Welcome to Gaia! ::

I think no nation should be ruled with a ruling religion, because eventually someone comes into power who twists the ideas and those not of the national religion feel it shoved down their throats, there are examples in most religions- buddhist Tibet (one of the Lama's had a throan of human bones), hinduist India (the caste system is the obvious example), the christian (including protestant, catholic, etc.) monarchies of Europe and South America, the Jewish rule of Israel, and the Islamic monarchies and various degrees of corrupt theocracies in the middle east.

I believe there should be a representitive dictatorship of the proletariat which does believe in many of the better moral of all religions (almost all that is) but ignore the ideas of god completly and allows people to practice as they wish (I believe public religion could not exist in socialist society but private could).

Leninism fails because you cannot have a dictatorship for the people, that would be an oxymoron. Also, single party rule as apposed to bipartisanism causes stagnation of government. I don't believe in a "ruling religion" I just believe in the philosophy of Islam, what we can use to improve the relationship between people. A truly wise muslim wouldn't dare call Khomeini great for twisting the holy scripture to meet his personal means. However, any idea can be abused, a Brittish contemporary of Darwin in the 19th century proclaimed that the Wealthy industrialist had a right to abuse workers because they had they were the "dominators" while the workers were the "dominated", In his mind, nature had taken its course. I don't think I have to remind everyone about how the Nazis used an askewed version of genetic science to justify genocide.

Even ideas that we know to be factual are easily abused. It is just easier for us to point the finger at the religous because we can't "prove" our dogma. Yet, If you really think about it, isn't it all arbitrary, whether you believe or don't. Ultimately we are all equal, so we shouldn't divide ourselves amongst groups like "Muslim" or "Atheist." That is why I believe in Socialism.

It's actually a dictatorship of the proletariat which Marx supported as well and what it means is the indiscriminate rule of all people over themselves, and this power never fades. And under Lenin, a lot of voting was instated through worker's coalitions in the factorys and work places. Stalin abolished it all.

Yes, all ideas can be abused unfortunatly, and most will be at some point, but religion is one of the easiest and most commonly abused ideas. I think that all people can be united but still be in different groups, but it needs to be taught that jews and muslims and christians and atheists can all work together and still have different opinions.

I would have to be against it on the principle of freedom of religion or the lack thereof. To a Muslim society I am a shirk and Muslim societies in practice e.g. the Ottoman Empire, any non Muslim is not a fully enfranchised citizen as they are subject to taxes not imposed on Muslims. Christianity in the middle ages up to the 19th century Jews were forbidden from entering a great deal of trades and were forcibly expelled from several countries. What the bother is that all religion based states is the pattern of oppression of the people. Capitalism exploits but, it's not known for waves of heretic trials-the only true heretic to Capitalism would be an economic one so we as Communists and Socialists would be the new Luther and Calvin. But, enough digression: In a nutshell it's Reactionary Socialism.