God and Chickens

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Direland
GOD AND CHICKENS: Tyson Foods Sells Religion to Cover Up Its Dirty Doings

Ad Age reports today that the giant international mega-conglomerate Tyson Foods -- twice as large as any competitor in the meat-and-chicken industry -- is now trying to sell God along with its chickens, beef, and pre-prepared frozen meals. Tyson is distributing "mealtime prayer booklets" for a variety of faiths all over the world.

"What started out as the internal manifestation of Tyson’s mission statement -- a set of core values that includes 'striving to be a faith-friendly company…and to honor God…' -- has over the last few years morphed into placing 128 part-time chaplains in 78 plants across the country and, now, the external marketing initiative to play a part in mealtime prayer." Tyson's chairman, born-again John Tyson, Ad Age notes, is a sometime drug addict and alcoholic.

All this godbothering is, of course, designed to cover up Tyson's dirty record as a rapacious, union-busting, exploitative corporation that endangers the lives of its workers, exploits immigrant labor, and doesn't stop at utilizing violence and fraud to achieve its reactionary goals. Blood, Sweat and Fear, a recent report by Human Rights Watch, condemned Tyson for violating the basic human rights of its workers by allowing unsafe working conditions at many of its production facilities and using illegal means to stop their joining unions: Tyson workers "contend with conditions, vulnerabilities, and abuses which violate human rights," said the January, 2005 HRW report.

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/..._foods_sel.html (http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2005/12/tyson_foods_sel.html)

Here is another illustration, as if one were needed, why religion is always reactionary.

Tyson is "God-friendly"...and worker hostile.

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

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 01:47 PM
Here is another illustration, as if one were needed, why religion is always reactionary.

That is an example of why capitalism is reactionary, I am sure there are plenty of religious people that will be sickened by that.

Personally however I see this, not linked to religion, but to profit. Sex sells, but so does god, and I as I am not sentimental about either, fuck it. To be honest mythology would be so much better than monotheistic religions, because then it could be porn and religion working together to flog reactionary, sub-standard crap.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution
That is an example of why capitalism is reactionary, I am sure there are plenty of religious people that will be sickened by that.

Indeed? Even if true, that doesn't mean much since they don't own a chicken processing plant.

You seem to judge the social role of religion by some "neighborhood believer" whom you happen to personally know. He's a "nice guy" who "wouldn't do that".

But what you overlook is that his attitudes are shaped by the Tyson family, the Bush family, the religious norms proclaimed by the ruling class.

If the leading Christians of the Bush regime practice torture, then torture becomes legitimate in the eyes of the ordinary believer.

Regrettable, possibly, and not something that he would personally want to do...but in no significant sense "un-Christian".

The same goes for Tyson Food's treatment of its employees. There's no one in any position to credibly denounce the Tyson family as "not real Christians".

The most that you could possibly expect would be a pro forma criticism by some leading cleric...and it would not be any kind of a "big deal".

Can you imagine the Pope saying that "eating Tyson products is a mortal sin that will result in summary excommunication!"? :lol:

Do you imagine that any of those "part-time chaplains" at the Tyson hellholes lose any sleep over the source of their money?

Nah! I bet they even hit on the more superstitious Tyson employees for donations...to supplement their own incomes. :angry:

Reactionary scum!

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

[Hegemonicretribution]

Actually I know lots of people with varying degrees of belief in one thing or another. I do not justify religion with this, I accept that the observable and active part is mostly as you describe, and I hate it comletely. However I don't belive in creating the few excetions as martyrs, because they are deemed the same as the true reactionary scum. I have never offered any defence of what you portray as religion, ban the fucking lot of those guys, they are reactionary.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Of course religion is "reactionary". It's supposed to be that way, and has been, since day 1, way back when.

As for the rest of the story....

Stock in Alcoa, up 3 1/4. Chicken McNuggets are now brainwashing your children.... Frankly, I find it a bit tacky...but if it sells more chicken, Tyson will have more employees to be hostile towards.

Methinks, you are crying "fowl" again.

[James]

I have never offered any defence of what you portray as religion, ban the fucking lot of those guys, they are reactionary


Does anyone else see the irony?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
Of course religion is "reactionary". It's supposed to be that way, and has been, since day 1, way back when.

Indeed...but perhaps you would be shocked at the numbers of "lefties" who think otherwise.

One of my "Labors of Hercules" is getting across to these lefties the reactionary nature of religion in the face of all sorts of mindless babble about "spirituality", "progressive Christians", "Jesus was the first communist", etc., etc., etc. :o

"Cleaning the Augean Stables" was a piece of cake compared to this task.

So I must seek out, from time to time, the most clear-cut evidence that I can locate to demonstrate what Christianity (and all religion) actually means in practice.

And it's working...though all too slowly, of course. When I first came to this board, I was pretty much the only voice that consistently attacked all forms of superstition.

Now there are a couple of dozen young comrades here who will forthrightly blast any defense of superstitious reaction.

And those numbers are growing.

I think it is the duty of anyone who seriously considers themselves part of a revolutionary left to publicly attack superstition at every opportunity.

But "getting that to happen" is a tough job.

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

[Invader Zim]

My former flatmate is religious, but this stuff you describe is well out of his "depth", he is a vegitarian and would be disgusted by this.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:38 AM

I have never offered any defence of what you portray as religion, ban the fucking lot of those guys, they are reactionary


Does anyone else see the irony?
What irony? I just claim that there is religion existing outside of redstar's attack, and because of this not every case is necccessarily reactionary. If these cases are denied as religion, then I agree with him, if these cases are not, then I would like to see a link between every conceivable form of religion and reactionary elements, not just what is seen as the majority of religion. The majority of people being one way is never justification for holding the same view of every last person.

Essentially I would like a definition of religion that could be used to attribute all reactionary behaviour as a neccessary element of reactionary practice. Then we could decide whether or not everyone that claims to be "religious" actually is or not. There are people that claim to be Marxist and are not because they are reactionary, I would be happy to deny people that claim to be religious as religious as not reactionary, although I think what is being claimed is stronger than that.

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Dec 14 2005, 10:08 AM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Dec 14 2005, 10:08 AM)
[email protected] 12 2005, 12:38 AM

I have never offered any defence of what you portray as religion, ban the fucking lot of those guys, they are reactionary


Does anyone else see the irony?
What irony? I just claim that there is religion existing outside of redstar's attack, and because of this not every case is necccessarily reactionary. If these cases are denied as religion, then I agree with him, if these cases are not, then I would like to see a link between every conceivable form of religion and reactionary elements, not just what is seen as the majority of religion. The majority of people being one way is never justification for holding the same view of every last person.

Essentially I would like a definition of religion that could be used to attribute all reactionary behaviour as a neccessary element of reactionary practice. Then we could decide whether or not everyone that claims to be "religious" actually is or not. There are people that claim to be Marxist and are not because they are reactionary, I would be happy to deny people that claim to be religious as religious as not reactionary, although I think what is being claimed is stronger than that. [/b]
It might be possible to be religious and not be a reactionary, I mean, I was a Christian for the first one and half months of my joining RevLeft, but I don't think I was saying anything reactionary (I hope.) Marx has reason when he says that religion is the opiate of the masses, since you cannot truly believe in Marxism when you are still shackled by religion, as I found out.

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 03:13 PM
My former flatmate is religious, but this stuff you describe is well out of his "depth", he is a vegitarian and would be disgusted by this.
Your former flat mate believes in imaginary people, you should recommend a psychiatrist.

Maybe they are insecure, give them a cuddle and tell them it will all be ok. Alternatively you could always bash them over the head with a copy of the communist manifesto.

He's a vegetarian, oh right, he must be a nice guy then, a vegetarian couldn’t possibly be bad.

[enigma2517]

It might be possible to be religious and not be a reactionary, I mean, I was a Christian for the first one and half months of my joining RevLeft, but I don't think I was saying anything reactionary (I hope.) Marx has reason when he says that religion is the opiate of the masses, since you cannot truly believe in Marxism when you are still shackled by religion, as I found out.


Holy crap thats amazing. Congratulations.

Tell me, what made you change your mind? Its hard for me to get into the mind of a Christian...thus I find it hard to "debate" with them.

Edit: Ok here's a problem I have. I can bring up thousands of examples of why religion is bad...but the person that I am conversing with will simply respond with "oh well thats terrible but I would never do that! I just believe in Jesus and love and etc..."

What makes all religion reactionary? I'd say the concept of faith. You believe in something without empirical evidence. Even religious people who don't attend church have "faith". Perhaps this is what we need to be addressing most in our arguments.

Also, how can I prove (as Redstar, for instance, asserted once) that fundamentalism is true Christianity? People are like ohhh those are just clever metaphors? Slavery? Sexism? What? Nahhh we're Christians we love everybody!

Liberal interpretations of holy scripture...I don't know...what I can say to that?

[anomaly]

I'd tell them that faith is faith. whether the person you're debating interprets his 'holy book' 'liberally' or not, it really makes no difference. He still pledges his obedience toward an imaginary being, and he believes that he will 'live' after he dies, and thus material reality as he knows becomes far less important.

In other words, it is still reactionary. It doesn't matter how one interprets holy books and whatnot, it is the act of 'believing' that matters.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Faith is perhaps one thing linking most relgious beliefs, but that may not be bad. However it is what the faith is in, and the application of this belief that is important. I most cases this delicate thing is manipulated to such an extent that what is left is barely human.

Sometimes, when someone takes hold of their faith, and tries to use it as a virtue towards a higher aim (proletarian revolution?) whilst always realising it for what it is?

The same line of argument here is similar to one used against communism. The standard, all countries were dictatorships is similar to all religions are reactionary. Most people want nothing to do with them, apart from maybe Cuba. Communists deny that they were communist examples, and left motivated religious people deny that Catholicism etc were examples of religion.