What is there to do with religion?

[Bolshevika]

Yes, I'd like to ask what do fellow 'communists' think of religion? How do we resolve the religious contradiction amongst the masses?

[SonofRage]

It would seem wise to support a group like the Unitarian Universalist (http://www.religioustolerance.org/u-u1.htm). It is basically a creedless religion, meaning that they don't push a dogma on people but believe that each individual must find their own path. They promote tolerance and respect of other people's faiths and that they should all work together.

[ComradeRed]

As long as there is a clergy, it is the opium of the masses. As long as they promise heaven for toleration of oppression, it is the opium of the masses. As long as they are greedy, causing death of innocents, it is the opium of the masses. I have witnessed certain Nicherin Buddhisms, and have concluded those without clergy (soka gokkai, etc.) are not the opium of the masses, but help them. Christianity, was once a cult involving civil disobedience to an empire, had a martyr, praised him, and since Rome's fall has been wandering aimlessly throughout the ages. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, in my opinion, are the same religion, different interpretations though.
[edit]We resolve it by educating them, proving the religion wrong, and teaching them we are right.

[Bradyman]

Religion, such a waste of time.

Personally, I have nothing against spiritual people, but the idea of organized religion just makes me sick. I am content if all organized religion is destroyed, leaving religious beliefs solely on the individual. Of course, I do believe that in the course of time, people will realize that all their "gods" and whatnot are just a load of crap.

[Jesus Christ]

I have no problem with people practicing religion, just as long as no one is harmed.

[Bolshevika]

How about demolition of all churches, public executions of plotting religious leaders, and huge anti-organized religion propaganda campaigns?

I know it sounds harsh, but I do not see how else we can eliminate it from society.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I agree with the first and last statement, but public execution of religious leaders? Im sure that will scare the bejesus out of everyone. Perhaps we should set up gas chambers and dig mass graves mien furher? Surely we are too civilized for such barbaric practices.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Knock down every church, chapel, cathedral, mosque, and synagogue

Produce no more 'holy books'.

Publicly execute the pope.

Priests, Rabbis, Mullahs etc can voluntarily stop preaching or we force them to stop.

Desecrate 'holy' sites: Level St Peter's, slaughter a pig at the wailing wall, etc.

You can be free to practice whatever religion you want in the privacy of your own home, but keep that shit away from kids and sensible people!

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 05:59 PM
How about demolition of all churches, public executions of plotting religious leaders, and huge anti-organized religion propaganda campaigns?

I know it sounds harsh, but I do not see how else we can eliminate it from society.
Oppression will always lead to revolution. I do not believe these methods are just nor do I believe they would be effective in the long run.

[bazonix]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 08:11 AM
Knock down every church, chapel, cathedral, mosque, and synagogue

Produce no more 'holy books'.

Publicly execute the pope.

Priests, Rabbis, Mullahs etc can voluntarily stop preaching or we force them to stop.

Desecrate 'holy' sites: Level St Peter's, slaughter a pig at the wailing wall, etc.

You can be free to practice whatever religion you want in the privacy of your own home, but keep that shit away from kids and sensible people!
None of that please. That's selfish, power-mongering rage.

Surely people can believe whatever they want to believe and if that includes building churches, so be it.

There are far bigger things to concern ourselves with. Those would include living the truth rather than speaking it like those hypocritical priests, it would include creating a media filled with sensible discussion rather than soundbite and it would include showing people the true magnificence of life.

Ahh...

Is Marxism not a form of religion?

Hm.

Anyway.

Oh yeah. I saw a sig that quoted Martin Luther... That is no critique of spiritual perception you quote there. It is one of the positives. To know you are being unreasonable is of far greater strength than pretending you only believe in reason. The universe is beyond reasonable explanation. It is a paradox.

Yes. Yadda yadda yadda.

I just remembered Krishnamurti's plea to end organisation of religion (and other things). It was a beauty. You can read it here...

Krishnamurti speaks sense (http://www.spacemag.co.uk/Krishnamurti.html)

I'll be still now.

[Saint-Just]

I agree Bolshevika, thats largely what they did in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. They did not execute Monks, but they made them renounce their faith and forced them to tell the people the truth about the religion, that is was full of lies and that people were better off keeping their money than giving it to the Monastries since all the Monastries did was waste it on themselves.

I think it depends on the country, it requires different measures in different countries.

[cubist]

religion believe as you will but stop telling otehrs they are morally wrong its fucking rude,

i think the term is NO FUCK YOU, GET FUCKED, FUCK OFF to anyman/woman who says and jesus says "all who don't believe i am the son of god will go to hell" or anyone who just trys to tell you how to live your life through theyre religions ideals


luther?? as in german christian anti semetic ****?

[Bolshevika]

Martin Luther is such an overrated figure. The Protestant reformation had little to do with Luther himself, although his ideas inspired it, he sided with the Monarchs over the peasantry. Marth Luther even "recanted" his 95 thesis in front of the catholic church, he is a coward that deserves no respect at all.

And Chairman Mao, I believe a cultural revolution would be necessary to rid society of old, antagonistic ideas. Things like capitalism/fascism, religion, etc are all ideas of the past and should be discarded by any means necessary.

I'd prefer to have average peasant "Red Guards" rather than government officials deal with the religious, just to show them whose side the masses are on.

[Hoppe]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 30 2003, 06:41 PM
I agree Bolshevika, thats largely what they did in the Chinese Cultural Revolution. They did not execute Monks, but they made them renounce their faith and forced them to tell the people the truth about the religion, that is was full of lies and that people were better off keeping their money than giving it to the Monastries since all the Monastries did was waste it on themselves.


I can just sit down and wait till another stupid quote comes by. So much for free thinking in your society.

And let me repeat Bazonix' quote"

Is Marxism not a form of religion?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think much more gratifing then publicly executing the pope, would be to dress him up in peasant clothes, have him address his followers, and have him publicly declare religion to be a lie, and if he can do it, send him to work (if its a new pope), if not, put him in a SECULAR retirement home. Have the man show the people the truth. I think you cannot blame people for doing what they did under capitalism. They are just playing by the rules of this corrupt game. I say after the revolution, wipe the slate clean for everyone. Free the prisoners, except those whose crimes are so heinous they cannot be ignored.

[James]

Pull down all the cathedrals and churches?>
Then what, all the ancient castles because they represent the feudal system?

No, don't be moronic.

Some religious buildings are superb pieces of art.

Anyway, you believe in equality? You believe that people should be able to believe what they want, free of oppression?

You sound similar to hitler... on "the jewish question".


Thankfully, you can't just wipe things out.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

All religion is bullshit. There is no God, no afterlife, no heaven, nothing. When we die thats it, its over, finished.

Communists are atheists.


To solve the problem, we ban all forms of public religion, in private people can do what they want.

[James]

Hmm.
You see you mistake your OPINION to be FACT. You do therefore what you accuse many religious people of doing - forcing their beliefs onto you.


I'd ask you to prove "there is no god" or "no after life" - but it can't be argued properly either way.
And thats it you see, nobody knows.

You can choose to believe which ever you wish, but to suggest "banning" opinions that arn't your own... well... thats all rather nazi like isn't it?

[Bolshevika]

Here is the proof of no god: we can't see it, we can't prove it.

It is not the job of an atheist to prove there is no god, because we are right according to science, it is the job of the superstitious to prove there is a god.

[cormacobear]

I don't ask anyone to beleive I only require the freedom to. And If forced I would fight as hard for that right as would for equality.

[Bolshevika]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 12:06 AM
I don't ask anyone to beleive I only require the freedom to. And If forced I would fight as hard for that right as would for equality.
We don't want to force you to stop believing. In your house, in your mind, in your privacy do whatever you want.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I think we should do with fabulous cathedals the same thing that the Soviets did with theirs. Turn them into museums with anti-religious themes. After all, they are historical monuments made to be enjoyed (in a tourist manner) by the public.

[Xprewatik RED]

I think we should do with fabulous cathedals the same thing that the Soviets did with theirs. Turn them into museums with anti-religious themes. After all, they are historical monuments made to be enjoyed (in a tourist manner) by the public.

The Soviet Union was a failure in the end, don't repeat history. Abolishing religion just angers those who are religious. If you restrict people from going to church, then underground ones just form. The last thing an infant communist society needs is a divide like that. If everything is in the open and people can have their opinions then they can decide for themselves. A free society should not have heavy prooganda to FORCE beliefs on people. The system should work so people choose to remove these shakles. The most effective government is that, which governs the least. Killing of religous leaders just creates a new oppression. Where does it end? Civil War? A despot?

[redstar2000]

Is Marxism not a form of religion?

It's not supposed to be...though it must be admitted that many so-called "Marxists" do treat Marx as "holy scripture".

Real Marxists criticize that.


...and if that includes building churches, so be it.

What is the purpose of a church or other "holy building"?

It's not needed for "worship"...early Christians had no churches at all.

No, what it's for is propaganda in stone...it's an "in your face" declaration of the "power and prestige" of superstitious bullshit.

Guess what? Your "power and prestige" is going to be so much landfill when we are finished with you.


So much for free thinking in your society.

Ah yes, I listen to the "Atheist Hour" on the radio every night, don't you?

Hypocrite! You reproach communists for suppressing religion when the air-waves and the print media positively stink of superstitious bullshit in your so-called "free society".

And when the worm turns, you start squealing like a stuck pig about "freedom"!

Yes, we are going to do to you some of what you have always done to the "heretics" and the atheists.

Piss us off sufficiently, and we just might do some more!


Some religious buildings are superb pieces of art.

We'll save pictures...in an obscure internet archive with a small, underpowered server. The server will be operated on alternate Thursdays. :lol:


You believe that people should be able to believe what they want, free of oppression?

Belief is one thing, public action is something different. You can "believe" that "uppity black people" should be lynched.

Try doing that and we will publicly kill you.

Try telling other people that they "should" do that and we will hurt you.

Badly.


I think we should do with fabulous cathedrals the same thing that the Soviets did with theirs. Turn them into museums with anti-religious themes. After all, they are historical monuments made to be enjoyed (in a tourist manner) by the public.

The problem is it didn't work. Cathedrals were built to "awe" people into belief--and as long as they stand, they continue to serve that function. As I said above, they are "propaganda in stone".

Rid the landscape of them and religion is instantly deprived of one of its major weapons...the gross physical evidence of its "significance".


Abolishing religion just angers those who are religious. If you restrict people from going to church, then underground ones just form.

That can't be helped...and is probably not a big deal anyway. If a handful of nutballs want to gather in someone's basement at 3:00AM and practice stupid rituals, who cares?

If and when they make a public nuisance of themselves, that's different.

But don't forget: adults only!

We catch you brainwashing your kids with superstitions--that's felony child abuse and you are in deep shit!

Seriously.

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

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

[Bolshevika]

I cannot believe this, but I agree wholeheartedly with RS2000. LOL, he isn't sounding very anarchist in that post at all.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 11:41 PM
I cannot believe this, but I agree wholeheartedly with RS2000. LOL, he isn't sounding very anarchist in that post at all.
Once in a meeting I was referred to as an "anarcho-stalinist"...because I think that anyone who gets up and starts trying to give orders should be taken out and summarily shot. :D

Seriously, that's why I'm so much closer to the "class struggle anarchists" than to all the other kinds.

When it comes to the working class, I am "ultra-libertarian". Chairman Mao thinks I'm a "hippie". :huh:

When it comes to the class enemy--and that definitely includes the vermin who spread superstition for a living--I'm just as "hard-line" as any "Stalinist" if not more so.

I'm against prisons and labor camps--because they hurt us, not because of any tender feelings for the oppressors.

But shooting a few of those bastards now and then...just to remind them that their old order is gone for good?

I have no problem with that at all. :D

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

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

[Chewillneverdie]

Chairman Mao they execute monks now lol. Thats just what we need, another USSR or China, personally i hope China falls sometime soon. Oh and if you start burning down churches your dead, im not christian, but ill stand up for them you arrogant non caring prick. Let the people do what they want the USSR did a good job of stomping out religon tho didnt they? lol. As did the Brits in N. Ireland, tho im against the church, they just fucked stuff up more

[Bolshevika]

Oh and if you start burning down churches your dead, im not christian, but ill stand up for them you arrogant non caring prick

I suggest you not do this, unless you want to be thrown into the fire along with the church.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Martin Luther was an anti-semitic religious maniac.

His quote in my sig illustrates you have to be purposely ignorant in order to believe.

Hooray for atheism!

[Hoppe]

Ah yes, I listen to the "Atheist Hour" on the radio every night, don't you?

Hypocrite! You reproach communists for suppressing religion when the air-waves and the print media positively stink of superstitious bullshit in your so-called "free society".

And when the worm turns, you start squealing like a stuck pig about "freedom"!

Yes, we are going to do to you some of what you have always done to the "heretics" and the atheists.

Piss us off sufficiently, and we just might do some more!


Did I say we live in a free society? Did I say I am a christian? It's preposterous to have people denounce their faith en plein public or shoot monks or whatever. People should only believe in the glorious communist party, don't they?

[James]

Redstar...

So would you pull down all the ancient castles of England and Wales?
The Tower of London maybe?


These are valuble to our society - as art, and to stand as part of history - our development, art and different faiths (for not all these religious buildings DICTATE the same thing, in fact, they contradict each other, effectively nullifying your ... "point").

You simply don't have the right to DICTATE who can and who can not see these pieces, and feel them with their own hands. Walk within their walls - and make their own judgement, using their own freewill.

You suggest that you are somehow allowed to judge for all of todays society (which you don't), and all of future society, for the rest of time (which you certainly don't), that all these buildings must be abolished?
Such arrogance and pompous attitude make you a fascist in my eyes - a dangerous individual, who has something wrong with his head.

Burke argues in "reflections on a revolution" that the generation of Queen Mary decided for all following generations, a political and social way of life.
I compare you to him in this respect (although in my eyes Burke is far superior to you).
I thus suggest you look up Paine's response (i imagine you know his response - being a champion of the working class, thus one of the great radicals of all time - Tom Paine).

And on God... like i said its impossible to argue.
People have different views what God is; some see God as a power, energy - this of course is more pagan.
The "old man in the sky" is out dated - and few believe in this old god.
Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
You can't see me; or my friend.
I can tell you though i have a friend called Marc. You have never met Marc, and never will i expect.
You have never seen him, and if you carry on with your course in life, you never shall.
Arguably the same is true of many gods.

Its a question of faith.

[redstar2000]

So would you pull down all the ancient castles of England and Wales? The Tower of London maybe?

I didn't suggest that; just the cathedrals, etc. As to the remnants of feudalism, most are already in ruins, right? Why not just let them continue to deteriorate?

But there is an interesting point concealed within your question. What of those who still want to go around calling themselves "baron" this or "count" that or "earl" something else?

No.


These are valuable to our society - as art, and to stand as part of history - our development, art and different faiths (for not all these religious buildings DICTATE the same thing, in fact, they contradict each other, effectively nullifying your ... "point").

All of a sudden, you're an "art freak"? And some kind of "history buff" too?

Yeah, sure.

I expect we'll hear quite a few such "arguments" before the cranes rise and the wrecking balls swing. The kind of people who want to keep superstition alive will resort to any "cover" they can find to preserve their monuments to tyranny, ignorance, and servility.

Look, a "new world" means a new world...not the old one with some red cloth draped over the embarrassing parts!

The historical record of the significant religious structures will be maintained--the physical reality is no longer necessary and, in fact, is counter-revolutionary.

They're "outta here".


You simply don't have the right to DICTATE who can and who can not see these pieces, and feel them with their own hands. Walk within their walls - and make their own judgment, using their own free will.

I don't have that right--quite so. But if I can convince a significant number of fellow workers that destroying those structures is "the right thing to do"...then I do have that right.

Revolutions have always destroyed the public symbols of the old order or at least tried to do so.

Having made the greatest revolution of all, do you think we shall hesitate one second in smashing all the symbols of the old order that we can?

(Got a statue of some famous "patriotic hero" that you really admire? Go visit while you still have the chance--it will be turned into gravel and used to repair potholes.)


Such arrogance and pompous attitude make you a fascist in my eyes - a dangerous individual, who has something wrong with his head.

And you demonstrate a total ignorance of what fascism actually is.

Go read this thread...

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?a...&f=6&t=20476&s= (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=20476&s=)

and then tell me how "I'm" being a "fascist".


Burke argues in "Reflections on a Revolution" that the generation of Queen Mary decided for all following generations, a political and social way of life.

I could not care less what that right-wing pissant had to say about anything.

But yes, the generation that makes proletarian revolution a reality will indeed decide the shape of the future for many generations.

That's what revolutions do.


And on God... like I said it's impossible to argue.

For those who are truly impervious to reason, we shall, in Marx's words, "pass from the arms of criticism to the criticism of arms."

That doesn't mean that we will shoot people for being believers; but it does mean that those believers who make public pests of themselves will suffer a less than desirable fate.

Why should it be otherwise?

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

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

[Chewillneverdie]

throw me in the fire lol. For defending people, you know how many people would suffer if all their beliefs were destroyed?? One man with a rifle can take out quite a few if he knows how to use it... remember that haha you go around forcing stuff on people, you will see this firsthand

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

You are a defender of the oppressor. By defending the religious, you are defending their corrupt, obsolete way of thought, along with all the genecide, lies, and tyranny that was because of it. If you will defend them, then you are the enemy.

[Chewillneverdie]

yeah thats it, since i wont let people get executed, churches burned down, and mass book burnings, im supporting the opressive government lol you should hear how stupid you sound. Im just into letting people be, i think religion is okay if it stays away from politics. I know alot of people who have to have the thought that someone else cares about them, thats really what jesus was about. Im not christian but i dont like seeing people suffer, destroying religion would only cause more suffering. I am a defender of the people you ass

[Bolshevika]

Jesus was a fruit, plain and simple. He appeased Cesar rather than organizing the people against him.

(oh, by the way, if you take these fairy tale books as history, then I suggest reading the Infancy book of Thomas which is a biography of Jesus' young life, pretty disturbing stuff. It's in the Qu'Ran)

Again I stress this, the ideology of "it's ok to be oppressed" that your "Jesus" preaches is wrong.

Would you take up in arms for a rich person? Because that it what taking up arms for any church or temple or mosque is. It is impossible to have a church or religious sect where everyone lives equally or almost equally, there's always the "priest" or other forms of religious hierarchy that has "special powers" and can communicate with 'god'.

Religion is a feudal idea, and a fascist one. The only decent religious brand is Liberation Theology, and these people are only a minority (Liberation Theologists don't accept this "the poor will always be poor" bullshit and actually take up arms against oppression and align themselves with local communist groups) and are heavily bashed by religious 'officials', almost all of them convert to atheism anyway.

If you plan on supporting religion, then go live in Saudi Arabia or Middle America or any of the other theocracies. However, the masses, if given the right education and living standards, will reject these lies with force if necessary.

I don't believe in book burnings by the way. I believe in categorizing. The Bible for example can go in the Sci Fi section of our library.

Again, in the privacy of your house you can worship a tree for all I care. Just keep it out of the workplace and out of public, because the people built the streets you walk on, you atleast owe them respect.

[Hawker]

Religion as Karl Marx say's:

"Religion is the opium of the masses"

It must be destroyed by all means,but at the same time it has to be preserved,because sometimes people need something to look up to in the darkess of times.

[Chewillneverdie]

Bolsh you are yet to answer my question, what do you have against buddhism?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 03:36 AM
Religion as Karl Marx say's:

"Religion is the opium of the masses"

It must be destroyed by all means,but at the same time it has to be preserved, because sometimes people need something to look up to in the darkest of times.
Let the people "look up" to a nice bowl of opium--much more reliable than the "gods" in the "darkest of times"...and with fewer nasty "side effects".

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

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

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 01:34 AM
Chairman Mao they execute monks now lol. Thats just what we need, another USSR or China, personally i hope China falls sometime soon. Oh and if you start burning down churches your dead, im not christian, but ill stand up for them you arrogant non caring prick. Let the people do what they want the USSR did a good job of stomping out religon tho didnt they? lol. As did the Brits in N. Ireland, tho im against the church, they just fucked stuff up more
Seriously CWND, you're really making a case for being locked in OI. Between that rediculous post you made "Making it in America" with your stupid comments about "Delta force getting it done" and "I don't see any slaves picking cotton in my backyard" and other such nonsense, it's obvious your grasp of communism is quite lacking.

Either you need to read some more, our your comprehension of what you're reading is very low.

[James]

I didn't suggest that; just the cathedrals, etc. As to the remnants of feudalism, most are already in ruins, right? Why not just let them continue to deteriorate?

You said that churches etc have "no purpose" - and that they are simply "propaganda in stone". Thus should be pulled down.
In my opinion, Churches have a more active role these days (bringing together communities, helping the homeless etc) for society, than castles, which have the pure educational qualities that alot of old churches have.
Thus churches are a little more important. Yet you argue they have no purpose. Castle's (which have thus, less importance) surely will also be pulled down?
What are they? if not propaganda in stone?

It follows the same "logic". . .


But there is an interesting point concealed within your question. What of those who still want to go around calling themselves "baron" this or "count" that or "earl" something else?

(surely this point is that you won't stand for feudal symbols - thus you do imply that you would pull down castles etc)

Here we go again with your dictating.
If a chap wants to call himself high leader of the order of the lesser spotted toad - who are you to say he can't?

Tony Benn is the most famous socialist who discusses the monarchy in any depth.
He says we shouldn't focus on the individuals, mearly the institution.
He has no problem with Elizabeth calling herself queen - just as long as it doesn't cost the public anything etc.


All of a sudden, you're an "art freak"? And some kind of "history buff" too?

Yeah, sure.

Pardon?
I recognize the importance of history - i love studying it. I shall be teaching it too.

You obviously are very ignorant on the subject as a whole.


Do you know what happened when the French tried to implement a ten day week?
Or do you know what Stalin had to resort to? To give the people of Russia inspiration to fight on?

You can't just change things.
You can't ignore history (or you are doomed to repeat it of course...)


The historical record of the significant religious structures will be maintained--the physical reality is no longer necessary and, in fact, is counter-revolutionary.

They're "outta here".

Yes it is required.
Do you think that the concentration camps should have been pulled down?

I can tell you from personal experiance, you can't compare studying the minute details, and looking at photos - to experiancing a real thing.

You are so ignorant.
Why not take a visit to one?
I only went to Sachsenhousen - i suspect you would have to read about one of the actual Death Camps, then compare it to a visit - to get what i mean. You seem so very dense to what humans are really like... you have an ideal that you want everyone to be like.

Now this next thing you say is very interesting.

I don't have that right--quite so. But if I can convince a significant number of fellow workers that destroying those structures is "the right thing to do"...then I do have that right.

Did you spot it?
I'll show you...
I said that you simply don't have the right to dictate who can and who can not see these pieces, and feel them with their own hands. Walk within their walls - and make their own judgement, using their own freewill.
To which you replied;
"I don't have that right--quite so"
Excellent that you realise this. However you then say -
"But if I can convince a significant number of fellow workers that destroying those structures is "the right thing to do"...then I do have that right"

You should have said "we have the right"
But you don't mean that - you mean what you said. You plan to lead people after telling them what "the right thing is" - so that YOU then have the right to DICTATE.

This may not make you a fascist true (if you are being perdantic), but it makes you one hell of an authoritarian.

http://www.musarium.com/withoutsanctuary/main.html

Look at the images - they knew that they were doing the right thing, after being told so by a few elite.

What you preach against, is in fact, what you want to be.




I could not care less what that right-wing pissant had to say about anything.

But yes, the generation that makes proletarian revolution a reality will indeed decide the shape of the future for many generations.

That's what revolutions do.

NO, you missed the point (what a surprise).
My point was Paine's reply, which you should know off your head... being in the know about revolutions and the what not.

If you don't, look it up. Its in Paine's "Rights of Man", and was in reply to Burke.

Its very interesting that you say Burke is a pissant - for you and he have similar attitudes...

_ _ _

Why can't people come together and practise what they wish?
They arn't harming YOU.
However, you prompose to harm them if they wish to come together.

[Soviet power supreme]

What about the resource question?These religious crap that is made uses so fucking much natural resources.For example think about the bible.It is made from very special material that costs a helluva much more than normal paper.
In Asian countries people burn money to the gods!Just think about that.


In my opinion, Churches have a more active role these days (bringing together communities, helping the homeless etc)

So you dont think that we dont try to get homes to homeless people when we are in power?You think that people cant gather together if there are no churches,temples,mosques?And what more did you have?


Bolsh you are yet to answer my question, what do you have against buddhism?

You should read the religion topic in philosophy section.And after that you probably come here and ask what is wrong about Jewish,Islam,Hinduism,Zarahustraism,etc,etc.

People shouldnt be killed because they have preach the religion.But I would put them in working labours if they would continue that preaching after the revolution.
And dont forget what effect the martyrs have to the people.

[James]

What about the resource question?These religious crap that is made uses so fucking much natural resources.For example think about the bible.It is made from very special material that costs a helluva much more than normal paper.
In Asian countries people burn money to the gods!Just think about that.


Thats not religion though is it. It would be more fair to say that that is what our world is like. Religions are not the only ones to print off loads of "crap".
The SWP for example, the ANL - to many they are crazy fools; but they use so much paper!
Most of it is thrown straight into bins.

The same is true of (nearly) all political parties.

By your logic - banning political parties should also be a priority of your's, due to the "resource question".


So you dont think that we dont try to get homes to homeless people when we are in power?You think that people cant gather together if there are no churches,temples,mosques?And what more did you have?


I DO wish that you try to understand what i write, if you are going to question it. This is like the monarchy thread all over again...
*rolls eyes*

Ahem.

I was just brainstorming some basic functions of a church, today.
I was trying to show how a church is more "valuble" than a Castle - and had purpose. Which Redstar claimed nonexistant.

Of course it would be better "we try to get homes to homeless people when we are in power?"
But then again - so is wiping out poverty, and making a fair and just society lar die dar die dar....

NO, i do not "think that people cant gather together if there are no churches,temples,mosques?". That wasn't my point though; was it.
However, you do raise an interesting point. Many are more interested in going to church - and find it far more interesting and relevent, to some chap with a beard who fancies himself as being the next great hero of the working classes.

Politics seems to turn people off. Religion mobilises people in alot of cases (not always for the good though of course...)


"And what more did you have?"

Well i simply don't understand that mate. . .

[Soviet power supreme]

By your logic - banning political parties should also be a priority of your's, due to the "resource question".


Well one party system haves my 100% support and not by the resource waste but it would be a good benefit too.


I DO wish that you try to understand what i write, if you are going to question it. This is like the monarchy thread all over again...


Yes you fanatically believe that you are right and tradition should not be stopped.

But what understanding is in that.I didnt spoke about now but after the revolution.Those churches will become useless.


But then again - so is wiping out poverty, and making a fair and just society lar die dar die dar....

You seem to lack the "faith" in our communistic system :D


Politics seems to turn people off. Religion mobilises people in alot of cases (not always for the good though of course...)

Ohh I get it.We take the religion in our agenda.How about some of the capitalist methods so we can rally them to our side?

We dont need religion.The class concience and poor conditions makes the revolution.


"And what more did you have?"

Well i simply don't understand that mate. . .

Well monarchist golly here is a quote from you

(bringing together communities, helping the homeless etc)

Do you see that etc in the end of the sentence?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Well religion is crap to me. Just a bunch of lies that were used to exploit the people and for some people to try to understand why we are here.

However I think every person should search their own "religion" and their path in this life, and try to understand the world that surrounds them by themselves. Some "modern"/"alternative" religions base their principles on that idea without being the "opium of the masses".

[redstar2000]

In my opinion, Churches have a more active role these days (bringing together communities, helping the homeless etc) for society than castles...

It is precisely their "active role" that I wish to put a stop to.

You, like many "defenders of the faith", think that "helping the homeless", etc., has some kind of "existence" that is somehow independent of the real social role of religion.

That's not true. When a church does "good", it is done in order to pursue "evil" more effectively. It is done, specifically, in order to convince people that it is a "good institution" that "really cares about people"...that its "ideas" must be "really valid", etc.

It is nothing of the sort, of course. It cares only for the greater glory of itself...something amply demonstrated by history.

Thus, the old castles can be left to quietly crumble into dust...they don't mean anything any more. No one is trying to "bring back feudalism".

The ultimate aim of modern religion is clerical fascism or, if they can attain it, rule by priesthood...as in Iran.

If I have anything to say about it, we communists are going to keep that from happening.


Here we go again with your dictating.
If a chap wants to call himself high leader of the order of the lesser spotted toad - who are you to say he can't?

I can't; we can...and will.


I recognize the importance of history - I love studying it. I shall be teaching it too.

Poor kids! :o


Do you know what happened when the French tried to implement a ten day week?
Or do you know what Stalin had to resort to? To give the people of Russia inspiration to fight on?

You can't just change things.
You can't ignore history...

Yes, and the French revolutionaries also introduced the metric system...you may have heard of it.

And likewise I'm well aware that Stalin resorted to patriotism and religion as "ideological justification" for fighting the German invaders...it turned out that he wasn't much of a "communist" after all.

So what?

People can and have "just changed things" and made it stick.

Otherwise, this discussion would be in reference to demolishing the temples of Jupiter.


Do you think that the concentration camps should have been pulled down?

I believe that most of them were; certainly the eastern "death camps" were destroyed by the Germans as the Russian army advanced.

The chances are that what you saw was a "reconstruction"...a pale reflection of what the original was like.

But yes, I think the "Holocaust tourist trade" is pretty sick...next thing we'll probably see is "fantasy concentration camp"--spend a week as a "Jew" in "Auschwitz".

The camp sites should be obliterated.

As well as the neo-Nazis who celebrate them.


You should have said "we have the right"
But you don't mean that - you mean what you said. You plan to lead people after telling them what "the right thing is" - so that YOU then have the right to DICTATE.

Very well, I was unclear.

We communists have the right and the obligation to convince the working class to smash the remnants of organized religion...specifically including the demolition of all religious architecture. If we succeed in winning that argument, then we have the right to implement that policy.

Clear?


My point was Paine's reply, which you should know off your head... being in the know about revolutions and the what not.

Why don't you quit "dropping hints" and just offer the quote that so impresses you.

Paine was an admirable bourgeois revolutionary and extremely progressive for his time.

I'm a Marxist, myself.


Why can't people come together and practise what they wish?
They aren't harming YOU.
However, you propose to harm them if they wish to come together.

Yes, I'm such "an old meanie", aren't I?

First, I already said that if some stupid believers want to gather in someone's basement and mumbo-jumbo with each other, I don't really care. It's public life that I wish religion removed from...being aware that when deprived of public sanction, religions naturally decline quickly in influence and eventually become extinct.

Secondly, it is extraordinarily foolish of you to suggest that "people gathering together" are "harmless" by definition.

The Nazis began as a "harmless" group of guys who met in the back room of a beer hall; the "party treasury" was kept in a cigar box.

Had you been in Munich in 1920, you would, no doubt, have told me--in lofty tones--that "they are not harming you; why do you want to harm them?"

Because, unlike yourself, I do have a "sense of history"...and know that what begins as "harmless" may not always remain so.

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

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

[Chewillneverdie]

I dont know how many of you are aware, but in Moore, Oklahoma those tornados that tore the city apart left so many people homeless, some of my family stayed in a church, the church also helped pay for homes and cars, and food, if it wasnt for the churches there, over 1000 would have been homeless. Im against the church but that was a nice thing to do lol

[James]

Well one party system haves my 100% support and not by the resource waste but it would be a good benefit too.

Like one nazi party? Or one Conservative party, republican, KKK etc etc
You see thats the big argument against a one party state; whilst its VERY ok when you agree with that one party, if you disagree, it is VERY not ok.


Yes you fanatically believe that you are right and tradition should not be stopped.

But what understanding is in that.I didnt spoke about now but after the revolution.Those churches will become useless.

Yes but you were replying to a direct quote, suggesting that you were replying to something i directly said.

It looks like you were arguing directly against what i said, but the actual content suggests you didn't know what i was going on about in the first place though, as you seem to change the subject completely.

Wierd eh!

I was trying to ask why RedStar wouldn't also destroy the castles etc, as they represented something similar to the churches, and had less of a role in modern soceity.


You seem to lack the "faith" in our communistic system

lol
I was pointing out how ridiculous your reply had been; In changing the subject, by saying how everything would be ideal in the ideal world (well duh...), etc etc etc

You see, that was quite unrelated to what i was going on about, and to what you tried to reply to.

Get it yet?


Ohh I get it.We take the religion in our agenda.How about some of the capitalist methods so we can rally them to our side?

We dont need religion.The class concience and poor conditions makes the revolution.

erm again, that was totally not my point.
My point was that at the moment, alot more people seem interested in the goings on of the church than politics.
Again you seem to reply to a different point, not made by me, or anyone else on this thread.



Well monarchist golly here is a quote from you

(bringing together communities, helping the homeless etc)


Do you see that etc in the end of the sentence?

aaah, thats how you meant it. You should have used that quote before you said "what else have you got".
You really do struggle with the use of quotes...

The etc was all the other possible functions of a church, the actual individual functions were not central to my point, mear examples as such. The POINT you seemed to miss though - alas, so it is to no surprise to see you get caught up on the individual insignificant aspects of the point; yet at the same time also manage to miss the point entirely!

Churches can do lots of things. Bring communities together, help the homeless, help the hungry, help the ill, help those who are on deaths door (something which the communist manifesto can't), help with urban regeneration and rural too i guess - the list goes on. Thus the etc.

If you want to learn more, i point you toward your local church. The vicar/priest (or whoever) will only be too glad to carry on this list.

[James]

Redstar;

It is precisely their "active role" that I wish to put a stop to

no, stop just there.
I'm not defending their role, or stating that i agree with their role or purpose in anyway - i'm mearly stating the existance of such a role and purpose. An existance you claim to be non-existant.

In fact, i feel i should quote myself so you can see my point again;

"You said that churches etc have "no purpose" - and that they are simply "propaganda in stone". Thus should be pulled down.
In my opinion, Churches have a more active role these days (bringing together communities, helping the homeless etc) for society, than castles, which have the pure educational qualities that alot of old churches have.
Thus churches are a little more important. Yet you argue they have no purpose. Castle's (which have thus, less importance) surely will also be pulled down?
What are they? if not propaganda in stone?

It follows the same "logic". . ."

The point is that:
one should also pull down castles, if one follows your logic, as churches who's role and purpose is superior to that of Castles, are worthless. Thus Castle's are even more worthless.


It is nothing of the sort, of course. It cares only for the greater glory of itself...something amply demonstrated by history.

Thus, the old castles can be left to quietly crumble into dust...they don't mean anything any more. No one is trying to "bring back feudalism".

The ultimate aim of modern religion is clerical fascism or, if they can attain it, rule by priesthood...as in Iran.

If I have anything to say about it, we communists are going to keep that from happening.


Ah so it is not that they mearly represent something (which i believe was your origional argument) - it is now because they are trying to bring something back?

[On your point however;
You shall have noticed in recent weeks in the media that the RedCross has watered its religious aspects down. As have many churches. You simply don't seem to understand the essence of christianity though - you seem to get stuck on the subjectives. You are like me (and the teachings of jesus); against established religion. Christians don't do something to convert you - they do it because they believe its how they should live. It isn't religion that you are hating here, it's humans. Humans try to get you to join in with their group - its the whole pack notion. The same is true of sport (try to get you to go along and watch, support), politics, education etc etc]


I can't; we can...and will.


Well firstly i'm glad to see that you have changed your tune, to a more "the masses", flavour. You good communist you!
Or was it the communist "royal we"?

Why can't someone call themselves what they want?
Why must you stop them?
Whats the harm in someone calling themself something?

If it has no affect on you or anyone else, there is surely no harm - thus no point or need to stopping it.



Poor kids

lol, i only said that, because it felt like you were accusing me of jumping on some bandwagon argument that i didn't believe in.

What do you do anyway? I don't know anything about you.


Yes, and the French revolutionaries also introduced the metric system...you may have heard of it.

And likewise I'm well aware that Stalin resorted to patriotism and religion as "ideological justification" for fighting the German invaders...it turned out that he wasn't much of a "communist" after all.

So what?

People can and have "just changed things" and made it stick.


No, i disagree that people can and have just change any thing at will.
Some things can be changed overnight - but somethings can't.

The french are the perfect example - metric worked - but when they tried to implement the 10 day week, they had pushed it too hard, and it didn't work.
I don't know the specific details of why it failed, alas, i imagine however that it was a combination of factors such as social and historical values that ran too deep within the minds of the people.


Otherwise, this discussion would be in reference to demolishing the temples of Jupiter.

Again a very good example of what i believe.

These Gods didn't start with the Romans, nor end with the Romans.
They came from many sources (mainly greek i guess), and remained afterward, although the actual roman empire had fallen.
I'm looking at the pagan gods now, and English and other European, folklore and myths.

(although of course the temples arguably did go over night - although this was due to an invasion. I don't think this compares to what you seem to wish for...)

Would you want to demolish the Greek Temples that still stand, by the way?


I believe that most of them were; certainly the eastern "death camps" were destroyed by the Germans as the Russian army advanced.

The chances are that what you saw was a "reconstruction"...a pale reflection of what the original was like.

Nope; not all of them, and not completely. All though they did try - thus the esculated killings in these camps, as the Nazi's tried to destroy the evidence.

Again i advise you go look for yourself.

Sachsenhousen was one of the first ones built - in fact it was the model concentration camp, and still remains - although alot of the huts have gone (yes there are reconstructions of wooden huts...), many other features remain, including concrete huts, and many pieces of evidence.
You can still see and enter the "hospital" huts, and most of the SS section - and the remains of the ovens (which were half blown up by the nazis - like you said) - there is also still the execution trench.

You have to see it with your own eyes though i guess. I strongly recomend a visit. Its near Berlin i seem to remember. . .


But yes, I think the "Holocaust tourist trade" is pretty sick...next thing we'll probably see is "fantasy concentration camp"--spend a week as a "Jew" in "Auschwitz".

The camp sites should be obliterated.

As well as the neo-Nazis who celebrate them.


No, i disagree. They should not be obliterated. They have historical value. As do Churches, and castles.

Do you feel threatened when you see a church?
I don't.
And i don't when i see the Tory Party Clubs, the liberal ones - or the labour party clubs.
Or mosqus etc etc etc

Maybe you are just frightened easily? You are possibly scared that people can't be trusted to believe what you do; act the way that you want them to; think the way you want them to.


Why don't you quit "dropping hints" and just offer the quote that so impresses you.

Paine was an admirable bourgeois revolutionary and extremely progressive for his time.

I'm a Marxist, myself.


Ah, so we don't know then
;P

(i'll put it in another post for you in a few minutes)


Secondly, it is extraordinarily foolish of you to suggest that "people gathering together" are "harmless" by definition.


Hang on - surely this was my point?
See the lynching part of my previous post.

[James]

Tom Paine
"The Rights of Man"
pg's 64+


The method which Mr. Burke takes to prove that the people of England have no such rights, and that such rights do not now exist in the nation, either in whole or in part, or anywhere at all, is of the same marvellous and monstrous kind with what he has already said; for his arguments are that the persons, or the generation of persons, in whom they did exist, are dead, and with them the right is dead also. To prove this, he quotes a declaration made by Parliament about a hundred years ago, to William and Mary, in these words: "The Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, do, in the name of the people aforesaid" (meaning the people of England then living) "most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, for EVER." He quotes a clause of another Act of Parliament made in the same reign, the terms of which he says, "bind us" (meaning the people of their day), "our heirs and our posterity, to them, their heirs and posterity, to the end of time."

Mr. Burke conceives his point sufficiently established by producing those clauses, which he enforces by saying that they exclude the right of the nation for ever. And not yet content with making such declarations, repeated over and over again, he farther says, "that if the people of England possessed such a right before the Revolution" (which he acknowledges to have been the case, not only in England, but throughout Europe, at an early period), "yet that the English Nation did, at the time of the Revolution, most solemnly renounce and abdicate it, for themselves, and for all their posterity, for ever."

As Mr. Burke occasionally applies the poison drawn from his horrid principles, not only to the English nation, but to the French Revolution and the National Assembly, and charges that august, illuminated and illuminating body of men with the epithet of usurpers, I shall, sans ceremonie, place another system of principles in opposition to his.

The English Parliament of 1688 did a certain thing, which, for themselves and their constituents, they had a right to do, and which it appeared right should be done. But, in addition to this right, which they possessed by delegation, they set up another right by assumption, that of binding and controlling posterity to the end of time. The case, therefore, divides itself into two parts; the right which they possessed by delegation, and the right which they set up by assumption. The first is admitted; but with respect to the second, I reply-

There never did, there never will, and there never can, exist a Parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controlling posterity to the "end of time," or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed, or who shall govern it; and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void. Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as the age and generations which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies. Man has no property in man; neither has any generation a property in the generations which are to follow. The Parliament or the people of 1688, or of any other period, had no more right to dispose of the people of the present day, or to bind or to control them in any shape whatever, than the parliament or the people of the present day have to dispose of, bind or control those who are to live a hundred or a thousand years hence. Every generation is, and must be, competent to all the purposes which its occasions require. It is the living, and not the dead, that are to be accommodated. When man ceases to be, his power and his wants cease with him; and having no longer any participation in the concerns of this world, he has no longer any authority in directing who shall be its governors, or how its government shall be organised, or how administered.

I am not contending for nor against any form of government, nor for nor against any party, here or elsewhere. That which a whole nation chooses to do it has a right to do. Mr. Burke says, No. Where, then, does the right exist? I am contending for the rights of the living, and against their being willed away and controlled and contracted for by the manuscript assumed authority of the dead, and Mr. Burke is contending for the authority of the dead over the rights and freedom of the living. There was a time when kings disposed of their crowns by will upon their death-beds, and consigned the people, like beasts of the field, to whatever successor they appointed. This is now so exploded as scarcely to be remembered, and so monstrous as hardly to be believed. But the Parliamentary clauses upon which Mr. Burke builds his political church are of the same nature.

[redstar2000]

...one should also pull down castles, if one follows your logic...

Well, I don't think my logic implies this at all. But if someone wants to "go there", I have no particular objection...certainly I would oppose diverting resources to "maintain" or "restore" feudal castles, the "great houses" of the old landed gentry, etc. Just letting them rot away seems to be the simplest solution.

On the other hand, I'd have no problem with renovating Buckingham Palace into a modern apartment building...unless the building is already in a hopeless condition.

The key point in my "logic" is that religious architecture is propaganda for religion itself. I see no reason to tolerate that any more than I'd tolerate a monument to Adolph Hitler.

If that makes me a "dictator", then so be it.


You shall have noticed in recent weeks in the media that the Red Cross has watered its religious aspects down. As have many churches. You simply don't seem to understand the essence of Christianity though - you seem to get stuck on the subjectives. You are like me (and the teachings of Jesus); against established religion. Christians don't do something to convert you - they do it because they believe it's how they should live. It isn't religion that you are hating here, it's humans. Humans try to get you to join in with their group - it's the whole pack notion. The same is true of sport (try to get you to go along and watch, support), politics, education etc., etc.

The rowdiness of English sports fans is legendary; nevertheless, I've never heard of them going so far as to burn a "witch" or a "heretic". Maybe the BBC is "covering up". :lol:

I'm well aware of the fact that "Christendom" is presently on the "defensive" in the advanced capitalist countries...though the bastards are putting up very stiff resistance to secularism in the United States.

They are trying to "improve their image", "re-brand" themselves, in an effort to maintain "market share".

I have no doubt whatsoever that at such time as proletarian revolution looks like it's about to happen, they will have a "special revelation" to the effect that "Jesus was the first communist". (There was a little of this in the 1930s...when things were looking grim for capitalism.)

I don't believe a word of it.

Their track record has always been one of sucking up to whoever was powerful or looked like they were going to become powerful. And they've always been willing to play both sides of the street; the only reason that there ever was such a thing as "liberation theology" is because of the Cuban Revolution.

What they are really interested in is "keeping the god-racket going"...by any means necessary.

I'm also aware of the "humans as pack animals" hypothesis of "evolutionary psychology". I find the hypothesis unsupported by reliable evidence and the "discipline" which offers it to be junk science.


Why can't someone call themselves what they want?
Why must you stop them?
Whats the harm in someone calling themselves something?

If it has no effect on you or anyone else, there is surely no harm - thus no point or need to stopping it.

If it has no effect...that's a question, is it not?

If someone calls himself a "lord", what happens when he starts acting like one, or trying to?

If someone calls himself a member of the "master race", what happens when he starts acting like one, or trying to?

I know the answers to those questions; do you?


What do you do anyway? I don't know anything about you.

Nor do you need to. One of the strengths of the internet is that ideas and arguments can be presented "without the baggage"...without all the stereotypical associations that come into play with personal contact.

But, since you asked, I'm a retired office worker (non-management). I'm also a 40-year veteran of revolutionary movements.


I don't know the specific details of why it failed, alas, I imagine however that it was a combination of factors such as social and historical values that ran too deep within the minds of the people.

Oh, come on! You're going to stand up in front of kids and "teach history" with that kind of mysticism? "Social and historical values that ran too deep within the minds of the people"?? Used a depth-gage, did you???

Like I said, poor kids!


These Gods didn't start with the Romans, nor end with the Romans.
They came from many sources (mainly Greek I guess), and remained afterward, although the actual Roman Empire had fallen.
I'm looking at the pagan gods now, and English and other European, folklore and myths.

(although of course the temples arguably did go over night - although this was due to an invasion. I don't think this compares to what you seem to wish for...)

Would you want to demolish the Greek Temples that still stand, by the way?

You have that history all muddled up; I deeply fear for your students.

But to answer the question: no, the old temples of antiquity no longer have any religious associations in the modern mind...they are just "picturesque ruins" and, like feudal castles, may be left in peace to quietly fade away.


You have to see it with your own eyes though...

No, I dispute that. There are many thousands of books written about the Third Reich, including dozens of first-hand accounts of "what it was like" in the camps. One of the first ones published after World War II is called The Theory and Practice of Hell. Unless you lack the imaginative capacity of a turnip, simply reading this book will tell you more than you want to know about "what it was like".

And I still think that the "holocaust tourist trade" is sick!


Do you feel threatened when you see a church?
I don't.
And I don't when I see the Tory Party Clubs, the Liberal ones - or the Labour Party clubs.
Or mosques, etc., etc., etc.

Revulsion probably comes closest to the mark. But of course, I cannot but recall what they did to "unbelievers" in the past...and what they would love to do again if they could.

Sort of like a Jew watching a neo-Nazi rally.

As to the "clubs" of the bourgeois political parties that you mentioned, I don't think they are particularly significant one way or the other...just trash to be carried to the rubbish bin after the revolution.


Maybe you are just frightened easily? You are possibly scared that people can't be trusted to believe what you do; act the way that you want them to; think the way you want them to.

And maybe you just like to make up stuff and then attribute it to others without regard for testimony or evidence.

Instead of history, why not take up biography? The modern fashion is to "read the innermost hidden thoughts" of dead people, isn't it?

Best of all, since they're dead, they can't speak up and tell you that you're full of shit.

Which is something of a genuine risk when you try it on with people who are still alive.
...........................

As to your quote from Paine, long-winded bastard, wasn't he?

Well, it's a "common sense" observation: we are not bound by the will of the dead. Nor can we bind future generations to our will.

Ok, that's true, and so what?

Do you wish to imply that after we demolish all the symbols of the old order that some future generation will re-erect them?

Yes, in a literal sense, that is possible. Worse, they could even re-establish some form of class society, bring back wage-slavery, serfdom, or even chattel slavery.

Do I think such events are realistic probabilities? Of course not.

What would be the fate of someone who literally attempted to restore serfdom or slavery now? They would be sent to prison, of course. No argument about "restoring the ancient traditions of our ancestors" would save them or reduce their sentence by a single day.

Why should it be any different under communism?

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

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

[James]

Well, I don't think my logic implies this at all...The key point in my "logic" is that religious architecture is propaganda for religion itself. I see no reason to tolerate that any more than I'd tolerate a monument to Adolph Hitler.


How is a church propaganda in stone - and a castle not?
Surely you hate what castles represent even more than what churches represent, as religion (so you would argue i imagine) comes from the rulling classes. Castle's represent the rulling classes.
Just attacking the church isn't getting at the root of the problem at all. Is it.

To suggest that churches are dangerous in anyway (do you feel inspired by nazi propaganda?) is ridiculous. What is more ridiculous, is to argue churches are dangerous, but castles not.

What about books too?
Would you burn books that teach against what YOU preach?
Would you burn books that were not written by a model comrade?


The rowdiness of English sports fans is legendary; nevertheless, I've never heard of them going so far as to burn a "witch" or a "heretic". Maybe the BBC is "covering up".

It has been a while since any of my local baptists have burnt a witch!
However, it hasn't been too long since some football fan got murdered by a rival fan.


They are trying to "improve their image", "re-brand" themselves, in an effort to maintain "market share".

I have no doubt whatsoever that at such time as proletarian revolution looks like it's about to happen, they will have a "special revelation" to the effect that "Jesus was the first communist". (There was a little of this in the 1930s...when things were looking grim for capitalism.)

I don't believe a word of it.

Have you read matthew mark luke or john then?



Their track record has always been one of sucking up to whoever was powerful or looked like they were going to become powerful. And they've always been willing to play both sides of the street; the only reason that there ever was such a thing as "liberation theology" is because of the Cuban Revolution.

Like with the Romans. Big suck ups.
Even if they did and do so - it is the art of being a succesful pressure group.


What they are really interested in is "keeping the god-racket going"...by any means necessary.


Some are. Some arn't.
Some are just interested in doing what they percieve to be acting like a good christian.



If it has no effect...that's a question, is it not?

If someone calls himself a "lord", what happens when he starts acting like one, or trying to?

If someone calls himself a member of the "master race", what happens when he starts acting like one, or trying to?

I know the answers to those questions; do you?

Or when he tries acting like Papa Smurf!
or Father Christmas!

Like when all those Sirs in England start acting like knights you mean?
I hate it when our rowing gold medalist starts jousting.

I hate it when the other knights of the kingdom go out to shoot poor people

:rolleyes:
lol

You have a serious dogma problem here. If you want to see how little the names mean over in England, take a look at something as basic as the Daily Mail, who complain the honours system has lost all meaning. As Tony Benn stated;
"Personally I would have no objection whatever if she continued to call herself Queen and live at Buckingham Palace to attract tourists as a privatized and profitable business, so long as we could elect our own First Citizen and made him or her fully accountable to the parliament we choose on polling day"

You see it doesn't matter if someone calls himself Sir. Or if someone calls themselve king of all the world. Everyone just laughs.
Now if they get weapons and try to ACT like a king of all the world (instead of just CALLING himself king) we have a problem. But that isn't related to the act of calling yourself what ever you want - its believing that you can be, or act however you want.

For example, you think that you should be able to destroy all churches. I don't have a problem with this, as you can think what you want.

Luckily you won't be able to go out and do this - or if you tried, you would be captured, and stopped.

You see, you like everyone has a right to have an opinion, but YOU, like everyone else, does not have the right to force this opinion on everyone else.
What makes you CORRECT?



Oh, come on! You're going to stand up in front of kids and "teach history" with that kind of mysticism? "Social and historical values that ran too deep within the minds of the people"?? Used a depth-gage, did you???

Like I said, poor kids!


haha, you wanted a history lesson?


You have that history all muddled up; I deeply fear for your students.

But to answer the question: no, the old temples of antiquity no longer have any religious associations in the modern mind...they are just "picturesque ruins" and, like feudal castles, may be left in peace to quietly fade away.


No i didn't old boy...
These Gods didn't start with the Romans, nor end with the Romans.
True? Yes.
They came from many sources (mainly Greek I guess), and remained afterward, although the actual Roman Empire had fallen
True? Yes
Or did the Greeks come after the romans? Nope, that would be muddling it all up slightly...
:rolleyes:

They are religion though... i thought thats what you were against?
If you are being more specific though, and are against current popular religions - surely the fact that they have no danger left suggests that our churches will one day be in the same situation?

In which case the disadvantage with what you want to do is refuse the right of future generations to view these pieces, in the way that we can see and feel and experiance Greek pieces today.

But no; they are not dangerous.
Just like churches arn't.
People will believe what they will - you bulldozing over their churches is just going to prompt them to hurt you. Or if you actually believe that one day they will turn on it, on mass - i hope you are very wrong that it will be so destructive. If they turn against it, good. But why destroy the past? There is no need, as they will have shown that they can turn against the church, and are just as likely to return as the greeks are to their temples.


No, I dispute that. There are many thousands of books written about the Third Reich, including dozens of first-hand accounts of "what it was like" in the camps. One of the first ones published after World War II is called The Theory and Practice of Hell. Unless you lack the imaginative capacity of a turnip, simply reading this book will tell you more than you want to know about "what it was like".

And I still think that the "holocaust tourist trade" is sick!


Well as i've read accounts, and been to one. I feel i can judge on the matter.

You go, then come back and say it made no difference.



Revulsion probably comes closest to the mark. But of course, I cannot but recall what they did to "unbelievers" in the past...and what they would love to do again if they could.

Sort of like a Jew watching a neo-Nazi rally.



Thats bullshit.
You suggest that "they" are all alike.
Total bullshit.

Its like saying all communism is evil because of Stalin and co
*rolls eyes*


As to the "clubs" of the bourgeois political parties that you mentioned, I don't think they are particularly significant one way or the other...just trash to be carried to the rubbish bin after the revolution.


They arn't significant to your cause. If people are going to rise up and rule themselves; they shall.
A few buildings won't make a difference.



And maybe you just like to make up stuff and then attribute it to others without regard for testimony or evidence.


You fear that "they" will burn you for being an "unbeliever" though!

You fear the church. If you didn't, you wouldn't care that much either way about the existance of the buildings. They are just shells mate; get over it.

If you had faith in the working class - you wouldn't be scared that a few buildings would make them all servants of imperialism when the revolution comes... Or if you do, you have little faith in the Working class...



Well, it's a "common sense" observation: we are not bound by the will of the dead. Nor can we bind future generations to our will.

Ok, that's true, and so what?

Do you wish to imply that after we demolish all the symbols of the old order that some future generation will re-erect them?


no i do not.

I simply "imply" - as you say - that you don't have any such right over all future generations.

Like you said; your views will seem possibly barbaric in the future. Surely then you should not damage historical artifacts, because YOU in your "barbaric state" believe churches etc to be in some way "evil". Future generations would love to appreciate such things. Yet you would take it away.

But luckily you won't be able to do such horrific things.

So its all opinion - which you are entitled to. And i appreciate and respect that, even though i have an opinion that differs to your's.

[Soviet power supreme]

Like one nazi party? Or one Conservative party, republican, KKK etc etc
You see thats the big argument against a one party state; whilst its VERY ok when you agree with that one party, if you disagree, it is VERY not ok.

I meant to say one Communist party


I was trying to ask why RedStar wouldn't also destroy the castles etc, as they represented something similar to the churches, and had less of a role in modern soceity.

Why not?They symbol the use of slave work just like the pyramids.Why those materials couldnt be used to build something new?What the history value would mean in communistic syste?


Get it yet?

u said that it is valuable because it helps the poor and homeless and so on.I wasnt talking about that we go right now and bomb the Notre Dame.You seem to think that the churches are the only ones who do the aid work.The poor, homeless and other people will be taken care in the communist society.Churches become useless and they have only historial value and as I ask what the historial value means in the communist society?


QUOTE
Ohh I get it.We take the religion in our agenda.How about some of the capitalist methods so we can rally them to our side?

We dont need religion.The class concience and poor conditions makes the revolution.


erm again, that was totally not my point.
My point was that at the moment, alot more people seem interested in the goings on of the church than politics.


I dont get your point.What do you mean? :blink: Please explain more specificly.
Should we dress like priests and sing hymns and gather to buildings that are cross shaped then?


Churches can do lots of things. Bring communities together, help the homeless, help the hungry, help the ill, help those who are on deaths door (something which the communist manifesto can't), help with urban regeneration and rural too i guess - the list goes on. Thus the etc.

If you want to learn more, i point you toward your local church. The vicar/priest (or whoever) will only be too glad to carry on this list.

As I said the hungry get food,Homeless get their homes,Meeting centres will be build so that people can gather together in communist society.I havent say that we demolish them now but in the future,in a communist society and use the material to build something useful.

You seem to mix the churches and the action what churches do.How does for example the Notre Dame's cathedral has anything to do with the homless program or foreign aid?

Churches and cathedrals are just buildings and they are designed badly in inside.They are designed that priest talks that mumbo-jumbo in front of them.
People arent allowed to speak in middle of ceremonies and they really cant speak with others because they have to sit in those benches.Also there is no space.

[James]

I meant to say one Communist party


I know you did.
But you see, essentially you are in favour of a dictatorship, as long as you are, or are with, the dictator.
Of course you are dead against it if you don't agree with the policy of this "one party".
But thats the point: its fine if you benifit. But many don't from such systems, and should thus be avoided.


Why not?They symbol the use of slave work just like the pyramids.Why those materials couldnt be used to build something new?What the history value would mean in communistic syste?


I was asking him that you duffer!

It is quite clear that you "communists" just want to abolish civilization. Civilization is Art, Culture, Language, HISTORY. etc etc

You would replace all the colour in the world, for a manufactured state.

u said that it is valuable because it helps the poor and homeless and so on.I wasnt talking about that we go right now and bomb the Notre Dame.You seem to think that the churches are the only ones who do the aid work.The poor, homeless and other people will be taken care in the communist society.Churches become useless and they have only historial value and as I ask what the historial value means in the communist society?


I do not "seem to think" that the churches are the "only ones" who do the aid work.
Such an assumption is ridiculous.

I wasn't even arguing for the functions of a church - please please please understand!
I was mearly giving examples of why churches may be valued more, than castles - thus if churches are "worthless", castles must be less than worthless, so i imagine, would share the same fate that you seem to wish upon churches...

Historical value in communist society?

Well i think we differ over what communism is; you seem to see it as another world; something that eradicates everything previous, and is set up, with no roots, or history.
Communism to me is the struggle of those such as the Chartists, industrialists such as Robert Owen and Salt - going back even further; it was the struggle of some farmers just trying to live as a community who realised the benifit of working together (this is going back roughly to C10th/C12th - and the open field landscape that was once here).

Its taken me a while to realise this was MY socialism - and that the industrial, wrenching, dirty "communism" propagated by so many "trendy" leftists, which i once believed in - i simply can't any longer. I feel like i'm not trying to impress anyone with my beliefs. I just have now, a true belief that goes to my core. Its not just copied and pasted from a book.



I dont get your point.What do you mean? Please explain more specificly.
Should we dress like priests and sing hymns and gather to buildings that are cross shaped then?


No, i was merely stating that in alot of areas people hate politics, yet love their individual faiths, and religions.
You are bashing something, which is far greater than you.

I think you should stop trying to "be cool", and wake up, and try to work with the people, rather than against them.
People like their religion - people won't just get rid of it. Knocking down their places of worship won't make them "wake up".


As I said the hungry get food,Homeless get their homes,Meeting centres will be build so that people can gather together in communist society.I havent say that we demolish them now but in the future,in a communist society and use the material to build something useful.

People use the churches now as meeting centres - way knock a meeting centre down, to simply rebuild it again?


You seem to mix the churches and the action what churches do.How does for example the Notre Dame's cathedral has anything to do with the homless program or foreign aid?

As i have explained many times - the functions i listed was to simply suggest some of the ways in which churches were superior to castles.

Thats all.

Drop it now - pleeeeease


Churches and cathedrals are just buildings and they are designed badly in inside.They are designed that priest talks that mumbo-jumbo in front of them.
People arent allowed to speak in middle of ceremonies and they really cant speak with others because they have to sit in those benches.Also there is no space.

Firstly, no they are not.
Some of them were made by the pioners of the day - they are strong and secure. Why else have so many stayed standing in England whilst so many other buildings have fallen?
You can't argue that all churches and cathedrals are badly built - thus should be broken down, and the material recycled.

Secondly, no again.
You are confusing yourself as to what religion is. Going to church where you live is a lot different from where i live - thats all i can say. Do you know how many branches of christianity there are? They contradict themselves, so its impossible to use the label "christianity" and mean all christians. Take for example Quakers - you can hardly say quakers are like those who went on the crusades!
Thus you can't say "christianity is violent - look at the crusades, and look today in some african countries"

There is the Catholic church which i REALLY dislike - then there are the branches; some of which i also dislike, but some i love. You can't make such broad statements comrade. You really can't.

[Soviet power supreme]

No, i was merely stating that in alot of areas people hate politics, yet love their individual faiths, and religions.
You are bashing something, which is far greater than you.

No Im not bashing anything, the workers are when they realize what kind of mumbo-jumbo it is.

The History has taught that nobody can destroy the religion but themselves.The purges against these are stupid.The religon's members just grows when they see some of it's member getting hanged in the town square.


As i have explained many times - the functions i listed was to simply suggest some of the ways in which churches were superior to castles.

Thats all.

Drop it now - pleeeeease

Nope.It is just a building.What parish do is different thing.


People use the churches now as meeting centres - way knock a meeting centre down, to simply rebuild it again?

Well some churches maybe good and dont need to be knock down, but churhes where I have been have been very bad for places as a meeting centres.


Firstly, no they are not.
Some of them were made by the pioners of the day - they are strong and secure. Why else have so many stayed standing in England whilst so many other buildings have fallen?
You can't argue that all churches and cathedrals are badly built - thus should be broken down, and the material recycled

No,no,no I said inside.Yes churches have build to last long but that wasnt what I meant.


Secondly, no again.
You are confusing yourself as to what religion is. Going to church where you live is a lot different from where i live - thats all i can say. Do you know how many branches of christianity there are? They contradict themselves, so its impossible to use the label "christianity" and mean all christians. Take for example Quakers - you can hardly say quakers are like those who went on the crusades!
Thus you can't say "christianity is violent - look at the crusades, and look today in some african countries"

Well yes I havent been in other christian churches only in protestant.But my country is full of them.Dull and not very suitable for meeting the people.

And of course I agree that if church is a good place for meeting then it shouldnt be knocked down.That would be stupid.
Where u live then?I live in Finland and going to church isnt for meeting the people it is just going to listen that mumbo-jumbo and sing a little bit and pray and then off.See over 90 % of Finnish churches are these crap churches that has to go.The rest I dont know havent been in those other religion places.

[redstar2000]

It is quite clear that you "communists" just want to abolish civilization. Civilization is Art, Culture, Language, HISTORY. etc etc

Yes, we are the "barbarians" at your "gate". :lol:


How is a church propaganda in stone - and a castle not?

There was a time when a castle was propaganda in stone...but that was a long time ago. The associations are dust, now...as the castles themselves will be in another ten thousand years or so.

No one cares.


To suggest that churches are dangerous in any way (do you feel inspired by Nazi propaganda?) is ridiculous.

What about those who are inspired...by either Nazi propaganda or religious fanaticism? They don't count?


What about books too?
Would you burn books that teach against what YOU preach?
Would you burn books that were not written by a model comrade?

The best strategy would probably be to let the existing "hard copies" rot away and print no new ones. If someone wished to read a "holy book", they could go to the public library and check out an updated version of the Anchor Bible...one that is heavily footnoted with scholarly explanations.

And there would be plenty of "histories of religion"--unsparing of the gory details.

And we'd keep an eye on the internet, of course. If any religion site started getting a lot of hits, we'd take it down.

If it happened more than once and we found out the same fuckers were behind it, we'd take them down.

We don't need that crap!


It has been a while since any of my local baptists have burnt a witch!
However, it hasn't been too long since some football fan got murdered by a rival fan.

You English! So hot blooded! :lol:

What will you do if you ever "get religion" again?

Don't tell me; I don't want to know!


Have you read Matthew, Mark, Luke or John then?

Yes.


Like with the Romans. Big suck ups.
Even if they did and do so - it is the art of being a successful pressure group.

Yes, big suckups! "Render unto Caesar" and all that. When the Jews rose against Roman tyranny--68CE--the Christians fled Jerusalem like rats from a sinking ship.

As to the "art of being a successful pressure group", that's certainly a dignified phrase for suckup.

Means the same thing, though.


Some are just interested in doing what they perceive to be acting like a good Christian.

Their "perceptions" are of no interest to me. The reality is that they've been running a racket...one that will be stopped.


Now if they get weapons and try to ACT like a king of all the world (instead of just CALLING himself king) we have a problem. But that isn't related to the act of calling yourself what ever you want - its believing that you can be, or act however you want.

Isn't related? Someone just starts "acting like a king" without regard to the concept of kingship?

I will grant you this much. If, by the time proletarian revolution takes place, the very idea of aristocracy has become a complete joke and no one would claim "noble blood" unless he wished to be thought a fool...then I would let it pass. Fools we shall have with us always...unfortunately.

But we will keep an eye on them...just in case one of them starts taking the idea seriously enough to start acting as if it were really true.


What makes you CORRECT?

Argument and evidence, of course. Two things that haven't much concerned you thus far in this discussion.


In which case the disadvantage with what you want to do is refuse the right of future generations to view these pieces, in the way that we can see and feel and experience Greek pieces today.

Yes, that would be the outcome of my proposal. Would future generations "resent" our precipitous actions? Would they feel "deprived"? Would they actually have been "deprived" objectively?

I don't think they would "miss" what they never knew...do you "miss" the weekly sacrifice to Zeus or Isis? Do you feel genuinely "deprived" for not having the opportunity to celebrate the Eleusian Mysteries? Or the inspirational experience of being bathed in bull's blood?

The fact of the matter is that every work of human hands will someday perish...the only real question is when.

Every generation decides what is worth preserving, what is worth ignoring, and what needs to be destroyed and replaced by something better.

The first communist generations will be no different. They may be more "destructive" than the "average"...but they will also build more new things than "average".

And, in the long run, it all evens out anyway.


But why destroy the past?

Because the recent past has associations which we wish to make clear are no longer tenable. If we are serious about ending organized superstition in human social life, it follows that destroying the massive public symbols of superstition is a must. To leave them standing is to provoke precisely the reactions of the faithful to the USSR--"this too will pass and then we'll re-open the churches, canonize Czar Nicholas II, etc."

Indeed, there is no "ultimate" way that such an outcome can be prevented with absolute certainty...but we must try very hard.

And then we'll see.


That's bullshit.
You suggest that "they" are all alike.
Total bullshit.

Essentially all religions are alike. Given the chance, they will persecute the non-believer even unto death.

History has demonstrated that this is what religions do.

When they are "weak", they're all about "peace and love". But when they have real clout, out come the instruments of torture, the stakes, the hangmen.

And the stronger their faith...the worse they behave!


You fear that "they" will burn you for being an "unbeliever" though!

You fear the church. If you didn't, you wouldn't care that much either way about the existence of the buildings. They are just shells mate; get over it.

If you had faith in the working class - you wouldn't be scared that a few buildings would make them all servants of imperialism when the revolution comes... Or if you do, you have little faith in the Working class...

You are quite right. I have no "faith" in the working class...or anything else. All I have to work with is argument and evidence.

The historical evidence clearly shows that religion is a "tough old bird"...it doesn't just go away by itself. If we want to be rid of it for good, strenuous actions are required.

The standing cathedrals are not just "shells"...any more than a monument to Adolph Hitler is just a convenient place for pigeons to shit. Both such items have powerful emotional and ideological associations...bad ones! Their absence is clearly preferable to their presence.

Do I "fear the church"? Do you "fear the Nazis"?

Do you wait for the stormtroopers at your door before you sound the alarm?

I don't.

Reaction can be defeated...but not without fighting it as hard as we can.

Which is what I have proposed...nothing more.

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

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

[Chewillneverdie]

Redstar no your wrong


Essentially all religions are alike. Given the chance, they will persecute the non-believer even unto death.

History has demonstrated that this is what religions do.

When they are "weak", they're all about "peace and love". But when they have real clout, out come the instruments of torture, the stakes, the hangmen.

And the stronger their faith...the worse they behave!
Buddhism is against anything like that. Us buddhists are almost always the peaceful ones in the world. Remember Vietnam, lol Is that a instrument of torture, lighting yourself on fire? i think that got the job done on making everyone aware of what was happening

[James]

No Im not bashing anything, the workers are when they realize what kind of mumbo-jumbo it is.

The History has taught that nobody can destroy the religion but themselves.The purges against these are stupid.The religon's members just grows when they see some of it's member getting hanged in the town square.


You are bashing it - you are being negative about it all, making broad assumptions and are basically belittling it.

The fact of the matter though is that it (religion) is far more popular with the people, than your "communist policies".

Yes, the people may turn on religion one day - but if thats going to happen, hopefully we can all be civilized about it.
I'm not a raging racist who supports the BNP - but i don't want to go burn down all their buildings.


Nope.It is just a building.What parish do is different thing.


Aye, and the centre of the Parish is the Church. Its the nerve centre. Most activites happen within the Church.



Well some churches maybe good and dont need to be knock down, but churhes where I have been have been very bad for places as a meeting centres...

my country is full of them.Dull and not very suitable for meeting the people.

And of course I agree that if church is a good place for meeting then it shouldnt be knocked down.That would be stupid.


Yes, i'm glad you agree. Its pure stupidity to knock a building down that can be utilised. I hope now then, it is only Redstar who thinks they should all be knocked down.


Where u live then?I live in Finland and going to church isnt for meeting the people it is just going to listen that mumbo-jumbo and sing a little bit and pray and then off.See over 90 % of Finnish churches are these crap churches that has to go.The rest I dont know havent been in those other religion places.


I live in England - we have alot of churches :)
I have several within roughly 2 miles of me. There is a methodist Victorian one, another Victorian one, and another that is an Independent Chapel. There were also a few others, but they have either been converted to houses (another usefull use surely!) or been knocked down (and i can thus strongly feel with justification, it is better to have them still standing - even just as houses!).

But England has so many older churches - some dating from pre-norman times - and some of the Cathedrals are simply magnificent.

They are beautiful to draw, and wonderfull things to explore. Gothic architecture is a lost art in England in my opinion... far more pritty than the concrete blocks, and glass/cement buildings. They simply can't be compared.

The local churches around me act as meeting centres for many groups - Cubs, Scouts, etc Tea mornings for the elderly, young mothers groups, those who suffer from illnesses that will cost their lives - and i can tell you now, you can't compare a church with a rushed concrete mess.

You should come over here some time, leave the cities and explore some of Englands rural areas. Beautiful.

[Y2A]

Aren't communist suppose to be all about freedom from "capitalist oppression"? While I don't agree with religion at all I find it quite arrogant to say that there is no such thing as a god. The funny thing is that, that is the exact same thing you are accusing the religious crowd of. The fact is that we will never know if there is a god or if there is not a god. It is impossible. So instead of calling them ignorant, why don't you look in the mirror and realize that you are being just as ignorant. Luckly enough I am not as arrogant as both of the sides you imbeciles have drawn and realize I will never know and choose not to judge others by it.

[canikickit]

Luckly enough I am not as arrogant as both of the sides you imbeciles have drawn and realize I will never know and choose not to judge others by it.

If that is the case why are you so arrogant as to refer to these people as "imbeciles"?

[Y2A]

To piss them off :D

[James]

Yes, we are the "barbarians" at your "gate"....What about those who are inspired...by either Nazi propaganda or religious fanaticism? They don't count?...The best strategy would probably be to let the existing "hard copies" rot away and print no new ones. If someone wished to read a "holy book", they could go to the public library and check out an updated version of the Anchor Bible...one that is heavily footnoted with scholarly explanations.

And there would be plenty of "histories of religion"--unsparing of the gory details.

And we'd keep an eye on the internet, of course. If any religion site started getting a lot of hits, we'd take it down.

If it happened more than once and we found out the same fuckers were behind it, we'd take them down.

We don't need that crap!



You are, if you want to destroy culture and history.

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Steele Commager

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen. ~Tommy Smothers

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too. ~Voltaire

Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959

Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823



We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy


There was a time when a castle was propaganda in stone...but that was a long time ago. The associations are dust, now...as the castles themselves will be in another ten thousand years or so.

No one cares.



They still represent class though. They represent what you think religion to be all about.


You English! So hot blooded!

What will you do if you ever "get religion" again?

Don't tell me; I don't want to know!...Yes.



If you have read the supposed words of Jesus, then you know that true followers wouldn't force a thing upon you.
Matthew 27:52-53

Its a religion of choice.

You are not against it; you are merely against authoritarians who want to force their opinions onto everyone and everthing.

Sound familiar?


Yes, big suckups! "Render unto Caesar" and all that. When the Jews rose against Roman tyranny--68CE--the Christians fled Jerusalem like rats from a sinking ship.

As to the "art of being a successful pressure group", that's certainly a dignified phrase for suckup.

Means the same thing, though.


You said you read Matthew Mark luke AND john yet you still confuse that quote?!?!?



Their "perceptions" are of no interest to me. The reality is that they've been running a racket...one that will be stopped.


you are going to stop people from loving ones brother?
Thats the teaching of Jesus. Those who force god upon anyone, are not followers - they are merely power hungry individuals who have found a medium for their flawed character.

You said you read the bible - so you know these words are true


Isn't related? Someone just starts "acting like a king" without regard to the concept of kingship?

I will grant you this much. If, by the time proletarian revolution takes place, the very idea of aristocracy has become a complete joke and no one would claim "noble blood" unless he wished to be thought a fool...then I would let it pass. Fools we shall have with us always...unfortunately.

But we will keep an eye on them...just in case one of them starts taking the idea seriously enough to start acting as if it were really true.


Thats what it is becoming - thus why i see no point in purging all those who want the freedom to call themselves what they want.

It doesn't bother me one bit if you call yourself a highpreist - if you try and sacrifice me though it is different; for you have infringed on someone else. Calling yourself something though doesn't = the later.

And what of those who call themselves Father Christmas?


Argument and evidence, of course. Two things that haven't much concerned you thus far in this discussion.


It is your opinion that they should be knocked down. Far more hold the opinion that they should not. Thus, if we are being majoritarian - you are in fact quite wrong.
It is your opinion. And opinion alone. Others have different opinions.
Havn't you learnt these "40 years" of being a "veteren"?

I think i've learnt more about humans and civilized society in less than half your years as a "veteren"!

This of course is my opinion though - if i was like you however, and didn't tolerate other opinons, i would argue i was correct, and it was fact.
But no, its opinion - and i don't know if i'm "right or wrong". I just formed this opinion from what you have demonstrated on this thread. ie complete disregard for culture and history, and other people's opinions who differ from your's


"In which case the disadvantage with what you want to do is refuse the right of future generations to view these pieces, in the way that we can see and feel and experience Greek pieces today.

Yes, that would be the outcome of my proposal.

I see.
But you said before;

"Well, it's a "common sense" observation: we are not bound by the will of the dead. Nor can we bind future generations to our will.

Ok, that's true, and so what?"

You thus don't have the right to bind the future to your will. You don't have the right to refuse the future to have the opportunity to have these buildings, and make their own decisions.

you want to "nanny" people into what to think. In case they think the "wrong thing" - ie, what you think to be wrong.
It doesn't mean it is nesecarily wrong, because you think it is.

Like you also said - the future will look on us today, and think we are barbaric.
You are quite right; especially if you destroy evidence of our past!


Because the recent past has associations which we wish to make clear are no longer tenable. If we are serious about ending organized superstition in human social life, it follows that destroying the massive public symbols of superstition is a must. To leave them standing is to provoke precisely the reactions of the faithful to the USSR--"this too will pass and then we'll re-open the churches, canonize Czar Nicholas II, etc."

Indeed, there is no "ultimate" way that such an outcome can be prevented with absolute certainty...but we must try very hard.

And then we'll see.

Ah i see.
So we must destroy everything that is not what you want. I see. Should parents be shot who teach their children "unhelpfull" things. Or do you just hope to brainwash them enough so that their parents have no affect.

also

do you think that the class system is not such a thing that is "recent"?




Essentially all religions are alike. Given the chance, they will persecute the non-believer even unto death.

History has demonstrated that this is what religions do.

When they are "weak", they're all about "peace and love". But when they have real clout, out come the instruments of torture, the stakes, the hangmen.

And the stronger their faith...the worse they behave!


Given the chance, they will persecute the non-believer even unto death?

History has demonstrated that this is what religions do??

The religion doesn't do this - individuals do it.

Did you ever hear anyone say,
"That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?"
~Joseph Henry Jackson

You plan to excuse individual choices - and blame it on something else. This is wrong because it would promote lack of responsibility for actions. It would be symbolic, and send out the message, that people have no free will.

History actually shows us that people have always had a personal choice - some people have of cause chosen the wrong path, whilst others have taken the hard choice - and not been led blinded.

When the BNP send me propaganda i don't instantly go out and kill black people.
Neither does anyone.
Someone MIGHT however, for other reasons. NOT just because of this one influence though. Its simplistic to argue otherwise.

History also shows us whilst at the time of all these burnings and the what-not; it hasn't been just religion. It has been society. The way people have acted.
It wasn't just religion that had people murdered.

History also shows us that the communists who came to power in the C20th have used incredible violence, and murdered many.
By your "logic", this means communism is like this, and should never be allowed out. This makes you simple minded redstar; no matter how many years you think you have been a whatever "veteren".

Its sad.

[redstar2000]

"blah, blah, blah" -- John Stuart Mill, Henry Steele Commager, Tommy Smothers, Potter Stewart, Voltaire, Alfred Whitney Griswold, Heinrich Heine, John F. Kennedy

Something for everyone, eh?

Philosopher, historian, comedian, judge, poet and war criminal. (Who the hell is Alfred Whitney Griswold? Banker?)

Am I supposed to be impressed by this parade of celebrities?

Like many, you are seemingly infatuated with the abstract "freedom of ideas and expression"...a quality that floats up in the air somewhere, disconnected entirely from the muck of the real world.

Back in the days when the bourgeoisie were revolutionary, they demanded "freedom of thought and expression" as a weapon against the old aristocracies that they were fighting to overthrow.

If you read them carefully, you will find that there were ideas that they did not want to allow, expression that they did not wish to permit.

Since those times, we have seen in our own era people imprisoned for simply having communist ideas and publishing them...and even having such publications in their possession.

I am, for example, old enough to remember the McCarthy period in the United States. Kids told me of their childhoods...when they watched their fathers and mothers burn all their left-wing books in the backyard, lest they be persecuted for simply having such books.

Thus, your collection of empty rhetoric does not mean squat! The truth of the matter, once again clearly shown in history, is that classes in power will attempt to suppress their rivals and the ideas of their rivals whenever they think it useful.

Your devotion to "free expression" is self-delusion; there are certainly ideas that you would suppress...with violence or the threat of violence, if required. I don't know what those ideas happen to be in your particular case...but I know they exist.


They [feudal castles] still represent class though. They represent what you think religion to be all about.

How many times do I have to say it? They no longer represent anything but "picturesque ruins". They have no contemporary associations.

Why do you keep returning to this side-issue?


If you have read the supposed words of Jesus, then you know that true followers wouldn't force a thing upon you.
Matthew 27:52-53

Its a religion of choice.


27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Would you mind explaining what your citation from "Matthew" has to do with choice?

Or did you just toss this crap in to see if I was paying attention?


You are not against it; you are merely against authoritarians who want to force their opinions onto everyone and everything.

Sound familiar?

It sure does...it's what Christians do whenever they get the chance.


you are going to stop people from loving ones brother?
That's the teaching of Jesus.

Assuming you are right about that, what need have you for a massive cathedral?

If Christians were truly interested in "love", would not all those resources over the centuries been devoted to the poor...instead of massive monuments to power and prestige?

In Los Angeles, the Catholic hierarchy has just opened a massive new cathedral that cost US $280,000,000 to build. You can feed a lot of homeless for that kind of money.

No, you can "love" your brother all you want (provided he's post-pubescent)...but you can't do it in the nave of the cathedral; the building is no longer standing.


And what of those who call themselves Father Christmas?

You ask the strangest questions.

There will be no "Christmas" and thus no "Father Christmas".

Do you understand the concept of revolution at all???


It is your opinion that they [churches] should be knocked down. Far more hold the opinion that they should not. Thus, if we are being majoritarian - you are in fact quite wrong.

In the era of revolution, I expect my views to be supported by the majority of the working class...obviously.

If I'm wrong, I will do my best to persuade the majority of the class that I'm right.

If I succeed, then down they come!


I think I've learnt more about humans and civilized society in less than half your years as a "veteran"!

Goodie for you! :lol:


You thus don't have the right to bind the future to your will. You don't have the right to refuse the future to have the opportunity to have these buildings, and make their own decisions.

No, you are confusing two different lines of argument here.

1. As a practical matter, we cannot "bind" the wills of future generations. If we demolish all religious architecture in our own time, we still cannot stop future generations from erecting replicas if that is what they wish to do. Once we're dead, the living can do as they please.

2. But we certainly have the "right" to smash the evils of our own time while we are still alive. We can melt down the statues of Adolph Hitler and put up statues of Karl Marx; if future generations decide that our perceptions were wrong, then they can melt down the statues of Karl Marx and put up new statues of Adolph Hitler. I would be most unhappy with that outcome; but, being dead, I probably won't notice.


You want to "nanny" people into what to think.

So do you. So does everyone who has reasonably firm convictions about anything.

You want to "nanny" people into tolerating a reactionary social institution and I want to "nanny" them into smashing it.

Instead of "nanny", why not use the correct word? convince.


So we must destroy everything that is not what you want. I see. Should parents be shot who teach their children "unhelpful" things? Or do you just hope to brainwash them enough so that their parents have no effect?

What is this babble actually about? Why don't you ask serious questions if you want a serious response?

If you simply want to indulge yourself in mindless anti-communist rhetoric, why not take it to "protestwarrior" or "stormfront"?


Given the chance, they will persecute the non-believer even unto death?

History has demonstrated that this is what religions do??

The religion doesn't do this - individuals do it.

Yeah, agents of the "devil", no doubt. :lol:

This is a tired and lame excuse. Whenever Christians do something really nasty and a plausible cover story becomes impossible to maintain, the "fall-back" position is "well, they were not real Christians".

They sure as hell thought they were real Christians. And if you had dared to question their faith to their faces, you'd get a little taste of "holy inquisition" yourself!

Now, of course, you will bring up Stalin, right? Stalin shows what "communists" are "really like".

Well, I'm not a "Stalinist" nor are most of the people on this board; there are different kinds of communists, not to mention anarchists of several kinds.

You are certainly free to conclude that communist ideas "always" lead to "Stalinist tyranny"...just as I have concluded that all religion leads to "holy tyranny".

We are on opposite sides of the barricades, and that's that.

Given the brief history of communism thus far, I argue that we can "do it better" in the future.

Given the long history of religion, I conclude that there is no conceivable way that you "can do it better".

I "could" be wrong...you definitely are wrong.


This makes you simple minded redstar; no matter how many years you think you have been a whatever "veteran".

It's sad.

Get over it! :angry:

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

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

[James]

Something for everyone, eh?

Philosopher, historian, comedian, judge, poet and war criminal. (Who the hell is Alfred Whitney Griswold? Banker?)

Am I supposed to be impressed by this parade of celebrities?


Nope. That wasn't the point of naming the sources - its just general practise to name them. You don't have to feel impressed.
Its whats being said that i wanted you to concentrate upon.


Like many, you are seemingly infatuated with the abstract "freedom of ideas and expression"...a quality that floats up in the air somewhere, disconnected entirely from the muck of the real world.

blah blah blah

Your devotion to "free expression" is self-delusion; there are certainly ideas that you would suppress...with violence or the threat of violence, if required. I don't know what those ideas happen to be in your particular case...but I know they exist.

My devotion??? etc etc etc
I'm not terribly "devoted" as such... i'm just saying it should be a right for people. True we don't have total freedom of expression etc etc blah blah blah; but that doesn't mean we should just say "fuck it - lets just censor the whole lot"
Alot of the quotes were simply in reference to what happens when you try to censor things.




How many times do I have to say it? They no longer represent anything but "picturesque ruins". They have no contemporary associations.

Why do you keep returning to this side-issue?


I'm not at all. Its the wider picture.
As i said before; They represent class. They represent what you think religion to be all about. They represent what you suppose religion came from. If anything, Castles - the strongholds of the upper class - should be your number one priority! Not only just one of the agents of the upper class!



Would you mind explaining what your citation from "Matthew" has to do with choice?

Or did you just toss this crap in to see if I was paying attention?


ah, woops!
26, not 27. Sorry - didn't see the number changed on the same page :)


It sure does...it's what Christians do whenever they get the chance

Yeah like Quakers?
And as you know, it was in reference to you - who seems to want to have everyone doing things, living, thinking - your way, and only your way.
Those who go against it, will, as you say "be got" - or something...


Assuming you are right about that, what need have you for a massive cathedral?

If Christians were truly interested in "love", would not all those resources over the centuries been devoted to the poor...instead of massive monuments to power and prestige?

In Los Angeles, the Catholic hierarchy has just opened a massive new cathedral that cost US $280,000,000 to build. You can feed a lot of homeless for that kind of money.

No, you can "love" your brother all you want (provided he's post-pubescent)...but you can't do it in the nave of the cathedral; the building is no longer standing.


Well my views are quite clear on Catholics...
You are proposing to do away with peoples place of worship.
You think this is fine - but what would happen if you were told to not talk about communism, out of your own home?
You wouldn't have had those 40 years!

I'm against you destroying buildings of historical and artistic value - as i stated very early on.
I personally don't care much for new age buildings...

But yes - i agree. This amount of money being wasted shows how catholics are not followers of Jesus at all.
He taught people to give all their money away to the poor - not to build big fancy buildings.


You ask the strangest questions.

There will be no "Christmas" and thus no "Father Christmas".

Do you understand the concept of revolution at all???


But surely they can have it in their own homes?

And yes, you are quite right - i'm not revolutionary at all, if it means so much destruction and totalitarianism.

So we have a major divide between our opinions - as you stated. Thus we shall never agree on some issues.
I guess this is one of these...


No, you are confusing two different lines of argument here.

1. As a practical matter, we cannot "bind" the wills of future generations. If we demolish all religious architecture in our own time, we still cannot stop future generations from erecting replicas if that is what they wish to do. Once we're dead, the living can do as they please.

2. But we certainly have the "right" to smash the evils of our own time while we are still alive. We can melt down the statues of Adolph Hitler and put up statues of Karl Marx; if future generations decide that our perceptions were wrong, then they can melt down the statues of Karl Marx and put up new statues of Adolph Hitler. I would be most unhappy with that outcome; but, being dead, I probably won't notice.


No i disagree - its like rebuilding a Norman keep or something.
They have nothing on the origional.



Yeah, agents of the "devil", no doubt.

This is a tired and lame excuse. Whenever Christians do something really nasty and a plausible cover story becomes impossible to maintain, the "fall-back" position is "well, they were not real Christians".

They sure as hell thought they were real Christians. And if you had dared to question their faith to their faces, you'd get a little taste of "holy inquisition" yourself!

Now, of course, you will bring up Stalin, right? Stalin shows what "communists" are "really like".

Well, I'm not a "Stalinist" nor are most of the people on this board; there are different kinds of communists, not to mention anarchists of several kinds.

You are certainly free to conclude that communist ideas "always" lead to "Stalinist tyranny"...just as I have concluded that all religion leads to "holy tyranny".

We are on opposite sides of the barricades, and that's that.

Given the brief history of communism thus far, I argue that we can "do it better" in the future.

Given the long history of religion, I conclude that there is no conceivable way that you "can do it better".

I "could" be wrong...you definitely are wrong.


*YAWN*

Yeah, they are "not real communists", no doubt!

This is a tired and lame excuse. Whenever Communists do something really nasty and a plausible cover story becomes impossible to maintain, the "fall-back" position is "well, they were not real Communists".
They sure as hell thought they were real Communists though. And if you had dared to question their ideology to their faces, you'd get a little taste of something not nice!

Now, of course, you will bring up the crusades, right? And all those other examples of authoritarians who were acting in the name of christianity, yet contary to christianity. the crusades shows what "christians" are "really like".

Well, I'm not a "crusader" nor are most of the people on this board; there are different kinds of christians, not to mention protestants of several kinds.

You are certainly free to conclude that christian ideas "always" lead to "christian tyranny"...just as someone in such a way can conclude that all communism leads to "communist tyranny".

We are on opposite sides of the barricades, and that's that.

Given the brief history, in terms of the earths age (as it is all subjective), of christianity thus far, I argue that they can "do it better" in the future.

And my proof? Well they do it better now.
Sure there are places in the world where they mislead people like you into thinking they are being christian in any way - but this isn't the way it always is. Thus it can be concluded it is possible for christianity, to be christian.

Given the history of communism thus far, I conclude already that there is no conceivable way that you "can do it better". As their are no examples of communist success blah blah blah.

Don't you see its the same thing?

* * *

Like i said though, and have you.
We have completely different opinions on this matter - so will find it very hard to agree.

[redstar2000]

26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Ok, how does this make Christianity a "religion of choice"?

And since you like "Matthew", how about this little gem...


10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

That's "Jesus" himself speaking...and his disciples, in this respect at least, have certainly carried out his instructions for the last 2,000 years!


True, we don't have total freedom of expression, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah; but that doesn't mean we should just say "fuck it - let's just censor the whole lot."

I quite agree; the question is always really what is to be censored?

You wish to exclude religion from consideration; I wish it to be "way up" towards the top of the list, along with capitalism itself, fascism, etc.


They [feudal castles] represent class. They represent what you think religion to be all about. They represent what you suppose religion came from.

To whom?

Frankly, I think you are imagining things.


Yeah, like Quakers?

Need I remind you that the Quakers produced one of the most infamous war criminals in American history...Richard M. Nixon?

He "made peace" in Vietnam in 1973 on exactly the same terms as he rejected in 1969...after murdering perhaps a million or more Vietnamese in the vain attempt to maintain American imperial power.

Some "sword", eh?


...but what would happen if you were told to not talk about communism, out of your own home?

It is, even now, dangerous to talk about communism in public.

A public building openly labeled "communist" would almost certainly be a target for violent reactionaries, probably including Christians.

Look at the behavior of "militant Christians" with regards to women's health clinics where abortions are performed?

The underlying assumption of your remarks is that "we" are "free" now...whereas "I" am some kind of "dictator-wannabe" that wants to take away the "freedom" of others--especially believers.

I am not "free" in your system; and you will not be "free" in mine.


Well, they [Christians] do it better now.

:lol:

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

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

[A Pict]

Of note; I am an atheist with a very strong detest of religon, especially christianity (jesus christ was a maggot) and buddhism (buddha was a worthless mystic).


But I see no harm in letting people do that crazy shit. Publically whatever. I can't believe this is the same bunch that is always *****ing about censorship.

You guys wanna know the real reason why Marx and all those other crazy mass-murderer wannabes have such a hard-on for fucking up churches? They hate competition, as they say, but on all levels. Both institions (Religon and Collectivism) want to own people and a person can only have one master. Like violent little gangs.


The reason why the Dollar ($ is such a sign of virtue) doesn't give a shit about your religon is because it is only a tool and reflection of the person who uses it.

[Yevgraf]

Analysing A Pict's posts it becomes apparant that their aggressive and bilous nature is a manifestation of some form of repression. Most likely sexual ;)

Tell me rich boy, did you go to a private school? :o

[A Pict]

Analysing A Pict's posts it becomes apparant that their aggressive and bilous nature is a manifestation of some form of repression. Most likely sexual

Fascinating theories Freud. But ad hominem is not a logical refutation (although that seems to be 90% of the "reasons" for communism that ive been getting. Reasons is the incorrect word, as it is not based in reason at all) So congratulations on the spam post


Tell me rich boy, did you go to a private school?

No. I was already robbed to pay for a public one, so I attended that. Again this is irrelevent.

[redstar2000]

You guys wanna know the real reason why Marx and all those other crazy mass-murderer wannabes have such a hard-on for fucking up churches?

"Crazy mass-murderer wannabes"?

How is the demolition of religious architecture indicative of the desire to commit "mass murder"?

Perhaps you just don't understand the English language.

In fact, instead of trying to read message boards, perhaps a nice blue mud-bath is a more intellectually appropriate activity for you, Mr. "A Pict".

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

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

[James]

Ok, how does this make Christianity a "religion of choice"?

And since you like "Matthew", how about this little gem...


Well its like i said redstar - "If you have read the supposed words of Jesus, then you know that true followers wouldn't force a thing upon you"
Its a choice each individual makes, whether or not to follow.

He says that he brings a sword, because it divides families. Some are christian, some are not. It says this in the next line... He doesn't bring peace because he doesn't say "everyone is alowed into heaven" - he says "only those who accept me, are allowed into heaven". He doesn't bring peace because his teachings are seen as revolutionary, against the religious elite - thus people are not going to like it, and shall oppose it with violence. His words arn't going to bring peace between man - and they didn't. His death was symbolic of this.

As the quote before states though, he was against the sword. And as his death clearly shows, he leading by example, predicts many murders, against those who would not use violence.


I quite agree; the question is always really what is to be censored?

You wish to exclude religion from consideration; I wish it to be "way up" towards the top of the list, along with capitalism itself, fascism, etc.


Hmm, censoring popular things never works. It only breads more popularity.
Its like England in the late 1700s and early 1800s - the actions of the government arguably encouraged more to join the ranks of the radicals.


To whom?

Frankly, I think you are imagining things.


To this army of the masses that you have pictured in your head. Or will they not be taught of historical development of class and the what-not? Surely you must - so that they can understand where religion came from.


Need I remind you that the Quakers produced one of the most infamous war criminals in American history...Richard M. Nixon?

He "made peace" in Vietnam in 1973 on exactly the same terms as he rejected in 1969...after murdering perhaps a million or more Vietnamese in the vain attempt to maintain American imperial power.

Some "sword", eh?


Quakers reject violence. They are famous for this - in fact many were shot in my own country for refusing to fight during WW1. These were true Quakers - people who followed their beliefs to death. It seems Nixon never had such beliefs - Nixon himself told Life magazine in 1970 that becoming a conscientious objector "never crossed my mind." Further, in his 1978 Memoirs he declared flatly that "I never considered doing this."

And we also have, from the BBC;
"Our principle is, and our practices have always been, to seek peace, and ensue it, and to follow after righteousness and the knowledge of God, seeking the good and welfare, and doing that which tends to the peace of all.

"All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all outward wars, and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole world."

This comes for a Declaration to Charles II and was written by a group of English early Quakers in 1660. This - and similar writings - remain central to our faith
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1581581.stm

You are trying to use the actions of a minority, as a rule, over the many acts of the vast majority, over a large amount of time.

In fact afghan and iraq war were perfect examples of the sword that was brought - it brought conflict. Quakers were widly criticised for their beliefs, and still are.
WW1 in the UK they were alowed to not join the army - they havn't always been this lucky though of course...


It is, even now, dangerous to talk about communism in public.

A public building openly labeled "communist" would almost certainly be a target for violent reactionaries, probably including Christians.

Look at the behavior of "militant Christians" with regards to women's health clinics where abortions are performed?

The underlying assumption of your remarks is that "we" are "free" now...whereas "I" am some kind of "dictator-wannabe" that wants to take away the "freedom" of others--especially believers.

I am not "free" in your system; and you will not be "free" in mine.


You are far more free to talk about communism now in this society, than any one would be in "your society" who wished to talk about a number of things; one of which is religion.
You stated for example that you would shut down, and "get" those who published christian etc websites.

Says he! who has that "interesting" link at the bottom of every post he makes!

You are more free now, than those would be in "your society".

If i want to go out an talk about communism today; i can do it.
Heck, i could even build a building if i had the money; i could put leaflets through people's doors - and even put posters up (last year i actually had a communist party poster up in the bus shelter - it lasted rather a while)

[James]

"Crazy mass-murderer wannabes"?


He must be using the
Stalin etc = ALL COMMUNISTS

I disagree with A Pict.

Like i disagree with Redstars same formula, with a different name;
Crusaders etc = ALL CHRISTIANS

[redstar2000]

Quakers reject violence.

Some do, some don't...as the example of Nixon shows.

Do you wish to say that he was not a "real" Quaker?

Or even a "real" Christian?

Is he "burning in Hell" now? :lol:


You are trying to use the actions of a minority, as a rule, over the many acts of the vast majority, over a large amount of time.

Yes, that is true. My argument is that religion inevitably produces "Nixons" and worse...just as you argue that communism "inevitably" produces "Stalins" and worse.

The readers of this discussion--and, ultimately, the revolutionary working class--will decide who has the better argument...which description of reality actually comes closest to depicting reality.


You are far more free to talk about communism now in this society, than any one would be in "your society" who wished to talk about a number of things; one of which is religion.

You stated for example that you would shut down, and "get" those who published Christian, etc., websites.

At least one American--Sherman Austin--is presently serving a year's sentence in federal prison for having an anarchist website.

Your idea of capitalist "freedom" is based, I suspect, on simple ignorance of capitalist reality.


You are more free now, than those would be in "your society".

That may or may not be true...so what?

The point is simply that when a revolution occurs, "those who were last become first; and those who were first become last".

That's why you are opposed to communist revolution; you're one of the "first" or think you are or hope to be--within the context of the existing order. Should that order be overthrown in your lifetime, you're in the shit.

Where you belong.

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

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

[James]

Some do, some don't...as the example of Nixon shows.

Do you wish to say that he was not a "real" Quaker?

Or even a "real" Christian?

Is he "burning in Hell" now?

A Tiny minority don't reject violence - but the vast majority do.


Yes, that is true. My argument is that religion inevitably produces "Nixons" and worse...just as you argue that communism "inevitably" produces "Stalins" and worse.

The readers of this discussion--and, ultimately, the revolutionary working class--will decide who has the better argument...which description of reality actually comes closest to depicting reality.


Religion doesn't, in my opinion, inevitably produce Nixon's and worse. And i don't argue that communism inevitably produces Stalins.

I was simply showing how the argument is the same. Apart from one is used by atheists; and the other is used by the equivalent right wingers.

Of course the readers of this board will be in agreement with us (apart from the minority right wingers), that communism doesn't inevitably produce Stalins.
As any sane individual, can see its a stupid broad assumption, which is proved wrong by the simple fact that not all communists end up as Stalins.
And like wise, not all religious people are like Nixon. Ghandi for example. My local baptists for example. MLK for example.
There are famous and non-famous examples of this.

But you are dogmatic, and your political agenda blinds you from the truth.
You shall argue this pathetic argument as long as you have air still in your lungs whilst you have no change of heart. Just as those crazy ignorant right wingers argue all communism = stalin.


At least one American--Sherman Austin--is presently serving a year's sentence in federal prison for having an anarchist website.

Your idea of capitalist "freedom" is based, I suspect, on simple ignorance of capitalist reality.


Like i said - we don't have total freedom; but we have a great relative deal of it. Especially more so, than we would have under your rule.

The existance of your website, and the million others which are just the same, proves this.
As does the existance of all those other "extreme" websites, like NoI, KKK, BNP etc etc

Its just when you try to harm people that you shall for sure, tried to be stopped.

[A Pict]

"Crazy mass-murderer wannabes"?

How is the demolition of religious architecture indicative of the desire to commit "mass murder"?


He must be using the
Stalin etc = ALL COMMUNISTS

I disagree with A Pict.


I think everyone who gives themself a moral blank check to do any action as long as it is not selflish is a mass-murderer waiting to happen. The same lack of concept of personal property is indiciative of an anti-social disorder (hilariously ironic-the "socialists" are really just sado-masochists)

Marx was a mass-murdering mediocrity waiting to happen. Lenin was a mass-murdering mediocrity waiting to happen. All those who think need is greater then rights are mass-murderers waiting to happen.

Jews were a minority. A rich one at that. Their eviseceration should be acceptable in your eyes, as it was for the common good- the Fatherland- to seize their wealth. What is the difference?

[redstar2000]

I think everyone who gives themself a moral blank check to do any action as long as it is not selfish is a mass-murderer waiting to happen.

Do you not give yourself a "moral blank check" to "defend your personal property"?

Is there a "limit" to the number of people you would murder in order to save your property from expropriation ("theft" you would call it)???


All those who think need is greater then rights are mass-murderers waiting to happen.

Yes, the starving man who steals a crust of bread from the groaning table of the rich "clearly deserves to die"...for it is only a small (and logical!) step from that deed to murdering all the rich and seizing all of their wealth, is it not?

You would have been very popular among the English upper classes c.16th-17th century England. They would have grasped your "morality" and your "logic" instantly...it is identical to their own.


Jews were a minority. A rich one at that. Their [evisceration?] should be acceptable in your eyes, as it was for the common good-the Fatherland-to seize their wealth. What is the difference?

The Nazi assertion that their policies were for "the common good" does not establish that assertion as fact.

Are you so foolish as to believe that anyone who says they are "for the common good" actually means that? Or do you wish to imply that we are so foolish as to believe such an absurd proposition?

Nearly all of the Jewish wealth in the Third Reich was divided among members of the German capitalist class and the Nazi Party elite.

Everyone knows that...except, evidently, yourself.

Nice try.

:redstar2000:

PS: I had to guess at the word you intended to (mis)use in your quote--evisceration was suggested by dictionary.com. It doesn't mean what you think it means...


1. To remove the entrails of; disembowel.
2. To take away a vital or essential part of.

Chances are you actually meant to use the word "expropriation", right?

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

[A Pict]

Do you not give yourself a "moral blank check" to "defend your personal property"?

Is there a "limit" to the number of people you would murder in order to save your property from expropriation ("theft" you would call it)???

I believe in self-defense. The alternative is self-destruction.



Yes, the starving man who steals a crust of bread from the groaning table of the rich "clearly deserves to die"...for it is only a small (and logical!) step from that deed to murdering all the rich and seizing all of their wealth, is it not?


Uh, who are you quoting? But what is the difference?



You would have been very popular among the English upper classes c.16th-17th century England. They would have grasped your "morality" and your "logic" instantly...it is identical to their own

Fallacy. Guilt by association.




The Nazi assertion that their policies were for "the common good" does not establish that assertion as fact.

Are you so foolish as to believe that anyone who says they are "for the common good" actually means that? Or do you wish to imply that we are so foolish as to believe such an absurd proposition?

Nearly all of the Jewish wealth in the Third Reich was divided among members of the German capitalist class and the Nazi Party elite.


I see. So if they would have given it to the workers, the Holocaust would be justified?



Chances are you actually meant to use the word "expropriation", right?


Incorrect. They didn't just take the Jews possesions... you do realize they killed them as well?

[redstar2000]

I believe in self-defense. The alternative is self-destruction.

Evasion. You were asked if you had written yourself a "moral blank check" in defense of your property?


But what is the difference?

In your view, none.


Fallacy. Guilt by association.

Statement of fact...you are guilty.


So, if they would have given it to the workers, the Holocaust would be justified?

Evasion...slippery change of subject. You originally asked about the German seizure of Jewish wealth...then you switch here to the actual murder of the Jews.

I am in favor of the summary seizure of the wealth of the capitalist class; I am not in favor of mass murder of ethnic/cultural groups.

Clear?


They didn't just take the Jews' possessions...you do realize they killed them as well?

Quite so, but your original question referred to Jewish wealth, not Jewish lives. And very few Jews were murdered by disemboweling...if any at all. So your choice of words was poor.

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

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

[A Pict]

Evasion. You were asked if you had written yourself a "moral blank check" in defense of your property?

No. Because it has a limited audience to whom it can apply. Namely the ones trying to deprieve me of it.

While the altruistic audience is everyone.




In your view, none.

Only in degree. Whats the difference to you?



Statement of fact...you are guilty.

Guilty of what?




I am in favor of the summary seizure of the wealth of the capitalist class; I am not in favor of mass murder of ethnic/cultural groups.

Ah but what if they wont' give it up without a fight?

Also, are you for the mass murder of econonmic groups?


Quite so, but your original question referred to Jewish wealth, not Jewish lives. And very few Jews were murdered by disemboweling...if any at all. So your choice of words was poor.

1st thing-stop trying to differentiate between Jewish Wealth and Jewish Lives, as the People's right to take them are based on the same concept-YOUR CONCEPT.

2nd thing- The term was fine, its purpose was to evoke a concept of a brutal killing--not as a historic depiction of the nature of the killing. Frankly, this is a spurious arguement.

[redstar2000]

No. Because it has a limited audience to whom it can apply. Namely the ones trying to deprive me of it.

I takes this to mean that you will kill anyone who tries to deprive you of your property...from individual thief to the "Global Soviet of Workers' Deputies" or any number in between.

This, I believe fulfills the definition of "moral blank check"...the actual number of those you are willing to kill can be filled in later as required.

My "moral blank check" has limitations parallel to yours; those who resist by violence the demands of proletarian revolution may (though not must) be executed.

It's called class struggle.


What's the difference to you?

As I'm sure you've grasped, it's precisely the same as yours...simply that I'm on the side of "needs" and you are on the side of "rights"--"property rights" to be specific.


Guilty of what?

Guilty of having the same view of rights and needs as English aristocrats of the 17th and 18th centuries. Poor people were hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. Why? Because if you let them "get away" with that, they'll "steal all our wealth"!

That's the "logic" of property.


Also, are you for the mass murder of economic groups?

As in "liquidation of the Kulaks as a class"? :lol:

No, I can't see that murdering large numbers of people is a very effective way of managing the transition from capitalism to communism.

Of course, the word "large" is a matter of subjective interpretation. One person's "large" is another person's "trivial".

And there are always "off-setting" factors to be considered. If X number of people are killed in consequence of proletarian revolution, how does that compare to Y--the number of people who were not killed because several on-going imperialist wars/occupations were terminated?


1st thing-stop trying to differentiate between Jewish Wealth and Jewish Lives, as the People's right to take them are based on the same concept-YOUR CONCEPT.

I don't see how you can say this when I explicitly made the point that it was not "my concept". I have never said that "the People" have the "right" to do "any damn thing they please".

And it was not "the People" who murdered the Jews; the holocaust did not take place as a consequence of a referendum.


2nd thing- The term was fine, its purpose was to evoke a concept of a brutal killing--not as a historic depiction of the nature of the killing.

Well, that's wrong too. Although the Nazi party was rich in sadists, the true horror of the holocaust was precisely the lack of sadistic brutality...the cold and methodical "industrial murder" of the Jews in "death factories".

Nazi murder was, in fact, very much like the American murder of Hiroshima, etc. Just a bunch of guys "doing their jobs", going home after "a hard day's work" to their wives and kiddies, playing with the family dog, etc.

Hiroshima was much more efficient, of course. The Nazis would have admired that.

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

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

[Bolshevika]

I think the situation certainly depends. When the slogan "Liquidate the kulaks as a class" was popular amongst the people of the USSR, it did not necessarily mean killing them, although there were situations where it was necessary.

It meant destroying their class, not the people of this class, IE, giving the rich landlords roles as common peasantry. Some resisted, those were the ones who were sent to the work camps, fled to the U.S., were executed, were beat up by collective farmers, etc.

[A Pict]

I takes this to mean that you will kill anyone who tries to deprive you of your property...from individual thief to the "Global Soviet of Workers' Deputies" or any number in between.

This, I believe fulfills the definition of "moral blank check"...the actual number of those you are willing to kill can be filled in later as required.

My "moral blank check" has limitations parallel to yours; those who resist by violence the demands of proletarian revolution may (though not must) be executed.

It's called class struggle.

I see. So if a burglur breaks into your house, he is on acceptable moral grounds then to procede to shoot you?



What you neglect is consent, again. They CONSENTED to invade your house. The altruists don't want or ask for consent.


Its called a moral blank check for your morality.



Guilty of having the same view of rights and needs as English aristocrats of the 17th and 18th centuries

Although this is easily disputable, i am curious- What difference does this make to my arguement?



I don't see how you can say this when I explicitly made the point that it was not "my concept". I have never said that "the People" have the "right" to do "any damn thing they please".

And it was not "the People" who murdered the Jews; the holocaust did not take place as a consequence of a referendum.

They do, according to you, if they *need* it.

So... if it was run by a referendum, then the holocaust would be okay? I wonder if you would also like lynchings.





Nazi murder was, in fact, very much like the American murder of Hiroshima, etc. Just a bunch of guys "doing their jobs", going home after "a hard day's work" to their wives and kiddies, playing with the family dog, etc.

Hiroshima was much more efficient, of course. The Nazis would have admired that.


Disputable. But why bother, as it is irrelevent to our discussion. (Also, so you know the term; Red Herring).

[Chewillneverdie]

oh and as much as i hate to say it, Austin was a threat, maybe not to us, but them lol he organized protests that turned violent, read about the shields and using guns on pigs and whatnot. Good site all in all tho. A Pict, Buddha told people he was not a god or a spiritual being, have you even read any of his teachings? you dick