Religion's impact on society [Archive]

Comrade Marxist Bro

3rd September 2010, 01:27

In history, religion was manily a control defice over the masses. Today (in America) we have the 'Freedom of Religion', but how much of this affects our society? I am an athiest, and I have the belief that the corruption of most religion, only hinders society from any real progression, not that i exactly know where I personally want society (as far as government system) to go. I'm very much a socialist, I think that religion has no true positive impact on today's society that it couldn't get elsewhere. I guess I'm really asking, is if anyone agrees that the first step to progressing society to a more socal society, is through abolishing organized religion.

Futhemore, I'm in no wanting some kind of violent exterpation of religion, I don't want to know theories on how or how impossible this task to be. Just wanting opinions how to progress from the current religious ferver, and hatred that it comes with.

How do you suppose we just "abolish it" without inflicting punishment on people? You want to forcibly shut down all the churches?

Religion just taken by itself just isn't something we should worry much about. The Marxist view is that religion is reinforced by where societies are in terms of their development.

Religions were invented by some primitive tribes where people tried their best to explain the nature of the world. These explanations just exploited ignorance and offered psychological gratification. People who lived near rivers worshipped pagan water gods lest waters overflow; subsistence agriculture prompted the cults worshipping the earth in hope of better crop yields. Religion compensated for a lack of real power in the people's lives.

That's why religion isn't what we should be worried about. It gradually dies away as human beings progress and feel more power over life. The modern world has many atheists; each decade more and more Americans come out as atheists as well. Religion is still strong in places like Pakistan and Sudan, where people live in abject poverty and often get too little education -- and that's the basis for medieval Sharia laws and general superstition. But atheists would have a hard time spreading unbelief there -- an open atheist would just be executed for committing blasphemy.

The best way to get rid of religious bigotry and superstition is to improve people's lives. The more well-educated and secure a person is, the less temptation is there for salvation in the afterlife. The more well-educated and secure a country is, the fewer preachers and less social and legal pressure to conform to some religious dogma.

As far as challenging religious views head on, the best bet is to just discuss and try your best to convince more people. People are not convinced by mere force: "abolishing religion" would just make them hate you.

communard71

3rd September 2010, 01:29

I believe Iseul and graymouser hit the nail on the head as to what religion is according to a Marxist standpoint. However, I read an interesting point of view by M. Mulholland in the most recent Critique in which he writes:
‘As ever, movements highly antithetical and indeed hostile to Enlightenment socialism can benefit from working class collectivism. The urban poor in Muslim societies, let down by the left, have been attracted to the rhetoric of social solidarity and the practical provision of social, health and welfare services by political Islam, a self-conscious movement of extreme anti-modern reaction.” (Pg 416)
Now, as graymouser suggests, should leftists’ give support to oppressed minorities regardless of their political ideology? Or should we lend our limited support to secular minorities? In the end, is the best tactic for “human progress” our unending guerilla war against the capitalist system as a whole or should we attack religion and nationalism specifically? After all, religion is a very major pillar of nationalism and capitalism, and it may be perhaps the most vulnerable target.

TheGodlessUtopian

3rd September 2010, 01:30

There is however a practical issue involved when say specific forms of reactionary stances like homophobia and transphobia are involved. As someone who is both trans and bi, I would find it extremely difficult to co-operate with a religious fundamentalist worker who is explicitly homophobic and transphobic. In such cases, unless the religious worker is willing to change his/her views on LGBT issues, (but not his/her general view on religion) solidarity is simply not possible.

Agreed.As a gay man myself I know that it would be impossible to effectively work with a religious zealot that sees me as a abomination (In the eyes of their fucked up god).

CommunityBeliever

3rd September 2010, 01:32

I think that religion has no true positive impact on today's society

Religion has a major negative impact on today's society.

Queercommie Girl

3rd September 2010, 01:33

graymouser

3rd September 2010, 01:36

Now, as graymouser suggests, should leftists’ give support to oppressed minorities regardless of their political ideology? Or should we lend our limited support to secular minorities?
Well, I think revolutionaries need to be seen as the best and most consistent defenders of the downtrodden and oppressed. The fact that they may have certain beliefs we don't like, whether about religion, capitalism, or whatever, doesn't void those responsibilities. If we don't take up these struggles, we won't have any credibility to speak for the workers. After all, these people are often working class themselves, which we have to deal with.

Comrade Marxist Bro

3rd September 2010, 01:56

Religion in pre-class society was just an attempt to explain the natural world.

But religion in class society also became an ideological tool to justify the supremacy of the ruling class, such as the "divine rights of kings" in Europe and the "mandate of heaven" in China. It is no longer "purely natural" like primitive religion, but has acquired a socio-economic dimension.

Therefore religion in class society will not simply fade away as a result of "better scientific education", because it is fundamental to the structure of class society itself. As long as class society remains, religion in the social sense will remain.

It probably won't go away completely anytime soon. Some lame ideas of various kinds have been long discredited, yet are still held by people in our times. But the religious will dwindle to a small minority in all developed nations unless a catastrophic crisis somehow wrecks the First World living standard and security.

Here's a map of atheists in Europe (by %):

http://xenlogic.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/atheism-europe.jpg?w=500&h=433

Notice that more developed countries tend to have more atheists. Another thing is that a lot of Europeans (most, probably) identify as Christians but do not attend a church, and there are even those who've never read the Bible. And (better-educated) younger people tend to be atheists more than the elderly. It would be hard to argue that First World religion isn't on the wane.

Worldwide, it's been confirmed, the poorest countries are the most religious. (http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/blogs/heather-wax/the-poorest-countries-are-the-most-religious)

Jimmie Higgins

3rd September 2010, 02:40

http://xenlogic.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/atheism-europe.jpg?w=500&h=433

Also interesting to note that Greece has far fewer atheists than the average and yet, the country has been rocked by protests. So I don't think the level of religion correlates with the potential for militant working class action.

France has the most and I think that probably has a lot to do with the legacy of past struggle. So while religion does not prevent revolution, revolutions do tend to weaken religious sentiment IMO.

Comrade Marxist Bro

3rd September 2010, 03:12

Also interesting to note that Greece has far fewer atheists than the average and yet, the country has been rocked by protests. So I don't think the level of religion correlates with the potential for militant working class action.

France has the most and I think that probably has a lot to do with the legacy of past struggle. So while religion does not prevent revolution, revolutions do tend to weaken religious sentiment IMO.

As far as France, both the materialist worldview and open atheism were very much pioneered in France during the 18th century (self-described atheists were pretty much non-existent until then.) Baron d'Holbach, one of the most notable materialists, wrote in defense of atheism. And these ideas were quite big with French liberal radicals during the revolutionary period.

But take a look at Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania. Very few atheists, despite all of those decades spent on the path of building socialism. A Polish woman even faced a church of blasphemy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorota_Nieznalska). A lot of Russians also lapsed back into the Russian Orthodox faith. While these are mostly Christians of the mostly non-church-going type, Putin's administration has been quite pro-Church. (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=9655201)

GPDP

3rd September 2010, 03:22

It probably won't go away completely anytime soon. Some lame ideas of various kinds have been long discredited, yet are still held by people in our times. But the religious will dwindle to a small minority in all developed nations unless a catastrophic crisis somehow wrecks the First World living standard and security.

Here's a map of atheists in Europe (by %):

http://xenlogic.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/atheism-europe.jpg?w=500&h=433

Notice that more developed countries tend to have more atheists. Another thing is that a lot of Europeans (most, probably) identify as Christians but do not attend a church, and there are even those who've never read the Bible. And (better-educated) younger people tend to be atheists more than the elderly. It would be hard to argue that First World religion isn't on the wane.

Worldwide, it's been confirmed, the poorest countries are the most religious. (http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/blogs/heather-wax/the-poorest-countries-are-the-most-religious)

And yet looking at the link and the Gallup poll it cites, the U.S. is a big-time outlier. It's the richest country in the world, but more than two thirds of its population cite religion as an important aspect of their lives. So clearly economic development is not sufficient to explain the decline of religiosity in a country. I like what Gregory Paul says in the link, however:

America’s high-risk circumstances, the strong variation in economic circumstances, and chronic competitiveness help elevate rates of social pathology, and strongly contribute to high levels of personal stress and anxiety. The majority of Americans are left feeling sufficiently insecure that they perceive a need to seek the aid and protection of a supernatural creator, boosting levels of religious opinion and participation.

So it appears another big factor in religiosity is economic inequality and the utter lack of social welfare and atomization, all of which are overwhelming aspects of American daily life.

communard71

3rd September 2010, 03:50

Well, I think revolutionaries need to be seen as the best and most consistent defenders of the downtrodden and oppressed. The fact that they may have certain beliefs we don't like, whether about religion, capitalism, or whatever, doesn't void those responsibilities. If we don't take up these struggles, we won't have any credibility to speak for the workers. After all, these people are often working class themselves, which we have to deal with.

I disagree. Many if not most oppressed groups are by virtue of their location or some other feature (i.e. the Ya̧nomamö, the Zapatistas) enemies of capitalism. However, there are notable exceptions. I Certainly would not support Wahhabism or Sedevacantists because I consider their world view reprehensible, regardless of how oppressed they are. As a communist, I want reason and equality to trump violent superstition, that’s the most important thing.</SPAN>

fa2991

3rd September 2010, 04:15

I'm more tolerant of religion than a lot of atheistic communists. I used to think it was just a plague, but then I read up on the religious underpinnings of such wonderful socialists as Leo Tolstoy and Dorothy Day...

leninfan

3rd September 2010, 04:28

I have read conflicting reports on Lenin and the Jews... Anyone have a take on the subject? Agnostic Jew.

777

3rd September 2010, 04:52

Invincible Summer

3rd September 2010, 05:37

A lot of anti-theist views on religion are actually quite small-minded tbh.

I find most anti-theists are specifically anti-Abrahamic religion (Christianity/Judaism/Islam), but mostly Christianity.

It would definitely be interesting to hear from someone living in China or India that is an anti-theist and speaking out against Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

Queercommie Girl

3rd September 2010, 10:58

I still don't see what the problem with religion is or how it effects people in such a bad way.

A lot of anti-theist views on religion are actually quite small-minded tbh.

Religion and spirituality are integrel to the human psyche. I'm with Jung on this one baby.:thumbup1:

I'm not explicitly anti-religion despite being a materialist, unless the religious people begin to oppose LGBT rights. Then I have no choice but to strike back, even if objectively it negatively affects working class unity.

Queercommie Girl

3rd September 2010, 11:02

Well, I think revolutionaries need to be seen as the best and most consistent defenders of the downtrodden and oppressed. The fact that they may have certain beliefs we don't like, whether about religion, capitalism, or whatever, doesn't void those responsibilities. If we don't take up these struggles, we won't have any credibility to speak for the workers. After all, these people are often working class themselves, which we have to deal with.

It's not so simple though.

You assume that different oppressed groups do not have intrinsic antagonisms amongst themselves, but that is not the case. What about say the antagonism between LGBT workers and religious workers who are anti-LGBT? How would you solve such a contradiction?

Engaging with every layer of workers despite their beliefs is not the same as actually believing that "every belief is fundamentally permissible". Ideological principles are also important.

Marxists should not directly attack religion, sure, but that doesn't mean it is ok for Marxists to become non-materialists. We have a philosophical duty to remain materialists.

Queercommie Girl

3rd September 2010, 11:29

I find most anti-theists are specifically anti-Abrahamic religion (Christianity/Judaism/Islam), but mostly Christianity.

It would definitely be interesting to hear from someone living in China or India that is an anti-theist and speaking out against Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

The difference between Abrahamic religion and eastern religion is like the difference between neo-liberal capitalism and keynesian capitalism.

Quantitatively one is less reactionary than the other, but qualitatively both are still reactionary.

I'm not going to be deluded to think that keynesianism is more friendly to socialism due to its better workers' welfare, and I'm not going to be deluded to think that eastern religion is more friendly to dialectical materialism just because it is not monotheistic.

Take LGBT rights. In ancient Christian cultures LGBT people were largely not tolerated, whereas in ancient Buddhist cultures there is a social niche for "Third Sex" people.

However, does this mean "Third Sex" people in ancient Thailand were treated equally and with respect? I really don't think so.

I'm a radical LGBT activist which means I'm not going to be satisfied until we get nothing less than full equality. Therefore qualitatively Christianity and Buddhism are just as bad as each other with respect to LGBT rights, because both religions do not treat LGBT people equally. Christianity demonises LGBT people, while Buddhism patronisingly say LGBT people exist because of bad karma in the past but should still be treated with compassion.

But we don't want patronising "compassion", we want respect and equality. In a fundamental sense to say that we exist because of bad karma is just as bad as burning us to death on a stake. I think even the slightest discrimination against LGBT people is not permissible.

graymouser

3rd September 2010, 11:33

You assume that different oppressed groups do not have intrinsic antagonisms amongst themselves, but that is not the case. What about say the antagonism between LGBT workers and religious workers who are anti-LGBT? How would you solve such a contradiction?
I don't assume that, and I'm not "for" going soft on things like homophobia and reactionary ideas because a group is oppressed by the larger society. These things have to be opposed forthrightly.

What I'm trying to get at is that the duty to defend oppressed groups from specific forms of bigotry and hatred should not be compromised by the fact that we disagree, often in extreme fashion, with their beliefs and practices. Disagreeing with Islam should not prevent us from opposing Islamophobia in the United States or Europe, although at the same time we should not capitulate to reactionary ideas within Islam about women or LGBT people. An anti-religious attitude, at least here in the US, can feed the racist tide of Islamophobia.

These are complicated questions, I agree, but their layers don't mean that we get to abandon principle at any point - whether it's the defense of one oppressed group or that of another.

Rjevan

3rd September 2010, 16:35

In history, religion was manily a control defice over the masses.
It is still the same today.

I still don't see what the problem with religion is or how it effects people in such a bad way.
Have a look at the "holy books" of the main religions, you won't have any trouble spotting reactionary ideas. If a religious person faithfully believes in and follows these dogmata (as they are expected to do, there are always colourful paragraphs outlining what should be done to those who dare to doubt or have another faith) then it's inevitable that he/she holds various reactionary ideas.

Religion serves the ruling class to hold down the oppressed and expolited masses by reassuring them that everybody deserves his place on earth, rising up against the God given order is a terrible sin and that nobody mustn't be harmed, no matter how evil he is, for he will be punished by God (if he's an infidel God suddenly wants us to start the punishment, seems like punishment in heaven isn't enough for them) while the poor will be rewarded in heaven (only if they are faithful, honour their masters and priests and know their place, of course).

Fascist groups also gladly accept the religious support they get, that hasn't changed since the times of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, etc. All the nazi propaganda aiming to fuel Islamophobia wouldn't be half as influential and acceptable if they didn't rable about "Muslims destroying our Christian culture", a "reversed crusade" and relied on slogans like "Christian land in Christian hands!"

Of course, sometimes religion can play a progressive role but only for a very limited time, just compare the role of Islam in the Iranian revolution 1979 and the role of Islam in justifying the power and actions of the ruling class in Iran today.

Religion and spirituality are integrel to the human psyche
Human psyche is nothing fixed, it is a product of material conditions. That religion/spirituality isn't integral is already proven by the existence of atheists. ;)

Religion is rooted in specific socio-economic conditions and until those are transformed simply dealing with the superstructure means nothing. Base determines superstructure.
Absolutely agreed. Everybody who thinks that fighting religion should be the main task and that this way religion can be overcome and completely destroyed in the capitalist system is simply advocating and following a delusion.

Yet it would also be wrong to ingore religion (Iseul, I know that you don't suggest this), thinking that this issue is of no importance since socialism/communism will solve the problem anyway. "Explicitly reactionary stances" are generally inevitable components of religion which shouldn't really be surprising, considering the ages which have gone by since most of the "holy texts" were written.

So while we shouldn't focus on religion we should definitely outline its nature and fight its reactionary influence. Marxists should directly attack religion whenever necessary (and not counter-productive). Education - be it on religion, racism, sexism or anything else - alone won't solve the problem but it will contribute to the general awareness of the working class.

Polyphobic

3rd September 2010, 16:51

You guys really helped me out on this. I appreciate the Marxist views, and especially Comrade Marixst Bro, for the atheist opinions. You really articulated what i meant to say, with your first post. Excited to have all this information guys!

Invincible Summer

3rd September 2010, 17:28

The difference between Abrahamic religion and eastern religion is like the difference between neo-liberal capitalism and keynesian capitalism.

Quantitatively one is less reactionary than the other, but qualitatively both are still reactionary.

I'm not going to be deluded to think that keynesianism is more friendly to socialism due to its better workers' welfare, and I'm not going to be deluded to think that eastern religion is more friendly to dialectical materialism just because it is not monotheistic.

Okay... I wasn't saying that Eastern religions are superior to Western ones. All I was asking was to hear an informed, critical viewpoint of Eastern religions.

Take LGBT rights. In ancient Christian cultures LGBT people were largely not tolerated, whereas in ancient Buddhist cultures there is a social niche for "Third Sex" people.
I understand where you're coming from, but is it really necessary to target "ancient" religious traditions? I know some Buddhists and Christians who are very open to the LGBT community, and are even part of said community.

However, does this mean "Third Sex" people in ancient Thailand were treated equally and with respect? I really don't think so.Are you still talking about an ancient time period? I thought we were talking about the present...

While I'm fully aware that the past informs the present and that religious beliefs strongly inform the culture of certain geographic areas, it's sort of weak to say "Well 200 years ago people were bad, so therefore it will always be bad!" It's just like the Kronstadt thing that Anarchists and Trots argue over.

I'm a radical LGBT activist which means I'm not going to be satisfied until we get nothing less than full equality. Therefore qualitatively Christianity and Buddhism are just as bad as each other with respect to LGBT rights, because both religions do not treat LGBT people equally. Christianity demonises LGBT people, while Buddhism patronisingly say LGBT people exist because of bad karma in the past but should still be treated with compassion.
I don't disagree that full equality for all is paramount, and that such demands should be applied evenly to all religions and belief systems.

What's interesting is that Christianity as an umbrella term seems to demonise non-heteronormativity, yet Christians as individuals can (although admittedly I've only met a handful) be progressive and open to LGBT rights. I'm not read up enough on Buddhism or Buddhist culture to comment too much, but AFAIK all sexualities are permissable so long as it's not exploitative. Or that's what I learned from listening to an Alan Watts lecture on Buddhism.

But we don't want patronising "compassion", we want respect and equality. In a fundamental sense to say that we exist because of bad karma is just as bad as burning us to death on a stake. I think even the slightest discrimination against LGBT people is not permissible.Just out of curiosity, could you point out some Buddhist scriptures or other writing that outline LGBT sexuality as a result of "bad karma?"

I've previously been pretty hard on religion and called for the outright ban of it, but I think that what Michael Hardt implies in the film Examined Life is pretty important: that a qualitative change in human nature towards progressive values will create progressive change in all facets of human life. This includes the economy, social relations, religious beliefs, etc. Therefore, people could still practice religions if they want to, but the beliefs would progress and the old, reactionary stuff would be seen as antiquated.

EDIT: Also, not that I want to create more activity in my area of the forum or anything, but this should really be in Religion.

Queercommie Girl

3rd September 2010, 18:01

Okay... I wasn't saying that Eastern religions are superior to Western ones. All I was asking was to hear an informed, critical viewpoint of Eastern religions.

Quantitatively speaking eastern religions are generally better, but not qualitatively.

I'm a Marxist materialist, therefore fundamentally speaking all religions are reactionary. It doesn't mean I don't support the democratic right for people to have religious freedom, because I do clearly support that. But I don't agree with any superstitious religion personally.

I understand where you're coming from, but is it really necessary to target "ancient" religious traditions? I know some Buddhists and Christians who are very open to the LGBT community, and are even part of said community.
Actually yes, because past wrongs must be recognised and apologised for if relations are to improve and LGBT people generally re-habilitated within the religious community. Just like if Trotskyists are ever going to trust the Maoists again, then the Maoists must apologise for the mistakes Mao made in the past regarding Trotskyism. Maoists today do have that responsibility.

Even Christians today who are pro-LGBT do not really acknowledge the crimes committed against LGBT people in the past in the name of their religion.

Are you still talking about an ancient time period? I thought we were talking about the present...

While I'm fully aware that the past informs the present and that religious beliefs strongly inform the culture of certain geographic areas, it's sort of weak to say "Well 200 years ago people were bad, so therefore it will always be bad!" It's just like the Kronstadt thing that Anarchists and Trots argue over.
Yes, and today "Third Sex" people are still treated unequally in Thailand.

Anyone who thinks eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism imply LGBT equality really need to wake the fuck up.

I don't disagree that full equality for all is paramount, and that such demands should be applied evenly to all religions and belief systems.
From a Marxist perspective no, because for us it is progressive to fight for LGBT rights, at least in the majority of cases (pedophilia and fetishes not included), but religion is fundamentally reactionary. While we do support the democratic right of religious freedom, we do not see religion as intrinsically a positive thing in the same way we see LGBT liberation (in the majority of cases) is. In other words, we do not treat the religious community and the LGBT community equally.

Marxism does aim to eventually make all superstitious religions fade away, only that we would never do this through force.

I've previously been pretty hard on religion and called for the outright ban of it, but I think that what Michael Hardt implies in the film Examined Life is pretty important: that a qualitative change in human nature towards progressive values will create progressive change in all facets of human life. This includes the economy, social relations, religious beliefs, etc. Therefore, people could still practice religions if they want to, but the beliefs would progress and the old, reactionary stuff would be seen as antiquated.
Religious beliefs in the superstitious sense is not a fundamental human need in the same way that basic economic needs, social relations, and sex are.

You may argue that spirituality is a basic need. But there is no reason why spirituality cannot completely rely on materialistic science and must necessarily have a basis in superstitious religions in the traditional sense.

Note that technically Marxism only considers superstitious religions (anything that relies on the belief in the supernatural in any sense and any belief that bypasses the scientific method) and religions that play a reactionary socio-economic role to be reactionary, not necessarily spirituality based on material science. In principle there could be scientific religions for the proletarian class in the new socialist future.

Tavarisch_Mike

3rd September 2010, 18:33

As materialist i think that the most important thing to point out, when you talk about religeous impacts, is the socio economic and meterial reasons. To explain that the conflict in Sudan didn't start because some christians and muslims just got mad, no, the reason of the conflict is about the scare water resources that exists in the area.
Then religion, culture, lenguage are used to unify the small groups in the fight. The most ridicolous blame religion gets is when some people will explaine that the conflict on Northen Irland is about protestant and chatolics cant get along with eachother, nothing else. With this i want to say that religion many times becomes a cover for the real reasons (struggle over resources).

Comrade Marxist Bro

3rd September 2010, 21:41

And yet looking at the link and the Gallup poll it cites, the U.S. is a big-time outlier. It's the richest country in the world, but more than two thirds of its population cite religion as an important aspect of their lives. So clearly economic development is not sufficient to explain the decline of religiosity in a country....

So it appears another big factor in religiosity is economic inequality and the utter lack of social welfare and atomization, all of which are overwhelming aspects of American daily life.

No doubt.

I emphasized the correlation of development with prominence of atheism and lack of strong faith in order to instantiate the Marxist view that superstition weakens its hold when people feel more power over their own lives. Your point affirms the underlying principle.

Invincible Summer

4th September 2010, 03:52

Quantitatively speaking eastern religions are generally better, but not qualitatively.

What do you mean they're "quantitatively better?"

Actually yes, because past wrongs must be recognised and apologised for if relations are to improve and LGBT people generally re-habilitated within the religious community. Just like if Trotskyists are ever going to trust the Maoists again, then the Maoists must apologise for the mistakes Mao made in the past regarding Trotskyism. Maoists today do have that responsibility.

Even Christians today who are pro-LGBT do not really acknowledge the crimes committed against LGBT people in the past in the name of their religion.
I suppose it's true that an apology is a formality that has a lot of symbolic value. At the same time, grudges get one nowhere.

Yes, and today "Third Sex" people are still treated unequally in Thailand.

Anyone who thinks eastern religions like Hinduism and Buddhism imply LGBT equality really need to wake the fuck up.

I'm not saying that at all. I think you're projecting your own feelings onto others' posts.

And yeah, "Third Sex" people are treated unequally almost everywhere.

From a Marxist perspective no, because for us it is progressive to fight for LGBT rights, at least in the majority of cases (pedophilia and fetishes not included), but religion is fundamentally reactionary. While we do support the democratic right of religious freedom, we do not see religion as intrinsically a positive thing in the same way we see LGBT liberation (in the majority of cases) is. In other words, we do not treat the religious community and the LGBT community equally.

Why are fetishes not included?

Also, what I meant is that full equality must be adopted within all belief systems and religions.

Religious beliefs in the superstitious sense is not a fundamental human need in the same way that basic economic needs, social relations, and sex are.

You may argue that spirituality is a basic need. But there is no reason why spirituality cannot completely rely on materialistic science and must necessarily have a basis in superstitious religions in the traditional sense.
I don't argue that spirituality is a basic need. I also don't know where you're getting this idea from. All I'm saying is that a fundamental change in the way humans as a whole view the world will change all the aspects within it. It's like base - superstructure.

NGNM85

4th September 2010, 04:00

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/sept11.jpg

leninfan

4th September 2010, 04:09

No more religion!

GPDP

4th September 2010, 05:18

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/sept11.jpg

Let me guess, the point you are so cleverly trying to make by posting this picture is that religion is dangerous and should be fought militantly else events such as 9/11 will happen, correct?

NGNM85

4th September 2010, 05:56

Let me guess, the point you are so cleverly trying to make by posting this picture is that religion is dangerous and should be fought militantly else events such as 9/11 will happen, correct?

It's par for the course. The title of the thread is; "Religion's impact on society."

I actually wanted to post a picture from today's news of a suicide bombing in Pakistan, I just chose something more immediately recognizable.
Here's a few more since you seem to think I'm being unfair;

http://blackchristiannews.com/news/kkk.jpg
http://animation.speakfree.net/pics/blogs/BekahImage9.jpg

GPDP

4th September 2010, 07:00

It's par for the course. The title of the thread is; "Religion's impact on society."

I actually wanted to post a picture from today's news of a suicide bombing in Pakistan, I just chose something more immediately recognizable.
Here's a few more since you seem to think I'm being unfair;

http://blackchristiannews.com/news/kkk.jpg
http://animation.speakfree.net/pics/blogs/BekahImage9.jpg

It's not that I think you're being unfair (I assume by unfair you meant I believed you were attacking Islam unproportionally to other religions) so much as I agree with other posters here when they say attacking the religious superstructure directly is far less effective than correcting the conditions that lend themselves toward the perpetuation of superstition and irrationality as embodied by religion, such as economic inequality and powerlessness among the vast majority of the population.

leninfan

4th September 2010, 07:13

It's par for the course. The title of the thread is; "Religion's impact on society."

I actually wanted to post a picture from today's news of a suicide bombing in Pakistan, I just chose something more immediately recognizable.
Here's a few more since you seem to think I'm being unfair;

http://blackchristiannews.com/news/kkk.jpg
http://animation.speakfree.net/pics/blogs/BekahImage9.jpg

I want to do something to that guy... I don't want to be booted off of here so I wont write anything... I am agnostic, but all of my ancestors were JEWS... If there is a freaking GOD... He didn't hate them... Do to him what that poster is showing but with something larger than a tallywacker.

Queercommie Girl

4th September 2010, 10:19

What do you mean they're "quantitatively better?"

Eastern religions are generally less violent, less sectarian, more inclusive, less oppressive and philosophically more materialist.

The world's earliest form of dialectics came out of Chinese Daoist philosophy. Buddhism is based on the sequential logical concept of karma, which is dependent on cause and effect, rather than an all-powerful, vengeful god.

However, as I said, to say that eastern religions are more progressive than western religions is like saying keynesianism is more progressive than neoliberalism. Qualitatively there is no difference.

I suppose it's true that an apology is a formality that has a lot of symbolic value. At the same time, grudges get one nowhere.
Actually it's a lot more than just a formality. Without formal recognition of past wrongs, how the hell can one even be sure that it won't ever happen again?

Why are fetishes not included?
Because they are generally speaking not positive, and many are dependent on negative stereotypes.

I'm not a liberal. I don't automatically support every kind of "freedom", when such freedoms are not really beneficial.

Supporting homosexuality in the general sense is positive because to be able to be attracted to whoever you want is a fundamental human right.

Supporting transgenderism in the general sense is positive because people who are genuinely transgendered would be able to lead a more positive, happier and more productive lives after the transition.

Supporting LGBT rights doesn't mean however supporting some dirty old male heterosexual wankers who like to "cross-dress" and harass lesbian women in female toilets.

I don't argue that spirituality is a basic need. I also don't know where you're getting this idea from. All I'm saying is that a fundamental change in the way humans as a whole view the world will change all the aspects within it. It's like base - superstructure.
Whether or not spirituality is a basic human need (in the general sense, not in the superstitious sense) is actually very debatable.

During the primitive communist era, all human cultures had some kind of religion. The religions back then were purely natural religions, since there were no class oppression. So the religions back then were only reactionary in the sense that they were superstitious, but not in the sense that they were socio-economically oppressive. It is possible that in the future communist society we could once again have "natural religion", but of course based on the most advanced ideas in science and technology the future could offer.

Thirsty Crow

4th September 2010, 12:34

Adi Shankara

4th September 2010, 13:13

It probably won't go away completely anytime soon. Some lame ideas of various kinds have been long discredited, yet are still held by people in our times. But the religious will dwindle to a small minority in all developed nations unless a catastrophic crisis somehow wrecks the First World living standard and security.

Here's a map of atheists in Europe (by %):

http://xenlogic.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/atheism-europe.jpg?w=500&h=433

Notice that more developed countries tend to have more atheists. Another thing is that a lot of Europeans (most, probably) identify as Christians but do not attend a church, and there are even those who've never read the Bible. And (better-educated) younger people tend to be atheists more than the elderly. It would be hard to argue that First World religion isn't on the wane.

Worldwide, it's been confirmed, the poorest countries are the most religious. (http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/blogs/heather-wax/the-poorest-countries-are-the-most-religious)

I'd question that the richest countries are also the most atheist. Saudi Arabia, UAE, the United States, Ireland, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Kuwait, Chile, Japan and Canada are pretty well off, and they have high proportions of religious people. also, what exactly are those stats based on? the number of people who say they are atheist alone, or does that include the non-religious and "no answer", who may or may not believe in a higher power? Even the Euro-barometer says that in the most atheist countries of Estonia and Czech republic, actual atheism is pretty low:

In 2005, a survey of the EU's members at that time found that among EU citizens, 52% believe in a god, 27% in some sort of spirit or life force and 18% had no form of belief. The countries where the fewest people reported a religious belief were the Czech Republic (19%) and Estonia (16%)Also, the UK, Finland, and Norway aren't exactly what I'd call "bad off" (in fact, Norway and Finland are amongst the world's wealthiest, best educated nations) and they aren't as atheist as France or Estonia, which are not as nearly as well off.

So is religion going away? I don't think so at all. there were always atheists, they were just somewhat in the closet, just like there were always homosexuals but they were in the closet. now that it's more out in the open, I don't expect these numbers to change really.

Adi Shankara

4th September 2010, 13:19

Queercommie Girl

4th September 2010, 13:41

Because we all know that the 2 billion or so Christians on the earth do exactly what you posted above. :rolleyes:

Really, that's a rather right-wing tactic of you; I mean, don't you hate it when they use Pol Pot against us?

There is another way to look at it:

If a Marxist does not explicitly criticise the likes of Pol Pot, and clearly draw a distinct line between himself/herself and Pol Pot, then he/she is not an adequate Marxist.

Similarly, if a Christian does not explicitly criticise the crimes committed in the past by Christians in the name of their "holy" religion, such as those against the LGBT community, then he/she is not an adequate Christian.

No double standards here at all.

Problem is, most Marxists today explicitly criticise the likes of Pol Pot, even orthodox Maoists in mainland China do. Even Castro himself has openly apologised for the mistreatment of LGBT people in Cuba previously. But many mainstream Christians (who are not fundamentalist) who might be more sympathetic to LGBT rights (not sure I would use the word "supportive" though) do not really recognise the immense crime conducted against LGBT people in the past by those who follow their religion.

I wonder when we will hear the Pope apologise to the LGBT community similar to how Castro did. I highly doubt I will see it in my lifetime. :rolleyes: (Not to mention Cuba never persecuted LGBT people to the same extent as the witch-burning religion did)

Adi Shankara

4th September 2010, 18:28

ow Castro did.[/B] I highly doubt I will see it in my lifetime. :rolleyes: (Not to mention Cuba never persecuted LGBT people to the same extent as the witch-burning religion did)

That doesn't matter. what does is they still done it. If I torture a man before I kill him, or I simply kill him with a gunshot to the base of the skull--in both scenarios, I still kill him.

Queercommie Girl

4th September 2010, 18:42

That doesn't matter. what does is they still done it. If I torture a man before I kill him, or I simply kill him with a gunshot to the base of the skull--in both scenarios, I still kill him.

But clearly plain killing and killing with torture are still quite different, otherwise we won't have separate laws against torture-in-itself.

Still, the fundamental difference here is that even a "Stalinist" leader like Castro actually apologised, while I think the Pope never will. That is a huge difference. You are just deliberate dodging the central point here.

The fact that Cuba never persecuted LGBT people to the same extent as Christianity historically did is not even the main difference here. But actually it might be the case that there was even less oppression of LGBT people in Cuba than previously thought:

And, if we are to believe Fidel's words in his interview 100 horas con Fidel Castro, he states that what is usually perceived as internment of homosexuals in labour camps after the revolution was, in fact, a reluctance of making homosexuals go through the compulsory military service, because social sthereotypes and the unpopularity of gays in Cuban society in those years turned their service into a hell of abuse, discrimination and injustice, so (he says) they decided to give whoever declared themselves as being homosexual, the chance to join the revolutionary work comitees, the alternative to military work, done mainly by women, rather than making them join the institutionally homophobic Revolutionary Armed Forces. They didn't think it possible to change overnight the macho culture imbeded in Latin American mentality for so many years, especially in the army.

If this is really the case, then I wouldn't even call it oppression. Not letting gay men join a hetero male army and instead letting them do "women's work" isn't oppression in my book, since I fundamentally do not treat "femininity" as inferior to "masculinity", so there is nothing demeaning about a man doing a woman's job anyway.

Also, the majority of real Marxists today seem to be pro-LGBT at least in principle, whereas the majority of Christians are not, they are at best only sympathetic (frankly not so different from your own view of transgenderism). To be sympathetic is not the same as being homophobic/transphobic, but it isn't the same as actually being supportive either.

Fact of the matter is, as far as the LGBT community is concerned, Marxism is largely an ally, while religion is largely an enemy. There is simply no way to refute this point.

NGNM85

4th September 2010, 19:25

Because we all know that the 2 billion or so Christians on the earth do exactly what you posted above. :rolleyes:

No, but these are manifestations of tendencies within Christianity, that have their roots in the Bible. The stance on heretics, which includes Jews, is actually very manstream, although it's not typically articulated that way. It is a central tenet of Christendom that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ will endure eternal damnation, without exception.

Really, that's a rather right-wing tactic of you; I mean, don't you hate it when they use Pol Pot against us?

Well, first of all, the brutality comitted by the Khmer Rouge does not exemplify or follow naturally from Marxism or Communism. However, even if it were so, I am not a Communist or a Marxist.

NGNM85

4th September 2010, 19:43

It's not that I think you're being unfair (I assume by unfair you meant I believed you were attacking Islam unproportionally to other religions)

Good, and...yes.

so much as I agree with other posters here when they say attacking the religious superstructure directly is far less effective than correcting the conditions that lend themselves toward the perpetuation of superstition and irrationality as embodied by religion, such as economic inequality and powerlessness among the vast majority of the population.

I would agree with some of that. First of all, I think we should start from the position of Harris' 'conversational intolerance.' Any statement that a religious doctrine is literally true to any extent is a scientific claim. I'm not saying we should harass religious people, but such obviously bogus scientific claims should be subjected to scrutiny when they are encountered. Everything in society from politics, to art, to sports is subject to rigorous debate, except religion. We need to do away with this bogus prohibition, only then will rationalism be able to prevail.

It's fairly obvious that there is a link between religious extremism and poverty and oppression, but that's only a part of the picture. This explaination is completely helpless to explain the wealthy, well-educated religious fanatics. A significant percentage of Jihadists have been from wealthy, well-educated backgrounds. Most of the 9/11 hijackers had PhD.'s. When someone who has never known oppression who has had the benefit of an excellent education decides the best use of his time is to blow himself up for God, something else is at work. The problem resides in the religions, themselves. We need to come to two important conclusions; First, as incomprehensible as it may seem, these fanatics sincerely believe this shit, second, that these beliefs, insofar as people believe them, will inevitably have real-world consequences.

However, in addition to 'conversational intolerance', I would agree that the best weapons against this kind of fanaticism is improving conditions, and increasing access to secular education. I'm not sure what else can be done.

Tavarisch_Mike

4th September 2010, 20:38

[/QUOTE]Well, first of all, the brutality comitted by the Khmer Rouge does not exemplify or follow naturally from Marxism or Communism. However, even if it were so, I am not a Communist or a Marxist.[/QUOTE]

I think this is what Adi_Shankara was meaning, in the same way that Khemer Rouge didnt have anything to do with socialism (besides they might say that themselfes) neither has the old lady living down the street (who is a former nurse and likes to go to church once a week and belives in Jesus because she thinks he loves evrybody) anything to do with the crussades, witch burning, KKK, The Lords Resistance Army, David Koresch or Fred Phelps just because they all call themselfe christians.

Queercommie Girl

4th September 2010, 22:43

Well, first of all, the brutality comitted by the Khmer Rouge does not exemplify or follow naturally from Marxism or Communism. However, even if it were so, I am not a Communist or a Marxist.

I think this is what Adi_Shankara was meaning, in the same way that Khemer Rouge didnt have anything to do with socialism (besides they might say that themselfes) neither has the old lady living down the street (who is a former nurse and likes to go to church once a week and belives in Jesus because she thinks he loves evrybody) anything to do with the crussades, witch burning, KKK, The Lords Resistance Army, David Koresch or Fred Phelps just because they all call themselfe christians.

Most mainstream non-fundie Christians today don't really even recognise the crimes committed by Christianity in history though, whereas most serious Marxists today do recognise the crimes that have been committed in the name of Marxism though, such as Pol Pot. That's a major difference. Marxism, being a scientific rationalist tradition, is always self-critical and self-reflective. Religions, on the other hand, essentially remain dogmatically unchanged for thousands of years.

Tavarisch_Mike

4th September 2010, 23:28

Most mainstream non-fundie Christians today don't really even recognise the crimes committed by Christianity in history though, whereas most serious Marxists today do recognise the crimes that have been committed in the name of Marxism though, such as Pol Pot. That's a major difference. Marxism, being a scientific rationalist tradition, is always self-critical and self-reflective. Religions, on the other hand, essentially remain dogmatically unchanged for thousands of years.

Yes ofcourse, im not saying that they should be ignorred or anything like that, its just that today we can see a very strong Dogmatic form of atheism that has evolved frome a more traditional atheism. This "new" form tend to be very aggressive one and often likes to generalize groups, saying that evrybody who calls themselfe for christian/muslim/hindu/budhist/shamanist/wicca/scientologist most also take a collective responsebillity for whats done in its name, wich is absurde. Why? since anyone can do almoust anything in the name of whatever they want, i think its wrong to cast a shadow of all the others just because of some minority of rutten appels. In the same way i wont take any responisibility for what Pol Pot and others have done in the name of socialism, because ive never defended it before.
This way of collective guilt is often used by right-wingers to pick up some points, but it is just rethoric.

bricolage

5th September 2010, 16:34

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/sept11.jpg
Yeah because that happened because of religion... :rolleyes:

NGNM85

5th September 2010, 23:56

Yeah because that happened because of religion... :rolleyes:

Entirely? No. Nothing exists in a vacuum. However, religion was a substantial factor. The attack was typical of religious terrorism, in it's execution.

Also, the goals of Al-Qaeda are specifically religious. From a 2005 internal strategy memo;

Provoke the United States into invading a Muslim country.
Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
Expand the conflict to neighboring countries and engage the US in a long war of attrition.
Convert Al Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against countries allied with the US until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the 7th of July 2005 bombings.
The U.S. economy will finally collapse under the strain of too many engagements in too many places, similarly to the Soviet War in Afghanistan, Arab regimes supported by the US will collapse, and a Wahabbi Caliphate will be installed across the region."
So, most of the rhetoric about US aggression from Al-Qaeda is just rhetoric to appeal to a broader constituency. This organization's explicit goal is not to fight oppression, it's to destroy the 'infidels', who they perceive as an obstacle to reaching their real target, the people of the Middle East. This is not a nationalist organization, at least not as the word is typically used. Al-Qaeda defines it's community as religious, and it's goals are religious.

bricolage

6th September 2010, 00:10

NGNM85

6th September 2010, 02:33

I read a journal article once about religion and terrorism and the like. Anyway it spoke of how you have to divide organisations like Al Qaeda into two sections, those at the top who give the commands, those at the bottom who carry them out (and in most times end up dead). While those at the top may well be motivated primarily by religious reasons and not much else

On this fact there is no dispute.

they are the minority, those at the bottom are largely forced into these groups from material circumstances (ie. poverty, imperialism). To the extent that Islamism and groups like Al Qaeda can grow its because the material circumstances are conducive to their message,

That only looks at part of the picture, however, as a significant percentage of Jihadists actually come from wealthy, educated backgrounds. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were well-educated, a number of them had Ph.D's. Poverty alone is insufficient explaination.

not because Muslims are inherently led towards flying planes into buildings.

Does the Koran explicitly recommend crashing airplanes into buildings? No, absolutely not. However, I don't think the separation between the politics and the religion is as clean as you make it out to be. Martyrdom and Jihad are rooted in Islam. I have no doubt those men truly believed that the inferno they unleashed was the threshold to paradise. Of course, I realize most Muslims don't endulge in such behavior, and most would find it repulsive, but that is more in spite of their religion than because of it. These men knew the Koran backwards and forwards, I have no doubt they could quote chapter and verse from memory. We need to realize there are tendencies within these religions that lend themselves to such behavior. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest minds in Christendom, advocated that heresy should be punishible by death, for example. We have to realize that these tendencies are embedded with the Abrahamic faiths.

Despite what you say the goals of most people who engage with such groups are geo-strategic, the removal of US/Western military presence from the Middle East and other majority Muslim areas, specifically Saudi Arabia as it is home to Mecca and Medina.

But that's not nationalism, that's my point. There's a substantial difference between them and groups like the IRA or Palestinian terrorist groups. They are/were nationalists, fighting for national liberation. Al-Qaeda doesn't define itself as Egyptian or Saudi, it sees itself as part of a very broad regional community, but that community is defined on the basis of religion.

With this in mind 9/11 and other such attacks primarily happened not because the world is full of Muslims who are after 'a Wahabbi Caliphate' but because of US expansionism and military actions, because of the overseas projects it is engaged with, quite simply because we live in the imperial age. Reducing it to religion tends to buy into conservative 'clash of civilisations' rhetoric more than anything else, it is certainly not materialistic and ignores the fact that religion does not exist as an abstract phenomenon, it exists as a product of society itself.

I think this is not a 'clash of civilizations', but rather a clash between civilization and it's opposite, being religious dogmatism. The Abrahamic faiths embody the environment in which they were written, a backward primitive age where men lived and died by the sword, where life was, as Hobbes famously said; 'nasty, brutish, and short.' These texts, as they are written, are really incompatible with modern society. As long as religious dogmatism exists we are going to have problems. To quote Sam Harris; 'There is no conceivable future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors.'

NGNM85

6th September 2010, 03:00

... its just that today we can see a very strong Dogmatic form of atheism that has evolved frome a more traditional atheism.

Atheism is simply the refusal to accept extreme claims about the existence of a supreme being, the soul or spirits, and the origin of the universe, based on insufficient evidence. 'Dogmatic Atheism' is a myth.

Adi Shankara

6th September 2010, 03:10

Atheism is simply the refusal to accept extreme claims about the existence of a supreme being, the soul or spirits, and the origin of the universe, based on insufficient evidence. 'Dogmatic Atheism' is a myth.

except when it's simply atheism with a different name, that is, "anti-theism".

NGNM85

6th September 2010, 03:14

except when it's simply atheism with a different name, that is, "anti-theism".

Every atheist sort of has to be an anti-theist because by being an atheist they've realized religion is at least fundamentally irrational, and there is no good defense for irrationality. Atheist 'intolerance' for religious dogma is in no way comperable to the religious intolerence of religions towards one another.

MarxSchmarx

6th September 2010, 05:35

Religion divides the working class.

As such I don't see any reason to give religion any deference simply because it "alienates other workers". Of course it may be silly to go after religion in comparatively secular societies like Japan. But to dismiss criticism of religion as an ineffective attack on the superstructure is to ignore an incredibly potent, reactionary institution and ideology in much of the world.

We don't adopt this kind of attitude with respect to racism, homophobia or sexism, which all are arguably as superficial as religious beliefs. Why should religion be exempt?

bricolage

6th September 2010, 12:16

That only looks at part of the picture, however, as a significant percentage of Jihadists actually come from wealthy, educated backgrounds. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were well-educated, a number of them had Ph.D's. Poverty alone is insufficient explaination.
I'd query the point that a 'significant percentage' come from such backgrounds, if we expand 'Jihadists' beyond the media image of 9/11 to all such conflicts ranging from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (although I'm sure it could go back futher) to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Palestine I suppose) today. In all these cases it is presented as motivated by religion whereas it is quite obvious it is something else.

In any case you also have to look at the role religion plays in forming a sense of community which thrives on the absence of a real human community. This alienation is a big factor.

Martyrdom and Jihad are rooted in Islam.
I'm sure similar things could be said to be 'rooted' in all religions, likewise there are numerous 'good' things rooted in such religions. Religions as confusing, contradictory thing.

These men knew the Koran backwards and forwards, I have no doubt they could quote chapter and verse from memory.
Maybe, I'm not sure. Chances are they were doctored versions of the Koran though, maybe even the ones the US spread to Afghanistan.

We need to realize there are tendencies within these religions that lend themselves to such behavior.
There are also tendencies within these religions that lead them to communal, non-hierarchical, emancipatory projects, but of course they aren't worth mentioning are they?

Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest minds in Christendom, advocated that heresy should be punishible by death, for example.
So? If Thomas Aquinas around today?
And you think atheists haven't advocated similarly horrific things in the past and today?

But that's not nationalism, that's my point. There's a substantial difference between them and groups like the IRA or Palestinian terrorist groups. They are/were nationalists, fighting for national liberation.
Depends what you see a nation as.
In any case I don't really see why nationalist 'terrorist' groups are any more defensible than supra-national ones. All are artificial communities.

I think this is not a 'clash of civilizations', but rather a clash between civilization and it's opposite, being religious dogmatism.
And what is this civilisation you speak of? The same civilisation that drops bombs half way across the world and condemns the majority of it to untold misery, despair and oppression.
The whole civilisation versus religion dichotomy is meaningless, for example in Israel some of the most hardline settlers can be secular and some of the most religious Jews can be anti-zionist.

The point is if you say religion is the problem what is the solution? I'm sure Christopher Hitchens can help you with that one.
If however class society and its offshoots is the problem then of course we have a different solution.

The Abrahamic faiths embody the environment in which they were written, a backward primitive age where men lived and died by the sword, where life was, as Hobbes famously said; 'nasty, brutish, and short.'
Ha! Most lots of people I would imagine that sums up life now pretty well.
Oh and Hobbes is full of shit, I tend to ignore everything he says.

These texts, as they are written, are really incompatible with modern society.
Modern society is capitalist society, we are here for its destruction not to make things compatible with it.

NGNM85

6th September 2010, 18:57

I'd query the point that a 'significant percentage' come from such backgrounds, if we expand 'Jihadists' beyond the media image of 9/11 to all such conflicts ranging from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (although I'm sure it could go back futher) to the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan (and Palestine I suppose) today. In all these cases it is presented as motivated by religion whereas it is quite obvious it is something else.

I think it's fairly specific. All violence that is professed to be in the name of Islamic Jihad. Again, I'm just saying we need to understand the role that beliefs have in this phenomena. Most Leftists have great difficulty with this, for several reasons, not the least of which being it's very difficult for most Leftists to imagine that these people, or at least some subset of them, actually truly believe what they say they believe. For someone who does not subscribe to religious dogmatism, it can be difficult to wrap ones' head around.

I'm sure similar things could be said to be 'rooted' in all religions, likewise there are numerous 'good' things rooted in such religions. Religions as confusing, contradictory thing.

Very little of any actual good comes out of religion. If it were to disappear tomorrow, theres' no reason to believe humility, charity, honesty, etc. would not still be virtues that people would aspire to. In fact, it's almost certain because there are very logical reasons for this. However, we'd most definitely see a decline in suicide bombings, honor killings, abortion doctors being shot, homosexuals being dragged to death behind pickup trucks, etc. These are learned behaviors.

Maybe, I'm not sure. Chances are they were doctored versions of the Koran though, maybe even the ones the US spread to Afghanistan.

I assure you. Osama Bin Laden probably has more than a dozen copies of the Koran and could probably recite most of it from memory.

There are also tendencies within these religions that lead them to communal, non-hierarchical, emancipatory projects, but of course they aren't worth mentioning are they?

I think any survey would reveal that such schools of thought, like Liberation Theology, are taking greater liberties with their religion than the fundamentalist extremists. you really have to toss out a lot of the content in order to make that work.

Also, such sects are for the most part minor exceptions. Ever since it was adopted by the Roman Empire Christianity has historically been on the side of the oppressors.

So? If Thomas Aquinas around today?

My point was he was intimately familiar with the Bible back to front, and one of the most brilliant minds in Christendom, and he was fully able to rationalize killing heretics, not in spite of this knowledge and these beliefs, but because of them.

The reason that such behaviors are no longer commonplace in Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity, itself. The Bible is the same today as it was 900 years ago. The change is due to a modern, secular society that no longer tolerates certain behaviors.

And you think atheists haven't advocated similarly horrific things in the past and today?

One hears this all the time and I would urge everyone to take note because it's such complete bullshit. When religious people get their backs against the wall they always trot out Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., as the example of 'Atheist' atrocities. Incidentally, Hitler was, officially, a lifelong Catholic. In any case, this argument is obviously bogus because none of these actions naturally follow from Atheism. Atheism is, very simply, the refusal to accept extreme claims about the supernatural based on insufficient evidence. That starting point does not immediately lend itself to pogroms or mass murder. If one reads religious texts one finds very explicit defenses of violence, and exhortations to commit violence. The Bible refers to homosexuality as an abomination, and says several times that the perscribed remedy is death. Religious violence comes straight out of the books.

Depends what you see a nation as. In any case I don't really see why nationalist 'terrorist' groups are any more defensible than supra-national ones. All are artificial communities.

My point is, there's a difference. There's a difference in the mindset, in their goals, etc.

And what is this civilisation you speak of?

Modernity, science, the rule of law, agriculture, secularism, democracy, etc. Religious dogmatism is the antithesis of human progress.

The same civilisation that drops bombs half way across the world and condemns the majority of it to untold misery, despair and oppression.

It's also a society that has sent men to the moon, that has cured a number of diseases, has made possible a standard of living that goes beyond anything possible in earlier times, etc. You seem to be exhibiting a neurosis typical to radical Left circles.

The whole civilisation versus religion dichotomy is meaningless, for example in Israel some of the most hardline settlers can be secular and some of the most religious Jews can be anti-zionist.

The point is if you say religion is the problem what is the solution?

The solution to that problem is to do away with religion.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is more of a territorial dispute than a religious one.

If however class society and its offshoots is the problem then of course we have a different solution.

There's you're problem right there. It's both. Actually, it's exploitive economic systems, religion, AND nationalism.

Ha! Most lots of people I would imagine that sums up life now pretty well.
Oh and Hobbes is full of shit, I tend to ignore everything he says.

Modern society is capitalist society, we are here for its destruction not to make things compatible with it.

These absurd statements are an excellent example of that neurosis typical to radical Leftists. You're so keyed up about your greivances with the state, the class system, or whatever, that you have to reduce everything to this simplistic, binary outlook. This is an example of secular dogmatism. The world, however, is much more complex than that.

bricolage

7th September 2010, 00:45

Most Leftists have great difficulty with this, for several reasons, not the least of which being it's very difficult for most Leftists to imagine that these people, or at least some subset of them, actually truly believe what they say they believe.
I am very capable of imagining this. You however seem incapable of understanding that religion is the mirror of a bankrupt society, that it is intrinsically linked to and your rabid 'anti-theism' is pretty damn regressive.

If it were to disappear tomorrow, theres' no reason to believe humility, charity, honesty, etc. would not still be virtues that people would aspire to.I never said anything to suggest I think otherwise.
Of course religion isn't going to disappear tomorrow so we have to think more systematically than that.

However, we'd most definitely see a decline in suicide bombings, honor killings, abortion doctors being shot, homosexuals being dragged to death behind pickup trucks, etc. These are learned behaviors.I imagine if it were not religion something else would be a legitimising principle for these actions.

I assure you. Osama Bin Laden probably has more than a dozen copies of the Koran and could probably recite most of it from memory.Yes because Osama Bin Laden is a generalisable example for all 'Jihadists'... :rolleyes:

Also, such sects are for the most part minor exceptions. Ever since it was adopted by the Roman Empire Christianity has historically been on the side of the oppressors.The diggers, anabaptists, brethren of the free spirit right up to liberation theology (much as you like to scorn it) movements in central and south america prove this is just not true. Of course ignoring the massive overlap between religion and anti-colonial struggles.
Problem is though that seeing as most of the world is religious religion tends to be on both sides, oppressors and oppressed. Such is life.

The change is due to a modern, secular society that no longer tolerates certain behaviors.Despite the fact that Christians are still engaging in similarly barbaric activity. I mean it's not like George Bush was a Christian was he? Interestingly the perception of much of the Middle East is that the wars in Afghanistan/Iraq were waged by a religious fanatic, a new Crusade so to speak. Most Westerners can't really accept this seeing as to them only Muslims can be 'radical'.

Incidentally, Hitler was, officially, a lifelong Catholic.Which incidentally has nothing to do with his Nazi beliefs.

In any case, this argument is obviously bogus because none of these actions naturally follow from Atheism.Nothing naturally follows from atheism just as nothing naturally follows from theism, they are just belief systems. The latter would probably wither away without the existence of class society but that is another matter in itself.
Religion does not naturally lead to anything seeing as all religious texts are contradictory enough that they can lead to anything, as history has constantly shown.

If one reads religious texts one finds very explicit defenses of violence, and exhortations to commit violence.One also finds very explicity defenses of love, kindness and equality. Such is their contradictory nature.

Modernity, science, the rule of law, agriculture, secularism, democracy, etc. Religious dogmatism is the antithesis of human progress.Modernity, the rule of law, democracy (probably secularism too) are all things that are of no interest to communists. They are all constructs of modern liberal democratic discourse and I can't really see much worth rescuing from them.

The solution to that problem is to do away with religion.Like I said religion will wither away because class society does. Right now what are you gonna do to attack religion, because chances are it will be pretty unproductive.

NGNM85

7th September 2010, 03:29

I am very capable of imagining this. You however seem incapable of understanding that religion is the mirror of a bankrupt society, that it is intrinsically linked to and your rabid 'anti-theism' is pretty damn regressive.

If religion is a mirror it’s a mirror of a violent, preindustrial society, hence it’s incompatibility with the modern world. The texts themselves remain unchanged. People differ for various reasons as to how or how much to apply them, but the source material is the same.

There’s nothing ‘regressive’ about it.

I never said anything to suggest I think otherwise.
Of course religion isn't going to disappear tomorrow so we have to think more systematically than that.

I imagine if it were not religion something else would be a legitimising principle for these actions.

No, you said there are plenty of good things rooted in religion. I’d say that’s mostly false, however what good is there is not fundamentally religious, you don’t have to believe in any of the rest of it. However, to believe condoms are worse than aids, or that homosexuals should be killed, these ideas have to come from somewhere else. These are ideas are completely based on, and inseparable from religion.

I’m not saying without religion we’d live in a utopian fantasyland, but there would be differences. Not only are the aforementioned behaviors caused by religion, but it also affects the form. It should not be surprising that suicide bombing is more common to religious terrorists, specifically because of their beliefs about the afterlife.

Yes because Osama Bin Laden is a generalisable example for all 'Jihadists'...

According to the modern usage. Technically, ‘mujahid’ might be more accurate. However, I don’t think there was any confusion.

The diggers, anabaptists, brethren of the free spirit right up to liberation theology (much as you like to scorn it) movements in central and south america prove this is just not true. Of course ignoring the massive overlap between religion and anti-colonial struggles.
Problem is though that seeing as most of the world is religious religion tends to be on both sides, oppressors and oppressed. Such is life.

Liberation theology was repeatedly criticized and seen as highly suspect by the Catholic church. These are minor exceptions to the overarching trend.

Despite the fact that Christians are still engaging in similarly barbaric activity.

Yes, to a lesser extent. However, as I said, that’s not because Christianity has changed, but rather over a hundred years of secularization stemming from the Enlightenment. Yes, there are certainly examples, such as the abortion clinic bombings, etc. I mentioned that.

I mean it's not like George Bush was a Christian was he?

Yes, but the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was not religiously motivated.

Interestingly the perception of much of the Middle East is that the wars in Afghanistan/Iraq were waged by a religious fanatic, a new Crusade so to speak.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is also a bestseller. Popular wisdom can be horribly misguided.

Most Westerners can't really accept this seeing as to them only Muslims can be 'radical'.

Nobody has a monopoly on dogmatism.

Which incidentally has nothing to do with his Nazi beliefs.

Nothing naturally follows from atheism just as nothing naturally follows from theism,
they are just belief systems. …Religion does not naturally lead to anything seeing as all religious texts are contradictory enough that they can lead to anything, as history has constantly shown.

No, this is absolutely wrong. Nothing really follows from atheism because atheism is not a belief system. It’s simply applying critical thinking to questions about death and the origin of the universe. Being an atheist is like being a ‘non-astrologer’, that’s it. Religions, however, have very specific rules for codes of conduct, they tend to fixate on people’s sexual behaviors, etc., etc. These beliefs, to the extent that people believe them, will inevitably have real-world consequences. Why don’t we see Jainists blowing themselves up? Because that’s virtually impossible to justify in their religion. These beliefs have consequences.

One also finds very explicity defenses of love, kindness and equality. Such is their contradictory nature.

However, these are not religious concepts. Jihad is a religious concept. The belief that all who do not accept Jesus Christ are condemned to an eternity of suffering is a religious concept.

Modernity, the rule of law, democracy (probably secularism too) are all things that are of no interest to communists. They are all constructs of modern liberal democratic discourse and I can't really see much worth rescuing from them.

Seeing as I’m not a Communist, it shouldn’t mean that much to me. However, I think that most would disagree with at least some of that. I’m also highly skeptical of your comprehension of Liberalism.

Like I said religion will wither away because class society does.

That’s a little naïve.

Right now what are you gonna do to attack religion, because chances are it will be pretty unproductive.

This second, I’m going to fix myself something to eat. In the broader picture, I don’t think there is a magic bullet, per se. I think there are a number of things. I think improving education is a big step. There’s really little surprise how kids turn out when they go top a school that teaches creationism, or if they go to a madrasa. Edycation is probably the biggest weapon. Improving living conditions would also be helpful in this regard, but it isn’t sufficient, by itself. Also by ‘conversational intolerance.’ We need to break the prohibition, the unspoken law that insulates religion from criticism. Again, when someone makes statements about the soul, the afterlife, or about god, they are making scientific claims. These claims should be challenged, just like we do with every other subject of conversation. It’s a process. It might even be tactically beneficial to support religious moderates. “The longest journey..’, as the saying goes.

Barry Lyndon

7th September 2010, 04:07

Ahhh Mr. Sam Harris Junior)NGNM85, whose worldview can be summed up as 'the Bible and the Koran caused 9/11, the Holocaust, the BP oil spill, world poverty, and my case of herpes', seems to be forgetting what Bakunin said in the first chapter of 'God and the State':

"Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history. "

Why do you approvingly quote a pro-war liberal like Harris over and over again, and never, not even once, refer to what classical Anarchists(who you claim to adhere to) had to say about religion and its relation to class society? Perhaps because you are in fact a liberal posing as an anarchist, a liar and a fraud?

Barry Lyndon

7th September 2010, 04:21

Here is a sample of what secular liberals have done(who you described in another thread as 'leftists'):

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Japan/Victim1.jpg
Victim of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima
http://en.academic.ru/pictures/enwiki/77/My_Lai_massacre.jpg
My Lai massacre, Vietnam War
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2006/310106sanctions.jpg
Child dying from Iraq sanctions

I could go on........

Adi Shankara

7th September 2010, 04:26

I imagine if it were not religion something else would be a legitimising principle for these actions.

EXACTLY. Didn't El Salvador and Honduras have a war over Football (aka soccer)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer_War

and if you look closely, it wasn't about football entirely, just like most religious wars are only about religion on the surface, but dig deeper and they're often more about much serious issues.

NGNM85

7th September 2010, 05:32

Ahhh Mr. Sam Harris Junior)NGNM85, whose worldview can be summed up as 'the Bible and the Koran caused 9/11, the Holocaust, the BP oil spill, world poverty, and my case of herpes',

You aren't qualified to explain my worldview.

seems to be forgetting what Bakunin said in the first chapter of 'God and the State':

"Who is right, the idealists or the materialists? The question, once stated in this way, hesitation becomes impossible. Undoubtedly the idealists are wrong and the materialists right. Yes, facts are before ideas; yes, the ideal, as Proudhon said, is but a flower, whose root lies in the material conditions of existence. Yes, the whole history of humanity, intellectual and moral, political and social, is but a reflection of its economic history. "

Why do you approvingly quote a pro-war liberal like Harris over and over again,

Partly because you keep asking me about him.

Second, the only statements by him referring to war that I've ever seen, is his statements against the Iraq war. If you've found some statement of his supporting the War in Afghanistan, (Or the war in Vietnam, etc.) feel encouraged to produce it, I'll take a look at it. However, that still would not invalidate the valuable things he has said. It isn't a zero-sum game. There isn’t a single philosopher, a single person, who wasn’t wrong about something.

He is, essentially, a liberal, though, although he doesn't identify as such.

and never, not even once, refer to what classical Anarchists(who you claim to adhere to) had to say about religion..

I did, a couple times. For example, this quote from Emma Goldman's "Anarchism; What it Really Stands For";

“..Anarchism has declared war on the pernicious influences which have so far prevented the harmonious blending of individual and social instincts, the individual and society.
Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.”

I actually was paraphrasing this one or two posts ago, obviously, it made a pretty serious impression on me.

I have also quoted “God & the State”;

“With all due respect, then, to the metaphysicians and religious idealists, philosophers, politicians, or poets: The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice.”

-and its relation to class society?

I have never denied a connection, a very important connection between poverty or lack of education and religious extremism, however, that’s not the whole picture.

Perhaps because you are in fact a liberal posing as an anarchist, a liar and a fraud?

I am a socialist and I consider the state to be an illegitimate institution, therefore I cannot be a Liberal. However, Anarchism has historical roots in Liberalism, so they share commonalities. Bakunin was influenced by it, as were all the early Anarchists.

While you’re slinging shit I’d like you to produce one instance of lying. I’m gonna go ahead and define it for you so you don’t get confused; lying is designated by calculated deceit, a deliberately false statement. My affirmation of Harris’ position on torture doesn’t count because what I said was correct. I posted the link to ‘Response to Controversy’ where it’s clearly explained. I also quoted relevent passages. RadioRaheem eventually understood it, maybe he can explain it to you.

Here is a sample of what secular liberals have done(who you described in another thread as 'leftists'):

Clearly, you have no idea what this word means. I have explained it, I have posted diagrams, I have posted definitions. There is nothing more I can do.

Victim of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima

My Lai massacre, Vietnam War

Child dying from Iraq sanctions

I could go on........

These are all abominable actions, as I’ve said before. However, this entirely misses the point. If Liberalism were based on a single text, and that single text said ‘Thou shalt use nuclear weapons against civilians, shoot noncombatants, and starve people to death.’, then, you’d have a point. People who subscribed to Liberalism were, to varying degrees, responsible for these acts, (I seriously doubt William Calley was much of a philosopher, but I’ll assume you mean people like Kissinger or Johnson.) they weren’t following a Liberal playbook. It’s like blaming Stalin’s crimes on Atheism, it’s nonsense.

bricolage

7th September 2010, 11:59

If religion is a mirror it’s a mirror of a violent, preindustrial society, hence it’s incompatibility with the modern world.
Absolutely not! We live in barbaric times as it is, surely you can see this? All you have to do is read the news!

No, you said there are plenty of good things rooted in religion.No I said religion can spawn as many good things as it can spawn bad things, I quoted a number of groups in regard to this that you chose to ignore.

These are ideas are completely based on, and inseparable from religion.Then how is it that most religious people don't believe this? Because religion is entirely malleable.

It should not be surprising that suicide bombing is more common to religious terrorists, specifically because of their beliefs about the afterlife.Quite possibly but lets be honest here how many deaths is suicide bombing responsible for. It might shock you but it is nothing like what the papers talk about, the vast majority of death and destruction in the world comes from violence that has nothing to do with religion at all. You however speak with daily mail facts.

Liberation theology was repeatedly criticized and seen as highly suspect by the Catholic church.Of course it was but the Catholic Church is a religious institution not a religious belief. Obviously you have to seperate institutions from belief which is why the Vatican and liberation theology are two opposite trends of what can stem from Catholicism. Additionally I think you'll find that most Catholics don't actually do what the Pope says.

Yes, but the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was not religiously motivated.Probably not although the religious beliefs of Blair, Bush have been said to have an influence, minor as they may be.
However the biggest issue is that they were motivated by liberal discourse (speading democracy, the free world, liberalism). These were all products of the 'rational' and 'secular' enlightenment, itself a non-theist movement and now what, they are being used to bomb the hell out of countries far away.

Religions, however, have very specific rules for codes of conduct, they tend to fixate on people’s sexual behaviors, etc., etc.
Like I said if you take any religious text and find evidence for these specific rules you could flick a few pages and find evidence for a completely contradictory rule. Religious texts and religions have always been contradictory and confusing, hence why two Catholics may act completely different, likewise two Jews, two Muslims, two whatever. People like you, Dawkins, Hitchens whatever like to cherry pick the Bible for quotes and say this proves everything, if I had the time I could do the same the other way.

Why don’t we see Jainists blowing themselves up?Jainists tend not to be structurally oppressed.

Seeing as I’m not a Communist, it shouldn’t mean that much to me. However, I think that most would disagree with at least some of that.Sure if you want to defend the 'rule of law' and 'democracy' then thats fine with me. I think the fact you admit to not being a communist (and that you capitalise the C!) speak volumes about what side you are on here.

That’s a little naïve.Not its called a materialistic understanding of the world.
And what are you going to do instead? Run around telling people their beliefs are stupid because have fun alienating most of the global workforce.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

7th September 2010, 13:04

Religious belief is one of the symptoms of the inability of human beings to think rationally without prompting. The others include conspiracy theories, anti-vaccination types, Randroids, climate change denial and others.

Religion is just one of the more popular ones, with the extreme examples being noisy and obnoxious. But that does not mean moderate religion should not be criticised.

NGNM85

7th September 2010, 17:30

Absolutely not! We live in barbaric times as it is, surely you can see this? All you have to do is read the news!

Not as barbaric as they used to be. However, partly because of that, we have higher standards.

No I said religion can spawn as many good things as it can spawn bad things, I quoted a number of groups in regard to this that you chose to ignore.

I was referring to this;

I'm sure similar things could be said to be 'rooted' in all religions, likewise there are numerous 'good' things rooted in such religions.

My point is that charity, virtue, humility, are not specifically religious values. Those groups you named were minor exceptions to the overarching trend in Christianity.

Then how is it that most religious people don't believe this? Because religion is entirely malleable.

Most Muslims don’t believe in perpetrating Jihad, at least not in the same sense as Al-Qaeda defines it. However, most Christians do believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ is damned. It says so specifically in the Bible, heresy is one of the most perfect example because there’s so much material to work with. Two of the 10 Commandments are devoted to it. This exposes the myth of religious tolerance.

Quite possibly but lets be honest here how many deaths is suicide bombing responsible for. It might shock you but it is nothing like what the papers talk about, the vast majority of death and destruction in the world comes from violence that has nothing to do with religion at all. You however speak with daily mail facts.

I never said most of the violence in the world is because of religion. However, some of it clearly is.

Of course it was but the Catholic Church is a religious institution not a religious belief. Obviously you have to seperate institutions from belief which is why the Vatican and liberation theology are two opposite trends of what can stem from Catholicism. Additionally I think you'll find that most Catholics don't actually do what the Pope says.

Liberation Theology is in no way representative of Christianity, as a whole. This is a minor exception.

Probably not although the religious beliefs of Blair, Bush have been said to have an influence, minor as they may be.

This really had absolutely nothing to do with it. It was for political and economic reasons. Most of Bush’s cabinet belonged to a far-right neoconservative think tank that had been calling for a full-scale invasion of Iraq since ’97.

However the biggest issue is that they were motivated by liberal discourse (speading democracy, the free world, liberalism). These were all products of the 'rational' and 'secular' enlightenment, itself a non-theist movement and now what, they are being used to bomb the hell out of countries far away.

I assure you, the Bush administration wasn’t remotely interested in spreading democracy in the Middle East. (Which would be a laudable goal.) That’s just empty rhetoric. The war in Iraq may have been perpetrated by people who believe in at least some of the central concepts of Liberalism, (The Bush administration are largely reactionary statists.) but that isn’t why it happened. Again, these actions do not follow automatically from Liberalism.

Like I said if you take any religious text and find evidence for these specific rules you could flick a few pages and find evidence for a completely contradictory rule. Religious texts and religions have always been contradictory and confusing, hence why two Catholics may act completely different, likewise two Jews, two Muslims, two whatever.

They are schizophrenic documents, however they do present discernible beliefs and attitudes. How do most Christians feel about homosexuality? Why is that? Like the disgraced former pastor Ted Haggard said, we don’t need to debate how we feel about homosexuality, what does the Bible say about it?

People like you, Dawkins, Hitchens whatever like to cherry pick the Bible for quotes and say this proves everything, if I had the time I could do the same the other way.

If you pulled out all the morally objectionable parts and stacked them against the morally abhorrent parts the former would outweigh the latter. The New Testament does not repudiate the barbarism in the first half, in fact, in the scripture, Jesus says many times that the old rules still apply.

Jainists tend not to be structurally oppressed.

That’s not the point and I think you know it. Their religion makes that kind of violence almost impossible to justify.

Sure if you want to defend the 'rule of law' and 'democracy' then thats fine with me.

The rule of law is the idea that all members of society, rich or poor, politicians and podiatrists, are all subject to the rules of that society. This is in contrast to the concept that preceded it, the ‘divine right of kings’ that stated that political leaders were ordained by god himself, and whatever they say goes, with no exception. Democracy is a system where a society is governed by the people, as opposed to an Autocracy, again, where people are to know their place and do what they are told, or else. Now you can have Democracy to degrees but not be a Democracy. The United States is a Republic but it has a degree of Representative Democracy. When I say ‘Democracy’ this is what you hear, which is not what I am saying, but I’m not responsible for your hangups. Any Anarchist would want a Democratic society, a Directly Democratic society. I think a number of communists would, as well.

I think the fact you admit to not being a communist

I guess you missed the big “A” in my avatar, and that my sn is an abbreviation of “No Gods No Masters.” So, there really wasn't any pretense that I might be a communist.

(and that you capitalise the C!)

That was a mistake on my part. I occasionally capitalize technical terms to try and highlight them. However, the capital ‘c’ implies specifically Soviet communism, which was a total travesty, and not the much broader trend of communist thought.

speak volumes about what side you are on here.

Again, with the binary thinking…

Not its called a materialistic understanding of the world.

It’s bullshit, that’s what it is. I assure you religion would not simply disappear under conditions of economic equality, just as it’s equally nonsense to believe that economic equality is the sole determinant of a free society.

And what are you going to do instead? Run around telling people their beliefs are stupid because have fun alienating most of the global workforce.

That’s not what I said.

bricolage

8th September 2010, 13:29

Not as barbaric as they used to be. However, partly because of that, we have higher standards.
I'm not sure about that, seeing as we have been talking about liberal discourse, enlightenment etc, I've always liked this Derrida reply to Fukuyama;

For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realized itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.

My point is that charity, virtue, humility, are not specifically religious values.
My point is that I don't think the horrific values you speak of are specifically religious values either. I think both can come from religious and both can come from non-religious sources, the overarching trend of course being class society. When I said rooted I meant they were as rooted in religion as the negative values you talk about.

However, most Christians do believe that anyone who does not accept Jesus Christ is damned.
So? If you don't believe in the afterlife, what problem is this to you? It certainly doesn't bother me. That being said I know many Christians, the only ones that have said I am damned are the ones that shout in the street, they tend to be a minority.

I never said most of the violence in the world is because of religion. However, some of it clearly is.
Of course but like was said above, some violence is about football. Like religion though most of it is not.

Liberation Theology is in no way representative of Christianity, as a whole. This is a minor exception.
Who ever said it wasn't?

I assure you, the Bush administration wasn’t remotely interested in spreading democracy in the Middle East.
I'm talking about the discourse it was framed in, additionally how a lot of people that supported the war (especially in the UK, I know less about the US) did so on grounds of spreading democracy. Democratic peace theory, clash of civilisations, all these ir theories that spawned from 'modernity' strongly influenced foreign policy towards the Middle East.

(Which would be a laudable goal.)
You think it is laudable to spread 'democracy' by bombs?

How do most Christians feel about homosexuality?
How do most people in general feel about homosexuality? I feel this is a problematic case because a) most people in the world are religious and b) most people in the world are homophobic. Of course there is going to be overlap between the two, this doesn't mean they necessarily stem from one another.
Interestingly (as a side note) I was watching a problem about persecution of homosexuals in Africa which is usually blamed on 'medieval' religious practices and the fact that people adhere to a less 'modern' view of religion. However they noted that most sodomy laws are still those brought in by colonial powers, as opposed to stemming from 'backwards' religious practices, they actually came from the bastion of modernity. More to the point they came from imperialism.

That’s not the point and I think you know it. Their religion makes that kind of violence almost impossible to justify.
I don't know, people said that about Buddhists... until they were fucked up against the wall and had to fight back. I imagine if the same happened to Jains things might change.

The rule of law is the idea that all members of society, rich or poor, politicians and podiatrists, are all subject to the rules of that society. This is in contrast to the concept that preceded it, the ‘divine right of kings’ that stated that political leaders were ordained by god himself, and whatever they say goes, with no exception.
You are talking about a specific type of law. Of course there was the 'rule of law' under the divine right of kings, the law just came from the king and not from a parliament.
And you think the Queen today has to obey the same laws that I do?

Regarding democracy, rule of law etc you spoke of these as the product of civilisation. My argument is that as civilisation has henceforth only ever been a civilisation of class society we have to deal with these concepts as they have originated through it and as how they are defined. As such we are of course opposed to the rule of law (the rule of the law of property) and democracy (bourgeois rule).

I guess you missed the big “A” in my avatar, and that my sn is an abbreviation of “No Gods No Masters.” So, there really wasn't any pretense that I might be a communist.
How can you be an anarchist but not a communist?

That was a mistake on my part. I occasionally capitalize technical terms to try and highlight them. However, the capital ‘c’ implies specifically Soviet communism, which was a total travesty, and not the much broader trend of communist thought.
Fair enough.

It’s bullshit, that’s what it is. I assure you religion would not simply disappear under conditions of economic equality,
Ignoring the spurious terms of 'economic equality', religion exists because of the material conditions that allow it to (misery and oppression/exploitation in this life hence the desire for a better afterlife, fear of death, lack of genuine community etc etc). These conditions would not exist under communism.

That’s not what I said.
To be honest I'm a bit confused about what you are saying most of the time.

NGNM85

9th September 2010, 05:05

I'm not sure about that, seeing as we have been talking about liberal discourse, enlightenment etc, I've always liked this Derrida reply to Fukuyama;

“For it must be cried out, at a time when some have the audacity to neo-evangelize in the name of the ideal of a liberal democracy that has finally realized itself as the ideal of human history: never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity. Instead of singing the advent of the ideal of liberal democracy and of the capitalist market in the euphoria of the end of history, instead of celebrating the ‘end of ideologies’ and the end of the great emancipatory discourses, let us never neglect this obvious macroscopic fact, made up of innumerable singular sites of suffering: no degree of progress allows one to ignore that never before, in absolute figures, have so many men, women and children been subjugated, starved or exterminated on the earth.”

Between Fukuyama and Derrida I choose ‘none of the above.’ However, the defects of either of these men is besides the point. They are both wrong. I won’t touch Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ because I think we can just take for granted that he was wrong. Derrida, however, is also wrong. He is right to criticize what Fukuyama said, Chomsky absolutely decimates this statement, however his statement is incorrect, not just conceptually but factually. Despite the popular wisdom violence has been on a general downward trend for centuries, there are spikes, but it’s trending downwards. Here’s an excellent lecture by Steven Pinker at TED;
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

My point is that I don't think the horrific values you speak of are specifically religious values either. I think both can come from religious and both can come from non-religious sources,
the overarching trend of course being class society. When I said rooted I meant they were as rooted in religion as the negative values you talk about.

Religion didn’t invent homicide or bigotry, or brutality, however, some forms of the aforementioned are explicitly and fundamentally religious, both in the method by which they present themselves, and the objects of this animus. For example, the Christian belief that condoms are worse than AIDS. Religion, to paraphrase Judge Posner’s remarks in his argument with Peter Singer, involves creating entirely new systems of ethics, opening up bizarre vistas of social engineering. There is no way that a person can logically arrive at the conclusion that is morally good to dissuade people in sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS is spreading like wildfire, not to use protection. That idea is predicated on Christianity. If we look at the other behaviors I mentioned, you’ll see the same is true. I won’t deny that there are some passages which, by themselves, would be laudable. However, the difference is charity or humility are not specifically Christian ideas, nor is there any reason to believe these things would be less prevalent without Christianity. Moreover, nobody who is actually virtuous, honest, humble, charitable, etc., does so because religious texts instruct them to do so, they do it because it’s their individual nature and it’s just the right thing to do. Empathy and compassion are natural human behaviors, throwing acid in schoolgirls’ faces is not.

So? If you don't believe in the afterlife, what problem is this to you? It certainly doesn't bother me. That being said I know many Christians, the only ones that have said I am damned are the ones that shout in the street, they tend to be a minority.

Consider the impact of that belief. To the true believer, heretics are infinitely more dangerous than child molesters or serial killers. Imagine if someone could say something to your child that would condemn them to an eternity of unimaginable torture. What isn’t justifiable under those circumstances?

Of course but like was said above, some violence is about football. Like religion though most of it is not.

Well, then we at least have a starting point. That some subset of the violence in the world is the product of religion. That’s a starting point.

I'm talking about the discourse it was framed in, additionally how a lot of people that supported the war (especially in the UK, I know less about the US) did so on grounds of spreading democracy. Democratic peace theory, clash of civilisations, all these ir theories that spawned from 'modernity' strongly influenced foreign policy towards the Middle East.

We have to be able to separate rhetoric from reality. The Bush administration had absolutely no interest in spreading democracy in the Middle East. That was propaganda, nobody in power actually believed that.

You think it is laudable to spread 'democracy' by bombs?

If we were serious about spreading democracy in the Middle East, we wouldn’t be dropping bombs. The Middle East could desperately use some democracy, but so far Washington hasn’t shown any interest.

How do most people in general feel about homosexuality? I feel this is a problematic case because a) most people in the world are religious and b) most people in the world are homophobic. Of course there is going to be overlap between the two, this doesn't mean they necessarily stem from one another.

Homophobia is a learned behavior. It’s no coincidence between the fact that the Abrahamic faiths, which consider homosexuality to be an abomination, represent around 65% of the worlds’ faithful, probably at least 80 or 90 percent in the West, and the rampant homophobia that we see.

Consider the legal battles in the United States over gay marriage and abortion. There simply aren’t any good secular arguments against them. The only serious argument you can make is the argument from religion. Take stem cell research. Now this is potentially the most groundbreaking discovery in medical science, yet it is blocked at every corner. The only way you can morally equate a zygote and a little girl who’s paralyzed, or an old man with Parkinson’s is to invoke spirits and magic. This is how religion opens up those ‘bizarre vistas of social engineering’, because it’s predicated on these absurd beliefs, and because it’s deontological. Deontological morality, as opposed to secular, utilitarian morality, is rooted in an absolute set of moral rules totally removed from the consequences of following those prescriptions. Also, religion has very warped concepts about ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ The story of the binding of Isaac by Abraham is a perfect example.

Interestingly (as a side note) I was watching a problem about persecution of homosexuals in Africa which is usually blamed on 'medieval' religious practices and the fact that people adhere to a less 'modern' view of religion. However they noted that most sodomy laws are still those brought in by colonial powers, as opposed to stemming from 'backwards' religious practices, they actually came from the bastion of modernity. More to the point they came from imperialism.

Africa is a big continent. However, Uganda, which had been more socially liberal is now on the verge on passing legislation making homosexuality punishable by death, because a wealthy and powerful radical evangelical Christian organization known as ‘The Family’ has been pouring money into the country, spreading propaganda, and grooming religious fundamentalists to take office.

Poverty and deprivation merely provide fertile ground for religious fundamentalism. However, the manifestations come from the religion, itself.

I don't know, people said that about Buddhists... until they were fucked up against the wall and had to fight back. I imagine if the same happened to Jains things might change.

The issue is that their beliefs make violence almost impossible. You can say the same about Tibetan Buddhists. These belief systems are almost completely incompatible with the kind of violence we see in the Abrahamic faiths. This is because of the specific features of these religions. As I said, Jihad and martyrdom exist in the Koran, the Bible and the Torah are also replete with justifications, even exhortations for violence. We can see the differences in these belief systems manifest themselves in human behavior. This is what I’ve been saying all along. The beliefs, themselves, matter.

You are talking about a specific type of law. Of course there was the 'rule of law' under the divine right of kings, the law just came from the king and not from a parliament.
And you think the Queen today has to obey the same laws that I do?

The phrase ‘rule of law’ specifically refers to a set of rules, created by men, to which all are subject. The king made rules and laws, but he wasn’t subject to any of them, and his authority was derived from an omnipotent creator.

To an extent. She can’t commit homicide, she can start wars, but she can’t arbitrarily murder people, there are other rules. Like democracy, the rule of law can be applied various ways and to various degrees, again, it’s just the idea that the authority of law stems from humans, as opposed to god, and that nobody is totally exempt. England, in many ways, has a much more regressive legal system. This is in part because, like a number of other countries, it’s such an old country.(I understand why Europeans scoff at the phrase ‘American history.’) You’re legal system has all sorts of crap left over from long ago, for instance, you are much more limited in terms of free speech, which dates back to English common law designed to protect the king. Then there’s your libel laws. Your taxes automatically go to the church. There are a number of examples. However, in other respects your country is far ahead, for example your national healthcare plan, while not the best, is considerably better than what we have in the United States.

Regarding democracy, rule of law etc you spoke of these as the product of civilisation.

They are.

My argument is that as civilisation has henceforth only ever been a civilisation of class society we have to deal with these concepts as they have originated through it and as how they are defined. As such we are of course opposed to the rule of law (the rule of the law of property) and democracy (bourgeois rule).

That’s where you’re going wrong. Democracy is any political structure where authority comes from the people, directly or indirectly. (Again, the US has democracy, but it isn’t a democracy.) Just because it has almost universally existed within a class structure, is irrelevant. Antagonistic classes, or economic exploitation, or what-have-you is not a prerequisite for, or a fundamental feature of democracy. An Anarchist society and presumably what we are to believe is the final form of communism would be the ultimate democracy, with decisions made and ratified by the people, directly. An Anarchist society would most certainly have rules or laws, but they would be, again, made by the people, and they most certainly would not discriminate for or against any individuals, they would apply to everyone.

Civilization is the process of human progress; the move towards democracy, secularism, scientific and technological development, etc. Religion is the antithesis of this grand project. It is totalitarian, it is primitive, it is irrational, and it is dogmatic.

How can you be an anarchist but not a communist?

Every communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist.

Ignoring the spurious terms of 'economic equality', religion exists because of the material conditions that allow it to (misery and oppression/exploitation in this life hence the desire for a better afterlife, fear of death, lack of genuine community etc etc). These conditions would not exist under communism.

It’s much more complicated then that. Religion began, primarily, as an attempt by primitive man to understand the world, in that sense it has largely outlived it’s usefulness. Poverty provides fertile grounds for religion, especially the more extreme variants. However, there’s more to it than that. This way of thinking is hopeless to explain the wealthy, well-educated Jihadist, or rich Christian extremists like The Family, who have never experienced oppression or deprivation. Therefore, the notion that religion would automatically disappear without poverty is absurd. Just as it is equally absurd to assume that an equitable distribution of wealth automatically leads to a free society. Communists are especially susceptible to these fallacies.

To be honest I'm a bit confused about what you are saying most of the time.

You’re not alone.

Barry Lyndon

9th September 2010, 15:00

a) Despite the popular wisdom violence has been on a general downward trend for centuries, there are spikes, but it’s trending downwards. Here’s an excellent lecture by Steven Pinker at TED;
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

b) The issue is that their beliefs make violence almost impossible. You can say the same about Tibetan Buddhists. These belief systems are almost completely incompatible with the kind of violence we see in the Abrahamic faiths. This is because of the specific features of these religions. As I said, Jihad and martyrdom exist in the Koran, the Bible and the Torah are also replete with justifications, even exhortations for violence. We can see the differences in these belief systems manifest themselves in human behavior. This is what I’ve been saying all along. The beliefs, themselves, matter.

c) That’s where you’re going wrong. Democracy is any political structure where authority comes from the people, directly or indirectly. (Again, the US has democracy, but it isn’t a democracy.) Just because it has almost universally existed within a class structure, is irrelevant. Antagonistic classes, or economic exploitation, or what-have-you is not a prerequisite for, or a fundamental feature of democracy. An Anarchist society and presumably what we are to believe is the final form of communism would be the ultimate democracy, with decisions made and ratified by the people, directly. An Anarchist society would most certainly have rules or laws, but they would be, again, made by the people, and they most certainly would not discriminate for or against any individuals, they would apply to everyone.

d) It’s much more complicated then that. Religion began, primarily, as an attempt by primitive man to understand the world, in that sense it has largely outlived it’s usefulness. Poverty provides fertile grounds for religion, especially the more extreme variants. However, there’s more to it than that. This way of thinking is hopeless to explain the wealthy, well-educated Jihadist, or rich Christian extremists like The Family, who have never experienced oppression or deprivation. Therefore, the notion that religion would automatically disappear without poverty is absurd. Just as it is equally absurd to assume that an equitable distribution of wealth automatically leads to a free society. Communists are especially susceptible to these fallacies

a) Yeah, World War I(10 million dead), The Rape of Nanking(250,000 massacred in 8 weeks), World War II(50-60 million dead), the Holocaust(6 million dead), the Vietnam War(4 million dead), the Rwandan genocide(800,000 killed in 100 days), the war in Iraq(as many as 1.3 million dead), as many as 6 million people killed or starved to death in the Congo since 1997.....the world is getting so much more peaceful. Btw, none of these bloodbaths were caused by religion.
But yes, I'm sure tribes with spears and clubs killed so many more people :rolleyes:.

b) Yeah, Tibetan Buddhism never justified a brutal feudal slave society for 700 years, did it?

c) True democracy is impossible in a society dominated by the capitalist class. Any Anarchist or Marxist knows that. Any democratic features that do exist in a capitalist society have been won through working class struggle, but are ephemeral and can be taken away until capitalism is abolished entirely.

d) I already explained to that being well-off does not mean you can't be outraged by Israeli atrocities in Palestine or Iraqi babies dying from sanctions, like the 9/11 hijackers were. But that flew right by your head because you don't want to learn.
Here is an essay by a good anarchist, Ward Churchill, which hammers that point home:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

Barry Lyndon

9th September 2010, 15:08

bricolage

9th September 2010, 15:14

/\/\ What he said.

hatzel

9th September 2010, 15:38

Notice that more developed countries tend to have more atheists.

...

And (better-educated) younger people tend to be atheists more than the elderly.

...

Worldwide, it's been confirmed, the poorest countries are the most religious.

This is all very Eurocentric, though. This is almost suggesting that developed, educated, rich countries are somehow superior to the rest of the world. Or, to be more accurate, that atheism comes with development. Many here seem to be using this to view religion as outdated, old-fashioned and so on. And this, really, isn't so far from claiming that our society is somehow superior to those others in the world, even though it's perfectly possible that we are already on the decline, and atheism may be a part of that. I know it's reactionary to start talking about the lack of native capitalist exploitation in the third world, but I think we should be very careful with confusing "atheism is more common in the developed, educated, rich world" with "religion's for backwards, stupid poor people" with some kind of negative connotation. Got to be careful there :thumbup1:

NecroCommie

9th September 2010, 15:49

It is irrelevant what religion does or does not. Religion promotes, by definition, blind faith regardless evidence. This is highly unmaterialistic worldview.

Comrade Marxist Bro

9th September 2010, 15:54

This is all very Eurocentric, though. This is almost suggesting that developed, educated, rich countries are somehow superior to the rest of the world. Or, to be more accurate, that atheism comes with development. Many here seem to be using this to view religion as outdated, old-fashioned and so on. And this, really, isn't so far from claiming that our society is somehow superior to those others in the world, even though it's perfectly possible that we are already on the decline, and atheism may be a part of that. I know it's reactionary to start talking about the lack of native capitalist exploitation in the third world, but I think we should be very careful with confusing "atheism is more common in the developed, educated, rich world" with "religion's for backwards, stupid poor people" with some kind of negative connotation. Got to be careful there :thumbup1:

There's nothing Eurocentric about the content of my post. (Why don't you prove that there is, instead of casting aspersions?) The most religious countries are all the less developed ones.

If it's prosperity that's better than a life of abject poverty, if education is a better thing than lacking it, then the developed nations that have more such things are better off than less developed nations that have less.

As people find that they are more empowered, there is less of a need for superstition. Marxism holds that consciousness changes as material conditions change.

And that's what the statistics tend to show. Development certainly doesn't guarantee a universal atheism, but it encourages a general decrease in a society's adherence to old religious dogma.

RED DAVE

9th September 2010, 16:09

It is irrelevant what religion does or does not. Religion promotes, by definition, blind faith regardless evidence. This is highly unmaterialistic worldview.It's all that and worse. The longer I'm involved in left-wing politics, the more I'm convinced that religion is an enemy that we have seriously underestimated. I'm not talking about organized religion: that's bad enough. What I'm talking about is, as NC says, the blind faith plus and underlying conservatism of character coupled with a penchant for dictatorship and violence.

Wilhelm Reich's The Mass Psychology of Fascism is a good place to begin a consideration of religion. It's online as a pdf.

http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf

RED DAVE

Crimson Commissar

9th September 2010, 16:45

For those of you who believe that religion motivates people to do good, let me ask you something. Would those people still be doing good things if they were atheists? Probably not. They do good things just because their non-existant god supposedly tells them to. If the only motivation they have to support social equality is religion, then that says a lot about them as a person. A socialist who supports their ideology only because of their religion is not a true socialist.

RadioRaheem84

9th September 2010, 17:02

Why is there another religious spat on here? Religion is an anti-materialist, irrational, and superstitious set of beliefs that have no validity in reality. This should be plain as day to any Marxist. But at the same time I do not chide fellow comrades who have faith. I think that it's wonderful if they do and if they also respect the wishes of other comrades without it then more power to them.

But what puzzles me, is why some comrades in here insist on adopting the mantra of the new atheists, when we have plenty of great atheists on the left like Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali who do not dive into a sort of 'clash of civilization' dogma and salivate over Western Democratic values, etc. I mean if you like the former you're better off subscribing to a fine liberal rag called Dissent and it's sister journal Democratiya. Most of it is anti-war but still pro-West.

Third, NGN, sorry comrade, I have made my amends with you but I do not recall actually agreeing with you that Harris does not support torture. Harris tried to have his cake and eat it to by trying to argue that there is no real substantial argument against torture but that he was still against it for moral grounds because of its possible abuse by the State. But he insisted that only a monster would not torture someone like Bin Laden in an instant to save lives. This means he himself still sort of believes and entrusts in the State's definition of a terrorist. I even described a scenario with an Indian Maoist captured by an Operation Green Hunt agent, and asked you that if under Harris's logic would I be a monster for not torturing him and extracting information that could potentially save lives (of policemen and other military men). You pretty much said yes and that sort of shocked me. It showed to me that under Harris's logic, he still pretty much follows the rational of the War on Terror and adopts their world view (us vs them). It pretty much told me that Harris wouldn't hesitate to torture an Indian Maoist for information.

Barry Lyndon

9th September 2010, 17:38

Third, NGN, sorry comrade, I have made my amends with you but I do not recall actually agreeing with you that Harris does not support torture. Harris tried to have his cake and eat it to by trying to argue that there is no real substantial argument against torture but that he was still against it for moral grounds because of its possible abuse by the State. But he insisted that only a monster would not torture someone like Bin Laden in an instant to save lives. This means he himself still sort of believes and entrusts in the State's definition of a terrorist. I even described a scenario with an Indian Maoist captured by an Operation Green Hunt agent, and asked you that if under Harris's logic would I be a monster for not torturing him and extracting information that could potentially save lives (of policemen and other military men). You pretty much said yes and that sort of shocked me. It showed to me that under Harris's logic, he still pretty much follows the rational of the War on Terror and adopts their world view (us vs them). It pretty much told me that Harris wouldn't hesitate to torture an Indian Maoist for information.

Thanks, RadioRaheem.

Also, why should an anarchist support the authority of the state to do anything,much less torture? Isn't the goal of an anarchist to abolish the capitalist state, precisely because it is nothing more then a tool of the capitalist class to enforce its will?

Even if the US military tortured Osama Bin Laden, it wouldn't be because hes a terrorist or an Islamic fundamentalist. The US was happy to support him when he and his goons were fighting the left-wing Afghan government and their Soviet allies, he has only become an 'enemy' that 'we' must capture and torture because he no longer serves the interests of the American capitalist class, and, in some ways, later became an obstacle to their interests.

What makes you think they would stop with Bin Laden? Oh wait, I forgot, you just slept through the last ten years. You seem to have forgotten that this 'theoretical' 'right' to torture 'enemies' in 'our' 'war on terror' has justified the actual torture of tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and increased police state measures within the United States to clamp down dissent. And has also given US allies such as Israel and India increased legitimacy to do so, because they follow the lead of the 'head Mafia don'(to quote Chomsky).

Remember, anarchists are also blanketly labeled as 'terrorists' too-there are anarchists rotting in jail today over their militant anti-globalization and pro-environmentalist activism being labeled as 'terrorism'.
You disgrace them and you disgrace the memory of the Haymarket Martyrs by accepting the bourgeois framing of the debate about 'terrorism' while calling yourself an anarchist.

Barry Lyndon

9th September 2010, 17:50

Liberation theology was repeatedly criticized and seen as highly suspect by the Catholic church. These are minor exceptions to the overarching trend.

You obviously don't know a damn thing about Latin American politics. Liberation theology has been a major trend in South and Central America for decades, with millions of adherents. It's supporters were at the forefront of fighting against US-backed dictatorships in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Brazil on the side of workers and landless peasants, with priests and nuns often giving their lives for their convictions. Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, believes in an infusion of Marxism and Christian beliefs, and several left-wing leaders in Latin America(all popularly elected) have similar ideas. Fidel Castro himself stated that in Latin America "the communists have become priests and the priests have become communists". It is not a 'minor trend'. Stop denying political realities because they don't fit in with your ignorant notions.

The fact that the Catholic heirarchy has condemned Liberation theology shows that class struggle premeates every facet of capitalist society, including religious institutions. And why would the pope, probably the single most powerful religious figure in the world, take the time to condemn Liberation theology if he didn't see it as a serious threat?

RadioRaheem84

9th September 2010, 18:06

The fact that the Catholic heirarchy has condemned Liberation theology shows that class struggle premeates every facet of capitalist society, including religious institutions. And why would the pope, probably the single most powerful religious figure in the world, take the time to condemn Liberation theology if he didn't see it as a serious threat?

This should have been obvious :confused:

NGNM85

9th September 2010, 18:29

a) Yeah, World War I(10 million dead), The Rape of Nanking(250,000 massacred in 8 weeks), World War II(50-60 million dead), the Holocaust(6 million dead), the Vietnam War(4 million dead), the Rwandan genocide(800,000 killed in 100 days), the war in Iraq(as many as 1.3 million dead), as many as 6 million people killed or starved to death in the Congo since 1997.....the world is getting so much more peaceful. Btw, none of these bloodbaths were caused by religion.
But yes, I'm sure tribes with spears and clubs killed so many more people :rolleyes:.

You never even looked at the lecture. I'm not going to reiterate the entire thing for you, but suffice to say Pinker has done a thorough study of all availible data going back to the earliest recorded history, and violence is becoming less common and less prevalent as an overall trend. Of course this isn't a straight downward curve, there are spikes and troughs, and it isn't distributed uniformly, but it's true.

b) Yeah, Tibetan Buddhism never justified a brutal feudal slave society for 700 years, did it?

I never said otherwise. What I said was it is extremely difficult for Tibetan Buddhusts or Jains to justify the kind of violence we see in the Abrahamic faiths, suicide bombings, shooting abortion doctors, that kind of stuff. The particular beliefs make this nearly impossible. Moreover, Tibetan Buddhists are a very instructive example, they are obviously, and quite frequently brutally oppressed, but the response is quite different.

c) True democracy is impossible in a society dominated by the capitalist class. Any Anarchist or Marxist knows that. Any democratic features that do exist in a capitalist society have been won through working class struggle, but are ephemeral and can be taken away until capitalism is abolished entirely.

Again, you can have democracy, without being a democracy. I already said that anarchism, or what we are supposed to believe is the final form of communism, would be the ultimate democracy.

d) I already explained to that being well-off does not mean you can't be outraged by Israeli atrocities in Palestine or Iraqi babies dying from sanctions, like the 9/11 hijackers were. But that flew right by your head because you don't want to learn.
Here is an essay by a good anarchist, Ward Churchill, which hammers that point home:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

Of course it doesn't mean you can't care about those things, that isn't the point. Also, Al-Qaeda doesn't give a damn about the Palestinians, it's just a propaganda tool.

NGNM85

9th September 2010, 18:38

And yes, you are, to quote 'RadioRaheem', a "fucking liar". He has also told me that you have lied about him coming around to agreeing with you. So that's two lies you have made, besides your countless distortions and evasions.

I'll get to that in a second.

You deny Sam Harris defends torture:

"I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror. In the aftermath of Abu Ghraib, this is not a comfortable position to have publicly adopted. There is no question that Abu Ghraib was a travesty, and there is no question that it has done our country lasting harm."
Basically, his concern about torture is not that it is wrong, but that it is bad PR. He expresses zero sympathy for torture's victims.

That's inaccurate; "..does not make travesties like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I considered our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. "

And look how he refers to 'our' war on terror. That instantly shows what side of the class struggle he's on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html

I fully acknowledge that he is, by most measures he's a Liberal. I never claimed he was a Socialist, I also don't think he has ever claimed to be a socialist.

To emphasize, the article is titled IN DEFENSE OF TORTURE.
And you deny Sam Harris supports torture.

That's about the only thing you've gotten right, that is the title. I don't dispute that.

It's like the Richard Pryor routine, when he describes being in bed with another woman, and being caught by his wife. He frantically denies everything.
'Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?'

No, I've repeatedly explained myself and offered evidence to no avail. Obviously, you didn't understand that article. Also, you didn't even read his "Response to Controversy" in which he simplifies his position on the subject for people, like yourself, who didn't get it the first time.

Adi Shankara

9th September 2010, 21:53

You never even looked at the lecture. I'm not going to reiterate the entire thing for you, but suffice to say Pinker has done a thorough study of all availible data going back to the earliest recorded history, and violence is becoming less common and less prevalent as an overall trend. Of course this isn't a straight downward curve, there are spikes and troughs, and it isn't distributed uniformly, but it's true.

I highly am suspect; just 7 YEARS ago we had a completely secular racial war, the Second Congo war, which took nearly 5.5 million lives. Then, we have the Holocaust, which took 10 million lives, which, while 70 years ago, is still in memory, and it wasn't religiously motivated either, but racially motivated. Now then, how can you forget the Sri Lankan civil war, which on the surface looks like a religious war, but in fact is a racial war between Sinhalese and Tamils? That ended Just last year, and is responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Sri Lankans. Now what about Darfur? Another racial war, this time, the casualties stand around 500,000 people.

tl;dr: If "new atheists" spent half the time attacking racism as they did religion, something might actually be stopped.

I never said otherwise. What I said was it is extremely difficult for Tibetan Buddhusts or Jains to justify the kind of violence we see in the Abrahamic faiths, suicide bombings, shooting abortion doctors, that kind of stuff. The particular beliefs make this nearly impossible. Moreover, Tibetan Buddhists are a very instructive example, they are obviously, and quite frequently brutally oppressed, but the response is quite different.

You rarely hear of Hindu violence; you once in a while hear of riots, but they are minor compared to other religious conflicts around the world; there was never a hindu genocide before, for instance, unless you want to count partition, but that was mostly political, and muslims were fighting Hindus as well (also, Nehru was an atheist)

Again, you can have democracy, without being a democracy. I already said that anarchism, or what we are supposed to believe is the final form of communism, would be the ultimate democracy.

Communism is the final form of Communism. I can tell someone didn't read the Communist manifesto :rolleyes:

Of course it doesn't mean you can't care about those things, that isn't the point. Also, Al-Qaeda doesn't give a damn about the Palestinians, it's just a propaganda tool.

I find it ironic you say this, considering Al Qaeda also uses religion as a propaganda tool but you don't bother to point this out.

Crimson Commissar

9th September 2010, 22:18

tl;dr: If "new atheists" spent half the time attacking racism as they did religion, something might actually be stopped.
And we can't just attack both? Not everyone who critiscises religion is completely apathetic towards racism. The only problem is that everyone on revleft seems to think that anti-racism means you have to defend islam at every opportunity rather than actually attack the racism of right-wing anti-immigrant groups.

NGNM85

10th September 2010, 05:37

Why is there another religious spat on here? Religion is an anti-materialist, irrational, and superstitious set of beliefs that have no validity in reality. This should be plain as day to any Marxist.

It should be plain as day to anyone who thinks rationally.

But at the same time I do not chide fellow comrades who have faith. I think that it's wonderful if they do and if they also respect the wishes of other comrades without it then more power to them.

There’s nothing ‘wonderful’ about irrationality. There is no good argument for irrationality. Then, you have all the abhorrent crap that these religions preach, on top of that.

But what puzzles me, is why some comrades in here insist on adopting the mantra of the new atheists, when we have plenty of great atheists on the left like Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali who do not dive into a sort of 'clash of civilization' dogma and salivate over Western Democratic values, etc. I mean if you like the former you're better off subscribing to a fine liberal rag called Dissent and it's sister journal Democratiya. Most of it is anti-war but still pro-West.

It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. I’ve also been criticized for referencing Chomsky too much, so I don’t see it makes any difference. ‘Western Democratic values’ is slippery and vague. As far as models for how to build a society the modern West has produced the best version so far, that should be obvious. That isn’t to say that it’s perfect, or can’t be improved upon.

Third, NGN, sorry comrade, I have made my amends with you but I do not recall actually agreeing with you that Harris does not support torture. Harris tried to have his cake and eat it to by trying to argue that there is no real substantial argument against torture but that he was still against it for moral grounds because of its possible abuse by the State. But he insisted that only a monster would not torture someone like Bin Laden in an instant to save lives. This means he himself still sort of believes and entrusts in the State's definition of a terrorist.

Any honest definition would include Osama bin Laden. He’s a psychopath and a murderer. I think the US army definition is plenty sufficient; “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.” Of course, the US only applies this to individuals who are against Washington’s current objectives. However, the definition is perfectly sound, and can be applied to all forms of terrorism, including state terrorism, although it never is.

I even described a scenario with an Indian Maoist captured by an Operation Green Hunt agent, and asked you that if under Harris's logic would I be a monster for not torturing him and extracting information that could potentially save lives (of policemen and other military men). You pretty much said yes and that sort of shocked me. It showed to me that under Harris's logic, he still pretty much follows the rational of the War on Terror and adopts their world view (us vs them). It pretty much told me that Harris wouldn't hesitate to torture an Indian Maoist for information.

The specific creed of the hypothetical individual is not relevant to the hypothetical scenario. You’re confusing the point by adding additional criteria. (Although, I doubt the
Indian Maoists would fulfill the necessary prerequisites, thereby making it moot.) The ‘Ticking Time Bomb’ scenario involves having a terrorist in custody who you know has intimate knowledge of the specifics of an immanent terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction (I’ve always hated that phrase.) which would result in a catastrophic loss of life.

First, we have to talk about ethics and morality. Secular morality tends to be utilitarian, for very obvious reasons. Religion is deontological, it has an absolute set of values given to them by god, their concept of right and wrong is concrete, having been defined by the omnipotent creator of the universe. That’s the problem, as I was saying, they have a system of values that’s totally detached from the human consequences. This is how they are able to believe that condoms are worse than AIDS. The binding of Isaac by Abraham is a perfect example. Abraham is fully ready to murder his own child for god, and according to religious morality whatever is god’s will is defined as ‘right.’ Now, as Atheists, we don’t have our morality handed to us from a daddy figure in the sky, or etched into a tablet. Religious people often claim that this lack of an absolute standard precludes Atheists from having any real moral foundation. However, it is totally possible to have morals that are not based on these absolute rules. You don’t need a commandment to believe murder is wrong. However, they are right in that there is a difference in that this morality is not absolute. This is one of the differences in perspective.

Secular, utilitarian conceptions of morality are influenced by the probable outcomes. ‘Good’ as defined as whatever action produces the maximum benefit and the minimum harm. Take for example a triage situation where you have several people who are seriously wounded, or a firefighter in a burning building, in circumstances such as these one often has to prioritize, potentially resulting in someone’s death. Not only is this morally permissible, we are morally obligated to make that choice, as unpleasant as it may be. Now, I’m reducing a complicated philosophical argument to simplest terms, but the point is that under such a system of ethics there aren’t really ‘absolute’ moral rules, in the sense of the commandments. Therefore, torture cannot be absolutely wrong, because in order for that to be so we’d have to ground that in something external. That isn’t to say that it isn’t wrong 99.9% of the time, however if we can invent even one fantastical hypothetical where it would be justified (And we can.), then it can’t be ‘absolutely’ wrong. As you said, yourself; ‘I mean one would have to be a monster not to, right.’ I’m quite surprised then when you follow this up by accusing him of ‘having his cake and eating it, too.’ There is no inconsistency. This is actually the position of most opponents of torture, excepting a minority who do so on religious grounds. (According to statistical surveys of the US electorate religiosity correlates with support for ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ aka torture, and the ‘war on terror’, etc.) This was his main point, to address the intellectual dishonesty and emotionality that obfuscates this issue.

You are correct that one oftentimes hears this ‘24’-esque hypothetical from the right, however, the problem is that they want to substantially exceed the bounds of the hypothetical scenario, substantially lowering the bar on what actually justifies torture. Harris is clearly against this. He also points out the governments’ seeming inability to police itself, to only use extreme measures under the most extreme circumstances. Therefore, the only justifiable course is a blanket ban on the use of torture; “While I think that torture should remain illegal… It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences.”

He doesn’t mention it, but there are also logical problems with the scenario, itself. It seems unlikely one could be relatively positive that there is both an impending, immanent terrorist attack, that said attack is of such a nature as to be on a massive scale, involving, say, nuclear weapons, or something more like 9/11, capture one of the terrorists or a close associate who is known to possess critical knowledge, and not have the specific information necessary to take action. I mean, I don’t see how you could be totally sure that terrorists were going to hijack a plane or detonate a nuclear weapon, that they intend to do so in the immediate future, and capture a close associate, without already knowing at least the general location of the device, or which planes, etc. However, this is completely beside the point. The point is about morality and absolutes.

RadioRaheem84

10th September 2010, 15:33

There’s nothing ‘wonderful’ about irrationality. There is no good argument for irrationality. Then, you have all the abhorrent crap that these religions preach, on top of that. It depends on the religion and it's interpretation. How come you give religion more clout than it really should have? No one believes more in the power of religious ideals than anti-theists themselves. You should really focus on the material conditions which would provide you with a better framework for analysis and won't allow for religion to essentially dominate the debate. For something that doesn't even exist, you give the ideals behind it too much credence.

It doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game. I’ve also been criticized for referencing Chomsky too much, so I don’t see it makes any difference. ‘Western Democratic values’ is slippery and vague. As far as models for how to build a society the modern West has produced the best version so far, that should be obvious. That isn’t to say that it’s perfect, or can’t be improved upon.This is why you desperately need a materialist outlook, comrade. And why you also need to read more Marx. The things you post sometimes is quite troubling. Western Democratic values as touted by the pro-War Western liberals, neo-cons, and Euston Manifesto types coupled with an anti-religious (mostly Islam) fervor is what I am talking about. A Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington type of view of the world, where (with all its faults) the West is the most triumphant form of civilization devised by man.

I question how you can come to this conclusion when the history of the West is rife with exploitation, imperialism, colonialism, and systematic underdevelopment of the third world for personal gain. With these gains they were able to afford themselves all the wonderful things you hold dear. Not to mention the working class gaining concession from the ruling class. There was no great linear progression of absolutely wonderful enlightenment that dominated the history of the West. It was a zig zag of some of the worst forms of 'civilized barbarity' ever witnessed by major powers and not to mention brutal class struggle. The same type of development that you now chide the rest of the world for engaging in!

There is also the notion that you believe that there is somehow this juxtaposition of great wealth and great poverty, as if saying, "yes, it's sad that the US and the West malnourished the development of the rest of the world, but look at us and our development as a great society". As if these two things are totally unconnected or unrelated. You cannot talk about great wealth (money, power, knowledge) without talking about great poverty in a world dominated by capitalism. The great wealth we have and share along with our values is primarily because of imperialism (the other part is class struggle).

To talk like you do is to negate a class analysis of the situation, lack a materialist perspective and be totally devoted to idealism, especially an ahistorical brand.

Any honest definition would include Osama bin Laden. He’s a psychopath and a murderer. I think the US army definition is plenty sufficient; “the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.” Of course, the US only applies this to individuals who are against Washington’s current objectives. However, the definition is perfectly sound, and can be applied to all forms of terrorism, including state terrorism, although it never is.Like you stated, the US applied it mostly to people it deems a threat to it's interests. So in essence it's almost useless, because an Indian Maoist fighting for independence and national liberation could be captured and have knowledge of an imminent attack on a police station or army barracks and the US government could side with Operation Green Hunt (as they are) and decide that that Naxilites are terrorists in the same vein as psychopath Bin Laden. Yet, this same psychopath was once a member of a very elite group of freedom fighters that helped bring down the USSR.

How objectively can we trust the State's definition of a terrorist when it employs the same methods itself? That definition can be said about the CIA alone much less the rest of the National Security State apparatus.

The fact that you're even quoting that and taking it seriously surprises me.

The specific creed of the hypothetical individual is not relevant to the hypothetical scenario. You’re confusing the point by adding additional criteria. (Although, I doubt the
Indian Maoists would fulfill the necessary prerequisites, thereby making it moot.) The ‘Ticking Time Bomb’ scenario involves having a terrorist in custody who you know has intimate knowledge of the specifics of an immanent terrorist attack involving a weapon of mass destruction (I’ve always hated that phrase.) which would result in a catastrophic loss of life.
The only reason why I added the extra information is because Harris's reasoning is filled with holes. He uses language that mirrors what the official definition of what constitutes a terrorist in the sense that the US employs. He agrees with the language of the War on Terror and simply wants to have his cake and eat it too by being "against" torture but saying there is no absolute argument against it. This isn't even about getting into the latter argument but getting into his political beliefs which are squarely in the Hawkish camp when it comes to people he hates, which also coincide with the list of enemies of the State. If one were to take his vague scenario and attach some specifics under the presuppositions he holds, he would tell me that I would have to be a monster if I did not torture an Indian Maoist who held some specific information about an imminent attack on a station that would likely cause a substantial loss of life.

His logic and the State's are essentially one and the same when it comes to the War on Terror, and he supports torture but hides it behind a barrage of inconsistent blather. The guy is a hack and I am surprised that you, as an anarchist, could simply employ his rhetoric as an argument on revleft.

Seriously, NGN, get some new heroes.

RadioRaheem84

10th September 2010, 15:44

Again, you can have democracy, without being a democracy.

This sounds a lot like the reasoning Christopher Hitchens used when selling the War on Iraq. I think he was actually paraphrasing Paul Wolfowitz when he said that,
"Indonesia has a shaky democracy, but at least it is a democracy".
I took this to mean that Indonesia is a corrupt, gangsterish, plutocratic rife troubled nation but at least they're a democracy in name now instead of a brutal dictatorship under Suharto.

NGN, would you care to elaborate your quote a little more, so I can a little more context on what exactly you meant? I really do not want to misread you again.

RadioRaheem84

10th September 2010, 15:55

And we can't just attack both? Not everyone who critiscises religion is completely apathetic towards racism. The only problem is that everyone on revleft seems to think that anti-racism means you have to defend islam at every opportunity rather than actually attack the racism of right-wing anti-immigrant groups. At this particular stage in historical development, the ruling classes of the imperialist nations have took it upon themselves to attack the religion of Islam in a nonchalant and indirect way by juxtaposing images of Islamic clerics and terrorists, giving the appearance that a terrorist = Muslim. This has opened up a can of worms on the people of the faith who practice their religion in peace. Many Muslims are also peaceful and understand the imperial reach of the Western Powers, yet if they hold such beliefs in public they're branded a terrorist.

So in turn this has sparked a racist barrage of hatred toward people of the Muslim faith. In contrast, leftists have been consistent in their defense of the erroneous crap that is put out there about not only Muslims but Islam itself too. This isn't a defense or by any means an endorsement of the religion, but I presume that most leftists just hate injustice and the horrid misreading and misinterpretation of the faith to make it look 'evil', 'spooky' and downright in sync with the political rhetoric of the State and their definition of a terrorist.

In the same vein that I defended Christianity (a faith I have no interest in) against NGNs painfully sophomoric and vain attempts at dismantling the belief. I mean, the comrade couldn't even keep a consistent argument considering he was horribly taking the Bible out of context and could not comprehend the basic tenets of the faith (as espoused by the holy book itself). I mean I assumed it was scholarly to understand the basic tenets of the belief by examining the creator of the religion and first initial followers but apparently connecting what Emperor Constantine did (a politician) to what a poor Nazarene centuries removed said is how you evaluate the basic tenets of a religion according to him.

But it's correcting blanket statements of reactionary drivel against certain religions in order to impede the hatred among the working class that really has me indirectly "defending" religion sometimes.

Thirsty Crow

10th September 2010, 17:07

There’s nothing ‘wonderful’ about irrationality. There is no good argument for irrationality.
Have you ever been in love?
As far as I'm concerned, I find some forms of irrationality, like this one (emotions), wonderful. Even more so when it is coupled with rationality.
And this opens the gateway to the core of the phenomenon of anti-theism. At the core we find hegemonic impulses and a misunderstanding of how religion function. That's right, you folks don't ask the right questions. Instead of "Are religious beliefs true", you should be asking "How do religious beliefs, and spirituality as a broader phenomenon, function within society and within the process of individual mental formation". Insufficient set of questions, insufficient knowledge.

RadioRaheem84

10th September 2010, 17:46

Excellent post Menochio!

Crimson Commissar

10th September 2010, 18:41

Have you ever been in love?
As far as I'm concerned, I find some forms of irrationality, like this one (emotions), wonderful. Even more so when it is coupled with rationality.
And this opens the gateway to the core of the phenomenon of anti-theism. At the core we find hegemonic impulses and a misunderstanding of how religion function. That's right, you folks don't ask the right questions. Instead of "Are religious beliefs true", you should be asking "How do religious beliefs, and spirituality as a broader phenomenon, function within society and within the process of individual mental formation". Insufficient set of questions, insufficient knowledge.
Religion is not wonderful in any way. When a religious person gives food to the poor, it doesn't always mean they're doing it because they feel sorry for them and want them to have a better life. Often it is only because they believe god wants them to. Likewise, religious communists are often only communists because they believe that communism is the ideology which fits best with their religious teachings. If god was to appear before them and tell them communism is wrong, they would abandon their political beliefs on the damn spot. Someone who wants equality only because their god wants equality is just as bad as a capitalist. They're basically saying that if god did not exist, they would be just as capitalistic and hateful as any anti-communist is.

RadioRaheem84

10th September 2010, 18:54

Religion is not wonderful in any way. When a religious person gives food to the poor, it doesn't always mean they're doing it because they feel sorry for them and want them to have a better life. Often it is only because they believe god wants them to. Likewise, religious communists are often only communists because they believe that communism is the ideology which fits best with their religious teachings. If god was to appear before them and tell them communism is wrong, they would abandon their political beliefs on the damn spot. Someone who wants equality only because their god wants equality is just as bad as a capitalist. They're basically saying that if god did not exist, they would be just as capitalistic and hateful as any anti-communist is.

So basically if you're an atheist you have a purer motive?

OK, that says a lot.

If god was to appear before them and tell them communism is wrong, they would abandon their political beliefs on the damn spot.Well, we do not have to worry about that, now do we?

You see this is what I am talking about when giving their religious beliefs way more credence than needed. What does this hypothetical serve except to slander? Leftists like David Horowitz are now champions of free market fundamentalism and the worst excesses of imperialism, and the guy was always a straight up atheist.

Crimson Commissar

10th September 2010, 19:07

So basically if you're an atheist you have a purer motive?

OK, that says a lot.
Most likely, yes. Atheists do not have any god to convince them to adopt a certain viewpoint. We make decisions based on what we think is best for humanity. A religious person can do that too of course, but it is very likely that their god influences their decisions in some way.

Well, we do not have to worry about that, now do we?
You're right, but to be honest I don't consider someone who is a communist only for their own interest or only for their god's interest to be a comrade of mine.

You see this is what I am talking about when giving their religious beliefs way more credence than needed. What does this hypothetical serve except to slander? Leftists like David Horowitz are now champions of free market fundamentalism and the worst excesses of imperialism, and the guy was always a straight up atheist.
How the hell does his atheism relate to his change in ideology? It's not like everyone who critiscises religion is going to suddenly become an insane white nationalist or some shit.

RadioRaheem84

10th September 2010, 19:14

Most likely, yes. Atheists do not have any god to convince them to adopt a certain viewpoint. We make decisions based on what we think is best for humanity. A religious person can do that too of course, but it is very likely that their god influences their decisions in some way.Since I do not believe in God, I mostly attribute their irrationality to the irrationality that exists in man to begin with. Religion is not an ideal that should be placed above a person's material conditions. His god means nothing to me. He is influenced by irrationality not god.

You're right, but to be honest I don't consider someone who is a communist only for their own interest or only for their god's interest to be a comrade of mine.Not even a socialist who considers Christian tenets to be compatible with socialism? That's a bit harsh, don't ya think?

How the hell does his atheism relate to his change in ideology? It's not like everyone who critiscises religion is going to suddenly become an insane white nationalist or some shit. Funny how you go straight to thinking I am criticizing his atheism. It seems like you're more interested in an atheist vs. theist spat.

What I was saying was that David Horowitz didn't need a God to tell him to drop Communism. He came up with it all on his own and by his own reasoning. People can dive in and out of rationality with or without religion. I was trying to point out that an atheist comrade or a religious comrade, it makes no difference. Examine them individually and always keep a materialist perspective.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

10th September 2010, 19:19

Have you ever been in love?
As far as I'm concerned, I find some forms of irrationality, like this one (emotions), wonderful. Even more so when it is coupled with rationality.

Which means not wasting our emotions on fictional concepts. Friends, family and lovers all happen to be real.

And this opens the gateway to the core of the phenomenon of anti-theism. At the core we find hegemonic impulses and a misunderstanding of how religion function. That's right, you folks don't ask the right questions. Instead of "Are religious beliefs true", you should be asking "How do religious beliefs, and spirituality as a broader phenomenon, function within society and within the process of individual mental formation". Insufficient set of questions, insufficient knowledge.

Knowing how religions function doesn't mean we have to accept them. Greater understanding of child abuse (which religious groups and institutions have all too frequently covered up) should not lead us to accept it's existence as anything other than a problem.

Crimson Commissar

10th September 2010, 19:23

Since I do not believe in God, I mostly attribute their irrationality to the irrationality that exists in man to begin with. Religion is not an ideal that should be placed above a person's material conditions. His god means nothing to me. He is influenced by irrationality not god.
Religion should be attacked by leftists just as much as we attack capitalism. Of course, socialism is the priority here, but after we've established socialism, the reactionary ideas of religion will still linger in our society. It is important that we try to combat religion, and work towards establishing a society free of both oppression and tyranny in all it's forms, including religion.

Not even a socialist who considers Christian tenets to be compatible with socialism? That's a bit harsh, don't ya think?
If he's a socialist for the right reasons and not just because he is a christian, then yes, he is my comrade. However, I would try to convince them to abandon their religious beliefs. I wouldn't force them of course. I believe it is important that religious people become atheists out of their own free will, not out of being threatened by others.

What I was saying was that David Horowitz didn't need a God to tell him to drop Communism. He came up with it all on his own and by his own reasoning. People can dive in and out of rationality with or without religion. I was trying to point out that an atheist comrade or a religious comrade, it makes no difference. Examine them individually and always keep a materialist perspective.
Ah, I see. By the way, I do not attack religious comrades, I attack their religion.

NGNM85

11th September 2010, 05:11

This sounds a lot like the reasoning Christopher Hitchens used when selling the War on Iraq. I think he was actually paraphrasing Paul Wolfowitz when he said that,
"Indonesia has a shaky democracy, but at least it is a democracy".
I took this to mean that Indonesia is a corrupt, gangsterish, plutocratic rife troubled nation but at least they're a democracy in name now instead of a brutal dictatorship under Suharto.

Don't get me started on Indonesia. Let's just say that's really lowering the bar. I'd say Indonesian people enjoy something comperable to the kind of 'democracy' they enjoy in Russia. I'm not sure if you hard, but Mr. Putin recently publicly reaffirmed his dedication to 'freedom' and 'democracy' by issuing a public statement to Russian political protesters;"If you go out without having the right, you’ll get a bash on the head with a truncheon.” I mean it doesn't get much more transparent than that. That's really abusing the word.

NGN, would you care to elaborate your quote a little more, so I can a little more context on what exactly you meant? I really do not want to misread you again.

What I meant is that a government can have degrees of democracy. I was thinking more in terms of the United States, which is a Republic. (This is actually a common misconception, the American educational system does an abysmal job of teaching politics and history.) Americans don't really participate in the specific decisions, I mean, they're aware of popular opinions and they adjust accordingly sometimes, but the elected politicians really do the governing. What we, as citizens, do is we pick whose going to be making those decisions for a limited period of time. We have representative Democracy. The United Kingdom is similar is some respects, they have parliamentary democracy. Here’s a helpful explaination if you want something a little more in-depth; http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-republic-and-a-democracy.htm It was really a minor point, Barry Lyndon was just trying to wind me up.

hatzel

11th September 2010, 21:22

Which means not wasting our emotions on fictional concepts. Friends, family and lovers all happen to be real.

Depends who you ask, really. I mean, I don't want to be the one to come out with stupid clichés, claiming that we really are just brains in jars, with all this just our imagined little world (well, presumably, your little world, as you're the one reading this, and this imagining that somebody ever wrote this :laugh:), but it is technically possible. Or, we have no way to prove that our friends, family and lovers are real, as much as we can't prove that some deity, angel, spirit, whatever, isn't real. So both are a matter of belief, and putting faith in what we claim we know...

NGNM85

12th September 2010, 02:38

Depends who you ask, really. I mean, I don't want to be the one to come out with stupid clichés, claiming that we really are just brains in jars, with all this just our imagined little world (well, presumably, your little world, as you're the one reading this, and this imagining that somebody ever wrote this :laugh:), but it is technically possible. Or, we have no way to prove that our friends, family and lovers are real, as much as we can't prove that some deity, angel, spirit, whatever, isn't real. So both are a matter of belief, and putting faith in what we claim we know...

This is unnecessarily tedious... Of course we have no way of varifying an objective reality because we can't go 'outside' ourselves, outside of our perceptions. However, this is really moot. We may not have 'proof' you exist, or that Sri Lanka exists, or that David Hasselhoff exists, but we have compelling evidence that they exist. There is no such evidence for an omnipotent creator.

RedPandaLittleGirl

12th September 2010, 03:07

I think a slow process of showing people the way of how people could be better without Religion is the best, but that's just day dreaming. People rather stay in the idea that Religion is the way to go. Without seeing how out dated it is, how can you live by a book that was written in times when God use to speak to people? If God speaks to people now, they're insane. I don't get it. :blink:

NGNM85

12th September 2010, 07:47

It depends on the religion

It absolutely depends on the religion. That’s why we see the behavioral differences between them, which correlate to the differences in attitudes and opinions particular to their denomination.

..and it's interpretation. How come you give religion more clout than it really should have? No one believes more in the power of religious ideals than anti-theists themselves. You should really focus on the material conditions which would provide you with a better framework for analysis and won't allow for religion to essentially dominate the debate. For something that doesn't even exist, you give the ideals behind it too much credence.

No, there are many different religious interpretations, but there is a very finite text or texts that form the core of these belief systems. If you look at them holistically, you’ll inevitably find some exceptions, but by and large they all fall within a fairly narrow range.

This is why you desperately need a materialist outlook, comrade. And why you also need to read more Marx. The things you post sometimes is quite troubling. Western Democratic values as touted by the pro-War Western liberals, neo-cons, and Euston Manifesto types coupled with an anti-religious (mostly Islam) fervor is what I am talking about. A Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington type of view of the world, where (with all its faults) the West is the most triumphant form of civilization devised by man.

I question how you can come to this conclusion when the history of the West is rife with exploitation, imperialism, colonialism, and systematic underdevelopment of the third world for personal gain. With these gains they were able to afford themselves all the wonderful things you hold dear. Not to mention the working class gaining concession from the ruling class. There was no great linear progression of absolutely wonderful enlightenment that dominated the history of the West. It was a zig zag of some of the worst forms of 'civilized barbarity' ever witnessed by major powers and not to mention brutal class struggle. The same type of development that you now chide the rest of the world for engaging in!

Human progress isn’t a straight line, there have been troughs and peaks, but, so far, it’s generally an upward trajectory. The current situation is far from perfect, but by most measurements it’s better than what preceded it. Kind of like what Churchill said; democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried. I was also referring more to the internal structure of Western societies, religious pluralism, secular government, the rule of law, etc. Compared to what came before it we’ve come a long way.
That’s not to say we can’t significantly improve on the society we presently live in.

There is also the notion that you believe that there is somehow this juxtaposition of great wealth and great poverty, as if saying, "yes, it's sad that the US and the West malnourished the development of the rest of the world, but look at us and our development as a great society". As if these two things are totally unconnected or unrelated. You cannot talk about great wealth (money, power, knowledge) without talking about great poverty in a world dominated by capitalism. The great wealth we have and share along with our values is primarily because of imperialism (the other part is class struggle).

I fully concede that the prosperity we enjoy in the west was largely purchased at the expense of the global south. Ideally, I would like Burkina Faso to look more like Beverly Hills, I think most inhabitants of Burkina Faso would want that, as well.

To talk like you do is to negate a class analysis of the situation, lack a materialist perspective and be totally devoted to idealism, especially an ahistorical brand.

There’s a problem that a lot of Marxists have which is to reduce absolutely everything down to economics. Like Chomsky said; ‘I think it's too hasty to characterize our existing systems of justice as merely systems of class oppression; I don't think that they are that. I think that they embody systems of class oppression and elements of other kinds of oppression, but they also embody a kind of groping towards the true humanly, valuable concepts of justice and decency and love and kindness and sympathy, which I think are real.’

Like you stated, the US applied it mostly to people it deems a threat to it's interests. So in essence it's almost useless, because an Indian Maoist fighting for independence and national liberation could be captured and have knowledge of an imminent attack on a police station or army barracks and the US government could side with Operation Green Hunt (as they are) and decide that that Naxilites are terrorists in the same vein as psychopath Bin Laden. Yet, this same psychopath was once a member of a very elite group of freedom fighters that helped bring down the USSR.

How objectively can we trust the State's definition of a terrorist when it employs the same methods itself? That definition can be said about the CIA alone much less the rest of the National Security State apparatus.

The fact that you're even quoting that and taking it seriously surprises me.

Well, you’re combining two things here. There’s the US official definition of terrorism, and this hypothetical scenario, right now I’m just going to talk about the former.

The definition is fine. In fact there’s a kind of schizophrenia or doublethink involved because that definition obviously applies to the United States, as a perpetrator of state terrorism. The problem is it isn’t actually applied that way. The way it’s written is fine.

The only reason why I added the extra information is because Harris's reasoning is filled with holes.

No, it isn’t.

He uses language that mirrors what the official definition of what constitutes a terrorist in the sense that the US employs.

What something sounds like is irrelevant, what matters is what is actually being said.
See, I think this is the issue right here, I think the biggest objection people have is it doesn’t sound right to them, not that there’s much in the way of actual disagreement. This kind of nonsense happens all the time, here. There’s this emotional, kneejerk tendency that’s really counterproductive.

Also, again, the US definition is fine, it’s pretty close to the UN definition, the problem is they don’t actually follow it.

He agrees with the language of the War on Terror and simply wants to have his cake and eat it too by being "against" torture but saying there is no absolute argument against it.

You’re welcome to make a case that torture is ‘absolutely’ wrong. However, without invoking religion, it’s impossible. This also doesn’t apply to just torture.

That’s not to say there aren’t excellent secular, practical arguments against torture, or that isn’t wrong 99.9% percent of the time. Obviously, one can obtain information this way, but torture also tends to result in a lot of misinformation, as well. There’s the moral reality of brutalizing a human being. There’s the potential degrading effect of institutionalized torture on a society, the ‘slippery slope’ argument. Also, torture creates a perverse incentive; it not only gives the enemy carte blanche, but actually encourages them to torture as many of your people as they can get their hands on. These are all very excellent arguments, and none of them require appealing to any greater authority.

I’m almost positive you aren’t a deontologist. In which case, you actually don’t have a point because, fundamentally, you take the same position, as do most people on this site.

This isn't even about getting into the latter argument but getting into his political beliefs which are squarely in the Hawkish camp when it comes to people he hates,

Calling him a hawk is fairly disingenuous. He’s against the war in Iraq. I don’t know how he feels about the war in Afghanistan (And neither do you.) because I haven’t been able to find a single explicit reference to it. However, that still wouldn’t automatically disqualify his statements on other subjects. He’s made critical comments about nationalism, comparing it, accurately, to a secular religion. You read his statements about the moral bankruptcy of collateral damage, etc. He is not a ‘hawk.’ Harris also devotes equal measure to Christianity, and religious dogmatism in the US, which he considers equally crazy, because it is equally crazy. So it’s hardly one-sided. If he ‘hates’ anything it is, apparently, dogmatism. I must say I think we’d be better off with less of it.

which also coincide with the list of enemies of the State.

That’s actually irrelevant. You don’t need to buy into propaganda to believe Al Qaeda is bad news, you just have to look at the facts. This isn’t like the Sandinistas, Osama bin Laden is NOT Salvador Allende. Also, unlike Reagan’s phantom ‘Libyan death squads’ there is an actual threat. Al Qaeda or affiliated groups are responsible for a terrorist attack on US soil, an act of mass murder, which killed nearly 3,000 people. This isn’t some fabricated boogeyman. Al Qaeda actually exist and they are majorly bad news.

If one were to take his vague scenario and attach some specifics under the presuppositions he holds, he would tell me that I would have to be a monster if I did not torture an Indian Maoist who held some specific information about an imminent attack on a station that would likely cause a substantial loss of life.

That only vaguely applies. First of all, said Indian Maoist has to be involved in an act of mass murder, in which case it really doesn’t matter what his political affiliations are, second, the implication of the scenario that said attack will kill a substantial number of noncombatants.

Second, individual politics are irrelevant. The point of the hypothetical is to explore our ethics and morals.

His logic and the State's are essentially one and the same when it comes to the War on Terror,

Not really. The US government clearly isn’t that motivated to seriously combat terrorism. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in a nearly sevenfold increase in terrorism, which was predicted by intelligence experts. The ‘War on Terror’ is an empty catchphrase to justify political objectives.

and he supports torture but hides it behind a barrage of inconsistent blather.

Again, saying he ‘supports torture’ is at best extremely misleading.

His position is by no means inconsistent.

The guy is a hack and I am surprised that you, as an anarchist, could simply employ his rhetoric as an argument on revleft.

Nothing I’ve quoted or paraphrased is inconsistent with Anarchism at least not anything that I subscribe to.

Seriously, NGN, get some new heroes.

I really don’t even like to use words like ‘heroes.’ I have people that I admire, some of which I might even consider role models to an extent, that isn’t to say I agree with them 100%, I don’t agree with anyone 100%. I would say I greatly admire Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Emma Goldman, Abbie Hoffman, etc. I just really like some of what Harris says. I think he makes some very compelling arguments and I like how he presents his ideas. However, he hasn’t really changed my mind on anything. My position on religion is not really any different today than before I knew who he was.

RadioRaheem84

12th September 2010, 16:20

Adi Shankara

12th September 2010, 21:40

HammerAlias

12th September 2010, 21:51

Religion is divisive, archaic, dogmatic and dangerous. It is intolerant, vociferous and deceitful. In essence, it is the impediment of civilization, the force that is an affront to progression.

Adi Shankara

12th September 2010, 22:35

Religion is divisive, archaic, dogmatic and dangerous. It is intolerant, vociferous and deceitful. In essence, it is the impediment of civilization, the force that is an affront to progression.

big words and purple prose don't make you intellectual. In fact, it's yet another subjective statement with no real objectivity. I mean, religion isn't objective either, but at least (for the most part) it doesn't' claim to be.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

12th September 2010, 23:48

Depends who you ask, really. I mean, I don't want to be the one to come out with stupid clichés, claiming that we really are just brains in jars, with all this just our imagined little world (well, presumably, your little world, as you're the one reading this, and this imagining that somebody ever wrote this :laugh:), but it is technically possible. Or, we have no way to prove that our friends, family and lovers are real, as much as we can't prove that some deity, angel, spirit, whatever, isn't real. So both are a matter of belief, and putting faith in what we claim we know...

Bollocks.

I know that, brain in a jar otherwise, there is something that thinks it is I. I observe entities that are like me in more respects than they are different. Unless I have good reason to believe otherwise, it is not such a great leap to assume that other minds like my own exist. In fact, since I have yet to go wrong in assuming the existence of other human minds, this means that even if what I perceive is some kind of dream or simulation, it so perfectly behaves like a real system that to all intents and purposes it is my reality, especially since I have never known anything else.

But God? The universe doesn't answer to that name. It doesn't say anything at all.

NGNM85

13th September 2010, 06:22

NGN, I really do not see how you can find Harris's rather un-materialistic analysis compatible with Anarchism. Have you not read his article, "The End of Liberalism"?

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-end-of-liberalism/

Yeah, I read it.

He flatly denies the whole notion that the issue could be motivated by political and economic reasons and instead hocks an idealist Hitchean world view in which poor Western Civ is under attack by ravenous Islamic hordes.

Obviously, economics and politics are contributing factors, he acknowledges this, but he’s saying, and what I’m also saying, is that at least some of this is coming out of religion, itself.

How is this compatible in any way shape or form to Anarchism? Much less to even what Noam Chomsky would think of as a "continuation of Anarchist principles"?

I actually don’t agree with everything Chomsky says, just most of it.

What do I find compatible with Anarchism? Anarchism has historically been opposed to religion since the very beginning. I remember my very first introduction to Anarchism when I was maybe fourteen, reading the words; “Religion, the dominion of the human mind…Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.”

Obviously, it made an impression, although she was being a little hyperbolic, but that’s the point of polemics like this. However, she said it right there; ‘break your mental fetters’, ‘think and judge for yourself’, that’s a rationalist outlook, to question, to look at things objectively and scientifically, to not be dogmatic. Science and Anarchism are a perfect fit. To be a rationalist is to question, which is the cardinal sin for all dogmatists.

Religious ideals mean nothing.

They mean everything to the people who believe them.

A god does not exist therefore the only problem with extremism is irrationality due to following erroneous religious texts created by irrational men.

Yes, religions offer a variety of crazy ideas and, as a rule, the more one takes these ideas to heart they are increasingly deranged by them. It has an inverse proportional relationship to ones’ capacity for rational thought. This derangement often, inevitably manifests itself, behaviorally.

It is simply another political statement by them caused by material and social conditions. Nothing more. Anything else would put religion in a higher quadrant where it doesn't need to be. When they want to put their religion into practice, i.e. theocracy, the issue is simply political, not religious. There is no higher ideal that makes their religion any more or less so than secular forms of government. This was the case ages ago and is the case today.

I don’t deny that political and economic factors play a substantial role. However, that is only a part of the picture. How do we explain the Jihadist who has lived a relatively wealthy existence, had the benefit of a modern education, has degrees, etc., and then decides the best thing for him to do is to martyr himself for Allah? Or, The Family, the extremist right-wing Christian mafia in the US, who are presently behind the increasingly violent persecution of homosexuals in Uganda? These men have never known poverty or oppression outside of what they saw on television or out the window of a BMW. Also, the form is instructive. There are many examples of Left-Wing ‘anti imperialist’, or (Generally, but not exclusively, Right wing) nationalist terrorists. Al Qaeda is not Baader-Meinhof, or the IRA. We should acknowledge the essential contribution of religious dogmatism to this volatile mixture.

Even Harris sort of flubs in his logic by comparing some extreme forms of nationalism a "secular religion" or when Hitchens tries to pin religious blame on Stalin's Russia by stating that his was a religious love affair with the State. I mean this analysis is laughable. It clearly shows that they're having trouble with trying to jump over a sound materialist outlook.

The problem is dogmatism. Simply put; a fanatical certitude in a belief system, irrespective of the facts. Rational humans base their ideas on observations of the world. Dogmatists assume their specific creeds to be absolute truth and twist reality to fit their preconceptions; they are also, by nature, rigid, and intolerant of differing views. This is a truly dangerous phenomenon because it places the ‘true believer’ outside of rational discourse. In this respect, Al Qaeda and the Nazi party are very much alike. Nazism was more than just a political ideology, it was an identity, a totalistic world view, it was, by all other measures, a secular religion. I think a number of people on this site are dogmatic.

Going back to Harris, like he so subscribes to a clash of civilizations mantra as outlined in the article I posted, he so too shares the sentiments of the war on terror, just slightly less neo-conservative. I put him squarely in the sort of anti-war liberal camp that dislikes the management of the war on terror but not it's initial principle; save Western Civ from Islamic extremism. His thoughts really do not differ even from Paul Berman or the Euston Manifesto types that write in Dissent Mag or Democratiya.

He wants to save the world from extremism, period. The only difference is we see a much higher percentage of Muslim violence as opposed to Christian violence. However, rightfully, he gives Christianity zero credit for this.

To him, most assuredly a Naxalite Indian Maoist would be a terrorist regardless if he blew up a police station or not. We're talking about a shoddy definition which you endorse which can not only be hypocritically imposed by bourgeoisie governments but could also describe national liberation movements that are of the utmost importance for struggling peoples.

First, it’s a perfectly good definition. The hypocrisy is that it’s only applied, by the US, when it’s convenient.

The Naxalite rebels are referred to as terrorists by the mainstream press for doing such a thing as what is described by the US Army. Heck, any of the Anarchists of the past would've been thought of as such. In fact, pro-war, not anti-war, liberal Paul Berman described Anarchist violence, comparing it of the same vein as Islamic extremism.

Anarchism has never produced anything comparable to what we’re seeing in the Middle East.

The point is one doesn't have to be a hawk or even an outright supporter of the War on Terror or torture. It's about the presuppositions, NGN and what they tout and what the obvious outcomes would be. Harris would the Naxalites terrorists, based on his logic.

That isn’t self-evident, not that it really matters.

Ideally, you would want Burkina Faso to look like Beverly Hills? Even with the horrible disparities in wealth in the area? You do know that it's not just uber-rich people in that area alone. Why not ideally Spanish Catalonia? Or even Socialist Albania (without the Hoxhaist dogma)?

Living conditions are generally better in present-day Beverly Hills. Like I said, our society may not be perfect, but I think most people in Sudan would love to have the problems we have. To them our worst day probably looks like paradise.

See this is the type of stuff I am talking about that sort makes me question some of the things you say. You give credit to US military definitions of a terrorist?

Again, the definition is excellent. There’s nothing wrong with the words as they are written, you’ll find a similar one in the dictionary.

You want Burkina Faso to look like Beverly Hills?

That was partly because I have a fondness for alliteration. I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. I would want the people of Burkina Faso to have access to first-rate education, medical care, the rule of law, secularism, to be able to go to the movies, hang out at a pizzeria, do all the things they should be able to do.

Quoting Churchill? A bourgeoisie politician?

I was making a point. He’s not my idol, it’s just a famous quote. This is what I mean, this hypersensitivity is totally irrational.

Do you not even look at the presuppositions to see that Churchill and I or anyone comrade in here would mean two totally different things when it came to democracy and such? That is key, NGN.

Well, context is important, especially with words with multiple meanings. However, I thought it was pretty clear.

Al Qaeda didn't seem to bother the US when it was fighting the Soviets. When a person like Salvador Allende is considered an enemy but not Bin Laden during the Cold War, you need to question the list of enemies the state accuses.

Absolutely. However, in Bin Laden’s case, or in the case of Al-Qaeda, there is a legitimate threat.

I look at them each independently and yes you do not need to buy into propaganda to know that Bin Laden is a bad guy,

Yes.

but one does need to buy into propaganda to totally reject a class and material outlook when examining whom the US considers "friends". The Contras were not freedom fighters. They were terrorists. Hugo Chavez is not a dictator but the Saudi Royal Family are as was Pervez Musharraf. Many liberals, pro-war or anti-war that share the same logic as Harris are adamant supporters of Israeli terrorism, heck American terrorism, and are Cold War apologists.

You don’t have to be a card-carrying communist to criticize Saudi Arabia.

Barry Lyndon

13th September 2010, 21:55

Wow, NGN, an 'anarchist', quoting Winston Churchill with approval. Yeah, Winston Churchill believed in 'democracy'-for rich white people, like himself.

He didn't believe in 'democracy' very much when he supported the repression of the 1926 general strike(mostly hungry coal miners) in Britain with bayonets as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He didn't think the labor unions should be allowed to publish their demands in newspapers, saying: "I do not agree that the TUC(Trades Union Congress) have as much right as the Government to publish their side of the case and to exhort their followers to continue action."

He didn't believe in 'democracy' very much when he was a hardline advocate of British imperialism, considered extreme in his racist chauvinism even by the standards of early 20th-century British politics. As colonial secretary in the 1920's, he authorized the policy of unleashing the Black and Tans mercenaries in Ireland, and approved of using chemical weapons against rebelling Arabs in Iraq, saying that he was 'strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes'. As prime minister, he refused to provide relief for famine-stricken regions of India in 1943-44, saying it was the Indian peasants fault for 'breeding like rabbits' and so condemned 3 million men, women, and children to starve to death.

Fuck Churchill, and fuck you for quoting him as an authority about democracy, 'anarchist'.
That exposes your politics right there.

hatzel

13th September 2010, 22:15

Why oh why on Earth are people complaining at NGN for merely referencing a very well-known quotation which perfectly fit in with the argument? And, in fact, which was perfectly fine from a revolutionary standpoint. Democracy's not great, but it's the best we have, so let's go all revolutionary and give ourselves something else, something better. But this wasn't even the suggestion! The point was clearly drawing a comparison, acknowledging the imperfections in the current state of humanity and its progress, but claiming that we don't have a better option at the moment. Not saying that we shouldn't aim for anything better, though.

I'll also just point out that if anarchists are only allowed to quote or reference other anarchists, and only anarchists who never quoted or referenced any of differing opinions (because of course these anarchists, like NGN, would be brandished 'fake' anarchists), then I think you'll find anarchists won't really be able to quote anybody...so if we could all try to get over the fact that somebody with political beliefs we might not approve of said something quotable, I think we'd do much better with discussing the subject. Last time I checked, Churchill as an individual had little if anything to do with religion's impact on society...

RadioRaheem84

13th September 2010, 23:27

KrimsKramm, I tend to look at presuppositions and the base for what someone is arguing about.

Secular politics isn't at all a Golden Rule thing where different people with totally different worldviews could all mean the same thing. I don't even attribute that religious thinkers much less to secular politicians.

Winston Churchill not only had a fundamentally different outlook than I or other leftists but his whole philosophy was based off of one class ruling over the other and that it was almost a natural order.

I feel the same with liberals and especially liberals like Sam Harris. To quote them and set them up as examples of some sort of continuous a strain of Anarchist thought is not only erroneous but disingenuous.

We're talking about fundamental philosophical presuppositions that have no shared common base what so ever. To throw it all in as a catch all term like "democracy" is to muddle the meaning.

What do you think democracy was to Churchill? What do you think democracy means to a liberal like Sam Harris?

At least there is more of a common ground to discuss democracy amongst people on the left than attribute any non-leftist to continuous strain of leftist thought. We might as well just agree with Nazis when they talk about socialism, especially when liberals or conservatives attribute socialism and fascism as one in the same "statist" ideology.

I mean, I hate to use NGN as an example but re-read his posts and tell me if you do not think there is something a little off with his conclusions to things and how it at least sounds remotely leftist at some points? Look at the presuppositions and his conclusions to questions asked. It leads to him saying stuff like corporate mercantilism, corporate communism, Tony Blair is a socialist, liberals are leftists too, etc. A whole host of things that bring together totally polar worldviews and attributing them to the same strain of "leftist" thought.

Noxion thinks that I am being too dogmatic, but I beg to differ. I've made my amends with NGN, he seems like a rational guy and I hope to help him alter some of his views because I think they are a tad liberal-ish. That is just my opinion and I do not want to start a spat in here again, but this is mostly coming from a comrade to another comrade.

RadioRaheem84

13th September 2010, 23:49

The problem is dogmatism. Simply put; a fanatical certitude in a belief system, irrespective of the facts. Rational humans base their ideas on observations of the world. Dogmatists assume their specific creeds to be absolute truth and twist reality to fit their preconceptions; they are also, by nature, rigid, and intolerant of differing views. This is a truly dangerous phenomenon because it places the ‘true believer’ outside of rational discourse. In this respect, Al Qaeda and the Nazi party are very much alike. Nazism was more than just a political ideology, it was an identity, a totalistic world view, it was, by all other measures, a secular religion. I think a number of people on this site are dogmatic.

How can you even evaluate this? What would be dogmatic? To me, Hitchens is dogmatic. Harris is not dogmatic to you? The problem is you seem to identify things from such an idealist perspective that I cannot believe that you attribute so many problems to ideals and the insistence of those ideals, even through force.

I don’t deny that political and economic factors play a substantial role. However, that is only a part of the picture. How do we explain the Jihadist who has lived a relatively wealthy existence, had the benefit of a modern education, has degrees, etc., and then decides the best thing for him to do is to martyr himself for Allah? Or, The Family, the extremist right-wing Christian mafia in the US, who are presently behind the increasingly violent persecution of homosexuals in Uganda? These men have never known poverty or oppression outside of what they saw on television or out the window of a BMW. Also, the form is instructive. There are many examples of Left-Wing ‘anti imperialist’, or (Generally, but not exclusively, Right wing) nationalist terrorists. Al Qaeda is not Baader-Meinhof, or the IRA. We should acknowledge the essential contribution of religious dogmatism to this volatile mixture.

Why do you act like material conditions only apply to poor, uneducated people? Do you lack such a class analysis of things that you would only attribute irrational pathological violence to uneducated, poor people? It somehow baffles you that educated rich men could join Jihadist groups? That doesn't even BEGIN to break down the Marxist perspective, NGN. It's a horrible argument and it clearly shows that you lack an understanding of it.

Have you ever read Gramsci?

Why would you somehow think that material abundance and education would somehow fix the problem?

This is what I am talking about though, NGN. No one that challenges you is being dogmatic. They are contesting your rather reformist sounding rhetoric and this insistence that somehow a secular liberal education would make things all better or something akin to that. It clearly reads like liberal reformist stuff that one would find on a Democratic Party forum or the Euston Manifesto conference.

I am not trying to say that it's absolutely horrible that you write like this but that you shouldn't somehow assume that it's simply a diverse leftist opinion. It's not. It clearly lacks a material perspective, a class analysis and heck even a simple Marxian outlook. It's borderline liberal-ish. I even tried to see how you or Noxion or anyone else that agreed with you see it as remotely a leftist perspective. The part about attacking religion is fine, but the one that peddles New Atheist idealist psycho-babble is just weird. You end up just being a Western chauvinist and taking up an almost "white man's burden" approach to foreign policy (whether antiwar or prowar).

NGNM85

14th September 2010, 04:03

Wow, NGN, an 'anarchist', quoting Winston Churchill with approval. Yeah, Winston Churchill believed in 'democracy'-for rich white people, like himself.

I didn't quote him with approval, or without approval. I expressed no emotion whatsoever, because the statement, itself was what mattered, not that Churchill happened to have said it. You're becoming hysterical.

He didn't believe in 'democracy' very much when he supported the repression of the 1926 general strike(mostly hungry coal miners) in Britain with bayonets as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He didn't think the labor unions should be allowed to publish their demands in newspapers, saying: "I do not agree that the TUC(Trades Union Congress) have as much right as the Government to publish their side of the case and to exhort their followers to continue action."

He didn't believe in 'democracy' very much when he was a hardline advocate of British imperialism, considered extreme in his racist chauvinism even by the standards of early 20th-century British politics. As colonial secretary in the 1920's, he authorized the policy of unleashing the Black and Tans mercenaries in Ireland, and approved of using chemical weapons against rebelling Arabs in Iraq, saying that he was 'strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes'. As prime minister, he refused to provide relief for famine-stricken regions of India in 1943-44, saying it was the Indian peasants fault for 'breeding like rabbits' and so condemned 3 million men, women, and children to starve to death.

Most of that is accurate. Well done. However, I'm not grading you on historical trivia. Save it for Social Studies.

Fuck Churchill, and fuck you...

Brilliant. You've crushed me with this masterpiece of logic.

I want everyone to note that for all my supposedly objectionable characteristics I, generally, and, quite deliberately, avoid saying things like that, although, I assure you, I do think them.

..for quoting him as an authority about democracy, 'anarchist'.
That exposes your politics right there.

That I used a famous quotation to prove a point proves absolutely nothing about my politics. Any more than if I'd said; "May the force be with you." or "I got you, babe." (I'm relatively sure niether George Lucas or Sonny & Cher were revolutionary communists.) I can quote "Mein Kampf", because I've read it. (Actually, only about three-quarters, and it wasn't particularly impressive.)

The point, which you totally missed, was that Western societies have very real, very deep problems, however, they're substantially superior to what preceded it. Or, as Oscar Wilde said it; "A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias."