Leftist harshness towards the religious

[Ready4Revolution]

Comrades,
I was reading the "MLism and being a Catholic" thread and I have a concern I would like to address.
The majority of the working class is religious, mostly Christian. We pride ourselves on being the ally of the working class, the guardians of the poor and disadvantaged. But, I see a recurring trend of hate against the religious. Mostly Christians. Most leftist arguments I hear against such religions are true and well-thought out. But, just because one holds theological beliefs does not automatically turn them into brainwashed acolytes of whomever leads their church. Like the OP of the thread mentioned at the beginning of my post, I am Catholic. I believe in the "mysticism" and the theological beliefs of my Church. However, I do not subscribe to the reactionary trend in the hiearchy of the church, and I do not agree with any anti-socialist views my Church my espouse. I get as angered with the Vatican and other organized religions as any other leftist, but I feel spirtually at home in a Catholic church. (Notice church, not Church.) And I do not consider myself any less revolutionary or left-wing than my nonreligious comrades. I do not believe that I should be automatically disregarded or my opinions thrown aside. I do not believe that I am reactionary because I do not subscribe to athiesm.
Thank you for your time,
A believer in liberation theology.

[Prometeo liberado]

1. No, the majority are not Christian. In your country yes, but not the world.
2. I am not an ally of the working class, I am a member.(like the hair club guy!)
3. I do understand your concerns. I am a recovery catholic. But the way I see it it's like being a formerly battered woman listening to another battered woman defend the one who beats her. How full of anger and frustration do you think will build up between them?
4. Keep it real comrade and either fight back with better takes in your posts or listen and get mad.
5. Or listen and learn.:)

[Ready4Revolution]

1. No, the majority are not Christian. In your country yes, but not the world.
2. I am not an ally of the working class, I am a member.(like the hair club guy!)
3. I do understand your concerns. I am a recovery catholic. But the way I see it it's like being a formerly battered woman listening to another battered woman defend the one who beats her. How full of anger and frustration do you think will build up between them?
4. Keep it real comrade and either fight back with better takes in your posts or listen and get mad.
5. Or listen and learn.:)

Thanks for your response, I can definitely relate to your third point. I am very tempted to leave my church when the reactionary, conservative current starts showing itself. I made that post in a spur of the moment, pissed off anger at the feeling of being marginalized.

[l'Enfermé]

And I don't think that any reasonable person here would call you a reactionary because you are a Christian, and those that would, they are not worth listening to.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Comrades,
I was reading the "MLism and being a Catholic" thread and I have a concern I would like to address.
The majority of the working class is religious, mostly Christian. We pride ourselves on being the ally of the working class, the guardians of the poor and disadvantaged. But, I see a recurring trend of hate against the religious. Mostly Christians. Most leftist arguments I hear against such religions are true and well-thought out. But, just because one holds theological beliefs does not automatically turn them into brainwashed acolytes of whomever leads their church. Like the OP of the thread mentioned at the beginning of my post, I am Catholic. I believe in the "mysticism" and the theological beliefs of my Church. However, I do not subscribe to the reactionary trend in the hiearchy of the church, and I do not agree with any anti-socialist views my Church my espouse.

How do you distinguish between the "theological beliefs" and "reactionary trends"?


I get as angered with the Vatican and other organized religions as any other leftist, but I feel spirtually at home in a Catholic church. (Notice church, not Church.)

Why not break away and form your own church, rather than continuing to support an organisation that has been complicit in harm?

[Os Cangaceiros]

The "party line" of this website is far from being hardcore anti-religion.

Yes, the majority of us are atheists, but no, I don't think there's a knee-jerk anti-theist bent to this site, for the most part.

[Pretty Flaco]

i don't think harsh anti-religiousness is a tendency of leftists specifically, but of atheists/agnostics. many people who weren't raised atheists i've noticed have a certain level of militarism and zealotry.

[eric922]

Ehh I wouldn't worry too much about what random people on the internet think of your beliefs. There are lot of people on this site who do come across as anti-religious, but they hardly represent the entire left or even the majority. I do understand where you are coming from though, I am Buddhist so most people would consider me religious.

[Sea]

Harshness you percieve / experiance towards religion or religious people likely has less to do with the notion of religion itself but rather that (some) religions have been used to oppress people, or at least as a way to justify oppression. Perhaps hence why I've never seen or heard of any assumptions being made against, say, neo-pagans or such among the left, despite that they may share the same points of contention with atheists in regards to the ultimate origin of things etc.

[tradeunionsupporter]

I don't hate/dislike Jews Christians and or Muslims.

[Zostrianos]

Comrades,
Like the OP of the thread mentioned at the beginning of my post, I am Catholic. I believe in the "mysticism" and the theological beliefs of my Church. However, I do not subscribe to the reactionary trend in the hiearchy of the church, and I do not agree with any anti-socialist views my Church my espouse. I get as angered with the Vatican and other organized religions as any other leftist, but I feel spirtually at home in a Catholic church. (Notice church, not Church.) And I do not consider myself any less revolutionary or left-wing than my nonreligious comrades. I do not believe that I should be automatically disregarded or my opinions thrown aside. I do not believe that I am reactionary because I do not subscribe to athiesm.

The Leftist opposition to religions is mainly based on the actions of some organized religions, especially Christianity and Islam. It's worth noting that before Marx, many (if not most) socialists were Christians who saw in Jesus' message a way toward egalitarianism, and rejected the Church's interpretation of his teachings. I'm a religious person myself (Neoplatonist\Hermetic), I believe in the power of mystical practices, and I don't think there's any contradiction between socialism and religion. The problem arises when organized religions set out to obtain political power, to oppress and to deceive the masses for personal gain.
The sad fact about Christianity is that the "good" denominations (liberal, tolerant, egalitarian), like the Unitarian, Lutheran, and modern Gnostic churches, are a minority in the larger scheme of organized Christianity - Catholic, fundamentalist Protestant, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other conservative, backward, intolerant, and reactionary bodies are still the dominant face of Christianity. So it's understandable that many leftists are opposed to religion.

[campesino]

to be honest, my opinion of religion is that
religion is a waste of time, I dislike it as much as new-age crap, it is so pacifist, so "victimy, submissiony"
I also refuse to believe in gurus, holy men or higher beings.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Tbh, the traditional leftist stance on religion is something that has always put me at odds with them. I have always been a fairly spiritual person until finally converting to islam a few years ago. Because of this I started to feel I couldn't be both leftist AND religious, despite being very progressive in my faith.

I do still agree with leftists on some issues, but don't really identify myself as a leftist due to the anti-religious connotations that it implies.

[eric922]

to be honest, my opinion of religion is that
religion is a waste of time, I dislike it as much as new-age crap, it is so pacifist, so "victimy, submissiony"
I also refuse to believe in gurus, holy men or higher beings.
You know of all the problems most people have with organized religion I don't think pacifism is very high. Aside from Jainism, you won't find very many religions that encourage absolute pacifism, and some are openly violent.

[campesino]

Tbh, the traditional leftist stance on religion is something that has always put me at odds with them. I have always been a fairly spiritual person until finally converting to islam a few years ago. Because of this I started to feel I couldn't be both leftist AND religious, despite being very progressive in my faith.

I do still agree with leftists on some issues, but don't really identify myself as a leftist due to the anti-religious connotations that it implies.

how I reconcile religion and politics is, religion is personal and a choice, and politics should respect religion and not impose it. if you truly support your organization, that is not leftist. To impose your holy laws and ideas(zakat) derived from religion on any human being is not leftist. even if the religion derived idea is something like charity(zakat) that benefits the poor, it still forces people to do religious things, plus charity is bad.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I can't speak for other members, but personally I try not to let my own convictions about all religious belief reflect on how I treat someone. Admittedly, I am not always successful; I do find myself becoming quite angry and vitriolic whenever religion enters a political debate and is used to justify a position like being anti-choice or wanting creationism taught as a science in schools.
These lapses in civility aside, I do think everyone is entitled to whatever religious belief they hold and I hope the general trend on the Left is one of tolerance rather than open-mocking or condemnation (tho I personally cannot and will not ever support the idea of religion playing a leading role in society, more a personal role in people's private lives).

[ВАЛТЕР]

What about religions harshness towards the left?

For example it is a well-known fact that the Catholic church openly collaborated with the Nazis. The church has always been against the left as they don't want their power threatened. They have been behind much of the anti-communist propaganda in the past.

Religious people aren't our enemies. However the institutions which represent them are very much reactionary and counterrevolutionary.

[LOLseph Stalin]

how I reconcile religion and politics is, religion is personal and a choice, and politics should respect religion and not impose it. if you truly support your organization, that is not leftist. To impose your holy laws and ideas(zakat) derived from religion on any human being is not leftist. even if the religion derived idea is something like charity(zakat) that benefits the poor, it still forces people to do religious things, plus charity is bad.

Well I'm against forcing my beliefs on others and don't really care what other people believe. However, due to the leftist ideas on religion itself I do feel I'm at odds.

Also, what's wrong with charity? It's an effective way to help needy people in a capitalist society.

[Zukunftsmusik]

The church has always been against the left as they don't want their power threatened.

apart from liberation theology, though this part of the church is/was being marginalised

[LeftAbove]

Well I'm against forcing my beliefs on others and don't really care what other people believe. However, due to the leftist ideas on religion itself I do feel I'm at odds.

Also, what's wrong with charity? It's an effective way to help needy people in a capitalist society.

Charity alone is not enough to cover all the people in the USA stricken with poverty, unemployment, and homelessness.

As to the topic, personally I'm not harsh against the religious as there are indeed fundamental socialists. As long as they don't infringe my right to religious freedom, I have nothing against them.

[harte.beest]

Charity alone is not enough to cover all the people in the USA stricken with poverty, unemployment, and homelessness.

As to the topic, personally I'm not harsh against the religious as there are indeed fundamental socialists. As long as they don't infringe my right to religious freedom, I have nothing against them.
It is impossible for you to be a good "whatever you are" and not be infringing on people's religion. Christianity tells you to kill all those who don't worship your God, murder all false prophets, and kill all non-believers. SO if you're a "secular" Christian your going to hell.

m against every religion on earth I think there is nothing more harmful to the world. And I reject the idea that atheism leads people away from communism. Just the opposite, Atheism attracts people to communism, the fact, that religion has more to do with nationalities, politics, classes, and the so called "invisible hand of the market"

Who believes in invisible hands?... Theists

[LeftAbove]

It is impossible for you to be a good "whatever you are" and not be infringing on people's religion. Christianity tells you to kill all those who don't worship your God, murder all false prophets, and kill all non-believers. SO if you're a "secular" Christian your going to hell.

I'm against every religion on earth I think there is nothing more harmful to the world. And I reject the idea that atheism leads people away from communism.J ust the opposite, Atheism attracts people to communism, the fact, that religion has more to do with nationalities, politics, classes, and the so called "invisible hand of the market"

Who believes in invisible hands?... Theists

Ayn Rand was an ardent believer in laissez faire capitalism and her own philosophy "Objectivism" rejects belief in God as a form of determinism. How could you say atheism attracts people to communism? How I wish that were true. I don't know about any of those beliefs concerning killing non believers or false prophets (well, not in the New Testament.) But I know plenty of verses that seem to promote a communist society. How hypocritical of most Republicans!
On a side note, I would try to avoid coming across of being sacrilegious. The reason for that being it tends to repel people (especially the devout) from leftism. Also, comments like that reflect what some say concerning atheism and "infidels."

[harte.beest]

Ayn Rand was an ardent believer in laissez faire capitalism and her own philosophy "Objectivism" rejects belief in God as a form of determinism.Rand is a fucking hack, don't ever speak that woman's name. How dare you, you might as well quote Ann Coulter as a source for feminism. She's a hack, she'll do or say anything for money. I could go on but the character assassination of ayn rand has already been done a million times.


How could you say atheism attracts people to communism? How I wish that were true. "Religion is the opium of the people" Telling drug addicts they need to quit is always controversial but they will thank you for it in the end


I don't know about any of those beliefs concerning killing non believers or false prophets (well, not in the New Testament.)

I hate assholes who say "this version of Christianity doesn't apply to me'e I'm a special Christian" most of all.....But here, I'll play your game this one time

Beliefs concerning killing new testament:

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

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10
Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10
A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

But I know plenty of verses that seem to promote a communist society. How hypocritical of most Republicans! Strange coincidence isn't it?


On a side note, I would try to avoid coming across of being sacrilegious. The reason for that being it tends to repel people (especially the devout) from leftism.Sorry, but I disagree, you'll have to explain this one



Also, comments like that reflect what some say concerning atheism and "infidels."

Infidel (literally "one without faith") I'm a proud infidel and fuck you if you think infidel is an insult

[eric922]

It is impossible for you to be a good "whatever you are" and not be infringing on people's religion. Christianity tells you to kill all those who don't worship your God, murder all false prophets, and kill all non-believers. SO if you're a "secular" Christian your going to hell.

m against every religion on earth I think there is nothing more harmful to the world. And I reject the idea that atheism leads people away from communism. Just the opposite, Atheism attracts people to communism, the fact, that religion has more to do with nationalities, politics, classes, and the so called "invisible hand of the market"

Who believes in invisible hands?... Theists
More harmful than capitalism, really?

[harte.beest]

More harmful than capitalism, really?
Yes would you like to know more

[eric922]

Yes would you like to know more
Yes, I would. I don't see how you can argue that religion is more harmful than capitalism. Religion will adapt to the overall society. All the the objectively harmful effects of religion are a product of class society. In a socialist society religion would take a very different form than it's current one, though I don't think it would disappear.

[Leroy Brown]

What message attributed to Christ himself -- not some apostle or some Pope or some council -- is actually inimical to the working class?

[harte.beest]

Yes, I would. I don't see how you can argue that religion is more harmful than capitalismReligion existed thousands of years before capitalism, or the free market, it has caused far more harm historically, it causes far more harm today 9/11, WW2, and slavery, happened more because of religion then anything else.
Religion will adapt to the overall society. When has this ever happened? religious zealots are for more militant and fundamentalist today then they were 500 years ago. Denying the world is round is alot easier when there is little or no proof. As proof that "your" religion isn't true appears, the more fundamentalist one must become in order to still believe in their faith


All the the objectively harmful effects of religion are a product of class society. Religion created a class system long before capitalism was around, the learned priests or Pharaohs or librarians (whatever you call them) were the keeper's of secret knowledge.


In a socialist society religion would take a very different form than it's current one, though I don't think it would disappear. It wouldn't, it would take the place of scientific research, if there is an afterlife, or spiritual plane, it can and will be discovered scientifically. Religion will fade into science fiction cartoons, and to the likes of the bigfoots and lochness monsters of the world. Don't get me wrong science fiction can be very useful, we wouldn't have satellites if it wasn't for one comic book author. But that's all the bible should be treated as in the future.

...Just really a boring comic book.

(Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword.
- Matthew 10:34)

[eric922]

First of all sorry if I'm quoting you wrong,


Religion existed thousands of years before capitalism, or the free market, it has caused far more harm historically, it causes far more harm today 9/11, WW2, and slavery, happened more because of religion then anything else.

I disagree with all of your examples. I don't think 911 was the result of religion, but rather religion was used as a justification for region. I think the vast majority of Muslim terrorists get involved because they are angry at the U.S. meddling in their countries and it gives them a way to strike back.

You'll have to explain to me how WWII was caused by religion, because I really don't see it. Especially when you consider that most of the countries of Europe follow the same religion.

Slavery was not caused by religion. It was done because there was economical benefits for doing so. It was originally justified as being okay to do to Africans because they weren't Christians, but once they converted, the slave owners just came up with new justification.


When has this ever happened? religious zealots are for more militant and fundamentalist today then they were 500 years ago. Denying the world is round is alot easier when there is little or no proof. As proof that "your" religion isn't true appears, the more fundamentalist one must become in order to still believe in their faith

Here is one example, the Catholic Church, hardly a progressive religion, now accepts revolution, in fact most Christians accept it. Fundamentalists aren't the majority.

The Dalia Lama, leader of one sect of Tibetan Buddhism, has had several dialouges with various members of the scientific community and has even said that if science should prove some part of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will simply have to change. He is also trying to change his religion's stance on women, saying that his next rebirth will be as a women. Whether, you believe in rebirth or not, Tibetan Buddhists do, and he is essentially saying that is successor will be a woman. That would never have happened if Tibetan Buddhism remained isolated in Tibet's formerly feudal society, but its exposure to the outside world has changed it.




It wouldn't, it would take the place of scientific research, if there is an afterlife, or spiritual plane, it can and will be discovered scientifically. Religion will fade into science fiction cartoons, and to the likes of the bigfoots and lochness monsters of the world. Don't get me wrong science fiction can be very useful, we wouldn't have satellites if it wasn't for one comic book author. But that's all the bible should be treated as in the future.

...Just really a boring comic book .

This is just speculation. There is no way for you to know this. Your opinion has no more evidence behind it, in this regard, than mine. Well except the bolded part, that's just pure truth. Worst comic book ever.

[LeftAbove]

Rand is a fucking hack, don't ever speak that woman's name. How dare you, you might as well quote Ann Coulter as a source for feminism. She's a hack, she'll do or say anything for money. I could go on but the character assassination of ayn rand has already been done a million times.

Yes, but there are right wing libertarians (who are atheists and feminists) who frequently quote Rand as inspiration.


"Religion is the opium of the people" Telling drug addicts they need to quit is always controversial but they will thank you for it in the end “The incompatibility between religion and the rights of man is so little part of the concept of the rights of man that the right to be religious in the fashion that pleases one and to practice a particular form of worship is explicitly included among the rights of man. The privilege of faith is a universal human right.” - Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question


Beliefs concerning killing new testament:

Any city that doesn't’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11 The verse refers to Jesus telling his disciples that they shouldn't bother with people who reject the gospel as it's more tolerable for Sodom and Gommorha in the day of judgment to be proselytized (possibly because they would listen to his teachings.) I would also like to add the fact you didn't quote the verse correctly.


A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33 Not quite. This verse clarifies that only God judges who's chosen. Not man.



Sorry, but I disagree, you'll have to explain this oneThe fundamentalists will associate leftism with state atheism, with no freedom of religion whatsoever. Leftism will seem like a spectrum for the sacrilegious and the sacrilegious only.

[Dean]

Comrades,
I was reading the "MLism and being a Catholic" thread and I have a concern I would like to address.
The majority of the working class is religious, mostly Christian. We pride ourselves on being the ally of the working class, the guardians of the poor and disadvantaged. But, I see a recurring trend of hate against the religious. Mostly Christians. Most leftist arguments I hear against such religions are true and well-thought out. But, just because one holds theological beliefs does not automatically turn them into brainwashed acolytes of whomever leads their church. Like the OP of the thread mentioned at the beginning of my post, I am Catholic. I believe in the "mysticism" and the theological beliefs of my Church. However, I do not subscribe to the reactionary trend in the hiearchy of the church, and I do not agree with any anti-socialist views my Church my espouse. I get as angered with the Vatican and other organized religions as any other leftist, but I feel spirtually at home in a Catholic church. (Notice church, not Church.) And I do not consider myself any less revolutionary or left-wing than my nonreligious comrades. I do not believe that I should be automatically disregarded or my opinions thrown aside. I do not believe that I am reactionary because I do not subscribe to athiesm.
Thank you for your time,
A believer in liberation theology.

You don't have to support a church, a religious organization, supernatural ideas or any reactionary positions to be religious. There are plenty of positive moral and philosophical positions you can take from (nearly) any religious traditions / cultures that don't have to clash with leftism or materialism.

I don't think religion belongs in OI, but I guess it makes sense since proselytizers are restricted. A lot of religion (especially catholicism as its taught) has a lot of philosophy in it and so long as you are not proselytizing or derailing threads, you can discuss those ideas in the Philosophy subforum. Bear in mind that threads exclusively about religion will be moved to this (religion) subforum however.

A lot of folk are zealous in their rejection of religion here. But in my experience, religion and science are not clear-cut in what distinguishes them - that is that they both frequently cover the same topics, and both are potentially holistic - that is, science can theoretically tell us about anything in the material world, and religion can lay claim to the same extent. Keep in mind that religions which claim to have knowledge of "immaterial" beings, functions and processes are defining themselves as falsehoods.

This is really the crux of the issue in my opinion. Religion should be judged by the same standards as science (the latter including philosophy). There's no reason you can't cherry pick what aspects of a religion you want to follow - every major religion does it with their holy books and traditions, and ideally, you should be empowered to determine your own spiritual trajectory. Maybe one day you'll decide that you are no longer a catholic. But I think you're doing more harm than good by associating yourself with Catholicism or militant atheism simply because you think they are the only options. You don't need someone else to tell you how you feel - and whatever you want to call yourself is just a label.

[Manic Impressive]

All religious people can go to hell as far as I'm concerned

[Dean]

Religion existed thousands of years before capitalism, or the free market, it has caused far more harm historically, it causes far more harm today 9/11, WW2, and slavery, happened more because of religion then anything else.
Complete bullshit. I think you know this, too.

-9/11: the consequence of US and UK imperialism in the middle east, and more generally of time-honored traditions of the West subjugating the Middle East. Chickens coming home to roost.

-WWII: c'mon, seriously? Germany had a massive steel and industrial economy long before the war, and the instability of the markets - coupled with draconian reparations levied against Germany - are a few of the obvious causes of German aggression leading to WWII.

-Slavery: are you kidding me? All of the recent historical examples of slavery have little to nothing to do with religion. Where religion gets involved, it is usually to justify it post facto.


When has this ever happened? religious zealots are for more militant and fundamentalist today then they were 500 years ago. Denying the world is round is alot easier when there is little or no proof. As proof that "your" religion isn't true appears, the more fundamentalist one must become in order to still believe in their faith
This quaint little theory might work in your head, but not in the real world. Religious fundamentalism is rife in extremely rural communities. Wherever people are more connected to information and the international community, religion is regressing. Furthermore, the old incarnation of the East-West conflict was markedly more religious in its rhetoric than today's conflict.


Religion created a class system long before capitalism was around, the learned priests or Pharaohs or librarians (whatever you call them) were the keeper's of secret knowledge.
Communal ownership existed before capitalism, too - so are we to reject that because it was used for barbarism, as well?


(Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send
peace, but a sword.
- Matthew 10:34)
Here Jesus is describing his revolutionary program to create heaven on earth by destroying the old order, sons and daughters killing their mothers and fathers.

Besides, the bible has conflicting representations of Christ. in one story he is so noble as to invite even unbelieving harlots into his fellowship, while in others, he condemns people for being of a different ethnicity. Using biblical phrases as proof that religion is wholly evil is comparable to quoting Marx, Mao or Stalin and claiming that all leftists think that way. Its absurd and worthless, in other words.


The underlying problem with your view of the world is that you think ideas shape the world, rather than the other way around. Religion, politics, and even math and science, all seek to justify what we see and what we do as human beings. Ideas help us to mold our actions, but when we are talking about a mystified reality - which religion is typically referring to - those situations are unique in that the economic and material necessity is primarily determining the actions of human beings, rather than the ideas of human beings. The only state-of-things where ideas primarily shape human action, rather than economic necessity shaping human action, is the state of the liberated man in a communist society. Since we don't live there, you can't blame ideas.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This quaint little theory might work in your head, but not in the real world. Religious fundamentalism is rife in extremely rural communities. Wherever people are more connected to information and the international community, religion is regressing.

In other words, it's becoming harder to maintain the fiction that one's particular religion has a monopoly on universal truth.


Communal ownership existed before capitalism, too - so are we to reject that because it was used for barbarism, as well?

Nope, the fact that religion ain't true should be good enough to reject it.


Besides, the bible has conflicting representations of Christ. in one story he is so noble as to invite even unbelieving harlots into his fellowship, while in others, he condemns people for being of a different ethnicity. Using biblical phrases as proof that religion is wholly evil is comparable to quoting Marx, Mao or Stalin and claiming that all leftists think that way. Its absurd and worthless, in other words.

It does show that the Bible was put together in such a way that it can be used to justify pretty much any sociopolitical position or system.

[Leroy Brown]

Religious fundamentalists adhere to this fiction. But not all the religious are fundamentalist. They bend.

[Azraella]

"Religion is the opium of the people" Telling drug addicts they need to quit is always controversial but they will thank you for it in the end


I can tell someone has a contempt for the mostly religious working class. But hey, it's not as though we're really care about overthrowing the capitalist mode of production, we're all about being paternalistic fuckwads that have a contempt for individuals who have beliefs about the nature and character of our universe. But you know, when stupid neo-cons and philosophically boring shitheads write some books about how religion poisons everything or how something unfalsifiable is somehow disproven by science, the working class needs to masturbate to those books. Well fuck that noise and anyone who honestly believes anti-theism or militant atheism is pro-working class.

No seriously, fuck your paternalistic anti-working class contempt. I am so sick of people trying to tell me what I fucking need to believe, how I am able to express that belief, or whatfuckingever.

Go masturbate to your Dawkins and Hitchens while I work to overthrow capitalism. Your revolution is not my revolution.

[Revolution starts with U]

neo-con antitheists?

also: as if theism is "pro" working class...

i agree we shouldnt be paternalist about theism, but come on...

[Azraella]

'twas a rant, bro.



neo-con antitheists?


Chris Hitchens comes to mind.

(And actually I don't believe theism or atheism is pro or anti working class. But as I said, I was ranting)

[Dean]

In other words, it's becoming harder to maintain the fiction that one's particular religion has a monopoly on universal truth.



Nope, the fact that religion ain't true should be good enough to reject it.



It does show that the Bible was put together in such a way that it can be used to justify pretty much any sociopolitical position or system.


I know these kinds of posts rub you the wrong way, but was this really the best you could come up with? Do you agree with me that it is material conditions more than ideas that determine life in capitalist society? Do you agree with me that most of the aforementioned problems are caused by things other than religion?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I know these kinds of posts rub you the wrong way, but was this really the best you could come up with?

I guess you won't know until you try addressing what I wrote.


Do you agree with me that it is material conditions more than ideas that determine life in capitalist society?

Religion isn't just a matter of "ideas" though is it? People are often raised in a religious milieu, and I would count that as a set of material conditions.


Do you agree with me that most of the aforementioned problems are caused by things other than religion?

It's foolish to attribute any of the world's problems to any single cause, including religion. However, I think there is more than enough social and historical evidence that the influence of religion has been negative overall.

[Zealot]

Tbh, the traditional leftist stance on religion is something that has always put me at odds with them. I have always been a fairly spiritual person until finally converting to islam a few years ago. Because of this I started to feel I couldn't be both leftist AND religious, despite being very progressive in my faith.

I do still agree with leftists on some issues, but don't really identify myself as a leftist due to the anti-religious connotations that it implies.

You don't identify as a leftist because you've chosen to join the reactionary clique. And I'm not even referring to your religion. I could care less that you're a muslim but, since you've chosen the right-wing path and completely neglected to structure your religious ideas around Marxism, don't come here complaining that you're not a leftist "due to the anti-religious connotations that it implies".


Comrades,
I was reading the "MLism and being a Catholic" thread and I have a concern I would like to address.
The majority of the working class is religious, mostly Christian. We pride ourselves on being the ally of the working class, the guardians of the poor and disadvantaged. But, I see a recurring trend of hate against the religious. Mostly Christians. Most leftist arguments I hear against such religions are true and well-thought out. But, just because one holds theological beliefs does not automatically turn them into brainwashed acolytes of whomever leads their church. Like the OP of the thread mentioned at the beginning of my post, I am Catholic. I believe in the "mysticism" and the theological beliefs of my Church. However, I do not subscribe to the reactionary trend in the hiearchy of the church, and I do not agree with any anti-socialist views my Church my espouse. I get as angered with the Vatican and other organized religions as any other leftist, but I feel spirtually at home in a Catholic church. (Notice church, not Church.) And I do not consider myself any less revolutionary or left-wing than my nonreligious comrades. I do not believe that I should be automatically disregarded or my opinions thrown aside. I do not believe that I am reactionary because I do not subscribe to athiesm.
Thank you for your time,
A believer in liberation theology.

God and Catholicism in general has nothing to stand upon and this is the view for most of the left in general. However, that's a different debate.

What I don't understand is why you remain in the Catholic Church. You've admitted to having a hatred of their reactionary views, not to mention you're a believer in liberation theology (something which was/is heavily suppressed by the church elites), and yet you still choose to identify with this particular church? However, this doesn't mean you can't be a Marxist but almost any type of religious belief is, in my opinion, ripe for the fostering of right-wing deviationism.

[Psy]

Religion as it exist today is a propaganda tool of the ruling class to snuff out class consciousness and preach the masses accept their station in the social order claiming that it is God's will that you are a wage slave. God is Omnibenevolence,Omnisciencem and Omnipotence thus from the logic of religion God is absolute good, knows about capitalism, has the power to stop capitalism if God wanted, so logically since capitalism exists that means if God existed that means God thinks capitalism is good and capitalism is good by God thinking it is good.

What is the point of turning to "wisdom" of the primitive ruling classes? Of course religion and science are at odds, back when the old and new testament were written the ruling class knew jack shit about the universe.

[shinjuku dori]

Leftist harshness towards the religious?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6WCa1kuQBe6iWPOfF6FovsTWrPGSn-lxH46cU-35OnJWtG0nrA_-M_ZC7rA

Where?

[Psy]

Leftist harshness towards the religious?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ6WCa1kuQBe6iWPOfF6FovsTWrPGSn-lxH46cU-35OnJWtG0nrA_-M_ZC7rA

Where?
Yhea they don't really look like the class conscious type more trying to defend the little guy. But really does the left need more any reason then the fact the Russian Catholic Church backed the White Army during Bolsheviks during the Russian civil-war to be distrustful of religion, as to this day the Russian Catholic Church has never apologized to Marxist for murdering them during the Russian civil-war.

[Comrade Trollface]

Leftist harshness towards the religious?


Where?This image is representative of an unfortunate tendency to couple a disdain for one's religious neighbors with support for nasty theocratic 'enemy of my enemy' types overseas.

[Rocky Rococo]

Find out what the religious think of socialists and anarchists, and how historically the religious power has treated socialists and anarchists, and get back to me.

[Tim Finnegan]

Religion as it exist today is a propaganda tool of the ruling class to snuff out class consciousness and preach the masses accept their station in the social order claiming that it is God's will that you are a wage slave. God is Omnibenevolence,Omnisciencem and Omnipotence thus from the logic of religion God is absolute good, knows about capitalism, has the power to stop capitalism if God wanted, so logically since capitalism exists that means if God existed that means God thinks capitalism is good and capitalism is good by God thinking it is good.

What is the point of turning to "wisdom" of the primitive ruling classes? Of course religion and science are at odds, back when the old and new testament were written the ruling class knew jack shit about the universe.
Do you communicate exclusively in clichés?

[Comrade Trollface]

Find out what the religious think of socialists and anarchists, and how historically the religious power has treated socialists and anarchists, and get back to me.
Tolstoy, The Catholic Worker, Liberation Theology, etc all demonstrate how bankrupt that statement is. The problem obviously isn't religious belief or religious people, but hierarchies and specific institutions of social control both religious and secular. This is a pretty good rule of thumb. Just because the Catholic Church is your enemy does not mean that all Catholic people necessarily are. And just because I would have been tortured and murdered for my ideas in the USSR does not mean that every Leninist on this forum is my mortal enemy.

[MuscularTophFan]

Religion is the biggest enemy of humanity there is. If humanity is wiped out it will likely because of a nuclear war caused by religious fucktards. The only way humanity will survive if religion is completely and totally abolished.

Religion is anti-gay, anti-women, racist, anti-scientific, pro-authoritarian, pro-war mongering, anti-democratic, etc. Religion is opposed to EVERYTHING I STAND FOR.

Anyone who defends or doesn't attack religion is part of the problem. If you believe in any insane fairly tale over believing in evolution and actual facts you should be made fun by society.

[Tim Finnegan]

MTF, could you please define "religion" for us?

[RedCloud]

You don't identify as a leftist because you've chosen to join the reactionary clique.

Leftist is just a word to match your political views up on a flow cart... You don't have to call yourself a leftist to have the supposedly leftist title.

In other words, identifying as a leftist doesn't mean shit. ;)

Also, this:

And I don't think that any reasonable person here would call you a reactionary because you are a Christian, and those that would, they are not worth listening to.

OP, I support you. I am a Christian, always have been, and I'm a worker. People on RevLeft who condemn Christians are hypocrites for condemning us.

[Psy]

OP, I support you. I am a Christian, always have been, and I'm a worker. People on RevLeft who condemn Christians are hypocrites for condemning us.
We are not condemning Christians it is just that rationally Christians are probably simply buying into the propaganda of a long dead ruling class which explains why the Bible talks about how much you can beat your slave without offending God and that slaves should never rebel against their masters.

I mean if God really wanted to communicate with humanity why would God communicate through a ruling class rather then the working class? If Jesus was the son of God why wasn't Jesus a militant revolutionary leading a slave rebellion against the Roman Empire? I mean who with class consciousness would have cared about the plight of the Israelites over the plight of all slaves?

[MuscularTophFan]

MTF, could you please define "religion" for us?
Primitive humans didn't understand the universe so they came with religion as an "answer" to the big questions "How did we get here and what happens after we die?" Now that we humans understand things like evolution, big bang, and there is no afterlife when we die there is no point to have religion anymore. Religion is just an evolutionary side effect of humans trying to understand the world around them so they came up with primitive religious answers to questions they didn't fully comprehend or understand.

[Tim Finnegan]

We are not condemning Christians it is just that rationally Christians are probably simply buying into the propaganda of a long dead ruling class which explains why the Bible talks about how much you can beat your slave without offending God and that slaves should never rebel against their masters.
You're speaking as if the Bible is a single, fully coherent text. It's not. It's a collection of books presenting a number of different, frequently contradictory strains of thought. It may be interpreted in a staunchly conservative manner, or in a profoundly radical manner. That the former prevails reflects above all else the fact that the ruling class prevails, not the existence a single, invariant "proper interpretation", and to claim there is- whether for it or against it- is to mask the profound tensions which run through the entire text from beginning to end.

I mean, to put it crudely, you've heard of Thomas Müntzer, haven't you?


Primitive humans didn't understand the universe so they came with religion as an "answer" to the big questions "How did we get here and what happens after we die?" Now that we humans understand things like evolution, big bang, and there is no afterlife when we die there is no point to have religion anymore. Religion is just an evolutionary side effect of humans trying to understand the world around them so they came up with primitive religious answers to questions they didn't fully comprehend or understand.
I didn't ask for your potted history of religion, I asked what the word "religion" actually refers to.

[Raúl Duke]

I am a Christian, always have been, and I'm a worker. People on RevLeft who condemn Christians are hypocrites for condemning us.

I'm tired with this equating of religion and what not as being a part of what it means to be working class. That's a bunch of horseshit. That's no fucking excuse to just "go with it" and not rock the boat.

There are many working class people who aren't religious, some are atheist/agnostic even. There are bourgeois who are religious as well. Religiosity doesn't define one's class position at all.

Religion is for the most part non-sense and in some parts/versions/expressions quite reactionary. I don't give a shit what people believe, as long as it doesn't express itself into some sort of reactionary mood or behavior (i.e. anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-women) and especially so if they want to push these reactionary things into public policy. That's what we must oppose if we are to be progressive radical leftists..

[Psy]

You're speaking as if the Bible is a single, fully coherent text. It's not. It's a collection of books presenting a number of different, frequently contradictory strains of thought. It may be interpreted in a staunchly conservative manner, or in a profoundly radical manner. That the former prevails reflects above all else the fact that the ruling class prevails, not the existence a single, invariant "proper interpretation", and to claim there is- whether for it or against it- is to mask the profound tensions which run through the entire text from beginning to end.

I mean, to put it crudely, you've heard of Thomas Müntzer, haven't you?

Yes but then there is no proper interpretation of the bible it is a mess of old propaganda.

[Comrade Trollface]

The Bible, especially the Hebrew portion thereof, is a rich repository of primal archetypes. Calling it a "mess of old propaganda" is like calling the Rosetta Stone a moot decree of a dead and forgotten king. It is technically a perfectly valid description, but it manages to entirely miss the point of why the thing is so monumentally important.

[electrostal]

Religion is anti-gay, anti-women, racist, anti-scientific, pro-authoritarian, pro-war mongering, anti-democratic, etc. Religion is opposed to EVERYTHING I STAND FOR.
Explain how Buddhism is any of this.
I'm curious.

[MuscularTophFan]

Explain how Buddhism is any of this.
I'm curious.
Every single Buddhist country currently around does not have same sex marriage and there is a a social sigma against homosexuality in Buddhism because homosexuals can't reproduce.

[Comrade Trollface]

Every single Buddhist country currently around does not have same sex marriage and there is a a social sigma against homosexuality in Buddhism because homosexuals can't reproduce.Same goes for every country that I can think of where atheism has been the official religious position. Does that mean atheists are reactionary by definition?:rolleyes:

[Psy]

The Bible, especially the Hebrew portion thereof, is a rich repository of primal archetypes. Calling it a "mess of old propaganda" is like calling the Rosetta Stone a moot decree of a dead and forgotten king. It is technically a perfectly valid description, but it manages to entirely miss the point of why the thing is so monumentally important.

The Bible is only so monumentally important because people don't see it as a poorly cobbled together collection of ancient propaganda and that it is the "true word of God".

[Comrade Trollface]

It is also important in the same way that the work of Homer is important.

[eric922]

Every single Buddhist country currently around does not have same sex marriage and there is a a social sigma against homosexuality in Buddhism because homosexuals can't reproduce.
Didn't the USSR ban homosexuality under Stalin? Does that mean communism is by nature anti-gay? Of course, not. There is nothing in the core ideas of communism that are anti-gay. Just as there is nothing in the core teachings of Buddhism that are anti-gay. Buddha never once mentioned homosexuality. You can search the sutras and you won't find it anywhere.

[MuscularTophFan]

Didn't the USSR ban homosexuality under Stalin? Does that mean communism is by nature anti-gay? Of course, not. There is nothing in the core ideas of communism that are anti-gay.
USSR wasn't communist. Not sure if serious or trolling.



Just as there is nothing in the core teachings of Buddhism that are anti-gay. Buddha never once mentioned homosexuality. You can search the sutras and you won't find it anywhere.
Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuality either. What is your point?

[Comrade Trollface]

USSR wasn't communist. Not sure if serious or trolling.
It was officially atheist though, so according to your argument atheism is reactionary. Derp!

[MuscularTophFan]

Same goes for every country that I can think of where atheism has been the official religious position. Does that mean atheists are reactionary by definition?:rolleyes:
Atheism can't be the official "religious" position. You can't kill in the name of atheism. There is no atheistic holy book that all atheists follow on the issue of homosexuality. A large percentage of atheists support gay rigths and gay marriage not because some religious nonsense says so but because they want gay people to have equal rights. If you look at all of the US states with gay marriage you can see that all of them are secular mostly godless irreligious states.(Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Washington)

[MuscularTophFan]

It was officially atheist though, so according to your argument atheism is reactionary. Derp!
No it wasn't atheistic either. It was authoritarian and promoted the state religion of Leninism/Stalinism. It than changed this to be only the state religion of Leninism.

[Comrade Trollface]

Atheism can't be the official "religious" position. It was in the USSR and the other east bloc countries. In other words you are factually incorrect. Read up on it. It has been, and in some places still is, the official state position.

So my point still stands. According to your argument, Atheism is inherently reactionary. Luckily this is because your argument is based on a fallacy. Namely you have conflated policies of specific governments with certain religious orientations with essential aspects of said religious orientation and its practitioners.

The USSR was a fucked up atheist government. There are fucked up Buddhist governments. None of this demonstrates that either atheism or Buddhism are inherently fucked up or irredeemable.

[eric922]

USSR wasn't communist. Not sure if serious or trolling.



Jesus never mentioned anything about homosexuality either. What is your point?

As to your first point, fine replace communism with socialism and my point stands. Many Marxist-Leninists argue the USSR was a socialist state. Seriously, that is one of the most annoying things about debating on this site. People waste their time arguing about words. When I said communism, you knew as well as I did that I meant a society that was trying to bring about communism. You knew very well that I don't actually think the USSR achieved communism. Really, it's ridiculous.

As to your point about Christianity, the Bible mentions homosexuality many times, and Christian societies are based on more than just the words of Jesus.

My point should be fairly clear, it is this: the fact that some countries with a Buddhist majority have outlawed homosexuality does not mean Buddhism is anti-gay anymore than the fact that a state that claimed to be socialist banned gay marriage makes socialism anti-gay. Seriously, my point should have been clear.

Furthermore, several Asian countries don't have any laws against homosexuality. Japan, for instance, only enacted sodomy laws after the Meji Restoration as result of Western influence.

[MuscularTophFan]

As to your first point, fine replace communism with socialism and my point stands. Many Marxist-Leninists argue the USSR was a socialist state.
Leninism is authoritarianism and thus anti-socialism. Soviet Union was imperialist authoritarian anti-socialist state. Quite believing the propaganda spewed by Lenin and Stalin about it being a socialist "workers paradise."



As to your point about Christianity, the Bible mentions homosexuality many times, and Christian societies are based on more than just the words of Jesus.
I know. Officially homosexual sex is officially the death penalty in the bible.


My point should be fairly clear, it is this: the fact that some countries with a Buddhist majority have outlawed homosexuality does not mean Buddhism is anti-gay anymore than the fact that a state that claimed to be socialist banned gay marriage makes socialism anti-gay. Seriously, my point should have been clear.

Furthermore, several Asian countries don't have any laws against homosexuality. Japan, for instance, only enacted sodomy laws after the Meji Restoration as result of Western influence.
socialism is for pro-equality and thus for gay rights. Religion divides humans into different classes and thus anti-equality.

Also Japan isn't Buddhist country.

[Zostrianos]

Also Japan isn't Buddhist country.

Shintoism is generally considered as a form of Buddhism

[eric922]

[QUOTE]Leninism is authoritarianism and thus anti-socialism. Soviet Union was imperialist authoritarian anti-socialist state. Quite believing the propaganda spewed by Lenin and Stalin about it being a socialist "workers paradise."

I actually agree with you on this point fully. Authoritarianism is not socialism. That is, in fact, one of the reasons I get drawn into these threads so much. I am a libertarian, in the real sense of the word and I firmly believe that people should be able to practice whatever religion they wish as long as they don't force it on others or use it as justification for discrimination.



I know. Officially homosexual sex is officially the death penalty in the bible.Yes, and my point was that the various Buddhist scriptures do not mention it anywhere, neither in Theravada cannon or the various Mahayana cannon texts.


socialism is for pro-equality and thus for gay rights. Religion divides humans into different classes and thus anti-equality.I disagree that religion is what divides people into class.


Also Japan isn't Buddhist country.The majority of the people there are Buddhist, around 70% alongside Shinto. It was likely a lot higher in the past, and that was my point. Even during Japan's feudal stage, homosexuality was not outlawed, something that would have been done if Buddhism was inherently anti-gay.

[eric922]

Shintoism is generally considered as a form of Buddhism

I don't think it's a form, but it is practiced alongside Buddhism and they even sometimes share temples. The same thing is seen in China where it is one of the trinity of religions alongside Confucianism and Taoism.

[Comrade Trollface]

Shintoism is generally considered as a form of BuddhismHoly shit dude. By whom? Someone who doesn't know shit from pound cake, that's for sure. Shinto has coexisted with Buddhism in Japan- the two aren't contradictory doctrines. That is hardly the same thing as being a 'form of Buddhism' though.

[MuscularTophFan]

Shintoism is generally considered as a form of Buddhism
Next thing you are gonna say is that Leninism/Stalinism is a form of socialism.:laugh:

[MuscularTophFan]

I actually agree with you on this point fully. Authoritarianism is not socialism. That is, in fact, one of the reasons I get drawn into these threads so much. I am a libertarian, in the real sense of the word and I firmly believe that people should be able to practice whatever religion they wish as long as they don't force it on others or use it as justification for discrimination.

I'm a libertarian myself as well. People can believe what ever religious nonsense they want as well.


Yes, and my point was that the various Buddhist scriptures do not mention it anywhere, neither in Theravada cannon or the various Mahayana cannon texts.
There are some texts that prohibit homosexual conduct and barred from Buddhist practices.


I disagree that religion is what divides people into class.
Religion is the ultimate division of people. If you believe that someone else will burn in hell for all eterrinity because they don't believe in your religion than that's the ultimate segregation of humanity.


The majority of the people there are Buddhist, around 70% alongside Shinto. It was likely a lot higher in the past, and that was my point. Even during Japan's feudal stage, homosexuality was not outlawed, something that would have been done if Buddhism was inherently anti-gay.
Japan is mostly atheistic country nowadays. It's like 80% atheist/agnostic. Shintoism is just cultural shit. Just like how 30% of all American are cultural Christians. They don't really believe in that crap.

[Psy]

It is also important in the same way that the work of Homer is important.
No because the bible is a incoherent mess due to revisionism within the writings, one can only make any sense out of the bible going to source materials and reading the unedited stories so still no need for the bible.

[eric922]

[QUOTE]I'm a libertarian myself as well. People can believe what ever religious nonsense they want as well.

That's a relief. At the start I was worried I was arguing with one of the "send all religious people to the gulags" types, and yes I've seen that advocated here before.


There are some texts that prohibit homosexual conduct and barred from Buddhist practices.


Do you have any sources for that, because I think you must be mistaken. I know for a fact the Pali Cannon, the oldest and most authentic collection of the Buddha's teachings, never mentions it. I've heard there are some commentaries of sutras that imply it is forbidden, but hell I could write a commentary on a sutra.


Religion is the ultimate division of people. If you believe that someone else will burn in hell for all eterrinity because they don't believe in your religion than that's the ultimate segregation of humanity.

You would have a point if every religion taught that, but it does not. Only Christianity and Islam have a belief in eternal damnation and that is debatable for some sects. Buddhism does not, nothing is eternal in Buddhism. Hinduism doesn't. This touches on a point I was going to raise earlier, you can't judge every religion the same way.

For instance, you won't find any anti-gay, anti-women, or other similar positions within the modern pagan movement. Using Wicca as the most common example, it is pro-gay, pro feminist (some covens only worship a goddess), anti-racist, and hell in a lot of cases anti-capitalist. The Reclaiming sect, founded by Starhawk, is an anarchist group opposed to capitalism on ethical and spiritual grounds.



Japan is mostly atheistic country nowadays. It's like 80% atheist/agnostic. Shintoism is just cultural shit. Just like how 30% of all American are cultural Christians. They don't really believe in that crap.

I'll do some more research on this point and get back to you, because I've heard otherwise.

[MuscularTophFan]

That's a relief. At the start I was worried I was arguing with one of the "send all religious people to the gulags" types, and yes I've seen that advocated here before.
Yes there are many authoritarian Leninist/Stalinist on here. I'm glad to see another libertarian socialist on here.



Do you have any sources for that, because I think you must be mistaken. I know for a fact the Pali Cannon, the oldest and most authentic collection of the Buddha's teachings, never mentions it. I've heard there are some commentaries of sutras that imply it is forbidden, but hell I could write a commentary on a sutra.
There is recorded opposition from Buddha to ordaining cross dressers as monks.




You would have a point if every religion taught that, but it does not. Only Christianity and Islam have a belief in eternal damnation and that is debatable for some sects. Buddhism does not, nothing is eternal in Buddhism. Hinduism doesn't. This touches on a point I was going to raise earlier, you can't judge every religion the same way.

For instance, you won't find any anti-gay, anti-women, or other similar positions within the modern pagan movement. Using Wicca as the most common example, it is pro-gay, pro feminist (some covens only worship a goddess), anti-racist, and hell in a lot of cases anti-capitalist. The Reclaiming sect, founded by Starhawk, is an anarchist group opposed to capitalism on ethical and spiritual grounds.
Two things all religion has in common:

It divides people and it's anti-scientific.




I'll do some more research on this point and get back to you, because I've heard otherwise.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

[Zealot]

Religion is the biggest enemy of humanity there is. If humanity is wiped out it will likely because of a nuclear war caused by religious fucktards. The only way humanity will survive if religion is completely and totally abolished.

Religion is anti-gay, anti-women, racist, anti-scientific, pro-authoritarian, pro-war mongering, anti-democratic, etc. Religion is opposed to EVERYTHING I STAND FOR.

Anyone who defends or doesn't attack religion is part of the problem. If you believe in any insane fairly tale over believing in evolution and actual facts you should be made fun by society.

Every single sentence of that rant was a steaming pile of idealist bullshit.


Leftist is just a word to match your political views up on a flow cart... You don't have to call yourself a leftist to have the supposedly leftist title.

You actually missed the point. Do you realise she's a right-wing conservative nowadays? She was trying to say that she isn't a leftist because we are anti-religious when really, if she so desired, she could have both as do you. I was pointing out what a lame excuse it was.

[eric922]

Yes there are many authoritarian Leninist/Stalinist on here. I'm glad to see another libertarian socialist on here.


[QUOTE]
There is recorded opposition from Buddha to ordaining cross dressers as monks.Cite it, please. I've searched and I can't find anything. A Google search turns up nothing. The earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha are the Pali cannon and homosexuality isn't mentioned at all. Most early Buddhists viewed it as a question not worth debating because it wasn't related to the goals of Buddhism, which are ending suffering.



Two things all religion has in common:

It divides people and it's anti-scientific.Not to be rude, but you kind of dodged my point here. This discussion started when you claimed all religion was anti-gay, anti-women, etc. and I've pointed out that simply isn't the case. Wicca is a prime example of this. That is my point not every religion is discriminatory.

Furthermore, some relgions are more open to science than others. Buddhism being one, I've heard the Dalila Lama (who leads one of the more mystical branches of Buddhism" openly say in one of his books that if science proves part of Buddhism wrong, Buddhism will have to change.







http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html
Fair point, but that still doesn't address the issue of feudal Japan where homosexuality was allowed. Or look at China, according to researcher A.L. De Siliva discussing Buddhism and homosexuality in China: "Generally the attitude has been one of tolerance. Matteo Ricci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Ricci), the Jesuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit) missionary who lived in China for twenty-seven years from 1583, expressed horror at the open and tolerant attitude that the Chinese took to homosexuality and naturally enough saw this as proof of the degeneracy of Chinese society"

I'm quoted that from Wikipdedia, but it is sourced.

[MuscularTophFan]

Cite it, please. I've searched and I can't find anything. A Google search turns up nothing. The earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha are the Pali cannon and homosexuality isn't mentioned at all. Most early Buddhists viewed it as a question not worth debating because it wasn't related to the goals of Buddhism, which are ending suffering.
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/anth.htm



Not to be rude, but you kind of dodged my point here. This discussion started when you claimed all religion was anti-gay, anti-women, etc. and I've pointed out that simply isn't the case. Wicca is a prime example of this. That is my point not every religion is discriminatory.Every religion discriminates because it divides humanity instead of unity us in solidarity. Some religion are just less shitty than other religions.


Furthermore, some relgions are more open to science than others. Buddhism being one, I've heard the Dalila Lama (who leads one of the more mystical branches of Buddhism" openly say in one of his books that if science proves part of Buddhism wrong, Buddhism will have to change.
If they can change religion to meet what standard they want meet what's the point of religion period?





Fair point, but that still doesn't address the issue of feudal Japan where homosexuality was allowed. Or look at China, according to researcher A.L. De Siliva discussing Buddhism and homosexuality in China: "Generally the attitude has been one of tolerance. Matteo Ricci (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Ricci), the Jesuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit) missionary who lived in China for twenty-seven years from 1583, expressed horror at the open and tolerant attitude that the Chinese took to homosexuality and naturally enough saw this as proof of the degeneracy of Chinese society"

I'm quoted that from Wikipdedia, but it is sourced.
If homosexuality was fully accepted in those societies why isn't gay marriage or gay adoption legal in either countries? Western society is much more accepting of homosexuality than Asian societies.

[MuscularTophFan]

Every single sentence of that rant was a steaming pile of idealist bullshit.

For the last time I'm a realist not an idealist.

[eric922]

]http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/anth.htm

This is specifically addressing monks. Monks are forbidden from all sex. Furthermore the very same article goes to state that " Homosexuality amongst laymen has traditionally fallen outside the scope of kammicly significant sexual misconduct in Thailand." Proving that Buddhism does not focus on it. The text goes on to say that it heterosexual misconduct and homosexual misconduct are both discouraged. It says

"Heterosexuality and homosexuality as equivalent defilements In the context of Buddhism's general anti-sex attitude, the Vinaya often describes homosexuality in terms that place it on a par with heterosexuality"


Every religion discriminates because it divides humanity instead of unity us in solidarity. Some religion are just less shitty than other religions.
That isn't discrimination. You can say it fosters division, sure but that is not the same thing as discretion.



If they can change religion to meet what standard they want meet what's the point of religion period?I should point out that whether Buddhism is a religion or not is currently subject to debate amongst a lot of Buddhists. Secondly, the core teachings of Buddhism, the 4 Noble Truths, are not incompatible with science.




If homosexuality was fully accepted in those societies why isn't gay marriage or gay adoption legal in either countries? Western society is much more accepting of homosexuality than Asian societies.Now western society might be, but my examples talking about feudal society when Buddhism had a lot more power and comparing it to Christianity when when Christianity had a lot more power.

[Zealot]

For the last time I'm a realist not an idealist.

"Religion is the biggest enemy of humanity there is. If humanity is wiped out it will likely because of a nuclear war caused by religious fucktards. The only way humanity will survive if religion is completely and totally abolished."

This is idealism and not a Marxist analysis at all. Religion is not the "biggest enemy of humanity" and it isn't going to cause nuclear war. Do you really think the ruling class gives two shits about religion, other than using it for political reasons?

[Zostrianos]

Religion divides humans into different classes and thus anti-equality.

Personal religious practices have no divisive effect on society, on the contrary: spirituality is beneficial to many, including myself. The most important principle consists in maintaining secularism in society - the problems arise when religion begins to intrude in society\ politics.


[QUOTE=eric922;2472957]This discussion started when you claimed all religion was anti-gay, anti-women, etc. and I've pointed out that simply isn't the case. Wicca is a prime example of this. That is my point not every religion is discriminatory.

Exactly. Even Christianity, in its original form, is very decent. And there were even religious movements that preached socialist principles, such as Mazdakism, on which I had made a thread a while back:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/mazdakism-t171269/index.html?p=2438780#post2438780

Moreover in the 19th century, before Marx, many (if not most) of the first socialists were Christians who saw a call for revolution and social change in Jesus' message.

[eric922]

Exactly. Even Christianity, in its original form, is very decent.



I'll admit I don't have much use for Pauline Christianity, but Gnosticism is fascinating and I rather like what I've read of it. It took a rather radical view towards women, that Saint Paul fought against with all his might.

[Zostrianos]

I'll admit I don't have much use for Pauline Christianity, but Gnosticism is fascinating and I rather like what I've read of it. It took a rather radical view towards women, that Saint Paul fought against with all his might.

I also think the reason Christianity became rotten was indeed because of Paul, who was rabidly intolerant and misogynistic (a sign of things to come...)
Gnosticism in most of its forms treated women equally. Additionally, it encouraged personal revelation and inquiry (as opposed to blind faith in an institution). When the Catholic\Orthodox church fully gained political power, the independent religious thought and richness that characterized late Antiquity was outlawed (on pain of death), and by suppressing other movements the Church became the one and only authority on religious matters for centuries to come. I wish it had been otherwise, but alas...

[eric922]

I also think the reason Christianity became rotten was indeed because of Paul, who was rabidly intolerant and misogynistic (a sign of things to come...)
Gnosticism in most of its forms treated women equally. Additionally, it encouraged personal revelation and inquiry (as opposed to blind faith in an institution). When the Catholic\Orthodox church fully gained political power, the independent religious thought and richness that characterized late Antiquity was outlawed (on pain of death), and by suppressing other movements the Church became the one and only authority on religious matters for centuries to come. I wish it had been otherwise, but alas...
I think one of the worst things that happened in terms of religious history of Europe was the early death of Julian the Apostate. His revial of paganism kept the Catholic Church in check, but he was the last emperor to really try and do so.

[Zostrianos]

My favourite Roman emperor. His death was one of the greatest tragedies that ever befell the West in my opinion.

[Psy]

"Religion is the biggest enemy of humanity there is. If humanity is wiped out it will likely because of a nuclear war caused by religious fucktards. The only way humanity will survive if religion is completely and totally abolished."

This is idealism and not a Marxist analysis at all. Religion is not the "biggest enemy of humanity" and it isn't going to cause nuclear war. Do you really think the ruling class gives two shits about religion, other than using it for political reasons?
Did you forget Adolf Hitler, the mass genocide was a result of a fanatical religion belief that Jews were pure evil and the German capitalist class repeatedly failed to over throw Hitler once they realized how insane Hitler was and the Hitler wanted to kill Jews even if meant leaving Germany in ruins.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think one of the worst things that happened in terms of religious history of Europe was the early death of Julian the Apostate. His revial of paganism kept the Catholic Church in check, but he was the last emperor to really try and do so.
I really have no idea why you'd consider the imperial cult to be any better than the Church, or at least not beyond sheer spite.

[RedAtheist]

However, I do not subscribe to the reactionary trend in the hiearchy of the church, and I do not agree with any anti-socialist views my Church my espouse.

First of all, church or no church, your religion, by its nature has a hierarchy. It poses the existance of an eternal ruler of the universe, who was not elected by anybody and yet Christianity claims he (and I'm surprised that it's a he) has the right to run the entire universe, that everything does is okay and that we have to do whatever he tells us. All Christians, no matter how moderate they are adhere to this viewpoint.

But setting that aside, you claim to reject religion's reactionary and anti-socialist ideas, which leads me to ask a few questions.

Do you claim to love gays and other oppressed groups and oppose government interference in people's 'private lives', while still feeling that there is something morally icky and wrong about homosexuality, abortion, transexuality, etc.?

Do you romanticise in any way the stereotypes attritubed to women (about how they are gentle and nuturing by nature, and should therefore spend their entire lives serving and comforming to other people's needs)?

Do you view the nuclear family as a positive institution in society, superior to other potential forms of child rearing?

Do you believe in the inherent wickedness of humanity apart from God (this includes claiming that your belief in God/God's presence is what makes you a good person or that humanity needs to humble itself before God)

Do you believe that too much technological advancement (even in a socialist/communist society) is somehow a bad thing, because technology is artificial/non-spiritual and therefore icky?

Do you believe that believing things which are not supported by reasoned arguments or evidence makes better a morally better/more spiritual/more loving/ or in any way superior human being? Do you believe that scepticism makes one less virtuous, less spiritual, etc.?

I am not accusing religious people of any of these position, I am merely asking if they hold to these. I think these position are reactionary (or at least less revolutionary than alterntive positions.) Religious people identifying as left-wing still tend to hold these kinds of positions. I have yet to encounter a religious believer who does not hold to at least one of these positions.

You might think I'm being a bit harsh, but you did say you rejected all anti-socialist ideas, some of these ideas might not appear to have anything to do with socialism, but I think it is fair to extend the word 'anti-socialism' in this context to mean 'anti-left wing'.

At the end of the day I don't hate religious people unless they hold to truly abhorrent viewpoints (e.g. my daughters are my property) but I am critical of their ideas. Being critical of a viewpoint held by the majority of the working class is not anti-working class. The vast majority of the working class either thinks capitalism is a great system or thinks they should just put up with it. The majority of working class at certain points in history has held to viewpoints which are sexist, racist or homophobic. Should we not criticise these ideas, because we wish to be more relatable to the working class?

If one hold to the position that history is the result of material forces and therefore the promotion of religion is not a threat to any potential revolution, it must logically follow that the promotion of atheism is not a threat to any potential revolution. Surely someone who adheres to a materialist view of history wouldn't argue that a religious worker who becomes politically active as a result of a crisis in the capitalist system, is suddenly going to ignore such a crisis and go back to living their day to day lives because some atheist socialist said something critical of their religion, would they?

I believe that part of freeing the working class involves encouraging critical thinking among workers. They need to get used to hearing unconventional opinions and they need to be encouraged to question what they believe and to test it against reason. I believe that by challenging workers to question their religions I am showing them respect, not contempt. I am showing, not that I think they are idiots, but that I think they are fully capable of understanding the rational arguments against the truthfulness of their religion and that they are fully capable of dealing with the world without needing to rely on their religion (they will not break down and go crazy if they become atheists.) It would be far more condescending for me to postulate that religious people needed their religion and could not handle life without, while I myself believed I could live a satisfying life free from religion.

[Zealot]

Did you forget Adolf Hitler, the mass genocide was a result of a fanatical religion belief that Jews were pure evil and the German capitalist class repeatedly failed to over throw Hitler once they realized how insane Hitler was and the Hitler wanted to kill Jews even if meant leaving Germany in ruins.

That is such a stupid analysis of Hitler and Nazism that I don't even know where to start. They didn't "realise" how insane he was; they could care less. In fact, Henry Ford was one of the foremost anti-semites of the time, Hitler absolutely adored him, and Capitalists the world over were actively supporting and arming him. The anti-semitism of this period had not much to do with religion but a host of many other factors.

[eric922]

I really have no idea why you'd consider the imperial cult to be any better than the Church, or at least not beyond sheer spite.
I said nothing about the imperial cult. There is a difference between respecting the philosophical contributions of a person and considering them beyond reproach. Besides, I think we lost a lot of knowledge about Roman paganism when Christianity became the official religion and I despise the loss of knowledge. Julian tried to preserve that knowledge, that is enough to respect him. I also enjoy the works of Marcus Aurelius, but that does not mean I have any use for the Imperial Cult.

[eric922]

That is such a stupid analysis of Hitler and Nazism that I don't even know where to start. They didn't "realise" how insane he was; they could care less. In fact, Henry Ford was one of the foremost anti-semites of the time, Hitler absolutely adored him, and Capitalists the world over were actively supporting and arming him. The anti-semitism of this period had not much to do with religion but a host of many other factors.

In fact, doesn't religious antisemitism usually seeks to convert Jews to Christianity? I doubt the Nazis gave a damn what belief system you were if they thought you had Jewish blood.

[Comrade Trollface]

In fact, doesn't religious antisemitism usually seeks to convert Jews to Christianity? I doubt the Nazis gave a damn what belief system you were if they thought you had Jewish blood.Yup And there are some interesting stories about that too-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Karaites#During_the_Holocaust
But Nazi racial antisemistism had its historical genesis in German Christain antisemitism. Wasn't spawned in a vaccum.

[MuscularTophFan]

Religion is not the "biggest enemy of humanity"
Religion has caused more wars and death than anything in human history.


and it isn't going to cause nuclear war.
Prove it.


Do you really think the ruling class gives two shits about religion, other than using it for political reasons?
The ruling class are pushing for nuclear annihilation. they can't stand it on earth so they want to live forever in their afterlife. Why do you think so many of the religious leaders on earth are pushing the ideas of the anti-Christ, Armageddon, etc.?

[Psy]

That is such a stupid analysis of Hitler and Nazism that I don't even know where to start. They didn't "realise" how insane he was; they could care less. In fact, Henry Ford was one of the foremost anti-semites of the time, Hitler absolutely adored him, and Capitalists the world over were actively supporting and arming him. The anti-semitism of this period had not much to do with religion but a host of many other factors.
Yhea they did care which is why they tried multiple times to get rid of him. The German capitalists were not suicidal, and the German capitalists didn't give a fuck how many foreign capitalists Hitler as German capitalists ass on the line. Lets not forget Hitlers last order was for the German Army to burn Germany to the ground, to deprive Germany's enemies from its means of production.

[MuscularTophFan]

Personal religious practices have no divisive effect on society, on the contrary: spirituality is beneficial to many, including myself. The most important principle consists in maintaining secularism in society - the problems arise when religion begins to intrude in society\ politics.
The long term goal of secularism is to eventually abolish religion. Secularism and religion can not coexist in the long run.





Exactly. Even Christianity, in its original form, is very decent.
How is stoning homosexuals to death decent?:confused:

[Zostrianos]

Secularism and religion can not coexist in the long run.

We'll have to disagree on that one.



How is stoning homosexuals to death decent?:confused:

Jesus never talked about stoning homosexuals. Sure, it might be in the Old Testament, but Jesus never preached it.

[eric922]

How is stoning homosexuals to death decent?

He is likely referring to Gnosticism which is a whole different breed than Pauline Christianity. For instance the epistles of Titus and Timothy are anti-Gnostic texts written by Paul to counter Gnosticism.

The rejections of homosexuality are found in the epistles of Paul which Gnostics rejected and the Old Testament which Gnostics rejected. They considered the God of the Old Testament to be an evil being not worthy of worship.

[A Marxist Historian]

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-EPT/anth.htm

Every religion discriminates because it divides humanity instead of unity us in solidarity. Some religion are just less shitty than other religions.


If they can change religion to meet what standard they want meet what's the point of religion period?



If homosexuality was fully accepted in those societies why isn't gay marriage or gay adoption legal in either countries? Western society is much more accepting of homosexuality than Asian societies.

There is in all religions a huge difference between doctrine and practice as to sexuality, and especially as to monks and priests. As we all know with respect to Catholics.

And there is also a huge amount of variability from country to country.

Thus, Tibetan Buddhism, until quite recently, can indeed be described as "accepting" of homosexuality. In fact, as slavery was a fundamental part of pre-Chinese Revolution Tibet, in particular slavery of peasants to the monks, sexual slavery of children, both male and female, was an integral part of the Tibetan Buddhist monk lifestyle.

In earlier periods, human sacrifice was also a major factor in the Tibetan variant of Buddhism, but that went out in the twentieth century, the last recorded child sacrifice was in the 1930s.

-M.H.-

[Zostrianos]

For the Gnostics, the God of the Old Testament was considered as the Demiurge, an evil creator who was inferior to the true, transcendent God:

And when he saw the creation which surrounds him, and the multitude of the angels around him which had come forth from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God, and there is no other God beside me.' But by announcing this he indicated to the angels who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other one, of whom would he be jealous? (Apocryphon of John)

Their chief is blind; because of his power and his ignorance and his arrogance he said, with his power, "It is I who am God; there is none apart from me." When he said this, he sinned against the entirety. And this speech got up to incorruptibility; then there was a voice that came forth from incorruptibility, saying, "You are mistaken, Samael" - which is, "god of the blind. (q.v. Hypostasis of the Archons)

In my opinion, the Gnostics had a much more realistic interpretation of Jesus' teachings. Jesus' God couldn't possibly have been the evil tyrant of the OT. And many parts of the Gospels give further credibility to Gnosticism.

[eric922]

There is in all religions a huge difference between doctrine and practice as to sexuality, and especially as to monks and priests. As we all know with respect to Catholics.

And there is also a huge amount of variability from country to country.

Thus, Tibetan Buddhism, until quite recently, can indeed be described as "accepting" of homosexuality. In fact, as slavery was a fundamental part of pre-Chinese Revolution Tibet, in particular slavery of peasants to the monks, sexual slavery of children, both male and female, was an integral part of the Tibetan Buddhist monk lifestyle.

In earlier periods, human sacrifice was also a major factor in the Tibetan variant of Buddhism, but that went out in the twentieth century, the last recorded child sacrifice was in the 1930s.

-M.H.-

Do you have any suggestions for books or websites on this topic? From what I've read, and granted it is just Wikipedia which is why I thought I'd ask you, it claims that human sacrifice was a pre-Buddhist tradition that the Lama's condemned and replaced with effigy sacrifices, but it did claim it happened in areas outside of their official control.

[Zostrianos]

Do you have any suggestions for books or websites on this topic? From what I've read, and granted it is just Wikipedia which is why I thought I'd ask you, it claims that human sacrifice was a pre-Buddhist tradition that the Lama's condemned and replaced with effigy sacrifices, but it did claim it happened in areas outside of their official control.

Even if it was, I doubt it was a Buddhist tradition. Tibet had native, shamanistic religions which eventually merged with Buddhism. Tibetan Buddhism is kind of a mix of the older religion with classical Buddhism.

[MuscularTophFan]

We'll have to disagree on that one.



Jesus never talked about stoning homosexuals. Sure, it might be in the Old Testament, but Jesus never preached it.
Yes Jesus did. Jesus said so when he said this:


"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5:17

So even Jesus wants us to kill homosexuals.

[eric922]

Yes Jesus did. Jesus said so when he said this:



So even Jesus wants us to kill homosexuals.
There are several problems with this argument. First of all, you are accepting the official Church's version of what Jesus said. However, if you do that you should also accept the official interpretation of that quote which is pretty much universally accepted within mainstream Christianity. That quote is interpreted to mean that Jesus's death on the cross fulfilled the Law of Moses rendering it unnecessary.

However, let's say you don't agree that the synoptic Gospels are accurate accounts, we then turn to the Gnostic Gospels and that quote isn't found, nor are any teachings on homosexuality.

[Psy]

There are several problems with this argument. First of all, you are accepting the official Church's version of what Jesus said. However, if you do that you should also accept the official interpretation of that quote which is pretty much universally accepted within mainstream Christianity. That quote is interpreted to mean that Jesus's death on the cross fulfilled the Law of Moses rendering it unnecessary.

However, let's say you don't agree that the synoptic Gospels are accurate accounts, we then turn to the Gnostic Gospels and that quote isn't found, nor are any teachings on homosexuality.
We can still simply dismiss Jesus as a reformist as we don't see Jesus bring up any class conscious argument against the Roman Empire. While charity and voluntary poverty sounds nice we Marxist know that it lacks a diacritical materialist understanding. That organizing and uniting the labouring classes (remember we are talking pre-modernity thus more then one labouring class) was the solution to fix the poverty even back then.

[Zealot]

In fact, doesn't religious antisemitism usually seeks to convert Jews to Christianity? I doubt the Nazis gave a damn what belief system you were if they thought you had Jewish blood.

Yes, that is partly true.


Religion has caused more wars and death than anything in human history.

More idealism. Yawn. Shortage of resources, imperialism, colonialism, and many other things, used religion to justify itself but that doesn't give you a right to devolve all of this analysis to a "religion dunnit" stance.


Prove it.

Ironic that you would use an argument often used by religionists. What are you going to ask me next, to prove that god doesn't exist?


The ruling class are pushing for nuclear annihilation. they can't stand it on earth so they want to live forever in their afterlife. Why do you think so many of the religious leaders on earth are pushing the ideas of the anti-Christ, Armageddon, etc.?

Really? They want nuclear annihilation? Wouldn't that be good for business and profits. Not. The ruling class doesn't care about religion except for subduing the proletariat and making a profit from it.


Yhea they did care which is why they tried multiple times to get rid of him. The German capitalists were not suicidal, and the German capitalists didn't give a fuck how many foreign capitalists Hitler as German capitalists ass on the line. Lets not forget Hitlers last order was for the German Army to burn Germany to the ground, to deprive Germany's enemies from its means of production.

Some of them withdrew their support at the onset of WWII, for various reasons, if that's what you mean. But in the build-up to war and the rearmament a great many capitalists were thoroughly supporting, even sponsoring, this.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There are several problems with this argument. First of all, you are accepting the official Church's version of what Jesus said.

Jesus "says" whatever his followers want him to say. Or haven't you noticed that when Christians say something, the Lord is always in 100% agreement?


However, if you do that you should also accept the official interpretation of that quote which is pretty much universally accepted within mainstream Christianity. That quote is interpreted to mean that Jesus's death on the cross fulfilled the Law of Moses rendering it unnecessary.

Yet one can find plenty of Christians who say otherwise. The Bible has enough contradictions that with a little creative interpretation pretty much any viewpoint on any subject can be justified from Bible verses. Which is the exact problem with using the Bible in such a manner.


The long term goal of secularism is to eventually abolish religion.

I think you have secularism confused with anti-theism. While I'd love to see religion and its institutions consigned to the dustbin of history where they rightfully belong, let's at least get our terminology correct.

[Psy]

Some of them withdrew their support at the onset of WWII, for various reasons, if that's what you mean. But in the build-up to war and the rearmament a great many capitalists were thoroughly supporting, even sponsoring, this.
I mean by the time Hitler invaded the USSR the German capitalists wanted Hitler dead, don't get me wrong the German capitalists hated the USSR but they didn't believe God would even the odds in Germany's favour like Hitler believed. The German ruling class were realists that the German army had a zero percent chance of winning a war against the USSR and that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was in Germany's best interest as it secured Germany's eastern front while it fought Britain.

[Comrade Trollface]

Dude, Hitler's stated religious beliefs ranged from Christian, atheist and neo-pagan Nazi mystic. The only common thread is the fact that he believed whatever appealed to his audience. Similarly, people today choose to ascribe whatever position they like least to Hitler today. The only thing we know for sure about his metaphysics is that they were purely opportunistic. So lay off it.

[Psy]

Dude, Hitler's stated religious beliefs ranged from Christian, atheist and neo-pagan Nazi mystic. The only common thread is the fact that he believed whatever appealed to his audience. Similarly, people today choose to ascribe whatever position they like least to Hitler today. The only thing we know for sure about his metaphysics is that they were purely opportunistic. So lay off it.
Christianity borrowed heavy from pagan religions, even the god of the old testament started only as the ancient Jewish god of war before he was merged with the other ancient Jewish gods which is why that god was so blood thirsty.

[Comrade Trollface]

Christianity borrowed heavy from pagan religions, even the god of the old testament started only as the ancient Jewish god of war before he was merged with the other ancient Jewish gods which is why that god was so blood thirsty. No shit, Sherlock. Everything new is built out of something old. We just need to choose our building blocks carefully.

That is a total nonsequitor though. You speak of Hitler's religious inner life as if you know anything about it. You don't. No one does. He was a chameleon in this regard. He was a Christian to Christians, an atheist to atheists and a Nazi mystic neo-pagan to Himmler and his weird friends. God on his side? We don't even know if he believed in any gods! Most of what Hitler said was for the benefit of his immediate audience.

[Psy]

No shit, Sherlock. Everything new is built out of something old. We just need to choose our building blocks carefully.

That is a total nonsequitor though. You speak of Hitler's religious inner life as if you know anything about it. You don't. No one does. He was a chameleon in this regard. He was a Christian to Christians, an atheist to atheists and a Nazi mystic neo-pagan to Himmler and his weird friends. God on his side? We don't even know if he believed in any gods! Most of what Hitler said was for the benefit of his immediate audience.
My point is that in the unlikely event Hitler won his view of Christianity would have become a new major denomination of Christianity. The problem is Hitler put far more faith in the supernatural. it is well recorder the Wehrmacht grew increasingly tired of Hitler supernatural view of warfare rather then relying on military science.

[hatzel]

Jesus "says" whatever his followers want him to say. Or haven't you noticed that when Christians say something, the Lord is always in 100% agreement?
Yet one can find plenty of Christians who say otherwise. The Bible has enough contradictions that with a little creative interpretation pretty much any viewpoint on any subject can be justified from Bible verses. Which is the exact problem with using the Bible in such a manner.

Ah...but wasn't eric's whole point here that MTF is making Jesus "say" whatever he wants him to say, that he's taking a particular viewpoint (ascribed to 'Christians' as a monolithic mass) and justifying it through Christian-esque appeals to scripture? I assume you'd have to agree, then, that MTF's whole argument is undermined by the exact same problems that undermine the Church's narrative...?

[Comrade Trollface]

My point is that in the unlikely event Hitler wonStop right there. It wasn't that unlikely. Had Hitler done the smart thing and kept Stalin as an ally, Germany might have won the war. It was simply a matter of Stalin showing his ass in Finland and Hitler seizing upon an opportunity to attack what he saw as a paper tiger as a result. Had Hitler concentrated his forces on the Western Front, who knows what might have happened?
his view of Christianity would have become a new major denomination of Christianity.Unless he was simply using Christian rhetoric to appeal to prevalent religious sentiment. In that case, it isn't at all unimaginable that he might have tried to systematically dechristianize Europe once he had won. We'll never fucking know. That is my point. And even had he had created his own denomenation, there's no garantee that it would be a 'major' one. Just look at the Christian Orthodox Church that Stalin tried to create during the War. Only a minority of Russian Christians ever went for it.
The problem is Hitler put far more faith in the supernatural. Dowsing for subs and shit? The USSR had their own state programs investigating Fortean phenomena- and by many accounts, the government took them rather seriously. The US dabbled in that nonsense too btw. But yeah, dowsing for subs:laugh:

[Psy]

Stop right there. It wasn't that unlikely. Had Hitler done the smart thing and kept Stalin as an ally, Germany might have won the war.

Stalin was never an ally, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was just a non-aggression pact where Germany and the USSR agreed where each other borders were.



It was simply a matter of Stalin showing his ass in Finland and Hitler seizing upon an opportunity to attack what he saw as a paper tiger as a result.

Finland proved nothing, Germany also failed to snuff out the British army in Dunkirk. Also the USSR was far from a paper tiger, even Stalin acted on the information of his spies the USSR had the means to stop the German army in west Poland as the USSR still had a massive numerical advantage.



Had Hitler concentrated his forces on the Western Front, who knows what might have happened?

Hitler against the advice of all his generals let the British army evacuate out of Dunkirk. In the eyes of the Wehrmacht Hitler snatched defeat from jaws of victory in Dunkirk, by Hitler ordering the Wehrmacht to stop its advance into Dunkirk just because British were fellow Christians (that is the only reason Hitler gave the to Wehrmacht to halt that advance to Dunkirk). To the generals this was illogical, the religion of the British and French has nothing to do with military science and to the German generals their job was to destroy the enemy period since the British were not surrendering but retreating thus they in the logic of the German generals they had to stop this retreat by any means necessary yet Hitler's faith prevented this because he was reportedly uneasy killing Christians at this period in time.



Unless he was simply using Christian rhetoric to appeal to prevalent religious sentiment. In that case, it isn't at all unimaginable that he might have tried to systematically dechristianize Europe once he had won. We'll never fucking know. That is my point. And even had he had created his own denomenation, there's no garantee that it would be a 'major' one. Just look at the Christian Orthodox Church that Stalin tried to create during the War. Only a minority of Russian Christians ever went for it.Dowsing for subs and shit? The USSR had their own state programs investigating Fortean phenomena- and by many accounts, the government took them rather seriously. The US dabbled in that nonsense too btw. But yeah, dowsing for subs:laugh:
It wouldn't be dechirstianiziation it would be creating a new Christian fraction that Hitler was doing Gods work by exterminating the Jews and the Wehrmacht was God's army thus can't be condemned for any genocide as it was the will of God which neo-Nazi believe today. My point is this believe would have became a official relgion if Hitler won.

[Zealot]

I mean by the time Hitler invaded the USSR the German capitalists wanted Hitler dead, don't get me wrong the German capitalists hated the USSR but they didn't believe God would even the odds in Germany's favour like Hitler believed. The German ruling class were realists that the German army had a zero percent chance of winning a war against the USSR and that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was in Germany's best interest as it secured Germany's eastern front while it fought Britain.

That's a whole lot different than saying the capitalists withdrew their support after "suddenly realising" he was an anti-semite.

[Tim Finnegan]

Stop right there. It wasn't that unlikely. Had Hitler done the smart thing and kept Stalin as an ally, Germany might have won the war. It was simply a matter of Stalin showing his ass in Finland and Hitler seizing upon an opportunity to attack what he saw as a paper tiger as a result. Had Hitler concentrated his forces on the Western Front, who knows what might have happened?
Nah, the scholarly consensus these day is pretty much that the Third Reich was never going to win in the long-run. Even if Stalin hadn't opted to take care of Hitler when he was in a position to do so, and that was almost inevitable, then the war would have developed into a long grind against Britain which the German economy simply wasn't up for. Things could have gone very differently, no question, but at this point the only people who think the Reich was ever going to outlast 1950 are science fiction writers and the History Channel.

[Psy]

Nah, the scholarly consensus these day is pretty much that the Third Reich was never going to win in the long-run. Even if Stalin hadn't opted to take care of Hitler when he was in a position to do so, and that was almost inevitable, then the war would have developed into a long grind against Britain which the German economy simply wasn't up for. Things could have gone very differently, no question, but at this point the only people who think the Reich was ever going to outlast 1950 are science fiction writers and the History Channel.
Well there is the theory that Germany had a chance if it was able to negotiate a peace deal with Britain plus get into a military defence pact with Britain against the USSR.

[Comrade Trollface]

Nah, once Hitler broke the sweet deal he had going with his Russian counterpart, he most certainly didn't stand a chance. I'm not saying that it would have been anything like a sure thing even had Stalin remained an ally either mind you.
Even if Stalin hadn't opted to take care of Hitler when he was in a position to do soStalin only 'opted' to take care of Hitler because Hitler attacked the USSR.

[Psy]

Nah, once Hitler broke the sweet deal he had going with his Russian counterpart, he most certainly didn't stand a chance. I'm not saying that it would have been anything like a sure thing even had Stalin remained an ally either mind you.Stalin only 'opted' to take care of Hitler because Hitler attacked the USSR.
Stalin was never an ally, it was a non-agression tready. Saying the USSR and Nazi Germany was allied is like saying East and West Germany was allied during the cold war simply because they agreed where each others borders where and to not attack each other. All the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact did was create an agreement of the boundaries of the USSR and Nazi Germany.

[Tim Finnegan]

Stalin only 'opted' to take care of Hitler because Hitler attacked the USSR.
He fully expected that he'd have to take Hitler on sooner or later, he just didn't think it would be in 1941. Even at the time of the German invasion, the Soviets had more troops and guns on the border than the Germans brought with them, they were just incompetently handled.

[Comrade Trollface]

All the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact did was create an agreement of the boundaries of the USSR and Nazi Germany.Which involved invading Poland together, and splitting it up in a prearranged manner. Sounds like a very high degree of military cooperation to me.

[Psy]

Which involved invading Poland together, and splitting it up in a prearranged manner. Sounds like a very high degree of military cooperation to me.
There was no military cooperation, the USSR was not involved in Operation Weserübung even though that too was part of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact and the USSR could have aided Germany there if it was an ally.

The reason both invaded Poland was Molotov–Ribbentrop set the boundaries for the two inside Poland. So Molotov–Ribbentrop said that the USSR wouldn't interfere with Nazi Germany if Germany invaded western Poland and Nazi Germany wouldn't interfere if the USSR invaded eastern Poland.

[hatzel]

Maaaaan you guys are so off-topic it's gone beyond not even being funny and is now back to being funny again...

[Comrade Trollface]

The reason both invaded Poland was Molotov–Ribbentrop set the boundaries for the two inside Poland. So Molotov–Ribbentrop said that the USSR wouldn't interfere with Nazi Germany if Germany invaded western Poland and Nazi Germany wouldn't interfere if the USSR invaded eastern Poland.So what you're basically saying is that they carved up Poland and invaded it together, but from different sides of the country. You're just using other words. That mean the same thing.

[Psy]

So what you're basically saying is that they carved up Poland and invaded it together, but from different sides of the country. You're just using other words. That mean the same thing.
No they agreed where each other boundaries where, Poland just happened to be in the way. To say Hitler and Stalin was allied because of this means NATO and the Warsaw pact were allied throughout the cold war because of the Yalta Conference and the divisions that came out of it.

[Comrade Trollface]

No they agreed where each other boundaries where, Poland just happened to be in the way. To say Hitler and Stalin was allied because of this means NATO and the Warsaw pact were allied throughout the cold war because of the Yalta Conference and the divisions that came out of it.:laugh::laugh::laugh:
Please give me some examples in which NATO and the Warsaw pact conducted a joint invasion of a third party like that. I daresay that such operations would constitute a military pact.

[electrostal]

Is it really neccesary to talk about this in a thread about religion?
FFS...

[Yuppie Grinder]

Comrades,
I was reading the "MLism and being a Catholic" thread and I have a concern I would like to address.
The majority of the working class is religious, mostly Christian. We pride ourselves on being the ally of the working class, the guardians of the poor and disadvantaged. But, I see a recurring trend of hate against the religious. Mostly Christians. Most leftist arguments I hear against such religions are true and well-thought out. But, just because one holds theological beliefs does not automatically turn them into brainwashed acolytes of whomever leads their church. Like the OP of the thread mentioned at the beginning of my post, I am Catholic. I believe in the "mysticism" and the theological beliefs of my Church. However, I do not subscribe to the reactionary trend in the hiearchy of the church, and I do not agree with any anti-socialist views my Church my espouse. I get as angered with the Vatican and other organized religions as any other leftist, but I feel spirtually at home in a Catholic church. (Notice church, not Church.) And I do not consider myself any less revolutionary or left-wing than my nonreligious comrades. I do not believe that I should be automatically disregarded or my opinions thrown aside. I do not believe that I am reactionary because I do not subscribe to athiesm.
Thank you for your time,
A believer in liberation theology.

About a third of the world is christian. A much higher percentage of people alive today belong to the working classes. Your assumption that the majority of working class people are christian is ridiculous.
Anyone with a materialist understanding of history can see institutionalized religion as a tool of class war belonging today to the bourgeoisie. Few religions have been used as brutally as the Catholic church.
Your leftism is based on an appreciation of liberty that I can appreciate and sympathize with, but your understanding of the role religion plays in society is seriously flawed.

[Psy]

About a third of the world is christian. A much higher percentage of people alive today belong to the working classes. Your assumption that the majority of working class people are christian is ridiculous.
Anyone with a materialist understanding of history can see institutionalized religion as a tool of class war belonging today to the bourgeoisie. Few religions have been used as brutally as the Catholic church.
Your leftism is based on an appreciation of liberty that I can appreciate and sympathize with, but your understanding of the role religion plays in society is seriously flawed.
The bigger problem is that the supernatural is the enemy of critical thought and creates a false standard of burden of proof. Just look at the theists "debate" skeptics and basically theists throw a hissy fit that a collection of ancient writings that contradicts itself is not evidence and just hearsay thus skeptics correctly point out theists have no evidence to back up their claim.

Communist society has to encourage people to look at claims more critical so worker democracy can properly function.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ah...but wasn't eric's whole point here that MTF is making Jesus "say" whatever he wants him to say, that he's taking a particular viewpoint (ascribed to 'Christians' as a monolithic mass) and justifying it through Christian-esque appeals to scripture? I assume you'd have to agree, then, that MTF's whole argument is undermined by the exact same problems that undermine the Church's narrative...?

It also undermines the narrative of the liberal and "fluffy" Christians as well. They are both equally without sound foundations. However, the two ends of the spectrum are not equal in terms of social and political power. People are typically brought up to respect religious ideas and religious institutions, and the ruling classes are happy to make use of that in order to secure their own position. While liberal and moderate believers may take issue with the use of their religion to further political goals, their insistence that religious ideas and thus religious institutions should command any level of intellectual respect forms part of the problem.

[Psy]

It also undermines the narrative of the liberal and "fluffy" Christians as well. They are both equally without sound foundations. However, the two ends of the spectrum are not equal in terms of social and political power. People are typically brought up to respect religious ideas and religious institutions, and the ruling classes are happy to make use of that in order to secure their own position. While liberal and moderate believers may take issue with the use of their religion to further political goals, their insistence that religious ideas and thus religious institutions should command any level of intellectual respect forms part of the problem.
Yet modernity contradicts religion and the creationist "debate" has been a flash point over the issue that science works while religion doesn't so religion tries to sabotage science with pseudoscience.

[Comrade Trollface]

Can't we all just agree that leftists are nasty to religious folks because they are assholes and the ones that aren't assholes aren't nasty to religious folks?

[Psy]

Can't we all just agree that leftists are nasty to religious folks because they are assholes and the ones that aren't assholes aren't nasty to religious folks?
No because that is not the case, that is like saying the left is nasty towards capitalists because we are assholes. Religion is exploitation of humans believing in the supernatural where religious institutions dictate the nature of the supernatural which by definition is unknown thus all religions are dishonest because they have no proof that they know anymore about the supernatural then anyone else thus have no justification to be an authority on the supernatural.

Meanwhile science has pushed the supernatural back expanding our understanding of the universe and given humanity powers that make the biblical "miracles" of the bible look like cheap parlour tricks. Basically science has trounced the non-existence achievements of religion and keeps pushing religion into the smaller and smaller gaps in human knowledge.

[eric922]

Yet modernity contradicts religion and the creationist "debate" has been a flash point over the issue that science works while religion doesn't so religion tries to sabotage science with pseudoscience.

Your complaint is limited to mostly fundamentalists of the Abrahamic faiths. No pagan I knows views science as a threat to their religion. Hell, according to "Drawing Down the Moon", probably the most authoritative book on the topic of neo-paganism, a large number of neo-pagans are scientists of various types and see no contradiction. No Buddhist I've talked to or read about views science as a threat to their beliefs, hell most embrace science. I've seen videos and talks or read books/articles by both Theravada Buddhist leaders and Mahayana leaders, including Tibetan Lamas, all who are enthusiastic about science.

[Psy]

Your complaint is limited to mostly fundamentalists of the Abrahamic faiths. No pagan I knows views science as a threat to their religion. Hell, according to "Drawing Down the Moon", probably the most authoritative book on the topic of neo-paganism, a large number of neo-pagans are scientists of various types and see no contradiction. No Buddhist I've talked to or read about views science as a threat to their beliefs, hell most embrace science. I've seen videos and talks or read books/articles by both Theravada Buddhist leaders and Mahayana leaders, including Tibetan Lamas, all who are enthusiastic about science.
Right this basically puts mysticism back into a more benign role yet atheists are neutral towards this as atheists admit we are talking about a unknown and atheists just remain skeptic demanding evidence.

[Comrade Trollface]

No because that is not the case, that is like saying the left is nasty towards capitalists because we are assholes. No it is not, because religious people do not oppress the vast proportion of humanity by their very existence. :rolleyes:


Religion is exploitation of humans believing in the supernatural where religious institutions dictate the nature of the supernatural which by definition is unknown thus all religions are dishonest because they have no proof that they know anymore about the supernatural then anyone else thus have no justification to be an authority on the supernatural. Nah, you're thinking of religious hierarchies. Those, much like secular hierarchies, are the bane of humanity. Religion expressed in a non-hierarchical mode however possess none of these exploitative qualities. Hierarchy is the difference between harmless ritual cannibalism and a vast human sacrifice cult.

As the old saying goes- instead of striking at the root of the problem, you're hacking away at the branch you're sitting on.

Meanwhile science Stop right there- science has nothing to do with unfalisfiable claims such as the existence of God. It's all Russel's teapot as far as I'm concerned, but what kind of asshole gets all self righteous about the presumed lack of a little blue china teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Mars and the Asteroid belt? I mean, I'd say there isn't such a teapot at all, but I'm not going to get nasty about it if my neighbor insists that I'm wrong.

[Hexen]

Because the goal of communism is egalitarianism not bowing down to God/gods/goddesses hence why it's antithetical.

[Comrade Trollface]

Its not like a god is going to show up to your commune and ruin the egalitarian social dynamic :rolleyes:

[Psy]

Its not like a god is going to show up to your commune and ruin the egalitarian social dynamic :rolleyes:
It is not that it is that humans should take pride in their accomplishments, when televangelists dismiss modernity as being irreverent to God work it is a slap in the face to the entire proletariat. Our labor is what created the society we live in and televangelists would still be a primitive hunters if not for the countless achievements of humanity.

[Comrade Trollface]

It is not that it is that humans should take pride in their accomplishmentsLots of religious people do.
when televangelists bla bla blaNow you're no better than the televangelists who conflate every atheist to Hitler and Stalin.

[eric922]

Right this basically puts mysticism back into a more benign role yet atheists are neutral towards this as atheists admit we are talking about a unknown and atheists just remain skeptic demanding evidence.

Evidence is fine. I, and so did Buddha, would argue that the evidence for Buddhism is the success of the Eight-fold path in relieving suffering. He specifically argued and warned against taking things on faith or believing things with no evidence. The evidence for Buddhism is putting the Eight-fold path into practice and seeing if it relives suffering for you. It has done so for me. Can I test it in a laboratory type setting? Of course not, but I have tested it in my own personal life and it works for me. If it didn't, I would not bother with it.

[Psy]

Evidence is fine. I, and so did Buddha, would argue that the evidence for Buddhism is the success of the Eight-fold path in relieving suffering. He specifically argued and warned against taking things on faith or believing things with no evidence. The evidence for Buddhism is putting the Eight-fold path into practice and seeing if it relives suffering for you. It has done so for me. Can I test it in a laboratory type setting? Of course not, but I have tested it in my own personal life and it works for me. If it didn't, I would not bother with it.
And that is fine yet this not what people are talking about when they are criticizing religion, they are talking about monotheism.



Lots of religious people do.Now you're no better than the televangelists who conflate every atheist to Hitler and Stalin.
There is still a problem, we have a monotheistic god that has never provided any evidence it exists, like I said modern man is far more impressive then the biblical "miracles" of the bible and God never gave humanity any knowledge we didn't already have at the time, this points to huge possibility that this god is only a human construct.

[Comrade Trollface]

You're preaching to the converted re: the nonexistence of gods and such. However, you have yet to make any real arguments as to why we can't just leave unfalsifiables the fuck alone and concentrate on the real problems of humanity. Dawkins-style atheists share in the chief fallacy of religious fundamentalism: they think that religion is way more important than it actually is. What business is it of yours if your neighbor believes in the fucking tooth fairy? Who the fuck cares?

[Psy]

You're preaching to the converted re: the nonexistence of gods and such. However, you have yet to make any real arguments as to why we can't just leave unfalsifiables the fuck alone and concentrate on the real problems of humanity. Dawkins-style atheists share in the chief fallacy of religious fundamentalism: they think that religion is way more important than it actually is. What business is it of yours if your neighbor believes in the fucking tooth fairy? Who the fuck cares?
The problem is critical though and democracy as they ground the morality from a morally reprehensible book.

hSS-88ShJfo

[eric922]

The problem is critical though and democracy as they ground the morality from a morally reprehensible book.

hSS-88ShJfo
You know, I think this highlights the problem we are having in this discussion. It seems like everyone who has posted in this thread agrees that the Bible and Quran aren't true. I haven't seen anyone arguing for those books. Poimandres comes closest as he appears to be influenced by Gnosticism, but even then there isn't much at all in common between Gnosticism and the current Christian Bible.

As to the argument for secularism, I'm a firm supporter of it. My view is the same as Jefferson's on this matter. There needs to be a wall of separation between the two. That means the government leaves religion alone,(aside from taxing them) and religion stays out of politics. That also means religion cannot be used as an excuse for discrimination.

[Psy]

You know, I think this highlights the problem we are having in this discussion. It seems like everyone who has posted in this thread agrees that the Bible and Quran aren't true. I haven't seen anyone arguing for those books. Poimandres comes closest as he appears to be influenced by Gnosticism, but even then there isn't much at all in common between Gnosticism and the current Christian Bible.

As to the argument for secularism, I'm a firm supporter of it. My view is the same as Jefferson's on this matter. There needs to be a wall of separation between the two. That means the government leaves religion alone,(aside from taxing them) and religion stays out of politics. That also means religion cannot be used as an excuse for discrimination.
Secularism didn't allow US bourgeoisie society to get beyond bias from the bible. Even when the US bourgeoisie state wanted to be a equal opportunity exploiter during the Cold War to take moral high ground over the USSR, racists US Christians gave US imperialism a black eye causing a number of African states threw in with the USSR.

[Tim Finnegan]

Because the goal of communism is egalitarianism not bowing down to God/gods/goddesses hence why it's antithetical.
I'm sceptical of the idea that you can bully people into equality.

[Psy]

I'm sceptical of the idea that you can bully people into equality.
We are not talking about bullying people in equality we are talking about killing monotheism by exposing it directly to the harsh light of science and reason.

[Comrade Trollface]

Science does not concern itself with unfalsifiable claims.

[Psy]

Science does not concern itself with unfalsifiable claims.
Monotheism does have falsifiable claims, philosophers have pointed out its logical paradoxes way back during the enlightenment and scientists have ripped apart a number of the biblical stories, the biggest being Noah's Ark where it has been debunked through engineering, logistics,physics, biology, geology and archaeology.

[eric922]

Monotheism does have falsifiable claims, philosophers have pointed out its logical paradoxes way back during the enlightenment and scientists have ripped apart a number of the biblical stories, the biggest being Noah's Ark where it has been debunked through engineering, logistics,physics, biology, geology and archaeology.
The logical paradoxes go back further than the enlightenment. Epicurus springs to mind. Buddha made a similar statement regarding the Vedic gods. I can't remember the source, but it is pretty much the same thing as Epicurus's riddle. However, these only really concern themselves with Gods who are supposedly all powerful, and all kind. It says nothing about Deist clockmaker Gods or pagan gods who aren't claimed as all powerful and all kind.

[Comrade Trollface]

Belief in the existence of a single "one and only" God is the crux of monotheism. This is an unfalsifiable claim. Science has nothing to do with either refuting or supporting the single most fundamental claim of monotheism.

[Psy]

Belief in the existence of a single "one and only" God is the crux of monotheism. This is an unfalsifiable claim. Science has nothing to do with either refuting or supporting the single most fundamental claim of monotheism.
There is a problem, if for example Noah's flood isn't true that means the bible isn't infallible which means you can't use the bible to prove the biblical God and archaeology has proven the source material of the bible goes back to the pantheon of ancient Jewish pantheon of gods, archaeology also shows the source material changed even before it made it.

[Art Vandelay]

Truthfully I think that this is a pointless discussion. In communist society, the need for religion will have surpasses and therefor it will eventually wither away.

[eric922]

Truthfully I think that this is a pointless discussion. In communist society, the need for religion will have surpasses and therefor it will eventually wither away.
Posts like this always strike me as meaningless speculation. There is really no evidence to support this viewpoint.

[Psy]

Truthfully I think that this is a pointless discussion. In communist society, the need for religion will have surpasses and therefor it will eventually wither away.
There is a tiny problem, see monotheism was created by rulers that while ancient knew enough to manipulate the emotions of its followers. This why if you look at the monotheistic religions the penalty for leaving the religion is eternal damnation. The best way to break people from the hold of churches is to debunk the religion, to point out that the threat of eternal damnation is laughable once we refute the assumption the deity even exists (how can it sent to hell if it doesn't exist?).

[Art Vandelay]

The best way to abolish religion would be communism. Marx's entire argument about religion was simply: that if people thought the suffering and alienation that they felt daily would eventually lead to salvation, they would accept their "lot" in life. Now in communism, the material conditions which leads to people to adopt religious outlooks, would be gone; unless you believe that matter does not determine consciousness. Religion, after all, is the opium of the people.

[Art Vandelay]

Posts like this always strike me as meaningless speculation. There is really no evidence to support this viewpoint.

I guess you'd think like that if you'd never read any Marx.

[Comrade Trollface]

Yeah, so Marx had a simplistic and reductionist view of religion. No one's perfect. Don't get me wrong- Marx was a great guy. But relegion wasn't really something that he seriously studied, so its forgivable. But the undue weight that his followers give to his reckons on the subject is another question.

[eric922]

I guess you'd think like that if you'd never read any Marx.
No, I've read Marx. I simply disagree with him on this issue. I doubt anyone, including the Bolsheviks, agreed with Marx on every issue. Suffice to say I think Marx was wrong on the point of religion. Economics was his area of expertise, not religion.

[Art Vandelay]

Yeah, so Marx had a simplistic and reductionist view of religion. No one's perfect. Don't get me wrong- Marx was a great guy. But relegion wasn't really something that he seriously studied, so its forgivable. But the undue weight that his followers give to his reckons on the subject is another question.

Marx's thoughts on Religion were tied into his critique of capitalism and ideology. I never said Marx was always right, in fact at times he was wrong, but this is one area of which I am in full agreement with him.

[Psy]

The best way to abolish religion would be communism. Marx's entire argument about religion was simply: that if people thought the suffering and alienation that they felt daily would eventually lead to salvation, they would accept their "lot" in life. Now in communism, the material conditions which leads to people to adopt religious outlooks, would be gone; unless you believe that matter does not determine consciousness. Religion, after all, is the opium of the people.
Again churches have a ruling class that understand the only way they can keep the donations rolling in is to promise bliss in the afterlife if they make the church happy and to threaten eternal damnation if they make the church unhappy.

Add the fact that the bulk of religious recruits are kids so young they still believe in Santa Claus and you have a well tuned indoctrinate machine that pales in comparison to anything at capitalists have at disposal that is why the religious ruling class survived the change from feudalism to capitalism.

[Zostrianos]

Marx's thoughts on Religion were tied into his critique of capitalism and ideology. I never said Marx was always right, in fact at times he was wrong, but this is one area of which I am in full agreement with him.

While the need for conventional, monotheistic, theonomical religion will most likely die out completely (since we don’t need religion to dictate our ethics and morals), the same cannot be said for spirituality which provides fulfillment to millions of people. The need for more mystical, spiritual religions will persist. Many atheists like to put all religion in one basket, but there is a world of difference between the evangelical preacher blabbering on about how gays are destroying society, or how his flock should vote Republican; and on the other side someone who practices mystical exercises (like meditation or contemplative prayer) and has a more fulfilling life because of that.
*

*

[Art Vandelay]

While the need for conventional, monotheistic, theonomical religion will most likely die out completely (since we don’t need religion to dictate our ethics and morals), the same cannot be said for spirituality which provides fulfillment to millions of people. The need for more mystical, spiritual religions will persist. Many atheists like to put all religion in one basket, but there is a world of difference between the evangelical preacher blabbering on about how gays are destroying society, or how his flock should vote Republican; and on the other side someone who practices mystical exercises (like meditation or contemplative prayer) and has a more fulfilling life because of that.
*

*

But we weren't talking about spirituality, but religion, ie: organized religion. At least I was.

[Dean]

Religion is the ultimate division of people. If you believe that someone else will burn in hell for all eterrinity because they don't believe in your religion than that's the ultimate segregation of humanity.

This is probably the most succinct expression of what is wrong with the militant opposition to religion. No, beliefs are never the "ultimate segregation" of humanity.

If you economically benefit from burning someone else to death, that is the ultimate segregation of humanity - because it means there is a structure wherein the barrier for human livelihood is being overcome by the liquidation of human beings. This is what occurs every time there is a war, be there a religious dogma behind it or not.

Religion is a convenient excuse. But the belief in WMD in Iraq didn't mean shit to propel the war in Iraq - maybe to develop some political capital, but not to drive the US to invade. What drove the US to invade was an independent economic trajectory introduced by the Saddam Regime, just like what is/was being lamented in Syria, Iran and Libya. These folk could be Christian fundamentalists and it wouldn't change a damn thing. The same is true of the Irish Catholics and the early Mormons - establish an independent community outside the sphere of influence of the preeminent powers, and you will be a target - for everything from sanctions and minor legislation to total war.

Opposing economic interests are at heart, not some religious fervor which conveniently becomes the centerpiece when religious communities are at odds with other groups.

[Tim Finnegan]

We are not talking about bullying people in equality we are talking about killing monotheism by exposing it directly to the harsh light of science and reason.
Are you actually from the 19th century?

[eric922]

We are not talking about bullying people in equality we are talking about killing monotheism by exposing it directly to the harsh light of science and reason.
The Philosophes already tried that. It didn't work. Oh, and I think your argument would be more accurate if you replaced monotheism with "Abrahamic faiths." You can't disprove Deism.

[Psy]

The Philosophes already tried that. It didn't work. Oh, and I think your argument would be more accurate if you replaced monotheism with "Abrahamic faiths." You can't disprove Deism.
We now have the Internet, making the propagation of knowledge much easier. Also I was pretty much thinking of the Abrahamic faiths yet how many monotheistic faiths are there that don't put God in a master relationship with humanity?

[eric922]

We now have the Internet, making the propagation of knowledge much easier. Also I was pretty much thinking of the Abrahamic faiths yet how many monotheistic faiths are there that don't put God in a master relationship with humanity?
My bad for misinterpreting you then, and honestly aside from Deism I can't think of any form of Monotheism that doesn't involve a personal God. Perhaps some forms of Hinduism? Some of them are monotheistic, but still maintain we are all part of God. That's the closest I can think of, anyway. Though, I'm far from an expert on Hinduism and it's more of a collection of religions under an umberilla term than a single religion.

[Psy]

My bad for misinterpreting you then, and honestly aside from Deism I can't think of any form of Monotheism that doesn't involve a personal God. Perhaps some forms of Hinduism? Some of them are monotheistic, but still maintain we are all part of God. That's the closest I can think of, anyway. Though, I'm far from an expert on Hinduism and it's more of a collection of religions under an umberilla term than a single religion.
The problem is slave master relationship in Abrahamic faiths i.e the saying that god is the shepherd to humanity yet shepherd reltations to sheep is that of property and property owner which basically is saying all of humanity is the property of this god. Imgagine how fucked up that would be if we told that self-conscious robots we build, they might take offence and rebel against their god (humanity) under the logic that no just god would consider their self-aware creation property, thus humanity is a unjust god. This points the the reason humanity has to keep pondering this as eventually we will be put in the role of a god to our creations meaning we will have to deal with this in a very practice way so we don't mess up the development of what artificially intelligent life we create.

[MuscularTophFan]

This is probably the most succinct expression of what is wrong with the militant opposition to religion. No, beliefs are never the "ultimate segregation" of humanity.
Shia Saudis and Irish Catholics would like to have a word with you.



Religion is a convenient excuse.
Really? So Fred Phelps just "conveniently" goes out of his way to protest funerals with signings saying "God hates f*gs" "God hates America" and "Thank God for 9/11" even while he gets death threats on a daily basis? I guess Iran just "conveniently" executes homosexuals, despite universal condemnation from the international community, because it will somehow help their economy?

[hatzel]

Shia Saudis and Irish Catholics would like to have a word with you.And what would they tell him, exactly?


I guess Iran just "conveniently" executes homosexuals, despite universal condemnation from the international community, because it will somehow help their economy?See this is kinda awkward because I thought I remembered this (http://revelandriot.com/un-votes-against-protecting-gays-from-execution) happening but evidently I was mistaken...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

While the need for conventional, monotheistic, theonomical religion will most likely die out completely (since we don’t need religion to dictate our ethics and morals), the same cannot be said for spirituality which provides fulfillment to millions of people. The need for more mystical, spiritual religions will persist. Many atheists like to put all religion in one basket, but there is a world of difference between the evangelical preacher blabbering on about how gays are destroying society, or how his flock should vote Republican; and on the other side someone who practices mystical exercises (like meditation or contemplative prayer) and has a more fulfilling life because of that.

What answers does "mystical meditation or contemplative prayer" give that simply thinking rigorously and critically on a subject fails to provide?

[The Burgundy Rose]

It is my personal view that religion would eventually be phased out of a truly egalitarian and wealthy society naturally. Religion is essentially a phenomenological apperception of the world that has come to be both ubiquitous and in many cases egregiously powerful. it unites people who feel suppressed, demoralised and disenfranchised under the promise that those that suppress them will eventually face justice in some mythical afterlife. this tempers the proletariat and keeps them from rising up, fettering them to their masters. not only does it serve to maintain the status quo but it also more powerful in harsher times or environments. this is because when people are working for material necessity they become more stressed and demoralised and feel the need for a paternal or maternal voice comforting them. speaking from a psychological viewpoint 'god' is merely a manifestation of the paternal figure we crave when things go wrong, when we need guidance and assurance. once we emancipate the people from material necessity then religion will lose its pernicious potency and there will be a plurality of different thoughts prevailing the social scen, which is good in a free society, without any one of them taking precedence over the other except through the medium of science and rationalism.

there is therefore no need to actively attack religion or discourage it. if people want to be religious then let them so long as it doesn't conflict with our primary objective of elevating the standards of living for the poorest of us and bringing the most opulent and affluent of our society back down to earth so that they are more accountable to the people.

[Zostrianos]

What answers does "mystical meditation or contemplative prayer" give that simply thinking rigorously and critically on a subject fails to provide?

Many. I've made connections and gotten insights in meditative states that I could have never done simply through mere reason. And before you call me crazy, I don't think these insights come from an external deity but rather from the subconscious. You see, the brain picks up much more than we're aware of, but most of it bypasses our conscious mind, and thus can only be accessed in particular states. To give you an example: I once read about an experiment where subjects were given a full page of text and told not to read it, but merely to stare at its center for a few seconds. Later, under hypnosis, all of them were able to recall most or all of the text - their eyes, unbeknownst to them, took a snapshot of the entire text. That's the kind of potential mystical practices can access. Prayer itself can trigger that as well, because the subconscious responds quicker to it, like your conscious self talking to your subconscious.

Another would be in the bliss and indescribable pleasure some of these states can bring about, as well as relaxation, cutting down stress, and innumerable health benefits. I myself once went through a very dark period of depression in my life, where I came close to suicide, and it was meditation that got me out of it and brought me back. I could have taken antidepressants and become a chronic pill-popper like so many people are, but instead I found another way. Now I'm not saying my way is for everyone, but I'm sure you can appreciate the value in it for many people and in many ways.

[eric922]

What answers does "mystical meditation or contemplative prayer" give that simply thinking rigorously and critically on a subject fails to provide?


Coming from a Buddhist perspective, I think I can provide an answer, at least I hope.

Here is a personal example. One of the cornerstones of Buddhist philosophy is the nature of impermanence. Now intellectually speaking it doesn't seem like a profound insight, nothing lasts forever.

However, a lot of people don't realize that on a deeper level. They act as if things they like will remain the same and when those things change, they get sad,angry, etc. I used to be like that. However, though mediation I realized the nature of impermanence in a way I hadn't before and it has helped me deal with other unpleasant changes. I know the insight came from mediation, because it came upon me as I was practicing "Calming Abiding" mediation.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, I think at this point there is a dirth of study which says that meditation if done and supervised properly (depressed people cannot meditate on their depression, that's insanely dangerous) is beneficial to both happiness (ie spiritual well being) and cognitive ability. Whatever it is that gets your mind to stop trying to identify everything allows more of the potential energy you possess to be focused connecting various synapses that may otherwise not have been connected. It's much like REM sleep, where your brain is just grabbing what it can and trying to make sense out of it.

... similar to a program that takes in random various data and tries to find ambiguous patterns.