Mediaboss Marketing

There is so much misunderstanding of the relationship between religion and communist views. More often than not, people only associate communism with atheism due to misquoting Marx in his comment of religion being the opium of the masses. Due to misquoting and misinformation, the general thought has been that no one of religious faith or practice could possibly be a communist and vice versa. This is simply not true.

As members of the CPUSA, our guidance and understanding of how to make lasting change for the better is Marxism. Its a systematic approach to understanding society how it works, how it develops, and how it can become more just. Theres nothing in Marxism as a way of understanding society and social change that is incompatible with whatever religious faith you may hold. The views, voices, and efforts of progressive people of faith are in harmony with the goals of our Party, especially in regard to seeking peace and justice for all. The doors of the Communist Party USA are, and always have been, wide open to people of faith. This openness is made even clearer in our vision of the CPUSA that includes all people regardless of religion (or none), race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, and ability.

Join the Religion Commission!

We have people at all levels of the Party who are active in their communities of faith and its because of this that a commission was created several years ago for religious members of the Party to work together. The Religion Commission of the Party functions as the opportunity for members to come together to discuss their faith journey and how it brought them to the Party. We also discuss the work we want to do within our communities of faith on behalf of the Party and vice versa.

The Commission meets monthly to discuss upcoming projects we want to work on, articles members are writing on behalf of the Commission, and meetings for book discussions that involve religion and Marxism. We are an active part of the Party that seeks to remove the stigma and misinformation about religious communists. We hope to bring the perspective and concerns of the faith-based community to the Party while also promoting the Party in our own faith communities!

So, if you are curious in seeing your faith in action with the mission and values of CPUSA, then the Religion Commission welcomes you! We hope you take the opportunity in contacting us, and we hope to see you at our next meeting!

For more information, contact the Recording-Secretary of the Religion Commission at religion@cpusa.org

Image: Oliver Hammond (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0).

Originally posted here:
Person of faith? The Communist Party welcomes you! - Communist Party USA

HISTORYThe Party: The Communist Party of Australia from Heyday to Reckoning Stuart Macintyre Allen & Unwin, $49.99

In late 1941, after the Soviet Union entered World War II, a symphony concert audience in Sydney heard something remarkable. The orchestra began with the customary God Save the King. Then, the conductor suddenly switched to that anthem of the communist movement The Internationale.

This represented a turning point. No longer was this song reproduced in scratchy recordings or sung in meagre choruses in half-empty halls. The Communist Party was still illegal but its respectability and popularity began to soar. Three years later 23,000 had joined the party. This was the heyday of Australian communism with access to the wartime government and control of the countrys key trade unions.

In the post-war years, many so-called Red Army communists melted away. In The Party, the sequel to The Reds (1998), Stuart Macintyre demonstrates how blind devotion to the Soviet Union created irreconcilable problems for the party as the Cold War deepened.

Its opponents, rapidly increasing in strength and stridency, could point to its divided loyalties and its alien ideology. Worse, in the event of a third world war, which seemed imminent in the early 1950s, communists would become a fifth column for the Soviet Union. Potential treason was darkly hinted at.

Police break up an election meeting of the Australian Communist Party at a Bondi Junction hotel in April 1951. Credit:Norm Herfort

In this context, the Menzies government sought to ban the Reds. All the while, ASIO, convinced that this enemy within posed a threat to national security, intensified its surveillance, job vetting, passport control, harassment, and infiltration with informants. Its files on individual communists, which Macintyre has used adroitly, thickened.

Assailed by the government, vilified in the press, and condemned by the broader community, the party remained steadfast. As Stalin had reminded communists, they were people of a special mould. Fortified by the belief that history was on their side, their faith in the righteousness of their cause, the virtues of the Soviet experiment, or the wisdom of Uncle Joe, was rarely dented. Until 1956.

Macintyres discussion of Khrushchevs revelations of Stalins crimes and the impact on Australian communists is brilliantly synthesised, combining prodigious scholarship with nuanced analysis. Notwithstanding the leaderships denial and suppression of discussion, party members who eventually read the secret speech were shocked to the core and left in droves. When the Hungarian revolt of late 1956 was crushed by Russian tanks, the internal fractures deepened and the decline of the party accelerated.

From the mid-1960s, the party embarked upon de-Stalinisation: a new, independent path without the ideological direction, rhetorical shibboleths or financial support from Russia. After condemning the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia the first communist party in the world to do so it began, writes Macintyre, clearing away the dogmas that had brought it undone.

Originally posted here:
The enemy within: How the Communist Party ground to a halt in Australia - Sydney Morning Herald

Will the U.S. continue to play a leadership role in the new world order? Thats the key political question raised by the Ukraine crisis. The answer depends, more than anything else, on U.S. domestic politics.

In the old world order, which took shape after World War II, the defining conflict was democracy versus communism. In the late 1940s, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin was aggressive and expansionist, just like Russia today under Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinRepublican senators introduce bill to ban Russian uranium imports Hillicon Valley Invasion complicates social media policy Defense & National Security Blinken details Russia's possible next steps MORE. But the confrontation with communism had an ideological edge thats not so clear in the conflict with authoritarianism.

Communism was the ultimate big government menace. It threatened democratic political values and free enterprise economic values. It carried an even bigger threat for Americans atheism. Communism was typically depicted as godless communism. The United States is the most religious advanced industrial society in the world. More Americans say they go to church and believe in God, the devil, angels, heaven and hell than citizens of any other wealthy country.

There is a particular historical reason why that is true. Many groups, like Puritans in the 17th century and Jews in the 20th century, came to America seeking religious freedom. People who seek religious freedom are likely to be personally religious. In the U.S., they passed their strong religious values down from generation to generation. Churchgoing is a powerful norm in the U.S. Religious people are likely to see godless communism as a dire threat.

Authoritarianism is now replacing communism as a threat to Americas democratic values. Some authoritarian regimes are communist (China, North Korea, Cuba) and some are religious but not tolerant (Iran, India). Even here in the U.S., there is a streak of authoritarianism visible in Donald TrumpDonald TrumpGOP talking point could turn to Biden's 'underwhelming' Russia response House Oversight Committee opens investigation into New Mexico 2020 election audit Hunter Biden paid off tax liability amid ongoing grand jury investigation: report MORE and his supporters.

Authoritarians worship strength and have contempt for weakness. Trump has called Vladimir Putin very, very strong. He told a conservative conference last month that Putin took advantage of Biden being weak when he decided to attack Ukraine. Those views are not uncommon. In a YouGov poll taken last month, 57 percent of Americans called Putin a strong leader. Only 30 percent called President BidenJoe BidenRepublican senators introduce bill to ban Russian uranium imports Energy & Environment Ruling blocking climate accounting metric halted Fauci says officials need more than .5B for COVID-19 response MORE a strong leader.

During both the Cold War confrontation with communism and in the showdown with authoritarianism today, U.S. leaders have had to contend with a long tradition of isolationism. When President Harry Truman announced the Truman Doctrine in 1947, the U.S. abandoned its historic isolationism and embraced a policy of containing the spread of communism. Since World War II, whenever there has been a serious threat to international order or humanitarian values, the rule has been that unless the United States does something, nothing will be done.

What would have happened if the U.S. failed to act after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990? Most likely, Kuwait would now be part of Iraq. What Putin is threatening to do now is end Ukrainian sovereignty and make Ukraine part of Russia.

Having acted decisively in Kuwait, the first President Bush left the crisis in Bosnia to the Europeans. The U.S. had no vital interests there. What happened? The Europeans failed to do anything, and a new horror entered the worlds vocabulary ethnic cleansing. After seeing video of Kosovo Muslims being forced into railway cars and sent to concentration camps, the U.S. felt morally compelled to step in and lead a coalition to end the brutality.

Since World War II, the U.S. has acknowledged international interests as well as national interests. That is what President Clinton meant when he called the U.S. the worlds indispensable nation. We protect world order and defend humanitarian values.

During the debate over whether to act in Syria, Ben Rhodes, President ObamaBarack Hussein ObamaThe Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - What now after Zelensky's speech? Senate panel advances Biden Fed nominees to confirmation votes Best way to tackle inflation: Confirm Biden's Fed nominations MOREs deputy national security adviser, said: The U.S. for decades has played the role of undergirding the global security architecture and enforcing international norms. We do not want to send a message that the United States is getting out of that business in any way.

Apparently, the American public agrees. Polls are finding strong support for U.S. sanctions on Russia. In a YouGov poll for CBS News taken just before Bidens State of the Union speech, most Americans said they would be willing to send U.S. troops to protect NATO allies. That is our legal obligation under the NATO treaty. But a solid 71 percent said the U.S. should not send troops to Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO. President Biden drew that line clearly in his State of the Union speech: Our forces are not going to Europe to fight [in] Ukraine but to defend our NATO allies in the event that Putin decides to keep moving west.

President Biden is a traditional Democrat who fully embraces his partys longstanding tradition of embracing international interests. Donald Trumps America First policies are a repudiation of those interests.

At least one Republican is speaking out against him.

Rep. Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyEx-RNC chairman blasts Trump: 'Not fit to lead this nation' Watch: Weekend stories you might have missed Will the US continue to play a leadership role? MORE (R-Wyo.) told a Republican group, Those people in our party who are advocating for the United States to withdraw from the world, who are advocating that somehow the United States shouldnt lead in the world any more, the kind of world that we will all be living in, we can see now on a daily basis on our television screens when you see whats happening in Ukraine.

Bill Schneider is an emeritus professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University and author of "Standoff: How America Became Ungovernable"(Simon & Schuster).

The rest is here:
Will the US continue to play a leadership role? | TheHill - The Hill

If youve kept up with whats going on in Ukraine, youre witnessing Russian Communism in action. Its outright aggression eliminating a country thats tasted freedom and a free peoples fight to stay free. Russian President Vladimir Putin cant tolerate that.

Youre also seeing a lack of courage on the part of some western nations, notably the United States under President Biden. Poland and Romania stand out, taking in more than a million Ukrainians, mostly women and children, and serving as conduits for arms into Ukraine. Both nations got rid of Russian control and arent going back. Neighboring countries have been supporting Ukraine with their stocks or weapons.

Whats holding the U.S. back? The Biden administration says it doesnt want to trigger World War III as Putin has threatened nuclear retaliation for intervening in his invasion. The U.S. shouldnt have to remind Putin that we have nuclear weapons, too; and its he that would start it.

The free European nations the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) know that, should Ukraine fall, theyre next. All they want is U.S. commitment as we did in World Wars I and II, and Korea, among other far-away places.

Communist China is taking all this in contemplating how its invasion of Taiwan would fare.

We have the wrong administration in Washington, D.C.

John Takeuchi

Fairfield

Related

Read more from the original source:
Letter to the Editor: War in Ukraine a battle of communism vs. freedom - Fairfield Daily Republic

Welcome to the New America. Dubbed Gods Comic by the New Yorker, for 16-years, Brad Stine has been the comedic trailblazer of politically incorrect, Christian and Conservative comedy. His new show, Brad Stine Has Issues, covers cultural issues with his signature brand of comedic sarcasm and satire with insight that will be appreciated by everyone who loves laughter, liberty, and the freedom to tell the truth without fear.

Is it possible that the coronavirus problem is more than a virus, but also a way of getting Americans used to giving up our freedoms? Can it be used not only to get us sick, but to turn us into something we are not?

How many of you out there are what they used to quaintly refer to as card carrying communists? You know, the communism that demands allegiance to the state. That commands you to drop any outmoded idea like free speech, personal autonomy, free enterprise, private property ownership, and entrepreneurship? For most Americans being a communist is such a counter American idea and is so fundamentally abhorrent to all this nation was founded on that it is difficult, seeing its track record how anyone could be so stupid as to give their intellect and freedom over to its premise.But on the other hand if there was a specific group or country that wanted to infiltrate and to fundamentally destroy America from within all it would take is to get Americans to abandon their history, accomplishments, traditions and constitution. BUT, wouldnt that be an extremely difficult thing to do? I mean even the most politically uninvolved American certainly would see someone trying to convert them to communism and would easily be able to deflect their attempt. Or would they? Could it be possible to surreptitiously get someone to willingly give away their fundamental rights and gladly become absorbed into the collective of communal participation and accept their role as submissive cogs in a wheel of a machine more important than them? If so, how would it work? What if I created a crisis that affected everyone. Something that wasnt obvious like a terrorist attack or a military invasion. Something that was spread throughout the country through fellow Americans without their knowledge at first. What if it was something we as humans were familiar with but historically werent able to combat it equally effectively each time. A virus perhaps that was spread communeley as all viruses are, and yet when it was first recognized it was just exotic enough to impose the possibility, the possibility mind you, that could potentially cause untold amounts of death to everyone that contracted it. Thus it gained a foothold because of 2 realities. One, it was in fact a real virus and two it was potentially able to wipe out millions of people of every age, gender, and nationality. If we were prudent people we would take every precaution necessary to defend ourselves and our loved ones from contracting it. Because of its unique, man made nature we might even overreact to how to defend against it. Maybe shut down our freedom to travel and even shut down our businesses and churches. Our entertainment venues and our restaurants. Even those these social institutions and accommodations are the backbone of our traditions and flow of commerce the least we could do, being as this may be the worst virus in human history, is sacrifice our freedoms just for a week or two until the dust settles and we get a handle on what we are actually dealing with. I mean what red blooded American would be so callous as to not be willing to pitch in and sacrifice for the good of our fellow man? As a matter of fact that would be a theme that if it took root could be used continually especially if people began to balk and protest the irrational, ineffective means we may implement to the detriment of literally millions. What if we then added something that would intrude on the most basic fundamental rights of an American by forcing them to wear something that was uncomfortable, made it difficult to breathe and also eliminated the individuality of the wearer. A mask perhaps that was never designed to be worn daily and for hours at a time and naturally people would be uncomfortable with it and many would protest. It would be then that we could once again play the empathy card and shame these Americans for even contemplating the notion that perhaps there was a bigger game afoot and the constitutionality of freedom doesnt disappear just because someone might be in harms way. Remember that the person that just might be affected by contracting the virus needs to be placed in a separate category from the rest of us. The category that actually raises their status to such a degree that even those who are healthy and will never actually get the virus must succumb to a willingness to give up their rights or be shamed by not doing so. This would be a great exercise in conditioning Americans to no longer see themselves as deserving equal representation but in fact to view their personal freedom as an affront to anyone else who decides they are dangerous. Maybe we could even coax neighbors and children to call authorities and turn in our former friends and neighbors for breaking the social gathering rules set in place by mayors and governors who by the way will never suffer a lost paycheck or lost a business or lost dignity. If, by conditioning Americans that to be a truly good citizen, betraying and turning in neighbors is actually an American thing to do then slowly, bit by bit, freedom by freedom we will watch freedom and constitutional rights not be stolen by the point of a gun. No need. We will get Americans to slit their own throats and actually pat their own backs as being the best of citizens all the while watching themselves bleed out by their own hand.

Support my ministry at Patreon.com/BradStine

Be sure to subscribe to Brad Stine Has Issues YouTube Channel so that you dont miss a moment of Brads shenanigans both in front of and behind the scenes!

Check in with Christian Podcast Central for more incredible content like this every day!

More:
Brad Stine Has Issues: What Would It Take To Be A Communist? - Patheos