Religion vs Socialism: My Perspective

[The Guy]

Although it's an ever-controversial ongoing debate, I believe that if socialism is to succeed, it must in fact lose the "Atheist" stance and instead become "Irreligious" (to hold no religion but to hold no qualms towards one and to freely allow the practice).

Most "Atheists" on here I believe use the term because they read it in a book - ironically. I actually think they're anti-theists yet lack the knowledge of what that is, but being an Atheist has become quite a deluded term, I admit.

I simply think that denying religion openly to society, considering the world is vast in religions, would benefit socialism in any way, shape or form. In fact, I think it would encourage freedom fighters against the establishment and chaos to run amok in some areas.

It is essentially to not deny someone of their right to believe what they want to believe religiously. Are we really so deluded as to follow the book written by a bearded man - and for once in my life, I don't mean the Torah, the Bible or the Qur'an, but the Manifesto of the Communist Party?

I cannot see this "Atheist solution" ever working and find it a shame on socialists to openly express such opinions. "Believe what you want to believe, so long as it's the same as what we believe."

Now I apologise if there are many people who are irreligious out there or do respect people's right to practice it privately, like the practice of Islam at the moment in Britain. It is entirely private, receives no funding from the state and does not have a say in politics. I know for a fact that mosques run purely on donations alone. The same can't be said for churches...

Thoughts?

[Rafiq]

Yeah, we Marxists don't 'follow' the communist manifesto. We simply regard it as Marx briefly trying to explain the goals of the communist party. It's really not a special book.

[The Guy]

Yeah, we Marxists don't 'follow' the communist manifesto. We simply regard it as Marx briefly trying to explain the goals of the communist party. It's really not a special book.

It did found the ideology, no? This entire forum would be non-existant, Soviet Russia may have never been and an opposing solution to the problems of capitalism may still remain undiscovered. I'd class that as fairly special...

Do you agree though? Do you accept the religious beliefs of others? That's what I'm trying to get at.

[Rafiq]

Your completely wrong. Communism predates Marx by about two hundred years. And no, Das Kapital is way more important. The solutions to capitalism already existed long before Marx. But anyway, the manifesto was not Marx,s first book on this issue, he just briefly summarized the goals of the communists.

[Sadena Meti]

Should we allow slavery as well? Is slavery of the mind preferable to slavery of the body? And if someone wants to be a slave, should they be allowed or be corrected?

[Octavian]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deity(s). One can be a an atheist and an anti-theist. People are free to believe what ever they want but should they just cower away from any and all criticism? and if so what does that say about the strength of their beliefs?

[Dimmu]

While i my opinion its wrong and impossible to stop people from believing in something, but the organized religion needs to be destroyed in a socialist/communist society.

[StalinFanboy]

Religion is a symptom of alienation and the misery of class society. When people talk about communism getting rid of religion, they don't understand what that means. It won't be a program enacted against religious folks. They won't be thrown in gulags or ridiculed. What it means is that communism will remove the conditions that drive people en masse to religion.

Will people still be into weird spiritual or religious shit after the rev? Maybe, but I highly doubt in the same numbers or even in the same way as it is now.

[hatzel]

It did found the ideology, no? This entire forum would be non-existant, Soviet Russia may have never been and an opposing solution to the problems of capitalism may still remain undiscovered. I'd class that as fairly special...Rafiq said it, but I'll say it again: no, no, no, no, no. This forum would exist, there just wouldn't be Marxists on it. We'd be singing the tune of Proudhon and Gracchus Babeuf or something, I dunno, but we'd still be here, there would still be socialists, I'm sure. And, as you say, Soviet Russia may never have been (or perhaps it would have been anarchist, who knows), so there are some benefits to a Marx-free world, too :tt2:

[The Guy]

While i my opinion its wrong and impossible to stop people from believing in something, but the organized religion needs to be destroyed in a socialist/communist society.

Perhaps that may be an inevitability, but I'm certain under a socialist system religion could exist with disestablishmentarianism and the likes. I know a wide variety of socialists who focus on supporting its practice yet minimising its influence on the mainstream. I guess it depends on your ideological beliefs...


Religion is a symptom of alienation and the misery of class society. When people talk about communism getting rid of religion, they don't understand what that means. It won't be a program enacted against religious folks. They won't be thrown in gulags or ridiculed. What it means is that communism will remove the conditions that drive people en masse to religion.

Will people still be into weird spiritual or religious shit after the rev? Maybe, but I highly doubt in the same numbers or even in the same way as it is now.

Again, as mentioned above, people differ ideologically. The state/establishment/people would take the stance of Atheism, a religious belief, thus promoting it would be an inevitability. It's promoting the idea of abandoning religion, which could have disastrous affects on those who value religion.

Your government is against communism/socialism, most likely covertly and encourages people to look away from the ideology. This is almost identical to what you are willing to promote; you're talking about a revolution. Imagine how the religious will feel.


Rafiq said it, but I'll say it again: no, no, no, no, no. This forum would exist, there just wouldn't be Marxists on it. We'd be singing the tune of Proudhon and Gracchus Babeuf or something, I dunno, but we'd still be here, there would still be socialists, I'm sure. And, as you say, Soviet Russia may never have been (or perhaps it would have been anarchist, who knows), so there are some benefits to a Marx-free world, too :tt2:

:lol:

I don't think it's worth opening up a whole new topic regarding what would happen if the Manifesto of the Communist Party wasn't written! I think the ideology would differ entirely as opposed to reaching as far back as Babeuf...

[28350]

Religion is superstructural.
We're attacking the base.

[The Guy]

This is quite interesting to read.
(https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Islamic_socialism)

[Revolution starts with U]

Although it's an ever-controversial ongoing debate, I believe that if socialism is to succeed, it must in fact lose the "Atheist" stance and instead become "Irreligious" (to hold no religion but to hold no qualms towards one and to freely allow the practice).
Honestly socialism need only allow capitalism to falsely prop up then destroy the common worker, before he bands together with other works and takes control of the means of production. Whether or not it accepts religion is largely irrelevant.


Most "Atheists" on here I believe use the term because they read it in a book - ironically. I actually think they're anti-theists yet lack the knowledge of what that is, but being an Atheist has become quite a deluded term, I admit
Please leave your condescending shit splatter at the door. Or just keep thinking all/most atheists are just engaging in a popularity contest.... whatever lets you sleep at night.


I simply think that denying religion openly to society, considering the world is vast in religions, would benefit socialism in any way, shape or form. In fact, I think it would encourage freedom fighters against the establishment and chaos to run amok in some areas
It could or could not.


It is essentially to not deny someone of their right to believe what they want to believe religiously. Are we really so deluded as to follow the book written by a bearded man - and for once in my life, I don't mean the Torah, the Bible or the Qur'an, but the Manifesto of the Communist Party?
That's fine. Although I'm not sure most socialists and/or atheists are for banning religion, more than just against its practice.


I cannot see this "Atheist solution" ever working and find it a shame on socialists to openly express such opinions. "Believe what you want to believe, so long as it's the same as what we believe."
Are you sure this is what most atheists believe, or are you just being a condescending shit again?


Now I apologise if there are many people who are irreligious out there or do respect people's right to practice it privately,
Too late. You've already shown yourself to be an ass of the highest order.


Thoughts?
You should try them a little more rationally next time :thumbdown:

[lines]

It did found the ideology, no? This entire forum would be non-existant, Soviet Russia may have never been and an opposing solution to the problems of capitalism may still remain undiscovered. I'd class that as fairly special...

Do you agree though? Do you accept the religious beliefs of others? That's what I'm trying to get at.

Marx was inspired by a number of thinkers in his works. The spirit of communism and socialism existed before Marx so he isnt the foundation. He is moreso someone who collected ideas into a compendium.

[The Guy]

Honestly socialism need only allow capitalism to falsely prop up then destroy the common worker, before he bands together with other works and takes control of the means of production. Whether or not it accepts religion is largely irrelevant.

I see. How important is the issue of religion within the ideology, would you say?


Please leave your condescending shit splatter at the door. Or just keep thinking all/most atheists are just engaging in a popularity contest.... whatever lets you sleep at night.

You can't take a little dig on the arm from time to time? The irony of it is you're trying to be condescending towards me! Oh, how the tables turn. After all, your opinion is much greater than mine. Sorry, boss.

Having being a "hardcore Atheist" I understand a majority stand firmly against the ideology and would rather see it crash and burn then exist silently.


It could or could not.

Isn't that innate?


That's fine. Although I'm not sure most socialists and/or atheists are for banning religion, more than just against its practice.

Probably true, although I wish it weren't that way and I feel it contradicts the ideology a little... However, that's a very deep topic.


Are you sure this is what most atheists believe, or are you just being a condescending shit again?

Definitely being a condescending shit, but probably more so the first point.


Too late. You've already shown yourself to be an ass of the highest order.

T'aw, you're just saying that!


You should try them a little more rationally next time :thumbdown:

I have but your superior judgement doesn't seem to agree with this topic so you try and condescend me! Learn the meaning of "condescending next time...

[Dumb]

It did found the ideology, no? This entire forum would be non-existant, Soviet Russia may have never been and an opposing solution to the problems of capitalism may still remain undiscovered. I'd class that as fairly special...

As has already been established in this thread, yes, Marx wasn't the first socialist. To use a religious analogy, Marx wasn't Abraham, the first of the "faith"; rather, he was Moses, the first - and/or most influential - codifier of "the faith."

[Revolution starts with U]

I see. How important is the issue of religion within the ideology, would you say?
As long as one doesn't try to act like everyone has to follow his religion, or his religion is the only valid one (as if any of them are :rolleyes:) or discredit science in the name of scripture... I really could care less. I think it is silly. And I think the people who believe and practice it are naive and silly.
But clowns are silly too. And I'm not going to ban them.


You can't take a little dig on the arm from time to time? The irony of it is you're trying to be condescending towards me! Oh, how the tables turn. After all, your opinion is much greater than mine. Sorry, boss.
And don't you forget it :thumbup1:


Having being a "hardcore Atheist" I understand a majority stand firmly against the ideology and would rather see it crash and burn then exist silently.
Well having been a catholic, then an atheist, then a pandeist, (now im ignostic) I can say most of the atheists are more like me, then they are like you. We would talk about how stupid religion is, and how silly the religous are.
We never once had conversations on how best to ban religion.


Isn't that innate?
Ya, it is. Religion is largely irrelevant to morality, no matter how much the religous try to rationalize the two.


Probably true, although I wish it weren't that way and I feel it contradicts the ideology a little... However, that's a very deep topic.
I don't advocate you smoking opium. But I'm adamantly against the drug war.


I have but your superior judgement doesn't seem to agree with this topic so you try and condescend me! Learn the meaning of "condescending next time...
Oh, I know what it means :thumbup1:

[Viet Minh]

I haven't seen anyone calling for the heads of religious leaders here :confused: People here normally advocate secularism, as opposed to Atheism or anti-theism. I can't see the benefit in banning religion personally.

[hatzel]

As has already been established in this thread, yes, Marx wasn't the first socialist. To use a religious analogy, Marx wasn't Abraham, the first of the "faith"; rather, he was Moses, the first - and/or most influential - codifier of "the faith."

Naaah, Marx was definitely Jesus...bastardiser of 'the faith', the guy who lead huge swathes of the world's population astray, leaving 'the true faith' to the few, who still carry it to this day, despite the best efforts of the Marxists :lol: Nah, nah, Jesus was alright...but you get what I'm saying, bro? :mad:

[Dumb]

Naaah, Marx was definitely Jesus...bastardiser of 'the faith', the guy who lead huge swathes of the world's population astray, leaving 'the true faith' to the few, who still carry it to this day, despite the best efforts of the Marxists :lol: Nah, nah, Jesus was alright...but you get what I'm saying, bro? :mad:

I thought Lenin was Jesus. ;)

[Viet Minh]

Does that make Trotsky Judas.. ?


I'm sorry I'm in a trolling mood today I don't know whats wrong with me.. :crying:

[hatzel]

I thought Lenin was Jesus. ;)

Nah, Lenin would have to be St. Paul, the guy who totally misrepresented many of Jesus's salient ideas in creating the gross institutionalised form of Christianity we see parroted today by annoying fundamentalists...:rolleyes:

[Dumb]

Where does Engels fit into all this, then? :lol:

[The Guy]

:rolleyes: Oh, you guys!

Is it possible to be religious and a socialist? That's a good question. Totally plausible so long as you keep each one separate, I guess, but compromises must be made... Does that reflect on character?

[hatzel]

That depends entirely on how you define 'socialism'. If one defines it as an entirely economic idea, with no social baggage around it, one could actually run around killing people for this or that or whatever, and no compromise would have to be made, as long as the economic system is socialist. Of course we generally define socialism in somewhat broader terms, which is there an issue tends to arise...what is and isn't included in socialism, for example...

[Tim Finnegan]

I thought Lenin was Jesus. ;)
No, Lenin was John the Baptist, paving the way for our true Lord and Saviour, Josef Christ. ;)