No religion for Chinese Communist Party cadres

[rug]

Beijing, Dec 19, (PTI):

Apparently alarmed by the growing religious practice among its members, the 78-million-strong ruling Communist Party of China today swore by Marxism and firmly ruled out lifting the ban on its cadres to follow religion of their choice.

Party members shall not believe in religion, which is a principle to be unswervingly adhered to, Zhu Weiqun, executive vice minister of the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee, wrote in Qiushi, or 'Seeking Truth' - the biweekly official journal of the Party.

The ban also applies to party members and officials administering the predominantly Buddhist Tibet and Xinjiang, the home of Uyghur Muslims.

Both provinces remained predominantly religious despite over six decades of CPC administration.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/212827/no-religion-chinese-communist-party.html

[uriel1972]

1. The communist parties

of China and North Korea are a religion in all but name. In the same way Oliver Cromwell was King of England in all but name. They have their holy books, their deities and saints and their priesthoods all under a different name.

It comes as no surprise that one belief system would try to outlaw other belief systems within their ranks.

[rug]

2. You have a loose definition of religion.

This is the reality:

"The CPC would not be able to retain socialist credentials if it disarms itself ideologically and theoretically and degrades from a Marxist party to a non-Marxist one by allowing its members to believe in religion, he said.

"He called for more efforts to enhance the Marxist view of religion and atheism education within the Party."

Dialectical materialism, even mixed with a cult of personality, is not religion.

And North Korea has as much in common with China as 1970 does with 2011.

[uriel1972]

3. Religion, hmmm

If it looks like a religion, walks like a religion and quacks like a religion, it's a religion.
Holy books; check
Deity/ies; check
Saints; check
Priesthood; check

[rug]

4. Hmmm.

Prove the deity.

If you don't, you've simply demonstrated atheism.

[laconicsax]

5. What holy books, saints, and priests do atheism have?

[Silent3]

6. A religion only has to have a deity or deities...

...when that requirement is convenient for bashing atheism.

[rug]

8. He's talking about China and North Korea.

He's describing them as religions. If he, or you, cannot demonstrate a god in there, he's described a religion without a god.

What would you call that?

[laconicsax]

10. Buddhism, Hinduism, etc...it depends, really.

[rug]

11. Somehow I don't think he's calling North Korea a Hindu society.

[laconicsax]

13. Way to shift the goalposts.

You wanted to know what I'd call a religion without deities, so I gave you a couple examples.

[rug]

15. No, I wanted to know what you'd call his description of NK without a god.

[laconicsax]

17. "he's described a religion without a god. What would you call that?"

I know, it's so inconvenient that your words are right there for everyone to see.

[uriel1972]

7. Marx and Mao for a start

That they were real people doesn't change the fact that they are treated as deities.

[rug]

9. Cite the evidence that they have been given the attributes of a god.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

12. You're right, Marx and Mao couldn't be gods

There's actual evidence they existed...

[rug]

14. The topic is evidence that they have been given the attributes of a god.

Do yo have any?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

16. Nope, just being snarky

[uriel1972]

18. A bit of a google search later

because I knew you loved linkies. http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=3684 Treating someone like a god 'deification'

[rug]

19. Here's another link.

"What makes Vision.org truly unique, however, is that it examines these topics through the wisdom of an ancient source—the Bible—while also working to avoid preconceived notions about what that source actually says. We believe that the principles contained in that book are still relevant and can be applied to help solve the global, national and personal conflicts that we face. We do not proselytize or promote conversion to any specific denomination or religious belief. Our only goal is to reestablish the Bible as a credible voice in the discussion of ideas. We hope you benefit from what you read, hear and see on this site, and we look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions."

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/page.aspx?id=115&submenu=77

I think they're trying to protect the First Commandment from Communism.

[uriel1972]

20. So google doesn't like me eh.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/mar/07/china.features11

http://chineseposters.net/themes/mao-thought-2.php for a little visual sample and some references for you

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675072361_Cultural-Revolution_deification-of-Mao-Tse-Tung_Images-of-Mao-everywhere_Maos-books multimedia and all

Treating someone as a god, not that it's needed to make an ideology into a religion.

[Angry Dragon]

35. WHOA!!

Just what are the attributes of a god??

[Eliminator]

58. Evidence Shmevidence!

No need for evidence when talking about religion.

[humblebum]

21. They are no more treated as dieties than George Washington and Lincoln. They

do not heal anyone miraculously of diseases, nor do they make the promise of life after death. They were atheists who promoted atheism. Simple as that. Their writings are admired and taught for their utilitarian value and nothing more.

[darkstar3]

22. Horseshit.

You have redefined deity to suit your own needs. No one ever said that a deity must perform miracles or promise life after death. You pulled that out of your own hat.

The facts in this case simply don't agree with you. Read up on Kim Jong-Il, and his father, and how they were deified by their people as having no capacity for doing wrong, and would ascend upon their deaths almost like the Pharoahs of old.

Of course, any reading of that history will probably bother you, since it also shoots a massive hole in your ravings about Stalin.

[humblebum]

23. If they are Marxist-Leninists they are atheists. You can throw out your "horseshit" retort all you

care to, but that's directly from the playbook, my friend.

[darkstar3]

24. And there you go, completely ignoring the facts that contradict you.

You care nothing about the point of the subthread: deification.

[humblebum]

28. So, are your saying that that Marxist-Leninism is not atheistic or are you saying that atheism

is a religion? Or, are you saying that North Korea is not a Marxist-Leninist state? And if N. Korea is not a Marxist-Leninist state, then I would ask you who established the present form of government in N. Korea?

[darkstar3]

30. Now you present a false choice.

Boring.

[humblebum]

31. So, add to the list of choices and explain yourself. nt

[laconicsax]

25. That's a rather narrow definition of deity

(Note the spelling: I'm not sure you've ever spelled it correctly.)

Who says that a deity must miraculously cure disease or promise life after death? How many of the Greek, Roman, Hindu, Shinto, Aztec, Mayan, Incan, Babylonian, Norse, or Celtic deities (to name a few) fit that definition? I'd say the majority don't. Are they not deities?

[humblebum]

32. No one said "that a deity must miraculously cure disease or promise life after death?" I used those

only as examples and did not say that it was an exhaustive list.

[laconicsax]

34. You set up both as required attributes. n/t

[humblebum]

40. Where?

"You set up both as required attributes" - stretching the truth again , are we?

[laconicsax]

43. In #21

Do you not remember your own post?

[humblebum]

44. I am using that post as evidence. Nowhere in there did I say that those were required nor

were they the only attributes. i merely said that Washington and Lincoln never did those things. Nothing more.
Perhaps Elvisism would have been a better comparison.

[laconicsax]

46. And, according to you, that they never did those things excluded them from the deity club.

[humblebum]

50. You are just piling one falsehood upon another, aren't you?

Nowhere did I say such a thing.

[laconicsax]

56. You should try owning up to your own words.

It might allow you to lead a more productive, fulfilling life.

[humblebum]

59. You might try quoting the things the you falsely attribute to me too, instead of digging

yourself in deeper. The truth is that you cannot.

[laconicsax]

60. I believe your exact words were...

They are no more treated as dieties than George Washington and Lincoln. They do not heal anyone miraculously of diseases, nor do they make the promise of life after death. They were atheists who promoted atheism. Simple as that. Their writings are admired and taught for their utilitarian value and nothing more.

[humblebum]

61. We have already been through this and NOWHERE in there is anything

resembling any assertion you have made.

[laconicsax]

62. Your words were quite clear. I stand by my assertions.

[humblebum]

63. Well sir, then your are a chronic truth stretcher to put it mildly. You have made false accusations.

[laconicsax]

64. I'd like to see some proof for that. n/t

[humblebum]

65. You are being ridiculous now. You've made a series of false statements about me.

And it is clear that you have provided NO quotes, and a statement that does not support your claims. You are dishonest and I am through with you.

[laconicsax]

66. I made no statements about you, just about what you said.

I provided your exact words. What more do you want? You said something ridiculous. I (and others) challenged it, and all you've done is backpedal and deny your own words.

[humblebum]

68. Don't play coy. What I said in no way resembles your accusations. Good night.nt

[laconicsax]

69. That's hardly a solid refutation.

You just keep saying, "no I didn't!" rather than providing a substantive rebuttal.

[humblebum]

70. What rebuttal? I said what I said, and what I said doesn't jive with

what you say I said. Nothing more to be said.

[laconicsax]

71. If there's nothing more to be said, why do you keep replying?

[LeftishBrit]

38. Not all religions with deities promise life after death

Many religious Jews don't believe in life after death, for example.

Not all established religions even believe in a deity. Buddhism and Taoism are spiritual philosophies that are often not combined with a deity; they are generally considered as religions. In older times, one of China's main belief systems was Confucianism, which still has influence; and to this day there is no consensus as to whether this is a religion.

[humblebum]

41. In that case, one could easily consider organized atheism a religion. But, you are right, each of

these cultures retains elements of their cultures. However, when Communism was first instituted in these countries, any form of religious belief or practices were officially banned. ALL Marxist-Leninist countries are officially state atheist.

[LeftishBrit]

47. Only if there was really such a thing as organized atheism as such

But yes, communism is something of a religion, and has often brutally suppressed religious believers.

[humblebum]

51. Atheism has become extremely organized, as is evidenced by the huge number

of atheist organizations, plus books, advertisements, symbols, videos, etc.

[humblebum]

52. Much of that was done directly in the name of atheism. nt

[iris27]

27. In NK, the deity is Dear Leader.

I mean, seriously, they taught in the schools that KJI did not excrete waste, and that a talking iceberg heralded his birth.

[Dorian Gray]

39. And that he made

5 holes in one the first time he played golf!!!

[pokerfan]

67. I heard it was eleven

and he never golfed again having found the game boring. Obviously, he was a demigod of remarkable skill.

[LeftishBrit]

37. The rulers and political leaders

Emperor Worship was a recognized religion in Roman times; and was responsible for some of the persecution of early Christians. Many other countries since have had in practice some form of Emperor Worship - sometimes in combination with, and reinforced by, another religion; sometimes in opposition to other religions.

[Eliminator]

57. Since when do you need to PROVE the deity?!?!!

I thought gods were supposed to be above proof.

[Jim__]

55. Of course if we were Tea Partiers we could claim it's just "Democrat Big Government."

Certainly the power that the Chinese Communist Party has is based on it controlling a "big government." The human mind can almost always find similarities. The interesting questions are what are the differences and why are those differences important.

[Critters2]

26. The real issue, it seems to me, is that a self-described atheist state is limiting the freedom of

belief of its citizens. No ideological group is immune from intolerance.

[darkstar3]

29. And they're limiting the freedom of belief of their citizens because they are atheists?

Of course not. They are using atheism as a position to crush all other forms of authority, just in case they may contradict or interfere with the Party. This is why China still has state recognized versions of faiths including Christianity. Most Christians wouldn't recognize it, but that doesn't stop China from saying it's the only one the prols are allowed to practice.

[humblebum]

45. And the spin just keeps comin'. nt

[uriel1972]

33. The CCP is an ideological group yes,

Atheists, on the other hand are not. We do not have a central ideology, to be an atheist you do not believe in god/s, that's all.

Ideologies are very alike in behaviour to religions and it comes as no surprise that the CCP would seek to privilege and isolate itself from other beliefs.

So if you are trying to tar-brush atheists as ideologues you are being a tad naughty.

[LeftishBrit]

36. Well, except the Chinese version of Communism, of course

That's a sort of religion too.

And like other religions, becomes distorted when associated with government authoritarianism. It certainly doesn't prevent China from having exploitation, poverty or extreme economic inequalities.

A friend of mine who was brought up in Maoist China thought there was quite a lot in common between Mao's version of Communism and Bush's version of Christianity: both were used mainly as excuses to rally people around their leaders, boost the countries' existing elites, and encourage anti-foreigner sentiment.

[humblebum]

42. Yes, and both killed of millions of people who opposed them

in the process.(SARCASM) You seem to conveniently ignore certain details.

[LeftishBrit]

48. Bush only killed thousands, not millions, through his war in Iraq

It was still too many.

Bush was thankfully not a dictator - but he was a warmonger, which is bad enough.

And by the way: the comparison was solely about the way they used ideology to keep themselves in power AND it was made by someone who suffered a lot of hardship under Mao, not someone who would defend him.

[humblebum]

49. Yeh.

[darkstar3]

53. LOL

"You seem to conveniently ignore certain details."

Says the man who is doing that in this very thread. You're hilarious.

[humblebum]

54. You might want to provide some proof to the contrary then.

KJI is remembered no differently than any other folk heroes. George Washington never told a lie. Davey Crockett killed a bear when he was only three, etc. Books and images and tall tales "immortalized" them. Deities? No way. Their legends were used to build a culture around certain qualities of character.