Religion - The great dis to ALL religions

[Blibblob]

Religion is bullshit. Religion and faith/beliefs are two fucking things.

The catholic church is nothing more than a capitalist organization that supposidly does "good things" that is led by an overaged rich bastard.

Judism is, well, a little "egotistical". God makes the promised land for them, and uh, beats out the others.

Back to some christianity, salvation for the believers, screw the rest.

Buddism, it has turned into some odd shit.

Islam is interesting, but the believers are a little too radical, it doesnt say it in their holy book, but they believe it.

And the US, what shit, "seperation of church and state", when the hell is that actually going to happen? Freedom of religion, yet it says directly in the flag pledge, "one nation, under god" what happened to gods, as in plural?

[synthesis]

"Islam is interesting, but the believers are a little too radical, it doesnt say it in their holy book, but they believe it"

;)

Heh, heh. Where have I heard that one before?

[MiNdGaMe]

To some up religions, they inbridge your libertys and freedoms, most of them are sexist, homophobic and racist.

[Just Joe]

youve got it the wrong way round. Islam is actuallt very pro business and free market and Catholothism is Socialist orientated. all of Christianity is fairly Socialist but some extreme Christians are pro Capitalist aswell.

the age old religion question can be sorted out and satisfy religious aswell as anti-religious people- seperation of Church and State. anyone who is against this, if its Stalinists who want religion banned or Clerics who want to run the country, is anti-freedom.

[ID2002]

Quote: from Blibblob on 12:06 am on Feb. 7, 2003
Religion is bullshit. Religion and faith/beliefs are two fucking things.

The catholic church is nothing more than a capitalist organization that supposidly does "good things" that is led by an overaged rich bastard.

Judism is, well, a little "egotistical". God makes the promised land for them, and uh, beats out the others.

Back to some christianity, salvation for the believers, screw the rest.

Buddism, it has turned into some odd shit.

Islam is interesting, but the believers are a little too radical, it doesnt say it in their holy book, but they believe it.

And the US, what shit, "seperation of church and state", when the hell is that actually going to happen? Freedom of religion, yet it says directly in the flag pledge, "one nation, under god" what happened to gods, as in plural?
----------------------------------------
Quote: from MiNdGaMe on 12:41 pm on Feb. 7, 2003
To some up religions, they inbridge your libertys and freedoms, most of them are sexist, homophobic and racist.



Na... your generalising. This in itself is WRONG! Your missing some critical points: If your coiming from a MArxist perspective: Buddhism was never included. Marx never studied it.

I've been studying Mahayana Buddhism specifically, and I can tell you it is NOT homophobic, rascist, free market--- capitalistic.
It is very much a socialist belief..sure, its REALLY old and sometimes ritualistic, but it emphasises the role of the working class and attaining goals. ....seems to be logical, and symbolic. You have yet to see Ehei-ji Soto Buddhist monestary in Japan! It would give you a REAL sense of socialist ideology! Hell, many of the traditional lay Buddhists in Japan are a part of the JSP (Japanese Socialist Party)
...go figure...um, could it be that their religion emphasises this way of thinking?

(Edited by ID2002 at 6:53 pm on Feb. 7, 2003)

[Larissa]

I'm an atheist, so I basically don't believe in any religion or in religion itself. Yet, I "respect" some aspects of the different religions of the world as they are part of some people's cultural background. Sometimes, you need to know some facts about a given religion in order to understand better the minds of some human beings and some political reasons/directions of some nations as well. F or instance, take a look at the catholic religion (one of the oldest "political parties" of the world) and the way it has impacted different nations and cultures over 2003 years. And what about the Jewish? And the Islamics?

Religion, often is a pretext to start or develop a war. Like the crusades. Like Hitler's hate towards jews, etc. etc.

On the other habd, "Religion" as a spiritual issue helps some people not to fall in desperation, like it happens in my country sometimes, when poor people desperately get a hold of religion (catholic, jewish, evangelist, etc.) so they don't feel so depressed. This may sound stupid, but for some "ignorant" people it works. (When I say ignorant, I mean people who don't have much "intellectual education"). They seek some relief in religion so they don't break down. They think that "praying" will help the country's economy to recover :-S

I personally wouldn't seek mind comfort in a priest but rather more in a psychologist, if I were feeling desperate or depressed.

[Just Joe]

On the other habd, "Religion" as a spiritual issue helps some people not to fall in desperation, like it happens in my country sometimes, when poor people desperately get a hold of religion (catholic, jewish, evangelist, etc.) so they don't feel so depressed. This may sound stupid, but for some "ignorant" people it works. (When I say ignorant, I mean people who don't have much "intellectual education". They seek some relief in religion so they don't break down. They think that "praying" will help the country's economy to recover

thats what Marx meant when he called religion, "the opiate of the masses". some do drugs to escape life, some go to church.

but if people want to go to Church, noone can stop them. if working class people get more out of reading the bible than the communist manifesto, no Stalinist wanker should have the power to stop them.

[Larissa]

Yes, that's true, and I agree with Marx.

[Xvall]

If I recall; budda in buddhist scripture says specifically not to worship him. I don't consider it a religion at all.

[Blibblob]

Religions are pretty much all the same, the only differences are the names, and christanity has hell. Thats why i didnt have much in the first post.

Religion is a way to control the people. To make it all athiest is to have it end in chaos in the end. People want to beleive they are important, that there was somebody there that specially created them. All we have to do, is dump the catholic church, and merge all religons, atheism isnt the answer, cooperation is. Religion has ruled the world, and it will continue to do so.

*leaves to start a religion, AND RULE THE WORLD*

[ID2002]

Buddhism is more than religion, its a way of life.
About Ho Chi Min and relationship to Buddhism:
Buddhism spread first from China to Vietnam's Red River Delta region in approximately the second century A.D., and then from India to the southern Mekong Delta area at some time between the third and the sixth centuries. The Chinese version, Mahayana Buddhism, became the faith of most Vietnamese, whereas the Indian version, Theravada (or Hinayana) Buddhism, was confined mostly to the southern delta region. The doctrinal distinction between the two consists of their differing views of Gautama Buddha: the Mahayana school teaches that Gautama was only one of many "enlightened ones" manifesting the fundamental divine power of the universe; the Theravada school teaches that Gautama was the one-and-only enlightened one and the great teacher, but that he was not divine. The Mahayana sect holds further that laypersons can attain nirvana, whereas the Theravada school believes that only ordained monks and nuns can do so

Few Vietnamese outside the clergy, however, are acquainted with Buddhism's elaborate cosmology. What appealed to them at the time it was introduced was Mahayana ritual and imagery. Mahayana ceremony easily conformed to indigenous Vietnamese beliefs, which combined folklore with Confucian and Taoist teachings, and Mahayana's "enlightened ones" were often venerated alongside various animist spirits

Before the country was unified under communism, Buddhism enjoyed an autonomy from the state that was increasingly threatened once the communists gained power. For pragmatic reasons, however, the regime initially avoided overt hostility toward Buddhism or any other organized religion. Instead, it sought to separate real and potential collaborators from opponents by co-optation and control. For example, within months after winning the South, the communist regime set up a front called the Patriotic Buddhist Liaison Committee. The committee's purpose was to promote the idea that all patriotic Buddhists had a duty to participate in building a new society liberated for the first time from the shackles of feudal and neo-colonialist influences

The committee also tried to show that most Buddhists, leaders and followers alike, were indeed rallying behind the new regime and the liaison committee. They saw the US as invaiders.

[redstar2000]

Even though JustJoe will consider me a "stalinist wanker" (I believe that's "jackoff" in American English), duty calls. :cheesy:

"Separation of church and state" doesn't get the job done, JustJoe...that is, doesn't smash the hold that religion has on people. It helps, but it's not enough. Separation of church and state was written into the American constitution over two hundred years ago...and yet we have repeatedly suffered from and are suffering from waves of fundamentalist persecution. Things like the "war on drugs", the crusade against tobacco, the struggle to limit and ultimately abolish abortion rights for women, and even much of the official anti-communist ideology in this country have their roots in neo-puritanical religious fundamentalism...not to mention the role of religion as "justification" for U.S. imperialism.

I think history clearly demonstrates that, for the most part, religion has played a thoroughly reactionary role in every country in the world. I will grant rare exceptions...but even the exceptions don't look all that "exceptional" when viewed "close up."

This role does not change simply because you've made a revolution. Every progressive change that your new society proposes to introduce is likely to be opposed, openly or covertly, by the "church". And if your country happens to fall victim to counter-revolution, they will come crawling out in hordes...like cockroaches in a dark and filthy kitchen.

The ink wasn't dry on the law that abolished the USSR when they were parading through the streets of Moscow with pictures of "St. Nicholas the Martyr"--otherwise known to historians as "Bloody Nicholas", the last Czar of Russia.

My "stalinist" remedy: the removal of religion from public life altogether...making it a private concern, privately practiced, like using the toilet.

That means: no churches or religious architecture, no public religious demonstrations or ceremonies, changing the names of all public areas that have religious connotations (San Francisco goes back to its old name: Yerba Buena), no religious schools, no publication of religious works (except for critical scholarly works), etc. Taking money from people for performing religious ceremonies would be a class A felony...fraud. Teaching small children religious beliefs would be felony child abuse. Street preaching would be a misdemeanor...distrubing the peace. And so on.

People would be free only to worship in their own homes with their fellow believers. If they wish to communicate with other believers, they could do so on the internet...but no spamming non-religious boards.

Beyond this, I would attempt to create a "climate of opinion" that considered religious belief something shameful and disgraceful...rather like we would regard a "UFO nutball" or "flat earth nutball" now.

The idea is that over several generations, religion would essentially be forgotten...except by historians and a few nutballs.

Is such a dramatic transformation possible? Well, remember that in revolutionary situations, many things that formerly seemed unshakable "suddenly" become "paper tigers" (to use Mao's old term). A working class revolution is the most critical event in human history...nothing is "sacred" or beyond questioning.

And, of course, it has happened before. The Christians "abolished" the old classical religions so effectively that you'd look far and wide these days to find even one worshipper of Zeus or Isis. It can be done.

The task begins with communists...ourselves. We must rid ourselves of all foolish and romantic illusions about "Jesus", the Buddha, or any other such figure. They were not our forerunners in any way. We have nothing in common with them, much less with their followers. For the most part, serious religious believers are our open and declared enemies. They have shown that they will unite with anyone--even fascists and Nazis--to oppose us.

And, of course, they have tried and will try to copy us if they think that will work to defeat us. They had "worker priests" in France in the 1930s; they had the "Catholic Worker" outfit in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s; they have "liberation theology" now (the Jews and the Muslims, knowing a good tactic when they see one, now have their versions of "liberation theology" as well).

This should not "fool" any communist. They don't really mean it. What they really mean is that bosses should treat workers a little better and that small farmers in Central and South America should get a little plot of land for their own use...and that's about it. A real change in class relationships, the end of rule by capitalists and landed aristocrats is the last thing they really want! The end of class society threatens the end of their special role as "God's appointed representatives on Earth"...and that scares the "Hell" out of them. Their wealth, their authority, their prestige are all at stake...and like every ruling class, they will fight to the death to keep them.

At the root of all religious belief are three things: (1) Obedience to God's Will; (2) Obedience to God's duly-appointed representatives on Earth; (3) Obedience to those secular authorities deemed sufficiently "godly" by God's earthly representatives.

On Point 3, Hitler, Mussolini, and George W. Bush "qualify". We communists do not. Nor should we try!

:cool:





(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:20 pm on Feb. 8, 2003)

[Blibblob]

Doubt all athority. Question before action.

[Just Joe]

treading a fine line between ideology and oppression there redstar2000. and as i'm sure you know, as soon as you become the oppressor, you lose all ability to call yourself the good guy. once you literally tell people what they can and can't do, you become no better than the present ruling elite.

freedom of religion is a god given right (no pun intended) and should NEVER be questioned. if people turn away from religion, it should be there own choice. they hurt nobody. there are certain things you have to be told what not to do, but going to mass on a sunday really doesn't harm anyone. Churches only have as much influence as the government lets them have, or the people lets them have for that matter.

yeah religion has caused wars, but so has politics. yeah religion is at the heart of some stupid movements like the war on drugs but do you really think the war on srugs wouldn't exist if it werent for religion?

it seems to me youre problem is the hold religion has on people. you change that hold by changing peoples mind. you do it through democracy and debate not though tryanny and oppression. i'm an advocae for armed struggle in many cases, but i don't feel the need for a war on religion.

i'm a Catholic and i go to mass every once in a while. i don't really make as much an effort as i should to be a good Catholic but its still what i am. it doesn't hurt anyone that i'm a Catholic. i actually share views similar to you in many respects so you can't blame religion for 'fooling' the working man in that way.

youre looking for a reason why class struggle hasn't materialised in the first world. there are easy targets to pick on. most obviously Nationalism and Religion, but as i said somewhere else, its the job of Communists to awaken class identity and begin class struggle. religion doesn't stop this and you can't stop religion. not unless you want to go down the same road as the present day plutocracy.

(Edited by Just Joe at 12:45 am on Feb. 9, 2003)

[synthesis]

Religion is a fucking excuse for the capitalist war on drugs, much as it was a fucking excuse for the capitalist Fourth Crusade - the fourth crusade being the Venetian merchants' war on its trading rival Constantinople much more than it was a war on foreign control of Jerusalem.

[ravengod]

faith is something that resumes to individual decision
it makes believers better people and atheists disgusted
it s your choice
believe or not
no one kills u for choosing
bliblob you seem to live in the dark ages
live and let live
dont pretend to judge what you don t know shit about

[redstar2000]

"treading a fine line between ideology and oppression there redstar2000."

Well, JustJoe, it seems wide enough to me...at least to walk confortably. To serious religious believers, of course, what I propose is "outrageous Stalinist tyranny" and I am, no doubt, worse than the Emperor Nero...in their eyes.

I'm sorry to learn that you are still a "follower" of the Catholic superstition, JustJoe, even if a "luke-warm" one. There are some good atheist books out there; I hope you will find time to read some of them. It seems to me that someone as mentally sharp as yourself would have seen through the "con" by now (that also applies to some other folks on this board)...but perhaps some assistance is required.

But you see, JustJoe, my post was really addressed to people who are or who want to be communist revolutionaries. I think it's vital that communists be clear about the reactionary role of religion.

It's "no good" pretending that we can encouage class struggle while just ignoring things like religion and nationalism...people's minds just don't "work" like that. Since religion and nationalism are "childhood indoctrinations" and communism is an "adult conviction", the former influence, distort and even destroy the latter.

When World War I began, all of the "socialist" parties (Social Democracy) immediately forgot all about class struggle and plunged enthusiastically into the muck of nationalism and the joy of slaughtering their "inferior" neighbors. Same thing happened in the former Yugoslavia.

We communists can talk about class struggle until we're blue, or rather, red in the face...but it's strictly uphill while people remain stupified by their hopes of "Heaven"...or, worse, the conviction that their masters have been "appointed by God."

That doesn't mean class struggle doesn't take place...material reality imposes its own demands and they can sometimes outweigh even the most reactionary ideology (there was class struggle within the Nazi Party).

But religious beliefs and nationalist prejudices make everything SO much harder. It's like trying to run with a 50 kilogram weight on your shoulders...if you're strong enough, you can still do it, but you're not going to set any speed records. And don't forget, the longer class society lasts, the greater the sufferings of both ourselves and everyone else who's not part of the elite.

And, finally, religion and nationalism are just plain wrong, that is, incorrect ways of looking at the world.
There is no "special" group of people who are "more human" than all other groups of people. And there are no gods, of any kind.

Before we can expect other people to understand these things...we communists first must understand them ourselves.

:cool:

[canikickit]

People would be free only to worship in their own homes with their fellow believers. If they wish to communicate with other believers, they could do so on the internet...but no spamming non-religious boards.


Is there any other types of loose organisations to which you would designate similar treatment?

For example a group, or loose association of people who listen to hip hop in a hall every week and enjoy the music.

Provided religious groups don't push their brand of bullshit onto others they would, of course have to be allowed freedom of association and freedom to do pretty-much-whatever-the-hell-they-like-without-obstructing-others.

If they stick to themselves I don't brand them differently than the above mentioned hip hoppers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

As an atheist, I strongly believe in the inexistence of any omnipotent power, whatsoever. With that said, I also believe that religion is bad and destructive, even for the weak-minded who often need hope, even if it's false.
Religion results in the following: Major conflict between groups. Oppressive use by religious leaders and political leaders who may use the religion to their advantage. False hope and a lives of devotion to inexistent beings. A world seperated by religious boundaries. One more thing to judge others by.
The first one can result in many others as well.

[Guest1]

Hey, there's nothing wrong with believing in god, or in a religion. As long as it's YOUR beliefs, between you and your higher power. You force it on no one, and you come to it through thought, not birth. That kind of philosophical and spiritual belief is not only harmless, it's healthy for any growing mind. No matter what you decide, even if it's that there is no god, it's the process of thinking about it and questioning your beliefs that is essential. It's when we get organized religion, institutionalized and used by the elite to feed people answers and keep them from thinking, that's when it's a poison.

Just the humble opinion of a muslim by birth, agnostic by questioning.


(Edited by Che y Marijuana at 1:05 am on Feb. 9, 2003)

[Blackberry]

I wonder how many Christians in here have heard what is said in church?

"If you live your life in sin, you will go to hell."

"There is death so that evil is not eternal."

And then there's the bible, spreading values and beliefs that oppress women.

And then there's this 'God' thing, something which supposedly exists, that sees all, and watches over us all day, everyday.

And there's now all these other religions, spreading similar or similarly warped beliefs.

[CheViveToday]

Hmmm...what to say..religion, the stickiest subject of them all. I am an atheist. Religions has caused many problems in the world in the past, and continues to today. Due to christian influence in America, birth control is discouraged at some places and by some people. Also abortion is very discouraged. The religious right in America hates abortions, yet also hates birth control which would eliminate the need for abortion. This causes unwanted babies, brought into this world. These babies as adults end up causing about 85% of the crime,
and also created new unwanted babies. Most religions seem pretty ridiculous to me. Christianity is by far the worse, but Judiaism and Islam don't seem to much better. I won't comment on Buddhism, because I know little about it, but it seems to be decent compared to the others. The Bible is an excellent storybook, full of wonderful fairy tails. HOWEVER it is nothing to live your life by. I can't speak for the Qran as I have never read it, but to my understanding it is very similar. Both Christianity and Islam, and I think Judiaism as well, teach that women are inferior to men. This is clearly unacceptable. We can't simply make these people stop attending church as it has been suggested by some, we just have to be more strict when it comes to seperation of church and state, and keep followers of different religions from fighting amongst eachother, if that will ever be possible. Eventually religion and it's obsessed brainwashed followers will thin out. This seems hard to believe since it's still so prominent today when you think of the religious right in America and the Islamic extremists in the Middle East. It will thin out though, trust me. Just look how much it has thinned our in the past 300 years. Also, I read previously on this string of posts, many reference to Hitler and religion. Just to clarify to some of you who may not have known, Hitler was an atheist and not a Christian. He did not kill the Jews based on their religious beliefs but based on their race. This doesn't make him any better. Hitler was a monster and we can all learn from his numerous mistakes.

[ID2002]

The thing which gets me the most is that when someone states that religion is oppressive....I have to ask....which ones. Not all religions are oppressive in nature.

Marx never studied Buddhism: I have...
Buddha is not a GOD. He was a revolutionary in spirituality, a mortal teacher. It is a-political, and it is based on a lifestyle which is completely compadable with socialism and some forms of communism.

It serves to unite the masses, not divide them. Marx was critical on western ideologies because other monothestic ideas would disrupt the continuity of Socialism..which in itself is a form of monotheistic belief.
(all for one state...one leader...one party..united)

[CheViveToday]

Yes, I would love to learn more about Bhuddism,...it sounds very interesting. You always hear about "Oppressive Christians"; "Violent Muslims"....I've yet to hear anything truly negative about Bhuddism.

[synthesis]

There's nothing wrong with nationalism, dude, as long as it's valid.

Gandhi? Nationalist.
Castro? Nationalist.
Sandinistas? Nationalists.
I can give numerous examples.


It's fighting against foreign occupation of your own country, and there is simply nothing wrong with that.

However, if the nationalism is invalid - that's when it turns disastrous. We've got these conspiracy freaks, Nazis, and Klansmen in the United States harping on about ZOG - Zionist Occupied Government - a crock of shit. Their evidence is that several ambassadors, the press secretary and a couple other relatively useless people have Jewish-sounding names - their Jewishness, let alone their Zionism, is in great doubt.

And that's when the milk goes sour.

[Larissa]

Quote: from Neutral Nation on 3:04 am on Feb. 9, 2003
I wonder how many Christians in here have heard what is said in church?

"If you live your life in sin, you will go to hell."

OMG!! Now I know I'll be going straight to hell !!! What am I gonna do? :wink: good things in life either make you gain weight or are considered a sin.

[Just Joe]

Well, JustJoe, it seems wide enough to me...at least to walk confortably. To serious religious believers, of course, what I propose is "outrageous Stalinist tyranny" and I am, no doubt, worse than the Emperor Nero...in their eyes.

i don't take offence at youre views on religion because i am a religious follower, i take offence like i would if a Nazi party was banned or denied freedom of speech.

I'm sorry to learn that you are still a "follower" of the Catholic superstition, JustJoe, even if a "luke-warm" one. There are some good atheist books out there; I hope you will find time to read some of them

now were moving into a 'does God exist debate' with youre wording of the Catholic 'superstition'. as you know, the debate is impossible to win on both sides.

It seems to me that someone as mentally sharp as yourself would have seen through the "con" by now (that also applies to some other folks on this board)...but perhaps some assistance is required.

thanks for the compliment, but whos conning me? the Catholic church hasn't stopped my beliefs in Socialism. it hasn't turned me into a robot who accepts his Capitalist existance with the hope of an afterlife.

But you see, JustJoe, my post was really addressed to people who are or who want to be communist revolutionaries. I think it's vital that communists be clear about the reactionary role of religion.

ok then lets look at this from a Marxist perspective. lets say America revolts this week. a Socialist state is created with economic, social and political equality. whats the problem with people going to Mass on Sunday? are you against religion as you see it as part of the present Capitalist order (Marxist view)? or are you against it because you just don't like religion (Atheist view)? does religion have a part to play in a Socialist society?

It's "no good" pretending that we can encouage class struggle while just ignoring things like religion and nationalism...people's minds just don't "work" like that. Since religion and nationalism are "childhood indoctrinations" and communism is an "adult conviction", the former influence, distort and even destroy the latter.

yeah but it goes back to my point about how religion discourages class struggle. does it? would religious leaders be so anti-Marxist if Marx hadn't called there life work, "the Opiate of the masses"?

Nationalism is a different debate.

When World War I began, all of the "socialist" parties (Social Democracy) immediately forgot all about class struggle and plunged enthusiastically into the muck of nationalism and the joy of slaughtering their "inferior" neighbors. Same thing happened in the former Yugoslavia.

yes but as i'm sure you realise, until National oppression goes, working class emancipation cannot be realised. i think you actually said it somewhere else, that the British working class cannot emancipate until Britain is out of Ireland. the American working class cannot emancipate until American companies close down there sweat shops and a position of equality is realised between the American working class, and the Bolivian or Indonesian working class.

what happened in Yugolslavia is that the Serbian working class, were seen as almost a seperate 'bourgeoisie' by the Croation working class. the situation is identical in the 6 counties. the Protestant worker enjoys a general higher standard of living than the Catholic worker. until imperialism (which is the brain child of Capitalism and the cause of Nationalism and Racism) ends, and workers have a common enemy, there cannot be Socialism.

We communists can talk about class struggle until we're blue, or rather, red in the face...but it's strictly uphill while people remain stupified by their hopes of "Heaven"...or, worse, the conviction that their masters have been "appointed by God."

if people fail to realise there working class potential, you have to show them they have it not shut down there one hope of a better life.

But religious beliefs and nationalist prejudices make everything SO much harder. It's like trying to run with a 50 kilogram weight on your shoulders...if you're strong enough, you can still do it, but you're not going to set any speed records. And don't forget, the longer class society lasts, the greater the sufferings of both ourselves and everyone else who's not part of the elite.

but again, would religion slow down class struggle if it wasn't for Marxs' scathing attacks on religion? could religion actually be used as a vehicle for class struggle? just an idea, but where else other than union meeting is there such a large gathering of working class folk than at Church? take away control of the Church from the Capitalist class (if you reckon they control it) and give it back to the people.





(Edited by Just Joe at 2:17 pm on Feb. 9, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Well, JustJoe, there is an "absolutist civil libertarian" position, which evidently you endorse, that does permit "freedom of speech" even for Nazis.

It's just NOT my position.

As to the "existence of God", from my view, there's no "debate." No religion has ever produced scientifically verifible evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities. Do you believe in unicorns or elves? They are just as "real" as "God"--the same amount of evidence exists to support both.

The "con", JustJoe, is to get you to believe in something that doesn't exist...just as if I were to promise you a "hot new investment opportunity" that will "double your money in six months." You say that this belief has not made you into a robot; with all due respect, I would add "not yet" to your statement. ("robot" by the way, comes from a Czech word meaning worker.)

"Does religion have a part to play in a socialist society?" No. Even were they to take a "pro-socialist" position publicly, I would assume counter-revolutionary intent on their part and would watch them like a hawk. To rephrase slightly what I said earlier: real power in the hands of the working class to change the world means...who needs the religious hierarchies? Once people grasp as part of daily reality that the world can be changed to grant their desires, who will the clerical vampires feed off of?

Consequently, whatever church hierarchs say in public statements, privately they are bitterly opposed to socialist revolution. Usually, they say this publicly as well, but, in extremis, they have been known to lie.

"How do they oppose class struggle?" Well, let's be more specific; they have no objection to the class struggle waged by the ruling class against the workers. Has the Pope issued a "bull" (declaration) opposing privatization, de-regulation, abolition of welfare, etc.?

Are they supporting Chavez in Venezuela...or have they joined up with the old Venezuelan elite in a desperate attempt to prevent modest reforms of capitalism? (Chavez is not--yet--a socialist.)

In Argentina, do they condemn the IMF and the political/financial elite there...or do they say that the crisis there is the "fault" of the ordinary people "who have lost touch with God"?

If you really wanted to get in touch with the heart of modern Catholicism, JustJoe, you should try and read up some on Opus Dei--the semi-fascist order of rich bastards determined to preserve capitalism by any means necessary...the Pope just made it's founder a saint.

On what basis does religion directly attack class struggle? Because it divides humanity along different lines than we communists do. Religion says there are two groups of humans: the saved and the damned. (This is also, by the way, the problem with nationalism: it divides humanity into two groups: the "superior" group that I'm a member of and all the other "inferior" humans...who may not really be "human" at all.)

A consistent Christian cannot oppose a Christian boss...they are "brothers/sisters in Christ." That outweighs mere "earthly" concerns. Whenever a Christian worker nevertheless does oppose a Christian boss, s/he does it with a "bad conscience", s/he "feels guilty" about it...and s/he is therefore much less likely to see the need for total confrontation with and total victory over all bosses.

This answers also your question about "using religion as a vehicle for class struggle." It's been tried from time to time...usually in those rare situations where the priest/preacher is damn near as poor as his congregation. It never works.

I should warn you--if you haven't gathered it already--that I'm a lot worse than Marx and Engels on this topic. They spent little time discussing religion...they thought that capitalism itself would fatally weaken religion and that it would wither away spontaneously under socialism. Historical experience suggests a different conclusion--religion has become extremely important as a way of stupifying the working class and keeping the capitalist class in power...and there's big money behind it. I'm told this is not so much the case in the European Union as it is in the United States...and I hope that's true, because here it's awful!

Nationalism does indeed deserve its own thread(s)...I mentioned it because it does have striking parallels with religion and serves many of the same social purposes. And, it would have to be dealt with by many of the same measures that I proposed to remove religion from public life. All those statues of "great military leaders" are going to the scrap metal factory, etc.

Also, I've ridden the Buddhist merry-go-round before and don't want to again, if I can avoid it. Buddhism proposes that we should strive for "freedom from desire" as the road to liberation from "the wheel of existence"...the idea is that we stop suffering the pains of existence when we stop being reincarnated and thus stop existing.

Leaving aside that fact that there's no evidence for reincarnation, I think communist society exists for the purpose of fulfilling human desires. Thus, I find Buddhism rather unsatisfying. I suppose Buddhists could become pro-communists...but I think they'd take the most conservative side in any debate among communists.

:cool:





(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:53 pm on Feb. 9, 2003)

[Umoja]

Redstar, you commonly say Religious leaders are opposed to the "Revolution" but what about those of us who are religious, and in no way oppose Socialism? Are we wolves in sheeps clothing?

[Saint-Just]

All religions are reactionary and conflict with Marxist philosophy because they follow a belief in idealistic metamorphism. This is the antithesis of dialectical materialism - that being the Marxist philosophy.

Idealism is concerned with spirituality and forces greater than humanity. Metamorphism is concerned with static human nature and the subservience of humans to thier environment.

[Just Joe]

Well, JustJoe, there is an "absolutist civil libertarian" position, which evidently you endorse, that does permit "freedom of speech" even for Nazis.

It's just NOT my position.

so....you believe in restricing peoples rights? you seem to be the most clued up Marxist here so i can't understand this. Socialism is about liberation. restricting peoples right to gather, speak freely and worship, is liberating nobody.

As to the "existence of God", from my view, there's no "debate." No religion has ever produced scientifically verifible evidence for the existence of any supernatural entities. Do you believe in unicorns or elves? They are just as "real" as "God"--the same amount of evidence exists to support both.

i don't care if you don't think God exists. religion and politics should not mix.

The "con", JustJoe, is to get you to believe in something that doesn't exist

what benefit does that have to the Church? or the Capitalist as you think? i am a Socialist so they've 'conned' me for no reason.

real power in the hands of the working class to change the world means...who needs the religious hierarchies?

many people use Sports as a 'way out'. so should we ban sports in Socialism? maybe people actually 'enjoy' going to Church. maybe theres nothing sinister in going. i personally am not a big Catholic and only go when either my Mum or Aunt can't take my gran to Mass. but for some people, its a social thing with no capitalist or oppressive undertones.

Consequently, whatever church hierarchs say in public statements, privately they are bitterly opposed to socialist revolution. Usually, they say this publicly as well, but, in extremis, they have been known to lie.

which goes back to what i said about using the Church to actually further Socialism. the present ruling class is Capitalist. as a Socialist, i seek to change that and see no reason why the Churches position can't be changed on some issues.

In Argentina, do they condemn the IMF and the political/financial elite there...or do they say that the crisis there is the "fault" of the ordinary people "who have lost touch with God"?

the Church actually does a lot to help poor people everywhere. but its not supposed to be political.

A consistent Christian cannot oppose a Christian boss...they are "brothers/sisters in Christ." That outweighs mere "earthly" concerns. Whenever a Christian worker nevertheless does oppose a Christian boss, s/he does it with a "bad conscience", s/he "feels guilty" about it...and s/he is therefore much less likely to see the need for total confrontation with and total victory over all bosses.

you reckon? i dunno. i wouldn't have any problems confronting a Catholic employer the same way i would confront a Protestant one.

This answers also your question about "using religion as a vehicle for class struggle." It's been tried from time to time...usually in those rare situations where the priest/preacher is damn near as poor as his congregation. It never works.

wheres it been tried?

Nationalism does indeed deserve its own thread(s)...I mentioned it because it does have striking parallels with religion and serves many of the same social purposes.

the difference is Nationalism is a political ideology that activly seeks to divide people and preserve capitalism. Catholothism is not a political ideology. its just a hobby or a social event for many people.

[redstar2000]

JustJoe, I hate to "disappoint" you, but there are several groups that I do not wish to "liberate"...starting with the capitalist class. I very much want to take away many of the "liberties" they cherish...especially the freedom to exploit wage labor.

Likewise, I do not wish to "liberate" Nazis, Klansmen, and religious fundamentalists, among others...because the "freedom" they want most is the freedom to kill me. I know that's "selfish" of me...but I would much prefer their deaths to mine (should it come to that). No doubt, they would disagree.

And their motives, by the way, are of no interest to me: whether they think I'm an agent of the "Jewish World Conspiracy" or a "traitor to my race" or a "tool of the Devil" makes no difference. None of those groups or their imitators have ever "played fair"...I have no intention of ever "playing fair" with them.

JustJoe, religion and politics do mix in the real world. Maybe they "shouldn't"...but they do! And why would you expect anything else? If someone takes religion really seriously, then the carrying out of "God's Will" on Earth is important...in fact, it's crucial. In their eyes, what could possibly be more important?

JustJoe, they've "conned" you for a very important reason...to get you to do what they approve of and to refrain from doing what they disapprove of. The "con" is not always 100% effective...and sometimes (fortunately) falls flat on its face.

But consider...here you are on a message board advancing some of the same arguments that they want advanced very much...e.g. religion should not be removed from public life, women should not have access to abortion on demand, etc. Wouldn't a pope or any Caholic hierarch say the same things? But they have you to argue for them. And you have more credibility with the members of che-lives than they could ever hope to have.

So, the "con" has worked...at least some.

One reason why churches find it difficult to "change" their position on issues is that they are not democratic institutions. Can you imagine a potential pope "campaigning" on a platform of "liberation theology" and "one believer, one vote"?

Some Protestant denominations do have quasi-democratic bodies...but such bodies usually "decide" for the most conservative of any two or more options because the people that take religion seriously enough to actively participate in church politics are conservative.

There are some limited circumstances in which religious institutions are compelled by secular authorities to change their positions. After 1865, very few churches, even in the former Confederate states, openly preached that "Negro slavery was God's Will"...though they did continue to preach the gospel of "Negro inferiority." And the Mormons were "made" to receive a "special revelation" from the "Lord" abolishing polygamy as a condition of Utah statehood (the first "divine revelation" ever transmitted by telegraph...from Washington, D.C., no less!).

So, would you have us issue orders to all religious institutions for a new revelation: "Thus sayeth the Lord, communism is My Kingdom on Earth...and the counter-revolutionists shall suffer both earthly punishments and the fires of Hell." You think my measures are repressive; but something like that...trying to make people change their religious beliefs for my political convenience, seems to me to be far worse.

You claim that religion is, for many people, a "social thing", a "hobby"...like sports.

I do think that sports have been used, in some circumstances, to stupify the working class...though nowhere near the degree that religion and nationalism have been used. I'm certainly in favor of sports after the revolution...but not the multi-billion dollar idiocy that exists now.

Yes, people who are not serious about religion now regard their attendance at religious functions as a "social event". But they could have "social events" after the revolution without involving the public celebration of superstition. There are probably an enormous number of ways that people could "get together" for mutual enjoyment...none of which need involve concern over the supernatural.

Yet what may be seen as "harmless" today can turn into something very harmful tomorrow. Prior to World War I, the cult of "Nordic/Ayran superiority" was a "hobby", a thing that only a few nutballs were really interested in. One of those nutball groups, the "Thule Society", provided some of the earliest financing for the Nazi Party. Opus Dei has a wealthy membership...wonder who they're giving some "seed money" to these days?

"The church actually does a lot to help poor people everywhere." Depends on what you mean by "help". The churches are good at "charity" (sometimes)...a free meal here and there, a place to sleep out of the rain and cold on occasion, stuff like that. Real help seems to me to be something altogether different...it means making a communist revolution and trying to show people how that could be done.

As it happens, JustJoe, there were a couple of occasions in my life where I was (briefly) "down and out"...no money, no food, no place to live. It never occurred to me to seek religious charity. I had comrades and they helped me scramble my way up out of the hole...as I have helped a few others in later years. None of us needed religion to make us do those things...it was just the communist thing to do, period.

The use of religion as a revolutionary vehicle? The outstanding example would be during the Protestant Reformation...a fellow by the name of Thomas Muenzer organized a quite extensive peasant rebellion against feudalism in what is now the western part of Germany (1520-21). He took the verses in the "Acts of the Apostles" concerning early Christian "communism" quite literally--the wealth and privileges of both the Catholic hierarchy and the feudal aristocracy were "unGodly" and should be fought until they were destroyed. (His comments on that hypocritical shit Martin Luther are still delightful after 5 centuries.)

They lost, of course...but their distant descendents still survive to this day, primarily in the Hutterian Brethren--a religious communist society that mostly exists in rural parts of the eastern United States and the mid-western parts of Canada. They've lost all interest in "changing the world", of course, and they treat women like baby-making machines...but their farming communes are "true" communist groups, sharing their wealth equally among their members.

That's the "best" example I know of. I did once hear a sermon preached in a union hall in Eastern Kentucky (coal mining country)...the preacher said that "the greedy mineowners are going to burn in Hell!" (Amen, brother.) But, cynic that I am, I suspect his motive had more to do with the source of his next meal than with anything in Marx and Engels.

Using religion as a vehicle for revolution is, in my view, like trying to use an automobile as a boat. An automobile will float for a short period of time in calm waters...but it is, after all, the wrong tool for the job.

Umoja asks what about religious people who support socialism...are such people wolves in sheep's clothing?

Personally, I think such people are confused. They are trying to balance two conflicting world-views inside their heads. It's an extremely unstable situation...and which way they will ultimately go is decided by a host of individual factors--impossible to predict with any accuracy.

:cool:

[Guest1]

I refuse to be a part of ANY revolution that forces it's views of religion on anyone. I don't believe in god, but that's my fucking choice. I'm not gonna force anyone else. You're still missing the entire point of liberation, I'm gonna agree with justjoe on that one. Everyone should have the right to decide for themselves.

[ID2002]

agreed! Thanks.

[Just Joe]

are you a Stalinist, redstar2000? you seem to well read on Marx and Engels to make that mistake. but calling for the total destruction of religion and even going as far as to being anti-sport!, makes me think you've got a bit of Stalinist in you.

it is only from youre point of view that religion stupifies the working class. i'm sure there are many Socialists who are religious. i think anti-religion is just an extension of the anti-everything that many Marxists feel. almost as if anything that exists today, is automatically in league with Capitalism and has to go. it also strikes me as odd that Communists seem to be ardent materialists when debating with 'religious' people, but anti-materialists when debating with Capitalists.

this has moved away from a religion debate on gone onto a basic debate over civil liberties. i know you don't feel the 'Bourgeoisie' deserve any liberties, but they do not make up the majority of Church goers. if Marxism is the ideology of the people, it should be able to co-exist with the wishes of the majority of the people to seperate Church and State. anything else is tyranny.

i'm not a spokesperson for the Catholic Church. i detest its oppressive past. my views on Abortion have been influenced by the Church, but i wouldn't go along with something just because the Church said so. like i already said, i go to Church to help out a family member. i wouldn't go otherwise. but when i stop going for good, i'll still call myself Catholic.

yeah i agree with you about how the Church is un-democratic. that something i would like to change. but change can happen without abolition.

you say about the cult of aryan superiority. that is a political belief not a religious one. i agree with complete seperation of Church and State. what i don't get, is the fact that this has been a constant feature in Communists states and was the wish of Karl Marx. are you basing this hate for religion on youre ideology, or is it personal?

when it comes to balancing religion and Socialism, i think i'm doing ok. i'm not confused about the two things because for me, its like me supporting Glasgow Celtic and supporting Socialism; like watching the Simpsons and supporting Socialism. maybe we should reform the Church and make it fit into a Socialist society, but removing it from public life and turning so many people against you, is tryanny. i don't even think Stalin banned religion, did he?

[redstar2000]

If this discussion, JustJoe, has veered in a "civil libertarian" direction, that's your choice. I'm willing to go in any direction you wish...and to at least try to answer any question you have.

A minor point: I am not against sports after the revolution...but I am against multi-billion dollar spectacles, multi-billionaire owners and multi-millionaire players and tickets so expensive that the average guy can't even get on the waiting list.

Am I a "stalinist"? Well, at the end of your post, you noted that Stalin did not try to "ban religion." He did close some churches and even tore down a few, but, for example, Gorbachev and Yeltsin were born in the early 1930s...and duly baptised eight days after their births according to the ritual prescribed by the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, Stalin followed, in a way, your suggestion...he attempted to use the Russian Orthodox Church as a vehicle to build support for the USSR...all members of the church hierarchy had to be "approved" by the Communist Party.

So even though I'm not in favor of "banning religion"...except from public life, I'm actually worse than Stalin...because he still allowed it some limited public presence. On the other hand, I'm also "better" than Stalin...because I don't think communists should be involved in choosing or approving the clergy of this or that superstition. I mean, come on, are we to go on to appoint "communist-approved" astrologers?

Are communists "anti-everything-that-exists" under capitalism? Um, most likely, yes...with some limited exceptions. Why? Because capitalist ideology permeates damn near everything that exists. Everything under capitalism, Marx once said, becomes a "commodity"...that which can be traded in the marketplace. In the course of working class revolution and a society wherein political and economic power are in the hands of the working class, everything pretty much has to be re-evaluated, criticized, and decisions have to be made...to keep, to modify, to restrict, or to abolish.

This was, in fact, the case during many of the bourgeois revolutions in the past...it will be much more so in the working-class revolutions of the future. This would be a good place to point out that the proposals I made to remove religion from public life would not be implemented until they had been approved by public referendum, preceeded by the widest possible public debate and discussion. In this respect, at least, my methods are...somewhat different from those of "Comrade Stalin."

JustJoe, both capitalist and communist countries have had formal rules requiring the separation of church and state...and both have in fact ignored such rules whenever the ruling elites thought it was convenient. I find this formulation inadequate for the real world and therefore propose stronger measures. And I've already admitted that I was "worse" than Marx and Engels on this issue.

Actually, the "cult of aryan superiority" was a mixture of racial, political, occult, and old Norse mythological beliefs. Had World War II ended in an overwhelming German victory, it would probably have triumphed within the Nazi Party and eventually (after a century or two, maybe less) become a new religion. Why not? Other religions have plenty of bloodshed in their background...and it didn't hinder them.

I think I'm basing my "hatred" of religion on a logical and rational analysis of its social role over the past 5,000 years...that is, all of written history that we have access to. But perhaps there's a personal element involved...there is something about the arrogant presumption of those who claim to be especially selected "by God" to give me orders. Not to mention that the punishment for disobedience of those orders is, if they can manage it, death.

I am not worried about "turning people against me" because of my position on religion in public life or any other position I might take. The struggle for communism is not a "beauty contest" or a "bourgeois election". I am not asking for people to hand over their destinies to me or any other revolutionary...I'm calling on them to "take matters into their own hands."

But I'm not really expecting them to listen until they "kill the priest inside their own heads." (Didn't James Joyce say that?)

:cool:



(Edited by redstar2000 at 6:46 pm on Feb. 10, 2003)