Context takes precedence. No universal principle that always applies. The IRGC is an example of why. They may not be communist, but they are undeniable making a difference against imperialism. An example from the other end is the US. Though it has a lot of Christian influence going on, it does technically separate church and state, and enforce a certain amount of “freedom of religious practice.” Meanwhile, it is one of the most murderous entities in history.

But just as it would be foolish to take these examples and say “see, religion is super important for liberation obviously, while atheistic imperialism destroys the world”, it would also be foolish to look at the atheistic nature of China or the USSR and say “see, atheism is the only thing that provides any value toward liberation”, then look at the Jewish relationship to israel and zionism and say “see, religion only ever destroys and genocides.”

Separation of church and state can have its benefits. However, it’s neither a magic fix to problems of religion, nor is religion necessarily a problem intrinsically. To universalize it would be to say that a communal indigenous people practicing a religion based on stewardship of the environment and helping one another is inherently awful, the same as zionists using religion to justify genocide. This makes no sense. We have to struggle against the problems of religion that are immediately real—problems which intersect with other sources of systemic abuse—without slipping into a view that singling out religion will be the pet issue that resolves most problems.

Pretty solid move tbh

I don’t think it’s possible to have genuine separation of church and state without state atheism, not just “secularism.” The problem is that if religious people can run for office they will just make up “secular” reasons for their legislation. It tends to be so silly that most of the time they don’t even hide it: they will outright argue to the public that they’re implementing the law for religious reasons, but will just write down a non-religious one for the record.

Take same-sex marriage in the US for example, where US politicians started to float some argument that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman therefore if you allow it you’re abusing the definition of words. Like… c’mon, not a single soul on earth finds that argument actually convincing. It’s just a silly argument made up to justify a religious-motivated law.

You cannot have scientific management of the economy ran by people who believe in magic. Sorry.

It should be separated completely, and the state should actively fight against any religious oppression. IMO state should also work to educate people out of belief. Not like, forcefully, but educational material/guidelines should promote science and critical thinking, some of the best killers of religion. It will take several generations, but I think there would a critical point where the numbers would fall drastically.

The end goal would be to build a society in which the need of religion is gone. The vast majority of current religions have no place in a modern society. Almost all of them have some teachings that directly oppose the kind of society we want to create. Some religions try to have sects that change and “modernize” but at that point, just admit your religions is just some imaginary bullshit you can change as you feel needs. You can’t have a holy book of rules defined by God, and then decide that those rules need to change cause your God was wrong. Any positive aspects of religion are just generally accepted as good things to do for a society. Helping the helpless, feeding the hungry, don’t murder, etc etc. We don’t need religion to promote those. Those things are just part of what the state SHOULD promote itself. The harm comes from when the same book that says “feed poor people” also says girls that are raped have to marry their rapist, or homosexuals should be stoned to death, etc. We as a sentient species are capable of just saying “we should do this, and we shouldn’t do that, and we don’t need some magic sky daddy to tell us that.”

Separating church from state is only a necessity so long as either institution exists, and for most cultures throughout history up until relatively recently neither institution did.

As such it’s an issue for socialism that will be resolved with the development of the communist society.

A progression from feudalism. But in capitalist societies religion is still a part of the superstructure through which the bourgeoisie rules. So although the clergy is greatly weakened and the “divine right” of kings is abolished, the state and religion are only formally separated. But still connected in a sense. Therefore the proletarian state must also endevour to encourage internationalist, proletarian strains of religions over bourgeois ones in whichever measures are appropriate at a given time.

can someone more knowledgeable explain the relevant history of communism in west asia? i can’t remember where i heard it but someone said the soviet insistence on atheism was partly responsible for the failure of communism in the region. is there any truth in that?

As a Muslim, It’s best to have religion separated from state because of how much the bourgeois has turned religious sanctions against the proletariat.

Most religions are ahead of their times for aligning with Socialism to a degree, but unfortunately religious institutions are the ones bribed into cherry picking for the bourgeois. Pretty much what Marx noticed about his country’s churches always being pro war for the bourgeoisie’s agenda and yet abandoned everything Jesus said about feeding the poor and hungry.

Agree with others that its a good ideal to strive for, but most bourgeios democracies, even though they claim “secularism”, they rarely practice it.

Take the US for example, that has openly proclaimed a “crusade” against Islam since Bush the younger, and oppresses Muslims internally and bombs them abroad. Or the influence of Christian fundamentalists on policy like abortion, treatment of women and LGBTQ communities, etc. Or France and its treatment of Muslims.

The leaders and populace of these countries are unavoidably members of certain religions, and that influences their actions regardless of whatever laws are on the books, and they will find ways to put their religious beliefs into practice. I’d almost prefer a country with a single dominant religion just be open and honest about its influence on their state and rule, rather than dishonestly claim secularism without practicing it.

Ideally it should be no different than language recognition; just recognize the major religions of your country like you would a language like the PRC does.

Anyone who thinks that institutional religion, or a non-athiest state is in any way compatible with Marxism utterly betrays that they have never suffered repression at the hands of religious individuals, apparatuses, or doctrines. Out of sight, out of mind. Religion sounds great until all of a sudden the religion decides that your very existence is incompatible with nonsense doctrine written thousands of years ago.

The very nature of religion is immaterialist, utopian, unverifiable, and ostensibly dividing; the utter antithesis of Marxism. Religion teaches that all those outside of the “proper faith” are heretical, opponents of god, destined to Hell, or utterly irrelevant, making any religion an utter non-starter for forming a state or government. By enshrining religion within a state, or allowing decision based on religious doctrine, one places faith on a pedestal and subsequently forces everyone to play by the rules of an immaterialist fairy tale.

“My Christian belief says…” “The Quran states…” “My Holy Book claims…” – I could not care less what your religion says, and I see no reason why I, or any of the masses, should have to take an ancient fairy tale as something deserving of legitimate observation in relation to governance, cultural norms, societal constructs, and so forth. There is absolutely no reason the economy, legal system, or cultural institutions should be beholden to those who believe in fairy tale magic.

Further, every religious person likes to envision their personal religion dictating the state, but froth at the mouth at the possibility of another religion becoming the hegemon. Suddenly Christians become hostile to Muslims asserting a Muslim belief system, Shia Muslims become hostile the second a decision maker asserts Sunni beliefs, and so on so forth.

That is not to say that religion should be annihilated or outlawed, merely acknowledged by the state the same way a language or ethnicity is. Religion can exist within a socialist system, albeit under heavy state scrutiny, but religions should never dictate the direction of the state or society.

Pointless.

Religion should be squashed period.

Gullible beliefs should be allowed only in atomized form.

I like my religion so my opinion may be biased. personally I think it’s the worst idea ever. because of this idea, my country is filled with criminals and greedy bourgeoisie. if my country doesn’t do it, then my country might already be a non-marxist socialist country.