Should religion be banned?

[johhy one two]

It only breeds violence and hate for all of gods creation.It used to be for king and country until people said oi stuff the king.Then it was god and country.If i want to kiss my boyfriend on a buses or pat him on the bottom then i will.All this talk of of shite law wants to kill us gays i say come on then if want some.Is it time to banish Allah and his sandals to Dustin of history where his prehistoric views belong

[Die Rote Fahne]

Ban religion? No. Marx himself was a Christian. Albeit a secular one, especially for his time. Though you could attribute that to him not really practising.

Separation of Church and State and not treating churches any different than other organizations is the route that need be taken.

[amandevsingh]

I am unsure of this one, tbh. It causes much division, but I think secularism is better then atheism for a government (For now anyways.)

[Panda Tse Tung]

No, there should be a strict separation between the state and church. But on a personal level religion can mean a lot to someone. The only real problem is organized religion. But 'banning' it is bullshit, it's an unnecessary restriction on peoples lives. Basically banning what they believe in, thats bullshit. You cant ban that. Religion will die out when the need for religion dies out.

[gorillafuck]

Ban religion? No. Marx himself was a Christian. Albeit a secular one, especially for his time. Though you could attribute that to him not really practising.
Marx was openly atheist.

But I agree religion shouldn't be banned.

[Uncle Hank]

If you're looking for something really indepth maybe this (http://www.marxist.com/marxism-religion-liberation-theology220701.htm) will help some. :)

[Искра]

Religion should be banned
Belief not.

[Lord Testicles]

How do you go about banning a religion?

[bricolage]

Someone once said to me that the idea of communism should be to create the material conditions in which the reasons that people are attracted to religion no longer exist. First you can look at this in terms of religion having been historically propogated to lead people to accept their lot in life in the hope of a better afterlife, this of course would no longer exist. Secondly many people go to church, synagogue, mosque, whatever out of desire for a sense of community, once we start creating genuine egalitarian communities this too would dissapear. Finally you have to make a distinction between organised hierarchical religion and religious beliefs. It is fair to confront the former as structures of dominance and oppression however if people want to pray at home and leave it at that it's not our place to start attacking them for it. As for banning, no, of course not.

[Uncle Hank]

How do you go about banning a religion?
Enter thought crime I guess. :lol:

[RedSonRising]

Nah.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Of course it shouldn't be banned. who are you to say someone can't believe in a god?

[amandevsingh]

All you do is cut spending on all religious things. If necessary, you eliminate buildings/outlets which benefit the religion in question. You can't "ban" it, per se.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Marx was openly atheist.

But I agree religion shouldn't be banned.
I was wrong about Marx, he WAS a christian, but lost that rleigion after a while. Somehting about Young Hegelians and so forth.

[Manifesto]

Seems more like you are pissed at homophobes rather than religion itself.

[The Red Next Door]

No

[Lyev]

I don't think you should outright ban religion. What does a person have left when you've taken away their right to simply believe? How would you do it anyway? I like secularism for a country best. Secularism doesn't mean atheism or banning of all religions. I think there's a Ghandi quote (possibly Einstein?) which I couldn't find that talks about secularism and says that a secular country doesn't reject religion; it's the total opposite, in that it welcomes every religion, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu etc.

[farleft]

Separation of Church and State and not treating churches any different than other organizations is the route that need be taken.

This is the correct answer in my opinion as well.

Out right banning could backfire and create new interest in religion, the fact is that religion, in the UK anyway, has been fading out since the 70's.

[cb9's_unity]

I was wrong about Marx, he WAS a christian, but lost that rleigion after a while. Somehting about Young Hegelians and so forth.

I'm not really sure what your trying to say. I've never read anything about Marx ever being particularly religious or espousing religion even in his younger years.

He was born into a recently converted christian family and was baptized but after that you need to give me a source that he had any interest in religion.

[Olerud]

No.

/thread

[Radical]

Good luck gaining support from the the majority of the people if you want to ban religion.

Seperation between Church and State. Closeure of many churchs which then shall be transformed into Hospitals, Schools and Food Shelters.

God does not need huge fortresses with Golden Painted windows to talk to me.

[thecoffeecake1]

Are you retarted? Not a rhetorical question, thats the dumbest thing I've read all day.

[AK]

Religion shouldn't be banned. As long as it isn't preached to other people or forced upon them by religious types then it's fine.

[Demogorgon]

Absolutely not. A free society can not possibly be based on telling people what they can and cannot believe and what rituals they can or cannot take part in.

Religion should not be allowed to influence politics, and political process should not be able to restrict religion (outwith reasonable boundaries).

I think religious belief will decline obviously with a better society, the introduction of welfare states saw a major decline in religious belief after all and I also think religious institutions will have to change themselves in order to survive. With the collapse of feudalism we saw the reformation after all, the collapse of capitalism will presumably se more democratic and progressive churches too. This needs to be allowed to happen naturally though.

[TravisW]

You are an anarchist right? One who believes in freedom of expression?

It pisses me off so much when people ask if religion should be banned. Banning religion would be a pussy's way out.

Here's what you do:

Let the homophobic Christians, Catholics, Jews, etc, practice their religion, then, when you hear them gay-bashing, curse out their conservative ass to hell.

You'd be surprised how easily they're offended (although they're usually the ones pressing to have free speech banned)

[Il Medico]

Are you retarted? Not a rhetorical question, thats the dumbest thing I've read all day.That is not an acceptable word on this forum, please do not use it again.

And to the OP, no.

[Saorsa]

Religion is like a nail. The harder you hit it, the deeper it goes into the wood.

[Weezer]

Who are we to say what religious people can't and can believe? That's one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of.

Religion should be perfectly legal, but be weary of fundamentalism. That's what we're looking out for. Fundamentalism and dogma have no place in a revolutionary society.

[Saorsa]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm


The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society.

This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
As Marx pointed out, you don't abolish religion. You abolish the social conditions that cause people to turn to religion. When he said it was the opium of the masses, he did not mean it was a drug to stop them thinking. At that time, opium was used as a painkiller, notably in such drugsas laudanum. So when Marx refers to religion as the people's opium, he means they use it as a painkiller to deal with the harsh and oppressive world they live in.

Actual opium is illegal. Does that mean people have turned away from it?

[RotStern]

What a stupid question.
Should religion be banned?
Absolutely not.
That is just as oppressive as banning homosexuality.
I agree that religion should never be brought into the governing of any society but banning it!?
Come onnn.

[AK]

I don't think this is a discussion about banning religion anymore, it's more of trying to destroy religious exremism.

[proudcomrade]

Please quit calling the OP's question "stupid". It is a beginner's question. We all have to start somewhere. There is never anything "stupid" about seeking to learn more, or trying to start a discussion on a common and basic topic.

[Saorsa]

Proudcomrade speaks the truth.

[RHIZOMES]

Religion should not be banned that'd just alienate everyone. Propagandize against it under socialism maybe.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You can't ban ideas. You can only ban how ideas are presented. Religion is the same way. But like anything else, when you ban something, people rally around it.

[al8]

The public presence of religion should be banned by a communist outlet with monopoly on violence. I.e flaunting religious advertisement of any sort, be it buildings or markings should be banned. Propagating religion should also be banned. In addition, secular alternatives should be offered for what is destroyed and peoples life-standard and scientific attitude and understanding should be secured. Only this total approach will adequately encircle and eradicate religion - which is a pillar of reaction.

And also, peoples private brainfarts do not come under the radar, only the public expression of it can. So it's never really a comic-book question of "thought control".

The notion that orgs that go underground get automatically bolstered and strengthened is a myth partly based on wishful thinking, you only hear of the loud exceptions not the more common silent deaths. If one is driven underground, one is receiving a beating. There is no magical recovery in suffering defeat. Religions should be kept on being battered and silenced until they die in obscurity a silent death.

[Comrade Anarchist]

I want to say yes, but to ban something is to insert yourself into someone's life the same as the state and religion does now. So all you can do is educate and hope that people will stop worshiping on their own. But another major point is that religion is poison so people need to come to a consensus of what to do with it or many people across the world will continued to be persecuted under it's evil and hypocritical ideals.

[piet11111]

an outright ban is simply impossible because we can not have some thought police.

however we should by law make it illegal for any religious institution to be able to get public funding (only private donations allowed) and remove all tax benefits they currently enjoy.
we also in my opinion should make it as difficult as possible for them to be able to build new churches/mosque's/tempels without the support of a clear majority and if that support is gained then they would still have to pay everything themselves (construction) and the land should only be rented to the religious community.
so that they can never claim it to be their property and we have a way to be able to send in the bulldozers when necessary (preaching the need for jihad comes to mind)

then we would need some laws to ban public preaching (like door to door jehova's) and a ban for them to teach religion in our schools (this means you creationism !)

i am sure we could still think up some other things but even with the above in place we should be able to strangle religion within a generation or 2.

[narcomprom]

The Soviet Constitution not only prescribed the freedom of worship and religion but also the freedom to criticise religion. Sounds silly but you will hardly find a western "liberal" democracy that wouldn't limit one's right to be blasphemous.


Ban religion? No. Marx himself was a Christian.
first clerics forced him to convert and now his good name is used to defend the very same clerics.

brilliant.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Religion should not be banned. People should be able to believe whatever they want as long as they don't get the state involved. There should be restrictions though. Most importantly, preaching should be outlawed as a person's religious beliefs should remain a personal matter. Also, religion shouldn't be taught in schools. Children should have the freedom to explore different faiths for themselves and come up with their own conclusions.

[Tatarin]

How would one ban something like that, and what kind of police force would enforce that law?

[narcomprom]

When Hoxha came to power whole four churches were propagating mutual prejudice while feeding off the Albanian people - of the sunni, the catholic, the shiite and the orthodox brand. As the enlightenment and secularisation programmes in the spirit of Lenin and Atatürk didn't quite suffice to weaken their hold, he proceeded to accomplish a European equivalent of the cultural revolution: he banned all religious practice, prosecuted the clerics and, even, forbade every name with a religious connotation.

Now, what kind of police force he used to uphold the ban I do not know, but it doesn't seem to have come to excesses comparable to that of the Hun Wei Bin.

[Revy]

Most of the early communists and anarchists were atheist and believed in promoting that over religion.

I think that religion as we often know it (what I often refer to as "Sky Daddy" faiths) will fade and be replaced by spiritual belief systems believing in a less personal or anthropomorphic God.

[Tatarin]

As the enlightenment and secularisation programmes in the spirit of Lenin and Atatürk didn't quite suffice to weaken their hold, he proceeded to accomplish a European equivalent of the cultural revolution: he banned all religious practice, prosecuted the clerics and, even, forbade every name with a religious connotation.

Yes, that can not be denied, but like Albania it would have to require not only enforcement, but surveillance, control over the press, and so on. Our goal must, after all, be to end any and all states, not make stronger ones.

[al8]

As I understand it and I am no expert, I've heard anti-religious sentiment was strong amongst the the numerous baby-boom youth, since the education system had been fostering a scientific attitude. Anti-religious campaigns were spearheaded by a youth movement in Albania. This is what wikipedia has to say;


In 1967, the authorities conducted a violent campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania, claiming that religion had divided the Albanian nation and kept it mired in backwardness. Student agitators combed the countryside, forcing Albanians to quit practicing their faith. Despite complaints, even by APL members, all churches, mosques, monasteries, and other religious institutions had been closed or converted into warehouses, gymnasiums, and workshops by year's end. A special decree abrogated the charters by which the country's main religious communities had operated. The campaign culminated in an announcement that Albania had become the world's first atheistic state, a feat touted as one of Enver Hoxha's greatest achievements.

[I]n 1967 of the campaign by Albania’s communist party, the Albanian Party of Labour (PLA), to eradicate organized religion, a prime target of which was the Orthodox Church.Many churches were damaged or destroyed during this period, and many Greek-language books were banned because of their religious themes or orientation. Yet, as with other communist states, particularly in the Balkans, where measures putatively geared towards the consolidation of political control intersected with the pursuit of national integration, it is often impossible to distinguish sharply between ideological and ethno-cultural bases of repression. This is all the more true in the case of Albania’s anti-religion campaign because it was merely one element in the broader “Ideological and Cultural Revolution” begun by Hoxha in 1966 but whose main features he outlined at the PLA’s Fourth Congress in 1961

[ZeroNowhere]

It only breeds violence and hate for all of gods creation.It used to be for king and country until people said oi stuff the king.Then it was god and country.If i want to kiss my boyfriend on a buses or pat him on the bottom then i will.All this talk of of shite law wants to kill us gays i say come on then if want some.Is it time to banish Allah and his sandals to Dustin of history where his prehistoric views belong
If God be willing.

[Matty_UK]

Absolutely not.

I don't even think we should be so hostile to people who have a spiritual/religious inclination. A lot of elements of religion that today look like/are superstitious dogma were at the time fairly sensible guidelines of a way to live (taking aside the elements that were used to justify aristocratic power), rules against wearing more than 1 fabric which seem bizarre today would have been a rather sensible way of protecting against wastefulness in a society of extreme scarcity by today's standards. The superstitious outdated elements of religion, as well as the reactionary content, should be swept away but not spirituality itself.

Stripped of their crude superstitious understanding of the universe, the warnings against the follies of a materialistic lifestyle that underscore any religions that I know amount to a fairly wise guideline to live by - commodity fetishism doesn't lead to happiness, it leads to rotting away your intellectual, physical, and social potential through passive consumption and even to environmental catastrophe threatening all life on earth. And a culture that discourages self absorbed egotism in favour of living to help others results is just sensible for a happy society. Contemplating the complexity and mysteries of the universe is effectively the same thing as religious worship but set within a different framework, and is a fine activity, and completely compatible with science - in fact, this is what motivates the best scientists.

It is right that the old religions should fade away, but it's not right that they should be replaced by a decadent materialistic hedonism that is promoted by capitalism. Another element of spirituality is communitarianism - even though the Church is a reactionary institution, it nevertheless provided an outlet for important elements of human life that are neglected under capitalism. It served as a social focal point for the community - now you have to pay to go anywhere public and all experiences are individualised. Communal singing (hymns) is as natural a part of human life as birds singing, and it's a tragedy that there's no place for it in capitalist society unless you pay up a lot of money for singing lessons and join a professionalised choir.

"Spirituality" is part of humanity and it is about keeping a sense of reality and not getting lost in the symbolic realm, where things that don't actually matter or are harmful have more value by virtue of having some abstract social meaning attached to them than the things that do matter - healthy living, creativity, personal relationships, and an understanding that there are things more important than your ego, and your individual life. This is why marxism is often criticised for being like a type of religion - I say we should acknowledge that marxism is spiritual, and take it as a compliment. (which of us hasn't experienced that superb, spiritual soaring feeling of strength when you're at a protest standing up for what is right alongside hundreds or thousands of your fellow humans? or singing songs at a football match? that's what life is supposed to feel like!)

I'm not some sort of pretentious western buddhist, but we have to understand that people cling to religion under capitalism out of disgust with the superficiality of materialistic individualism and decline of positive community values, that the conservatives among them identify as the fault of left wing values not because of capitalism itself. This is why attacking religion can seem soul-less and scary to some people. I think Marxist hostility to spirituality has grown out of the necessity of combating the ideological instrument of feudalism, but has unfortunately got this task mistaken with the effects of capitalism's abhorrent crudeness.

The fact is that religious working class people are often the ones who hate capitalism the most, but they do not understand what capitalism is. We should be reaching out to them with understanding and respect, not sneering at what gives their lives meaning and purpose.

[ZeroNowhere]

the warnings against the follies of a materialistic lifestyle that underscore any religions that I know amount to a fairly wise guideline to live by - commodity fetishism doesn't lead to happinessPlease don't misuse that term.

[Matty_UK]

Please don't misuse that term.

I'm not misusing the term, I'm using it in the way that Baudrillard uses the term.

I understand that Marx uses the term to refer to how capitalism gives rise to the belief that commodities are the source of value themselves rather than the labour within them, but if you can tell me a more appropriate term to describe the phenomenon of designer brands or fairly useless commodities taking on a special social significance I'd be happy to use that instead.

[Jethro Tull]

The process of imposing communism will uproot all exploitative bureaucracies, regardless of whether they claim to be religious or not.

The violent secularization policies of socialist states usually served to spear-head capitalist development and accumulation.

For example, the petty capitalist bureaucrats who monopolized the Chinese communist party took decades worth of nuanced and intelligent theoretical criticism of Confucianism, developed within the communist tendency in China, and haphazardly co-opted it as a pretense for the further advancement social control. (Eg: Outlawing and violently erradicating traditional sources of political suversion such as Buddhist and Taoist secret societies, directling public anger towards the mass destruction of classical Chinese texts, records of classical European music, etc.) Similar circumstances occured in the Soviet Union where the pre-capitalist cultural practices of subjugated and colonized ethnicities were further eradicated under the pretense of elliminating backwards and irrational superstition. (While they themselves built policy around much more irrational ideas such as Lysenkoism.)

However, it is also not necessary to discuss "the seperation of church and state", as the state will be abolished, as will "the church" as we know it. "Seperation of church and state" like "the right to free speech", is a liberal delusion about civil society mediating all possible contradictions.

The vulgar, chauvinistic atheism that permiates among the radical left is actually quite despicable in some ways, and alienates many useful potential allies. It's impossible to take criticisms Marx wrote of mainstream Christianity in the 19th century and apply them to, say, the tribal religions of indigenous Australians. This is irresponsible and unscientific.

[GatesofLenin]

Religion that breeds hate should be banned. Look at the USA for example, the Republicans are using the church and Jesus Christ as selling points to their cause. If you vote democrat, you're an atheistic, islam-loving, terrorist that hates America. The real God must be spinning in his chair.

[Moon23]

Ban religion? No. Marx himself was a Christian. Albeit a secular one, especially for his time. Though you could attribute that to him not really practising.

Separation of Church and State and not treating churches any different than other organizations is the route that need be taken.

I agree, anyway who is going to do the banning? A state powerfull enougth to ban religion, would not be a very nice place to live.

[Irish commie]

dont ban religion under communism it will die out any way and people have the right to believe in whatever they believe next we'll have though crimes. however of course their land and wealth should be seized and redistibuted.

[tellyontellyon]

Just been reading some Lenin... what is to be done...
.... he mentions defending religious sects against discrimination.

[Soldier of life]

As long as it doesn't impinge on the lives of others, I see no reason for socialists to ban a persons religion. That is a private matter for themselves, and not for anyone else to direct.

[KarlMarx1989]

I think that if we were to ban religion after a revolution, there would be much opposition. Just as we are oppressed and suppressed by the christians of today, and look at how we react to it; I think that the same would happen to us. I think that if all people are supposed to be equal then freedom of religion should exist, as I assume there will be freedom of speech, etc. in a Socialist state. I think that one should be allowed not to be harassed by religious people but I also think that religious people should be able to practice their religion amongst each other.

[Andropov]

I believe this subject matter holds two questions.

Firstly should religion be removed from the social consciousness of humanity?
To any self respecting marxist its an obvious yes.

Secondly how does one go about this?
Well in a hypothetical situation if there was a Marxist Revolution tomorrow how to go about uprooting religion from the consciousness of the working class.
Like Comrade Allistar has stated before the more you hit religion the further it moulds itself into a symbol of defiance that reactionarys will rally behind.
So IMO what needs to be done is firstly the implementation of secularism in the state.
Remove all state privilidges and up to and including the nationalising of all the wealth of the Church.
I would not be overtly confrontational with the Clergy but if they do out and out resist against the progression of Marxism in the nation then come down on them like sledge hammer, but remember to give them move to operate, dont back them into a corner, give them an escape route to self preservation or else it will become a beacon of resistance.
Religion can only be removed from the consciousness of the working class through education and removal of archaic superstitions.
This is a gradual process and one that will take a few generations to fully implement.
But when the Clergys grip of education and on moulding the youth is removed then it is only a matter of time before the whole institution decays from within.

[Klaatu]

I do not believe in banning the free exchange of ideas, even those including religion.
That is because we can learn more from our opponents than we can learn from our friends.
Debate always educates us for the common good.