I am okay with religion as long as...

[Mahatma Gandhi]

... it is kept private; as long as people keep it to themselves. As long as, as long as, as long as ...:mad:

This 'as long as' bothers me. If communists curb a person's freedom in this way, they're more like dictators, then. There is nothing illegal or immoral in preaching in public; there is nothing illegal or immoral in trying to 'convert' people; there is nothing illegal or immoral when it comes to spreading religious ideas in writing, speeches etc. In fact, curbing such freedoms is immoral and disgusting.

On the one hand, communists are offended if they're called dictators and wax eloquent on how democracy is an integral part of communism and so on. But they hold views which only dictators often have; it seems they like to contradict themselves all the time.

Mahatma

[#FF0000]

There's nothing illegal or immoral or authoritarian in being annoyed by people preaching at you either.

There's nothing immoral about not liking people trying to push laws based on their stupid religion either, which is what people are talking about when they talk about people "forcing religion down their throat"

It's not as if this only bothers communists either.

Get a grip, kid.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

People can believe or not believe any religion they want as long as this does not hurt other people. Requiring school prayer, restricting or denying women's reproductive rights, denying schoolchildren the right to have decent sex education or to learn the scientific method, or denying people basic rights because of their sexual orientation, all hurt other people and are not acceptable. All these are, or were huge religious issues in the US.

Religious organizations are politically powerful in the US and elsewhere. Many of these institutions are incredibly corrupt and hypocritical. Endemic pedophilia within the Catholic Church, near constant sex scandals in Christian fundie groups, and general indoctrination against rational thinking. I would oppose religiously based private education because children should have the right to make up their own minds.

Also-there's no reason why a Christian could not be a socialist but it is not possible to have a religiously based socialist party. It rapidly becomes a form of identity politics not based on the working class.

Having said all this though, people should be free to believe anything they want about the "Ultimate Reality".

[BuddhaInBabylon]

in the way of contradiction, humans surpass all else, however when it comes to religion, only god is better at contradicting himself.

[x371322]

This 'as long as' bothers me.

Okay. Would you rather I said I'm not okay with religion? It sucks. Is that better?





There is nothing illegal or immoral in preaching in public

Not really, no. It's just really fucking annoying. I don't know about you, but I don't really respond well to being threatened with eternal damnation.





there is nothing illegal or immoral in trying to 'convert' people

See above.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Where I used to live I was constantly inunated by people from fundamentalist Christian groups wanting to convert me. At times, going to or from work or going shopping I would have to run a gauntlet of people handing out religious flyers, "Chick pamphlets" or "spreading the good news". If people want to mention their beliefs, fine, but this type of proselytizing is a public nuisance and should be banned.

Why do some (but not all) Christians feel the need to constantly force their beliefs on others.

[Blackscare]

This 'as long as' bothers me. If communists curb a person's freedom in this way, they're more like dictators, then. There is nothing illegal or immoral in preaching in public; there is nothing illegal or immoral in trying to 'convert' people; there is nothing illegal or immoral when it comes to spreading religious ideas in writing, speeches etc. In fact, curbing such freedoms is immoral and disgusting.

As others have said, it's really just a matter of it being condescending, annoying bullshit nobody wants to be bombarded with.


Although, coming from the primitive religious-moralistic perspective that you do, which dictates that something is only bad if there's a threat of eternal damnation attached to it, I can see how you would lack the social tact and respect to realize that you should leave people alone and not bother them with your religious views.


I hate this about Christians, who feel like they're so morally superior. They're only really afraid of punishment, the good things they do aren't because they are necessarily nice people, but because they feel the need to kiss cosmic ass to get into some fairytale heaven. If they were really kind and good people, they'd stop shoving their shit down other people's throats left and right.

HUR DUR I AM MORALLY JUSTIFIED IN ANNOYING/PERSECUTING YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN, SEE IT SAYS SO RIGHT IN THIS 2000 YEAR OLD PHONE BOOK RIGHT HERE!

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Where I used to live I was constantly inunated by people from fundamentalist Christian groups wanting to convert me. At times, going to or from work or going shopping I would have to run a gauntlet of people handing out religious flyers, "Chick pamphlets" or "spreading the good news". If people want to mention their beliefs, fine, but this type of proselytizing is a public nuisance and should be banned.

Why do some (but not all) Christians feel the need to constantly force their beliefs on others.

Compassion, I guess.:)

Anyway, salespeople are also annoying to some, but you don't make a big deal out of it. In fact, life is full of these pinpricks and if we keep reacting to them, we're only going to hurt ourselves.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

As others have said, it's really just a matter of it being condescending, annoying bullshit nobody wants to be bombarded with.

So in communist societies, you'll ban things which are annoying, huh? No rational basis, just ban anything that you believe is annoying.:rolleyes:

[Mahatma Gandhi]

There's nothing illegal or immoral or authoritarian in being annoyed by people preaching at you either.

But communists don't just get annoyed and leave it at that; they act on it and the result is that people suffer persecution.

[Blackscare]

I never said I'd ban them, I don't know what you're getting at.

Another thing I hate about Christians: they view any attempt to stop them from intruding in other people's lives as repression!

[edit]

Although I may not ban that kind of stuff (assuming I ever had that kind of power, lol), if I thought I could get away with it I'd definitely fling some boiling water in your face if you knocked on my door with that horse shit.

[edit part deux]

I would however make it a law that repeated visits to a person's home in an attempt convert someone who does not want to be converted or is not interested would be considered harassment and illegal. That and any other kind of repeated religious harassment for the purpose of converting people.

Christians in particular can be very persistent and continue to harass someone for a long time in order to "save their soul" even if the person is not interested. Hang 'em.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Although I may not ban that kind of stuff (assuming I ever had that kind of power, lol), if I thought I could get away with it I'd definitely fling some boiling water in your face if you knocked on my door with that horse shit.

You're so full of anger and hate, Greyscare. Are you sure you don't want Jesus in your life?;)

[Ele'ill]

... it is kept private; as long as people keep it to themselves. As long as, as long as, as long as ...:mad:

This 'as long as' bothers me. If communists curb a person's freedom in this way, they're more like dictators, then. There is nothing illegal or immoral in preaching in public; there is nothing illegal or immoral in trying to 'convert' people; there is nothing illegal or immoral when it comes to spreading religious ideas in writing, speeches etc. In fact, curbing such freedoms is immoral and disgusting.

The idea that people need a superior being to follow in order to accomplish things such as social justice is restricting. A lot of the ideas surrounding religion prevents social justice from actually occurring- such as the idea of 'non-violence' - 'turning the other cheek' and the basic concept of following god and trying to convert people to that religious belief in order to change the world-


If there were a group of militant christians using the same tactics and whom had the same ideology as say- anarchists- I'd be a little less worried- in fact I'd say that they'd stop being religious and would just be anarchists at a certain point in their ideological evolution.


You cannot change the world through prayer and you cannot change the world by donating money to and attending a church every sunday.

It gives people a false sense of security.



On the one hand, communists are offended if they're called dictators and wax eloquent on how democracy is an integral part of communism and so on. But they hold views which only dictators often have; it seems they like to contradict themselves all the time.

You're going to have to be more specific than this. THIS type of statement is why some on this forum call you a troll.

[Blackscare]

You're so full of anger and hate, Greyscare. Are you sure you don't want Jesus in your life?;)

Because Christians don't provide endless examples of hatefulness and anger, right? ;)


Oh, I forgot, everything bad done in the name of Christianity is an aberration, while everything bad done by any other religion is evidence of it's inherent evilness. K. :laugh:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Christian fundamentalists often elicit hostility from others because of their smugness and self satisfied attitude of superiority to others. If they choose to aggressively proselytize, as they often do, they should not be surprised when non-believers show hostility.

I'm not a Christian but there have been Christians who found some solution to their problems after prolonged inner struggle. People like Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Paul Tillich, and others. Christian fundamentalism offers simplistic, easy answers.

Christian fundamentalism is an emotional addiction. This disease preys on people with low self esteem. They hate themselves, but now its okay, "Jesus" will give them unconditional love.People then become addicted to the inner certainty that they are always right. I've had many "Christians" tell me, at length, what terrible people they were before they were "saved". They were alcoholics, stoners, they beat their wife, etc. Everything is okay now, they found Jesus. To me they just traded one addiction in for another.

I have family members who became caught up in this disease. Its very sad.

[Klaatu]

This is ridiculous how modern-day religion (esp Christianity) embraces capitalism... Do they not know that Christ himself was Communist, and hated "capitalists?" (He overturned the tables of merchants and moneychangers in the temple.) Christ would be appalled if he could see how so-called "Christians" have embraced the "devil" in their lust for worldly, material things (that is, capitalism)

[#FF0000]

But communists don't just get annoyed and leave it at that; they act on it and the result is that people suffer persecution.

Communists do that now?

[Ele'ill]

I also don't believe that a lot of the Christians and other religious people out there do anything worthy of saving by their own god's standards. Their god would be more likely to accept into heaven an atheist militant anarchist that has actually fought for the same justice that Jesus did or would.

When approached with this topic many people simply say something along the lines of 'it's between me and god' and 'I know what I felt and saw when I was saved' which basically turns the entire idea of religion into an unapproachable and unquestionable idea.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So in communist societies, you'll ban things which are annoying, huh? No rational basis, just ban anything that you believe is annoying.:rolleyes:Do you want our personal opinions on religion as in your examples "I'm ok with it as long as" (which is a personal opinion) or do you want to know what we think workers would or should do after a revolution?

Personally I find it annoying if someone tries to convert me and I make it clear that I am not interested but they persist. If I ask someone if they want to be a socialist and they decline, I say: "fine" and do not attempt to actively convince them to become a socialist - and I certainty don't consider them "evil" and "damned" for not agreeing with me - they are only "evil" or "part of the problem" if they are directly working against workers in the class struggle and are racist or something.

Often Christians do leave me alone after I decline their advances... but I have also been harassed even after I made it clear I was not interested - any level of common sense would tell anyone that this is crossing a line. So yes, I do find it annoying when people yell at me or get all moralistic on me (this goes for moralistic liberals or vegetarians too).

As far as what I would argue for in a worker society: freedom of and from religion. Religion should not be outlawed IMO, but attempts at organizing to deprive people or groups in the working class of rights (including depriving the entire working class of their rights as in an external or internal counter-revolution) should be opposed by workers. So I think workers after a revolution should shut down actively anti-semetic or Islamophobic or homophobic christian churches - but not because of their religion, but because of the oppressive politics. The same for any organized bigots using religion as an excuse.

Even if I personally was against religion, a democratic society which banned it would not get rid of it. I'm not against religion in the abstract though, and so what people do to make themselves happy is not my business nor would it be the business of workers councils or whatever - as long as what people do, does not hurt or directly infringe on other people.

[Invincible Summer]

... it is kept private; as long as people keep it to themselves. As long as, as long as, as long as ...:mad:

This 'as long as' bothers me. If communists curb a person's freedom in this way, they're more like dictators, then. There is nothing illegal or immoral in preaching in public; there is nothing illegal or immoral in trying to 'convert' people; there is nothing illegal or immoral when it comes to spreading religious ideas in writing, speeches etc. In fact, curbing such freedoms is immoral and disgusting.

On the one hand, communists are offended if they're called dictators and wax eloquent on how democracy is an integral part of communism and so on. But they hold views which only dictators often have; it seems they like to contradict themselves all the time.

Mahatma

Preaching infringes on other people's rights to not have bullshit pushed upon them. It's like a form of verbal abuse.

[DragonQuestWes]

In fact, curbing such freedoms is immoral and disgusting.

So let me get this straight:

It's not infringing our freedoms when you try to convert us?

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

... it is kept private; as long as people keep it to themselves. As long as, as long as, as long as ...:mad:

This 'as long as' bothers me. If communists curb a person's freedom in this way, they're more like dictators, then. There is nothing illegal or immoral in preaching in public; there is nothing illegal or immoral in trying to 'convert' people; there is nothing illegal or immoral when it comes to spreading religious ideas in writing, speeches etc. In fact, curbing such freedoms is immoral and disgusting.

On the one hand, communists are offended if they're called dictators and wax eloquent on how democracy is an integral part of communism and so on. But they hold views which only dictators often have; it seems they like to contradict themselves all the time.

Mahatma
So if I run up to someone and start threatening them that if they don't follow my way of life they will be tortured for all eternity, it shouldn't be considered harrassment if it was talking about some god?

I like the whole generalization that all Communists are hungry for for Christian blood, too.

It's fine to believe in whatever you want to, but to openly harrass and threaten innocent people with eternal damnation is a different story. Last I checked, salespeople don't usually just yell out unwanted, spiritual threats.

[NGNM85]

... it is kept private; as long as people keep it to themselves. As long as, as long as, as long as ...:mad:

This 'as long as' bothers me. If communists curb a person's freedom in this way, they're more like dictators, then. There is nothing illegal or immoral in preaching in public; there is nothing illegal or immoral in trying to 'convert' people; there is nothing illegal or immoral when it comes to spreading religious ideas in writing, speeches etc. In fact, curbing such freedoms is immoral and disgusting.

On the one hand, communists are offended if they're called dictators and wax eloquent on how democracy is an integral part of communism and so on. But they hold views which only dictators often have; it seems they like to contradict themselves all the time.

Mahatma

While I find religion to be hateful, primitive, and backwards. I am 100% opposed to any attempt to infringe on religious freedom, which is really just a subset of freedom of expression. Of course, I'm an Anarchist.

[Barry Lyndon]

While I find religion to be hateful, primitive, and backwards. I am 100% opposed to any attempt to infringe on religious freedom, which is really just a subset of freedom of expression. Of course, I'm an Anarchist.

No, your not. Your a liberal.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Oh boy, let me try again.:rolleyes:

Most people here present the following argument: I hate it when someone thrusts his religion down my throat. 2) I don't like to be threatened with eternal damnation.

Your whole argument is based upon these two points, and these two points in turn are based upon your personal preferences. Don't you see how silly that makes you look?

Another person might as well say: communism must be banned and all communist literature must be destroyed, no communist party must be allowed, no communists should be allowed to share their views in public. Why? Because I find them annoying, duh! I hate it when these commies threaten me with their proletarian revolution stuff.

Get my drift? Or perhaps not...:rolleyes:

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Communism and religious proselytizing are not the same thing. Advocacy of communism is working for a different way of organizing society beyond the oppressive and irrational control of capital. Religious proselytizing is when someone attempts to convert me to accepting their particular view of how the universe functions. Whether or not one regards this view as "true", it is not rational, that is it cannot be verified by rational thought. About 100 years of historical research and literary criticism have pretty much debunked the bible as literal truth.If one wants to regard the bible, or any other religious text as truth in a metaphorical sense,(a good case could be made for this) or if one wants to retreat into a form of obscurantism and blind faith, that is their right, but these people do not have the right to insist I do likewise. Religion and spirituality have to be a private matter.

I don't know any Marxist worth their salt today who wants to ban religion. This is a misunderstanding of the Marxist method.

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

[#FF0000]

Oh boy, let me try again.:rolleyes:

Most people here present the following argument: I hate it when someone thrusts his religion down my throat. 2) I don't like to be threatened with eternal damnation.

Your whole argument is based upon these two points, and these two points in turn are based upon your personal preferences. Don't you see how silly that makes you look?

Another person might as well say: communism must be banned and all communist literature must be destroyed, no communist party must be allowed, no communists should be allowed to share their views in public. Why? Because I find them annoying, duh! I hate it when these commies threaten me with their proletarian revolution stuff.

Get my drift? Or perhaps not...:rolleyes:

No because those are totally different situations. No one here is calling for all religious material to be destroyed. That's stupid. There is really nothing wrong with being annoyed at someone preaching at you.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

These are links to good resources for arguing with and opposing Christian fundamentalists.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/fundamentalists/testimonies/guillaume.html

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/cgi-bin/webring/list.pl?ringid=anon

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/fundamentalists/index.html

[danyboy27]

look, you can have your churches, holy sites, fallower, its allright has long has its kept out of politics, and really, we could even give you a nice building where all religion could advertise their bullshit, if people are interrested in religion they could go there, no problems!

this way, mature adult people could learn about a religion they are interested in, and vulnerable people will be protected against it.

we dont want to burn all religious book and kill all the priest, we just want to protect vulnerable people from being manipulated, and keep the society running without religion fucking it all up.

[Barry Lyndon]

This is the problem with the mentality of religious fanatics-either they dominate society and are allowed to shove their crap down your throat, or they start bawling about being 'persecuted'!
Fuck you and you whining. Just shut up.

[Peace on Earth]

There is a difference between thinking someone isn't quite bright if they believe in an invisible sky-man and actively persecuting them for that belief.

I don't like the idea of religion in the first place, and while it should never be forced on anyone, know one here (at least I hope) is suggesting active repression of spreading religion through personal freedoms (speech, press, etc.).

[Stand Your Ground]

This is how the world should be after communism is established:

Two people are walking down the street towards each other.

Person 1: Hi there, would like to learn about my religion?

Person 2: No, but thank you anyway.

Person 1: Ok, have a nice day.

Person 2: Thanks you too.

Simple as that. We need to respect each others religions or lack thereof, and leave it at that, no persecuting of the religious and no shoving religion at athiests. :thumbup1:

[Invincible Summer]

Fuck you and you whining. Just shut up.


Hey comrade, calm down. Consider this a verbal warning.

[Barry Lyndon]

Hey comrade, calm down. Consider this a verbal warning.

I'm sorry. But this isn't the first moronic thread 'Gandhi' here has started. It would be one thing if he was new here and just wanted to learn, but he obviously is not interested in that and just wants to harass the members.
I have no problem with religious people per se, but it pisses me off when they come up to you and are not even interested in having a civil exchange of views, but instead want to broadcast their conceited moral superiority to your unenlightened self.

[NGNM85]

No, your not. Your a liberal.

You have no idea what my beliefs are because you've never asked. You also clearly don't understand what 'Liberal' means.

[Adi Shankara]

There is a difference between thinking someone isn't quite bright if they believe in an invisible sky-man and actively persecuting them for that belief.

typical European chauvinism, assuming that everyone's belief entails an "invisible sky-man".

very few religions have that invisible sky man; some sects of Christianity don't even have it.

[Adi Shankara]

This is how the world should be after communism is established:

Two people are walking down the street towards each other.

Person 1: Hi there, would like to learn about my religion?

Person 2: No, but thank you anyway.

Person 1: Ok, have a nice day.

Person 2: Thanks you too.

Simple as that. We need to respect each others religions or lack thereof, and leave it at that, no persecuting of the religious and no shoving religion at athiests. :thumbup1:

To be honest though, that's how I always see it done around here where I live.

[x371322]

typical European chauvinism, assuming that everyone's belief entails an "invisible sky-man".

very few religions have that invisible sky man; some sects of Christianity don't even have it.

"Invisible sky man" doesn't always have to mean a God. Whether your invisible friend is a God, or a ghost, or karma, spirits, reincarnation, ouija boards (lulz), flying spaghetti monsters, etc., doesn't matter. In the end it's all the same mumbo jumbo, that always comes down to an inability to deal with death (perhaps understandably so). Never the less, "Invisibile sky man," to me, is just a metaphor, for bullshit (in all it's forms).

No offense. That's just the way I've always looked at that phrase. :)

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Another person might as well say: communism must be banned and all communist literature must be destroyed, no communist party must be allowed, no communists should be allowed to share their views in public. Why? Because I find them annoying, duh! I hate it when these commies threaten me with their proletarian revolution stuff.
It'd be great if you could quote someone on this thread who actually said that we should ban all Christian literature, or destroy it. Because it must be a post that is only visible to you.

And for the record, simply pointing out 2 of our arguments without disputing either and then calling us 'silly' doesn't make much sense.

[Conquer or Die]

Mostly butthurt and crocodile tears on this thread. I don't care if you're annoyed or offended at Christianity or any religious proselytizing.

And I also don't care if a person who is lead in Divine pursuits decides to go into politics or business.

These things matter, but they don't matter to any goals of the Communist movement. The communist movement may or may not benefit. There might even be a rational, plural democracy within the communist system under such conditions.

The problem is not, "Jesus told me to tell you to believe in him for eternal life." The problem is, "Jesus told me to murder you" or "Jesus told me to make money for my own benefit while oppressing others in the process." The latter two are not compatible with any sort of functioning society, the first is a necessary component of a functioning society. If you disagree then you're going to fail.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Mostly butthurt and crocodile tears on this thread. I don't care if you're annoyed or offended at Christianity or any religious proselytizing.

And I also don't care if a person who is lead in Divine pursuits decides to go into politics or business.

These things matter, but they don't matter to any goals of the Communist movement. The communist movement may or may not benefit. There might even be a rational, plural democracy within the communist system under such conditions.

The problem is not, "Jesus told me to tell you to believe in him for eternal life." The problem is, "Jesus told me to murder you" or "Jesus told me to make money for my own benefit while oppressing others in the process." The latter two are not compatible with any sort of functioning society,

Versions of this, killing in the name of religion, happens all the time. Christianity is no exception.Fleecing gullible people in the name of religion also happens on a massive scale in the US and other countries.



the first is a necessary component of a functioning society. If you disagree then you're going to fail.

What are you talking about? Religious beliefs have very little to do with whether or not an individual or society will "fail". Most people in China today are essentially atheists. Much of the population of the UK or western Europe are agnostics or atheists. If its necessary to have a religion in order not to "fail", then how do we know which is the correct one? There are many to choose from.

I am not opposed to religion. I am opposed to the dominant role religion plays in US society. I am opposed to aggressive proselytizing and missionary activity.US sponsored missionary activity has done a lot of damage to indigenous societies. In some cases, like the recent tragedy in Haiti, US missionary organizations have become thinly veiled kidnapping rings.

[Raúl Duke]

This 'as long as' bothers me. If communists curb a person's freedom in this way, they're more like dictators, then. There is nothing illegal or immoral in preaching in public; there is nothing illegal or immoral in trying to 'convert' people; there is nothing illegal or immoral when it comes to spreading religious ideas in writing, speeches etc. In fact, curbing such freedoms is immoral and disgusting.

Stop being an obtuse moron.

When people say that, they mean the religious pushing religiously inspired laws or interpretations into state/government/etc policy.

For example, in the U.S. Christians want to make gay marriage illegal, want to teach creationism in schools, etc.

Hell, if they could get away with it they would make homosexuality illegal (such as the case with the Ugandan anti-gay bill).

This kind of politicking is what people here are usually implicitly referring to when they speak of "I'm fine with religion as long as they're not pushing it on people."

[Klaatu]

This kind of politicking is what people here are usually implicitly referring to when they speak of "I'm fine with religion as long as they're not pushing it on people."

Exactly. Religion-followers do not push their religion, par se, it is the agenda they push (anti-gay, anti-abortion, prayer in schools, etc)
that is the problem. They need to keep their opinions to themselves.

[Conquer or Die]

Versions of this, killing in the name of religion, happens all the time. Christianity is no exception.Fleecing gullible people in the name of religion also happens on a massive scale in the US and other countries.

"Killing in the name of"




What are you talking about? Religious beliefs have very little to do with whether or not an individual or society will "fail". Most people in China today are essentially atheists. Much of the population of the UK or western Europe are agnostics or atheists. If its necessary to have a religion in order not to "fail", then how do we know which is the correct one? There are many to choose from.

I am not opposed to religion. I am opposed to the dominant role religion plays in US society. I am opposed to aggressive proselytizing and missionary activity.US sponsored missionary activity has done a lot of damage to indigenous societies. In some cases, like the recent tragedy in Haiti, US missionary organizations have become thinly veiled kidnapping rings.

China is a good example. No democracy, just economics. No socialism, rather consolidated capitalism. Religion might be of benefit to this system, or may it be necessary for any functioning system because it is recurrent throughout history.

Most religions are ultimately adverse to forcing people to enter into belief systems unless they are forced to deny their belief systems. The only clear cut example of forced religion is in India with the Caste system.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

"Killing in the name of"




China is a good example. No democracy, just economics. No socialism, rather consolidated capitalism. Religion might be of benefit to this system, or may it be necessary for any functioning system because it is recurrent throughout history.

Most religions are ultimately adverse to forcing people to enter into belief systems unless they are forced to deny their belief systems. The only clear cut example of forced religion is in India with the Caste system.

Most religions when they had hegemony over society very aggressively forced people to accept their belief systems.When early missionaries began proselytizing in Norway a Christian king had many elderly women killed, the "killing of the grandmothers". This was designed to break the link with the pagan past. Europe also experienced witch burnings, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Thirty Years War. Islam, while not great, during most of its history was actually far more tolerant. Christianity was one of the most bloodthirsty "belief systems" in human history. One could say of course that this wasn't the true teachings of Jesus, but the fact remains that this occurred. This intense intolerance was due to material causes of course, the backwardness of the Middle Ages and the role the Church played in backing the feudal means of production. It is possible the "superstructure" took on a life of its own separate from the material "base".

The same is true of other religions. Early pagan systems-ancient Egypt, the Aztec religion, etc. functioned as a way of organizing and mobilizing society for extraction of surplus wealth. Systems based on scripture, tradition, and religious scholars as in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Confucianism played the role I mentioned in supporting a landed aristocracy.

Religion has different and more complex roles under capitalism. Religion has always been a tool of the ruling class but also has functioned as means of rebellion against the ruling class. Taoist uprisings in China, early Islam, Mennonite uprisings in early capitalist Europe,and Liberation Theology today, are examples.

To understand the role if religion in society and how this has changed its important to understand societies relationship to the means of production.

[Philzer]

Hi!



Religion has different and more complex roles under capitalism. Religion has always been a tool of the ruling class but also has functioned as means of rebellion against the ruling class.

To understand the role if religion in society and how this has changed its important to understand societies relationship to the means of production.

Religion is a step of conscious in the history of the anthropogenesis.
Let’s see what it brings for the psyche of the individual:

1. Religion as theory of cognition

2.a.& b. Religion as rulers affirmation & justify corruption (exploitation-aspects)

3. Religion as comfort

4. Religion as ethic/ strategie

to 1st:
As a theory of cognition it works until today for the majority of mankind, mostly for all individuals with lower education, but not only, as shown in further explanation.

A nice sentence by Nietzsche related to this aspect:

Religion is the will to winter sleep.

to 2nd:

2a) benefit for rulers:

Since the class society is this function most important for the rulers. Marx said in class society religion has become ideology.
This you can imagin as a special kind of "knowledge of domination". I.E. the rulers are emancipated from believing in god, but they let the their people "ditching in the fog".

Even the pantheism of capitalism justifies its principal of the strongest with the in the matter containing spirit.

Quotation of Adam Smith “the egoism of the individual brings automatically the material prosperity off all people” means exactly this. If this would be true who cares about nature, environment and so on – God of course?

2b) benefit for rulers a n d crowds:

religion to justify corruption:
- democracy(pantheism): justifies exploitation of other peoples and the nature
- pre-democratic societies ( Polytheism/ Monotheism): exploitation of nature and the "own" women/ family (latent slavery in family)

The missing of both of these elements in the crowd was the reason for the instability of the real exist socialism!

to 3rd:
As Marx said is religion “...opium for the people...”
It summarises things like waiting for a saviour/redeemer; a better life in heaven or in next life, or for the capitalism: the technologies of future will solve all problems of mankind.

Generally you will find in all religions that problems will be shifted in an uncertain future. This principle is part of its opportunism.

-->> consequently you will find this strategy by all rhetor-bourgeois (thanks to Thomas Mann for create this "category" of professional liars)

to 4th:
But in my own researches I found out that all these points are not most important for people to be religious.
I also have not the same opinion at this point like Richard Dawkin. He means that religion is only an indoctrination.
In fact is it a spiritual offer which is willingly accepted by individuals of a certain conscious.
The most motivation for the individual is the ethic aspect because:

Religion is the easiest way to justify the own existence, the own willing and the own acting, with no chance for the human spirit to disprove.

This means the individual use their religion as strategy.


In following by Nietzsche’s sentence I say, related to ethic aspect, which is conditioned the behavior of each religious individual:

Religion is the will to be right without sanity.

You can see this in overpopulation and/ or overconsumption by mankind until today.

Religion is a partially carry over of rules, principles and consequences of unconscious life**, like carelessness (overconsumption of biotopes) and fall back into powerlessness in war.*

(explain: * war is always a result of overconsumption/overpopulation. **the animal cannot recognise the time, and the religious individuals ignore the long time consequences of their acting, this is what I call opportunism)

Conclusion:

I think, to overcome the opportunism in society, like capitalism for example, there must be a scientific ruled society.

I think in communism is no place for every kind of opportunistic strategies like religious systems!

-->> communism and religion never can work togehther! It´s a dream!
And a bad one! See the collapse of the real socialism. All the religious people has sabotaged the scientific system, day by day, a little with her behaviour, and today they are proud of it!

Kind regards

PS: even you must understand the real religion of capitalism:

Democracy is the being of pantheism. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html)

[tradeunionsupporter]

I think religion is bad because humans don't make a better life in this world.

[Sir Comradical]

How are we curbing a person's freedom by expressing annoyance when they sell us their idiotic religion? Having a half-decent bullshit detector to sniff out the monumental fail that is religion doesn't make us dictators.

Face it Mahatma, when you die there is nothing absolutely nothing and when your loved ones die, you will never see them again. That's most probably what's going to happen.

[Adi Shankara]

Face it Mahatma, when you die there is nothing absolutely nothing and when your loved ones die, you will never see them again. That's most probably what's going to happen.

but see, it'd be one thing if you could prove it empirically...but you can't. no one can. so until you can, that's just faith.

[Salmonella]

This 'as long as' bothers me. If communists curb a person's freedom in this way, they're more like dictators, then. There is nothing illegal or immoral in preaching in public; there is nothing illegal or immoral in trying to 'convert' people; there is nothing illegal or immoral when it comes to spreading religious ideas in writing, speeches etc. In fact, curbing such freedoms is immoral and disgusting.

On the one hand, communists are offended if they're called dictators and wax eloquent on how democracy is an integral part of communism and so on. But they hold views which only dictators often have; it seems they like to contradict themselves all the time.

But if your opinion is that religion is okay as long it is private etc. why not tell it if someone asks you what you think about religion?
Religious propaganda and to be brainwashed by some religion, is that really something good? I would never rule over someone, I would let people do what they do. But I would say what my opinion is on their acts.

All communists aren't like that. And only because you think something, you do not automatic do that.

[Bud Struggle]

Preaching infringes on other people's rights to not have bullshit pushed upon them. It's like a form of verbal abuse.

Doesn't that go for the "preaching" of Communism, too?

Really: if one "ism" can preach--so can all of the other "isms." If Communists want to go out and protest or try to convince--shouldn't others be given equal venue--and lest the best "ism" win?

[mikelepore]

Doesn't that go for the "preaching" of Communism, too?

Really: if one "ism" can preach--so can all of the other "isms." If Communists want to go out and protest or try to convince--shouldn't others be given equal venue--and lest the best "ism" win?

Religion or politics -- I don't think any of them, unsolicited, should be allowed to knock on my door, call my telephone, or send me postal mail or email. All of them should be allowed to distribute literature on the sidewalk, give lectures in auditoriums, and make web sites.

[Quail]

but see, it'd be one thing if you could prove it empirically...but you can't. no one can. so until you can, that's just faith.

It isn't blind faith to predict what might happen after death based on scientific research, whereas inventing an afterlife and then believing it is.

I think that people should have a right to believe in whatever they want, but people's religious beliefs should not interfere with society as a whole. I firmly believe that religion ad politics should never mix, and that religious nonsense such as creationism should never be taught in school instead of evolution and real, scientific theories.

[Black Sheep]

I'm ok with religion as long as it's fucking destroyed.

[Invincible Summer]

Doesn't that go for the "preaching" of Communism, too?

Really: if one "ism" can preach--so can all of the other "isms." If Communists want to go out and protest or try to convince--shouldn't others be given equal venue--and lest the best "ism" win?


No, because Communism is right ;).


In all seriousness though, I think politics and religion are totally different arenas and should be treated as such. I think it's more permissible for political groups to canvass for members, but I still wouldn't like it if someone just came up to me and wanted to talk about the Communist Party of Canada.

But I have never seen such a thing happen. Since when do political parties/organizations approach you and try to get you to "believe?"

[Adi Shankara]

It isn't blind faith to predict what might happen after death based on scientific research, whereas inventing an afterlife and then believing it is.

I think that people should have a right to believe in whatever they want, but people's religious beliefs should not interfere with society as a whole. I firmly believe that religion ad politics should never mix, and that religious nonsense such as creationism should never be taught in school instead of evolution and real, scientific theories.

what about our own living existence? that by any means is illogical, so should we not believe in that?

because science can't discern thoughts, nor can it discern what tastes good, what music is pleasurable to one's ear, nor can it capture any other subjective experience.

So since science only structures the mind as a bunch of synapses and chemical reactions in one's brain...doesn't that simplify the mind too much?

[Sir Comradical]

but see, it'd be one thing if you could prove it empirically...but you can't. no one can. so until you can, that's just faith.

Which is why I said "most probably".

[Adi Shankara]

Which is why I said "most probably".

that's a weasel term. it doesn't mean anything. It's just there to give someone an escape if they get caught being wrong on something they were certain of.

[Raúl Duke]

that's a weasel term. it doesn't mean anything. It's just there to give someone an escape if they get caught being wrong on something they were certain of.

It ain't a "weasel term"; because if it is than basically agnosticism, an epistemological position, would be "wrong." Plus other things, like rationalism.

No one can (or has) claim to be 100% objective, accurate, or correct; only that they're more likely correct over other interpretations, theories, answers, etc.

Consider that many interpretations/theories/etc have been upheld only to later fall across, it's better to say that with our current knowledge xyz theory/interpretation/answer is most likely relative to any other currently available.

[hobo8675309]

agreed. if a church goes to africa and saves ten lives, what harm is there in expressing to the people they saved that they were motivated by jesus? religion is a less authoritarian institution than leftism, which recruits new members not through mission work, but through propoganda. the leftist movement ought to try to model itself after religious institutions, which appear to be more sucessful as far as recruiting new members. what difference does it make when an anarchist tries to "convert" people political when a christian or hindu does the same spiritually?

[Raúl Duke]

religion is a less authoritarian institution than leftism, which recruits new members not through mission work, but through propoganda. the leftist movement ought to try to model itself after religious institutions, which appear to be more sucessful as far as recruiting new members.

*facepalm*

Not all leftist depend on propaganda work, focus solely on recruiting/propaganda, etc.

Plus, religion does not always do "mission work" for recruitment (they use a fair amount of propaganda as well) and even than, some mission work is solely propaganda and no real material aid.

[Philzer]

Hi!


On the one hand, communists are offended if they're called dictators and wax eloquent on how democracy is an integral part of communism and so on. But they hold views which only dictators often have; it seems they like to contradict themselves all the time. Mahatma

Religion is a step of consciousness between animals and human, which merged the human creativity with the strategies of the unconscious life, like carelesness (permanent overcrowding & overexplotation of biotop which ever leads to starvation and war ) and also the principles of the strongest.


motivation for the individual to be religious (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1692105&postcount=125)


for you to understand (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html)what is democracy in real! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html)



Kind regards!