Marxism vs. Religion

[Elect Marx]

elijahcraig
No, since religion would not exist under communism, neither would marriage. "Commitments to chosen partner" does not need a marriage. People do not need a church to say "ok, now you're really together", they can decide whether to be together or break up without that illogical waste of time.

"Marx used that in the sense that religion would die out when the depressant and pain killer of opium is no longer needed to stop pain. Meaning oppression breeds religion. Under communism, there is no opression. Hence, no religion, no need. He also uses it in the sense that religion depresses the masses, give them "solice", and they do not become militant, they stay in their complacent seats, and stay oppressed. Religion is the enemy.


How would religion not exist under communism? If religion is an opiate for the masses, than this would involve a sharp decline and probably un-institutionalize it to a large extent but I don't think it will be magically abolished. Oppressive control will only spread religion, just as communism may lower its influence. Neither is absolute. I hope you do not see a communist movement as a complete and instantaneous shift in society. All of the changes required would take time, even the revolutionary stage, takes time. Do you see communism as the final stage of beneficial social reconstruction? This is most defiantly not in the Marxist model.

To say, "Religion is the enemy," is rather vague. If you mean organized religion is the enemy, I am with you. However, if you are declaring an assault on the beliefs of a certain group of people, I am certainly against any such divisive and prejudice ploy, as it is counterproductive to any productive movement and is not communistic, because it will not serve the needs of the working class but will deepen the influence of our opposition which has already falsely labeled us as coercively atheistic. Marx was an atheist, not anti-theism. We must unite as communists and as communists we are to struggle against the ruling class, not divide ourselves to be conquered and obscured. It does not mater weather you advocate religion or oppose it, if you promote this agenda in obstruction to class struggle, you are not a communist or a Marxist.

[elijahcraig]

How would religion not exist under communism? If religion is an opiate for the masses, than this would involve a sharp decline and probably un-institutionalize it to a large extent but I don't think it will be magically abolished. Oppressive control will only spread religion, just as communism may lower its influence. Neither is absolute. I hope you do not see a communist movement as a complete and instantaneous shift in society. All of the changes required would take time, even the revolutionary stage, takes time. Do you see communism as the final stage of beneficial social reconstruction? This is most defiantly not in the Marxist model.

I agree. But under a fully developed communist society, religion would die out. I wasn't for the "oppression" of religious beliefs, only the complete separation of religion from state and public life, ie a private matter. Read Lenin's "Socialism and Religion".


To say, "Religion is the enemy," is rather vague. If you mean organized religion is the enemy, I am with you. However, if you are declaring an assault on the beliefs of a certain group of people, I am certainly against any such divisive and prejudice ploy, as it is counterproductive to any productive movement and is not communistic, because it will not serve the needs of the working class but will deepen the influence of our opposition which has already falsely labeled us as coercively atheistic. Marx was an atheist, not anti-theism. We must unite as communists and as communists we are to struggle against the ruling class, not divide ourselves to be conquered and obscured. It does not mater weather you advocate religion or oppose it, if you promote this agenda in obstruction to class struggle, you are not a communist or a Marxist.

No theists in the party, period. Among the working class? Fine. Marx was definetely "anti-theism", being an atheist.

If you are for religion, you are not a Marxist.

[Elect Marx]

"If you are for religion, you are not a Marxist.:

Sinse this is your most prominant statement, you might want to prove it. I haven't seen any works of Marx that are anti-theism or prove that you cannot be religious and a Marxist. You do not need to belive everything Marx has ever writen to be a Marxist. If you think you do, you are making Marxism into a religion and I know Marx would oppose that.

[elijahcraig]

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.

-Karl Marx, from "Deutsch-Französische Jahrbucher, February, 1844"

You really should understand Marxism. Marxism is based on Materialism, religion is idealism. You cannot be an Idealist Marxist.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:26 PM

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions.

-Karl Marx, from "Deutsch-Französische Jahrbucher, February, 1844"

You really should understand Marxism. Marxism is based on Materialism, religion is idealism. You cannot be an Idealist Marxist.
"You really should understand Marxism"

Why the hell do you think I'm discusing it?

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people"

There he seems to be saying that religion should not be a supplement for real life. This advocates the abolition of illusions of society enpowered by religious organizations. He seems to be saying, re-think your belief system in relation to society, if it is oppressive it is required to go. I don't see where the requirement of atheism is. If Marx wanted to abolish religion there would be a lot more about it. I understand that was not his primary focus but I you could find something that says religion must be ended, that would prove your point. This is just conjecture.

[elijahcraig]

"You really should understand Marxism"

Why the hell do you think I'm discusing it?

I was pointing out that you know nothing of what you speak. You assert Marx is an Idealist Anarchist.



"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people"

There he seems to be saying that religion should not be a supplement for real life. This advocates the abolition of illusions of society enpowered by religious organizations. He seems to be saying, re-think your belief system in relation to society, if it is oppressive it is required to go. I don't see where the requirement of atheism is. If Marx wanted to abolish religion there would be a lot more about it. I understand that was not his primary focus but I you could find something that says religion must be ended, that would prove your point. This is just conjecture.

Nice spin jackass. It is a direct quote.

Here's another:


Karl Marx: "My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism."

...

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 11:45 PM


"You really should understand Marxism"

Why the hell do you think I'm discusing it?

I was pointing out that you know nothing of what you speak. You assert Marx is an Idealist Anarchist.



"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people"

There he seems to be saying that religion should not be a supplement for real life. This advocates the abolition of illusions of society enpowered by religious organizations. He seems to be saying, re-think your belief system in relation to society, if it is oppressive it is required to go. I don't see where the requirement of atheism is. If Marx wanted to abolish religion there would be a lot more about it. I understand that was not his primary focus but I you could find something that says religion must be ended, that would prove your point. This is just conjecture.

Nice spin jackass. It is a direct quote.

Here's another:


Karl Marx: "My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism."

...
Thats what I asked you to do, you idiot. You put up a better example that time.

"Nice spin jackass."

Its called interpretation, you should try it. Do you never go any deeper into what Marx is saying? Or do you just shit out quotes attempting to prove what you believe?

Next Point: "dethrone God," means to stop god from ruling peoples lives. People should run their own lives. What context is this in? You do not back up your quotes by explaining how they apply, that is part of debate. Try using ideas instead of just insualts, that is what Marx did. I thought you were a Marxist.

[elijahcraig]

Thats what I asked you to do, you idiot. You put up a better example that time.

"Nice spin jackass."

Its called interpretation, you should try it. Do you never go any deeper into what Marx is saying? Or do you just shit out quotes atempting to prove what you believe?

Do you always call anti-Anarchist Materialists Idealist Anarchists you complete moron?


Next Point: "dethrone God," means to stop god from ruling peoples lives. People should run their own lives. What context is this in? You do not back up your quotes by explaining how they aply, that is part of debate. Try using ideas instead of just insualts, that is what Marx did. I thought you were a Marxist.

If that quote doesn't clear this up, you have no place in a debating forum, you are spinning the quote to meet your own argument. Marx was against Religion completely, that is why he makes insults against Christianity, Judaism, and all religions. Ever heard the "sheeplike nature of the Christian", etc. ? This isn't "it's alright to be a christian, but just not a bad one", or any of that rubbish. Have you read Lenin's "Socialism and Religion"? That is the piece you should read for this. Here it is:


Socialism and Religion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Written: approx. December 3, 1905
First Published: Nozvaya Zhizn (No. 28), December 3, 1905
Source: Collected Works Volume 10, p. 83-87
TranscriptionMarkup: Brian Basgen
Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Present-day society is wholly based on the exploitation of the vast masses of the working class by a tiny minority of the population, the class of the landowners and that of the capitalists. It is a slave society, since the "free" workers, who all their life work for the capitalists, are "entitled" only to such means of subsistence as are essential for the maintenance of slaves who produce profit, for the safeguarding and perpetuation of capitalist slavery.

The economic oppression of the workers inevitably calls forth and engenders every kind of political oppression and social humiliation, the coarsening and darkening of the spiritual and moral life of the masses. The workers may secure a greater or lesser degree of political liberty to fight for their economic emancipation, but no amount of liberty will rid them of poverty, unemployment, and oppression until the power of capital is overthrown. Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labor of others are taught by religion to practice charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

But a slave who has become conscious of his slavery and has risen to struggle for his emancipation has already half ceased to be a slave. The modern class-conscious worker, reared by large-scale factory industry and enlightened by urban life, contemptuously casts aside religious prejudices, leaves heaven to the priests and bourgeois bigots, and tries to win a better life for himself here on earth. The proletariat of today takes the side of socialism, which enlists science in the battle against the fog of religion, and frees the workers from their belief in life after death by welding them together to fight in the present for a better life on earth.

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen's religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfillment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men's consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

The Russian revolution must put this demand into effect as a necessary component of political freedom. In this respect, the Russian revolution is in a particularly favorable position, since the revolting officialism of the police-ridden feudal autocracy has called forth discontent, unrest and indignation even among the clergy. However abject, however ignorant Russian Orthodox clergymen may have been, even they have now been awakened by the thunder of the downfall of the old, medieval order in Russia. Even they are joining in the demand for freedom, are protesting against bureaucratic practices and officialism, against the spying for the police imposed on the "servants of God". We socialists must lend this movement our support, carrying the demands of honest and sincere members of the clergy to their conclusion, making them stick to their words about freedom, demanding that they should resolutely break all ties between religion and the police. Either you are sincere, in which case you must stand for the complete separation of Church and State and of School and Church, for religion to be declared wholly and absolutely a private affair. Or you do not accept these consistent demands for freedom, in which case you evidently are still held captive by the traditions of the inquisition, in which case you evidently still cling to your cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes, in which case you evidently do not believe in the spiritual power of your weapon and continue to take bribes from the state. And in that case the class-conscious workers of all Russia declare merciless war on you.

So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideological and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the affair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.

If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?

The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats.

Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.["Fluchtlings-Literatur", Volksstaat (No. 73) June 22, 1874)]

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an "intellectual" question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various "Christians". But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development.

Everywhere the reactionary bourgeoisie has concerned itself, and is now beginning to concern itself in Russia, with the fomenting of religious strife — in order thereby to divert the attention of the masses from the really important and fundamental economic and political problems, now being solved in practice by the all-Russian proletariat uniting in revolutionary struggle. This reactionary policy of splitting up the proletarian forces, which today manifests itself mainly in Black-Hundred pogroms, may tomorrow conceive some more subtle forms. We, at any rate, shall oppose it by calmly, consistently and patiently preaching proletarian solidarity and the scientific world-outlook — a preaching alien to any stirring up of secondary differences.

The revolutionary proletariat will succeed in making religion a really private affair, so far as the state is concerned. And in this political system, cleansed of medieval mildew, the proletariat will wage a broad and open struggle for the elimination of economic slavery, the true source of the religious humbugging of mankind.

[elijahcraig]

Here are some other quotes from Marx:


"Religion is the consciousness and awareness of man who has not yet acquired or who has again lost himself. But man is not an abstract being, isolated from the world. Man is the world of man, the State, society. This State and this society produce religion, an upside-down consciousness of the world, just because they are an upside-down world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic epitome, its logic in popular form, its spiritualistic point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn completion, its fundamental reason of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of human essence, since human essence does not possess a true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world of which religion is the spiritual aroma" (K. Marx, Per la critica della filosofia del diritto di Hegel, Introduzione, Rome 1966, pp. 57-58).


"Take paper money to a country in which this use of paper money is not known, and everyone will laugh at your subjective representation. Go with your gods to a country in which other gods are worshipped, and you will be shown that you are the victim of fancies and abstractions. And rightly. Anyone who had brought a migrant god to the ancient Greeks, would have found the proof of the non-existence of this god, because it did not exist for the Greeks. What is the case in a certain country for certain foreign gods, takes place for god in general in the country of reason: it is an area in which his existence ceases" (K. Marx, Frammento dell'appendice della dissertazione dottorale, in A. Sabetti, Sulla fondazione del materialismo storico, Florence 1962, p. 415).


"For us religion does not constitute the foundation, but only the phenomenon of worldly limitation. For this reason, we explain the religious subjection of free citizens with their earthly subjection. We affirm that they will suppress their religious limitation as soon as they have suppressed their earthly limits. We do not transform earthly questions into theological questions. We transform theological questions into earthly ones" (K. Marx, La questione ebraica, Rome 1966, pp. 81-82).


"The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.

But I'm sure you can 'interpret" all of these to fit your out of touch with reality views of Marx, the anarchist idealist.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree with ElijahCraig here, comardes.
Religion is an oppressor, if we are to liberate the working class from its oppressors, we cannot tolerate the existance of oppressors such as religion. In the dictatorship of the proletariat, destroying religion should certainly be a goal. We cannot compromise to the oppressive ways of the bourgeoisie and tolerate religion just so we can lure in more fools into the movement. The capitalist oppressors grant freedoms that allow the working class to be exploited and oppressed without retrictions. Freedom of religion is one of these bourgeois freedoms. We cannot compromise the liberty of the proletariat, comardes, we simply cannot.

[Elect Marx]

Comrade Victorcommie, You made your point well but you didn't really address the origonal content of the thread. I would like to know what you think about that. Too often the content of the thread is not even addressed, you half did, I guess.

elijahcraig, Some day you should see if you can make points while not being a condecending, arrogant ass. Until then, you will always be simi-useful in our efforts to rally the people to communism. If you turn people away in disgust, then you are really not very helpful and who will listen to you?

[Invader Zim]

Well I think that religion is bullshit, to the extream, but if people want to believe in god or the tooth fairy I have no problem with it or them. As long as they dont try and make me blieve I dont care, if they want to pray to the moon or what ever. Anyway if Marx was right it will just fade away in a socialist state, no need to oppress people by removing it by force.

[Umoja]

Marxism and Religion don't mix, there is no point in rationalizing that.

[IHP]

You are all throwing around the term 'religion' in one huge basket. I have done a lot of reading into Zen buddhism. This is non-theistic and argues that it is not religion at all and in fact a discipline or a way of looking at life instead of praying to an almighty let ye be burned in some terrible place. This is simply interpretting what we see and hear every day. Instead of being rewarded in heaven for good christian/moslem etc deeds, you hope to reach a state of satori, a complete calm. This can be achieved every day, not in an afterlife.

I'm not preaching, nor would I presume to try force my views onto you. I'm just saying that you should be careful when condemning all religion. Try not to take such an absolute stance.

Also, I'm not a communist.

--IHP

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

13cvx, or whatever your name is, sorry, i mean no disrespect, but your name is damn confusing. you can't pronounce it, so its hard to memorize it.
anyways, i think you're referring to "How would we go about abolishing religion?" I am not so opinionated on the issue. The government may enact laws to weaken and eventualy destroy the church. I don't think it's necessary at all to try to burn bibles or anything like that. If people wish to believe it alone, i suppose it wouldn't hurt, but it would definetly cause counter-revolutionary sentiment against a society that represses their religion. I really don't know, comrade.
IHP, if you're not a commie, what are you?? :huh: :unsure:

[redstar2000]

I've written more on this subject than I probably should have...

http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/monthlythe...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1053102811&archive=1054467213&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1055691778&archive=1057041165&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1060354889&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Still, I think it's necessary to criticize Lenin's formula of "separation of church and state and separation of church and school" as a bourgeois democratic formula.

Simply establishing a formal or legal separation does not work...that is, does not result in any consequent decline of the influence of superstitious beliefs in society.

What must take place is the elimination of superstition from all aspects of public life.

Likewise, it would difficult to imagine any association of communists that would include "believers" in the "supernatural". Such individuals might well be "pro-communist" or sympathizers with communism...but it would suggest an impossible degree of confusion for someone to say "I am a Marxist" and "I believe in God" at the same time.

It's one or the other, folks.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 05:07 AM
I've written more on this subject than I probably should have...

http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/monthlythe...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1053102811&archive=1054467213&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1055691778&archive=1057041165&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theory.php...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1060354889&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Still, I think it's necessary to criticize Lenin's formula of "separation of church and state and separation of church and school" as a bourgeois democratic formula.

Simply establishing a formal or legal separation does not work...that is, does not result in any consequent decline of the influence of superstitious beliefs in society.

What must take place is the elimination of superstition from all aspects of public life.

Likewise, it would difficult to imagine any association of communists that would include "believers" in the "supernatural". Such individuals might well be "pro-communist" or sympathizers with communism...but it would suggest an impossible degree of confusion for someone to say "I am a Marxist" and "I believe in God" at the same time.

It's one or the other, folks.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
My god thats, crap. You throw a completely different spin on anything posted, when you place it on that web page of yours. The arguments of the opposition are only shown in part, and the responces are not included at all. What you post is mere propaganda, sensational crap. Unless you want to show all of what was posted I suggest you dont display anything.

[Umoja]

It's his take on things.... I really don't see the problem AK47. Can we not start another flamewar over this?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 04:10 PM
It's his take on things.... I really don't see the problem AK47. Can we not start another flamewar over this?
Its insulting to see arguments whittled away to best fit what he wants to convey. Some of the arguments are completely different with out the specific details he has failed to include. What he is doing is completely unethical. If he wishes to make a point, then he should just say it, not take my arguments and then deface them into form which is most easy to discredit. What he has done is one step away from lying, and I am pissed off about it.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

how do you suggest, Redstar, we suppress relious beliefs in our society? Abolishing organized religion is easy, but this will cause lots of counter-revolutionary anger. By that, I mean that those who practice religion in privacy will not be content with a society that represses those beliefs.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2003, 11:43 PM
how do you suggest, Redstar, we suppress relious beliefs in our society? Abolishing organized religion is easy, but this will cause lots of counter-revolutionary anger. By that, I mean that those who practice religion in privacy will not be content with a society that represses those beliefs.
Comrade Victorcommie, At what time are you advocating acts to promote the abolition of religion and in what ways do you think this will advance our struggle? If religious structures are targeted this may become a large social problem. How do you intend to deal with the impact of theses social changes?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Comrade EM :) , religion is an oppressor. What do you mean "How will this advance our movement?" Our movement seeks to destroy oppression. Religion is an oppressor and therefore needs to be destroyed. I do not know when or how, this is why I'm asking Redstar. I would read his website, but I'm too lazy.

[Elect Marx]

I was refering to the actual act of "destroying" religion. I think this could be a difficult task that may at some points be more counter productive in society, by hurting our movement, that productive in freeing the minds of the people. If this is seen as an attack on the minds and cultural values of society itself, there will be incredible resistance but if the people see this as an attempt to free their minds from oppressive intitutionalised ideas and beliefs, then many will welcome the movement. If we cannot educate the people and be understood, the people will turn against us in ignorance. This is why I say we would need control of the media and educational systems. If we promote this recklesly, in the wrong moment or without the proper means, we will be "damning" the possiblity of mental liberation in society.

[redstar2000]

Here's a piece from one of those threads...

All obviously religious architecture is to be demolished (some modern churches don't "look" like religious buildings...they can be taken over for secular purposes). Knock down the most "famous" cathedrals first...it sends the message that we're serious. The "little churches" can be the last to go.

All public religious ceremonies, processionals, holidays, etc. are to be abolished. Religious symbols to be removed from all public buildings.

All building names, street names, place names, city names, names of geographical features, etc. with religious connotations to be re-named.

All religious schools to be converted to secular use or torn down.

No new religious texts to be published...let the ones that exist gradually go out of circulation.

No further manufacture or distribution of religious paraphernalia; artifacts from demolished churches to be recycled into useful stuff or destroyed.

Cemeteries to be replaced with crematoriums; eventually to be cleared and the land used for some secular purpose, like a park for example.

Street-preaching is "disturbing the peace"...30 days on the back of a sanitation truck would seem appropriate.

As part of the transition, it might be appropriate to allow the temporary use of secular buildings for religious ceremonies...but nothing decent: something like an unused warehouse would be about right.

Demoralizing believers is very important; especially "holy" sites need to be profaned in an emphatic way...to demonstrate that the old ways are finished.

Note that there's nothing here that directly involves persecuting believers for believing (unless they make a public nuisance of themselves).

And, mind you, even with these steps, I still think it likely to take a couple of centuries to rid ourselves of this blight...it took Christianity that long to destroy the old religions in the Roman Empire.

========================

Prior to the revolution, we make it clear to people who express sympathy for our views that religion is on its way out as a public activity...and that it's incompatible with a communist outlook.

It's not necessary to be "obnoxious" about this...except towards those who are vehement in their advocacy of superstition. People who are "open" to communist ideas usually have no difficulties with atheism anyway. I was an atheist more than a decade before I became interested in communism.

In the larger society around us, I think it's fair to say that, with ups and downs, the influence of religion will continue to decline. By the time that the working class is ready to seriously consider proletarian revolution, the vast majority will be atheist in practice if not in theory.

The measures to be taken after the revolution that I proposed will be supported by a substantial majority of workers...and the superstitious will inevitably find themselves on the defensive. They will suffer the public shame of being known reactionaries...with little or no need for any kind of active "persecution".

What will be really "tricky" is watching closely how the superstitious treat "their" kids...and carefully but firmly putting an end to the brainwashing of children.

We would begin with the clear-cut nutball cults--taking "their" kids away...and then gradually move to the less extreme religious groups until the lesson was learned: preach to children and lose them forever.

Of course, there may well "always" be "underground" superstitions of one sort or another. That's unfortunate and I'm not sure what could be done about it. (Therapy?)

But when religion ceases to obstruct the mental activity of the vast majority of humanity, I don't think a "come-back" will ever be possible again.

At least I hope not.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

A rather tricky question there, comarde. We could take the authoritarian path and silence the church, destroy it, force our atheism upon all, etc. Or we could comletely ignore it and allow it to "wither away" as Marx predicted. After all, if the clergy looses its power, it will also loose its influence and that alone may greatly weaken religion. I advocate the use of a democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, and this would certainly include respect for the people's desire of religion. I really don't know comarde. :unsure:

[pedrosanpedro]

s

[redstar2000]

We could take the authoritarian path and silence the church, destroy it, force our atheism upon all, etc.

Well, I suppose we could at that, but I see nothing in my proposals that "forces" anyone to believe or not believe anything.

"Belief" is not the issue...public presence and public activity and the brainwashing of children are what is at issue.

1> a moral code -eg the 10 commandments. surely teaching morals and ethics to a population is an essential aspect of building a society based upon equality?

Perhaps so, but surely that has nothing to do with the barbaric codes of religion. Would you suggest that communists should concern themselves with adultery?

2> belief as to what happens after death. the "great mystery", and surely one that any inquisitive mind will touch upon.

Why? Corpses rot. What is "mysterious" about that?

3> a belief in a "supreme" being. while i don't believe in an interventional god (my own belief system would equate most closely to buddhism), i am constantly frustrated by arrogant "scientists" who, while being unable to disprove existence (a crucial aspect of scientific experimentation) of god, look down their noses at this "unscientific" view, dismissing even well structured arguments eg creationism (this should get a rise) coupled with guided evolution- as superstitious nonsense.

The reason scientists seem "arrogant" to you is that you don't understand how scientists think.

In science, "proving" a negative is extremely difficult or impossible; therefore the burden of proof is always placed on the person who makes a positive assertion about the nature of reality.

"I say unicorns exist."

"Prove it!"

"I say God exists."

"Prove it!"

The same thing goes, of course, for nonsense like creationism and "guided" evolution: there is no evidence in favor and tons of evidence against those "ideas".

I would envision a society that focuses on arts, on leisure, and upon political and philosophical debate; life after death, the existence of god etc, these are questions that science can not answer, yet burn in the heart of every man. Surely this new society would encourage discussion and philosophical thought?

Actually, they don't "burn in the heart" of lots of people. The ones who are afflicted with such meaningless "questions" suffer because they were taught as children to believe in things that don't exist.

People were once taught to believe in "witches"...and consequently feared eccentric elderly women to the point of torturing and murdering them. When they finally understood that there is no such thing, they stopped doing that.

When people learn to dismiss supernatural concerns with contempt, they will not bother themselves with gods or "life after death" (an oxymoron) or similar nonsense.

...surely freedom of speech -which implies freedom of belief- is a crucial part of any democratic system?

No, there is no such thing as an "absolute" freedom of speech--although we always have freedom of belief...there's no way to get inside someone's head and run a "belief-check".

Every human society rigorously controls or prohibits certain kinds of speech...and communism will be no different.

Racist speech will be prohibited. Misogynist speech will be prohibited. Pro-capitalist speech is in for a rough time...it might be marginally permitted and might not.

I advocate that the public expression of superstitious belief be prohibited.

That doesn't mean, by the way, that we have to shoot people or put them in prison...there are many less drastic ways of demonstrating social disapproval. Every street preacher deserves and should receive a punch in the mouth, for example.

But you have to make it clear what you will tolerate and what you will not tolerate...and I don't think we should tolerate superstition at all.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[liderDeFARC]

All you say sounds so nice and easy. But we are humans and as much as you try, you cannot predict what will happen, and how we will react. You treat us like some sort of equipment; once the oppression is gone they will learn to blablahblah.... we're not computers which you can say; once you stop downloading so much junk the computer will start to function faster.See unlike machines we can think.
What happens if people dont want to give up on religion? what if they still believe in a god even when you start that little eradication process? I know you said they can think in their heads whatever they want, but what if they want to practice their religion in the open? have a place to worship, you will deny that? you will deny what the people want?That doesnt make sense to me... I just think that the government should object to people going around trying to convert others.

Also taking children away from their parents, thats just barbaric :angry: ! I dont know if you have children but if you do you, then i dont know how much you love them or appreciate them. How do you think the parents would feel if their children were taken from them? Thats quite disturbing. See you claim you dont want children to get brainwashed, but who are you to decide what they will believe in or not? I mean by you teaching them in school and whatever else you said, that there are no gods, and to not have religions and all that other garbage you are forcing an idea in them, you too are brainwashing them.

I was also very curious about how you and others say that you cant be marxist and believe in god/religion. So are the working class (assuming there has been a revolution etc etc) who might still have religious beliefs considered marxists? communists? or is it just the military leaders that led the revolution? i mean what do you want, to have a communist people, or to have a communist governemnt or socialist or whatever? because if you want the people to be communist they surely aint communist if they are religious? I mean is your objective to turn people communist or just do what's best for them?

And this is not an argument or anything but wouldnt it be a better idea to leave all the old "churches" and "holy sites" intact? i mean you could just have them there for people to look at not really to practice anything. I mean if you think those building arent beatiful then thats your business but im sure many people disagree, i mean its history. If you disagree i think the kind of society you are trying to make is one like in the book The Giver. And thats creepy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

We could take the authoritarian path and silence the church, destroy it, force our atheism upon all, etc.

Well, I suppose we could at that, but I see nothing in my proposals that "forces" anyone to believe or not believe anything.


I was not referring to your post when I made my post below yours, I had not even seen your post when I posted mine.
I mean practice a belief, I think you know what i meant. Christians will not be content with simply being allowed(!) to believe in "god", because a part of Christian belief is attending church, if the Christians cannot attend church they will be extremely displeased, that is, as long as they are Christians.

[Moskitto]

Would you suggest that communists should concern themselves with adultery?

True adultery (almost exclusively by men) is why 38% of people in Botswana now have HIV-1, Promiscuity is why STD cases have increased 3 fold and HIV cases are set to explode by 2010 in the UK, Adultery is why upto 70 million people will have died of AIDS by 2050.

Muslims have lower cases of HIV transmission than other groups, some have suggested this is due to circumcision, in reality it is because Muslim society condemns casual sex to a greater extent than other societies.

Multiple Parters = AIDS, that is official WHO advice, the sooner people realise that the sooner people stop dying, it worked in Uganda, it'll work worldwide.

[elijahcraig]

All public religious ceremonies, processionals, holidays, etc. are to be abolished. Religious symbols to be removed from all public buildings.

All building names, street names, place names, city names, names of geographical features, etc. with religious connotations to be re-named.

All religious schools to be converted to secular use or torn down.

No new religious texts to be published...let the ones that exist gradually go out of circulation.

No further manufacture or distribution of religious paraphernalia; artifacts from demolished churches to be recycled into useful stuff or destroyed.

Cemeteries to be replaced with crematoriums; eventually to be cleared and the land used for some secular purpose, like a park for example.

Street-preaching is "disturbing the peace"...30 days on the back of a sanitation truck would seem appropriate.

As part of the transition, it might be appropriate to allow the temporary use of secular buildings for religious ceremonies...but nothing decent: something like an unused warehouse would be about right.

Demoralizing believers is very important; especially "holy" sites need to be profaned in an emphatic way...to demonstrate that the old ways are finished.

Note that there's nothing here that directly involves persecuting believers for believing (unless they make a public nuisance of themselves).

And, mind you, even with these steps, I still think it likely to take a couple of centuries to rid ourselves of this blight...it took Christianity that long to destroy the old religions in the Roman Empire.

========================

Prior to the revolution, we make it clear to people who express sympathy for our views that religion is on its way out as a public activity...and that it's incompatible with a communist outlook.

It's not necessary to be "obnoxious" about this...except towards those who are vehement in their advocacy of superstition. People who are "open" to communist ideas usually have no difficulties with atheism anyway. I was an atheist more than a decade before I became interested in communism.

In the larger society around us, I think it's fair to say that, with ups and downs, the influence of religion will continue to decline. By the time that the working class is ready to seriously consider proletarian revolution, the vast majority will be atheist in practice if not in theory.

The measures to be taken after the revolution that I proposed will be supported by a substantial majority of workers...and the superstitious will inevitably find themselves on the defensive. They will suffer the public shame of being known reactionaries...with little or no need for any kind of active "persecution".

What will be really "tricky" is watching closely how the superstitious treat "their" kids...and carefully but firmly putting an end to the brainwashing of children.

We would begin with the clear-cut nutball cults--taking "their" kids away...and then gradually move to the less extreme religious groups until the lesson was learned: preach to children and lose them forever.

Of course, there may well "always" be "underground" superstitions of one sort or another. That's unfortunate and I'm not sure what could be done about it. (Therapy?)

But when religion ceases to obstruct the mental activity of the vast majority of humanity, I don't think a "come-back" will ever be possible again.

At least I hope not.

All of that could very well be done, and I would support it. Though some of it would be unnecessary, "tearing down" churches or religious schools for instance, those would serve better as public buildings.

I think Lenin would have probably agreed with you, he was probably trying to get mass support behind the movement, and Russia was a backward religious country, so...

[redstar2000]

All you say sounds so nice and easy. But we are humans and as much as you try, you cannot predict what will happen, and how we will react.

I don't disagree with that...but we either have serious goals that we attempt to implement or what? Just sit around and "hope for the best"? Pray???

What happens if people don't want to give up on religion? What if they still believe in a god even when you start that little eradication process?

There will be a struggle.

There always is! It's not something that you can avoid.

...but what if they want to practice their religion in the open? have a place to worship, you will deny that?

The only purpose of "practicing religion in the open" is propagandizing for the "faith"...they call it "witnessing". The only purpose of "religious architecture" is propaganda in stone.

There's no reason why believers cannot meet in one another's residences to collectively "worship".

Also taking children away from their parents, thats just barbaric!...How do you think the parents would feel if their children were taken from them? That's quite disturbing.

It happens now...though not nearly as much as it should. Children who are physically or sexually abused by their parents or other adult "care-takers" are routinely removed from such environments.

Since brainwashing children with superstitious crap is child abuse, the kids are liberated from an abusive environment, probably by a neighborhood assembly that finds out what is going on.

...but who are you to decide what they will believe in or not? I mean by you teaching them in school and whatever else you said, that there are no gods, and to not have religions and all that other garbage you are forcing an idea in them, you too are brainwashing them.

No, when we tell the kids that there are no gods (and no witches, ghosts, vampires, devils, etc.), we are telling them the plain and simple truth about the real world.

When you suggest in your post that this is "garbage", you expose yourself as one who prefers to wallow in superstition and, to keep it from dying out, wants the "right" to brainwash kids into believing it too.

Sorry, that won't be permitted.

I mean is your objective to turn people communist or just do what's best for them?

Definitely "turn people communist"--that is what's "best" for them.

But that process will mostly take place prior to the revolution...indeed, that has to happen in order for there to be a revolution.

...but wouldn't it be a better idea to leave all the old "churches" and "holy sites" intact? I mean you could just have them there for people to look at, not really to practice anything. I mean if you think those building aren't beautiful then that's your business but I'm sure many people disagree, I mean it's history.

As I pointed out above, those places are propaganda all by themselves.

If you want to get into the symbolism of "beauty", I see nothing "beautiful" about those monstrous monuments to tyranny and oppression and ignorance.

Yes, it is history...and we have many ways of recording it. We do not have to have our faces rubbed in that shit every time we leave our apartments.

I think the kind of society you are trying to make is one like in the book The Giver. And that's creepy.

I have never heard of this presumably dystopian novel. But I would remind you that capitalist literature is rich in novels that purport to "prove" that any significant improvement on capitalism is "impossible".

I don't take them seriously...neither should anyone else.

Christians will not be content with simply being allowed(!) to believe in "god", because a part of Christian belief is attending church, if the Christians cannot attend church they will be extremely displeased, that is, as long as they are Christians.

Yeah, I know what you mean. After all the threads on this board, I know the believers will absolutely howl with outrage at my "Stalinist tyranny".

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass. There was a time when christians had no churches, muslims had no mosques, and jews had no synagogues or temples, etc. They can all get used to that condition again.

Multiple Partners = AIDS, that is official WHO advice, the sooner people realise that the sooner people stop dying...

Another banal irrelevancy from Moskitto--who else?

What argument will you use, Moskitto, to defend your neo-puritanical prejudices, when AIDS is a curable disease?

What will you piss and moan about then?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I enjoy your radical rantings, Redstar, you ought to write a book.
Seriously, I like your ways, I have a rather authoritarian personality myself, though politicaly I'm not very much.
Don't you ever worry about the lack of following we will get if we follow your ideas for the suppression of religion? I don't mean to say that we should compromise or co-operate with reactionary organizations such as religions just to get more popular support, in fact, we should have no tolerance for oppressors such as religion., but I think your being excessively radical just for kicks. I think you enjoy seeing others become shocked by your unconvetional ways, am i right, comarde? You rebelious teenagaer...er, elderly man! :D , Okay, I'm getting off the subject here, this is as relevent as Moskitto's jargon. :lol:, just kidding.
But seriously now, RS, you agree that the revolution should be led by the people, and not by some "benign, selfless vanguard", how do you plan on conquering the people's support through teh abolition of their religions. Oh, I'm contradicting myself, aren't I. First I say that religion should be tolerated, then I say it shouldn't. I think I'll go with abolition of religion. I agree with you comarde, i just like arguing with everyone, for no reason sometimes just for the pleasure of contradicting others.

[redstar2000]

I think you enjoy seeing others become shocked by your unconventional ways, am I right, comrade? You rebellious teenager...er, elderly man!

It has its moments. :lol:

Now and then some newbie will read one of my posts and respond with a bunch of sarcastic remarks about "teenagers" who are "just rebelling against their parents", etc.

It makes my day. :D

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Elect Marx]

redstar2000,
I agree that your ideas would mostly be productive in freeing the people, as I do not want to live in a society with any trace of theocratic influence. When you say, "All obviously religious architecture is to be demolished." I would propose an alternative. If those buildings important to organized religion's dominance were converted to museums that document their history of oppression, the people would rightfully see this as an effort to strip away systems of control and simultaneously a method to educate them. They would then, not see it as an attack on community structure and progress but a step toward free thinking and a secular interactions in society.

[praxis1966]

What Redstar, Elijah, and Victor are advocating is bordering on the "Bolshevisation" programs instituted by Stalin just after his ascendancy to the head of the Party. What you are talking about is oppression, plain and simple. Friere, in his masterwork Pedagogy of the Oppressed, warns sternly against this type of action. All to often, revolutionaries aren't motivated by a feeling for the necessity of a truly egalitarian society. Instead, they are motivated by greed for the power to oppress those whom they hated before the seizure of power.

I ask you this simple question. Are you motivated by a love for the people or the lust to destroy those you hate? If you are motivated by the latter, then all we are doing here is trading one oppressor for another. The Who once wrote a song to this effect. It contained the following line: "Just got the new boss, same as the old boss..."

This is exactly what you will be doing if you set out to demolish all the world's religious institutions. Criminalizing one type of ideology in order to foster the furtherance of another.

IHP makes a good point. You people, as well as Marx, never acknowledged the various Eastern belief systems (Siekh, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Ruhani Satsang, etc.). None of these systems are oppressive. On the contrary, they stress that peace and liberation of body and spirit in this lifetime. As IHP says, please differentiate between Eastern and Western religions, as the two are light years apart.

[Moskitto]

Multiple Partners = AIDS, that is official WHO advice, the sooner people realise that the sooner people stop dying...

Another banal irrelevancy from Moskitto--who else?

What argument will you use, Moskitto, to defend your neo-puritanical prejudices, when AIDS is a curable disease?

What will you piss and moan about then?

I take it you didn't read the post, Multiple partners leads to the spread of HIV, that is why Adultery and Promiscuity are not good social values, Uganda has solved it's AIDS pandemic by stressing this point to men who sleep with prostitutes, infect their wives, then have the nerve to blame their wives. Despite how left wing you are, the simple fact of the matter is that if you have unprotected sex with 3 partners a night, you're gonna get HIV, the gay community has realised this and is now working to promote condom use, heterosexuals in the main have not.

Although, I just love this...


AIDS is a curable disease

ROTFLMFAO, it's treatable not curable, at the moment it's about the same as living with diabetes, except the medicine makes you throw up and you still die after about 20 years, where did you get this information that it's curable from? junkscience.com (name explains it all)? aidslies.com? usgovernment-disinformation-program.com?

[Sabocat]

I don't understand how people can cling to the notion of religion. Organized religion is all about control, oppression and fairy tale answers to uncomfortable questions regarding death for instance. You die, it's over...no sugar coating. Get used to it. It's called reality.

I'm also tired of hearing that religion gives people moral values. Moral values as set down by an organization? Who decides what the "standard" morals should be? Thanks, but I think I can figure out what's morally right from wrong without instructions from a fairy tale. Everyone else should be able to as well.

Saving churches? Most of the old churches were built essentially with slave labor. They represent oppression from the first day of their building. Why do you think these edifices were so large? For intimidation. Is this really what a society needs? In the U$, the churches aren't required to pay any taxes on any of their properties. This has made the Catholic church one of the largest "corporations" in the U$. In a capitalist society this gives them a powerful "lobby" to influence the political body.

There is never going to be peace and unity on this planet until organized religion is done away with. More people have been killed in "gods name" than for any other reason. It has no place in a modern society.


As far as the AIDS topic, a brief look at what populations are most greatly affected by it should be an easy tip off. For the most part, AIDS affects the poorest segment of the population. This could be greatly reduced or eradicated with free condoms and education. Of course at present, you have the Catholic (and others) church condemning the free distribution of condoms, so the populations will continue to suffer. Cuba has very low incidence of AIDS. I would imagine that it has a great deal to do with education and free distribution of material that really helps stop the spread. Something more than a prayer.

Why should AIDS prevention be all about abstinence? That again is a religious code. It's not normal in any animal, and it's never going to be the solution for humans. Wouldn't it be easier to distribute tools for prevention rather than imposing some puritanical nonsense?

[Umoja]

STD's doing just go away, and cures aren't always an option. I'm sickened by the fact that some people, would consider abstinence a purely religious idea. Moskitto has a point, Uganda is proof of how abstinence, and being monogamous is actually beneficial to humankind, if this doesn't fit some of your "high and mighty" communist values, that's to bad. What works, works.

[RedFW]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 11:13 AM
Although, I just love this...


AIDS is a curable disease

ROTFLMFAO, it's treatable not curable, at the moment it's about the same as living with diabetes, except the medicine makes you throw up and you still die after about 20 years, where did you get this information that it's curable from? junkscience.com (name explains it all)? aidslies.com? usgovernment-disinformation-program.com?
What exactly do you find so terribly amusing? Your habit of misquoting Redstar? Anyone can do that. What would really be impressive would be seeing you engage and argue with what he actually IS saying, but I won't hold my breath. ;)

Redstar said: What argument will you use, Moskitto, to defend your neo-puritanical prejudices, when AIDS is a curable disease?

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 11:36 AM
STD's doing just go away, and cures aren't always an option. I'm sickened by the fact that some people, would consider abstinence a purely religious idea. Moskitto has a point, Uganda is proof of how abstinence, and being monogamous is actually beneficial to humankind, if this doesn't fit some of your "high and mighty" communist values, that's to bad. What works, works.
Well, if the spread was controlled, people practiced safe sex, the disease would eventually die out. Multiple partners don't cause AIDS, unprotected sex causes AIDS. Have you been asleep the last 20 years?

What works, works...that's funny. Hey, killing all the men in Uganda would be an eventual cure for AIDS there too, why not do that instead....what works, works. Why not emasculate them? That would work. I love how the advocates of religion always fall back on abstinence. How about making sure everyone is educated and has means of protection for safe sex? Why is that such an unrealistic goal.

And I hate to be the one to break it to you...abstinence is by and large a function of religion. By definition, to abstain is to willfully prevent yourself from doing something that is enjoyable, or something that you want to do no? What but religion would want you to abstain from something enjoyable.

Main Entry: ab·sti·nence
Pronunciation: 'ab-st&-n&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin abstinentia, from abstinent-, abstinens, present participle of abstinEre
Date: 14th century
1 : voluntary forbearance especially from indulgence of an appetite or craving or from eating some foods : ABSTENTION
2 : habitual abstaining from intoxicating beverages


Being monogamous is beneficial to mankind? In what way? Does it feed the masses? Does it house them? Very few animals in the animal kingdom are monogamous. Monogamy was created by religion.

You're the one with the high and mighty standards for society aren't you? Weren't you the one advocating illegalizing all drugs 'cause it's bad for society? Stop trying to decide what's right for the masses and let them decide for themselves. I'm sorry if you're not comfortable with that kind of freedom.

[Elect Marx]

OK...if you people want to talk about AIDS, why don't you start your own thread? I don't really think this has to with Marxism and religion. It doesn't belong in politics either :hammer:

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 20 2003, 12:17 PM
OK...if you people want to talk about AIDS, why don't you start your own thread? I don't really think this has to with Marxism and religion. It doesn't belong in politics either :hammer:
Well actually the topic was Marxism and religion and it progressed to monogomy and AIDS. Monogomy being argued as a function of religion.

And technically, your last post doesn't have anything to do with Marxism and religion either.

There also has been quite a long thread topic about this that's stickied in THEORY. So this whole thread really doesn't belong in politics does it?

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...t=ST&f=6&t=6238 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=6238)

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Disgustapated+Aug 20 2003, 04:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Disgustapated @ Aug 20 2003, 04:32 PM)
313C7 [email protected] 20 2003, 12:17 PM
OK...if you people want to talk about AIDS, why don&#39;t you start your own thread? I don&#39;t really think this has to with Marxism and religion. It doesn&#39;t belong in politics either :hammer:
Well actually the topic was Marxism and religion and it progressed to monogomy and AIDS. Monogomy being argued as a function of religion.

And technically, your post doesn&#39;t have anything to do with Marxism and religion either. [/b]
Ha, my post had to do with keeping it about Marxism and religion.
I suppose sinse this is a sociological mater, it is related in some way. I just didn&#39;t want to dilute the conversation.
Keepin it :hammer:

[Sabocat]

Understood

[redstar2000]

What Redstar, Elijah, and Victor are advocating is bordering on the "Bolshevisation" programs instituted by Stalin just after his ascendancy to the head of the Party.

In what way?

What you are talking about is oppression, plain and simple.

In what way?

All too often, revolutionaries aren&#39;t motivated by a feeling for the necessity of a truly egalitarian society. Instead, they are motivated by greed for the power to oppress those whom they hated before the seizure of power.

I suspect it&#39;s both, but consider this: won&#39;t the bourgeoisie feel outrageously oppressed when the revolution deprives them of "their" wealth? Won&#39;t racists and sexists feel outrageously oppressed when they see that people of color and women are really treated equally in the new society?

One person&#39;s "outrageous oppression" is another person&#39;s simple justice.

I ask you this simple question. Are you motivated by a love for the people or the lust to destroy those you hate?

Neither one, actually. People are not very "lovable" for the most part--especially in class society. And while there is a certain satisfaction in seeing the oppressors receive long-overdue justice at last...from a historical standpoint, the fate of the "bad guys" is trivial.

My motivation is a very simple and even "selfish" one: I wish to be free of the chains of wage-slavery and class society. I realize that the only way that is possible is a society in which everyone is free of those chains.

I do not expect communist society to necessarily be one of "peace", "harmony", "love", etc. I expect it to be free of exploitation and oppression.

After that, we&#39;ll see.

This is exactly what you will be doing if you set out to demolish all the world&#39;s religious institutions. Criminalizing one type of ideology in order to foster the furtherance of another.

Once again, I repeat (for the 100th time?) that it is not the "ideology" that is being "criminalized"...it is behavior.

We communists do not care if someone is a racist, a sexist, or a god-believer in their heads. But some forms of racist behavior will be criminal; some forms of sexist behavior will be criminal; some forms of religious behavior will be criminal.

That&#39;s the case now as well; human sacrifice, no matter how important it may be to your religious beliefs, is murder under the law.

IHP makes a good point. You people, as well as Marx, never acknowledged the various Eastern belief systems (Sikh, Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, Ruhani Satsang, etc.). None of these systems are oppressive. On the contrary, they stress that peace and liberation of body and spirit in this lifetime. As IHP says, please differentiate between Eastern and Western religions, as the two are light years apart.

Well, praxis1966, I don&#39;t live in the "east" and my remarks are admittedly "Euro-centric"...that&#39;s where I expect proletarian revolution to take place first.

If we had Japanese communists on this board, I&#39;d solicit their views about what to do with regard to the "eastern" religions...for all I know, they may be just as bad as the "western" ones but in different ways. Or perhaps not...perhaps they are so passive and unobtrusive as to cause no difficulties. I note that the Communist Party of Vietnam has reported some difficulties with Buddhists there, so...

I&#39;m sickened by the fact that some people, would consider abstinence a purely religious idea. Moskitto has a point, Uganda is proof of how abstinence, and being monogamous is actually beneficial to humankind, if this doesn&#39;t fit some of your "high and mighty" communist values, that&#39;s too bad. What works, works.

So Moskitto&#39;s banal irrelevancy is now elevated to the status of an "argument": abstinence and monogamy is not only "God&#39;s Will" but is actually "beneficial to humankind".

By that kind of "logic", AIDS is "God&#39;s Curse" on the "sinners", right? I mean if people would just quit all that fornicating and adultery, then they wouldn&#39;t get AIDS, right?

That is truly a contemptible argument&#33;

My thanks to RedFW for noting Moskitto&#39;s misquoting of my sentence; it comes as no surprise. Trying to discredit me in any way he can is now second only to weight-lifting in his pathetic "life". If his competence in the former is any reflection of his competence in the latter, he has broken bones in both feet.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by RedFW+Aug 20 2003, 04:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RedFW @ Aug 20 2003, 04:02 PM)
[email protected] 20 2003, 11:13 AM
Although, I just love this...


AIDS is a curable disease

ROTFLMFAO, it&#39;s treatable not curable, at the moment it&#39;s about the same as living with diabetes, except the medicine makes you throw up and you still die after about 20 years, where did you get this information that it&#39;s curable from? junkscience.com (name explains it all)? aidslies.com? usgovernment-disinformation-program.com?
What exactly do you find so terribly amusing? Your habit of misquoting Redstar? Anyone can do that. What would really be impressive would be seeing you engage and argue with what he actually IS saying, but I won&#39;t hold my breath. ;)

Redstar said: What argument will you use, Moskitto, to defend your neo-puritanical prejudices, when AIDS is a curable disease? [/b]
Sorry but this cannot just be left like this. Usually I am in agreement with you especially on your stance on feminists, but your dislike of Moskitto is making you talk out your ass. Moskitto did not misquote redstar at all, he took a direct quote of what is pure ignorance. As such you should not attack him for it. He is quite right AIDS is not curable at all.

I also believe it is funny, Redstar&#39;s habit of arguing with anytrhing Moskitto has to say, has now reached the point where he is saying obvious falicys, such as the above. If you have a problem with this I suggest you just keep it quiet.


Also he has made argument with what redstar is saying, many time&#39;s, if your predudis is making it difficult for you to read, then I suggest you stop being so foolish and leave off him. Before he uses that science you hate so much and prove&#39;s you and redstar are wrong.

Also if you and redstar had anyu fucking clue what a neopuritain is then you would realise that Moskitto has no "neo-puritain preudises". If you dont like it, look it up in a dictionary. PS and Moskitto is a quaker, and research the complete differances.

In short when you bother reading a book instead of critisising in obvious ignorance of the facts then I will accept your argumwents against Moskitto, until then just read what he is saying, you may actually learn something.

AK47

PS if you have a problem with this I would be more than happy to continue this discussion in PM&#39;s.

[Sabocat]

He is quite right AIDS is not curable at all.

Wouldn&#39;t a better statement be that there is no cure for AIDS right now? How could you possibly make a broad statement that AIDS is not curable at all? If that&#39;s the case, everyone should just as well stop giving money and support to AIDS research no? I mean if it&#39;s not curable at all, what&#39;s the point?

Could it be that we just haven&#39;t found the cure yet? That certainly doesn&#39;t translate into it being incurable.


BTW...the case could easily be made that you and Moskitto argue with anything redstar has to say just as easily.

[Moskitto]

This could be greatly reduced or eradicated with free condoms and education. Of course at present, you have the Catholic (and others) church condemning the free distribution of condoms

Yes, condom use (which I advocated in my reference to the gay community realising its situation and promoting condom use) does protect against HIV, hence why I said unprotected sex, fact is that men don&#39;t like wearing condoms and when told by the catholic church how "evil" condoms are, the dogma becomes so much more appealing, Brazil solved this problem by telling people how sexy condoms were and gave them an association with the ever popular carnivals.


Cuba has very low incidence of AIDS. I would imagine that it has a great deal to do with education and free distribution of material that really helps stop the spread. Something more than a prayer.

Cuba also destroyed it&#39;s foreign blood supply at the beginning of the pandemic and actually locked up people with the virus, although now they have an excellent education program for people with HIV telling them not to spread it to other people.


Why should AIDS prevention be all about abstinence? That again is a religious code. It&#39;s not normal in any animal, and it&#39;s never going to be the solution for humans.

Well, no, I advocated protected sex when practicing promiscuity and monogamy when not practicing monogamy, are you suggesting that effective AIDS programs revolve around unprotected promiscuity, I think not.


Wouldn&#39;t it be easier to distribute tools for prevention rather than imposing some puritanical nonsense?

So monogamy and loyalty as practiced by swans is "puritanical nonsense"? fact is if you don&#39;t like monogamy, you don&#39;t have to be in a mutually monogamous relationship, you can practice promiscuity as much as you like, but don&#39;t come crying to me when you test positive for HIV.


What exactly do you find so terribly amusing? Your habit of misquoting Redstar? Anyone can do that. What would really be impressive would be seeing you engage and argue with what he actually IS saying, but I won&#39;t hold my breath.

Redstar said: What argument will you use, Moskitto, to defend your neo-puritanical prejudices, when AIDS is a curable disease?

Come to think about it I did, although I was replied with cries of "neo-puritanical nonsense" when I suggested solutions to real life problems, which have worked in real life (unlike Redstar&#39;s ideas).


Well, if the spread was controlled, people practiced safe sex, the disease would eventually die out. Multiple partners don&#39;t cause AIDS, unprotected sex causes AIDS. Have you been asleep the last 20 years?

Yes, people practice safe sex and stop AIDS, fact is they don&#39;t, unless peoples attitudes of women change, they won&#39;t. The Ugandan solution works because it changes the way people view women and sex. And produces practical results.


How about making sure everyone is educated and has means of protection for safe sex? Why is that such an unrealistic goal.

Yeah, that&#39;s probably why I pointed out the work of the homosexual community is educating people about condom use. However now you&#39;ve got men saying "well, a condom stops her getting pregnant, but it reduces my pleasure," that&#39;s why the whole view of society has to change.


Being monogamous is beneficial to mankind? In what way? Does it feed the masses? Does it house them? Very few animals in the animal kingdom are monogamous

Swans are monogamous, A study of Rams has shown that while stronger rams have more sex, they produce proportionally less children for the amount of sex they have because after too much sex they no longer produce sperm at a rate sufficient enough to support the number of ejaculations, Rams Copulate 12 times a day and experience this problem, humans only copulate twice a day, humans having sex the rate rams do causes great problems for fertility.


Weren&#39;t you the one advocating illegalizing all drugs &#39;cause it&#39;s bad for society?

Oh so instead of using an actual arguement against me you start making up crap about me? Fact is I actually support all drug legalisation, in private and for the most part away from young children, you see taking drugs out of the hands of dealers who cut drugs with grit and rat poison, and ensures that the safe drugs remain available and the dangerous drugs die out.


So Moskitto&#39;s banal irrelevancy is now elevated to the status of an "argument": abstinence and monogamy is not only "God&#39;s Will" but is actually "beneficial to humankind".

Oh dear Redstar, misquoting me again, where did I say I supported this "abstinance" you speak of? let alone say it was "gods will?" Yes, monogamy is actually beneficial to mankind, the fact that humans are actually biologically a monogamous species due to the male copulation rate and testicular size.


By that kind of "logic", AIDS is "God&#39;s Curse" on the "sinners", right? I mean if people would just quit all that fornicating and adultery, then they wouldn&#39;t get AIDS, right?

Well, I think if you bothered to read a dictionarry, you&#39;d discover why i deliberately left out fornication from my list, why? fornication can be monogamous. Adultery is not monogamous. Annother fact is that neither of these affects you if you want to sleep with 3 people a night and increase you pleasure by not wearing a condom. Of course I&#39;ll laugh at you when you get HIV, but that&#39;s a different matter.

If you want to look at the "AIDS is a punishment" people, I suggest you check out www.godhatesfags.com, then try and explain how me pointing to the gay community as an example of how to control HIV is anyway related to the "AIDS is a punishment" philosophy.


My thanks to RedFW for noting Moskitto&#39;s misquoting of my sentence; it comes as no surprise. Trying to discredit me in any way he can is now second only to weight-lifting in his pathetic "life". If his competence in the former is any reflection of his competence in the latter, he has broken bones in both feet.

Well, that sentance made quite a bit of sense, particularly how Weightlifting is not actually what I do because weightlifting is an olympic sport where competitors lift maximum poundages in the snatch and clean and jerk, whereas I do endurance weight training which is the lifting of high repetitions at moderate weight to improve muscle tone and muscular endurance and limit the hypertropy effect which is undesirable for endurance sports such as mine, it also must be noted that due to the nature of weightlifting as a competition, broken feet are rather rare unless the competitor forward flips and the bar lands on their feet, although even this rarely results in the breaking of feet since the size of the discs is such that such falls are rare.

[praxis1966]

Redstar: The Japanese and Vietnamese are not the only Buddhists on the planet. I was raised Tibetan Buddhist, and frankly, I sympathise with the Tibetans a hell of a lot more than Chinese communists. The Tibetans prior to the arrival of the Chinese interfered with the business of no one. Since the invasion, however, the Chinese have looted and burned temples, executed non-violent monks for practicing their religion, and turned half the country into a toxic waste dump. I ask you, who is the oppressor there? I have a sneaking suspicion that you were probably turned off by Christianity at a young age and through either laziness or ignorance haven&#39;t bothered to investigate any of the alternatives.

[Sabocat]

Weren&#39;t you the one advocating illegalizing all drugs &#39;cause it&#39;s bad for society?


Oh so instead of using an actual arguement against me you start making up crap about me? Fact is I actually support all drug legalisation, in private and for the most part away from young children, you see taking drugs out of the hands of dealers who cut drugs with grit and rat poison, and ensures that the safe drugs remain available and the dangerous drugs die out.

First of all....if you read the post, you would see that that is a response to Umoja not you. Enough with the persecution complex.



Well, no, I advocated protected sex when practicing promiscuity and monogamy when not practicing monogamy, are you suggesting that effective AIDS programs revolve around unprotected promiscuity, I think not.

How on earth did you come up with the notion that I said an effective AIDS program revolves around unprotected promiscuity?


So monogamy and loyalty as practiced by swans is "puritanical nonsense"? fact is if you don&#39;t like monogamy, you don&#39;t have to be in a mutually monogamous relationship, you can practice promiscuity as much as you like, but don&#39;t come crying to me when you test positive for HIV.

There are several animals in the animal kingdom that mate for life. What&#39;s the point? Again your stating that promiscuity leads directly to AIDS. Only unprotected promiscuity increases the chances for AIDS, not guarantees it. How swans have anything to do with human monogomy is beyond me. Do you have any idea how many promiscuous people never contract AIDS?


Being monogamous is beneficial to mankind? In what way? Does it feed the masses? Does it house them? Very few animals in the animal kingdom are monogamous


Swans are monogamous, A study of Rams has shown that while stronger rams have more sex, they produce proportionally less children for the amount of sex they have because after too much sex they no longer produce sperm at a rate sufficient enough to support the number of ejaculations, Rams Copulate 12 times a day and experience this problem, humans only copulate twice a day, humans having sex the rate rams do causes great problems for fertility.

And yet somehow, the Ram lives on, proving that it&#39;s not that detrimental to their survival. A monogomous couple could engage in intercourse 12 times a day just as easily as a promiscuous person. I doubt that these people represent the downfall of mankind or civilization.


Yes, people practice safe sex and stop AIDS, fact is they don&#39;t, unless peoples attitudes of women change, they won&#39;t. The Ugandan solution works because it changes the way people view women and sex. And produces practical results.

The fact is they do. The new cases of AIDS dropped substantially with the push for education and safe sex. It would drop further if schools were allowed to give access to condoms to students. However the religious "lobby" and puritanical right wing puts to much pressure on them and they don&#39;t.

[Moskitto]

How on earth did you come up with the notion that I said an effective AIDS program revolves around unprotected promiscuity?

From your disagreement with my point that the gay community ending bath houses and discouraging unprotected sex 3 times a day, instead promoting condom use is a good example to follow with regard to an HIV prevention policy as opposed to the heterosexual approach whereby heterosexuals have the tendancy to believe they won&#39;t catch it and they can have unprotected sex with 3 different people a day, that&#39;s what&#39;s happening where I live.


There are several animals in the animal kingdom that mate for life. What&#39;s the point?

The point is because the vast majority of animals do something doesn&#39;t mean we do it, fact is animals are not the same, most animals do not use tools, only humans and some other primates do, does that mean we shouldn&#39;t use tools, humans and some primates in zoos are also the only species which have been shown to have sex for fun, by the same logic humans should only have sex for reproduction, humans are monogamous, I can give you essays by world renowned and atheist fertility experts who prove this point.


Only unprotected promiscuity increases the chances for AIDS, not guarantees it.

Womens magazines are now advising all women with partners with histories of promiscuity or injection drug use to refuse sex until they receive an HIV test, this is because these activities increase the risk of HIV, Mens magazines are even advising men on how to have affairs without the risk of infecting their partners. This is what happens in Uganda, and it works.

Although it is accepted by most AIDS experts that promiscuity and sexual liberation were amoung the reasons why HIV exploded from what appears to be a very small number of cases in Africa and individual cases in the US.


How swans have anything to do with human monogomy is beyond me.

Because swans are a manogamous species which tends towards proving that the do exist.


And yet somehow, the Ram lives on, proving that it&#39;s not that detrimental to their survival.

Rams are a promiscuous species (http://www.nature.com/nsu/010208/010208-10.html) hence their testicular size:body mass ratio and copulation rate being relatively high in comparison to monogamous species such as humans, gorillas and swans. If a species is designed to be promiscuous, this is natural, however in a species not designed to be promiscuous, this is not.


A monogomous couple could engage in intercourse 12 times a day just as easily as a promiscuous person.

well, no actually, because when monogamous person reaches intercourse no 12 he has allready desposited enough sperm into the vagina to allow his genes to be spread, a promiscuous person in the same position would not because by the time he reaches partner 12, well, just read http://www.nature.com/nsu/010208/010208-10.html to find out about the "ram-ifications of too much sex."


The fact is they do. The new cases of AIDS dropped substantially with the push for education and safe sex. It would drop further if schools were allowed to give access to condoms to students. However the religious "lobby" and puritanical right wing puts to much pressure on them and they don&#39;t.

Wrong, HIV cases are rising in the UK as well as many other countries in western Europe, and STD cases are trebling, particularly amoungst heterosexual university students (who have plenty of access to condoms.)

In Africa, prostitutes often offer lower prices of men willing to have sex with a condom, do any of them take the lower offer? nope, they want the extra pleasure an uncovered shaft gives them.

In general men do not like using condoms, heterosexual men do not regard the disease as a risk factor, they do not regard it as something worth worrying about, and they certainly don&#39;t see why they should reduce their own pleasure simply to protect a woman. Magic Johnson&#39;s HIV test didn&#39;t solve the problem, it&#39;ll only be solved when the majority of heterosexual men actually realise it&#39;s something they can catch, and it&#39;s something they can spread to their partners, and there are very serious consequences for spreading it.

Amoung the most successful AIDS campaigns was the "tombstone" adverts, the reason why they worked is because they actually scared people out of the free for all, no worries sex fest they wanted, and into the mindset of protecting themselves. The problem is now people are back to believing it&#39;s only gays and Africans who can be infected and believe in the free for all, no worries sex fest they want.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 09:17 PM

He is quite right AIDS is not curable at all.

Wouldn&#39;t a better statement be that there is no cure for AIDS right now? How could you possibly make a broad statement that AIDS is not curable at all? If that&#39;s the case, everyone should just as well stop giving money and support to AIDS research no? I mean if it&#39;s not curable at all, what&#39;s the point?

Could it be that we just haven&#39;t found the cure yet? That certainly doesn&#39;t translate into it being incurable.


BTW...the case could easily be made that you and Moskitto argue with anything redstar has to say just as easily.
Wouldn&#39;t a better statement be that there is no cure for AIDS right now?
I unfortunatly dont posses the ability to read the future... apparently unlike you so, i do not make bold statements that Aids will be cured. I find it better to look at what has happened and what is happening, not speculating on what MAY happen.

However, yes your right I misread redstar... so what? Moskitto is still right, AID&#39;s is a STD, if you are with one individual partner in a stable relationship then you are less likley to catch aids. Or did mommy and daddy not explain the birds and bee&#39;s to you as a kid? But what this has to do with God I dont know...

BTW...the case could easily be made that you and Moskitto argue with anything redstar has to say just as easily.

Yes you could argue that... but we both know you would be lying. I can find you threads within this religion debate alone in which I have agreed with Redstar and have openly said so.

So come on mate, try your pathetic argument it wont get you anywere.

I am athiest for a start, which proves your entire argument wrong right immidiatly.

There are several animals in the animal kingdom that mate for life. What&#39;s the point?

Well it is blindingly obvious, however I will spell it out to you if you really want. Redstar said that being against adultery is just "puritanical nonsense", as some animals in nature are monogamous so redstar is obviously wrong in that belief... unless swans read the bible that is. :rolleyes:

Only unprotected promiscuity increases the chances for AIDS, not guarantees it

Condoms and other forms of protection are not 100% reliable eiter so I should reconsider the "only" in that post.

The fact is they do. The new cases of AIDS dropped substantially with the push for education and safe sex.

And??? Your point being??? State the obvious, why dont you. Moskitto&#39;s point was that in some highly religios countrys Aids is not as common because less people are practicing adultery, and therefor spreading AID&#39;s less. It hardly seams rocket science, I dont see why you are hell bent in disagreeing with him, when what he is saying is so obviously true... Unless you are simply disagreeing for the sake of it.

It would drop further if schools were allowed to give access to condoms to students. However the religious "lobby" and puritanical right wing puts to much pressure on them and they don&#39;t.

err, all you have to do is visit a public toilet just about anywere in britain to buy condoms, or just go and take a visit to a chemists which every highstreet in Britain has, I dont know about the rest of the world, but condoms are hardly difficult to obtain here. So really you are just making excuses for those to lazy to take 5 minuits to visit there local chemist or public toilet. Sorry that argument isnt going anywere.

AK47

PS, dont try and patronise people... It hardly does you any favours.

[IHP]

Praxis,

Thanks mate, I knew someone else would realize the difference between eastern and western religion. What school of buddhism do/did you practice?

--IHP

[redstar2000]

The Japanese and Vietnamese are not the only Buddhists on the planet. I was raised Tibetan Buddhist, and frankly, I sympathise with the Tibetans a hell of a lot more than Chinese communists. The Tibetans prior to the arrival of the Chinese interfered with the business of no one. Since the invasion, however, the Chinese have looted and burned temples, executed non-violent monks for practicing their religion, and turned half the country into a toxic waste dump. I ask you, who is the oppressor there?

The very fact that you "were raised Tibetan Buddhist" destroys your credibility on this issue. You "believe" because you were "taught" to believe at at age when you were intellectually defenseless. You could just as easily have been taught that it was "right and proper" to fear and burn "witches"...and you would "defend" that proposition now without regard to the fact that no reliable evidence of witchcraft has ever been produced.

I am not a Maoist, a professional defender of "People&#39;s" China, or particularly knowledgeable about Tibet. My understanding of the matter is that the religious establishment in Tibet held the peasant population there in virtual if not actual serfdom...from which they were liberated by the "Red" Army.

I daresay the clerical ruling class found the loss of "their" serfs to be "outrageously oppressive".

It all depends on where you stand.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you were probably turned off by Christianity at a young age and through either laziness or ignorance haven&#39;t bothered to investigate any of the alternatives.

Well, I&#39;ll confirm at least the first half of your suspicion; between the ages of 6 and 8, I realized that supernatural "explanations" of anything were nonsense...science made more sense.

And, no doubt, I was influenced by the unpleasant personalities of those believers that I had the misfortune to encounter...the really serious ones are exceptionally obnoxious (as they often are on this board).

But I dispute your characterization of my young self as "too lazy or ignorant" to "investigate alternatives" to Christianity. In my view, that would have been like rejecting astrology in order to investigate kaballah...or "reading" the livers of ritually sacrificed animals.

Once you figure out that superstition is all crap, then there&#39;s little reason to look into the details of each particular one. (Of course, some folks have a scholarly interest in such things and find them fascinating in and of themselves...you know I have no problem with that sort of interest.)

It seems to me that the root of your disagreement with me is that "you were raised Tibetan Buddhist". How many "alternatives" did you "investigate"? You know, with an "open mind" and all that?

How does Tibetan Buddhism stack up against science in explaining the real world?

:redstar2000:

PS: I resist the temptation to succumb to Moskitto&#39;s attempt (with the usual assistance of AK47) to hijack this thread--"Marxism vs. Religion"--into an irrelevant "discussion" of his neo-puritanical crusade for monogamy. Only he knows why he is incapable of starting his own thread on this "subject"...instead of interjecting it into other threads. No doubt there is a psychological explanation.
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[liderDeFARC]

Being monogamous is beneficial to mankind? In what way? Does it feed the masses? Does it house them? Very few animals in the animal kingdom are monogamous. Monogamy was created by religion.

its not really about that, but some people&#39;s feelings might get hurt :( , i certainly wouldnt like my boyfriend or whatever to be sleeping around...


"All you say sounds so nice and easy. But we are humans and as much as you try, you cannot predict what will happen, and how we will react.

I don&#39;t disagree with that...but we either have serious goals that we attempt to implement or what? Just sit around and "hope for the best"? Pray???"

yes, i dont doubt you have serious goals, but you have these theories and you sound so sure of them. i understand the part about the revolution, but just like you said you will attempt to get them done. I was merely pointing out things might not come out how you plan. Yet you sound so convinced that it will.... Where did i say anything about praying???

Yes i bet there will be a struggle, but what if people dont want to give it up? Why wouldnt you let it be. I mean if they give you this really big struggle wouldnt you understand theyre happy like that? I mean this is about them, and what they want. or wait you know what makes them happy or not.

How is it propaganda to attend a church or mosque or any religious place? I dont think that the only purpose of "religious architect" is to propagandize, i doubt my sister or mother or anyone from my family see it as that. Just how i doubt they see other religious buildings as propaganda. I mean if the point of having buildings is for people to come in them because they are attracted it certainly hasnt worked on my family... And meeting at each others houses can be complicated, and invasion of privacy, and annoying. Why would the poeple have to adapt to the government instead of the government adapting to the poeples needs?

And about the brainwashing, it is the parents jopb to raise the kids how they want. If they want to raise ignorant fools, fine, when the kid is considered an adult than they will decide what they prefer; whether what they were taught in school or what theyre parents taught them. Whats the problem. Yeah maybe it seems supestitious to you, but you have to respect if the others believe in that.

Listen, by you telling them what you think is correct, that is your opinion, as right as it may be. Because you think its the truth then it means you arent brainwashing them?

Also, you misunderstood me, and it was my mistake and laziness, when i said garbage i meant it as other stuff; religions, praying, gods, saints, etc. I would never call your thoughts garbage.


If you want to get into the symbolism of "beauty", I see nothing "beautiful" about those monstrous monuments to tyranny and oppression and ignorance.Yes, it is history...and we have many ways of recording it. We do not have to have our faces rubbed in that shit every time we leave our apartments.

Hmmmm now im sure youre smarter than to use "monstruos monuments" and claiming they arent beatiful as an argument. Thats your opnion im not quite sure everyone agrees, and the day the majority do, then i quess there will be no other option. And just dont look at them when you leave ;) .

:lol:

[praxis1966]

Redstar: To be perfectly honest, I am, if anything, an agnostic. I have however had certain experiences during what science knows as transcendental meditation and what I know as Sharadt Shabda Yoga that can not be effectively explained by science.

To charecterize it: Take your best acid trip, multiply it by 1,000, subtract the skittishness, comedown and back pain and you still won&#39;t have an inclination of what I&#39;m talking about. Some researchers link these "experiences" to an enlargement of the pineal gland at the time of meditaion, but do not understand the correlation (if any) to the visual experiences or generalized sense of well being derived from it (often likened to the relaxed high experienced post-coitus).

And I wasn&#39;t speaking about your lack of investigation when you were young, I was referring to you getting turned off by Christianity. I was referring to your lack of investigation of alternative religions as an adult. This doesn&#39;t just include reading sacred texts or scholarly works, try actually visiting a monastery or temple. And just for the record, when I was 18 months old I was asking my parents questions like "Where is God, mommy?" and "Where did we all come from, daddy?"

As far as the serfdom issue, that is total bullshit. I don&#39;t know where you heard it, but your sources are innacurate. I have done a ton of research on the subject. From what I have found, the invasion of Tibet was a retributive act on the part of the Chinese government. It can be traced to an incident about 700 years ago when the Tibetans and Mongolians joined forces to demolish and embarass a Chinese invasionary force. Why do you think that to this day the Chinese government will not issue entrance visas to enter Tibet? Furthermore, I have spoken firsthand with Tibetan monks. I find it hard to believe that these gentle souls could even conceive of exploiting a terd.

P.S. Try not to get angry about this debate. I respect your intelligence highly, and hope that you reciprocate.

[RedFW]

MoskittoCome to think about it I did, although I was replied with cries of "neo-puritanical nonsense" when I suggested solutions to real life problems, which have worked in real life (unlike Redstar&#39;s ideas).

So you did misquote him?
----------------------



Sorry but this cannot just be left like this. Usually I am in agreement with you especially on your stance on feminists, but your dislike of Moskitto is making you talk out your ass.

Well, then, AK, where did Redstar say, &#39;AIDS is a curable disease&#39;? If you can provide a link, an apology will be forthcoming. Unfortunately, if you cannot, I don&#39;t expect you or Moskitto would be capable of the same.


Moskitto did not misquote redstar at all, he took a direct quote of what is pure ignorance. As such you should not attack him for it. He is quite right AIDS is not curable at all.

If it was a complete and direct quote, then I am sure you will have no trouble providing a link for it. However, the only comment I recalled him making, at least in this thread, was the one I quoted in which he said: What argument will you use, Moskitto, to defend your neo-puritanical prejudices, when AIDS is a curable disease?

If the quote Moskitto used came from this sentence, then he deliberately excluded parts of the sentence to make the quote say what he wanted it to say. If Redstar&#39;s meaning was that AIDS was curable, then why did Moskitto have to leave &#39;when&#39; out of the quote he used, which indicates there could be a cure in the future and not that there already is a cure?

This is like someone quoting me saying &#39;Some people think rape is okay&#39; but only quoting me as saying &#39;rape is okay&#39;. The way in which it has been quoted completely and deliberately changes the meaning of what was originally said.


I also believe it is funny, Redstar&#39;s habit of arguing with anytrhing Moskitto has to say, has now reached the point where he is saying obvious falicys, such as the above. If you have a problem with this I suggest you just keep it quiet.

Also he has made argument with what redstar is saying, many time&#39;s, if your predudis is making it difficult for you to read, then I suggest you stop being so foolish and leave off him. Before he uses that science you hate so much and prove&#39;s you and redstar are wrong

Also if you and redstar had anyu fucking clue what a neopuritain is then you would realise that Moskitto has no "neo-puritain preudises". If you dont like it, look it up in a dictionary. PS and Moskitto is a quaker, and research the complete differances.

In short when you bother reading a book instead of critisising in obvious ignorance of the facts then I will accept your argumwents against Moskitto, until then just read what he is saying, you may actually learn something..

And I am the one talking out of my ass? What does any of this have to do with what Moskitto has misquoted.

It obviously means a hell of a lot more to you than it does to me. I have been specific about my criticism of Moskitto. It could easily be put right with a link to any place Redstar said what Moskitto is claiming he said.

I never said Moskitto wasn&#39;t correct in asserting AIDS is not curable disease, but I don&#39;t recall anyone in this thread saying it was, that was the point of my original post, no one said AIDS was curable. Well, except when Moskitto liberally quoted from a comment Redstar made.

And I think you are confusing Puritanical with puritanical, the latter is defined in my dictionary (OED Concise) as &#39;practising or affecting strict religious or moral behaviour&#39;, whereas the former describes the practices and religious beliefs of Puritans. Feminists sometimes call other feminists &#39;puritanical&#39; or &#39;neo-puritanical&#39; because they believe anything that puts the female body of display is pornography and that pornography is morally wrong. It has nothing to do with their religious inclinations.

I read lots of books and none of them deliberately misquote people in an attempt to discredit other people. If they do, they are a hell of a lot better at being inconspicuous than Moskitto has been to date.



PS if you have a problem with this I would be more than happy to continue this discussion in PM&#39;s.

I won&#39;t divert this thread futher.

AK, if you have a link to a quote that did not come from the one I was referring to, could you please post it in this thread?

If you cannot provide one, you can PM me with any further nonsense. :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 07:24 AM

MoskittoCome to think about it I did, although I was replied with cries of "neo-puritanical nonsense" when I suggested solutions to real life problems, which have worked in real life (unlike Redstar&#39;s ideas).

So you did misquote him?
----------------------



Sorry but this cannot just be left like this. Usually I am in agreement with you especially on your stance on feminists, but your dislike of Moskitto is making you talk out your ass.

Well, then, AK, where did Redstar say, &#39;AIDS is a curable disease&#39;? If you can provide a link, an apology will be forthcoming. Unfortunately, if you cannot, I don&#39;t expect you or Moskitto would be capable of the same.


Moskitto did not misquote redstar at all, he took a direct quote of what is pure ignorance. As such you should not attack him for it. He is quite right AIDS is not curable at all.

If it was a complete and direct quote, then I am sure you will have no trouble providing a link for it. However, the only comment I recalled him making, at least in this thread, was the one I quoted in which he said: What argument will you use, Moskitto, to defend your neo-puritanical prejudices, when AIDS is a curable disease?

If the quote Moskitto used came from this sentence, then he deliberately excluded parts of the sentence to make the quote say what he wanted it to say. If Redstar&#39;s meaning was that AIDS was curable, then why did Moskitto have to leave &#39;when&#39; out of the quote he used, which indicates there could be a cure in the future and not that there already is a cure?

This is like someone quoting me saying &#39;Some people think rape is okay&#39; but only quoting me as saying &#39;rape is okay&#39;. The way in which it has been quoted completely and deliberately changes the meaning of what was originally said.


I also believe it is funny, Redstar&#39;s habit of arguing with anytrhing Moskitto has to say, has now reached the point where he is saying obvious falicys, such as the above. If you have a problem with this I suggest you just keep it quiet.

Also he has made argument with what redstar is saying, many time&#39;s, if your predudis is making it difficult for you to read, then I suggest you stop being so foolish and leave off him. Before he uses that science you hate so much and prove&#39;s you and redstar are wrong

Also if you and redstar had anyu fucking clue what a neopuritain is then you would realise that Moskitto has no "neo-puritain preudises". If you dont like it, look it up in a dictionary. PS and Moskitto is a quaker, and research the complete differances.

In short when you bother reading a book instead of critisising in obvious ignorance of the facts then I will accept your argumwents against Moskitto, until then just read what he is saying, you may actually learn something..

And I am the one talking out of my ass? What does any of this have to do with what Moskitto has misquoted.

It obviously means a hell of a lot more to you than it does to me. I have been specific about my criticism of Moskitto. It could easily be put right with a link to any place Redstar said what Moskitto is claiming he said.

I never said Moskitto wasn&#39;t correct in asserting AIDS is not curable disease, but I don&#39;t recall anyone in this thread saying it was, that was the point of my original post, no one said AIDS was curable. Well, except when Moskitto liberally quoted from a comment Redstar made.

And I think you are confusing Puritanical with puritanical, the latter is defined in my dictionary (OED Concise) as &#39;practising or affecting strict religious or moral behaviour&#39;, whereas the former describes the practices and religious beliefs of Puritans. Feminists sometimes call other feminists &#39;puritanical&#39; or &#39;neo-puritanical&#39; because they believe anything that puts the female body of display is pornography and that pornography is morally wrong. It has nothing to do with their religious inclinations.

I read lots of books and none of them deliberately misquote people in an attempt to discredit other people. If they do, they are a hell of a lot better at being inconspicuous than Moskitto has been to date.



PS if you have a problem with this I would be more than happy to continue this discussion in PM&#39;s.

I won&#39;t divert this thread futher.

AK, if you have a link to a quote that did not come from the one I was referring to, could you please post it in this thread?

If you cannot provide one, you can PM me with any further nonsense. :rolleyes:
Well, then, AK, where did Redstar say, &#39;AIDS is a curable disease&#39;? If you can provide a link, an apology will be forthcoming. Unfortunately, if you cannot, I don&#39;t expect you or Moskitto would be capable of the same.

Yes, sorry, I misread redstar. However like I said earlier it makes no differance: -

so what? Moskitto is still right, AID&#39;s is a STD, if you are with one individual partner in a stable relationship then you are less likley to catch aids.

It hardly seams complicated to me, sleep with less people, lower the risk. It doesnt mean that you cant have sex, it just means that you should confine your self to one partner. Also there is as liderDeFARC pointed out the being hurt part of it if you were to discover your partner was sleeping around.

This leads to family break up which is far more damaging to a child than a religious up bringing.

And I am the one talking out of my ass?

Well in the above case no, however in your general attitude towards Moskitto you have said some utter crap, such as in the abortion thread.

And I think you are confusing Puritanical with puritanical

They are the same one, one with just an uppercase "p". They are the same word, and my dictionary describes it as: -

Puritanical Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Puritans.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

A puritan is: - 1. A member of a group of English Protestants who in the 16th and 17th centuries advocated strict religious discipline along with simplification of the ceremonies and creeds of the Church of England.



Moskitto is a quaker, do you know what Puritans traditionaly do to Quakers? Here is one example: -

1659 - Puritans hang Quakers William Robbinson, Marmaduke Stephenson for returning to Massachusetts from exile; Quaker Mary Dyer exiled after fake hanging

So i suggest ypou do a little more research before you start advocating Redstars uninformed insults. Consider it like a Jew being called a Nazi, or advocating Nazism.

Redstar I seriously suggest you research what a quaker is, before you fling around your insults.

"From the first, Quakers who landed in Massachusetts were arrested, beaten and banished. Some were lashed behind carts, others marched deep into the forest and abandoned, still others branded with "H" for heretic. Some had their tongues bored with a hot irons and others had their ears cut off. When such severity did not stop them from preaching pacifism and insisting that Christ could be known intimately as a friend without the need of religious rituals, Governor John Endicott pushed for the death penalty. Between 1659 and 1661, four Quakers swung in Boston. These were Marmaduke Stephenson, William Robinson, Mary Dyer--and William Leddra."

http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2003/0...3-24-2003.shtml (http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2003/03/daily-03-24-2003.shtml)

Feminists sometimes call other feminists &#39;puritanical&#39; or &#39;neo-puritanical&#39; because they believe anything that puts the female body of display is pornography and that pornography is morally wrong.

Their ignorance is not my consern. I am telling you what a puritan is and what they do, not what some ignorant people think it means. :angry:

[Sabocat]

Wrong, HIV cases are rising in the UK as well as many other countries in western Europe, and STD cases are trebling, particularly amoungst heterosexual university students (who have plenty of access to condoms.)

Well, here in the U&#036;, rates have gone down as evidenced by this chart from the CDC.

Adults/adolescents



Year Cases diagnosed Deaths occurring
during the year during the year




Before 1981 92 29
1981 323 122
1982 1170 453
1983 3076 1481
1984 6247 3474
1985 11794 6877
1986 19064 12016
1987 28599 16194
1988 35508 20922
1989 42768 27680
1990 48732 31436
1991 59760 36708
1992 78705 41424
1993 78954 45187
1994 72266 50071
1995 69307 50876
1996 60613 37646
1997 49062 21630
1998 41605 18028
1999 38640 16648
2000 35986 14433
2001 24804 8963
Total 807075 462298


Here are the numbers for the UK showing a decline, not increase.


http://www.avert.org/statsyr.htm



I unfortunatly dont posses the ability to read the future...

You may not make bold statements that AIDS will be cured, but you sure don&#39;t have a problem declaring it incurable.


Or did mommy and daddy not explain the birds and bee&#39;s to you as a kid?

LOL...yes, I&#39;ve been married for 10 years, I need the birds and bees explained to me by some pontificating 17 year old who&#39;s favorite date is his right hand.

I don&#39;t want to hijack a thread about Marxism and religion with a battle on promiscuity and AIDS. I will be glad to join you in another thread topic along those lines.

My guess is the explanation on Moskitto&#39;s miltant stance on abstinence and promiscuity can be found here:

http://www.fightcapitalism.net/users/moski...igion/index.htm (http://www.fightcapitalism.net/users/moskitto/religion/index.htm)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 11:03 AM

Wrong, HIV cases are rising in the UK as well as many other countries in western Europe, and STD cases are trebling, particularly amoungst heterosexual university students (who have plenty of access to condoms.)

Well, here in the U&#036;, rates have gone down as evidenced by this chart from the CDC.

Adults/adolescents



Year Cases diagnosed Deaths occurring
during the year during the year




Before 1981 92 29
1981 323 122
1982 1170 453
1983 3076 1481
1984 6247 3474
1985 11794 6877
1986 19064 12016
1987 28599 16194
1988 35508 20922
1989 42768 27680
1990 48732 31436
1991 59760 36708
1992 78705 41424
1993 78954 45187
1994 72266 50071
1995 69307 50876
1996 60613 37646
1997 49062 21630
1998 41605 18028
1999 38640 16648
2000 35986 14433
2001 24804 8963
Total 807075 462298


Here are the numbers for the UK showing a decline, not increase.


http://www.avert.org/statsyr.htm



I unfortunatly dont posses the ability to read the future...

You may not make bold statements that AIDS will be cured, but you sure don&#39;t have a problem declaring it incurable.


Or did mommy and daddy not explain the birds and bee&#39;s to you as a kid?

LOL...yes, I&#39;ve been married for 10 years, I need the birds and bees explained to me by some pontificating 17 year old who&#39;s favorite date is his right hand.

I don&#39;t want to hijack a thread about Marxism and religion with a battle on promiscuity and AIDS. I will be glad to join you in another thread topic along those lines.

My guess is the explanation on Moskitto&#39;s miltant stance on abstinence and promiscuity can be found here:

http://www.fightcapitalism.net/users/moski...igion/index.htm (http://www.fightcapitalism.net/users/moskitto/religion/index.htm)
Here are the numbers for the UK showing a decline, not increase.


http://www.avert.org/statsyr.htm

It depends on which table you read, if you want to read the Hetrosexual increase rate (which is what we are talking about after all) then you can see a steady increase, until 2002, especially in the HIV tables rather than AIDs one. But even in the Aids on an increase can be seen. Just because it dropped in 2002 means nothing. It dropped in 1996, and then wiby 1999 it was increasing again.

You may not make bold statements that AIDS will be cured, but you sure don&#39;t have a problem declaring it incurable.


Currently AID&#39;s/HIV is incurable.

LOL...yes, I&#39;ve been married for 10 years, I need the birds and bees explained to me by some pontificating 17 year old who&#39;s favorite date is his right hand.

Considering that you think that Aids would not drop if more people were Monogamous, it certainly looks that way. Also if you are married, do you commit adultery and consider it to be perfectly reasonable thing to do to your wife?

My guess is the explanation on Moskitto&#39;s miltant stance on abstinence and promiscuity can be found here:

http://www.fightcapitalism.net/users/moski...igion/index.htm (http://www.fightcapitalism.net/users/moskitto/religion/index.htm)

My guess is that you should read sites before posting them, this is all you will see on the link: -

This is the website which I have written to defend the existance of God. This is not finished yet so bear with me.

Also you may want to answer the actual arguments put before you rather than just ignoring them, then claiming when under pressure that you dont want to hijack the thread. Thats bull considering the stuff you have already posted in this thread.

AK47

[RedFW]

Yes, sorry, I misread redstar. However like I said earlier it makes no differance

Doesn&#39;t it? The entire thread has been diverted onto the topic of AIDS being curable/incurable because Moskitto deliberately excluded three quarters of Redstar&#39;s sentence. At one point yesterday Moskitto had the quote in his signature, which I can only conjecture was a bit of attention seeking commingled with the desire to make as many people as possible on the board think Redstar actually said something as ridiculous as &#39;AIDS is curable&#39;. And does it make no difference that Moskitto falsley attributed a quote to another member? I think it makes a very big difference because it is becoming a habit.


Well in the above case no, however in your general attitude towards Moskitto you have said some utter crap, such as in the abortion thread.

If you have a problem with any of the arguments I have made in the abortion thread, post your criticisms of them in that thread and I will have a look or you can PM me.


They are the same one, one with just an uppercase "p". They are the same word, and my dictionary describes it as: -

Why do you think one has an uppercase &#39;p&#39;? It is speaking of a specific group of people (Puritans). Someone can be puritanical without an uppercase &#39;p&#39; because they are &#39;practising or affecting strict religious or moral behaviour&#39; but not necessarily religious or moral behaviour that has anything to do with Puritanism. It is like Romantic and romantic. Romantic with an upper case &#39;r&#39; denotes a specific genre of literature and a specific group of people (the Romantics) but something can be romantic and not be specifically related to the Romantics or Romanticism.


Their ignorance is not my consern. I am telling you what a puritan is and what they do, not what some ignorant people think it means.

Why are they ignorant? They are not using the word incorrectly. Yes, you have shown what a Puritan is, but as much as you would like to restrict the definition of puritanical to being strictly related to Puritans, it just isn&#39;t, AK. The strict religious or moral behaviour does not have to be Puritan to be puritanical.


So i suggest ypou do a little more research before you start advocating Redstars uninformed insults. Consider it like a Jew being called a Nazi, or advocating Nazism.

But I thought you were arguing that the usage was wrong because Moskitto was a Quaker and not a Puritan. Why is it like a Jew being called a Nazi? Because of the snippet of biography you supplied?

Edited to add: PM me if you want to continue AK.

[Sabocat]

Considering that you think that Aids would not drop if more people were Monogamous, it certainly looks that way. Also if you are married, do you commit adultery and consider it to be perfectly reasonable thing to do to your wife?

Show me anywhere in my post that I said AIDS would not decrease with monogomy. I stated that protected sex is the real AIDS prevention. Stop twisting the posts for your own edification. And no, I&#39;m monogomous in my marriage. Always have been, always will be. I am because I want to be, not because of some draconian morality clause from the church. I do not however condemn or judge anyone who is not. I also don&#39;t think it&#39;s necessarily detrimental to man kind. It&#39;s their decision.


http://www.fightcapitalism.net/users/moski...igion/index.htm

My guess is that you should read sites before posting them, this is all you will see on the link: -

My point, in case you&#39;ve missed it, is that obviously Moskitto has an interest and affinity towards religion, thus one can understand his predilection for his views on morality.


It depends on which table you read, if you want to read the Hetrosexual increase rate (which is what we are talking about after all) then you can see a steady increase, until 2002, especially in the HIV tables rather than AIDs one. But even in the Aids on an increase can be seen. Just because it dropped in 2002 means nothing. It dropped in 1996, and then wiby 1999 it was increasing again.

The trend for AIDS cases have declined over the course of the last year, not increased as was previously stated by Moskitto. The actual number has declined, and that afterall was what Moskitto referred to, not HIV.


Moskitto&#39;s point was that in some highly religios countrys Aids is not as common because less people are practicing adultery, and therefor spreading AID&#39;s less. It hardly seams rocket science, I dont see why you are hell bent in disagreeing with him, when what he is saying is so obviously true... Unless you are simply disagreeing for the sake of it.

Lets see some figures then. I didn&#39;t realize that there were statistics gathered listing facts for highly religious countries and non-highly religious countries. Who defines "highly religious"? I would consider the U&#036; a highly religious country, and yet the AIDS figures speak for themselves. Keep in mind that this chart for "highly religious countries" will have to be scaled on a per capita right? Is there also a chart that quantifies the numbers being attributable to religion and not culture, population densities etc.?

I would also suspect that you will provide me with statics showing a huge incidence of AIDS within the Mormon camp, seeing as they openly practice polygomy. I would also suspect to see a much higher incidence of AIDS in Saudi Arabia as well where it&#39;s not that uncommon for shieks to have many wives.

My point in all this was that Moskitto was making the point that abstinence and monogomy was the key to decreasing AIDS. That of course would be the Church&#39;s take on it as well. I would argue that the more effective, more realistic way to prevent AIDS, is through education and protection, as very few people will practice abstinence, and the divorce rate has clearly shown that few are willing to practice monogomy.

I advocated ending this, as it has nothing to really do with the thread topic. What actual arguments did you want me to address?

I absolutely did not want to get into a long discussion with you on the subject of AIDS. That would be better suited for another thread.

I am not pressured by you. Don&#39;t flatter yourself.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 20 2003, 06:57 AM
redstar2000,
I agree that your ideas would mostly be productive in freeing the people, as I do not want to live in a society with any trace of theocratic influence. When you say, "All obviously religious architecture is to be demolished." I would propose an alternative. If those buildings important to organized religion&#39;s dominance were converted to museums that document their history of oppression, the people would rightfully see this as an effort to strip away systems of control and simultaneously a method to educate them. They would then, not see it as an attack on community structure and progress but a step toward free thinking and a secular interactions in society.
I finally get a good chance to quote mself :lol: redstar2000, I would like a response, if you can stop talking about AIDS for a sec, on my Marxism vs. Religion thread :wacko:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 01:08 PM

Considering that you think that Aids would not drop if more people were Monogamous, it certainly looks that way. Also if you are married, do you commit adultery and consider it to be perfectly reasonable thing to do to your wife?

Show me anywhere in my post that I said AIDS would not decrease with monogomy. I stated that protected sex is the real AIDS prevention. Stop twisting the posts for your own edification. And no, I&#39;m monogomous in my marriage. Always have been, always will be. I am because I want to be, not because of some draconian morality clause from the church. I do not however condemn or judge anyone who is not. I also don&#39;t think it&#39;s necessarily detrimental to man kind. It&#39;s their decision.


http://www.fightcapitalism.net/users/moski...igion/index.htm

My guess is that you should read sites before posting them, this is all you will see on the link: -

My point, in case you&#39;ve missed it, is that obviously Moskitto has an interest and affinity towards religion, thus one can understand his predilection for his views on morality.


It depends on which table you read, if you want to read the Hetrosexual increase rate (which is what we are talking about after all) then you can see a steady increase, until 2002, especially in the HIV tables rather than AIDs one. But even in the Aids on an increase can be seen. Just because it dropped in 2002 means nothing. It dropped in 1996, and then wiby 1999 it was increasing again.

The trend for AIDS cases have declined over the course of the last year, not increased as was previously stated by Moskitto. The actual number has declined, and that afterall was what Moskitto referred to, not HIV.


Moskitto&#39;s point was that in some highly religios countrys Aids is not as common because less people are practicing adultery, and therefor spreading AID&#39;s less. It hardly seams rocket science, I dont see why you are hell bent in disagreeing with him, when what he is saying is so obviously true... Unless you are simply disagreeing for the sake of it.

Lets see some figures then. I didn&#39;t realize that there were statistics gathered listing facts for highly religious countries and non-highly religious countries. Who defines "highly religious"? I would consider the U&#036; a highly religious country, and yet the AIDS figures speak for themselves. Keep in mind that this chart for "highly religious countries" will have to be scaled on a per capita right? Is there also a chart that quantifies the numbers being attributable to religion and not culture, population densities etc.?

I would also suspect that you will provide me with statics showing a huge incidence of AIDS within the Mormon camp, seeing as they openly practice polygomy. I would also suspect to see a much higher incidence of AIDS in Saudi Arabia as well where it&#39;s not that uncommon for shieks to have many wives.

My point in all this was that Moskitto was making the point that abstinence and monogomy was the key to decreasing AIDS. That of course would be the Church&#39;s take on it as well. I would argue that the more effective, more realistic way to prevent AIDS, is through education and protection, as very few people will practice abstinence, and the divorce rate has clearly shown that few are willing to practice monogomy.

I advocated ending this, as it has nothing to really do with the thread topic. What actual arguments did you want me to address?

I absolutely did not want to get into a long discussion with you on the subject of AIDS. That would be better suited for another thread.

I am not pressured by you. Don&#39;t flatter yourself.

I also don&#39;t think it&#39;s necessarily detrimental to man kind. It&#39;s their decision.


Unless the person has AIDs in which case it is very dammaging for a large number of people. Not to mention children affected by family break up, or people hurt by fing out that there partner is having an affair. ETC, ETC.


Show me anywhere in my post that I said AIDS would not decrease with monogomy.

Multiple partners don&#39;t cause AIDS

Hows that?

I stated that protected sex is the real AIDS prevention.

And stated that multipule partners does not cause aids at all, by that logic monogomy therfor does not lower the risk of AIDs... which in actual fact it obviously does.

Stop twisting the posts for your own edification.

No, thats what you have been doing, like when you say that Moskitto is saying that people should be celebate... There is a very large differance between being celebate and monogoms.

And no, I&#39;m monogomous in my marriage

There we go then, and you dont do it out of any religious fear, my point exactly.

The trend for AIDS cases have declined over the course of the last year, not increased as was previously stated by Moskitto. The actual number has declined, and that afterall was what Moskitto referred to, not HIV.

Its imaterial if there is a drop in the last year of the table, the table still shows a general increase. Of course the levels may dip in some years, as it showed in 1996, but it soon increased again. It is poor practice to only judge a table by its last figure. Also the table shoes an [/b]average[/b] or standard increase in the levels.

Lets see some figures then. I didn&#39;t realize that there were statistics gathered listing facts for highly religious countries and non-highly religious countries. Who defines "highly religious"? I would consider the U&#036; a highly religious country, and yet the AIDS figures speak for themselves. Keep in mind that this chart for "highly religious countries" will have to be scaled on a per capita right? Is there also a chart that quantifies the numbers being attributable to religion and not culture, population densities etc.?


I leave that to Moskitto, as it was his statement. I just believe what he says makes sense.

I would also suspect that you will provide me with statics showing a huge incidence of AIDS within the Mormon camp, seeing as they openly practice polygomy.

Actually I doubt it would, Mormons generally marry only other Mormons, so unless the Mormon group was infected, it is unlikly that AIDs would enter a Mormon community.

My point in all this was that Moskitto was making the point that abstinence and monogomy was the key to decreasing AIDS.

Moskitto actually never said anything about abstinence. Moskitto also said it was a way of decreasing AIDs, a way which has been shown to successful in a third world nation. He then said, why not use it universally, I hardly see why you make such a fuss about it.

I advocated ending this, as it has nothing to really do with the thread topic. What actual arguments did you want me to address?

All the ones you have failed to address, such as where you said that I argued with redstar for the sake of it, the point about monogomy not being confined to people, etc.

Infact you only seem to have responded to the "birds and the bee&#39;s" point, from that entire post, the rest you evaded or ignored.

I would argue that the more effective, more realistic way to prevent AIDS, is through education and protection, as very few people will practice abstinence, and the divorce rate has clearly shown that few are willing to practice monogomy.

Well if you can persuade people universally to use protection, even thought there are many issues which prevent this, then you can persuade people to be monogomous. The number of unwanted pregnancys and cases of HIV and AIDs suggests that people are also unwilling to use protection.

[redstar2000]

I have however had certain experiences during what science knows as transcendental meditation and what I know as Sharadt Shabda Yoga that can not be effectively explained by science.

Fair enough, I suppose. Our knowledge of the human brain (the most complex form of matter we have ever discovered) is still in its infancy.

Naturally, I think there is an electro-chemical explanation. But whether there is or not, clearly a monumental "temple" or an elaborate religious hierarchy is totally superfluous to such meditative endeavors.

All you need is a quiet place where you will not be disturbed, right? I think we can manage that.

I was referring to your lack of investigation of alternative religions as an adult. This doesn&#39;t just include reading sacred texts or scholarly works, try actually visiting a monastery or temple.

To what purpose? I know what they look like. They are constructed with the intent, within the technological limitations of the time, to produce a sense of visiting "another world". You could, if you wanted to be cynical (like me) call them "spiritual disneyworlds".

In fact, I venture to say that all religious structures of any significance are constructed to "awe" or "mystify" the visitor into thinking there is "something" where there is nothing. Even liturgical language and titles serve the same purpose.

And just for the record, when I was 18 months old I was asking my parents questions like "Where is God, mommy?" and "Where did we all come from, daddy?"

All children are intensely curious about existence...and everything in it. All a small child has to do is hear the word "god" spoken--easy to do in most places--and they will ask questions about "god". If they never hear the word, they won&#39;t care.

You didn&#39;t, after all, ask mommy and daddy "where does Zeus live?" or "did I live with Isis before I was born?" or...well, you get the idea.

As far as the serfdom issue, that is total bullshit. I don&#39;t know where you heard it, but your sources are inaccurate.

Let me get back to you on this one; I&#39;m simply not well enough informed to dispute this question.

Try not to get angry about this debate. I respect your intelligence highly, and hope that you reciprocate.

I am not angry with you. I confess, however, that when Moskitto and AK47 interrupt a reasonably serious discussion with their customary idiocies, I do "growl" a bit. I wish they would both go off to The Phora or some other moronic message board...maybe I should try "praying". :lol:

I was merely pointing out things might not come out how you plan. Yet you sound so convinced that it will....

Well, they might not. Who can say? If we don&#39;t try to eliminate superstition from the human species, will it go away all by itself? Did slavery go away all by itself?

Yes I bet there will be a struggle, but what if people don&#39;t want to give it up? Why wouldn&#39;t you let it be. I mean if they give you this really big struggle wouldn&#39;t you understand they&#39;re happy like that?

Happy? Or just terribly upset that they are no longer entitled to propagandize for their favorite superstition or, worse, brainwash "their" kids into believing the same nonsense?

It seems to me that those who find "happiness" in the conceit that they are "saved" and the rest of humanity are "damned" are not really much different from those who find "happiness" in the conceit that they are "Aryans" and the rest of humanity are "untermenschen".

That&#39;s a kind of "happiness" that we can do without.

I don&#39;t think that the only purpose of "religious architecture" is to propagandize, I doubt my sister or mother or anyone from my family see it as that. Just how I doubt they see other religious buildings as propaganda. I mean if the point of having buildings is for people to come in them because they are attracted, it certainly hasn&#39;t worked on my family...

It&#39;s not necessarily to simply "attract"--it&#39;s more along the lines of "we, the &#39;saved&#39; exist and are rich and powerful; you cannot go anywhere and not find us already there".

And about the brainwashing, it is the parents&#39; job to raise the kids how they want. If they want to raise ignorant fools, fine...

NO&#33; Not "fine"&#33; Why should a kid be punished by ignorance because of an accident of birth???

Yeah maybe it seems superstitious to you, but you have to respect if the others believe in that.

No again. I am not under any obligation to "respect" ignorance under any circumstances.

And just don&#39;t look at them [churches] when you leave...

I would have to be blinded...there are half-a-dozen just between me and the neighborhood supermarket.(&#33;)

If those buildings important to organized religion&#39;s dominance were converted to museums that document their history of oppression, the people would rightfully see this as an effort to strip away systems of control and simultaneously a method to educate them. They would then, not see it as an attack on community structure and progress but a step toward free thinking and a secular interactions in society.

The Russians tried that; it didn&#39;t work. I think it&#39;s really imperative to remove them entirely (except for the ones that don&#39;t "look" religious...those can be used for museums).

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Sabocat]

Show me anywhere in my post that I said AIDS would not decrease with monogomy.

Multiple partners don&#39;t cause AIDS

Hows that?

How many times do I have to say this before you understand it? Multiple partners does not cause AIDS. Multiple partners without protection can increase the odds. Show me a statistic where let&#39;s say a male who is promiscuous and having sex with multiple partners [I]and is using a condom is contracting HIV/AIDS. What are the numbers?


No, thats what you have been doing, like when you say that Moskitto is saying that people should be celebate

Again, I never said that Moskitto was advocating celebacy. I said he was advocating abstinence.


Well if you can persuade people universally to use protection, even thought there are many issues which prevent this, then you can persuade people to be monogomous. The number of unwanted pregnancys and cases of HIV and AIDs suggests that people are also unwilling to use protection.

Again I would suggest that many third world countries have no access to planned parenthood education or implements. It would be a lot more realistic to give people access to birth control devices than to stop them from having sex altogether. I am suggesting that it is not in human nature to abstain from sex. Lets face it, in some of the third world countries you&#39;re talking about, sex is one of the few pleasures they have.


Fini

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 02:45 PM
[i]
Show me anywhere in my post that I said AIDS would not decrease with monogomy.

Multiple partners don&#39;t cause AIDS

Hows that?

How many times do I have to say this before you understand it? Multiple partners does not cause AIDS. Multiple partners without protection can increase the odds. Show me a statistic where let&#39;s say a male who is promiscuous and having sex with multiple partners and is using a condom is contracting HIV/AIDS. What are the numbers?


No, thats what you have been doing, like when you say that Moskitto is saying that people should be celebate

Again, I never said that Moskitto was advocating celebacy. I said he was advocating abstinence.


Well if you can persuade people universally to use protection, even thought there are many issues which prevent this, then you can persuade people to be monogomous. The number of unwanted pregnancys and cases of HIV and AIDs suggests that people are also unwilling to use protection.

Again I would suggest that many third world countries have no access to planned parenthood education or implements. It would be a lot more realistic to give people access to birth control devices than to stop them from having sex altogether. I am suggesting that it is not in human nature to abstain from sex. Lets face it, in some of the third world countries you&#39;re talking about, sex is one of the few pleasures they have.


Fini
How many times do I have to say this before you understand it? Multiple partners does not cause AIDS. Multiple partners without protection can increase the odds. Show me a statistic where let&#39;s say a male who is promiscuous and having sex with multiple partners [I]and is using a condom is contracting HIV/AIDS. What are the numbers?


The odds are considerably higher sleeping lots of people who may possibly have HIV/AIDS with protection, than sleeping with just one person in a stable relationship, whome you know does not have HIV/AIDS. Protection does not always work.

Again, I never said that Moskitto was advocating celebacy. I said he was advocating abstinence.


To be celebate is to abstain from sexual intercourse. It has the same meaning as abstinence except that celebacy is specific where as abstinence is not specific to sexual intercourse. Either way, Moskitto has not advocated abstinence at all, he has advocated monogomy, which does not involve abstaining from sexual intercourse at all.

It would be a lot more realistic to give people access to birth control devices than to stop them from having sex altogether. I am suggesting that it is not in human nature to abstain from sex.

But we are not talking about abstinence were talking about monogomy which is not the same thing. If all people abstain then we would die out as a speicies.

Well I think we have done this subject to death now.

AK47

[RGacky3]

One must always remember, MARXISM IS NOT COMMUNISM, marxism is a form of socialism. marx did not invent communism, nor did he invent socialism. REligion has nothing to do with communism or socialism, these are political, social and economic, religion is religious. I don&#39;t know how many times this topic has come up but it is starting to piss me off.

(PS:hundreds of years before marx christians were practicing communism&#33;)

[elijahcraig]

Marxism isn&#39;t communism? There has NEVER been a communist society, the whole world must turn socialist for that. Communism is a developed economy, not "Indian" collectives, or anything of the sort.

Here is a quote from the Manifesto on religion:


"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical and jurdicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by another. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except by total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property-relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

That should clear this up...that is, for any REAL Marxists. Apparently, not for the "Marxists" with "bourgeois objections to Communism".

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 07:26 PM
Marxism isn&#39;t communism? There has NEVER been a communist society, the whole world must turn socialist for that. Communism is a developed economy, not "Indian" collectives, or anything of the sort.

Here is a quote from the Manifesto on religion:


"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical and jurdicial ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by another. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except by total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property-relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

That should clear this up...that is, for any REAL Marxists. Apparently, not for the "Marxists" with "bourgeois objections to Communism".
Marxism isn&#39;t communism? There has NEVER been a communist society, the whole world must turn socialist for that.

That is highly debatable, many say that levellers created a communist socioty, I personnaly dont know enough to comment. I leave you to make your own decision on that, infact it would be interesting to here everyones opinion on that kind of thing, perhaps I will make a thread on it later.

You continue to fling around the term bourgeois in inappropriate moments, I suggest you research the history of the above said movment, ideology and people. Your entire quote was irrelavant to RGacky3&#39;s point.

[elijahcraig]

Marxism isn&#39;t communism? There has NEVER been a communist society, the whole world must turn socialist for that.

That is highly debatable, many say that levellers created a communist socioty, I personnaly dont know enough to comment. I leave you to make your own decision on that, infact it would be interesting to here everyones opinion on that kind of thing, perhaps I will make a thread on it later.

I&#39;d like to know other opinions as well, I&#39;m not an expert on the subject, though I don&#39;t know of "communism" ever being different from "marxism".


You continue to fling around the term bourgeois in inappropriate moments, I suggest you research the history of the above said movment, ideology and people. Your entire quote was irrelavant to RGacky3&#39;s point.

I was trying to end this pathetic "debate" with the words of Marx himself (that is for the resident Marxists).

[redstar2000]

Praxis1966, I promised you that I would get back to you on the matter of Buddhist serfdom in Tibet...here are some links:

http://journeyeast.tripod.com/hollywood_s_tibet.html

http://www.workers.org/ww/tibet1204.html

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1996/222/222p13.htm

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1996/222/222p13.htm

http://www3.itu.int/missions/China/tibet/History16.htm

etc., etc.

I&#39;m not exactly wildly enthusiastic about any of these sources--I was hoping to find a genuinely scholarly study of pre-1949 Tibet.

However, it seems clear that Tibetan feudalism was pretty bad. The apologists for the Buddhist ruling class try to play this down, saying it was "no worse than other Asian countries and better than some".

No, it definitely was worse.

It is clear that China is in the process of converting Tibet into a Chinese province...that is, an area where the vast majority of people living there are or will be Chinese. That&#39;s a common enough tale in world history...the same thing happened in France in the 15th-17th centuries, in Germany and Italy in the 18th and 19th centuries, etc.

Based on past experience, Tibetans and Han (Chinese) will inter-marry, the Tibetan language will gradually die out, and eventually "Tibetan culture" will be a folk-festival for tourists.

Is that deplorable? Well, I guess so...but it&#39;s what happens as we slowly move towards a world culture. After all, even at the moment that Tibetan culture sinks beneath the waves, Chinese culture is becoming steadily more westernized, steadily less "Chinese".

It looks like a long-term trend.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2003, 11:33 AM
One must always remember, MARXISM IS NOT COMMUNISM, marxism is a form of socialism. marx did not invent communism, nor did he invent socialism. REligion has nothing to do with communism or socialism, these are political, social and economic, religion is religious. I don&#39;t know how many times this topic has come up but it is starting to piss me off.

(PS:hundreds of years before marx christians were practicing communism&#33;)
Everyone is pissed off about something...must be the times we live in.

In any event, the thread title is "Marxism vs. religion"...the working assumption is that one cannot be a Marxist and also be religious.

Marx himself never suggested that he "invented" socialism or communism...although your assertion that "christians practiced communism" is completely without foundation.

When you attempt to place religion in a separate box isolated from politics and economics, you simply demonstrate that you&#39;re not any kind of a Marxist. What people believe has everything to do with how they live, how they are governed, etc. Far from existing off in space somewhere, religion reflects social, political, and, above all, economic realities.

Human social life is a package. We&#39;ve inherited one package--that we don&#39;t much like. What&#39;s in the new package is up to us to decide.

Trivia---

I was trying to end this pathetic "debate" with the words of Marx himself.

Elijah, one of the ways that people escape from the trap of religion is "pathetic debates" like this one. It does not help matters when you substitute personal abuse for rational discussion.

http://www.fightcapitalism.net/users/moski...igion/index.htm

I think it most amusing that Moskitto is setting up a website to defend the "existance"(sic) of "god". I think it even funnier that it&#39;s a blank site...a perfect mirror of the actual situation. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Elect Marx]

Comrade redstar2000, You seem to be much more opposed to religion in practice than in concept. If only people would practice what they preach, right? Maybe not., still I don&#39;t see the realization of the phrase, "they will know we are Christians by our love," what I see mostly is self proclaimed Christians "loving" each other and saying: to hell with everyone else.

"the working assumption," true, this is quite common. I have seen no definitive proof but maybe later I will get into discussion about it. I&#39;m still kind of pissed about the last argument :angry: but at least some parallel discussions have come about.


"Christians practiced communism,"
Were there not Christian socialists? That is socialism though, whatever that equates to. I think there are some fundamental ideas in Christianity that are comparable to communist ones but those are not practiced so much <_< rampant hypocrisy.

"When you attempt to place religion in a separate box isolated from politics and economics, you simply demonstrate that you&#39;re not any kind of a Marxist. What people believe has everything to do with how they live, how they are governed, etc. Far from existing off in space somewhere, religion reflects social, political, and, above all, economic realities."
I like this part. Religion is a reflection of social influences. Government should be swiftly taken out of religion. Churches should not have political agendas. Religious institutions should not brain-wash people politically (theiocracy bad).Political groups, should have political agendas, this concept might contradict, communist groups excluding theist members also. I don&#39;t see why that should be an issue. If members of society are being productive, there is no reason to question their personal beliefs and they could lie anyway to attend, which is far worse in creating resistance via resentment. If the group is against religious oppression, I don&#39;t see why all members could not come to appreciate this effort.

Keep religion out of that box :lol:

[redstar2000]

You seem to be much more opposed to religion in practice than in concept.

Well, I&#39;m opposed to both: I really think it&#39;s terrible that people believe in things that don&#39;t exist. But, I have no "magic way" to get inside people&#39;s heads and remove the crap...so I have to settle for what I can observe and condemn: public behavior.

Were there not Christian socialists?

There have been, from time to time, groups of people who have called themselves Christian "socialists", Christian "communists" and even Christian "anarchists".

One of the most difficult problems in politics is opening the package to see what&#39;s inside...people are free to pick any label they want and the rest of us have to try and figure out if the label accurately describes the contents.

There is no "truth in labeling" law for politics. And no "consumer protection agency" either...you have to open the package or risk getting royally fucked.

For example, the Hutterian Brethren are devout Christian communists, no question about it. But their treatment of women is appalling. I suspect they beat their kids, too. They are not Marxists, not modern communists. In fact, their "vision" of communism is a patriarchal neo-puritanical nightmare...a 16th century living fossil that is slowly eroding under modern market pressures. It "works"...but would we want to live like that?

That&#39;s the "best" example (that I know of); others are much worse. In general, where religion has been overtly political, it&#39;s been almost universally reactionary.

There is a trend in Christian thought known as the "social gospel"...which asserts that Christians should "take up the cause of the poor and oppressed". But all they mean by this is that Christians should strongly urge capitalists to be "kinder" and "less exploitative". They think that exploitation is simply a matter of human "sinfulness" and have no understanding at all of the "laws" of capitalism which compel the capitalist to "eat or be eaten".

That&#39;s why all the varieties of "liberation theology" end up with little or nothing in the way of results: they want capitalists to "sin less" (be less greedy) when the survival of any given capitalist depends on his ability to "out sin" his competitors.

Believers have a serious problem...in a way, you can tell by the tone of their posts at Che-Lives. In spite of the "fundamentalist revival", the influence of religion over-all continues to decline. What can they do to reverse this trend?

One thing they can try is to "change their image", attempt to look "progressive" instead of reactionary, project an attitude of "caring" rather than smug satisfaction at their "saved" status, etc.

It&#39;s not going to work, of course, but you can&#39;t blame them for trying.

And you can understand why they howl with outrage at people like me; I&#39;m one of the people who opens the "new package" to reveal the same old contents.

Worse, I tell other people what I found&#33;

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I like this part. Religion is a reflection of social influences. Government should be swiftly taken out of religion. Churches should not have political agendas. Religious institutions should not brain-wash people politically (theiocracy bad).Political groups, should have political agendas, this concept might contradict, communist groups excluding theist members also. I don&#39;t see why that should be an issue. If members of society are being productive, there is no reason to question their personal beliefs and they could lie anyway to attend, which is far worse in creating resistance via resentment. If the group is against religious oppression, I don&#39;t see why all members could not come to appreciate this effort.

Dialectical materialism and Marxism are about viewing things in their totality, you can&#39;t separate "personal beliefs" from "public life". Why? Because one mirrors the other.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2003, 09:02 PM
Dialectical materialism and Marxism are about viewing things in their totality, you can&#39;t separate "personal beliefs" from "public life". Why? Because one mirrors the other.
I think that is also the concept of socialogy. I understand what you are saying but which point are you trying to make?

[elijahcraig]

Basically, that religion is incompatible with freedom from oppression, which is the Marxist goal.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 21 2003, 11:36 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (redstar2000 @ Aug 21 2003, 11:36 PM)
[email protected] 21 2003, 11:33 AM
One must always remember, MARXISM IS NOT COMMUNISM, marxism is a form of socialism. marx did not invent communism, nor did he invent socialism. REligion has nothing to do with communism or socialism, these are political, social and economic, religion is religious. I don&#39;t know how many times this topic has come up but it is starting to piss me off.

(PS:hundreds of years before marx christians were practicing communism&#33;)
[/b]
your probably not going to, but read acts 2 and 4. This is communism.
I am not a marxist at all, of any type.

[redstar2000]

you&#39;re probably not going to, but read acts 2 and 4. This is communism.

Oh, ye of little faith&#33; :lol: Here is your evidence of "communism"...

And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:44-45.

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Acts 4:32

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles&#39; feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need Acts 4:34-35

What you have here, of course, is "communalism", not communism.

Here was a small group of people who shared their wealth with one another, certainly a good thing to do, but not communist.

Communism refers to an entire human society, not to a small group of "saints".

At no point in the "New Testament" is it ever suggested that all of human society should (much less must) be organized in the same fashion as the early Jerusalem church.

Indeed, there is no evidence that other early Christian communities even followed the example of the Jerusalem church...ever.

And finally, the Jerusalem church ceased to exist after 70CE. So the longest period of time that one Christian community could have practiced this communal arrangement is approximately 40 years. (It was probably less.)

You know what really happened there, in all likelihood. The first Christians probably found themselves in economic difficulties...perhaps due to hostility from those surrounding them. The passages don&#39;t even speak of earnings, but instead suggest that wealth was being liquidated to provide living expenses for the faithful...with the apostles themselves first in line for the goodies, no doubt.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but Saulos of Tarsus (St. Paul) is the first Christian mentioned who actually has a job. (He was, I believe, a tent-maker by trade.)

I am not a marxist at all, of any type.

Thanks for that&#33; I only wish some others here would recognize and admit that their views have nothing in common with Marxism. We would still have discussion and argument...but not with such gross misunderstandings getting in the way.

That would be nice.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2003, 11:57 PM
you&#39;re probably not going to, but read acts 2 and 4. This is communism.

Oh, ye of little faith&#33; :lol: Here is your evidence of "communism"...

And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:44-45.

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Acts 4:32

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles&#39; feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need Acts 4:34-35

What you have here, of course, is "communalism", not communism.

Here was a small group of people who shared their wealth with one another, certainly a good thing to do, but not communist.

Communism refers to an entire human society, not to a small group of "saints".

At no point in the "New Testament" is it ever suggested that all of human society should (much less must) be organized in the same fashion as the early Jerusalem church.

Indeed, there is no evidence that other early Christian communities even followed the example of the Jerusalem church...ever.

And finally, the Jerusalem church ceased to exist after 70CE. So the longest period of time that one Christian community could have practiced this communal arrangement is approximately 40 years. (It was probably less.)

You know what really happened there, in all likelihood. The first Christians probably found themselves in economic difficulties...perhaps due to hostility from those surrounding them. The passages don&#39;t even speak of earnings, but instead suggest that wealth was being liquidated to provide living expenses for the faithful...with the apostles themselves first in line for the goodies, no doubt.

Correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but Saulos of Tarsus (St. Paul) is the first Christian mentioned who actually has a job. (He was, I believe, a tent-maker by trade.)

I am not a marxist at all, of any type.

Thanks for that&#33; I only wish some others here would recognize and admit that their views have nothing in common with Marxism. We would still have discussion and argument...but not with such gross misunderstandings getting in the way.

That would be nice.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
*hands you a pamphlet*

Have you accepted Jesus as your lord and savior? Are you prepared for his return? Because if you aren&#39;t, we invite you to join Mt. Zion church to save your heathen soul from the fires of hell.

*Redstar slams the door in lardlad&#39;s face*

WELL FUCK YOU&#33; HEATHEN ASS SON OF A *****&#33; GOD DAMN COMMIE BASTARD

[Scottish_Militant]

May I offer you a link comrades

Marxism and religion (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marxism_and_religion.html)

[Elect Marx]

"hands you a pamphlet*

"have you accepted Jesus as your lord and savior? Are you prepared for his return? Because if you aren&#39;t, we invite you to join Mt. Zion church to save your heathen soul from the fires of hell."

Go away Lardlad95, I&#39;m tring to smash capitalism :D

What disgusts me most about the door to door religion salesman, is that instead of making "God&#39;s Church," a better place to welcome and support people, they are out pestering strangers as they suddenly take interest in your life.
Not to mention the common, unchristian, condescending tone of self righteous, dogmatic morons, reinforced by organized religion

I&#39;ve seen a stand-up comedian’s response to neighborhood religious recruiters and I think it is a good model for us communists.
Here it is:

Q: Would you welcome Jesus into your home?

A: Jesus can come in but you have to go.

That will get an interesting response :lol:

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 04:39 PM
May I offer you a link comrades

Marxism and religion (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/marxism_and_religion.html)
Yes you may, we must follow proper communist educate :hammer: ;) Thanks for the link, Comrade communist_revolutionary.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by 313C7 [email protected] 24 2003, 09:01 PM
"hands you a pamphlet*

"have you accepted Jesus as your lord and savior? Are you prepared for his return? Because if you aren&#39;t, we invite you to join Mt. Zion church to save your heathen soul from the fires of hell."

Go away Lardlad95, I&#39;m tring to smash capitalism :D

What disgusts me most about the door to door religion salesman, is that instead of making "God&#39;s Church," a better place to welcome and support people, they are out pestering strangers as they suddenly take interest in your life.
Not to mention the common, unchristian, condescending tone of self righteous, dogmatic morons, reinforced by organized religion

I&#39;ve seen a stand-up comedian?s response to neighborhood religious recruiters and I think it is a good model for us communists.
Here it is:

Q: Would you welcome Jesus into your home?

A: Jesus can come in but you have to go.

That will get an interesting response :lol:
very true...I know lots of Southern Bible Belt Christians and they are the most condescending people on earth.

They had the audacity to tell my mother that my cousin is going to hell because she is a buddhist.

I&#39;m just wondering how all these people know what God is thinking.

Bunch of Condescending fucks, what would be funny is that when they died God let everyone but them in heaven

[Sabocat]

Here, read this:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/25/autistic.boy.death/

Ain&#39;t religion great.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Comrade Disgustapated,
I read the article from your link. Another poor human being died because of fundamentalist wackos. It is sad...