Racist Heathens

[RedWhite]

First let me point at that it is my personal belief that a proper Communist society can survive with religious people in it, but that religion should NEVER be involved with politics in any way shape or form.

I am a new Heathen, having jsut come to my ancestor's religion and Gods last December, and as I search the internet I am disgusted with how many filthy and cowardly racists hide their hatred behind my religion. Claiming that our Gods support the supremacy of our race is complete and utter bullshit. Never have I seen anything in the Lore describing anything of the sort. In fact, a quote from Odin, the Allfather, himself,

"I was young once, I travelled alone,
then I found myself going astray,
rich I thought myself when I met someone else,
for man is the joy of man."

This emphasizes the virtue of hospitality, and perhaps implies the way Heathens should treat other races, with respect.

Just a tidbit to point out that Heathens are not racist, but some racist motherfuckers do have the gall to call themselves Heathens.

[Janus]

What exactly is this Heathen religion? You worship the Norse gods?

Anyways, moved to Religion.

[RedWhite]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:15 AM
What exactly is this Heathen religion? You worship the Norse gods?

Anyways, moved to Religion.
http://www.ealdriht.org/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_neopaganism will probably have the best information. And yes, we do worship the same Gods.

A warning, the wikipedia article will no doubt mention folkish and racist Heathens and Asatruar. Folkish Heathens believe that because this is the anicient northern European tradition, that other races should find their own idigenous beliefs, not come to ours. Racists are just that, racist fucks.

[Eleutherios]

So...exactly what evidence convinced you that these gods are real entities?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:02 AM
First let me point at that it is my personal belief that a proper Communist society can survive with religious people in it, but that religion should NEVER be involved with politics in any way shape or form.

Communism is opposed to organised religion, so why would religious people accept a communist society? We wouldn't accept living in a theocracy. Therefore a Communist society must be as secular as possible.

[RedWhite]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 07:14 AM
So...exactly what evidence convinced you that these gods are real entities?
What busines is it of yours? You have every right to be atheists, jsut as much as I have a right to be religious.

I never mentioned theocracy. I'm a religious person, and I accept communist theory because it lacks the flaws of capitalism. I understand that communism doesnt exactly agree with religion, but it sure as hell couldn't stop anyone from practicing it short of genocide.

Must we start a fight over this? I fail to see the point in it. Isn't the left wing the one more full of open-minded people?

[Janus]

but it sure as hell couldn't stop anyone from practicing it short of genocide.
No one plans to use force.

People here were just questioning why you took up neopaganism.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by RedWhite+Aug 2 2006, 03:36 PM--> (RedWhite @ Aug 2 2006, 03:36 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 07:14 AM
So...exactly what evidence convinced you that these gods are real entities?
What busines is it of yours? You have every right to be atheists, jsut as much as I have a right to be religious. [/b]
I never said you don't have a right to believe whatever you want to believe. What, I can't ask you why you believe in something? I'm just curious.

If you can't provide a logical explanation for why you think something is true when somebody asks, you desperately need to reevaluate it.

[RedWhite]

I apologise, I mistook your question for hostility.

I don't and shouldn't have to prove the existence of my Gods to anyone. I know because I have felt Them and spoken to Them in my prayers. That is enough for me. Think and say what you will, I will not faulter.

[colonelguppy]

norse mythology is easily the coolest form of religion. still batshit crazy though.

[Eleutherios]

Of course you don't have to prove the existence of your gods, but you shouldn't expect me to take your ideas seriously if you don't.

You are aware that people claim to have felt all sorts of deities in their prayers, right? Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, etc. In fact, I even "felt" Yahweh myself in my younger days when I used to be a Christian and occasionally prayed. But then I found out it was just a subjective interpretation of a warm fuzzy feeling that was influenced by the conceptions of Yahweh that I got from other people. I can get that same warm fuzzy feeling by listening to Pink Floyd by myself in a dark room (especially if I'm high).

What made you pray to these gods in the first place, and how did they reveal their identities to you so clearly? How are you so sure that you didn't pick up on the Hindu or Shinto or ancient Egyptian gods?

Isn't the left wing the one more full of open-minded people?

Think and say what you will, I will not faulter.
"I believe this wholeheartedly and nobody can possibly ever convince me otherwise!" Some open-mindedness you've got there, comrade. At least I'm willing to be convinced of the existence of gods, provided someone gives me compelling enough evidence and argument. I just haven't seen a good reason why anybody should take your deities any more seriously than the deities of any other religion.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:36 PM
What busines is it of yours? You have every right to be atheists, jsut as much as I have a right to be religious.
you sure as hell do have a right to be religious.. no need for any outbursts on that point.

however, someone did ask a very legitimate question, from a very logical perspective. nothing wrong with that, is there? if you don't want to answer it, that's fine, but we would still be very curious as to what motivates your silence.

i think it's a very reasonable request.


edit: ahh, i see your other post now. i, too, used to talk to god back in my christian days, and probably experienced what you're experiencing now, with the prayers and mystical feelings. it wasn't very convincing, though, since everybody feels some kind of metaphysical revelation every now and then, a kind of omnipotence that keeps them from all harm. back then, i would classify it as a religious epiphany.. today, whenever i have those kinds of feelings, i simply ascribe it to a rather joyful ignorance and prejudice. that doesn't mean i don't enjoy it, of course.. i enjoy it very much. i simply don't think it's reasonable, however, to mistake such metaphysical gushes for concrete fact.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I don't and shouldn't have to prove the existence of my Gods to anyone.

Nor could you if you wanted to.


I know because I have felt Them and spoken to Them in my prayers.

We've got medication for that kind of stuff.


I understand that communism doesnt exactly agree with religion, but it sure as hell couldn't stop anyone from practicing it short of genocide.

Marxist communism is inherently opposed to religion. And yes, we will suppress organized religion.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:12 PM
Marxist communism is inherently opposed to religion. And yes, we will suppress organized religion.
why do communists feel the need to do that? does religion weaken the will to be subsurvient to the state in the people? or are collectivists just opposed to freedom of association in general?

[Eleutherios]

Right, in our quest for a classless, stateless society we want people to be as subservient to the state as possible. :rolleyes:

I would suggest reading this thread if you want to find out why communism and religion are incompatible:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6238

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:29 PM
Right, in our quest for a classless, stateless society we want people to be as subservient to the state as possible. :rolleyes:

I would suggest reading this thread if you want to find out why communism and religion are incompatible:
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6238
well then how exactly do you plan on "supressing" religion? using coercive force? oh wait only a ruling entity has that.

and after you answer that, we can get back to the motive for doing all of this.

[Janus]

No one plans on suppressing it. In a revolutionary society, religion will be obsolete.

[Eleutherios]

Coercive force isn't the only way to suppress harmful ideas. Proper education of children, propaganda and peer pressure can do wonders. But if the religionists start shooting at us in the revolution (and if history is anything to go by, they will, since organized religion almost always sides with the interests of the ruling class), then don't expect us to not defend ourselves.

You don't have to shoot every racist on earth and burn all racist books in order to suppress racism. Why should religion be any different?

[southernmissfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:45 PM
No one plans on suppressing it. In a revolutionary society, religion will be obsolete.
Indeed. Revolution will almost certainly not occur until various backwards, precapitalist mindests such as racism, religion, etc., are minimized to the point of irrelevancy. Certainly, whether it's been through accidents of history or generally well-intentioned but confused people, religion has contributed some "positive" things. But these positive contributions are vastly outweighed not just by the long, long list of atrocities throughout history, but by the very nature of the irrational, superstitious line of thinking it promotes.

My hope is that 50 years from now, the seriously religious will be looked upon as we look upon ufo nuts now. Or maybe sent to psychiatrists. Sure, there will always be silly things like that, just as there will always be racist-type behavior as long as we look different, but it can be trivialized to the point of insignificance and only a very small nutty minority. Science and the passing of time has done a lot in this respect already. As science, and common knowledge of science advances, religion will continue to decline. The number of athiests, agnostics, and nonbelievers is vastly increasing around the world. It's no surprise that we have these nasty fundamentalists that keep getting nastier: they know they're fucked in the long run. I say good riddance. But I don't think it will just naturally fade away. Marx was probably overly optimistic. Certainly the passing of time has done a lot towards weakening religion, and it will continue to do so. But make no mistake about it, religion will not go away without a fight. I think we can see that today, in all parts of the world. Which is why leftists of all types must fight to promote rational thinking.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:51 PM
Coercive force isn't the only way to suppress harmful ideas. Proper education of children, propaganda and peer pressure can do wonders. But if the religionists start shooting at us in the revolution (and if history is anything to go by, they will, since organized religion almost always sides with the interests of the ruling class), then don't expect us to not defend ourselves.

You don't have to shoot every racist on earth and burn all racist books in order to suppress racism. Why should religion be any different?
fair enough, suppression had a little bit of a "gulag" connotation to it.

although i don't really agree with comparing religion to racism, or that its even harmful. do i think its stupid? yeah. harmful? hardly, enless of course you are trying to get people to focus on something more earthly, like overthrowing society.... which i suppose people here are.

although i don't know if religous people would really have to shoot at you, i'm sure there are plenty of others who would ;)

[Janus]

although i don't really agree with comparing religion to racism, or that its even harmful
Religion has been used to justify certain racist practices such as slavery. As for harmful, tell that to the countless who have died in religious conflicts.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:10 PM

although i don't really agree with comparing religion to racism, or that its even harmful
Religion has been used to justify certain racist practices such as slavery. As for harmful, tell that to the countless who have died in religious conflicts.
sounds alot like people being stupid/greedy, not anything caused by religion

do you really think that peoples desire to make war or enslave was purely created by their religous beliefs, or that this desire will go away because they have no religion?

[Eleutherios]

No, religion is not the sole cause of slavery or warfare, but then again neither is racism. That doesn't mean it hasn't had a significant influence in promoting such things though. If everybody was an atheist, that wouldn't necessarily wipe out all slavery and warfare, but it would do wonders in reducing the justification for such things. Just imagine where the conflict in the Middle East or Kashmir or Northern Ireland would be tomorrow if they all suddenly became atheist rationalists.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:15 AM
What exactly is this Heathen religion? You worship the Norse gods?

Anyways, moved to Religion.
Hm. A bit of this, a bit of that.

There are at least two ways in which people come to identify as "heathen" or similar.

A few are born in traditional scandinavian communities, and learn the folk traditions. As they age, they piece together norse history with their own experiences, and quietly begin to favour the norse part of their heritage over the christian part. There's more of them than most official statistics would indicate; heathen charms worn around the neck are a common sight even in the big city. In my experience, it's a good, down-to-earth "bottom-up", working day to day rule of life. Regrettably, it only makes complete sense in the context of the scarce, isolated subsistence farms of preindustrial scandinavia.

Others, mostly "city folk" and foreigners, come from a mixed background of european culture and popular "viking warrior" myths. They walk much the same path as the natives, but their version of the religion has a somewhat different flavour, due to less initial exposure to the "mother cultures".

As one who still feels intensely attached to "my" heritage, the latter group tended to annoy me. A lot. But I've come to realize their intentions are good, and though some of them come up with the most harebrained ideas, their movements, organizations and fora regularily produce some amazing people.

Then there's the racists, which still makes me bite trough spoons. They're generally middle class burghers, and stand out by their total and complete ignorance of history in general and northern european indigenous cultures in particular. Despite this, they're as convinced as any tall-haired fundie that they have found the Truth by mucking about with obscure 19th century nationalist propaganda in their spare time. Pompous fuckwits.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:51 PM
Coercive force isn't the only way to suppress harmful ideas. Proper education of children, propaganda and peer pressure can do wonders. (...)
Remember that "proper" education, propaganda, and peer pressure can be a way of supressing all kinds of ideas. Guns and fire is not the only means of using coercive force; one of the most powerful coercive forces in use today is the systematic conditioning of the subjects into governing themselves according to the wishes of those in power.

[violencia.Proletariat]

why do communists feel the need to do that?

Because organized religion is reactionary and a threat to the revolution.


does religion weaken the will to be subsurvient to the state in the people?

What state? I'm an anarchist.


well then how exactly do you plan on "supressing" religion?

By keeping religious gatherings in the home. There will be no churches/mosques/etc.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:23 PM
No, religion is not the sole cause of slavery or warfare, but then again neither is racism. That doesn't mean it hasn't had a significant influence in promoting such things though. If everybody was an atheist, that wouldn't necessarily wipe out all slavery and warfare, but it would do wonders in reducing the justification for such things. Just imagine where the conflict in the Middle East or Kashmir or Northern Ireland would be tomorrow if they all suddenly became atheist rationalists.
they'd probably just find something else to isolate themselves into groups and then fight about. abolishing religion doesn't settle the root cause of all wars, which is greed and selfishness. people will always want more, no idealogical campaign will change that, and people certainly don't need a religion to act on their greed.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:31 PM

why do communists feel the need to do that?

Because organized religion is reactionary and a threat to the revolution.


does religion weaken the will to be subsurvient to the state in the people?

What state? I'm an anarchist.


well then how exactly do you plan on "supressing" religion?

By keeping religious gatherings in the home. There will be no churches/mosques/etc.
something here doesn't quite add up...

[southernmissfan]

You seem to ignore the fundamentally reactionary nature of religion and chalk up bad things connected to it to other aspects of "human nature".

[Epoche]

I hear ya, RedWhite.

What ever happened to hating people for their deeds rather than their color?

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:31 PM
(...)Because organized religion is reactionary and a threat to the revolution.
Hm. Depends on the organization. Which is why I have a soft spot for heathenry. The authentic religion is completely interwoven with daily life.

One big problem with religion is as you point out that it demands a place in the public sphere - all separations between private an public are extremely blurry, so the existence of religion necessitates allowing a place for it both in public and private. But with organized - and particularily hierarchical - religion, this adds another player in the power game, one which is prone to fuck things up beyond imagination. But it seems to me that indigenous religions are generally put together in a different way, one reminiscent of anarchist schemes.

Must all religion be reactionary and earn our enmity, or is there a place for anarchic religions in our lives? I hope so, because diversity in all aspects of our association is an asset we can't afford to give up. It's monoculture that's killing the people of the world now, and it's monoculture that kills revolutions again and again.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 04:46 PM
You seem to ignore the fundamentally reactionary nature of religion and chalk up bad things connected to it to other aspects of "human nature".
religion isn't "fundemantally reacitonary", although it can be. when it is, what do think is the cause of its reacitonary action? is it the religion itself, or is it the people?

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:53 PM
(...) is it the religion itself, or is it the people?
Is there such a thing as a "religion in itself"? The selection of Sole Eternal Truths which the guys in the funny hats lay claim to are a little hard to blame for anything, seeing as none of the texts are in anything resembling agreement. And how do you blame an abstract concept for real events, anyway? You can't put "decisiveness" or "cowardlyness" on trial, so why, say "hinduism"?

Which leaves the people in general and the aformentioned hat-wearers in particular as prime suspects for all the shit being spread in the name of religions.

[southernmissfan]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Aug 2 2006, 09:53 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Aug 2 2006, 09:53 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 04:46 PM
You seem to ignore the fundamentally reactionary nature of religion and chalk up bad things connected to it to other aspects of "human nature".
religion isn't "fundemantally reacitonary", although it can be. [/b]
Yes, it is on many levels. First, it is simply not true. Second, reactionary beliefs and activities are endorsed, even demanded, in the various "holy books". Third, any morals or ethics you could possibly draw from them are often twisted and simply not applicable for a modern, progressive world. Fourth, it has been, is, and will most certainly be both an obstacle to class consciousness and used as a tool of the ruling class when beneficial.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Idola Mentis+Aug 2 2006, 05:09 PM--> (Idola Mentis @ Aug 2 2006, 05:09 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 09:53 PM
(...) is it the religion itself, or is it the people?
Is there such a thing as a "religion in itself"? The selection of Sole Eternal Truths which the guys in the funny hats lay claim to are a little hard to blame for anything, seeing as none of the texts are in anything resembling agreement. And how do you blame an abstract concept for real events, anyway? You can't put "decisiveness" or "cowardlyness" on trial, so why, say "hinduism"?

Which leaves the people in general and the aformentioned hat-wearers in particular as prime suspects for all the shit being spread in the name of religions. [/b]
ok fine "does the belief system itself cause people to be reactionary, or will the people be like that anyways?", thats a better way to phrase it.

[Janus]

sounds alot like people being stupid/greedy, not anything caused by religion
The Inquisition, the wars of religion,etc. had nothing to do with religion?


do you really think that peoples desire to make war or enslave was purely created by their religous beliefs, or that this desire will go away because they have no religion?
They will go away when the material conditions have changed.

I'm simply stating that religion has in fact caused a lot of harm in this world by causing people to abandon their rational.

[colonelguppy]

Yes, it is on many levels. First, it is simply not true

yeah that doesn't really have anyhting to do with it being reactionary


Second, reactionary beliefs and activities are endorsed, even demanded, in the various "holy books"

i always though of them as progressive for trying to bring about change in society.


Third, any morals or ethics you could possibly draw from them are often twisted and simply not applicable for a modern, progressive world.

morals like not killing or hurting people? either way, i don't see what this has to do with religion being fundementally reactionary, and i'm not even to sure if you know what reactionary means.


Fourth, it has been, is, and will most certainly be both an obstacle to class consciousness and used as a tool of the ruling class when beneficial.

neither of which really qualify as reactionary.

look, in order for something to be truely considered reactionary, it has to actively oppose what the progressives want, and work to regress in the opposite direction. sure, religions everywhere have done this, but is it the norm? no. most religions people and churches are content to stay to themselves, so to blanket label something as inherently reactionary is ridiculous. further more, do you think that people would oppose progressives any less without religion? i'm an atheist and i still would fight against a collectivist revolution.

[colonelguppy]

The Inquisition, the wars of religion,etc. had nothing to do with religion?

religion was more of a cover for occurances like that. they were power plays, its not like there not being religion would stop similiar things from happening.


They will go away when the material conditions have changed.

I'm simply stating that religion has in fact caused a lot of harm in this world by causing people to abandon their rational.

material conditions have changed? people will always want more.

and people don't need religion to abandon their rational.

[Janus]

religion was more of a cover for occurances like that. they were power plays, its not like there not being religion would stop similiar things from happening.
Not really. In some instances, people were acting in their own convictions.


and people don't need religion to abandon their rational.
But it sure helps.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:03 PM

religion was more of a cover for occurances like that. they were power plays, its not like there not being religion would stop similiar things from happening.
Not really. In some instances, people were acting in their own convictions.


and people don't need religion to abandon their rational.
But it sure helps.
i can agree with that.

[southernmissfan]

Yes, it is on many levels. First, it is simply not true

yeah that doesn't really have anyhting to do with it being reactionary

Yes, when people abadon rational thinking it is most certainly reactionary.



Second, reactionary beliefs and activities are endorsed, even demanded, in the various "holy books"

i always though of them as progressive for trying to bring about change in society.

Please, enlighten me on all of this progress. Sure, there have been some "progressive" religious people/groups, whether by accidents of history or just well-intentioned but generally confused people. But these people were often clearly going against their very own holy book and religious leadership, and are a very small minority in the grand scheme of things. These positive contributions are vastly outweighed not just by the long, long list of atrocities throughout history, but by the very nature of the irrational, superstitious line of thinking it promotes. And just wonder what they could have done without all of that bullshit in their heads.



Third, any morals or ethics you could possibly draw from them are often twisted and simply not applicable for a modern, progressive world.

morals like not killing or hurting people? either way, i don't see what this has to do with religion being fundementally reactionary, and i'm not even to sure if you know what reactionary means.

Not hurting or killing people is a standard moral amongst all people, regardless of religion. It's also common sense. But its largely irrelevant where religion is concerned, because murder and genocide is often in, and commanded in various holy books (Bible, Quran, etc.), besides being advocated and carried out by the religious and their leadership every day. The "morals" or "ethics" of the bible and other such books may have been average for their time-thousands of years ago-but in a modern world where we are searching for progress it is disgusting, brutal, and obsolete. Look at what religious morals really are. In essence, they are simply an attempt to please "god", avoid divine punishment, and recieve divine reward (either here, in the "afterlife", or both). Often these "morals" teach that me and you, "nonbelievers", must be converted (by force if necessary). Sometimes these "morals" mean that the nonbelievers must be oppressed, even executed. Sometimes these "morals" mean that "witches" must be burned at the stake.



Fourth, it has been, is, and will most certainly be both an obstacle to class consciousness and used as a tool of the ruling class when beneficial.

neither of which really qualify as reactionary.

look, in order for something to be truely considered reactionary, it has to actively oppose what the progressives want, and work to regress in the opposite direction. sure, religions everywhere have done this, but is it the norm? no. most religions people and churches are content to stay to themselves, so to blanket label something as inherently reactionary is ridiculous. further more, do you think that people would oppose progressives any less without religion? i'm an atheist and i still would fight against a collectivist revolution.

And now you just babble and ignore historical reality. Sorry, but seldom has religion ever been at the helm of anything progressive (except maybe by accident), and religion almost always sides with the ruling class against the people and against change.

[southernmissfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 11:00 PM
and people don't need religion to abandon their rational.
But they need to abandon rational thinking to have religion.

[colonelguppy]

what does "reactionary" mean to you?

[southernmissfan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 12:35 AM
what does "reactionary" mean to you?
Opposing progress and/or siding with the ruling class.

[colonelguppy]

you can't just oppose progress to be a reactionary, that would make you conservative. you have to actively seek regression to past times in the face of progress to be considered a true reactionary. you're misusing the word in several contexts.

now, can they be reactionary? yes, and they have been. but are religions fundementaly reacitonary? no.

[southernmissfan]

I have explained why religion is fundamentally reactionary. Religion opposes progress, demands its followers to actively oppose it and to impose their brand of reactionary fairy tales. Any religious person who acts for progress does so by accident or because they are confused or are simply disobeying their religion.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 05:38 PM



something here doesn't quite add up...

This of course is theoretically the position the proletariat will be under. It's enforced by the community, not by a group.


Is there such a thing as a "religion in itself"? The selection of Sole Eternal Truths which the guys in the funny hats lay claim to are a little hard to blame for anything, seeing as none of the texts are in anything resembling agreement. And how do you blame an abstract concept for real events, anyway? You can't put "decisiveness" or "cowardlyness" on trial, so why, say "hinduism"?

You have the texts and traditions of the religion, people follow these texts and traditions and perpetuate them. Religion for the most part is hierarchy, something that we wish to abolish.


Which leaves the people in general and the aformentioned hat-wearers in particular as prime suspects for all the shit being spread in the name of religions.

Whatever insignificant 10 member church you find on google is not whats in question here. The major religions (as in the churches) have the power to influence society. These little "innocent" religions would do the same if they had a chance. I'm sure all the first christians seemed "innocent" enough, look how that turned out.

[Eleutherios]

Religion is inherently reactionary because it compels people to follow moral codes invented by people who are long dead and who held outdated notions about the universe. I've yet to see a single sect of Christianity or Judaism, for instance, which edits its Bible to reflect the fact that we no longer espouse slavery.

Religions all around the world are actively trying to undo social progress, for instance in areas like gender equality, sexual freedom and the secularization of public affairs. Not that every single religious person is trying to undo social progress, but the more seriously one takes one's religion and holy texts, the more likely one is to be reactionary, and the more one marginalizes the role of religion in one's life the more likely one is to support further progress. It is no wonder then that large organized groups of deeply religious people like the Catholic Church, al-Qaeda, and the Church of Scientology always turn out to have very reactionary ideals.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:18 PM
I have explained why religion is fundamentally reactionary. Religion opposes progress, demands its followers to actively oppose it and to impose their brand of reactionary fairy tales. Any religious person who acts for progress does so by accident or because they are confused or are simply disobeying their religion.
and i already explained why the majority of religous people do not qualify as reactionaries

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:39 PM

something here doesn't quite add up...

This of course is theoretically the position the proletariat will be under. It's enforced by the community, not by a group.
this community sure does sound an awful lot like a ruling group.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Aug 3 2006, 01:51 AM--> (colonelguppy @ Aug 3 2006, 01:51 AM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 09:39 PM

something here doesn't quite add up...

This of course is theoretically the position the proletariat will be under. It's enforced by the community, not by a group.
this community sure does sound an awful lot like a ruling group. [/b]
...Thats kind of the point of communism

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by violencia.Proletariat+Aug 3 2006, 11:46 AM--> (violencia.Proletariat @ Aug 3 2006, 11:46 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 01:51 AM

[email protected] 2 2006, 09:39 PM

something here doesn't quite add up...

This of course is theoretically the position the proletariat will be under. It's enforced by the community, not by a group.
this community sure does sound an awful lot like a ruling group.
...Thats kind of the point of communism [/b]
wait i thought you were an anarchist

[Janus]

wait i thought you were an anarchist
Anarchists also work towards communism; it's just that their methods are different.

[colonelguppy]

ok so really they don't don't always want no government, just a different type of government. maybe they should find a new word.

[Janus]

just a different type of government
The people will be the "government".


maybe they should find a new word.
You're right in saying that there is a certain stigma to the word communism.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:17 PM
why do communists feel the need to do that? does religion weaken the will to be subsurvient to the state in the people? or are collectivists just opposed to freedom of association in general?
i'll answer your question by copying & pasting a post i wrote before.

it was in response to a statement along the lines of,

"lenin supported religion."

most of it is relevant to your question:



--



you cannot make arguments that appeal to authority, as if lenin's opinion on the matter is some sort of tragic finalization. while i may, to an extent, respect lenin, i don't at all admire him, nor do i admire the bolshevik coup.

we are all sensible people, and we're entitled to dissent.. not only are we entitled to dissent, but we should feel it a certain duty. whatever i disagree about with lenin (which is most things), i throw out. same goes for marx. i shouldn't be compelled to listen on authority, but on argument. that makes sense. my dislike for religion is not based on any specific people's 'requirements' of me.. it's based on argument. i don't think it wise for parents to slap their children with religion before they can even legitimately understand anything about the real world. some kids grow up afraid of sex and alcohol, afraid of love and afraid of going out with friends. they're even afraid to contradict their parents' hostility and mis-treatment. personally, i consider such superstitious fright a tragedy.. to have a teenager that's afraid to be a human being for his parents' sake is simply criminal.

i wouldn't care about religion if it didn't have real-world consequences, but that's simply not the case. parents that intentionally teach their kids bullshit about the real world, teach their kids to, for example, be scared of a yellow plastic bag, or tremble at the sight of a piece of carton, would be considered psychologically abusive. i don't see the situation being any different with religion, except for the things they wish to be our points of fright. instead of cardboard boxes, you have sex being called a taboo, which, in the scheme of things, is just as physically and un-intentionally meaningless as that cardboard box. sure, it can have some meaning, but that's not my business, nor the parents' business, to decide for the kid.

at a certain age, i don't care what people believe. want to worship at the altar of your favorite beanie baby? go ahead. but, to fuck a kid up so badly as to always have him believe that the beanie baby will protect him, or chop his dick off for bad behavior, is a little sick, at best, and maliciously criminal at worst.

[RedWhite]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:12 PM

I don't and shouldn't have to prove the existence of my Gods to anyone.

Nor could you if you wanted to.


I know because I have felt Them and spoken to Them in my prayers.

We've got medication for that kind of stuff.


I understand that communism doesnt exactly agree with religion, but it sure as hell couldn't stop anyone from practicing it short of genocide.

Marxist communism is inherently opposed to religion. And yes, we will suppress organized religion.
Doesn't mean I can't still practice mine. I'm solitary right now but plan on finding more Heathens in the future to practice and commune with. Even if a communist government were to coem to us to try and stop us from practicing, we'd never stop. People will never give up religion completely.

[RedWhite]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 09:31 PM

well then how exactly do you plan on "supressing" religion?

By keeping religious gatherings in the home. There will be no churches/mosques/etc.
Well, we dont have churches. So.. yeah I guess thats fine. We just gather to celebrate the Holy Tides and hold Blot (pronounced "bloat") and Symbel.

[GoRiLLaZ]

must you be white to be a heathen?
other races can't be heathens? just asking

[Janus]

must you be white to be a heathen?
other races can't be heathens? just asking
No. Paganism is present in many different countries and areas.

[Idola Mentis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:56 PM
must you be white to be a heathen?
other races can't be heathens? just asking
Depends on what vannabe vijking you ask. Attitudes are drawn from all the various alternative movements, so you get the mad-eyed academics, the crystal fondlers, the nude dancers and the spiritual bikers tripping over each other's feet. They never agree, though the discussions are interesting.

As a theological question, it can pass as an interesting catalyst for thought. The question usually comes down to identity, who gets to define it, what it is based on, what it implies etc. The complexity of the debate among believers vary a great deal, and even the debate on such issues in larger society tends to consider "western" cultures as one monolithic piece set apart from all other cultures. Thus questions specifically along these lines hasn't caught much attention.

The short answer: Skin colour shouldn't have anything to do with it. Sadly, it very often does.

The long answer:

The question of the legitimacy of identifying as "heathen" is a tricky business. Taking "heathen" to mean someone practicing some aspect of the native religions of scandinavia, we immediately hit a problem: Native religions are commonly considered the "intellectual property" morally - or even legally - of members of the originating culture. Native Americans and other remnants of preindustrial cultures have been making a lot of noise over the appropriation and misuse of their spirituality. They contend that only members of their ethnic groups are entitled to practice *their* spirituality. Are european spiritualities any different? If they aren't, I believe the following two points must be very real concerns for anyone who wants to be a heathen.

For heathenry, the "native property" approach seems to limit membership much further than just white people. It limits it to ethnic norse, or at least germanics. However, most native religions have their own ways of defining group membership, and they rarely have anything to do with scientific taxonomies or skin colour, and everything to do with character, blood and business relations, and initation rituals.

Now, assuming we can overcome any qualms about identifying as something we do not have a moral right to identify as, there's the question of capability. Taking on an alien culture and learning it well enough to understand or effectively participate in something as intimate and complicated as its spiritual life is not done in three hours with a "Learn the Ancient Secrets of the Runes" manual. A lot of new heathens are bound to end up in the same box as the people who buy a cheap book with a dreamcatcher included, suddenly decide to be "indian" and have a "spirit animal". I'm not saying it can't be done, but that it takes *a lot* of effort.

Both problems are not impossible to overcome, but since I haven't met anyone from outside scandinavia who had even considered them or tried to find a real solution to them, I have some serious doubts about the legitimacy of many heathens out there. Note that I'm not questioning the fact of their faith, just the nature of what they are putting their faith in.

Since most neo-heathen groups are completely ignorant of traditional norse definitions of clan and family membership, let alone attitudes to mixed heritage and adoption rituals, they are more or less "free" to set their own boundaries. And so they do, along the modern lines of "right skin colour".

In general, people still think of race as a property determined by biology, and usually make the mistake of seeing biology as a direct function of genes. Unfortunately, genes have been falsified and popularized as the "cause" of a large number of cultural properties in human beings. The short circquit to thinking that "race" is a determining factor in culture and thought is inevitably made by some people. It's even easier to make that short cirquit if you've written yourself into some epic lifestory of being among the last defenders of a dying warrior culture. A society of such people can't avoid attracting even more people with a faulty logic switch.