Mohammed the Persian

Told you my knowledge here was horrible!

Thanks for clearing it up though

dagul

I think not allowing it is illogical but giving respect to those who believe and those who don't is the most appropriate. Banning it was juxtaposition with deprivation of the rest of those freedom of people. That's horrible.

azato2000

My parents and all the relatives are muslims.
Every hollyday or mourning event our family invited a mullah to conduct rituals.
And we never had problems with that.

I don't know about other regions of the USSR. But in Central Asia there was a tolerance to any religion. The society was not atheistic it was secular.

It is another pair of shoes if you were a communist. Then you could be carpeted.

Belgarion

When visiting Russia I was surprised by how religious many Russians were, especially considering most of them were brought up under the soviet system. After discussing this with a couple of Russians I was told that the church was never banned, but just actively discouraged, with anyone wanting to move upward within the Soviet system required to be devoid of any religious affiliation. Priests were allowed to minister and people allowed to worship provided they kept a low profile and did nothing to upset the regime. Some of the larger churches and cathedrals were taken over by the state, St Isaacs in St Petersburg was turned into an atheist museum.

dagul

The confiscation of St. Petersburg was one of the propaganda of the Americans in discouraging communism.

arras

In case of communistic regimes relations with religion you should put difference between religion (faith) and church (organisation).

People were not forced to be atheistic and were not repressed unless actively fighting against regime (which some of them did). Active participation in religious activities (attending church regularly, public display of religious symbols) could be obstacle if you wanted to advance in to higher political, administrative or managerial positions in society but there was no repression besides that.

Church on the other hand was hostile to communistic regimes, both from ideological and political view and therefore threat. So communistic regimes tended to curtain its activities and keep it under control. On occasions this might have turned in to open repression. Also some religions were considered more dangerous than others and communistic regimes treated them differently.

Catholic church was biggest threat thanks to its subordination to Vatican and regime tried to restrict amount of control Vatican could exercise over local Catholic church. Various cults and heresies like Jehovah witnesses were also treated more strictly especially if they required their members to refuse service in military or restrict medical care.

dagul

I don't think banning the activities of priests who are peaceful people is correct, that was violation of their religious rights that's anchored on love. Why should their expression of love be taken away by defective human rules. Reinvention of culture includes retentions to virtues and morality.

azato2000

confiscation of a city?

what do you mean?

arras

Religious activities of priests were not banned. Unless you were unauthorised priest. State regulated number of priests and authorised their education and activity. Generally it kept their number lower than church would wanted.

dagul

Any intervention of the state over the activities of the church is a violation of religious rights because there must be separation of it from church. They are entities that co-exists in a free system so it is improper to curtail that right with government of all forms of intervention. It must allow the people to express how they feel about belonging to their respective churches and doing away with it. Blending of ways should be allowed because culture is an attribute of people.