The Religion Problem

[Ace High]

I'll cut right to the chase. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are incredibly overlooked when we try to pick out the obstacles of achieving true international peace and equality for human beings. We are just too naive these days about the dangers of these three religions.

Now, this is not to say that people who belong to these religions are bad people. I have friends from all three of these religions who are the nicest and most tolerant people they can be, no hate in their minds at all. These are the moderates, the people who subconsciously know that these religious texts are dangerous. However, they will never admit it because it is their culture, and it is nearly impossible to get someone to believe something contrary to what they have always been taught. These are not the ones to worry about. Moderates are normal mentally healthy people. What we must worry about are the ever-growing number of extremists. And the Torah, the Bible, and the Qua-ran all contain potentially dangerous words.

Now let's talk about the oldest of the three first, Judaism. If it weren't for Judaism, there would be no Christianity or Islam. Now, Judaism is the only religion that can be traced through a specific ethnic group. Muslims and Christians can generally be anyone, but Jewish people can generally trace their heritage back to the original twelve tribes of Israel. This is where the situation gets sticky because we can NOT criticize Jews based on their ethnicity. Racism and racial profiling can never ever be tolerated. However, we have to also recognize the dangers of Zionism and the current apartheid in Israel. Currently, the Palestinian people are suffering a genocide at the hands of Mossad, and the United States is helping with this Arab genocide because of the white supremacist Christian-Zionist team the West seems to have formed. While the Torah does not call for the specific extinction of these Arab families, it DOES state that Israel belongs to the Jews, and THAT is the problem. All they need is that one book to justify their genocide.

Now, to Christianity. In the United States, evangelical Christianity is the most threatening ideology. Evangelical Christians cannot seem to refrain from preaching racist, homophobic, misogynistic messages. In fact, Christianity is a profit machine, as you all know. Churches get a tax exemption while TV preachers with gold rings ask us for more money in the name of Jesus. Jesus always seems to need money, doesn't he? But, comparing the influence of Christian extremism in the United States to Africa almost makes us feel lucky here in the good old USA. In Africa, Christianity has so ravaged the continent that there is still frequent witch burning, killing of homosexuals and albinos, exorcisms, child slavery, child soldiers, stoning "adulterers" to death, and raping virgin women. All from perversions of the Bible. Although, the Bible does call for genocide, slavery, and racism, so I guess it was interpreted correctly, unfortunately.

And now we move to Islam. The so-called religion of peace. Yet, it seems that Muslims are some of the most intolerant and hateful people. Islamic militants have compounds throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, specifically in places such as the Philippines and Indonesia. In fact, it is illegal to be gay in Indonesia because of Islam. Then of course, I can point out the obvious Islamic threats such as the Taliban and the corrupt Sharia law forced on millions of Asian and African people. It is unfortunate that in Syria, the people rebelling against Assad's corrupt government are even worse than Assad! The rebels are Muslim militants who do such grotesque and sociopathic actions as ripping out the heart of their victims and eating it. And last time I checked, women were people too, and they should never have to wear the horror that is a bur-qua.

My point here, friends, is NOT to imply that people who belong to these religions are evil. I am merely pointing out that these religious texts have driven people to commit these horrendous crimes against humanity. Small percentages of those within these religions, yes. But nonetheless we have to educate people and discredit these religions as much as possible if we want the extremists to eventually disappear. We have to stop making excuses for them. Jesus himself said that he came to bring the sword, not peace. Mohammed raped a nine year old girl. Abraham nearly murdered his son without a second thought. And these are the men that these religions admire. Now THAT is the problem.

So. Any ideas on how to deal with the religion issue and to educate people?

[Sentinel]

Moved to the appropriate subforum.

[Brutus]

Repressing religion won't end it- it'll just go underground. Maybe educate children at school and teach them to think for themselves.

[The Feral Underclass]

League of Militant Atheists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists)

[Remus Bleys]

These are the moderates, the people who subconsciously know that these religious texts are dangerous. Too bad the subconscious isn't real.

However, they will never admit it because it is their culture, and it is nearly impossible to get someone to believe something contrary to what they have always been taught. These are not the ones to worry about. Moderates are normal mentally healthy people. Most people are moderates. You alienate them when you talk like this. You even admit it is because of culture. So what? Let people have their culture. Surely the class revolution is more important than atheism? Even when the moderates aren't actually hurting anyone?
Wait, what about the Christians that are pro-gay rights?

What we must worry about are the ever-growing number of extremists. And the Torah, the Bible, and the Qua-ran all contain potentially dangerous words. "potentially dangerous" Now you are destroying things because they might be a threat? And do you seriously believe that these things wouldn't have happened if it weren't for religion? Do you think these are not class derived? If so, what kind of a socialist are you? These people would find new justifications in a heart beat.

However, we have to also recognize the dangers of Zionism and the current apartheid in Israel. Currently, the Palestinian people are suffering a genocide at the hands of Mossad, and the United States is helping with this Arab genocide because of the white supremacist Christian-Zionist team the West seems to have formed. While the Torah does not call for the specific extinction of these Arab families, it DOES state that Israel belongs to the Jews, and THAT is the problem. All they need is that one book to justify their genocide. If anyone had actually bothered to read the torah, they would now how

In the United States, evangelical Christianity is the most threatening ideology. Thats the worst problem facing America? Really? The America must be doing fabulous right now.

Evangelical Christians cannot seem to refrain from preaching racist, homophobic, misogynistic messages. This is true, but how many people really listen to these nuts?

In fact, Christianity is a profit machine, as you all know. Churches get a tax exemption while TV preachers with gold rings ask us for more money in the name of Jesus. Jesus always seems to need money, doesn't he? Hmm, okay, it was all selfishness that every church in my area provides homeless shelters, refugee day care, GED classes, and helping people unionize? That was them being petty bourgeoisie?

But, comparing the influence of Christian extremism in the United States to Africa almost makes us feel lucky here in the good old USA. In Africa, Christianity has so ravaged the continent that there is still frequent witch burning, killing of homosexuals and albinos, exorcisms, child slavery, child soldiers, stoning "adulterers" to death, and raping virgin women. Because that didn't happen before Christianity? Really? Oh wow.

Really All from perversions of the Bible. Although, the Bible does call for genocide, slavery, and racism, so I guess it was interpreted correctly, unfortunately. The Old Testament is an ethnic history. Show me in the New one where it calls for genocide, slavery and racism. Go on. I'll show you thousands of NT sources that actually agree with your politics. Oh but the crazy fundamentalists interpreted something this way! Okay Christopher Hitchens :rolleyes:


And now we move to Islam. The so-called religion of peace. Yet, it seems that Muslims are some of the most intolerant and hateful people. :laugh: The irony in that is hysterical. The muslims I met are the nicest most tolerant people I have met. When they found out I was gay, did they stone me? Nope, they treated me like a normal person, all they expect is the same thing.

In fact, it is illegal to be gay in Indonesia because of Islam. That might be true, but it certainly isn't the be all end all. Remember comrade, at a certain point in the USSR it was illegal to be gay. (Actually, I just looked it up. It's only illegal for muslims in the Aceh province)

Then of course, I can point out the obvious Islamic threats such as the Taliban and the corrupt Sharia law forced on millions of Asian and African people Again, do you believe that that is not a class issue? Guess what, most muslims hate the Taliban.

It is unfortunate that in Syria, the people rebelling against Assad's corrupt government are even worse than Assad! The rebels are Muslim militants who do such grotesque and sociopathic actions as ripping out the heart of their victims and eating it. And last time I checked, women were people too, and they should never have to wear the horror that is a bur-qua. This is true too, but by ascribing these horrible acts to all muslims makes a significant portion of the population hate you, and for good reasons, you elitist stereotyping islamophobe. Assad's a muslim, too, and his regime isn't doing those things.


My point here, friends, is NOT to imply that people who belong to these religions are evil. That may have been your intention, but that certainly isn't what you wrote.

I am merely pointing out that these religious texts have driven people to commit these horrendous crimes against humanity. Again, are you really so naive to ascribe this to religion and not to class?

Small percentages of those within these religions, yes. So, religion really can't be the cause. That's illogical. If everyone believes in something, but only a small percentage commit murder, does that mean that it was the thought that drove them to commit murder? No, because then everyone would commit murder.

But nonetheless we have to educate people and discredit these religions as much as possible if we want the extremists to eventually disappear. A couple people used socialism to justify throwing bombs at schools. Pol Pot committed genocide in the name of socialism. Does that mean socialism is therefore genocidal and should be eradicated as it is potentially dangerous? Of course not, don't be absurd.

We have to stop making excuses for them. Again, do you even understand the correlation between US involvement in the Middle East and supposed "islam based terror?" Do you even understand the role of class when it comes to terrorism? If you did, you certainly would be smart enough not to go "Its religion's fault, eradicate religion and it all goes away"Which justifies the US involvement in the middle east, which causes more terror. What do you not get about that?!?

Jesus himself said that he came to bring the sword, not peace. Boy, this Jesus guy seems like a radical revolutionary more and more. Don't you think we could, instead of getting people to give up a part of their cultural heritage, we could use that against the Bourgeoisie? Or are you too much of an ideological purist for that thought to enter your mind?

Mohammed raped a nine year old girl. Hate to be that guy, but I believe that given the time period, there was nothing especially weird about this.


Abraham nearly murdered his son without a second thought. Highly doubt Abraham was even real, OT, no one believes that shit. Its a metaphor for the Messiah sacrificing himself for the world, for the cause. Which is something all socialists should be prepared to do.

And these are the men that these religions admire. Now THAT is the problem. People also admire Buddha (you're being ethnocentric here), Moses (the liberator) and the early Christians (who lived in a communist setting). Why don't you stop interpretting the Bible like some insane person would and interpret it the way the moderate would, it is rather left wing and at times down right communist (they owned no private property). Or are you too much of a Hitchens wannnabe to have a revolution that appeals to the common (religious) person?


So. Any ideas on how to deal with the religion issue and to educate people? Stop being a pretentious dick, maybe.

[Bostana]

Militant Atheism is just as bad as organized religion

[Remus Bleys]

Militant Atheism is just as bad as organized religion Never got the argument that organized religion is bad. Fundamentalists are bad, but never saw why going to church with others of your faith was bad.

[3dward]

Maybe the problem is that we don´t fully understand what religion is (I don´t). Is more than just a system of beliefs, or a culture or even a cosmological view. I think that all this definitions are right, but at the same time they miss some point or another.
I think that the problem with the extremist it has to do more with the psychology than with people´s religion. Actually, there are fanatical atheists, which really hate religion. This is the problem with the extremist, their hate. When people get into this mental state they can find a justification for their action in anything.
By the way the definition of religion deserves a new thread. I´ll start one right now.

[connoros]

Religious texts and teachings are only very rarely the prime cause of the violence done in their name. It is not so much that religions produce cultures that nurture atrocity that cultures produce religions that reflect this atrocity. To assign blame to religion in general for being an impediment to world peace is to mistake the symptom for the disease. This isn't to say, though, that there is no value in fighting disease by treating symptom. Hoxha is infamous for having effectively banned religion in Albania, and I see his reasoning behind doing so as analogous to the reasoning behind banning the symbols of violent gang culture. Today, one in four Albanian deaths is attributable to a religious honor killing, and, while there are plenty of Muslims and Christians in the world who do not kill people, violence perpetrated in a religious context is and has been a problem in Albania. Hoxha's banning of religion was effective in minimizing casualties, but I must stress this is not because religion itself is the primary cause of this kind of violence. It is a catalyst for violent attitudes fomented by a culture that marginalizes the rights and dignity of the vast majority of people. Albania's predicament regarding religion called for its absolute suppression, which saved lives in a clear, demonstrable way, but it wasn't the only factor. In Albania, there was no ruling bourgeoisie to benefit from religious turmoil, meaning the underlying, historical cause of religious turmoil was resolved. It may be that suppressing religion in the chaotic Middle East may benefit the exploited peoples of the region, but it wouldn't resolve the problem of bourgeois benefit from religion.

Religion would not have developed unless it benefitted somebody somehow, at some point. Vestigial though it may seem to be in an era of an ever-expanding compendium of human knowledge, many people take comfort in religion and find guidance in it when they use its trappings to articulate the wisdom that is inherent in human beings. You'll find that I, even as a very staunch atheist, tend to dip into Christian language to articulate ideas that acknowledge, in poetic ways, the truths of human experience. I do not accept collective powerlessness with regards to how society works, but in using language that faithful Christians do, language that can act as a catalyst for dominance and exploitation, I acknowledge that over which I do not have power and take peace in letting go. This has the added benefit of identifying that over which I do have power, which makes it a much less daunting task to be assertive. Religion persists among the exploited as a consequence both of bourgeois interest and a common need to make concrete that which is universal to human experience in an understandable way. This isn't to say religion hasn't become vestigial or that it's the most effective way of making the nuanced complexity of the universe understandable.

[The Feral Underclass]

Militant Atheism is just as bad as organized religion

Is there a reason for this?

[Bostana]

Is there a reason for this?

I assume you're asking why militant Atheism can be just as bad?
Well, think about it. If forcing religion is bad, then so is forcing atheism.


Never got the argument that organized religion is bad. Fundamentalists are bad, but never saw why going to church with others of your faith was bad.

Of course, if communism is achieved, than various spiritual beliefs will still exist. No doubt. People will still go to church, pray, etc. But when I say organized religion, I'm referring to church hierarchies such as cardinals, the Pope, etc.

[connoros]

If forcing religion is bad, then so is forcing atheism.

That doesn't really follow. You're saying that if forcing religion is bad, then forcing atheism is just as bad. But I think what people are wondering is whether forcing religion is just as bad as forcing atheism. Again, consider the example of Hoxha's Albania: religiously motivated killings were suppressed through the banning of religion and the removal of bourgeois benefit from religious turmoil.

[The Feral Underclass]

I assume you're asking why militant Atheism can be just as bad?
Well, think about it. If forcing religion is bad, then so is forcing atheism.

But what does "forcing" atheism mean? What does that look like?

[Remus Bleys]

Of course, if communism is achieved, than various spiritual beliefs will still exist. No doubt. People will still go to church, pray, etc. But when I say organized religion, I'm referring to church hierarchies such as cardinals, the Pope, etc. Still don't get why thats necessarily a bad thing. In its current manifestation, but having a connecting force across the world, still don't see why that is *always* a bad thing.

[Bostana]

But what does "forcing" atheism mean? What does that look like?
Well, you force people to give up their religion. It seemed pretty straight foward, what I said

[Remus Bleys]

Also, something interesting everyone ITT should read.http://www.davidmyers.org/davidmyers/assets/SpiritualityCommunities_10e.pdf “Spirtuality and Health
More than a thousand studies have examined the relationship between health and healing. From those studies, a curious correlation, called the faith factor (italics), has emerged: Religiously active people tend to live longer than those who are not religiously active. For example, one 16-year study (Kark et al., 1996) compared the death rates for 3900 Israelis either in one of 11 religiously orthodox or in one of 11 matched, nonreligious collective settlements (kibbutz communities). The researchers reported that "belonging to a religious collective was associated with the strong protective effect" not explained by age or economic differences. In every age group, religious community members were about half as likely to have died as were their nonreligious counterparts. This is roughly comparable to the gender differences in mortality
Richard Sloan and his skeptical colleagues (1999, 200, 2002, 2005) remind us that mere correlations can leave many factors uncontrolled. Consider one obvious possibility for such findings: Women are more religiously active than men, and women outlive men. Perhaps religious involvement is merely an expression of the gender effect on longevity.
The correlation between religious involvement and life expectancy is stronger among women. One 8-year study by the National Institutes of Health, for example, followed 92,395 women, ages 50 to 79. Even after controlling for many factors, women attending religious services weekly (or more often) experienced an approximate 20 percent reduced risk of death during the study period (Schnall et al., 2010). But the correlation also appears among men alone (McCullough et al., 200, 2005). A 28-year study that followed 5286 Californians, controlling for age, gender, ethnicity and education, found that frequent religious attenders were 36 percent less likely to have died in any year (oman et al., 2002; Strawbridge et al., 1997, 1999). As a predictor of lowered risk of death, regular religious attendance rivaled the effects of nonsmoking and regular exercise.
After controlling for age, sex, race, and region, a U.S. National Health Interview Survey (of 21,204 people over 8 years) found that nonattenders were 1.87 times more likely to have died than were those attending more than weekly (Hummer, et al., 1999). This translated into a life expectancy at age 20 of 83 years for frequent attenders and 75 years for infrequent attender. These findings do not indicate that non attenders who start attending services and change nothing else will live 8 years longer. But they do indicate that religious involvement is a predictor (italics_ of health and longevity.
Such findings demand explanation. Can you imagine what intervening variables might account for the correlation?
First, religiously active people tend to have healthier lifestyles; for example, they smoke and drink less (Lyons, 2002; Park, 2007; Strawbridge et al., 2001). Health-oriented, vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists have a longer-than-usual life expectancy (Berkel & d Waard, 1983). Religiously orthodox Israelis eat less fat than do their nonreligious compatriots. But these differences are not great enough to explain the dramatically reduced mortality that was found in studies that controlled for unhealthy behaviors such as inactvity and smoking (Musick et al., 1999).
Could social support help explain the faith factor (Ai et al., 2007; George et al., 2002)? For Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, faith is not solo spirituality but a communal experience, providing support networks for their active participants - people who are there for one another when misfortune strikes. Moreover, religion encourages another predictor of health and longevity - marriage. In the religious kibbutzim, for example, divorce has been almost nonexistent.
Even after controlling for social ties, gender, unhealthy behaviors, and preexisting health problems, however, researchers find much of the mortality reduction remains (George et al., 2000; Powell et al., 2003). They therefore speculate that a third set of intervening variables is the stress protection and enhanced well-being associated a coherent worldview, a sense of hope for the long-term future. feelings of ultimate acceptance, and the relaxed meditation of prayer or Sabbath observance. These variables might also help to explain other recent findings among the religiously active, such as healthier immune functioning, fewer hospital admissions, and, fo AIDS patienets, fewer stress hormones and longer survival (Ironson et al., 2002; Koenig & Larson, 1998; Lutgendorf et al., 2004)."

[Zukunftsmusik]

Never got the argument that organized religion is bad. Fundamentalists are bad, but never saw why going to church with others of your faith was bad.

Going to church isn't the problem, the church as an institution is

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, you force people to give up their religion. It seemed pretty straight foward, what I said

How can you force someone to stop having thoughts?

[The Feral Underclass]

Going to church isn't the problem, the church as an institution is

You don't think that people worshipping an imaginary entity and conforming their behaviours and morals to a set of codes based on mysticism, anti-intellectualism and things that aren't real, isn't a problem?

[Remus Bleys]

How can you force someone to stop having thoughts?
The same way you force thoughts on them.

[Remus Bleys]

Going to church isn't the problem, the church as an institution is
Why? That is pretty much what I am getting at her. Why is it, in every case, a bad thing?

[Ace High]

Thank you for your posts!

I know I probably seem like a hateful person, spewing off reasons why religious extremism is bad, when the majority of people following these religions are good people. But I don't think you get my point. I am aware that religion is a symptom, not a cause.

But remember that these three religions are USED by the elite to subjugate and oppress us. Christianity was used by the Roman elites as a method for control, Jesus became the new Zeus. Rome started the precedent for the elites to not only oppress the proletariat via Christianity but to continue using Christianity as a tool to oppress the lower socioeconomic classes. So I AM aware that it is not a disease in of itself.

BUT some of you still are making excuses. It doesn't matter that most Christians are perfectly fine with say, gay people. However, the Bible says that being gay is an abomination. Those words right there influenced alot of hateful people to do what they do, all because the Bible is held in such high regard.

Look, I respect peoples' culture. Hell, you'll find me defending Muslims on a daily basis from people demonizing them, brainwashed by the Western media. I don't view Islam as a threat in the West, but I DO view it as a threat in the East. Christianity is a threat in Africa and specific parts of the United States. Judaism is a threat only in the Palestinian territory. So I hope you understand that I am NOT a hate monger just bashing religious people. I am saying that we seem to be too afraid to actually discuss religion being a major problem in some areas without people taking offense. Nobody should be offended when I say a fact such as religion is causing major conflict in the world in some specific places. What is controversial or wrong about that statement? Even if class struggle is obviously also involved to get it to where it got today.

[The Feral Underclass]

The same way you force thoughts on them.

That doesn't make sense. So you're saying that you are opposed to community policies that undermine religious ideas?

[Remus Bleys]

That doesn't make sense. So you're saying that you are opposed to community policies that undermine religious ideas? Of course. Look at my tendency.
NOTE: I am all for a secular state. As long as it leaves religion alone.

[Luís Henrique]

Militant Atheism is just as bad as organized religion

Militant Atheism is an organized religion.

Luís Henrique

[connoros]

Militant Atheism is an organized religion.

Luís Henrique

Is it? What are its texts and doctrines and rituals and hierarchy?

[3dward]

Forcing someone to be an atheist is as bad as forcing someone to become a religious person because is a form of oppression. This kind of forced conversion generally implies some sort of punishment if u don´t do it, or at least condemns the reluctant to social ostracism.

Connoros put the example of Albania. I can put the example of Cuba, when religious people were prosecuted during the late sixties and the seventies. Many of them were sent to forced labour camps and expelled from their works and universities. The alleged justification was some priests were involved in subversive activity (which was true). The attack on some religious individuals became the attack on an entire group of persons.
The Albania example is similar. Yes, the rate of religion motivated crimes could be low after the ban, but I think wasn´t the answer.

[The Feral Underclass]

Of course. Look at my tendency.
NOTE: I am all for a secular state. As long as it leaves religion alone.

So you think people worshipping an imaginary entity and conforming their behaviours and morals to a set of codes based on mysticism, anti-intellectualism and things that aren't real, isn't a problem?

[Remus Bleys]

Nobody should be offended when I say a fact such as religion is causing major conflict in the world in some specific places. What is controversial or wrong about that statement? Even if class struggle is obviously also involved to get it to where it got today. Except its purely class struggle.

And your bit on the gay=abomination. Thats cuz the OT sucks. But it is also important to remember, not that much jews take it seriously either. If a religion isn't causing any real harm (except for the Holy Book saying some weird shit, and it can be changed) then it isn't this. The shiite/sunni divide is like 5% religious at most.
Judaism is not a proper justification for Zionism, Judaism prevents the return to Israel.

You need to understand that most people today take what their conscious says and apply it to what they believe. The base is the Bible, but they chose to "cherrypick" because most religions (except when class struggle is really high) are fairly liberal about changing what you think and deviating from the dogma on *most* issues.

As for the control? Atheism is one the rise, yet we are more controlled than ever. Go figure.

[The Feral Underclass]

Militant Atheism is an organized religion.

Luís Henrique

I don't think you understand what the word "religion" means.

[Remus Bleys]

So you think people worshipping an imaginary entity and conforming their behaviours and morals to a set of codes based on mysticism, anti-intellectualism and things that aren't real, isn't a problem?
Thats a loaded question.
There is no proof one way or another if there is a god/gods/goddess/combo. If that entity doesn't exist, then so what? It was all pointless anyway. If that entity does, more power to you.

As for the behavior and morals, taking the atheist standpoint, isnt that just a reflection of the culture that would exist without religion, as religion was instituted to further legitimize those morals?

Mysticism works great for many people. You don't like it, so what?

A Catholic Priest came up with the big bang, Gregor Mendel was a monk, so no, not anti-intellectual.

Again, the "isn't real" is completely subjective.

[Ace High]

Except its purely class struggle.

And your bit on the gay=abomination. Thats cuz the OT sucks. But it is also important to remember, not that much jews take it seriously either. If a religion isn't causing any real harm (except for the Holy Book saying some weird shit, and it can be changed) then it isn't this. The shiite/sunni divide is like 5% religious at most.
Judaism is not a proper justification for Zionism, Judaism prevents the return to Israel.

You need to understand that most people today take what their conscious says and apply it to what they believe. The base is the Bible, but they chose to "cherrypick" because most religions (except when class struggle is really high) are fairly liberal about changing what you think and deviating from the dogma on *most* issues.

As for the control? Atheism is one the rise, yet we are more controlled than ever. Go figure.

Yes, you are right, it IS purely class struggle. But that isn't my point. Class struggle, as we know, is the root cause of every conflict. Crime, poverty, war. Hell, the Romans came up with the new Testament soley to create a new state religion as a tool of oppression for the aristocratic families (such as the Pisos) to control the masses. So of course it is class struggle.

But does that mean we cannot do such things as calling for the dissolution of Israel to replace it with a secular socialist government? And possibly have a flag without a star of david on it? Does that mean we cannot hold protests in the United States whenever a corrupt evangelical such as Pat Robertson or Creflo Dollar try to scam people? Should we not attempt to ban parent-led homeschooling and religious schools to avoid religious indoctrination in children? Should we not encourage people in the Muslim world to overthrow their Sharia governments?

THAT is what I am getting at. We are not doing enough to address religious influence, whether or not class struggle brought it about. People may commit murders because of class struggle, yet we cannot live in a society where murder goes unpunished, correct?

[connoros]

Thats a loaded question.
There is no proof one way or another if there is a god/gods/goddess/combo. If that entity doesn't exist, then so what? It was all pointless anyway. If that entity does, more power to you.

I don't think the "there's no evidence one way or another" argument really holds any water. It's not really logical to believe something just because there's no evidence against it if there's also no evidence for it. For example, there's no way you can conclusively prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, because that's demanding positive evidence for a negative claim. That doesn't mean it's at all logical to go around asserting that this makes the position that Nessie is real is at least as valid as the position that she isn't, because it isn't. Positive claims require positive evidence. And since there is no evidence for the existence of a god, then there is no evidence that, should a god exist, it is a benevolent god that rewards believers. We have as much evidence that any god that could exist could be malicious in that he punishes believers and rewards the skeptical as we do that there is a god that rewards the faithful. Pascal's Wager doesn't hold water for that reason. There is no merit in believing in something sans evidentiary support just because the belief is supposed to offer eternal happiness after death.

[Remus Bleys]

I don't think the "there's no evidence one way or another" argument really holds any water. It's not really logical to believe something just because there's no evidence against it if there's also no evidence for it. For example, there's no way you can conclusively prove the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist, because that's demanding positive evidence for a negative claim. That doesn't mean it's at all logical to go around asserting that this makes the position that Nessie is real is at least as valid as the position that she isn't, because it isn't. Positive claims require positive evidence. And since there is no evidence for the existence of a god, then there is no evidence that, should a god exist, it is a benevolent god that rewards believers. We have as much evidence that any god that could exist could be malicious in that he punishes believers and rewards the skeptical as we do that there is a god that rewards the faithful. Pascal's Wager doesn't hold water for that reason. There is no merit in believing in something sans evidentiary support just because the belief is supposed to offer eternal happiness after death.

How bought the fact it makes you live longer even for factoring race, class, and sex?
http://www.davidmyers.org/davidmyers/assets/SpiritualityCommunities_10e.pdf

And this is going to sound ridiculous to anti-theists, but some people genuinely believe they feel the presence of God. What's the harm in that?

[The Feral Underclass]

Thats a loaded question. There is no proof one way or another if there is a god/gods/goddess/combo.

Then why do you believe that there is some entity?


If that entity doesn't exist, then so what? It was all pointless anyway. If that entity does, more power to you.

It's not pointless. Belief in imaginary entities and conforming to certain mystical codes promotes an anti-materialist and anti-intellectual attitude. This is not something that we should be encouraging and it is not something can have a positive affect on building a rational and self-aware society.


As for the behavior and morals, taking the atheist standpoint, isnt that just a reflection of the culture that would exist without religion, as religion was instituted to further legitimize those morals?

[quote]Mysticism works great for many people. You don't like it, so what?

Well, what does "works great" mean? If you mean it keeps people deluded and in bad faith then I would agree, but then again so does being drunk or on drugs all the time.


A Catholic Priest came up with the big bang, Gregor Mendel was a monk, so no, not anti-intellectual.

That's quite tenuous. The big bang theory was the culmination of various people's work. Just because some religious people are intelligent, doesn't make their views anti-intellectual. For the large part, the belief in god and mystical codes and views cuts people off from other ideas, specifically materialist ones -- views that mean people understand the nature of class society.


Again, the "isn't real" is completely subjective.

But reality isn't subjective.

[connoros]

How bought the fact it makes you live longer even for factoring race, class, and sex?
http://www.davidmyers.org/davidmyers/assets/SpiritualityCommunities_10e.pdf

That's a myth, and I likewise have a PDF:
www.paulnussbaum.com/MHR_0611.pdf (http://www.paulnussbaum.com/MHR_0611.pdf)


And this is going to sound ridiculous to anti-theists, but some people genuinely believe they feel the presence of God. What's the harm in that?

Because once you start convincing yourself that what you "feel" is valid in the same way actual empirical experience is, then you've given yourself free rein to justify pretty much anything, as long as you say you knew in your heart it was the right thing. This can include child abuse, bombing abortion clinics, flying planes into towers, using your position of religious authority to sexually exploit people, etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

And this is going to sound ridiculous to anti-theists, but some people genuinely believe they feel the presence of God. What's the harm in that?

Because it isn't real. If you presented to a hospital telling them that you "felt the presence of god," how do you think they would react?

A man once told me that he had a vision of god coming to talk to him. Do you know what sensory hallucinations and delusions are a symptom of: Schizophrenia.

[Remus Bleys]

That's a myth, and I likewise have a PDF:
www.paulnussbaum.com/MHR_0611.pdf (http://www.paulnussbaum.com/MHR_0611.pdf) Mine came out of a textbook. Did yours? (I am not trying to sound aggressive here)

And even then:
Religious Services Extend Life
The Longevity Project did not examine the
impact of prayer or faith itself, but it did track how
often people attended religious services — and
found little correlation between the number or
frequency of services attended and length of life.
However, the research did find that people who
were religious lived longer.
“What was driving that benefit was the
social engagement,” Martin says. This included
participation in activities that related directly to
being a member of a religious congregation and,
indirectly, greater participation in other community
activities.
Statistically, the life-extending benefits of
participation in religion accrued in two ways:
1.
Through greater involvement in church
projects, which built social ties
2.
To an even greater degree, through
contributing to outreach programs such as
feeding the hungry, providing opportunities
for underprivileged children, or assisting
people who are ill Whats the problem with that?


Because once you start convincing yourself that what you "feel" is valid in the same way actual empirical experience is, then you've given yourself free rein to justify pretty much anything, as long as you say you knew in your heart it was the right thing. This can include child abuse, bombing abortion clinics, flying planes into towers, using your position of religious authority to sexually exploit people, etc. Thats a total slippery slope argument, and while it does occur, it certainly isn't widespread enough to say they are the natural outcomes of religious is meaningless. Those are all class and power issues.

Its also important to understand that many religious people see the world as two ways: The supernatural (which is the afterlife, cannot be explained) and the now (which is science). Whats wrong with a view like that?
There are plenty of religious people who do not think God intervenes anymore. Even if its wrong, does it really hurt things? Oh no! A group of people getting together talking about an imaginary (assuming you're right) being for an hour a weak; but still differentiate between the material world which is studied scientifically and with empirical evidence! What ever shall society do?

[connoros]

Mine came out of a textbook. Did yours? (I am not trying to sound aggressive here)

I don't know whether it came from a textbook, but Nussbaum is a neuropsychologist.


And even then: Whats the problem with that?

Because social ties can be made in more effective ways, ways that don't rely on magic and commandments.


Thats a total slippery slope argument, and while it does occur, it certainly isn't widespread enough to say they are the natural outcomes of religious is meaningless. Those are all class and power issues.

And yet religion acts as a catalyst.


Its also important to understand that many religious people see the world as two ways: The supernatural (which is the afterlife, cannot be explained) and the now (which is science). Whats wrong with a view like that?

Because they don't separate the two into vacuums in which one can't influence the other.


There are plenty of religious people who do not think God intervenes anymore. Even if its wrong, does it really hurt things? Oh no! A group of people getting together talking about an imaginary (assuming you're right) being for an hour a weak; but still differentiate between the material world which is studied scientifically and with empirical evidence! What ever shall society do?

Well, no, they don't. That's the whole point of religion: that the metaphysical world influences and, in fact, determines material reality. You can't be any kind of scientific socialist with that kind of worldview.

[Remus Bleys]

ITT Anti-theists telling religious people how they view the world.
Oh yeah, I know a guy in which mysticism (the monastic order) saved his life.
But whatever, go on feeling superior with your astute ultra materialist "anyone with a religion is stupid" attitude.

I'm out.

[connoros]

ITT Anti-theists telling religious people how they view the world.
Oh yeah, I know a guy in which mysticism (the monastic order) saved his life.
But whatever, go on feeling superior with your astute ultra materialist "anyone with a religion is stupid" attitude.

I'm out.

That's one way to admit your position doesn't hold any water.

[Bostana]

How can you force someone to stop having thoughts?

I think you get the jist of what I meant. Just like Religion was spread by the sword.

[The Feral Underclass]

People aren't stupid for being religious. Marx is right about the reasons for religion. Religion gives people a sense of hope, a sense of clarity and of belonging. Nevertheless, religion is a delusion, much like the high of a drug or the ramblings of a schizophrenic. Just because these things might make people feel good or connected or hopeful or at one with their existence, doesn't mean it's right, both intellectually or morally.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think you get the jist of what I meant. Just like Religion was spread by the sword.

But you wouldn't have this soft attitude towards capitalism, would you?

[Remus Bleys]

Just because these things might make people feel good or connected or hopeful or at one with their existence, doesn't mean it's right, both intellectually or morally. Who are you to decide this?

[The Feral Underclass]

Who are you to decide this?

I have never been of the belief that wilfully accepting something that is untrue can be intellectually or morally right.

[ElleR]

Modern political Islam is a phoenix from the ashes of the failures of Arab nationalism(s) to adequately address the structural injustices of emergent post-colonial states. It is a strategic utopianism whose bread and butter is the ability to promise populations mired in economic and cultural decline a route to ascendancy -- in the modern period, a route first promised by anti-colonial revolutions, second promised by left nationalisms and pan-nationalisms, and third promised by authoritarian neoliberalism, with increasingly disastrous results. You can't even begin to talk about "the problem of Islam" or "militants, taliban, sharia!" without centering the conversation on 20th century political and economic material realities. No matter what salafist ideology tells you, to look at a contemporary political snapshot and demand that it be disconnected from all context other than that of a direct line to 600 A.D. is a false premise which does no one any favors. You can not formulate a response, let alone an alternative, if you can't grasp the grounds.

[Remus Bleys]

I have never been of the belief that wilfully accepting something that is untrue can be intellectually or morally right. You misinterpreted this. Who are you to suppress others religions, in a context where you gained power, because you thought religion was immoral?

[The Feral Underclass]

You misinterpreted this. Who are you to suppress others religions, in a context where you gained power, because you thought religion was immoral?

This is ironic coming from someone who is, by virtue of their views, associated with the most tyrannical, hierarchical, violent and repressive institutions on the planet.

I have no qualms with being part of suppressing any organised institution or force that seeks to subjugate, either materially or intellectually, the proletariat. Religion is part of the systemic problems within capitalist society and should be dealt with the same lack of sentimentality.

You are, of course, free to pursue whatever belief and thoughts you want, but that doesn't mean I have to stand idly by and permit the existence of institutions of such immense villainy.

[Bostana]

But you wouldn't have this soft attitude towards capitalism, would you?

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say?

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say?

I'm saying that religion is an oppressive force in society. One that purposefully keeps the proletariat subdued, ill-informed, controlled and regulated on behalf of capitalism.

Not to mention that religion, whether it's Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, are predicated on beliefs and maintained by institutions that are profoundly misogynistic, homophobic, violent, against workers' rights, anti-communist, hierarchical, collaborative with the state and ultimately wish to maintain capitalism.

And it's all fine and well to then try and divorce the eco-friendly, sandle wearing, Guardian reading, socialist choir types from this equation. At best they are an anomaly that can be politely ignored and/or belittled, and at worst they are legitimising insane ideas...

But when we talk of religion, we must be clear about what we mean and what we mean are these institutions of oppression. And let's also be clear, that when all is said and done, when the battle lines are drawn, you will find very few priests, monks, Imams, Granthis and preachers on the barricades.

As Durruti said, "the only church that illuminates is a burning one."

[The Feral Underclass]

Don Gallo (http://libcom.org/blog/death-don-gallo-communist-priest-who-fought-rights-all-23052013) is probably the only Catholic priest I would shake hands with. He knew where his priorities were.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Why? That is pretty much what I am getting at her. Why is it, in every case, a bad thing?

Because the church (and other organised religions) have a history of being oppressive and violent. Historically it's been acting as the state's ideological right hand. But there are numerous examples of "organised religion" (ie strands of christianity, islam etc that are "organised", but not instituitionalised in the sense the Catholic church - as an example - is) with egalitarian views and radical approach to social issues etc. So it's not "a bad thing in every case", if we talk about organised religion in a broad sense.

[Zukunftsmusik]

You don't think that people worshipping an imaginary entity and conforming their behaviours and morals to a set of codes based on mysticism, anti-intellectualism and things that aren't real, isn't a problem?

If people want to believe in a deity that's up to them. As long as it doesn't affect their politics, I'm fine with it. All of the Abrahamic (?) religions seem to have ethics of which segments are compatible with a communist ethics.

Institutionalised religion and its history of bigotry and oppressive and violence actions is the main problem and what we aim to abolish.

[Bostana]

I'm saying that religion is an oppressive force in society. One that purposefully keeps the proletariat subdued, ill-informed, controlled and regulated on behalf of capitalism

Ahh ok, I understand

There is no doubt that organized religion is bad. And as I said earlier is an opium. And when the actually cure for the problems of the masses is achieved (Communism) than organized religion will die out.
However there will be various spiritual beliefs, I am sure of this. But are you saying we should force Atheism?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Of course. Look at my tendency.
NOTE: I am all for a secular state. As long as it leaves religion alone.

Would you support the state if it stepped in to stop people from denying their kids life saving medical procedures or basically forcing women/children to marry a guy in a polygamist compound.

[Rural Comrade]

Of coarse he would those are what we call extremists and cultists.

[Zostrianos]

Religion is not the problem. The main problem is triumphalism and intolerance (which is at the core of organized Christianity and Islam), as well as poorly implemented secularism. Even more, theonomy, where religion becomes a set of laws to govern society - this anti-spiritual view is especially seen among Wahhabis (Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) and Christian Evangelicals (in Northeast India there are several evangelical terrorist groups operating, killing Hindus and communists, raping women, and trying to turn the region into a Christian theocracy; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#India), both of whom are naturally opposed to mysticism, and instead want to tell others how to live their lives. Saying religion as a whole is a bad thing because of these things is like saying Communism is a bad thing, because of what people like Pol Pot and Kim Il Sung did in its name.

As for the whole thing about religion being the 'opium of the masses', or a tool invented by the ruling class for control, that's beyond ludicrous. If it really were, why are so many people finding solace in spirituality? Why are so many people, who otherwise have good jobs, earn a decent living, and are free, only find happiness in religious mysticism and practices? Because religion is a good thing. It may be often perverted, and is certainly not for all, but for many people it is a good thing. Some people find solace and meaning in their lives in art, literature, scientific research etc. Others find it in religion. And the whole debate on mysticism has already been settled by science, as research on meditation has shown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation#Scientific_studies

Mystical practices do not require a belief in the supernatural. They work regardless, thanks to the wonders of the human brain. Buddhism in its original form was devoid of supernatural elements, and was merely a path to a better life.


I think you get the jist of what I meant. Just like Religion was spread by the sword.

All religion? I don't think so. Buddhism spread almost entirely without coercion throughout its classic periods. The same with Gnostic Christianity in the first centuries AD, before it was suppressed by the Catholic-Orthodox church.
As for the 'opium of the people', it's plain to see that nowadays it's consumerism, not religion.


And now we move to Islam. The so-called religion of peace.

Jainism is the real religion of peace, not Islam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism#Non-violence

[Bostana]

All religion? I don't think so. Buddhism spread almost entirely without coercion throughout its classic periods. The same with Gnostic Christianity in the first centuries AD, before it was suppressed by the Catholic-Orthodox church.

Fair enough. The majority of todays major religions were spread by the Sword

[connoros]

Buddhism wasn't spread by the sword? Have we not heard of a fellow named Asoka? And despite whether it was spread violently in its "classical" period, it ought to be well-known that Zen Buddhists in Japan during the early years of imperialism and fascist cooperation were supportive of unmitigated state violence. It is true of many Buddhists that they were supportive of several atrocious acts committed by their home nations.

[Zostrianos]

Buddhism wasn't spread by the sword? Have we not heard of a fellow named Asoka? And despite whether it was spread violently in its "classical" period, it ought to be well-known that Zen Buddhists in Japan during the early years of imperialism and fascist cooperation were supportive of unmitigated state violence. It is true of many Buddhists that they were supportive of several atrocious acts committed by their home nations.

One thing to consider is that unlike organized Christianity and Islam (where intolerance and even violence is part of religious doctrine), absolutely nothing in Buddhism justifies violence, despite the occasional occurrence. And usually when that does happen, it does so when religion gets mixed with politics and ethnicity, a very dangerous mix.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Militant Atheism is just as bad as organized religion


Is there a reason for this?


I'd say it's just as misguided as religion in its thinking about these issues. First, it usually has an idealistic approach to religion - as if religion's appeal is either conforting lies for simpletons (the militant aetheist liberal's view) or a fanciful explaintion for suffering in the world, a salve for material problems (crude marxist view).

I'd generally side with the crude Marxist view, but I think more specifically, religion has to be seen beyond the ideas... probably just as many people believe in UFOs as angels, but UFO seeking organizations have no social or political pull, so it can't just be happy-make-believe stories that sums up religion. It's also a form of social organization, grassroots networks connected to other forces. Because of this, for example, US black chruches could be sites of reistance or accomodation to jim-crow basically at the same time depending on the church and region and class composition of the members, etc.

The right-wing mega churches in the US are mostly located in large upwardly mobile suburban areas where there members are a lot of white professionals who are very educated. Why did they become popular? In the neo-liberal era, IMO it's because of atomized suburban life where most of your interactions as a white collor worker or professional are formal (and sometimes competative) interactions with co-workers, bosses, customer service people, clients, etc. So the idea of a ready-made community of thousands who are ultra-sincere and ultra-Stepford-Wife-happy and chipper is probably appealing to people in those kinds of lives. For poor people, churches are the "social safty net" - your church will help raise money for you if you are sick, it will (in theory) not judge you if you seek treatment for alcohol or other substance problems, etc.

Militant aetheism seems to treat the issue as "why are people foolish enough to believe that this imaginary guy will save them" when I think the question needs to be, what does it mean that millions of people feel like they need magical salvation and forgiveness? In a privitized world, organized religion is the only community allowed and actually encouraged by the ruling class. There are obvious problems and entanglements that come with this - not including obvious political use of religion for stratigic or ideological aims - but militant atheism (at least the militant aetheists I've come across) misses the point in my view and critiques religion on the basis of "bad ideas". Rather than abstractly attack "religion" I think it would be much more productive to focus on organizing class alternatives, class ansewers that fufil the needs that religious charity and networks take on, but in a militant way where we are not just feeding hungry people but also helping people develop resistance to the causes.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I find it very hard to believe that someone can remain a Christian after reading the bible.


I know a guy in which mysticism (the monastic order) saved his life.


I've got to hear this.

[dodger]

Originally Posted by Remus Bleys

I know a guy in which mysticism (the monastic order) saved his life.

Yes a true story by all accounts. Poor blighter was pursued by the 'Mob'. Made into a film. All ended rather well, glad to say.

Meanwhile on planet earth, I distance myself from religion as far as possible. Experience has taught me it has not impacted well. On me or others.

[Remus Bleys]

I've got to hear this.
Well, he was gonna kill himself, and then he called a priest who talked him out of it, and joined a monastic order because that is what he took from the conversation he had with the priest.

[Ace High]

I think people are getting confused. When did I ever say that it was bad to believe in a god? You can believe in Zeus for all I care. I am talking about the three religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

If you are spiritual and pray to some god, fine. More power to you, do whatever you want. My issue is the violence and oppression that has come from those religious institutions. I don't even see why Buddhism is being discussed here. Hinduism is corrupt though, but I did not include it because it is only a problem in India and does not have much of an impact on the world as a whole.

[Zostrianos]

I think people are getting confused. When did I ever say that it was bad to believe in a god? You can believe in Zeus for all I care. I am talking about the three religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.


Yes I agree that organized monotheism has been a plague on this earth for centuries, although I question the inclusion of Judaism there. Yes, Judaism was the original one, with the Old Testament and all; but for most of its history Judaism (outside of Palestine), has a nearly spotless record of tolerance and peaceful coexistence with other faiths. I think the main problem with Christianity and Islam is not the faiths themselves as a whole, but the strong influence of fundamentalists in them (especially Islamic Wahhabis and Christian Evangelicals) - most Muslims and Christians I know personally are decent people. The key is to enforce strict, uncompromising secularism in society at every level. This is working very well in Canada and western Europe, where the Church is now nearly devoid of power and is fast declining. Unfortunately I fear most of the rest of the world is lost: Islamic countries are becoming more theocratic by the day, and Christian missionaries are ravaging the third world, destroying cultures, scamming the poor, and spreading their bigoted, homophobic values wherever they go. In the west we're heading in the right direction. Even in America, Christian fundamentalism is declining.

Secularism, that is the key. When you change a society, the people in it are forced to change. The fundamentalists will be forced to live in a secular society, and while some may become more radical, in the end most will conform and become more moderate.

[Ace High]

Yes I agree that organized monotheism has been a plague on this earth for centuries, although I question the inclusion of Judaism there. Yes, Judaism was the original one, with the Old Testament and all; but for most of its history Judaism (outside of Palestine), has a nearly spotless record of tolerance and peaceful coexistence with other faiths. I think the main problem with Christianity and Islam is not the faiths themselves as a whole, but the strong influence of fundamentalists in them (especially Islamic Wahhabis and Christian Evangelicals) - most Muslims and Christians I know personally are decent people. The key is to enforce strict, uncompromising secularism in society at every level. This is working very well in Canada and western Europe, where the Church is now nearly devoid of power and is fast declining. Unfortunately I fear most of the rest of the world is lost: Islamic countries are becoming more theocratic by the day, and Christian missionaries are ravaging the third world, destroying cultures, scamming the poor, and spreading their bigoted, homophobic values wherever they go. In the west we're heading in the right direction. Even in America, Christian fundamentalism is declining.

Secularism, that is the key. When you change a society, the people in it are forced to change. The fundamentalists will be forced to live in a secular society, and while some may become more radical, in the end most will conform and become more moderate.

I wholeheartedly agree with you there. Also, the main reason I criticize Judaism is because of Zionism. But other than that you're right, Judaism is fairly harmless. However, the genocide and apartheid of the Israeli government, a theocratic state, is something to be concerned about. But at least we don't have Jewish missionaries and terrorists destroying cultures and spreading hateful messages.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Well, he was gonna kill himself, and then he called a priest who talked him out of it, and joined a monastic order because that is what he took from the conversation he had with the priest.

Sounds a bit like those missionaries in Indochina.

Don't mean to belittle your friend here, but this is a piss-poor argument for defending religion. A person could be talked out of death by anything from white supremacists to conspiracy nuts and then decide to join them. Doesn't make a set of awkward and ridiculous superstitions (in major religions such as Hinduism and the Abrahamic trio's case a repulsive right-wing political tract which was used, along with the superstitions it brought, as an excuse to commit horrendous atrocities) a lifesaver by any means. On the contrary: what happens when a real-world issue conflicts with these doctrines?

Your friend is still alive, and that's wonderful and amazing. That still doesn't mean he hasn't been doped by crackpot nonsense.

[Rafiq]

Religion as we know it is a weapon of the class enemy, it is a manifestation of their interests, another means of exerting their ideological hegemony. All of that superstitious fuckery and preposterous bullshit is just a broken remnant of feudalism which was already swept away by bourgeois rationalism. You spiritualists who call themselves revolutionaries should be ashamed. Good god what a fucking abomination of a socialist. Spiritualism is garbage, we should mind no attention to it. New age toss and this new fascination with eastern spiritualist dribble is a direct reflection of the changes brought about by neoliberalism, the new ideological legitimization of current class relations is rooted in new age or eastern spiritualism as far as religion goes. I piss on tolerance. When we attain power it is our duty to put to the sword every cleric and to the ash every house of worship. These scum are not only dogs of the bourgeois class, they're secretly reactionaries. I had checked the date of this thread and I'm absolutely appalled by some of the garbage being spewed here. I am convinced this forum has forgotten the meaning of materialism. And the OP... You're opposing religion for all the wrong reasons. It's not for such moralistic or literal reasons. I give fuck all if mohommad was a child rapist or if Abraham tried to kill his boy. That doesn't make them significant within their historical context. What we can talk about is their modern ideological relevance and how exactly they serve as weapons of existing class enemies.

"Oooo but it's just the fanatics it's good to be moderate"

Christ I am cringing. The language of liberalism. What a piece of shit, impotent, pathetic and meek conception of religious fundamentalism. What an absolutely disgraceful and appalling deduction of the ideological dynamics of the recent religious upsurge. Disgusting. Absolutely sickening.

[Rafiq]

One thing to consider is that unlike organized Christianity and Islam (where intolerance and even violence is part of religious doctrine), absolutely nothing in Buddhism justifies violence, despite the occasional occurrence. And usually when that does happen, it does so when religion gets mixed with politics and ethnicity, a very dangerous mix.

Buddhism is intrinsically political. All religion is. Buddhism is to Christianity what feudal ideology is to Communism. It is deeply reactionary and counter revolutionary.

[Zostrianos]

Religion as we know it is a weapon of the class enemy, it is a manifestation of their interests, another means of exerting their ideological hegemony. All of that superstitious fuckery and preposterous bullshit is just a broken remnant of feudalism which was already swept away by bourgeois rationalism.

So all those people who find fulfillment in it must be deluded then?

And as I showed before, science disagrees with your assessment of spirituality as "superstitious fuckery", especially when it comes to meditation:

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

This is a Buddhist monk who was tested at the university of Wisconsin:
http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1072585/buddhist-monk-matthieu-ricard-happiest-man-known-science

Professor Richard Davidson, a neuroscientist, wired up Ricard's skull with 256 sensors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison four years ago as part of research on hundreds of advanced practitioners of meditation. The scans showed that when meditating on compassion, Ricard's brain produced a level of gamma waves - those linked to consciousness, attention, learning and memory - "never reported before in the neuroscience literature", he said.
The scans showed excessive activity in his brain's left prefrontal cortex compared to its right counterpart, giving him an abnormally large capacity for happiness and a reduced propensity towards negativity, researchers believe.
Research into the phenomenon, known as "neuroplasticity", is in its infancy and Ricard has been at the forefront of groundbreaking experiments along with other leading scientists.
"We've found remarkable results with long-term practitioners who did 50,000 rounds of meditation, but also with three weeks of 20 minutes a day, which of course is more applicable to our modern times," Davidson said.

But hey, the hell with science! It's all feudal, liberal garbage right?


Buddhism is intrinsically political. All religion is. Buddhism is to Christianity what feudal ideology is to Communism. It is deeply reactionary and counter revolutionary.

Anyway, I addressed the Buddhism thing in another thread already, and no it's not counter revolutionary. Furthermore I don't see what's political about someone who goes on a personal journey and discovers a new philosophy, like the Buddha did:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2607818&postcount=24

It might have become political later, but it was not at the onset.


You spiritualists who call themselves revolutionaries should be ashamed. Good god what a fucking abomination of a socialist. Spiritualism is garbage, we should mind no attention to it. New age toss and this new fascination with eastern spiritualist dribble is a direct reflection of the changes brought about by neoliberalism, the new ideological legitimization of current class relations is rooted in new age or eastern spiritualism as far as religion goes.

That stems from an incomplete knowledge of what religion actually is. Marx, who wasn't perfect, had a very simplistic view of religion, and unfortunately many marxists haven't bothered to look beyond what he originally wrote on it. Sorry, things aren't black and white. When you look at everything entirely from a perspective of class, you will come to irrational conclusions about the world. The same as you would by looking at the world only through any other lens.


I piss on tolerance. When we attain power it is our duty to put to the sword every cleric and to the ash every house of worship. These scum are not only dogs of the bourgeois class, they're secretly reactionaries. I had checked the date of this thread and I'm absolutely appalled by some of the garbage being spewed here. I am convinced this forum has forgotten the meaning of materialism. And the OP... You're opposing religion for all the wrong reasons. It's not for such moralistic or literal reasons. I give fuck all if mohommad was a child rapist or if Abraham tried to kill his boy. That doesn't make them significant within their historical context. What we can talk about is their modern ideological relevance and how exactly they serve as weapons of existing class enemies.

So you're saying even if the religion is good, or its practices are effective, and it doesn't conflict with the goals of an equal society, it's religion so it has to go? So you're appalled? You know what, I'm appalled too. I find it appalling that so many leftists reject religion uncritically and entirely as the root of all evil, while at the same time holding murderous dictators in high regard because they called themselves communists. Dictators who caused more oppression and suffering than many religions, and yet they're the good guys?

So objectively speaking, what's more appalling? Adhering to a religion like Jainism or Buddhism which seeks to create harmony and make the individual content despite the presence of suffering? Or supporting someone like Joseph Stalin, and hoping for a murderous revolution that will bring in people like him, and destroying everything and everyone you don't agree with even if they've done nothing to you?

Wait a minute, I thought the goal of socialism was to create a just and equal society?


"Oooo but it's just the fanatics it's good to be moderate" Christ I am cringing. The language of liberalism. What a piece of shit, impotent, pathetic and meek conception of religious fundamentalism. What an absolutely disgraceful and appalling deduction of the ideological dynamics of the recent religious upsurge. Disgusting. Absolutely sickening.

Please, stop looking at things through this narrow view. You don't like religion? Fine, leave those who do alone.

[dodger]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/?page=all

Dawn raids on the Amish....a good start. Armed to the teeth, a wise precaution.:laugh:

[Ace High]

Thanks for the continuing posts. Still don't see why people are bashing Buddhism though.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

People aren't stupid for being religious. Marx is right about the reasons for religion. Religion gives people a sense of hope, a sense of clarity and of belonging. Nevertheless, religion is a delusion, much like the high of a drug or the ramblings of a schizophrenic. Just because these things might make people feel good or connected or hopeful or at one with their existence, doesn't mean it's right, both intellectually or morally.

Whether religion is "right, intellectually or morally" is perfectly besides the point. The very last thing the proletariat needs is some busybody state - and calling a state "the community" doesn't make it stop being a state, a form of government over men - enforcing what is "morally right". And the examples you cite rather undermine your point - surely you don't mean to say that communists should support the prohibition of drugs or the present psychiatric system.

Nonetheless, religious organisations represent a class force that is alien to the proletariat - the last miserable dregs of the feudal society - and are part of the apparatus of bourgeois dictatorship. They deserve nothing less than complete annihilation. But after the last priest has been strangled with the entrails of the last king, what if someone still believes in some sky tyrant? Are they to be dragged off to be reeducated "for their own good"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Whether religion is "right, intellectually or morally" is perfectly besides the point. The very last thing the proletariat needs is some busybody state - and calling a state "the community" doesn't make it stop being a state, a form of government over men - enforcing what is "morally right". And the examples you cite rather undermine your point - surely you don't mean to say that communists should support the prohibition of drugs or the present psychiatric system.

Nonetheless, religious organisations represent a class force that is alien to the proletariat - the last miserable dregs of the feudal society - and are part of the apparatus of bourgeois dictatorship. They deserve nothing less than complete annihilation. But after the last priest has been strangled with the entrails of the last king, what if someone still believes in some sky tyrant? Are they to be dragged off to be reeducated "for their own good"?

Go away you horrid little prick. Hopefully it will be your turn for the ban gun soon.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Go away you horrid little prick. Hopefully it will be your turn for the ban gun soon.

Thank you for, once again, providing ample evidence of your moralism, avoiding an actual political debate - that would force you to admit that your formulation was liberal and moralistic - in favour of waging holy war against the heretics and threatening with fire and brimstone.

[dodger]

Thanks for the continuing posts. Still don't see why people are bashing Buddhism though.

https://969movement.org/

This from their own mouths. Judge for yourself.

[Ace High]

https://969movement.org/

This from their own mouths. Judge for yourself.

Well, I DO agree with denouncing Islam. And I would see Islam as a huge threat if I lived in Asia. But I do NOT agree with random violence against Muslims, that is awful. So ok, fair enough, that is an example of Buddhists being psychotic and violent, I'll accept that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Thank you for, once again, providing ample evidence of your moralism, avoiding an actual political debate - that would force you to admit that your formulation was liberal and moralistic - in favour of waging holy war against the heretics and threatening with fire and brimstone.

You are such a self-eulogising cretin! Don't be so arrogant to assume that you constitute "political debate." I "avoid" political discussion with you because I have no interest in discussing politics with someone so reprehensible. I'm not afraid of your ideas, I am disgusted by you as a human being and therefore don't want to engage with someone who is, in my view, a slimy contemptuous moron.

[Human Liberation Front]

The problem with religion is that it has one major thing going for it: an explanation of what happens to consciousness after it ceases in the material world. Science can explain the nature of consciousness, but not can not give a reassuring explanation of what happens to consciousness when we expire. So, some people will find comfort in believing that when they die their consciousness will remain immortal as opposed to the scientific explanation that when we die our consciousness goes out like a lightbulb for eternity.

So religion, no matter how much you try to stamp out like burning embers on dry leaves, it'll rekindle in one way or another. However, this should not be a call for a defeatist ideology where we simply let the religious have their way of teaching baseless Creationism in schools and keeping a patriarchal society intact. I'm merely stating that religion will never until we can make ourselves immortal. Without death there is no need for the security blanket religion provides.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan

[Klaatu]

I am not sure it is religion, per se, that is the problem

The trouble starts when those members of a given religion try to control others. Especially when that religion becomes married to The State.

The best religion is that which leaves others alone and is not interested in wealth and power.

[Human Liberation Front]

The best religion is that which leaves others alone and is not interested in wealth and power.

The religions that currently fit that description are the plethora of pagan religions in existence and Buddhism. The others, mostly the Abrahamic triad, want too many of their beliefs injected into society.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

The religions that currently fit that description are the plethora of pagan religions in existence and Buddhism. The others, mostly the Abrahamic triad, want too many of their beliefs injected into society.

If you took a trip through the major Buddhist countries, such as Thailand, Laos or Burma, the religiously motivated sexism, racist pogroms and virulent nationalism may make you change your mind.

There is extremism in all religions. Buddhism is no different - on the contrary, some of the more devout followers of Theravada Buddhism in indochina are some of the most insane, dictator-worshipping rightist madmen you will ever have the chance to meet.

[Human Liberation Front]

If you took a trip through the major Buddhist countries, such as Thailand, Laos or Burma, the religiously motivated sexism, racist pogroms and virulent nationalism may make you change your mind.

There is extremism in all religions. Buddhism is no different - on the contrary, some of the more devout followers of Theravada Buddhism in indochina are some of the most insane, dictator-worshipping rightist madmen you will ever have the chance to meet.

I had second thoughts after I mentioned Buddhism especially with the history of Asoka and his spreading of Buddhism. Plus a long time ago I read an article where a Buddhist monk found no problem in suggesting the killing of communists.

[Ismail]

The idea that Buddhism is some sort of serene faith with monks that just sit around chanting all day has little in common with actual practice. Michael Parenti gives some examples of Buddhist violence in the introduction to his article on feudal Tibet: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Of course you could claim that Buddhism when "really" practiced isn't like that, but that's not a Marxist response. You can't isolate religion from society which nurtures or otherwise modifies it every which way.

Anyway, one would think the way the USSR approached religion to be pretty obviously correct: the Party works to promote science and atheism in society while the law allows for freedom of worship for all believers. The reactionary clergy and their anti-communist arguments are rebuffed, while a clear divide is maintained between the materialism of Marxism and the idealism of religion. With religion deprived of its economic and moral arguments (charity in the former case, societal decay in the latter) it is significantly undermined.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem with religion is that it has one major thing going for it: an explanation of what happens to consciousness after it ceases in the material world.

Religion claims to be able to explain what happens to consciousness, but in actual fact such claims have either been refuted or are impossible to verify.


Science can explain the nature of consciousness, but not can not give a reassuring explanation of what happens to consciousness when we expire.

Why does it have to be "reassuring"? The truth rarely is, and the truth so far as we can determine is that consciousness ceases when the brain stops functioning.


So, some people will find comfort in believing that when they die their consciousness will remain immortal as opposed to the scientific explanation that when we die our consciousness goes out like a lightbulb for eternity.

People also find comfort in believing that they're temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than face up to the fact that their lifetime chances of making it big are minuscule. I don't see why either comforting fiction should go unchallenged.


So religion, no matter how much you try to stamp out like burning embers on dry leaves, it'll rekindle in one way or another.

This sounds awfully close to the "human nature" argument. The mere existence of atheists falsifies that argument, in my view.

[Human Liberation Front]

Religion claims to be able to explain what happens to consciousness, but in actual fact such claims have either been refuted or are impossible to verify.



Why does it have to be "reassuring"? The truth rarely is, and the truth so far as we can determine is that consciousness ceases when the brain stops functioning.



People also find comfort in believing that they're temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than face up to the fact that their lifetime chances of making it big are minuscule. I don't see why either comforting fiction should go unchallenged.



This sounds awfully close to the "human nature" argument. The mere existence of atheists falsifies that argument, in my view.

Nowhere do I state that religion should go unchallenged and the fact atheism exists doesn't prove much other than people find comfort in truth than accepting fairy tales. The main point is that religion will be around for a long while due to circumstances, which includes proper education, the nature of consciousness and immortality.

[Klaatu]

If you took a trip through the major Buddhist countries, such as Thailand, Laos or Burma, the religiously motivated sexism, racist pogroms and virulent nationalism may make you change your mind.

There is extremism in all religions. Buddhism is no different - on the contrary, some of the more devout followers of Theravada Buddhism in indochina are some of the most insane, dictator-worshipping rightist madmen you will ever have the chance to meet.

Could some of this be due to the Chinese insistence of Tibet being a province of China? It is my understanding that The Dali-Lama is fighting for Tibet's independence, and could other Buddhists be acting in support? In that case, it is about politics, not religion.

[Rafiq]

There is no place for religion in the revolution. All gods of all religions come the revolution will unify into a single god. It will then be clear to us of our enemy, no longer will it cower behind the faces of false idols. The God of capital will arise out of the ash of it's many hosts, and the struggle will be clear to all, no longer mystified by ideology or religion. The class struggle will let itself be known to the heavens, and they will blaze forth to our victory.

[RedCloud]

Here's the thing. Religion does not start wars. The Bible never beheaded anyone and Qur'an has never flown a plane into a building.

As a Christian, I know that the Bible says to accept others, that we are cut from the same cloth so to speak. It does not say wage war and down on, hate or kill non-believers (I can not say I've ever read the Qur'an entirely, or the Torah or other Jewish texts, though, but I'm doubting they all say that as well).

When the racists, neocons and hate mongerers cite the Bible or claim to be Christian, they are "Cherrypicking". Simple as that. They use their religion publicly to get a base audience or to attract the religious and then turn people to their own views. They are basically sellouts to their religion. You could say that the people who believe this are then followers, but that doesn't mean it's exclusively because they are religious. That is because someone duped them (generally the neocon crowd, which is why they have the stereotype of being religious hate mongerers). Which leads me to this:


Never got the argument that organized religion is bad. Fundamentalists are bad, but never saw why going to church with others of your faith was bad.

Thank you. I'm glad others here see this and don't just bash on religion.
This is why I do not think religion itself is bad. Just the "fundies" behind it. That is the issue. People would find other ways to rile people up if religion did not exist.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Here's the thing. Religion does not start wars. The Bible never beheaded anyone and Qur'an has never flown a plane into a building.

Religious institutions have, and continue to, enact and sponsor racist, misogynist, transphobic and homophobic violence, as well violence against the proletariat in general, as part of the structure of bourgeois dictatorship.


As a Christian, I know that the Bible says to accept others, that we are cut from the same cloth so to speak. It does not say wage war and down on, hate or kill non-believers (I can not say I've ever read the Qur'an entirely, or the Torah or other Jewish texts, though, but I'm doubting they all say that as well).

Surely no one could have read the Bible and not noticed the various strictures against nonbelievers, women, slaves, homosexuals etc.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Could some of this be due to the Chinese insistence of Tibet being a province of China? It is my understanding that The Dali-Lama is fighting for Tibet's independence, and could other Buddhists be acting in support? In that case, it is about politics, not religion.

The racialism, sexism and nationalism in indochina's Buddhist movement has absolutely nothing to do with Tibet or it's independence movement. They aren't even the same strand of Buddhism.

Just in case you're wondering, when I say 'Indochina' I'm referring to the South-East Asian peninsula that connects with Malaysia, not the PR China.

http://www.echildrenofpromise.org/Portals/0/maps/Indochina.gif

[dodger]

Fair comment, Jam Like a Jacobin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah7a72rLN4Q

http://www.is.wayne.edu/MNISSANI/cr/Moro.htm

Wifey a devout christian told me without a hint of irony that the Christian Militia tore strips of flesh from Muslims and ate . A talisman against bullets. Several decades ago.... more up to the minute . The christian pastor who landed by helicopter to administer to his flock has 40, 000 guns. Laser lights...Freddy Mercury doing his stuff, whilst he(pastor) harangues against the evils of sodomy. Various politicians pay their respects. His guns are silent...no less menacing for that.After dishing out some freebies he scarpered. "Things can only get better!" rattles our tin roof.a Blair anthem. Probably where our Tony got the idea. The good Pastor's appearance might have something to do with his armoury being raided by NPA . His security company is employed by gold mining companies. Only appearing before a peoples court, will he answer for his many crimes. Though Wifey is convinced he will answer to God, she is not perturbed at the idea of an earlier retribution. Many of the partizans who show themselves, down from the hills have a price on their heads. Perversely, well almost, the one with the largest tag, 7.4m Pesos is a priest. Several other clergy are not far behind. The NPA publicly welcome fighters of any religious denomination. Rather like our railway picket lines, Sikh turban, skull cap, Afghan beret, even a a Northern Irish Prod--minus his sash and bowler.

[Sotionov]

Not open a topic only for this, I found it intertaining and wanted to share, so I'll put it here


Facing eviction, rogue Greek monks hurl petrol bombs at bailiffs x)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57595913/facing-eviction-rogue-greek-monks-hurl-petrol-bombs-at-bailiffs/

[Sotionov]

Just another interesting I came across and didn't know where to post it:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/q71/s720x720/47699_431062157009095_1920615259_n.jpg