A 'new' idea of religion - what is the real enemy?

[Dean]

The Truth Behind ‘Religion,’ Its Malignancy on the Human Mind and Man’s Solution
By Dean Ferguson Sayers

Dogmatic and institutional religion have been, by and large, one of the most self- destructive activities of man. It has invoked terror of all sorts and magnitudes, blindness of all sorts of self-destruction and hatred for ideas and people based on the most arbitrary of distinctions. It has also been the cause of great unity, humanism and even the advancement of sciences in societies. It has been a powerful revolutionary force, encouraging the dawn of a penetrating humanism under Christian ideals, acting as a force which brought about the revolutionary American spirit and even the advancement of capitalism against the feudal lords. However, at each turn it has also had a profoundly crippling effect on man’s activity and his spirit, encouraging him to ignore facts and retain submissiveness encouraged by the state and church. This form of religion is a link in a chain which must be shrugged off by humanity in order to achieve freedom and unity. In this paper I intend to argue the psychologically and socially destructive nature of religion in general, designate a meaning for the term as it is very vague, discuss its history and describe the comparative destructiveness of various religions, and explain briefly with which methods man may free himself from this kind of self-destructiveness..

The first issue to tackle is the very meaning of the word. I contend that the word should apply to all worldviews / character structures (the Freudian “Weltanschauung”). The Latin root itself (religio) means “ritual,” very similar, if not the same, as the activities one does on a daily basis (which of course are implicative and even comprise one’s character structure). This idea of religion as a worldview is further supported by an excerpt from the 16th century play, “The Revenger’s Tragedy,” in which Lussurioso, an aspiring Duke, states the following: “Marriage is good, yet rather keep a friend. / Give me my bed by stealth; there's true delight: / What breeds a loathing in't but night by night? “, to which the protagonist, Vindici, replies: “A very fine religion!” Here Vindici is clearly referring to a way of living as a religion.

Because of the vagueness of the terms that refer to ‘religion,’ I will use the following terms: ‘institutional religion’ to refer to dogmas with a central power structure, ‘dogmas’ to refer to any kind of supernatural belief, ‘personal dogmas’ to refer to atomized dogmatic views and ‘religion’ as a general term as argued for previously in the paragraph. Furthermore, I recognize two different kinds of ‘faith:’ that is, rational and dogmatic. Rational faith comes from a realistic analysis of nature, whereas irrational faith is a way of thinking that is self – supporting, as in the statement “I shall believe in God to make mother happy.”Though I won’t get into a specific discussion of early Judaic religion, it is eye-opening to recognize that the term “amen” means “certainly” in Hebrew. While I consider the early usage of “amen” in Judaic traditions a form of rational faith for the most part, it is not specifically important to the issue of religion, as a whole, and its destructiveness. Finally, Faith and religion should not be confused: faith is the spirit compelling and surrounding a religion, specifically referring to belief, while religion is generally an activity.

Western society in particular has actually had a powerful secular trend, though only in practice and not word. This is due to both economic stratification and the general mode of capital itself: free – market capitalism, or any capital based system, because it has a trend of causing social distinctions to wither away. This is not true in the most important cases however: those unnecessary for capital wither away, and a compelling legal example of this is that the Americans with Disabilities act (A.D.A.) has been illegally ignored by schools across the nation, including my own junior and high schools. Further examples, of course, can be found in our nation's treatment of the elderly when it comes to healthcare and the disenfranchised masses - though many, if not most are black, the same presence of black lawyers, CEOs, etc. show that discrimination in the workforce is limited to a human's use-value.

This secularism is all too clear when one sees the practices of the so-called religious. They regularly go against not only their institutional dogma, but some even call themselves "non-practicing (Jews, Christians, etc.)"! If one does not practice their 'religion,' they are not 'religious' at all. It is apparent here that they have other religions which supercede their theism. Many so-called Christians would feign to follow the spirit of Moses' or Jesus' teachings - if they were to meet them, the prophets would say that they are not Christian if they covet earthly objects as opposed to social relations. Jesus himself said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the head of a pin than for a rich man to get into heaven. The spirit behind the story of Jesus' capture is another frightening example of where Christians have failed to be Christians. When Jesus' disciple cuts off the ear of one of the captors, Jesus replaces it. Knowing full well that he would be executed, he still did not lash out against his enemies: he replaces the ear, symbolically restoring the man's capacity to listen and relate to others. Many Chrisitians today have failed at following his example, marking Muslims as enemies and even in how they discuss issues with those they may consider equals: they lash out at signs that they may be wrong with misleading to erroneous statements, or simply move off of the topic with no intent of reconsidering their ideas. These values are clearly an example of institutionally - induced apathy: the speaker fails to productively understand the opposing viewpoint, probably due to our politically partisan attitude. They dehumanize their 'opponent' with labels, legit or not, and hence consider agreeing with them or seeing any logic in their ideas as a form of relating to them and becoming one with their ‘inhuman’ group. Communists were once referred to regularly as “subhuman,” and though we would not likely admit it today, the same rhetoric and spirit is applied to our nation’s Islamophobia.

Important to note is that this early trend of Christianity is in fact extremely humanistic, and many would even argue secular! There are those who are Christian and yet view god as literally being everything - in a word, god is nature. This is a totally secular trend, and as such this particular idea must be recognized for its humanistic and scientific religion.

Most important are the issues of the self-destructive and socially-destructive natures of dogmas in general. Dogmas, by nature, blind one to the truth – both natural and moral. Even if a dogma turns out to be true, holding it as a self-evident truth stifles the ability of man to realistically explore his world, as he ignores the opposition which would give insight into the truth of his own ideas. It also acts as a ‘scapegoat’ that allows one to commit acts one would otherwise consider immoral, or to scapegoat ideas/acts whose banishments will solve the individual’s problems. Dogmas blind one to the truth of their condition, and in doing so limit the individual’s capacity to realistically explain – to themselves or others – any relating knowledge or theories. This will of course limit their ability to act effectively and reasonably. If my dogma claims that there is no right or wrong, in the social structure or in personal decisions, what motive have I sustained to act towards the interests of mankind in general, or towards any of my own? This moral degradation will encourage a complacent worldview, sometimes even while the world acts in a way which is totally destructive towards one Dogma – institutional or otherwise.

Marx attacks the idea of religious dogmas as a masking of ones own eyes from the truth in his introduction to “Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right”: “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.“ Here he claims not only that ‘religion’ is a sustainer of a “soulless” world, but further that it is an “opiate” forced on the people in order to help reproduce this society. In a letter to Freud, Einstein wrote, “The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.”

Carl Jung indicates the psychoanalytical criticism of dogma as a controlling force by stating that “[religion] …is a dynamic existence or effect, not caused by an arbitrary act of will. On the contrary, it seizes and controls the human which is always rather its victim than it’s controller.” Though it may be argued that this statement does not hold up in regard to individuals which use dogma secularly, that is, in a manner which does not imply their own belief and submission to religious dogmas that they use to control others, it is arguable that the very act of controlling others leads to submission. By basing one’s own lifestyle on the act of extra-personal control, they can no longer appreciate their own development, but must rather focus on the actions of others as an unrealistic measurement of their own achievements. (Jung 1937, p. 4)

It is also in the realm of social analysis that institutional dogma is shown as a malignant force of dominance. Karl Marx writes, “…[that] the process of production has mastery over man, instead of the opposite, appear to the bourgeois consciousness to be as much a self-evident and nature – imposed necessity as productive labour itself. Hence the pre-bourgeois forms of the social organization of production are treated by political economy in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church treated pre-Christian religions.” So, to Marx, the Christian Church was comparable to capitalist economy in that it acted to self create and re-create, and further imposed the idea that not only was it historically evident that it must prevail against other social orders, but that it was abstractly evident to the same end. (Marx, 1867, pg. 175)

The structure of things today implicate that the reason behind this new, institutional religion. William Harris, Commissioner of Education from 1889 to 1906, wrote the following in his 1906 book, "The philosophy of education:"
"Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual."
It is easy to see how this is relevant today: the core structure of our school system is to encourage an attitude in the student which prepares him for the authoritarian structure of the workplace. Woodrow Wilson once commented on our public schools that "We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forego the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks."

As an example of malignant dogma, a man whose daughter has decided that she ought not follow her parents’ religion could readily alienate this daughter based on a dogmatic defense of his religion, thus harming himself in cutting the social tie between himself and his daughter. Furthermore, this could harm his daughter by making her feel less secure in her own ideas and in alienating her. This would be a clear example of how a simple dogma – held by only one of the two individuals – can destroy important bonds and hurt each individual’s capacity to relate reasonably to others; this will of course lead to other problems in both of their futures.

‘Christian Science’ serves as a powerful example of how compelling the self – destructiveness of dogma is: people are blinded by a sect so heavily that they deny medical attention, sometimes for their own children. This denial of science to the point of literal self-destruction is a frightening example of how dangerous dogmas can be. Workers at abortion clinics have felt this terror all too well: there have been numerous deaths due to bombings, and one man even created a hit list which contains names of abortion doctors.

Extremists in the Middle East, particularly the Zionists and Palestinian terrorists - whether atomized or organized - show another case of the malignancy that is provoked by both personal and institutional dogmatism. I need not go into the various atrocities that these people have committed in the name of their gods, but it is known that they are rife, prolific and their actions gruesome. Anybody who read Osama Bin Laden's post - 9/11 call to Americans can see two things: that his message is deepy political and propagandistic, and that his concern with religion is chiefly in its ability to rally people to fight for his cause. His cause is both malignant and benign, just as all extremist militants': he fights against the oppressors of the middle east (or supposed oppressors, depending on one's view) but kills even civilians who have little stake in or support of the oppression of the middle east.

There is an excess of institutional dogma that acts to control the public mind. One example would be that of the cult of personality formed around such individuals such as Lenin, Stalin, and our own presidents. Stalin used Lenin’s image as a stepping – stone onto which he would fashion his own cult of personality. This dogma became so powerful that people Stalin had imprisoned to be executed would write Stalinist slogans and symbols on the walls of their cells, even with certainty that they would be executed. Bush’s cult of personality reflects a similarity – however, his is mostly rooted in the American sentiment toward the presidency in general as a protector of the people. Regardless, he has used this cult to garner favor for wars, illegal activities and the passing of laws which uplifted many privacy rights throughout his tenure.

The prevalent western dogma of Islamophobia is frightening as well; this is not always spiritual, either. I have seen some of the least 'religious' people claim that there are fundamental moral differences between Muslims and those of other 'religions,' even with atheists. My 12th grade Government teacher, a Republican, once made it extremely important in one of his lessons that those Muslims who commit violent acts against civilians are not the norm, but deviant in their culture, and yet today you can see a leftist - atheist or no - speak of Muslims as if they were the 'Soviets' of the 21st century. Some even go so far as to make it not an unfair, arbitrary judgement in general, but a racist consideration.

We cannot simply fret against this trend, however: it is imperative that action be taken in order to curb it. But to do that, an understanding of why people become entrenched into these dogmas and take in so avidly relating viewpoints throughout their lives. I propose that the energy behind it comes in fact from a naturally benign human faculty. That faculty is our inherent desire to relate to as many other humans as possible. The evidence for this drive is clear: people go so far as to subsume their entire way of life into that of another person’s or an exterior entity in order to achieve this end. I propose that this is an intrinsic human drive because it reflects the way that pre-historical society was set up: concerns were social, and we see similar trends in other primate societies, as well.

Today this benign relationship is not what comes of this theorized drive, however. There are those who would gladly destroy the populations of entire nations. It is quite heavily the environment that one comes from that dictates what dogmas, if any, they will possess, and it almost always from a dogma that this natural drive becomes perverted and disfigured – even genetic disorders of the mind can be curbed or nurtured by one’s environment. To fight against dogmatism, it must first be taken seriously as a serious threat. But we must not make blanket statements to this end; rather, the nature of the dogmatic individual must be taken into account before we attempt to educate him or her. There are many Jewish communes in Israel, for instance, showing a strikingly revolutionary trend amongst those who ascribe to such an ideology as well as the dogmatic religion. Those Christians who follow the real messages of Jesus are truly working more against dogmas than most people are. The point is to teach people to be free, especially internally, before they can develop a revolutionary, undogmatic spirit. The presence of dogmatism in and of itself must mot be taken as a sign of reactionary spirit; it is the institutional church that must be destroyed, and those malignant dogmas that must wither away before people can see the world in a realistic sense. The individual's beliefs are his and ought to remain his, but the sources which violently instill dogmas into the human heart must be destroyed. This goes beyond the notion of purely spiritual dogmas into politics, as the politics of our modern age serve to accept and promote religious dogma and religious dogmas in turn serve to promote capitalist ideology. But yet politics are a form of religion, and as such must be treated in the same regard - dogmatic religions, 'secular' or not, must be attacked and undermined. It is through populist and workers' movements that we have found freedom of conscience, which in turn leads to freedom from the individual's internal bondage. Freedom can be accomplished not when external forces allow it, but when the internal chains of dogma are shrugged off. The free man can lay dead or dying on the battlefield, or in a prison, but he will always be free as long as he can see the world for what it is, beyond these “chains of illusion.”

[redstar2000]

More wretched apologetics. :angry:

One example...


Originally posted by Sayers
Dogmatic and institutional religion have been, by and large, one of the most self-destructive activities of man. It has invoked terror of all sorts and magnitudes, blindness of all sorts of self-destruction and hatred for ideas and people based on the most arbitrary of distinctions. It has also been the cause of great unity, humanism and even the advancement of sciences in societies. It has been a powerful revolutionary force, encouraging the dawn of a penetrating humanism under Christian ideals, acting as a force which brought about the revolutionary American spirit and even the advancement of capitalism against the feudal lords. -- emphasis added.

First of all, "dogmatic and institutional religion" is the only kind of religion there is!

And second, all those "good things" about religion are just self-serving bullshit lies! Not a fucking word of it is historically true.

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

[Jimmie Higgins]

Religion does not sit outside of society and the material world, it is intertwined in it. This is why religion has played such a strange role historically and "religious wars" are never wars about religion, they are either wars between competing empires who use religion to control the people and demonize (literally) the enemy or class wars which express themselves as religious wars. The early wars that led to the downfall of feudal systems used religion.

I disagree with redstar that religion sits outside of society and always has the same role. But I disagree that "dogmatism" is the reason religion had a negative role. New Age religions or other forms of induvidualist "spirituality" are just as much a dead end for the working class as the most dogmatic forms of organized religion... they may be less bloody, but they still retard political consiousness. Most of these tell people to "look within yourself" and that does nothing to solve the material problems of the world any more than "trusting in jesus".

All religions are an attempt to explain the world. They can be organized in various ways with more or less progressive social ideas and attitudes. But from a marxist standpoint, they are all incorrect attempts to explain the world.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
All religions are an attempt to explain the world. They can be organized in various ways with more or less progressive social ideas and attitudes.

"More or less progressive"?

Which part of the godracket is on your "progressive" list this week? :lol:

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

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 30 2006, 07:28 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 30 2006, 07:28 AM)
Gravedigger
All religions are an attempt to explain the world. They can be organized in various ways with more or less progressive social ideas and attitudes.

"More or less progressive"?

Which part of the godracket is on your "progressive" list this week? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Liberal reformers of the last - oops the last before the last century were basicaly religious movements.

If religion plays the same social role in all times and all places, how do you expalin southern religion in the US being used to justify slavery while the abolitionist movement was also drenched in religion? Clearly this is a political conflict being expressed in religious terms and the politics of the abolitionists were not only more progressive but actually radical at that time.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
If religion plays the same social role in all times and all places, how do you explain southern religion in the U.S. being used to justify slavery while the abolitionist movement was also drenched in religion? Clearly this is a political conflict being expressed in religious terms and the politics of the abolitionists were not only more progressive but actually radical at that time.

Not nearly as much as people usually assume.

Only a minority of abolitionists actually favored full equality for emancipated slaves; many favored "voluntary segregation" and some actually wanted to "send them all back to Africa". :o

Southern white slaveowning Christians, of course, actually had the "Bible" on their side...and were quite demoralized when things turned against them in 1863 (Gettysburg and Vicksburg). They even had "national days of repentance" in the hopes that divine intervention would "make up" for Northern material superiority. :lol:

Back then, everyone (just about) was superstitious and borrowed religious language for their political purposes.

But most Christian clergy in the northern states did not oppose slavery even in principle until the civil war began. Northern Christians mostly "prayed for victory for the Union" just as Southern Christians all "prayed for victory for the Confederacy".

Religion is ever ready to "sign up" with the ruling class.

The exceptions are so trivial as to be statistically meaningless.

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

[Jimmie Higgins]

Exceptions like John Brown?

Most bourgoise reformers in the 1800s used "christian morality" for their crusades and this goes for both the more progrssive ones like sufferage movements and abolition and the more regressive ones like temperence - often these crusdaes overlapped.

I would take Agust Spies and Emma Goldman over the liberal reformers any day, but it shows the more complicated role that religion plays in society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
...but it shows the more complicated role that religion plays in society.

Not really. Most 19th century social reformers were not anti-capitalist but rather dismayed by some of the by-products of capitalism...most notably the lack of interest in religion shown by the desperately poor.

They were afraid of what the masses might do unless they could be "won" back to Christianity.

Indeed, that's always been the real purpose of Christian charity (or Muslim charity or Buddhist charity, etc.). We must provide "some relief" for the poor or they might hang us all! :o

Just more ruling class shit! :angry:

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

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:07 AM
More wretched apologetics. :angry:

First of all, "dogmatic and institutional religion" is the only kind of religion there is!

And second, all those "good things" about religion are just self-serving bullshit lies! Not a fucking word of it is historically true.

Did you read the whole essay?

Religion is a way of life. You have a religion, just as I do. I am simply trying to explain that the term religion has lost its meaning, which further entrenches people into the church - no longer do they consider their religion a dynamic worldview, but rather a dogmatic belief system based on external authority. This is what Orwell's "newspeak" was about.

I do not claim that institutional 'religion' is good. I think it is extremely self-destructive and blinds one to the truth, but that doesn't supercede that Moses and Jesus were advocates for the poor and disenfranchised. Their messages had extremely humanistic aims, such as the golden calf story and in the following:

Fromm writes in "To Have or to Be?":

"He promises to feed them: in the morning with "bread," in the evening with quail. He adds two important injunctions: each should gather according to their needs: 'And the people of Israel did so, some more, some less. But when they measured it with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; each gathered according to what he could eat.' (Exodus 16:17-18)
For the first time, a principle is formulated here that became famous through Marx: to each according to their needs. The right to be fed was established without qualification. ...the second injunction is one against hoarding, greed and possessiveness.
...Earliest Christians, on the contrary, were mainly a group of the poor and socially despised, of the downtrodden and outcasts, who - like some of the Old Testament prophets - castigated the rich and powerful, denouncing without compromise wealth and secular and priestly power as unimportant evils. Indeed, as Max Weber said, the Sermon on the Mount was the speech of a great slave rebellion. The mood of the early Christians was one of full human solidarity, sometimes expressed in the idea of a spontaneous communal sharing of all material goods."(Fromm, To have or to be? pps 53-54)

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dean+--> (Dean)You have a religion, just as I do.[/b]

I already suspected that you have one. :(

I do not! :angry:

So which load of crap have you fallen for? Freudianism or Jungianism perhaps? :o There certainly is an "odor" of early 20th century about your posts thus far.


...but that doesn't supersede that Moses and Jesus were advocates for the poor and disenfranchised.

Indeed?

Moses is a myth...there's no evidence that the "Egyptian captivity" or the "exodus" ever happened.

We do not know "what Jesus really thought" because if he existed at all, he wrote nothing down that has survived. In fact, it's likely that if he existed, he was illiterate.

The present scholarly consensus is that "Jesus" was a small town preacher with a pronounced distaste for "big city Judaism"...a "fundamentalist".


Their messages had extremely humanistic aims, such as the golden calf story...


Originally posted by Exodus+--> (Exodus)32:25 And when Moses saw that the people were naked; for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:

32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.

32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.

32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.[/b]

Ain't "humanistic aims" really great? :o


[email protected]
Earliest Christians, on the contrary, were mainly a group of the poor and socially despised, of the downtrodden and outcasts, who - like some of the Old Testament prophets - castigated the rich and powerful, denouncing without compromise wealth and secular and priestly power as unimportant evils...

The "authentic" letters of Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") are considered the first glimpse into "early Christianity" -- say 50 to 60CE -- and there is little evidence for Christian "poverty". They are not wealthy...but neither are they particularly "poor".

The only sense in which they are "indifferent" to "worldly" power and wealth is because they "expected the world to end soon".


Fromm again?
Indeed, as Max Weber said, the Sermon on the Mount was the speech of a great slave rebellion.

Sure it was. :lol:

You have successfully convinced me that Weber and Fromm had their heads up their asses...at least on this subject.

If there are others you'd like to similarly discredit, please be my guest.

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

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 30 2006, 02:37 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 30 2006, 02:37 PM)
Gravedigger
...but it shows the more complicated role that religion plays in society.

Not really. Most 19th century social reformers were not anti-capitalist but rather dismayed by some of the by-products of capitalism...most notably the lack of interest in religion shown by the desperately poor.

They were afraid of what the masses might do unless they could be "won" back to Christianity.

Indeed, that's always been the real purpose of Christian charity (or Muslim charity or Buddhist charity, etc.). We must provide "some relief" for the poor or they might hang us all! :o

Just more ruling class shit! :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
As always on this subject, I agree with you but I think this is only one side of the coin. There is the ruling class side of organized and sometimes state religion, but there is also the side of religion that attracts people who want a better world. People have freely turned to religion and used it to express their desires such as in the early US civil rights movment and the Victorian-era reformers... I also think it is no coincidence that both of these movements were liberal and moralistic. This is why radicals must work with people even if they have some religious baggage and argue that change will come from class-struggle, not faith in this or that or morality.

If there is to be a latino-majority immigrents rights movement in the US (if the recent marches are any indication) local catholic churches are likely to be involved and many people will also have catholic ideas. Should we not work with them until they drop all their religious ideas and stop organizing out of churches? No, we should work in solidarity while argueing that the way forward for the movemnt is on a class-basis (not faith) and our analysis will proove to make more sense and be more effective than just hopeing the ruling class changes their mind because we stand outside congress, silently, with a bunch of candles.

[Dean]

I already suspected that you have one.
I do not!
You obviously didn't read the paper, or at least you didn't comprehend it. I don't have a religion in a conventional sense, but in a traditional sense every person in the world does. I don't believe in any god nor do i believe in any religion as the term is used today.


So which load of crap have you fallen for? Freudianism or Jungianism perhaps? There certainly is an "odor" of early 20th century about your posts thus far.
Freud was a penetrating analyst of the human mind but could not see past his bourgeoisie upbringing and thus was vey dogmatic about his ideas until later in his life when he recognized destructive drives in man as well as heis sexual ones. I like Carl Jung's ideas on archetypes, but both psychoanalysts are flawed in their ideas.


Moses is a myth...there's no evidence that the "Egyptian captivity" or the "exodus" ever happened.

We do not know "what Jesus really thought" because if he existed at all, he wrote nothing down that has survived. In fact, it's likely that if he existed, he was illiterate.

The present scholarly consensus is that "Jesus" was a small town preacher with a pronounced distaste for "big city Judaism"...a "fundamentalist".
It may be true that both philosophers did not exist, but that is not the point - the point is the early christian and judaic traditions as explained in the bible.


You have successfully convinced me that Weber and Fromm had their heads up their asses...at least on this subject.

If there are others you'd like to similarly discredit, please be my guest.
I can discredit you, due to your dogmatic atagonism towards religion. The religious have staged social revolts against capital, notably in the case of Solidarnosc. It is the heart of a man which should be judged; these blanket, anti-religious antagonisms are false and hinder the cause of communism.

Maybe if you'd read Fromm you'd understand a bit more about how to see the world more objectively, instead of decaring the religious as our enemies. I'd suggest starting with "Escape from Freedom."

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 01:41 AM
The religious have staged social revolts against capital, notably in the case of Solidarnosc.

Religious revolts against capital....that is a new angle.

So what exactly are these "social revolts"?

Well a good place to start is the "social revolt" against "capital" in 1789....the Catholic Clergy and the Aristocracy sure did try and revolt against the emerging French bourgeois -- luckily for us, the sans-culottes army had a penchant for piking the bastards. :D

Then, of course, how could we forget how the Russian Priests reacted towards the new Russian bourgeois in 1917....they sure did try to "revolt" against the Provisional Government in favour of Tsarist despotism!

The Provisional Government, for all its faults, was a lot better than anything that had gone before it....but Organised Religion still acted against it.

What wonderful people! :angry:

As for your mention of Solidarnosc....well most people are aware that during that particular event the CIA funnelled money through the Vatican in order to shift the movement (which was socialist) to the right.

They unfortunately succeeded in this task, and if I remember correctly, their "darling" who became the new President of Poland was a vicious anti-Semite....one more great "social revolt against capital" there. :angry:

Liberation Theology has also fucked up quite a few anti-imperialist movements in the America's which were directed against Imperialist capital but after the influence of "radical Catholicism" gained some weight, these movements became significantly less effective.

Another great "social revolt against capital" from the pious there. :lol:

Care to add to my list?

[Dean]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 31 2006, 02:03 AM
Religious revolts against capital....that is a new angle.

So what exactly are these "social revolts"?

Well a good place to start is the "social revolt" against "capital" in 1789....the Catholic Clergy and the Aristocracy sure did try and revolt against the emerging French bourgeois -- luckily for us, the sans-culottes army had a penchant for piking the bastards. :D

Then, of course, how could we forget how the Russian Priests reacted towards the new Russian bourgeois in 1917....they sure did try to "revolt" against the Provisional Government in favour of Tsarist despotism!

The Provisional Government, for all its faults, was a lot better than anything that had gone before it....but Organised Religion still acted against it.

What wonderful people! :angry:

As for your mention of Solidarnosc....well most people are aware that during that particular event the CIA funnelled money through the Vatican in order to shift the movement (which was socialist) to the right.

They unfortunately succeeded in this task, and if I remember correctly, their "darling" who became the new President of Poland was a vicious anti-Semite....one more great "social revolt against capital" there. :angry:

Liberation Theology has also fucked up quite a few anti-imperialist movements in the America's which were directed against Imperialist capital but after the influence of "radical Catholicism" gained some weight, these movements became significantly less effective.

Another great "social revolt against capital" from the pious there. :lol:

Care to add to my list?
I am aware that it was funded by the US - why wouldn't it be? it's no different than the afghanistan issue, except in this one we supported a group with initially noble ambitions, comprised largely of catholics. They have since lost most of their support and their political wing is increasingly unpopular, because it has become a conservative institution, bought off by the U.S.

Is religion incompatible with communism? yes and no. one can live communistically in morals yet deny natural facts, though an aspect of their ideal system coincides with the aims of communism. IT is like calling Che a communist - yes, he executed people somewhat indiscriminately, but no man is perfect. one must accept this before they attempt to widen the communist community - the ideals shouldn't change, but when people agree with 99.9% of the ideals i think it's fair to call them communists.

Creating a list of religious institutions against communism is not a disproof of my idea. Science has acted against communism, too, and in most cases it serves the purposes of the elite. Just because a view is not reasonable doesn't mean we must viciously oppose people who hold the view. It's no different than racism, really - religion is an arbitrary disction as to what a person's ideological standpoints and moral activities are.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dean
I don't have a religion in a conventional sense, but in a traditional sense every person in the world does.

Net semantic content of that statement = zero!


I can discredit you, due to your dogmatic antagonism towards religion.

Many have tried; none have succeeded. :lol:


It is the heart of a man which should be judged...

No, it is the real world words and deeds of a man -- or woman -- that "should be judged".


Maybe if you'd read Fromm, you'd understand a bit more about how to see the world more objectively...

Life is short and books are many; you've offered no compelling reason to read Fromm and, in fact, your quotes from him suggest that he was...well, not "the smartest guy in the room". :lol:


Is religion incompatible with communism?

With modern rational communism...yep, sure is!


Just because a view is not reasonable doesn't mean we must viciously oppose people who hold the view.

No, we "viciously oppose" those who viciously oppose us!

Simple enough that even an sXer should be able to figure it out.

Yet, sad to say, we still have "lefties" who want to "just get along" with our intransigent enemies.

Go figure. :blink:

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

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger
If there is to be a Latino-majority immigrants rights movement in the US (if the recent marches are any indication) local Catholic churches are likely to be involved and many people will also have Catholic ideas.

Here are some people who seem to have the "right handle" on that struggle.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48099

What the kids will very definitely have to watch out for is the Catholic clergy trying to "take things over" and "cool things down".

Someone should be warning them of that very likely scenario.

We'll see what happens.

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

[Dean]

You want to alienate yourself from others and argue dogmatically against religious dogma, but offer little more to the argument. Simply put, you see things as black and white antagonisms and it appears you still haven't read the first few paragraphs of my paper! All you do is keep calling the religious our enemies, without realizing that that is a bold blanket statement that doesn't reflect the views of many religious communists. WHile I do not have a religion (except as outlined in that paper) I Still don't see a problem with someone who holds on to religious beliefs and also fights for egalitarian ends.

Monsignor Romero: (http://www.nd.edu/~kellogg/romero/Introduction.htm)

"If God accepts the sacrifice of my life, then may my blood be the seed of liberty and the sign that hope will soon become a reality. May my death, if it is accepted by God, be for the liberation of my people, as a witness of hope in what is to come. You can tell them that if they succeed in killing me, I pardon and bless those who do it. A bishop may die, but the Church of God, which is in the people, will never die."

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by rich fat bastard
A bishop may die, but the Church of God, which is in the people, will never die.

The godracket will go on "forever"!

No it won't. :D

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

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Dean+--> (Dean)it's no different than the afghanistan issue, except in this one we supported a group with initially noble ambitions, comprised largely of catholics.[/b]

(Emphasis added.)

"We"???? :blink:

Maybe that was just a slip of the tongue, but I'd advise you not to repeat such silliness again....nationalism is not tolerated here and neither are those that use nationalistic language.

As to you main point, well....yes, the movement in Poland was initially "noble" and certainly pro-socialism, but when the Vatican (and the CIA) got its claws stuck in, it turned to shit! :(

Large amounts of funding were given to reactionaries, and the subsequent influence these reactionaries had over the movement as a whole, was devastating.

The CIA and the Vatican helped to destroy a "noble" pro-socialist movement and instead turn it into a reactionary cesspit. In reality, it was not a question of supporting a "noble" side, rather the CIA and the Vatican helped to support an agenda that was separate of the original movement and was also completely reactionary.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about the original movement, was that it only wished to reform the Soviet model....which worked pretty well all things considered.

My mother, who must have spent around 20 summers in Poland from the age 8 onwards, has very fond memories of Poland and no memories of the repressive Police State that is portrayed via the bourgeois media....and this is a woman who is a Green Party liberal!

What's equally interesting, is despite the Vatican's statements to the contry, there was no real repression of Catholicism in Poland....for instance, I apparently have a distant great uncle (he's probably dead now) and he was, from what my mother tells me, pretty high up in the Polish Communist Party. And his wife, was a devout Catholic who even went so far as to lash herself!

No one seems to have been very surprised by this practice and it didn't seem to bother the Party at all....indeed it seems to have been considered "normal". :o

Another thing is that throughout her stays in Poland, my mother would every Sunday be taken by her Polish Grandma to Church....real repression of Religion there. :lol:

The bourgeois, and their principle mouthpiece Pope windbag the wondrous, sure did put one hell of a spin on the events in Poland....and very little of this "spin" was true.


Originally posted by Dean+--> (Dean)IT is like calling Che a communist - yes, he executed people somewhat indiscriminately, but no man is perfect.[/b]

From my understanding, Enersto's bullets weren't "indiscriminate"....they were mainly aimed at lackeys of Batista and collaborators. In other words, class enemies!

Sure a few people may have been innocent....but generally speaking, I say most of the people executed during and just after the Cuban Revolution were guilty.

If you want to deem it a mark of imperfection to execute quislings, then that's your choice....personally, I consider it to be a pretty good attribute. :D


[email protected]
Science has acted against communism, too....

Dodgy science has "acted against communism" sporadically....variants of Social Darwinism still hold some weight, but other than that?


Dean
Just because a view is not reasonable doesn't mean we must viciously oppose people who hold the view.

Well, one could argue, successfully, that unreasonable views should be opposed. However, generally speaking, communists oppose Religion because it's fundamentally reactionary.

[Dean]

"We"????

Maybe that was just a slip of the tongue, but I'd advise you not to repeat such silliness again....nationalism is not tolerated here and neither are those that use nationalistic language.

I'm American, and I hate that my nation, which is generally referred to as "us" (though I don't usually term it that way, it's quick and easy) went into afghanistan to create a colony. I think it's apparent that I am not a nationalist.


Well, one could argue, successfully, that unreasonable views should be opposed. However, generally speaking, communists oppose Religion because it's fundamentally reactionary.

It's not so much that we shouldn't oppose religion, I think we should, but in the same way that you would oppose anything that isn't necessarily against your moral code but still makes no sense. That so many Catholics were in Solidarnosc and fought for socialism shows that religion doesn't necessarily hinder one's ability to productively revolutionize society.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Dean+--> (Dean)I think it's apparent that I am not a nationalist.[/b]

I think the best advice I could give you is to write we in quotations in the future....or better yet, for the sake of a little more typing write the American ruling class.

It's always best to try and avoid confusion.


Originally posted by [email protected]
....but in the same way that you would oppose anything that isn't necessarily against your moral code but still makes no sense.

Religion is against my "moral code"....the routine oppression of women, children, homosexuals, non-believers and so on, disgusts me. And therefore I oppose Religion as I see fit.

Do you wish to argue that that stuff is in your "moral code"?


Dean
That so many Catholics were in Solidarnosc and fought for socialism shows that religion doesn't necessarily hinder one's ability to productively revolutionize society.

For a short time it fought for socialism....well, perhaps primitive-socialism. But the Catholic element of the movement was one of the reasons for its downfall.

Do you think the Vatican would have been so successful in attempting to push the movement rightwards if the Polish workers had almost all been atheists? ....of course not.

Had the workers been of a more sound political consciousness, meaning that they would have been free of Catholicism for a start, then there would have been a real possibility of a proletarian revolution in Poland and the creation of a communist society....instead, they drifted rightwards and elected a vicious anti-Semite, who may or may not have been a paid agent, President.

Way to go Catholicism! :angry:

Additionally, if there had been a revolution then one can only imagine just how bad the liberation of people would have been. Historical example suggests that a "Religious workers' state" would have been sexist as fuck....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292037713 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47222&view=findpost&p=1292037713) -- scroll down a bit.

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

Religion is an enemy of human liberation....and it proves so every day.

[Dean]

Religion is against my "moral code"....the routine oppression of women, children, homosexuals, non-believers and so on, disgusts me. And therefore I oppose Religion as I see fit.

well i guess communists are against communism than, because they are political and politicians have regularly done atrocious acts of violence. wait, that's a strawman. you can't claim that all religions are liek that, or that all people in a religion that is generally liek that believe such things. that ludicrous.

I of course agree that Catholocism hurt Solidarnosc, since the catholics in it were mostly orthodox (most catholics are orthodox, too) but I expect that the american state had more of an effect on it's politics. If it had been buddhists, who tend to be very individualistic in their moral judgement, do you think it would have been oppressive?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Dean+--> (Dean)well i guess communists are against communism than, because they are political and politicians have regularly done atrocious acts of violence.[/b]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here....perhaps some kind of guilt by association?

Despite your protests to the contry, every "holy book" I've read (including all of the Bible and the Qu'ran) has been full of stuff supporting the oppression of certain groups....usually women and children.

If you wish to argue "that [not] all religions are liek [sic] that", then perhaps you have a point....there are likely a few obscure cults that don't promote the oppression of anyone yet.

However, all mainstream Religions with any clout do wish to oppress someone....Christianity in Britain, for instance, has recently decided that it is appropriate that schools should be turned into clerical fascist shitholes....

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292035441 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=47438&view=findpost&p=1292035441)


Dean
TIBETAN CHINESE ARE NOT AMERICAN INDIANS

[....]

Those who insist on "victim-victimizer" dichotomies might be tempted on leap to yet another equally simplistic conclusion, that "both Tibetans and Hans were victims of Mongol aggression." This ignores the fact that both "victims" and "victimizers" subsequently intermarried extensively, not under duress, but of their own volition, rendering the issue of victimization moot and irrelevant. The bottom line is that Tibet was not "invaded" or "annexed" by China in 1959. Because by then the Tibetan region had been part of China for seven centuries, five centuries longer than these United States of America have even been in existence. One does not "invade" or "annex" what is already one's own territory. Beijing dispatched troops to prevent secession by the serf-owing elite which objected to the abolition of slavery, not to implement annexation. Hardly the same thing.

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/Tibet-s.html

That "serf-owing [sic] elite which objected to the abolition of slavery" were Buddhists in case you didn't know....that's right, Buddhism is just as reactionary.

[Dyst]

And second, all those "good things" about religion are just self-serving bullshit lies! Not a fucking word of it is historically true.


Try swearing some more, as well as bolding more words, then perhaps it will become true.

There has been religions which has been partially progressive in certain societies. But not in any way in a capitalist society.

You are wrong when you claim it is not historically true that religion has ever been something positive.

An example has been societies where there (always for a short period of time) was chaos, perhaps "governed" only by rivaling gangs. No laws equal for anyone. Except perhaps religious superstition.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 31 2006, 05:25 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 31 2006, 05:25 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected]
If there is to be a Latino-majority immigrants rights movement in the US (if the recent marches are any indication) local Catholic churches are likely to be involved and many people will also have Catholic ideas.

Here are some people who seem to have the "right handle" on that struggle.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48099

What the kids will very definitely have to watch out for is the Catholic clergy trying to "take things over" and "cool things down".

Someone should be warning them of that very likely scenario.

We'll see what happens.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Nice selective quoting there Redstar. While not adressing my question, you seem to suggest that I don't have the "right handle" on this and yet I was saying the same thing as the anarchist:


"I"
If there is to be a latino-majority immigrents rights movement in the US (if the recent marches are any indication) local catholic churches are likely to be involved and many people will also have catholic ideas. Should we not work with them until they drop all their religious ideas and stop organizing out of churches? No, we should work in solidarity while argueing that the way forward for the movemnt is on a class-basis (not faith) and our analysis will proove to make more sense and be more effective than just hopeing the ruling class changes their mind because we stand outside congress, silently, with a bunch of candles.

I think what these anarchists are doing (although they seem to be taking credit for all spontanious student walk-outs) is great. Students on walk outs have limitations, I would rather that they concentrate on organizing walk-outs and protest strikes by workers... but baby steps are good none the less.

All I said that was different is that in this new movement there is some mixed consiousness on things like nationalism, identity politics and religion. Instead of overestimating the revolutionary character as the anarchist propaganda seems to have and instead of waiting for protesters to come to a class-view of nationalsim or religion, we need to begin discussions about how and where to take this movement while argueing how our politics are going to be most effective.

I agree with you that we need to make sure that religious figures don't take over the movement and take it away from class-based walkouts and semi-strikes to silent prayers at the border or some crap! But the way to do this is to show how multi-racial and class-based organizing is more effective than morality/religion-based organizing and this means having to work in coalitions with workers who are religious or have nationalist ideas or liberal ideas.

Just like in the anti-war movement, we should work with liberals in coalitions while argueing why liberal politics are wholly inadequate and actually harmful to the anti-war movement.

[Dean]

I have no idea what you are trying to say here....perhaps some kind of guilt by association?

precisely. You claim guilt by association with religious organizations, or religion in general. I contend that religion doesn't have to be Catholocism just as much as communism/socialism doesn't have to be Stalinism.

The holy book aspect is irrelevant. I can read three books by marx and call myself a marxist yet disagree with many of his ideas. example in religion: those who follow jesus's word and fight for the poor rather than follow the church.

Not all buddhists are like that, and I doubt that most are like that. Get back to the subject, that is whether or not a person's religion can help communism. citing specific churches actions is laughable to this end.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gravedigger+--> (Gravedigger)But the way to do this is to show how multi-racial and class-based organizing is more effective than morality/religion-based organizing and this means having to work in coalitions with workers who are religious or have nationalist ideas or liberal ideas....

Just like in the anti-war movement, we should work with liberals in coalitions while arguing why liberal politics are wholly inadequate and actually harmful to the anti-war movement.[/b]

Up to you. :unsure: Historically, when lefties attempt to work "in coalitions" with established liberal (not to mention religious!) organizations, the consequence is not the radicalization of the liberals but rather the liberalization of the radicals. :o

The only time things turn out differently are in periods of enormous upheaval...where the "social center of gravity" has already shifted sharply to the left.

Something like that might be happening in France right now.

But it's not yet happening in the U.S. You can tell just by looking at the RCP's "World Can't Wait" campaign...a "coalition" with liberal and even religious elements that's steadily moving rightwards. The way things are going, I bet Bob Avakian would endorse Barbara Boxer in 2008...if she'd make him her running mate. :lol:


Dean
Citing specific churches actions is laughable to this end.

Defenders of religion just hate "specific" examples.

They're so...well, embarrassing. :lol:

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

[Dean]

Defenders of religion just hate "specific" examples.

They're so...well, embarrassing.

I only defend religion against broad, untrue generalizations.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dean
I only defend religion against broad, untrue generalizations.

WHY?

Why do you care one way or the other if an "untrue" generalization about religion is made...as long as it reflects negatively on the bastards?

Sure, it's always possible -- at least in principle -- to make an "untrue" generalization because the "sample" is too small. But as long as it reflects badly on them, why would you want to object?

You evidently think there's something "good" about religion...an absolutely incomprehensible position. :o

It's up to you...but you've put yourself in a position of trying to find something "progressive" about the worst invention in the history of the human species.

*shakes head in disbelief*

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

[Dean]

Sure, it's always possible -- at least in principle -- to make an "untrue" generalization because the "sample" is too small. But as long as it reflects badly on them, why would you want to object?

The point is to show you that religion is not an inherantly reactionary system in its entirety. Furthermore, it is a common human characteristic to be religious; to viciously oppose religion - and by proxy the religious - makes our ability to revolutionize, expecially in the heavily catholic south america, much harder.

To claim it as the worst invention of humans is silly; that would be to say that science is the worst invention, as it stems from an intention to understand the world. without much knowledge, as the ancients, it is hard to imagine a reasonable way of explaining the world.


You evidently think there's something "good" about religion...an absolutely incomprehensible position. :o
There can be good in religion. - you just have to give up your dogmatic opposition to relize it, apparently. It's not black and white. What would yo usay of churches that marry homosexuals - that they are still reactionary simply because they believe in god? laughable.

As an 'orthodox' Marxist, I can see how you would vehemently defend a violent position; it is the nature of a dogmatic to do such. Too bad you've already decided steadfst on your eyes; learning is an important characteristic of a revolutionary.

[Sentinel]

What would yo usay of churches that marry homosexuals - that they are still reactionary simply because they believe in god? laughable.

In my honest opinion, one single concession from a church's side, intended to make it more accepted in the modern world, does in no way whatsover make them un-reactionary.

They are still committing the worst of crimes: enslaving human minds!

Which, naturally, is the opposite of what communists are, or should be, trying to accomplish. Every human being has the right to a free, rational mind. The godsuckers want to deny them this, and that is simply unacceptable. Sorry.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The point is to show you that religion is not an inherantly reactionary system in its entirety

That is exactly the point! Religion is ALWAYS reactionary, at times they try and get support by supporting popular things, but their goals are always the same.


makes our ability to revolutionize, expecially in the heavily catholic south america, much harder

They are already having native bourgeois revolutions. They will become more secular as time goes on. But waht revolutions are you trying to make down there? I support most anti-imperialist actions there 100% but they aren't making communist revolutions.


as it stems from an intention to understand the world

The difference is SCIENCE WORKS, even for the slow to catch on, religion was outdated 300 years ago.


without much knowledge, as the ancients, it is hard to imagine a reasonable way of explaining the world

Religion IS NOT a reasonable way of explaining anything! IT IS A LIE.


What would yo usay of churches that marry homosexuals - that they are still reactionary simply because they believe in god?

Yes, I'm sure they will give up worshipping the bible too :lol: As long as you ignore all the sexist, racist, homophobic commands, oh and the stoning to death of infidels, there really is some good stuff in there! :lol: :rolleyes:


learning is an important characteristic of a revolutionary

You obviously haven't learned much, did you know the earth is round :lol: Or does Xenu really exist and giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to get your "e-meter reading" really a "good thing". Maybe guys really did float out from behind rocks, rose from the dead, etc. Or maybe they just smoked too much dope.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dean
Furthermore, it is a common human characteristic to be religious...

Less and less "common" as time goes by.

But if you are afraid of "offending people", then communism is not for you. The wealthy find it very offensive! :lol:


What would you say of churches that marry homosexuals?

That they've found some new suckers...people who think they need to "formalize" their relationship "in the Eyes of God".

Gay people can be superstitious dumbasses too.


As an 'orthodox' Marxist, I can see how you would vehemently defend a violent position; it is the nature of a dogmatic to do such.

Yep, I'm "dogmatic" -- opposed to reactionary bullshit no matter what!


...learning is an important characteristic of a revolutionary.

It sure is...and I have learned that superstition sucks!

Why haven't you?

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

[Dean]

nate:

That is exactly the point! Religion is ALWAYS reactionary, at times they try and get support by supporting popular things, but their goals are always the same.
"let he that has no sin cast the first stone"


The difference is SCIENCE WORKS, even for the slow to catch on, religion was outdated 300 years ago.

morally, science is far less achieved than the true scriptures, but worldy, it is the opposite way. The "scientific method," by the way, is bullshit and makes science no longer a study of nature but a rigid structure which nakes it hard for the scientist to see the truth, especially in regards to sociologist (marx is credited as being one of the first of the latter, btw...)


Religion IS NOT a reasonable way of explaining anything! IT IS A LIE.
did i say it was?


sentinel:

They are still committing the worst of crimes: enslaving human minds!

Which, naturally, is the opposite of what communists are, or should be, trying to accomplish. Every human being has the right to a free, rational mind.

finally, a reasonable argument. but it still only targets CHURCHES, not independant believers. Plus it doesn't prove that 'religion' is inherantly conservative.

redstar2k:

It sure is...and I have learned that superstition sucks!

Why haven't you?
I have, obviously. I just don't agree on the suckiness because I don't see things in black and white... which is a superstitious way of thinking, comrade.

And I refer to offense as in regards to the working class and dispossessed. But communism will be a better system for the rich as well.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dean
I just don't agree on the suckiness because I don't see things in black and white...

Considering the "positive aspects" of Nazism? Or U.S. imperialism? Or homophobia?

Why can't you grasp the fact that some things are really just total shit?

Are there hitherto unrecognized "benefits" to bubonic plague? Category 5 hurricanes? Magnitude 8 earthquakes?

Your view of "things" is very strange.

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

[LSD]

morally, science is far less achieved than the true scriptures

Firstly, what does "morality" have to do with anything, and secondly, what on earth is a "true scripture"?

Science isn't about "morals", it's about objectivity. We don't want our scientists to be concerned over the "ethics" of quarks, we want them to tell us what they're made of.

Morals, by contrast, are a job for society as a whole and it can only make informed social policy if it has all the information to work with. That means an objective and impartial scientific community.

And if there is one thing that we've learned from millenia of trial and error, it's that "true scriptures" are worth precisely zero.

If you want to argue that ethical research is an important part of science, fine. But once you go talking about "true scriptures" you ventured way of the rational path.

And I have no intention of following you.


but worldy, it is the opposite way

Is that your "subtle" way of acknowledging that science has long left religion in the dust?

Well, I guess a backhanded consession is as good as the regular kind. Still, though, I sense a resistance to the idea of discarding religion altogether.

If science is so much more "achieved", "worldly" speaking, why even bother with religion any more? If it's the "morality" you're looking for, then you can find it in rationality and reason, far more credible sources than "holy words".

Frankly, religion has zero demonstrated usefulness and a pretty brutal history of atrocities.

"Faith" is intrinsically a destructive entity because it demands a rejection of rationality and human intelligence. Once people begin to accept "subjugation to God" and "blind obediance", they lose the capacity to enter into truly reasoned dialogues.

A democratic society must be composed of rational actors and that inherently excludes those who reject reason in the name of "faith".


The "scientific method," by the way, is bullshit

...sure it is. :rolleyes:

It's managed to produce unparalleled innovation and progress, but it's "bullshit" to you. :lol:

How about in the future you restrict your posts on this site to statements that are actually sane.


and makes science no longer a study of nature but a rigid structure which nakes it hard for the scientist to see the truth

And what "truth" has science ignored? What great discovery has the scientific method prevented us from making?

Science has done more in decades than religion has over hundreds of thousands of yeras. In the past few centuries alone, science has revolutionized human living while religion struggled to retain "traditions".

Whatever this "truth" is (perhaps related to "true scriptures? :lol:), it clearly can't be that important as it's lack has had absolutely no visible detrimental effect.

Now, I don't mean to blow your mind here, but could it be that this "sacred truth" of yours doesn't exist? :o

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 09:09 PM
Considering the "positive aspects" of Nazism? Or U.S. imperialism? Or homophobia?

Why can't you grasp the fact that some things are really just total shit?

Are there hitherto unrecognized "benefits" to bubonic plague? Category 5 hurricanes? Magnitude 8 earthquakes?

Your view of "things" is very strange.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Though you take the worst examples, I can still defend them. They did produce scientific developments, reduction in population, and recognition of social problems. Religion, however, has a better track record than those examples.

[Dean]

Firstly, what does "morality" have to do with anything, and secondly, what on earth is a "true scripture"?

Science isn't about "morals", it's about objectivity. We don't want our scientists to be concerned over the "ethics" of quarks, we want them to tell us what they're made of.

Morals, by contrast, are a job for society as a whole and it can only make informed social policy if it has all the information to work with. That means an objective and impartial scientific community.

And if there is one thing that we've learned from millenia of trial and error, it's that "true scriptures" are worth precisely zero.

If you want to argue that ethical research is an important part of science, fine. But once you go talking about "true scriptures" you ventured way of the rational path.

And I have no intention of following you.

morality refers to marxist ideals, how nazism is bad, etc..

science is the study of nature. nature defines morals by their closeness to our human nature. "true scriptures" was misguided for me to say, in a sense. if one worships the bible, the true scriptures are a hack and have no moral realism in regards to jesus's teachings. but if one worships jesus and only takes the scriptures as true in the sense that they follow jesus communistic tradition, than there is reason behind my statement about "true scriptures."


Is that your "sublte" way of acknowledging that science has long left religion in the dust?

Well, I guess a backhanded consession is as good as the regular kind. Still, though, I sense a resistance to the idea of discarding religion altogether.

If science is so much more "achieved", "worldly" speaking, why even bother with religion any more? If it's the "morality" you're looking for, then you can find it in rationality and reason, far more credible sources than "holy words".

Frankly, religion has zero demonstrated usefulness and a pretty brutal history of atrocities.

"Faith" is intrinsically a destructive entity because it demands a rejection of rationality and human intelligence. Once people begin to accept "subjugation to God" and "blind obediance", they lose the capacity to enter into truly reasoned dialogues.

A democratic society must be composed of rational actors and that inherently excludes those who reject reason in the name of "faith".
I simply state that superstition is less useful than study of nature. However, I contend that if one believes that god's word follows the same path as that of a secular humanist one, than they can be productive, but still have their fault in their belief in god.

faith is a necessary aspect of human interaction as I explained earlier about trusting friends not to do un-friendly things to you.


...sure it is.

It's managed to produce unparalleled innovation and progress, but it's "bullshit" to you.

How about in the future you restrict your posts on this site to statements that are actually sane.
the scientific method negates marxism from being scientific. there have been many conflicts about this in the scientific community, even when people tried to used dialectic (eastern) logic as opposed to aristotolean logic in scientific studies, sometimes in the name of their marxist beliefs.

heres why: the scientific method claims that something is or isn't. marxist, or eastern, logic claims that there are two possibilities. the latter is open ended. ironically, marxism is more open to the idea that god may exist because there is no proof cortraiwise, though its benefactors would not make a claim to its existance (except in case of its usage) because there is obviously no evidence to support the claim that god exists. the sceientific method has a conflict when one tries to argue about god, because you cannot disprove god, but marxism has no problem - we just don't care, so long as there is no material basis for compassion to that end.

most, if not all advances made with the scientific method could have easily been made with marxist logic, and didnt require that specific method to begin with.

The rest of your post is just ad hominem so I won't take time with it.

[LSD]

morality refers to marxist ideals, how nazism is bad, etc..

As communists, we oppose Naziism because it is objectively detrimental to human society, not because of some wishy-washy externalistic morality.

Moral absolutism is utter rubbish and has no place in a reasoned discussion. Personal "morals" are, after all, irrefutable. How can you tell someone else what they believe?

Logic, however, is universal. It is objective, unbiased, and unrelated to any personal feelings. A "personal" policy discussion will never resolve itself, but a logical one can do nothing else.

It is "morals" that have caused anti-abortion laws and the anti-homosexual movement . It is "morals" that have enslaved women across the middle east.

You need to realize that "morals" have no place within communism. Only reason does!


science is the study of nature. nature defines morals by their closeness to our human nature.

:huh:

Ok, I'll be honest here, I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

First of all, "human nature" is a bourgeois myth. There is no "fundamental nature" to our being.

Secondly, nature is not "moral", in fact it isn't anything. "Nature" doesn't exist as an independent entity. It is, rather, a convienient short hand for everything that is organic but not human.

Well, an ecosystem does not have a "morality"! When a bear catches a fish or a cow eats gras, do you really think that there are "moral" decisions being made? Nature is a collection of amoral beings who don't even have the capacity to understand morality, let along follow it.

And, thirdly and finally, there is no "closeness" between us and nature. The myth of "common kinship" is just, again, bourgeois nonsense from the postmodern school of anti-postivism.

Honestly, that is probably one of the most confusing sentenses I've ever read in my life. In the future, I would adivse that you work at making yourself intelligible, it makes the discussion process a great deal more comfortable for all involved.


but if one worships jesus and only takes the scriptures as true in the sense that they follow jesus communistic tradition, than there is reason behind my statement about "true scriptures."

And if I believe in invisible aliens, there is "reason" behind my statements about them. But that doesn't make me any less insanse.

The fact that you have constructed a rationalization around your superstition does not make you any less irrational, it just makes you more protected. In other wordws, it's a defense mechanism. You've managed to convince yourself that if only believe the "Jesusy bits", maybe you won't expose yourself to quite so many obvious contraditions.

Sorry, but any religious text, no matter how down you pare it, is fundamentally anachronistic and irrational. And no matter what excuses you come up with in response to this post, there is one simple truth that you cannot deny:

There is absolutely no evidence that any part of your "faith" is real.

As statements go, that one may not be as elloquent as the Nicene creed, but it's a hell of a lot more truthful.


However, I contend that if one believes that god's word follows the same path as that of a secular humanist one, than they can be productive, but still have their fault in their belief in god.

But if one "believes that god's word follows the same path as that of a secular humanist one" then one is deluding oneself.

As I have repeated ad nauseum, the Bible is not "subtle" in its commandments. When "Jesus" tells you that slavery is acceptable, he isn't being "allegorical" or "metaphorical", rather he's telling the truth as he understands it!

To the average mind in the first century CE, the toleration of slavery was not only routine, it was unopposed. No one even considered that there was a feasibly alternative.

Accordingly, in his "true scriptures" (or more accurately, the scriptures written by early church fathers and latter ascribed to a mythical "Jesus"), the acceptance of slavery is completely predicatable.

But if one believes that these assorted scriblings are something more than a product of their time. If someone believes that they are the "inspired work of God', then one is obligated to obey them.

And that's why religion is so dangerous. Because it embrases blind obedience and rejections rationality. There is simply no more destructive philisophy than "faith". It genuinely doesn't matter whether it's faith in a "fuhrer" or faith in a "God", once one accepts that ones will should be subject to another, it's all lost.


the scientific method negates marxism from being scientific.

That is absolute and complete bullshit.

Even the most hardcore "dialecticians" (of which I am not a member), do not claim that dialectical materilialims can supplant merely that it should as well.

Now, in my estimation, there is still no compleing reason why "dialectics" should be acepted and, epistomologically speaking, it seems unnescessarily complex. That said, though, I can still respect those who argue that there is place for dialectics in the scientific pantheon. I disagree with them, but I understand their motives.

I do not understand the motives of one who claims, as you do, that not only is "dialectics" useful, but that it somehow "negates science".

It's so painfuly obvious that science has not been "defeated" that it's almost comical that one would try and claim otherwise. Unless one has a personal motive in attacking science (see: creationism), there is simply no possible way to come to the conclusion that science can or will be "succeded" in the forseeable future.


heres why: the scientific method claims that something is or isn't. marxist, or eastern, logic claims that there are two possibilities. the latter is open ended. ironically, marxism is more open to the idea that god may exist because there is no proof cortraiwise

Aha! Now the truth reveals itself!

You don't oppose the scientific method because of reasoned objections, you oppose it because it isn't friendly to your particular superstition.

Well, your right, science does not have room for "Gods" or "true scriptures". Science is an empirical materialist discipline and it gives no leaway to "faith" or "belief".

Neither, by the way, does "Marxism" (and I'm growing less and less certain as to what you actually mean by that term). Dialectic materilialism may be a controversial philosophy, but it is undeniable materialistic!

That you would try to crowbar your superstitious nonsense into Marxism is, frankly, insulting. Not to mention hopelessly misguided.

The idea that somehow Marxism is more "tolerant" for faith shows both a complete misunderstanding of Marxian analysis as well as a fantical desire to keep onself from confronting the reality regarding your "faith".

Now, I understand why you made the statements regarding homosexuality that you did. It would appear that that's your MO. Trying to pass off superstition as "scientific" or "Marxist".

That technique may work in your internal dialogue, but I promise you it will not work here!


most, if not all advances made with the scientific method could have easily been made with marxist logic

Really? Well then why weren't they?

We've had "marxist logic" around now for more than a hundred and fifty years. If it was really so "superior", then why hasn't anything come of it?

The fact is, no matter how much you may try to evade or misconstrue reality, science has proven itself correct.

"Faith", on the other hand, has proven itself to be worse than useless. Over the course of human history, there is probably no more destructive force and even today it continues to claim victims across the planet.

You can try and twist the facts as much as you want, you can even try and persist in this ludicrous vein of calling religious superstition "Marxist", but, in the end, you cannot escape from material reality.

And material reality doesn't give a fuck for "scriptures".

[Dean]

Ok, I'll give up the argument about morals because it is apparent that we have different definitions of the term.

But I guess I'm also going to have to reiterate my point that I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in god. Furthermore, I find the idea of a belief in god as inherantly reactionary in the sense that one cannot completely free themselves from the lie that is what we would call religion.

Human nature does exist: it is simply our inherant genetic makeup, things which implicate everything from mental disorders, gender, race, affecting testosterone, estrogen, and even serotonin levels. The "morals" I refer to are what leads us to treat our fellow man. Just as feline species tend to be antisocial, canines socials, are primates heavily social. That is what compels a person to be a part of society, and to conform.

But it is not so simple as to say that our inherant drive is that we want to conform, or be a part of a society. Erich Fromm, a marxist, said that the worst pain that a man can feel is that of moral aloneness - that is to say, that one's ideas of what are right are not the social norm. Are not egalitarian communists experiencing this pain in our society today, with its capitalist morals?

This idea of marxism claims that communism, as an inherantly egalitarian society, makes one feel complete oneness with the whole of society, thus fulfilling our drive to become one with our fellow man, be part of society.

The reason I praise Jesus is because I feel that he cared for the same things that communists care about, and much of the bible implicates this.

Phil Ochs expresses similar sentiment in the following from his song, "The Ballad of the Carpenter":

When Jesus was a little lad
Streets rang with his name
For he argued with the older men
And put them all to shame
He put them all to shame

He became a wandering journeyman
And he traveled far and wide
And he noticed how wealth and poverty
Live always side by side
Live always side by side

So he said "Come you working men
Farmers and weavers too
If you would only stand as one
This world belongs to you
This world belongs to you"

When the rich men heard what the carpenter had done
To the Roman troops they ran
Saying put this rebel Jesus down
He's a menace to God and man
He's a menace to God and man

How can you not deny that the scientific method, as the only source of scientific development, is detrimental? Marx was a sociologist, and none of his work would be accepted by scientists because of this. It's quite simple.

I don't like religion, and I agree that it is part of a trend which we must end, but individuals being religious aren't the worst thing in regards to socialism, and can very well be productive members in a communist revolution.

[LSD]

Human nature does exist: it is simply our inherant genetic makeup

Alright, fine, if you want to call that "human nature", OK. But when most bourgeois capitalist apologists use that term they are refering to something very different.

There are certainly basic human traits that come out of genetic evolution, but they have nothing to do with "morals". Nor do they really relate to "nature" in an abstract sense.

I'm still not quite sure what you were taking about in that sentence above, but I must reiterate that science is amoral for a reason. Biased researchers don't get better results, they get wrong ones, and if humanity is going to continue to progress it is essential that we recognize that.


The reason I praise Jesus is because I feel that he cared for the same things that communists care about, and much of the bible implicates this.

Then you've been misinformed.

Jesus not only preached acceptance to temporal authorities, he also in no uncertain terms, endorsed slavery and monarchy.

He also, in one rather telling parable, instructed his followers to spend their resources of ointment of his feet instead of food for the poor. In his own words, the poor would "always be here" and so they were not deserving of help in the way that his "holy feet" were.

Sorry, but that is hardly a statement that a communist would make!


How can you not deny that the scientific method, as the only source of scientific development, is detrimental?

Because history has shown otherwise.

For all the orthodox Marxist and Trotskyist blather on the subject, dialectics is still yet to demonstrate value as a scientific philosophy.

In fact, even when people do try and adopt dialectics to constructive tasks, they tend to end up coming to ridiculous conclusions. On this very board, in fact, there was a thread in which the Big Bang was denied as "mythology" and black holes were called "fantasy"! :o

This kind of unscientific nonsense is in no way helpful and hinders rather than helps serious physical investigation.

If anything is "detrimental" to science it is ignorant amateurs who think that they've found the secret to life burried in dusty volumes of nineteenth century German philosophy.

The reality is quite simply that there are a good deal of intelligent people who have devoted their lives to answering scientific questions. The last thing that they need is a bunch of wide-eyed Hegellians telling them that they've "forgotten the dialectic".

There's a time and a place for Prussian metaphysics and science is definitely not it!


Marx was a sociologist, and none of his work would be accepted by scientists because of this. It's quite simple.

Well, most "hard" scientists tend to be dismissive of the "soft" scientists, and not entirely without reason. The fact is, at present, we have not sufficiently developed our social sciences to the level at which they could compete with the "hard" ones.

We just don't have the mathemetical equipment to address sociological hypotheses in the way we do theoretical physics ones.

That is not to say, though, that the social sciences are "ignored". A good deal of progress is being made and, hopefully soon, we'll be able to really delve into important social questions from a more scientifically sound footing.

But the fact that we are presently not capable of doing so is not a fault of science, it's merely an indication of our lack of knowledge.

Science isn't "flawed" because it can't yet prove Marx. The fact is Marx's theories are still just that!

I happen to think that Marx was correct in a good deal of his writings, but I fully acknowledge that, for the most part, we can not yet establish the truth one way or another. That doesn't mean that we cannot attempt to act on his theories, they tend to be some of the most astute around.

But we must be willing to recognize that they are still unproven and keep our minds open to viable alternatives.

It's much in the same way that we address a good deal of psychology. The issue is too important to not address it, but we are still very much operating in the dark.


I don't like religion, and I agree that it is part of a trend which we must end, but individuals being religious aren't the worst thing in regards to socialism

Well, of course it's not the "worst thing", but it is a bad thing and that's a good enough reason to fight it.

[Dean]

I happen to think that Marx was correct in a good deal of his writings, but I fully acknowledge that, for the most part, we can not yet establish the truth one way or another. That doesn't mean that we cannot attempt to act on his theories, they tend to be some of the most astute around.

this basically nullifies the rest of the arguments, save jesus. here you claim to have faith in something that is 'unscientific,' a sentiment I TOTALLY agree with. the point I have been making on Popper's method of science all along is that it, in and of itself, is not capable of making a wholistic worldview. we must put some degree of faith in EVERYTHING we think; popper's science tends to be the easiest to take down because it has sound footing in the sense that there is a recognized way of seeing if something is completely false. Still, one has to question the very method by which things are studied - Polkinghorne wrote in a short book about his belief in god and his scientific research in quantum physics that quantum physics are a religion, becasue they cannot pass Popper's test. Still, we consider quantum physics as reasonable science, but out of faith.

Faith is required for all pseudosciences, such as counselling, christ even taking a car to a mechanic for inspection. will either of the two productive solve my problem, help me see why I am having emotional problems or show that my breaks are bad? Yet we avidly follow these things. You believe in some of marx's 'unscientific' words. Why, if only the holy scientific method can prevail against the advent of the evil theistic/marxist/psychoanalytical front?

If you reread my paper, in one of the earliest paragraphs I explain why science is really just a form of religion - the former being a realistic study of nature, if we take the term "religion" in it's conventional sense. This doesn't uplift the idea of god; in fact, by placing it alongside science, we see what a foolish and asinine thing it really is. IF there is a religion of a man in the sky scaring us into doing good for a hell (never spoken of in the bible, btw) or giving us a mgical land in the sky, or one that claims that there was probably a big bang, black holes probably exist, and that gravitational pull is an almost certain thing, which would any reasonable man choose?

But still, science and religion are just today 2 convenient holes we can throw ideas into, depending on who supports them / what they come from. We have to recognize that sceience and religion are not really different things, both try to explain the world, some without blind faith (as i expect, again, many eastern religions have been, and are in individual cases).

Jesus was protrayed in outright conflicting ways in the new testament between the prophets, because they drew him in their own image, just as god was drawn in some authoritarian man's image. I think theres a lot more implicating that he was good rather than bad in the bible.

Popper's method taken alone would basically destroy the entire idea of a social upheaval, because to make political decisions you must use faith in sociological considerations - whether we want to talk of worker collectives, anarchy, direct democracies, or whatever.

[LSD]

this basically nullifies the rest of the arguments, save jesus. here you claim to have faith in something that is 'unscientific,'

I said nothing of the sort! :angry:

What I said was that I "happen to think that Marx was correct in a good deal of his writings, but I fully acknowledge that, for the most part, we can not yet establish the truth one way or another".

In other words, the evidence is, at present, inconclusive for the most part, but rather convincing in some cases. Accordingly, I do not "believe" in Marxism. I use it in those situations where it is relevent and do so skeptically. And I recognize those areas in which Marxism has solid foundational, albeit as yet inconclusive, evidence in favour or it.

Class analysis, for example, can be objectively verified. I do not "believe" that the proletariat exists, I witness it.

Like with most social sciences, I cannot prove any analysis, but I can indicate probabilites and, again, in my judgment, Marxism is probably valid.

None of this, howevever, is in any way similar to religious adherence. Religion is believe in spite of evidence. Marxism is followed because of evidence.


Faith is required for all pseudosciences, such as counselling, christ even taking a car to a mechanic for inspection. will either of the two productive solve my problem, help me see why I am having emotional problems or show that my breaks are bad?

Yes.

In the former case, objective research has shown that psychological talk therapy is benneficial and does help in resolving emotional problems. In the latter, experience as well as basic deductive reasoning says that a qualified expert will be more helpful than an amateur.

In neither of these cases is "faith" required.


You believe in some of marx's 'unscientific' words. Why, if only the holy scientific method can prevail against the advent of the evil theistic/marxist/psychoanalytical front?

Again, I only accept that Marxist ideas which are scientifically rigorous. At present, our social sciences are not advanced enough for us to prove any of Marx's theories correct, but we can make educated guesses.

Such a guess is not "faith", however, it's just the nature of contemporary social sciences. The important difference being that it's based on reason. People "choose" religions due to indoctrination or emotionalism. Social science determinations, however, are based on evidence and logic.

No, Marx has not been proven, but that does not make him "unscientific", it just makes him unproven. Kind of like string theory, I suppose; or like many psychological theories.

And it is not illogical to operate on unproven theories, not when the issue is of this importance. When it comes to politics, we simply cannot afford to wait for the techniques to be developed. We need to work with the tools we have, even if they have not been fully veted.

Again, it's much like psychology. We, after all, don't really know why most antipsychotics work, but we still use them all the same.

Well, the same is true for Marxism. So far historical materialism and materialist Marxian class analysis have demonstrated themselves to be accurate tools. Whether or not they are based on sound assumptions and whether or not they are the best available is something that we cannot know.

But the fact that we care is what distinguishes us from the religious. To the "faithful", his "faith" is sufficient. He does not care to analyze it. To a materialist, however, the analysis is everything. If a theory if shown to be false, it is discarded. No emotions, no investment.

If that were true for the Christians, we'd have abandoned "Jesus" 1900 years ago! :lol:


But still, science and religion are just today 2 convenient holes we can throw ideas into

Yeah but one reason is based on logic and reason and the other is based on hot air.

Personally, I choose sanity over superstition.

[Name Censored]

You people preach about social justice, and solidarity, yet you cannot practice this yourself.



Go look in the mirror people.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dean+--> (Dean)The reason I praise Jesus is because I feel that he cared for the same things that communists care about, and much of the Bible implicates this.[/b]

Utterly preposterous!

Jesus "cared about" salvation.

Communists "care about" liberation!

There's a big difference!


Phil Ochs expresses similar sentiment in the following from his song, "The Ballad of the Carpenter"

This song was actually written by Scottish folk-singer Ewan MacColl and first recorded as a charming duet with Peggy Seeger.

It is indeed a lovely ballad...but entirely unBiblical.


...but individuals being religious aren't the worst thing in regards to socialism, and can very well be productive members in a communist revolution.

And a three-legged horse could win the Derby...but it's not a bet that any sensible punter would want to make. :lol:


We have to recognize that science and religion are not really different things...

Revelation or rational investigation; what's the difference? :lol:


Name Censored
You people preach about social justice, and solidarity, yet you cannot practice this yourself.

"Preaching" is precisely what we don't do here.

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