(April 21, 2016 at 1:52 pm)abaris Wrote:(April 21, 2016 at 1:48 pm)Ivan Denisovich Wrote: The thing is that religion wasn't forbidden fruit and church was not oppressed or at least it didn't look like clergy claims it looked like. If history books I read aren't wrong in this church could speak about oppression only till 1956, after that date there were clashes with occasional outbursts.
For example during the years 1975-1990 over 1500 churches were built. It hardly speak of hardships that church allegedly suffered.
Yes, I remember when John Paul the Slimeball visited Poland. But still, the regime didn't endorse religion, so it was one expression against the regime. Same as with East Germany, where the churches were at the forefront of dissidents. That changed to a breeding ground for neonazis there, but still, fomer communist countries seem to equate religion with freedom. More than the former West is used to.
If you put this that way then I have to agree.
There is certain logic in such equation though - if church was seen as opposing force to authoritarian regime that mean it was pro liberty. Fact that church was only concerned with it's own well-being and not above collaborating with the state seems escaping the notice of casual observer. Such observer saw church as last oasis of freedom then and now when "golden liberty" is threatened by eurocrats or other "known enemies" situation is the same.
The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.
Mikhail Bakunin.
Mikhail Bakunin.