Could we anarchists stop tolerating rude behavior?

[Jay NotApplicable]

I don't understand why anarchists are often rude when it comes to religion. Anarchists are against the discrimination of people for their race, sex, gender identity, etc. So why do we allow ourselves to discriminate against people for their religion? We don't discriminate against women. We don't discriminate against people of other races. So why when it comes to religion is it ok to be offensive?

As a practical matter, being offensive turns people off. People don't want to listen to our message if we are being offensive.

Could we please stop tolerating the rude behavior that some anarchists demonstrate?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I thnk it comes down to religion being a choice you make rathe than something you're born as / with, no different than our intolerance of political and social attitudes that go against our perspective. Not making a direct comparison, but fascism or conservative 'values' are also a choice people make and so are open to being challenged (as opposed to challenging someone based on skin colour / gender etc).

[Jay NotApplicable]

I have no problem with religion being challenged. I debate all the time. But I'm friendly when I do it. I don't understand why some people need to be rude when it comes to religion. I'm not bashing atheism or agnosticism, so why do people insist on bashing Christianity? I'm not talking about simply disagree or not believing. I'm talking about the people who are flat out rude and insulting.

[Jay NotApplicable]

A lot of people think anarchists are just a bunch of assholes. And because some of us act that way we live up to the name. I would like it if we could stop being like that. I know that's impossible, but you can do your part by being polite.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

As someone who has been prone to veering into just being rude on such topics, I can only apologise and say it comes from a stupid sense of how right you are and how wrong they are. I sometimes get rude because I'm so agitated by the counter-arguments the deeply religious of any faith come up with...most of them coming back to either 'because I believe it' and / or 'the bible or the qu'uran or whatever says so'
That's the arguement? The world is 4,000 years old because this old book sort of says so if you do some very contrived maths?
I can only speak for me but that's where the rudeness can come from and personally find it hard to keep in check on such debates against those with religious convictions.

[Jay NotApplicable]

Well, at least you can acknowledge that you're rude sometimes. A lot of people can't even do that.

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't understand why anarchists are often rude when it comes to religion. Anarchists are against the discrimination of people for their race, sex, gender identity, etc. So why do we allow ourselves to discriminate against people for their religion? We don't discriminate against women. We don't discriminate against people of other races. So why when it comes to religion is it ok to be offensive?

As a practical matter, being offensive turns people off. People don't want to listen to our message if we are being offensive.

Could we please stop tolerating the rude behavior that some anarchists demonstrate?

Should we be nice to capitalists and fascists too?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A communist that does not antagonise polite society is a very peculiar sort of communist. Whether one should be rude is a tactical decision, but religion is part of the superstructure of the bourgeois dictatorship, and hostility is to be expected.

And honestly, the fact that many of the religious expect special treatment for religion causes much of the hostility.

[Jay NotApplicable]

Should we be nice to capitalists and fascists too?
Anarchism is anti-capitalist and anti-fascist. Anarchism is not anti-religion.

[Jay NotApplicable]

There was a survey that was done a couple years ago called the Big Anarchist Survey (can someone give me a link to it?). Something like 15% of anarchists are Christian. And something like 33%-50% were religious in some way. So why be so rude to your comrades?

[Philosophos]

I thnk it comes down to religion being a choice you make rathe than something you're born as / with, no different than our intolerance of political and social attitudes that go against our perspective. Not making a direct comparison, but fascism or conservative 'values' are also a choice people make and so are open to being challenged (as opposed to challenging someone based on skin colour / gender etc).


I know religion is a choice, but we should really consider the fact that most people were born in a family that followed this particular religion. At the same time there lots of religious people that are this way because of their religious parents.

I believe I'm the perfect example. When I first came here I was just curious to see what communists had to say. I was a christian (we are talking about very religious stuff), a nationalist etc. I went through an exhausting try to change, all because my parents were religious to the extreme. I knew religion was something wrong but I was still afraid that God might be watching me and he tries to save me from the wrong path and blah blah blah.

So all and all what I want to say is that we don't have to be rude to people about their religion because we don't know exactly how they lived. On the other hand if they are complete idiots that say that blue is black well that's a different story...

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I've got nothing against Christian Moderates because they keep that awful book out of politics. However, Christianity and the scriptures that provide it backing has never been anything other than a revolting political tractbook, and I find anyone who has read the Bible and defends it highly questionable.

I don't see why you types are so against kids mocking what is for all intents and purposes a collage of myths and apologia for slaughter, sexism, slavery and other bizarre acts of discrimination (Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron that in all future generations, his descendants who have physical defects will not qualify to offer food to their God. No one who has a defect may come near to me, whether he is blind or lame, stunted or deformed, or has a broken foot or hand, or has a humped back or is a dwarf, or has a defective eye, or has oozing sores or scabs on his skin, or has damaged testicles. Even though he is a descendant of Aaron, his physical defects disqualify him from presenting offerings to the LORD by fire. Since he has a blemish, he may not offer food to his God. However, he may eat from the food offered to God, including the holy offerings and the most holy offerings. Yet because of his physical defect, he must never go behind the inner curtain or come near the altar, for this would desecrate my holy places. I am the LORD who makes them holy." Leviticus 21:16-23). Hell, what would you rather the opposite was? Children are brought up not to question politics and philosophies? Would you have people brought up without the ability to question sexist customs, nazism, etc? If not (I hope not), then why do you reserve a special seat of demagoguery for religion?

And comparing religion to things like ethnicity and gender is fucking ridiculous, especially when religious movements have aggravated to a ridiculous degree discrimination over the past millennium. First of all, things like ethnicity and sexuality are things people are born with. There is no choice involved, and people stay that way for the rest of their lives whether others like it or not. The second, more important thing, is that they are not ideologies. When someone is say Maldivian, they do not have a 'Maldivian outlook' on the world - they simply exist as someone who is ethnically Maldivian.
Christianity, on the other hand, is a philosophy. It is an outlook on how the world works. This has a direct impact on how they will treat certain people - social codes from mythological, illogical and unquestionable texts.

And thirdly, taking into account the fact that Christianity (along with other religions) is a philosophy, it is a messy, inconsistent, illogical, bigoted and untrue philosophy. The biblical verses are full of contradiction (e.g. what Judas does prior to his death) submission to conservative political values under the excuse of a creator-god, and outright evil (millions slaughtered under god's hand, execution laws for ridiculous offenses such as cheating or working on the sabbath,) It is a choice, and has a core set of beliefs which are purely reactionary by nature, despite what it's moderate followers think. This is nothing like discrimination towards certain ethnic groups or women.

Now that doesn't mean that harassing, bullying or indeed killing people for their religion (something you'll find is practiced most by zealots of a particular faith anyway - see the killings of non-Wahhabists in Syria, the murder of Shias in Afghanistan and of Rohingya muslims in Burma), but calling someone rude for criticising that religion and even say to someone's face what they think about their religious views is fucking stupid and comes close to thought-policing. It's almost like saying that it's rude to go up to a racists' face and tell them that their 20th century Eugenic myths are both bigoted and proven to be psuedoscientific.

'Why do we discriminate against any philosophy at all?' is practically what you're arguing here. A very close-minded thing to do, don't you think? Well, that does mimick the bible's position on people who challenge or question:



Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

He who does not share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12



Just to refresh your mind a little, this is what you are defending when you attack these atheists that you believe are so 'intolerant' of the faithful:



Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.

How dare those pesky kids detest and repulse this untouchable, benevolent philosophy! They need to learn some respect!

[Sasha]

i never seen an anarchist get rude on a religious person unless the religious person tried to push or defend the religions view or actions on the anarchist.
if you try to push homophobia, patriarchy or even worse pacifism (:lol:) on me i'll get in your face, if you dont respect my believes why should i respect yours?

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchism is anti-capitalist and anti-fascist. Anarchism is not anti-religion.

I don't know what anarchism you're referring to, but Bakunin would have fundamental issues with your assessment.

[#FF0000]

Rudeness should be the only capital crime imo.

And I think a lot of leftists are just dumb obnoxious idiots about religion who are basically just going on about how big n tuff n smrt they are for not believing in the bogeyman. hooray good for u wow.

That doesn't apply to religious institutions, generally. Talk shit on the church and the clergy all you want, imo.

[Jay NotApplicable]

What's the point in being an anarchist if not to be happy. Yet so many are just so vile and miserable with life. I think some people are anarchists because it makes them feel good. Anarchy is to create a better world, not one in which people are so miserable that they can't hold their tongue. Stop being so filled with hate.

[The Feral Underclass]

But the belief in god is also harmful to society, not just the institutions that perpetuate it. It's not conducive to a rational society for people to maintain such mystical ideas. This idea that people should just "believe whatever they want" is a liberal idea and conforms to liberal ideas about "inclusion" and "tolerance" that ultimately de-legitimate radical notions that another world is possible.

Adults who believe in fairies or believe they are Gnomes (there is a man who genuinely thinks he's a Gnome) does not reflect a sane society These ideas are desperate attempts to rationalise an existence which is alienating, and to have these kind of ideas, including belief in god, demonstrates the disconnected way that people engage with the world around them.

People's beliefs must be rooted firmly in the now and in the material, not in the afterlife and the mystical and it is not rude to say that to people.

[#FF0000]

But the belief in god is also harmful to society, not just the institutions that perpetuate it.

Nah, and this isn't about "tolerance and inclusiveness" either. It's about the fact that people are able to hold stories about sky people and gnomes in their head and think "yeah that's probably how this all got started" and still, somehow, be otherwise entirely rational and intelligent people. People are totally capable of holding totally ridiculous ideas and reason and logic all in the same head, somehow.

[ed miliband]

this is good, imo:


All political forces nowadays, including those on the extreme-left, agree that freedom of speech is absolutely necessary, but implies the obligation not to misuse it. Like alcohol, it should be consumed with moderation. Otherwise, like tobacco, it can kill. Actually, this is what bourgeois democracy has always said. But in the past, there were anarchist, freethinking or satirical pamphlets and papers that would do the exact opposite, and show disrespect for the most respectable values, institutions and persons, usually with the support of the left of the left. Now, in the West, only a handful of extremists openly attack religion. The anti-religious drawings and articles that were widely circulated in 1900 would not even be banned today, because no one would think to draw or write them. There used to be right-wing and left-wing caricatures: they're all middle of the road now. This is not to say that the press was free: it never was, and can't be. The papers of 1900 or today's media are a social resonance chamber which reflects the contradictions and emotions of society. But in 1900, whenever censorship put a gag on critiques of bourgeois morality, of the army and the fatherland, it caused debate and uproar. Now self-censorship reigns. The prevailing value is not a value any more, just the tolerance of values that are tolerant. Nothing seems to be sacred, and the limits of privacy have been swept away : millions of TV viewers share family and sex secrets that were formerly whispered or told in confession. But religion is exempt from desecration. It is set apart, sheltered from criticism and mockery, treated as it wants to be: not a doctrine and attitude as debatable as others, but a reality of a different nature, above the profane.

Tolerance used to be an anti-religious weapon or protection. It now turns into an instrument of the priests against those who reject their moral authority. The non-religious person is regarded as narrow-minded. The numerous talk shows about the infamous caricatures let a multitude of priests express their opinions, but we heard few non-believers. It's the atheist who has to explain and justify himself.

Some readers might think we're overstating our case. Well, nobody would regard Canada as a hotbed of obscurantism, but it took international pressure to stop Ontario from making the sharia legal reference in family (and business, to some extent) matters for those Ontarians defined as Muslims. What's interesting is that the people who tried to introduce such a measure were not inspired by obscurantism, merely by the wish to protect a minority. The Saudis that force the sharia upon women are looked down as oppressors, and indeed they are. The Canadians who wanted to impose it upon (some) women considered themselves (and were considered by many observers) as liberators.

Tolerance loves to present itself as the protector of the weak, and usually defends the vested interests of the strong. As long as it has political power on its side, as in France before 1789, or has a foothold in the corridors of power, as in the US or (differently) in Russia today, religion does not care much for tolerance. When it is questioned by strong rivals or by atheists, it calls for freedom of conscience. Catholics in the US protest against the excesses and the fierce competition of TV evangelists, and Protestant missions deplore the dominance of Rome over Latin American crowds.

Like democracy, the various Churches claim majority rule or minority rights, according to what suits them. Whenever there are few Muslims or Christians, they ask for freedom of worship. Where there are millions of them, they think it quite normal that no behaviour, speech, book or film should offend their faith. Needless to say, neither small nor great numbers are proof of anything: millions cried the day Stalin died. We will not bemoan the selectivity of a respect that "naturally" applies to religion and not to revolution: every day, hundreds of thousands of articles, statements, and school lessons keep lumping together communism and fascism under the common denomination of "totalitarianism", and describe the project of human emancipation as a hollow dream or a murderous nightmare. We'd be naïve to expect any better. The ideas of the oppressed are oppressed ideas.

http://www.prole.info/texts/continuingreligion.html

[The Feral Underclass]

people are able to hold stories about sky people and gnomes in their head and think "yeah that's probably how this all got started" and still, somehow, be otherwise entirely rational and intelligent people.

That is a self-defeating statement.


People are totally capable of holding totally ridiculous ideas and reason and logic all in the same head, somehow.

It is unreasoned and illogical to claim that, on the one hand, a mystical and unquantifiable entity exists, and then on the other accept a materialist view of history. Those ideas are not compatible, no matter how much any one might think they are.

[Decolonize The Left]

What's the point in being an anarchist if not to be happy. Yet so many are just so vile and miserable with life. I think some people are anarchists because it makes them feel good. Anarchy is to create a better world, not one in which people are so miserable that they can't hold their tongue. Stop being so filled with hate.

Well... we get it that you're all poopy about religion being challenged. Religious people often have problems when religious institutions come under fire because they are used to - and expect - a certain level of privilege.

But at this point your posts are turning into trolling as you're not really discussing/debating anything but whining and repeating yourself.

[#FF0000]

It is unreasoned and illogical to claim that, on the one hand, a mystical and unquantifiable entity exists, and then on the other accept a materialist view of history. Those ideas are not compatible, no matter how much any one might think they are.

Oh no, they aren't compatible, but people make room for them, because people do dumb, contradictory things like that all the time.

[The Feral Underclass]

Oh no, they aren't compatible, but people make room for them, because people do dumb, contradictory things like that all the time.

Ergo they are harmful.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Rudeness should be the only capital crime

Oh piss off.


I think a lot of leftists are just dumb obnoxious idiots about religion who are basically just going on about how big n tuff n smrt they are for not believing in the bogeyman. hooray good for u wow.

I could say the same for a defender of bronze-age political pamphlets that European kings used to tremendous advantage.

You're not 'smart' or 'morally just' when you're uncritical of religion. You're just uncritical.

If it's 'rude and obnoxious' to call out a philosophy for being contradictory, very historically skeptical and bigoted, then your politeness and consideration in this context is an ally of 'Abrahamic Psychopath Gospels 101' and can go fuck itself along with its' new-age buddies.


That doesn't apply to religious institutions, generally. Talk shit on the church and the clergy all you want, imo.

How about talk shit about the beliefs themselves? They're pretty fucked up and hilarious to begin with.

I find it interesting that you defend the demagoguery surrounding religion with straw-men constructed around a visage of 'angsty leftists' who are detestable for ridiculing ideas such as the one where humans are inherently sinful because a woman made from a man's rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a tree. Even if these apparitions of yours existed, would there be anything wrong with them poking holes in dumb shit like that? Only to the insane, I'd imagine.

[#FF0000]

Oh piss off.

Firing line for being rude is a good idea and I won't hear otherwise.


words

Er, I never said we should be "uncritical" of religion. Religion's dumb. It's all really dumb. Being obnoxious about it like fedora wearing neckbearded reddit atheists, though, isn't going to help and is something we should probs avoid.

[#FF0000]

Ergo they are harmful.

"people think and do silly things therefore they are harmful" is what you just said.

In any case, I'm not saying religion ought to get a free pass entirely. I'm saying there's a time and place to talk about how dumb religion is, and it's not "all the time, loudly".

[The Feral Underclass]

"people think and do silly things therefore they are harmful" is what you just said.

But we're not talking about "things" we're talking specifically about the creation of a communist society predicated on reason and logic -- a world aware of itself.


In any case, I'm not saying religion ought to get a free pass entirely. I'm saying there's a time and place to talk about how dumb religion is, and it's not "all the time, loudly".

Why not? When and how else would it be talked about? We're revolutionaries. Militants. Our role is to shout all the time and loudly. Who else is going to do it?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Firing line for being rude is a good idea and I won't hear otherwise.

Rudeness is great though. Politeness is so upper-class.



Er, I never said we should be "uncritical" of religion. Religion's dumb. It's all really dumb. Being obnoxious about it like fedora wearing neckbearded reddit atheists, though, isn't going to help and is something we should probs avoid.

I don't know anything about reddit neckbeards, but I don't see why it's rude for people to challenge others on their religious affiliation, whether they're moderates or not. I honestly don't see how its any different to calling someone out for believing that a monster is hiding in their cupboard or something like that - the taboo of faith is restricting us from judging religions and their believers the same way we do any other form of baseless and origin-traceable superstition.

[Decolonize The Left]

In regards to the #FF000/TAT/JlaJ discussion, I think it all comes down to strategy - everything comes down to strategy. The question isn't 'is religion bad?' or 'are religious beliefs harmful?', the question is: is this is a good and practical time to critically discuss religion and how it impacts the working class?

If the answer is yes then the critique can begin and be received in a useful manner. If the answer is no then more often then not we are better off holding out collective tongues.

[#FF0000]

But we're not talkign about "things" we're talking specifically about the creation of a communist society predicated on reason and logic -- a world aware of itself.

And yeah that world is going to be created with people who believe in gnomes and gods and who think they are actually a cat or a dragon in a human body or even a real life anime, because like I said, people think and do dumb, weird things, because people are dumb and weird. A big part of that is probs alienation, like you said. In which case, it's probably a little silly to expect people to totally shake off all of the baggage of capitalism while capitalism's still chuggin' along.


Why not?

Because it's totally ineffective because even most "religious" people don't really care about religion. It isn't something they think about or even care to think about. It's hardly even something they do. Most just sort of sit around and live their life and then when someone asks they go "oh yeah I am (this religion)" and it plays no role in their life beyond that. Maybe they go to a god-thing on the weekend or something -- maybe. Even then most people are just doing it out of habit and are totally unengaged with what is being said to them from the pulpit.

People are really good at compartmentalizing their lives, and that is what most people do with religion.

[#FF0000]

I don't know anything about reddit neckbeards, but I don't see why it's rude for people to challenge others on their religious affiliation, whether they're moderates or not. I honestly don't see how its any different to calling someone out for believing that a monster is hiding in their cupboard or something like that - the taboo of faith is restricting us from judging religions and their believers the same way we do any other form of baseless and origin-traceable superstition.

I mean if someone tells me they believe in god and they're an otherwise really intelligent person, I'll say something like "tut, you know god isn't real c'mon son" but jumping into full on argument mode when someone casually makes mention of their religious affiliation is a bad idea (and is what I imagined OP was talking about).

What I'm saying is don't be one of those "I'M A ATHEIST, DEBATE ME" dorks who think Richard Dawkins has some new and exciting shit to say and that being an atheist makes you Reason personified.

[The Feral Underclass]

And yeah that world is going to be created with people who believe in gnomes and gods and who think they are actually a cat or a dragon in a human body or even a real life anime, because like I said, people think and do dumb, weird things, because people are dumb and weird. A big part of that is probs alienation, like you said. In which case, it's probably a little silly to expect people to totally shake off all of the baggage of capitalism while capitalism's still chuggin' along.

This discussion is about how we respond to people with these ideas. You said: "And I think a lot of leftists are just dumb obnoxious idiots about religion who are basically just going on about how big n tuff n smrt they are for not believing in the bogeyman. hooray good for u wow."

I am challenging that by saying to you it is necessarily to attack religion for the reasons I have provided.


Because it's totally ineffective because even most "religious" people don't really care about religion. It isn't something they think about or even care to think about.

This exact same thing could be said for their complicity in capitalism or homophobia or the multitude of reactionary beliefs that people have. This is not a legitimate reason to take a passive stance on religious belief.


It's hardly even something they do. Most just sort of sit around and live their life and then when someone asks they go "oh yeah I am (this religion)" and it plays no role in their life beyond that. Maybe they go to a god-thing on the weekend or something -- maybe. Even then most people are just doing it out of habit and are totally unengaged with what is being said to them from the pulpit.

None of this means that militants shouldn't attack religious beliefs. If what you're saying is true, all you are doing is describing the general attitude towards religious belief. You are not providing a reason for why militants should not take more active roles in challenging those beliefs, or indeed why those beliefs are harmful -- In fact, I would say that if this apathetic, indifferent attitude is really the situation then it is even more harmful. Not only do people have these ideas, they're not even engaging or understanding the nature of them.

I do not take the position that we should somehow wait to attack religious belief. It is a reactionary ideology generated by a reactionary society and we should be challenging it.


People are really good at compartmentalizing their lives, and that is what most people do with religion.

And that is harmful.

[G4b3n]

I have no problem with religion being challenged. I debate all the time. But I'm friendly when I do it. I don't understand why some people need to be rude when it comes to religion. I'm not bashing atheism or agnosticism, so why do people insist on bashing Christianity? I'm not talking about simply disagree or not believing. I'm talking about the people who are flat out rude and insulting.

Unlike atheism and agnosticism, Christianity is a false sense of consciousnesses that seeks to perpetuate established authority through the propagation of idealist nonsense.

Lenin sums up the Materialist view on religion quite nicely.

"Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze, in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man."

So it is important to keep in mind that many leftists view religion as a direct attack on their core principles.

[human strike]

Only burning churches illuminate, etc. etc..

[Beeth]

Attacking religious institutions is one thing; attacking religious people is another.

If you attack them because you feel they are irrational, then you'd end up attacking billions (because most ppl, not just religious folks, at some point act and think in irrational ways). No human being is 100% rational - we experience petty emotions, anger, and many things which make us think and act irrationally, sometimes even aggressively.

So having an ideal like perfect rationalism (and therefore attacking religious ppl for being irrational) reeks of arrogance and self-righteous hypocrisy.

[The Feral Underclass]

No one is talking about attacking religious people, we are talking about attacking religious belief.

[Beeth]

No one is talking about attacking religious people, we are talking about attacking religious belief.

And who holds religious belief - people like you and me?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't understand why anarchists are often rude when it comes to religion. Anarchists are against the discrimination of people for their race, sex, gender identity, etc. So why do we allow ourselves to discriminate against people for their religion? We don't discriminate against women. We don't discriminate against people of other races. So why when it comes to religion is it ok to be offensive?

As a practical matter, being offensive turns people off. People don't want to listen to our message if we are being offensive.

Could we please stop tolerating the rude behavior that some anarchists demonstrate?why single out anarchists? Besides, around here middle class liberals are the main offenders in this... And are so fucking smug and superior about it. There's a definite elitist bent to it... After all people who think Obama is all about peace and justice can't really get on a high-horse about people believing things that have no basis in fact.

[Ele'ill]

Anarchists are against the discrimination of people for their race, sex, gender identity, etc. So why do we allow ourselves to discriminate against people for their religion?

because religions often do these things

[#FF0000]

And who holds religious belief - people like you and me?

Attacking as in criticizing.

Which is fine I think, as long as we don't end up like New Atheist dummies and start bigoting all over Muslims because "I-I-ISLAM IS NOT A RACE"

[Os Cangaceiros]

I just want to see religion driven from the state and all aspects of policy-making. Other than that I don't really care very much about the subject at all.

[The Feral Underclass]

And who holds religious belief - people like you and me?

I don't understand the point you're making.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Only burning churches illuminate, etc. etc..Like in the U.S. South... :confused:



I am challenging that by saying to you it is necessarily to attack religion for the reasons I have provided.

The resason you have provided mainly is that it is irrational and therefore a set-back to the self-liberation of people. And yet 45% of people in the US believe in ghosts... where are the crusades to correct this, where are the organizations and billboards ridiculing this false belief? A third of people in the US believe in the grey aliens you see on bad TV shows.

But this doesn't tell us much about if these beliefs are actually a hinderance to the same people deciding that aliens, ghosts, or god, are not going to reach down and make their lives better and that they will need to fight. It doesn't tell us if the alien-believer just holds that it's likely since there are so many common stories about it or if they are making a ray-gun out of light-bulbs and plugging their ears so the aliens don't melt their brain.

Any Leftist who said that we need to wage an ideological battle against the belief in ghosts would likely be seen as out of touch - or at least messed up in their priorities. So if nearly half the population believes in ghosts, but we usually don't see this as an issue; but most would say that major organized religions are generally tied and entangled with the ruling order of society. So it is abstractly "irrational belief" that's the issue that needs to be countered? Or is it actually something more specific which really matters: the social forces and organization and politics of major organized religions?


I think it all comes down to strategy - everything comes down to strategy. The question isn't 'is religion bad?' or 'are religious beliefs harmful?', the question is: is this is a good and practical time to critically discuss religion and how it impacts the working class?

If the answer is yes then the critique can begin and be received in a useful manner. If the answer is no then more often then not we are better off holding out collective tongues. This is a good way to put it.

[The Feral Underclass]

The resason you have provided mainly is that it is irrational and therefore a set-back to the self-liberation of people. And yet 45% of people in the US believe in ghosts... where are the crusades to correct this, where are the organizations and billboards ridiculing this false belief? A third of people in the US believe in the grey aliens you see on bad TV shows.

The existence of aliens is far more probable than the existence of god.

But you are right. Where are these organisations? I am totally in favour of any radical group whose objective is to confront irrational and mystical ideas, whatever those ideas may be.


But this doesn't tell us much about if these beliefs are actually a hinderance to the same people deciding that aliens, ghosts, or god, are not going to reach down and make their lives better and that they will need to fight. It doesn't tell us if the alien-believer just holds that it's likely since there are so many common stories about it or if they are making a ray-gun out of light-bulbs and plugging their ears so the aliens don't melt their brain.

Okay...


Any Leftist who said that we need to wage an ideological battle against the belief in ghosts would likely be seen as out of touch - or at least messed up in their priorities. So if nearly half the population believes in ghosts, but we usually don't see this as an issue; but most would say that major organized religions are generally tied and entangled with the ruling order of society. So it is abstractly "irrational belief" that's the issue that needs to be countered? Or is it actually something more specific which really matters: the social forces and organization and politics of major organized religions?

Well, I'm not a leftist, so let's get that clear straight away. I also think a specific organisation to combat belief in ghosts would be out of touch, but certainly not an activist organiastion that attempted to challenge mystical beliefs. I think that would be a good accompaniment to class struggle activity, much like Antifa or Queer Resistance etc etc. A sort of Anti-Theist Action. This is something I have proposed in the past.

But the answer to your specific question is that it's both. We don't have to pick.

[Quail]

I think it's completely fine and necessary to criticise religion and religious beliefs, but I'm not convinced that it's particularly productive to criticise religious people personally. It seems unlikely to me that religious beliefs will be eradicated while people still have a use for them, so I think anti-theism has to be part of the struggle against capitalism but I don't see it as a priority apart from in situations where religion is directly oppressing people, for example in Ireland with the abortion situation.

[Ace High]

The problem with religion is, it IS a choice. So let's establish that, people can choose not to follow a religion if they simply read sources OTHER than their respective religious book.

Now I truly have no problem with religion except for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Now those three religions are corrupt at their core. NOT saying, the people following them are corrupt, but the religions themselves are corrupt. I mean all three texts advocate the spreading of their religion by the sword through violence and intolerance. So it is very tempting to refrain from being rude when people are trying to justify books that call for ethnic cleansing and violence against non-believers. Does it not anger you when a bigoted Christian or Muslim spews out all this hate speech, only to shout at you that their book says so therefore they must be right? I think it is perfectly fine to be rude to people who support violent and racist texts calling for separation and the division of humanity.