Marx's views on militant atheism and anti-theism

[Adi Shankara]

Now it is a no-brainer that Marx was an atheist, but he certainly wasn't an anti-theist (at least in the modern sense of the word), nor did he see religious people as inherently reactionary like many Marxist atheists do today; in fact, he saw attacking religious people for their beliefs as reactionary.

So my question is, considering Marx's views on militant atheism and anti-theism with this quote from 1842:


"I desire there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogeyman), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people".and you also have to take into account the fact that Marx saw an attack on the religious as an attack on the proletariat:


“The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, ... its moral sanction, its solemn complement and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.
“Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
So while you can conclude that Marx was indeed anti-theist, the sense that he wanted to get rid of theism was through the implementation of communism, not through the bourgeois means of those like Dawkins and Hitchens.

Now I don't agree with most of the Hegelian analysis of religion since it stems only from what seems to be an understanding of western faiths, and that the belief that most worship only for boons, when some worship (esp. in ancestor worshipping societies) for questions as simple as what is a good food to eat on what holiday. However, I can indeed see that much of religious bigotry and racial bigotry arise through these condition postulated.
any thoughts?

P.S: here is an interesting thesis written by someone who believed that Marx wasn't necessarily atheist, but anti-clerical:

http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/atheism.htm (http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/works/atheism.htm)

[Rusty Shackleford]

though i am an anti-theist i recently dropped my militant anti-theist position. ive since then maintained a strong secular stance. religion is also something that i see as a phase in human progress. like class structure over time.

most of the oppressed people see religion as one of the few good things in their lives, and it only alienates them from those who seek to work with them if communists go around blasting something an oppressed person or worker may believe in strongly.

also, there are those who see their religion as "a personal relationship with god." even though that is something ive only heard in the US, it is something i think is correct. religion is a personal matter.

then it comes to states like Iran where religion and state are heavily intertwined. I strongly support Iran as an independent nation acting as one of the few counter weights to US and Israeli dominance in the middle east, but i find it hard to actually defend the iranian government completely because it is so tied to religion. I would much rather see a workers' state but i have no power in deciding that.

[Crimson Commissar]

All the major religions of today are organised religions. To be anti-clerical you pretty much have to be an anti-theist. I don't see how we can ignore the complete backwardness of religion when it's the 21st damn century. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, they are all harmful to humanity and preach ignorance and complete devotion to an oppressive god, or multiple gods. The only way religion can ever become truly socialist in nature is if we abandon organised religion.

[NecroCommie]

but he certainly wasn't an anti-theist (at least in the modern sense of the word), nor did he see religious people as inherently reactionary like many Marxist atheists do today;
There is no "modern" sense for the word anti-theist. Those ideas are nearly identical to what they were in Marx's time. Also, no marxist anti-theist has ever attacked religious people, or claimed them as inherently reactionary. It is not that hard to understand the difference between religion and religious people.

[RedStarOverChina]

Marx was not strongly anti-religion not because he liked religion---but because he didn't think militant atheism was necessary. Marx was clearly wrong about it.

He predicted that religion would soon "wither away" even if nothing is done about it. That did not happen. At least not in most parts of the world. Apparently religions fought back and successfully maintained its relevance.

Something as deep-rooted as institutionalized superstiiton must be fought against for it to collapse.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

How do you actually draw your claim that "Marx saw an attack on the religious as an attack on the proletariat" from Marx's


The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, ... its moral sanction, its solemn complement and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

“Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

Never does he even come close to saying that an attack on religion is an "attack on the proletariat." What he's talking about is his famous view that religion is an illusion. He sees it as akin to a psychoactive substance that transforms indignation at real suffering into something else. It is no more than an opiate. That may have been an effective painreliever in the 1800s, but nobody would seriously suggest that the world's real problems can be solved by taking opium.

Marx didn't say that religious believers were bad; he didn't say that we should kill any believers, imprison them, or restrict their ability to congregate and pray in church. In that much, you are right. He does think that religion is going to whither away once humanity completes its self-understanding. But he clearly saw religion as a problem, and not as some kind of progressive force.

And he would have been very displeased to see religious ideas gaining ground over atheism and secularism on the radical left.

The problem with religion, from my point of view, isn't that religion is necessarily bad. Not every religious believer is a pawn of the reactionaries, and yet it remains that religion has more capacity for harm than good. It has progressive elements, but these elements are more than equally counterbalanced by the reactionary elements. The reactionary elements are much more powerful where religion exists as an institutional force, but even the more "enlightened" type of believer retains some reactionary ideas, however subtly these may be expressed.

What is it that tends to make religion more harmful than not? Its function in society in general.

The fact that religion is anti-rational and divisive is what makes it a plainly backward phenomenon.

Firsty, the anti-rational element: unlike decent philosophy or modern science, religious faith does not and cannot provide any real, tangible answers: its funciton is to teach that there is some ineffable, intangible, and unknowable force somewhere out there beyond the ken of rational human knowledge. The more bigoted religious believers essentially see this as an angry Father-God in the sky who punishes us for our sins whenever we disobey his commands; yet even the non-fundamentalist believer at best sees this as some kind of mystical force or some kind of ineffable loving Goodness in the universe -- this is an unknowable power, and also cannot be explained in rational terms. ("Rational religion" is, indeed, a contradiction in terms: if it were rational, it would no longer be a mere belief.)

Secondly, the divisive element: the more serious religious believer tends to see his or her own religious community as morally superior, since it is his faith that holds the real answers to key moral and ontological dilemmas and/or leads to salvation.

A truly religious Christian woman will strongly prefer that her daughter only marry someone who will consent to the baptism of her grandchildren, since this is essential to their "salvation." The devout Jewish mother does not wish to see her son marry outside of the holy Chosen People of Judaism. The Islamic faith forbids women from marrying non-Muslims (although Islamic men are free to procreate with women from outside the tribe.) Because religion is ultimately man-made, it merely creates and perpetuates artificial divisions between various human beings and the various communities among all humankind. That cannot be a progressive thing.

As stated already, not all religious believers are reactionary or evil; many even hold very progressive views. Some may even be motivated by religion to do good things. You could even point out that some Catholic priests asssisted Jews during the Holocaust. And yet, the fact that the Soviet communists during the war did even more -- both individually and collectively -- to provide aid for their country's Jewish population underscores the fact that doing noble things doesn't require religious faith. A rationalist is no less capable of aiding humanity. So, what good is religion, if that's the case?

As Marx very clearly understood, to hold that religious feeling is more effective than rational thought for certain desirable ends essentially means to accept belief in God over belief in man. The greater your faith in the powers of reason, the lesser your acceptance of metaphysical superstition; the greater your faith in humanity, the lesser your need to seek refuge in religious faith and all other forms of anti-rational mysticism.

[The Feral Underclass]

religious people as inherently reactionary like many Marxist atheists do today

Can you identify to me these Marxists or anti-theists who have that opinion.


So while you can conclude that Marx was indeed anti-theist, the sense that he wanted to get rid of theism was through the implementation of communism, not through the bourgeois means of those like Dawkins and Hitchens.

Which is what? What are these bourgeois means?

[The Feral Underclass]

=most of the oppressed people see religion as one of the few good things in their lives, and it only alienates them from those who seek to work with them if communists go around blasting something an oppressed person or worker may believe in strongly.

Does that mean we shouldn't attack workers who believe that immigrants should be shot or that homosexuals should be imprisoned?

The view that "the worker" must be protected from ideas that might offend them is not only patronising, it's totally counter-productive to actually achieving any process of debate or "class conscience" building.

Marx also said "debate is progress", and in that I think he meant we should not be hiding away from difficult debate. Yes, people have very strong beliefs, but it doesn't stop those beliefs from being fundamentally wrong, unjustified or positively harmful to society.

Our aim should be to foster discourse and develop ideas, not shy away from confronting reactionary beliefs because we don't want to upset people. It's all well and good saying "let's create communism", but that's not going to end the millennia of social conditioning. We have to challenge these ideas and show, rationally, why they are wrong.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Does that mean we shouldn't attack workers who believe that immigrants should be shot or that homosexuals should be imprisoned?

The view that "the worker" must be protected from ideas that might offend them is not only patronising, it's totally counter-productive to actually achieving any process of debate or "class conscience" building.

Marx also said "debate is progress", and in that I think he meant we should not be hiding away from difficult debate. Yes, people have very strong beliefs, but it doesn't stop those beliefs from being fundamentally wrong, unjustified or positively harmful to society.

Our aim should be to foster discourse and develop ideas, not shy away from confronting reactionary beliefs because we don't want to upset people. It's all well and good saying "let's create communism", but that's not going to end the millennia of social conditioning. We have to challenge these ideas and show, rationally, why they are wrong.

not at all am i saying that someone, even if they are a worker, holds deeply reactionary views shouldnt be suppressed. what is a nazi(modern NSM type fucks)? many are dispossessed white workers. would i defend them? no! do some, if not all, uphold protestant christian values? yes. does my stance of not blasting people on religion mean i wont attack them because they are christian? of course not! they are hardcore reactionary bastards. it doesnt matter if they are workers, theists, or atheists. reaction is reaction.

what i was trying to say, is that we should just go around saying "fuck god, you are an idiot for believing in such superstitions." dont hide your disdain for superstition, but dont be an ass about it either. there are bigger fish to fry than your average religious person.

yes, religion is a source of reaction, but so is the objectivist capitalists who may actually be an atheist.

when you are trying to get someone to help you, do you insult them for something immediately, or try to provide a reason to help you?

the masses of the working class and oppressed people are not idiots. they may be living under false-conscience but they know what they want, class conscious or not. the cause of the problem may be skewed in their eyes but that is what we are for. to raise consciousness and clarify things. for some, religion is like that cigarette that people look forward to after a shitty day.

this is my opinion on how to work with religious people.

i think there is no god, i even asked god to strike me down, there was even a witness. i say god damn at least ten times a day. im not soft on religion, im only soft on religious people. clergy are a different matter though.

[The Feral Underclass]

what i was trying to say, is that we should just go around saying "fuck god, you are an idiot for believing in such superstitions." dont hide your disdain for superstition, but dont be an ass about it either. there are bigger fish to fry than your average religious person.

[...]

when you are trying to get someone to help you, do you insult them for something immediately


But who does that? :confused:

This is one of those crazy strawman arguments that gets created somehow, I don't really know how. Probably as a convenient response to actual rational debate that emerges against reactionary ideas. I hear it all the time. It's as if people expect others to think like this because you're attacking someone as stupid. I suppose it's easy to conflate an attack on someone's belief and the person who believes it, but that's just a lazy way to respond to the reality of anti-theist ideas.

But who seriously goes around saying all this to working class people? It doesn't happen.

[Rusty Shackleford]

But who does that? This is one of those crazy strawman arguments that gets created as a convenient response to actual rational debate that emerges against reactionary ideas. I hear it all the time. Who seriously goes around saying all this to working class people?
mostly militant left-liberals. they have no tact sometimes.

there are no holds on what can be discussed when a communist/anarchist are discussing something with someone.

discuss it with people. but dont be so harsh as to actually drive them further into reaction.

im not disagreeing with anyone about anti-theism. im just disagreeing with being overly militant about it.

[bcbm]

Who seriously goes around saying all this to working class people?

well how do you start a conversation than, smart guy?

[The Feral Underclass]

well how do you start a conversation than, smart guy?

:confused:

Are you seriously asking me how I start conversations with other human beings? Erm, well, not insulting them is usually a good first step...

[Rusty Shackleford]

:confused:

Are you seriously asking me how I start conversations with other human beings? Erm, well, not insulting them is usually a good first step...

i think BCBM was making a joke about what i said and then you saying that no one does what i said. BCBM is therefore implying that what i said(which does not occur regularly on the left) is actually the norm, and you are the anomaly.

[The Feral Underclass]

mostly militant left-liberals. they have no tact sometimes.

Such as who?


discuss it with people. but dont be so harsh as to actually drive them further into reaction.

How do you "drive" someone "further into reaction"? What does that actually even mean?


im not disagreeing with anyone about anti-theism. im just disagreeing with being overly militant about it.

You're continuing to conflate the issue of attacking belief and attacking people. Being "overly militant" isn't the same thing as being insulting. You can be "overly militant" and not a dick at the same time.

I'm not going to moderate my militancy, ever. But I'm also not going to be rude to people. Or at least try very hard not to be.

[The Feral Underclass]

i think BCBM was making a joke about what i said and then you saying that no one does what i said. BCBM is therefore implying that what i said(which does not occur regularly on the left) is actually the norm, and you are the anomaly.

Oh I see.

I did think that was a pretty odd question...You can never tell with bcbm :p

[bcbm]

Are you seriously asking me how I start conversations with other human beings?

yes:blushing:


i think BCBM was making a joke about what i said and then you saying that no one does what i said. BCBM is therefore implying that what i said(which does not occur regularly on the left) is actually the norm, and you are the anomaly.

i wasn't saying anyone was the norm or correct, just implying i like to start conversations with "fuck god you're an idiot":thumbup1:

[Rusty Shackleford]

Such as who?
people like 'the angry atheist' or any hardcore liberal college student. i dont know of any organizations though.




How do you "drive" someone "further into reaction"? What does that actually even mean? im going to use an extreme example. you purt a gun in someones faces who happens to be a strong ideological opponent. you just validated all of their views of your ideology being brutish, crazy, or violent.




You're continuing to conflate the issue of attacking belief and attacking people. Being "overly militant" isn't the same thing as being insulting. You can be "overly militant" and not a dick at the same time.

I'm not going to moderate my militancy, ever. But I'm also not going to be rude to people. Or at least try very hard not to be.you are right, i am confusing militancy with being an ass. im starting to develop a bad argument because im now on the side of defending religion:lol:

seriously though, dissent against religion, just dont be rude(like you said).

[Adi Shankara]

"How do you actually draw your claim that "Marx saw an attack on the religious as an attack on the proletariat...?"

Considering he states that religion is the inverted conscious of the oppressed creature, you can draw the conclusion that any attack on religious proletariat is an attack on the proletarians themselves.

Notice he doesn't claim this about racial ignorance or sexism; just religion.

[Adi Shankara]

people like 'the angry atheist' or any hardcore liberal college student. i dont know of any organizations though.



im going to use an extreme example. you purt a gun in someones faces who happens to be a strong ideological opponent. you just validated all of their views of your ideology being brutish, crazy, or violent.



you are right, i am confusing militancy with being an ass. im starting to develop a bad argument because im now on the side of defending religion:lol:

seriously though, dissent against religion, just dont be rude(like you said).

The fact that these questions even have to be asked shows that TAT has very little experience communicating Leftist Ideas away from the computer screen; It's not rocket science to know that you just don't outright attack one person's ideas.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

"How do you actually draw your claim that "Marx saw an attack on the religious as an attack on the proletariat...?"

Considering he states that religion is the inverted conscious of the oppressed creature, you can draw the conclusion that any attack on religious proletariat is an attack on the proletarians themselves.

Nope. That doesn't follow at all.

Criticism of religion -- which Marx engaged in a lot -- isn't an attack on "religious proletarians"; it's an attack on religious views that these religious proletarians happen to hold. You now try to backhandedly turn this into a tautology by attempting to rephrase it in a tatuological way, but that's not going to cut the mustard.

Substitute the word "fascist" for the word "religious" and you can clearly see the absurdity: "an attack on fascist proletarians would also be an attack on the proletariat." In a primitive sense, yes -- but so what?

As far as religion and the whole oppressed creature bit, it's kind of significant that Marx saw religion as an instrument of oppression as well.

You should read more of him.


Notice he doesn't claim this about racial ignorance or sexism; just religion.

Yeah, I kind of noticed. Perhaps you anticipated my post and think that this distinction somehow invalidates my above analogy? (Marx, who's actually discussing Hegel's philosophy, confines the discussion to religion and not issues of racial ignorance or sexism. The fact that racist and sexist views aren't mentioned in that context isn't a refutation. The article in question is concerned with religious ideas and the development of philosophy.)

The flaw in your argument would be a lot more obvious if only you were not quoting Marx as selectively. In fact, the same piece by Marx that you quoted in your original post also has it that:


The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

That comes from Marx's critique of Hegel's idealist philosophy. Here is a link to the whole thing, in case you'd like to read the whole of it: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

[Crimson Commissar]

Considering he states that religion is the inverted conscious of the oppressed creature, you can draw the conclusion that any attack on religious proletariat is an attack on the proletarians themselves.

Notice he doesn't claim this about racial ignorance or sexism; just religion.
So we should defend and protect the beliefs of the religious just because the workers also happen to share such beliefs? You can't just defend something just because a part of the working class like it. Some workers are not only religious, but religious fundamentalists too. Should we defend the beliefs of a Christian who wishes to oppress homosexuals based on his religion? Should we defend the beliefs of a muslim who is a strong supporter of sharia law? Of course not. Modern organised religion is an entirely right-wing and reactionary concept. Any attempts to merge religion with socialism result in a complete mess, a fusion of both left-wing socialist ideas and right-wing reactionary ideas. We leftists must oppose religion just as we would oppose capitalism. It is just as vicious, cruel and reactionary as capitalism is and it must be treated as such.

[Raúl Duke]

Considering he states that religion is the inverted conscious of the oppressed creature, you can draw the conclusion that any attack on religious proletariat is an attack on the proletarians themselves.When in recent times have you seen Marxists or anarchists physically attack religious workers? Even in Lenin's time it didn't happen. I see strawman

What did happen was an attack on religious ideas, which is not surprising because every revolution also includes a "war of ideologies" which includes a frontal assault on all the ideas that held the old order and in many cases this would also include an attack on religious or superstitious ideas. The most physical this has ever gotten was attacks against the clergy and/or burning down religion institutions but in those cases the head church was a power institution that oppressed people directly, was a direct player in the old order, and even joined the counter-revolutionaries.

Criticizing religious ideas is fair game and is very normal to see this on a forum too, no matter how much people complain about it.

Marx's position is based more on the idea that the socialist movement should not concern itself much with attacking religious ideas since our current society includes a modest trend of secularization. (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html)

This doesn't mean that Marxists should "respect," "agree," or entertain religious ideas: Marx claimed that his branch of socialism is based on materialism and has no time for supernatural rubbish.

[~Spectre]

Marx was not strongly anti-religion not because he liked religion---but because he didn't think militant atheism was necessary. Marx was clearly wrong about it.


Evidence?

[Palingenisis]

Evidence?

Marx's views on religion came from Freubach (hence the quote about it being the heart of a heartless world..) so he saw it as a product of human alienation that would disappear with that alienation...

[The Vegan Marxist]

Lenin had the same views as well on why militant atheism is not of Marxist values:


The proletariat in a particular region and in a particular industry is divided, let us assume, into an advanced section of fairly class-conscious Social-Democrats, who are of course atheists, and rather backward workers who are still connected with the countryside and with the peasantry, and who believe in God, go to church, or are even under the direct influence of the local priest—who, let us suppose, is organising a Christian labour union. Let us assume furthermore that the economic struggle in this locality has resulted in a strike. It is the duty of a Marxist to place the success of the strike movement above everything else, vigorously to counteract the division of the workers in this struggle into atheists and Christians, vigorously to oppose any such division. Atheist propaganda in such circumstances may be both unnecessary and harmful—not from the philistine fear of scaring away the backward sections, of losing a seat in the elections, and so on, but out of consideration for the real progress of the class struggle, which in the conditions of modern capitalist society will convert Christian workers to Social-Democracy and to atheism a hundred times better than bald atheist propaganda. To preach atheism at such a moment and in such circumstances would only be playing into the hands of the priest and the priests, who desire nothing better than that the division of the workers according to their participation in the strike movement should be replaced by their division according to their belief in God. An anarchist who preached war against God at all costs would in effect be helping the priests and the bourgeoisie (as the anarchists always do help the bourgeoisie in practice). ~Vladimir Lenin (The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion)

[Crimson Commissar]

Lenin had the same views as well on why militant atheism is not of Marxist values
Religion is far more reactionary than militant atheism will ever be. Just because Lenin encouraged co-operation between atheists and the religious almost one hundred years ago, doesn't mean that all communists automatically have to agree with it.

[Volcanicity]

Religion is far more reactionary than militant atheism will ever be. Just because Lenin encouraged co-operation between atheists and the religious almost one hundred years ago, doesn't mean that all communists automatically have to agree with it.
But Lenin is talking specifically about co-operation during a strike,and seeing the workers as workers and supporting them as such,and not seperating them into religious groups.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Religion is far more reactionary than militant atheism will ever be. Just because Lenin encouraged co-operation between atheists and the religious almost one hundred years ago, doesn't mean that all communists automatically have to agree with it.

You're right, not every Communist has to agree, but I'm sure every Marxist-Leninist will. Plus, you completely took what Lenin stated out of context. It's better to co-operate with the religious when it came to strikes & what not, & that you're far more likely to get them to embrace atheism with such co-operation than to merely demonize them.

[Crimson Commissar]

You're right, not every Communist has to agree, but I'm sure every Marxist-Leninist will. Plus, you completely took what Lenin stated out of context. It's better to co-operate with the religious when it came to strikes & what not, & that you're far more likely to get them to embrace atheism with such co-operation than to merely demonize them.
Co-operating with religion will only further prolong the existence of religious beliefs. Of course, I'm not saying that I would not co-operate with religious communists during a revolution. But the majority of leftists seem to have become too tolerant of religion, saying that "all the reactionary beliefs will just go away when we have socialism" or even denying that religion is reactionary in any way at all. This way of thinking has to stop.

[NecroCommie]

But Lenin is talking specifically about co-operation during a strike,and seeing the workers as workers and supporting them as such,and not seperating them into religious groups.
No, he is talking about prioritizing class struggle above religious differences. Completely different thing.

[Volcanicity]

No, he is talking about prioritizing class struggle above religious differences. Completely different thing.
Yes but Lenin was using a strike as an example of unity in class struggle,which is what I was basing my post on.

[NecroCommie]

But the fact that people should be more militant communists than atheists, does not mean that we cannot be militant atheists.

[Volcanicity]

But the fact that people should be more militant communists than atheists, does not mean that we cannot be militant atheists.
Yes I agree,Im as atheistic as much as being a Communist.Theres nothing wrong in being militant in both.The only difference is I dont pay much attention to being an atheist,whereas being a Communist I do.

[Queercommie Girl]

Although I personally don't agree with the methodology of militant anti-theism, because it clearly fails to understand the socio-economic origins of religious superstition, I don't really see why people should waste time and energy to argue against anti-theism either and actually stand on the side of religion.

Personally I usually do not attack religion directly, only its explicitly reactionary postulates, such as homophobia/transphobia, racism/sexism, and when religion politically apologises for the reactionary feudal or bourgeois state.

But religion is not just reactionary because it is politically oppressive. Even politically unoppressive "religions" like primitive tribal religions are still reactionary because they are not scientific. They are fundamentally opposed to the scientific process, and to critical thinking in general. They make people adhere to or reject certain ideas solely on the basis of blind faith and traditional "inertia".

Science opens people's minds, religion closes them. For instance, most scientifically-oriented people would have no problem with imagining a future society where gender in the biological sense has been literally transcended. But many "spiritual" people (not just those who subscribe to traditional Western religions) find it difficult to accept, because their minds have been made inflexible by blind faith. They think "gender" is something that is "spiritually essentialist", the interplay of Yin and Yang some kind of "cosmic eternity", rather than just a very limited biological phenomenon that probably has virtually no significance in the universe at large.

[Queercommie Girl]

Now it is a no-brainer that Marx was an atheist, but he certainly wasn't an anti-theist (at least in the modern sense of the word), nor did he see religious people as inherently reactionary like many Marxist atheists do today; in fact, he saw attacking religious people for their beliefs as reactionary.


Actually I don't see Marx stating this in the quote you used at all. To be sure, Marxism is not militant anti-theism, but it isn't really anti-anti-theism either.



Now I don't agree with most of the Hegelian analysis of religion since it stems only from what seems to be an understanding of western faiths, and that the belief that most worship only for boons, when some worship (esp. in ancestor worshipping societies) for questions as simple as what is a good food to eat on what holiday. However, I can indeed see that much of religious bigotry and racial bigotry arise through these condition postulated.
any thoughts?
There is no fundamental difference between any religion that exists under class society, whether "western" or "eastern". To state otherwise is to take a reactionary cultural-essentialist perspective, that certain cultures are fundamentally different from others.

Western religions are like neo-liberalism, eastern religions are like welfare keynesianism. In the former case both are superstitious, in the latter case both are capitalist. And just as the "welfare state" under capitalism is a "double-edged sword" as Third Worldism suggests, so are eastern religions. In some ways, the milder "eastern religions" could objectively be even worse than the harsher "western religions" because they blur the line between science and superstition and make people more complacent.

Frankly a lot of the "new age"-style fascination with "eastern religion" is mainly a Western phenomenon. It is related to the fetishisation and mystification of oriental cultures in an orientalist way (read for example Said). For a start, there is no such thing as a systematic "eastern religion". Chinese and Indian religions often differ from each other more than each of them differ from Abrahamic religions. Did you know that the ancient Chinese worshipped a supreme God called Huangtian Shangdi (The Supreme August God of Heaven) during the feudal era that is objectively much closer to the God of Abrahamic faiths than it is to Hindu pan-theism? A temple dedicated to Huangtian Shangdi, the largest Confucian temple in the world, still stands at the Temple of Heaven in Beijing today. Inside is a "spiritual plate" directly addressed to this God.

It makes more sense objectively speaking to divide all religions under class society into four systems: Abrahamic; (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) Dharmic; (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) Daoic; (Confucianism, Daoism) and Mesoamerican. (The religions of the Incas and the Aztecs) rather than use the orientalist division of "eastern" and "western".

Western hippies may have a romantic image of feudal Buddhist Tibet, but try to sell that "spirituality" to the Tibetan serfs who suffered under the Lamas' oppressive feudal rule.

The so-called "eastern religion" as it exists in the Western English linguistic context isn't really "eastern religion" in-itself, but rather eastern religion in the western imagination. Just like "America" in the eyes of the pro-American democracy advocates in China isn't America as it is really like, but rather America in the Chinese imagination.

In the eyes of new age Western hippies, the land of eastern religion is a Shangri-la country of spiritual enlightenment, pacifism and egalitarianism, where violence doesn't exist, and oppressive social structures hold no sway; In the eyes of contemporary pro-American Chinese democracy advocates, the land of American democracy is a country of genuine freedom and individualistic expression, where the equality of opportunity is absolute, cutting across all lines of sex, race, sexuality and gender identity. (The contemporary pro-US LGBT activist Ms Li Yinhe doesn't even recognise that LGBT oppression exists in the US...) In both cases, it's mostly ridiculous naive utopian fantasy.

"Religions" in pre-class tribal societies are intrinsically different, because they are not politically oppressive, only superstitious. But technically they are still reactionary, just qualitatively less so. For instance, why should what I eat or wear be dictated by the whims of "ancestral spirits" anyway?



P.S: here is an interesting thesis written by someone who believed that Marx wasn't necessarily atheist, but anti-clerical:

http://home.mira.net/~andy/works/atheism.htm (http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/works/atheism.htm)
More revisionism?