I am guessing again that the ban on abortion was not based in any kind of traditional morals on Stalin’s part. I honestly don’t believe that Stalin had any morals or ethics.
This is sort of how I thought you would answer this, and I’m not really in a position qualified to dispute you, other than in one way:
You were raised an atheist. No judgment toward that one way or another on my part, but I can assure you that you have no working context of the lifetime of torment and conundrum within a person raised in a religious environment, over matters of morality, ethics and coexistence in the world.
Looking at the potentiality of a moralistic Stalin, through that lens, is simply unavailable to you.
You say Stalin hated “the church.” I often have seen you sum up the whole of the Christian faith as if “the church” were what defines and directs it within the individual. This may be informative from a scholarly point of view, but it is incomplete, and misleading. Christian doctrine in whatever form, is a set of principles and guidelines having to do with the believer’s relations with God, and with how an individual’s actions and thoughts must be managed in a manner which God would find righteous.
I don’t know much about various forms of eastern orthodoxies, but I do know that the magic show that is Catholicism, relies primarily on the notion that a priesthood stands between the believer and God as intercessory. Protestant theologies tend to view Catholicism as re-branded paganism and idolatry, for this precise reason: that the true faith is the faith of an individual answerable directly to God and not any cult of eunuchs and pedophiles.
But the role of priest, as I understand it, is to be a sort of believer-commissar, representing before God not only his own faith as acted out in his life, but the sum total of his “flock”s conduct as well. Considering that Stalin’s only formal education I know of was for the priesthood, and assuming there must be some similar concept of priest-as-intercessor within the Orthodox faith, what I am looking at in terms of the potentialities of his internal moral compass, has little to do with God or Christianity or any church at all, but with the idea that he must have learned at a very early age to view himself as the leader of a flock. It explains much of his megalomania and paranoia both, to see that he first believed that it was his duty to lead a throng of lesser beings despite themselves, determining for them what was to be considered right and wrong; and to believe that he had to destroy any person, faction or idea which seemed even capable of standing in his way.
You have often pointed out yourself, in discussions about feminism, two things that I don’t find contradictory at all though maybe you do: that feminism is essentially gendro-centric Marxism, and that feminism functions precisely like a religion.
There is a law in mathematics which states, if a=b, and a=c, then b=c. I see much the same logical inexorability (you like logic, right?) in postulating that if feminism=Marxism, and feminism=religion, then Marxism=religion.
Here’s a tip, my atheist friend: religion, has almost nothing to do with God.
Religion worships itself. It appoints itself God on earth, and assures the faithful that their earthly ersatz-god has it on good authority from the real one Up There in Heaven, that it is the believer’s duty to follow “the church” and to let the church worry about God.
We see this even in the Protestant ways of life, where believership is mostly acted out by church attendance, group activity of a charitable or community-minded nature, and ritualized group worship and prayer. The background concept of what it takes to be a Christian, under any banner, is that one must first go to church. Having jumped through that hoop, my own life among Christians says that activity alone, and the group endorsement it buys them, pretty well covers the matter of being a Christian.
Ask any pastor how hard it is to get people to pray and read the Bible on their own. Ask any garden-variety everyday Christian what they think of those among their faith who show a tad too much piety in their own persona. This business of being a “Christian”, isn’t what I think you think it is.
Or maybe not: just as Marxist-ruled everyday life is mostly a go-along-to-get-along exercise, so is most of what comprises the “Christian life.”
Belief in God, is an entirely different equation, and almost beside the point of our discussion. As is the potential blind spot left by tossing aside any idea that Stalin was guided from within by any sort of moral code. Even you, an atheist (!) has a moral code. Everyone does. It doesn’t make one either moral necessarily, nor immoral.
But it also doesn’t take any faith in any God, to be moralistic. Have a look at your next SJW shenanigans on campus, for confirmation of this, but I think you already know it.
My thesis, and I think Rybakov’s, is that Stalin was primarily a moralist in his style of rule.
That he may have first rejected any heavenly god and then gone on to appoint himself as the earthly one, fits both the historic record squarely, and my thesis, which accepts that a trained-priest-turned-revolutionary who saw a pathway into absolute power for himself, used a bastardized version of his own priestly training to accomplish this, as a self-appointed leader of a flock. And, that his concepts of how to administer and enforce (and to some inevitable extent, define) right and wrong for that flock, were mostly what he learned in the seminary.