So...

[TheHazard]

I find it interesting that "religion" is on the "opposing ideologies" forum, considering that not all religions proselytize (meaning, try to convert people) and in fact some (Zen Buddhism, for example) would go hand in hand with socialism, communism, and even some forms of anarchy.

I am personally a heathen reconstructionist (I worship Thor, Odin, etc.) and I not only don't require anyone else to be, but my beliefs about right and wrong don't directly come from my religion. I chose the religion because it made sense to me and because it generally fit the views I already had. I'm an ethical humanist ( iheu.org/node/2062 ), and I believe the universe came about due to the big bang (actually, more likely the big collision, but I'll stay out of M-Theory).

My point here is, religion is only an excuse for intellectual laziness if we use it as one. Anything can be an excuse for anything in the hands of the right spin doctor.

Considering that anarchists (at least if they know what they're talking about) would be perfectly fine with letting me practice my religion in peace, and the ONLY ideology represented on RevLeft that would go against me having my faith would be (possibly) Marxism, why is Religion an "opposing ideology?"

[mollymae]

I think most would agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with spirituality when it is kept as a private and personal thing. Religion is dangerous however in the sense that it can be and has been used as a means of control. Most religions do not encourage people to keep their beliefs to themselves, hence it is in OI.

[Adi Shankara]

I think it was put in here just to troll religious communists/socialists. personally I'd like to see atheism put in the religious section as well...but that'd be me trolling right back.

but does religion oppose leftism as a whole? no.

hence why's it's curious to see this in opposing view; it seems to represent a personal view of religion more than a generally broad-based accepted one.

[Invincible Summer]

I find it interesting that "religion" is on the "opposing ideologies" forum, considering that not all religions proselytize (meaning, try to convert people) and in fact some (Zen Buddhism, for example) would go hand in hand with socialism, communism, and even some forms of anarchy.

I am personally a heathen reconstructionist (I worship Thor, Odin, etc.) and I not only don't require anyone else to be, but my beliefs about right and wrong don't directly come from my religion. I chose the religion because it made sense to me and because it generally fit the views I already had. I'm an ethical humanist ( iheu.org/node/2062 ), and I believe the universe came about due to the big bang (actually, more likely the big collision, but I'll stay out of M-Theory).

Curious, how does worshipping Thor and Odin make sense? Also, how do you do said worship?


My point here is, religion is only an excuse for intellectual laziness if we use it as one. Anything can be an excuse for anything in the hands of the right spin doctor.


I'd say that Judeo-Christian beliefs are intellectual laziness in all instances, but other belief systems that don't have as much exposure in the West seem to be a bit more complex and intellectually challenging.



Considering that anarchists (at least if they know what they're talking about) would be perfectly fine with letting me practice my religion in peace, and the ONLY ideology represented on RevLeft that would go against me having my faith would be (possibly) Marxism, why is Religion an "opposing ideology?"
I think quite a few Marxists would say that one could practice religion in peace, and I think there are anarchists who follow the Bakunin line of thought regarding religion. Thus I don't think it's fair to say that it's only Marxists who are anti-religion.

[TheHazard]

Curious, how does worshipping Thor and Odin make sense? Also, how do you do said worship?

I won't deny I have no empirical evidence for the existence of my deities, but I will argue that I have the right to worship as I will as long as doing so doesn't hurt anyone. I do said worship primarily by praying and making offerings (usually bits of food or drink, which are used up by nature). In traditional pagan cultures, the word "sacrifice" didn't mean you were giving up something important to you, but that you felt you were sharing with the gods. There is no "original sin" so you aren't trying to "buy forgiveness" as in Judeo-Christian systems.


I'd say that Judeo-Christian beliefs are intellectual laziness in all instances, but other belief systems that don't have as much exposure in the West seem to be a bit more complex and intellectually challenging.

That's quite a sweeping statement. Would you argue that Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace was intellectually lazy? He was fined ludicrous amounts of money for writing his book "The Kingdom of God is Within You," which urged Christians not to pay taxes, and claimed that Jesus' teachings were anarchistic as well as pacifistic. And before you say it's lazy because it's just going along with what's popular, and obviously he was unique in being a Christian, Christianity had spread to that part of the world.


I think quite a few Marxists would say that one could practice religion in peace, and I think there are anarchists who follow the Bakunin line of thought regarding religion. Thus I don't think it's fair to say that it's only Marxists who are anti-religion.

I did say "possibly," though I will concede your point there. The day they send in squads to my house to make sure I'm not secretly worshiping, though, is the day anarchy has failed.

[Invincible Summer]

I won't deny I have no empirical evidence for the existence of my deities, but I will argue that I have the right to worship as I will as long as doing so doesn't hurt anyone. I do said worship primarily by praying and making offerings (usually bits of food or drink, which are used up by nature). In traditional pagan cultures, the word "sacrifice" didn't mean you were giving up something important to you, but that you felt you were sharing with the gods. There is no "original sin" so you aren't trying to "buy forgiveness" as in Judeo-Christian systems.

That's very interesting. I find religions whose deities more or less reflect nature or facets of humanity to be quite fascinating. Paganism in particular seems to be very much "co-existing" with spirituality rather than obedience and service as in Judeo-Christian beliefs. Perhaps that's just my naive interpretation.



That's quite a sweeping statement. Would you argue that Leo Tolstoy, author of War and Peace was intellectually lazy? He was fined ludicrous amounts of money for writing his book "The Kingdom of God is Within You," which urged Christians not to pay taxes, and claimed that Jesus' teachings were anarchistic as well as pacifistic. And before you say it's lazy because it's just going along with what's popular, and obviously he was unique in being a Christian, Christianity had spread to that part of the world.
I have not even attempted to read either of those books.

What I mean by intellectually lazy is that most arguments stemming from Judeo-Christian beliefs are just cop-outs. "We don't know because it's God's plan." "Only god knows that, we trust in god" etc. Everything is like deus ex machina... "jesus rose from the dead... why? How? Cuz he's Jesus, duh"

[Adi Shankara]

What I mean by intellectually lazy is that most arguments stemming from Judeo-Christian beliefs are just cop-outs. "We don't know because it's God's plan." "Only god knows that, we trust in god" etc. Everything is like deus ex machina... "jesus rose from the dead... why? How? Cuz he's Jesus, duh"

I think you would enjoy reading into Max Planck, who first theorized quantum theory. He was a devout church attending protestant who actually had some consistent beliefs on Christianity that were more than just "he was jesus and jesus said so".

I mean, they influenced my belief against positivism quite a bit. at the least, it's entertaining reading.

[Conquer or Die]

Mistaking the ethics and spiritual for the dogmatic.

I'll say this again: The example of John Brown. Which self proclaimed revolutionary or leftist or humanist or believer in any type of equality would mouth against John Brown? John Brown might be the most significant traitor and martyr in the history of the United States, and he based his devotion to Bible and his understanding of Christ.

It's not the mind-numbing bend of traditionalized dogma that is what is suggested to be good about Christianity, it's the content within it. There is content in the book whether that hurts your feelings or not. It just might be, from a completely materialist standpoint, the most important book of all time. You might say that this is proof of why the world is bad, and that would automatically make you an idiot or a misanthrope, likely both.

[Comrade Gwydion]

Hi, I'm a pagan myself, though not neccesarily from the reconstructionist type.

I think religion, in itself, is put in OI as a happy home for the occasional ultra-conservative or fundamentalist that visits here, so that they can spout their "Jeebus hates fags and pinko's"-things around here, whilst being replied to by one of the many christian marxists we have on revleft.

At the same time, I think most of us religious/spiritual leftists are secular, so we rarely feel the need to discus our beliefs on a political forum.


summarized, I think religion is in OI for mere practical reasons, rather than from a thoughtout opinion about religion.

[#FF0000]

Considering that anarchists (at least if they know what they're talking about) would be perfectly fine with letting me practice my religion in peace, and the ONLY ideology represented on RevLeft that would go against me having my faith would be (possibly) Marxism, why is Religion an "opposing ideology?"

Just to keep preaching out of the main forum, basically, and so people can discuss religion without being accused of preaching.

[Raúl Duke]

The reason why religion is in OI is more because of its influencing aspect. As a political/cultural/societal influence religion has fought against progress (i.e. revolution is evil, rationality is a "Devil's whore" according to Martin Luther, etc) and has been a champion for reactionary policy, causes, and perspectives. One current example would be how religion is playing a part as being against equal rights for homosexuals. Also, religion's fighting against "science" is still ongoing considering how religion has inspired the people who argue for the rejection of evolution (and saying it should not be taught in school) and sometimes even the idea that the planet is older than what the bible says it is.

As someone's personal belief however, as long as they keep it personal, it does no harm (although I will still think its non-sense but that's just my personal opinion) to some degree.

[Adi Shankara]

The reason why religion is in OI is more because of its influencing aspect. As a political/cultural/societal influence religion has fought against progress (i.e. revolution is evil, rationality is a "Devil's whore" according to Martin Luther, etc) and has been a champion for reactionary policy, causes, and perspectives. One current example would be how religion is playing a part as being against equal rights for homosexuals. Also, religion's fighting against "science" is still ongoing considering how religion has inspired the people who argue for the rejection of evolution (and saying it should not be taught in school) and sometimes even the idea that the planet is older than what the bible says it is.

As someone's personal belief however, as long as they keep it personal, it does no harm (although I will still think its non-sense but that's just my personal opinion) to some degree.

not every religion is like that though; Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are forbidden from participating in politics, as well as Jains and some sects of Hinduism and buddhism; that and what about the religious groups that have been at the forefront of anti-fascist action (like the Catholic bishops who bravely broke with Rome in defense of the Sandanistas against the capitalist dictatorship?)

[LimitedIdeology]

The reason why religion is in OI is more because of its influencing aspect. As a political/cultural/societal influence religion has fought against progress (i.e. revolution is evil, rationality is a "Devil's whore" according to Martin Luther, etc) and has been a champion for reactionary policy, causes, and perspectives. One current example would be how religion is playing a part as being against equal rights for homosexuals. Also, religion's fighting against "science" is still ongoing considering how religion has inspired the people who argue for the rejection of evolution (and saying it should not be taught in school) and sometimes even the idea that the planet is older than what the bible says it is.

As someone's personal belief however, as long as they keep it personal, it does no harm (although I will still think its non-sense but that's just my personal opinion) to some degree.


Actually, Martin Luther's thoughts on rationality were more complex than that. He put Christian faith as the foundational epistemology, with reason supporting that (He was arguing against those who did it vice versa).

Also, I don't think that one can keep religion private (especially if it's Christianity). Nearly all religions have a political and social component that requires action and participation based on those beliefs.

[Raúl Duke]

Also, I don't think that one can keep religion private (especially if it's Christianity). Nearly all religions have a political and social component that requires action and participation based on those beliefs.

Thus why an OI, since a large historical majority of real-world practice of religion has been reactionary.

Current stuff are opposition to gay marriage/equal rights, opposition to evolution/etc, opposition to equality for women, and out-right discrimination (for example, legal discrimination and oppression for homosexuals in Uganda).


that and what about the religious groups that have been at the forefront of anti-fascist action (like the Catholic bishops who bravely broke with Rome in defense of the Sandanistas against the capitalist dictatorship?)

The good done by the explicit religious have been:
1)small or less examples
2) dissident factors away from the church leadership, doctrine, and/or the majority of the practitioners.


ot every religion is like that though; Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are forbidden from participating in politics, as well as Jains and some sects of Hinduism and buddhism

Consider that the forum is located in Germany, part of it (perhaps a small part) has to do with Western bias towards Christianity and Islam than ever considering (at an equal paring) any of the far-east religions.

[Adi Shankara]

The good done by the explicit religious have been:
1)small or less examples
2) dissident factors away from the church leadership, doctrine, and/or the majority of the practitioners.



I promise you, the work of the Nicaraguan Catholic church wasn't "small or less" of an example, and even so, it still runs contrary to your belief that religious groups always stood in the way of progress; another example would be the Buddhist monks who opposed the fascist Tatmadaw in Burma back in 2008, or the monks who rallied the less partisan peasants behind the Pathet Lao.

[Raúl Duke]

I promise you, the work of the Nicaraguan Catholic church wasn't "small or less" of an example

small relative to the Spanish inquisition

Also, I doubt their influence over the Sandinista's perception is not at the same calibre as the negative influence religion has been having in school boards in the US or in having missionaries support the anti-homosexual Ugandan bill.

Use comparisons, in isolation an example might seem "big" but when you compare it to something else you can see it is not.

[Adi Shankara]

small relative to the Spanish inquisition

Either way, what does it matter? it is still a positive contribution, not a negative one, and it's a subjective thing, so you can't weigh it like that, esp. when most religious conflict has a political under-tension; in the Spanish Inquisition, the goal was to remove the Moorish influence that challenged the power of the Spanish crown; it was hardly religious in nature (about as religious as the Palestine conflict is).

if you look at any religious conflict, there is almost always a political motivation behind it. that's also why I don't blame every atheist alive for the Stalinist purges of religious people, because lets face it, there was a political motive behind it.

if every religion was destroyed tomorrow, we'd just find some new shit to fight about (South Park parodies this pretty well actually with the atheist leagues fighting each other over a name)

[Raúl Duke]

Either way, what does it matter?

The thread is wondering why religion is in OI.

I'm giving a possible explanation of the reasoning that could've been used to put religion in OI.


if every religion was destroyed tomorrow, we'd just find some new shit to fight about

I don't deny that.