Is liberalism in crisis in the West?

[Revoltingest]

Not interested in which way you swing Friend ..

Then stop flirting.

 

[Wu Wei]

Oh, I don't swing that way.
But ask @Wu Wei.

You are despicable and now shut yer ding dang pie hole ya prevaricator

 

[Revoltingest]

You are despicable and now shut yer ding dang pie hole ya prevaricator

I invite a nice meal for you,
& that is the thanx I get?

 

[Wu Wei]

I invite a nice meal for you,
& that is the thanx I get?

You have never done anything nice for anybody ya old Scottish curmudgeon

 

[Revoltingest]

You have never done anything nice for anybody ya old Scottish curmudgeon

How about last Tuesday, when I didn't send you a chain letter?

 

[Augustus]

In these cases, Christians saw godless Communism as the real threat and any strongman who opposed it got their support.

This is EXACTLY parallel to MAGA Christian support of Trump in the US. Boebert, Green, and many, many Fundamentalists and their preachers, and right wing commentors rage about Communism and Socialism in US politics and culture (though if you tried to pin them down on it, they couldn't define either.)

It's not remotely parallel.

In the early 20th C Communist regimes were actively trying to eradicate religion, destroying thousands of churches and killing tens of thousands of clergy and persecuting far more.

It obviously was a genuine and very serious threat, conflating it with a "made for media" pseudo-threat is very misleading.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It's not remotely parallel.

In the early 20th C Communist regimes were actively trying to eradicate religion, destroying thousands of churches and killing tens of thousands of clergy and persecuting far more.

It obviously was a genuine and very serious threat, conflating it with a "made for media" pseudo-threat is very misleading.

I was thinking in terms of what MAGA fundamentalist are telling themselves. During COVID there were MANY of them who said that the government was using COVID as a cover for eliminating their churches.

 

[Augustus]

I was thinking in terms of what MAGA fundamentalist are telling themselves. During COVID there were MANY of them who said that the government was using COVID as a cover for eliminating their churches.

There's a lot of odd folk in America sure enough, but I still don't think you can compare situations where there was a clear an obvious existential threat, to one driven by internet loons.

In the 20s and 30s, without the benefit of hindsight, it was realistic to be concerned Christianity could be eradicated in large parts of Europe.

 

[Sargonski]

Then stop flirting.

Good grief mate .. correcting your errors is not "flirting" .. The phrase "Up the Creek without a Paddle" has nothing to do with Sado-masochism .. so Not interested your Swing Club Paddle Playmate suggestions. What I would be interested in is if you had some thoughts on the topic .. the Biden Blue Clown Car driving around in circles

 

[vulcanlogician]

In the early 20th C Communist regimes were actively trying to eradicate religion, destroying thousands of churches and killing tens of thousands of clergy and persecuting far more.

I'm familiar with the crackdown on religion and the destroying of a few historic cathedrals. But I hadn't heard of the killing of tens of thousands of clergy. Was this something that went on outside of Stalin's tenure? Not familiar with Chinese policies, but I'd heard the Soviets tolerated religion to a modest degree, notwithstanding some of the things Stalin did.

 

[Augustus]

I'm familiar with the crackdown on religion and the destroying of a few historic cathedrals. But I hadn't heard of the killing of tens of thousands of clergy. Was this something that went on outside of Stalin's tenure? Not familiar with Chinese policies, but I'd heard the Soviets tolerated religion to a modest degree, notwithstanding some of the things Stalin did.

Pretty much anything that Stalin did started under Lenin.

Between the revolution and WW2 when Stalin wanted to co-opt the church during the war, they destroyed/closed over 40 thousand churches, and executed a significant proportion of clergy and sent many others to the gulag where lots presumably died too.

After the war, most of the churches were closed down again.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Pretty much anything that Stalin did started under Lenin.

Lenin was no angel. But he at least let peasants work their own farmland and keep the majority of it. Stalin declared all farmland state property and seized entire harvests from peasants letting them starve to death.

I'll have to do some genuine research on Soviet church policies. I'm working with very limited sources and foggy memory (college history textbooks).

 

[Wu Wei]

How about last Tuesday, when I didn't send you a chain letter?

How would I know that, you didn't send it....besides you are rather liberal with your prevarication..... see what I did there

 

[Stevicus]

It's not remotely parallel.

In the early 20th C Communist regimes were actively trying to eradicate religion, destroying thousands of churches and killing tens of thousands of clergy and persecuting far more.

It obviously was a genuine and very serious threat, conflating it with a "made for media" pseudo-threat is very misleading.

Despite the Russian revolutionaries' obvious grudge with religion (which was similar to the French revolutionaries' grudge with religion in 1789), the fact that they still guaranteed freedom of religion in their constitution and still allowed the office of the Patriarch and the basic structure of the church to remain intact would counter the claim that they "were actively trying to eradicate religion." It's true that they likely saw the church as a threat and a class enemy, holding the belief that the church existed as an institution to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Clearly, they wanted to reduce the power and influence of the church, but not eliminate it entirely.

 

[Augustus]

Despite the Russian revolutionaries' obvious grudge with religion (which was similar to the French revolutionaries' grudge with religion in 1789), the fact that they still guaranteed freedom of religion in their constitution and still allowed the office of the Patriarch and the basic structure of the church to remain intact would counter the claim that they "were actively trying to eradicate religion." It's true that they likely saw the church as a threat and a class enemy, holding the belief that the church existed as an institution to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Clearly, they wanted to reduce the power and influence of the church, but not eliminate it entirely.

What totalitarian governments promise and what they actually do are very different indeed. You know that.

You understand the need to say such things for propaganda purposes, especially internationally.

Theistic religion is absolutely incompatible with a final form Communist state, and the USSR pretty much eradicated the Orthodox Church to the extent there were only 500 churches left (probably a near 99% reduction).

It really isn’t some kind of myth that the people who noted the necessity of destroying religion, implemented multiple "atheist 5 year plans", formed a multi-million member League of Militant Atheists, and closed almost all churches and killed or imprisoned tens of thousands of clergy actually did want to eradicate religion.

 

[Stevicus]

What totalitarian governments promise and what they actually do are very different indeed. You know that.

You understand the need to say such things for propaganda purposes, especially internationally.

Theistic religion is absolutely incompatible with a final form Communist state, and the USSR pretty much eradicated the Orthodox Church to the extent there were only 500 churches left (probably a near 99% reduction).

It really isn’t some kind of myth that the people who noted the necessity of destroying religion, implemented multiple "atheist 5 year plans", formed a multi-million member League of Militant Atheists, and closed almost all churches and killed or imprisoned tens of thousands of clergy actually did want to eradicate religion.

It may have been a long-term goal, just as Communism itself was a long-term goal, as they themselves said they weren't there yet. The irony is that they never really could eradicate religion, and since the fall of the USSR, there has been a resurgence in the Orthodox Church in Russia, even more so that what we see in the West, where religious membership has been steadily waning for years.

No doubt they had a long-term grudge against the church, as they associated the church with the Tsar, and Stalin himself was kicked out of a seminary for revolutionary activities. But throughout all that, there still remained some legally-operating churches within the USSR. Maybe they allowed a few of them to exist just as some kind of propaganda showpiece. That's an assumption that a lot of people might make, but it's also fact that their Constitution clearly guaranteed freedom of religious worship.

However, I recognize that this was in the context of the growth of fascism in European countries which seemingly got cozy with religion due to a shared fear of the "godless communists."

I guess the question was raised earlier about whether we're facing the same situation today, with Christians fearing "godless secular liberalism" (who want to destroy Christmas and all that) and liberals worried about Christians pushing towards some fascist theocracy.

 

[Augustus]

It may have been a long-term goal, just as Communism itself was a long-term goal, as they themselves said they weren't there yet. The irony is that they never really could eradicate religion, and since the fall of the USSR, there has been a resurgence in the Orthodox Church in Russia, even more so that what we see in the West, where religious membership has been steadily waning for years.

Much of Communism was not realistically achievable, but that doesn't mean they didn't try to achieve these things

No doubt they had a long-term grudge against the church, as they associated the church with the Tsar, and Stalin himself was kicked out of a seminary for revolutionary activities. But throughout all that, there still remained some legally-operating churches within the USSR. Maybe they allowed a few of them to exist just as some kind of propaganda showpiece. That's an assumption that a lot of people might make, but it's also fact that their Constitution clearly guaranteed freedom of religious worship.

It also a fact that their constitution guaranteed freedom of speech. You don't seriously think it actually did guarantee that though.

Constitutional protections only matter to the degree they can be enforced by a judiciary independent of those who wish to break them.

When people tell you what they want to do eradicate, then systematically go about trying to eradicate it using mass violence, a few words in a meaningless document hardly changes this fact.

What is the correct way to interpret the destruction of 99% of churches, the killing or imprisonment of tens of thousands of clergy and multiple systematically violent actions, atheist 5 years plans, etc. other than as part of an attempt to eradicate Christianity?

However, I recognize that this was in the context of the growth of fascism in European countries which seemingly got cozy with religion due to a shared fear of the "godless communists."

I guess the question was raised earlier about whether we're facing the same situation today, with Christians fearing "godless secular liberalism" (who want to destroy Christmas and all that) and liberals worried about Christians pushing towards some fascist theocracy.

The context was that in modern America it is a fringe conspiracy theory favoured by loons. In the 1930s, it was a rational, evidence based opinion to hold given the doctrines of Soviet communism and what had been happening in the USSR. Conflating the 2 is thus highly misleading.

Would you agree that, in the 1930s, it would be perfectly rational for a Christian to believe that a communist regime would actively use violence to try to eradicate Christianity and thus should rightly fear the spread of communism if they wish to be allowed to practice their religion freely?

 

[Stevicus]

Much of Communism was not realistically achievable, but that doesn't mean they didn't try to achieve these things

I think many in Russia were still unofficial believers in religion during the Soviet period.

It also a fact that their constitution guaranteed freedom of speech. You don't seriously think it actually did guarantee that though.

Constitutional protections only matter to the degree they can be enforced by a judiciary independent of those who wish to break them.

I see it more as a continuum, not an either/or question. During the post-Stalinist thaw, they did soften and lighten up a number of their harsher policies, just as the U.S. government decided to start following its own Constitution in the 1950s. Both the US and USSR started to reform in the 1950s and 60s, although prior to that, neither country really followed their Constitution all that much.

When people tell you what they want to do eradicate, then systematically go about trying to eradicate it using mass violence, a few words in a meaningless document hardly changes this fact.

What is the correct way to interpret the destruction of 99% of churches, the killing or imprisonment of tens of thousands of clergy and multiple systematically violent actions, atheist 5 years plans, etc. other than as part of an attempt to eradicate Christianity?

The "correct way"? There's only one way to interpret historical events and actions by governments? As I said, many had a longstanding grudge against the church, saw them as a threat to their regime, and clearly wanted to hurt/intimidate them, which I'm neither denying or condoning (although I might question your use of statistics here). However, even that would be a far cry from wanting to "eradicate Christianity."

The context was that in modern America it is a fringe conspiracy theory favoured by loons. In the 1930s, it was a rational, evidence based opinion to hold given the doctrines of Soviet communism and what had been happening in the USSR. Conflating the 2 is thus highly misleading.

You're saying that the beliefs propagated in fascist countries during the 1930s were rational and evidence-based?

They did have pretty extreme views on the USSR back then, even more intense than McCarthyism and Brichers in the U.S., although even that was bad enough by American standards.

However I agree that the McCarthyites and Birchers (along with their ideological descendants today) tend to embrace fringe conspiracy theories. They're cut from the same ideological piece of cloth.

Would you agree that, in the 1930s, it would be perfectly rational for a Christian to believe that a communist regime would actively use violence to try to eradicate Christianity and thus should rightly fear the spread of communism if they wish to be allowed to practice their religion freely?

I can understand their reasons, although I don't know if I agree with the phrase "perfectly rational" in this context. They probably did have reason to fear the USSR at the time, for a variety of reasons, not just religion. It's obvious that the elite monied interests had much more to fear from communism than the average worker bee going to church.

However, for reasons and arguments which are quite similar, European Christians also feared the aggressive expansionism of Islam which had been going on for centuries before communism was a twinkle in anyone's eye. That seems to be the same fear among some American Christians nowadays, since they ostensibly perceive a threat from non-Christian religions more than any kind of threat from atheism or "godless communism."

 

[Augustus]

I see it more as a continuum, not an either/or question. During the post-Stalinist thaw, they did soften and lighten up a number of their harsher policies, just as the U.S. government decided to start following its own Constitution in the 1950s. Both the US and USSR started to reform in the 1950s and 60s, although prior to that, neither country really followed their Constitution all that much.

The USSR restarted its anti religious programs after WW2.

And saying neither country really followed their constitutions masks the fundamental difference between the documents.

Which one better guaranteed (relatively) free speech for example? Why is this?

The "correct way"? There's only one way to interpret historical events and actions by governments? As I said, many had a longstanding grudge against the church, saw them as a threat to their regime, and clearly wanted to hurt/intimidate them, which I'm neither denying or condoning (although I might question your use of statistics here). However, even that would be a far cry from wanting to "eradicate Christianity."

The "correct way" as in why is it a “far cry” from wanting to eliminate Christianity?

No one doubts the Nazis wanted to eradicate German Jews through systematic murder and persecution as their words, ideology and actions were all aligned with their stated aim. With the Soviets somehow their words, ideology and actions aligning shouldn't be taken as evidence of their goal

The harms of religion and its incompatibility with Communism have an intellectual tradition that goes back to Marx and draws on an even older train of European radical thought.

The when in power the Bolsheviks start to systematically destroy religious institutions while proclaiming their goal of destroying religion in accordance with their well stated ideology.

That this was harder to achieve in reality than in a textbook doesn’t negate the fact that it was their intention?

“On the eve of the Second World War, the Bolsheviks faced a complex situation. They had nearly destroyed the church as an institution—of the more than fifty thousand Orthodox churches on the territory of the RSFSR in 1917, fewer than a thousand were left in 1939.132 But they had neither broken the people’s ties with Orthodoxy nor created a compelling atheist narrative that reached beyond public life, into the home. Even as the political elite was having conversations about the prospects of a country free of religion, it was also signaling another course.”

A Sacred Space Is Never Empty
Smolkin, Victoria;

You're saying that the beliefs propagated in fascist countries during the 1930s were rational and evidence-based?

No, that a Christian living in say 1930s Germany would be rational to fear Stalinism spreading to Germany if they valued their religion.

They did have pretty extreme views on the USSR back then, even more intense than McCarthyism and Brichers in the U.S., although even that was bad enough by American standards.

However I agree that the McCarthyites and Birchers (along with their ideological descendants today) tend to embrace fringe conspiracy theories. They're cut from the same ideological piece of cloth.

America in the 50s or 2020s is not 1930s Europe. The comparisons make no sense absent the genuine existential threat.

I can understand their reasons, although I don't know if I agree with the phrase "perfectly rational" in this context. They probably did have reason to fear the USSR at the time, for a variety of reasons, not just religion. It's obvious that the elite monied interests had much more to fear from communism than the average worker bee going to church.

What would make it not perfectly rational?

"It's ok, their constitution allows freedom of religion and they only destroyed 99% of Churches and killed much of the the clergy and imprisoned an persecuted many believers. You'll be fine, they don't take their ideology seriously"

However, for reasons and arguments which are quite similar, European Christians also feared the aggressive expansionism of Islam which had been going on for centuries before communism was a twinkle in anyone's eye. That seems to be the same fear among some American Christians nowadays, since they ostensibly perceive a threat from non-Christian religions more than any kind of threat from atheism or "godless communism."

Again, a Christian living in the Balkans in the 16th C has a very different reason to fear Islam than a modern US fundy.

The scare quotes around "godless communism" may work in a modern US context, but make no sense in 1930s Europe with a genuine threat hanging over people and no benefit of hindsight.

 

[Stevicus]

The USSR restarted its anti religious programs after WW2.

And saying neither country really followed their constitutions masks the fundamental difference between the documents.

Which one better guaranteed (relatively) free speech for example? Why is this?

Each country has their own direction they follow and their own sets of priorities and interpretations of law. They do so for reasons unique to their own situation and circumstances. That wouldn't necessarily make one "better" than the other, just different. A key difference in the Soviet Constitution is that they also guaranteed certain economic and social rights which aren't found in the U.S. Constitution.

As far as which one better guaranteed (relatively) free speech, one thing I will say, at least in observing some of what happens to those who might be deemed "troublemakers," there appears to be legal loopholes and ways governments can still punish people for other violations, without necessarily violating the First Amendment. For example, labor leaders, civil rights leaders, anti-war protesters, and others who dissented against the system were often harassed, persecuted, and/or jailed on false or trumped up charges.

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter where you are or what kind of system you live under, if you anger or cross the wrong people, or if they think that you're a threat, then they will find ways to make your life a living hell. If the government decides against you, there's nothing you can do, whether in the US or USSR.

That the West seems comparatively more humane or nicer than in other regions may be cultural, or maybe just a recent phenomenon - a beneficial side effect of the opulence and luxury we've enjoyed since WW2. That's the only real difference, but it may not have all that much to do with what's written on a piece of paper.

The "correct way" as in why is it a “far cry” from wanting to eliminate Christianity?

Because Article 124 of the Soviet Constitution said: "In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens."

No one doubts the Nazis wanted to eradicate German Jews through systematic murder and persecution as their words, ideology and actions were all aligned with their stated aim.

And also with their written law, such as the Nuremberg Laws.

Might as well quote Article 123 of the Soviet Constitution to counter this: "Equality of rights of citizens of the U.S.S.R., irrespective of their nationality or race, in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life, is an indefeasible law. Any direct or indirect restriction of the rights of, or, conversely, any establishment of direct or indirect privileges for, citizens on account of their race or nationality, as well as any advocacy of racial or national exclusiveness or hatred and contempt, is punishable by law." Keep in mind that this Constitution was from 1936, when Germany was in the grips of Hitlerism, the French and British maintained racist empires, and Jim Crow and institutional racism still prevailed in the United States.

With the Soviets somehow their words, ideology and actions aligning shouldn't be taken as evidence of their goal

Their goal was a socialist state which ideally would eventually evolve into communism. Their words, ideology, and actions would align with that goal. Since their Constitution guarantees freedom of religious worship, then it seems more likely that any negative or hostile actions taken against religion would align with the goal of wanting to get rid of what they may have seen old remnants of Tsarist autocracy.

The same Constitution also said: "Persons committing offenses against public, socialist property are enemies of the people." And there was no more church property or any private property at all anymore. But it wasn't directed solely at the church, it applied to everyone.

The harms of religion and its incompatibility with Communism have an intellectual tradition that goes back to Marx and draws on an even older train of European radical thought.

The when in power the Bolsheviks start to systematically destroy religious institutions while proclaiming their goal of destroying religion in accordance with their well stated ideology.

That this was harder to achieve in reality than in a textbook doesn’t negate the fact that it was their intention?

“On the eve of the Second World War, the Bolsheviks faced a complex situation. They had nearly destroyed the church as an institution—of the more than fifty thousand Orthodox churches on the territory of the RSFSR in 1917, fewer than a thousand were left in 1939.132 But they had neither broken the people’s ties with Orthodoxy nor created a compelling atheist narrative that reached beyond public life, into the home. Even as the political elite was having conversations about the prospects of a country free of religion, it was also signaling another course.”

A Sacred Space Is Never Empty
Smolkin, Victoria;

Well, the Marxists weren't the only ones in the 19th and 20th centuries with certain misgivings about religion. I don't think religion was really their primary focus, as Stalin's goal seemed more focused on industrialization and military buildup. I think he and other Bolsheviks blamed the church for keeping Russia backwards while Western Europe advanced much further. Their actions would indicate a desire to disempower religion and keep it impotent, so that it can't gain any real power or influence over the masses, but not to eradicate it entirely.

For whatever it's worth, the Muslims in the USSR fared better than they did when they were under the Tsar.

I think it was probably more important in the Soviets' eyes that they fought for and won the right to choose not to believe, rather than be forced to believe.

No, that a Christian living in say 1930s Germany would be rational to fear Stalinism spreading to Germany if they valued their religion.

I just don't see that this was a major propaganda point in 1930s Germany. It may have been one of many in their numerous diatribes and screeds. There may have been any number of reasons Germany would be rational to fear the USSR, but would the fear of eliminating religion be the number one reason? Would it even be in the top ten reasons to fear the USSR?

America in the 50s or 2020s is not 1930s Europe. The comparisons make no sense absent the genuine existential threat.

In the 1950s, it was the same existential threat that 1930s Europe faced. Keep in mind that many Americans were coaxed into believing in communism as an internal threat. There's still a certain legacy of that line of thought existent in the political culture, as you might have noticed.

As far as what existential threats there are today, I'm sure there are those who would say we face both internal and external threats. However, there also appears to be sharp disagreement over who or what constitutes a threat and the degree of intensity.

What would make it not perfectly rational?

"It's ok, their constitution allows freedom of religion and they only destroyed 99% of Churches and killed much of the the clergy and imprisoned an persecuted many believers. You'll be fine, they don't take their ideology seriously"

I just don't see that that would be something foremost on their minds, given the context of the global situation and the domestic political issues they were dealing with at the time. I'm not saying that they wouldn't care about it, but there may have been more pressing issues on their minds, considering the circumstances.

The fact is, historically, the nations of Europe did have rational reasons to fear Russia, even back during Tsarist times when they were one of the most devoutly Christian countries in Europe. But they were still considered a dangerous threat to be watched and contained most of the time (although they did come in handy against Napoleon and balancing out Germany's rise to power). The same fear of the Russian Empire was transposed on to the Soviet Union, which became the de facto Russian Empire for its time.

If the Germans feared Christian Russia in 1914, then the fact that they still feared Atheist Russia in the 1930s would suggest that atheism may not have had anything to do with their rational reasons to fear Russia. I would suggest it was more nationalistic than religious.

Again, a Christian living in the Balkans in the 16th C has a very different reason to fear Islam than a modern US fundy.

The scare quotes around "godless communism" may work in a modern US context, but make no sense in 1930s Europe with a genuine threat hanging over people and no benefit of hindsight.

Well, if we're talking about genuine threats in terms of the USSR - or Russia or China in today's context - then it seems that "godless" or "communist" probably never really did make any sense.

As for what modern US fundamentalists fear, there might be quite a laundry list of things they fear. Though they still might see godless communism as being evil, and depending how far to the right they might be, definitions might widen to most Democrats or anyone with a certain liberal or progressive way of thinking. Though I'm not saying that this is the McCarthy era, and I'm not really sure if they literally believe they're "communist" in the same sense as card-carrying, Soviet era communists from back in the day.

I think they just say that because they think it still carries the same stinging persuasive power it once did, but I'm not so sure about that. I've heard people point out things like saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" means there is a war on Christmas (and Christians, by extension).