Mother Teresa to become a 'saint'

[Scottish_Militant]

Wojtyla and Teresa, or a Case of Saintly Overproduction (http://www.marxist.com/Europe/wojtyla_and_teresa.html)

a funny article but makes you angry that we're still getting 'saints' in this day and age, religion is such bullshit :rolleyes:

[Al Creed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 04:00 PM
Wojtyla and Teresa, or a Case of Saintly Overproduction (http://www.marxist.com/Europe/wojtyla_and_teresa.html)

a funny article but makes you angry that we're still getting 'saints' in this day and age, religion is such bullshit :rolleyes:
I swear, Pope JP has some kind of Beatification tumbler or something, to draw names for the newest would-be Saint:S

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Yes, it&#39;s ridiculous indeed, but since when do religions progress? <_<

[Soviet power supreme]

but since when do religions progress?

Well christianity came from jewish,catholics came from early christians,protestants came from catholics,reforms came from protestants.

[Al Creed]

Thats not progression. All that is, is Christian splintering. With exception of the sacrements, it&#39;s all the same bullshit stories to scare you into "believing" and then dropping money in the collection plate.

[marxstudent]

Actually, a lot of things in the Catholic church have changed. They are way less radical than before. For example, they used to not believe in sanctification. Be ORTHODOX then haha.

[Soviet power supreme]

It isn&#39;t?Of course the basic idea cannot be changed.


Luther were against this deal that sins were forgiven with money.He found own church and leave the shit parts out of catholic church.

Ain&#39;t that progress or what?

[Zafiro]

Can make you a saint for a decent fee,...call for rates.

BtW~ I&#39;m a virgin(didn&#39;t I told you that before?? lol)

:D

[commie kg]

The Catholic Church sent Mother Teresa to India to tell them to stop using birth control.

How stupid can they really be?

[Scottish_Militant]

It wasnt holy to put a condom on, but it was ok to bring a kid into the world without enough food to feed him/her..... :rolleyes:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Trying to ban legal abortion, ban contraceptives, ban condoms, ban masturbation....
If I didn&#39;t knwo any better, I&#39;d think these damned catholics were running an illegal abortion clinic. :unsure:
:lol:
wait....

[redstar2000]

I thought it was kind of a weak article myself.

He neglected to mention Mother Theresa&#39;s overt anti-semitism (one of our own cappies posted an MT quote that could have come straight from the 3rd Reich).

Nowhere did he suggest that superstition should actually be opposed by Marxists.

Talking about a "right wing" and "left wing" of a reactionary institution is, in my view, rather pointless.

And, down towards the end of the piece, he actually endorses the Catholics who are "fighting for liberation"...an oxymoron.

I was disappointed.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Rasta Sapian]

I am no bible pusher by any means, and I also agree with RedStar, this is a poor excuse for a thread, dissrespecting mother theresa?

God Bless Mother Theresa&#33; Pope John Paul kicks Ass&#33; :P

[Scottish_Militant]

Redstar, workers regardless of their beleifs are still workers. You don&#39;t convince people by blatantly attacking them, if an honest catholic had read an article where he felt the writter was personaly attacking him he would automaticly jump to the defensive.

Of course Marxists are opposed to religion, you should read the linked article at the bottom. You are a reasonably clever person but you have no idea on how to engage people, very &#39;ultra-left&#39;

[Purple]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 06:18 PM
Can make you a saint for a decent fee,...call for rates.

BtW~ I&#39;m a virgin(didn&#39;t I told you that before?? lol)

:D
(S) aint

[redstar2000]

Redstar, workers regardless of their beliefs are still workers. You don&#39;t convince people by blatantly attacking them; if an honest catholic had read an article where he felt the writer was personally attacking him, he would automatically jump to the defensive.

Would you say the same thing about racism? Or misogyny? Or homophobia?

Don&#39;t those ideas deserve to be attacked as vigorously as possible?

If your answer is yes, then why get "mushy" about religion? What&#39;s so "special" about one more reactionary set of ideas?

Let&#39;s face reality here: all of our ideas are offensive to a lot of people right now. To suggest that we will "score points" with people by faking "public respect" for what we privately hold in contempt is not only dishonest and manipulative but, worse, doesn&#39;t work.

A genuine, communist respect for workers is shown by telling them the blunt truth as best we know it...relying on their intelligence to grasp our ideas and make them their own.

Trying to "fool" people into "supporting" us never works.


You are a reasonably clever person but you have no idea on how to engage people, very &#39;ultra-left&#39;

Yes, I am "ultra-left" and proud of it.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Al Creed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 04:04 PM

Redstar, workers regardless of their beliefs are still workers. You don&#39;t convince people by blatantly attacking them; if an honest catholic had read an article where he felt the writer was personally attacking him, he would automatically jump to the defensive.

Would you say the same thing about racism? Or misogyny? Or homophobia?

Don&#39;t those ideas deserve to be attacked as vigorously as possible?

If your answer is yes, then why get "mushy" about religion? What&#39;s so "special" about one more reactionary set of ideas?

Let&#39;s face reality here: all of our ideas are offensive to a lot of people right now. To suggest that we will "score points" with people by faking "public respect" for what we privately hold in contempt is not only dishonest and manipulative but, worse, doesn&#39;t work.

A genuine, communist respect for workers is shown by telling them the blunt truth as best we know it...relying on their intelligence to grasp our ideas and make them their own.

Trying to "fool" people into "supporting" us never works.


You are a reasonably clever person but you have no idea on how to engage people, very &#39;ultra-left&#39;

Yes, I am "ultra-left" and proud of it.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Damn, Testify&#33;

Religion, especially many, many splinters of Cristianity, Is the most reactionary of all the Right Wing aspects:

Christianity reinforces a class system of ALL living things in life, called the Great Chain of Being, and Progression is simply not allowed (A peasant cannot become a King, ect), or else "Chaos" insues.

Islam opresses those who follow the teachings of Muhammed, that all Muslims are to bow and submit to the wishes of Allah, without objection, no matter how cruel he may be.

Judaism, the oldest of, at least, the monotheistic religions, also demands complete subordinance to God, and that you must FEAR God, for he is vengeful, and that only through meekness (as in, submitting to any kind of oppression [like the Halocaust or the Inquisition or the Pograms]) will one be allowed into the "Magical Kingdom"

Hinduism? The Caste System.

Buddhism? This religion is interesting, no actual "Higher Being," as your quest in life is Enlightenment. Possessions are the cause of suffering. Yet, this belief system is selfish, as it promotes "Self Enlightenment," and not Enlightenment as a whole for a group.

To be a true, true Communist, one should shed themselves of any kind of "Religion" first

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 12:23 AM
Redstar, workers regardless of their beleifs are still workers. You don&#39;t convince people by blatantly attacking them, if an honest catholic had read an article where he felt the writter was personaly attacking him he would automaticly jump to the defensive.

Of course Marxists are opposed to religion, you should read the linked article at the bottom. You are a reasonably clever person but you have no idea on how to engage people, very &#39;ultra-left&#39;
I agree with redstar. Religion, racism, mysoginy, chauvinism, and nationalism are all tool of the bourgeoisie. People who accept these things have the interests of the capitalist class in mind.

These ideas must be revealed as what they are.

[kylie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 02:45 AM
I thought it was kind of a weak article myself.

He neglected to mention Mother Theresa&#39;s overt anti-semitism (one of our own cappies posted an MT quote that could have come straight from the 3rd Reich).

Do you have a link to this or any other examples of her being an anti-semite? I did a few searches but came up with nothing.

[redstar2000]

Unfortunately, not. One of our cappies had the quote in his sig...which, of course, the site search engine probably can&#39;t find. (And if the sig was changed, then it&#39;s gone forever.)

I just remember seeing it and thinking how typical&#33; I should have saved it.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[atlanticche]

i thought this would be a good place to post this

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 04:04 PM
Trying to "fool" people into "supporting" us never works.


Who the hell are any of you to say what "never works"?

Please Redstar tell me what has worked for you? What tactics have you used to build up that sucessfful revolution you just started.


You don&#39;t need t agree with the common man&#39;s homophobia, or racism, or religious beliefs. But insulting them wont make them give up their beliefs. You guys do very little educating and alot of ridiculing.

Try actually educating the workin man instead of just belittling him


*Note: This is not simply diected towards Redstar

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Lardlad makes a solid, point, eh?

There is a bit of arrogance inherent in the idea that whatever is not conducive to our plan should be exposed for the bourgeois-trash that it is. It is even more conducive to our plan to understandingly guide the working man into the light by perhaps liberating him from the political misery of capitalism with a nice Leninist revoluion, eh, Redstar? =D

Because redstar&#39;s plan which includes waiting decades or centuries before acting towards socialist freedom will never really work as long as the bourgeoisie is in power to oppress and brainwash the working class.

[Tiki Man]

I feel sorry for the people influenced by the church and suffer because of it. I doubt they&#39;ve had the same learning opportunity as we have had. It makes me wonder if they even know what to beleive.

If space aliens came in from another planet saying "pray to the allmighty ruler of the galaxy and suffer now or else you will suffer for eternity", which one would you choose if you never decided if there is an allmighty ruler or not? It&#39;s the fear of eternally suffering if you do not know otherwise that draws people in.

<opinionistic religious rant>Hitler ruled with fear, and so does this "god". Hitler opposed other religions, and so does this "god". Hitler killed millions of innocent, and this "god" has killed more. There&#39;s one difference between Hitler and this "god" in my eyes: Hitler gave convincing speeches, yet this "god" gained support using illusions.</opinionistic religious rant>

[The Children of the Revolution]

I feel sorry for the people influenced by the church and suffer because of it. I doubt they&#39;ve had the same learning opportunity as we have had. It makes me wonder if they even know what to beleive.


Ahem. Sorry to interrupt this engaging debate... But I resent that. I happen to be both Communist and Religious. Are you saying that I am uneducated? A member of the "great unwashed"?

I consider myself to be an intelligent person; I developed my beliefs myself, and I don&#39;t see how Religion can be presented as a



tool of the bourgeoisie.


If anything, it was more a tool of the feudal system in the way you describe... Surely you don&#39;t think it remains so to this day??? Yes, the Church has abused it&#39;s position in the past - and does so to this day. But individual belief (such as mine) presents no challenge to the aims or ideals of Communists. Please retract your statement comrade, we are not all "Godless Communists"&#33;&#33;&#33;

Peace and Love and Jesus, man. :P

[Charred_Phoenix]

I can&#39;t help noticing that your avatar is a picture of Lenin. You do know that Lenin believed religion (especially in the case of Christianity) was entirely incompatible with socialism, don&#39;t you?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It&#39;s okay to be religious, man. I just hope that you don&#39;t expect to openly assemble with your religion to worship, because as I see it, that would be incompatible with socialism. Religion has always been a tool of indoctrinating people to mindlessly follow the ruling class, feudalist or capitalist. In socialism, I can hardly imagine "god" to be a spokesperson for the ruling class: the proletariat. It&#39;s possible, I suppose, but impossible since the religions that will strive to mainatin their existance will do so to uphold the ruling class. Once the bourgeoisie is gone, religion will quickly loose its influence, if this doesn&#39;t happen, then its a sign that the bourgeoisie actualy still exists. Organized religion, that is. And this doesn&#39;t just mean major and possibly corrupt religions, because in essence, all religions are corrupt, so it&#39;s really an oxymoron. All religious gatherings will be deemed counter revolutionary.

[BuyOurEverything]

Hitler ruled with fear, and so does this "god". Hitler opposed other religions, and so does this "god". Hitler killed millions of innocent, and this "god" has killed more. There&#39;s one difference between Hitler and this "god" in my eyes: Hitler gave convincing speeches, yet this "god" gained support using illusions

Damn that&#39;s good, it&#39;s goin in my sig.


Ahem. Sorry to interrupt this engaging debate... But I resent that. I happen to be both Communist and Religious. Are you saying that I am uneducated? A member of the "great unwashed"? I consider myself to be an intelligent person

TCotR brings up a good point. Although there are many people who believe in religion simply because they are poor and uneducated however there are many well educated and sometimes even intelligent people who fall into the trap of ignorance and religion. I blame it partly on the brainwashing of religion and partly on society&#39;s unwillingness to expose it as the obvious ignorance that it is. We don&#39;t respect ignorance when teaching, say math. You don&#39;t hear a math teacher prefacing every lesson with "now we don&#39;t know for sure that 1+1=2, it&#39;s just a theory and I respect anyone&#39;s belief that 1+1=3, 4 or even a million" like you do with biology teachers.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by Tiki [email protected] 8 2003, 09:35 PM
I feel sorry for the people influenced by the church and suffer because of it. I doubt they&#39;ve had the same learning opportunity as we have had. It makes me wonder if they even know what to beleive.


A bit of arrogance wouldn&#39;t you say?

Learning oppurtunities is kind of relative don&#39;t you think?

Sure religious people may(and I say the word may because it is appropriate here) may not have had the political learning oppurtunities we have

However I&#39;ve met christians, muslims, jews, etc. Who would run circles around you in physics, or math, or a number of other subjects.

Don&#39;t feel sorry for them.

[redstar2000]

Who the hell are any of you to say what "never works"?

Readers of history. There have been thousands of books written about revolutionary movements, parties, and governments around the world. Many of them written by participants; many written by contemporary observers; many written by historians.

I haven&#39;t read all of them, of course, or even most of them...but I have read a significant sample of them (perhaps as many as a thousand).

I have also lived long enough to actually see with my own eyes various kinds of political strategies put into effect, some of which I participated in directly...others in which I knew some of the people involved and got some of the "inside dope".

It&#39;s a fair criticism of me that I sometimes (often?) dismiss certain ideas in a rather curt fashion...what seems "obvious" to me is not necessarily obvious to the people reading my posts.

And I don&#39;t mind at all being called upon to explain at greater length...people have every right to expect reasons for what I say.

But who am I to say it? Somebody that knows.


You don&#39;t need to agree with the common man&#39;s homophobia, or racism, or religious beliefs. But insulting them won&#39;t make them give up their beliefs. You guys do very little educating and a lot of ridiculing.

Try actually educating the working man instead of just belittling him.

I don&#39;t think anyone here has ever suggested that the "correct" way to talk to working people is by way of insult, ridicule, or belittling.

Of course, it does happen. People are impatient with stupid and reactionary ideas and often let that show in a less than useful way. That probably applies to me too, even though I am a "model of patience" in my own eyes.

But let&#39;s not obscure the central idea here: should reactionary ideas be openly fought or should we let "some" of them slide (which ones?)?

I know that I have, on occasion, alienated people on this board by bluntly challenging what I thought to be their "wrong-headed" ideas. That&#39;s the risk you take when you openly confront whatever you think is wrong. People "don&#39;t like" to be shown that they&#39;re wrong (I don&#39;t like it either). They especially dislike it (and you) when you "pound away" on them with argument after argument, evidence after evidence, reason after reason.

But what else can we do? How will we ever "educate" anyone if we fear to tell the truth?


It is even more conducive to our plan to understandingly guide the working man into the light...

Here&#39;s an alternative to my approach&#33; The "enlightened ones" will "guide" (at gunpoint) the wretched "children of darkness"...like "Moses leading the Hebrew children out of bondage".

How does that sound?


Because redstar&#39;s plan which includes waiting decades or centuries before acting towards socialist freedom will never really work as long as the bourgeoisie is in power to oppress and brainwash the working class.

The ghost of sc4r speaks&#33; He used to always accuse me of advising people to "wait"...even though I pointed out repeatedly that such was not my recommendation.

But then he too was a firm believer in a "hierarchy of enlightenment" and the need to "lead" the "lower orders" out of bondage.

He used to hint, at least, that it was part of "human nature" to require "leadership".

Every tyrant would sincerely agree.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

I happen to be both Communist and Religious. Are you saying that I am uneducated? A member of the "great unwashed"?

Usually people who say this are confused...they don&#39;t really understand what communist ideas actually are and what they are not.

In fact, what I&#39;ve noticed is that people who say they are both "communist and religious" really mean they are "pro"-communist.

There&#39;s a difference...and it&#39;s a big one.


...and I don&#39;t see how Religion can be presented as a "tool of the bourgeoisie". If anything, it was more a tool of the feudal system in the way you describe.

Actually, religion has been a "tool" of all ruling classes in history...the underlying thread running through all religions is obedience to authority.


But individual belief (such as mine) presents no challenge to the aims or ideals of Communists.

No, your challenge is methodological. Since you must, by virtue of being a believer, assert that the supernatural both exists and interacts with the real world in ways that are inherently unpredictable, you leave a "doorway" through which any assertion, no matter how reactionary, may enter.

You could, for example, say "Jesus spoke to me and said communism is righteous and we should kill all the Jews".

Your "vision" would be firmly within the "prophetic tradition"...and no one could challenge you on supernatural grounds. It&#39;s strictly one "prophet&#39;s" word against another&#39;s.

A real communist cannot make such assertions...cannot demand that people simply "take his/her word" for it that something "is true". Because communists consider the real material world to be the only world there is, we are required to produce real evidence and argument for anything we say.

An isolated believer is, of course, an extremely trivial obstacle to communism...but it is an obstacle.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2003, 08:31 PM

It is even more conducive to our plan to understandingly guide the working man into the light...

Here&#39;s an alternative to my approach&#33; The "enlightened ones" will "guide" (at gunpoint) the wretched "children of darkness"...like "Moses leading the Hebrew children out of bondage".

How does that sound?


Because redstar&#39;s plan which includes waiting decades or centuries before acting towards socialist freedom will never really work as long as the bourgeoisie is in power to oppress and brainwash the working class.

The ghost of sc4r speaks&#33; He used to always accuse me of advising people to "wait"...even though I pointed out repeatedly that such was not my recommendation.

But then he too was a firm believer in a "hierarchy of enlightenment" and the need to "lead" the "lower orders" out of bondage.

He used to hint, at least, that it was part of "human nature" to require "leadership".

Every tyrant would sincerely agree.
Okay, redstar, we all know that you have written posts upon posts about how we must wait untill the working class has achieved a political class conciousness, and only then can they free themselves.

You would be making an ass of yourself to deny this. Don&#39;t be a subjective douche-bag. You know what I&#39;m talking about.

We&#39;re not "leading the the children of darkness into the light". You know fully well that we intend the working class to achieve this on their own once they are given power by removing their chains of capitalism and wage-labour.

They cannot achieve the class conciousness you think is necessary to be present for revolution to occur while the bourgeoisie owns their very existance.

Don&#39;t be a hypocrit, redstar.

We&#39;re not the ones kicking people around for being brainwashed.

We&#39;re not the ones neglecting the problem, which is the brainwashing.

We&#39;re the ones offering an alternative to the bondage and oppression of capitalism.

You&#39;re not.

How can you call yourself a communist?

[SonofRage]

I always find it amusing to hear Marxists attack religion...especially when a lot of Marxists have turned Marxism into their religion :D (this is not directed towards anyone in particular, it&#39;s just a general observation).

EDIT:

In defense of Buddhism, here are a couple of quotes by the Dalai Lama:


Originally posted by "The Dalai Lama"

"I was very young when I first heard the word communist. The 13th Dalai Lama had left a testament that I read. Also, some of the monks who were helping my studies had been in monasteries with Mongolians. They had talked about the destruction that had taken place since the communists came to Mongolia. We did not know anything about Marxist ideology. But we all feared destruction and thought of communists with terror. It was only when I went to China in 1954-55 that I actually studied Marxist ideology and learned the history of the Chinese revolution. Once I understood Marxism, my attitude change completely. I was so attracted to Marxism, I even expressed my wish to become a Communist Party member."

"Tibet at that time was very, very backward. The ruling class did not seem to care, and there was much inequality. Marxism talked about an equal and just distribution of wealth. I was very much in favor of this. Then there was the concept of self-creation. Marxism talked about self-reliance, without depending on a creator or a God. That was very attractive. I had tried to some things for my people, but I did not have enough time. I still think that if a genuine communist movement had come to Tibet, there would have been much benefit to the people."

[SonofRage]

Here&#39;s some more good stuff by the Dalai Lama.



Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes--that is, the majority--as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers&#39; International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

[BuyOurEverything]

I always find it amusing to hear Marxists attack religion

That&#39;s kind of like saying you find it amusing to hear Nazis attacking Jews.


especially when a lot of Marxists have turned Marxism into their religion

Interesting point, one that I actually agree with in some cases although I wouldn&#39;t say &#39;a lot,&#39; maybe &#39;a few.&#39; I would generally consider myself a Marxist but disagree with certain parts of Marxism. I think anyone that reads a book on economic policy written well over 100 years ago and holds it as absolute truth and any opposing ideology is automatically false subscribes to the same principals that religious people do.

[The Children of the Revolution]

..... there are many well educated and sometimes even intelligent people who fall into the trap of ignorance and religion .....


You&#39;re making me angry&#33;&#33;&#33;

You wouldn&#39;t like me when i&#39;m angry&#33;&#33;&#33; :P

In all seriousness though, religion is not only a tool of oppression. In the USSR for example, religion was persecuted, virtually outlawed by the "Communists". It&#39;s teaching was prohibited, churches were burned down, and priests publicly ridiculed. The church (yes, this is actually true&#33;&#33;&#33;) was driven underground. Come Gorbachev, and the policies of "glastnost" and "peristroika", (is that spelt right?) religion resurfaced. And after the fall of "Communism" in 1991, religion spread like wildfire. It served no class - it was being used for no political means - and yet worship grew exponentially. To this day, religion in Russia is a HUGE aspect of the people&#39;s culture. NOT because it is used to indoctrinate them, NOT because priests are money-grabbing conmen, but because millions of Russians believe in God and in his teachings.

Amen, brother.



I can&#39;t help noticing that your avatar is a picture of Lenin. You do know that Lenin believed religion (especially in the case of Christianity) was entirely incompatible with socialism, don&#39;t you?


Yes, I am aware of this. Even great men have flaws... :P <sigh>

Peace and Love and Jesus, Man&#33;

[SonofRage]

I think we need to draw a distinction between religion and "organized religion." I believe that someone&#39;s personal religious views need to be respected and it can definitely serve a productive person is people&#39;s lives. Organized religion in the form of these hierarchical organizations trying to dominate people&#39;s lives is something that I would consider a problem.

Personally, I like to say that I don&#39;t believe in religion but rather "spirituality."

[redstar2000]

Okay, redstar, we all know that you have written posts upon posts about how we must wait until the working class has achieved a political class consciousness, and only then can they free themselves.

You would be making an ass of yourself to deny this. Don&#39;t be a subjective douche-bag. You know what I&#39;m talking about.

Well, if you think you can make a proletarian revolution without the proletariat, go right ahead and try.

Perhaps you can "fool" them into it without them even noticing.

By the way, did you ever wonder why "douche-bag" is considered "insulting"? Do you think that there is something especially "degrading" about feminine hygiene?


They cannot achieve the class consciousness you think is necessary to be present for revolution to occur while the bourgeoisie owns their very existence.

You hope&#33; Otherwise, it&#39;s the end of the line for you guys.


We&#39;re not the ones kicking people around for being brainwashed.

On the contrary, your entire strategy actually assumes that the working class is "brainwashed" by capitalist ideology and will remain so until "you" "liberate" them.

In fact, you just said as much in the previous paragraph.


We&#39;re the ones offering an alternative to the bondage and oppression of capitalism.

You&#39;re not.

Yes, history bears eloquent witness to your "alternative". It works quite well if you wish to go from capitalism back to capitalism.

I did have something rather different in mind, which is why I can honestly call myself a real communist.

I rather have my doubts about you, though. To be frank, I don&#39;t think you really understand communist ideas very well at all...you still think of communism as "doing nice things for people".

That ain&#39;t it&#33;


I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion.

This is actually quite a typical comment of someone who is "pro-communist" but not actually communist. Class struggle is, of course, at the heart of Marx&#39;s analysis of human history...it is the mechanism for the change from one form of class society to another, and ultimately to a classless society.

It also has the merit, of course, of actually existing...it can be observed and even participated in, unlike the nebulous alternatives.

An old hustler like the Dalai Lama can appeal to "compassion" and seem like "a good guy" without changing anything at all...ever. (Except perhaps his personal wealth and prestige.)

Religious leaders like that kind of appeal...it costs nothing, upsets no one, and they can always blame the nonexistent results on human "sinfulness" or "lack of enlightenment".

I can&#39;t imagine why anyone would be fooled by such transparent and empty rhetoric.


For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.

"Except when I pay a visit to the west--then I&#39;m half-capitalist, half-Buddhist."


In the USSR for example, religion was persecuted, virtually outlawed by the "Communists". Its teaching was prohibited, churches were burned down, and priests publicly ridiculed. The church (yes, this is actually true&#33;&#33;&#33;) was driven underground.

No, that is actually not true...and I&#39;ll see your three &#33;&#33;&#33; and raise one&#33;

A few churches were demolished, some were closed for various periods of time, and religion largely disappeared from official discourse. At the same time, however, the government kept a couple of seminaries open to train Orthodox clergy (at government expense), the clergy were all on the public payroll, and, in the run-up to World War II, Stalin quietly allowed appeals to "religious patriotism" to re-emerge (see the film Alexander Nevsky).

It&#39;s interesting to note that both Gorbachev and Yeltsin, who were born in the mid-1930s, were both duly baptized in the Orthodox church eight days after their birth...Stalin must have been napping.


And after the fall of "Communism" in 1991, religion spread like wildfire. It served no class - it was being used for no political means - and yet worship grew exponentially. To this day, religion in Russia is a HUGE aspect of the people&#39;s culture. NOT because it is used to indoctrinate them, NOT because priests are money-grabbing conmen, but because millions of Russians believe in God and in his teachings.

Oh really? Well, I confess that I&#39;m not an expert on current Russian affairs. But as I recall, when the believers crawled out from under their rocks, they were carrying large icon-style pictures of "St. Nicholas the Martyr"...formerly known as Bloody Nicholas II, the last Czar of the Russian Empire.

I would imagine that the religious people in Russia, like elsewhere, are the most reactionary elements of the population and support the most reactionary political parties there.

As to their "sincere belief in God and his teachings", what does that have to do with anything? Ardent Nazis "sincerely believed" that Hitler "was sent by God to deliver Germany". So what?

Sincerity is a greatly over-rated sentiment, in my opinion. By itself, it proves nothing. I&#39;m sure that Geo. Bush & Co. "sincerely believe" that they are doing "God&#39;s work" on earth.

Who gives a shit what they "sincerely believe"?


I believe that someone&#39;s personal religious views need to be respected and it can definitely serve a productive purpose in people&#39;s lives.

I changed your words because I think this is what you actually meant to say. Correct me if I guessed wrong.

But I do not see why anyone&#39;s reactionary ideas deserve to be "respected" nor can I imagine anything "productive" coming from reactionary ideas.


Personally, I like to say that I don&#39;t believe in religion but rather "spirituality."

What&#39;s the difference? True, there is no formal "spiritual" church hierarchy (yet), but there are certainly hordes of "spiritual guides" out there hustling for your patronage (and your money, of course).

Once you allow the supernatural to become an acceptable premise in your thinking, you&#39;re in deep trouble.

How deep depends on a lot of other considerations...

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 11:37 PM
Yes, it&#39;s ridiculous indeed, but since when do religions progress? <_<
How about making a Gay man a bishop in the Anglican church?

Duhh.. :blink:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

We&#39;re not the ones kicking people around for being brainwashed.

On the contrary, your entire strategy actually assumes that the working class is "brainwashed" by capitalist ideology and will remain so until "you" "liberate" them.

That&#39;s what I meant. Our ideology offers a solution to the problem of oppression. Your ideology allows them to suffer the oppression untill somehow, after centuries of oppression and social and religious indoctrination, they see the capitalist pigs for what they are. This will not happen, redstar, it&#39;s not realistic.

And I apologize for calling you a douche. I was a tad worked-up last night when I wrote that post.

Back onto the subject of religion.
I agree with redstar, there, CofTR. Religion is inherently a tool of the ruling class. All teachings of all religions give power to a diety. This diety abviously doesn&#39;t exist? So who are the people truly following? The ruling class. And whose interests are they serving, those of the ruling class.

Enigma, I don&#39;t really think that&#39;s necessary. Religion practiced alone which includes only faith, shouldn&#39;t be called religion at all, but rather "faith". Any time people gather &#39;round to worship, that is religion and it&#39;s counter revolutionary.

[Scottish_Militant]

I&#39;m a hardcore athiest but I when I talk to religious people I dont slag them off telling them they are being &#39;fooled&#39; by the ruling class etc, as ive said this puts them in a defensive mode where they want to argue back and defend their views.

Discussion with religious people about the state of the world, poverty, science etc will open their eyes first, you have to get them looking at the world. Ive influenced many people into ditching religion but according to Redstar who is an irrelivant windbag im "doing it wrong"

Redstar however is an old man who spends his life posting on this forum, he is a nobody, he&#39;s never built any mass movements, he&#39;s done f*ck all. An ultra-left windbag who stands on the sidelines of the movement feeding his own ego.

[BuyOurEverything]

I believe that in a communist society, religions would be treated similarily to cults today. Everybody would think their followers were crazy and no one would &#39;respect&#39; their beliefs but as long as they weren&#39;t harming anyone, they would be allowed to practice.


How about making a Gay man a bishop in the Anglican church?

Duhh..

Oh wow, only 2000 years and some of them are already getting over homophobia&#33; If that isn&#39;t progress, I don&#39;t know what is&#33;


I&#39;m a hardcore athiest but I when I talk to religious people I dont slag them off telling them they are being &#39;fooled&#39; by the ruling class etc

I do.


as ive said this puts them in a defensive mode where they want to argue back and defend their views.

And upon realize that they in fact CAN&#39;T defend their views, some of them actually realize that they are wrong. I have in fact made a few of my friends realize their mistakes.


Redstar however is an old man who spends his life posting on this forum, he is a nobody, he&#39;s never built any mass movements, he&#39;s done f*ck all. An ultra-left windbag who stands on the sidelines of the movement feeding his own ego.

Now what the fuck was that?

[Tiki Man]

Yes, religions probably would be treated as cults. In fact, they&#39;re currently not far from. You can beleive as yourself, but when you get followers and take donations of materials, it just wouldn&#39;t work.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2003, 12:42 PM
I believe that in a communist society, religions would be treated similarily to cults today. Everybody would think their followers were crazy and no one would &#39;respect&#39; their beliefs but as long as they weren&#39;t harming anyone, they would be allowed to practice.


How about making a Gay man a bishop in the Anglican church?

Duhh..

Oh wow, only 2000 years and some of them are already getting over homophobia&#33; If that isn&#39;t progress, I don&#39;t know what is&#33;


I&#39;m a hardcore athiest but I when I talk to religious people I dont slag them off telling them they are being &#39;fooled&#39; by the ruling class etc

I do.


as ive said this puts them in a defensive mode where they want to argue back and defend their views.

And upon realize that they in fact CAN&#39;T defend their views, some of them actually realize that they are wrong. I have in fact made a few of my friends realize their mistakes.


Redstar however is an old man who spends his life posting on this forum, he is a nobody, he&#39;s never built any mass movements, he&#39;s done f*ck all. An ultra-left windbag who stands on the sidelines of the movement feeding his own ego.

Now what the fuck was that?
I&#39;m afraid, comarde, that religions cannot be neglected by the government because they don&#39;t appear to cause any harm. The truth is that they do cause harm. Can&#39;t you see it, comrade? Do you think that religious laws were made to save people from eternal suffering? No. They were made to cast people into the subjugation of the ruling class. All the doctrines of today&#39;s established religions act in function of class donimation. They&#39;re existance as it is today cannot be tolerated.

[redstar2000]

Our ideology offers a solution to the problem of oppression. Your ideology allows them to suffer the oppression until somehow, after centuries of oppression and social and religious indoctrination, they see the capitalist pigs for what they are. This will not happen, redstar, it&#39;s not realistic.

I guess we&#39;ll find out, won&#39;t we?


I&#39;ve influenced many people into ditching religion but according to Redstar who is an irrelevant windbag I&#39;m "doing it wrong".

If you have actually achieved what you claim, then you are obviously not "doing it wrong".


Redstar however is an old man who spends his life posting on this forum, he is a nobody, he&#39;s never built any mass movements, he&#39;s done f*ck all. An ultra-left windbag who stands on the sidelines of the movement feeding his own ego.

Clearly a new recruit for my "fan club". :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

How about making a Gay man a bishop in the Anglican church?

Duhh..

Two California bishops have fired new warning shots in the Episcopal Church&#39;s holy war over homosexuality.

Swing warns that lengthy court battles may be in the offing -- Episcopal vs. Episcopal -- for control of church property in California.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG922TPAJ1.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/MNG922TPAJ1.DTL)

You know, Enema, I think "duhh" must be a word that comes often to your lips.

Or ought to.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 04:31 PM

How about making a Gay man a bishop in the Anglican church?

Duhh..

Two California bishops have fired new warning shots in the Episcopal Church&#39;s holy war over homosexuality.

Swing warns that lengthy court battles may be in the offing -- Episcopal vs. Episcopal -- for control of church property in California.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG922TPAJ1.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/MNG922TPAJ1.DTL)

You know, Enema, I think "duhh" must be a word that comes often to your lips.

Or ought to.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Two California bishops have fired new warning shots in the Episcopal Church&#39;s holy war over homosexuality.

Swing warns that lengthy court battles may be in the offing -- Episcopal vs. Episcopal -- for control of church property in California.


The resistance of a bunch of traditionalist idiots is imaterial, the fact remains that a openly Gay man is now a Bishop.

That is what we call reform, it means to change things.


Idiot.

[Pete]

One of my favourite topics :) I only have a few points to make, as I, as usual, agree for the most part with Redstar in this arena.

Here is where I disagree:



What&#39;s the difference? True, there is no formal "spiritual" church hierarchy (yet), but there are certainly hordes of "spiritual guides" out there hustling for your patronage (and your money, of course).

Once you allow the supernatural to become an acceptable premise in your thinking, you&#39;re in deep trouble.

How deep depends on a lot of other considerations...


I think you are missing the difference between a truly "spiritual" person and one who says that, but is really religious. In my experiences many people call them selves "spiritual" but are merely Christians who don&#39;t go to church or read the bible. Obviously these people are "religious" and are prime examples of how the ruling class has manipulated the media and entertainment industry (entertainment really should not be an industry, but that is another topic) to force Christian ideals and doctrine onto our society. We are brainwashed from youth, yes, and these people are merely joking themselves.

Yet it is completely possible to hold a sacred reality and not be religious. For example, the deep ecology movement, which is the deepest shade of green out there and therefore red as well, sees the world as an organism, thus elevating it to the position of the "sacred." Yet they do not worship it, or anything silly and archaic like that. Instead they are those front line activists who hold this "connection" to our planet (they call it Gaia) and are fighting to put an end to all heirarchy, environmental (great chain of being), social, and economic. Through all of these they hold the sacred vision that humans are no better than that which we live off of, and that our economic policies and social system is grinding us into the wall, and taking the planet with us.

This is hardly religious, but can be seen as "sacred."

Anyways, the word "spiritual" is a joke, as I said, and is used most often by those who are religious but can not see that. Holding a sacred reality, or an affinity to something as your equal (the planet for example) is hardly religious or counter productive. It is revolutionary in a way that most people cannot imagine.

With that said, before, on the first page I believe, some one said, or implied, that the point of Judaism was to go to heaven. This is false&#33; Yahweh Elohim (the god of the Jews, and the Israelites before them) is a god of the living, not of the dead. He demands that his covenant (a glorified vassal treaty, read the Hebrew bible, the same langauge is used there as in vassal treaties between Israel and Egypt or Assyria or which nation was sittin gon them any given time) is upheld, or the nation would be wiped out. Nothing about heaven, that is a later invention taken from Hellenistic Greeks, and the Hellenistic Jews. It is used to describe why those who have abandoned their ways, the Hellenistic Jews, are flourishing where as the Israelite Jews who are living their life to God&#39;s covenant are suffering. The idea that "God will do justice after death" sprung up, the birth of heaven to the western monotheists. Obviously this came out of dispair and was manipulated to keep people believing in an obvious lie.

Cheers&#33;

-Pete

[Pete]

Enigma (I&#39;m guessing you are the former AK-47?), why does your picture include something resembling the Star of David? Come on now, grow up.

[Scottish_Militant]

LOL, love the pic :D

[The Children of the Revolution]

I agree with redstar, there, CofTR. Religion is inherently a tool of the ruling class. All teachings of all religions give power to a diety. This diety abviously doesn&#39;t exist? So who are the people truly following? The ruling class. And whose interests are they serving, those of the ruling class.


That&#39;s a matter of opinion comrade&#33; I happen to believe that a "deity" does exist. Therefore, can I not serve my God as well as Marxism? I don&#39;t really see where the conflict lies...



I think we need to draw a distinction between religion and "organized religion." I believe that someone&#39;s personal religious views need to be respected and it can definitely serve a productive person is people&#39;s lives. Organized religion in the form of these hierarchical organizations trying to dominate people&#39;s lives is something that I would consider a problem.

Personally, I like to say that I don&#39;t believe in religion but rather "spirituality."


This is an incredibly good way to look at things. (Well said, "SonOfRage".) I think the majority of anti-religious issues raised here concern the uses to which organised religion has been put through the ages. Holy Wars, the Crusades, political indoctrination (teaching the populace to obey the &#39;authorities&#39; - whoever they were), etc etc. However, personal belief - in any God - surely cannot interfere with Marxism? Anarchism possibly... Well, nuts to you anyhow. I shall continue to believe in God AS WELL AS Marxism.

[Scottish_Militant]

check out this thread - Brownstar2000 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=11399&hl=) :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 05:57 PM
Enigma (I&#39;m guessing you are the former AK-47?), why does your picture include something resembling the Star of David? Come on now, grow up.
Yep thats right, it&#39;s me.

why does your picture include something resembling the Star of David?

Because its the simplist to construct, However I have made the necessary alterations.

Come on now, grow up.

Why? He calls me "enema", so I make pics which imply him to be shit, thats only fair.


LOL, love the pic

Why thank you... :D


check out this thread - Brownstar2000

Yes, I saw that, it&#39;s what gave me the idea.

[BuyOurEverything]

I&#39;m afraid, comarde, that religions cannot be neglected by the government because they don&#39;t appear to cause any harm. The truth is that they do cause harm. Can&#39;t you see it, comrade? Do you think that religious laws were made to save people from eternal suffering? No. They were made to cast people into the subjugation of the ruling class. All the doctrines of today&#39;s established religions act in function of class donimation. They&#39;re existance as it is today cannot be tolerated.

I believe that people should generally be free to harm themselves if they want. I completely agree that religion as it exists today should be abolished but I think that it should be permitted to exist on the fringes of society. People would be educated in school about how it is obviously wrong but if you want to cling to an incorrect belief, as long as you have no influence and are discredited and are harming nobody but yourself, the state has no buisness interfering. If someone wants to believe that rocks can walk, fine, as long as everybody knows that they&#39;re an idiot.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I agree.
I only think that religious gatherings with intentions to worship should be illegal.
People should not have the right, however, to submit themselves to somebody else.
They&#39;re obviously being fooled by someone. The ruling class comes to mind.
It&#39;s the equivalent of electing an emperor.
It doesn&#39;t make sense.
People simply do not choose to be subjected into bondage by others.
All religious people have been forced into this condition by superstition.
When told to subjugate yourself to another&#39;s will or suffer terribly for eternity because of something that is eternaly true, but cannot be sensed from earth, people generaly tend to give in.
It&#39;s just like any other law.
Telling someone to stop saying "fuck", or they&#39;ll go to hell is the same as telling someone to stop saying "fuck the police", or they&#39;ll go to jail.
Both are equaly credible to an ignorant mind.
It&#39;s force.
It&#39;s oppression.
CoftheR, no, you cannot serve your god and Marxism at the same time. Serving your god is, regardless of its existance, actualy servitute to the bourgeoisie.
This is the problem.
Religion is slavery.
To God or to capital.
It&#39;s oppression.

[BuyOurEverything]

I agree.
I only think that religious gatherings with intentions to worship should be illegal.
People should not have the right, however, to submit themselves to somebody else.
They&#39;re obviously being fooled by someone. The ruling class comes to mind.

But what if there is no ruling class?

"People simply do not choose to be subjected into bondage by others. (http://www.bdsmrealm.net/modules.php?name=4nForum)"


All religious people have been forced into this condition by superstition.
When told to subjugate yourself to another&#39;s will or suffer terribly for eternity because of something that is eternaly true, but cannot be sensed from earth, people generaly tend to give in.
It&#39;s just like any other law.
Telling someone to stop saying "fuck", or they&#39;ll go to hell is the same as telling someone to stop saying "fuck the police", or they&#39;ll go to jail.
Both are equaly credible to an ignorant mind.

I agree but I think it&#39;s counter-productive to prosecute someone who just prays in their own home and has no influence whatsoever. It would create martyrs. If it becomes a problem, then action will have to be taken but as long as religion is generally looked down on as ignorance and supersticion, I see no problem with allowing idiots to ammuse themselves.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

They will always work in function of the bourgeoisie. In revolutionary society, they will be counter revolutionaries, as they will work in function of the old ruling class: the bourgeoisie. Classless society have never existed in significant sizes, and as long as religion exists, classes will also exist. It&#39;s like saying that racism can be abolished even in their are still racists around. Religion creates a ruling class. Who do you think they&#39;re obeying?

This all obviosuly applies only to religious gatherings. Private worship is no big deal at all.

I&#39;m guessing that this website is a cult or something. They&#39;ve been verbaly forced with threats of a disasterous afterlife. The leader is probably crazy or is power-hungry.

[BuyOurEverything]

They will always work in function of the bourgeoisie. In revolutionary society, they will be counter revolutionaries, as they will work in function of the old ruling class: the bourgeoisie. Classless society have never existed in significant sizes, and as long as religion exists, classes will also exist. It&#39;s like saying that racism can be abolished even in their are still racists around. Religion creates a ruling class. Who do you think they&#39;re obeying?

Ok, I agree. I was mostly refering to personal spirituality and the like.


This all obviosuly applies only to religious gatherings. Private worship is no big deal at all.

What if it&#39;s just a small group of people who gather in someone&#39;s house?


I&#39;m guessing that this website is a cult or something. They&#39;ve been verbaly forced with threats of a disasterous afterlife. The leader is probably crazy or is power-hungry.

Err... you could say that... but you&#39;d be wrong. It was in response to your &#39;people don&#39;t want to be subjected to bondage&#39; comment so, well, you can figure it out. Really not important.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think that even small groups should be illegal.
Especialy if the indoctrination of children is involved.

LOL
The website you gave me is some sexual thing. :lol:

I thought you posted some link to some religious cult or something showing that some people choose to subjugate themselves to higher beings. :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Chrildren should not be taught that religion is wrong, because that would be brain washing, no, just dont teach them at all.

[Purple]

they should be aware of the religions, and what they contain, but they should be introduced to religions in a neutral way...

[redstar2000]

I happen to believe that a "deity" does exist. Therefore, can I not serve my God as well as Marxism? I don&#39;t really see where the conflict lies...

Surely you should know that a man cannot "serve two masters"...:lol:

Seriously, the conflict lies in modes of thinking. Marxism is rational; believing in the supernatural is irrational.

You can&#39;t sustain both approaches any more than a nation can be "half-slave and half-free".


However, personal belief - in any God - surely cannot interfere with Marxism? Anarchism possibly... Well, nuts to you anyhow. I shall continue to believe in God AS WELL AS Marxism.

Exactly. Belief is the basis you really operate on...the rational thought processes of Marxism are unknown to you.

"Belief" in Marxism does not make you a communist; Marxism is not a religious faith.

As I said before, you and others who try to "mix" religion and Marxism just end up with a muddle. I don&#39;t deny that you perhaps "mean well"...I just think such an approach misses the point.


I agree but I think it&#39;s counter-productive to prosecute someone who just prays in their own home and has no influence whatsoever.

I quite agree and have never suggested otherwise in any of my posts on this subject.

I have no desire to "prosecute" believers as such...merely to keep them from making a public nuisance of themselves.

But that doesn&#39;t mean that I think people who go around telling people that they are "Marxists" and also believers in superstition should be allowed to pass uncriticized.

I&#39;m "intolerant" of nonsense.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Blackberry]

However, personal belief - in any God - surely cannot interfere with Marxism? Anarchism possibly...

Actually, it is the other way round. It doesn&#39;t interfere with Anarchism, but it does with Marxism.

[The Children of the Revolution]

Actually, it is the other way round. It doesn&#39;t interfere with Anarchism, but it does with Marxism.


Yes, my mistake.



Exactly. Belief is the basis you really operate on...the rational thought processes of Marxism are unknown to you.


I disagree. I count myself capable of rational thought - having taken maths and physics to A-level. I can follow Marxist modes of thought in a rational way; when it comes to the existence of God though, yes - I have faith. (Or belief, call it what you will...) Are you suggesting that having faith prevents me from thinking in a logical way? I can apply my mind however I choose to. Whether you think my faith is "nonsense" or not doesn&#39;t really bother me. What annoys me is that you feel that because I have this belief, it makes all other aspects of my intelligence "irrational". Which simply isn&#39;t true...

[redstar2000]

Are you suggesting that having faith prevents me from thinking in a logical way?

That&#39;s close...but what I really think it prevents is rational thinking.

Theologians are (now and then) capable of drawing logical conclusions from irrational premises.

But as I noted earlier, once you accept the (irrational) premise that the supernatural "exists" and "interacts with the real world in necessarily unpredictable ways", then you have a perfectly "logical" excuse to assert anything you please without any evidence except your own word.

That&#39;s unacceptable.


What annoys me is that you feel that because I have this belief, it makes all other aspects of my intelligence "irrational". Which simply isn&#39;t true...

So you say...but why should I believe you? You have admitted that with regard to the universe you hold an irrational conviction...on what grounds could I legitimately conclude that any other conviction that you may hold is not likewise irrational?

Do you see the contradiction here? If you&#39;ve taken advanced courses in maths and physics, then you are familiar with the requirements for making a "true" statement.

If you disregard those requirements--just toss them out as unnecessary--with regard to the entire universe, then who knows what other odd notions are rattling around in your brain?

You might, at any time, say anything...based not on observation, evidence, logic, etc., but on your "inner conviction" or, for all we know, a total hallucination.

And when challenged, you&#39;d say "Jesus told me"...and be mightily pissed when we laughed in response.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2003, 05:02 AM
Chrildren should not be taught that religion is wrong, because that would be brain washing, no, just dont teach them at all.
I think children should be taught to not be subject to the laws of any counter revolutionaries. i.e., anyone aside from the people, or the people&#39;s government in the case of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[BuyOurEverything]

they should be aware of the religions, and what they contain, but they should be introduced to religions in a neutral way...

If you give them all the facts, religion cannot possibly be introduced in a neutral way. That&#39;s like saying the concept of trees having the ability to talk should be introduced in a neutral way.


I quite agree and have never suggested otherwise in any of my posts on this subject.

I have no desire to "prosecute" believers as such...merely to keep them from making a public nuisance of themselves.

But that doesn&#39;t mean that I think people who go around telling people that they are "Marxists" and also believers in superstition should be allowed to pass uncriticized.

I&#39;m "intolerant" of nonsense.

As am I, I guess I misinterpereted you, I agree with this.


Are you suggesting that having faith prevents me from thinking in a logical way?

Pretty much.

[The Children of the Revolution]

So you say...but why should I believe you? You have admitted that with regard to the universe you hold an irrational conviction...on what grounds could I legitimately conclude that any other conviction that you may hold is not likewise irrational?


I still disagree. What if I were to tell you something you completely agreed with, 100%? (Unlikely, I know) How would my "irrational" viewpoint and your "rational" one be reconciled to the same truth?



"Are you suggesting that having faith prevents me from thinking in a logical way?"
... ... ... ... ...
"Pretty much"


I see. Good arguement. Not.
Ah, you&#39;re going to hell anyway, heathen :P

[BuyOurEverything]

I see. Good arguement. Not.
Ah, you&#39;re going to hell anyway, heathen

I don&#39;t see how you can claim that faith is compatible with logical thinking. Faith by its very definition is illogical. If you&#39;re saying that you can use logic in some areas of thought and illogicity in others, it makes me very skeptical about your so called "logic" in all areas. I didn&#39;t say more because I would have just been repeating what redstar said and you hdan&#39;t responded to it yet.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by The Children of the [email protected] 11 2003, 03:52 PM
I still disagree. What if I were to tell you something you completely agreed with, 100%? (Unlikely, I know) How would my "irrational" viewpoint and your "rational" one be reconciled to the same truth?
It wouldn&#39;t.
It&#39;s not about truth, it&#39;s about getting to the truth.

Accepting religion uses no logic at all. It relies on no concrete observations or evidence. It all relies on faith and is all backed up by faith.

So you believe in what you believe because you believe in it. No other reason. It&#39;s backed up by fiction. Which means it has no validity at all.

Coming to serious conclusions based on imaginative truths means that you are not a critical person and cannot effectively distinguish between fact and fiction.

[The Children of the Revolution]

It wouldn&#39;t.
It&#39;s not about truth, it&#39;s about getting to the truth.

So you believe in what you believe because you believe in it. No other reason.


No&#33;

I can reach a verdict any way I choose. I can rationally deduce that 1+1=2, or that H20 is comprised of Hydrogen and Oxygen, or that Marxism is a process of historical inevitability...

But I can also hold a fundamental belief in a higher being - God. God doesn&#39;t need proof; that is the basis of faith. It is possible to be both rational and "irrational". (I would call it spiritual, or emotional)



Coming to serious conclusions based on imaginative truths means that you are not a critical person and cannot effectively distinguish between fact and fiction.


Even if this were true, and a person was either logical or spiritual / emotional... I would choose the latter. Take the following example, reproduced from an R.E. lesson a couple of years ago.

You are imprisoned with no chance of escape. (perhaps you did too many drugs or something)
The guards are sadistic types, and love to torture their victims.
They take you to a room, and sit you next to a young child.
"Unless you kill this child with your bare hands," they say, "we will kill you both".
"If you kill the child, you will be free to go and will not be pursued."

Logically, you would kill the child. He / she is doomed anyway; you may as well save yourself. This is the obvious, and indeed the only, logical conclusion.
But no-one would kill the child. (I hope) This demonstrates mans capacity to see beyond logic, and to think along spiritual or emotional lines. There is a degree of logic in all of us; just as there is a degree of spiritualism in us. ALL of us.

[redstar2000]

I can reach a verdict any way I choose.

Of course you can...as can anyone.

What you cannot expect is any respect for a verdict reached by irrational methods.


Even if this were true, and a person was either logical or spiritual/emotional... I would choose the latter.

You already have.


You are imprisoned with no chance of escape.

The guards are sadistic types, and love to torture their victims.

They take you to a room, and sit you next to a young child.

"Unless you kill this child with your bare hands," they say, "we will kill you both".

"If you kill the child, you will be free to go and will not be pursued."

Logically, you would kill the child. He/she is doomed anyway; you may as well save yourself. This is the obvious, and indeed the only, logical conclusion.

But no-one would kill the child. (I hope)

This demonstrates man&#39;s capacity to see beyond logic, and to think along spiritual or emotional lines. There is a degree of logic in all of us; just as there is a degree of spiritualism in us. ALL of us.

Nonsense. It demonstrates only the ingenuity of those who try to "demonstrate" the "spiritual" in real life.

The real reason not to kill the kid is that the guards are lying. They are not going to "let you go".

Where do I get that conclusion from? From real world experience with prison guards. No one but an idiot would trust the word of a cop/guard about anything&#33;

You were asking earlier about the possibility of us coming to the same conclusion about something. Well, there&#39;s one example.

Now, here&#39;s another...


Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment...Romans 13:1

Will you bet on "God" here? Or on Marx?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No&#33;

I can reach a verdict any way I choose. I can rationally deduce that 1+1=2, or that H20 is comprised of Hydrogen and Oxygen, or that Marxism is a process of historical inevitability...

But I can also hold a fundamental belief in a higher being - God. God doesn&#39;t need proof; that is the basis of faith. It is possible to be both rational and "irrational". (I would call it spiritual, or emotional)

I was referring to your belief in god.
You can be both rational and irrational, but your irrationality will make you vulnerable to distinguish fact from fiction.


Even if this were true, and a person was either logical or spiritual / emotional... I would choose the latter. Take the following example, reproduced from an R.E. lesson a couple of years ago.

You are imprisoned with no chance of escape. (perhaps you did too many drugs or something)
The guards are sadistic types, and love to torture their victims.
They take you to a room, and sit you next to a young child.
"Unless you kill this child with your bare hands," they say, "we will kill you both".
"If you kill the child, you will be free to go and will not be pursued."

Logically, you would kill the child. He / she is doomed anyway; you may as well save yourself. This is the obvious, and indeed the only, logical conclusion.
But no-one would kill the child. (I hope) This demonstrates mans capacity to see beyond logic, and to think along spiritual or emotional lines. There is a degree of logic in all of us; just as there is a degree of spiritualism in us. ALL of us.

Choosing to not kiill the child has nothing to with faith. Faith is believing in the existance of something without evidence or proof. Spirituality is faith. An emotion is a feeling. It is a scientific concept, it has to do with one&#39;s mental state arising unconciously. Most people wouldn&#39;t kill the kid because of sympathy for it. This has nothing to do with faith.

[The Children of the Revolution]

The real reason not to kill the kid is that the guards are lying. They are not going to "let you go".


You moron. This is an example only - replace the guards with sadistic robots if you like. You don&#39;t even need them. The choice is whether or not you should take a life in order to preserve yours. Logically, yes. But relying on something other than logic, (call it the power of cheese if you want) implies that logic has failed. The logical decision is not the correct one. You&#39;re just avoiding the issue. (RedStar2000)



You can be both rational and irrational, but your irrationality will make you vulnerable to distinguish fact from fiction.


Now you question my judgement? My ability to discern the truth? I have just shown that sometimes we all make irrational choices... So is everyones judgement flawed, or just those who make more (or more significant) "irrational" choices?



Most people wouldn&#39;t kill the kid because of sympathy for it. This has nothing to do with faith.


I never said it did. My point was to illustrate the difference between the logical choice and the right one. Thereby justifying (in your terms, I require no such justification for my beliefs) my faith, AND my simultaneous decision to follow, or believe in, Marxism.

Irrespective of other concerns such as emotion, a purely logical being would "kill the kid". There is no disputing that.

However, because of a Humans capacity to feel emotions, the illogical choice prevailed.

This is not to say that Religion is illogical, or wrong. It just proves that human beings are not purely logical, or rational. I can be both. Furthermore, I can be trusted to make a judgement; or to distinguish fact and fiction as much as the next man. Or perhaps more? Who am I, or who are you, to say?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The kid example is completely a moral question. What does it have to do with logic? Why is it logical to kill him? Is survival logical? I don&#39;t really think so. It has to do with instinct. You said it yourslef that it&#39;s wrong to kill the kid. First of all I think it&#39;s really subjective, but secondly, it&#39;s a question of morality.

Your judgement is not completely dependant on whether or not you believe in god. But by accepting the illogical, you immediately forfeit your logic.

Logic is not something that you can use sometimes and sometimes not. If you really have logic, you would logicaly apply to everything you analyze, otherwise you&#39;re not logical. If you make an irrational choice, then you&#39;ve just failed to use logica, meaning you&#39;re logical. Meaning that not everything that you analyze will be subject to logic, meaning that you could easily be convinced into believing that the Matrix is true, for example.

[BuyOurEverything]

I can reach a verdict any way I choose.

Yes, you could try and solve 2+3 by rolling a dice and have faith that your answer will be correct. I see no difference between that and belief in god.


You are imprisoned with no chance of escape. (perhaps you did too many drugs or something)
The guards are sadistic types, and love to torture their victims.
They take you to a room, and sit you next to a young child.
"Unless you kill this child with your bare hands," they say, "we will kill you both".
"If you kill the child, you will be free to go and will not be pursued."

In that exact situation, assuming the guards are telling the truth I would of course kill the child and I would have no respect or sympathy for anyone who wouldn&#39;t. The reason that someone wouldn&#39;t want to are obvious. First, as redstar mentioned, why the hell would you believe the guards? No matter what anyone said, most people would have a nagging suspicion that killing a child could only get you into more trouble. The second is that people have a natural aversion to killing children. If they didn&#39;t, humans would have become extinct long ago as we would have killed all our young. I&#39;d imagine, over the course of human development, there haven&#39;t been too many situations like you described to change the course of evolution. This proves nothing.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The second is that people have a natural aversion to killing children.

This would obviously constitute as sympathy, eh, comrade?

[BuyOurEverything]

This would obviously constitute as sympathy, eh, comrade?

Yes... where are you going with this?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, it&#39;s just that you denied it having to do with sympathy.
Sorry for being a pedantic ass-hole.

[redstar2000]

The choice is whether or not you should take a life in order to preserve yours.

Then why did you "fancy it up"? Why didn&#39;t you just ask the question in a straightforward fashion?

You know why. Sticking in the sadistic guards, the impossibility of escape, and the child to be killed allowed you to obscure the real question and drag in a lot of irrational crap in the process.

Very typical&#33;

In real life, the dilemma of "kill or be killed" is rarely encountered...and almost always in circumstances where the correct choice is obvious: someone is trying to kill you and you kill them in self-defense.

"Spirituality" is about is relevant to this kind of question as the surface temperature on Mars.

I notice that you didn&#39;t like that little question I asked about the verse from Romans.

Will you respond...or not?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

I would of course kill the child


I pity you.



Logic is not something that you can use sometimes and sometimes not. If you really have logic, you would logicaly apply to everything you analyze, otherwise you&#39;re not logical. If you make an irrational choice, then you&#39;ve just failed to use logica, meaning you&#39;re logical. Meaning that not everything that you analyze will be subject to logic, meaning that you could easily be convinced into believing that the Matrix is true, for example.


I don&#39;t understand a word of this drivel. Could you rephrase it a little better?



What does it have to do with logic? Why is it logical to kill him? Is survival logical?


Well, yes. Survival is logical. It is logical to kill him / her because then one life will be saved; otherwise none will be saved. The question has everything to do with logic. And the rejection of logic.



I notice that you didn&#39;t like that little question I asked about the verse from Romans.

Will you respond...or not?


Yes, i&#39;ll respond. Although you have still managed to avoid my question. You just decided to insult it. The last resort, eh? I do not follow the Bible word for word. No-one does; it contradicts itself. But do you follow the Commie Manifesto word for word? That won&#39;t get you far. I believe in God for spiritual reasons. Organised religion - and the Bible is, unfortunately, a part of this - has caused much suffering in the past. But individual belief has never started a Crusade. Nor will mine. In the end, the only authority I follow or respect is Gods. Nations will rise and fall. Political systems will rise and fall. Man himself will die out one day. But God will live on; God is eternal.

[BuyOurEverything]

I pity you.

Why?


No, it&#39;s just that you denied it having to do with sympathy.
Sorry for being a pedantic ass-hole.

I don&#39;t remember doing that. If I did, I didn&#39;t mean to. Sympathy is a natural human instinct that evolved to allow us to establish societies. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

No, I can&#39;t really rephrase it much better. But my point was that if you use logic, then you would obviously subject everything that you analyze to it, otherwise it&#39;s not really logical, is it? So to sum up, if you accept religion, you&#39;re not logical.

[redstar2000]

I do not follow the Bible word for word. No-one does; it contradicts itself. But do you follow the Commie Manifesto word for word?

No, obviously not.

But here&#39;s where it gets interesting. When people quote the Communist Manifesto as if it were "scripture", I can offer rational arguments why I think this or that wording is now obsolete.

When I offer you a clear and direct quotation from the "New Testament"--the reactionary content of which is indisputable--you slide on by with hardly a word.

Perhaps that&#39;s acceptable behavior in religious circles these days; it&#39;s not here.

Was "Saint" Paulos of Tarsus lying? Was he just an ignorant wanker? Is the letter a forgery?

What&#39;s going on here?


Although you have still managed to avoid my question. You just decided to insult it. The last resort, eh?

I beg your pardon, I did answer your question, once all the ridiculous stage-dressing was stripped away. In the real world, when your life is threatened by another, it is both logical and rational to take his life in order to preserve your own.

You may not like the answer, but you can hardly deny that it is an answer.


I believe in God for spiritual reasons.

Fair enough...though you should put the word "reasons" in quotation marks. Real reasons are subject to confirmation through observation and argument. Your "reasons" simply float in the mists of your mind...vague shapes in the night and fog of unreason.


In the end, the only authority I follow or respect is God&#39;s.

Which turns out to be, after all, yours. You just pick out the portions of "the word of God" that suit you and reject the rest.

And if, one fine day, it suits you to "proclaim a crusade" (for example), you&#39;ll do it with a "clear conscience". You&#39;re simply obeying "God".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

I beg your pardon, I did answer your question, once all the ridiculous stage-dressing was stripped away. In the real world, when your life is threatened by another, it is both logical and rational to take his life in order to preserve your own.

You may not like the answer, but you can hardly deny that it is an answer.


You still don&#39;t understand the question&#33;

The situation, however improbable you think it to be, pertains to the "logic", or "rationality" of killing an innocent in order to preserve your life. Yes, I concede, taking a life in self-defence is "logical". (Though I like to think I would still refrain from such an action) But what if you were forced to take an innocents life? Your friends? Your sisters? (If you have one; this is only an example...)

Don&#39;t ignore the question, don&#39;t say "but it would never happen..."...

Answer&#33;&#33; "BuyOurEverything" did; he (or she) would kill a child to save his (or her? Sorry&#33;) skin. I pity you, by the way, because you obviously have very little regard for the implications or consequences of such an action. Could you actually kill a child and live with yourself afterwards??? Lord, I hope not...



Was "Saint" Paulos of Tarsus lying? Was he just an ignorant wanker? Is the letter a forgery?


I really don&#39;t know. The quote has gone off the bottom of the page and I can&#39;t be arsed to open a new window... I think it refered to the need to obey "the authorities"??? And since these authorities had been given power in the name of God, to not obey was to incur His wrath??? Is that correct??? If so, the passage can be taken to be an extension of "organised religion". I think the "authorities" refered to were religious, not political; the Papacy for example. How do the Bourgeoisie claim Divine Right? They do not.

I have already made clear my opposition to organised religion, for precisely the reasons argued by you. It creates conflicts, is used to oppress, etc. etc. My belief is based on an individual level.



Which turns out to be, after all, yours. You just pick out the portions of "the word of God" that suit you and reject the rest.


An interesting, and a very good point, comrade. And, in a sense, correct. (This is another aspect of my belief.) Yes, I interpret God in my own way. My belief, although influenced by the Bible, (the teachings of Jesus are fundamentally good - no-one can deny this) is my own. When I die, (God willing I have many years yet to come... <_< ) I believe that God will judge me on my actions, and on the degree to which I have followed a path of righteousness. I can read the Bible and think to myself: "Love the neighbour... Super. Done." Alternatively, I can read the good book and think "Respect the authorities... Hmmm, not so sure about that one, comrade Paulos of Tarsus..." In the end, God will judge me. If I am wrong in not respecting the Papacy, I will pay for my heresy. But these are my faults, not God&#39;s, or religion in general. The Bible was an interpretation of the "word of God" for the culture of the time. 2000 years ago. This is now; I will decide my moral stance based upon it, but not constricted by it.

Just to throw a spanner in the works...
[This is not the reasoning behind my faith&#33;&#33;&#33;]

No-one is sure whether God exists or not. There is no proof either way. (The whole point of "faith")
Therefore, no-one is sure about the existence of the &#39;afterlife&#39;.
Because we are unsure, is it not better to believe, "just in case"?
If we lead devout lives, and believe, the worst that can happen is that we would be proved incorrect...
The best we could hope for is eternal bliss in heaven...
Therefore is the "logical" or "rational" decision really the atheist one?
Or the Religious, "just in case" one?

(Sorry about the long post ;) )

[BuyOurEverything]

Answer&#33;&#33; "BuyOurEverything" did; he (or she) would kill a child to save his (or her? Sorry&#33;) skin. I pity you, by the way, because you obviously have very little regard for the implications or consequences of such an action. Could you actually kill a child and live with yourself afterwards??? Lord, I hope not...

Wait a minute, now you&#39;re changing the question. You said, kill kid or you BOTH die, not kill the kid or YOU die. In the former situation, I would kill the kid without question. In the latter, it would be more difficult and would depend on the circumstances.

edit: oh and it&#39;s &#39;his,&#39; I&#39;m a guy.

[redstar2000]

The situation, however improbable you think it to be, pertains to the "logic", or "rationality" of killing an innocent in order to preserve your life.

Since I have never been in such a situation nor can I plausibly imagine such a situation, I simply have no idea what I would do.

I might not kill the innocent simply because I have already lived long enough to be a bit weary of life anyway--getting old turns out not to be a whole lot of fun.

However, in real life, when I was threatened with conscription and being ordered to kill innocents in Vietnam, I refused...and made it stick. I also helped others to dodge the draft.

But "spiritual" motives had nothing to do with the matter.


If we lead devout lives, and believe, the worst that can happen is that we would be proved incorrect...

That&#39;s Pascal&#39;s wager, as you probably know, and--as defenders of religion usually do (like that fake "question")--he is dishonest in setting the terms.

First of all, if you lead a "devout life", you lose out on most pleasures of the flesh that you might otherwise have enjoyed.

Secondly, you set yourself against the idea of learning about the real world in a scientific way...it is like performing a pre-frontal lobotomy on yourself. (Pascal did no further scientific work after hooking up with the pious.)

Thirdly, sooner or later you find that you have become an enemy of human freedom.

And finally, as Pascal himself admits, you don&#39;t "really" have to believe...you just have to publicly act as if you believed. Go to mass and confession, observe the fasts and feasts, tithe, etc.

You actually give up quite a lot--including your integrity--if you accept Pascal&#39;s wager.

And for what? A "Heaven" the existence of which is totally unproven.

No serious gambler would accept such a lousy bet.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 11:10 PM

I do not follow the Bible word for word. No-one does; it contradicts itself. But do you follow the Commie Manifesto word for word?

No, obviously not.

But here&#39;s where it gets interesting. When people quote the Communist Manifesto as if it were "scripture", I can offer rational arguments why I think this or that wording is now obsolete.

I&#39;m glad that someone besides me feels this way. I can&#39;t stand debating an issue with someone only to have them respond with "But Marx said..."

[redstar2000]

Sometimes, you write things having no idea of what the confirming details might be...only to discover that confirmation is just a page or two away.

Here is what I wrote about Pascal&#39;s wager...


Thirdly, sooner or later you find that you have become an enemy of human freedom.

Little did I know that in the thread on the legalization of marijuana, this godly "Marxist" had already written this...


Our system has many flaws, but I don&#39;t think drug policy is one of them. Just because I happen to think that marijuana should NOT be legalised, (and certainly not heroin) doesn&#39;t mean I have a &#39;conservative outlook&#39; at all. I simply wish to protect our society from degenerating further.

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...&t=17346&st=270 (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=22&t=17346&st=270)

"Our system"? "Our society"? Putting people in prison for getting "high" is "not a flaw"?

Scratch a Christian, find a fascist.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

edit: oh and it&#39;s &#39;his,&#39; I&#39;m a guy.


Ok, now I know. My apologies.


Let&#39;s not get into the debate about drugs here. Yes, I admit, I am incredibly against drug use. This does not mean I am against personal freedom, or that I am a "fascist". I simply believe that using drugs harms others as well as yourself; therefore should not be allowed.

I live in the UK. Yes, we still have a "system" and a "society". There are class barriers; I observe them every day. However, a Marxist revolution is not about to occur in Britain. Or indeed, in the U S of A. Therefore, I have no shame in wanting to prevent our society from "degenerating" further. I support all fundamental freedoms - right to life, free speech, worship, etc etc. But freedom to smoke weed? I think not.



... when I was threatened with conscription and being ordered to kill innocents in Vietnam, I refused...and made it stick ...


Congratulations. You have my respect.



... learning about the real world in a scientific way ...


Science isn&#39;t that great. And most of it&#39;s wrong anyhow. It contradicts itself more then the Bible&#33;

I am not a fascist. You are incredibly narrow minded if you think so.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 5 2003, 04:52 PM
It isn&#39;t?Of course the basic idea cannot be changed.


Luther were against this deal that sins were forgiven with money.He found own church and leave the shit parts out of catholic church.

Ain&#39;t that progress or what?
And when the peasants came to resistance against the landlords like he had said, he supported the landlords. Ain&#39;t that progress or what?

[redstar2000]

Yes, I admit, I am incredibly against drug use. This does not mean I am against personal freedom, or that I am a "fascist". I simply believe that using drugs harms others as well as yourself; therefore should not be allowed.

Indeed? Well I "simply believe" that being a Christian "harms others as well as yourself" and "therefore should not be allowed".

I&#39;d much prefer universal heroin addiction to universal "religion-addiction".


I live in the UK. Yes, we still have a "system" and a "society". There are class barriers; I observe them every day. However, a Marxist revolution is not about to occur in Britain. Or indeed, in the U S of A. Therefore, I have no shame in wanting to prevent our society from "degenerating" further.

Whew&#33;

It&#39;s not a matter of "class barriers"...it&#39;s a matter of a class society.

The fact there is no "Marxist revolution" that is imminent does not allow you to identify with the old order, using words like "our". It isn&#39;t ours, it&#39;s theirs&#33;

The use of the word "degeneracy" with regard to societies is obsolete--the kind of thing Spengler, Chamberlain, Toynbee, etc. used to whine about.

One of the claims of early fascism was that it was going to "stop degeneracy". The anti-drug laws fit into that paradigm seamlessly.

In seeking to put people into prison for seeking harmless physical pleasures, you are well within the paradigm of clerical fascism.


Science isn&#39;t that great. And most of it&#39;s wrong anyhow. It contradicts itself more then the Bible&#33;

The babble of a barbarian.


I am not a fascist. You are incredibly narrow minded if you think so.

I&#39;m often accused of being "narrow-minded" for the habit I have of taking what people say at face value.

If someone expresses fascistic opinions, then I assume that those opinions actually reflect their "world-view" of things...and that that "world-view" is a fascist one.

That doesn&#39;t mean they own a drawer full of brown shirts, have a picture of Adolph on the wall, or would even recognize a swastika if they saw one. There are plenty of fascists today who couldn&#39;t find Germany or Italy on a map.

It&#39;s the underlying assumptions that differentiate a Marxist from a fascist...not simply the costumes, slogans, or stage-settings.

Thus though you are not technically a member of any fascist group and even have some views that would conflict with traditional fascism, I think your willingness to imprison people for the crime of seeking pleasure is fundamentally fascist.

Pleasure is a great crime to the convinced fascist; life is meant to be a stern and harsh struggle for survival and supremacy. The search for pleasure is a "deadly weakness" which must be eliminated by any means necessary, no matter how cruel.

It sort of resembles the way believers feel about "sin", know what I mean?

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

I think your willingness to imprison people for the crime of seeking pleasure is fundamentally fascist.


To take an extreme example;

Would you imprison a masochistic murderer? They "seek pleasure" by killing and wounding, even torturing people... Is this OK? Does it fit in with a Marxist interpretation of society?

Obviously not. We can&#39;t have murderers roaming the streets, unpunished by the state. (What state, I hear you cry...) The barriers must be defined. In my opinion, these barriers incorporate drug use and abuse.

This does not mean I am "fundamentally fascist", or that I am a "clerical fascist".



The babble of a barbarian.


Most of science is wrong. Newtonian mechanics, for example - fundamentally flawed. I see no reason why most other aspects of science might not also be incorrect. I just wanted to offer an alternative viewpoint; most people today believe blindly (just like the old organised Religion days) in what science tells them. Whether this be for good or evil.

[redstar2000]

In pursuit of my endless task--never missing an opportunity to give the believers a hard time--I offer this one...

My God, How the Money Rolls in&#33;


Five who are arrested enticed evangelical Christians to give them &#036;160 million, according to federal authorities.

The five allegedly ran a so-called affinity scheme, in which con artists prey upon the sympathies of groups bound together by ethnic, religious or other ties.

Investors were given a variety of assurances, the SEC alleged, including that their investments were risk-fee and that they could expect a return of 25% within three to six months.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-scam...business-manual (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-scam19nov19223420,1,7089240.story?coll=la-headlines-business-manual)

The believers claim to be beyond "worldly concerns"...but a "profit" of 25% in three to six months is a "blessing" too good to pass up.

Suckers&#33;

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas