Consider any respect I previously had for Richard Dawkins gone. [Archive]

GPDP

8th May 2011, 19:51

What the fuck is the fuss all about?

Crypto-imperialism would be supporting Christian missions in Africa. Does anyone recall what happened in Uganda after Evangelical missionaries from the US started preaching there? Yup, homophobic legislation.

As for Islam being "unmitigated evil", that's hyperbole for sure, but Islam is certainly no better than Christianity.

Are you even looking at the same image we are? I mean, I expected as much from one of our resident militant anti-theists, but man.

It's not quite outright spelled out, but not so little things like saying "support Christian missions? No, but..." and immediately following with calling Islam an unmitigated evil, raising the possibility of the enemy (Islam) of their enemy (Christianity) being their friend during a time when atheism has no chance of spreading...

Take a good, long look at the image, and tell me it doesn't imply Dawkins would rather the Christians win over the Muslims. Yeah, they both suck, blah blah blah, but at this time it is Muslims who are under siege by imperialism above all, and while African Christians have also suffered under the yoke of imperialism, the bulk of the imperialist campaign AT THIS TIME is focused on the Middle East and North Africa.

To imply a preference for Christianity's spread over the alternative (Islam) in such a context, even if he says he doesn't really support it, while calling Islam evil even in comparison to Christianity, IS tantamount to support for imperialism.

And again, Dawkins's entire premise is silly. The conflicts do not have religion at their root. The situation is far more complex than that. Even if his statement didn't have imperialist overtones, it's still a shitty analysis of what's going on over there.

Octavian

8th May 2011, 20:16

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/624093-support-christian-missions-in-africa-no-but
He's not saying he want's Christianity to spread but looks at it as the lesser of two evils in his opinion and the concern isn't "DERP IMPERIALIST WANTS TO CONTROL IT ALL DERP" he's just going on his religion causes wars shtick.

Inquisitive Lurker

8th May 2011, 21:53

Dawkins has some point. How many Christian theocracies currently exist? It is the lesser of two evil, and it is also the evil that is easier to kill (Christianity). In the effort to rid religion from the world, it is going to be a lot harder to get rid of Islam than it will be to get rid of Christianity. Speaking in the current epoch, who knows what Islam will look like in 100 years or more.

Red Future

8th May 2011, 22:27

That diagram looks like something plucked out of Stormfront:thumbdown:

Â¿Que?

8th May 2011, 22:47

Red Future

8th May 2011, 22:51

Religion, not economic roles is the main reason for conflict in Africa.

Funny you should say that came across these people researching recently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

Probably just as much bandits as "Christian guerrillas" though.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

9th May 2011, 00:11

Are you even looking at the same image we are? I mean, I expected as much from one of our resident militant anti-theists, but man.

It's not quite outright spelled out, but not so little things like saying "support Christian missions? No, but..." and immediately following with calling Islam an unmitigated evil, raising the possibility of the enemy (Islam) of their enemy (Christianity) being their friend during a time when atheism has no chance of spreading...

Yet in spite of this, Dawkins' answer is still "no". That tells me that he has considerably more intellectual integrity than the posters on this site looking for any excuse to attack him.

Take a good, long look at the image, and tell me it doesn't imply Dawkins would rather the Christians win over the Muslims. Yeah, they both suck, blah blah blah, but at this time it is Muslims who are under siege by imperialism above all, and while African Christians have also suffered under the yoke of imperialism, the bulk of the imperialist campaign AT THIS TIME is focused on the Middle East and North Africa.

Muslims "under siege"? This is simply the opposite face of the same revolting coin that screeches about a Muslim "invasion" of Europe.

To imply a preference for Christianity's spread over the alternative (Islam) in such a context, even if he says he doesn't really support it, while calling Islam evil even in comparison to Christianity, IS tantamount to support for imperialism.

Actions speak louder than words, and in this case Dawkins is doing jack-fucking-shit to help either "side". This is certainly more in line with his larger corpus of written material, which focuses on religion in general and Christianity in particular (because he's more familiar with it).

And again, Dawkins's entire premise is silly. The conflicts do not have religion at their root. The situation is far more complex than that. Even if his statement didn't have imperialist overtones, it's still a shitty analysis of what's going on over there.

I don't see him saying that religion is the "root" of the issue. I certainly agree with him in that the perpetuation of religious dogma is a negative influence.

Inquisitive Lurker

9th May 2011, 02:22

But the point is not to rid the world of religion but private property. The latter assumes the former, but the former does not assume the latter.
Religious thought predates property by 10's to 100's of thousands of years. Removing property will not end religion. Religion is an enemy that has to be attacked. The weapons are reason, logic, rationality, education, and if needed, suppression.

Quail

9th May 2011, 02:52

Â¿Que?

9th May 2011, 02:53

Religious thought predates property by 10's to 100's of thousands of years. Removing property will not end religion. Religion is an enemy that has to be attacked. The weapons are reason, logic, rationality, education, and if needed, suppression.
But the point Marx is trying to make is that without property there is no longer any use for religion, but until then, the criticism of religion is only the beginning of an actual, useful critique of society.

The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

CommunityBeliever

9th May 2011, 03:00

Removing property will not end religion

True, however, removing religion will help us to eliminate the class system.

Religion keeps the class system alive, just look at reincarnation in India, the whole point of reincarnation was accept the class that you were born into and be a good worker, that way you may reincarnate into a higher class. Can you think of any better fucking way of keeping people in line then that?

Also, what is this unmitigated evil that Islam is? Have you ever heard of Sharia law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia)? In Islamic law there is forced fucking amputations. They caught off the hands and legs of poor people just for taking bread to feed themselves, well they don't persecute the real theives: the bourgeoisie.

There is also flogging for lesser crimes such as "sexual deviance", public executions, where they caught peoples heads off publicly, and many other atrocities.

All this, not to mention that they oppress women, the LGBT, anyone non-Muslim, any alternative political parties, etc. Sharia law is barbaric.

The Christian delusion is just as terrible, as Christian doctrine supports slavery and it was used in defense of slavery for years, however, at least now Christian societies are MITIGATED by secular laws.

The point is, if you take the religion and the laws of primitive people from the bronze age very seriously then great harm follows. At least mitigate that evil with secular laws. I think we should at the very least consider supporting Christianity if it can reduce the power of the Islamic theocracies and save poor people from having their limbs amputated.

Â¿Que?

9th May 2011, 04:36

I think we should at the very least consider supporting Christianity if it can reduce the power of the Islamic theocracies and save poor people from having their limbs amputated.
Yes, because shooting unarmed people in the legs is that much more humane. Whatever.

CynicalIdealist

9th May 2011, 04:41

What the fuck is the fuss all about?

Dawkins: "My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question."

CommunityBeliever

9th May 2011, 05:15

Yes, because shooting unarmed people in the legs is that much more humane. Whatever.

Tell me, where do you hear a Christian talking like this?

-BCOeh9FsOM

"When Islamic law chops off a hand it does so because this hand is criminal, a treacherous hand that took money protected by law. It was chopped off so that society would be safe."

Fuck you.

"Saudi Arabia has the world's lowest crime rate"

Yeah, you really know how to keep people in line in your country, dont you? This is really what all religions do: they keep people in line and perpetuate the class system. Considering this, I don't know how anyone can truly be a communist well also being religious.

lines

9th May 2011, 05:17

Well I got a novel idea... how about Africans decide whether they want to be christian or muslim or hindu or jewish or buddhist or whatever other religious belief system is out there.

Africa can determine its own religious affiliation.

Furthermore Africa does not mean black, Africa is a multiracial continent with whites, blacks, arabs, and other races.

#FF0000

9th May 2011, 05:23

itt people don't know anything about what african christians do to african muslims

Tim Finnegan

9th May 2011, 05:43

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DC6Gr84tB9c/TcVFGeWmx0I/AAAAAAAADCA/i2bUdZfMga0/s1600/Unmitigated%2Bevil.jpg

:cursing:
I wonder, does Jimmy McHategod realise that in that orange bit of West Africa, next to the "M" in "Mali", is the University of Sankore, an institution which was considered the greatest of the Islamic world- which at that point basically meant everything West of China- when the universities of Oxford, Paris and Bologna were still trying to teach young aristos not to belch at the dinner table? Have to wonder about all his silly little essentialisms when you're aware of things like that...

Tell me, where do you hear a Christian talking like this?

-BCOeh9FsOM
Recently, or ever? Because compared to what the Prods and Papes were doing to each other in the Reformation, that's baby stuff.

CommunityBeliever

9th May 2011, 05:56

Recently, or ever? Because compared to what the Prods and Papes were doing to each other in the Reformation, that's baby stuff.

I don't appreciate your attempt to trivialize the horrors and atrocities committed here as "baby stuff." I am clearly talking about current times.

#FF0000

9th May 2011, 06:06

I don't appreciate your attempt to trivialize the horrors and atrocities committed here as "baby stuff." I am clearly talking about current times.

you realize christians brutalize muslims in africa all the time right

bcbm

9th May 2011, 06:08

weird its like people will do horrible shit to each other for all kinds of dumb reasons

lines

9th May 2011, 06:09

Does anyone know of any documentaries or news articles that talk about the atrocities christians and muslims in africa have committed towards each other?

Tim Finnegan

9th May 2011, 06:24

I don't appreciate your attempt to trivialize the horrors and atrocities committed here as "baby stuff."
I'm not "attempting to trivialise" anything, I was indulging in a bit of ironic hyperbole. A basic rhetorical tool, I'm sure you're aware.

I am clearly talking about current times.And if you talk about current times to the exclusion of all others, then you can't hope to say anything useful.

CommunityBeliever

9th May 2011, 07:53

And if you talk about current times to the exclusion of all others, then you can't hope to say anything useful. In the modern world Christian theocracy is limited to the 0.44 KM area of the Vatican city, and even they don't take the bible completely literally, as they declared slavery to be a crime by 1917 which contradicts biblical law. As such, Christianity is a mitigated evil even though it wasn't mitigated until the 20th century.

On the other hand, Yemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Yemen#Freedom_of_religion), Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Afghanistan), Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakistan), Somalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Somalia), Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sudan), Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia), Mauritania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania), Oman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oman) and Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) are Muslim theocracies that abide by the corrupt Islamic laws that I have been describing. For this reason, Islam is still an unmitigated evil, just as Dr. Dawkins said.

This type of stuff is happening in a variety of African countries right now, such as Nigeria (http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/nigeria-sharia-law-amputees.html):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVWU-2pVL4/S8OKzd6GDJI/AAAAAAAANcM/k_XWUiI_oIo/s640/court+convicted+Mohamed+Omar+Ismael+of+the+offence +he+committed+and+ordered+his+right+hand++amputate d+gacan-goys-kismayo.jpg

Notice the Quran.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

9th May 2011, 08:43

Dawkins: "My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question."

So? Some questions need to be brought up, even if only to be dismissed out of hand, as Dawkins did.

If you think Dawkins is an evil person for raising questions, then perhaps you have more in common with Ayatollahs and Popes than you first realised. They don't like it when people raise questions either.

#FF0000

9th May 2011, 09:14

Notice the Quran.

Christians in Africa commit these atrocities too btw

but i wouldn't expect someone like you to actually know anything, so.

For this reason, Islam is still an unmitigated evil,

So what of Muslims, then?

lines

9th May 2011, 09:20

So? Some questions need to be brought up, even if only to be dismissed out of hand, as Dawkins did.

If you think Dawkins is an evil person for raising questions, then perhaps you have more in common with Ayatollahs and Popes than you first realised. They don't like it when people raise questions either.

What Dawkins is doing is he realizes he has an image of being "anti-religion under all circumstances". And so he doesn't want to come out and say what he thinks in his heart in a direct manner. Therefore he is saying what he thinks but he is saying it in a indirect manner so that he can deny that he actually thinks that if he is confronted about it in order to maintain his "anti-religion under all circumstances" image. Dawkins thinks in his heart that he would prefer a christian Africa over a muslim Africa and in his mind he believes that Africa is either going to go one way or the other.

bcbm

9th May 2011, 10:33

In the modern world Christian theocracy is limited to the 0.44 KM area of the Vatican city, and even they don't take the bible completely literally, as they declared slavery to be a crime by 1917 which contradicts biblical law. As such, Christianity is a mitigated evil even though it wasn't mitigated until the 20th century.

On the other hand, Yemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Yemen#Freedom_of_religion), Afghanistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Afghanistan), Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Pakistan), Somalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Somalia), Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Sudan), Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia), Mauritania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania), Oman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oman) and Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) are Muslim theocracies that abide by the corrupt Islamic laws that I have been describing. For this reason, Islam is still an unmitigated evil, just as Dr. Dawkins said.

This type of stuff is happening in a variety of African countries right now, such as Nigeria (http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/nigeria-sharia-law-amputees.html):

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QfVWU-2pVL4/S8OKzd6GDJI/AAAAAAAANcM/k_XWUiI_oIo/s640/court+convicted+Mohamed+Omar+Ismael+of+the+offence +he+committed+and+ordered+his+right+hand++amputate d+gacan-goys-kismayo.jpg

Notice the Quran.

meanwhile, secular democracy (http://www.realogrish.com/real-death-images/7901-iraq-corpses.html)

Inquisitive Lurker

9th May 2011, 12:44

But the point Marx is trying to make is that without property there is no longer any use for religion, but until then, the criticism of religion is only the beginning of an actual, useful critique of society.

Marx was not a cultural anthropologist nor a theologian, and did not consider the origin or use of religious thought. If religion predates property, then removing property will not remove religion. Heck, there is even some evidence that certain parts of the brain are linked to religion. It's not an economic nor political phenomenon. It's a way of thinking, of seeking answers and explanations irrationally, or at least non-rationally. That way of thinking has to be abolished.

Inquisitive Lurker

9th May 2011, 12:47

True, however, removing religion will help us to eliminate the class system.
Absolutely.

The Christian delusion is just as terrible, as Christian doctrine supports slavery and it was used in defense of slavery for years, however, at least now Christian societies are MITIGATED by secular laws.

Couldn't agree more.

The point is, if you take the religion and the laws of primitive people from the bronze age very seriously then great harm follows. At least mitigate that evil with secular laws. I think we should at the very least consider supporting Christianity if it can reduce the power of the Islamic theocracies and save poor people from having their limbs amputated.

Exactly.

Vampire Lobster

9th May 2011, 13:34

Christians in Africa commit these atrocities too btw

but i wouldn't expect someone like you to actually know anything, so.

do you have any kind of sources for that, btw? not questioning that at all but it's just that atrocities commited by Christians are not really anything that gets reported too often and i feel any kind of info on that would be quite relevant in discussions like this with the anti-muslim crowd you see around way too much nowadays.

CommunityBeliever

9th May 2011, 19:22

Christians in Africa commit these atrocities too btw

but i wouldn't expect someone like you to actually know anything, so.

Thanks for the personal attack. I would like to know:

What atrocities are you are talking about?
Do they have the backing of their religion and their holy book like the Islamic laws do?
If Islam isn't an unmitigated evil, what is it?

Are you saying Christianity is also an unmitigated evil if so where are the people stoning others that work on the sabbath, taking slaves, and doing all the other things demanded by the barbaric biblical laws?

#FF0000

9th May 2011, 19:31

Thanks for the personal attack. I would like to know:

What atrocities are you are talking about?

Oh, you know. The things that Christian Africans do to Muslims Africans, which is a lot like why Muslim Africans do to Christian Africans, with the chopping off limbs and slaughtering entire villages and all that.

Do they have the backing of their religion and their holy book like the Islamic laws do?

I'm sure they think they do.

Funny thing, though. None of the Muslims I know think that any violence carried out by terrorists and other people like that "in the name of Islam" has anything to do with Islam at all. Why do they think that?

If Islam isn't an unmitigated evil, what is it?

Well since I'm a grown adult and a materialist who knows there's more to the world than lol "good and evil", I would say that it's a religion, since, you know, evil doesn't exist.

Are you saying Christianity is also an unmitigated evil if so where are the people stoning others that work on the sabbath, taking slaves, and doing all the other things demanded by the barbaric biblical laws?In Africa, for one. There's also all the Christian world leaders who lob cruise missiles on a daily basis. And then there's bcbm's post, which you ignored.

So anyway, if Islam is an unmitigated evil, what do you think we should do with Muslims?

Inquisitive Lurker

9th May 2011, 19:38

Oh, you know. The things that Christian Africans do to Muslims Africans, which is a lot like why Muslim Africans do to Christian Africans, with the chopping off limbs and slaughtering entire villages and all that.
In these cases you will usually find that the two groups are not just divided on religious lines, but also on ethnic, tribal, even racial lines. So who is to say which one of these differences set off the violence?

#FF0000

9th May 2011, 19:42

In these cases you will usually find that the two groups are not just divided on religious lines, but also on ethnic, tribal, even racial lines. So who is to say which one of these differences set off the violence?

Oh wow you just accidentally stumbled over the fucking point.

Red Commissar

9th May 2011, 21:29

Personally, I care more for the probing questions of those who analyzed capitalism, imperialism, and exploitation in the region. It's easy to brush it off as "Islam" rooted as many of these will see, but religious fundamentalism is more of a symptom and outgrowth of the problem rather than the source.

But I guess it is nothing new for petit-bourgie "intellectuals" like Dawkins and Hitchens to jump on the "clash of civilization" nonsense. After all what is it to them? Just some "savages" causing problems overseas that need to be civilized via European norms! Damn, doesn't that sound familiar? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden)

This Eurocentric trash is getting real old. But it's worse when people think it's a valid strategy to promote atheism at some point. Wasn't the same logic used behind backing "left", social-democratic parties in Europe because they would progress things forward? In the end that hasn't really brought much, and I doubt the same would happen by encouraging the growth of Christianity to overtake Islam in Africa. The roots of the issues from the capitalist system will remain regardless of whether the populace has a nice face for Europeans and Americans.

Ocean Seal

9th May 2011, 21:47

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DC6Gr84tB9c/TcVFGeWmx0I/AAAAAAAADCA/i2bUdZfMga0/s1600/Unmitigated%2Bevil.jpg

:cursing:
Wow condescending liberal meet your best friends: the islamophobic right. Geert Wilders and Glenn Beck now have a friend. Hey Mr. Dawkins consider this: remember a time when a religion was being used as a scape goat in the West to push the agenda of far right nationalists and war-mongerers. I really see that nothing has been changing: with anti-semitism in the 1920's and Islamophobia in our current times. And yet Dawkins is perpetuating a stereotype that "all Muslims are radical" of course feeding the professional propagandists like Glenn Beck, the BNP, and all other reactionaries.
Well fuck you Mr. Dawkins, stay in the lab because you have no understanding of material conditions and are tacitly endorsing bigotry.

pluckedflowers

9th May 2011, 22:46

Marx was not a cultural anthropologist nor a theologian, and did not consider the origin or use of religious thought. If religion predates property, then removing property will not remove religion. Heck, there is even some evidence that certain parts of the brain are linked to religion. It's not an economic nor political phenomenon. It's a way of thinking, of seeking answers and explanations irrationally, or at least non-rationally. That way of thinking has to be abolished.

Did something we call religion exist prior to private property? Sure. Is it the same thing that we today call religion? Not really, no. Religion is not a static phenomenon. It changes along with everything else in the course of the transformation of material social relations. Compare, for example, with the concept of family. There has always been family. Does this mean what we call family today is the same thing as what we called family thousands of years ago? No, of course not. Does it mean what we call family today will remain untouched by revolutionary social change (which is not, by the way, simply limited to the removal of private property)? Again, no.

Inquisitive Lurker

9th May 2011, 23:48

hatzel

10th May 2011, 00:01

Religion must be attacked as its own beast. You can not simply think "don't worry, it will go away." Religion must be opposed at all opportunities, without sympathy. This may included picking off the weakest ones first, or shoring up weaker ones to stop the stronger ones from making progress. It is a war, and a war requires tactics.

L. O. L. Gotta get your priorities straight, bro...:rolleyes:

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 00:06

"Revolutionary social change" has limited effect on religion. Consider the lessons of the USSR and China.

These seem rather strange examples. The USSR and China obviously didn't even manage to get rid of capitalism permanently, so I'm not sure why one would be surprised to see other pre-revolution social realities reappear.

"Religion must be attacked as its own beast."

You haven't provided any evidence for this, unless you also think family needs to be attacked as its own beast and every other social reality under capitalist social relations needs to be attacked as its own beast, in which case you simply aren't a historical materialist.

Ocean Seal

10th May 2011, 00:19

"Revolutionary social change" has limited effect on religion. Consider the lessons of the USSR and China.

Religion must be attacked as its own beast. You can not simply think "don't worry, it will go away." Religion must be opposed at all opportunities, without sympathy. This may included picking off the weakest ones first, or shoring up weaker ones to stop the stronger ones from making progress. It is a war, and a war requires tactics.
May I ask why? I'll take revolutionary social change and religion, thank you as we are waging war against capitalism, not religion. If your view is more logical, then why do you need to take action against mine? A people who's minds are free and are living under socialism don't need this. We work to eliminate the problem, the problem the vice which is causing poverty and starvation, drug addiction and illiteracy, and that vice is capitalism. I'll fight alongside you and maybe I'll believe in God and you won't but I don't see why that should stop us from working together.

CommunityBeliever

10th May 2011, 00:38

condescending liberalWell it is true that Richard Dawkins is totally off politically, he is a respectable atheist, who helped people, including me, see religion for the bullshit story that it really is. By helping to make people atheist he also helped to eliminate a great barrier to class struggle.

there's more to the world than lol "good and evil"When Richard Dawkins said "unmitigated evil" he obviously didn't mean it in the superstitious sense, but rather in the sense of something that is detrimental to progress.

None of the Muslims I know think that any violence carried out by terrorists and other people like that "in the name of Islam" has anything to do with Islam at all. Why do they think that?The reason those muslims do not think that that violence was carried out in the name of Islam is that they don't understand their religion or they don't take it very seriously.

Religions are violent. That is how they spread. Islam is no exception. Muhammad himself led 27 military campaigns.

Oh wow you just accidentally stumbled over the fucking point. Actually, that was my point. The things you are citing are caused by imperialism and capitalism, where as things like the Sharia laws are clearly the result of religious fundamentalism.

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 00:51

The reason those muslims do not think that that violence was carried out in the name of Islam is that they don't understand their religion or they don't take it very seriously.

No. This is just sloppy sociological thinking, which is the primary problem with Dawkins' "work" on religion, politics aside. Unless you are a Platonist or a Muslim, you shouldn't believe in some static reality of what Islam "really, really is." So there is not ontological reality with which we compare people's beliefs to see if they are really really Muslim.

Religions are violent. That is how they spread.

This is just empirically false. Not all religious ideologies are violent and not all religions spread through violence. Neither Islam nor Christianity nor any other religion was always spread through coercion.

Actually, that was my point. The things you are citing are caused by imperialism and capitalism, where as things like the Sharia laws are clearly the result of religious fundamentalism.

Again, this is just unhistorical. Religious fundamentalism is a very modern phenomenon connected to the rise of globalized capitalism.

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 00:52

Actually, that was my point. The things you are citing are caused by imperialism and capitalism, where as things like the Sharia laws are clearly the result of religious fundamentalism.

Which is a result of........

The reason those muslims do not think that that violence was carried out in the name of Islam is that they don't understand their religion or they don't take it very seriously.

Like Christians, you mean.

Or, because they, like every other religious person on the planet, cherry pick. They cherry pick all of the good things and the things that work in a modern context, and leave what don't. For such an enlightened atheist I'd figure you would understand this.

So, once again. Since Islam is an unmitigated evil, what does that make Muslims? What should be done with Muslims?

CommunityBeliever

10th May 2011, 00:56

all religious ideologies are violent and not all religions spread through violence.

Nowhere did I say that all religions spread through violence, however, the most popular ones clearly do. Violence is the main means of propagating delusion.

So there is not ontological reality with which we compare people's beliefs to see if they are really really Muslim.

The word muslim doesn't describe some mysterious concept, lol, it just refers to people that follow the Quran, the prophet Muhammad, and other similar teachings, all of which are full of violence and phrases like "kill the infidels."

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 00:57

It's really shocking to see how unscientific and anti-materialist so many self-described materialists are when the subject of religion comes up.

I would suggest a reading of Marx's introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right (the one everyone quotes from without actually reading). Here is a relevant passage (emphasis added):

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

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

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. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

CommunityBeliever

10th May 2011, 00:58

Which is a result of........

Religion is a result of ignorance.

Or, because they, like every other religious person on the planet, cherry pick.

Perhaps Richard Dawkins should have said Islam is an un-cherry-picked evil.

What should be done with Muslims?

Ideally they should become atheists as well.

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 01:01

Religion is a result of ignorance.

Wrong. Go read what plucked said. Plucked is right. You are wrong.

Perhaps Richard Dawkins should have said Islam is an un-cherry-picked evil.

You realize that fundamentalism Islam wasn't even anywhere close to mainstream for ages, right? But somehow, as the west got more and more involved with the middle east in the 20th century, it became more popular... I wonder if there's a connection... Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Ideally they should become atheists as well.

Are Muslims evil? And what if they don't want to become atheists and continue to follow this unmitigated evil? What then?

Quail

10th May 2011, 01:03

Ideally they should become atheists as well.
While the material conditions that encourage religion exist, so will religion. If we think about a weed, religion is the leaves and the roots are capitalism, poverty, misery, etc. and obviously to kill the weed we must kill the root. So I think that militant atheism is only effective as part of an anticapitalist campaign.

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 01:05

Nowhere did I say that all religions spread through violence, however, the most popular ones clearly do. Violence is the main means of propagating delusion.

This simply isn't historically true. While "the most popular" religions have at times been spread through violence, it is not at all accurate to say this is the only way they spread. As a matter of fact, trade has been one of the most important paths through which religions have spread.

The word muslim doesn't describe some mysterious concept, lol, it just refers to people that follow the Quran, the prophet Muhammad, and other similar teachings, all of which are full of violence and phrases like "kill the infidels."

Well it must refer to some mysterious reality if you think you have some objective standard against which you can determine who really really is Muslim and who really isn't. Religious texts don't interpret themselves. They are interpreted by people and these interpretations change in conjunction with changes in material social relations. By asserting that Muslims who aren't violent just don't take their religion seriously, you are claiming that you have some privileged access to the correct interpretation of their texts. This is, of course, amusing, since you don't sound like you've ever studied Muslim culture in any rigorous manner.

CommunityBeliever

10th May 2011, 01:20

Wrong. Go read what plucked said.

It is a relatively well known fact that religions arose because of ignorance. Primitive people didn't understand nature so they created superstitious explanations.

religions have at times been spread through violenceCrusades, witch hunts, inquisitions, terrorism, stonings, pogroms, jihads, beatings...

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

Another component of this is the mental violence and psychological abuse caused by religion and the idea of hell.

the correct interpretation of their texts.

The literal interpretation.

Tim Finnegan

10th May 2011, 01:33

This simply isn't historically true. While "the most popular" religions have at times been spread through violence, it is not at all accurate to say this is the only way they spread. As a matter of fact, trade has been one of the most important paths through which religions have spread.
And sometimes it was simply a product of political-economic pragmatism, specifically, in adopting the religions to gain access to the technologies that their adherents offered. You find that one of the main motivations for the adoption of both Christianity and Islam outside of the "civilised core" of the Mediterranean, Levant and Persia is the medical, architectural, and above all literary technologies that the scholars of these new faiths were often well-versed in. In the British Isles, for example, the simple technologies of the Latin alphabet and ink-and-parchment, combined with an established body of scribe and scholars, was of considerable appeal to rulers who found that the old priestly and bardic classes, who had monopolised the unsophisticated scripts of the Germanic and Celtic peoples and scorned any sort of scribe-work, were unsatisfactory in furthering the political-economic development of their domains.

The literal interpretation.
The very notion of textual literalism is quite usually absurd, and all the more so in reference to the poetic and enigmatic text of the Koran than to any Judeo-Christian text. The only people who ever subscribe to it with any enthusiasm are religious zealots and militant bigots (atheist or otherwise), both of whom have reached the astonishing conclusion that they and they alone have sole claim to the "word of God". Find me a single mainstream Christian, Islamic or Jewish scholar who entertains such a feeble-minded notion as this, and I'll eat my hat.

And that, incidentally, is the real grounds for comparison between twerps like Dawkins and religious extremists; not in that they are both "fundamentalists", but in that they suppose for even a second the intellectual legitimacy of fundamentalism itself. Dawkins most prominently differs from the most frothing Qutbism militant in that he considers Islam a load of hooey, not in what he considers Islam to consist of.

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 01:33

It is a relatively well known fact that religions arose because of ignorance. Primitive people didn't understand nature so they created superstitious explanations.

No, this is a relatively often expressed belief. It is not a well known fact. If you'd like to learn well-known facts about religion, I would encourage you to engage with the vast field of sociological literature that exists on the subject. That is what this conversation ultimately comes down to: Actual social and historical research. It exists. It's how we study human society. You can have whatever beliefs you want about religion, but don't kid yourself that they are true or superior unless you've actually engaged with the subject through real study.

And, more importantly, from a revolutionary perspective, your position is entirely non-materialist. If ignorance was indeed the only reason that religion came into existence, religion would have disappeared along with the ignorance. But it hasn't, because religion is not simply a matter of ignorance but, I hope I don't have to repeat this again, a product of material social relations.

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 01:37

The literal interpretation.

Literal interpretations are limited exclusively to fundamentalists. In every religion.

CommunityBeliever

10th May 2011, 01:40

the only way they spread

well known fact.

simply a matter of ignorancePlease try to refrain from changing my words.

religion would have disappeared along with the ignorance. And that is where violence comes into play! Mental violence, psychological abuse, and a lack of freedom of religion (such as in the Muslim theocracies) are a few things that have helped to keep religious delusions alive.

I hope I don't have to repeat this again, a product of material social relations. I never said that material social relations weren't a factor that helped to shape religion. However, that doesn't change the fact religions were formed long before capitalism, by primitive communists and other primitive people, as superstitious explanations for nature.

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 02:04

Look, I've already answered these points. You don't actually know the history of any specific religion, let alone religion in general. It's not a topic you've studied. That's fine. I'm not an expert on religion myself. But I refrain from making sweeping unhistorical claims about the subject. And what claims I do make based on what little knowledge I do have are consistent with the basic theoretical assumptions of historical materialism. Yours aren't. I really do encourage you to actually study this subject if it interests you. If you are interested in Islam, for example, you might start with Maxime Rodinson's "Islam and Capitalism," a classic in the field. For a broader (though not specifically Marxist) history, you can turn to Marshall Hodgson's "The Venture of Islam." I imagine other comrades here can point you to other texts for other religions if you ask.

Religion is an important issue to understand, so your enthusiasm on the subject is merited. But you should use it for more rigorous ends.

CommunityBeliever

10th May 2011, 02:07

Look, I've already answered these points. You don't actually know the history of any specific religion, let alone religion in general. It's not a topic you've studied.You have answered with personal attacks and not much more then that.

CommunityBeliever

10th May 2011, 02:22

relatively often expressed belief

If this relatively often expressed belief is wrong, I think that warrants an explanation. But instead all you do is tell me to "go study." At the very least give me a hyperlink so I can see where you are coming from.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 03:05

Religion is an important issue to understand
Religion is important to understand, for how else can you fight against it. I am well versed in theological matters, and I use this knowledge to combat religious beliefs.

If your mind is not free from irrational and non-rational beliefs, you're going to have a problem being a revolutionary. Free your mind before you free the world. Give up the invisible unicorns, and admit there are no interplanetary teapots.

Pretty Flaco

10th May 2011, 03:51

As far as I know, the largest factor in the spread of Islam was trade, other than directly in the Middle East which had wars between sunnis, shiites, and the original bedouin religions until the until the region became stable.

correct me if I'm a bit off though.

ComradeMan

10th May 2011, 08:41

GallowsBird

10th May 2011, 09:59

Well I have never had any respect for Dawkins, like my brother El Chuncho, I don't regard "Cultural Christianity" as a valid cause for an Atheist and I do not see the belief in the existence of a god or gods as the main problem with religion, but rather the structure of many organised religions (though I am not saying that there shouldn't be priests, just not in the same way as now) and the dogma. For instance with Judeo-Christianity the main problem is not that they believe in a supernatural being (I don't see how that really matters except to ultra-dogmatic Atheists) but more some of the ideology that goes with it (such as stoning rape victims, suppression of "witches", homophobia et cetera). Dawkins is a reactionary pseudoscientist and I have never seen the attraction of him or his books (which I have read).

Incidentally I prefer Islam out of the Judeo-Christian faiths even if I don't support any of them. I however do acknowledge that they can exist on a personal level. I agree with the USSR's policies on religion personally... though I can accept that many would disagree with them.

hatzel

10th May 2011, 11:09

I am well versed in theological matters

I look forward to learning from you, then :)

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 12:07

If this relatively often expressed belief is wrong, I think that warrants an explanation. But instead all you do is tell me to "go study." At the very least give me a hyperlink so I can see where you are coming from.

I am not currently able to post links on this forum. But, in any case, I have already suggested some reading material. The Hodgson texts can be found online at library[dot]nu. You might have to get Rodinson from a library.

ComradeMan

10th May 2011, 12:11

Religion is important to understand, for how else can you fight against it. I am well versed in theological matters, and I use this knowledge to combat religious beliefs.

If your mind is not free from irrational and non-rational beliefs, you're going to have a problem being a revolutionary. Free your mind before you free the world. Give up the invisible unicorns, and admit there are no interplanetary teapots.

Who exactly believes in unicorns and interplanetary teapots?

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 12:17

And in the red corner I have some smart asses from Europe and America with their "oh-so-modern" avant garde thinking.... and in the blue corner..... I have.... the entire Islamic World.....

Fair fight boys, no low punches....

:laugh:

I'm not sure I quite understand the thrust of your joke, but I would like to point out that there is certainly no division to be made between the modernism of "Europe and America" and "the entire Islamic world." There is one modernity, and we all live in it. And, more importantly for the current discussion, many people living in the so-called Islamic world have made their own contributions to the materialist study of religion and social change. This is one of the many problems of people like Dawkins who want to reify religion into an ahistorical category. Just 40 years ago the revolutionary left was a major force in the Middle East and North Africa. The idea that Islam is just some "Medieval" ideology completely ignores the actual historical development of the religion, particularly in relationship to capitalism, and the unique historical phenomenon that is modern fundamentalism.

ComradeMan

10th May 2011, 12:38

I'm not sure I quite understand the thrust of your joke, but I would like to point out that there is certainly no division to be made between the modernism of "Europe and America" and "the entire Islamic world." There is one modernity, and we all live in it. And, more importantly for the current discussion, many people living in the so-called Islamic world have made their own contributions to the materialist study of religion and social change. This is one of the many problems of people like Dawkins who want to reify religion into an ahistorical category. Just 40 years ago the revolutionary left was a major force in the Middle East and North Africa. The idea that Islam is just some "Medieval" ideology completely ignores the actual historical development of the religion, particularly in relationship to capitalism, and the unique historical phenomenon that is modern fundamentalism.

By Islamic World- I mean the world of Islam- acknowledging the historical contribution of Islam to the world as well. I am not referring to the Middle-East or North Africa etc- as that would be ashistorical and ignore the fact that Islam is also "historical" in Europe as elsewhere.

By bunch of smart asses in Europe and America- I am referring to this new breed of trendy militant atheist types, who don't seem to be very leftist when you scratch under the surface.

I do feel however that it is ironic that whilst some constantly deride and mock Judaism and Christianity making all sorts of claims about the inherent stupidity or evil of the said religions when it comes to Islam- which without doubt has just as much reactionary baggage- all of a sudden things change.

I disagree with your assertion about their being "one modernity" in which we all live:-
a) it's so vague as to be rather unintelligible
b) if it is what I think is meant, then I think it's groundless given the myriad of different situations, cultures and outlooks in the world.

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 13:01

a) it's so vague as to be rather unintelligible
b) if it is what I think is meant, then I think it's groundless given the myriad of different situations, cultures and outlooks in the world.

I don't think it's particularly vague. We live in a world of thoroughly globalized capitalism. Aside from perhaps some remote tribal cultures, there is no 'outside' to capitalism. Different nations obviously have different social and cultural histories, but these have all now been irrevocably shaped first by imperialism and colonialism and subsequently by global capitalism. This is modernity and we all live in it. This doesn't mean everything is the same everywhere (heck, that's not even true within a single city), but the material relations of production of capitalism are now basically universal. (For a more nuanced account, see for example History after the three worlds: post-Eurocentric historiographies, edited by Dirlik, Bahl, and Gran.)

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 13:27

Who exactly believes in unicorns and interplanetary teapots?

Everyone who believes in God.

The invisible unicorn is an example of the attributes of God, and their unprovability. It is an atheist goddess. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The interplanetary teapots was a proof put forth by Bertrand Russell (I assume you have heard of him) arguing the same point.

The invisible pink unicorn is invisible, intangible, inaudible, has no smell, and can not be tasted. But it is in the room with you. Prove that it is not. And don't worry about "how can it be invisible AND pink" because the unicorn moves in mysterious ways.

You can look up both the IPU and Russell's Teapot on Wikipedia. I can't post the link because I don't have 25 posts yet (a lame rule).

manic expression

10th May 2011, 13:43

Wow, it appears many "militant atheists" know as little about religious history as they do about militancy. Islam's expansion was extremely complicated because it was both tolerant and intolerant of other religions at different points. For instance, the Patriarch of Jerusalem welcomed the Muslims with open arms, as they were far less interested in causing problems for Christians there than the Byzantine orthodoxy was. There are also instances of Muslim rulers actually trying to discourage Persians from converting to Islam, since the tax on non-believers was an important source of funds. There's also the matter of the Seljuks first suppressing Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land, and then very quickly realizing that Jerusalem only makes money with pilgrims going in and out and thus becoming quite tolerant of pilgrims (just before having to fight a few groups of armed pilgrims known as the Crusades). Time and again, we see that these various attitudes toward other religions are always drawn from political considerations as much as they are from religious motivations.

And yet Dawkins and his merry band have decided that Islam is intrinsically "an unmitigated evil" (a nice, juicy fundamentalist piece of rhetoric, that), even as Uganda deals with the after effects of the Lord's Resistance Army, a shining example of Dawkins' supposed preference for Africa. What a bunch of ornery fools.

manic expression

10th May 2011, 13:51

Everyone who believes in God.

The invisible unicorn is an example of the attributes of God, and their unprovability. It is an atheist goddess. Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The interplanetary teapots was a proof put forth by Bertrand Russell (I assume you have heard of him) arguing the same point.

The invisible pink unicorn is invisible, intangible, inaudible, has no smell, and can not be tasted. But it is in the room with you. Prove that it is not. And don't worry about "how can it be invisible AND pink" because the unicorn moves in mysterious ways.

You can look up both the IPU and Russell's Teapot on Wikipedia. I can't post the link because I don't have 25 posts yet (a lame rule).
Forget the unicorn, I can prove that the Kaaba is there. Muslims seem to care about it. As far as this discussion goes, that's what actually matters, not the useless sectarianism you're itching to engage in.

But more importantly, the most ridiculous thing about this line of logic is that the "militant atheist" position now says that one belief is fundamentally worse than another. Islam is bad and Christianity is less bad, so let's consider supporting Christian missionaries in Africa (!), goes the reasoning. Even if we accept the atheist line, it's still an absurd proposition being made by Dawkins.

So now tell me, and be honest, are you going to support the Pink Unicornists over the Teapotists because western imperialism tells you that the Teapotists are "evil"?

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 15:11

But more importantly, the most ridiculous thing about this line of logic is that the "militant atheist" position now says that one belief is fundamentally worse than another. Islam is bad and Christianity is less bad, so let's consider supporting Christian missionaries in Africa (!), goes the reasoning. Even if we accept the atheist line, it's still an absurd proposition being made by Dawkins.

It is not a matter of comparing badness or evil, it is comparing the strength of enemies. Islam is a stronger enemy than Christianity. In a war (and revolutionaries should be at war with religion), when you have multiple enemies and multiple fronts, you have to make tactical decisions as to where you deploy your resources and forces. Consider World War II, where Hitler had to fight on two fronts.

So now tell me, and be honest, are you going to support the Pink Unicornists over the Teapotists because western imperialism tells you that the Teapotists are "evil"?Well the teapots are easier to disprove than the unicorn, so it would be wise to focus efforts against the unicorn and save the teapot for later.

hatzel

10th May 2011, 15:14

Well the teapots are easier to disprove than the unicorn, so it would be wise to focus efforts against the unicorn and save the teapot for later.

Why? :confused: That sounds counter-intuitive to me...

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 15:15

Why? :confused: That sounds counter-intuitive to me...

I don't see why it should be. Teapots rely on mad-made objects being put into orbit. Invisible Pink Unicorns rely on the supernatural, a much more difficult opponent.

manic expression

10th May 2011, 15:18

It is not a matter of comparing badness or evil, it is comparing the strength of enemies. Islam is a stronger enemy than Christianity. In a war (and revolutionaries should be at war with religion), when you have multiple enemies and multiple fronts, you have to make tactical decisions as to where you deploy your resources and forces. Consider World War II, where Hitler had to fight on two fronts.
Hmmm, interesting you'd compare your position to Hitler's.

But more to the point, neither Christianity nor Islam is an enemy of progress. The capitalist class is. I needn't remind you that outspoken atheists, too, are dedicated enemies of the working-class movement. It comes down not to religion but to politics, as it always has. "Militant atheists", in their blind and obsessive hatred, are incapable of recognizing this fact. So while visions of a religious type of WWII dance in your head, you ignore what actually happened in WWII...along with the rest of history.

Well the teapots are easier to disprove than the unicorn, so it would be wise to focus efforts against the unicorn and save the teapot for later.Just as I thought. You care not for the LRA torturing children in Uganda, but only for what you can "disprove" (even though you already admitted that you can't disprove the propositions of religion).

hatzel

10th May 2011, 15:19

I don't see why it should be. Teapots rely on mad-made objects being put into orbit. Invisible Pink Unicorns rely on the supernatural, a much more difficult opponent.

I didn't mean that. I meant why you'd think it would be better to approach the unicorn before the teapot. If I had two stains in my carpet, one jam and one wine, I'd probably go for the jam first, so as to reduce the total number of stains to 1, rather than slaving on with 2 stains until I get the wine stain out. At the moment, you appear to be trying to justify why people should really hate Islam, as a more difficult opponent. Not because of bigotry, which is probably the real reason.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 15:27

In war, the stronger enemy has to be fought first. The weaker enemy can do less damage, make less progress. If you target the weaker enemy, the stronger enemy takes more ground. But they are both still enemies, to be given no quarter or sympathy.

hatzel

10th May 2011, 15:30

In war

And how about in real life, Lieutenant Lurker?

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 15:33

If I had two stains in my carpet, one jam and one wine, I'd probably go for the jam first, so as to reduce the total number of stains to 1, rather than slaving on with 2 stains until I get the wine stain out.

Really bad analogy. First, wine, even red, is easy to get out using chemicals, either hydrogen peroxide or Oxyclean. Jam on the other hand is a sticky sugary substance that is going to be a ***** to clean up.

And even putting that aside, by dealing with the wine SECOND, you give the stain more time to set it.

Just some revolutionary house keeping tips.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 15:36

And how about in real life, Lieutenant Lurker?
We are at war, a war of ideas. Naqoyqatsi - Life as War.

By the way, I'm a Colonel ;)

hatzel

10th May 2011, 16:19

Okay, so what's your tactic for the first offensive, Colonel? What's the first battle of this war, and how should it best be waged? Remember, colonel, you're in charge of...I dunno...the whole world or something. What's the first step in the war against Islam?

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 16:38

Revolution starts with U

10th May 2011, 16:55

manic expression

10th May 2011, 16:55

pluckedflowers

10th May 2011, 17:15

The next person that says "militant atheist" is getting kicked in the balls! You're just trying to muddy the waters with that, and it's a well known fallacy. But of course, so is God...so I wouldn't expect much else. (I can do it too, see?)

I agree, Dawkins and his ilk are not by any measure militant. How about tepid, counter-revolutionary atheists? That would suit Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris quite well.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 18:36

Blah blah chauvinistic blather blah blah.
Very intelligent response. What I proposed were positive steps that could be instituted. But you just waft them aside like a sultan dismissing unwanted grapes, instead of engaging the ideas intelligently.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 18:39

But more to the point, neither Christianity nor Islam is an enemy of progress. The capitalist class is. I needn't remind you that outspoken atheists, too, are dedicated enemies of the working-class movement. It comes down not to religion but to politics, as it always has.

Religion, especially organized religion, is an enemy of progress. They enslave minds and convince the populous NOT to take action, that the system is perfect the way it is, that you should acquiesce to authority.

If you can't see that as counter-revolutionary, you are blind and vision-less.

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 19:10

Religion, especially organized religion, is an enemy of progress. They enslave minds and convince the populous NOT to take action, that the system is perfect the way it is, that you should acquiesce to authority.

If you can't see that as counter-revolutionary, you are blind and vision-less.

fun fact: there were a ton of religious mystics who believed insane religious shit who were a part of the bolshevik revolution

fun fact 2: liberation theology exists

fun fact 3: you're an idiot if you think atheism is a necessary precondition to socialism.

hatzel

10th May 2011, 20:09

fun fact 2: liberation theology exists

That reminds me! I remember there was once somebody in here being all super aggressive 'all religion is fucking crazy reactionary counter-revolutionary scumbaggy etc. etc.!' kind of guy, even though his avatar was something to do with the Zapatistas. I was just like '...ah...yeeeeeah...:rolleyes:'

ComradeMan

10th May 2011, 20:18

Shut down radical madrasahs.
Sanction and embargo theocracies.
Sanction and embargo Muslim monarchies (we are the champions of democracy, aren't we?)
Enforce hate speech laws against radical preachers, both Muslim and Christian.
Engage in military action against Muslim militias.
1- Who decides what's radical- plus we have International Law that is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion and expression.
2- Well you are going to have to close down the Vatican, and quite frankly my money is not on you in this one.
3- What about European monarchies? :crying: American plutonomies? Communist dictatorships? :crying: Hell- why doesn't everyone just take (non-existent) moral highground and sanction and embargo everyone else.
4- It's already done.
5- Err.... it's already done to a large extent? Do you read the news?

& 6- I hope I am wrong, but you sound like a bigot.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 20:38

fun fact: there were a ton of religious mystics who believed insane religious shit who were a part of the bolshevik revolution

False. The majority would have been Orthodox, hardly "mystics who believed insane religious shit"

fun fact 2: liberation theology exists

Liberation theology, which I was once very fond of, is crushed. The bishops and cardinals that preached it were transferred to conservative reactionary countries. They were disappeared. In the countries that could be revolutionary, they were replaced with hard core orthodox clergy.

fun fact 3: you're an idiot if you think atheism is a necessary precondition to socialism.

Atheism IS a precondition to freedom. And one can not be a SCIENTIFIC Socialist if you rely on the supernatural for your decision making.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 20:49

1- Who decides what's radical- plus we have International Law that is supposed to guarantee freedom of religion and expression.

Simple, any madrasahs which teaches violent jihad is shut down. Any Christian church in the USA that teaches the violent institution of a domestic theocracy is shut down.

2- Well you are going to have to close down the Vatican, and quite frankly my money is not on you in this one.I am all in favor of cutting off relation with the Vatican for all of their past sins, but better to sue the crap out of them and get all that artwork and all those rare books. The Vatican also is not a theocracy because every citizen is part of the government. It's just one big monastery.

3- What about European monarchies? :crying: American plutonomies? Communist dictatorships? :crying: Hell- why doesn't everyone just take (non-existent) moral highground and sanction and embargo everyone else.The European monarchies should be shut down. American plutocracies (I think that's the word you meant) are unfortunately hydras that can not be attacked at the heads. And there is only one Communist dictatorship and frankly that does need to be overthrown as well. You chose poor bed mates, I mean examples.

4- It's already done.Hate speech laws don't really exist in the United States. Europe, yes, the US, no.

5- Err.... it's already done to a large extent? Do you read the news?

Not in Africa.

& 6- I hope I am wrong, but you sound like a bigot.I treat all religions equally in the final objective. The tactics may differ for each. For example, I think most Christians could be converted to Humanists and thus their religion could be evaporated.

P.S. On one board they think I'm a leftist extremist. On another board they think I'm an informant. On a third, they think I'm right wing on two issues. Now on a fourth I am called a bigot. What a varied life I lead.

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 20:56

False. The majority would have been Orthodox, hardly "mystics who believed insane religious shit"

Orthodoxy is insane religious shit.

Liberation theology, which I was once very fond of, is crushed. The bishops and cardinals that preached it were transferred to conservative reactionary countries. They were disappeared. In the countries that could be revolutionary, they were replaced with hard core orthodox clergy.

Neat. None of this means that liberation theology wasn't progressive, though.

Atheism IS a precondition to freedom. And one can not be a SCIENTIFIC Socialist if you rely on the supernatural for your decision making.

People can be religious and not rely on the supernatural for their decision making.

And people can be plenty free with religion. Organized religion, not so much, but I don't see how freedom and going out and praying to rocks in a dress on the solstice are at odds with another.

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 20:57

Not in Africa.So do you support the US or NATO or someone carrying out a military campaign in africa to get rid of islam?

P.S. On one board they think I'm a leftist extremist. On another board they think I'm an informant. On a third, they think I'm right wing on two issues. Now on a fourth I am called a bigot. What a varied life I lead.

Big picture - everyone thinks you're a fucking moron.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 20:59

So do you support the US or NATO or someone carrying out a military campaign in africa to get rid of islam?

I support UN/US/NATO/AU military action to destroy all militias of religious, sectarian, ethnic, and racial varieties.

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 21:02

I support UN/US/NATO/AU military action to destroy all militias of religious, sectarian, ethnic, and racial varieties.

lol man you are dumber than I could have ever expected.

"I SUPPORT IMPERALIZM CUZ RELIGJN BAD'

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 21:14

Orthodoxy is insane religious shit.
A. It is not mystic.
B. It is not insane shit. Maybe you haven't been exposed to enough religions. The Orthodox Church is pretty predictable.

Neat. None of this means that liberation theology wasn't progressive, though.Yeah, so was Che. But he's dead. Liberation Theology is dead.

People can be religious and not rely on the supernatural for their decision making.

And people can be plenty free with religion. Organized religion, not so much, but I don't see how freedom and going out and praying to rocks in a dress on the solstice are at odds with another.The mind is not free when it believes in the imaginary. Thinking that absurd actions are going to have some real world effect is insanity. Special places, special words, this is irrational thought. And that is not freedom, that is slavery to a defective mind.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 21:15

lol man you are dumber than I could have ever expected.

"I SUPPORT IMPERALIZM CUZ RELIGJN BAD'

And you would rather sit back and enjoy them slaughtering?

In a post revolutionary world there would still be need for occasional military intervention. Military is military, whether UN/US/NATO/EU/AU or a volunteer civilian force.

hatzel

10th May 2011, 21:16

slavery to a defective mind.

Well, I guess you're the expert :)

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 21:22

And you would rather sit back and enjoy them slaughtering?

Hey, you're down with slaughter yourself, aren't you? Just sounds like you prefer if the slaughter's being done by white christians.

So, that's all it'd be about then? Religion's a good enough reason to let imperialist interests and the IMF and the World Bank descend upon Africa, do their thing, re-colonize, get rid of the AMF, and plunder the continent again?

You're stupid. Sorry.

Yeah, so was Che. But he's dead. Liberation Theology is dead.That's not the point. The point is that liebration theology is somehow both religious, and progressive. That means your entire idea of religion being completely 100% reactionary is false.

The mind is not free when it believes in the imaginary. Thinking that absurd actions are going to have some real world effect is insanity. Special places, special words, this is irrational thought. And that is not freedom, that is slavery to a defective mind. So stamping out this sort of "slavery" justifies imperialist tyranny?

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 21:22

Well, I guess you're the expert :)

I am. I wasn't born an atheist. I had to grow into one, and had lots of growing pains, putting my faith in several religions. I know what freedom atheism brings.

manic expression

10th May 2011, 21:23

Very intelligent response. What I proposed were positive steps that could be instituted. But you just waft them aside like a sultan dismissing unwanted grapes, instead of engaging the ideas intelligently.
It was the response that your pathetic post merited. You idiotically say that religious schools be closed, that "Muslim militias" (whatever that's supposed to mean) should be attacked...and yet you fail to mention who would carry this out. Apparently, you think taking notes from George Bush's wish list is progressive.

I also like how you associate Islamic institutions with a lack of intelligence. Thanks for confirming to all of us that you're a chauvinist at heart.

Religion, especially organized religion, is an enemy of progress. They enslave minds and convince the populous NOT to take action, that the system is perfect the way it is, that you should acquiesce to authority.

If you can't see that as counter-revolutionary, you are blind and vision-less.
TV enslaves minds and tries to convince people not to take action. Are you about to propose the abolition of TV? No, probably not, because your mindset isn't based on what matters to the workers but your own obsessive hatred for all things religious.

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 21:23

i am. I wasn't born an atheist. I had to grow into one, and had lots of growing pains, putting my faith in several religions. I know what freedom atheism brings.

"and it's worth the tyranny of imperialism. Believe me, i'm the expert"

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 21:27

Hey, you're down with slaughter yourself, aren't you? Just sounds like you prefer if the slaughter's being done by white Christians.
The AU is made up of white Christians? The UN? Interesting theories you have.

You're stupid. Sorry.
Ad hominem is a sign of weakness.

That's not the point. The point is that liebration theology is somehow both religious, and progressive. That means your entire idea of religion being completely 100% reactionary is false.
Have you even read the works of liberation theology? Try "Revolution Through Peace". It's a good read, but as progressive as it is in some areas, it is reactionary in far more.

So stamping out this sort of "slavery" justifies imperialist action, which is effectively slavery as well.

Religion is of the mind, and it is stamped out with weapons of the mind. Education. Education with no sympathy, no political correctness.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 21:28

I'm off to an anarchist collective. I'll be back in a few hours to resume arguing.

#FF0000

10th May 2011, 21:28

The AU is made up of white Christians? The UN? Interesting theories you have.The US? NATO? Hm!

Ad hominem is a sign of weakness.You literally said you would support military action in Africa to stamp out religion.

I'm off to an anarchist collective. I'll be back in a few hours to resume arguing.

Tell them what you think about military action in Africa. I'm sure that'll be a hit.

Inquisitive Lurker

10th May 2011, 21:29

You literally said you would support military action in Africa to stamp out religion.

You deliberately misquote. I said I supported military action to wipe out MILITIAS of ALL varieties.

Now I really have to go.

hatzel

10th May 2011, 21:37

I said I supported military action to wipe out MILITIAS of ALL varieties.

...that is to say, step five on your 'how to abolish Islam' strategy...

ComradeMan

10th May 2011, 21:46

You deliberately misquote. I said I supported military action to wipe out MILITIAS of ALL varieties.

Now I really have to go.

So once they had wiped out the militias they would have to wipe themselves out- as technically they are also militias.

Latin- miles - a soldier. :rolleyes:

ComradeMan

10th May 2011, 22:03

Simple, any madrasahs which teaches violent jihad is shut down. Any Christian church in the USA that teaches the violent institution of a domestic theocracy is shut down..

They already are monitored and censored. But who is going to shut them down? The violent capitalists? :rolleyes:

I am all in favor of cutting off relation with the Vatican for all of their past sins, but better to sue the crap out of them and get all that artwork and all those rare books. The Vatican also is not a theocracy because every citizen is part of the government. It's just one big monastery...

And billions of Catholics worldwide will be won over to the left.....

I suppose we better cut off a lot of states for their past sins....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracies#Holy_See_.28Vatican_City.29

Okay- ecclesiocracy which is anyway a form of theocratic government. In the Vatican's case the Vatican Law is based on Canon Law.

The European monarchies should be shut down. ...

American plutocracies (I think that's the word you meant) are unfortunately hydras that can not be attacked at the heads.

No, I meant plutonomy- as in

"Economic growth that is powered and consumed by the wealthiest upper class of society. Plutonomy refers to a society where the majority of the wealth is controlled by an ever-shrinking minority; as such, the economic growth of that society becomes dependent on the fortunes of that same wealthy minority. "
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/plutonomy.asp

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/PLUTONOMY

http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2010/08/09/plutonomy/

Ooops..... :blushing:

And there is only one Communist dictatorship and frankly that does need to be overthrown as well. You chose poor bed mates, I mean examples.

Who is going to do all of this overthrowing?

Hate speech laws don't really exist in the United States. Europe, yes, the US, no..

So we were we talking about the world? Or the USA? :rolleyes:

This guy is basically at war with the entire fucking universe.
:lol:

hatzel

10th May 2011, 22:08

This guy is basically at war with the entire fucking universe.
:lol:

Sounds like a Trot to me...

ComradeMan

10th May 2011, 22:20

Sounds like a Trot to me...

I was thinking more along the lines of a Jedi- but then I don't suppose a militant atheist would approve of Jedis- a bunch of mystic-spiritual militias! :lol:

#FF0000

11th May 2011, 01:53

I was thinking more along the lines of a Jedi- but then I don't suppose a militant atheist would approve of Jedis- a bunch of mystic-spiritual militias! :lol:

I wonder what Lurker thinks about taking military action against the younglings.

GPDP

11th May 2011, 01:59

I wonder what Lurker thinks about taking military action against the younglings.

As long as it's this particular youngling...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_4AyKFyk2cxo/TSyDFD4MsqI/AAAAAAAAAFE/EdNdYBTma2Q/s1600/Now_this_is_podracing.jpg

Then I have no objections.

CommunityBeliever

11th May 2011, 03:29

I don't suppose a militant atheist would approve of Jedis

The vast majority of Jedi's are just trying to practice their religion in peace. It is only a minority of Jedis - the Jedi fundamentalists - who go around blowing up space stations.

Ocean Seal

11th May 2011, 23:43

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 14:41

They already are monitored and censored. But who is going to shut them down? The violent capitalists?

1. They are not shut down in the United States. Consider the Universal Church of the Creator.
2. You use what tools you have at your disposal. We can't wait until after the revolution to take action.

And billions of Catholics worldwide will be won over to the left.....
Billion, not billions. 1.177

Who is going to do all of this overthrowing?
The people of course, once armed.

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 14:46

Sanction, embargo, military action... I feel as if I've heard people say those words before. And they would say them for an equally stupid reason. Ahh, I remember now. They were called imperialists who said that they were trying to spread capitalism and democracy.

As I've said before, you use what tools you have at your disposal. We don't live in a post-revolutionary society and are at least 50 years off with the most insanely optimistically estimates. Sanctions and embargoes and targeted military actions are tools we have now to attack and weaken the enemy. Anything that replaces it will likely be less of an obstacle to the revolution.

manic expression

12th May 2011, 15:59

Sanctions and embargoes and targeted military actions are tools we have now to attack and weaken the enemy. Anything that replaces it will likely be less of an obstacle to the revolution.
There you have it. Inquisitive Lurker thinks that imperialism is a friend and that people who attend mosques and churches are "the enemy". Silly, irrational reactionary garbage.

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 16:09

There you have it. Inquisitive Lurker thinks that imperialism is a friend.

If your car gets stolen, are you going to call the police? Or are you just going to take it in the gut because you don't want to use a tool that belongs to an authority you don't agree with.

You use what tool you have. It's called realism.

bcbm

12th May 2011, 16:54

so imperialism is okay if it is done in the name of an anti-religious crusade?

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 17:12

What I suggested was using intentional (multiethnic multiracial multireligious) forces to eliminate sectarian, ethnic, racial, AND religious militias of all varieties, which are running free and slaughtering innocents.

Since there is no change in governments, there is no change in imperialism.

In a post-revolutionary society, when groups like these pop up, military forces will be gathered and the militias will be eliminated. But we don't live in post-revolutionary times.

Should we shut down water treatment because it is being run either by private industry or imperial governments? Some things need to be done, and who does it is less important than that it gets done.

Franz Fanonipants

12th May 2011, 17:17

restrict inquisitive lurker for imperialist tendencies and defending capitalism

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 17:21

restrict inquisitive lurker for imperialist tendencies and defending capitalism

Ending genocide is an imperialist tendency? And I haven't even posted on capitalism.

hatzel

12th May 2011, 18:26

I haven't even posted on capitalism.

That's strange, as this is an anti-capitalist forum. Most revolutionary leftists would surely post about it...

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 18:30

My specialty topic, for the moment, is religion. All my posts have been in this forum.

When I get bored I'll pick another one. But that won't be for some time, religion is just so much fun!

manic expression

12th May 2011, 18:32

If your car gets stolen, are you going to call the police? Or are you just going to take it in the gut because you don't want to use a tool that belongs to an authority you don't agree with.

You use what tool you have. It's called realism.
Bombing Muslim countries because of their religion =/= calling cops when your car is stolen

Write that on the board 500 times. Thanks.

What I suggested was using intentional (multiethnic multiracial multireligious) forces to eliminate sectarian, ethnic, racial, AND religious militias of all varieties, which are running free and slaughtering innocents.
Again, you haven't told us who is going to do this. Saying "multiethnic multiracial multireligious" means absolutely nothing. The US Marines fit all of those descriptions, and since you're not an anti-capitalist, you need me to tell you that the US military is slaughtering innocents...at a far higher rate than anyone else.

Pop quiz: which religious-driven militias slaughtered innocents in 1980's Lebanon? The ones backed by Inquisitive Lurker's friend, imperialism. Once again, the anti-religious camp knows nothing about history or society or, well, anything.

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 18:36

Again, you haven't told us who is going to do this. Saying "multiethnic multiracial multireligious" means absolutely nothing.

I've said several time, US/UN/EU/AU. Would you be happy if it was just the AU?

And as I've said several times, I advocate targeting ALL militias.

El Chuncho

12th May 2011, 18:51

Tell me, where do you hear a Christian talking like this?

-BCOeh9FsOM

We all know that all Christians are peace loving people...

Vt16t2pr4NA

8hZEunqnPY4

uGQzS7RA9zU

_hBwiaSlBWw

BLuH6bFJHb0

manic expression

12th May 2011, 18:57

I've said several time, US/UN/EU/AU. Would you be happy if it was just the AU?

And as I've said several times, I advocate targeting ALL militias.
:lol: An out-and-out imperialist hack. You want the US to bomb Muslims and anyone else because they have the nerve to fight against the oppression of their people. :laugh: What a chauvinist. You care nothing for the well-being of anyone, you just have an obsessive hatred for religion.

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 19:02

No, I want a ground offensive against militias that are going village to village slaughtering people. You would stand up for these murderers?

hatzel

12th May 2011, 19:11

My specialty topic, for the moment, is religion.

Some would (I'm sure you've already noticed) question whether you have shown anything like the understanding necessary for you to claim that religion is your 'specialty topic'...if it is, though, I don't even want to know what kind of stuff you'd have to say about those topics you're not so expert in, really, I don't...

Anyway, if you're a revolutionary leftist, as you claim...why don't you tell us about your politics? I mean, those which don't involve supporting imperialism. There's a political survey back there in the OI forum which I heartily suggest you fill in asap :)

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 19:15

I'm an anarchist who think that we'll probably have to have Revolutionary Socialism as a stepping stone before dismantling the state, at least in my country.

manic expression

12th May 2011, 19:30

No, I want a ground offensive against militias that are going village to village slaughtering people. You would stand up for these murderers?
Your imperialist buddies are the ones going village to village slaughtering people. Read a history book.

hatzel

12th May 2011, 19:36

I'm an anarchist

I really don't get that feeling from you, sorry. I suggest you hit the learning forum for a little while, brush up on those ideas...

we'll probably have to have Revolutionary Socialism as a stepping stone before dismantling the state, at least in my country.Yeah, definitely not an anarchist. Have you ever consider Marxism-Leninism?

EDIT: I mean, I acknowledge there are all different types of anarchists, and that I have, in my time, been accused of deviating from the line a bit (I would argue more through being misunderstood than anything else), but there is nothing remotely anarchistic about calling for the US and EU to go killing a bunch of Africans...

Nothing. Remotely. Anarchistic.

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 20:02

Nothing. Remotely. Anarchistic.
Everything. Functionally. Practical.

We have to make decisions for the world we live in, not the world we would want to live in. The 5000 members of RevLeft are not available to take up arms, fly to Africa, and start knocking off marauding militias who are slaughtering innocent people.

Edit: Although if your up for it, PM me and we can start arranging weapons and transport.

hatzel

12th May 2011, 20:06

We have to make decisions for the world we live in

Of course, but if those decisions are 'hey, let's call for the US and EU and UN to scurry off to Africa and the like and start killing people, hurray!', then it's not an anarchist position. Sorry.

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 20:26

hatzel

12th May 2011, 20:33

No.

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 20:48

No.

So you are happy with the situation as it is, with Christian, Muslim, Tribal, Racial, Sectarian militias marauding across the land wiping out villages.

No intervention is required.

Until we raise a leftist militia to do the job so you can sleep well?

Buy a rifle and start practicing.

manic expression

12th May 2011, 21:10

I noticed you deliberately left out the AU, even though I mentioned them every time. If it were just them (I asked this of someone else but they dodged the question), if it were just the AU engaging in the ground offensive, would you then sleep better at night?
:laugh: This, coming from the one who keeps saying he's "realistic"!

No, in the real world, the US/NATO and their allies are going to be doing most of the killing. Read a book.

So you are happy with the situation as it is, with Christian, Muslim, Tribal, Racial, Sectarian militias marauding across the land wiping out villages.

No intervention is required.
In just about every example, those situations are a result of imperialist intervention and influence. Not religion. Read a book. :laugh:

Inquisitive Lurker

12th May 2011, 21:18

Were the militias in Sudan Religious and Ethnic, or were they post-colonial hangovers?

hatzel

12th May 2011, 21:24

Were the militias in Sudan Religious and Ethnic, or were they post-colonial hangovers?

Do you mean that conflict between sedentary farmers and nomadic herders over access to the land and water necessary for survival? :confused:

manic expression

12th May 2011, 21:32

Were the militias in Sudan Religious and Ethnic, or were they post-colonial hangovers?
Militias in Sudan? That's like asking me about tea in Asia. You'll have to be a bit more specific. But in general, those militias have been the result of political and economic developments far more than anything else. It's a complicated string of conflicts, with the Sudanese government having agreed to a peace deal with the rebels in the south, and peace talks (and agreements) with rebels in the west. Furthermore, imperialism is most certainly involved, and anyone who's paid attention to the region for the past five years can readily confirm this. Above all, however, anyone who says that a US/NATO/EU/AU(:lol:)/etc invasion would help is utterly insane and doesn't grasp the real issue.

In all, you've given us absolutely no indication that you have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Franz Fanonipants

13th May 2011, 00:43

Ending genocide is an imperialist tendency? And I haven't even posted on capitalism.

"ending" "genocide" is pretty much the very nature of imperialist wars of late. so basically, yes?

hey bro why don't you get off the board and find some market solutions for mass-murder.

CommunityBeliever

13th May 2011, 06:47

We all know that all Christians are peace loving people...I got a bit caught up with the amputations issue. I just find it sickening that the Muslim religion and the Quran explicitly support amputating people's limbs. I mean imagine if you had to live without arms, or ride around in a wheel chair because your legs were cut off. No one should have to live like that. Furthermore:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

As for Christianity, it is a religious delusion that as you demonstrated often has a violent component. Like all other delusions, it should ultimately be abolished.

However, the fact remains that there are about a dozen Muslim theocracies in the world that abide by the barbaric Sharia laws well there are no significant Christian theocracies. For this reason alone what Richard Dawkins said was totally justified.

#FF0000

13th May 2011, 06:50

Quran explicitly support amputating people's limbs

uhhh are you sure about this one?

CommunityBeliever

13th May 2011, 06:55

uhhh are you sure about this one?

Yes it is a punishment for thievery and by thievery I don't mean the kind the capitalists do everyday.

"As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah" - the Quran

pluckedflowers

13th May 2011, 06:55

However, the fact remains that there are about a dozen Muslim theocracies in the world that abide by the barbaric Sharia laws well there are no significant Christian theocracies. For this reason alone what Richard Dawkins said was totally justified.

Please, Oh Expert in All Things Muslim, name us these dozen theocracies. You're so concerned about them, you must know their names.

CommunityBeliever

13th May 2011, 06:57

Please, Oh Expert in All Things Muslim, name us these dozen theocracies. You're so concerned about them, you must know their names. I named them in a previous post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2105559&postcount=34).
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2105559&postcount=34)

DrStrangelove

13th May 2011, 07:08

I just find it sickening that the Muslim religion and the Quran explicitly support amputating people's limbs.

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Bible's pretty brutal too. If a Christian nation were to exist in similar conditions as most modern middle eastern and north African states, it would probably perform pretty horrible actions that are commanded in the bible.

pluckedflowers

13th May 2011, 07:08

Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Oman and Iran

Yemen: Not a theocracy

Afghanistan: Not a theocracy (at least not any more)

Pakistan: Not a theocracy

Somalia: Doesn't even have a damned functioning government, let alone a theocracy

Sudan: Not a theocracy

Saudia Arabia: A monarchy with Islamic laws as its basic constitution, fair enough

Mauritania: Not a theocracy

Oman: Arguable, but ok.

Iran: OK

So, you're batting 3 for 9. You might want to learn the meaning of words before you go throwing them around. A theocracy is not a state that happens to have some religious laws.

CommunityBeliever

13th May 2011, 07:09

Bible's pretty brutal too.I agree.

CommunityBeliever

13th May 2011, 07:10

You might want to learn the meaning of words before you go throwing them around.Feel free to call it an Islamic state if you prefer. Either way there is no freedom of religion there.

#FF0000

13th May 2011, 07:13

Yes it is a punishment for thievery and by thievery I don't mean the kind the capitalists do everyday.

"As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah" - the Quran

its a good thing literally every muslim follows that one huh

tradeunionsupporter

13th May 2011, 07:22

I agree that he is wrong on this.

CommunityBeliever

14th May 2011, 14:09

its a good thing literally every muslim follows that one huhThose people that aren't fundamentalists and that don't follow their holy book literally aren't and shouldn't be a priority. There will undoubtedly be people peacefully practicing their religion even after the collapse of capitalism.

However, the people that are fundamentalists are quite worrying as they have committed these attrocities and they may be a deterrent to class struggle.

Franz Fanonipants

14th May 2011, 15:10

there's one major deterrent to class struggle, global capital.

focusing on anything else is silly.

Inquisitive Lurker

14th May 2011, 15:14

Afghanistan: Not a theocracy (at least not any more)

Not at the moment. Don't count your chickens before their hatched. The political strategy right now seems to be bringing the Taliban into the government again.

Tim Finnegan

15th May 2011, 01:00

Those people that aren't fundamentalists and that don't follow their holy book literally aren't and shouldn't be a priority. There will undoubtedly be people peacefully practicing their religion even after the collapse of capitalism.

However, the people that are fundamentalists are quite worrying as they have committed these attrocities and they may be a deterrent to class struggle.
Just for the record, I'd like to point out that "fundamentalism" is distinct from "literalism", that "literalist" readings are very rarely unquestioningly literal, and that neither fundamentalism nor literalism are what distinguish militant Islamism from more peaceful forms. There is no one "fundamentalist" movement in Islam as there is in protestant Christianity, but a diverse array of movements claiming to represent "usul", the fundamentals of Islam, and they are not essentially distinguished from non-"fundamentalist" forms of Islam by either a propensity towards declared literalism (again noting the frequent falsehood of declared "literalism") or towards militancy. The idea that the "fundamentals of Islam" include a literalist reading of the Qur'an (something which not all Islamic scholars hold to be reasonably possible), let alone that this reading must be one advocating terroristic violence, is an agreement reached between Islamist militants and Western imperialists, each seeking to build the perception of a "clash of civilisations", over the heads of the vast majority of Muslims.

LOLseph Stalin

22nd May 2011, 22:54

I never liked Dawkins, considering militant atheists/anti-theists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists in my eyes. Dawkins seems to spend more time generalizing and bashing religion than he does with things that are actually constructive such as science. I thought he was a scientist. He should stick to that.

Tim Finnegan

23rd May 2011, 00:03

I never liked Dawkins, considering militant atheists/anti-theists are just as bad as religious fundamentalists in my eyes.
You should probably get your eyes checked, then. These buggers may be irritating, but they never flew a plane into a building because their Ungod told them to.

Inquisitive Lurker

23rd May 2011, 01:30

LOLseph Stalin

23rd May 2011, 03:24

Ok, I'm leaving this thread alone since I have no tolerance for anti-theist crap. ;D

Before anybody jumps to conclusions I'm not even very religious myself, considering myself agnostic.

the_red_pickle

23rd May 2011, 11:56

Maybe Gandhi should have stuck to being a lawyer.
If he did that perhaps the other revolutionaries of hindustan, such as Bhagat Singh, would have gotten the credit they deserved and the world would not be forever stuck with the false perception that Ghandi alone wa solely responsible for india's independence from British raj.

Tjis

23rd May 2011, 16:27

If he did that perhaps the other revolutionaries of hindustan, such as Bhagat Singh, would have gotten the credit they deserved and the world would not be forever stuck with the false perception that Ghandi alone wa solely responsible for india's independence from British raj.

Also, perhaps less people would have died in the various 'non-violent protests' (can we really call it non-violent if the British imprison, torture and murder those involved?).

Religion has no place in politics, and politics has no place in religion.

Tim Finnegan

23rd May 2011, 23:16

Religion has no place in politics, and politics has no place in religion.
You really believe that there's a distinct political sphere, removed from all other aspects of life? You may went to lay off the liberalism there, pal, it's bad for your health.

Inquisitive Lurker

24th May 2011, 01:16

Religion has no place in politics, and politics has no place in religion.

Let's shorten that. Religion has no place. Period.

Tjis

24th May 2011, 15:10

You really believe that there's a distinct political sphere, removed from all other aspects of life? You may went to lay off the liberalism there, pal, it's bad for your health.

Even if that's what I believe (I don't, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion since 'religion' is not quite the same as 'all aspects of life'), how is that liberalism? Or is liberalism just another slur that is thrown about out of context like 'reactionary' and 'petty-bourgeois'?

To be fair, I was wrong. there's definitely a lot of politics involved in many religious institutions, and religion finds it's way into politics all the time. What I was trying to say though is that this is a highly undesirable situation.
The underlying motive for political games is never religion, it is power. Religion is a nice way to justify actions but never a reason for the powerful to act. Whenever this happens, it should be exposed for what it is instead of blaming religion. And when a religious organization gains political power, that too should be exposed for what it is (a grab for political power by a political organization which uses religion as the means for their ascension) instead of being blamed on religion itself.

Tim Finnegan

26th May 2011, 19:11

Even if that's what I believe (I don't, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion since 'religion' is not quite the same as 'all aspects of life'), how is that liberalism? Or is liberalism just another slur that is thrown about out of context like 'reactionary' and 'petty-bourgeois'?
It's liberalism in that imagines, as I suggested, a political sphere genuinely removed from civil society; a classical aspect of bourgeois ideological mystification. It may be possible to separate the mechanical functions of government and those of religious institutions, but that's a different proposition, with different implications.

To be fair, I was wrong. there's definitely a lot of politics involved in many religious institutions, and religion finds it's way into politics all the time. What I was trying to say though is that this is a highly undesirable situation.
The underlying motive for political games is never religion, it is power. Religion is a nice way to justify actions but never a reason for the powerful to act. Whenever this happens, it should be exposed for what it is instead of blaming religion. And when a religious organization gains political power, that too should be exposed for what it is (a grab for political power by a political organization which uses religion as the means for their ascension) instead of being blamed on religion itself.
The problem here is that "a religious organisation" and "political power" are both fairly vague concepts. There's a differences, to use a provincial example, between the Church of England having a formal role in British government, and the Methodist churches of Wales and Northern England having a certain degree of influence within the trade union movement. We have to be mindful of such distinctions if we are not to simply alienate potential allies with a bombastic anti-clerical generalisations.

El Chuncho

28th May 2011, 14:50

Bible's pretty brutal too. If a Christian nation were to exist in similar conditions as most modern middle eastern and north African states, it would probably perform pretty horrible actions that are commanded in the bible.

Indeed. The old testament and the new testament are quite brutal and intolerant. The old testament has one of the most vile books, Deuteronomy, contained within it which says that victims of rape of do not cry out should be stoned, and that rape victims who do should be forced to marry their rapist. It also justifies genocide and a lot of things that some other religions and cultures found regressive even at the time. The new testament of Christianity is less extreme but it is hardly the progressive, pacifist, love-cult that many Revlefters paint it to be (whilst simultaneously attack Buddhism as less progressive :drool:). Jesus declares himself to be the only being capable of saving mankind, he declares that he does not come to bring peace but a sword (a metaphor for violence an discord), wants his followers to hate their fathers, says unbelievers will suffer everlasting torment and tells his followers to sell their cloaks to buy weapons. The Quran and the Bible have violence and intolerance contained within their pages, however, Islam has traditionally been more tolerant than Christianity. Traditional Christianity accepts no non-believers as good and worthy of salvation (universalist Christianity came later, and is a small movement), however, many strands of though in Islam have (including the prophet Mohammed telling a ''pagan'' that he is really worshiping in the same god; e.g. he will be saved).

The Bible also have more cruelty and violence than the Quran, hence:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

compared with:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Quotes:

''Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.'' - Matthew 3:12

''And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.'' - Matthew 10:21-22

''And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death'' Mark 7:9-10 Jesus's criticism of Jews not putting unruly children to death.

''And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.'' - Matthew 5:29

''For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.'' Acts: 3:22-23

''Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Romans 1: 29-32

''Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
For we commend not ourselves again unto you, but give you occasion to glory on our behalf, that ye may have somewhat to answer them which glory in appearance, and not in heart.
For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God: or whether we be sober, it is for your cause.'' - Corinthians 5: 11-13

''Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.'' Corinthians 10:9

''And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.'' - Thessalonians 1:10

''And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.'' Ephesians 5:2

''And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.'' - 2 Thessalonians 2:8

''For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

''How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?'' - Hebrews 9:13-14.

''He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.'' - Hebrews 10:28-31

''Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.'' - Hebrews 11:28-29

''For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart''. - Hebrews 12:20

''But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.'' - 2 Peter 3:10

''Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.'' - Revelation 2:16

''And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.'' - Revelation 2:23

''And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.'' - Revelation 2:26-27

''And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.'' - Revelation 20:15