Religion

[Ultra-Violence]

Commrades i like many of you are bign constantly bieng bombarded by religion evevry where. people constantly believe this nonsense and defend it dearly.

so my qeustion to you commrades is:

how do we get rid of religion and do you see its down fall coming any bit closer?



:hammer:

[STABD]

why should we get rid of religion just because your not part of it and the ones who r anoy you. thats like saying we should exterminate the blacks or the jews cause we dont like them. i do agree we must end the catholick church at once how evere we should focus on mor inportant isues and not let peopels personel belifes not distract us from class strugle.

[STI]

The fight against religion is a very important part of the class struggle. Guess which side the church will be on. They're our enemies.

[Elect Marx]

Religion will be around as long as the religious.

You cannot really use any failsafe measures to get dogmatists to question their religion and there is no way I know of to determine who is most immersed in the supernatural.

Basically, you can try to kill every single religious person :o (good luck; you wont live long) OR use the fact that as religion loses public authority and society is secularized, religion fades away...

Also; people need an alternative to such forms of idealism and a scientific materialist worldview is logical; for fans of rationality ;)

For future reference; I find community influence is most effective. The more integrated secular views are in society; the more religion fades from the public. The problem is that fundamentalists like to run off and re-congregate; I'd say the reactionary characteristics of fundamentalists are amplified according to their insecurity and general mental instability of the obedience measures cause.

Under a communist revolution; efforts to enforce theocratic rule would be suppressed by community resistance and organized religion would die.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 04:25 AM
why should we get rid of religion just because your not part of it and the ones who r anoy you. thats like saying we should exterminate the blacks or the jews cause we dont like them. i do agree we must end the catholick church at once how evere we should focus on mor inportant isues and not let peopels personel belifes not distract us from class strugle.
Why should the Catholic Church end? Are you one of those Staunch right wing Protestant anti-Catholics? because thats what it sounds like <_<.

[Ultra-Violence]

why should we get rid of religion just because your not part of it and the ones who r anoy you. thats like saying we should exterminate the blacks or the jews cause we dont like them. i do agree we must end the catholick church at once how evere we should focus on mor inportant isues and not let peopels personel belifes not distract us from class strugle.

Commrade if you must know i am a confirmd catholic but i dont believe in this jibirish i just did it for my mom. but religoin is a class strugle in my opinion look at the explioted masses that think its ok to be explioted because thier goanna go to heaven and thier goana pay it in the afterlife. religion must be eliminated at once
its sicking and seperates the working class&#33;

:hammer:

[STABD]

i think the Catholick church must end for the same reason that ultra violence thinks we should get rid of all religion. the peopel blindly follow the pope and the whole hierarchy because they belive that there god wants them to. and the belief that peopel like the pope r closer to god and there for better is contradicting to the principles of comunism.

[Led Zeppelin]

"The basis of religious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being encamped outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point d&#39;honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal source of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence because the human essence has no true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly a fight against the world of which religion is the spiritual aroma.

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and also the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion." Karl Marx

[Elect Marx]

Thanks Marx, but that didn&#39;t answer the question Marxism-Leninism.

Well; I will address Marx&#39;s quote applying this valuable part:


Originally posted by Karl Marx
To abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness. The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of the vale of tears, the halo of which is religion.

Marx is addressing here what needs to not exist for religion to dissipate but I would stress the simultaneously occurring opposite reaction that needs to take place here.

What is more difficult? Removing the facets of society that support idealism or advocating an alternative and allowing reason to occur?

I will relate this to drinking a glass of ice-water:

If you try to drink the water, the ice (the cold aspect of the water) resists and flies in your face but if you use a straw, you allow the air pressure to help you alleviate the cold water and the ice melts&#33; Then all that is left is logical air ;)

I think this glass of religion has gone stale&#33; :lol:

[Ultra-Violence]

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.


An even greater reason to destroy it&#33;





:hammer:

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 18 2005, 03:59 PM

Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people.


An even greater reason to destroy it&#33;
:blink: You don&#39;y get it? You cannot destroy a sigh, you have to deal with the root problems... "smash it up" doesn&#39;t work very well when applied to learning and de-programming.:hammer:

[Ultra-Violence]

You don&#39;y get it? You cannot destroy a sigh, you have to deal with the root problems... "smash it up" doesn&#39;t work very well when applied to learning and de-programming.


Im not impying to smash it up. what im saying is get rid of it not by violent means neccarily but by education and debunking religion with science and math and prove there is NO GOD&#33;


:hammer:

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 19 2005, 01:37 PM

You don&#39;y get it? You cannot destroy a sigh, you have to deal with the root problems... "smash it up" doesn&#39;t work very well when applied to learning and de-programming.


Im not impying to smash it up. what im saying is get rid of it not by violent means neccarily but by education and debunking religion with science and math and prove there is NO GOD&#33;
Great&#33;

Do keep in mind though, that you cannot prove something doesn&#39;t exist; that just isn&#39;t physically possible, even if we really wish it was...

You can certainly demand proof though; those making assertions hold the burden of proof, so you just have to get at the truth ;)

[redstar2000]

You cannot destroy a sigh, you have to deal with the root problems... "smash it up" doesn&#39;t work very well when applied to learning and de-programming.

It depends on the circumstances.

When people see with their own eyes that the "sacred" can be "profaned" and nothing bad happens to the profaners, this provokes a shock which can very well lead to disbelief.

Among the really serious believers, it can also provoke a desperate fundamentalist reaction, of course...as they frantically and violently attempt to "save their religion".

Marx and Engels did think that we&#39;d "get off easy"...that religion would just "fade away" into insignificance when its material roots were destroyed.

I think the "end struggle" will be pretty tumultuous and possibly violent myself...but we shall see.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Clarksist]

When people see with their own eyes that the "sacred" can be "profaned" and nothing bad happens to the profaners, this provokes a shock which can very well lead to disbelief.


Near my house is a cultish youth christian group. Every time I walk by I blaspheme. Sometimes I&#39;ll walk through them while blaspheming, and they will literally step away from me in fear of dying.

But when I come out unscathed most of them get sort of pissed off. As if they thought blasphemers got smited all the time.


Im not impying to smash it up. what im saying is get rid of it not by violent means neccarily but by education and debunking religion with science and math and prove there is NO GOD&#33;


Why not violently destroy religion?

I mean seriously why not actively destroy it? What is it doing for people, other than giving them a life on their knees?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 11:04 PM
Why not violently destroy religion?

I mean seriously why not actively destroy it? What is it doing for people, other than giving them a life on their knees?
Because religion is not a tangible entity to be destroyed?

As RS said; you can profane or blaspheme religious doctrine but what is in people&#39;s minds is not directly effectible; people have barriers. We can find new ways to reach hopeless idealists but in the end; they have to deviate from their dogma and take a step toward us.

Now organized religion I am for attacking (especially the injustice and authoritarianism) but as for vandalism as I said in another thread:

Vandalism could have one benefit; that is, people already distant or discontented with religion might see alternatives. This is the reason that asinine statements like "Satan Rules" are not really helpful because the other effect vandalism has it to provide evidence of the "heathens" that rallies the collective together.
Really; only cohesive and clearly stated strikes can have an effect. Say if you destroyed that ten commandment caravan in efforts to attack evangelical recruiters.

[guerillablack]

Science
How to get rid of it?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 04:01 AM
Science
How to get rid of it?
If you are going to spam; do it in Chit Chat (You’re Forewarned). Start a parody thread for all I care but don&#39;t be surprised when people rip your argument apart.

Religion is idealist; believe or not and science is empirical, comparing the two just makes your argument look absurd.

[guerillablack]

Is it as absurd as proposing to get rid of religion?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:29 AM
Is it as absurd as proposing to get rid of religion?
I gave you a reason why it is not, this is just redundant.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 18 2005, 05:16 AM
Commrades i like many of you are bign constantly bieng bombarded by religion evevry where. people constantly believe this nonsense and defend it dearly.

so my qeustion to you commrades is:

how do we get rid of religion and do you see its down fall coming any bit closer?



:hammer:
First of all we should put messages of warning on all religious writings.
An example:

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9633/biblewarninglabel2ql.jpg

;)

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Djehuti+Aug 23 2005, 11:01 AM--> (Djehuti &#064; Aug 23 2005, 11:01 AM)
Ultra&#045;[email protected] 18 2005, 05:16 AM
Commrades i like many of you are bign constantly bieng bombarded by religion evevry where. people constantly believe this nonsense and defend it dearly.

so my qeustion to you commrades is:

how do we get rid of religion and do you see its down fall coming any bit closer?



:hammer:
First of all we should put messages of warning on all religious writings.
An example:

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9633/biblewarninglabel2ql.jpg

;) [/b]
Or how about not <_<. We should let people read what they want WITHOUT WARNINGS and then make up their own minds as to what they want without trying to persuade them one way or another.

PS: I think you&#39;re exaggerating on a few of those warnings as well.

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Ultra&#045;[email protected] 18 2005, 04:16 AM
Commrades i like many of you are bign constantly bieng bombarded by religion evevry where. people constantly believe this nonsense and defend it dearly.

so my qeustion to you commrades is:

how do we get rid of religion and do you see its down fall coming any bit closer?



:hammer:
Religion will naturally die out when people have control over their lives and when they won&#39;t be living in so much uncertainty, i.e. in communist society.

From Clarkist:


Why not violently destroy religion?

I mean seriously why not actively destroy it? What is it doing for people, other than giving them a life on their knees?

Doing that will just make martyrs for religion and just help it last longer. I don&#39;t have time to find the specific citation, but Engels dealt with what I am talking about in his work, Anti-Duhring.

[Decolonize The Left]

Religion is the crutch of the weak.

Leave them be to crumble in their own weaknesses.
In other words as Axel put well,
religion will die out.

-- August

[Axel1917]

Here is the citation I was looking for:


But it does not matter what we want. What matters is what Herr Dühring wants. And he differs from Frederick II in this, that in the Dühringian future state certainly not everyone will be able to be happy in his own way. The constitution of this future state provides:

"In the free society there can be no religious worship; for every member of it has got beyond the primitive childish superstition that there are beings, behind nature or above it, who can be influenced by sacrifices or prayers" {D. Ph. 286}. A "socialitarian system, rightly conceived, has therefore ... to abolish all the paraphernalia of religious magic, and therewith all the essential elements of religious worship" {D. C. 345}.

Religion is being prohibited.

All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men&#39;s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces. In the beginnings of history it was the forces of nature which were first so reflected, and which in the course of further evolution underwent the most manifold and varied personifications among the various peoples. This early process has been traced back by comparative mythology, at least in the case of the Indo-European peoples, to its origin in the Indian Vedas, and in its further evolution it has been demonstrated in detail among the Indians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Germans and, so far as material is available, also among the Celts, Lithuanians and Slavs. But it is not long before, side by side with the forces of nature, social forces begin to be active — forces which confront man as equally alien and at first equally inexplicable, dominating him with the same apparent natural necessity as the forces of nature themselves. The fantastic figures, which at first only reflected the mysterious forces of nature, at this point acquire social attributes, become representatives of the forces of history. *16 At a still further stage of evolution, all the natural and social attributes of the numerous gods are transferred to one almighty god, who is but a reflection of the abstract man. Such was the origin of monotheism, which was historically the last product of the vulgarised philosophy of the later Greeks and found its incarnation in the exclusively national god of the Jews, Jehovah. In this convenient, handy and universally adaptable form, religion can continue to exist as the immediate, that is, the sentimental form of men&#39;s relation to the alien, natural and social, forces which dominate them, so long as men remain under the control of these forces. However, we have seen repeatedly that in existing bourgeois society men are dominated by the economic conditions created by themselves, by the means of production which they themselves have produced, as if by an alien force. The actual basis of the religious reflective activity therefore continues to exist, and with it the religious reflection itself. And although bourgeois political economy has given a certain insight into the causal connection of this alien domination, this makes no essential difference. Bourgeois economics can neither prevent crises in general, nor protect the individual capitalists from losses, bad debts and bankruptcy, nor secure the individual workers against unemployment and destitution. It is still true that man proposes and God (that is, the alien domination of the capitalist mode of production) disposes. Mere knowledge, even if it went much further and deeper than that of bourgeois economic science, is not enough to bring social forces under the domination of society. What is above all necessary for this, is a social act. And when this act has been accomplished, when society, by taking possession of all means of production and using them on a planned basis, has freed itself and all its members from the bondage in which they are now held by these means of production which they themselves have produced but which confront them as an irresistible alien force, when therefore man no longer merely proposes, but also disposes — only then will the last alien force which is still reflected in religion vanish; and with it will also vanish the religious reflection itself, for the simple reason that then there will be nothing left to reflect.

Herr Dühring, however, cannot wait until religion dies this, its natural, death. He proceeds in more deep-rooted fashion. He out-Bismarcks Bismarck; he decrees sharper May laws [127] not merely against Catholicism, but against all religion whatsoever; he incites his gendarmes of the future against religion, and thereby helps it to martyrdom and a prolonged lease of life. Wherever we turn, we find specifically Prussian socialism.

-Engels, Anti-Dühring. Taken from marxists.org&#39;s online transcription of it (it was easier to copy and paste than to dig out and type from my 25th Volume of the Marx-Engels Collected Works (contains Anti-Dühring and The Dialectics of Nature)

Notes in citation:


*16 This twofold character assumed later on by the divinities was one of the causes of the subsequently widespread confusion of mythologies -- a cause which comparative mythology has overlooked, as it pays attention exclusively to their character as reflections of the forces of nature. Thus in some Germanic tribes the war-god is called Tyr (Old Nordic) or Zio (Old High German) and so corresponds to the Greek Zeus, Latin Jupiter for Diespiter; in other Germanic tribes, Er, Eor, corresponds therefore to the Greek Ares, Latin Mars.


127 May laws -- four laws on creed adopted on Bismarck&#39;s initiative in May 1873. These laws established rigid state control over the Catholic Church and were the culmination of Bismarck&#39;s so-called drive for culture from 1872 to 1875, which was directed against the Catholic clergy as the mainstay of the "Centre" party, representing the interests of the separatists in South and South-western Germany. Police persecution met with desperate resistance by Catholics and brought them the halo of martyrdom. From the late 1870s, in order to unite all the reactionary forces against the working-class movement, Bismarck&#39;s government was compelled first to relax and then to repeal almost all the anti-Catholic laws.

-From marxists.org

Any religious person should not be prohibited from taking part in the revolution; we have our differences, and those that treat their religion in a more honest manner have nothing in common with the "Christianity" of the ranks of the reactionary Religious Right (Pat Robertson, for a recent example).