Religion and Reactionaries

[DisIllusion]

What do you think religion does to somebody? Does it really contribute to counter-revolutionaryism? If so, how does Marx, and in your own opinion, define reactionaries?

[ReD_ReBeL]

hmm i myself am not religious but welcome other people to be religious IF: thy do not exclude anybody based on prejeduces ie gay, female etcetc...and as long as that religion does not harm anyone or anything, and not to be preached, so that the individual can make there own mind up without any1 forcing thm.
What happened in Soviet Russia was disgusting i think banning religion, that is interfering with one's life to much and forcing your own opinion on to thm, if thy want to peacefully believe in a religion ..let it be...its not harming any1

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:43 PM
hmm i myself am not religious but welcome other people to be religious IF: thy do not exclude anybody based on prejeduces ie gay, female etcetc...and as long as that religion does not harm anyone or anything, and not to be preached, so that the individual can make there own mind up without any1 forcing thm.
What happened in Soviet Russia was disgusting i think banning religion, that is interfering with one's life to much and forcing your own opinion on to thm, if thy want to peacefully believe in a religion ..let it be...its not harming any1
True, but in the U.S.S.R they were just following Marx's ideal that religion holds back Communism. Though it is hard to achieve a completely secular society when so many people (sometimes myself included) need that spiritual/emotional crutch.

[ReD_ReBeL]

yes but who is sum1 else to tell you that u 'Cannot be religious ' no more is, it is stupid and TOO authoritarian, and will just get u alot of hostility towards Communism, some communism ideals r too involved with ones personal life, plus yes Marxs have some great ideas but sumtimes to be a great leader you make your own and not follow from some1 else

[DisIllusion]

In other words, just walk away from the dogma and twek with Marxism by yourself? Because that's harder than it sounds.

[ReD_ReBeL]

lol yea i know but u think society is exactly the same as wen Marx was around? no i doubt it we will have to twist Marxism a bit so it adapts to 21st century society, in my opinion anyway

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:43 PM
lol yea i know but u think society is exactly the same as wen Marx was around? no i doubt it we will have to twist Marxism a bit so it adapts to 21st century society, in my opinion anyway
True, Lenin probably adapted Marxism to early 20th century society, so maybe we need a modern thinker to adapt Marxism/Leninism for the 21st century, otherwise we're running a race with a Model T against McLarens.

[ReD_ReBeL]

lol yes exactly u get wht im saying lol times change and so do politics, so yea i would say mebe we do need a 21st century thinker to adapt to the new world situations

[redstar2000]

Here is how a bourgeois dictionary handles the question...


REACTION
1. A tendency to revert to a former state.
2. Opposition to progress or liberalism; extreme conservatism.

This is "crude" but gets the idea across.

A reactionary is one who wishes to "go back"...to restore some "former" relationship that he (or she) perceives has been destroyed or is being destroyed by the modern world.

We characterize religions as reactionary because they all wish to restore a world that was dominated by superstition.

Most of them don't say that now, of course. Because to be honest about that would alienate people from religion even faster than is already happening.

But when you look at the fundamentals of what they believe, the conclusion is inescapable.

They sincerely want to bring back a world in which ordinary people actually worry about whether they are "going to Heaven" or "going to Hell".

They sincerely want to bring back a world in which the clergy not only have very high "social status" but can easily acquire considerable wealth in their own right.

They sincerely want to bring back a world in which the clergy can realistically aspire to political power.

They loved feudalism...and would bring that back if they thought they could get away with it.

The best they could do in modern times was clerical fascism in Europe between the wars...but they still like the idea. American "Christian fundamentalism" is clerical fascism "updated" for the "modern consumer".

So you get the idea, right?

One may legitimately ask why religion is always reactionary. The reason is that each religion was invented in a primitive society and reflects the social arrangements that existed at the time of its invention.

You won't find a word in the Christian "Bible" or the Islamic "Qu'ran", for example, that criticizes slavery. Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") actually tells Christian slaves that they have a "duty" to "God" to "obey their masters".

This is because Christianity was invented at a time when slavery was accepted...by the slaveowners.

You see, in order for a religion to become "officially sanctioned" and "accepted" by the rulers of any given society, it must clearly say that those rulers were "appointed by God" and the people have a "religious duty" to submit to them.

New religions may "start out" being somewhat critical of the society in which they are invented...but if they are to become successful religions, then they must "strike a deal" with the ruling class.

And they do!

"You tell the people that they must worship our version of God and we'll tell the people that they must obey you or burn in Hell."

This scam has been "coming apart" ever since the French Revolution...much to the distress of the god merchants.

When you hear them piss and moan about "this godless age", keep in mind that they are really howling about the impending end of their dirty little racket.

:lol:

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

[Social Greenman]

Redstar 2000:

I appologize for calling you a Stalinist Bastard in another thread. I have been reading your writings and I agree with most of it. It took awhile to understand where you were coming from. It was good to read what you wrote. You even pointed out that so-called Marxist have made "little gods" out of Leaders of the past. You spare no one. I can respect that.

On the other hand, we are a long ways from revolution but educating workers is about all that can be done along with protesting the status quo. I will continue to study Marx's writings. I will decided that I will no longer post here on Rev Left for a good while to come though I will continue to read what people write here. Good fortune to you as you educate those here.

John

[ReD_ReBeL]

comrade you have to post, u cannot just stop posting and believe everything what is sed, wen sum1 tells u info ask thm where thy got this info? is there statistics or is it just a rumour, question everything man or u'll have like 10 different stories on the same subject

[Social Greenman]

comrade you have to post, u cannot just stop posting and believe everything what is sed, wen sum1 tells u info ask thm where thy got this info? is there statistics or is it just a rumour, question everything man or u'll have like 10 different stories on the same subject

I need to break off for awhile. I never wrote that I believe everything that Redstar wrote. I do understand where he is coming from and I do agree with many things he did write from historical evidence. That is all I am going to write for now.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:18 AM
Here is how a bourgeois dictionary handles the question...


REACTION
1. A tendency to revert to a former state.
2. Opposition to progress or liberalism; extreme conservatism.

This is "crude" but gets the idea across.

A reactionary is one who wishes to "go back"...to restore some "former" relationship that he (or she) perceives has been destroyed or is being destroyed by the modern world.

We characterize religions as reactionary because they all wish to restore a world that was dominated by superstition.

Most of them don't say that now, of course. Because to be honest about that would alienate people from religion even faster than is already happening.

But when you look at the fundamentals of what they believe, the conclusion is inescapable.

They sincerely want to bring back a world in which ordinary people actually worry about whether they are "going to Heaven" or "going to Hell".

They sincerely want to bring back a world in which the clergy not only have very high "social status" but can easily acquire considerable wealth in their own right.

They sincerely want to bring back a world in which the clergy can realistically aspire to political power.

They loved feudalism...and would bring that back if they thought they could get away with it.

The best they could do in modern times was clerical fascism in Europe between the wars...but they still like the idea. American "Christian fundamentalism" is clerical fascism "updated" for the "modern consumer".

So you get the idea, right?

One may legitimately ask why religion is always reactionary. The reason is that each religion was invented in a primitive society and reflects the social arrangements that existed at the time of its invention.

You won't find a word in the Christian "Bible" or the Islamic "Qu'ran", for example, that criticizes slavery. Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") actually tells Christian slaves that they have a "duty" to "God" to "obey their masters".

This is because Christianity was invented at a time when slavery was accepted...by the slaveowners.

You see, in order for a religion to become "officially sanctioned" and "accepted" by the rulers of any given society, it must clearly say that those rulers were "appointed by God" and the people have a "religious duty" to submit to them.

New religions may "start out" being somewhat critical of the society in which they are invented...but if they are to become successful religions, then they must "strike a deal" with the ruling class.

And they do!

"You tell the people that they must worship our version of God and we'll tell the people that they must obey you or burn in Hell."

This scam has been "coming apart" ever since the French Revolution...much to the distress of the god merchants.

When you hear them piss and moan about "this godless age", keep in mind that they are really howling about the impending end of their dirty little racket.

:lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Wow, thanks comrade RedStar, that really cleared things up for me and made a lot of sense. I've been thinking and studying and realized that the Bible really does accept slavery and is hypocritical about this among many topics. A good example is in the American Civil War. The Northerners were saying that going against slavery was a Christian ideal, but at the same time, the Southerners were saying that they were only using their "God-given" tools and advantages to capitalize on their profits.

To me, capitalism, greed and twisted truth go hand and hand with religion.

[Publius]

Here is how a bourgeois dictionary handles the question...


REACTION
1. A tendency to revert to a former state.
2. Opposition to progress or liberalism; extreme conservatism.

This is "crude" but gets the idea across.

A reactionary is one who wishes to "go back"...to restore some "former" relationship that he (or she) perceives has been destroyed or is being destroyed by the modern world.

We characterize religions as reactionary because they all wish to restore a world that was dominated by superstition.

Most of them don't say that now, of course. Because to be honest about that would alienate people from religion even faster than is already happening.

But when you look at the fundamentals of what they believe, the conclusion is inescapable.

They sincerely want to bring back a world in which ordinary people actually worry about whether they are "going to Heaven" or "going to Hell".

They sincerely want to bring back a world in which the clergy not only have very high "social status" but can easily acquire considerable wealth in their own right.

They sincerely want to bring back a world in which the clergy can realistically aspire to political power.

They loved feudalism...and would bring that back if they thought they could get away with it.

The best they could do in modern times was clerical fascism in Europe between the wars...but they still like the idea. American "Christian fundamentalism" is clerical fascism "updated" for the "modern consumer".

So you get the idea, right?

One may legitimately ask why religion is always reactionary. The reason is that each religion was invented in a primitive society and reflects the social arrangements that existed at the time of its invention.

You won't find a word in the Christian "Bible" or the Islamic "Qu'ran", for example, that criticizes slavery. Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") actually tells Christian slaves that they have a "duty" to "God" to "obey their masters".

This is because Christianity was invented at a time when slavery was accepted...by the slaveowners.

You see, in order for a religion to become "officially sanctioned" and "accepted" by the rulers of any given society, it must clearly say that those rulers were "appointed by God" and the people have a "religious duty" to submit to them.

New religions may "start out" being somewhat critical of the society in which they are invented...but if they are to become successful religions, then they must "strike a deal" with the ruling class.

And they do!

"You tell the people that they must worship our version of God and we'll tell the people that they must obey you or burn in Hell."

This scam has been "coming apart" ever since the French Revolution...much to the distress of the god merchants.

When you hear them piss and moan about "this godless age", keep in mind that they are really howling about the impending end of their dirty little racket.

:lol:

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

I agree with it all, except that I don't think people will seperate themselves form superstition, only replace the current forms with something else.

Look at 'mysticism' or 'spirituality' as an example. It's every bit as hokey and nearly as dangerous as regular religion, yet people flock to it.

THese people flaunt their non-Christianity, yet, they're just as deluded.

I really can't see this going away. It would be different if people accepted science and accepted logic, and accepted the fact that they were wrong but they don't.

I could utterly destroy the belief system of any theist. Easily. Yet will they convert? No, no they won't.

Look at how few Americans believe in evolution.

It's a fucking shame, and a travesty.

I can show people, literally, the fossil record from early ape to man, with nary a hole or flaw, carbon dated to perfection, providing absolute proof of human evolution, and you know what? They wouldn't change their beliefs one iota.

This is what you're up against.

Rationality fails when the person isn't rational, and I don't think you realize how few people actually are rational.

[DisIllusion]

I agree with it all, except that I don't think people will seperate themselves form superstition, only replace the current forms with something else.

Look at 'mysticism' or 'spirituality' as an example. It's every bit as hokey and nearly as dangerous as regular religion, yet people flock to it.

THese people flaunt their non-Christianity, yet, they're just as deluded.

I really can't see this going away. It would be different if people accepted science and accepted logic, and accepted the fact that they were wrong but they don't.

I could utterly destroy the belief system of any theist. Easily. Yet will they convert? No, no they won't.

Look at how few Americans believe in evolution.

It's a fucking shame, and a travesty.

I can show people, literally, the fossil record from early ape to man, with nary a hole or flaw, carbon dated to perfection, providing absolute proof of human evolution, and you know what? They wouldn't change their beliefs one iota.

This is what you're up against.

Rationality fails when the person isn't rational, and I don't think you realize how few people actually are rational.

Yeah, I completely agree with you Publius. Religion seems to rely on the common man's ignorance to survive. If anybody in the church system begins to think for himself or herself, then the church condemns them for "not believing hard enough". This happened to me in the past when I arose some questions on Marxism in my former church and I was condemned by my fellow church members. Basically, the more you blind yourself to the truth, the better "believer" you are. This explains a lot of things in America, you see all those red, conservative states. You look at the statistics and the people in these states are like 70% Christian at the very least. It tells you something on the "majority" of our country. But I also agree with the idea that people shouldn't flaunt their atheism; atheism is a good belief, not something to be showed around like the latest fad.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
I agree with it all, except that I don't think people will seperate themselves form superstition, only replace the current forms with something else.

Well, if you are taught from childhood that some form of superstition is a "legitimate" way to "explain" the world and as time passes, find that "explanation" no longer adequate, then it's not surprising that you might well seek out some other form of superstition to replace it.

I don't think this is due to some "inherent defect" in the human brain.

I think it results from the fact that we (especially in the United States) still live in societies that accept superstition as "respectable" and "legitimate".

In a civilized society which (properly) regarded all forms of superstition as shameful, degrading, and disgusting, then almost no one would "choose" any form of superstition.

It would be regarded the same way as we now regard coprophagy.

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

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Dec 3 2005, 08:01 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Dec 3 2005, 08:01 PM)
Publius
I agree with it all, except that I don't think people will seperate themselves form superstition, only replace the current forms with something else.

Well, if you are taught from childhood that some form of superstition is a "legitimate" way to "explain" the world and as time passes, find that "explanation" no longer adequate, then it's not surprising that you might well seek out some other form of superstition to replace it.

I don't think this is due to some "inherent defect" in the human brain.

I think it results from the fact that we (especially in the United States) still live in societies that accept superstition as "respectable" and "legitimate".

In a civilized society which (properly) regarded all forms of superstition as shameful, degrading, and disgusting, then almost no one would "choose" any form of superstition.

It would be regarded the same way as we now regard coprophagy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
HAHA. I had to look "coprophagous" in the dictionary to get that joke. A society in which superstition is regarded to eating shit. Hm. Idealistic but ultimately almost impossible, based on how many Americans don&#39;t believe in evolution. <_<

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DisIllusion
Idealistic but ultimately almost impossible, based on how many Americans don&#39;t believe in evolution.

In the 17th century, "almost everyone" in Europe and its new world colonies believed in witchcraft.

That&#39;s not true any more, is it?

However reactionary (or even just plain stupid) Americans may appear to be now, that will change.

No humans are really "frozen in time"...even though it may seem like that to those of us who have to live through a period of reaction like this one.

I think it pretty close to inevitable that superstition will be "a dead dog" in the advanced parts of the world within the next couple of centuries.

Yeah, even here. :)

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