Religion?

[cyprose]

Leftists,what are your stances on religion? From what i know Marx opposed religion,but if lets say a revolution took place would religion be banned?
Some say that religion and communism do not mix. So,would a muslim communist be contradicting in this case?

[Zanthorus]

From what i know Marx opposed religion,

I believe this refers to the "opium of the masses" quip which is always taken out of context. Here is Marx's full statement on the mattter from the Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:


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.

When Marx uses the word "opium" he does not use it the sense which we use it know of a dangerous stupefying drug but is using it more to mean "painkiller". Remember when Marx was writing this, opium would still have been used by doctors as a way of relieving pain suffered by patients.


Some say that religion and communism do not mix.

They are clearly wrong since many of the early communists were religious.

[Robocommie]

There is nothing about being a Marxist and being religious that is in anyway contradictory, despite what some people will tell you, both Marxists and non. Religion is a matter of private conscience, and not one of state policy, either for or against. Religion comes up for Marxists though, in a social role, because very often in Europe, and in other regions as well, organized Church institutions have been major holders of wealth and social power. Countries like France, Spain, Mexico, and others, have all seen anti-clericalist elements of their revolutions because of this.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Most Marxists (well, most of the "mature" ones) view religion as part of the superstructure. According to this line of reasoning, organized religion would eventually be dissolved along with class society. In addition there are anti-theists (who come from both the Marxist and anarchist traditions) who think that we should burn the churches and execute the priests, which has always struck me as a solution akin to attacking tumors while the patient continues to die from the cancer underneath.

[ZeroNowhere]

From what i know Marx opposed religion,but if lets say a revolution took place would religion be banned?In addition to what Zanthorus has said above, Marx had once said, "We know that violent measures against religion are nonsense; but this is an opinion: as socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part."

[cyprose]

I believe this refers to the "opium of the masses" quip which is always taken out of context. Here is Marx's full statement on the mattter from the Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:



When Marx uses the word "opium" he does not use it the sense which we use it know of a dangerous stupefying drug but is using it more to mean "painkiller". Remember when Marx was writing this, opium would still have been used by doctors as a way of relieving pain suffered by patients.



They are clearly wrong since many of the early communists were religious.

Thanks for setting me on the right path. Rulers like pol pot really give communism a bad name. Not to stray from the topic but have you guys heard of Persecution Falun Gong,why were they banned in China? I will qoute a few lines.

China today banned the Research Society of Falun Dafa and the Falun Gong organization under its control after deeming them to be illegal. In its decision on this matter issued today, the Ministry of Civil Affairs said that according to investigations, the Research Society of Falun Dafa had not been registered according to law and had been engaged in illegal activities, advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability. The decision said that therefore, in accordance with the Regulations on the Registration and Management of Mass Organizations, the Research Society of Falun Dafa and the Falun Gong organization under its control are held to be illegal and are therefore banned

[cyprose]

There is nothing about being a Marxist and being religious that is in anyway contradictory, despite what some people will tell you, both Marxists and non. Religion is a matter of private conscience, and not one of state policy, either for or against. Religion comes up for Marxists though, in a social role, because very often in Europe, and in other regions as well, organized Church institutions have been major holders of wealth and social power. Countries like France, Spain, Mexico, and others, have all seen anti-clericalist elements of their revolutions because of this.

Thanks,this really sums it up also. =)

[Ocean Seal]

I believe this refers to the "opium of the masses" quip which is always taken out of context. Here is Marx's full statement on the mattter from the Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:



When Marx uses the word "opium" he does not use it the sense which we use it know of a dangerous stupefying drug but is using it more to mean "painkiller". Remember when Marx was writing this, opium would still have been used by doctors as a way of relieving pain suffered by patients.



They are clearly wrong since many of the early communists were religious.

You are right in many of your points. I remember asking my father this when my school taught that one cannot be both religious and communist as a way of deterring religious students from pursuing social justice. Zanthorus is right when Marx says opiate he does not mean it in the sense of the drug of abuse, but rather as a pain killer which helps the working class cope with the cruelties of capitalism.

[Weezer]

Religion and spirituality are not bourgeois. Hierarchy applied to churches, temples, etc. are bourgeois.

Remember before scientific socialism, many religious texts were the only egalitarian texts peasants, proletarians, and every other lower class, had.

[Obzervi]

Religion and spirituality are not bourgeois. Hierarchy applied to churches, temples, etc. are bourgeois.

Remember before scientific socialism, many religious texts were the only egalitarian texts peasants, proletarians, and every other lower class, had.

Just because it has been slightly egalitarian in nature does not offset the huge downsides of religion. Just look throughout history and see all the conflict and death caused by religion. Religion is about as irrational as it gets, I think anyone who believes in a magic sky fairy should be classified as mentally insane. Religion is also used by the bourgeois to divide the working class. In my view there is NO place for religion in a post-revolutionary society, it should be outlawed completely for the greater good. All it would take is one generation of secularism to eliminate religion off the face of the planet. Anyone who disagrees, please tell me what benefit religion poses for society that outweighs the costs.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Just because it has been slightly egalitarian in nature does not offset the huge downsides of religion. Just look throughout history and see all the conflict and death caused by religion. Religion is about as irrational as it gets, I think anyone who believes in a magic sky fairy should be classified as mentally insane. Religion is also used by the bourgeois to divide the working class. In my view there is NO place for religion in a post-revolutionary society, it should be outlawed completely for the greater good. All it would take is one generation of secularism to eliminate religion off the face of the planet. Anyone who disagrees, please tell me what benefit religion poses for society that outweighs the costs.

I remember when I made MY first post on the internet.

Also, the broader benefits of systems of spirituality-belief for humanity:
- Most artistic traditions
- Most philosophical/intellectual traditions

The Working Class tend to be religious, if you're so ridiculously hostile to religion, you probably won't be very good at communicating with The People. Nothing wrong with being an Atheist, but you don't have to be fucking unbearable about it.

[ContrarianLemming]

Religion?

My thought's exactly

[NGNM85]

Just because it has been slightly egalitarian in nature does not offset the huge downsides of religion. Just look throughout history and see all the conflict and death caused by religion. Religion is about as irrational as it gets,

I agree, wholeheartedly.


I think anyone who believes in a magic sky fairy should be classified as mentally insane.

Unfortunately, the human mind has a unique ability to compartmentalize, to deceive itself, and to simultaneously believe contradictory things. Religion may be insane, but not everyone who believes it is insane.


Religion is also used by the bourgeois to divide the working class. In my view there is NO place for religion in a post-revolutionary society, it should be outlawed completely for the greater good. All it would take is one generation of secularism to eliminate religion off the face of the planet. Anyone who disagrees, please tell me what benefit religion poses for society that outweighs the costs.

Religion should be done away with. It's an archaic, flawed institution, that frankly does more harm than good. It's also fundamentally antithetical to Anarchism, which is almost universally a materialist philosophy. (Granted, with some exceptions, like Tolstoy.)

Abandoning religion is also fundamental for the future of the human project. To paraphrase Sam Harris; there is no possible future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors. In a post-nuclear age this insanity must be done away with.

That being said,... I completely disagree with your approach on two basic points.

First, forcibly eliminating religion (Which would entail restricting free speech, confiscating literature, burning books, etc.) is Authoritarian, quasi-fascist/stalinist, and fundamentally contrary to the spirit of Anarchism. Either you believe in freedom of expression for ideas you despise, or you adopt Stalinist tactics, there's no alternative.

Second, ideologies are not defeated in the trenches on the battlefield of ideas. The disatrous 'war on terror', or Vietnam are perfect examples that such an enterprise is doomed to failure. You defeat ideas by challenging them with better ideas. If you want to defeat bad ideas don't build bombs, or guns, or jails, build schools.

[Broletariat]

First, forcibly eliminating religion (Which would entail restricting free speech, confiscating literature, burning books, etc.) is Authoritarian, quasi-fascist/stalinist, and fundamentally contrary to the spirit of Anarchism. Either you believe in freedom of expression for ideas you despise, or you adopt Stalinist tactics, there's no alternative.

This is something I've been personally turning over in my head for a while, and I personally don't agree with the approach you're taking. Free-speech doesn't exist inside of a vacuum. Ultimately my argue rests in the assertion that I wouldn't allow a Nazi to own a gun, why would I let him own something far more powerful like speech or ideas?

[NGNM85]

This is something I've been personally turning over in my head for a while, and I personally don't agree with the approach you're taking. Free-speech doesn't exist inside of a vacuum. Ultimately my argue rests in the assertion that I wouldn't allow a Nazi to own a gun, why would I let him own something far more powerful like speech or ideas?

First of all because that's part of the price of a democratic society. If that's what you want, you have to accept it. If you want the cards always stacked in your favor, then fascism is the way to go. However, in a society where everybody doesn't have a gun in their backs, you actually have to justify yourself, and come up with better ideas.

Second, because once a society becomes accustomed to disregarding basic human rights, it almost always becomes habitual.

[Invincible Summer]

Thanks for setting me on the right path. Rulers like pol pot really give communism a bad name. Not to stray from the topic but have you guys heard of Persecution Falun Gong,why were they banned in China? I will qoute a few lines.

China today banned the Research Society of Falun Dafa and the Falun Gong organization under its control after deeming them to be illegal. In its decision on this matter issued today, the Ministry of Civil Affairs said that according to investigations, the Research Society of Falun Dafa had not been registered according to law and had been engaged in illegal activities, advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability. The decision said that therefore, in accordance with the Regulations on the Registration and Management of Mass Organizations, the Research Society of Falun Dafa and the Falun Gong organization under its control are held to be illegal and are therefore banned

Well, unlike what liberal-hippy-"spiritual" Westerners would like you to believe, Falun Gong is more than just meditation. It's a full-blown cult. It's hypocritical for some of these people to be defending the "peaceful harmonious blah blah" nature of Falun Gong, yet slag the DPRK, China for having cult of personalities and oppressive regimes.

Here are some of their beliefs, according to ReligiousTolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong1.htm):

Racism: http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul2d.gifAccording to the New York Times, Li Hongzhi said that: "...interracial children are the spawn of the 'Dharma Ending Period,' a Buddhist phrase that refers to an era of moral degeneration. In an interview last year, he said each race has its own paradise, and he later told followers in Australia that, 'The yellow people, the white people, and the black people have corresponding races in heaven.' As a result, he said, interracial children have no place in heaven without his intervention."
As noted below (http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong1.htm#hom), homosexuality is degenerate behavior, on a par with sexual promiscuity

As noted below (http://www.religioustolerance.org/falungong1.htm#illness), illness is caused by the indwelling of "an intelligent entity that exists in another dimension."


Founder and current leader Li Hongzhi delivered a lecture in Sydney, Australia in 1996. 7 In it, he made a passing reference to homosexuality:

"...the morality of human society has altogether declined. The moral values in people’s hearts have been corrupted. When there is no righteous mind, it means that the Fa [law, principle, way] is no longer effectual. When the Fa is no longer effectual in human society, mankind will decline. ...The change in human society has been quite frightening! People would stop at nothing in doing evil things such as drug abuse and drug dealing. A lot of people have done many bad deeds. Things such as organized crime, homosexuality, and promiscuous sex, etc., none are the standards of being human." (Emphasis ours).


And the icing on the cake (emphasis mine):

There are many living entities on earth that appear to be humans, but in fact are aliens.

...

Individuals with some qigong training can exhibit super-human abilities: clairaudience, telepathy, precognition, etc. But it takes a qigong master to achieve certain functionality, like alchemy -- the ability to transform one type of substance to another. The latter could tear down a large building using mental power only. They would never do this in practice, because it is forbidden for them to demonstrate their powers. Also, such destruction would cause harm. 10


What a total cop-out. "Oooohhh I have powers... BUT I'm not allowed to show you!!"

Their leader is also nuts. In this interview from 1999 with Time Magazine, (http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990510/interview3.html) Li Hongzi claims that

aliens have begun to invade the human mind and its ideology and culture. [The aliens] come from other planets. The names that I use for these planets are different . Some are from dimensions that human beings have not yet discovered.

He also claims that

The aliens have introduced modern machinery like computers and airplanes. They started by teaching mankind about modern science, so people believe more and more science, and spiritually, they are controlled. Everyone thinks that scientists invent on their own when in fact their inspiration is manipulated by the aliens. In terms of culture and spirit, they already control man. Mankind cannot live without science.

More genius:

TIME: Are you from earth?
Li: I don't wish to talk about myself at a higher level. People wouldn't understand it.

I read somewhere else (can't find the source right now) that he also claims to be able to fly and other ridiculous things. All Falun Gong followers basically claim him to be the "living Buddha" because his birthdate coincides with that of some Buddha guy or something. The correlation is pretty vague, but I guess if you believe that some people are aliens you're not too intelligent anyway.




Religion and spirituality are not bourgeois. Hierarchy applied to churches, temples, etc. are bourgeois.

Remember before scientific socialism, many religious texts were the only egalitarian texts peasants, proletarians, and every other lower class, had.
The working classes (peasants, urban proletariat, etc) were generally prohibited from actually reading these texts though. Only the rich (if at all) were literate, and thus had their proxies dictate these religious teachings.

Although I am a strict atheist, I would also agree that religion/spirituality are not 'bourgeois.' But they aren't inherently "prole" either. They're just bullshit.

I would also question the "egalitarian" nature of these texts. After all, before scientific socialism and reason and all that, did people not follow the texts more closely? In other words, all the sexism that pervades many prominent religions was more commonplace than it is now... due to proletarian struggle.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I believe this refers to the "opium of the masses" quip which is always taken out of context. Here is Marx's full statement on the mattter from the Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right:

When Marx uses the word "opium" he does not use it the sense which we use it know of a dangerous stupefying drug but is using it more to mean "painkiller". Remember when Marx was writing this, opium would still have been used by doctors as a way of relieving pain suffered by patients.

Oh please, not this distortion again! Let's look at the next few sentences after that:


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.


Marx was not ignorant of the hallucinatory effects of opium. Yes, he had sympathy for those who turned to religion to escape harsh reality, but argued that they ought to struggle against the system that makes such illusions appealing---to fix the world rather than hoping for a better afterlife. Opium doesn't heal wounds, it merely dulls the pain to hide them. The idea that Marx was not referring to the hallucinatory effects is ridiculous. If that's not enough, let's check the Communist Manifesto:



Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.

and


"Freedom of conscience"! If one desired, at this time of the Kulturkampf (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/k/u.htm#kulturkampf) to remind liberalism of its old catchwords, it surely could have been done only in the following form: Everyone should be able to attend his religious as well as his bodily needs without the police sticking their noses in. But the Workers' party ought, at any rate in this connection, to have expressed its awareness of the fact that bourgeois "freedom of conscience" is nothing but the toleration of all possible kinds of religious freedom of conscience, and that for its part it endeavours rather to liberate the conscience from the witchery of religion.


They are clearly wrong since many of the early communists were religious.

I admit ignorance about this. Who, exactly?


Regardless, as for religion in Communist society:

Anything resembling a Stalinist "Five-Year Plan of Atheism", of trying to eradicate religion by force (besides, of course, circumstances where a religious group threatens workers), would not be the way to go, but people should be encouraged to use critical thinking towards religion.

[Broletariat]

First of all because that's part of the price of a democratic society. If that's what you want, you have to accept it. If you want the cards always stacked in your favor, then fascism is the way to go. However, in a society where everybody doesn't have a gun in their backs, you actually have to justify yourself, and come up with better ideas.

Second, because once a society becomes accustomed to disregarding basic human rights, it almost always becomes habitual.

I'm not arguing against disallowing a different tendency of the left to have no freedom of speech. I'm arguing against allowing facists, racists, etc. to have free-speech, there's quite the difference. My argument against facist free-speech is the same argument against yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre, if you allowed it people very possibly could end up hurt.

It's not a basic human right to discriminate against other humans.

[ed miliband]

I think religion is largely a product of social conditions and that perhaps one day it will effectively wither away. I was raised a Catholic but cannot even begin to believe in God, and I'm always somewhat intrigued by people I know and respect who do believe in God (or a god, or goddess), and I must say I'm often impressed by the religious people I know: they're usually very generous and accepting, and I'm yet to meet one who lives up to the common stereotype of being ultra-conservative and hateful. I think a good deal of people I've come into contact with use religion as a crutch, and I myself have experience of that (... a bad experience upon reflection, and one that made me move away from religion).

[cyprose]

I think religion is largely a product of social conditions and that perhaps one day it will effectively wither away. I was raised a Catholic but cannot even begin to believe in God, and I'm always somewhat intrigued by people I know and respect who do believe in God (or a god, or goddess), and I must say I'm often impressed by the religious people I know: they're usually very generous and accepting, and I'm yet to meet one who lives up to the common stereotype of being ultra-conservative and hateful. I think a good deal of people I've come into contact with use religion as a crutch, and I myself have experience of that (... a bad experience upon reflection, and one that made me move away from religion).

Well as the saying goes,to each his own. :thumbup1:
Care to share your reflection?

[Zanthorus]

Just because it has been slightly egalitarian in nature does not offset the huge downsides of religion. Just look throughout history and see all the conflict and death caused by religion. Religion is about as irrational as it gets, I think anyone who believes in a magic sky fairy should be classified as mentally insane. Religion is also used by the bourgeois to divide the working class. In my view there is NO place for religion in a post-revolutionary society, it should be outlawed completely for the greater good. All it would take is one generation of secularism to eliminate religion off the face of the planet.

Yes, perhaps we should also invade all those middle-eastern countries with their barbaric customs and force the values of our glorious western enlightenment on them...

This kind of violent anti-theism is just the modern day equivalent of the "white mans burden". All those damn religious people are so irrational and should be drilled in correct atheistic thinking. And much like the white mans burden it is inseperably linked with Imperialism. There is a reason anti-theists like Chris Hitchens support the "bringing of democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan. It's the only logical conclusion of this kind of thinking.


Oh please, not this distortion again! Let's look at the next few sentences after that:


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.

This passage doesn't really help us very much since it could also be interpreted as Marx recounting the current state of german philosophy. At the time Feuerbach had released his Essence of Christianity which also included a critique of the Hegelian dialectical philosophy which inspired Marx to enquire into the social conditions lying behind other phenomenon such as the state.


If that's not enough, let's check the Communist Manifesto:

That was an account of what the enemies of communism say about it.


I admit ignorance about this. Who, exactly?

The League of the Just which merged with the Communist Correspondence Committee of Bruxelles to become the Communist League for which Marx and Engels wrote their famous manifesto for one.

[Argument]

If people want to be religious, let them, as long as they don't directly harm anyone else.

[Robocommie]

Yes, perhaps we should also invade all those middle-eastern countries with their barbaric customs and force the values of our glorious western enlightenment on them...

This kind of violent anti-theism is just the modern day equivalent of the "white mans burden". All those damn religious people are so irrational and should be drilled in correct atheistic thinking. And much like the white mans burden it is inseperably linked with Imperialism. There is a reason anti-theists like Chris Hitchens support the "bringing of democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan. It's the only logical conclusion of this kind of thinking.

Thank you, for putting this eloquently and concisely where I could not.

[ed miliband]

This kind of violent anti-theism is just the modern day equivalent of the "white mans burden". All those damn religious people are so irrational and should be drilled in correct atheistic thinking. And much like the white mans burden it is inseperably linked with Imperialism. There is a reason anti-theists like Chris Hitchens support the "bringing of democracy" to Iraq and Afghanistan. It's the only logical conclusion of this kind of thinking.



:thumbup1:

[Palingenisis]

I think in a classless society Religion would obviously take on a different form....But I cant see it disappearing. Also nearly all Religions stress man's social nature...Many of the early "Church Fathers" believed that property and class society were evils. I was raised a liberal protestant so maybe my view is coloured by the fact that I have never seen the worst side of religion. Yet my experiance of "conservative" Roman Catholics when it has come to struggle in the work place has always been really good. If you are actually working class that stuff is important.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

When it comes to the down-sides of religion (wich you can see on the news allmoust evry day) still we must remeber to have a materialistic view and analysis. All history is the history of class struggle, the fight for power over resources, its not very often religion is the singel one reason for a war. When media forexample reports about the conflict in Darfur they say that it is an ethnic and religeous conflict, when in reallity the struggle is about the small amount of water in the region and warlords and other fuckups uses ethnicity and religion to divide and conquer. An other conflict that media (at least here in Sweden) often simplify is the one on northen Irland, they say "Oh its all about catolics and protestants, they have different ways of reading the bible and therefor they start to kill each other" and i think that moost of us know that its more complicated than that. Back to the main question, yes you can be religeous and a communist there are perhaps millions of daily examples of that all around the world and history, fore example the zapatistas upprising and organization have had help frome catolic priests and small churches.

[Invincible Summer]

Yes, perhaps we should also invade all those middle-eastern countries with their barbaric customs and force the values of our glorious western enlightenment on them...


The thing is, it's not just the Middle-East. You know damn well that anti-theism extends to all religions, not just the flavor-of-the-day Islam.

Nice try at painting anti-theists as xenophobic and Eurocentric.

[NGNM85]

I'm not arguing against disallowing a different tendency of the left to have no freedom of speech. I'm arguing against allowing facists, racists, etc. to have free-speech, there's quite the difference.

I disagree. If you limit free speech you limit it for everybody. moreover, attempting to accord more rights to a certain group or class of people is a dubious project with a very poor track record. It's essentially; "Some animals are more equal than others.."


My argument against facist free-speech is the same argument against yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre, if you allowed it people very possibly could end up hurt.


First of all, the fact that people might believe it is a pretty bogus rationale for restricting speech. A free and democratic society offers a lot of liberty and autonomy, however that also carries responsibilities, this is one of them. If you don't want these ideas to flourish you have to produce better arguments.


It's not a basic human right to discriminate against other humans.

It depends on how you're using the word "discriminate." If, by that you mean institutional discrimination, either in a large monolithis structure or social policy, or something smaller, like a small business, that should be prohibited, I think. However, if by "discrimation" you mean holding racist beliefs, then, I would say that is a right. This is one of a few instances where I think the law is actually pretty excellent, in most respects. The US has a very progressive policy towards free speech, compared to many other modern, western nations. Essentially, everything except an open, deliberate threat is protected. So I can say; "I hope someone kills you.", or "I hope you die.", but not "I'm going to kill you." So, I would say that disseminating literature like "Mein Kampf", Rockwell's "White Power!", "The Turner Diaries", etc., should be protected, along with any literature that doesn't contain any direct threats or blatant exhortations to violence.
I find these ideas absolutely repulsive, but I can't ethically justify censoring them. Also, as I've said, I think it's just a poor tactic, it's just not very effective.

This is a very fundamental tactical and philosophical question. I was trying to generate some interest in this by starting a thread on Anarchism and free expression in the "Practice & Propaganda" section, which anybody and everybody is encouraged to participate in.

[Broletariat]

I disagree. If you limit free speech you limit it for everybody. moreover, attempting to accord more rights to a certain group or class of people is a dubious project with a very poor track record. It's essentially; "Some animals are more equal than others.."

It's strictly the limitation of free-speech for those who would use it for facist/racist movements.



First of all, the fact that people might believe it is a pretty bogus rationale for restricting speech. A free and democratic society offers a lot of liberty and autonomy, however that also carries responsibilities, this is one of them. If you don't want these ideas to flourish you have to produce better arguments.

In a crowded theatre after someone yells fire there is no time to debate whether or not a fire exists, prevent the person from yelling fire (if there wasn't one that is) in the first place or damage WILL be done.



It depends on how you're using the word "discriminate." If, by that you mean institutional discrimination, either in a large monolithis structure or social policy, or something smaller, like a small business, that should be prohibited, I think. However, if by "discrimation" you mean holding racist beliefs, then, I would say that is a right. This is one of a few instances where I think the law is actually pretty excellent, in most respects. The US has a very progressive policy towards free speech, compared to many other modern, western nations. Essentially, everything except an open, deliberate threat is protected. So I can say; "I hope someone kills you.", or "I hope you die.", but not "I'm going to kill you." So, I would say that disseminating literature like "Mein Kampf", Rockwell's "White Power!", "The Turner Diaries", etc., should be protected, along with any literature that doesn't contain any direct threats or blatant exhortations to violence.
I find these ideas absolutely repulsive, but I can't ethically justify censoring them. Also, as I've said, I think it's just a poor tactic, it's just not very effective.

Institutional discrimination has to start somewhere, nip it in the bud BEFORE it can be institutionalised.

[NGNM85]

It's strictly the limitation of free-speech for those who would use it for facist/racist movements.

That's a limitation on everybody. That's like how in Russia they only limit speech which is critical of the establishment.



In a crowded theatre after someone yells fire there is no time to debate whether or not a fire exists, prevent the person from yelling fire (if there wasn't one that is) in the first place or damage WILL be done.

There's a substantial difference. In American law yelling "Fire!" in a theatre is prohibited the same as a death threat. However, there's a significant difference if no intent is expressed. Anti-semitic or racist literature may be repulsive, but if it doesn't express both the desire AND the intent to do harm it's just talk.



Institutional discrimination has to start somewhere, nip it in the bud BEFORE it can be institutionalised.

That's essentially punishing people for crimes they might commit, or, more starkly, crimes they have not comitted. I find that ethically and philosophically unacceptable. It's authoritarian, and I think it sets a dangerous precedent. I think the proposed cure is worse than the disease.

[JacobVardy]

Well, unlike what liberal-hippy-"spiritual" Westerners would like you to believe, Falun Gong is more than just meditation. It's a full-blown cult. It's hypocritical for some of these people to be defending the "peaceful harmonious blah blah" nature of Falun Gong, yet slag the DPRK, China for having cult of personalities and oppressive regimes.


I'd like to second this. I've been to refugee defense meetings where the Falun Gong people walked out because they refused to be in same room with LGBTI people.

[Ocean Seal]

Just because it has been slightly egalitarian in nature does not offset the huge downsides of religion. Just look throughout history and see all the conflict and death caused by religion. Religion is about as irrational as it gets, I think anyone who believes in a magic sky fairy should be classified as mentally insane. Religion is also used by the bourgeois to divide the working class. In my view there is NO place for religion in a post-revolutionary society, it should be outlawed completely for the greater good. All it would take is one generation of secularism to eliminate religion off the face of the planet. Anyone who disagrees, please tell me what benefit religion poses for society that outweighs the costs.
I remember when I made MY first post on the internet.

Also, the broader benefits of systems of spirituality-belief for humanity:
- Most artistic traditions
- Most philosophical/intellectual traditions

The Working Class tend to be religious, if you're so ridiculously hostile to religion, you probably won't be very good at communicating with The People. Nothing wrong with being an Atheist, but you don't have to be fucking unbearable about it.


Just because it has been slightly egalitarian in nature does not offset the huge downsides of religion.
First off "slightly egalitarian" is an understatement when looking at the basis for many religious texts.


Religion is also used by the bourgeois to divide the working class.
And once the bourgeois are eliminated what is the downside of religion here?


Religion is about as irrational as it gets, I think anyone who believes in a magic sky fairy should be classified as mentally insane.
I'm willing to debate you with respect why not show the same?


Just look throughout history and see all the conflict and death caused by religion.
Any time that people have conflicting opinions there will be war and death. Capitalists use that argument to state that communism is bad. This argument oversimplifies war; war is a product of hierarchy and greed.

[al8]

Thanks for setting me on the right path. Rulers like pol pot really give communism a bad name. Not to stray from the topic but have you guys heard of Persecution Falun Gong,why were they banned in China? I will qoute a few lines.

China today banned the Research Society of Falun Dafa and the Falun Gong organization under its control after deeming them to be illegal. In its decision on this matter issued today, the Ministry of Civil Affairs said that according to investigations, the Research Society of Falun Dafa had not been registered according to law and had been engaged in illegal activities, advocating superstition and spreading fallacies, hoodwinking people, inciting and creating disturbances, and jeopardizing social stability. The decision said that therefore, in accordance with the Regulations on the Registration and Management of Mass Organizations, the Research Society of Falun Dafa and the Falun Gong organization under its control are held to be illegal and are therefore banned

Chinas stand on Falun Gong is a 100% correct. Falun Gong theory promises one can fly like a bird unaided by machinery through intense navel gazing and encourages people to boycott scientific medicine and rely on quackery instead. It's harmful and absolutely insane stuff these Falun Gong practitioners propagate. They should be contained and damage minimized until systemic change has solved the problem from the source. Just like strange skin lesions should be mended until a cure can be found and put into effect.

[InuyashaKnight]

Just don't believe in it.

[Axle]

Religion is a private matter. If a person wants to be religious (or not), all the more power to them, just so long as they don't start trying to cram the idea down everyone's throat...in whatever way that could manifest itself.

Personally I'm an atheist, I do not believe in the existence or remote possibility of a god or other supernatural being.