I remember you saying you were Russian...did you by chance live under the Soviet Union? I'm just wondering if the U.S.S.R. was as secular as people claim it to be? I naturally assumed that it was, but I've always had my doubts.

private message?

It doesn't have to be. I'm open to the insight of anyone who wishes to express their opinion or point of view.

I lived IN the Soviet Union. 20-something years. It was as secular as people claim it to be. The Orthodox Christian Church enjoyed a short period of favor from Stalin, but it never got too far or changed the secular nature of the state, and with his death it was over for good. The Church was back to the status of a historical museum, never taken seriously. Other confessions were kept in that state permanently. A few functioning monasteries and churches, ok for seniors to go there, and that's it. Everybody else was expected to act as a good little atheist.

Any of the leaders religious at all? I know how most people say that Mao Tse-tung wasn't religious, but that seems to be more of an assumption than anything. He was a very clandestine figurehead to the outside world, even to the U.S.S.R. so I can't be sure. He seems to have claimed some religious affiliation in some of his writings, but it's too vague to tell whether he himself was.

I highly doubt that Mao ever saw USSR as a genuine friend even when all was well between the two countries, so why would he be anything than secretive to its leaders, but that's just my IMHO.

As for any religious leaders in USSR - honestly, I have no idea. Never felt curious enough about that to explore. They could be. Not in the form of supporting official religious institutions or going to church/synagogue/mosque/datsan, but I don't see why it would be absolutely impossible for a Soviet leader to have private religious/spiritual beliefs as long as he presented a façade that matched the official requirements.

quote:

Posted May 29, 2009 04:09 PM Hide Post
I highly doubt that Mao ever saw USSR as a genuine friend even when all was well between the two countries, so why would he be anything than secretive to its leaders, but that's just my IMHO.

As for any religious leaders in USSR - honestly, I have no idea. Never felt curious enough about that to explore. They could be. Not in the form of supporting official religious institutions or going to church/synagogue/mosque/datsan, but I don't see why it would be absolutely impossible for a Soviet leader to have private religious/spiritual beliefs as long as he presented a façade that matched the official requirements.

No, Mao hated the Soviet Union, I'll just tell you that now. I'm well acquainted with his political views, but I'm completely dubious as to whether he was theistic or atheistic...he was much too smart and manipulative to reveal something so vital to his existence.

I was curious on the Soviet Union part because people constantly say that atheism has killed more people than religion via communism, and I'm feeling as though that maybe this isn't necessarily so. That is to say, maybe the argument is the same as the one posed by Christopher Hitchens in regards to the penalty that one might face if he or she revealed that she was an atheist.

quote:

Originally posted by Nihilis:
I was curious on the Soviet Union part because people constantly say that atheism has killed more people than religion via communism, and I'm feeling as though that maybe this isn't necessarily so. That is to say, maybe the argument is the same as the one posed by Christopher Hitchens in regards to the penalty that one might face if he or she revealed that she was an atheist.

After Civil War, being religious rarely caused death penalty or repressive actions that would result in death. It could be used as a formal reason to negatively affect one's career and/or social status, but not to that extend.

Yes, admitting your beliefs was not a wise move in USSR. My grandmother was a Christian, and I have no idea until she died. She was that afraid to negatively affect lives of any family members to ever mention her beliefs. My Mom found icons, notes and books in her personal stuff that she kept well hidden - this is how we know.

I have no idea who Christopher Hitchens is or what caused him to say what you posted.

I'm sorry to here that she was victimized and silenced by that oppressive regime. At least you turned out great

I'm surprised to hear you say that; Christopher Hitchens is a very prominent figurehead for the atheist community, a lead publicist of Vanity Fair, and an author of multiple best seller of several books.

I'll show you a video from youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

quote:

Originally posted by Nihilis:
I'm surprised to hear you say that; Christopher Hitchens is a very prominent figurehead for the atheist community, a lead publicist of Vanity Fair, and an author of multiple best seller of several books.

But I am not an atheist; I only follow those folks when I have time or when someone mentions something interesting about them.

quote:

I'll show you a video from youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

Goodness gracious. I was able to sit through Hitchens's parts relatively well, but his opponent gave me the same heebie-jeebies as chief authorities and public speakers for Russian Orthodox Church. Half of the arguments he chose are almost unbearable to listen to. For the sake of forming a well-rounded opinion, I struggled through Rabbi Shmuley's arguments in small increments. And after the first part of his speech I felt that I need a shower. But if what he cited from Hitchens' writings was true and not distorted or taken out of context, Hitchens himself is not in much better place than Rabbi Shmuley when it comes to ability to deal with an opposite point of view. Same looking through a thick colored glass of one's own values and concepts. I say they deserve each other as opponents.

However, I didn't hear anything new from Mr. Hitchens. I have very little interest in the whole intelligent design vs. evolution debate, in literal interpretation of sacred Abrahamic books of any kind, in reducing religion as a whole to modern half-dead Abrahamic institutions, and in stereotypes that both opponents in the video hold. Yes, Hitchens does it with more class. Still not interested. Public debates and bestsellers do very little to anyone's understanding of anything. They support and reaffirm the sense of rightfulness in people of each camp as they likely exercise the same selective hearing and interpretation.

In the whole video, the moderator is the only one about whom I would like to know more.

There are much better debates than the one that they just did...surprisingly, the one between Hitchens and Al Sharpton was very good.

p.s. Sorry about not responding to the other questions/assertions, but I simply can't write what i wrote twice without feeling frustrated or contempt for having to repeat everything that I just wrote in concerns with the Michael Savage topic.

I'll just have to wait for another day and another time, or possibly another topic.

quote:

Originally posted by Nihilis:
There are much better debates than the one that they just did...surprisingly, the one between Hitchens and Al Sharpton was very good.

If Al Sharpton is anything like that Rabbi, don't give me a link to another video.

quote:

p.s. Sorry about not responding to the other questions/assertions, but I simply can't write what i wrote twice without feeling frustrated or contempt for having to repeat everything that I just wrote in concerns with the Michael Savage topic.

I'll just have to wait for another day and another time, or possibly another topic.

No problem, I would not be able to write the same stuff twice either.

Surprisingly, he puts up a good debate.

No way in hell. That Rabbi is f-cking annoying.

Al Sharpton is unreal. If I did not know it was true I would never believe the amount of crap that comes out of him.

Al Sharpton is a farce, a thief, a demagogue, and a druggie.