Religious Artwork

[truthaddict11]

If we ,as Redstar suggested, do destroy all churches including the "famous" and "historical" ones shouldnt we also destroy religious artwork? does Da Vinci's "Last Supper" and Michaelangelo's "David" belong in a pile of rubble along with that "historical" cathedral Notre Dame?

Please discuss.

[Lardlad95]

....Redstar did always hate art, especially since he himself can't really darw, sculpt, or take photographs.

Personally I'd rather not see religous instituions destroyed, only their lobbying abilities in government.

[redstar2000]

Well, a museum is not a church. Religious artwork that is presently located in churches could be removed to museums (most of it, by the way, is crap and not worth saving...even according to those who are "fans" of such genres).

Some things are simply too large and awkward to relocate; so perhaps holographs could be made of them and then the originals (usually built in to some religious structure) would be destroyed.

Communists in western Europe will have a long and tedious task in removing religious architecture from public life -- the landscape is littered with churches and cathedrals.

When you have to pick up and dispose of a thousand years of trash, it will take a while.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[SittingBull47]

I didn't even know there were people here who wanted to destroy the great works of art that contributed so much to history...

I'm taken aback. How could we? Granted, religious lobbying in politics has no place, but that doesn't mean we should destroy all the things that so many people find inspirational and beautiful.

If there were a movement to destroy art, i would most proudly fight against the ingorant morons who want to eliminate the heart of people.

[redstar2000]

I didn't even know there were people here who wanted to destroy the great works of art that contributed so much to history...

Do you consider cathedrals to be "great works of art" that "contributed so much to history"?

I think the opposite: they are monuments to ignorance, superstition, servility, and barbaric cruelty.

So yes, I want them totally destroyed.


...but that doesn't mean we should destroy all the things that so many people find inspirational and beautiful.

By the time the working class is actually capable of proletarian revolution, most people will see them as neither "inspirational" or "beautiful".

Just an ugly reminder of "slave-times".


If there were a movement to destroy art, I would most proudly fight against the ignorant morons who want to eliminate the heart of people.

Heart? How is religious architecture the "heart" of anyone but "an ignorant moron"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Misodoctakleidist]

Red star, would also want to destroy stone henge or the ruins of mayan temples?

[iloveatomickitten]

So under the despotism of Red Star are we even allowed to hold our own opinions or more to the point not his/hers?

[redstar2000]

Red star, would [you] also want to destroy stone henge or the ruins of Mayan temples?

No, that would not be necessary in my view...the really ancient stuff has no more religious significance or meaning.

Stonehenge should probably get a good fence around it; there's a bunch of "new age idiots" that try to use it for superstitious ceremonies a couple of times a year.

Nor, by the way, would it be reasonable to destroy a modern building that didn't "look religious" -- "propaganda in stone". There are some churches that all you'd have to do is take down the exterior crosses and remodel the interiors for useful purposes.


So under the despotism of Red Star are we even allowed to hold our own opinions or more to the point not his/hers?

A "serious" question deserves a "serious" answer: if you disagree with me, my "despotism" will scoop out your brain and feed it to my cat! :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[iloveatomickitten]

:blink:


Do you consider cathedrals to be "great works of art" that "contributed so much to history"?

They have contributed little good to history, but they are "our" history and they are works of art in that they are creative though greatness is highly subjective. The total destruction of all that is religious is a fanatical waste of time, people will not be enriched by it.


the really ancient stuff has no more religious significance or meaning.


Do you advocate the destruction of churches and other like religious buildings if they sill exist as places of worship? As without worship they to lack religious significance.

[redstar2000]

The total destruction of all that is religious is a fanatical waste of time, people will not be enriched by it.

Well, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it?

Revolutions have traditionally destroyed symbols of "the old order"...it was felt to be a "liberating" experience. Why should proletarian revolution be any different in that regard?

Religion has been closely identified with ruling classes throughout the history of class society. Why should it not then suffer "the usual penalty" at the hands of those who wish to abolish class society?

Of course, it's "fanatical"...in the eyes of the old order, revolutions are always "fanatical".


Do you advocate the destruction of churches and other like religious buildings if they sill exist as places of worship? As without worship they lack religious significance.

Their very existence is "propaganda in stone".

Anyone who looks at such a building, whether or not it is still being used for superstitious purposes, knows what it stands for and what it means. It's an on-going reminder of the assertion that the supernatural "exists" and must be "worshiped".

That cannot be permitted...if we are at all serious about deleting this idiocy from the human species for all time.

So...down they come! Perhaps to be replaced with some nice public parks. Cities don't have enough green spaces and can always use more.

Trees are better than gods.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 05:31 PM
No, that would not be necessary in my view...the really ancient stuff has no more religious significance or meaning.
That's because they no longer have a religion which uses them so why don't you attack the causes of religion? Destroying churches will only antagonise christians so what's the point?

[monkeydust]

Misodocktakleidst has touched upon an important point here.

I firmly agree with Redstar that religious architecture 'should' be destroyed. However attempting to do so might simply strengthen the resolve of any would be Christians. The might go 'underground' but would be firmly opposed to our cause.

Should we shoot them all? I don't think so.

Furthermore, such 'harsh' measures may turn many away from our ideals. I know many who like the 'nice' aspects of Marxism, yet are somewhat repulsed by the prospect of demolishing churches.

[redstar2000]

...so why don't you attack the causes of religion?

Oh, we will, have no fears on that account.

But one of the things that "legitimizes" religion in society is its constant public presence. Travel across an urban landscape and what do you see? Fucking churches!

It's an "in-your-face" phenomenon that is literally unavoidable.

(Rather like slavery was before the fall of the Confederacy. In the anti-bellum American South, you saw slaves everywhere you went. Slavery was "natural", just "part of the background", etc. When you see enough people in chains, you tend to think that the idea of people in chains is "acceptable".)


Destroying churches will only antagonise christians, so what's the point?

They are already antagonistic...even when they "say" otherwise. Religion has nearly always enthusiastically sided with ruling class repression...it is "naturally" reactionary.

One of the side-effects of destroying religious architecture is that it will demoralize the believers.

"If God permits the destruction of His own House, perhaps He's not all-powerful. Perhaps he doesn't even exist."

That's a "good result" of our work.


They might go 'underground' but would be firmly opposed to our cause.

The really fanatical Christians are already opposed. (Not just to communism; you should see the venom the Catholic hierarchy pours on the head of Chavez in Venezuela...a simple populist reformer.)

I want them underground...I want them scared to death to make a public appearance of any kind. When they are deeply hidden from the public eye, they can make no new recruits (suckers)...and when they die of old age, their religion dies with them.

The big mistake that 20th century "socialist" countries made (Cuba is still making that mistake) was thinking that you could "control" religion by setting up a bureaucracy to "regulate it".

The churches just "hunker down", continue to privately spread their poison, and eventually come out openly in favor of counter-revolution (Poland, etc.).

We should not make that mistake.


Should we shoot them all? I don't think so.

Nor do I. But the serious godsuckers believe we intend to "shoot them all"...and will act accordingly.


I know many who like the 'nice' aspects of Marxism, yet are somewhat repulsed by the prospect of demolishing churches.

Ain't it the truth! :lol:

You talk to them about communist society and they have to admit that it sounds a lot better than what exists now.

You tell them what has to be done to get there...and the squealing begins.

"You can't do that!"

Yes we can. And we will.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

"If God permits the destruction of His own House, perhaps He's not all-powerful. Perhaps he doesn't even exist."

You are kidding of course? You can not honestly believe that they will think this can you? All that will happen is that you have a counter revolution, only this time by a faction of religious zealots. Though thinking about how you run things, you'd probably like this because it would allow the red army to test it's strength against a bunch of counter revolutionaries.


I want them underground...I want them scared to death to make a public appearance of any kind. When they are deeply hidden from the public eye, they can make no new recruits (suckers)...and when they die of old age, their religion dies with them.

As a communist you should not underestimate the power of underground movements. How in the hell can you say they'll be unable to recruit people from the underground when you and I do it on a daily basis. Not July 26th style ( we aren't fighting a revolution) but we are recruiting people in grass roots ways. They'll be doing it the same way the June 14th movement did, the same way the july 26th movement did.


We should not make that mistake.

There was no mistake, they just never followed through.



Yes we can. And we will.

The Gospel according to Redstar *bows head and prays*

[SittingBull47]

Art's apart of our history. Nobody said that every single little piece of art had to be optimistic, if it were then where would revolutionaries get inspiration? Think of Picasso's "Guernica", it's about genocide. Are you saying we should destroy things like that?! It inflames many people to never let such a thing happen like that again.

Jeez, Redstar's sounding way too much like a right winger. Don't destroy what you don't understand.

[synthesis]

I don't know where Guernica entered the picture. Picasso belonged to the Communist Party.

[redstar2000]

As a communist you should not underestimate the power of underground movements.

That's an extremely complex question. Some underground movements have flourished, eventually emerged openly into the public eye, and triumphed.

Others have simply withered away.

"Being underground" is not a "magical" path to victory that works in all cases at all times, just as being "above ground" is not a "magical" path to either victory or defeat.

My contention is that as religion vanishes from public eye, its "underground component" (composed of the most fanatical true-believers) will have a shrinking pool of "potential recruits"...there will be fewer and fewer people who are even interested in the subject.

"Pssst, wanna read a holy book?"

"Get lost, you creep!"


Art's a part of our history. Nobody said that every single little piece of art had to be optimistic...

There's one thing that communism won't help...folks who can't be bothered to read the whole thread before commenting. :(

Here's what I actually wrote about religious art...


Well, a museum is not a church. Religious artwork that is presently located in churches could be removed to museums (most of it, by the way, is crap and not worth saving...even according to those who are "fans" of such genres).

So whatever the art historians regard as "good stuff" goes into a museum and all the crap goes to a landfill.

Then the building comes down.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

"Being underground" is not a "magical" path to victory that works in all cases at all times, just as being "above ground" is not a "magical" path to either victory or defeat.

Never said it was, I"m just saying don't under estimate it.


My contention is that as religion vanishes from public eye, its "underground component" (composed of the most fanatical true-believers) will have a shrinking pool of "potential recruits"...there will be fewer and fewer people who are even interested in the subject.

Kinda like our movement?

People will always look for something to believe in, their pool wont shrink into oblivion.


"Pssst, wanna read a holy book?"

how much?

[redstar2000]

People will always look for something to believe in; their pool wont shrink into oblivion.

Is that like "people will always be greedy and want more"?

Since all we have to work with is our knowledge of past and present class societies, I don't think we can assume very much about "what people will always look for" in classless society.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 02:01 AM

People will always look for something to believe in; their pool wont shrink into oblivion.

Is that like "people will always be greedy and want more"?

Since all we have to work with is our knowledge of past and present class societies, I don't think we can assume very much about "what people will always look for" in classless society.

Good point. However eeven if there isn't conventional religion, people will still mystify and exxagerate things. Look at what they did to JEsus. how did one reforming rabbi turn into the son of God? Hell for all we know future generations could turn marx into the messiah.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Good point. However eeven if there isn't conventional religion, people will still mystify and exxagerate things. Look at what they did to JEsus. how did one reforming rabbi turn into the son of God? Hell for all we know future generations could turn marx into the messiah.

Mystify things, comrade?
Do you mean that folks will say that what happened hundreds of years ago was "spiritualy" miraculous? And the guy who did it was "spirituously" superior?
I don't think so.
This is the kind of thing that rather ignorant people do.
How often do you hear some guy say that something was a work a of god, and people actualy take him seriously?
Nobody would care to hear some douche speak about a holy revelation.

Do you really think people want to glorify somebody that much?

Anyways...
I'm pretty sure that I agree with Redstar.
Can you imagine the oppressive "connotation" that pictures and statues of saints or Jesus will carry?
Imagine trying to maintain posters and statues of Hitler after the war, nobody would stand for it and it would be downright offensive!

[redstar2000]

Hell, for all we know, future generations could turn Marx into the messiah.

I'm not too concerned about future generations; but it wouldn't surprise me if some religious group did indeed claim that "Marx was sent by God to Redeem the Proletariat" or some such crap.

You know that there are protestant evangelicals in Latin America right now circulating posters of Che with a crown of thorns.

The bastards don't give up easily.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[captain anarchy]

religious art and religion all together mimic and/or steal from each other. for example the christian fish symbolizing jesus was taken from pagan geomotry. the cross both upside down and right side up symbolized freedom and independence at a time in the world now right side up it symbolizes the sacrifice of the life of jesus even though the son of zues in paganism was the original story of what today is known as the life of jesus every thing from the birth to the death is the very same in the lifes of jesus and the son of zues.

the cross upside down to some symbolizes satanism and to others anti-christ. the pentagram is in satanism with two points up and said to atract less spirtual power than the pagan/wiccan pentagram that has one point up. but both are used to atract a power source in similar ways through spiritual and magic rituals.

me i like pentagrams even though i don't believe in what they are used for i just find them beautiful in some way as well as the upside down cross.

i am an atheist but have read up on many religions and books on theory of religion such as the book the jesus mysterys and i recomend it to others.

[Lardlad95]

Mystify things, comrade?
Do you mean that folks will say that what happened hundreds of years ago was "spiritualy" miraculous? And the guy who did it was "spirituously" superior?
I don't think so.
This is the kind of thing that rather ignorant people do.
How often do you hear some guy say that something was a work a of god, and people actualy take him seriously?

Where in the hell do you live? seriously, come to the south. Everyone here thinks that this or that is the work of God. "God is the reason I didn't lose my house to the bank" "God blessed me with a refund check" "God helped me get laid". God is the reason for everything according to these people.

Also you mentioned only ignorant people saying these things....you are talking about the culture that made American idol popular...don't give them too much credit.


Nobody would care to hear some douche speak about a holy revelation.

Wanna make a bet? I mean you don't know that many religious people do you? Well there is this place most of them live, it's called the USA

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 05:21 AM

Hell, for all we know, future generations could turn Marx into the messiah.

I'm not too concerned about future generations; but it wouldn't surprise me if some religious group did indeed claim that "Marx was sent by God to Redeem the Proletariat" or some such crap.

You know that there are protestant evangelicals in Latin America right now circulating posters of Che with a crown of thorns.

The bastards don't give up easily.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
DOn't worry they'll die out soon

[Kez]

Comrade RedStar (without turning this into a slagging, wit filled, match),
Do you think people who go across country and see churches suddenly think "fuck me, im gonna start going to church now?"

Under Capitalism, there is this opportunity, as you will agree religion preys on the victims and weak.

However, under socialism there wont be these weak people, becuase the system wont be unjust to them.

Surely its better to preserve many religious buildings to show how religion worked on the working class, and used their money to make such elabourate buildings, and then lied to them about another life etc?

I believe we can keep some just as evidence for future generations. However if there are many in a small rea, you can knock a few down and build parks whatever.

I dont think under socialism there will be the NEED to turn to religion
and under socialism i think we need the evidence to show how awful religion WAS

Under socialism, if the state is seen to persecute religious people, what good does this do? It would be a different thing if the mass of people themselves started smashing the religious institutions, but i dont think its correct for the state to start smashing them up. Im not convinced of the benefits

What you think?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Where in the hell do you live? seriously, come to the south. Everyone here thinks that this or that is the work of God. "God is the reason I didn't lose my house to the bank" "God blessed me with a refund check" "God helped me get laid". God is the reason for everything according to these people.

Also you mentioned only ignorant people saying these things....you are talking about the culture that made American idol popular...don't give them too much credit.

That generation is going out soon, and I don't expect that the next one will be like that, or at least not so quick to take it very seriously. And by "it", I mean random religious claims.

[redstar2000]

Do you think people who go across country and see churches suddenly think "fuck me, I'm gonna start going to church now"?

Do you think people in the ante-bellum American south went across the country-side and saw parades of slaves in chains and suddenly thought "fuck me, I'm gonna buy a slave"?

The effect, in other words, of the presence of those buildings is more subtle than simply saying "here we are, come on in".

It's more the effect of "here we have always been and here we will always be, whether you like it or not!"

Or "we are eternal; you can never escape us!"


Surely it's better to preserve many religious buildings to show how religion worked on the working class, and used their money to make such elaborate buildings, and then lied to them about another life, etc.?

Stone makes a more forceful impression than speech.

In fact, you can't really argue with stone at all.

The French revolutionaries did not paste a sign on the wall of the Bastille telling of its horrors...they tore it down!

That's the right attitude!


It would be a different thing if the mass of people themselves started smashing the religious institutions...

That is exactly what I propose...and what my believing critics are most outraged about.

They say that I will be a "Stalin"...but what they really fear is "the outraged mob".

With good reason.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Xvall]

does Da Vinci's "Last Supper" and Michaelangelo's "David" belong in a pile of rubble along with that "historical" cathedral Notre Dame?

Yes. But that's just me.

[redstar2000]

...does Da Vinci's "Last Supper" and Michaelangelo's "David" belong in a pile of rubble along with that "historical" cathedral Notre Dame?

Da Vinci's "Last Supper" doesn't really exist any more...it's been "restored" so many times that very little of the original is left anyway. It's painted on the wall of a church and I suppose the wall could be taken down and rebuilt inside a museum...and then the painting could be "restored" yet again.

Michaelangelo's "David" is in a museum in Italy, is it not? (Off-topic question: does anyone know if "David" is circumscribed? It would be most amusing if this famous sculpture of a "Jewish" lad was created with an intact penis.)

The Notre Dame cathedral will indeed be imploded and properly so. It was built to "awe" the masses into submission...something that will no longer be tolerated.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

If we tear down all of these reactionary institutions, what can we show the next generations?

Should concentration camps be destroyed or preserved? I believe preservedd so people now can go and see how disgusting nazis/fascism is. Would you propse to smash them? If not, what is the difference?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:45 AM
If we tear down all of these reactionary institutions, what can we show the next generations?

Should concentration camps be destroyed or preserved? I believe preservedd so people now can go and see how disgusting nazis/fascism is. Would you propse to smash them? If not, what is the difference?
Interesting point. I have never been to any of these camps dotted around Europe but I would like to. When I ask myself why thought, it isnt because I want to see just how vile Nazism is, it's because lots of people died there. In my opinion, there is nothing these places can serve except a reminder of the disgusting attrocities commited by human beings against human beings. I have also said that they should be pulled down with memorials erected. Big, giant memorials, with every name listed on their [maybe that's not possible] but anyway, I do not think that Auszwitz serves any purpose but to indulge our own morbidness and fascination. Why would you want to go and look at a room where tens of thousands of men, women and children were gassed.

As for cathedrals and churches...They take up too much space. As for Art. I think pictures debpicting Jesus as our saviour is as offensive as a swatstika. I wouldnt want to see swatstikas in art gallaries. No matter how beautiful they are. But I suppose it is a collective responsability to decide what happens them.

[Kez]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2004, 11:16 AM
In my opinion, there is nothing these places can serve except a reminder of the disgusting attrocities commited by human beings against human beings.
Is this not enough of a reason tho? I think if you ask anyone who had family murdered in these camps they would agree they should be kept as a reminder.

As for memorials, i agree, and i think we should build memorials of greater importance perhaps of those who bravely fought against nazism in Warsaw, Belgrade and Paris.

Would the vatican (empty of old fart popes) not serve a reminder to people how religion uses money to buy gold crosses or whatever the fuck, instead of having that money democratically sorted to build projects for the working community.

Its like you wouldnt burn all books of Mein Kampf or the Bible, for the same reason that you want to show further generations how sick these things are show them that this evidence is WHY we want to avoid it. Same applies to artwork, a lot of it being very impressive *thinks of famous artist who did religious pic...fails*

what was the one on the ceiling with the 2 fingers nearly touching, thats pretty impressive, no need to smash that. Thats was a symbol of the time period, why destroy history?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:11 PM
what was the one on the ceiling with the 2 fingers nearly touching, thats pretty impressive, no need to smash that. Thats was a symbol of the time period, why destroy history?
The sistine chapel and he was called Michaelangelo. I suppose destroying them would appear to be quite spiteful. I suppose if the collective of Rome decided they wanted to keep it, who am I, a Yorkshire man, to stop them.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I don't think anyone would be offended by religios symbols and building because they just wouldn't be taken seriously, as i pointed out earlier none of us are offened by stone henge or mayan temples or egyptian pyramids.

[redstar2000]

Should concentration camps be destroyed or preserved?

Destroyed.

This is not exactly related to the topic, but I have thought for quite a while that there is something really sick about "holocaust tourism"...it effectively trivializes the magnitude of suffering that took place. It becomes a kind of "pornography" of pain.

What happened is amply documented and anyone who is interested has a wide choice of scholarly work to consult.

We don't need Mel Gibson to make it his next "movie project", much less an Auschwitz "theme park".


I don't think anyone would be offended by religious symbols and buildings because they just wouldn't be taken seriously; as I pointed out earlier, none of us are offended by stone henge or Mayan temples or Egyptian pyramids.

Well, time is the crucial variable in this matter. The reason that Mayan temples or Egyptian pyramids no longer raise a response is that those religions have been dead a very long time; thus their structures are curiosities and nothing else.

If you wanted to suggest that proletarian revolution will not take place for five or ten centuries -- by which time all the cathedrals, mosques, etc. will have long since fallen into ruin -- then you would be right...no one would bother to destroy that which time itself had already destroyed.

I doubt that we will be that lucky (if that's the right word); based on the experiences of the old USSR and the "people's democracies" in eastern Europe, I expect religion to fight us "tooth and nail"...and the very existence of their "houses of God" is an important weapon in their armory.

I think they should be deprived of that weapon.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Xvall]

what was the one on the ceiling with the 2 fingers nearly touching, thats pretty impressive, no need to smash that. Thats was a symbol of the time period, why destroy history?

There are some very impressive pictures, buildings, and statues dedicated to Hitler and Mussolini. It was a symbol of the early 1900's, why destroy history?