“Religion do not need to be reactionary!”, duh it only so happens to be in 95% of cases. Also of course that religion can be revolutionary in slavery society (but it also overwhelmingly wasn’t), but the entire system since then changed at least twice or even thrice in some cases. It even can be revolutionary in feudalism (but it also overwhelmingly wasn’t) or capitalism (but it also overwhelmingly wasn’t and isn’t). In socialism though, based on dialectical materialism, religion will always be reactionary, but the question is when it will be tolerable and when it will be ticking bomb just wanting to turn its supporters to footsoldiers of CIA like it was in Poland and entire eastern Europe.

What i meant to say, i will always be suspicious of someone equating religion with marxism on the same level because such people either don’t understand something crucial or are ok with having such conflict in their brains, which means potential problem when it will be the time to choose. They might choose correctly though, but more often than not they don’t. Especially in the dire times of reaction like the current ones. That’s why afaik all successfull communist parties require atheism from their members.

Also i want to highlight the point that author of the article just skims over at the beginning, that religion was often the starting point for communists but they all had their moment of choice. Including some people like mentioned Lunacharsky (though he did suspicious shit all the time and wasn’t purged mostly because he was trustworthy comrade despite his ideas). I think better example was Bonch-Bruyevich.

Foundations of Christianity by Kautsky for example. It wasn’t even an exclusive christian thing, christians took that from essenes for example, and many other isolated religious sects over the world were similar. Keyword here is “primitive” communism.