Religion: Still the opium of the Masses?

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Over a hundred years ago, Marx famously said "Religion is the Opium of the Masses".

These words have been accepted as dogma in the workers movement. Understandably, at the time, religion was reactionary, and taught people to simply sit, and accept the bourgeoisie.

However, now, in the year 2012, things are different. Religion is now not as powerful as it once was. A significant number of people are proud to call themselves atheist, and some religious people seem to hold left leaning beliefs.

Obviously, religion still may likely act as a reactionary force. The higher echelons of the church would likely reject socialism, as they would be in line with the bourgeoisie. However, if say the local church were to reject the rulings of the Pope, and accepted socialism, would we still treat it as reactionary? Personally, I'd say no. If religion doesn't bother us, why should we bother it. Of course, we still must distance religion from government, in any case.

Furthermore, I also wish to discuss Buddhism. I can't see any problems with it. As long as it separates itself from government, I think we should, if anything, support them in creating their own communal monasteries. Of course, assuming they don't form a reactionary movement.


I can already foretell the flood of traditional 'religion must be eliminated' comments. However, I'm curious as to if it is at all possible to accept religion, as long as it holds no power, and accepts the workings of socialism, communism and anarchism.

[Zealot]

Over a hundred years ago, Marx famously said "Religion is the Opium of the Masses". These words have been accepted as dogma in the workers movement.

It's not dogma; we recognise material realities and accept Marx's statement as an accurate reflection of that.


Understandably, at the time, religion was reactionary, and taught people to simply sit, and accept the bourgeoisie.

And still does.


However, now, in the year 2012, things are different. Religion is now not as powerful as it once was.

The conservative right-wing religionists are very powerful and well-sponsored.


A significant number of people are proud to call themselves atheist

Being "proud" to call oneself an atheist is rather lame.


some religious people seem to hold left leaning beliefs.

Some religious people are more revolutionary than some atheists. Christopher Hitchens is probably more right-wing than any religious person I know.


Obviously, religion still may likely act as a reactionary force. The higher echelons of the church would likely reject socialism, as they would be in line with the bourgeoisie. However, if say the local church were to reject the rulings of the Pope, and accepted socialism, would we still treat it as reactionary? Personally, I'd say no. If religion doesn't bother us, why should we bother it. Of course, we still must distance religion from government, in any case.

This is the traditional position but it doesn't mean we won't "bother" religion; religion deserves to be "bothered" no matter how revolutionary it is.


Furthermore, I also wish to discuss Buddhism. I can't see any problems with it. As long as it separates itself from government, I think we should, if anything, support them in creating their own communal monasteries. Of course, assuming they don't form a reactionary movement.

Everyone upholds Buddhism as some great humanist religion when the fact is that Buddhism is nothing of the sort and has served reactionism and imperialism just as much as Christianity. In fact, the "humanist" approach to Buddhism was promoted by Christian missionaries in the west as they returned from Asia to demonstrate how evil Buddhism was in order to justify doing the "lord's work" and colonialism. It could have some insights that one may or may not want to take on board in their personal philosophy but if you simply want to purge Buddhism of superstition while still calling yourself a Buddhist you'll simply look as stupid as someone who calls themselves an Atheist Christian.


I can already foretell the flood of traditional 'religion must be eliminated' comments. However, I'm curious as to if it is at all possible to accept religion, as long as it holds no power, and accepts the workings of socialism, communism and anarchism.

This has been our position for quite a while but it doesn't mean we'll leave religion alone.

[Prof. Oblivion]

However, now, in the year 2012, things are different. Religion is now not as powerful as it once was. A significant number of people are proud to call themselves atheist, and some religious people seem to hold left leaning beliefs.

Historically religion has had different groups, some conservative and some progressive. This isn't any different now than it was in Marx's time, except for the acceptance of atheism.

Marx's analysis is based in his Young Hegelian days. I would recommend you read Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity or Strauss' The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined for a further understanding of his views on religion.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I think the first part of the original post doesn't connect very well with the rest of the post, as you misinterpret what Marx meant by that phrase.
When he wrote that, opiates were used as a sedative, a painkiller. In modern terms, it's typically associated in another way. Marx saw religion as a way that people ran away from the harsh realities of life, therefore they were happy with this illusion.

From how it sounds, you make it sound like he was saying religion was a poison (which I'm sure he wouldn't disagree with either), but we should put the quote in the proper context.

Otherwise, yes, you do have a point that throughout the past, organized religion has helped serve as a willing ally of the reactionaries. As much as I dislike Bakunin, he's a perfect example of a revolutionary who was completely alienated by the hyper-religious society of 19th century Russia. Compared to those days, and worse times, the Church and religion in general don't play as strong of a role in economic, political, and personal life. That isn't to downplay all the propaganda and brainwashing people do against LGBTQ causes, women's rights, and so forth. But I do think the church is very passive these days compared to the past. It's a dying institution.

[maskerade]

No, consumerism is the opium of the masses.

[Philosophos]

Well I believe that religion is the opium of the stupid masses. I'm a Christian Orthodox but I can see the bullshit that the "big guys" of the church are doing, but at the same time I can see what Christ said we should do(love, share, don't discriminate etc) and that these fat guys up there do the exact opposite.

But there are some people who still believe in the shit "don't do this, don't do that" and they don't even ask why or how can they change? NOTHING, they just walk their way and they feel guilty for the things they do or they don't do.

It's just like Aristotel said: You are a man with morals only when you don't do immoral things and you are happy about it or if you do moral deeds and you are not sad about it.

So to conclude I believe religion is the opium of the people who are not critically thinking or they don't even want to search a little more their nature, their minds, their beliefs etc.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Maybe if Christians read the Bible there would be more communists...


All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)

Still, though, religion has its downsides such as sexism, homophobia, etc.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

I don't really feel my question has been answered.

1. If a church accepts socialism, and does not advocate reaction, can we leave it in peace?

2. Can we support Buddism, if it stays out of our affairs, and does not advocate reaction?

I know all about the religious right, and I agree, we will need to eliminate that. But say that someone just wanted to worship in peace. they did want to challenge us or support anything. All they want to do is pray.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I don't really feel my question has been answered.

1. If a church accepts socialism, and does not advocate reaction, can we leave it in peace?
Well, I don't think a church has to accept socialism. The absolute separation of church and state eliminates a church's social power, but its opinions can't be so easily extinguished, nor should it. And certainly, if it does not advocate or provide material support for reaction, it could be left well enough alone. Marxists should be opposed to dogmatic propagation of atheism because of the risk of alienating workers and peasants. Such tactics are idealist, not materialist, for it refuses to take into account how deeply these institutions can be embedded in worker consciousness. Presumably Lenin would not have ordered the suppression of the Russian Orthodox Church if it did not rally for and assist the Whites.


2. Can we support Buddism, if it stays out of our affairs, and does not advocate reaction?

I know all about the religious right, and I agree, we will need to eliminate that. But say that someone just wanted to worship in peace. they did want to challenge us or support anything. All they want to do is pray.
I do not think that a revolutionary party should provide any material support for religion. But again, Buddhism or any church can certainly be left alone if it does not provide material support to the bourgeoisie. I do not think that a post-class society would take it upon themselves to persecute believers or their customs of worship. Marxists are (or should) not be opposed to religious freedom. Otherwise we would have no basis for defending Muslims from the bigoted treatment handed out to them by Western governments, lest we end up taking positions similar to that of Sam Harris.

I hope that answers your questions somewhat.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

I do not think that a revolutionary party should provide any material support for religion. But again, Buddhism or any church can certainly be left alone if it does not provide material support to the bourgeoisie. I do not think that a post-class society would take it upon themselves to persecute believers or their customs of worship. Marxists are (or should) not be opposed to religious freedom. Otherwise we would have no basis for defending Muslims from the bigoted treatment handed out to them by Western governments.

I hope that answers your questions somewhat.

When i said support, I meant morally support. Ie, we let them build communes, and let them just do their thing.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

When i said support, I meant morally support. Ie, we let them build communes, and let them just do their thing.
Oh. Well, certainly. I don't see a problem with that. Is that the only problem you had with my answer?

[Regicollis]

Here is what Marx actually wrote



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

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower.


You can't blame the oppressed masses for wanting a potent painkiller.

[Prof. Oblivion]

1. If a church accepts socialism, and does not advocate reaction, can we leave it in peace?

2. Can we support Buddism, if it stays out of our affairs, and does not advocate reaction?

Under what circumstances? Are you advocating the attacking of churches? Because it sure sounds like it.

[Hermes]

So would the logic (and tactic) be, then, that communists should not materially support religion, etc, because it is necessary for the mass of people in a capitalist society. However, once we have abolished capitalism, there should still be no material support, but religion will gradually begin to dissipate due to its lack of reason for existence?

Or have I completely misunderstood all of you?

[jookyle]

It's not so much an opium as much as it is a gun these days

[The Intransigent Faction]

I am an Atheist, but I have a sort of personal affinity for Buddhism, or at the very least much of Buddhism's proclaimed values, but I won't bore anyone here with the details.

Religion as a private affair should absolutely be left as a matter of personal choice to the extent that it's not harming anyone. Organized religion...is a tougher issue. The demonization of Muslims is terribly counterproductive and just plain wrong. It's something that should be approached with sensitivity. Certain cultural practices based in religion and certain ethical debates surrounding it will hopefully be peacefully resolved in a communist society so that it no longer remains a tool of division.

Religion may remain as a painkiller, but not for the pains brought by the harshness of capitalism. Instead, I'd think that in any socioeconomic system, the ultimate questions about what might happen after death and such will remain, as no doubt will many of the personal tragedies through which people turn to religion. If someone in a future communist society will want to believe that, say, a family member who died in an earthquake is still out there in some spiritual form watching over them, who are we to deprive them of that psychological comfort? It's religion as a moral code for life to be followed and imposed on others that's a problem, and trying to impose Atheism would be problematic too.

In sum, "Even if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him", but religious beliefs about an afterlife, as well as other personal choices (i.e. clothing, special occasions) should be met with tolerance to the extent that they do no harm.

[Zostrianos]

1. If a church accepts socialism, and does not advocate reaction, can we leave it in peace?
2. Can we support Buddism, if it stays out of our affairs, and does not advocate reaction?


Religion is a private matter, so all religions should be left in peace provided they cause no harm to society, and full secularism is maintained.
Religious extremism, the religious right, etc. will have to be eliminated obviously (I for one would target those mega-churches , seize most of their assets and put them to good use), but religious beliefs should be respected. Moreover, it's not all religions that are harming society - it's primarily organized Christianity and Islam. Most others are quite decent, even if you don't believe in them.

The real opium of the masses nowadays is indeed consumerism, as well as mindless entertainment, sports, gossip magazines, things of that nature that numb the brain and contribute nothing to the individual. It's sad when you look back to certain points in history (such as late antiquity), when the masses were actually interested in more profound things, like philosophy. Nowadays it's celebrities and one hit wonders...:thumbdown:

[eyeheartlenin]

I don't see how there can be any rapprochement between organized religion and Marxism, since Marxism is materialist, and the essence of most Western religion AFAIK is theism. And, writing as a theist, I don't see organized religion developing towards any usable, supportable leftist standpoint. The most that religion in the US can accomplish is a vague sort of liberalism; there is very little religious opposition, for instance, to the constant wars waged by the US, as it faces obvious, irreversible decline. Those endless wars are an undeniable example of "evil," since they involve massive violence that takes innocent, defenseless human lives (real festivals of killing), and that situation does not provoke large-scale religious opposition to the US government; on the contrary, the rank and file of the biggest Christian groups, Baptists and Catholics, (who comprise the most conservative believers) are strong supporters of US military intervention. So organized religion in the US, at least, largely remains a cheerleader for US military power, despite Christian ethics, which, at their best, reject violence by the state.

As for Judaism, it formally places peace as a good second only to religious observance, but, as Commentary, a magazine published by the American Jewish Committee, noted years ago, Jews in the US are united by their support of Israel, which entails backing Israel's wars and that country's treatment of the Palestinians (which is interesting, since there were large numbers of leftists among impoverished Jewish immigrants of the early twentieth century, and Orthodox Judaism, and also the Reform movement, were critics of Zionism for some decades).

So, basically, for Marxists to continue to be Marxists, a vigorous criticism of the reactionary stances of religious organizations will be necessary, at a minimum, for a long time to come, I betcha. :)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I have no problem with whatever people's metaphysical views are or the way in which they chose to publicly recognize that metaphysics. What I have a problem with is when metaphysical speculation is used to justify state violence or patriarchy.



Everyone upholds Buddhism as some great humanist religion when the fact is that Buddhism is nothing of the sort and has served reactionism and imperialism just as much as Christianity. In fact, the "humanist" approach to Buddhism was promoted by Christian missionaries in the west as they returned from Asia to demonstrate how evil Buddhism was in order to justify doing the "lord's work" and colonialism. It could have some insights that one may or may not want to take on board in their personal philosophy but if you simply want to purge Buddhism of superstition while still calling yourself a Buddhist you'll simply look as stupid as someone who calls themselves an Atheist Christian.


You obviously haven't read any Buddhist philosophy - all the superstition was designed for the lay community under the (accurate) presumption that any lay community in a pre-modern society would be unable to devote the time and energy necessary to educate themselves on the deeper formulations of Buddhist philosophy.

The problem with Buddhism, like the problems of ALL religions which became a state religion, is its institutionalization. Today Buddhists repress Hindus in Sri Lanka and Muslims in Thailand and Burma, but that's not because they're Buddhists but because the Buddhist monastic order became institutionalized and has wealth and power to protect.

[International_Solidarity]

I think you make a good point here, and I believe that religion no longer is the "opiate" of the masses. I would agree that consumerism is now the Opiate of the masses. I think religion can be used positively in the struggle for Revolution. As many religions call for at least some form of equality between humankind (albeit, with contradictory statements here and there). However, there are far too many religious people in the working class to shrug of religion completely. I don't think we would have the numbers needed for Revolution. Especially in my country, the United States, where religion is everywhere.

[International_Solidarity]

I don't really feel my question has been answered.

2. Can we support Buddism, if it stays out of our affairs, and does not advocate reaction?



I don't think we really need to "support" any religion. I don't support people because of their religion, I support them because of their economic and political philosophies. If a man is a Buddhist as well as a good Communist then I see him as a good Communist. I don't think it is in our best interest to label entire religions we support or denounce, the state should not judge people on their religion, but instead on how they go about creating, or not creating Socialism.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Okay, I may be having an issue with my communication. I'm sorry.


How about, I want to leave religion alone. I don't care if someone is religious, and wants to pray, and I don't care what religion they are. So long as they do not start advocating right-wing reaction. What I want to know is, is this an acceptable viewpoint, or is it compulsory to repress religion?

I'm guessing from most of these posts, that it we can accept religion.

[Tim Cornelis]

Some religious people are more revolutionary than some atheists. Christopher Hitchens is probably more right-wing than any religious person I know.

I'm pretty sure he was a Leninist...

[Philosophos]

I don't think we really need to "support" any religion. I don't support people because of their religion, I support them because of their economic and political philosophies. If a man is a Buddhist as well as a good Communist then I see him as a good Communist. I don't think it is in our best interest to label entire religions we support or denounce, the state should not judge people on their religion, but instead on how they go about creating, or not creating Socialism.

Me too

[Robespierres Neck]

I'm pretty sure he was a Leninist...

A Leninist would never support the Iraq War.

[Tim Cornelis]

A Leninist would never support the Iraq War.

That is an accident fallacy, isn't it? If Hitchens was indeed a Leninist, yet supported the Iraq War, then clearly a Leninist would support the Iraq War.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I'm pretty sure he was a Leninist...
I thought Hitchens was an ex-Trotskyist.

[Robespierres Neck]

I thought Hitchens was an ex-Trotskyist.

Yep. He worked on a newspaper for a Trotskyist group, called 'International Socialism'.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Interesting little “remembrance” of Hitchens, well a negative one : http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/16/farewell-to-c-h/

[cb9's_unity]

Regicollis already posted part of the excerpt that the quote came from. I'm going to post a different part to help Marx's point be understood.


For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality.

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

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

The quote comes in the context of Marx critiquing left Hegelian thinking. At the time a lot of left Hegelians believed the critique of religion to be the starting point of a true philosophy. Marx disagreed and believed religion was an inverted reflection of existing society and humanity. As such philosophy had to start with the critique of reality as it could be observed. Religion would then be critiqued in its relation to actually existing society.

Attacking religion is attacking an illusion. All you end up doing is deflecting critique away from reality and unwittingly giving that illusion credibility.

So there is no point in communists going out of our way to criticize religion. There is nothing productive in it. At best it is a waste of time and at worst it turns away people who might otherwise be interested in our cause.

As for communists being religious? Again, it simply doesn't matter what a communist believes spiritually if they agree with the material action that must be taken in the material world. Purely speculative thought falls outside of the realm of Marxism. Speculation only exists for Marxists in its capacity to eventually come to practical conclusions. That means you can speculate about whatever you want about the next world as long as you are willing to employ the revolutionary findings of Marxism in this world.

[Amon]

Religion should be tolerated as long as they it does not compromise someones personal freedom and human rights, not to mention religious extremism. It should be a personal thing, and not something whereby you should push your moral agenda down someone else's throat. In the future though, religion, as it has done through out the years, will still incrementally continue to diminish as time goes on. I am certain that post-revolution, religion will have significantly decreased in popular thought. Interesting note, I see no problem with someone claiming to be a Deist, I believe it is not a threat to literally anyone.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I don't share most of his views, yet I still hold a massive amount of respect for Hitch. While he's certainly was no socialist at the time of his death, I don't see why he's being made out to be "more right-wing than any religious person". He's undoubtedly some degree of "left" on the political spectrum. God is Not Great is an amazing book too. It took quite a bit to drive him to support interventionist foreign policy too, if you consider the whole incident with Salman Rushdie.

Anyhow, the observation that religion is an opiate of the masses is absolutely still accurate. In many cases (I can think of at least one personal example and I'm sure most could as well) religious people are so as a sort of comfort mechanism, a distraction from the everyday struggle of life and unhappiness, and gives them a reason not to pursue their own happiness and class interest (eg, proletarian revolution) since, after all, they'll be happy in their imaginary wonderland after they die anyway.

Beyond that, even if it didn't serve such a purpose, it's anti-scientific, and that alone is enough reason for me to oppose it.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

As an anti-theist, I view religion as a psychological social construct that has been used for centuries to institutionalise minoritarian power over an ignorant majority, often with dangerous consequences.

That said, the belief system is not something that can be 'forced away'. It is very plausible to detest the supernatural and belief of the supernatural, but to impose this upon the individual who would wish to believe this way is nothing more than tyrrany. If a person believes in a giant spaghetti monster, you should have every right to critique this belief and the person's connection with it, but you should never have the right to physically or psychologically assault them into becoming completely rational. To do so would be to make yourself more of a threat to people than the beliefs you wish to bloodily destroy.

Religion should not be opposed not because it is irrational, but because of the horrific amount of utter misinformation, suppression and power over freedom that can spawn from it's irrationality.

Prime example; my younger cousin is attending a religious school because of the friends he wishes to learn with there. Recently, they have been given sexual education classes within their religious/Catholic education lessons.

The teacher not only discouraged 'artificial' contraception as an evil construction that goes against god's plan and made some pseudoscientific, anti-choice statements about when life begins, but downright lied to the class about natural or cycle contraception. She was explaining how it was a safer, more reliable and 'faith-friendly' alternative to artificial methods if you had sex, and that it had no dangerous side effects.

My cousin was bloody quick in responding to that.


I still believe that religion is an opiate of the masses. Christianity, along with many other theisms, openly opposes many aspects of freedom and materialism on a platform of baseless idealisms. Yet I still respect if they have those beliefs.

It's only when they start trying to push their illogical values onto everyone else, along with forcing children to believe such concepts before they are even old enough to make decisions for themselves, that I would warrant action against theists.

[Amon]

It's only when they start trying to push their illogical values onto everyone else, along with forcing children to believe such concepts before they are even old enough to make decisions for themselves, that I would warrant action against theists.

:thumbup1:

Forcing to children to believe such things and to disregard science as it were just a fantasy, that is child abuse.

[The Burgundy Rose]

Religion should be tolerated as long as they it does not compromise someones personal freedom and human rights, not to mention religious extremism. It should be a personal thing, and not something whereby you should push your moral agenda down someone else's throat. In the future though, religion, as it has done through out the years, will still incrementally continue to diminish as time goes on. I am certain that post-revolution, religion will have significantly decreased in popular thought. Interesting note, I see no problem with someone claiming to be a Deist, I believe it is not a threat to literally anyone.

i agree. religion should be a personal thing. i think religious organisations in which donations are given should be abolished as this leads to a select few having a lot of power and influence and so undermines communism.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How about, I want to leave religion alone. I don't care if someone is religious, and wants to pray, and I don't care what religion they are. So long as they do not start advocating right-wing reaction. What I want to know is, is this an acceptable viewpoint, or is it compulsory to repress religion?

I'm guessing from most of these posts, that it we can accept religion.

Yes. That's more or less my view. And I think it would be disastrously counterproductive to "repress religion" for being religion. Should radicals go after religious organizations who advocate or organize for reactionay things - yes. By all means organize and agitate against the US Catholic Church leadership and the Mormon Church for supporting and funding anti-gay marriage legislation in California, battle the religious right as hard as any other right-wing coalition. But don't criticize the Catholic Church leadership because they happen also to believe a man in a hat is the representative of God or Mormon Leaders because of their religious underwear or the christian right on the basis of believing Jesus speaks to them.

It would be polarizing in a way that just wouldn't benefit us because for one thing there are probably millions of workers who share similar religious beliefs but not necessarily the political ones. People hold contradictory ideas in their head at the same time all the freaking time! For example... the existence of large numbers of people who think that masturbation is wrong and yet... material concerns sometimes override immaterial ideals. Workers who want to believe there is some higher purpose in life because normal life is so alienating and repetitive turn to religion in huge numbers. It's understandable but of course as a Marxist I believe that it's a dead-end. They can also potentially believe that things are shit on the job or in their communities or that there's a lot of racism or sexism. So I think our aim should be not to break people from one set of ideas, but to try and build an alternative, movements that show people in general what is possible when folks organize in workplaces or communities.

Religious ideas can sometimes be a barrier for regular individuals: like if someone believes only God can influence things in the world and man can do nothing - then again many "scientifically-oriented" people believe the same thing but replace God with "human nature" or or some pseudo-scientific generic determinist argument.

So I don't see a point in specifically criticizing religious people for their belief in supernatural things - since many people believe just as irrational things in a totally secular way.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Cheers for the replies guys. That's what I was interested in hearing.

[Philosophos]

Christianity, along with many other theisms, openly opposes many aspects of freedom and materialism on a platform of baseless idealisms. Yet I still respect if they have those beliefs.



Well I'm a christian orthodox and I know what you mean about the whole opposing the freedoms and materialism of this world thing. But that's something happening because we have closed-minded priests and people who read the Bible but don't study it. They just stay at the obvious or they keep whatever they want.

I got rid of all these bias such as "you should have sex only if you want to have kids" or "you should restrict your body's needs because it's a useless thing and only the spirit is important" because I read the Bible and I actually put my mind to think that these things that I mentioned before do not agree with what Christ said. Christ never said have sexual relations with your wife whenever you want to have kids. Christ also said that the mind is as important as the body but still there actually people that think that body is a prison for the spirit....


You can't just blame christianity (I'm not talking about other religions because I haven't studied them properly) you have to blame the people at the top of christianity who reached the top not to guide people in the right path of their religion but to take advantage of them.

[Zostrianos]

Early Christianity was very different than what the Church made it, and even Rosa Luxemburg recognized it as a form of Communism (albeit imperfect):

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm


Thus, the clergy, which makes itself the spokesman of the rich, the defender of exploitation and oppression, places itself in flagrant contradiction to the Christian doctrine. The bishops and the priests are not the propagators of Christian teaching, but the worshippers of the Golden Calf and of the Knout which whips the poor and defenceless....

The Christian religion appeared to these unhappy beings as a life-belt, a consolation and an encouragement, and became, right from the beginning, the religion of the Roman proletarians. In conformity with the material position of the men belonging to this class, the first Christians put forward the demand for property in common - communism. What could be more natural? The people lacked means of subsistence and were dying of poverty. A religion which defended the people demanded that the rich should share with the poor the riches which ought to belong to all and not to a handful of privileged people; a religion which preached the equality of all men would have great success. However, this had nothing in common with the demand which the Social-Democrats put forward today with a view to making into common property the instruments of work, the means of production, in order that all humanity may work and live in harmonious unity. We have been able to observe that the Roman proletarians did not live by working, but from the alms which the government doled out. So the demand of the Christians for collective property did not relate to the means of production, but the means of consumption. They did not demand that the land, the workshops and the instruments of work should become collective property, but only that everything should be divided up among them, houses, clothing, food and finished products most necessary to life. The Christian communists took good care not to enquire into the origin of these riches. The work of production always fell upon the slaves. The Christian people desired only that those who possessed the wealth should embrace the Christian religion and should make their riches common property, in order that all might enjoy these good things in equality and fraternity....


We read in the Acts of the Apostles (4:32, 34, 35) the following description of the first community at Jerusalem: “no-one regarded as being his what belonged to him; everything was in common. Those who possessed lands or houses, after having sold them, brought the proceeds and laid them at the feet of the Apostles. And to each was distributed according to his needs.”...

Thus the Christians of the First and Second Centuries were fervent supporters of communism. But this communism was based on the consumption of finished products and not on work, and proved itself incapable of reforming society, of putting an end to the inequality between men and throwing down the barrier which separated rich from poor. For, exactly as before, the riches created by labour came back to a restricted group of possessors, because the means of production (especially the land) remained individual property, because the labour – for the whole society – was furnished by the slaves. The people, deprived of means of subsistence, only received only alms, according to the good pleasure of the rich.

[Sea]

The disregard for the factual inaccuracy of religious beliefs in this thread makes me want to upchuck. Socialist theory we all know and love is based on reasoning, not weather ignorance is "harmful" or not

[Comrades Unite!]

No, consumerism is the opium of the masses.

Yes, Petty Bourgeois mentality and ways are creeping its way into everyday life.

More people today contest the idea of a God and instead worship mass-consumerism.

[Zealot]

You obviously haven't read any Buddhist philosophy - all the superstition was designed for the lay community under the (accurate) presumption that any lay community in a pre-modern society would be unable to devote the time and energy necessary to educate themselves on the deeper formulations of Buddhist philosophy.

I've read Buddhist philosophy. You're right, it incorporated local cults and so on as it spread. But what I said above is not false. My point was that it would be fruitless to remove the superstition and call oneself a Buddhist because this could be done with almost any religion. And I don't see anyone here advocating a version of Christianity or Islam that simply has superstitious bunk removed. People try to place Buddhism on a pedestal which, in my opinion, is undeserved.

[Zealot]

I'm pretty sure he was a Leninist...

He claimed at one time to be a Trotskyist. Not quite sure what your point is with that though.

[Beeth]

For some reason, people have this need to worship someone or something - if they reject god, they may end up worshiping a celebrity, and so on. I'd be interested in knowing how evolutionary psycholgy deals with this question: why do people have the tendency to worship, glorify something or someone, be it a person or nation or whatever?

[Philosophos]

For some reason, people have this need to worship someone or something - if they reject god, they may end up worshiping a celebrity, and so on. I'd be interested in knowing how evolutionary psycholgy deals with this question: why do people have the tendency to worship, glorify something or someone, be it a person or nation or whatever?

Just imagine for a while that if you don't believe in a god WE HUMANS are the best thing this planet has to offer right now... Are you kidding me?

[Psy]

The problem is modernity had made religion obsolete as science demonstrably works, we didn't get to the moon by praying we got to the moon through science and labor and I don't recall any "god" being able to do half the feats humanity now can do.

[Камо́ Зэд]

When [Marx] wrote that [religion is the opiate of the masses], opiates were used as a sedative, a painkiller. In modern terms, it's typically associated in another way.

This is an excellent point, comrade, but opiates (and their synthetic analogues) are still used as painkillers today, so the context of the analogy hasn't changed much. Still, the scientific community has since developed a greater understanding of how opiates behave and have come to know their high potential for abuse and addiction more thoroughly. In this way, Marx's analogy actually grows stronger, doesn't it?

My understanding is that, during Marx's time, opiates were administered to children to put them to sleep or quiet them down, something that any reasonable physician would find unthinkable today. Yet, many men and women of science have no objection to the administration of religion to children, so to speak, despite its very obvious high potential for abuse and addiction. Richard Dawkins made the case that religion can be a form of child abuse, and when one considers, perhaps, the Westboro Baptist Church in the United States and to what those poor children must be exposed on a nigh continuous basis, this assertion doesn't seem terribly unreasonable. (Consider, also, that religion is sometimes used to permit other more overt forms of child abuse.)

[Radikal]

He claimed at one time to be a Trotskyist. Not quite sure what your point is with that though.

That explains a lot! (Just kidding Trots :D)

But seriously, he was a right winger. He even wrote something about how Natives in the Americas deserved to be took over due to their weakness or something like that. He's despicable.

On topic, I think it could work, but there should be no tolerance for reactionary behavior.

[Marxaveli]

I'd say Commodity Fetishism and Nationalism are more popular than religion now for being an excuse to not have to think critically. Be a good little consumer, salute those stars n' stripes, and never question your country, right or wrong. :rolleyes:

[Keath]

I don't care if someone is religious, and wants to pray, and I don't care what religion they are. So long as they do not start advocating right-wing reaction. What I want to know is, is this an acceptable viewpoint, or is it compulsory to repress religion?

I'm guessing from most of these posts, that it we can accept religion.

You will find a difference of opinion on this matter and I am glad there is healthy debate on the subject. I am against religion because religion by its very definition is a right-wing reaction.


Being "proud" to call oneself an atheist is rather lame.



I fully disagree with that statement you made.

Just so people know what I am, I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic.


Religion is a private matter...


There are only public matters. Ones personal life affects the public. For example an alcoholic is someone who would likely be negligent in their household and work duties which would likely negatively impact those they interact with and would in turn negatively affect society. Some would argure them being an alcoholic is a private matter however logically speaking them being an alcoholic affects others.

[#FF0000]

I am against religion because religion by its very definition is a right-wing reaction.

What definition is this?

[Psy]

What definition is this?
Religion stagnates because it is a intellectual dead end by design. It was engineered to pacify illiterate peasants to make them more controllable to the feudal ruling classes and stop peasants from becoming class conscious. The bourgeoisie itself has no use for the super natural as bourgeoisie is driven by material wealth abstracted into capital yet the bourgeoisie like the feudal class before them saw religion as a useful tool for inhibiting class consciousness.

The end result is those brainwashed by churches that ignorance is bliss.

gcUo9Tk0A-s

[Bostana]

Yes, always has been always will be

[Ostrinski]

Yes, always has been always will beWe've got a Negative Nancy in the premises, folks

[fug]

Yes, of course, just look at the situation in the Near East. Of course religion is playing an important role in the quelling of class struggle and democracy there.

[Beeth]

Religion is always regressive. Its progressive nature (like liberation theology) is an aberration.

[Zealot]

I fully disagree with that statement you made.

Why? I'm about as proud of being an Atheist as I am of being an Atoothfairyist.

[leftistman]

I am by no means in favor of religion. I am an avid anti-theist, and while I still think that organized religion on a mass scale is the opium of the masses, there are small churches that feed the poor an open orphanages. There are still religious missionaries that build houses for the poor. I think it would be more reasonable to say that these ultra-powerful religious leaders and organizations like the Dalai Lama and the Pope and the Vatican among others are the opium of the masses.

[PetyaRostov]

I think religion can exist alongside socialism and be allowed to organize communes and whathaveyou. Abolishing it outrightly seems not to respect certain individual rights and no respect for a whole myriad of different cultural traditions, ethnic history and whatnot

In regards to the question of Buddhism I agree that it is elevated to a pedestal which is undeserved. I like the anti-materialistic sentiment, but that very idea has been turned in on itself in support of the caste system.
Plus if you look at american history the quasi-buddhist tendencies in the Human Potential Movement later led to a kind of social apathy as evidence by Jerry Rubin (Yippie-to-Yuppie)

I think the original meaning of the phrase still suffices today. (equating religion to an -addictive- painkiller) It often gets misrepresented as being anti-religous or stating that religion is THE problem (how many -bad- arguements have you heard about the middle east that boil down to "if only we didn't have religion"...)

[PetyaRostov]

there's a good Calvin and Hobbes about this

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I agree that large organized religion is bad, not necessarily all religion.