Is religion harmful?

[Hegemonicretribution]

When a church tells a people that a class structure is justified, or that anything for that matter is justified because of god I would claim that it is harmful. Not only to revolutionary potential, but to progress in all areas. The church in the past has taken repressive stances towards science and society.

What has been done by this church, or that does not really explain whether or not religion is inherently dangerous. Although it suggests something about people, and how they can manipulate a concept that is beyond direct perception

So I pose the question, is religion inherently reactionary.

I haven't personally reached a conclusion yet, and the main reasons for this are the amount of religious practices out there, and their diversity. I found it hard particuarly to find why a deistic belief is necessarily harmful, or god as a purely philosophical concept.

In such cases, could anyone claim that reactionary behaviour is a necessary result, and therefore something to avoid?

[Enragé]

i myself dont believe it is.

[Dyst]

I do think of organized religion as it is currently is and has been in the past as reactionary and truly as an opiate of the masses. Though not so much 'of the masses' as it was before, one could say for example sports has taken the throne of the biggest opiate. What I mean is that less people consider themselves members of an organized religion today then people did before. This is, at the very least, the trend in the western countries.

I link the foundations behind alot of the religious propaganda together with philosophy. I am myself a great fan of philosophy and consider philosophical questions of greater importance then many political questions.

You mentioned belief in God. Considering it as a philosophical point of view, it is in my opinion absolutely not reactionary and I know for example many scientists who would never call themselves religious, but actually believe something created the universe and that we can see it's patterns in nature.

The difference is when you join some sort of organization to promote God.

Reactionary behaviour is the result of greed and lust for power. It is not necesseraly affiliated with organized religion. However, the trend seems to be that lust for power and organized religion goes hand in hand.

[Sentinel]

In the case of christianity, it's not the church that later on started preaching about servility and obedience to authority.

It is the core message of the religion, and the key point of Jesus's (or Paul's, or whoever actually made up that crap) teachings.

That seems to be the case with all major religions. If you don't give up your claims for a decent life in this world, you won't get to paradise/reach nirvana/whatever in hte afterlife.

This is fundamentally opposed to the message of progress and equality we communists stand for.

And, of course, blind belief in something that can't be proven (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457) is irrational and so not to be preferred if you have any aspirations to actually change current society for something better.

So, all religion is reactionary. You have to understand the reality in order to change it.

[Dyst]

So, all religion is reactionary. You have to understand the reality in order to change it.

I agree that organized religion is reactionary. I can't see what makes you say that we have to understand reality in order to change it, though. We (I assume you mean revolutionaries) don't have to understand reality, we have to understand the economical and political system of capitalism, in order to change it.

Reality involves the universe, everything, and most would say the way to understand it is through philosophy. To philosophize you have to have the freedom to philosophize, which I would never support a society that didn't allow freely.


In the case of christianity, it's not the church that later on started preaching about servility and obedience to authority.

It is the core message of the religion, and the key point of Jesus's (or Paul's, or whoever actually made up that crap) teachings.

I agree with you completely. the Bible could be referred to as the Book of Lies, amongst other reasons because of the rather dodgy events that was even going on while Jesus was alive, that made the book come to life. Appearently there was a member of Jesus' religious society who got banned and went off to create his own religion, which became known as Christianity. It was this religion that made Jesus considered holy. But nobody knows for sure whatever happened, and frankly I don't want to know.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 15 2006, 08:27 PM
This is fundamentally opposed to the message of progress and equality we communists stand for.




I agree with all of the first bit of your post, I said something similar myself in my post, and elsewhere.

However even if world religions are, this does not count for every case, so I don't see what the point here is. I was talking about behavior that is inherent from any existing, or conceivable religious belief/practice(if any).


And, of course, blind belief in something that can't be proven (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457) is irrational and so not to be preferred if you have any aspirations to actually change current society for something better.
Although not preferred, it exists in every case. Nobody is entirely rational, and I am fairly sure I could debunk anyone's personal claim otherwise. We have fear and instincts that influence us, and our actions sometimes reflect this.

Are phobias rectionary? They certainly aren't desireable, but they exist. I would say that most are not inherently reactionary, with a few exceptions. Those irrational thoughts that do not effect revolutionary prospects, or tollerable practices in the aftermath are not, as far as I am concerned, reactionary.


So, all religion is reactionary. You have to understand the reality in order to change it.
I do not see how you made such a jump there in your summary. Your argument was basically;most religion is reactionary, irrational belief is undesireable, religion is always reactionary. I do not see how this follows.

Your first point, although valid, serves little purpose in proving something in every case.

Your second point I have addressed above, or at least as far as I can without a further response.

I agree to some extent that we have to understand reality in order to change it. However we don't fully understand reality. The god of the gaps could be used here harmlesly, at least as long as it does not become anything more.

When god is not taken as something that can interfere with a revolution, then there is no problem. Only a certain sort of reality is adressed during a revolution, musings on creation and the like are not necessary. Whether a big bang theory, or creationist theory is invoked for explanation, it doesn't matter. Any such wondering takes the mind off the immediate task, and outside of this task it doesn't matter.

Deism for example often sees god as a necessary component in the nature of things. A non-contingent concept to give birth to the contingent, nothing more. What then does this matter? Well personally I can't see how it does, such a view has no effect on reality for the believer, or those they meet.

[Sentinel]

Although not preferred, it exists in every case. Nobody is entirely rational, and I am fairly sure I could debunk anyone's personal claim otherwise. We have fear and instincts that influence us, and our actions sometimes reflect this.

Are phobias rectionary? They certainly aren't desireable, but they exist. I would say that most are not inherently reactionary, with a few exceptions. Those irrational thoughts that do not effect revolutionary prospects, or tollerable practices in the aftermath are not, as far as I am concerned, reactionary.

Although nobody might be entirely rational, as you say, everybody should strive to become that.

I'm of course not saying that irrational thought, among which fear and phobias as well as religion are counted, doesn't exist. I'm not into denial of reality! :o

What I say is that they should be challenged in order to progressively develop as a person. And so become able to effectively work for progress in society.


I do not see how you made such a jump there in your summary.

Well, what I meant was that we all can see from evidence (the scriptures) that the major religions advocate obedience and servility in one way or another.

I expected that someone would come with the counterargument:

But all religions aren't about submission!

That is something I don't know for certain, since I'm not familiar with the teachings of every single cult in the world, but still something I'm rather convinced of.

That's why I also explained that all religions are reactionary, anyway, since believing in them includes rejecting rationality. Which is true.

Fears and phobias are also irrational and damaging to the cause of progress, but they are not intentional. We should of course try to help each other conquer them as well.


I agree to some extent that we have to understand reality in order to change it. However we don't fully understand reality. The god of the gaps could be used here harmlesly, at least as long as it does not become anything more.

No, I don't agree. I'm definitely of the opinion that assuming things is wrong and dangerous. We should only trust reliable scientific facts.


When god is not taken as something that can interfere with a revolution, then there is no problem.

I definitely believe, as I've said in earlier discussions, that religious people can sincerely believe in and even fight for a revolution to begin with. Such a revolution can even have initial successes, which has been proven.

But the nature of "the religion problem" is more complicated.

The question is: where would such a revolution take us? To continuing progress or just another failure?

The revolution isn't over when the old ruling class is overtrown, that's when it really begins! And that's when it becomes visible who is a real revolutionary, and who's in fact a reactionary.

The religious "have a problem" with science and progress, since these contradict their theories. And when the working class begins to mold the society with these means, the religious are going to react. Thus, they are reactionaries.

The favorable situation would be if religion was abolished before the revolution. Perhaps capitalism will finish this for us? If not, the scenario becomes more complicated.

If a revolution happens before religion vanishes, the revolution has to attack it fiercely directly after seizing the power, in order to stay in power and ensure progress. This is the least favorable option of these two, of course. :(

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution
When god is not taken as something that can interfere with a revolution, then there is no problem.

Well, we do have the observed phenomenon of people who are declared enemies of the revolution gathering around religious organizations. Religion is a natural "locus" of counter-revolution.

But beyond this? How exactly does it help an individual human or human civilization generally to be obsessed with irrational beliefs?

I agree that all of us may, from time to time, think or act irrationally. Sometimes we say to ourselves afterwards, "I don't know what the fuck I was thinking of" -- meaning that we said or did something that was "stupid" and "made no fucking sense".

It's often the case that harm is done by our individual irrational words or deeds.

It is therefore in our collective human interest to reduce the "role of the irrational" as much as is practical.

To the extent that people measure their potential words and deeds to a rational standard -- and think they ought to do that -- then the potential of harm is reduced.

An anti-communist might say: you secularists think that irrationality is immoral.

And in that context, he'd be right...because irrationality potentially causes harm.

To be sure, our individual irrationality seldom involves doing irreparable damage to others. But it can happen.

Now, what of any system of organized irrationality? The potential to do harm is vastly magnified!

Consider those 22 (I think) guys who took down the twin towers. Could 22 nutballs do that? Even if they completely agreed with each other?

They required the support of collective organized irrationality...not just people who financed their effort but the people who provided the "irrational paradigm" to cosmically justify the act.

And any religion might have been used for this purpose. A seemingly harmless cult of "nature worshipers" could have done it...to strike a blow against "the enemies of the earth". Christians have a long history of such atrocities...so any of their various incarnations would be capable of 9/11.

One might be tempted to think the various "eastern religions" would not be capable of such things. But then recall the behavior of the Japanese in Nanking or the Buddhists in Tibet...and who's to say what an "inspired" sect of "warrior monks" wouldn't do?

It seems to me that any religious belief "opens the gates of Hell"...that is, allows the believer to consciously contemplate acts which rational people regard with horror! Lacking the opportunity, most godsuckers never do those things.

But when they do have the opportunity, look out! :o

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

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 10:31 PM
It seems to me that any religious belief "opens the gates of Hell"...that is, allows the believer to consciously contemplate acts which rational people regard with horror! Lacking the opportunity, most godsuckers never do those things.

I agree wth the vast majority of what you RS, and the Sentinel have said. I see the danger in irrationality, and I agree we should strive towards rationality, not away from it.

As far as this goes, I agree 100%

However what it "seems to you" to be the case every time is not sufficient evidence to hold such a complete view absolutely. It is actually a view I share, but want to test with more awkward examples. I admit that no matter how "it seem," this is no more than a justified belief, not knowledge.

What most godsuckers do isn't necessarily what all do.

Could you please explain the reactionary nature of deism for example? Especially when there are deists that realise their belief is just that, and would accept a better explanation. When it comes to creation for example there is still a hung jury, and in this case I don't see the problem with deism.

[Ol' Dirty]

It's an opiate. It's a diversion to keep people from seeing the truth, what's really going on; a way to blind the oppresed, to keep them in chains. Instead of giving people food, the clergy give them bibles.

[Sentinel]

I'm going to ignore the spam-attack and continue discussing the actual topic. :angry:

Hegemonicretribution asked:


Could you please explain the reactionary nature of deism for example? Especially when there are deists that realise their belief is just that, and would accept a better explanation. When it comes to creation for example there is still a hung jury, and in this case I don't see the problem with deism.

According to wikipedia deists believe that "reason rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God." :lol:

I find that kind of contradictory, since if they used reason, they would see that it isn't rational to believe in "god" because his existence has not been proven. So they are in my opinion still rejecting rationality as much as other superstitious.

I haven't studied deism very deeply though and I understand there are several different forms of it. If some of them realise that their belief is a belief, as you say, doesn't that make them more like agnostics than theists?

I think they, such as the convinced religious can and must be tolerated during and after the revolution as long as they keep their "God-ponderings" to themselves and don't publicly propagate for it or try to indoctrinate their kids in anything. Those must be taught scientific facts at school.

The society can't possibly interfere in any other efficient way, even though it could be seen as necessary for humanitarian reasons (we communists strive to liberate people's minds from mental chains and delusions, after all).

But we can't alter people's thoughts with force. So the basic rule for deists as well as other superstitious remains: silence is golden. :D

Soon everyone has forgotten about their nonsense.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 16 2006, 03:05 AM
I'm going to ignore the spam-attack and continue discussing the actual topic. :angry:


Almost as annoying as the long response I just lost when my computer crashed <_< Second attempt:


I find that kind of contradictory, since if they used reason, they would see that it isn&#39;t rational to believe in "god" because his existence has not been proven. So they are in my opinion still rejecting rationality as much as other superstitious.
There are a few, although in my oppinion poor, arguments that seek to do this. I would however say that we all believe in things when there is no definite answer. Remember deists invoke a god only as necessary for creation, they don&#39;t give them a personality, or four arms. Just as hydrogen was needed to create more complicated molecules, god was supposedly necessary for the creation of the universe.

What is the rational explanation for existence? There are problems with most hypothesis, they just adopt this one due to the lack of (in their oppinion) a better one.


If some of them realise that their belief is a belief, as you say, doesn&#39;t that make them more like agnostics than theists?
Not necessarily. Even some areas of major religion cite belief as a necessary part of their religion. Arguments such as Pascal&#39;s wager (bollocks btw) arose because people claimed you couldn&#39;t "know" god&#39;s existence, you just had to believe.

The belief in something as a creator is partially justified by the fact that there is not a complete set of answers. It remains just that though, the musing of an otherwise rational person on matters outside of their perception.


Those must be taught scientific facts at school.
I don&#39;t think that all practices should be tollerated post-revolution, only those that are not harmful. With regards to schools, I think that kids should be taught scientific method, not "fact." Teaching them right and wrong is pointless, as they don&#39;t learn much from this, but teaching them how to arrive at right and wrong is very productive.

Of course they should be shown how to use scientific method, with reference to real examlpes, but individual approaches to said method will help us progress.


Soon everyone has forgotten about their nonsense.
I hope so to, although this is because I find "religion" distasteful because of the majority of it. I suppose it doesn&#39;t affect me. I just see this as an oppinion I can debate as I disagree with it, this isn&#39;t harmful.

Edit: This relpy is pretty lame compared to my last one. Also RS what is your oppinion on such an example? I know that you have a personal crusade against all religion, I just can&#39;t see the harm here.

[Dyst]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 16 2006, 04:31 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Feb 16 2006, 04:31 AM)
Hegemonicretribution
When god is not taken as something that can interfere with a revolution, then there is no problem.

Well, we do have the observed phenomenon of people who are declared enemies of the revolution gathering around religious organizations. Religion is a natural "locus" of counter-revolution.

But beyond this? How exactly does it help an individual human or human civilization generally to be obsessed with irrational beliefs?

I agree that all of us may, from time to time, think or act irrationally. Sometimes we say to ourselves afterwards, "I don&#39;t know what the fuck I was thinking of" -- meaning that we said or did something that was "stupid" and "made no fucking sense".

It&#39;s often the case that harm is done by our individual irrational words or deeds.

It is therefore in our collective human interest to reduce the "role of the irrational" as much as is practical.

To the extent that people measure their potential words and deeds to a rational standard -- and think they ought to do that -- then the potential of harm is reduced.

An anti-communist might say: you secularists think that irrationality is immoral.

And in that context, he&#39;d be right...because irrationality potentially causes harm.

To be sure, our individual irrationality seldom involves doing irreparable damage to others. But it can happen.

Now, what of any system of organized irrationality? The potential to do harm is vastly magnified&#33;

Consider those 22 (I think) guys who took down the twin towers. Could 22 nutballs do that? Even if they completely agreed with each other?

They required the support of collective organized irrationality...not just people who financed their effort but the people who provided the "irrational paradigm" to cosmically justify the act.

And any religion might have been used for this purpose. A seemingly harmless cult of "nature worshipers" could have done it...to strike a blow against "the enemies of the earth". Christians have a long history of such atrocities...so any of their various incarnations would be capable of 9/11.

One might be tempted to think the various "eastern religions" would not be capable of such things. But then recall the behavior of the Japanese in Nanking or the Buddhists in Tibet...and who&#39;s to say what an "inspired" sect of "warrior monks" wouldn&#39;t do?

It seems to me that any religious belief "opens the gates of Hell"...that is, allows the believer to consciously contemplate acts which rational people regard with horror&#33; Lacking the opportunity, most godsuckers never do those things.

But when they do have the opportunity, look out&#33; :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
You do a fine job of defining organized religion and what groups of people can do if they are united under the same banner, often religious. Politically motivated similar situations has also been recorded through history, though these are often political movements quite similar to religious. United under one leader, one party, church, messiah or anything like that.

This is nothing new, however.

You argue that it doesn&#39;t help an individual or society to be obsessed with irrational beliefs. I agree with that, but remember that irrationality is relative. Many would say the exact same thing to revolutionaries.

The people here fail to seperate the system of "organized irrationality" with some of the main philosophies behind religion. Example: Q: Does God exist? A: No, religion is irrational and reactionary, lies gathered to control the population.
This answer is far from the original question asked.

I do know that this topic is not about Gods existance, but my point is that there is a difference in allowing organization of religion and allowing philosophy. To me, it is a coincidence that the theory of God has been used by many religious groups, they might as well have used the string theory or any other theory which could have been easy to use to dominate the masses. As said before, this they have also done.

Quote of RedStar2000 from his site:


Those who are simply content with the socialist variant of class society can be as friendly to superstition as they like...indeed, they&#39;ll likely find it just as useful as the bourgeoisie.

Moreover, the professionally superstitious will gladly cooperate in such a project. If there ever is "another Stalin" or "another Mao", the priests will all stand in line to kiss his ass.

And solemnly inform their followers that "Almighty God" has "blessed us" with this "great leader".

He as many others makes the mistake to not separate basic philosophy with what he correctly calls superstition.

The quote above is from a text mostly about wether or not all would have to be atheist in a communist society. He fails to argument for it, simply because what he is speaking of is organized superstition, as opposed to philosophically and/or scientifically believing in God.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution
The belief in something as a creator is partially justified by the fact that there is not a complete set of answers. It remains just that though, the musing of an otherwise rational person on matters outside of their perception.

I think it&#39;s still wrong, since it&#39;s assuming. And we know what assume makes out of u and me. ;)

Even though individual deists might be progressive to some degree, atheism is undoubtedly the best approach, since it begins with no assumptions.

The deist scientist will allways be looking for confirmation of "god".
And so, a deist will always have a certain perspective to science, while the atheist is unbiased and looks at phenomena as they are.


With regards to schools, I think that kids should be taught scientific method, not "fact." Teaching them right and wrong is pointless, as they don&#39;t learn much from this, but teaching them how to arrive at right and wrong is very productive.

Of course they should be shown how to use scientific method, with reference to real examlpes, but individual approaches to said method will help us progress.

I agree completely. Of course we must encourage them to use their brains and critically challenge everything with logic. I just meant that they shouldn&#39;t be taught any unproven bullshit as "facts".

Religion should only be mentioned in history classes, preferably during the same term as nazism.

I am, too, curious of Redstar&#39;s view on deism, and "what should be done". :D

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 16 2006, 06:39 PM
I think it&#39;s still wrong, since it&#39;s assuming. And we know what assume makes out of u and me. ;)

Even though individual deists might be progressive to some degree, atheism is undoubtedly the best approach, since it begins with no assumptions.

The alternative is saying we don&#39;t know. Often people assume there was a big bang, it is pretty similar.


The deist scientist will allways be looking for confirmation of "god".
I don&#39;t see how. The idea is that they are rational, their is no attatchment to "god" less so than we are attatched to electrons, or quarks.


And so, a deist will always have a certain perspective to science, while the atheist is unbiased and looks at phenomena as they are.
They won&#39;t always have a certain perspective, at least any more than an athiest who may have their own pet theory. Anyway this would only influence creation science alone, a minor and not particuarly findamental (in terms of how it currently affects us) area.


Religion should only be mentioned in history classes, preferably during the same term as nazism.
Oh yes :D

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

all things that have a certain message is harmful . but doesn’t mean their bad

[redstar2000]

There are some cosmologists who appear to be "modern" deists -- advocates of the "strong anthropic principle" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_anthropic_principle).

I think they are harmless in themselves...except insofar as their speculations are seized upon by the religious apologists as "proof" that a "God" exists or at least must have existed in the past.

Deism, per se, is not a "popular" superstition...it seems to be a kind of "intellectual game".

I don&#39;t understand why one would want to play it...but there are lots of games that people play that I don&#39;t grasp the appeal of.

I suppose if I were to ever meet a deist, I&#39;d ask them why bother? What purpose is served by blathering about something that cannot possibly make any difference?


Originally posted by Keiza
The people here fail to separate the system of "organized irrationality" with some of the main philosophies behind religion.

What might those be?

The "first" Greek philosophers attempted to explain phenomena without regard to "the will of the gods". They were "proto-atheists".

Philosophy was invented because revelation proved inadequate.

What is the "philosophy" of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.? How would you go about "separating that out" from the whole package for "independent" consideration?

Maybe it could be done...but what would you end up with?

Religions actually reject philosophical reasoning as such...they depend on the "revealed word of God".

If you take that away...what do you have left?

Maybe a specific example of what you have in mind would be helpful here. Because I can&#39;t imagine that there even is a "philosophy" that lies "behind" religion.

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

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 12:04 AM
I think they are harmless in themselves


This is one such example of why I don&#39;t condemn necessarily all religion.


are seized upon by the religious apologists as "proof" that a "God" exists or at least must have existed in the past.
This is not the fault of the deists. Marx was O.K. until some dictators used him... Hegel was O.K. until someone...


I suppose if I were to ever meet a deist, I&#39;d ask them why bother? What purpose is served by blathering about something that cannot possibly make any difference?
I agree completely. It may well die out, but everyone is entitled to such speculation. It can also serve as a filler for a gap in understanding, purely in the intellectual sense.


Maybe a specific example of what you have in mind would be helpful here. Because I can&#39;t imagine that there even is a "philosophy" that lies "behind" religion.

The standard arguments are often variations on the telelogical, cosmological, ontological arguments. There are many others, but these are fairly well known "philosophies" they also suck.

[drain.you]

Haven&#39;t read the posts above as I&#39;m extremely tired and about to go to sleep but here&#39;s an opinion of religion I have stumbled upon.

Religion exists in every society. Why? Partly I&#39;m sure because people fear the unknown and religion offers afterlife and explanations for random things but also it helps people cope with life in general. Every major event in a person&#39;s life tends to have a ceremony or something in religion, such as birth (christening), coming of age (Bar/Bat Mitzva), marriage and death(funeral).
These are times when a person&#39;s life changes and so to adapt they group together with other religious people to celebrate and seek comfort.
A funeral helps people let go of a loved one, a marriage helps two people reinforce their commitment and shows society that they are together and so on.

In this sense of helping people cope with life, religion is not harmful but helpful. Despite my religion delving a while ago I have came back to the more traditional leftie stance of religion being the opiate and quite reactionary but I still believe it has its good points too in helping society function.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by drain.you
These are times when a person&#39;s life changes and so to adapt they group together with other religious people to celebrate and seek comfort.

A funeral helps people let go of a loved one, a marriage helps two people reinforce their commitment and shows society that they are together and so on.

It is an invention of primitive societies that certain "crucial events" in a human&#39;s life should be marked by ceremony and ritual.

Why do we "need" to do those things?

What useful purposes do they serve?

Marriages and funerals are, of course, arenas of intense capitalist activity. A "proper wedding" or a "proper funeral" can cost &#036;10,000 or more. :o

The religious portion of these expenditures is trivial, of course. The main purpose seems to be a public exhibition of status...a "big wedding" or "big funeral" demonstrates the "importance" of the participants.

What should a civilized society have to do with that crap?

Indeed, why do we need ceremony and ritual at all?

The "usual excuses" have become obsolete. No one thinks that a wedding ceremony means that the two people involved are "never" going to be romantically involved with anyone else.

No one thinks that a funeral is going to "insure a happy after-life" for the deceased. Those big heavy coffins that promise "eternal rest" just delay for a decade or two the inevitable rotting of your corpse.

Well, not "no one"...


In this sense of helping people cope with life, religion is not harmful but helpful.

It&#39;s fake "help". Coping with life means facing its realities and dealing with them in an honest way. That doesn&#39;t mean "denying" our emotions; it just means we don&#39;t let our emotions cloud our reason.

To waste large amounts of resources on transient sexual partnerships or corpses is unreasonable.

To the extent religion encourages such waste, it is yet another example of the harmfulness of religion.

A civilized (communist) society does not need such "help" to function.

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

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

We don&#39;t need them. I was married in a city clerk&#39;s office and I plan to be thrown in an umarked hole when I die. No problems here.

[Clutch]

Organised religion is like a loaded gun sitting on a table. It&#39;s completely harmless unless someone picks it up and starts waving it around like a toy.

[drain.you]

Valids points coming in against my post but I still think these &#39;primal&#39; ceremonies help to put people at ease and let them continue life, true a capitalist life but I think these rituals regarding at least birth and death would be continued under communist rule. I mean what are we going to do with the dead? Are we not going to celebrate their life and be happy they had good lives and such. This kinda thing helps people grieve and come to terms with the loss of a loved one and even in a communist society people will need to grieve and religious ceremonies act to allow people to come together and lea on one another. I suppose the ceremonies don&#39;t need to be &#39;religious&#39; in a strict sense though but ceremonies do offer help to people in dealing with life.

[Seong]

I think the ceremonies as rites of passage are fine if you take away all the religious mumbo jumbo. Marriage is a solemn agreement and trust between two people who hopefully love each other and no invisible third party&#33; And death is well, it - no matter how expensive the ugly flowers on your casket are.

If I ever get married I&#39;m going to wear a red dress and go barefoot.
When I die, I&#39;d like to be thrown in the sea wearing concrete slippers.
:D

[Sentinel]

Organised religion is like a loaded gun sitting on a table. It&#39;s completely harmless unless someone picks it up and starts waving it around like a toy.

I&#39;d rather say it&#39;s like a noose around your neck that is strangling you uncomfortably, but won&#39;t try to kill you until you start fighting it.

Communism is like a knife that cuts it off. :)

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:25 PM
The church in the past has taken repressive stances towards science and society.

What has been done by this church, or that does not really explain whether or not religion is inherently dangerous. Although it suggests something about people, and how they can manipulate a concept that is beyond direct perception

So I pose the question, is religion inherently reactionary.

I haven&#39;t personally reached a conclusion yet, and the main reasons for this are the amount of religious practices out there, and their diversity. I found it hard particuarly to find why a deistic belief is necessarily harmful, or god as a purely philosophical concept.

In such cases, could anyone claim that reactionary behaviour is a necessary result, and therefore something to avoid?
Ah, this question again. I&#39;ll try to give an interesting argument.

Indeed, religion seems to have an inherently stagnant feature, as does any doctrine based worldview.

Like others, I find that organized religion is the social manipulation of religious beliefs and is reactionary. Though this constitutes most religion, this is not all religion.

Religion is certainly a limitation of worldview, when you adhere to any holy doctrine, but then again, ignorance, even of a social scope, is not always reactionary.

I would say that religions lends itself to manipulation and is convenient for reactionary agendas (like all philosophical idealism) but I still see nothing that makes it inherently reactionary. The fact that leftists can be religious, makes that unlikely.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX
The fact that leftists can be religious, makes that unlikely.

In the case of "religious leftists", I would argue that either their religion or their "leftism" is fake.

And I suspect the percentage of fake "leftism" approaches 100&#33;

That&#39;s certainly the case with a scam like "liberation theology"...a brazen attempt to wrap superstition in snips and tatters of "Marxist" rhetoric.

If someone told me that they were a "religious leftist", my working assumption would be that their religion was real and their "leftism" was fake.

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

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 17 2006, 03:02 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 17 2006, 03:02 PM)
313C7 iVi4RX
The fact that leftists can be religious, makes that unlikely.

In the case of "religious leftists", I would argue that either their religion or their "leftism" is fake. [/b]
I don&#39;t see why someone cannot hold religious views and advocate a more egalitarian society, as well as basic human rights.

Obviously some religions and all organized religions are against realizing such a trend but even if someone subscribes to a contradicting doctrine, it doesn&#39;t mean they cannot cherry-pick the good parts. This is the nature of an idealist worldview, inconsistency. This is why Log Cabin Republicans exist, as well as Libertarians. Nothing stops someone from holding a completely irrational and self-contradicting ideology; obviously some people fully believe in contradictory rhetoric and never implement critical thinking or contrast logic gaps. This isn&#39;t dishonesty, but ignorance.


And I suspect the percentage of fake "leftism" approaches 100&#33;

When it comes to religious institution, liberal reformism is quite often used to placate people and yes that leaves a bitter taste in our mouths but this only means that followers have some measure of compassion, which theocrats use to manipulate them.
I would suspect that very few people are strongly religious and strongly leftist at the same time, but since some people seem to model their religion after leftist thinking and I suspect this is simply because they cannot yet escape their religious dependency.


If someone told me that they were a "religious leftist", my working assumption would be that their religion was real and their "leftism" was fake.

I would suspect some priority issues, but nothing leads me to think religion over-rides their leftism. Being religious gives some people credibility and you cannot really assume their cultural background. They could have any number of reasons for taking such a title.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 313C7 iVi4RX
Nothing stops someone from holding a completely irrational and self-contradicting ideology; obviously some people fully believe in contradictory rhetoric and never implement critical thinking or contrast logic gaps. This isn&#39;t dishonesty, but ignorance.

Yes, there&#39;s one thing that "stops them"...or, more precisely, reveals their real preference.

And that&#39;s real world practice.

Someone can say that they&#39;re for "a more egalitarian society" and "basic human rights" all they want.

But, for example, did any of the highly-touted "liberation theologists" call for the abolition of the Catholic hierarchy?

You know they didn&#39;t. :lol:

They were part of that hierarchy. Abolishing it would have meant that they would have had to get real jobs. :o

My bet is that a "religious leftist" will, in practice, always come down on the side of religion and against the revolutionary left.

It may take a while for that to become obvious...but I think it always comes out that way in the end.

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

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 10:29 PM
My bet is that a "religious leftist" will, in practice, always come down on the side of religion and against the revolutionary left.


What if their religion does not require them to come to its "side?" I think it is pretty much accepted by any one serious that most religion is a reactionary bullshit. However I am still yet to see a justification in every case.

Even if it isn&#39;t something we agree with, we have no justification for such a strong stance when it causes no harm.


It may take a while for that to become obvious...but I think it always comes out that way in the end.

It is this thinking that does not yet have me 100% convinced, personally I can see that you are onto something, but I don&#39;t think the argument is quite concrete enough against personal, and non-interventionist religions. Maybe time will tell.

[boosh logic]

I just read a bit about a Japanese religion called Shinto, and it seems to contradict the anti-religious communist arguement. From what I understand, it is about creating communion and living together equally and in harmony with the surrounding creatures (including people) and environment. Obviously there is going to be more to it than that, but the idea of creating a communion of equality doesn&#39;t exactly sound harmful.

I don&#39;t think anyone here knows enough about every religion to generalise and say all religions are bad, and although it is true that those which are more widespread are very damaging, maybe what caused them to become so widespread is the violence of that religion, meaning that smaller religions could be non-reactionary and perfectly able to co-exist with communism.

[Comrade-Z]

I don&#39;t see why someone cannot hold religious views and advocate a more egalitarian society, as well as basic human rights.

But, in the end, that&#39;s not what we are shooting for. (At least, that&#39;s not what I&#39;m shooting for).

I&#39;m not really interesting in "social work" or "charity" or "being nice to people" or making the world more egalitarian, or fighting for basic human rights, or helping other people out in any sort of way, in fact.

I am hellbent on liberating myself from wage-slavery and all masters. I am selfish. But I am farsighted enough to recognize that wage-slavery is a class condition. Thus, my only hopes for escaping wage-slavery are either the abolition of wage-slavery for the entire class of wage-slaves, or "personal advancement."

But even personal advancement doesn&#39;t give any guarantees. The vagaries of the market entail many dangers:
*There could be a run on the bank, and I could lose my whole fortune stored there.
*There could be a severe depression, and I could lose my job.
*My competition could drive me out of business.
*There could be a revolution, and I could find myself and my fortune at the hands of hundreds of angry proletarians.
Because of these dangers, in capitalism one can never have enough money. There would always be the danger of falling back into wage-slavery and/or poverty. That&#39;s where the "greedy" aspect of our "human nature" under capitalism comes from.

But I&#39;m looking for a permanent escape from wage-slavery and class society, you know, because I like to have some peace-of-mind.

And then there are the dangers of living in a class society itself:
*My "race" (assuming such a concept meaningfully exists, which it doesn&#39;t) could come to be persecuted for no fault of mine.
*My class society could get into an imperialist war with another class society, which could either entail me being drafted or me sitting in my office and getting bombed by the airforce of the opposing class society. Or, there could be outright nuclear war.

And then there are all of the incredibly dreary aspects of class society:
*I can&#39;t be sexually free.
*I can&#39;t smoke marijuana or engage in other stupid victimless "crimes" like that. In other words, I get other people&#39;s skewed sense of "morality" and "best interest" forced upon me.
*I&#39;m expected to flop on my belly every time someone starts singing the Star-Spangled Banner and pay lip-service to all of that nationalistic, patriotic bullshit, or else I could find myself quickly surrounded by some very hostile individuals. (Remember, I live in southwest Missouri, right in the middle of the "Bible Belt" of the U.S.) And seeing people pledge fealty to a flag every morning at school just makes me want to vomit.
*There aren&#39;t very many truly engaging or enjoyable people to be around in class society, at least if you are looking for free thinkers and otherwise liberated individuals. I guess if you are looking for racists and bible-thumpers, then class society provides a very stimulating social environment.

There are probably countless other factors that I have neglected to point out.

So, considering all of this, is "personal advancement" within the confines of capitalist society really any sort of "advancement" at all?

And even if I did want to personally advance myself, I had the bad luck to be born into a working class family. Unlike the Walton kids, it would be pretty tough going for me. I don&#39;t have &#036;15 billion of capital to start out with.

Now that the "personal advancement" route has been ruled out, the only option I am left with is furthering the abolition of wage-slavery for the entire class of wage-slaves and eliminating the entirety of wage-slavery and class society. If those things don&#39;t exists anymore for anyone, then there is 0% chance that I will be subject to them ever again.

And, in short, the abolition of wage-slavery and class society necessitates not charity work, but instead encouraging the self-emancipation of the entire working class.

The abolition of class society requires that all people be confident, autonomous individuals who don&#39;t pledge fealty to any authority, whether it is an earthly ruler or a supernatural god.

I don&#39;t care if your god commands free love, communism, and cherry popsickles every friday. Any god that requires obedience must be intellectually destroyed. The self-managing population that is required for stateless communist society cannot truly exist otherwise.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by boosh logic
I just read a bit about a Japanese religion called Shinto, and it seems to contradict the anti-religious communist argument.

Read some more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto).

Pay particular attention to the role of Shintoism in Japan&#39;s attempt to build an empire.

And note that Japanese Buddhism -- closely related to Shintoism -- did not slow down the Japanese Army a bit...or serve to make it less prone to atrocity.

Dying for the Emperor was considered just as "glorious" then as dying for Islam is now.

And Japanese right-wingers are developing their own versions of Shinto "fundamentalism" even as we speak.

Superstition is so useful when you want to get people to do something really nasty.

They&#39;re all the same&#33;

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

[boosh logic]

Well I was wrong about that then, but it was more of an example. I guess I&#39;m looking at the hypothetical situation of a religion that doesn&#39;t incite racism etc, whilst not encouraging a crusade or Jihad, that would be unreactionary as it remains just a belief and not a dictator of the way of life. But it seems more and more that it is just a hypothetical situation, so I agree that religion is harmful.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Comrade&#045;[email protected] 18 2006, 06:45 PM
The abolition of class society requires that all people be confident, autonomous individuals who don&#39;t pledge fealty to any authority, whether it is an earthly ruler or a supernatural god.
Boosh Logic, I agree with an overwhelming amount of what you say, apart from that which I have quoted.

You imply that loyalty towards a god means that all religion must be destroyed. Not all religion can be catergorised as such. The problem with discussing religion is that it has become almost as defunkt a term as race; it now has little meaning. There are so many individual conceptions of religion, and any definition will exclude some "religions" that others would include, and that is my main point when I say you can&#39;t show a causal relationship between every instance of religion and reactionary behaviour.


Any god that requires obedience must be intellectually destroyed. The self-managing population that is required for stateless communist society cannot truly exist otherwise.
I agree with this completely, even if I was doomed to a hellish existence everyday for eternity without a supreme being, and paradise for everyday with one, I would still destroy it in the name of class abolution and freedom.

[boosh logic]

Boosh Logic, I agree with an overwhelming amount of what you say, apart from that which I have quoted.


But you quoted comrade z - did you mean CZ or did you quote the wrong thing?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by boosh [email protected] 18 2006, 05:15 PM
I don&#39;t think anyone here knows enough about every religion to generalise and say all religions are bad, and although it is true that those which are more widespread are very damaging
Sorry, I meant Comrade-Z with regards to my previous post, although I really agree with what I just quoted from you above^.

This seemed to be your main point, I got confused in my last post sorry.

[YSR]

Hm. RedStar2000 seems to have a pretty solid point. I mean, I don&#39;t have any beliefs about God predominantly because I think that any beliefs I have would be tainted by bourgeois perceptions of such. I&#39;d rather die with an open mind and see what happens.

But, at the sake of sounding like a liberal here, I am concerned with writting off all religious leftists right off the bat. In case you haven&#39;t noticed, religion is a popular phenominon. I doubt that when revolutionary activity becomes more frequent people are just going to write off the concept of God entirely. Hell, why not use religion? I kinda like the idea of God working for us for once. Maybe the new God is the God of the worker. That&#39;s sort of a decent thought.

I don&#39;t know what will happen if the final battle comes down to religious authority versus radical leftism. But I&#39;m comforted by the fact that Dorothy Day was a Wobbly. RedStar2000, from what I&#39;ve read on your site, you seem very intelligent and I agree with you quite a lot. But, if I may offer one criticism, you seem pretty quick to generalize. I think this is a situation that is difficult to say one way or another whether something will "always" happen.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I doubt that when revolutionary activity becomes more frequent people are just going to write off the concept of God entirely.

But historically, thats just whats happened&#33; Many of use feel that real lasting revolutionary activity will start coming about once the majorities of populations are non religious.


Hell, why not use religion? I kinda like the idea of God working for us for once. Maybe the new God is the God of the worker. That&#39;s sort of a decent thought.

As redstar has pointed out, the liberation theologists have tried and failed to do this. We shall not do this because its a direct contradiction of our goals.

For example, would a christian tell people to accept satan in order to make more christians? NO&#33;

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical
But, if I may offer one criticism, you seem pretty quick to generalize.

On generalizing...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292020023 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46127&view=findpost&p=1292020023)

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

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 20 2006, 03:30 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 20 2006, 03:30 PM)
Young Stupid Radical
But, if I may offer one criticism, you seem pretty quick to generalize.

On generalizing...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292020023 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46127&view=findpost&p=1292020023)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
That is a little different to the example here, there, it was a position taken on what is known. No-one has the time to go through the ins and outs of everything, but when you do find something to the contrary, this must be taken into account or explained.

I am not suggesting this of you RS, rather I agree with you in part about generalising. However this is not the approach taken my most, who tend to skate over these when they arise.

In the end we all have to do this temporarily at least, lest we lose our frame of reference.

[Comrade-Z]

I guess I&#39;m looking at the hypothetical situation of a religion that doesn&#39;t incite racism etc, whilst not encouraging a crusade or Jihad, that would be unreactionary as it remains just a belief and not a dictator of the way of life.

I don&#39;t even think it matters whether or not you judge the things the religion dictates to be "good."

Consider the following religion:
*It demands sexual liberation (anyone inhibiting that goes to hell).
*It demands stateless, classless society (anyone inhibiting that goes to hell).
*It demands an end to racism. (ditto).
*It demands an end to patriarchy.
*It demands an end to compulsory education.
Etc.

I would even oppose this religion because as long as people are following a religion, they are not thinking for themselves, and stateless, classless society requires individuals who think for themselves.

Any stateless, classless society that was built in the name of the above religion would quickly decay into a sort of despotism because people would still be in the mindset of a follower of beliefs, instead of a critical thinker. Of course, if they were to remain true to their religion, they would keep on trying to re-build a stateless, classless society, but they&#39;d always fail as long as they kept their minds enchained to religious dogma.

[YSR]

As redstar has pointed out, the liberation theologists have tried and failed to do this.

True, they did try to do so. But why did they fail? My knowledge of Latin American history is truly lacking, and I know lib theologists are/were big there. They didn&#39;t fail because they couldn&#39;t galvanize popular support. They failed because the Church heirarchy said they were heretics, essentially. And because right-wing paramilitaries kept killing them. Right?

So the lib theologists are, in some ways, our comrades. They too struggled against hierarchy, albeit one they were associated with, and were defeated by it. They helped working people. Were they dogmatic Marxist-Leninists, or dogmatic anarcho-communists? No. But neither are the Zapatistas, and (unless I&#39;m generalizing totally incorrectly here) we folks tend to like them.



We shall not do this because its a direct contradiction of our goals.

Could you explain? I don&#39;t understand what you mean here. If, hypothetically speaking, we aren&#39;t able to get rid of religion from the minds of people, wouldn&#39;t it be better to have it on our side? How is this possibly a contradiction of our goals? Getting people on our side and then destroying capitalism IS our goal.

Once again, I&#39;d like to clarify myself: I agree with all your comrades that religion subordinates the individual to God, the ultimate Master. I reject religion as a system created to oppress people. But I can&#39;t help but think, maybe wrongly, that we need all the help we can get (within reason). If radical left-wingers happen to believe in God, who cares? We&#39;re still fighting the same thing: capitalism. I wouldn&#39;t mind a few more comrades on the lines, even if they have a belief in an absurd deity.

[violencia.Proletariat]

True, they did try to do so. But why did they fail?

That was what my second point was, contradiction. :)


They failed because the Church heirarchy said they were heretics, essentially. And because right-wing paramilitaries kept killing them. Right?

Could be. I am no expert either, but they did fail. The ELN in Colombia is even considering giving up their arms all together.


So the lib theologists are, in some ways, our comrades.

No they are not.


They too struggled against hierarchy, albeit one they were associated with, and were defeated by it.

Yes they struggle against earthly hiearchy because it can in no way compare to the great hiearchy that is god and jesus christ. :lol: They are just mad that the rich guys are taking power they feel is reserved for imaginery people.


But neither are the Zapatistas, and (unless I&#39;m generalizing totally incorrectly here) we folks tend to like them.

Actually a lot of the serious leftists here (although not necessarily against the Zapatistas) consider them to be reformists and not capable of any real change.


I don&#39;t understand what you mean here.

The concept of God, and the acceptance of the bible is not compatible with communist theory. Communists make changes based on material observation, not with "faith". Communists look at the material conditions of the world and see that there is no evidence of god. Communists do not accept any kind of authority especially that of an imaginary god.


If, hypothetically speaking, we aren&#39;t able to get rid of religion from the minds of people, wouldn&#39;t it be better to have it on our side?

Well I am not hypothetically speaking and we see religion is declining in influence in the advanced capitalist countries. This conversation is now trivial and a waste of breath really. In revolutionary times the people resist the church and religion, historically we have never had to worry about this shit and we probably never will.


Getting people on our side and then destroying capitalism IS our goal.

Comprimising our ideas is not what our goal is.


If radical left-wingers happen to believe in God, who cares?

Thats the contradiction. As redstar pointed out, something is fake, and its not the religion. :(


I wouldn&#39;t mind a few more comrades on the lines, even if they have a belief in an absurd deity.

You act as if we were in combat. Now figureitively we are but I&#39;m speaking in reality. Many of us predict that when the walls of capitalism are crashing down will also be a time when large majorities of populations are non-religious.

[Sentinel]

Could you explain? I don&#39;t understand what you mean here. If, hypothetically speaking, we aren&#39;t able to get rid of religion from the minds of people, wouldn&#39;t it be better to have it on our side? How is this possibly a contradiction of our goals? Getting people on our side and then destroying capitalism IS our goal.

No it isn&#39;t, it&#39;s merely the beginning of our struggle. See, we intend to build something in the place of capitalism, communism.

And the fewer reactionaries we have in our ranks that day, the better. History has taught us that this is crucial for the survival of the revolution.


Once again, I&#39;d like to clarify myself: I agree with all your comrades that religion subordinates the individual to God, the ultimate Master. I reject religion as a system created to oppress people. But I can&#39;t help but think, maybe wrongly, that we need all the help we can get (within reason). If radical left-wingers happen to believe in God, who cares? We&#39;re still fighting the same thing: capitalism. I wouldn&#39;t mind a few more comrades on the lines, even if they have a belief in an absurd deity.

As I said, those "comrades" would be reactionaries. And as such they would react when we started building our new society. I&#39;ve explained this in the beginning of this thread, use the mouse wheel.

[redstar2000]

Is religion harmful?

Decide for yourself.


Originally posted by Washington Post+--> (Washington Post)Ebb in religious violence reveals Nigerian carnage

Onitsha, Nigeria -- Mobs stopped killing and looting in this battered Nigerian city Thursday and turned to disposing of the evidence in the crudest of ways. With smoldering bonfires fueled by pieces of wood and old tires, men burned the remains of their Muslim victims on downtown streets, leaving behind charred legs, skulls and shoulders that motorists swerved to avoid.

As the city&#39;s thousands of surviving Muslims struggled to return to their northern homes or huddled as refugees at police stations, Christian residents expressed little remorse for their role in five days of religious violence sparked by anger over the publishing of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.

At Onitsha&#39;s ruined central mosque, one of two reportedly destroyed on Tuesday, Ifeanyi Eze, 34, picked up a piece of charred wood and scrawled on a low wall: "Muhammad is a man but Jesus is from above."[/b]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGD1HE0VP1.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/02/24/MNGD1HE0VP1.DTL)

Just "ordinary Christians" who were "moved by the spirit".

Not to mention their charming counterparts in South Dakota...


BBC
US state takes aim at abortions

A US state legislature has approved a bill to ban most abortions, in a move aimed to force the US Supreme Court to reconsider its key ruling on the issue.

The South Dakota draft law - which needs approval by the governor, known to be against abortion - seeks jail for doctors who perform terminations.

Exceptions will be made if a woman&#39;s life is at risk, but not for rape.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/4742404.stm

How many examples do people need? :angry:

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

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:46 PM
How many examples do people need? :angry:


How many white swans do we need?

It is a pity my last two or three posts here were lost, but nothing that can&#39;t be said again. Although not favourable, it seemed that we could almost agree that deism itself is not inherently harmful, there are also other vague notions of religion that are not harmful.

No one here could rightly support what you just posted, and few would try to. However, even if this constitutes the vast majority of religion, whilst an exception exists, then likening all religion to this^ is inaccurate even if useful.

[mandangi]

Mr Penmetsa Subba Raju(famous rationalist leader in Andhra Pradesh state of India) wrote in one book that more people were killed in crusades(religious wars) than wars between kingdoms in past.
Superstitions, pseudo philosophy, fundamentalism and violence encouraged by religion are very dangerous. In past, i too used to worship god. Now i am aware about oppressions encouraged by religion. Re-embracing religion is equal to suicide in my opinion.

[AK47]

The Catholic church was taken over by impearial forces when it was userped by the Roman empire. It has been a tool of opression since. Even during the reformation the clergy of protestant and Catholic faiths did not question the ordered hierarch. Well, until the Quakers, but that is not until much later, and only on the east coast of the United States, not so much on the West. Please do not confuse spirituality with religion. Being just to the poor, compassion, and faith in a higher power is not the problem. The problem is the mixing of Spirituality and Empirialism tends to make toxic byproducts. It also tends to distort the message.

Case in point "If you are not with us, you are against us" is a miss quote from the bible. It is Blasphemy since the person being mis quoted is supose to be the cornerstone of the church. What Peter really said when talking about the gentile reluctence to have brisks was "If they are not against us, they are with us". Religon has its own problems as well, but what history has done to any aspect of our preception can not be ignored.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by AK47
Please do not confuse spirituality with religion.

What&#39;s the difference?

"Spirituality" is an imaginary concept...there&#39;s really no such thing.

Humans are material entities, period.

See for yourself&#33; Whenever someone starts babbling about "spirituality", the next thing that happens is that they start trying to sell you something.

If you buy, you&#39;re just another sucker. :o

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

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 20 2006, 11:31 PM
As I said, those "comrades" would be reactionaries. And as such they would react when we started building our new society. I&#39;ve explained this in the beginning of this thread, use the mouse wheel.
Well, aside from the fact that we have yet to see someone prove that religion is inherently reactionary, I think it would be interesting to debate the point of uniting with religious leftists, whether you believe the term is an oxymoron or not.

As RS likes to point out from time to time, religion is diminishing in influence.
I prioritize the transition of basic leftist concepts, over the exclusion of all idealist thinking among the left.

Certainly we have no reason to accept religious dogma, as any dogma, but that is clearly different from refusing to struggle with religious leftists. Also, we can have greater impact and accomplish more now if we challenge the religious doctrine in our midst rather than targeting outsiders.

Whether or not religious leftists will "turn on us" after a revolution, is hardly a reasonable consideration at this point. The revolutionary left doesn&#39;t even have a big enough base to make a significant impact on capitalism and religion may become less of a problem with time if we can hold back theocratic regression.

[redstar2000]

The most graphic example that I&#39;ve come across concerning "tolerance" of religion...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292028722 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46943&view=findpost&p=1292028722)

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR RELIGION AMONG REVOLUTIONARIES&#33; :angry:

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

[Elect Marx]

Why does one person&#39;s thread mean that we should exclude ALL religious leftists?
Care to explain?

[boosh logic]

It seems that the non-tolerance of religion stems from deterministic views of religion, i.e. all Christians must follow every word of the bible otherwise they are not really Christian, which is a very generic arguement and ignores the ability of the world religions to evolve. Whilst orthodox Jews and Muslims may not eat pork, others see that their holy books were written at a time when this was applicable, and act accordingly. This doesn&#39;t mean they are &#39;ignoring the word of god&#39;, or &#39;pick and choosing&#39;, as they don&#39;t believe god wrote the bible, but that he guided a select few to do so.

I don&#39;t believe any of it, but I&#39;m still not so close-minded as to say that anyone who doesn&#39;t follow it to the word is not of that religion, as it is that kind of close-mindedness that is the reason religion still exists today.

Religion in the West is getting phased out with each generation, so it is surely better to provide the reason of science, equality and freedom (well, as much as there is under capitalism) than simply criticise every single person as a group rather than viewing them as an individual and acting accordingly. Simple everyday occurences even in schools such as parents excluding their children from sex education classes due to their religious beliefs are making the children feel isolated and strive to fit in - which generally means abandoning their religion.

In the town where I live religion is generally absent, but what little there is is Catholicism. It seems as soon as the children of these families hit teenage years they abandon their religion, by refusing to go to church, etc. A few of my friends are good examples of this, as they have absolutely no religious beliefs whatsoever despite having grown up being taught the Catholic beliefs. This may be due to such a lack of religion in the town that there is peer pressure to abandon it, but if it can happen in one generation then it will happen in the near future in more secular parts of the West. It may take time but religion is gradually phasing out in the West as the younger generations look to join the rest of society.

Someone reading this will go and find a link proving me wrong, but you know what - who cares? I could go and find a link proving it right if I could be arsed, which doesn&#39;t really make any difference as if someone has a previous belief it is very hard to make them think otherwise.

Which fits in nicely with religion, as why bother intimidating the religious (not counting extremists) when it just further isolates the youths of the generation who come from those families. It will give them a bad idea of non-religious types, and further cloak them in superstition, meaning that a possible non-conformist of religion is turned away because people were too quick to jump the gun.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by boosh logic+--> (boosh logic)It seems that the non-tolerance of religion stems from deterministic views of religion, i.e. all Christians must follow every word of the bible otherwise they are not really Christian, which is a very generic argument and ignores the ability of the world religions to evolve. Whilst orthodox Jews and Muslims may not eat pork, others see that their holy books were written at a time when this was applicable, and act accordingly. This doesn&#39;t mean they are &#39;ignoring the word of god&#39;, or &#39;picking and choosing&#39;, as they don&#39;t believe god wrote the bible, but that he guided a select few to do so.[/b]

World religions do "evolve"...that is, they change their doctrines and practices to fit new forms of class society as they emerge.

The Church of the western Roman Empire was not the Church of feudalism...and that Church is not the Church of modern capitalism.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45983

But what those various incarnations of the church all have in common is a reactionary role in society. In all cases, they taught and still teach obedience to authority and deference to privilege.

In addition, of course, a "theory of everything" that is utterly lacking even so much as a particle of reliable empirical confirmation.

Although I admittedly don&#39;t understand your use of the word "generic" in your post (I think you may have wanted a different word there), I do hold the position that serious believers in a particular religion do abide, insofar as practical, by what is written in their particular "holy book".

In the case of Islam, by the way, the Qu&#39;ran "really was written by Allah"...Mohammad just "wrote down" what "an angel told him". It&#39;s the literal "word of God".

Moreover, I also think it self-evident that those "serious believers" set the "tone" of what a particular religion is.

The hypothetical "average" godsucker doesn&#39;t spend his time pondering the "desires of the Almighty"...but he&#39;s receptive to whatever his "spiritual Leaders" tell him.

If his "spiritual Leaders" tell him to "be cool", he&#39;ll do that. When they tell him that it&#39;s time to burn some heretics, he&#39;ll do that too&#33;

For example...


Mark Osiel, who studied the Argentine military in the Dirty War, reports that many of the torturers had qualms about what they were doing until priests reassured them that they were fighting God&#39;s fight. By the end of the Dirty War, the qualms were gone, and, as John Simpson and Jana Bennett report, officers were placing bets on who could kidnap the prettiest girl to rape and torture. --emphasis added.

"Liberalism, Torture and the Ticking Bomb" by David Luban in Harper&#39;s Magazine, March 2006, pp. 11-16 (the quote is from page 16).


boosh logic
Which fits in nicely with religion, as why bother intimidating the religious (not counting extremists) when it just further isolates the youths of the generation who come from those families. It will give them a bad idea of non-religious types, and further cloak them in superstition, meaning that a possible non-conformist of religion is turned away because people were too quick to jump the gun.

In my opinion, a resolute and intransigent opposition to religion encourages the "borderline faithful" to abandon superstition. The people who are "offended" by that opposition are precisely the people most unlikely ever to become revolutionaries...that is people who are quite happy to commit atrocities "in the Name of God" just as soon as their "spiritual Leaders" tell them to do it.

On a minor note...


Someone reading this will go and find a link proving me wrong, but you know what - who cares?

You&#39;d be surprised. :lol:

Some people prefer the simple exposition of an line of reasoning. Others get upset if there are not a bunch of hyperlinks supporting each and every statement.

My own "style" in this regard is to include an occasional relevant link when I think it strongly supports what I&#39;m trying to get across...but others have different "styles". I&#39;ve seen posts where almost every sentence included a link...and mostly I just ignored them. I don&#39;t have time to read 20 or 50 links. :o

But to each their own on this one. :)

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

[boosh logic]

In my opinion, a resolute and intransigent opposition to religion encourages the "borderline faithful" to abandon superstition. The people who are "offended" by that opposition are precisely the people most unlikely ever to become revolutionaries...that is people who are quite happy to commit atrocities "in the Name of God" just as soon as their "spiritual Leaders" tell them to do it.

That&#39;s a fair point, and I can see how that approach works with borderline religious families, but what I meant was the children of more serious and orthodix families, who may be already leaning away from their faith but then whose parents are able to reel them back in by demonstrating the harsh methods of some atheists who try to destroy religion.

What I meant before when I was talking about generalising is that most people who argue against religion here do so by clumping it into a black and white "you&#39;re either fully religious or not at all". This doesn&#39;t hold true when it comes down to it, as people hold their faith as a personal choice, ignoring the reality that it has been indoctrinated into them. Western religious families that do not live in a secular area of their faith are facing a conflict of modern society and the lifestyle imposed on them by this faith. This conflict is increasingly working in our favour, wether by the means you suggested or that I did earlier. Where it isn&#39;t working is on those who are fully orthodox in their religion, on who it just encourages futher dismissal of the rest of society. This then means that their children, with who there was the possibilty of freeing from their religion, are isolated by their parents from the non-religious, by things such as sending them to faith-run schools.

The Mark Osiel quote is interesting, but doesn&#39;t apply to normal life out of conflict. I don&#39;t know if you are familiar with Zimbardo&#39;s study, but he was a psychologist in the 70&#39;s who carried out a prison simulation experiment on regular pacifist university students, and found that almost immediately the &#39;guards&#39; adopted the role of their idea of a prison guard, which involved de-lousing the &#39;prisoners&#39;, and making them scrub toilets with their bare hands, etc. They subsequently got worse and worse, and eventually the psychological torment was so high that Zimbardo was forced to end the experiment.

What this experiment showed was that people adopt roles to fit into different aspects of society, so it could be that your quote was demonstrating blind religion, or the conforming of a role. Strict religious followers may act as you say - and has been demonstrated in the calls to "behead those who insult Islam", but it is only a minority of the group who will actually do this. These extremists are not exclusive to religion though, as they can be found in any institution people who naturally violent and take excuse to harm others. I doubt that the borderline families would be willing to carry out such things "because the priest said to", as these tend to be the good-hearted or more realist of the religious, but rather this violence falls to the orthodox.

The reason I don&#39;t view all religion as reactionary is because of this trend to jump the border into atheism, which seems to be an increasingly fast process as more and more reject their religion, meaning that these borderline families are actually an asset, as they are, by rejecting, isolating the orthodox and making it easier to show their faults without pushing away those on the border.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 01:53 AM
World religions do "evolve"...that is, they change their doctrines and practices to fit new forms of class society as they emerge.

The Church of the western Roman Empire was not the Church of feudalism...and that Church is not the Church of modern capitalism.

But what those various incarnations of the church all have in common is a reactionary role in society. In all cases, they taught and still teach obedience to authority and deference to privilege.


This explains why religions are therefore reactionary, you have your link. Religions reflect (apart from a few minor and obscure examples) the class conflicts of a time. Saying that it is religion itself that is the source of reaction is wrong though, just as it would be to say that greed is human nature. Reactionary religion and human greed are both products of the society in which they are forged.

The good thing about communism is that it does not only imply that a religion arising would be positive, it implies that it wouldn&#39;t arise at all because we are to become more materialist. This removes it as even a possible threat of something "higher" than reality, which can be used to justify all sorts of things.

I still can&#39;t see the problem with the borderline non-practitioners as such, although I am not claiming there isn&#39;t one. Why do you assume that when someone who has already been shown to largely dismiss their "faith" will jump to its aid in favour of something that they preferred (reality)?

You see sometimes this is the case, but we can all come up with hundreds of examples showing how people lost their "fath" after an accident or loss. Or decided it wasn&#39;t for them because of a move their church made.

[Dyst]

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR RELIGION AMONG REVOLUTIONARIES&#33; mad.gif
*bows down and closes eyes* Okay, sir&#33;

ZERO TOLERANCE FOR AUTHORITARIANISM AND FUNDEMENTALISM AMONG REVOLUTIONARIES&#33; :angry:

Damn contradictions.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by boosh logic+--> (boosh logic)That&#39;s a fair point, and I can see how that approach works with borderline religious families, but what I meant was the children of more serious and orthodox families, who may be already leaning away from their faith but then whose parents are able to reel them back in by demonstrating the harsh methods of some atheists who try to destroy religion.[/b]

Isn&#39;t this a matter of to what extent they are actually "alienated" from their parents?

I mean, let&#39;s face it. The child-raising "techniques" of religious parents are usually pretty brutal&#33; A kid who justifiably rebels against that crap would seem likely to me to judge especially harshly anything connected with his/her parent&#39;s outlook on things.

From what I&#39;ve read, the "moment of danger" for someone who abandons religion arrives when they have children of their own. That&#39;s when they are most likely to start thinking about the "good side" of religion and "how religion would help their kids get on in life" or even how religion would transmit "good values" to their kids. :lol:

I recall a Time magazine story in the 80s boasting about how the atheist kids of the 60s were "returning to religion" now that their own kids were arriving.

Mostly just pro-religion bullshit, no doubt, but probably with some truth.

Meanwhile, I don&#39;t think there are a whole lot of adolescents who rebel at all in seriously religious families...there&#39;s just so much parental violence directed against them when they&#39;re too small to offer any effective resistance that they&#39;ve mostly just lost all sense of personal autonomy at all.

There are a few...but, in my opinion, very few.


What I meant before when I was talking about generalising is that most people who argue against religion here do so by clumping it into a black and white "you&#39;re either fully religious or not at all".

Well, I think anyone who publicly declares religious beliefs is "fully religious" by any meaningful criteria.

As I noted earlier, that doesn&#39;t mean they spend hours of each day "in prayer" or that they stop and ponder "what would Jesus do" every time they have some trivial choice to make.

But religious beliefs, because they are a "theory of everything", cannot help but affect how they think about everything.

How do you think it is that we sometimes get people here who say "I&#39;m a communist" or "I&#39;m a revolutionary" and then promptly launch a ferocious attack on women&#39;s right to abortion on demand? Or start a thread about how parental violence against children is "a good thing"? Or start telling us that "abstinence" from sex, tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, etc. is "the right way to go"? Or that we should be "non-violent" as a matter of principle towards our class enemies? Or "religion has its good side" or "helps society" or...whatever.

Even some people who say they are "no longer religious" still carry with them a load of that old crap around in their heads. :o

I mean when you stop and think about it, where else would they get ideas like that?

Some things really are "black and white"&#33;

Everything is not "gray".


This then means that their children, with whom there was the possibility of freeing from their religion, are isolated by their parents from the non-religious, by things such as sending them to faith-run schools.

Well sure. And they even send them to faith-based "boot camps" where the kids can be violently crushed back into the faith.

Short of an "underground railroad" for rebellious adolescents, there&#39;s not a lot we can do about that. Back in the days of SDS, there was something of that sort...some kids knew that if they could manage to get to a large city with SDS chapters, they could find food, shelter, and maybe even a life worth living.

But there&#39;s nothing really like that now...at least as far as I know.

I wish there were&#33;


I don&#39;t know if you are familiar with Zimbardo&#39;s study, but he was a psychologist in the 70&#39;s who carried out a prison simulation experiment on regular pacifist university students, and found that almost immediately the &#39;guards&#39; adopted the role of their idea of a prison guard, which involved de-lousing the &#39;prisoners&#39;, and making them scrub toilets with their bare hands, etc. They subsequently got worse and worse, and eventually the psychological torment was so high that Zimbardo was forced to end the experiment.

Yeah...it&#39;s almost as famous as Stanley Milgram&#39;s "obedience to authority" experiments.

Prison Experiment at Stanford University (http://www.prisonexp.org/)

Both illustrating, in my opinion, the Marxist hypothesis that you are what you do&#33;


Strict religious followers may act as you say - and has been demonstrated in the calls to "behead those who insult Islam", but it is only a minority of the group who will actually do this.

My hypothesis is that the "ordinary believer" will normally "behave himself"...but if his "spiritual leaders" tell him to "cut loose" and "commit atrocities", he&#39;ll do it&#33;

Not "every one" and not "in every single case". There are some who simply "don&#39;t have the stomach" for the really grisly deeds. But not because they find those deeds repugnant in principle...they are likely to simply reproach themselves for their "lack of dedication".

I&#39;m sure there were some "good Catholics" who turned away from the sight of a burning heretic and covered their ears against the sound of his screams...but could not conceive of the idea that burning heretics was wrong. The Church is always right and if you can&#39;t live up to its most rigorous demands, that&#39;s your fault.

Polls have shown that American Catholics practice birth-control in about the same proportion as non-Catholic Americans. But they&#39;re not "proud of that" or "demanding a change" in Vatican doctrine. Indeed, they probably make themselves feel better about themselves by sending a check to some Catholic-sponsored anti-abortion campaign. :o

They&#39;re "ok" with the idea of tormenting women with unwanted pregnancies...as long as they can pay someone else to actually do the deed&#33;


The reason I don&#39;t view all religion as reactionary is because of this trend to jump the border into atheism, which seems to be an increasingly fast process as more and more reject their religion, meaning that these borderline families are actually an asset, as they are, by rejecting, isolating the orthodox and making it easier to show their faults without pushing away those on the border.

Well, I think those on the "border" need all the encouragement from us that they can get. We don&#39;t really have any notion of "just where" on the "border" they "are"...and anything that we can say to them against religion may be "just what they needed to hear" to "cross the border".

There&#39;s always the risk that we&#39;ll "alienate" someone back into the arms of the church...but I think the greater and more serious risk is that we may admit into our own ranks people who don&#39;t really belong there.

By insisting on rigorous atheism, we can keep out a known source of reactionary ideas.

I think that helps us&#33;


Hegemonicretribution
This explains why religions are therefore reactionary, you have your link. Religions reflect (apart from a few minor and obscure examples) the class conflicts of a time. Saying that it is religion itself that is the source of reaction is wrong though, just as it would be to say that greed is human nature. Reactionary religion and human greed are both products of the society in which they are forged.

If this explanation satisfies you, fine. I think of it only as a different wording of what I&#39;ve been saying all along.

Regardless of wording, I don&#39;t see why one can&#39;t speak of religious belief as a source of reactionary ideas...in that it is religious leaders that actually give voice to those ideas and religious believers who actually think those ideas are "true"...and proceed to act on them.

A "good Christian" in a communist movement would say that it&#39;s "wrong" to execute even the most criminal elements of the old ruling class..."because" they are "his brothers in Christ" and "are entitled" to "repentance" and the chance to "go and sin no more".

In fact, if he were really serious, he&#39;d tell us that we "should accept" the violence of the rulers and "turn the other cheek".

And if he were especially articulate, he&#39;d tell us these things in carefully chosen "communist" terminology...perhaps even bolstered with an obscure quote from Marx or Engels. :o

See what we&#39;re up against here? :angry:


The good thing about communism is that it does not only imply that a religion arising would be positive, it implies that it wouldn&#39;t arise at all because we are to become more materialist. This removes it as even a possible threat of something "higher" than reality, which can be used to justify all sorts of things.

I think you&#39;re right about this...in the long run.

But what I see on this board is people coming here in more or less constant numbers still bringing their religious baggage with them.

And worse, the people here who want to "unite with them" and "help them unpack". :o

How can we honestly hope to get anywhere with this kind of stuff going on?

It&#39;s like university biology departments appointing creationists as professors&#33;

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

[Comrade-Z]

One more strike against religion, this time coming from my home State of Missouri (I want to get out of here so badly, it&#39;s not even funny):

State Bill Proposes Christianity be Missouri’s Official Religion

http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/0302...l.7d361c3f.html (http://www.kmov.com/localnews/stories/030206ccklrKmovreligionbill.7d361c3f.html)
http://www.swmoindymedia.org/test/modules....order=0&thold=0 (http://www.swmoindymedia.org/test/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=84&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0)

09:24 PM CST on Saturday, March 4, 2006

By John Mills, News 4 [KMOV-TV, St. Louis]

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name Christianity the state&#39;s official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the state legislature.

Many Missouri residents had not heard about the bill until Thursday.

Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not protect minority religions, but "protect the majority&#39;s right to express their religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri, sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over the phone.

KMOV also contacted Gov. Matt Blunt&#39;s office to see where he stands on the resolution, but he has yet to respond.

-------

This seemingly all-out assault on modernity by the religious must end now&#33; This is not fucking Iran&#33;

"When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis