Kiss Bassist-Anti Islamic

[Comrade BNS]

Read the Story Here. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=7969)

Kiss's Gene Simmons has made some outrageous, and downright racist claims against the Islamic community on Melbourne radio. Kiss are on tour in Australia at the moment, and as we speak the Islamic community and other humanitarian groups are organising protests and boycots in relation to Mr. Simmons' claims.

On a personal note, I ask you all in light of this to let Mr. Simmons and kiss know that racism will not be tolerated, not even among celebraties!

Comrade BNS

[Invictus]

Islam is a religion not a race, dickhead.

[BOZG]

Sometimes racism is defined as being prejudice towards race, nationality, religion or ethnicity.

[Intifada]

the guy is an ignorant dipshit.

[guerrillaradio]

What will Peter Griffin say??

EDIT: OK I've read the story and from what's quoted there, the only innaccuracy would be that he is tarring all of Islam with the same brush. I'd say that, broadly speaking, he has a point. Islam does have a backwards view towards women and fundamentalist Islam is a "vile culture". Granted much of what he says is applicable to the west as well, but what kinda fucking left winger stands up for religious bullshit and misogyny like this??

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Who wants to see KISS anyway?

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 07:43 AM
Islam is a religion not a race, dickhead.
It doesn't matter whether Islam is a religion or a race. What's important is that the true dickhead here is the one who made comments against Islam.

[Kurai Tsuki]

As Gene Simmons is Jewish, this really doesen't surprise me. The difference between them and Arabs and/or Moslems, or even Christians, is that if they made such comments they would be labeled as anti-Semitic.

Just a note, most Arabs are able to distinguish between being anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic.

[Comrade BNS]

EDIT: OK I've read the story and from what's quoted there, the only innaccuracy would be that he is tarring all of Islam with the same brush. I'd say that, broadly speaking, he has a point. Islam does have a backwards view towards women and fundamentalist Islam is a "vile culture". Granted much of what he says is applicable to the west as well, but what kinda fucking left winger stands up for religious bullshit and misogyny like this??

LOL!!

"What kind of (sic) left winger stands up for religious bullshit and misogny like this"?

ermm...one who stands for tolerance and acceptance of all worldviews and outlooks!

Sorry I really shouldn't be challenging an obviously distinguished Islamic social commentator/scholar such as yourself. You have blatantly displayed your obvious flair and razor sharp perception in this field!

"Islam does have a backward(sic) view towards women..."

oh it does, does it? So how can it be that Thousands of "muslim" women live in perfect equality with their male counterparts the world over? oh sorry did you only study Michael Moore's "Islam for the ignorant, by the ignorant" guide to this beautiful and profound culture?

why not check the facts, before you trot out your dogmatic, blind, marxist catch-crys!

Comrade BNS

[(*]

and why is it that pakistan had a female prime minister

[Comrade BNS]

Exactly! in light of alot of people's ignorances/predjudices regarding Islam, I direct you to read some of my posts in "behaeding of US man" in the politics thread.

or even just read some decent literature on the subject

"a guide to Islam" by Ziauddin Sardar
"Islam, a thousand years of faith and power" Jonathon Bloom, Sheila Blair

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 16 2004, 07:57 AM

EDIT: OK I've read the story and from what's quoted there, the only innaccuracy would be that he is tarring all of Islam with the same brush. I'd say that, broadly speaking, he has a point. Islam does have a backwards view towards women and fundamentalist Islam is a "vile culture". Granted much of what he says is applicable to the west as well, but what kinda fucking left winger stands up for religious bullshit and misogyny like this??

LOL!!

"What kind of (sic) left winger stands up for religious bullshit and misogny like this"?

ermm...one who stands for tolerance and acceptance of all worldviews and outlooks!

Sorry I really shouldn't be challenging an obviously distinguished Islamic social commentator/scholar such as yourself. You have blatantly displayed your obvious flair and razor sharp perception in this field!

"Islam does have a backward(sic) view towards women..."

oh it does, does it? So how can it be that Thousands of "muslim" women live in perfect equality with their male counterparts the world over? oh sorry did you only study Michael Moore's "Islam for the ignorant, by the ignorant" guide to this beautiful and profound culture?

why not check the facts, before you trot out your dogmatic, blind, marxist catch-crys!
You can point to exceptions and precedents, and I'm not claiming that every Muslim has an unenlightened attitude towards the female of the spieces, but an overview of the entire "culture" and religion leads me to claim that on the whole, Islam does not treat women in a way that I (and any left winger) would deem appropriate. There are more obvious examples, such as the horrific treatment women receive in Palestine (yeah, that's right, many of the darlings of the left won't let their wives [all six of them] leave the house and would beat them to death for doing so), Taliban Afghanistan ("shit dude, you can see that woman's eyebrows!! Shoot the fucker!!"), modern Iraq (you're a girl and you get raped?? How dare disgrace the family's honour...killing time for you honey), northern Nigeria (that whore got pregnant...better stone her to death), Iran (better not talk to a guy outside your direct family there - that's a capital crime) etc etc...but the truth is, there are more obvious, if less tragic, examples all around us.

Do you, as a left winger, find it tolerable when you see a woman clad head to toe in robes disguising their very being?? I sure as fuck don't find sexist bullshit like that commendable. However, whenever I see someone like that, it just reminds me that she's probably relatively lucky: what about the millions of women whose husbands won't let them outside the kitchen in the name of "religion"?? Fuck that shit...remind me of the place in any leftist ideology where I have to "respect" and "tolerate" misogyny.

In fact, remind me of where in leftism I am supposed to "tolerate all worldviews". Am I supposed to tolerate fascism?? How about capitalism?? And is racism cool?? It exists after all, which seems to be your only criterion for accepting it. Wake the fuck dude...this shit is about changing the world for the better, not accepting shit that is full out wrong.

[Rastafari]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 02:08 PM
Who wants to see KISS anyway?
http://www.che-lives.com/forum/uploads/post-12-1066694822.jpg


I guess the poor dumbass (Gene, not RAF) doesn't realize that only 20% of Muslems are Arabs. Malaysia and south-east Asia are the most heavilly-populated Islamic nations in the world. Of course, old Gene probably doesn't realize anything about the Umma and is unaware of all Muslems.

[(*]

Of course this is nothing new. Simmons has been saying stuff like this for a long time

[Kurai Tsuki]

I wonder what Paul Stanley has to say about the Moslem and/or Arab world.

[Urban Rubble]

Imagine that, someone being against a religion that tells you to kill everyone who isn't a Muslim. I'm shocked, really. And yes, it does say that in the Koran.

I didn't read what the guy said, and I don't care. I really don't get what is offensive about being anti religous. Religion is a danger to society. Be spiritual all you want, but Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all very dangerous.

[Rastafari]

clearly, though, Simmons is more anti-Arab than anti-Islam.

[Maynard]

He has also said some other...bizarre things such as "Rock & roll is about aggressive vocal prowess and sounding like a bull, and sorry--cows don't sound like bulls. The very phrase "rock and roll" came from old black musicians down in Mississippi and means fuck; the actual definition of rock & roll is fucking. "Let me rock & roll you"! all night long"--guess what he's talking about! So if people accuse me of being sexist, I say, "Thank you," because that's being true to the form" Gene about the difference of men and women in rock. He is a well known sexist as well but now he cares about womens rights, because Arabs are involved it seems like
and
"If you don't have the guts to stand up to injustice, where ever it exists (and that means stopping the Germans, the Japanese and the Italians in WWI and WWII ... or the Albanian Serbs in Bosnia ... or the tragedies that keep on occurring in Africa ... or even the Viet Nam War ... Panama ... North Korea ... the list goes on and on) ... One thing in common with all these events: AMERICA. America didn't stay and 'conquer' ANY OF THESE COUNTRIES." "The answer to any doubters lies in watching Iraq's people dancing in the streets." about the Iraq war, it's strange how he cares about Arabs when America is "liberating" them.


It's one thing too critics human rights records of Islamic countries but he is basically saying there, that those vile Muslims are going to invade the west and steal our land, so we must attack them now. That's being more than anti-religious in my mind. In Australia, there has been increased violence on the Muslim population. These comments just perpetuate, the us versus them mentality we have here, us good Christians, versus bad Muslims and why our government is allowed too get away with blantly racist immigration policies.
I am not for any religion but I don't think that any person should have too be subject too abuse, physical or verbal, while walking down the street, because of their religion.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Islam is a religion not a race, dickhead.


Relax kid.



What's important is that the true dickhead here is the one who made comments against Islam.


Why is that? Islam, like every other religion, is a pathetic mythical ideology designed to keep the slaves happily residing under their masters.


ermm...one who stands for tolerance and acceptance of all worldviews and outlooks!


That "tolerant" person will also never be considered a socialist or communist. Why exactly should we be "tolerant" of Islam anyway? Because you have some misguided connection with it?

We will never "tolerate" Islam or any other religion. On the contrary, we will do our very best to suppress it and subsequently abolish it.

[guerrillaradio]

The guy sounds like a total ****. But the fact that people are only picking up him dissing Islam is ridiculous.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

What I take offense to is that he's singleing out Islam and the Arabic culture. Firstly, it's ridiculous to say that Islam is sexist while the guy openly condones Judaism and Christianity. Both of these Western religions are very, very misogynistic if followed word-for-word. Sexist dogmas based on religious teachings can be found in Christianity or Islam. Neither religions actually widely encourage misogyny, though.

Secondly, he's also criticizing Arabic culture. Not only is that racist for steretyping all Arabs, but it's also very racist for blaming the acts of retaliation against oppression, which are more than reasonable, on the oppressed, instead of the other way around. It's very typical of zionist right-wingers, really.

I'm not defending Islam, but Gene's ignorant words are disgusting. Islam is as "vile" as any other religion. But it's fucking insulting for him to think that he's better than Arabs beacuse they're Muslims, while he's openly following an equally "vile" religion.

[Comrade BNS]

Do you, as a left winger, find it tolerable when you see a woman clad head to toe in robes disguising their very being??

If they choose to dress in this manner (as many do) then I have not problem with is at all. I agree in some cultures, the males of the species will use Islam to supress females (noting also that in other cultures where Islam is not prevelant, males use oher means of suppression of females). However you need not look further then France, where thousands of Muslim women are up in arms because they choose to wear the Hijab and are being denied this right!


what about the millions of women whose husbands won't let them outside the kitchen in the name of "religion"?

What about those millions of people who had basic freedoms suppressed in the name of Fundamentalist and dogmatic marxist ideologies? You feel free to bandy about criticisms of fundamentalisms in every world view except your own.


In fact, remind me of where in leftism I am supposed to "tolerate all worldviews".

The part of leftism (which in fact is the majority portion of it) where you abhore facism and its parochial, fundamentalist, dogmatic, exclusionist and eliteist policies. You think you are going to win the world over by shooting all "religious nuts" ? Ironically the "religious nuts" think/thought much the same as you do. Now there is massive destablisation of the Iranian institution etc... You see suppressed peoples never forget the freedoms and traditions they once had. So by supressing something you see as abhorent you are merely encouraging its resistance and growth.

The world of today has no place for you simple, parochial and outmoded methods. Win the world over by extolling the virtues of your position upon them, not by merely attacking everything you don't agree with. To achieve equality and unity you have to let the people choose it. You can't choose communism (or any other ideology for that matter) for them. Tell the world that under marxist ideology every person is equal in rights and standing. High quality Health Care and education are taken for granted; there is unity, peace and understanding. And if people choose not to listen, then at least free will has prevailed. You have not won if you merely remove your opposition's voice! You have won when their voice speaks the same language as you do!

Comrade BNS

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

*sigh*
What a fucking liberal...



If they choose to dress in this manner (as many do) then I have not problem with is at all. I agree in some cultures, the males of the species will use Islam to supress females (noting also that in other cultures where Islam is not prevelant, males use oher means of suppression of females). However you need not look further then France, where thousands of Muslim women are up in arms because they choose to wear the Hijab and are being denied this right!

How does that excuse traditions found in many areas of the Middle East (also in other parts of the world) which subjugate women? It's true that many other cultures are guilty of sexism, but that doesn't mean that misogynistic traditions are okay. Religious symbols worn in public set people apart from others with religion. That leads to things like hatred. It's enough that they allow religious gatherings at all.


What about those millions of people who had basic freedoms suppressed in the name of Fundamentalist and dogmatic Marxist ideologies? You feel free to bandy about criticisms of fundamentalisms in every world view except your own.

The only freedoms that were suppressed in true Marxist-Leninist regimes, and the only ones which we wish to suppress involve the oppression of others or are otherwise detrimental to the freedom of people as a whole.

Traditions condoning the subjugation of women by their spouses results in misogyny and the mistreatment of women. If people aren't "free" to subjugate others through capital, why should they be "free" to subjugate them through religion and tradition?

What you're missing is that religion itself is an oppressor. Religion serves to subdue people according to the demands of "god(s)". To whom do these lack of freedoms actually cater? The bourgeoisie. Religion works to control the lives of the people. Telling people that they have no choice other than do what they say, or die, is a rather forceful tactic, eh? If the people trust you, they are literally forced to go along with your words.

If people are told what to do by religion, then they are sedated by its lies.

Either way, it's bad.

By suppressing religion, we are not suppressing a victimless "freedom", we are suppressing the subjugation of people. We are preventing individuals from telling others what to do because "god" told them so.

It's very similar to how we are freeing the working class from oppression by suppressing the "freedom" to subjugate others with the agglomeration of wealth.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriations. - Marx and Engels

[Vinny Rafarino]

What about those millions of people who had basic freedoms suppressed in the name of Fundamentalist and dogmatic marxist ideologies?

They all had to begin PAYING for everything they once got for free, at less than HALF the wages.

Hooray for "basic freedoms"!

[Comrade BNS]

What you're missing is that religion itself is an oppressor. Religion serves to subdue people according to the demands of "god(s)". To whom do these lack of freedoms actually cater? The bourgeoisie. Religion works to control the lives of the people. Telling people that they have no choice other than do what they say, or die, is a rather forceful tactic, eh? If the people trust you, they are literally forced to go along with your words

So it's wrong to subjugate in the name of Religion, but it's ok to subjugate in the name of Marxist "liberation"? It's ok to supress Religious freedom, but not political?
What alot of people refuse/fail to recognise is that in MOST cases religion is not this evil monster that confounds people and brings them under its evil domination. MOST people choose to join a religion. So are you going to deny them basic freedom of choice?

Another point many people fail to see is that the state in Marxist ideology usually becomes "God".


Religion serves to subdue people according to the demands of "god(s)"

Dogmatic Marxism serves to subdue people according to the demands of the state. If you don't believe in the actions or policies of the state, then you are "counter-revolutionary", if you don't follow the dominant religion, you are in some cases a "heretic". Excuse me for asking but is there a real substantial difference, besides the apparent lack of spiritual essence?

Comrade BNS

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 01:19 AM
*sigh*
What a fucking liberal...
Innit. :rolleyes:

[Comrade BNS]

Originally posted by guerrillaradio+May 18 2004, 07:42 AM--> (guerrillaradio @ May 18 2004, 07:42 AM)
[email protected] 18 2004, 01:19 AM
*sigh*
What a fucking liberal...
Innit. :rolleyes: [/b]
:lol:

I would much prefer to be a "fuckin liberal" then a member of a fundamentalist, dogmatic, Marxist Oligarchy!

I've given up on beating my head against hard pieces of furniture in trying to get persons, such as yourselves to recognise what "you" continually seem to trot out when the topic of religion comes up is complete, nonsensical tripe! The whole "we'll supress religion to remove supression" doesn't work. While we're at it why not "remove choice to give greater freedom" or hell even "fight for peace".

Comrade BNS

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

So it's wrong to subjugate in the name of Religion, but it's ok to subjugate in the name of Marxist "liberation"? It's ok to supress Religious freedom, but not political?

Who is subjugated by Marxism?
Marxist revolution liberates the people by entirely suppressing the tools of the bourgeoisie such as religion.

Religion is an apparatus used by the ruling class to restrict the peoples' freedoms, effectively increasing the bourgeoisie's power to command them. The thought that there is an 'afterlife' sedates people, which decreases the importance of the state of things here on earth. "God" has also always been used by the ruling class as a sort of scapegoat for oppression. It's according to God almighty that you have to do everything that I say., says the kings and queens. Things aren't very different now, either.

The clergy uses the same control tactics to enforce, not the King's, but their own position of command. It's according to God almighty that you have to do everything that I say. Isn't that exactly what the rulers of the Middle Ages also said?

Observe how the clergy is always so closely allied with the right wing and the capitalist class. They are the ones giving orders according to, not God, but according to the bourgeoisie, my friend! If we are to smash the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie, as Marx wrote, we must also smash their religious lies.


What alot of people refuse/fail to recognise is that in MOST cases religion is not this evil monster that confounds people and brings them under its evil domination. MOST people choose to join a religion. So are you going to deny them basic freedom of choice?

The only thing that will be denied is the right to subjugate people with religion. Whether or not they want to think there is a "god" isn't something that can be enforced. We simply don't want folks to live their lives according to the demands of others. Socialism will allow people only to answer to the people themselves, not an oligarchal capitalist class.


Dogmatic Marxism serves to subdue people according to the demands of the state. If you don't believe in the actions or policies of the state, then you are "counter-revolutionary", if you don't follow the dominant religion, you are in some cases a "heretic". Excuse me for asking but is there a real substantial difference, besides the apparent lack of spiritual essence?

Yes, there is an obvious difference. People are subdued by the demands of other individuals in religion. In socialism are free. The state will enforce only the policies that protect the people, or in relation to religion, that protect people from subjugation by other individuals.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by guerrillaradio+May 18 2004, 07:42 AM--> (guerrillaradio @ May 18 2004, 07:42 AM)
[email protected] 18 2004, 01:19 AM
*sigh*
What a fucking liberal...
Innit. :rolleyes:
:lol:

I would much prefer to be a "fuckin liberal" then a member of a fundamentalist, dogmatic, Marxist Oligarchy![/b]

Kid, I'm not a Marxist.


The whole "we'll supress religion to remove supression" doesn't work. While we're at it why not "remove choice to give greater freedom" or hell even "fight for peace".

When did I say I wanted to suppress it?? I think it should be removed from any form of influence, so that decisions concerning people's lives can actually be made fairly as opposed to listening to some bullshit some bearded **** in the sky allegedly said.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by guerrillaradio+May 18 2004, 02:42 AM--> (guerrillaradio @ May 18 2004, 02:42 AM)
[email protected] 18 2004, 01:19 AM
*sigh*
What a fucking liberal...
Innit. :rolleyes: [/b]
I'm sorry, I don't know what that is supposed to imply.

[guerrillaradio]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+May 18 2004, 08:31 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ May 18 2004, 08:31 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 02:42 AM

[email protected] 18 2004, 01:19 AM
*sigh*
What a fucking liberal...
Innit. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, I don't know what that is supposed to imply. [/b]
Oh um sorry...I sometimes forget that not everyone owns records by Dizzee Rascal/The Streets haha.

Innit = isn't it?? or I agree

[fuerzasocialista]

Jews, Muslims, and Christians are doing a mighty fine job in trying to get us killed...

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

haha
I know that "innit" means "isn't it". I just didn't know that it meant that you agreed. Now I know. :lol:

[Comrade BNS]

The clergy uses the same control tactics to enforce, not the King's, but their own position of command. It's according to God almighty that you have to do everything that I say.

And according to Marx almighty, (in his arrogant, omniscient flippancy) religion is only a tool for evil. Come on people, stop taking the fucking preschool marxist view of the world, in that almost EVERYTHING that does not overtly support communism is a "bourgeois tool, or apparatus for control". Capitalist society is far from perfect, but the entire state mechanism is not one big Anti-Commie venture.

And again, what about looking at the other side of the coin. From "God Almighty" we have many of our inherent ethics and morals, intrinsic even in Marxist ideology.

Your entire stance on this issue has NO logic associated with it whatsoever. You deny the virtues of one faith, while pronouncing its flaws, by using the blind words of a political faith! Yes Marx did say "religion is the opium of the masses", but so? why is this so ridgedly enforced? where the hell is some credible evidence that religion is SOLELY a tool of the Bourgeois? Perhaps just like all major institutions of the state it is exploited in some instances by the Bourgeois? but of course that never occurred to you, because marx didn't leave any room for interpretation with his high-handed decress of "Thou Shalt".


Observe how the clergy is always so closely allied with the right wing and the capitalist class. They are the ones giving orders according to, not God, but according to the bourgeoisie, my friend!

:lol:

forgive me, but you obviously have a limited scope of knowledge on the history of political affiliations! In Australia the Labour Party (moderately left) has always been closesly tied with the Catholic Church, and indeed the Clergy represents the most reformist/left elements of the party. The Democrats(very reformist, some prominent members are self-confessed marxists) in Australia have their largest followings in Lakemba (sydney), Australia's largest Islamic community; as well as Carindale and Enoggera area (both in brisbane) being the 2nd largest Islamic community in Aus., and a very prominent religious area respectively.

I think you'll find closeminded, dogmatic, fundamentalist "theories" don't work particularly well in the real world, where people are prepared to compromise in the cause of tolerance, understanding and unity. Yeah sure on this forum you might be able to talk up marxist ideologies as truth, and feel vindicated knowing you've exhausted all of your hot air on fellow fools of foolish folly alike, but seriously who the fuck on the streets is going to follow all of your dogmatic, rhetoric bullshit? especially when there is practically nothing substantial to support your claims.

I BELIEVE in the PRINCIPLE ideas and theories of Marx. However, you must understand Marx was a phillosopher, and his religion, just like all others, is not a comprehensive itinerary of daily activities and a scale model of state apparatuses, but instead a collection of moral and ethical aims. It is up to us to interpret the meaning and purpose of Marx's vision and apply it in real terms to the societies we live in. Not simply to follow to the "T" his words as some form of indoctrinated mehtod!

Comrade BNS

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And according to Marx almighty, (in his arrogant, omniscient flippancy) religion is only a tool for evil. Come on people, stop taking the fucking preschool marxist view of the world, in that almost EVERYTHING that does not overtly support communism is a "bourgeois tool, or apparatus for control". Capitalist society is far from perfect, but the entire state mechanism is not one big Anti-Commie venture.

Everything that does not work towards proletarian freedom perpetuates the current position of the working class, which is one of powerlessness and oppression.


And again, what about looking at the other side of the coin. From "God Almighty" we have many of our inherent ethics and morals, intrinsic even in Marxist ideology.

Our basic morals should be only ones of respect to our fellow human beings. Do you really need someone to tell you what your morals should be? Can you not tell right from wrong? Or do you think that the people need someone to tell them what to do, because that's what the bourgeoisie believes.


Your entire stance on this issue has NO logic associated with it whatsoever. You deny the virtues of one faith, while pronouncing its flaws, by using the blind words of a political faith! Yes Marx did say "religion is the opium of the masses", but so? why is this so ridgedly enforced? where the hell is some credible evidence that religion is SOLELY a tool of the Bourgeois? Perhaps just like all major institutions of the state it is exploited in some instances by the Bourgeois? but of course that never occurred to you, because marx didn't leave any room for interpretation with his high-handed decress of "Thou Shalt".

I don't refuse religion because Marx said so, but because I see how it is a tool which helps the ruling class in keeping the people in order. That is exactly what religion does.

Could religion be merely something that's abused by the ruling class to subdue the people according to their will? Yes. But it only exists to this day because of that. Usually when people preach things as absurd as religious ideas, they are treated like the mentally unstable people that they are. The ruling class has used the idea of 'god' as a means of more widely enforcing morals of respecting the present hierarchy.

Could you say that the government is only "exploited in some instances by the bourgeoisie"? Sure. But the truth is that the government as it exists today is necessarily a means of controlling the people.

Why do you want to allow something that brainwashes people into doing as they say to continue to exist?


forgive me, but you obviously have a limited scope of knowledge on the history of political affiliations! In Australia the Labour Party (moderately left) has always been closesly tied with the Catholic Church, and indeed the Clergy represents the most reformist/left elements of the party. The Democrats(very reformist, some prominent members are self-confessed marxists) in Australia have their largest followings in Lakemba (sydney), Australia's largest Islamic community; as well as Carindale and Enoggera area (both in brisbane) being the 2nd largest Islamic community in Aus., and a very prominent religious area respectively.

These are all reformist movements. They have no ties to socialism at all. They all seek only to change capitalism. Capitalism is something that can't be changed. Anyone who works within this apparatus of the bourgeoisie is legitimatizing it, giving more power to the capitalist class, and working against any real change.

[Comrade BNS]

Our basic morals should be only ones of respect to our fellow human beings. Do you really need someone to tell you what your morals should be? Can you not tell right from wrong? Or do you think that the people need someone to tell them what to do, because that's what the bourgeoisie believes.


*urgh*

do we really have to get in psychological histories?

Why do we know these things to be "right" and "wrong"? Because Abraham told us that. Based upon the basic moral reasonings of Abraham and Jesus Christ, that have come down to us through the ages. This is "right" and that is "wrong". From these basic moral principles we have been able to base the value and logic of extended principles and morals, and therefore deem them also to be "wrong" or "right".

And I know you are thinking it so I'll nip it in the bud. There is no such tangible, definable thing as "human nature" (except for that crappy boy-band from Aus.) so don't even go there. It is not "human nature" to know "right" from "wrong" because it doesn't exist, or at least not in terms we can yet comprehend, so therefore cannot be explained, argued or reasoned.


Could religion be merely something that's abused by the ruling class to subdue the people according to their will? Yes. But it only exists to this day because of that. Usually when people preach things as absurd as religious ideas, they are treated like the mentally unstable people that they are. The ruling class has used the idea of 'god' as a means of more widely enforcing morals of respecting the present hierarchy.

I love the way you can make dramatic totalistic statements. "THIS IS SO..." etc etc... The complete lack of any evidence just adds to the already tremendous charm of your well considered propaganda....*ahem* posts.


Usually when people preach things as absurd as religious ideas, they are treated like the mentally unstable people that they are.

mmm.....sweeping generalisations just really seem to enhance the quality of argument don't they?


The ruling class has used the idea of 'god' as a means of more widely enforcing morals of respecting the present hierarchy

and the lower socio/economic classes have used as a means of breaking away from the ridgid social classes which define their lives. Some people are prepared to believe in and accept a singular entity of greater omniscience, shall we say, and trust/submit to them. When this is kept in mind it achieves a similar aim to communism in creating an egalitarian community. So are you going to "smash" a part of people's spiritual emancipation?


These are all reformist movements. They have no ties to socialism at all. They all seek only to change capitalism. Capitalism is something that can't be changed. Anyone who works within this apparatus of the bourgeoisie is legitimatizing it, giving more power to the capitalist class, and working against any real change.

Dear me....

It's time to move beyond the join-the-dots black and white world of preschool communist ideals. Here you go again on the "If it aint for us, it must be agin' us! Smash it! Destroy it in the name of Marx almighty", wake up! The world is not divided into "Socialist utopia, illumined in the light of pure truth and moral high ground" and the "dark, barbarian ignorance of capitalism". Just because they are not overtly socialist or communist does not mean they are "bad" or "wrong". Positive change and reform, is positive change and reform. I would shake Bush's hand if he drastically improved health care for the right reasons. Credit where credit is due.

And a point I would like to comment on is your general aloofness from these "proletariat" you seem to dearly care about. You make the working class appear as if they are blind, ignorant and "dumb" sheep; who will simply follow wherever cunning leads them. You make the pont that they are "brainwashed" by religion and are seemingly powerless to do anything about it. Sure as shit sounds to me like anti-USSR mcarthy propaganda! "Those damn reds have been "brainwashing" the people to make them believe communism is anything but "evil"". Sorry but if you really care about these people and want to emancipate them, then you're going to have to wake up to the fact that they are capable people. Capable of intelligent moral reasoning and choice, and could you, you would not have any right whatsoever to choose for them.

Comrade BNS

[refuse_resist]

Kiss sucks anyway. Gene Simmons is the most annoying out of all of them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

do we really have to get in psychological histories?

Why do we know these things to be "right" and "wrong"? Because Abraham told us that. Based upon the basic moral reasonings of Abraham and Jesus Christ, that have come down to us through the ages. This is "right" and that is "wrong". From these basic moral principles we have been able to base the value and logic of extended principles and morals, and therefore deem them also to be "wrong" or "right".

And I know you are thinking it so I'll nip it in the bud. There is no such tangible, definable thing as "human nature" (except for that crappy boy-band from Aus.) so don't even go there. It is not "human nature" to know "right" from "wrong" because it doesn't exist, or at least not in terms we can yet comprehend, so therefore cannot be explained, argued or reasoned.

It isn't hard to tell what is "right" and what is "wrong". It is subjective, that's really all you had to say. And I never mentioned 'human nature'.

It is disrespectful to do something to other people that you wouldn't want done to you. This is simply logic. Nobody requires religion to know this. This is also the basis for everything that we want to achieve.

What is it that you like so much about religion? Do you really think that people should be told what to do by others? Doesn't that create a hierarchy?

Why do you want to allow the clergy to run about telling the people what they can and can't do? Do they have the interests of the people in mind?

If your answer was 'no', then you must acknowledge that you condone the control of the people by self-proclaimed "messiahs".


and the lower socio/economic classes have used as a means of breaking away from the ridgid social classes which define their lives. Some people are prepared to believe in and accept a singular entity of greater omniscience, shall we say, and trust/submit to them. When this is kept in mind it achieves a similar aim to communism in creating an egalitarian community. So are you going to "smash" a part of people's spiritual emancipation?

How exactly do you achieve an egalitarian community when people submit to higher entities?

Allowing religion to exists is allowing people to be told what to do according to a "higher" being. What authority do individuals have to command the lives of others under the disguise of a "god"?

Whether or not god exists, he has no right to tell people what to do.

According to socialism, the only laws that people must follow are those that protect the rights of the people. Who is "god" to determine what the rights of the people are? Only the people may determine that. To acknowledge that "God" is the law, is to acknowledge that he is above the rest of us. This grants an immense amount of power in the hands of the clergy, no? And anyone who holds undemocratic power over the people is a member of the ruling class. Clergy=ruling class. Dig?


It's time to move beyond the join-the-dots black and white world of preschool communist ideals. Here you go again on the "If it aint for us, it must be agin' us! Smash it! Destroy it in the name of Marx almighty", wake up! The world is not divided into "Socialist utopia, illumined in the light of pure truth and moral high ground" and the "dark, barbarian ignorance of capitalism". Just because they are not overtly socialist or communist does not mean they are "bad" or "wrong". Positive change and reform, is positive change and reform. I would shake Bush's hand if he drastically improved health care for the right reasons. Credit where credit is due.

It's not my fault that you can't see that religion is a crock of shit that oppresses people. I've tried to prove to you why I believe this, yet you won't let go of this notion that I'm only supporting this position because Marx said so. Marx actually never said anything about the need to completely abolish religious organizations, so I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.


And a point I would like to comment on is your general aloofness from these "proletariat" you seem to dearly care about. You make the working class appear as if they are blind, ignorant and "dumb" sheep; who will simply follow wherever cunning leads them. You make the pont that they are "brainwashed" by religion and are seemingly powerless to do anything about it. Sure as shit sounds to me like anti-USSR mcarthy propaganda! "Those damn reds have been "brainwashing" the people to make them believe communism is anything but "evil"". Sorry but if you really care about these people and want to emancipate them, then you're going to have to wake up to the fact that they are capable people. Capable of intelligent moral reasoning and choice, and could you, you would not have any right whatsoever to choose for them.

Hell yeah, they're capable! Capable of rising against their oppressors. That would necessarily include religion. That's what us socialists are doing, mobilizing the working class. What are you doing?

[Comrade BNS]

It is disrespectful to do something to other people that you wouldn't want done to you. This is simply logic. Nobody requires religion to know this. This is also the basis for everything that we want to achieve.

Quite true. But something you find disrespectful, is not to me, or someone else. etc. etc... that is why ethics and morals are a common set of "right &wrong". They do not HAVE to come from Religion, but ours have. So religion has influenced a strong part of your ethics.


What is it that you like so much about religion? Do you really think that people should be told what to do by others? Doesn't that create a hierarchy?

Why do you want to allow the clergy to run about telling the people what they can and can't do? Do they have the interests of the people in mind?


What is it that you like soe much about altruism? do you really think that people should have personal property removed by others? doesn't that create a hierarchy?

Why do you want to allow the state to run about telling the people whatthey can and can't do? do they have the interests of "ALL" people in mind?

(no personal views reflected in these Q's, simply being critical...i can justify my views)


How exactly do you achieve an egalitarian community when people submit to higher entities?

"...All believers shall be equal before God, without distinction of their colour or their nation..."


To acknowledge that "God" is the law, is to acknowledge that he is above the rest of us. This grants an immense amount of power in the hands of the clergy, no?

No.......nowehere (and i assume you are referring to the Abrahamic faiths when you use the term Religion so parochially) in the "scriptures" does it say that the Clergy (whom are not even an official divine body) are the sole interpreters of religious text, meaning or observances...so they don't have to have great power no.


It's not my fault that you can't see that religion is a crock of shit that oppresses people. I've tried to prove to you why I believe this, yet you won't let go of this notion that I'm only supporting this position because Marx said so. Marx actually never said anything about the need to completely abolish religious organizations, so I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

"so I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about"....


hmmm, I gathered as much at the beggining of this thread.......yet you still continue to post replies...

so in terms maybe more comprehensible....Justify with logic, rationale, and evidence your position on the abolition of Religion, extrapolating your logic to include probably futures of certain religions.


Hell yeah, they're capable! Capable of rising against their oppressors. That would necessarily include religion. That's what us socialists are doing, mobilizing the working class. What are you doing?

What am I doing? Criticising your motives and future goals. You obviously aren't, and neither it appears are the other dogmatic cretins on this forum (no comment against board users in general, just that there are an excess of the aforementioned cretins)

Comrade BNS

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Are you a communist at all?
It's beyond me how you can think that it's suitable for people to "accept god" while still being free.

I think Redstar has more patience for this sort of bullshit than I do... but I'll reply.


Quite true. But something you find disrespectful, is not to me, or someone else. etc. etc... that is why ethics and morals are a common set of "right &wrong". They do not HAVE to come from Religion, but ours have. So religion has influenced a strong part of your ethics.

Disrespect is when you treat someone worse then you would appreciate them treating you. It's subjective, but applies to every single case. In general, it involves harming others or treating them inferiorly.


What is it that you like soe much about altruism? do you really think that people should have personal property removed by others? doesn't that create a hierarchy?

Do you frankly think that when the bourgeoisies' wealth is repossessed it will remain in the hands of a few people? Has it never crossed your mind that maybe that wealth will be equally distributed or used for public projects?


Why do you want to allow the state to run about telling the people whatthey can and can't do? do they have the interests of "ALL" people in mind?

the only thing that people cannot do is agglomerate wealth or power by enslaving people with capital, bourgeois property, or religious dogma.


"...All believers shall be equal before God, without distinction of their colour or their nation..."

No.......nowehere (and i assume you are referring to the Abrahamic faiths when you use the term Religion so parochially) in the "scriptures" does it say that the Clergy (whom are not even an official divine body) are the sole interpreters of religious text, meaning or observances...so they don't have to have great power no.

Who "preaches" the word of "God"? can't they technically make up whatever they want? Or are the clouds going to open up and is "god" going to tell us what to do? And just because everyone is equal beneath "god", doesn't mean that there is equality. Where does "god" stand?


Comrade BS

Don't talk like that about yourself, mate.

Just joking, man.
:lol: I just couldn't resist.

[Comrade BNS]

Who "preaches" the word of "God"? can't they technically make up whatever they want? Or are the clouds going to open up and is "god" going to tell us what to do? And just because everyone is equal beneath "god", doesn't mean that there is equality. Where does "god" stand?


The jews were called the "people of the book" for a reason..... I could tell you Marx said that it is morally wrong to eat crayons on a tuesday, and you could quite easily go and verify or negate this claim, by *gasp* going to the source and reading for yourself. You see you can't get past this view that the Clergy are these evil old "wizards" who mesmorise all these poor unthinking masses with their "dogma"......most people who CONVERT to the abrahamic faiths confess to having picked up the bible, Qu'ran etc.. and reading it out of interest and then employing their own interpretation of it. Is their an imbalance of power here? are the bourgeois "DOMINATING" the masses?

Another thing is that you continually seem to suggest religion is "always" used as a tool to oppress others. I will agree some do use it as such, but look at Marxist terrorists in Latin America. (oh sorry are you going to tell me they aren't really marxists..... funny alot of you dogmatists trot out that one whenever someone says this person is not a "muslim" etc... or they don't represent the whole)


Are you a communist at all?
It's beyond me how you can think that it's suitable for people to "accept god" while still being free.

Ok, No.....I am not a Communist at all.
I am a progressive leftist, and I like the sound of ALOT of things Marx had to say.
And It's beyond me how you can think that it's suitable for people to "accept state rule" while still being free. The state is always going to make fucked up decisions, the only difference in a socialist state is that everyone has the same amount of property and legal rights....Majority systems always lead to the opression or repression of minority groups, so don't bang on about this precious "political utopia" under socialism.......socialism is far better then capitalism, but fuck so many people here seem to think "capitalism is fucked, socialism/communism is the answer....bring that in and bingo problem solved"

:lol:


Do you frankly think that when the bourgeoisies' wealth is repossessed it will remain in the hands of a few people? Has it never crossed your mind that maybe that wealth will be equally distributed or used for public projects?

Yeah? wow thanks for pointing out the blatant and painfully obvious!

I was asking those questions to be critical of your ideology, seeing as how you have neglected to be.

Comrade BNS

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The jews were called the "people of the book" for a reason.....

I don't know why you're telling me this. Were they subjugated to these laws by a book as opposed to being subjugated by spoken words? So? What difference does that make? They are still subdued. Anytime people are under the rule of someone, the person ruling is a member of the ruling class. See a connection? The fact that the people who wrote the book are dead, doesn't negate the fact that the book is still being published for the purpose of telling people what to do. Why is it okay to tell people what to do? You're not answering my points, and I'm gonna get tired of debating with you pretty soon.


I could tell you Marx said that it is morally wrong to eat crayons on a tuesday, and you could quite easily go and verify or negate this claim, by *gasp* going to the source and reading for yourself.

I also don't understand why you're telling me this?

You're right that Marx's alleged theories can be verified, but have I failed to do so? I don't understand why you'd say that.


You see you can't get past this view that the Clergy are these evil old "wizards" who mesmorise all these poor unthinking masses with their "dogma"......most people who CONVERT to the abrahamic faiths confess to having picked up the bible, Qu'ran etc.. and reading it out of interest and then employing their own interpretation of it. Is their an imbalance of power here? are the bourgeois "DOMINATING" the masses?

When people are bossed around like children, they are being bullied and subdued into that position. Capitalism puts people in that position by stealing the power which they have over the products of their own labor. Religion puts people in that position by demanding that they be in the command of others.

Whether or not people choose to belong to a religion doesn't change much. Most people are told that they're members of a particular faith from the time they're very young. Then they're told to follow certain rules, rules that they must not break if they are to honor this tradition that they were literally forced into. It's kind of hard to break away from that sort of thing. If you're told from a young age about "god" and how much power he has over our future and how important his laws are, you'd be very willing to follow "his" laws.

If people join their religion from simply reading the books and finding interest in them, they're still being subdued. People can do whatever they want, as long as it bothers nobody, of course. But when people are doing things because they've been told to, then it's different. Obviously we cannot tell people not to obey "god". We can only hope that they act in their own best interest and not in those of someone else.

Besides, when people come across religious texts, before they "decide" to join the religion, the texts are very forceful, aren't they? According to any religious text, you have to obey it. You have to do exactly as it says. You have to obey only it, and no other. Who has the right to tell people these things? Why should people be allowed to preach these lies. I'm not saying that "god" doesn't exist. He might, I cannot make that judgment. But the truth is that people can do whatever they want. They do not have to do what the Bible says. They do not have to do exactly as the Bible says. And it is oppressive to say otherwise.


Another thing is that you continually seem to suggest religion is "always" used as a tool to oppress others. I will agree some do use it as such, but look at Marxist terrorists in Latin America.

Religion is always used as a tool to oppress others. Religion necessarily tells people what to do. What, other than oppression, can telling others what to do accomplish? Other than to protect others, telling folks what to do is unacceptable.


Ok, No.....I am not a Communist at all.
I am a progressive leftist, and I like the sound of ALOT of things Marx had to say.
And It's beyond me how you can think that it's suitable for people to "accept state rule" while still being free. The state is always going to make fucked up decisions, the only difference in a socialist state is that everyone has the same amount of property and legal rights....Majority systems always lead to the opression or repression of minority groups, so don't bang on about this precious "political utopia" under socialism.......socialism is far better then capitalism, but fuck so many people here seem to think "capitalism is fucked, socialism/communism is the answer....bring that in and bingo problem solved"

I condone state rule by the working class. I condone a state which acts as a central organization of the proletariat. The people, as a whole, will not have to submit to state rule, the state will have to submit to popular rule. Obviously, the state will impose laws, but only ones which protect the people from individuals who want to benefit from their labor, or those with no regard to the rights of the people. Individuals whose ambitions involve acquiring power over the people by either reaping the goods of society or assuming power of the people through religious dogmatism.


Yeah? wow thanks for pointing out the blatant and painfully obvious!

I was asking those questions to be critical of your ideology, seeing as how you have neglected to be.

Why would you ask me if an egalitarian society leads of a lack of egalitarianism to critique my ideology? Did you think that I had not yet figured that one out?

[Comrade BNS]

I don't know why you're telling me this. Were they subjugated to these laws by a book as opposed to being subjugated by spoken words? So? What difference does that make? They are still subdued. Anytime people are under the rule of someone, the person ruling is a member of the ruling class. See a connection? The fact that the people who wrote the book are dead, doesn't negate the fact that the book is still being published for the purpose of telling people what to do. Why is it okay to tell people what to do? You're not answering my points, and I'm gonna get tired of debating with you pretty soon.

The point (which i thought was pretty ironic and obvious) is that the Jews were called the people of the book, simply because they CHOSE to follow the words of a book. You chose to follow the words of anothe book by Marx.....He isn't standing over you with a whip saying "Thou shalt" (although plenty of his interpreters i bet would love to). Please explain to me the logistics of how a BOOK can be "evil" and subdue people? (unless it was somehow able to hurl itself at your cranium)

:lol: a BOOK!


I also don't understand why you're telling me this?

You're right that Marx's alleged theories can be verified, but have I failed to do so? I don't understand why you'd say that

Refer to the above point....sure the priest can tell me or anyone else "Jesus said blacks and indians are evil!"......do you know how I can check the validity of this? *gasp* go to the book.....holy shit! no wizardry, no trickery, no subjugation of the "masses"......if a priest said something like that, I would use the bible to tell him what a racist ignorant fool they are!

and I spose i better explain the reference to marx and crayons......If I said to you "Marx said blah blah blah" you could easily do what I did in the above hypothetical situation.


Most people are told that they're members of a particular faith from the time they're very young. Then they're told to follow certain rules, rules that they must not break if they are to honor this tradition that they were literally forced into. It's kind of hard to break away from that sort of thing. If you're told from a young age about "god" and how much power he has over our future and how important his laws are, you'd be very willing to follow "his" laws.


oh they are, are they? thanks for that blatant statement of "truth"......backed up with unquestionable evidence, as always....


Whether or not people choose to belong to a religion doesn't change much.

strange I thought personal freedom was highly important to socialists.


The people, as a whole, will not have to submit to state rule, the state will have to submit to popular rule.

:lol:

and that's what they said about capitalist democracy....

btw, how old are you Red Zep?

Comrade BNS