like there’s a hidden agenda to start promoting religion on Lemmygrad or anything.
Regarding bans, I’d like to point out they were temp bans for people that kept being “in your face” about their dislike – sometimes hatred – of religion, sometimes after repeated warnings. At this stage it constitutes harassment but we’re very wary of banning anyone permanently. Maybe we should start, because I believe you when you say you’ve felt harassed for talking about atheism before. Please keep in mind that we’re a small team of admins, and when posts reach over 100 comments (as it usually happens when there’s a big debate), we don’t have the capacity of moderating all of it partly due to our size, and partly due to the tools Lemmy has to moderate. In that case we rely on reports.
I’m also wary of simply deleting comments because I believe people should stand behind what they say and not have it washed away by a moderator so they can get away with it if they’re being harassing. In this case I think when making a report, users should point out that they want us to delete the comment if it targets them.
The links between all of us here is that we’re all communists and MLs. I assure you religious comrades know it’s a contradiction to believe in God. But they’re not the only group to have contradictory beliefs, all of us retain some idealism in some way.
I’m a Muslim Marxist who doesn’t support Secularism in the long term because I would ultimately prefer an Islamic Worker’s State
Doesn’t that immediately disparage and discriminate against everyone in the state that isn’t Muslim? How can a Worker’s State that values the equality of the proletariat value some of those proletariat and their practices more simply because of a religious affiliation?
Why should a government operate off of the principals of a religion? And why should it be expected or forced that people support a state that governs through a rule that they have no belief in?
State sponsored atheism is a contentious topic of much debate, and religions should never be oppressed, but secularism is perhaps one of the most basic principles that a socialist government should embody.
an Islamic State or a Caliphate does not mean every citizen is a Muslim - it just means that the state is governed by Quranic ideals. A basic tenet of Islam is believing the Quran to be perfect so why as a Muslim would I not want to be involved in the running of a country?
Jews and Christian’s were treated much better under the Muslim caliphates than they ever were in Europe - where Spaniards violently expelled Andalusian Muslims after the Reconquista, Caliphate’s housed sizeable religious communities who were treated on equal status as Muslims outside of a small Jizya tax (which would be foregone if the Jizya collector deemed that a tax collection would put unnecessary strain on a minority family, such as a single mother looking after her children or a sick man unable to work and provide).
There is so much more to Caliphate than “Muslims rule everyone else” - it’s living life in accordance to the Sunnah of the Prophet SAW and striving for social justice and unity as emphasised in Qu’ran so many times. What other Abrahamic religion specifically condemns slavery (24:33), makes taking care of the poor a religious obligation which if not performed takes one out the fold of the religion (Zakat).
I’m not opposed to Secularism because I believe Islam is inherently superior, or because I want to rule over minorities, I’m opposed to Secularism because it is the obligation of the Muslim to live by the equality prescribed by the Prophet SAW - to separate the government of a Muslim nation from the teachings of Islam is like cutting a people at their jugular vein. There’s a reason why even the most “progressive” Muslim politicians of our time such as Imran Khan would never dare ask their people to separate themselves wholly form the Qu’ran in the political sphere
I obviously have no issue with working with the vast majority of Socialists who are Secularists, and of course it’s a rather inconsequential issue in the face of Imperialism - improving material conditions is all that matters at this rudimentary stage of multipolarity and liberation
