Bigotry against religion

[Enragé]

I just read a thread in the CC, and there they were, those who had to adhere to a certain standard of theoretical proficiency before being admitted into the CC, displaying such mindless, unfounded bigotry against religion, islam especially.

Love Underground supports throwing a pigs head into a mosque, all TAT apparently can do is prance around yelling "I HATE ISLAM! IM SUCH A BIGOT! ADORE ME!"

Get a fucking reality check.

If all you can say, if all you indeed say is "religion = stuped" and "your prophet is a fucking pedohphile", what do you think that will accomplish?
It will push people into the defensive, do you think you will get many people over to our side, to develop class consciousness and to liberate themselves if the first thing you tell them is "Everything you've ever believed in is so fucking stupid, and the one you've been brought up to worship is a murderous pedophile, you stupid fuck"?

Ofcourse not! It will push people into the defensive, it will make them hate everything we stand for, the arrogance how we put forth our ideas.

Liberation can only be done by the person who needs to be liberated, in the same way the working class can only free itself, we need to stimulate the desire to be free, we need to rationally, calmly explain why religion is wrong, why its oppressive, why its baseless.
Screaming "I HATES ISLAM" accomplishes only the alienation of a large part of the working class from the movement, allowing muslims into the movement and discussing with them in a rational, calm way why what they believe is superstition, letting them come to the conclusion that islam is nonsense, that is what needs to be done, that is the only way we are ever going to build a movement large enough to tackle the bourgeoisie

cuz face it, if "People who believe in god and are apart of an organised religion are enemies!" (-TAT) is indeed true, our struggle is doomed to failure since the majority of the world, the majority of the oppressed, the poor, the working class and its allies, are part of an organised religion.
The superstition is the problem, not the people who adhere to it.

But, TAT, if you want to make an enemy out of the vast majority of the world
go right ahead
i just hope the left as a whole will never stray to that inherently divisive, counterrevolutionary path.


---
dont put this in the religion subforum thingie, i want this to be a discussion amongst leftists

[Okocim]

Religion is bad, I agree entirely with that view, and after the revolution I hope it disappears from the world for good. However for now let us bear this in mind:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm

Lenin:

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen’s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated.

and most importantly:


It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

Lenin had it exactly right here. I find it annoying and sectarian when communists outright refuse to work with religious people. So long as they do not act upon their more reactionary backwards views in their religion (such as certain religions views on the role of women or on homosexuals) then I see no problem in standing alongside them. We can worry about breaking down their religious ideas once we've stopped the steady stream of propaganda currently indoctrinating people. However, if for whatever reason this religious person acts against us with regards to, for example, women or homosexuals, and acts on the backwards aspects of their religion then I'd happily kick him/her out of the party and refuse to stand alongside them. But to outright refuse in the first place is, in my mind, harmful to the movement as a whole.

[Enragé]

Indeed

i have always liked Lenin regarding this issue.
One of the first things i read by him.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I agree with NewKindOfSoldier.

According to Secularization Theory we want to get every religion within society and not exclude them.

This way each religion will slowly lose any importance.

Its not really a concern for socialists who live in secular societies, religion will always decline.

People dont even take religion seriously. In the 2001 UK cencus over 300,000 people put Jedi down as their religion. Thats 0.7 % of the population!

Hindu religion only made up 1% of the population.

Judaism only got 0.5%.


So, while we should continue to highlight the bullshit they say, we should not do anything to push them away.

[Enragé]

i specifically asked for this to remain in the discrimination forum , is that too much to ask?

[loveme4whoiam]

People dont even take religion seriously. In the 2001 UK cencus over 300,000 people put Jedi down as their religion. Thats 0.7 % of the population!
... Guilty :blush:

I thank Jebus daily for the fact that the UK is becoming secularised. Unfortunately, I've just started going to university in the heartland of British Christianity - its not all that obvious except whenever they put on a recruitment tent right underneath my godamn window!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Two words: Water balloons.

[loveme4whoiam]

Nice :D I stole their food and got thrown out for preaching satanism. Petty I know, but so damn fun.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm in favor of excluding all religious individuals from revolutionary organization. Religion is inherently reactionary and spreads reactionary ideals like a virus. No religious person can be trusted to work rationally within a leftist organizational structure. Islam is an especially vile religion. Half the reason Islamists want to adopt revolutionary politics is a strong opposition to anti-Islamist philosophy in the West. They want to side with anything that will further the Islamist cause. Once the imperialists are gone, they will be sending the atheists to their deathbeds.

I will not trust someone who is psychological unstable and analyzes the world from an illogical framework to work alongside me for mutual benefit. Religion is not just instrumentally reactionary. It is intrinsically reactionary.

[Enragé]

I'm in favor of excluding all religious individuals from revolutionary organization.

thereby alienating the vast majority of the world's working class from (organised) class struggle, therefore depriving them of any possibility of developing class consciousness and actually encouraging them to keep their minds closed and their eyes to the skies while they are robbed blind by the capitalists.


Islam is an especially vile religion

no its not
all religions suck equally

Islam has its good parts, as does any religion, though ofcourse the bad prevails


Half the reason Islamists want to adopt revolutionary politics is a strong opposition to anti-Islamist philosophy in the West

Islamists want the west out of the middle east

well all i can say is "Amen" to that.


It is intrinsically reactionary

then try to discuss with people, debate with them, show them that it is, and above all involve them in revolutionary practice so that they can see with their own eyes it is bullshit.

That beats the hell out of saying "Fuck off, you're stupid"

if you actually want to see a change in this fucked up world that is


Proudly Sectarian

ah i see


Anarcho-Communist

way to disgrace anarchocommunism.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What a bunch of bullshit. Oh, your a rapist are you, Johnny? Well rape is a horrendous act, but, since we need you to accomplish our goal, we will let you continue raping people. Nice...

Islam is worse than Christianity. It's more reactionary in its views, at least when it comes to modern interpretations, and is, therefore, worse. Again, Islamists will help us defeat imperialism. However, if we do nothing to eliminate religious influence, they will help us attain a victory and then stab us in the back.

Religion does not deserve a "debate." That implies equal footing. I will not listen to theists try and convince me. They need to be constantly harassed into disowning their beliefs or forcibly sent to recieve psychological help. Period.

Personal attacks, eh? Well, I see you are reactionary enough to believe in the concept of "disgrace." Notice it has the word "grace" in it. And yes, I am sectarian ... though I only use the word proud for emphasis. Really, though, if I am expressing views contrary to the interests of an anarcho-communist ideology, correct me. Don't spout nonsense about "disgrace."

[Rollo]

80% of religion is based on sexist, racist, and homophobic laws written MILLIONS of years ago. Christinity ( except mormons ) have had there religion disproven through the darwiun finches and dinosaurs.

[Enragé]

Oh, your a rapist are you, Johnny? Well rape is a horrendous act, but, since we need you to accomplish our goal, we will let you continue raping people

How is someone who believes in god raping someone else?

Look im not talking about Imams and priests here, but simply churchgoers and the like.


Islam is worse than Christianity. It's more reactionary in its views, at least when it comes to modern interpretations, and is, therefore, worse

Actually the letter of Islam is more progressive than the letter of Christianity
however, since christianity is pre-dominant in a more secular and prosperous world, christians themselves are generally more progressive, whereas islam is predominant in nations who are half stuck in feudalism, and usually poor as fuck.

material cirumstances luv.


Religion does not deserve a "debate." That implies equal footing. I will not listen to theists try and convince me. They need to be constantly harassed into disowning their beliefs or forcibly sent to recieve psychological help. Period.


"STOP BELIEVING IN GOD YOU MORON! STOP BELIEVING! IDIOT! BASTARD! REACTIONARY!"

yah
you'll convince alot of people :rolleyes:

If you do that people will cut themselves off from anything you say, anything you do, anything you believe.



Really, though, if I am expressing views contrary to the interests of an anarcho-communist ideology, correct me

Anarchocommunism is based on the idea that each is free to do and believe whatever they please as long as that doesnt in the process harm another.
Simply screaming "STOP BELIEVING YOU SHIT!" accomplishes nothing and is indeed contrary to the basic tenets of anarchocommunism.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

How is someone who believes in god inherently harming other people. I am currently unsure. I am working on an argument to suggest as such, and I don't want to present random theories. For the sake of easiness, just take it as what I believe.

I disagree that the letter of Islam is more progressive, but that is irrelevant. Obviously each religion isn't identical so one is more reactionary than the other.

By harassing I mean using logic accompanied by belittling a person for hold such religious views. Circumstances are everything. Whether belittling works on the average person on the street is debatable. It can certainly work on someone you are guaranteed contact with on a regular basis - coworker, friend, et cetera.

Anarcho-communism says people should be allowed to do whatever they want assuming it doesn't harm others. I am saying religion does harm others. It causes them to do things that harm others. Sure, we can just eliminate the things they do that harm others. However, it is in eliminating those things where religion gets destroyed in the process.

[Enragé]

How is someone who believes in god inherently harming other people. I am currently unsure. I am working on an argument to suggest as such, and I don't want to present random theories. For the sake of easiness, just take it as what I believe.

ahahahahahaha

"dont ask me why i believe in god, its about faith"

What you say is the same thing.


By harassing I mean using logic accompanied by belittling a person for hold such religious views. Circumstances are everything. Whether belittling works on the average person on the street is debatable. It can certainly work on someone you are guaranteed contact with on a regular basis - coworker, friend, et cetera.


Alright, but its logic first.

thats all im saying.


I am saying religion does harm others

How?


It causes them to do things that harm others

Not always, in fact more often not.
It also causes people to look after eachother, for example in Islam through zakaat (mandatory tax on personal income to give to the poor)


Sure, we can just eliminate the things they do that harm others. However, it is in eliminating those things where religion gets destroyed in the process.


How so?
The average christian where i live doesn't harm anyone else, most are pro-gay marriage, not against pre-marital sex, for the use of condoms etc
And they sure as hell wont try to force other people to do what they want, even if they themselves follow the bible quite harshly (which most dont).

Now you can say
"but they aren't exactly christians, just in name"

you might be right there
but still if you go insult them
"YOU STUPID MORONIC CHRISTIAN! WHY THE FUCK DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?! AHHAHAAHA YOU'RE SO DUMB"
they will retreat more into their own community, and actually become alot more rigid.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 08:59 pm
Love Underground supports throwing a pigs head into a mosque,


No he doesn't, he 'could care less' and sees it as an inefficient and counter productive tactic in attacking religion.

Infact, if you were to read his posts from months ago, you'd see that he has actually defended religious comrades. In this, the religious, subforum, on hypothetical terms, and in the CC in regards to Cormacobears restriction.


"YOU STUPID MORONIC CHRISTIAN! WHY THE FUCK DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?! AHHAHAAHA YOU'RE SO DUMB"

Of course, such arguing wont persuade anyone. But that's not to say that at every given chance we should attack religious values such as homophobia, sexism and creationism, using reason and science. And have sensible debates. As for the more stubborn elements of the religious power structures, and pro-action militias, such as the groups that bomb abortion clinics, or go "gay bashing" - they ought to be stamped out with equal doses of 'antifascist' action. Equally the political actions/decisions of the pope and other religious bodies should be scrutinised, such as the lies spread by John Paul II that condoms spread aids.

Essentially, even if we take a sober and rational opposition to inherent elements of religion (such as homophobia and sexism) we alienate the fucking religious wankers that support it. If they don't, then simply put, they're not religious, they're lying to themselves. This isn't an issue that needs to be adressed.

Anyone that wants to support us in the struggle against capitalism, authoritarianism and superstition can, regardless of what faith they claim to be a part of, do so. Because I know full well that a lot of people who call themselves religious, aren't. We don't want to alienate them, no, and we can even work with a lot of christian/muslim groups in certain situations.

But if people adhere to the faiths properly, they are homophobic, racist, sexist, chauvinists, who we ought to be dealt with, as we would a nazi. Or do you think we should work with these kinds of people?

Of course not, but we don't want to make the mistake of thinking that all people who call themselves christians are actually homophobic, creationist idiots. You said so yourself in the last post "The average christian where i live doesn't harm anyone else," - furthermore I know christians who are incredibly active anarchists, and in my personal oppinion, great people. And I have no problem with them worshiping a skywisard, in regards to my material conditions. Though we often get into debates in pubs, because on the matter of faith, I disagree.

[ichneumon]

"Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help outher renounce fanaticism and narrowness"

-Thich Nhat Hahn
Vietnamese monk and one of the current leaders of global buddhism.

please refrain from lumping all religions together. does your average socialist adopt this limitation? no.

14 precepts of engaged buddhism (http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/14_precepts.html)

how about this one:

"Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of your life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need."

how is this man not the comrade of any socialist? religion can work for social change and justice.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 05:02 am

How is someone who believes in god inherently harming other people. I am currently unsure. I am working on an argument to suggest as such, and I don't want to present random theories. For the sake of easiness, just take it as what I believe.

ahahahahahaha

"dont ask me why i believe in god, its about faith"

What you say is the same thing.
I knew you would post something like that. An inability to express an idea does not show that the idea is false. You can assume it is false, sure. I simply requested you accept my premise, via suspension of disbelief, so we could move on with the discussion.

Apparently, since you rarely think, you don't understand what it is like to have a complex idea in your head and no way to express it, then? I doubt that is the case.

[Enragé]

No he doesn't, he 'could care less' and sees it as an inefficient and counter productive tactic in attacking religion.

Infact, if you were to read his posts from months ago, you'd see that he has actually defended religious comrades. In this, the religious, subforum, on hypothetical terms, and in the CC in regards to Cormacobears restriction.


hm ok then


Of course, such arguing wont persuade anyone. But that's not to say that at every given chance we should attack religious values such as homophobia, sexism and creationism, using reason and science. And have sensible debates

alright thats all im saying :)


As for the more stubborn elements of the religious power structures, and pro-action militias, such as the groups that bomb abortion clinics, or go "gay bashing" - they ought to be stamped out with equal doses of 'antifascist' action. Equally the political actions/decisions of the pope and other religious bodies should be scrutinised, such as the lies spread by John Paul II that condoms spread aids.

ofcourse

Essentially, even if we take a sober and rational opposition to inherent elements of religion (such as homophobia and sexism) we alienate the fucking religious wankers that support it. If they don't, then simply put, they're not religious, they're lying to themselves. This isn't an issue that needs to be adressed.


the average religious person is religious because he was brought up to be so, not because of actual conviction (though he/she might percieve it as such)
The only way however to get them to renounce religion alltogether, or at least 99% of it (the reactionary bits, which is alot), is through sensible debate. You wont alienate them if you talk to them sensibly, you will however if you just start talking about how stupid the fucker is.


But if people adhere to the faiths properly, they are homophobic, racist, sexist, chauvinists, who we ought to be dealt with, as we would a nazi. Or do you think we should work with these kinds of people?

no
those are a tiny minority however.

throwing a pig's head into a mosque will only give that tiny minority the ammunition to keep influencing the vast irreligous (according to your standards) majority which still goes to that mosque because they were brought up to do so, becuase they have a faint idea of theism.

anyway, good to see we agree (at least for 99%)


An inability to express an idea does not show that the idea is false

No, but an unfounded presumption doesnt hold up in a debate.


simply requested you accept my premise, via suspension of disbelief, so we could move on with the discussion.


No
why accept a false premise?
especially when its at the heart of the issue here
since believing in a god (on its own) does not harm other people

therefore if one chooses to believe in god
that on its own is no grounds from exclusion from revolutionary practive, especially since the vast majority of the world's working class indeed does believe in a god.

so
1. its bad tactics
and
2. its simply (authoritarian) rubbish

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 02:09 pm
the average religious person is religious because he was brought up to be so, not because of actual conviction (though he/she might percieve it as such)
The only way however to get them to renounce religion alltogether, or at least 99% of it (the reactionary bits, which is alot), is through sensible debate. You wont alienate them if you talk to them sensibly, you will however if you just start talking about how stupid the fucker is.

I generally agree, but it's case by case. Some people, you have to admit, are so backward in their thinking, it's not worth your breath, it's better to let their heads slip up their asses and watch them dissapear... so to speak. :rolleyes:


no
those are a tiny minority however.

I don't have the facts and figures to say otherwise. But I don't think this is true. Perhaps only a small minority are vocal, and millitant about it, others are simply lazy. Some of the most open minded, progressive chrsitians I know still think that heterosexuality is "normal" and the social role of women being home makers, is a practical one. When confronted, they can become quite vicious, and in my personal experince this tends to encompass 'most christians'

[Enragé]

I don't have the facts and figures to say otherwise. But I don't think this is true. Perhaps only a small minority are vocal, and millitant about it, others are simply lazy. Some of the most open minded, progressive chrsitians I know still think that heterosexuality is "normal" and the social role of women being home makers, is a practical one. When confronted, they can become quite vicious, and in my personal experince this tends to encompass 'most christians'

when people with anti-homosexual and/or patriarchal views are on strike to demand better wages, when they erect barricades, when they slowly become more and more class conscious
we should not say "get the fuck off my barricade"
we should stand shoulder to shoulder with them, despite those views, though ofcourse trying to change their minds.

as for "most christians"
well over here at least, i think thats not true
but then again i've heard our christians described as "carnaval catholics"
which is actually a pretty good description :P