Should religion be illegal

[razboz]

Due to religious worship's terrible track-record should we make religion as illegal as black-mail or coertion?

[Fawkes]

No. Everybody should have the right to worship whomever they please.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 04:01 pm
No. Everybody should have the right to worship whomever they please.
People can worship all they want, its religion i have a beef with. Seriously religion and relgious beleif causes more wars than all the beautifull eyes, oil and mad dictators put together. Dangerous behaviour should be sanctioned, no? other openly discrimanotry and violent ideology are sanctioned (like Nazis in much of Western Europe, or racism, or some militant white supremist groups) so why should we not group Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism not be grouped with the likes of death-cults and Nazi miltias?

[Vargha Poralli]

The biggest trouble in the attitude of this post is that it expects members to be either this or that.

Certainly in a rational society the Men who are in charge of Religious duties(Priests,Mullahs and Clerics) should never be allowed in any way to participate in deciding how the society should run its day to day activities.

But abolishing religion altogether is totally counter productive to our causes.History had shown the real strength of the organised religion(French and Russian Revolutions and Spanish Civil War) against rationality. Its better we learn from it.

On religious buildings

Certainly I am against the destruction of them. It is easy to destroy anything but by destroying the religious buildings we are merely disrespecting the Blood and Sweat of workers that had spilt in constructing it. In many cases they are also works of art and architecture.

As Trotsky said "Religion will only cease to exist completely with the development of the socialist system, that is, when technology frees people from degrading forms of dependency on nature, and amid social relations that are no longer mysterious, which are completely transparent and do not oppress people."

So we better develop better alternative and religion will dissappear within 2-3 decades.

[Knight of Cydonia]

i think it's not really necessary ....
well, even it did actually causes some war...
but still it's not necessary....

[Jazzratt]

No. I can't imagine anything that would inspire acts of faith in the name of whatever insipid god if we make it hard for them to openly worship.

Also how precisly would this law be enforced?

[ihaterockandroll]

If it was a rational society there would be no need for religion to be criminalised, it would be seen through easily as defunct 'mumbo-jumbo'.

[razboz]

Also how precisly would this law be enforced?

By quoting from the bible: "Return unto ceasar what belongs to ceasar"

But yeah i get your points folks. I also tend to agree to them (well now i do anyway)

[Umoja]

Factions and Freedom go hand in hand.

If you restrict people's ability to gather for religious purposes, and to choose religious leaders, where do you draw the line in other things? I think that's a very slippery slope, and despite the problems of religion providing an open society is more important.

[bezdomni]

No - in a rational society, nobody would be religious. So it would be meaningless to make it illegal anyway.

[MrDoom]

Religion shouldn't be made illegal. If someone wants to disregard all logic, all facts, the scientific method, and believe that 2+2=5, that's their business.

However, public land and resources should not be diverted into churches and holy books to celebrate this mathematical superstition so long as millions live in poverty, homelessness, and starvation. Nor should indoctrinating children into the belief that 2+2=5 be allowed.

Tear down all the churches and stop new bibles from being printed, I say. Let history do the rest.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:05 pm
No - in a rational society, nobody would be religious. So it would be meaningless to make it illegal anyway.
I agree.

[Bright Banana Beard]

No. If people wants to be idiot, it their business as long they don't threaten the society.

[Phalanx]

Of course not. The government won't be able to get rid of religion merely by criminalizing it. The decision to shake off religion comes with education, not the legal system.

[Delta]

It doesn't take much education to get rid of religion. Teach the youth that's it's a myth and they will regard it as they do the gods of Olympus.

[t_wolves_fan]

No, because it's irrational to assume that you can eradicate religion.

It's also irrational to assume that education equates to rejection of religion. There are plenty of religious PhDs running around the world.

Religion isn't going away anytime soon.

Deal with it.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 02:09 am
No. If people wants to be idiot, it their business as long they don't threaten the society.
Bu they do threaten the world. They threaten its very existnce. Christian fundamentalists have nuclear weapons at their very fingertips, and as do islamic and Jewish fundamentalists. All of these are in conflict. The Nuclear holocoast will be caused by religion.

Also im not talking about getting rid of relgion. Im talking about making it illegal to worship and preach violent and irrational ideologies.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:38 am
Also im not talking about getting rid of relgion. Im talking about making it illegal to worship and preach violent and irrational ideologies.
Nice contradiction!

You're nt going to eliminate religion.

Deal with it.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such. No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such. No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us.
And if you enact Sharia law, would that be authoritarian?

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 16, 2007 04:01 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 16, 2007 04:01 pm)
Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such. No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us.
And if you enact Sharia law, would that be authoritarian? [/b]
Depends on what the Sharia is and if you choose to accept it. No where in the Qur'an does it say you have to accept Sharia.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by patton+January 16, 2007 04:16 pm--> (patton @ January 16, 2007 04:16 pm)
Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such. No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us.
How can you consider Islam a revolutionaries religion? [/b]
Because the Prophet was a revolutionary. I hate these groups like the Sauds and al-Qaeda, etc. that have turned Islam into a breeding-ground for terrorists and extremism. Islam needs to cut the tradition and ceremony and return to its roots.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by patton+January 16, 2007 04:32 pm--> (patton @ January 16, 2007 04:32 pm)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 04:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:16 pm

Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such. No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us.
How can you consider Islam a revolutionaries religion?
Because the Prophet was a revolutionary. I hate these groups like the Sauds and al-Qaeda, etc. that have turned Islam into a breeding-ground for terrorists and extremism. Islam needs to cut the tradition and ceremony and return to its roots.
I fail to see any diffrence between Islam and every other religion they all suck. [/b]
Religions are good, the task is in making sure they dont become controlled by factions or become politicized/radicalized. Christianity for example is full of Socialist ideals but when exploited by radicals and factions it became itself a tool of exploitation. I put this theory forth towards every religion; they are all good but unfortunatley become tools for rulers when the religion leaves its roots and is twisted or mis-interpreted.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 11:53 am
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such.

No faith is revolutionary, I mean honestly, how can the denial of all rational, empirical, and scientific thought be considered revolutionary? Simply it can't, religion is about as revolutionary as fascism, ;).

"Among all mental diseases which man has systematically inoculated into his cranium, the religious pest is the most abominable."-Johann Most, Die Gottespest.

"Men always give the Gods they adore the passions they themselves have."-Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach, On Religious Cruelty.

"All religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties. Consequently, the religious heaven is nothing but the mirage in which man, exalted by ignorance and faith, discovered his own image, but enlarged and reversed -- that is divinised. The history of religions, of the birth, grandeur, and the decline of the gods who had succeeded one another in human belief, is nothing, therefore, but the development of the collective intelligence and conscience of mankind. As fast as they discovered, in the course of their historically progressive advance, either in themselves or in external nature, a quality, or even any great defect whatever, they attributed it to their gods, after having exaggerated and enlarged it beyond measure, after the manner of children, by an act of their religious fancy. . . . With all due respect, then, to the metaphysicians and religious idealists, philosophers, politicians or poets: the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice."-Mikhail Bakunin, God and State.

All good reads;

The God Pestilence by Johann Most.
Good Sense by Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach.
God and State by Mikhail Bakunin.
On Religious Cruelty by Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach.
The Philosophy of Atheism by Emma Goldman.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such.
No it isn't, because revolutioanries have no "faith" and no it won't because there is no way of treating a "revolutionary faith" for the aforementioned reason.


No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. What ahave we got in Iran now? What have "your people" (I assume here that "your people" refers not to arabs but to muslims) given the iranians? Another shitty system wrapped in a holy book. Oh yes and "your people" advocating stoning "my people" (Athiest Leftists and (in this specific case) bi/pan/homosexuals) to death (y'know sodomy, I understand you guys aren't keen on that. It could be tricky being an atheist, feminist, science-enthusaist too.)
We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us. You're deluding yourself if you think this is a statement that the muslims involved in that struggle would be, what with our advocacy of :o gay rights, :o equality and :o the self determination of women. Hope you're proud to count amongst "your people" saudai oil lords, the Taliban and the pakistani regime (which one of my comrades, who shall remain anonymous, is fighting tooth and dnail because of their reactionary theocracy.).

(Sorry to bring up an old post, but shit man you must have been smoking something veeeery fuckin' strong to believe this crap.)

[redcannon]

you can argue all you want about religion causing wars. we have to listen to Voltaire on that subject. He says that it isn't religion that causes wars, but infact the perversion of religion by human beings.

the truth is, if we were to make religion illegal, we may as well stick a swastika to our flag as well

[MrDoom]

WTF? Do you even know what Nazism stands for?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:53 am
WTF? Do you even know what Nazism stands for?
I think he just means the intoleratin of Nazi towards others who don't accept their views(Communists and Socialists were their first victims).

[Orange Juche]

Jello Biafra said something along the lines of "Every time you outlaw something, you create an underground." And its true. Outlawing something doesn't make it *go away,* you cant dispose of religion... you can mearly push it down... to have it try pushing itself back.

If you start eliminating the "need" people have for religion, it will, over time, start fizzling away on its own.

[razboz]

Religion is like a mental illness. It force you to stop thinking rationally. People with mental illnesses are given special help. He should provide this help for people who suffer from serious delusions like religion.

Also to all you fools who still think Christianity and Islam “love peace” and basically socialist: read your fuckiong bible and Quran you idiots. God wants all sinners to be killed. God wants people who don’t believe in him to be killed. God wants adulterers, rapees, children, horses, dogs, cats, women who sleep around to be killed. He want s them to be disemboweled, burnt alive, decapitated. Religion is not peaceful.

Religion is not perverted by men. Religion started of messed up and always will be. Let’s stop pretending it isn’t.

[KC]

Religion is like a mental illness. It force you to stop thinking rationally. People with mental illnesses are given special help. He should provide this help for people who suffer from serious delusions like religion.

That's like saying that offering treatment programs is going to stop drug use.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Zampanò+January 17, 2007 06:03 pm--> (Zampanò @ January 17, 2007 06:03 pm)
Religion is like a mental illness. It force you to stop thinking rationally. People with mental illnesses are given special help. He should provide this help for people who suffer from serious delusions like religion.

That's like saying that offering treatment programs is going to stop drug use.[/b]
Drug use is not a mental illness. Psychpathy, paranoia, sociopathy, these are mental disorders. Drug use is just a habit. Im not saying we can cure people of religion. Im saying we have to help protect them and the people around them from the harm that their crazy thoughts cause.


Patton
Preach on brother razboz preach on!!! biggrin.gif

:huh:

Halleluja! Praise Be!

[La Comédie Noire]

We should'nt punish the counter revolutionary for being religious we should punish the counter revelutionary for being counter revelutionary. We shouldnt oppress religion, instead we should oppress the religious institution because it is the pre revolution institution that would have interest in stoping our progress. I'm not going to arrest someone and put them in political prison just because they tried to form a prayer circle. When you do something like that to a person their going to remeber who you are and what you stood for and consider it heavily when choosing sides.


Jello Biafra said something along the lines of "Every time you outlaw something, you create an underground."

Good One.

[KC]

Drug use is not a mental illness. Psychpathy, paranoia, sociopathy, these are mental disorders. Drug use is just a habit. Im not saying we can cure people of religion. Im saying we have to help protect them and the people around them from the harm that their crazy thoughts cause.

Comparing religion to mental illness is a complete joke. That implies that you are completely ignoring or even against the notion that religion is caused by social relations which would lead to you being against the materialist conception of history.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 17, 2007 06:58 pm

Drug use is not a mental illness. Psychpathy, paranoia, sociopathy, these are mental disorders. Drug use is just a habit. Im not saying we can cure people of religion. Im saying we have to help protect them and the people around them from the harm that their crazy thoughts cause.

Comparing religion to mental illness is a complete joke. That implies that you are completely ignoring or even against the notion that religion is caused by social relations which would lead to you being against the materialist conception of history.
What is the difference between a man who beleives God has sent him to kill heathenous homosexuals and atheists and a man who beleives he should kill people who hang out with the wrong crowd and dont think like him?

One of them has book.

Religion is akin to a mental illness because it causes you to stop thining rationally. It causes you to have delusions, hallucinations and to generally beleive that the fabric of reality is not as it is. Religion is something which existed to replace Science. Now that science is sufficiently advnced to explain things and ths replace the primitive role of religion it can only be viewed as a mental illness or lack of education.

ANd you go attacking my revolutionary integrity with your "materialism" mr Marxista. Me thinking that religion is absolutely ridiculuos does not interfere with my analyysis of society. Relgion may have been a social construct, and still acts as one, but it is a grave mental delusion dressed up in a fancy wig and dress. Its just ignorance and delusion rolled up in one. In the past it may have been " caused by social tensions" but it has nothing to do with social tensions nowadays and is superfluous at best and downright dangerous at worst.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:10 pm
Religion is akin to a mental illness because it causes you to stop thining rationally. It causes you to have delusions, hallucinations and to generally beleive that the fabric of reality is not as it is.
I'd like to see some of your delusions and hallucinations about reality, I bet they're just as entertaining.

Dazzle me. What do you see for yourself in the future?

[KC]

Religion is akin to a mental illness because it causes you to stop thining rationally. It causes you to have delusions, hallucinations and to generally beleive that the fabric of reality is not as it is.

Yeah, except in most, if not all, cases mental disorders aren't simply socially created, but biological in nature. Many things cause you to stop thinking rationally, and to say that religion is like mental illness just because they both cause one to stop thinking rationally is logically incorrect.


In the past it may have been " caused by social tensions" but it has nothing to do with social tensions nowadays and is superfluous at best and downright dangerous at worst.

This shows that you actually do reject the materialist conception of history and are venturing into the realm of anti-materialist absolutism. I suggest that you read some Marx.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 17, 2007 07:18 pm

Religion is akin to a mental illness because it causes you to stop thining rationally. It causes you to have delusions, hallucinations and to generally beleive that the fabric of reality is not as it is.

Yeah, except in most, if not all, cases mental disorders aren't simply socially created, but biological in nature. Many things cause you to stop thinking rationally, and to say that religion is like mental illness just because they both cause one to stop thinking rationally is logically incorrect.


In the past it may have been " caused by social tensions" but it has nothing to do with social tensions nowadays and is superfluous at best and downright dangerous at worst.

This shows that you actually do reject the materialist conception of history and are venturing into the realm of anti-materialist absolutism. I suggest that you read some Marx.
Not all mental illnesses are biologically caused. Many do have aroots in the basic make up of our brain and these are often passed on form generation to generation. However a certain predisposition to an illness can cause yo to have the mental disorder or not depending on external factors. Data shows that more fragile people are most suspetible to both religion and sects as well as nervous depression and suicide. ut you have a point and i will unlassify religion from my mental diseas filing cabinet and into my collective delusion cabinet. Still has to be treated somehow though.

Look i dont want to start throwing random sectarian shit around, but you are coming off as bit of an Orthodox when it comes to Marxism. Elaborate on how religious beleifs and their dangerous aspects are all part of Marx's Plan. Religion's role has dramatically changed since the 19th century. It is no longer a tool for the oppression of the proletariat, but a group trip that many people are on and that without intervention will end up in one massive killing spree.

Ims sorry but im not familiar with fancy marxist terminology; what exactly is an anti-dialectic absolutist? Does that make me an Enemy of the People? :unsure:



I'd like to see some of your delusions and hallucinations about reality, I bet they're just as entertaining.

Dazzle me. What do you see for yourself in the future?

wtf. Clarify.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:30 pm

I'd like to see some of your delusions and hallucinations about reality, I bet they're just as entertaining.

Dazzle me. What do you see for yourself in the future?

wtf. Clarify.
It was pretty basic English.

Tell me what you see happening to yourself in 5, 15, 30 years. Add in what you see happening in the world in the future too.

Tell me how you think the world works today.

I just want to see if you're as rational as you claim to be.

[KC]

you have a point and i will unlassify religion from my mental diseas filing cabinet and into my collective delusion cabinet. Still has to be treated somehow though.

My whole point is that "treating" people for religion is just like "treating" people for drug use/abuse. Treatment doesn't make the problem go away, nor does making it illegal. If you want to stop people from becoming addicts, either to drugs or to religion, then you have to change the social relations that cause people to use them in the first place.



Look i dont want to start throwing random sectarian shit around, but you are coming off as bit of an Orthodox when it comes to Marxism.

Every Marxist, and even most anarchists, accept Marx's materialist conception of history. It in no way makes me "orthodox".


Elaborate on how religious beleifs and their dangerous aspects are all part of Marx's Plan.

What's Marx's Plan?


Religion's role has dramatically changed since the 19th century. It is no longer a tool for the oppression of the proletariat, but a group trip that many people are on and that without intervention will end up in one massive killing spree.

Of course it's a tool for the oppression of the proletariat! You're simply wrong here.



Ims sorry but im not familiar with fancy marxist terminology; what exactly is an anti-dialectic absolutist? Does that make me an Enemy of the People?

It seems that you're not familiar with Marxism at all. I would suggest reading The Communist Manifesto, The German Ideology, and a few other basic works.

[freakazoid]

Religion shouldn't be made illegal. If someone wants to disregard all logic, all facts, the scientific method, and believe that 2+2=5, that's their business.

However, public land and resources should not be diverted into churches and holy books to celebrate this mathematical superstition so long as millions live in poverty, homelessness, and starvation. Nor should indoctrinating children into the belief that 2+2=5 be allowed.

Tear down all the churches and stop new bibles from being printed, I say. Let history do the rest.

Is it just me or does it seem like you no longer have the same feelings toward religion like you once held? :) And also religious people don't believe that 2+2=5.


Religion is like a mental illness. It force you to stop thinking rationally. People with mental illnesses are given special help. He should provide this help for people who suffer from serious delusions like religion.

Also to all you fools who still think Christianity and Islam “love peace” and basically socialist: read your fuckiong bible and Quran you idiots. God wants all sinners to be killed. God wants people who don’t believe in him to be killed. God wants adulterers, rapees, children, horses, dogs, cats, women who sleep around to be killed. He want s them to be disemboweled, burnt alive, decapitated. Religion is not peaceful.

Religion is not perverted by men. Religion started of messed up and always will be. Let’s stop pretending it isn’t.


I doubt that you have read the Bible at all. At most you have read a few passages out of context to feed you brain that it is evil. I have read my "f^%^&*g" Bible, I have read every single word in it. You really need to read the Bible, you know that you can get them for free, that is one of the good things about Christian.
Einsein was a Socialist, a genius, and believed in a God :o. Your right, he wasn't a very rational man. :/

[Comrade J]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:37 pm
Einsein was a Socialist, a genius, and believed in a God :o. Your right, he wasn't a very rational man. :/
Einstein did not believe in a personal God. Einstein used the term "God" to refer to the governing laws of physics and the universe. Simply semantics.

[cumbia]

Perhaps if socialist and communist were to look at religion as a personal choice, say like sexual prefrence, drinking or smoking, long hair or short hair and countless other choices that make people individulas that and only then could we move foward beyond such a trivial label and unite each other. After all, we are all children of GOD :P

[MrDoom]

Perhaps if socialist and communist were to look at religion as a personal choice, say like sexual prefrence, drinking or smoking, long hair or short hair and countless other choices that make people individulas that and only then could we move foward beyond such a trivial label and unite each other.

The answer to the question 'what is two plus two?' is not a personal choice.


After all, we are all children of GOD :P

We are not.

[MrDoom]

We're not children of anything except our biological parents.

[UndergroundConnexion]

Absolutely not, one should be abel to believe what he wants, as long as it doesnt affect "general interests". Religion should be kept strictly a private matter in my eyes.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:55 pm

Perhaps if socialist and communist were to look at religion as a personal choice, say like sexual prefrence, drinking or smoking, long hair or short hair and countless other choices that make people individulas that and only then could we move foward beyond such a trivial label and unite each other.

The answer to the question 'what is two plus two?' is not a personal choice.


The existence of God and an individual's relationship with him/her/it/them is quite different from mathematics.

More significantly, I'm finding it hard to figure out what gives you the authority to determine for others what they should believe in this regard. Tell me, on what basis do you claim your authority? I'm not interested in your opinion about God in response, I'm interested in the basis for your claim to authority.

Thanks.

[manic expression]

Religion should most certainly not be made illegal. People must be given the ability to believe what they will about divinity/religion (expressing those beliefs in public is another matter). If someone wants to follow religion and believe in it, let them. In a "rational" society, people would recognize this. No matter how you regard religion, it would do far more harm than good. Also, it hardly matters (IMO) what the next person thinks about the concept of divinity.

That's my take on it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 17, 2007 10:28 pm
Religion should most certainly not be made illegal. People must be given the ability to believe what they will about divinity/religion (expressing those beliefs in public is another matter).
So expression should be limited.

Nice! Let freedom ring.

:)

[MrDoom]

More significantly, I'm finding it hard to figure out what gives you the authority to determine for others what they should believe in this regard. Tell me, on what basis do you claim your authority? I'm not interested in your opinion about God in response, I'm interested in the basis for your claim to authority.

Thanks.

Because I'm the Supreme Dictator of the North American Technate.

As I've said again, I don't give a damn what people believe. If someone wants to believe that 2+2=5, that's their business. But when it affects anything regarding society, like designing my Citadel for example, I don't want them running the calculations.

'2+2=4' is a verifiable fact and is deeply ingrained into how we interact with society. 'God exists' is not a verifiable fact, yet often has as much influence on social reality as a math equation.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+January 17, 2007 10:31 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ January 17, 2007 10:31 pm)
manic [email protected] 17, 2007 10:28 pm
Religion should most certainly not be made illegal. People must be given the ability to believe what they will about divinity/religion (expressing those beliefs in public is another matter).
So expression should be limited.

Nice! Let freedom ring.

:) [/b]
If a certain expression unnecessarily disrupts the community, then yes, it should be restricted. There is not a single valid reason to tolerate deleterious expression.

"Let freedom ring" is a distinctly capitalist saying; do you think I care about that? Do you think I care about "freedom" when it has no basis in reality?

Let that ring.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+January 16, 2007 10:21 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ January 16, 2007 10:21 pm)
Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 11:53 am
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such.

No faith is revolutionary, I mean honestly, how can the denial of all rational, empirical, and scientific thought be considered revolutionary? Simply it can't, religion is about as revolutionary as fascism, ;).

"Among all mental diseases which man has systematically inoculated into his cranium, the religious pest is the most abominable."-Johann Most, Die Gottespest.

"Men always give the Gods they adore the passions they themselves have."-Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach, On Religious Cruelty.

"All religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties. Consequently, the religious heaven is nothing but the mirage in which man, exalted by ignorance and faith, discovered his own image, but enlarged and reversed -- that is divinised. The history of religions, of the birth, grandeur, and the decline of the gods who had succeeded one another in human belief, is nothing, therefore, but the development of the collective intelligence and conscience of mankind. As fast as they discovered, in the course of their historically progressive advance, either in themselves or in external nature, a quality, or even any great defect whatever, they attributed it to their gods, after having exaggerated and enlarged it beyond measure, after the manner of children, by an act of their religious fancy. . . . With all due respect, then, to the metaphysicians and religious idealists, philosophers, politicians or poets: the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, both in theory and practice."-Mikhail Bakunin, God and State.

All good reads;

The God Pestilence by Johann Most.
Good Sense by Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach.
God and State by Mikhail Bakunin.
On Religious Cruelty by Paul Henri Thiry d'Holbach.
The Philosophy of Atheism by Emma Goldman. [/b]
Scientific thought has gotten were it has with the help of Muslims. We invented chemistry, algebra, etc. The Quran is riddled with science.

I dont even know who those first two people are and although I know Bakunin, I personally feel he's partially insane. Marx disproves Bakunin anyway.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by patton+January 16, 2007 10:44 pm--> (patton @ January 16, 2007 10:44 pm)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 09:23 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:32 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 04:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:16 pm

Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such. No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us.
How can you consider Islam a revolutionaries religion?
Because the Prophet was a revolutionary. I hate these groups like the Sauds and al-Qaeda, etc. that have turned Islam into a breeding-ground for terrorists and extremism. Islam needs to cut the tradition and ceremony and return to its roots.
I fail to see any diffrence between Islam and every other religion they all suck.
Religions are good, the task is in making sure they dont become controlled by factions or become politicized/radicalized. Christianity for example is full of Socialist ideals but when exploited by radicals and factions it became itself a tool of exploitation. I put this theory forth towards every religion; they are all good but unfortunatley become tools for rulers when the religion leaves its roots and is twisted or mis-interpreted.
Explain why you belive in a god? [/b]
I was raised Christian but at age 15 I started feeling like it wasnt the faith for me. After studying thoroughly all the religions I could find, I decided to choose Islam and become a Muslim. The fact that Muhammad(PBUH) gave women property and marriage rights and ended much oppression strengthened my faith in Islam and after reading Malcom X's work, I feel it is a religion of Socialism.

[MrDoom]

Scientific thought has gotten were it has with the help of Muslims. We invented chemistry, algebra, etc. The Quran is riddled with science.

Science, however, has no basis within religion. It doesn't matter 'who invented what'. What matters is, 'what is fact and what is not'.


I feel it is a religion of Socialism.


Originally posted by "Marx"
Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

Replace Christianity with Islam.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:37 pm
Is it just me or does it seem like you no longer have the same feelings toward religion like you once held? :) And also religious people don't believe that 2+2=5.

2+2=5 is a way of illustrating how absurd religion is, of cours they do not literally believe it, what they believe is "Sky wizard = Real" which is just as illogical.


I doubt that you have read the Bible at all. At most you have read a few passages out of context to feed you brain that it is evil. I have read my "f^%^&*g" Bible, I have read every single word in it. I have no reason to believe this 'bible' contains any truth whatsoever, it's not been perr-reviewed, it does not cite a single source and no one has brought forth any evidence that the alleged author exists. Which translation of the bible, by the way, do you recommend we read?
You really need to read the Bible, you know that you can get them for free, that is one of the good things about Christian. You can get tuberculosis for free too, no one brings that up as a good point about disease.


Einsein was a Socialist, a genius, and believed in a God :o. Your right, he wasn't a very rational man. :/ What comrade_j said, but louder.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:37 pm
Is it just me or does it seem like you no longer have the same feelings toward religion like you once held? :) And also religious people don't believe that 2+2=5.
Perhaps. But my main points still stand: so long as there is poverty, homelessness, and starvation in a land of plenty, materials should not be diverted to celebration of 'perception impaired' status.

And I know that (most) Christians don't believe that 2+2=5. However, the same basis exists for the God hypothesis.

Put it this way. Suppose I put a bag in front of you, and it is an established postulate that the bag contains one and only one tile, and that on this tile is a number between one and ten, inclusive.

Could you guess with any measureable certainty just which number was on the tile that is in the bag without looking into it? No, you've no reason to believe it is more likely to be any particular number than another. You can, however, gather facts to determine what is likely to be the number on the tile. Perhaps there is a set of tiles with numbers on them nearby, outside the bag. Looking at them, you could infer that these belong to the same set that the tile in the bag belongs to. If this is true (which it may not be; they may be unrelated, or there may be multiple sets, or numbers may be missing), you could guess what is NOT in the bag, and thus have a more reasonable guess as to what number tile IS in the bag. The only way to know for certain, however, is to reach in and find out.

The bag is the unknown. The tiled numbers are every imaginable answer to a question with an unknown answer (and I mean EVERY imaginable answer, every possible combination of symbols you could propose using any particular method of communication or language; for example, possible answers to the question "What is 2+2?" could be, "4", "10", "-3", "Chair", "Goldfish", etc.). The tiles that lay outside the bag is our environment, and the information we can garnish from it. The act of reaching into the bag and comparing it to our educated guess is the proccess of experimentation.

The question of "Where do we come from? How was the universe created?" has a definite and objective answer, and that answer lies on a tile in the bag of the unknown. While the idea of answering "God" sounds nice, it is no more likely a factual answer than any other possible answer (such as, "random Big Bang", or "We're an alien's snowglobe", or even nonsensical answers such as "a goldfish did it") that we have not already discredited with the process of science (ie, examining our environment).

Maybe my little parable isn't perfect, but that's the best I can put it.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:09 pm
We're not children of anything except our biological parents.
Humbug! I am the spawn of a gang-bang between Cthulhu, Shub-Niggurath, and Nyarlathotep, :ph34r: :P .

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 17, 2007 07:01 pm
my faith in Islam and after reading Malcom X's work, I feel it is a religion of Socialism.
So you choose to ignore all the homophobic, sexist, and irrational tendencies posed in the koran? Or deny the imperialism of the ottoman empire?

Again I say the following;

"Men always give the Gods they adore the passions they themselves have."-Paul d'Holbach, On Religious Cruelty.

Also, if want a good "religion," try Hedonism, that is the true "religion," of Socialism! ;).

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+January 18, 2007 12:24 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ January 18, 2007 12:24 am)
[email protected] 17, 2007 06:09 pm
We're not children of anything except our biological parents.
Humbug! I am the spawn of a gang-bang between Cthulhu, Shub-Niggurath, and Nyarlathotep, :ph34r: :P . [/b]
I declare Cryotankism the official scientific religion of the North American Technate, by authority of the Book of Cryotank.

Now, everyone face the Citadel and heil! :angry:

:rolleyes:

[Cryotank Screams]

Scientific thought has gotten were it has with the help of Muslims. We invented chemistry, algebra, etc. The Quran is riddled with science.

As I have pointed out before, the koran is not based on science, nor contains any science within it's idiotic pages, and just because scientific and mathematic progress was made by people, who just happened to be muslim, doesn't mean such progress is a by-product of the religion, nor a reflection on the religion, hence islam still, like all religions, is irrational, and against scientific, and empirical thought.


I dont even know who those first two people are

Holbach, was a brilliant and revolutionary thinker from france, who was one of the first philosophers to write about and fervently support the Materialist and Atheistic out look, and Most, was an Anarchist from germany, who migrated to america, who wrote a couple good things as well, however don't pay attention to the names, look more at the meaning of the quotes.


and although I know Bakunin, I personally feel he's partially insane.

Bullshit, the only reason you think this is because you don't actually know what he wrote, or thought, and just go upon coattail rhetoric espoused by Marxists, and again look at the bloody meaning of the quote and not the person's name.


Marx disproves Bakunin anyway.

No, strike that, reverse it, ;) .

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:40 pm
I declare Cryotankism the official scientific religion of the North American Technate, by authority of the Book of Cryotank.

Now, everyone face the Citadel and heil! :angry:

Finally, someone who understands, and realizes the greatness that is me, :P .

But you do know I was joking about the whole, spawn, cthulhu, gang-bang thing right?

[RevMARKSman]

As I have pointed out before, the koran is not based on science, nor contains any science within it's idiotic pages, and just because scientific and mathematic progress was made by people, who just happened to be muslim, doesn't mean such progress is a by-product of the religion, nor a reflection on the religion, hence islam still, like all religions, is irrational, and against scientific, and empirical thought.

Oh but remember! There's this passage about in utero development!


O mankind! if ye are in doubt concerning the Resurrection, then lo! We have created you from dust, then from a drop of seed, then from a clot, then from a little lump of flesh shapely and shapeless, that We may make (it) clear for you. And We cause what We will to remain in the wombs for an appointed time, and afterward We bring you forth as infants, then (give you growth) that ye attain your full strength. And remember that this was written in the 7th century! It must have been DIVINE REVELATION! :o

God sees all, especially the uterus... :unsure:

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 18, 2007 12:46 am
But you do know I was joking about the whole, spawn, cthulhu, gang-bang thing right?
If your post survives a millenia, it could become religious "truth".

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 08:56 pm
If your post survives a millenia, it could become religious "truth".
In which case it would be a riot, and personally I think being a messiah would be kind of annoying, to be honest, and I would probably end up making my followers play a sort of religious "simon says," lol.

[t_wolves_fan]

If a certain expression unnecessarily disrupts the community, then yes, it should be restricted. There is not a single valid reason to tolerate deleterious expression.

By your own logic there is not a single valid reason you should not be in jail, so I can only assume that if you were placed in jail for expressing your views you would not be upset about it, lest you admit to hypocrisy.

Would you be upset at being jailed for expressing your views?


"Let freedom ring" is a distinctly capitalist saying; do you think I care about that? Do you think I care about "freedom" when it has no basis in reality?

Let that ring.

So to summarize, you are uninterested in individual freedom?

[t_wolves_fan]

As I've said again, I don't give a damn what people believe.

Sure you do.


If someone wants to believe that 2+2=5, that's their business. But when it affects anything regarding society, like designing my Citadel for example, I don't want them running the calculations.

Designing your citadel is not a purely mathematical pursuit. Is it a purely mathematical process to decide where to build it? Is there math involved if your neighbors don't want something that ugly, or that big, or for that purpose, or something that would lead to increased traffic in their neighborhood?


'2+2=4' is a verifiable fact and is deeply ingrained into how we interact with society. 'God exists' is not a verifiable fact, yet often has as much influence on social reality as a math equation.

Are you under the impression that even a majority of governmental decisions are made based on verifiable fact? Are you under the impression that it's even possible to make governmental decisions based on verifiable fact? If you are, you are astonishingly naive. Deciding everything based on verifiable fact would require perfect information (which does not exist), the time to gather and analyze that perfect information (which does not exist), and un-emotional, unbiased policy-makers (which do not exist) making decisions.

So please, tell me you don't believe in something that does not exist, because I'd hate to point out your chief complaint with God.

[MrDoom]

As I've said again, I don't give a damn what people believe.

Sure you do.

Actions concern me much more.



If someone wants to believe that 2+2=5, that's their business. But when it affects anything regarding society, like designing my Citadel for example, I don't want them running the calculations.

Designing your citadel is not a purely mathematical pursuit.

Functional design is.


Is it a purely mathematical process to decide where to build it?

Given any particular functional requirements, technicalities weigh heavily. Given that all functional requirements, as well as suitable land and logistics exist, it doesn't matter where you place a building (after counting out all impossible or prohibitive locations). What matters is that it functions in its intended role, and at optimal efficiently.


Is there math involved if your neighbors don't want something that ugly, or that big, or for that purpose, or something that would lead to increased traffic in their neighborhood?

Increased traffic is a functional issue with technical solutions. Either the building would not be placed there, or the traffic mechanism would have to be modified.

As for neighboring aesthics, that's rather inconsequential. The relative 'ugliness' or 'beauty' of a building can be arbitrarily set, so long as it does not hinder functionality. Whether a box is painted sparkly red or dull brown, it's a box.



'2+2=4' is a verifiable fact and is deeply ingrained into how we interact with society. 'God exists' is not a verifiable fact, yet often has as much influence on social reality as a math equation.

Are you under the impression that even a majority of governmental decisions are made based on verifiable fact?

No, rather the opposite. And that's specifically the issue. Technology and infrastructure is handled anascopically (bottom-up), while people are handled katascopically (top-down), when it should be the opposite (ie, technocracy).


Are you under the impression that it's even possible to make governmental decisions based on verifiable fact?

In a technocracy, yes. The democratic sphere (ie, the 'people' aspect) is subjective and anascopic. The technical sphere is objective and katascopic.


Deciding everything based on verifiable fact would require perfect information (which does not exist), the time to gather and analyze that perfect information (which does not exist), and un-emotional, unbiased policy-makers (which do not exist) making decisions.

Given any level of technology and information, there is an objective and optimal solution to any given technical problem.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 01:56 pm

If a certain expression unnecessarily disrupts the community, then yes, it should be restricted. There is not a single valid reason to tolerate deleterious expression.

By your own logic there is not a single valid reason you should not be in jail, so I can only assume that if you were placed in jail for expressing your views you would not be upset about it, lest you admit to hypocrisy.

Would you be upset at being jailed for expressing your views?


"Let freedom ring" is a distinctly capitalist saying; do you think I care about that? Do you think I care about "freedom" when it has no basis in reality?

Let that ring.

So to summarize, you are uninterested in individual freedom?
Political expression is necessary, even if it is disruptive. It pertains to society, while religion does not. That is why religion is an unnecessary disruption, and that is why religious expression should be kept private.

Please read the topic, which is about religion. Trying to twist this into political expression is completely idiotic, even by your standards.

In other words: stay on topic.

Moving on....

"Individual freedom", in what way? As in the "freedom" to enrich oneself through the labor of others? No. As in the "freedom" to deny others decent living standards? No. As in the "freedom" to exploit and deprive? No.

Religious expression is something that has nothing to do with the public community, and so it has no place in the public community. Political expression, on the other hand, does, and so it has a place in the public community.

So to summarize, you're uninterested in what I'm actually saying. To further summarize, you're wrong.

[t_wolves_fan]

Actions concern me much more.

Of course action stems from belief, but it's where you draw the line on public involvement in people's actions that concerns me. I get the impression that to you, any individual action is a public concern.



Is it a purely mathematical process to decide where to build it?

Given any particular functional requirements, technicalities weigh heavily. Given that all functional requirements, as well as suitable land and logistics exist, it doesn't matter where you place a building (after counting out all impossible or prohibitive locations). What matters is that it functions in its intended role, and at optimal efficiently.

Yet personal opinion can thwart the development of even the most logically-placed facility, based on values, can it not?

Should value-based opinion be allowed to trump rational concerns when making such decisions? If a certain neighborhood for instance is the most logical location for a power plant, a rendering plant, a hog farm, a prison, or a factory but the citizens don't want it there because it will ruin the aesthetic qualities of their neighborhood or destroy forest or prairie land that is valued for other purposes, what would you do?


No, rather the opposite. And that's specifically the issue. Technology and infrastructure is handled anascopically (bottom-up), while people are handled katascopically (top-down), when it should be the opposite (ie, technocracy).

Explain how that would work in your model system with the placement of a freeway or a nuclear power plant, and what would happen if the local community did not want it.

Be specific.



Are you under the impression that it's even possible to make governmental decisions based on verifiable fact?

In a technocracy, yes. The democratic sphere (ie, the 'people' aspect) is subjective and anascopic. The technical sphere is objective and katascopic.

So people would have no say in the operations of the technocracy, that is your position?



Deciding everything based on verifiable fact would require perfect information (which does not exist), the time to gather and analyze that perfect information (which does not exist), and un-emotional, unbiased policy-makers (which do not exist) making decisions.

Given any level of technology and information, there is an objective and optimal solution to any given technical problem.

But as you admit above, subjectivity comes into play when people are involved in the political process. Assuming people are allowed to be involved in the political process, there will be no optimal solution to any given public policy problem.

Again the issue is not how to build a nuclear power plant, it's whether or not to build it given the perceived risks (subjective) and where to build it given people's opinions of certain locations (i.e. subjectively valuing a patch of far-off wilderness for its natural beauty).

Do you really believe that you can eliminate the subjectivity of personal opinion from public policy decisions? Will people accept that? Would you even want to eliminate people's say in public policy decisions? Isn't that tyranny?

[MrDoom]

Given any particular functional requirements, technicalities weigh heavily. Given that all functional requirements, as well as suitable land and logistics exist, it doesn't matter where you place a building (after counting out all impossible or prohibitive locations). What matters is that it functions in its intended role, and at optimal efficiently.

Yet personal opinion can thwart the development of even the most logically-placed facility, based on values, can it not?

Should value-based opinion be allowed to trump rational concerns when making such decisions? If a certain neighborhood for instance is the most logical location for a power plant, a rendering plant, a hog farm, a prison, or a factory but the citizens don't want it there because it will ruin the aesthetic qualities of their neighborhood or destroy forest or prairie land that is valued for other purposes, what would you do?

If you've read anything about technocratic proposals, such buildings would be placed close to but away from urbanates, after urbanates are placed for strategic importance. That is part of the design requirement. Destruction of forests or prarie lands would also violate part of the design requirement of maximum ecological conservation.




No, rather the opposite. And that's specifically the issue. Technology and infrastructure is handled anascopically (bottom-up), while people are handled katascopically (top-down), when it should be the opposite (ie, technocracy).

Explain how that would work in your model system with the placement of a freeway or a nuclear power plant, and what would happen if the local community did not want it.

They would have to want it. The democratic sphere determines the majority of what will be built, and the technical sphere determines the objectively optimal way to build it. Technocracy is control over technological infrastructure.

As said before, power plants and other such facilities would be placed close to but away from urbanates.



In a technocracy, yes. The democratic sphere (ie, the 'people' aspect) is subjective and anascopic. The technical sphere is objective and katascopic.

So people would have no say in the operations of the technocracy, that is your position?

You mean politicians and businessmen? Of course not. They won't even be possible in a technocracy. However, any democratic decision that involves infrastructure is a technical issue, and hence there is an objective and optimal solution that politicians and businessmen are not able to determine. The people decide what will be produced, and the technical sphere determines the best way to achieve it given a particular level of technology.

The instruction manual to your TV doesn't tell you what to watch, when, or with who. It only tells you how to objectively achieve the actions of powering it on, changing the channel, hooking up data input, etc.

Determining the answer to '2+2' is not a democracy.



Given any level of technology and information, there is an objective and optimal solution to any given technical problem.

But as you admit above, subjectivity comes into play when people are involved in the political process. Assuming people are allowed to be involved in the political process, there will be no optimal solution to any given public policy problem.

Then the problem, obviously, is the political process and allowing charismatic know-nothings to control people with technology they do not know how to use in a sustainable accord with our environment.


Do you really believe that you can eliminate the subjectivity of personal opinion from public policy decisions? Will people accept that? Would you even want to eliminate people's say in public policy decisions? Isn't that tyranny?

Yes, it's complete tyranny when those evil totalitarian engineers force you to power on your TV by limiting your options to the 'Power' button. Never mind that you yourself decide what will actually be watched. :rolleyes:

[t_wolves_fan]

If you've read anything about technocratic proposals, such buildings would be placed close to but away from urbanates, after urbanates are placed for strategic importance. That is part of the design requirement. Destruction of forests or prarie lands would also violate part of the design requirement of maximum ecological conservation.

I have read plenty about technocratic proposals, and they're as absurd as your response here.

Who decides where to place an urbanate? Does the existence of Las Vegas or Phoenix make technical/scientific sense given their locations and dearth of natural resources? What if people do not want to live in your designated urbanate? What about the people who already live there who don't want an urbanate?



Explain how that would work in your model system with the placement of a freeway or a nuclear power plant, and what would happen if the local community did not want it.

They would have to want it. The democratic sphere determines the majority of what will be built, and the technical sphere determines the objectively optimal way to build it. Technocracy is control over technological infrastructure.

It's not that simple. We all want power plants and freeways but few people agree on where to build them. What happens if 65% of the population votes to "build a freeway" but then you never gain a majority when it comes time to actually place it because the people most affected vote against it?


As said before, power plants and other such facilities would be placed close to but away from urbanates.

Where? How is it decided? What if the people don't want it there?

Who gets to vote on it? Just the people serviced, just the people who live there, everyone in the region, everyone in the nation?


However, any democratic decision that involves infrastructure is a technical issue, and hence there is an objective and optimal solution that politicians and businessmen are not able to determine. The people decide what will be produced, and the technical sphere determines the best way to achieve it given a particular level of technology.

Your belief in objective scientific consensus is, like all other technocrats, stuningly naive.

What if the people don't make a wise decision on what to build? Say a hydroelectic dam would provide the most electricity at the cheapest cost but people don't want to dam the river and vote instead to build a coal-fired plant or a nuclear power plant? How would you handle that?


The instruction manual to your TV doesn't tell you what to watch, when, or with who. It only tells you how to objectively achieve the actions of powering it on, changing the channel, hooking up data input, etc.

Yet I make the individual choice to purchase the television, I don't have it democratically decided for me.


Then the problem, obviously, is the political process and allowing charismatic know-nothings to control people with technology they do not know how to use in a sustainable accord with our environment.

How do you plan to eliminate this problem?


Yes, it's complete tyranny when those evil totalitarian engineers force you to power on your TV by limiting your options to the 'Power' button. Never mind that you yourself decide what will actually be watched. :rolleyes:

Non-sequitr.

[Big Boss]

I think it should. It definetly interferes with the rationality found in the minds of millions of people. Since religion is used only to cheat people and make them believe in an after life that never existed in the first place, then I think that religion should be illegal in every sense on the word.

[freakazoid]

How has this turned ibnto a topic of how buildings are placed?


I think it should. It definetly interferes with the rationality found in the minds of millions of people. Since religion is used only to cheat people and make them believe in an after life that never existed in the first place, then I think that religion should be illegal in every sense on the word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Science and atheism are religions.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:42 pm
How has this turned ibnto a topic of how buildings are placed?


I think it should. It definetly interferes with the rationality found in the minds of millions of people. Since religion is used only to cheat people and make them believe in an after life that never existed in the first place, then I think that religion should be illegal in every sense on the word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

Science and atheism are religions.
Nice editing racket you got there. Reminds me of a certain religion :rolleyes:

Actual definitions : I took #1 from each source that wasn't about jargon or idioms.


a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


#

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.




noun
1. a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"


a belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods


a particular system of belief or worship

[colonelguppy]

ideas shouldn't be illegal.

[MrDoom]

Who decides where to place an urbanate?

The same people that decide what specifications a piece of machinery will have.

Engineers and technicians, obviously. However, your constant use of the word 'decide' and emphasis on the 'who' implies that decisions are made arbitrarily. Precisely the opposite. The 'decision' is made upon what resources exist in the area, what technology exists at the time, etc.

It's not a matter of some random bloke 'choosing for you'. It's a matter of trained and qualified personnel discovering the most efficient course of action, and the populace either accepting or declining.

If a person is ill tothe point of death and a cure is brought to them, they can take it and live, or refuse it and die. That's technology, that's the 'choice'.


Does the existence of Las Vegas or Phoenix make technical/scientific sense given their locations and dearth of natural resources?

No, because those cities were designed anascopically (from the bottom-up), rather than katascopically according to an overall plan. Those haphazardly-designed cities should be abandoned and mined for resources by the technate.


What if people do not want to live in your designated urbanate?

They can go to another, so long as the space is available; through the existing transport systems. If people are not going to live in a proposed urbanate, it will not be built.


What about the people who already live there who don't want an urbanate?

Then they can decay with their haphazardly designed and obsolete city. The Amish seem to be doing quite nicely in their little time warp; despite 20th century being available, they don't want it.



They would have to want it. The democratic sphere determines the majority of what will be built, and the technical sphere determines the objectively optimal way to build it. Technocracy is control over technological infrastructure.

It's not that simple. We all want power plants and freeways but few people agree on where to build them. What happens if 65% of the population votes to "build a freeway" but then you never gain a majority when it comes time to actually place it because the people most affected vote against it?

I don't understand what you're sugesting. 65% votes one way at first and then another way? :wacko:



As said before, power plants and other such facilities would be placed close to but away from urbanates.

Where? How is it decided? What if the people don't want it there?

Who gets to vote on it? Just the people serviced, just the people who live there, everyone in the region, everyone in the nation?

Again, the decision in question is not in any way like the decision of "What will I wear today?". There are no solutions to that question and it is not the business of the technical sphere of the technate. The decision is more like, "How do we cross this river?". There are several solutions, but only one is optimal with energy efficiency and a minimum of human labor.

I'm getting tired of responding to your ceaseless "What? Where? Who decides?" the 'where' and the 'how' is a technical problem to be left to technicians.


What if the people don't make a wise decision on what to build? Say a hydroelectic dam would provide the most electricity at the cheapest cost but people don't want to dam the river and vote instead to build a coal-fired plant or a nuclear power plant? How would you handle that?

In this case the decision is already at a consensus. The people don't want hydroelectric power vs. nuclear power. The people want power. As for what method would be best is, as I have said before, a technical problem.



The instruction manual to your TV doesn't tell you what to watch, when, or with who. It only tells you how to objectively achieve the actions of powering it on, changing the channel, hooking up data input, etc.

Yet I make the individual choice to purchase the television, I don't have it democratically decided for me.

And that perhaps is where my analogy breaks down. A televsion is not a piece of infrastructure, it is a product of infrastructure.

Production of specific items is left up to individuals through the use of an energy-credits and a corresponding energy accounting system.



Then the problem, obviously, is the political process and allowing charismatic know-nothings to control people with technology they do not know how to use in a sustainable accord with our environment.

How do you plan to eliminate this problem?

Eliminate business and politics. How much simpler things are when money no longer exists.



Yes, it's complete tyranny when those evil totalitarian engineers force you to power on your TV by limiting your options to the 'Power' button. Never mind that you yourself decide what will actually be watched. :rolleyes:

Non-sequitr.

No. You suggested it was tyranny to eliminate public choice in technical issues.

I feel this is getting horribly off-topic. Perhaps a new thread in OI is appropriate if this is to continue.

[t_wolves_fan]

Who decides where to place an urbanate?

The same people that decide what specifications a piece of machinery will have.

Engineers and technicians, obviously.

So people don't get to choose where they're going to live. Good luck with that.


However, your constant use of the word 'decide' and emphasis on the 'who' implies that decisions are made arbitrarily. Precisely the opposite. The 'decision' is made upon what resources exist in the area, what technology exists at the time, etc.

What about where people want to live? Rationally there's no good reason for Las Vegas or Phoenix or even Los Angeles to exist given their surrounding environments. Yet people want to live there. How would you take that into account?


It's not a matter of some random bloke 'choosing for you'. It's a matter of trained and qualified personnel discovering the most efficient course of action, and the populace either accepting or declining.

If a person is ill tothe point of death and a cure is brought to them, they can take it and live, or refuse it and die. That's technology, that's the 'choice'.

What happens if society votes against the technocrats?


No, because those cities were designed anascopically (from the bottom-up), rather than katascopically according to an overall plan. Those haphazardly-designed cities should be abandoned and mined for resources by the technate.

Again: people do not get to choose where to live, it's up to the overall "plan". Good luck with that.



It's not that simple. We all want power plants and freeways but few people agree on where to build them. What happens if 65% of the population votes to "build a freeway" but then you never gain a majority when it comes time to actually place it because the people most affected vote against it?

I don't understand what you're sugesting. 65% votes one way at first and then another way? :wacko:

There are two different decisions, dimwit: 65% of the people say "yes, build a new power plant". Then the technocrats come up with a location but people don't like it, and vote 55% against the location.

What happens?


I'm getting tired of responding to your ceaseless "What? Where? Who decides?" the 'where' and the 'how' is a technical problem to be left to technicians.

Fair enough. In your world technicians make decisions on where people will live according to a 5 year plan and people just have to accept it.

Good luck with that.



What if the people don't make a wise decision on what to build? Say a hydroelectic dam would provide the most electricity at the cheapest cost but people don't want to dam the river and vote instead to build a coal-fired plant or a nuclear power plant? How would you handle that?

In this case the decision is already at a consensus. The people don't want hydroelectric power vs. nuclear power. The people want power. As for what method would be best is, as I have said before, a technical problem.

It's not that simple. Do you get it yet? Power has to be generated somehow, some way, right? You're pretending that once the decision is made to "generate more power" that the technocrats can take it from there and implement a power-generation scheme without any public input. But that's not possible. Decisions like where to place a freeway, where to place a city, where to place a power plant and so on have an affect on the public. If the people said "build a new power plant" and the tehnicians said, "ok, it makes the most sense to build it near this neighborhood or in downtown or in this forest or on this river or on that grassland, people are going to react. They may not want it there. You seem to think they'll just accept whatever decisions the technicians make because it's rational, but they're not.

In other words, the public's decision does not end with "generate more power".

Do you understand that, at least? If so, do you accept that it's going to happen?

[Dimentio]

People could chose if they want to live in an urbanate or somewhere else. But the current mega-cities are not resource efficient and should be reformed.

Religion should be legal is my personal opinion. :D

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

People could chose if they want to live in an urbanate or somewhere else. But the current mega-cities are not resource efficient and should be reformed.

So basically, an urbanate is like a commune?

Cos marx proposed communes because he thought cities werent good places for people to live.

Kinda similar

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:42 pm
People could chose if they want to live in an urbanate or somewhere else. But the current mega-cities are not resource efficient and should be reformed.

Religion should be legal is my personal opinion. :D
You're a Le Corbusier fan, aren't you.

;)

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by patton+January 18, 2007 03:15 pm--> (patton @ January 18, 2007 03:15 pm)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 17, 2007 11:01 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:44 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 09:23 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:32 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 04:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:16 pm

Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such. No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us.
How can you consider Islam a revolutionaries religion?
Because the Prophet was a revolutionary. I hate these groups like the Sauds and al-Qaeda, etc. that have turned Islam into a breeding-ground for terrorists and extremism. Islam needs to cut the tradition and ceremony and return to its roots.
I fail to see any diffrence between Islam and every other religion they all suck.
Religions are good, the task is in making sure they dont become controlled by factions or become politicized/radicalized. Christianity for example is full of Socialist ideals but when exploited by radicals and factions it became itself a tool of exploitation. I put this theory forth towards every religion; they are all good but unfortunatley become tools for rulers when the religion leaves its roots and is twisted or mis-interpreted.
Explain why you belive in a god?
I was raised Christian but at age 15 I started feeling like it wasnt the faith for me. After studying thoroughly all the religions I could find, I decided to choose Islam and become a Muslim. The fact that Muhammad(PBUH) gave women property and marriage rights and ended much oppression strengthened my faith in Islam and after reading Malcom X's work, I feel it is a religion of Socialism.
You do realize there are still countrys that don't give women any rights? They also kill gay people. What about the fact that if you convert from Islam to an other religion to can be killed also? [/b]
Yes I do and I can tell you that restricting women from their right goes against the Quran. The Quran teaches that men and women are equal creations in the eyes of Allah and thus should be treated equally. I know many Muslims are new to the idea of homosexuality but, in the Quran, one must remember that it is said "to kill anyone without just cause is like killing all mankind". Also in the Quran, it is written that there is no compulsion in religion. Any Muslim that denys or ignores these Quranic teachings are not true Mulsims and just because nations claim to be "Islamic" does not make them so.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:45 pm

People could chose if they want to live in an urbanate or somewhere else. But the current mega-cities are not resource efficient and should be reformed.

So basically, an urbanate is like a commune?

Cos marx proposed communes because he thought cities werent good places for people to live.

Kinda similar
Nyet, an Urbanate is an arcology built for optimal conditions to it's eco-region. It is interconnected with other urbanates through a communication and transport network. To understand a bit in what we are striving for, look at this site (http://www.thevenusproject.com) :)

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by patton+January 19, 2007 05:16 pm--> (patton @ January 19, 2007 05:16 pm)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 19, 2007 04:59 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:15 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 17, 2007 11:01 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:44 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 09:23 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:32 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 04:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:16 pm

Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such. No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us.
How can you consider Islam a revolutionaries religion?
Because the Prophet was a revolutionary. I hate these groups like the Sauds and al-Qaeda, etc. that have turned Islam into a breeding-ground for terrorists and extremism. Islam needs to cut the tradition and ceremony and return to its roots.
I fail to see any diffrence between Islam and every other religion they all suck.
Religions are good, the task is in making sure they dont become controlled by factions or become politicized/radicalized. Christianity for example is full of Socialist ideals but when exploited by radicals and factions it became itself a tool of exploitation. I put this theory forth towards every religion; they are all good but unfortunatley become tools for rulers when the religion leaves its roots and is twisted or mis-interpreted.
Explain why you belive in a god?
I was raised Christian but at age 15 I started feeling like it wasnt the faith for me. After studying thoroughly all the religions I could find, I decided to choose Islam and become a Muslim. The fact that Muhammad(PBUH) gave women property and marriage rights and ended much oppression strengthened my faith in Islam and after reading Malcom X's work, I feel it is a religion of Socialism.
You do realize there are still countrys that don't give women any rights? They also kill gay people. What about the fact that if you convert from Islam to an other religion to can be killed also?
Yes I do and I can tell you that restricting women from their right goes against the Quran. The Quran teaches that men and women are equal creations in the eyes of Allah and thus should be treated equally. I know many Muslims are new to the idea of homosexuality but, in the Quran, one must remember that it is said "to kill anyone without just cause is like killing all mankind". Also in the Quran, it is written that there is no compulsion in religion. Any Muslim that denys or ignores these Quranic teachings are not true Mulsims and just because nations claim to be "Islamic" does not make them so.
Why do you think that some Islamic countrys are stuck in the dark ages? [/b]
I dont think the nations themselves are backward but instead the governments of these nations are twisting Islam to justify their oppression. Saudi Arabia is the best example I can give. No matter what these nations claim, to restrict freedom and human-rights is un-Islamic and goes against what is in the Holy Qur'an and against what the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) preached and taught.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 19, 2007 11:47 pm
I dont think the nations themselves are backward but instead the governments of these nations are twisting Islam to justify their oppression. Saudi Arabia is the best example I can give. No matter what these nations claim, to restrict freedom and human-rights is un-Islamic and goes against what is in the Holy Qur'an and against what the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) preached and taught.
What makes you so sure that this readfing is the correct one, after all I have heard many ayatollahs and other assorted fuckwits quote some fucking distrubing lines from that book at me. Furthermore, can you historically veryify that these are the exact words of Muhammed, the delusional and charismatic conquistador? What fills you with any certianty that Allah wrote the qur'an? WHo told you, what evidence di they supply - did they even prove Allah existed so as to tell these things to Mohammed, rather than - for example - the voices in his head or his own belief in what was politically expedient?

Do you deny that these countries would be better off without the insane, rambling words of the raving Mohammed?

[freakazoid]

I still don't understand how this has turned into a discussion about how it is desided where a building should or should not go.


Nice editing racket you got there. Reminds me of a certain religion

Editing racket, what are you talking about? What you posted hasn't changed anything that I have posted. In fact I think that your fist quote was of the same thing that I posted.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 03:55 am
Editing racket, what are you talking about?
I assume they meant the bible. See if you can work out why.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:48 am
Religion is like a mental illness. It force you to stop thinking rationally. People with mental illnesses are given special help. He should provide this help for people who suffer from serious delusions like religion.
Well if that just isn't an ignorant fucking thing to say.

Maybe people want to believe in a god (or goddess) because they find comfort in it and maybe it gives THEM something to believe in. Not really a good comparison to a mental illness.


As for my opinion on this, I dont think it should be illegal. Not like you're going to enforce it successfully anyway.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by C_Rasmussen+January 20, 2007 08:25 pm--> (C_Rasmussen @ January 20, 2007 08:25 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 11:48 am
Religion is like a mental illness. It force you to stop thinking rationally. People with mental illnesses are given special help. He should provide this help for people who suffer from serious delusions like religion.
Well if that just isn't an ignorant fucking thing to say.

Maybe people want to believe in a god (or goddess) because they find comfort in it and maybe it gives THEM something to believe in. Not really a good comparison to a mental illness.
[/b]
People need to believe in something that isn't there for comfort? Sounds like a trait of the mentally unstable to me.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 05:42 pm
Science and atheism are religions.
Wrong, science is the Materialist study of the world and cosmos around us, and the study of the natural laws to which we all follow, and how nature works, on every level, and Atheism, is the view-point and realization of reality, instead of living in some fantasy, and setting your hopes on a spiritual pipe-dream.

Also, religion comes from the latin religare, meaning to bind or to return to bondage, emphasizing the already known view of the irrational thinking of the religiously afflicted person, and only further proving why religion should be abolished for the emancipation and liberation of the people..

[Cryotank Screams]

Well if that just isn't an ignorant fucking thing to say.

Actually it was a rather accurate assertion.


Maybe people want to believe in a god (or goddess) because they find comfort in it and maybe it gives THEM something to believe in. Not really a good comparison to a mental illness.

Wrong, the gods fulfill three main psychological purposes.

"The gods retain the threefold task: they must exorcize the terrors of nature, they must reconcile men to the cruelty of Fate, particularly as it is shown in death, and they must compensate them for the sufferings and privations which a civilized life in common has imposed on them."-Sigmund Freud, Die Zukunft einer Illusion.

Freud also asserts that religion is merely an product of a father complex, and in Totem and Taboo, he also applied the oedipus complex to religion, and in future of an Illusion, as the quote above is taken, he states that religion in itself is a phantom, and one in which if humanity wishes to mature to it’s highest intellectual capacities it must overcome religion, and his general thesis on god, was that it represented to man, the father archetype, and that the religious beliefs of man, from a psycological standpoint, represent, the bottom most infantile and nuerotic impulses of man.

Going along with that, Fromm stated in response to Freud’s view that religion is connected to the oedipus complex, and that it isn’t a sexual desire, but more of a child like desire for that psycological security blanket, or protective parent archetype.

"The whole thing is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life."-Sigmund Freud.

"The idea of God was not a lie but a device of the unconscious which needed to be decoded by psychology. A personal god was nothing more than an exalted father-figure: desire for such a deity sprang from infantile yearnings for a powerful, protective father, for justice and fairness and for life to go on forever. God is simply a projection of these desires, feared and worshipped by human beings out of an abiding sense of helplessness. Religion belonged to the infancy of the human race; it had been a necessary stage in the transition from childhood to maturity. It had promoted ethical values which were essential to society. Now that humanity had come of age, however, it should be left behind."-Sigmund Freud.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 06:09 pm
ideas shouldn't be illegal.
Religion isn't an idea, it's a infantile delusion, relative to mental disorder.

[Cyanide Suicide]

No way should it be illegal.

I may be a far-athiest leaning agnostic that is recognized by my friends as a religion-bashing person, to make it illegal would be the sign of a very oppressive government in my opinion.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+January 21, 2007 05:42 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ January 21, 2007 05:42 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 06:09 pm
ideas shouldn't be illegal.
Religion isn't an idea, it's a infantile delusion, relative to mental disorder. [/b]
We could say the same thing about communism if we wanted to, so why not use the power of the state to prohibit it and punish its adherents?

That'd be different, wouldn't it. If it were your ideas and opinions being prohibited by law, then it'd be oppression. But prohibiting others from believing what they want, why that's freedom so long as you're ok with it, isn't it.

:rolleyes:

[Cryotank Screams]

We could say the same thing about communism if we wanted to,

Are you honestly this stupid?


so why not use the power of the state to prohibit it and punish its adherents?

This is by far completely idiotic, regardless of how authoriatrian Communism has been, it still is based on some strain of logic, materialism, and empiricism, thus exlcuding it from the catagory of mental disorder, it is by no means comparable to a religion on a psycological level, because Communism, does not impose the same complexes, or any complexes upon the individual, hence your scenerio is as previously stated idiotic.


That'd be different, wouldn't it. If it were your ideas and opinions being prohibited by law, then it'd be oppression.

You do realize that your Communism=mental disorder doesn't apply to me, right?

However I see what your saying, and my ideas, namely Leftism and Anarchism, are based solely in reality, it can be tried and proven, tested and reevaluated, and by no means imposes anything onto the people at large, but infact fights for liberty, egalitarianism, and freedom, on all levels, whereas religion represents nor embodies none of these, and is an infantile delusion, that has served it's purpose, but now the yoke of old needs to be taken of, to achieve intellectual maturity.


But prohibiting others from believing what they want, why that's freedom so long as you're ok with it, isn't it.

You oversimplifing the argument thus proving you don’t fully know what's being discussed.

[t_wolves_fan]

We could say the same thing about communism if we wanted to,

Are you honestly this stupid?

Answer the question. People could decide that communism is irrational fantasy or dangerous or whatever other negative objective you want and get it outlawed, could they not?

Why shouldn't they? It's an ideology just like religion, so explain why one should be legal and socially acceptable why another should not be.



so why not use the power of the state to prohibit it and punish its adherents?

This is by far completely idiotic, regardless of how authoriatrian Communism has been, it still is based on some strain of logic,

Same with religion. Now mind you, I mean it is based on a logical model. Your disagreement with that model is irrelevant, because I can make the same arguments about the model on which communism is based.


materialism, and empiricism, thus exlcuding it from the catagory of mental disorder,

Given the arguments made by communists, along with their general appearance when I've met them at their superfun anti-war protests, it would not be difficult to get communism declared a mental disorder. Hell we can get anything declared a mental disorder if we want to.


it is by no means comparable to a religion on a psycological level, because Communism, does not impose the same complexes, or any complexes upon the individual, hence your scenerio is as previously stated idiotic.

:lol: :lol:

Communism/anarchism does not impose anything on the individual? Give me a freaking break. You know how many impositions on free will I can find by your fellow communists on this board? Let's see, the technocrats have declared that nobody can own a car and nobody needs to own multiple cars. If anyone wants to own a car or multiple cars, they're being imposed upon, are they not? A few posters here are suggesting that communist society not permit preaching in public. That's imposing on individual will, is it not? A few posters say outlaw religion altogether. That's imposing on individual will, is it not? Nobody can own private property, that's imposing on individual will, is it not?

You're just like any other ideologue, no different even from a whacko religious type. You're all the same: forcing others to live by your code is "freedom", allowing them to live by another code is somehow not freedom. Rinse, repeat. Over and over and over again.


You do realize that your Communism=mental disorder doesn't apply to me, right?

Fine, substitute whatever you believe.


However I see what your saying, and my ideas, namely Leftism and Anarchism, are based solely in reality,

As you perceive it.


it can be tried and proven,

:lol:

Again no different from a fundie.

Social policy cannot be "proven", except perhaps proven to indeed be leftist. You cannot "prove" that leftism will work, especially considering it's failed when implemented in just about every case it's been tried.

Do you know why social policy cannot be "proven"? Because there is no universally-agreed upon criteria to judge success. I can come close to solving almost any social problem with enough tax money or restrictive enough laws, but if I make slaves of my population can I be said to have "succeeded"? Your favorite ideology is no different at all, regardless of your arrogant assumption that it is. All you would "prove" is that a system works as you want it to; but if nobody else likes the results you wouldn't have actually proven anything.

In other words, you're confusing "it sounds good to me" with proof, a quite common mistake among the naive.

Do you understand that?


tested and reevaluated, and by no means imposes anything onto the people at large, but infact fights for liberty, egalitarianism,

People who are free will not end up materially equal.


and freedom, on all levels, whereas religion represents nor embodies none of these, and is an infantile delusion, that has served it's purpose, but now the yoke of old needs to be taken of, to achieve intellectual maturity.

:lol:

Another self-annointed enlightened savior of humanity. Already at age 19.

Tell me this: if anarchy or whatever it is you believe in protects individual liberty, how would it prevent people from believing in religion? In order to eradicate religion, you're going to have to create social norms which by definition control people, right?

How do you have an enforced social norm of atheism while also providing maximum individual liberty?

[KC]

Answer the question. People could decide that communism is irrational fantasy or dangerous or whatever other negative objective you want and get it outlawed, could they not?

It has already happened in numerous countries worldwide. South Korea, I believe, is one.


Why shouldn't they? It's an ideology just like religion, so explain why one should be legal and socially acceptable why another should not be.

While I disagree with the position that religion should be illegal, I wouldn't put them both in the same category. While ideology and religion both have many things in common, I think there are some fundamental differences that set them apart. For example, I believe that while Marxists analyze facts and interpret those facts in a way that they see logically supports Marx's theories, which is the same with any political ideology or set of beliefs (even that of capitalists), religion doesn't even try to logically interpret the facts in any meaningful way; rather, facts are rejected in the name of faith.


Given the arguments made by communists, along with their general appearance when I've met them at their superfun anti-war protests, it would not be difficult to get communism declared a mental disorder. Hell we can get anything declared a mental disorder if we want to.

I would highly suggest not basing your opinion on Marxism and the theories of Marxist thinkers on some random people at anti-war protests. Actually, I would like to know: have you read any Marx?



Communism/anarchism does not impose anything on the individual? Give me a freaking break. You know how many impositions on free will I can find by your fellow communists on this board? Let's see, the technocrats have declared that nobody can own a car and nobody needs to own multiple cars. If anyone wants to own a car or multiple cars, they're being imposed upon, are they not? A few posters here are suggesting that communist society not permit preaching in public. That's imposing on individual will, is it not? A few posters say outlaw religion altogether. That's imposing on individual will, is it not? Nobody can own private property, that's imposing on individual will, is it not?

You're just like any other ideologue, no different even from a whacko religious type. You're all the same: forcing others to live by your code is "freedom", allowing them to live by another code is somehow not freedom. Rinse, repeat. Over and over and over again.

And what of those that don't support any of the aforementioned impositions? How can you explain Marxists that don't support these things?

As an aside, I would like to touch on the fact that you claim that Marxists say that nobody can own private property is an imposition on the individual by society. This is false for the very reason that private property no longer exists, and that nobody can possess something that doesn't exist. Granted, you will still have a place to live and you will still have possessions; however, the form that ownership takes in communist society is different than that of ownership in any society before it. Private property is merely bourgeois property, or, it is a social relation between people in bourgeois society. With the change from bourgeois society to classless society, this social relation changes, which in turn changes the way people look at property. In other words, bourgeois private property becomes extinct with the society in which it existed.


Social policy cannot be "proven", except perhaps proven to indeed be leftist. You cannot "prove" that leftism will work, especially considering it's failed when implemented in just about every case it's been tried.

You are correct, in a sense. Marxim cannot be proven right until it is implemented, at which point a proof will be meaningless. Of course, you also can't say that it's wrong because it hasn't been proven right; both arguments are equally fallacious.


People who are free will not end up materially equal.

Freedom is a rather ambiguous term for the very fact that people are always restricted both directly by the rules which society upholds and morals, or ethics. I don't think you can use a term like freedom so loosely. If you are going to use it then you are going to have to define its meaning specifically in order for your point to be relevant.


Tell me this: if anarchy or whatever it is you believe in protects individual liberty, how would it prevent people from believing in religion? In order to eradicate religion, you're going to have to create social norms which by definition control people, right?

Are you controlling people when you remove the social conditions which give rise to religion? Or, rather, are you controlling people when you make it so that people don't want to believe in religion? If so, is there something wrong with this? If so, what if we apply the same question to gang violence? If we remove the social conditions which give rise to gang violence, is that control, and is that a bad thing?

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by patton+January 22, 2007 03:23 pm--> (patton @ January 22, 2007 03:23 pm)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 19, 2007 11:47 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 05:16 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 19, 2007 04:59 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:15 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 17, 2007 11:01 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:44 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 09:23 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:32 pm

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 04:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:16 pm

Johnny [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
Islam is a faith of revolutionaries and must be treated as such. No one can deny that today, Muslims are doing more to fight Imperialism and Capitalist Occupation than any other group. My people pushed the American puppets out of Iran and we will push them from Iraq. We will fight them to the ends of the Earth (Allah willing) if we must. We will topple Egypt's Authoritarianism as we are doing against the Zionists. We will stand with the Left, but the Left must also stand with us.
How can you consider Islam a revolutionaries religion?
Because the Prophet was a revolutionary. I hate these groups like the Sauds and al-Qaeda, etc. that have turned Islam into a breeding-ground for terrorists and extremism. Islam needs to cut the tradition and ceremony and return to its roots.
I fail to see any diffrence between Islam and every other religion they all suck.
Religions are good, the task is in making sure they dont become controlled by factions or become politicized/radicalized. Christianity for example is full of Socialist ideals but when exploited by radicals and factions it became itself a tool of exploitation. I put this theory forth towards every religion; they are all good but unfortunatley become tools for rulers when the religion leaves its roots and is twisted or mis-interpreted.
Explain why you belive in a god?
I was raised Christian but at age 15 I started feeling like it wasnt the faith for me. After studying thoroughly all the religions I could find, I decided to choose Islam and become a Muslim. The fact that Muhammad(PBUH) gave women property and marriage rights and ended much oppression strengthened my faith in Islam and after reading Malcom X's work, I feel it is a religion of Socialism.
You do realize there are still countrys that don't give women any rights? They also kill gay people. What about the fact that if you convert from Islam to an other religion to can be killed also?
Yes I do and I can tell you that restricting women from their right goes against the Quran. The Quran teaches that men and women are equal creations in the eyes of Allah and thus should be treated equally. I know many Muslims are new to the idea of homosexuality but, in the Quran, one must remember that it is said "to kill anyone without just cause is like killing all mankind". Also in the Quran, it is written that there is no compulsion in religion. Any Muslim that denys or ignores these Quranic teachings are not true Mulsims and just because nations claim to be "Islamic" does not make them so.
Why do you think that some Islamic countrys are stuck in the dark ages?
I dont think the nations themselves are backward but instead the governments of these nations are twisting Islam to justify their oppression. Saudi Arabia is the best example I can give. No matter what these nations claim, to restrict freedom and human-rights is un-Islamic and goes against what is in the Holy Qur'an and against what the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) preached and taught.
The Saudies use the Qur'an to justify the the restriction of freedoms. An you say those restrictions are not in the Qur'an. HHHHHHHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMM [/b]
The Saudies use an extremist, literalist, twisted interpretation of the Qur'an. Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) himself said, "He who has been a ruler over ten people will be brought shackled on the Day of Resurrection, until the justice (by which he ruled) loosens his chains or tyranny brings him to destruction." Muhammad(PBUH) only preached what was taught in Islam and thus his quotation is part of Islamic law. To violate that law is to violate Islam.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 20, 2007 12:14 am--> (Jazzratt @ January 20, 2007 12:14 am)
Johnny [email protected] 19, 2007 11:47 pm
I dont think the nations themselves are backward but instead the governments of these nations are twisting Islam to justify their oppression. Saudi Arabia is the best example I can give. No matter what these nations claim, to restrict freedom and human-rights is un-Islamic and goes against what is in the Holy Qur'an and against what the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH) preached and taught.
What makes you so sure that this readfing is the correct one, after all I have heard many ayatollahs and other assorted fuckwits quote some fucking distrubing lines from that book at me. Furthermore, can you historically veryify that these are the exact words of Muhammed, the delusional and charismatic conquistador? What fills you with any certianty that Allah wrote the qur'an? WHo told you, what evidence di they supply - did they even prove Allah existed so as to tell these things to Mohammed, rather than - for example - the voices in his head or his own belief in what was politically expedient?

Do you deny that these countries would be better off without the insane, rambling words of the raving Mohammed? [/b]
I own three Qurans and I can say that after reading different interpretations that I can read between the lines to get the truth. The Ayatollahs, mostly the Iranian militiants, do that to scare "unbelievers". They'll quote a verse then jump to a verse in another chapter and so on and so-forth. The truth is that to get the whole message you have to read the whole chapter instead of chopping it up.

The Sunnah is proof of what Muhammad said. It's a subject I'm nor very educated on and scholars constantly debate whether a Sunnah is valid or not so I cant help there.

All I have is faith.

I dont deny the truth and the truth is that Saudi Arabia and Iran are twisting Islam for their own purposes, much like Stalin did with Marxism-Leninism.

[RevMARKSman]

All I have is faith.

Case closed.

I have faith that 2+2=5.
I have faith that I'll fly if I think hard enough about it.
I have faith that that truck reeling around the corner about to run over me isn't real.

[Cyanide Suicide]

Hundreds of years ago, when so much about science was unknown, few men had faith and belief in their theories of atoms, molecules, etc. There was no evidence at the time, they just had to believe it. Were they wrong about the existence of atoms, etc? No.

Just as it seems illogical to us now about the existence of a god, it seemed illogical for most people back then to believe in what these rare scientists were saying.

All I'm saying is that we know so little about some things in the universe, that to totally throw out the possibility of a god seems a little close-minded.

[Cryotank Screams]

Answer the question.

I did, how about you re-read what I wrote?


People could decide that communism is irrational fantasy or dangerous or whatever other negative objective you want and get it outlawed, could they not?

Communism, is an assertion, base upon an analysis of economics, psychology, sociology, and politics, that are based on empirical fact, and follow the scientific method of investigation, hypothesis, theory, and such, whereas religion does none of these, hence Communism, or Marxism isn't irrational, not the best way to achieve Socialism in my opinion, but definitely not irrational, nor comparable to religion, which basis it's assertions on mysticism, fatalism, and bullshitry, therefore the outlaw of this wouldn't be very reasonable based upon the reasons you are giving.


Why shouldn't they?

Because you can't compare the two, unless your a dumbass like yourself.


be legal and socially acceptable why another should not be.

See above argument.


Same with religion.

Wrong, see below definition of logic, would be reasoning, based on empirical and tangible material proof, and would follow certain procedures, and formulae to base assertions on, religion doesn't do this, in religion, the assertions are right, because the madmen who founded said cult, said it was right, and there can be no question of this regardless of circumstance or proof, the religious assertion is infallible, hence it is not based on any form of logic.


Now mind you, I mean it is based on a logical model.

No, it's not, see above.


Your disagreement with that model is irrelevant, because I can make the same arguments about the model on which communism is based.

Wrong, again see above statement.


Given the arguments made by communists, along with their general appearance when I've met them at their superfun anti-war protests, it would not be difficult to get communism declared a mental disorder. Hell we can get anything declared a mental disorder if we want to.

This is idoitic, when I say religion is a mental disorder I have actual psychological proof, that is linked with various complexes, and is based on psychoanalytic psychology, whereas your arguments are based on your idiocy, and bias.


Communism/anarchism does not impose anything on the individual? Give me a freaking break.

I said complexes, key word in my argument, re-read to see what I mean, ;).


no different even from a whacko religious type. You're all the same: forcing others to live by your code is "freedom", allowing them to live by another code is somehow not freedom. Rinse, repeat. Over and over and over again.

No, the only person that fits that bill is you, considering your arguments are based on nothing, and about as much evidence as the religiously afflicted, and I am not forcing anyone to accept my code of freedom, I am fighting for true freedom, in the purest since of the word, just because you have a degraded and false view and interpretation of what freedom means, is irrelevant.


As you perceive it.

No, not really.


Again no different from a fundie.

Bullfuckingshit, yet another strawman insult.


People who are free will not end up materially equal.

Freedom, with out economic and material equality, is a vain phantom.


Another self-annointed enlightened savior of humanity. Already at age 19.

Oh, how terribly witty, :rolleyes:.


Tell me this: if anarchy or whatever it is you believe in protects individual liberty, how would it prevent people from believing in religion? In order to eradicate religion, you're going to have to create social norms which by definition control people, right?

You assume that religion, is an inherent liberty and function of man, when it does nothing but strip liberty of his man, and is indoctrinated into man via memetic engineering, hence, the fight to abolish religion does not infringe on liberty.


How do you have an enforced social norm of atheism while also providing maximum individual liberty?

See above.

[Cryotank Screams]

All I'm saying is that we know so little about some things in the universe, that to totally throw out the possibility of a god seems a little close-minded.

God is supernatural, and doesn’t exist, hence it will NEVER be proven by science which is the study of nature, and the cosmos, and the natural laws they adhere to, and because it goes against natural proven scientific laws, and theories, and will only further be disproven, and made more obsolete, as time progresses.

[Cyanide Suicide]

I agree it will never be proven. What I meant by the comparison is basically that just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there in my opinion.

I soppose it's just my inability to fathom a universe that has always been around and will always be around. I'm not really satisfied by pre-big bang theories of time and the universe, so I just stick with the possibility of a higher force.

[wtfm8lol]

I soppose it's just my inability to fathom a universe that has always been around and will always be around. I'm not really satisfied by pre-big bang theories of time and the universe, so I just stick with the possibility of a higher force.

I'm glad not everyone is as intellectually lazy as you.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:31 pm
I'm glad not everyone is as intellectually lazy as you.
This has nothing to do with being intellectually lazy, or any such nonsense, this going upon scientific data, laws, hypothesis, and theories, that is where I get my position, the only people intellectually lazy on the matter is by far the ID idiots, and the creationists.

[wtfm8lol]

that wasn't directed at you buddy..

[Cyanide Suicide]

How am I being intellectually lazy?

Just because I don't believe that what happened before the big bang has been explained, I don't think that makes me intellectually lazy...

[Cryotank Screams]

How am I being intellectually lazy?

Did I call you such title? No, i think not.

[wtfm8lol]

How am I being intellectually lazy?

Just because I don't believe that what happened before the big bang has been explained, I don't think that makes me intellectually lazy...

You basically said "I don't know how this works, so I'll just assume it doesn't and I'll take the easy way out"

[Question everything]

I haven't been able to read all the way through this so sorry if I interrupt something... I think that formal religion should be abolished, the kind that teaches muslism to hate Jews and Jews (as well as several christians) to hate muslims, holy books, should be permitted and still produced, so that people will be able to create their opinions from scratch and not with some fundamentalist bible basher (or their equivalent in other other religions) breathing-down-their-necks telling them what is right and wrong even when the whatever holy-book they are reading from directly contradicts it... I believe if there is a God other religions turned so quickly to put a nationalist spin on it that it is scary, so many religions clam to be God's Chosen people, I ask any one who supports churchs to argue why God would decide one day that he would speak to only the Jews (or any other religion), and leave the rest of the people to guess who he was?

[Question everything]

this is just a suggestion to anyone who doubts religion, I was questioning it too, try reading , "How to know God" by Deepak Chopra, he uses alot of scientific facts, In a very interesting way (don't worry he's not some "Intellegent creation" crack pot, this is accually pretty intellegent)

[wtfm8lol]

I ask any one who supports churchs to argue why God would decide one day that he would speak to only the Jews (or any other religion), and leave the rest of the people to guess who he was?

1: God works in strange and mysterious ways :)
2: As a mere mortal, you cannot understand why he does certain things, but must simply accept that he does them for our benefit.

[Question everything]

I'm not questioning God I'm questioning the Jew who wrote it down... I'm simply trying to say that most religions are fundamentally the same but most have distinctive touches of nationist propaganda... the Egyptians believed their Gods did not intend for them to lose, the Jews believed that God chose them... I think that one God spoke to all (true) prophets, the prophet spoke those words to his people, and his people decide that they were special because God spoke to them... hence religion became more a case of who is right, a battle between similare people to show that their God is true and aids them in Battle, to bring glory to an army "supported by god" and prevent the peasants from getting pissed off over the fact that they were staving

[Cyanide Suicide]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:24 am

How am I being intellectually lazy?

Just because I don't believe that what happened before the big bang has been explained, I don't think that makes me intellectually lazy...

You basically said "I don't know how this works, so I'll just assume it doesn't and I'll take the easy way out"
No, I said that I do not believe there is a theory that accurately explains the beginning (and I've read quite a variety of different ones), so therefore I see a possibility of a higher force being responsible for it all.

[freakazoid]

I ask any one who supports churchs to argue why God would decide one day that he would speak to only the Jews (or any other religion), and leave the rest of the people to guess who he was?

You apparently have never even read the Bible. The Jews are not a religion, God didn't speak to a religion. He didn't leave the rest of the people to guess who he was.

Johnny Anarcho - Might I interest you in a site of other people who also believe in a God, www.jesusradicals.com While there is a majority of Christians there there are a few of other faiths, all brought together in the common belief that we are only to submit to God. :D

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+January 23, 2007 05:08 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho @ January 23, 2007 05:08 pm)
[email protected] 20, 2007 12:14 am
What makes you so sure that this readfing is the correct one, after all I have heard many ayatollahs and other assorted fuckwits quote some fucking distrubing lines from that book at me. Furthermore, can you historically veryify that these are the exact words of Muhammed, the delusional and charismatic conquistador? What fills you with any certianty that Allah wrote the qur'an? WHo told you, what evidence di they supply - did they even prove Allah existed so as to tell these things to Mohammed, rather than - for example - the voices in his head or his own belief in what was politically expedient?

Do you deny that these countries would be better off without the insane, rambling words of the raving Mohammed?
I own three Qurans and I can say that after reading different interpretations that I can read between the lines to get the truth. [/b]
How do the three Qurans differ? Does the fact they differ not tell you something about their apparent "infallability"? How do you know that you're good enough at reading between the lines that you can make absolute assertions about what it "really" says?


The Ayatollahs, mostly the Iranian militiants, do that to scare "unbelievers". They'll quote a verse then jump to a verse in another chapter and so on and so-forth. The truth is that to get the whole message you have to read the whole chapter instead of chopping it up. Why then, is it, that the fundamentalists are the ones who seem to be spreading the more oppressive method whereas the liberals have a much "looser" interpretation of the Quran? I would say it is actually the fundies that are holding more true to the utter horror that is the Quran.


The Sunnah is proof of what Muhammad said. It's a subject I'm nor very educated on and scholars constantly debate whether a Sunnah is valid or not so I cant help there. Proof that the bloodthirsty, delusional, scheming conqueror said something is not proof that some invisible sky wizard told him to say it.


All I have is faith. MonicaTTmed beat me to the punch but I will say this: "If all you have is faith, then you have nothing"


I dont deny the truth and the truth is that Saudi Arabia and Iran are twisting Islam for their own purposes, much like Stalin did with Marxism-Leninism. How can they be, if they are fundamentalist and therfore sticking to the exact words pf their scripture?

[freakazoid]

MonicaTTmed beat me to the punch but I will say this: "If all you have is faith, then you have nothing"


"Faith without works is like a screen door on a submarine"

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:43 am

MonicaTTmed beat me to the punch but I will say this: "If all you have is faith, then you have nothing"


"Faith without works is like a screen door on a submarine"
That doesn't prove shit. You can't argue from that quote that using faith in a rational argument is logically coherent.

[Cyanide Suicide]

It's possible.

Although I'm sure someone will tell me it's not, yet offer no explanation for how it all started. Am I correct when I say that the big bang was all of the condensed matter of the universe exploding all at once? How did that matter come to be?

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 25, 2007 12:45 am--> (Jazzratt @ January 25, 2007 12:45 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 12:43 am

MonicaTTmed beat me to the punch but I will say this: "If all you have is faith, then you have nothing"


"Faith without works is like a screen door on a submarine"
That doesn't prove shit. You can't argue from that quote that using faith in a rational argument is logically coherent. [/b]
I'll quote you by saying, "FUCK YOUR OPINION!". I've got my views and thats what I'm staying with as far as religions concerned.

Rationality and logic are relative.

[Question everything]

:P I'm just saying that If there is a God the answer is not in any book, these books might help but I can call up many things that don't make sense in the bible (and I don't mean miracles those may or may not have happened but I'm not going to debate that) and almost just as many thing that contradict each other... Just one, Remeber how Jesus went to the olive garden and when his disicples were asleep, he wandered away and prayed? well then how the hell did any of his disiples hear him? they were all sound asleep...

Oh and another just for fun... who here watches the Boondocks? In Merry Christmas Huey Freeman, Aaron McGrunder, brings up the point that (during the christmas story) why, in the middle of winter, would the shepherds be outside tending there sheeps before the angels appeared to them? it is too cold, they'd be inside.

wait wait, I remembered this one just for all you creationists out there :) &#33;&#33;&#33; I hope you enjoy this one... In the bible, God lies to Adam and Eve, he tells them that is they eat from his tree they will die :( &#33;?&#33; then Satan appears to them and tells them the truth :blink: &#33;?&#33; that if they eat from the tree they will become wise like God, and God does not want them to be equals :o ??? then God gets angry, but in a "great show of mercy" lets them live, he just kicks them out and tells them that it is there own fault, even though, if he is all knowing wouldn&#39;t he have realized that they would <_< ? and could he have kept the fruit out of there reach ?? and how can he blame them, until they ate the fruits they were innocent, they had never seen death, and didn&#39;t know what they were doing... and He made them that way??? :unsure: confused? &#39;cause I am :P

oh and to all you cappies reading this forum I&#39;m waiting...

[freakazoid]

I only have enough time to answer one,
Oh and another just for fun... who here watches the Boondocks? In Merry Christmas Huey Freeman, Aaron McGrunder, brings up the point that (during the christmas story) why, in the middle of winter, would the shepherds be outside tending there sheeps before the angels appeared to them? it is too cold, they&#39;d be inside.

His actual birth wasn&#39;t in the middle of winter. I have heard that it was actually in September. And to cold to tend to there sheep? What, are they just going to let them die?

Also why do you only expect cappies to answer these questions? Are you saying that you have to be one to believe in a God, that you can&#39;t be an anarchist or a communist to believe in God?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+January 26, 2007 04:28 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho @ January 26, 2007 04:28 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 12:45 am

[email protected] 25, 2007 12:43 am

MonicaTTmed beat me to the punch but I will say this: "If all you have is faith, then you have nothing"


"Faith without works is like a screen door on a submarine"
That doesn&#39;t prove shit. You can&#39;t argue from that quote that using faith in a rational argument is logically coherent.
I&#39;ll quote you by saying, "FUCK YOUR OPINION&#33;". I&#39;ve got my views and thats what I&#39;m staying with as far as religions concerned.

Rationality and logic are relative. [/b]
This is a statenebt you haven&#39;t thought through. Logic and rationality are objective that&#39;s the whole fucking point og them, twatbadger. Logic i something that must be adhered to igf you are going to make any calims at all.

This is noty my &#39;opinion&#39; this is fact.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Oh and yes, of course it should be legal. You can&#39;t illegalise something as strong as religion, certainly not in the modern climate. And I think people respond better to persuasion than they do to brute force on these things. Not that I wouldn&#39;t get rid of it all in a heart beat if I could, but tactically, it&#39;s not an option. And we&#39;re going to need religious comrades. Let&#39;s face it... Not enough freethinkers in the world to revolt properly.

-Alex

[Question everything]

His actual birth wasn&#39;t in the middle of winter. I have heard that it was actually in September. And to cold to tend to there sheep? What, are they just going to let them die?

Also why do you only expect cappies to answer these questions? Are you saying that you have to be one to believe in a God, that you can&#39;t be an anarchist or a communist to believe in God?

I was just trying to piss off the creationists who think that everything in the bible, and the way it is practiced is right... I know that he was born during the warmer months (I heard it was something like July) in the year 4 B.C.


And we&#39;re going to need religious comrades. Let&#39;s face it... Not enough freethinkers in the world to revolt properly.

good to finally hear that...

[Question everything]

cannon fodder??? what exactly is that surposed to mean? :angry:

[Question everything]

lol no worries, I knew you were joking ;) but it&#39;s kinda hard being a religious leftist though I get the worst of both ends :(

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 29, 2007 08:23 pm
lol no worries, I knew you were joking ;) but it&#39;s kinda hard being a religious leftist though I get the worst of both ends :(
YOu could always give up the religion ;)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+January 29, 2007 08:33 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ January 29, 2007 08:33 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:32 pm

Question [email protected] 29, 2007 08:23 pm
lol no worries, I knew you were joking ;) but it&#39;s kinda hard being a religious leftist though I get the worst of both ends :(
YOu could always give up the religion ;)
or, even better, the leftism. [/b]
Looks like we have another wannabe comic, you know what would make everyone on this forum laugh? If you got your mates to video you drinking bleach. I know I&#39;d laugh like a motherfucker at that.

[Question everything]

:lol:

still I believe in God, I&#39;m opposed to organized religion and any appearance of religion in policitics, and I&#39;m questioning my religious views alot, but for one reason or another I hang on to them, I believe that communism should allow "God to exist" (hand out the bible, and let people read the whole thing not just the parts that priests and others want us to hear), and not suppress it as so many so-called "communist regimes" have done (so-called for reasons besides suppression of religion).

as for you wtfm8lol :P I haven&#39;t figured you out yet... but you got to be one (or a combonation) of the following...

1. a rich kid living off his dad&#39;s money, who is so bored he has nothing better to do than make fun of commies :huh: (that one seems unlikely)

2. a cappie nerd who spends way too much time in the inside of his locker. :P

3. an Asshole with a computer :P

4. a CIA agent who is going to find out where we live, then drag us over to guantanemo... :lol:

tell me soon :unsure:

[Enragé]

no
illegalisation of thoughts with which you do not agree is far from rational.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+January 29, 2007 08:35 pm--> (Jazzratt @ January 29, 2007 08:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:33 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 08:32 pm

Question [email protected] 29, 2007 08:23 pm
lol no worries, I knew you were joking ;) but it&#39;s kinda hard being a religious leftist though I get the worst of both ends :(
YOu could always give up the religion ;)
or, even better, the leftism.
Looks like we have another wannabe comic, you know what would make everyone on this forum laugh? If you got your mates to video you drinking bleach. I know I&#39;d laugh like a motherfucker at that. [/b]
Tell me a little about your childhood, Jazz.

Seriously, i&#39;m curious.

[benjaminbarker]

Religion has no place in an enlightened, intelligent, humanitarian society. Making laws against religion in such a society would be similar to outlawing suicide; the law will not deter people from practicing it and it is society&#39;s duty to support its citizens so that they do not have to resort to such pointless and ill-fated attempts to escape reality.

[Question everything]

so then, in an "enlightened" society there would be no need to outlaw it because if what you say is true it would dissappear of it&#39;s own accord :unsure: ... if the people want religion despite the fact they no longer must seek it as an escape then my friend you are oppressing the masses rather than aiding them&#33;&#33;&#33;

[C.R.M]

religion cannot be illegalized because there are too man spiritual people in the world but some religions should be disproven such as the catholic relgion the bible speaks of adam and eve and the garden of eden but scientists have proved the theory of evolution whcih dissproves this major part of the catholic religion

[Eleutherios]

Actually, the pope said it&#39;s okay to believe in evolution and take Genesis as like a metaphor or something. Like, when it says God created the Earth in 7 days, that really means he created the earth in approximately 9 billion years. And when it says he created two people at the beginning of time, it really means that he conjured up some self-replicating molecules which evolved into DNA which evolved into unicellular organisms which evolved into multicellular organisms which underwent the Cambrian explosion to create all the basic body plans of animals, some of which evolved into reptiles which evolved into dinosaurs who eventually died out in an asteroid impact so some other reptiles which had become amphibians and then mammals started to take over the land and some of the mammals got smarter and evolved into primates and then some of the primates started walking bipedally, losing body hair and growing immense brains capable of things like self-awareness, language and complex tool use.

[Question everything]

yea and your version makes a nicer bed time story too :P ... I pretty much ignore that part of the bible, it was written by some scribe trying to figure out why we are here and of course he was wrong... it was not written as a metaphor, so it should not be taken as one.

[t_wolves_fan]

There is a thread in OI about making drugs legal. The point is being made, rightfully, that banning drugs merely pushes the market underground and obviously has not done much to make people stop using them.

The same point could be made about religion.

What is even funnier is that doing drugs is clearly not rational, given the resultant health problems and loss of productivity; yet the person who complains the loudest about religion being "irrational" is a proud drug user.

Food for thought.

[Johnny Anarcho]

In a truly Anarchist society, people are free to be religious. Humans should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as they dont infringe on the natural rights of anyone else. That is Anarchy; no theory needed, no debate neccessary, just complete freedom of thought and action without the interference of anyone on anyone else.

[benjaminbarker]

What I meant when in my previous post is that religion would be obselete in a perfect society, and thus it would be pointless to have it made illegal. I should have been clearer. It is society&#39;s duty to make life bearable enough so that people don&#39;t have to turn to religion to solve their problems. Illegalising it would not do this, it would give them reason to complain. I don&#39;t believ suicide should be illegal; if someone&#39;s life is so terrible that they have no other conceivable choice but to end it, then I think that society screwed up somehow. Just as if that if someone&#39;s life is so horrible that they have to turn to a magical sky wizard to seek a purpose, then society screwed up. Not only would religion be seen as ridiculous and childish to an enlightened, intelligent society, such a society would be bereft of the ills that cause people to turn to religion as a crutch. So no, religion should not be illegalized. It should be made obselete through logic, reasoning, and a high standard of living for all humans everywhere.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:46 am
Why then, is it, that the fundamentalists are the ones who seem to be spreading the more oppressive method whereas the liberals have a much "looser" interpretation of the Quran? I would say it is actually the fundies that are holding more true to the utter horror that is the Quran.
...
How can they be, if they are fundamentalist and therfore sticking to the exact words pf their scripture?
I&#39;m not sure the more reactionary Muslims are more literalist, at least about the Koran.

There&#39;s nothing in the Koran that says a woman has to wear a burqa, or can&#39;t go to school, or work outside the home, or drive a motor vehicle&#33; Various mullahs, medieval or modern, made that up.

Some of it&#39;s codified in the Hadith, another part of Muslim scripture that probably began at different times much later than the Koran.

All the opposition Islamist groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, and whatnot, are of modern origin and have developed new concept on how government should be run.

Or take Khomeini: he developed this new doctrine, velayat-e-faqih, which is very unlike traditional Shi&#39;a Islam. Traditionally, Shi&#39;a clergy preached passivity: all governments are equally illegitimate on this sinful earth, someday the messiah will come back.

Khomeini said no, while we&#39;re waiting we can set up a new kind of government, where the clergy will rule with also an element of elected government. A new doctrine, not derived from any literal reading of scripture.

There is a lot of reactionary crap which can be justified from the Koran, and even more from the hadiths. A lot of laws about marriage, especially. But a lot of it is relatively new and politically driven.

The Islamists try to mystify it, but we shouldn&#39;t do them the favor of buying into that mystification.

Really, I&#39;m not sure there even is such a thing as a literal reading of a text: words on paper don&#39;t have a meaning until someone reads them. The best you can try to understand what the author meant by them: put them in a historical context and all that.

But you can&#39;t do that if you believe a text is the Eternal Word of God......

[Question everything]

The Koran strictly forbids Suicide, but try telling that to the extremists...

[razboz]

Originally posted by Question [email protected] 10, 2007 03:39 pm
The Koran strictly forbids Suicide, but try telling that to the extremists...
Is it suicide if you do it for God?

[EwokUtopia]

Not only should religion be legal, but people should be encouraged to make up their own religious beliefs so that religious people will be extremely divided and unable to consolidate power. In the transitional period, I think we need to introduce at least 50 new strains of Christianity, there are too many people in the hubs of Catholicism and Evangelicism.

Divide and Conquer.

My sect would state that after Jesus rose from the dead and gave the people of the world the Holy Ghost, the Ghost went crazy and stopped letting Jesus or god talk to them directly, which is why there is no proof of Gods existance, so we have to find a way to find that bastardly holy ghost and get rid of him. I mean, that was always one of the big confusions of Christianity for me, what the fuck is that holy Ghost thing anyway? Think the Church of the Holy Ghostbusters will be a hit?

[Question everything]

All hail Patton, All hail Patton :P


Not only should religion be legal, but people should be encouraged to make up their own religious beliefs so that religious people will be extremely divided and unable to consolidate power. In the transitional period, I think we need to introduce at least 50 new strains of Christianity, there are too many people in the hubs of Catholicism and Evangelicism.

Divide and Conquer.

My sect would state that after Jesus rose from the dead and gave the people of the world the Holy Ghost, the Ghost went crazy and stopped letting Jesus or god talk to them directly, which is why there is no proof of Gods existance, so we have to find a way to find that bastardly holy ghost and get rid of him. I mean, that was always one of the big confusions of Christianity for me, what the fuck is that holy Ghost thing anyway? Think the Church of the Holy Ghostbusters will be a hit?

I argee with you up to the divide and conquer part, I think that if people approched texts like the bible and koran independantly there would be more atheist and more people like me (a very unique perspective of God)...

The Holy Ghost by the way I think is surrposed to be like God on earth, like Jesus with out a body... I dunno... and for the Holy GhostBusters I think I&#39;ll wait for the movie :P ...

[freakazoid]

religion cannot be illegalized because there are too man spiritual people in the world but some religions should be disproven such as the catholic relgion the bible speaks of adam and eve and the garden of eden but scientists have proved the theory of evolution whcih dissproves this major part of the catholic religion

Yeah they sure did prove the theory of evolution, pff. More on this later. And it isn&#39;t just in the "Catholic religion". You know that each Christian denomination uses the same Bible right?

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:32 pm

religion cannot be illegalized because there are too man spiritual people in the world but some religions should be disproven such as the catholic relgion the bible speaks of adam and eve and the garden of eden but scientists have proved the theory of evolution whcih dissproves this major part of the catholic religion

Yeah they sure did prove the theory of evolution, pff. More on this later. And it isn&#39;t just in the "Catholic religion". You know that each Christian denomination uses the same Bible right?
And that the Adam and Eve thing as well as genesis appear in some form in the Torah and quran....

[Question everything]

Yes let&#39;s get working on a new-new testament-

Patton 4.13-And then Patton came Down for the Mountian and brought forth the ten new commandments 1. "He whom smelt hadth delt it" 2. "Money is the One and Only True God, those whom refuse to worship it must Die" 3. "Bring Forth your SUVs and drive upon those whom oppose you" ... etc.

[Question everything]

:lol:

6. Thou not shall steal thy neighbour&#39;s bong, lest ye provoke my wrath.

7. if thou seekth savation partake of patton&#39;s holy brew and thy sins shall be forginen

[Question everything]

10. Thou shall give patton all of your women folk over the age of 18 for 24 hours once a year.

Even the one&#39;s over 80 :unsure:

11. Thou shalt not pee in the Holy water

12. Thou shalt watchth the Simpsons once a night

[Question everything]

:lol: man you&#39;re heartless... keep it up ;)

[Question everything]

Saint Matthew Groening, Saint who-ever invented "the family guy", Saint Aaron McGrunder (Boondocks), Saint QE...


What about the cave-man that invented beer?

St. Fredrick Flintstone?

but let&#39;s stick to commandments...

14. If the Trailer (or canoe) is a Rocking don&#39;t come a knocking...

[Janus]

Making personal beliefs illegal is really not the best step for a post-revolutionary society to take not only in terms of policy but also enforcement.

[nightwatchman]

I dont think the state or anyone should be controling you thoughts, and I know your all going to say that religion is controling your thoughts, but people should at least be given the choice between beleiveing in a religion or not

[Question everything]

19. though shalt not mock Patton.

[razboz]

21 though shalt hijack any thread you can for your own ends

[Fawkes]

Yeah patton, shut up.

[The Feral Underclass]

Allowing the state to legislate against ideas is a very, very bad idea. Religion should not be made illegal just as the government shouldn&#39;t be allowed to make fascism illegal. If we allow them the opportunity it will set a precedence and when they get round to the left they&#39;ll sure as hell make us &#39;illegal&#39; too.

State intervention is not justified in any instance.

[freakazoid]

Religion should not be made illegal just as the government shouldn&#39;t be allowed to make fascism illegal.

Do you think that a link to an anarchist site where they are also Christian in my sig should be illegal?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:43 am

Religion should not be made illegal just as the government shouldn&#39;t be allowed to make fascism illegal.

Do you think that a link to an anarchist site where they are also Christian in my sig should be illegal?
Get the fuck over it&#33;

[freakazoid]

Get the fuck over it&#33;


Why? How can you, as an anarchist, think that it is alright to have a link taken out of my sig? How would you feel if one of your anarchist links was taken out by a socialist because he disagrees with the idea of anarchy and he felt that the link was somehow "preaching" anarchy? That he thinks that anarchy is a stupid and obsurd idea and anyone that believes in it is stupid and so he uses his powers as a mod to force his oppinion on you. How would you feel&#33;?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:40 pm

Get the fuck over it&#33;


Why? How can you, as an anarchist, think that it is alright to have a link taken out of my sig? How would you feel if one of your anarchist links was taken out by a socialist because he disagrees with the idea of anarchy and he felt that the link was somehow "preaching" anarchy? That he thinks that anarchy is a stupid and obsurd idea and anyone that believes in it is stupid and so he uses his powers as a mod to force his oppinion on you. How would you feel&#33;?
Stop acting like a spoiled fucking child over it. The warning point was perfectly justified and the petulant tantrum you&#39;re throwing at TAT is absurd and, frankly, quite embarrassing. We have a rule against preaching, and preachers usually end up in OI with the other scum, not having your pathetic link in the signature isn&#39;t really that much to ask of you. We know that your mind hasn&#39;t quite moved on past a dark ages "repent sinner, for the rapture is nearing" paradigm but there is no need for you to shove it in our fucking faces, we have - after all - grown up beyond the point of relying on such an outdated and silly crutch.

[freakazoid]

but there is no need for you to shove it in our fucking faces,

How is a link in my sig throwing it in your faces? That is like saying that all of TV should be censoured. If you don&#39;t want to see something on TV, change the channel. If you don&#39;t want to go to an anarchist site where they believe in Christianity then don&#39;t click the link.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:54 pm

but there is no need for you to shove it in our fucking faces,

How is a link in my sig throwing it in your faces? That is like saying that all of TV should be censoured. If you don&#39;t want to see something on TV, change the channel. If you don&#39;t want to go to an anarchist site where they believe in Christianity then don&#39;t click the link.
Calm down, for fuck&#39;s sake. You are not being "oppressed over the internet" so you can stop chucking your toys out of the cot.
If I had a sig that linked to stormfront, would that be acceptable to you?
If my signature showed I supported introducing sharia law, would that be acceptable?
You can after all, "choose not to look" at the signature, but as long as we have the banning/restriction system in place then you will have to live with not being able to spread reactionary tripe throughout the board and I personally am extremely sorry you can&#39;t post your wrongheaded shite.

[freakazoid]

If I had a sig that linked to stormfront, would that be acceptable to you?

Do you mean in support of stormfront? Eather way I wouldn&#39;t make you take it out.


If my signature showed I supported introducing sharia law, would that be acceptable?

Still your choice to have it in there, it would allow other people to know that you support it and then they could ingage in conversation with you to find out why you believe that and they could try to convince you about why they think that that is wrong.


and I personally am extremely sorry you can&#39;t post your wrongheaded shite.

Awww, you care. :wub:

shite, hehe

It is just another form of anarchy and I think that it shouldn&#39;t be taken out.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:46 pm

If I had a sig that linked to stormfront, would that be acceptable to you?

Do you mean in support of stormfront? Eather way I wouldn&#39;t make you take it out.
That&#39;s because your too much of a fucking liberal, and not my problem.



If my signature showed I supported introducing sharia law, would that be acceptable?

Still your choice to have it in there, it would allow other people to know that you support it and then they could ingage in conversation with you to find out why you believe that and they could try to convince you about why they think that that is wrong. Unfortunately theists and supporters of sharia law tend not to be swayed by rational discourse and definitely do not subscribe to any flavour of logic I know of.



and I personally am extremely sorry you can&#39;t post your wrongheaded shite.

Awww, you care. :wub: Hopefully this was written in the same sarcastic manner as my statement was meant to be taken in.


shite, hehe

It is just another form of anarchy and I think that it shouldn&#39;t be taken out. There are lots of "forms" of anarchy that don&#39;t involve making illogical claims about the nature of the universe, anarcho-syndicalism for example. As there is a rule against preaching in your posts I don&#39;t see why you should be able to do it in your sig. I noticed you put it back, are you simply fishing for attention or do you desire a restriction?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 10:40 pm

Get the fuck over it&#33;


Why? How can you, as an anarchist, think that it is alright to have a link taken out of my sig?
It has nothing to do with being an anarchist.


How would you feel if one of your anarchist links was taken out by a socialist because he disagrees with the idea of anarchy and he felt that the link was somehow "preaching" anarchy?

I&#39;d probably whine about it for months to a bunch of strangers on a message board and when I felt I had adequately told everyone about the great injustice which had been meted out against liberty and freedom, I&#39;d kill myself.


How would you feel&#33;?

Vindicated.

Now grow up.

[freakazoid]

I&#39;d probably whine about it for months to a bunch of strangers on a message board and when I felt I had adequately told everyone about the great injustice which had been meted out against liberty and freedom, I&#39;d kill myself.

Since I asked was asking a serious question I was expecting a serious response. Although I guess I should of realised that I wouoldn&#39;t get one from you. Why don&#39;t you actually answer my question?


It has nothing to do with being an anarchist.

I know, becuase of how authoritarian it is.


That&#39;s because your too much of a fucking liberal,

Why do you say that?


Hopefully this was written in the same sarcastic manner as my statement was meant to be taken in. Oh, I see. I thought that you were being serious.


As there is a rule against preaching in your posts I don&#39;t see why you should be able to do it in your sig

I still haven&#39;t recieved an explination about how it is a form of preaching and how I am "shove it in our fucking faces". Could you please elaberate?


I noticed you put it back, are you simply fishing for attention or do you desire a restriction?

Actally it is a different link to a different part of the site. Do you even know what that link leads to? Here is what it says;


(Only the first three sections are finished. This is a work in progress, please email comments and check back for updates&#33;)

1. What is Anarchism?

Anarchy is a Greek term derived from av, which means without and aoxn, which means ruler. Arche also means beginning and originator which connotes that the rulers see themselves as the originators of peace and justice. One of the best definitions of anarchism was written by Peter Kropotkin for the Encyclopedia Brittanica in 1910.

Anarchism is not so much what might be as what is. Anarchism as Gustav Landauer says is not something new or some speculative vision for some far off society, "but the actualization and reconstitution of something that has always been present," and as Peter Kropotkin wrote, "The anarchist writers consider, moreover, that their conception is not a utopia, constructed on the a priori method, after a few desiderata have been taken as postulates. It is derived, they maintain, from an analysis of tendencies that are at work already [ . . . ]" Anarchism is a mode of organization, rooted in experience that has and does exist side by side with the dominant authoritarian organization. Anarchism is a way of relating to others and organizing those relations on a wider scale for the common good. As such we need not wait for some future "revolution" when an anarchist society will suddenly spring up into being, but we need to look at those efforts which are in fact anarchist already. This does not discount that we have as our goal the complete reconstitution of society: revolution on a broad and wide scale is our goal.

It is as if there is a wide space that is crowded up with the dominant mode of relations and organizing (impersonal, bureaucratic, universal, etc.) that has crowded and strangled the other ways, the ways of love and mercy, of the local and personal, etc. But those strangled and crowded ways continue to exist within this space, although they do not now take up the majority of the space. Anarchists seek to work to expand the strangled and crowded out relations and organizing (the personal, local and loving) in order to break free from the stranglehold, and to crowd out the dominant system (the bureaucratic, impersonal technical, and universal).

On the other hand anarchism is a revolt against the totality of society, which is dominated by various edifices that hold this system together (capitalism, the nation-state, religious institutions, racism and gender bias, wage systems, technology and modern sciences, etc) so that what anarchists are for is a total restructuring of society. Merely replacing laissez fair capitalism with state capitalism only leads to totalitarianism and merely getting rid of the state leads to unhindered corporate rule. There is no chance of this system being "crowded out" through reforms. Sooner or later there does need to be a break with the domination system. To paraphrase the words of Peter Maurin, we are trying to create a society where it is easier to do what is good.

Anarchism is a critique of power as a repressive force. This power over others is not simply that a few elites have gained control over others and are repressing their essentially "good" natures. On the contrary the domination that anarchists critique is that which is spread throughout society existing on numerous levels, including all the dominant institutions (State, church, corporations, Universities, stock markets, etc.) but also in the way that individuals are "disciplined" to become self-policing agents in the manner in which Michel Foucault decribes in all of his works.

1a. Myth that anarchist society is like "heaven"

A lot of Christians confuse anarchist thought on society with Christian ideas of heaven. This is false. An anarchist society is not some state of perfection. In anarchist society there is still work to be done. There will still be interpersonal conflict (though not to the degree in capitalist society) that will need to be mediated, there will still be some crime (though not to the degree in capitalist society), and more. In short anarchism is a way of organizing society that lessens conflict between people because of the principles of mutual aid and direct democracy, but this does not mean that suddenly there will be nothing to do.

back to top

2. What is the "State?"

The term "state" can have two different meanings. The first is that the "state" is simply a political form by which people are organized. This is the sense in which our politicians and theorists want us to believe the state as such is an ancient and traditional thing, from which there is no escape. The second sense is the "State" which came about in Europe between 1450 and 1650. The "state" in this defined and strict meaning is based upon a notion of sovereignty, or as Max Weber puts it "a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory."

Historian Anthony Giddens in his book The Nation-State and Violence updates Weber by defining the "state" as "a political organization whose rule is territorially ordered and which is able to mobilize the means of violence to sustain that rule." This definition is preferable since it does not emphasize legitimacy.

2a. The Myth of the State as Peacemaker: A False Salvation Story

As mentioned before, state history tells us falsely that peace and justice originate with the state. The modern myth we are taught in our schools about the origins of the modern nation-states are instructive here. The modern state was founded on the myth that the state must save us from the “wars of religion” of the 16th Century. In other words, the state is trying to save all of us from the church. When the Reformation began and the Holy Catholic Church began to splinter, the state tells us that these factions began killing each other over stupid things like baptism, and other doctrines. The Catholic will kill the protestant for not recognizing the transformation of the Eucharist into the actual body of Christ, and the Protestant in turn would kill the Catholic because he would not renounce such doctrine and both Catholic and Protestant would kill us Anabaptists because we refused to fight at all&#33; Well thank our lucky stars the state stepped in and put all these fanatics in their place. This is the story we are told in our state sponsored history books.

An irony of this false story we are told is that it is also religious in that it is also a story of salvation (it is “soteriological” in theological terms). We are saved from something and into something else. Hence it is a story of salvation.

The problem is that this story is a lie. These so called “wars of religion” did not make the state necessary, but as theologian William Cavanaugh has shown, these wars were a symptom of an already emerging state. For example, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, attacked and pillaged Rome with his armies in 1527. A Catholic pillaging Rome&#33; Later when he attacked Lutheran strongholds Cavanaugh says that this was about consolidating imperial power and not about doctrinal loyalties. Indeed virtually all of the wars during this century were about princes attempting to consolidate their power rather than about loyalty to any particular faith or dogma. The emerging state, far from being birthed as a peacemaker spent its early years in bitter war: The state arose not as peacemaker but as war maker, the state arose not as a unifier but a divider and conqueror. Charles Tilly has written an examination of this history entitled “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” in which he argues that the origins of the state more resemble a racketeering ring than a knight in shining armor saving a far maiden. The story of salvation that we are told is simply false, through and through. The State then moves to create “religion” by making belief a private affair with no relevance to any sort of social body that requires a politic. Religion is itself a creation of the nation-state and a legitimator of it.

Moreover the story we are fed masks that in the name of "the nation-state" Christian will fight and kill Christian, brother fight and kill brother so that violence has been multiplied a thousand times what it ever was. Blasphemy to God has been replaced by treason to the state as the unforgiveable sin.

So the modern nation-state has propagated a story of salvation that rivals that of the church (we should even go further and say it has set itself up as a god). The state therefore in Christian eyes has set itself up as a kind of new church, and like a god it also wants our worship, assent and to mold us into a certain type of people.


2b. The Myth of the State as Peaceful Social Body: A False Story of Salvation #2.

According to popular beliefs, in a state of nature there is competition and rivalry between individuals. This plays out through the idea of scarcity. Two people, in all things equal, will desire what only one person can have (and desire it not for it&#39;s own sake, but as Gene Girard has shown, desire it precisely because it is desried by another). From this competitive desire arises all conflict, war and violence. Through the need to protect property and life, people form a social contract to bind together. Thus only the State, which is formed through the social contract, is able to save us from this natural war of individuals. Thomas Hobbes called this social body "Leviathan" or "an artificial man" or "State or Commonwealth." This "New Adam" is our salvation from each other.

This story deliberately overlooks tribal societies built upon mutual aid. In his book Stone-Age Economics Marshall Sahlins, a well-known anthropologist, shows that tribal peoples such as the natives of the Americas, the Aboriginals of Australia, the Bushmen who live in the Kalahari in Africa and may more, were societies organized on the premises of mutual aid. These societies were characterized not by competition between individuals, but by their lack of concern and detachment from possessions, willingness to share, leisure, adaptability to the natural environment (rather than adapting the environment to them), and a kind of democracy of property.

Tribal societies and hunter-gather societies existed for hundreds of thousands of years before what might be viewed as precursors to our own civilization appeared. Overlooking these societies is part of the general trend to dehumanize anything that is not part of Western "history." It also confuses the history of our culture and civilization as the history of all humanity.

This story pits individuals in perpetual conflict with each other, and the only possible mediation is the nation-state which is not able to completely obliterate violence between individuals but is able to lessen it. This is counter to the theology of the church. Christian theology envisions the creation of communities where violence is not merely held in check while the underlying currents are still prevalent. Our theology envisions a world without violence and that is redeemed from it.

According to capitalist logic, all sacrifice is implicitly violent because it means there is loss - a loss of self, a loss of dignity, a loss of identity, a loss of life. Destructive sacrifice is always a giving up or a surrender of the lesser to the greater-the present to the future, women to men, men to the state and corporation, all to the greater good which is the Market.

Jesus&#39; sacrifice does not force us to decide between oneself and a neighbor, with a decision for one necessarily entailing a loss of the other. Jesus&#39;s sacrifice shows us that God gives again and again, and that there is plenty for all of us. When we literally follow Jesus&#39; call to give everything we have to the poor this is not a loss of property, but a gain; when we give our lives for others we do not loose our lives, we gain life.

This myth of inherent and perpetual competition between individuals runs completely counter to the facts of history and tribal society and there is a head on collision between this lie and Christian teaching which tells us that Jesus has opened up a space of us to give to our neighbors without conflict and fear of scarcity. God&#39;s abundance has give us plenty so that we can devote our entire lives to meeting the needs of others.

back to top

3. What is Capitalism?

Capitalism means two things: private property and wage labor. In pre-capitalist societies before the modern state rose, property existed to a certain extent but it was not used for profit making purposes such as gaining capital returns from labor. Feudal lords shared their property (land) with peasants in return for rents. The economy was one of subsistence: small farmers produced all of their own needs – food, clothing, housing, furniture, and tools. This made money irrelevant for the most part and it made taxation extremely difficult. Peasants were able to control labor surplus by partially owning the lands. This is important since at least partial ownership of the means of production meant that the means of production (land, tools, etc.) was not concentrated in the hands of a few persons. They could at least sell their products (wheat, cotton, etc) in the market to meet their needs.

With the coming of capitalism and modern States in Western Europe in the 15-17th centuries, there were two important developments: Peasants were evicted from the land (they would no longer own any means of production) and the newly landless peasants were forcefully incorporated into the wage system. Taxes began to be levied from the lower classes because of the heavy burden of war. Consider just one example, there were only 7 years during the entire 17th Century in which there was no war and it is claimed that over 75% of the revenues collected by the Spanish Empire were being used for war during this century. These wars were to the interest of the ruling classes. The ruling class only limited the taxation to the extent that they wanted to keep people with just enough that they could extract more from them later. There was also the possibility of using taxes from their current domain to conquer other lands, and continue the cycle there. In any case, there was an intentional movement out of a subsistence economy and into a capitalist-based economy of monetary wages and private property.

“Payment in kind” was replaced by “payment with money” in which a farmer could no longer subsist in a personal and local economy but was forced to convert his produce into the money demanded by those in power. This required a market, which was hard to find outside the cities. Hence many peasants lost the small land they had, and became permanent slaves to the ruling classes. People who could subsist in the former economy, by trading their goods for what they needed were now forced to sell their labor to the ruling classes in order to survive. There were now two classes of people who met in the markets: 1) those of the capitalist class who owned the land, equipment, etc, in short all means of production and 2) the peasant transformed into the worker (the working class) who is alienated from the means of production and yet is forced to directly engage in production. This entailed a shift toward urbanization and later to industrialization in those cities. And as can be seen this all supposes a shift from decentralization to centralization as well. The common person was seen as a tool for the extraction of labor to fight wars and uphold the interests of the property owners and the rulers.

Capitalism is therefore an exploitative economy that is based on forcing people to labor in offices and factories they do not own, and paying these workers less than the value of what they produce and provide. This extra or surplus is then given to the owners (capitalist class) simply because they "own" the property. The owners do nothing except make sure they are paid. The owners in other words steal the workers labor value from them.

3a. The Image of God: Capitalist Theology of Private Property

Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes give us a theology of private property that is radically altered Christian theology of what is to be "made in the image of God" (imago dei). They talk about the blank slate individual. It is individuals who are the primary factor. Individuals kill each other and take each other&#39;s goods. For these enlightenment apologists for modern States, the image of God is lost when we lose our dominion: when we no longer own property. For them, the imago dei (image of God) is restored in this way: God exercises his authority by sheer will, and disobedience should be punished only because of this. So mankind&#39;s imago dei is restored when we exercise dominion, when we own property as individuals and excerize our authority and will over other creatures and creation. Redemption then comes in a social contract in which individuals seek to pursue their own dominion (we hold these truths to be self evident...), it comes in the form of Leviathan for Hobbes: the Savior of the individual, who brings about the conditions for the restoration of the will to power comes from the state, it saves us from our destruction of the image of God by taking each other&#39;s property. There is no "common good" in this story because it is a story of isolated individuals who pursue their own private and selfish interest.

Christian theology is the exact opposite of this. The image of God does not consist in an unattached tryant God dominating by sheer will. The image of God is in the Trinitarian community of God in which love overflows and is abundant for all.

God created us as a race, a collective people, meant to be in community. There is not really a distinction made between what is this persons and what is that persons. The community is such that there is enough for all because noone considers anything their own. With the sin of Adam, community is destroyed and the individual as an isolated person seeking their own private happiness and ends is created. The distinctions between who owns what (what is your and what is mine) become secured. Individuals then become rivals and kill and oppress each other because they imitate each others&#39; desires (See Rene Girard) for the same objects.

Redemption then consists of Jesus becoming human and therefore redeeming all of humankind (and all of creation since humanity is the pinnacle of it). People are restored to their rightful place as fellow participants in the Divine life of the Triune God. The image of God is restored in that we are now able to be a social body, capable of more than pure private pursuits but devote our entire lives to meeting the needs of others; like The Triune God we have enough and there is always plenty overflowing for others. Rather than isolated individuals bent on their own private and selfish pursuit Christians seek to participate in the Divine by imitating Christ and serving others.

3b. The Myth of Capitalism as Freedom: A False Story of Redemption

It is a faq about anarchy, with a little bit about how capitalism is anti-God at the end. How is that offensive? I have no reason to want attention or to be restricted or banned, I kind of like people to ignore me really. If you don&#39;t want to learn about God then don&#39;t click the link. Why is that so hard?

But if I could have only one question answered it would be the one about how is the link shoving it in your face and how it is a form of preaching?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

yes religion should be banned in my opinion, but I doubt it could be enforced, and would probably meet pretty wide resistance.

Anyhow, this is one of the things I always liked Hoxha for.

Freakazoid,

why the barbaric anti-materialist views?

[freakazoid]

What is Hoxha?



why the barbaric anti-materialist views?

Why do you get that impression? While I do think that there is more to life than materialism, I would not say that I have "barbaric anti-materialistic views". Materialism leads to gread. Gread is what capitalism is all about. Always wanting more, wanting what someone else has and more, C.S. Lewis talks a little about this in the book Mere Christianity. :D

[KC]

Materialism is a philosophical concept. You are confusing commodity fetishism with materialism.

[freakazoid]

So when you say "materialist", what do you mean?

[razboz]

I do believe he is referring to a fundamental principle of Marxism this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism)

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:54 am
What is Hoxha?

Hoxha was the leader of Albania for most of the Cold War era - Enver Hoxha (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha)

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 02:03 am

That&#39;s because your too much of a fucking liberal,

Why do you say that?
Because you seem to value the idea of "free" speech above common sense. You fail to recognise that this website is not a model of how we would run our future society, as you can see from the rest of this thread that you hijacked most of us do not want to ban religion, though we may be personally "religionphobic" or whatever epithet you want to throw at us, but on this board it is a sensible measure to make sure people don&#39;t bandy about their anti-materialist bollocks.



Hopefully this was written in the same sarcastic manner as my statement was meant to be taken in. Oh, I see. I thought that you were being serious. Really? Me describing your views as shite didn&#39;t give anything away?



As there is a rule against preaching in your posts I don&#39;t see why you should be able to do it in your sig

I still haven&#39;t recieved an explination about how it is a form of preaching and how I am "shove it in our fucking faces". Could you please elaberate? Right, if you were to post that link anywhere on the board it would be counted as preaching (I know you have posted it before, but that slipped under the radar), and every time you post you keep your signature, so you are in effect posting that link every time you post. Thus preaching.



It is a faq about anarchy, with a little bit about how capitalism is anti-God at the end. How is that offensive? I have no reason to want attention or to be restricted or banned, I kind of like people to ignore me really. If you don&#39;t want to learn about God then don&#39;t click the link. Why is that so hard? It&#39;s offensive because identifiying capitalism (or anything else) as anti-god is preaching, as I have mentioned before you are effectively posting that faq with every post you make. If you want people to ignore you the best way of going about it is not to have a controversial link in your signature and not to have a fucking tantrum on a messageboard. Personally I think TAT&#39;s method of dealing with your horseshit is the best way a moderator could treat you. We don&#39;t want the link there, a desire to learn about your mystical sky fairy doesn&#39;t enter into it.


But if I could have only one question answered it would be the one about how is the link shoving it in your face and how it is a form of preaching? You have a link which is about god at the end of every fucking post. What do you think the problem is?

[freakazoid]

You fail to recognise that this website is not a model of how we would run our future society,

Why isn&#39;t it, if we really believe in our cause then shouldn&#39;t we start now?


Really? Me describing your views as shite didn&#39;t give anything away?

No. I thought that you were saying that you thought that it was wrong about the link being taken out even though you think that what I believe in is wrong, or "shite".


Right, if you were to post that link anywhere on the board it would be counted as preaching (I know you have posted it before, but that slipped under the radar), and every time you post you keep your signature, so you are in effect posting that link every time you post. Thus preaching.

So whenever someone has a link to a political site that they indorse, such as the RCP or the RAAN to name a couple, is that not preaching?


tantrum

Tantrum, how?


You have a link which is about god at the end of every fucking post. What do you think the problem is?

Actually the link is about another form of anarchy. Not just about God. I think that the problem is that most of you people are just unwilling to actually learn about what it is that I believe, about what Christianity really means. Because you want to hate religion. That is why I have often gotten the response to reading one of those books that I mention that they will not. They are quite happy to live in there ignorance.

[razboz]

Seriously freakozoid and jazzrat and anyone who is part of this stupid argument SHUT UP. Go away.

Freakozoid: SUCK IT UP. Or at least complain in the right places like most other people do. Seriously stop whining in perfectly reasonable threads about your little link in your little signature. You aren&#39;t gonna find any sympathy if you keep on using threads as your personal ranting grounds.

Jazzrat: Ignore him.

Seriously im sick and tired of this. It makes this thread completely irrelevant. It&#39;d be great if somone could weed out all the pointless posts concerning Freakozoids silly little quibble with the large mean world. :angry:

Oh and there is no god. In any shape form or flavor. Get over it already.

[freakazoid]

SUCK IT UP. Or at least complain in the right places like most other people do. Seriously stop whining in perfectly reasonable threads about your little link in your little signature. You aren&#39;t gonna find any sympathy if you keep on using threads as your personal ranting grounds.

I did, and it was trashed. Right now I am waiting on a message from LSD. And it was brought up here because TAT said that, "Religion should not be made illegal just as the government shouldn&#39;t be allowed to make fascism illegal." and I had asked if he thought that it should be illegal for that link to be in my sig. So it wasn&#39;t really highjacked, it is very relevant to this thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

Please end the discussion on the warning point issued to freakzoid. Freakzoid, if you have an issue with your warning point, PM LSD and discuss the matter with him.

Please do not continue to derail this thread or any other thread with the issue of warning point or the link which I see you have now put back into your signature.

[freakazoid]

Please end the discussion on the warning point issued to freakzoid. Freakzoid, if you have an issue with your warning point, PM LSD and discuss the matter with him.

I did, I am just waiting on a response.


Please do not continue to derail this thread or any other thread with the issue of warning point.

Like I had said, I think that this was very relevant. And it was less on the warning point and more on the simple fact that he had taken it out, I do not think that anyone should have there sig changed no matter what. Simply removing something from there sig will not change what they believe, it will just push there beliefs underground.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 09:21 pm
Jazzrat: Ignore him.
Will do.

Maybe the long and circular argument should be trashed/moved to the members forum/chit-chat

[freakazoid]

I recently got a response from LSD. And I am sure that you guys will be ecstatic to hear that I will no longer have such an offensive link in my sig. Now you can live without fear of being turned to the dark side and that it will no longer be shoved in your faces.

edit - anybody know why I can&#39;t get the image in my link to show?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 04:26 am
edit - anybody know why I can&#39;t get the image in my link to show?
Yeah, we disallowed pictures because thy put a fuck-off great strain on Bandwidth. Is that too oppressive and anti-anarchist?

Now can a mod, please for the love of fuck split or trash this silly deviation?

[razboz]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
Allowing the state to legislate against ideas is a very, very bad idea. Religion should not be made illegal just as the government shouldn&#39;t be allowed to make fascism illegal. If we allow them the opportunity it will set a precedence and when they get round to the left they&#39;ll sure as hell make us &#39;illegal&#39; too.

State intervention is not justified in any instance.


This is the last relevant post before some idiot deviated it. Could somone please split and trash last few posts?

But more on topic: i agree with you TAT, that the state should not be allowed to interfere with our lives. However iam thinking a little more abstractly: should we consider religion to be a dangerous activity like taking drugs that ought to be legislated or at least considered socially unacceptable? I have personally observed that people who do socially acceptable drugs tend to them more often than people who do socially unacceptable drugs. Where i live Marijuana is only technically illegal: the cops wont harrass you for having a joint or a small quantity of personal use weed. That means you can do this drug int he street in broad daylight (or at least in broad streetlight). However there is a major limiting factor to the consumption of this drug which means only few people actually do it on a very regular basis. This factor is that it is socially unacceptable. People look down at stoners, and usually make nasty remarks at them and genarally are dicks. WOuld it not be beneficial for society if we managed to stigmatise religion to this extent?

[freakazoid]

Yeah, we disallowed pictures because thy put a fuck-off great strain on Bandwidth. Is that too oppressive and anti-anarchist?

Now that you mention it it is a conspiracy&#33; :ph34r: :P Thanks for the answer though. :D


This is the last relevant post before some idiot deviated it.

Like i have said before, it was relevant to the conversation.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:38 pm

Yeah, we disallowed pictures because thy put a fuck-off great strain on Bandwidth. Is that too oppressive and anti-anarchist?

Now that you mention it it is a conspiracy&#33; :ph34r: :P Thanks for the answer though. :D


This is the last relevant post before some idiot deviated it.

Like i have said before, it was relevant to the conversation.
NO ITS FUCKING NOT RELEVANT&#33; NOW GET LOST&#33;

Seriously your fucking little idiotic signature has nothing to do with whether Religion should be illegal or not. Stop whining. Go troll some other thread. Or better. unplug your computer. Take it in both hands. Now walk to the highest place oyu can find. The jump off.

[freakazoid]

And how is it not relevant? Is all that swearing really needed, does it add anything relevant to this converstaion? And did you not read my response that I had gotten from LSD?

[razboz]

No seriously stop spamming this thread. Go complain about this in another thread like i did when i was restricted. the end result was i got unrestricted.

[freakazoid]

No seriously stop spamming this thread.

I&#39;m only defending myself. Like right now in this post.


Go complain about this in another thread like i did when i was restricted

I have already said this. I did, it got trashed, I created a thread asking why it was trashed, I was answered and that thread locked, I messaged LSD, I got a response saying that he agrees with the dicision about my sig, I haven&#39;t put it back in since.
I have said all this in previous posts. Right now I am waiting on a message back from LSD on another question.

edit -
This thread is should religion be illegal not should my signature be illegal.

And my sig was taken out because it was religious.


Let it go dude&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

See first responce.

[razboz]

Dude, you do realize no one gives a crap about your signature right? Also no one gives a flying fuck about your relationship with LSD. You could be having sex with him and i still couldnt muster the will to care. So stop telling us about your silly little problems and let somone ACTUALLY DO SOME INTELLIGENT DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD.

Also a decision was made to remove the signature in your thread. The dicision is final. This is not a place that is meant to resemble some Anarchist dream-place. It just isnt. This has already come up several times in the past. It ended in a rather unpleasant split that resulted in our ugly 11 toed cousins over at =Armchair Revolution=. So either find something useful to say or get lost. Im dead serious. I will report you if your spamming does not stop.

I just realised i think freakozoid killed this thread.

RIP - It was a good thread.

I now wuldnt mind if an admin closed it.

[Invader Zim]

Regimes in the past have attempted to outlaw religion and universally failed. It is a waste of time and authoritarian in the extreme.

[razboz]

Originally posted by Invader [email protected] 28, 2007 08:31 pm
Regimes in the past have attempted to outlaw religion and universally failed. It is a waste of time and authoritarian in the extreme.
Do you in fact mean that governments have attempted to destroy religion and failed?

I think so, because if i know which governments you are thinking of (the USSR or French revolutionaries maybe?) then they succeded in legislating the banning of religion. Just not in destroying it. Though id like to nuance everyone using post Revolution France as an example because if we look France has a much MUCH higher number of atheists/agnosticy, fewer/less powerfull religious extremists a huge separation between church and state than say, the USA, that actually has the "freedom of worship". So the French attacks on religion werent quite that pointless. From becoming one of the standard bearers of Catholicism in Europe (and the World) it became the standard bearer of Laicism... Does that say anything to you?

EDIT: if the likes of freakozoid are allowed to roam free on the board then how come patton is still restricted? This confuddles my brain :wacko:

[RHIZOMES]

No. Outlawing religion would be a hollow victory for atheism. I'd rather it phase out naturally. Outlawing religion only gives religious people a martyr complex and make it even more widespread.

[F9]

No.Everyone has the right to believe in a power that will come and save him!Some people are in need of this thing because they are "weak"!they have the chance that the "god" will help them!

Fuserg9:star:

[Bud Struggle]

No.Everyone has the right to believe in a power that will come and save him!Some people are in need of this thing because they are "weak"!they have the chance that the "god" will help them!

Fuserg9:star:

You could also make the case that a weak person can't make it in the world on his own and needs the collectivization of a Communist society to help him. :D

[BIG BROTHER]

making religion ilegal would be as bad as forcing people to belive in certain religion.

[Red_or_Dead]

No. Even if it is outlawed, how would the authorities enforce this? We cant ban something that is confined to ones head. Or, we can, but we cannot enforce it.

A better question would be if we are in favour of outlawing religious institutions. That sounds a lot more rational to me.

[AGITprop]

No. Even if it is outlawed, how would the authorities enforce this? We cant ban something that is confined to ones head. Or, we can, but we cannot enforce it.

A better question would be if we are in favour of outlawing religious institutions. That sounds a lot more rational to me.

Who is the 'we' you speak of? You speak of us as if we are all-powerful decision makers. Ultimately, it will be up to the masses. If they democratically decide to allow religious institutions such as Temples, Mosques and Churches to remain open with their clergy, then that is how it will be. What 'we' can do though is educate people. Through education we can show them the irrationality of religion and let them come to their own conclusions. If they vote to close religious institutions, I'm sure we can find something more productive to use the land for.

[careyprice31]

No. Everybody should have the right to worship whomever they please.

I agree. Religion and a person's own personal relationship with their deity/deities are their own personal business.

It is when religion and the state come together, and religion tries to intrude on manipulation of the systems like educations, spreading lies and propaganda, and so on, sacrificing world realities in favor of untrue dogma that hurts thousands of people (such as the catholic church's crusade against condoms, abortion and birth control) that religion becomes a problem.

So no, banning religion and worshipping shouldnt be illegal,

but banning the other stuff, should be.

In my own opinion.

[Bud Struggle]

It is when religion and the state come together, and religion tries to intrude on manipulation of the systems like educations, spreading lies and propaganda, and so on, sacrificing world realities in favor of untrue dogma that hurts thousands of people (such as the catholic church's crusade against condoms, abortion and birth control) that religion becomes a problem.

You have two problems here. First of all institutions like the Catholic Church doesn't overtly make rules for anyone that isn't Catholic, but Catholics are often in positions of authority AS INDIVIDUALS to enforce the rules of the Church. E.g., during Lent the Church forbids eating of meat on Fridays--so in my factory meat isn't served in the cafateria. My factory, my choice. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Now if I was a Senator, or Congressman, the meat on Friday might not be the issue, but maybe abortion would be--and as a private citizen I definitely would support government officials with my vote and my campaign contributions. I would want the gut that reflects my view to get elected--you of course are free to support anyone you like and then the person that gets elected will decide. It's isn't the Church that decides anything--it's individual voter.

And then the more fundamental question--who decides what is TRUE? Me? You? The Church? You state the Church's teaching are untrue, I think they are--they just voice what I already believe. You are in no better or worse position than I am in to state what is true or not--and we don't agree. All we could do at this point is cast our vote.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

No limits on belief should be tolerated at all.

That doesn't mean they should receive public funding, or be treated with "respect" in public discourse, just that people can think what they want.

We are not thought police.

And we don't need to be - history will erode religion as it becomes less and less necessary as an explanatory model by science and less necessary as a comfort blanket or opiate as society improves.

However, raising children with an explicit doctrine should be illegal. All beliefs should be arrived at free from indoctrination. In practice it's a very difficult task to eliminate all influence of parents and such, but we ought to try to get as much of it out as possible, it's only ever damaging, even if the doctrine is 'right'.

-Alex

[Dystisis]

Something like philosophical institutions and research that deals with it will hopefully flourish.

I don't see a place for religious institutions in the traditional sense, though.

[Bud Struggle]

However, raising children with an explicit doctrine should be illegal. All beliefs should be arrived at free from indoctrination. In practice it's a very difficult task to eliminate all influence of parents and such, but we ought to try to get as much of it out as possible, it's only ever damaging, even if the doctrine is 'right'.

Yup, kinds maybe should be raised on indoctrination farms away from their parents and should be taught the "Correct" way to think--and maybe after 20 years of so of that they can be free to follow their own beliefs.

Now, that's a first rate Communist plan.

If I didn't hang around here a bit to see how really sweet and cuddley you guys are under all this Commie rhetoric, I might have though Communists were kind of dangerous.:D

[Dejavu]

My factory, my choice. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Nope, nothing wrong with that.


Now if I was a Senator, or Congressman, the meat on Friday might not be the issue, but maybe abortion would be--and as a private citizen I definitely would support government officials with my vote and my campaign contributions. I would want the gut that reflects my view to get elected--you of course are free to support anyone you like and then the person that gets elected will decide. It's isn't the Church that decides anything--it's individual voter.

Yeah this is the problem with the State and government in general. No government should take a position on the abortion issue.



And then the more fundamental question--who decides what is TRUE? Me? You? The Church?

When it comes down to it, you have your own value scales. But this comes down to the question of Agent relative verses Agent neutral values in the ethical and moral sense. Its philosophical in nature but a long ass topic I don't have the time to write about at this moment.


Yup, kinds maybe should be raised on indoctrination farms away from their parents and should be taught the "Correct" way to think--and maybe after 20 years of so of that they can be free to follow their own beliefs.

Now, that's a first rate Communist plan.

You guys never change

Yep its the same old story Tom. :laugh:
Which affirms my point that Communists can't really be Anarchists. They strongly oppose business and religious coercion but depend on State coercion as 'cure.' Why a Nanny State is more proper than parents raising their own children is beyond me. :confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No. You cannot hope to eliminate thousands of years of superstition with one piece of legislation.

However, outlawing certain religious practices, like the indoctrination of children, along with making sure that everyone gets a decent education, can aid the process of increasingly secularising society.

And on the issue of abortion - if you don't like them, then don't have one.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

Before one can answer this either way one must ask why is it that people believe?

Is it because there is a god that they must worship in order to show their appreciation for being alive?

Is it because they wish to improve themselves and need an inspirational figure to aspire to emulate?

Or maybe is it because they're vacuous soul-destroying ****-slimes who desperately wishe to suck every milligram of colour, joy and life out everyone else's existence just to fill the void left behind when daddy pulled his dick out of their ass?

The problem is all these reasons are acceptable to religious leaders.

One cannot outlaw a belief, outlawing anything makes people curious about it. How can one proclaim the victory of rationality when they forcibly remove topics of rational study (ancient mythical literature) irrationally fearing the consequences of people irrationally believing what they read?

Religion should not be tolerated but it shouldn't be illegal.

[Faux Real]

Or maybe is it because they're vacuous soul-destroying ****-slimes who desperately wishe to suck every milligram of colour, joy and life out everyone else's existence just to fill the void left behind when daddy pulled his dick out of their ass?What is this supposed to mean?

[careyprice31]

You have two problems here. First of all institutions like the Catholic Church doesn't overtly make rules for anyone that isn't Catholic, but Catholics are often in positions of authority AS INDIVIDUALS to enforce the rules of the Church. E.g., during Lent the Church forbids eating of meat on Fridays--so in my factory meat isn't served in the cafateria. My factory, my choice. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

Now if I was a Senator, or Congressman, the meat on Friday might not be the issue, but maybe abortion would be--and as a private citizen I definitely would support government officials with my vote and my campaign contributions. I would want the gut that reflects my view to get elected--you of course are free to support anyone you like and then the person that gets elected will decide. It's isn't the Church that decides anything--it's individual voter.

And then the more fundamental question--who decides what is TRUE? Me? You? The Church? You state the Church's teaching are untrue, I think they are--they just voice what I already believe. You are in no better or worse position than I am in to state what is true or not--and we don't agree. All we could do at this point is cast our vote.

First of all, the meat issue. If you do not eat meat for lent, that is your own personal choice. But by forbidding serving it in your factory, you are intruding upon the rights of the workers in your factory who do not do as you dso and may still like to hnave their meat at their own regular time. You are forcing your way on your people when you do this.

This happened at a little cafe in my university. The boss didnt like Halloween because he was christian so he forbid all of the workers at the cafe to do wnything halloweeny despite the fact that many of his workers did not share his beliefs and they felt it was wrong what he did. They told me that to my face. So you can follow lent, but you should never intrude upon the rights of others to not practice lent if they so wish.

And the abortion issue......by you supporting pro life candidates for elections they wish to impose their own personal beliefs on others. Your actions show you have no respect for the rights of others to have abortions or to eat meat at lent if they so wish.

Not to be rude, but these actions show little respect for what other people may desire or wish.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Anyone who wants to worship a cult that is centered around an invisible sky wizard, that is devoid of all logic and that represses people should have the right to.

[Dyslexia! Well I Never!]

What is this supposed to mean?

I mean that maybe some people use religion to destory everyone else's lives because something so utterly terrible happened to them that they complete mental collapse and to them only their blind faith in a loving god could possibly explain how living through it could be possible.

In other words those superior and irritatingly arrogant utter ****s with tenuous and generally unconvincing examples of miracles like that they got through child abuse, Alcoholism, Drug addiction or Illness by turning to god.

Or as I previously stated it.

is it because they're vacuous soul-destroying ****-slimes who desperately wishe to suck every milligram of colour, joy and life out everyone else's existence just to fill the void left behind when daddy pulled his dick out of their ass?

[RedAnarchist]

"Illegal"? I didn't realise we were in the business of making laws.

Religion is a personal thing, and we shouldn't be making rules for society.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What exactly counts as "religion?" The word isn't even well defined. Some religions require a belief in gods, others don't. Some religions require a belief in souls or an afterlife, others don't.

You can't ban religion, because you won't even be able to get people to agree on what exactly it is that you are banning.


Also how precisly would this law be enforced?
That's also a very good point. How exactly could anyone possibly stop people performing religious practices in their own homes without employing a massively intrusive state apparatus?

Some people on revleft think that religion is stupid. I disagree with them, but I think that point of view can provide a useful metaphor: Banning religion is as ridiculous as banning stupidity.

[Module]

Due to religious worship's terrible track-record should we make religion as illegal as black-mail or coertion?
Coercion to what? People don't become religious simply because they think they can. It's a far more complex matter than whether it's allowed or not - and how you could possibly reasonably act to not 'allow' it is beyond me. [EDIT: Whoops! Seems I misread!!]

People should, by principle, be allowed to practice any religion they choose.
How, as a communist, would you even rationalise a justification for denying them that?
However, religious views and perspectives should not be entertained as serious and honest social forces when it comes to things such as decision making, or what have you.
But that's something which comes from the hopefully rationally leaning population in which they live, not from any sort of 'legal' restriction.
As had probably been said many times so far in this thread, religion in a communist system is hopefully something that will 'die out', so to speak - but that's going to come from the people themselves.
You can't force somebody to be an atheist. If they don't go through the process themselves of becoming one, rationalising it themselves, then (intellectually speaking,) they'll be in just as bad a position as they would've been otherwise.

[Bud Struggle]

First of all, the meat issue. If you do not eat meat for lent, that is your own personal choice. But by forbidding serving it in your factory, you are intruding upon the rights of the workers in your factory who do not do as you dso and may still like to hnave their meat at their own regular time. You are forcing your way on your people when you do this.

This happened at a little cafe in my university. The boss didnt like Halloween because he was christian so he forbid all of the workers at the cafe to do wnything halloweeny despite the fact that many of his workers did not share his beliefs and they felt it was wrong what he did. They told me that to my face. So you can follow lent, but you should never intrude upon the rights of others to not practice lent if they so wish.

And the abortion issue......by you supporting pro life candidates for elections they wish to impose their own personal beliefs on others. Your actions show you have no respect for the rights of others to have abortions or to eat meat at lent if they so wish.

Not to be rude, but these actions show little respect for what other people may desire or wish.

As far as meat goes--when I am in another person's house or establishment I most certainly will abide by the rules of the owner of the establishment. If I go into a Jewish person's house I won't bring pork, if I go into a Moslem's house I won't being a case of Bud. That's just common decency.

My business is my property. I would expect people abide by the rules I have laid down. FWIW: Today, Holy Thursday and tomorrow Good Friday are both paid days off for my employees. None of them have any problem with that religious belief of mine.

As far as abortion goes--you make a valid point if you don't feel that life begins at conception. I do. I think a human being is in a woman's womb and I think that life should be respected. By me supporting pro-life candidates I support life to it's fullest. I am against the death penlty. I don't think that ANY human should EVER KILL ANY OTHER HUMAN.

While I certainly respect the interests and rights of the mother, I think the life of the baby is paramount.

PS, You are never rude. :)

[Trystan]

No, absolutely not. Those who voted Yes - how incredibly fascistic of you. Grow up.

[Dejavu]

As far as abortion goes--you make a valid point if you don't feel that life begins at conception. I do. I think a human being is in a woman's womb and I think that life should be respected. By me supporting pro-life candidates I support life to it's fullest. I am against the death penlty. I don't think that ANY human should EVER KILL ANY OTHER HUMAN.Yeah, but couldn't someone argue life also begins before conception? What makes a woman's egg not a life and a fertilized egg a life? Would then contraception be considered murder? I'm indifferent about abortion since I hear reasonable arguments on both sides. However, I am always inclined to take a libertarian approach yet my Catholic background still restricts me in this sense (hence my neutrality.) I look at it this way, a woman's body is her own property. Even if we considered the fetus a life, its not like the fetus is requesting we be its personal guardian. We are then making life altering decisions for a mother and her fetus(later baby), I don't think its our place to do that. The best way I can look at this is through a stance on private property. First of all, no state should exist, but if it does , it shouldn't take a position thats pro-life or pro-choice, that is a private and not public decision. Nor should a state force people to subsidize abortions.
The property rights issue comes down to the clinics. Much like your factory Tom, if you are a doctor that is firmly against abortions, then no one has the right to mandate your clinic should perform one. On the flip side, if a clinic decides to perform an abortion, you have no right to coercion to make them not do it.

Its the only reasonable solution IMO.

[graffic]

What a stupid, illthought outdated thing to say.. oh wait I'm on the revleft forum

You can't force someone to believe something you do, that is Facism.

[al8]

That is not the issue. Nobody is advocating some fairy-tale thought police - trying to keep order in someones brain. A ban on relgion means in all practicality a ban on its public expression and making religion a personal matter. And forbidding the indoctrination of children.

[Atrus]

I can't say that I've read through the mammoth 13 pages of this topic, so please tell me or delete my post if I am saying something which has already been said/argued.

I'm a "Christian", but I don't go to church often. It's my personal belief that the Church as an organisation has corrupted the whole principle of being a Christian and being religious. I read the bible and interpret it how I chose, and much of it is utter bullshit, as is much of what the Church teaches.
However, I do get together with a few friends and discuss our own view points, regardless of the Church.
So to get to the point, I believe that organised religion *should* be banned, it only corrupts, but that small gatherings of peers to simply discuss is fine. Personal religion is not a problem, it is often a good thing, as long as it in no way influences the lives of others. I would never impose my beliefs on other people, and, certainly, if I were running a country or had some hand in government, would run it using logic, sense and principles, NOT religion.

[careyprice31]

Yeah, but couldn't someone argue life also begins before conception? What makes a woman's egg not a life and a fertilized egg a life? Would then contraception be considered murder? I'm indifferent about abortion since I hear reasonable arguments on both sides. However, I am always inclined to take a libertarian approach yet my Catholic background still restricts me in this sense (hence my neutrality.) I look at it this way, a woman's body is her own property. Even if we considered the fetus a life, its not like the fetus is requesting we be its personal guardian. We are then making life altering decisions for a mother and her fetus(later baby), I don't think its our place to do that. The best way I can look at this is through a stance on private property. First of all, no state should exist, but if it does , it shouldn't take a position thats pro-life or pro-choice, that is a private and not public decision. Nor should a state force people to subsidize abortions.
The property rights issue comes down to the clinics. Much like your factory Tom, if you are a doctor that is firmly against abortions, then no one has the right to mandate your clinic should perform one. On the flip side, if a clinic decides to perform an abortion, you have no right to coercion to make them not do it.

Its the only reasonable solution IMO.

Of course, the egg is alive, and the sperm is alive. I dont think even a prolife person can argue against that. Conception is when they join together, the egg has 23 chromosomes, and the sperm has 23 chromosomes and what it is after that they join to make up 46 (most of the time) and that it now has the potential for becoming a different form.

but it is all human eggs, sperm and fetus, even before the sperm and egg join.

The issue is that pro choice people dont believe a embryo, fetus, whatever u want to name it, has the right to remain in a person's body without their consent and use their resources.

I am quite pro choice. as much as any leftist here on revleft (and even some rightists are pro choice as well.)

[Dros]

No.

[RedAnarchist]

What a stupid, illthought outdated thing to say.. oh wait I'm on the revleft forum

You can't force someone to believe something you do, that is Facism.

Yeah, that Mussolini guys a right jerk, isn't he? And don't get me started on that Franco guy!:glare:

Fascism as an ideology is long dead. Yes, there still are fascists, but they are pretty much insignificant compared to other reactionaries.

[RedAnarchist]

And forbidding the indoctrination of children.

This is something I strongly advocate when it comes to any sort of view or belief. You cannot force a child into believing something, you can only give them the freedom to question the status quo and to find for themselves their own beliefs. We don't coerce adults, so why coerce children?

[graffic]

The problems with religion are ultimately problems with human beings. Getting rid of religon won't stop the problems, they will just prop up elsewhere. Anyone who actually believes "banning" religion is a fundamentally good idea is completely ignorant of history. Its the equivalent of saying banning Alcohol is a "good idea".. history states otherwise.

[Atrus]

The problems with religion are ultimately problems with human beings. Getting rid of religon won't stop the problems, they will just prop up elsewhere. Anyone who actually believes "banning" religion is a fundamentally good idea is completely ignorant of history. Its the equivalent of saying banning Alcohol is a "good idea".. history states otherwise.
Both are good ideas though. Uninforcable, but I believe there is no question that they are both good ideas if feasible. Hence my desire to ban organised religion, IE a hierachal organisation that spans more than a single gathering of friends, because of the potential effects.

[al8]

I ad, Atrus, that I find your conception of a ban on religion to be agreeable.

[Fedorov]

No- nothing wrong with religion and even organized religion as long as it does not meddle with politics and economics. Furthermore it amazing how disrespectful most of us are to the religious. Its not literal and open to interpretation. If someone finds solice in the Bible of Qur'an thats their buisiness and not up to flaming. I'm not religious myself but there are plenty of logical and rational believers out there. Lets be a little more tolerant eh?

[al8]

Actually no. Neither tolerance nor respect should be shown. Religion is a racket to be scorned and its influance; be it idiological, cultural, economic or political - thwarted.

[Faux Real]

Muslim workers in and around Mecca and such, even after a worker's revolution would take place, are not going to suppress their own religion. I'd imagine they would adapt to socialist economics.

Or would workers from another "communist country" invade/intervene/occupy on account of them still participating in religious activity?

[al8]

Well we can't say either way now, what they will adopt, now can we? Who knows what the future will bring. But I hope they do suppess "their" religion.

[Orange Juche]

You can't force people not to believe in something or not, or to organize to practice some superstition. And trying to ban it doesn't accomplish anything, it creates an underground.

If you want to get rid of something like that, get rid of the reasons for it to be around, don't ban it. Banning it is just a band-aid approach.

[al8]

History suggests otherwise. Paganism was wiped out in Europe because temples were smashed and pagan worship was only allowed if it was done in secret. That is, it was banned from the public sphere. Pushing it underground effectively deminished the chance of growth and spread of these pagan beliefs.

I know that the 'underground' sounds romantic, but its a dump. Obscure beliefs don't exactly go out with a noticeable thump. Some few may meet a revival, yes. But I think a way more than we realize, things go out with out notice. (Perhaps evidenced by the fact that we don't know about them).
I think one of the reasons so many of us radicals think that underground beliefs will inevitably rise up again is wishful thinking, since our own beliefs are now to such a large extent obscure.

Pushing religion underground has proved a bane of religion before. I suggest we finish the job and wipe them all out. Useing these and other methods including eliminating the conditions that require illusions I think we'd be much better armed in defeating religion for good, than if we'd just use one method solely.

---
A side note; I've noticed that many marxists have this sort of detached ivory tower view, and disregard what happens on the ground. Like changing modes of production is like changing a switch, and 'corresponding' changes in the superstructure will happen almost without any (concious) human effort; and particularly not by their own. I think thats lazy and misguided. One can't neglect intricacies just because one sees the big picture. It's supposed to be complementary.

[AlleyKat]

Fuck no you Hoxhaist bastards, there should be one state religion.

[Bluetongue]

Sweet Buddha on a pogo stick!

At least Christians have given up on pickling their dead and building shrines for the Happy Believers to visit!!!! ;)

Did you ever consider trying to find a way to discourage FANATICISM?

Open minded folks of any creed are no danger to anyone. Its the lunatics who KNOW THEY ARE RIGHT that need to be locked up.

The only way to prevent childhood indoctrination is to expose children to all belief systems and teach them to think for themselves. What y'all can't accept is that a large portion of them choose to be religious, even when exposed to science from birth. I grew up an atheist, now I'm a scientist and religious. What you are really suggesting is indoctrinating children with communism, isn't it?

[La Comédie Noire]

No, It shouldnt be made "Illegal".

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Sweet Buddha on a pogo stick!

At least Christians have given up on pickling their dead and building shrines for the Happy Believers to visit!!!! ;)

Did you ever consider trying to find a way to discourage FANATICISM?

Open minded folks of any creed are no danger to anyone. Its the lunatics who KNOW THEY ARE RIGHT that need to be locked up.

The only way to prevent childhood indoctrination is to expose children to all belief systems and teach them to think for themselves. What y'all can't accept is that a large portion of them choose to be religious, even when exposed to science from birth. I grew up an atheist, now I'm a scientist and religious. What you are really suggesting is indoctrinating children with communism, isn't it?

Who are you addressing, exactly? Unless my computer is playing tricks on me, the poll shows overwhelming support for religious freedom - 18&#37; is certainly low enough that I can call it negligible. I recommend you frequent an opposing forum and get their opinion on religious indoctrination for children. Chances are the numbers won't be so pleasant.

[MarxSchmarx]

History suggests otherwise. Paganism was wiped out in Europe because temples were smashed and pagan worship was only allowed if it was done in secret. That is, it was banned from the public sphere. Pushing it underground effectively deminished the chance of growth and spread of these pagan beliefs.
...
Pushing religion underground has proved a bane of religion before. I suggest we finish the job and wipe them all out. Useing these and other methods including eliminating the conditions that require illusions I think we'd be much better armed in defeating religion for good, than if we'd just use one method solely.

This may have been true 1500 years ago, but recent history shows that we don't need anti-religious state policy.

Today Australia, Japan and Western Europe, once quite religious societies, are now basically secular and athiestic.
None of this required a state policy to discourage, much less ban, religion. North American religiosity is an anomaly, not the norm.

In the few examples in the modern, democratic world where anti-clericism became state policy, there have been powerful backlashes (e.g., Spain and Turkey). Only with an iron-fisted dictatorship have laws worked to successfully eradicate religion.

[al8]

I don't agree. There is still considerable religion in those countries. And them being more secular only makes my proposals more viable, since there would be less religion to deal with.

And I do think that peoples power should be brutally harsh against regressive elements like religion. And that it show, iron-fisted or not, who is in power and who is not.

[pusher robot]

Who are you addressing, exactly? Unless my computer is playing tricks on me, the poll shows overwhelming support for religious freedom - 18% is certainly low enough that I can call it negligible.

Thanks to your "awesome" security settings, I can't even see the poll results, so all I have to go by are the comments, which are overall distrubingly supportive of repression.

[Bluetongue]

If Marx's critique of religion is correct, won't religion end when physical suffering ends?

Yet, many people who are not oppressed and suffer little or no physical pain are religious. If you insist on state actions to abolish religion, doesn't that imply that Marx's analysis is wrong?

[RedAnarchist]

Thanks to your "awesome" security settings, I can't even see the poll results, so all I have to go by are the comments, which are overall distrubingly supportive of repression.

Current votes -
Yes http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2-r.gif 37 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1388) 18.41% No http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3-r.gif 164 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1388) 81.59%

[Comrade Rage]

Thanks to your "awesome" security settings, I can't even see the poll results, so all I have to go by are the comments, which are overall distrubingly supportive of repression.Current votes -
Yes http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2-r.gif 37 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1388) 18.41&#37; No http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3-r.gif 164 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1388) 81.59%
I voted yes. I love disturbing pusher robot.

Yes http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar2-r.gif 39 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1388) 19.12% No http://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3-l.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3.gifhttp://img.revleft.com/revleft/polls/bar3-r.gif 164 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1388) 80.58%

[Bud Struggle]

Thanks to your "awesome" security settings, I can't even see the poll results, so all I have to go by are the comments, which are overall distrubingly supportive of repression.

Need know my friend, need to know. You seem to be much more of a security risk than I am. You would think the "Human Progress Group" would be on the case here. :D

[MarxSchmarx]

There is still considerable religion in those countries.


I don't know what you mean by "considerable", but wouldn't you say what there is is generally pretty benign and socially/politically irrelevant?


If Marx's critique of religion is correct, won't religion end when physical suffering ends?


The dominant trend has indeed been in this direction in the last couple of decades. Sure, it hasn't been universal (e.g. Saudi Arabia) but widespread material comfort is a relatively recent phenomenon in those exceptions. As material prosperity increases, capitalists just find new opiates, like conspicuous consumption, celebrities, crack, and yes, opiates.

[crimsonzephyr]

im atheist and think religion is just a form of false hope and even a scape goat.

[TheLuddite]

Some people sadly need their "opium"

If you make them go cold turkey, they'll get the shakes

[al8]

If Marx's critique of religion is correct, won't religion end when physical suffering ends?

Yet, many people who are not oppressed and suffer little or no physical pain are religious. If you insist on state actions to abolish religion, doesn't that imply that Marx's analysis is wrong?

No, not so, the conditions that require illusions is only a factor (a powerful one). But even so Marx did not then say that this and only this should be abolished, in fact he encourached active criticism of these illusions as a method to attack the conditions that require illusions.

[Marsella]

If you insist on state actions to abolish religion, doesn't that imply that Marx's analysis is wrong?

No, Marx did not assert a view that communists should idly sit by and wait for religion to wither away, any more than the view that we should idly wait for capitalism to collapse on its head.


“We know,” he replied after a moment’s hesitation, “that violent measures against religion are nonsense; but this is an opinion: as socialism grows, religion will disappear. Its disappearance must be done by social development, in which education must play a part.”

And al8 is right, misery is just one of the factors which play in the hands of religion. Even when such things are abolished, religion will not deterministically collapse (although it certainly will have a strong influence). We should attack the economic conditions and religion itself.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

No, Marx did not assert a view that communists should idly sit by and wait for religion to wither away, any more than the view that we should idly wait for capitalism to collapse on its head.



And al8 is right, misery is just one of the factors which play in the hands of religion. Even when such things are abolished, religion will not deterministically collapse (although it certainly will have a strong influence). We should attack the economic conditions and religion itself.

how can a socialist society, which lacks the coercive power of a socialist state, and yet is in existence to benefit the mass of people who share different views, including the theistically inclined, "attack religion itself"?

how does one "attack economic conditions and religion" in the first place?

You should stop promoting yourself above the working class. i mean come on, you have basically said you want to abolish religion even if we make a socialist society! haha are you really so barmy to believe that could ever actually happen without another stalin/mao killing spree?

[al8]

I don't know what you mean by "considerable", but wouldn't you say what there is is generally pretty benign and socially/politically irrelevant?

I disagree. I would hardly consider a church in every neighborhood politically/socially irrelevant. Besides the church is filthy rich and owns land everywhere and on top of that it enjoys state support. The clergy is not some bearly consious beast incapable of tactical manouvering. In response to the secularisation thats occured the church has taken countermesures. They have been waging an offensive by trying to increase its access to kids in kindergardens and upwards - hoping to have a clergyman in every school. Its inactivity is nothing more than comfortable myth many people hang on to because of wishful thinking and not wanting to deal with the issue. Sort of like these pigs here;

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/7262/pigsseenoreligioneu4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And then theres the New Age nonsense, Spiritualism and other crap which is an endless insperation to anti-scientific sentiment and general aversion to progress. I want this all this crap squelshed. The sooner we realize them as our consious enemies the better.