Is religion really that bad.

[uncontent_soul]

(Post Deleted)

[RedWorker]

Yes, religion is that bad. It has, over history, caused an immense amount of damage to humanity, in the name of the stupidest reasons. Though one could argue that many times it was just class society and its components causing the damage with religion being used as the ideological justification.

Personal beliefs are just fine. Religion is something different entirely that is not reduced to several individuals holding the same belief.

Of course, however, - and I'm saying this just because whether religion should be suppressed is a common question here - everyone has or ought to have the freedom to believe in what he likes and to tell others about it.

Both Islam and Protestantism are against your interests as a bisexual and leftist (if you are one). Exactly why would you want to follow either? And by the way, you are what you believe, you don't need anyone to tell you that. So if you don't really believe in Protestantism, then you're not a Protestant, and if you believe in Islam now, you're a Muslim. You 'convert' yourself by deciding which religion to follow.

[Rafiq]

You really can't "convert" to Islam, in that it is similar to Judaism in that it has cultural, community based ramifications with the only difference being that anyone can join the "community of believers". So unless you're living with Muslims, living in the community and adopting its various different particularities, it's just ridiculous to think you're actually getting the experience of being a Muslim, which is by no means something anyone should strive to get. Honestly even on a historic level, the only reason it was possible to "convert" to Islam was because of the necessity of integrating various peoples of a newly found Empire into a uniform political, cultural and social sphere. That is why before the mid-late 20th century there were rarely any converts to Islam on this level: For example, some of Napoleon's troops converted in Egypt solely for reasons of marriage, while during times of war, conversions were made by prisoners, nobles for obvious reasons. These kind of "epiphanies" moronic westerners have that lead them to convert to Islam, or any other orientalist fascination with eastern spirituality, is primarily a postmodern phenomena. This ultimately proves the degenerate and political nature of Islam. Frankly, "Islamic" culture is only excusable insofar as a pretense to ignorance can be made, it is backward, vile and self-righteously reactionary. And before any of you accuse me of chauvinism, do not dare bring me your bullshit unless you're willing to apologize for various Mormon communities in Utah, or are unwilling to condemn the backward family practices of (American) Republican politicians and so on. If you think that Muslim "communities" fit some kind of orientalist fantasy, i.e. where they are "tolerant" of homosexuals and western hedonism, you don't have a shit for experience in one.

Of course condemning the reactionaries who harass Muslims, the chauvinists who want them to leave merely BECAUSE of the fact that they are an "other", rather than holding them to definite standards (Most of them are socially conservative, even the likes of Richard Dawkins is an avowed anti-Feminist as his followers are), are inexcusable. But nothing is more infuriating than a westerner whose received secular education, whose been born in western hedonist society to "convert" to Islam. Because in truth, besides the backward, rural areas and the immigrants who hail from them, "Islam" doesn't even exist if it's divorced from Islamism. When Islam is not a purely private manner, when it is something you approximate the whole world to, it is political. Because what makes Islam unique is that it is a displaced religion, a religion which struggles to find a place through the trauma of modernism (I.e. of course in rural countries and areas Islam can exist "organically"), as such as a reaction against modernism. If you want to convert to such a religion, you are not only incapable of being a socialist, you are a reactionary, and there is no question of it. Think of a born-again Christian: There's simply no question of it!

Those relatively non-religious Muslims who don't live among Muslims (i.e. on a familial level at least) are only Muslims because it's a kind of particular idiosyncrasy which they have no reason to get rid of, i.e. something that signifies a national or cultural background, with the real religion being the religion of capital as always. Our goal is to destroy Islam, as it is to destroy all the false gods. The difference is that we only "respect" the beliefs of a poor migrant worker because they have absolutely no means of knowing otherwise, i.e. or whose religion was an inevitable part of their national identity and so on. Communists in principle do not "respect" religious beliefs in principle, we are not postmodernists. Religion, in case you didn't know, is bullshit. What kind of insanity are we in if we for a second actually degrade our standards so far as to give it a free pass?

Historically the places wherein the Muslim religion is predicament is rich with history and many treasures. One cannot be fascinated by reading of the Ismalis who sacked mecca, and the class struggles of the "Muslim" world (A meaningless term) which, contra what they will tell you, absolutely defined its history in every possible way. The people's of the near east should have a proud, long and rich history - but Islamism does not live up to that legacy. Only Communism can inherit all the treasures of mankind, and only Communist discipline can bring all the various particular national histories of all peoples to survive. The Muslim capitalists, the Muslim landowners and the reactionary Muslim petite-bourgeoisie are, just as much as the European chauvinists, engaging in the facilitation of a political divide between the working people of Europe and the working people of the near east. They tell the poor Muslims that it's "their" history, their legacy against the crusaders, the forces of modernization. But the Near eastern, Southern Asian working people should soon know that their history is one that has defined the history of all of mankind, namely, the struggle against the exploited against the exploiters, the enslaved against the masters and the oppressed against the oppressors. Even the idea of a Muslim world is worthless! What do Muslims living in central Asia have to do with Muslims in North Africa? NOTHING! Their conflation and association is ideological.

[Left Voice]

Religion is inherently reactionary in that it reinforces a set of traditions and practices that are not open to debate, critique or disagreement. Subscription to a religion implies a wilful sacrifice of your right to do this in favour of the 'knowledge' of some all-knowing elder. It is impossible to view it as anything but reactionary and an institution that removes revolutionary thought, actions and tendencies from its followers. After all, how many religious leaders would welcome open disagreement?

At the same time, to blame religion as the cause of war and conflict only serves to spare the dictators and rulers of the past of blame for their repressive regimes. True, the Crusades were carried out by nominal Christians and similar such campaigns by Muslims and other regimes, but these all ultimately had a political purpose and were a tool to expand the political control of the regime. In the days before accepted science, the extraordinary explanative power for working people who were usually illiterate and also lived in an era without scientific method was huge. Religion was the tool of the elite, exploitative class in the same way that the mass media is today. The media has replaced religion as society's explanative power, in this sense.

To cling on to such irrational, unscientific thought as religion in a revolutionary era is to reinforce the irrelevant, outdates doctines of the past that have outlived their purpose beyond being an identifier for one's culture.

[Armchair Partisan]

So unless you're living with Muslims, living in the community and adopting its various different particularities, it's just ridiculous to think you're actually getting the experience of being a Muslim, which is by no means something anyone should strive to get.

I think that's precisely what they're trying to do. OP said they want to convert to Islam "someday". It's obviously not urgent, and it's about the community, as OP expressly wants to join a socially progressive Muslim sect. As they are more than likely going to find no such sect, this project is likely doomed to failure.

With that in mind, OP: why do you want to convert to Islam? Indeed, it is not the go-to religion in your area, so one cannot even say it's because of your surroundings - so why do you think it'd be more worthwhile than any other religions? Why do you feel the need to join any religion, let alone one whose classic teachings regard you as some sort of abomination? (I get that there are varieties of all the Abrahamic religions that disregard the anti-gay stuff, but either the writers of the texts of the Bible/Quran/whatever weren't actually divinely inspired, which kinda makes them pointless as a basis for a religion to begin with, or they were, in which case you are contradicting the absolute truth of a very vengeful and cruel supernatural being... not a wise decision.)

[Antiochus]

Just another Western liberal that thinks he is being a contrarian by becoming a Muslim. LOL! A "progressive" Muslim. I never understood how there are people who can reconcile their political beliefs and what their religion actually decrees. For example, Catholicism (and Christianity in general) holds homosexuality as an abomination. There is no room for debate in this, its right there in bold letters and in the practice of the Christian churches as far back as its inception (one of the early criticisms of paganism by Christians was its permissiveness of homosexuality). So how the FUCK could a gay person or a person that thinks homosexuality is umm idk perfectly fine, reconcile that in their fucking mind? Its like being a KKK member and having a Black wife. Its so schizophrenic and requires so much contradictory bullshit.

"Umm the KKK is not just about hating n******, its about this and that". I have no sympathy for someone who can (unlike some poor rural farmer who can't read) afford to think for themselves about such simple issues.

[lutraphile]

I live in the American south. It's that bad, even just from personal experience re: the mistreatment of gays until just a few years ago it became taboo, and it is still used to justify gender roles. It is used to justify all sorts of atrocities and to divide people by religious lines.

I think the left should be more supportive of the militant atheist movement, although obviously not those who use it to justify reactionary political movements (i.e. Hitchens)

[Rafiq]

I think the left should be more supportive of the militant atheist movement, although obviously not those who use it to justify reactionary political movements (i.e. Hitchens)

I agree that we should take an active role in defending even bourgeois secular institutions from the recent onslaught of degenerate mysticism, spiritualism and superstition. In the sense that yes there has been a religious revival, and yes we need to take a militant stance against it. Even bourgeois reason, at this point, cannot be defended by ruling ideas themselves, as the apparatus of scientific discovery and its conception among the masses (via the profit-based sensationalist mass media) expresses such an alarmingly stark disparity over the past decades. The general standard of reason, if you will, has degenerated and the Left has failed to combat this, even more unforgivably either outright espousing, or being "tolerant" of decadent spiritualism (i.e. new age garbage and western Buddhism).

At the same time, the new atheist movement has socially reactionary inclinations, such as its fervent opposition to feminism. Even Hitchens is progressive among the likes of Sam Harris and Dawkins, and that is truly saying something. However the role taken by the new atheists in combating the religious should be appropriated by Communists. Except we ought to expose the god that won't let himself be proclaimed, we ought to cast the only idol that has reigned among men unnoticed: The god of capital that every bourgeois ideologue, "atheist" or otherwise worships.

Marx was correct. Without Communism, atheism is nothing but an abstraction, because the god of bourgeois society is inescapable without an opposition to bourgeois society. Hence, Communism begins from the onset from atheism, but without communism atheism is an abstraction.

[willowtooth]

I pretend to be Protestant for complicated reasons within family life, but I want to convert to Islam someday...even though I'm bi... I'd try to find a more liberal and progressive group of Muslims. I find religion fine as long as it isn't put before the safety of the masses, or is being affiliated with bigotry.

I think religion is one of the worst things on planet earth

"Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" -Seneca the Younger

[lutraphile]

Even Hitchens is progressive among the likes of Sam Harris and Dawkins, and that is truly saying something.
I agree with most of what you said, and especially opposition to the right-libertarian anti-theist group (the fedora atheists, if you will). I will, however, defend Dawkins to the death :p He is responsible for a lot of my own opinions on religion, and is not the reactionary he is painted to be. Hell, he is even a bit of a socialist at heart, having said "though religion can play a vital role in the recruitment and motivation of potential future suicide bombers, their real driving-force is a cocktail of motivations including politics, humiliation, revenge, retaliation and altruism. The configuration of these motivations is related to the specific circumstances of the political conflict behind the rise of suicide attacks in different countries" and at one point accused opponents of making him look "like a Tory." He was also very vocally opposed to the Iraq War, saying about it, "Osama bin Laden, in his wildest dreams, could hardly have hoped for this." Dawkins is not right-wing at all, and certainly not in the camp of the other two.

[RedAnarchist]

You really can't "convert" to Islam, in that it is similar to Judaism in that it has cultural, community based ramifications with the only difference being that anyone can join the "community of believers". So unless you're living with Muslims, living in the community and adopting its various different particularities, it's just ridiculous to think you're actually getting the experience of being a Muslim, which is by no means something anyone should strive to get. Honestly even on a historic level, the only reason it was possible to "convert" to Islam was because of the necessity of integrating various peoples of a newly found Empire into a uniform political, cultural and social sphere. That is why before the mid-late 20th century there were rarely any converts to Islam on this level: For example, some of Napoleon's troops converted in Egypt solely for reasons of marriage, while during times of war, conversions were made by prisoners, nobles for obvious reasons. These kind of "epiphanies" moronic westerners have that lead them to convert to Islam, or any other orientalist fascination with eastern spirituality, is primarily a postmodern phenomena. This ultimately proves the degenerate and political nature of Islam. Frankly, "Islamic" culture is only excusable insofar as a pretense to ignorance can be made, it is backward, vile and self-righteously reactionary. And before any of you accuse me of chauvinism, do not dare bring me your bullshit unless you're willing to apologize for various Mormon communities in Utah, or are unwilling to condemn the backward family practices of (American) Republican politicians and so on. If you think that Muslim "communities" fit some kind of orientalist fantasy, i.e. where they are "tolerant" of homosexuals and western hedonism, you don't have a shit for experience in one.

Islam is an Abrahamic religion, and therefore a "Western" religion.

[Rafiq]

Islam is an Abrahamic religion, and therefore a "Western" religion.

While all western religions are abrahamic in origin (That is, the ones that still survive), not every abrahamic religion is western. Islam is most definitely not a western religion in this sense - there are even certain denominations of Christianity and "oriental" Judaism which can hardly be categorized as western. That is because Christianity and Judaism in the west largely underwent rapid historic developments that completely altered their character.

[Rafiq]

Dawkins is not right-wing at all, and certainly not in the camp of the other two.

Dawkins might have good intentions, but what has made Dawkins popular is largely certain reactionary predispositions of his followers. And there are many comments of Dawkins which are simply inexcusable - regarding both feminism and Muslims. This has squarely placed him, within a certain contexts, alongside the anti-immigrant sentiment prevalent in Europe.

However, I am aware that things are not so simple. One user here, Paul Cockshott, has noted that Dawkins has done well to expel certain creeping religious tendencies within the field of biology and that is worth commending. But he is no friend of the revolution, if you will.

[Armchair Partisan]

Dawkins is a smart scientist who is also very obnoxious for his Muslimophobia (a more accurate term, I think, than 'Islamophobia') and his self-proclaimed support/fascination for and alliance with cultural Christianity against Muslims, motivated by the usual right-wing bigotry.

A lot of other New Atheists are even worse. The big Youtube New Atheists spend more time on anti-feminism than combating religious bigotry. The New Atheist movement is thoroughly bourgeois and reactionary. I wish Atheism Plus had taken off more, it was a pretty good experiment in intersectionality even if it wasn't entirely revolutionary in its own right.

[Comrade Jacob]

Religion is something better left avoided.
However if it must exist we must use it to our benefit.

[cyu]

I'd say religious ideology is like political, ethical, or moral ideology - just set of ideas that has managed to maintain some kind of coherency over time. Like any set of ideas, evolutionary forces do operate on them. The ones more likely to allow their carriers to survive, are passed on to other societies and other generations. The ones encouraging their followers to drink poisoned Kool-Aid, die a swift death...

[dodger]

http://ex-muslim.org.uk/wp-content/themes/cemb11/images/bannerlogo.png

http://ex-muslim.org.uk/

''Is religion really that bad?'' You all might get a straight answer from these people. Many have bared their innermost feelings. OH--and Professor Dawkins is a welcome guest at formal meetings and socials alike. Dawkins reserves his greatest contempt for those who seek to indoctrinate children with religion, without allowing them to grow up to make up their own minds. Surely bad in any language.

[cyu]

Off topic but reminds me of http://www.sott.net/article/125878-The-Strategy-of-Tension-NATOs-Secret-War-Against-Europe

By the term 'tension', we mean emotional tension, all that which creates a feeling of tension.

By 'strategy' we make reference to that which increases people's fear in regard to a determined group.

NATO's clandestine structures, usually called 'Stay Behind groups', were created in the beginning to act as a guerrilla in case of an occupation of Western Europe by the Soviet Union. The United States stated that the guerrilla networks were necessary to overcome the lack of preparedness of the countries attacked by Germany.

Several of the countries that were occupied by the Germans, like Norway, wanted to learn the lessons of their incapacity to resist the occupier, and they said to themselves that, in case of a new occupation, they had to be better prepared, to have another option at hand and to count with a secret army in case that the official one were to be defeated. Inside these secret armies, there were honest people, sincere patriots, who only wanted to defend their countries from an occupation.

In the European Parliament, in November 1990, many members exclaimed that the existence of such clandestine armies could not be tolerated and that the European people needed to know the true origin of terrorist acts and that an inquiry was needed.

while president François Mitterrand stated that all that belonged to the past, we discovered later that these secret structures had always been present. Mitterrand was forced to rectify his statement. Later, the head of the French secret services, admiral Pierre Lacoste, confirmed that these secret armies existed in France as well, and that France had also been involved in terrorist attacks.

the Iran bombings in 1953, for which the communist Iranians were blamed at first. So it happened that the CIA and the Mi6 had used some agents provocateurs to orchestrate the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh's administration, within the framework of the war, to control the oil.

By means of these lies, it was intended to make people believe that Muslims wanted to spread terrorism all around, and that this war was necessary to fight against terror. However, the true reason for this war is the control of energy resources. This is due to the fact that the geology, the richness in gas and oil, are concentrated in the Muslim countries.

We cannot say that oil must be taken from Iraq, because people would say that children must not be killed to obtain oil. That is why Muslims are labelled as "terrorists". It is all a big lie, but if it is repeated a thousand times that Muslims are "terrorists", people will end up believing it.

for the governments, it is easier to manipulate people than to tell them that they are trying to get hold of somebody else's oil.

[Mr. Piccolo]

Religion is something better left avoided.
However if it must exist we must use it to our benefit.

Yeah, the Left really doesn't need to alienate itself even further from people. I don't see what the point of allying with militant atheists is, especially because a good number of them are at least as reactionary as some religious conservatives.

Luke Savage wrote a good piece on this issue in Jacobin.

See: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/12/new-atheism-old-empire/

I am not even getting into the atheists that are into biological determinism, scientific racism, and a whole host of other awful ideologies.

See: http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2012/07/25/scientific-racism-among-atheists/

I am also skeptical about claims that religion is on the rise, at least in the West. For example, religion seems to be in decline among younger Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/upshot/the-rise-of-young-americans-who-dont-believe-in-god.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

The rise of violent, reactionary Islam in the Muslim world has more to do with the efforts of the United States and its allies to undermine and destroy socialist and nationalist governments that threatened Western economic interests. American support for the Afghan mujahideen is a classic example.

[Invader Zim]

Two words: Fuck Religion.

[PhoenixAsh]

You don't convert to Islam. You return to it.

[dodger]

Originally Posted by Comrade Jacob View Post
Religion is something better left avoided.
However if it must exist we must use it to our benefit.

Sit on your hands if you must silence is often golden. Another view
https://www.cpbml.org.uk/news/real-trojan-horse


The real Trojan horse

Why are we so passive in the face of attempts by millionaires and zealots to pervert proper education?

One of the first tasks for the incoming Education Secretary Nicky Morgan on 15 July was to comment on the so-called Trojan Horse conspiracy. A report commissioned by the government into allegations of a Muslim takeover of some Birmingham schools had just been published.

Morgan immediately shot herself in the foot by referring to disturbing evidence that people with a shared ideology were trying to gain control of schools’ governing bodies. That’s an apt description for many of the academy chains now taking over Britain’s schools, of other persuasions besides Islam. The reality behind the headlines is more mundane, yet needs the attention of our class.

The report arrived after months of recrimination and hand-wringing. It is studded with head-turning phrases such as “aggressive Islamist agenda”, “anti-Western”, “intolerant” and so on. Yet it is so afraid of offending the sensibilities of mainstream Muslims that it has to invoke the fear of terrorism to justify its conclusions.

Schools are not sponsoring terrorism, but it suits the government to insinuate that might be so. Expect to see a wave of Ofsted reports next year downgrading schools for not explicitly teaching enough about the dangers of terrorism.

Direct control
The minister also announced that Birmingham would have an education commissioner reporting directly to herself and the chief executive of Birmingham City Council. That sidesteps elected local authority responsibility. As a political bonus Morgan is stealing Labour’s thunder, as this is what that party is proposing on a national scale should it win the next election.

So, what is all the huffing and puffing really about? In December 2013, an anonymous letter was leaked to the Daily Telegraph. It claimed that some Muslim governors in Birmingham had been and were planning to systematically Islamise schools and oust headteachers who resisted. Accusations of Islamophobia were hurled at anyone who supported a call that such claims should be investigated.

Good heads did quit in the face of constant undermining by governors. There were links between governors in Birmingham and some in Bradford and other cities with a significant Muslim population. There was strong evidence that the secular, non-faith character of some schools was being replaced by a character more aligned to a conservative Islamic agenda.

Similar charges could be levelled at other faith-based schools. For instance those run by fundamentalist Christians who seek to impose their strange beliefs in schools for which they are responsible. They are not under investigation, but in a rare outbreak of sanity the 2012 ban on teaching creationism as science was extended this June to cover all schools including academies and free schools in existence in 2012.

This phenomenon isn’t new. For years, individuals and groups have sought to take control of schools. Some have a genuine belief that their variety of religion is preferable to any other. Most are driven by power and greed; there is money to be made in education these days.

The concern for teachers, parents and pupils is not that governors should wish to influence schools. It is the collective paralysis that takes hold when overzealous governors happen to be Muslim.

Albert Bore, leader of Birmingham City Council, hit the nail on the head commenting on Birmingham’s own investigation. He said: “The report has highlighted areas where we have either taken no action, were too slow to take action, or have simply done the wrong thing.” The report further states, “...this has often been because of the risk of being seen as racist or Islamophobic. Our proper commitment to cohesion in communities sometimes overrode the need to tackle difficult questions about what was happening in a small number of schools.”

This is a clear admission of failing to take the right action at the right time. Yet Bore invokes a wish for “community cohesion” in mitigation. That phrase is no more than a mealy-mouthed incantation which means anything and therefore nothing.

Why are institutions so prone to sitting on their hands whenever Islam gets a mention? That includes local authorities, although they have an admittedly dwindling role in holding schools and governors to account.

Multiculturalism
This weakness has its roots in the 1970s and 1980s when ethnic diversity was championed in the name of multiculturalism. That philosophy was borrowed initially from Canada and Australia, with their long history of immigration. It promoted the equal status of all cultures which coexist in a town or country and explicitly denied the primacy of the host culture. It demonised integration on the grounds that it swamped cultural differences, and placed those differences ahead of togetherness.

That approach had disastrous consequences, not least because it undermined the need to acquire a functional use of English.

Immigration to England in the 1960s and 1970s included a significant proportion of workers from Pakistan. A key focus of the emerging multicultural policies was respect for Islam and Islamic practices. That was so even when such practices went totally against existing British values such as equality between men and women, the right to choose your own partner and to determine your own course in life.

As a working class, as a people, we saw things we did not approve of; the application of Sharia law, forced marriages, first cousin marriage, the acquisition of British citizenship through marriage to an abducted schoolgirl. We tutted in private, and a few were brave enough to object openly, but deferred in public to the multicultural zealots.

British workers were in effect reluctant to acknowledge our own working class culture as more advanced than that of workers from less developed nations, who have not yet won for themselves the freedoms our forebears did.

The present manifestations of the ethnic diversity approach are everywhere to be seen. For example information leaflets in so many languages that they are unreadable or translation services local authorities pride themselves on providing, but which inhibit the learning of English.

This reaction, the acceptance of diversity over unity, is widespread but still mostly only skin deep. We have not for the most part succumbed to black unions, segregated workplaces and the rest of it. We could do with a bit of healthy pride in our own culture, created over centuries by our own class. We have assimilated internal and external migration, but in progress were united. The NHS, the education service and above all the union movement were all created by us and not imported.

[atheist]

In the best scenario, religions and their dogma aren't necessarily bad, but people's ability to interpret them often are. Those interpretations can then become standard, and that can and does lead to problems.