Religion will always be the opiate of the masses

[Outmoded]

Only the liberation of the religious people from the alienating nature of Capitalism can make them stop using the dope - Religion.

That's a rather short-sighted remark, don't you think? Religion was within our cultures and societies long before we developed any form of coherent political and financial structure.

Religion will always be the opiate of the masses, as a way of explaining the unexplainable and giving us something to strive towards (Paradise, Heaven, Reincarnation, Enlightenment, etc).

The best we can hope for is that through liberation we can allow politics and religion to remain seperate.

(Oh yes, and I really appreciate that my previous contribution has been picked up by exactly no-one.)

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:36 am

Only the liberation of the religious people from the alienating nature of Capitalism can make them stop using the dope - Religion.

That's a rather short-sighted remark, don't you think? Religion was within our cultures and societies long before we developed any form of coherent political and financial structure.

Religion will always be the opiate of the masses, as a way of explaining the unexplainable and giving us something to strive towards (Paradise, Heaven, Reincarnation, Enlightenment, etc).

The best we can hope for is that through liberation we can allow politics and religion to remain seperate.

(Oh yes, and I really appreciate that my previous contribution has been picked up by exactly no-one.)
I didn't say in anyway religion should be abolished or something. I fully acknowledge what you say that we cultures cannot be destroyed politically.

Religion had played a definite role in the developement of Human Beings and no body could deny it. That doesn't apply to it anymore. But still it is the sigh of oppressed and religious suffering is really a protest against the real suffering as said by Marx.



The best we can hope for is that through liberation we can allow politics and religion to remain seperate.


Well we cannot predict the future. But in the current scenario we have to fight some times against political theology - whethre it is fundamentalist pan-Islamism,Hindutva or Christianity. For that we should not alienate religious people from us by attacking religion - that is my point.

[socialistfuture]

it is when the state controls religion that it becomes a tool, and used to defend the state and its rulers 'divine right' to rule and for the rule to be oppressed.

religion is how some people view the world - politics is how people rule each other.

[Sentinel]

Religion was within our cultures and societies long before we developed any form of coherent political and financial structure.

And yet it is evidently on constant decline globally, especially christianity is a mere ghost (pun intended) of the power it constituted only a hundred years ago, not to mention five hundred or a millennia.. Not only has a majority of the most developed countries become secular, but agnosticism and atheism are constantly winning terrain even amongst the proletariat. For instance here in Sweden, which used to be a lutheran christian country, various studies claim that between 64 and 85 percents of the population do not believe in 'god'. The believing christians constitute a marginal minority -- and religion is far from a mass phenomenon.


Religion will always be the opiate of the masses, as a way of explaining the unexplainable and giving us something to strive towards (Paradise, Heaven, Reincarnation, Enlightenment, etc).

Except, that in a scientifically enlightened society the religious stories about Paradise, Heaven etc simply don't make sense anymore, and people quite naturally abandon them soon enough. When science comes in, religion goes out. Now, there are some truly laughable examples of pseudo-scientists trying to combine the both, such as Young Earth Creationists. But those are quite easily debunked in a rational debate, conducted by the rules of such (no logical fallacies allowed!).


The best we can hope for is that through liberation we can allow politics and religion to remain seperate.

I vehemently disagree, that's not 'the best we can hope for' at all. Our role as progressives is to acknowledge and support the scientific enlightenment process already going on globally, and to work against religion not only in the political arena but as a concept as well. With the information age religion is clearly already doomed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't hasten the process wherever we can. Every child saved from the grip of the mental epidemics plaguing mankind is a victory.

The worst thing we could do now would be to take a defaitist attitude towards this dying phenomenon. That could potentially put our end goal out of reach for centuries: the society managed by all of it's citizens in a democratic and logical fashion. A society with a scientific worldview is a practical prequisite for scientific communism.

[Robo the Hobo]

As a practicing and commited christian myself I have a possibly more 'opposing ideologies' view to give, however I will give it anyway...

Religion has been a tool used against the left for a long time now, helping rich powerfull people to justify their rule over other men and try to win them on side when without this common sence would have just said ' why am I helping that guy ' the reaction of large sections of the left, largely because it has been anti-establishment was to denounce the religion that went allong with that, also giving capitalists a tool to alienating the whole of the religios community against the left.

From what I can see in at the very least my religion, and probably in varying degrees virtualy all others is a message saying that it is wrong for any man to be above another, that you should love your neighbour and that it is absolutely wrong to commit acts of violence (or at least that is how I have interpretted things.) There is a strong possibility for religios people to feel able to join a movement to create a better society, one where there is more freedom and whealth for all people (exept a few 'poor' people who may lose out by being brought down to the same level as everyone else.)

I get realy worried when I see the left renounce religion, because it is a self defeatest or at the very least completely impracticle aproache to bringing about change.

It might also be worth noting that the thing that drew me to the left was my religion so there must at least be some pottential for it to be used for good.

- If you disagreed strongly with my stand feel free to put me in opposing ideologies, I suppose I should probably join the rest of my christian brothers there.
:blush:

[apathy maybe]

Hey dude, that isn't an OI. It is more of an irrelevant I... :P (Pacifism I mean.)

Besides, we don't automatically restrict religious types around here, only if they preach (or break another of the guidelines).

To address your points...

You claim that your religion says that "it is wrong for any man to be above another, that you should love your neighbour and that it is absolutely wrong to commit acts of violence", however, it is obvious that there are a) plenty of other people out there who disagree with you that Christianity says these things, and yet still call themselves Christian, and b) other religions that could be interpreted to say the same thing as what you said.

So some questions: Why call yourself a Christian, why not a Buddhist or something else? Why not explicitly reject all religions and simply be spiritual? Why not reject all religions and superstition and simply follow your beliefs in being anti-hierarchical etc.?

I ask these because it seems that your religion is unlikely to be the correct one (if compared to the huge number of other possible religions), and it seems likely that you can have all the things you have, without the damaging effects of religion.

Basically, I agree with Sentinel, rationality is best.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Robo the Hobo
As a practicing and commited christian myself I have a possibly more 'opposing ideologies' view to give, however I will give it anyway...

Religious people are not restricted to the Opposing Ideologies forum on RevLeft. As a matter of fact they are technically eligible for membership in the CC, which allows one to express ones views on -- and take part in -- board administration. We have decided for a policy of looking at people at their face value, ie listening to what they actually stand for. Now, there aren't very large numbers of religious people in the CC and many have indeed been restricted -- but they have all been treated as individuals, judged after the posts they've made on the board.

Pledging allegiance to any particular religion has per se not affected their board status, but neither has it 'protected' them. If you ask me, the numbers of restricted 'believers' are quite interesting and do function as valid evidence of the reactionary influence superstitious belief inherently has on people. I thus see the logic of those who wish to adopt a more general policy. But as the current one was decided upon democratically, and is functioning well enough anyway so I won't complain.


Religion has been a tool used against the left for a long time now, helping rich powerfull people to justify their rule over other men and try to win them on side when without this common sence would have just said ' why am I helping that guy ' the reaction of large sections of the left, largely because it has been anti-establishment was to denounce the religion that went allong with that, also giving capitalists a tool to alienating the whole of the religios community against the left.

Religion has not been merely used as tool agaisnt the left, the various Christian churches for instance were during feudalism independent actors, working against both working class and capitalist interests, collaborating with the aristocracy that time. The capitalists of the west have since crushed both the aristocracy's and Christianity's power over them -- the French and the American revolutions were among the many large events which marked the doom of the old masters and the dawn of total capitalist hegemony.

While the western bourgeoisie still uses the influence of religion against it's rational opponents from time to time, and the clergy has indeed been rather welcoming of these occasions, it would be entirely wrong to claim that religion was something 'good' perverted by the 'evil' capitalists. No, as Christianity asserts that men have to bow to the 'will' of a non-existant god -- which can in practice be not much else than the will of a very human clergy and it's interpretations of fucking ancient moral codes -- it is inherently reactionary to the proletarian cause.

Authority and morals imprison, autonomy and rationality frees. No gods, no masters!


From what I can see in at the very least my religion, and probably in varying degrees virtualy all others is a message saying that it is wrong for any man to be above another,

Weid, because as far as I'm aware the message of Christianity was from very early on: obey your earthly masters as you would obey the Lord. That's what St. Paul, Disciple of Christ, tells us. Perhaps we have different versions of the Bible? :lol:


that you should love your neighbour and that it is absolutely wrong to commit acts of violence

Except, if your neighbour happens to be gay, of course. Then you are to stone him to death instead -- according to the OT. But perhaps you reject that book and only follow the demands of Jesus and St. Paul, to accept authority and focus on being a good servent instead, leaving the decision of who is 'a sinner' to those more 'worthy'. People like pope Urban II, who started the crusades, for instance?


I get realy worried when I see the left renounce religion, because it is a self defeatest or at the very least completely impracticle aproache to bringing about change.

It might also be worth noting that the thing that drew me to the left was my religion so there must at least be some pottential for it to be used for good.

As I see it a religious person may very well be a 'leftist' -- that's a very inclusive word which fits on a lot of people. But true communism is scientific, and especially any branch of Marxism (I see that you have Fidel Castro in your avatar), be it libertarian or authoritarian, requires a materialistic worldview. And of course an optimally, ie rationally and democratically, managed communist society requires and demands such a worldview of at least a majority of it's citizens in order to exist in the first place. Why?

Because it is when the proletariat fully realises and acknowledges the fact that we all only live once, and thus have 'nothing to loose but everything to win' in questioning authority and demanding power for our class now, it will happen. Only when people realise that no central authority -- real or imaginary -- is legit they'll create the classless and truly democratic society for the first time.

But they have to reject both worldly and 'otherwordly' masters before they can become the masters of their own fate!

[Colonello Buendia]

it would be wrong to stereotype all religion but i'm going to do it anyway. i'm sure that youve all read animal farm by the great George Orwell. in the book the tame farmyard raven called Moses corrupts the animals mind by talking about "sugarcandy mountain" ie heaven . the fact of the matter is that people are easily seduced by religion and thus listen to everything the priest,mullah ect has to say. the catholic church is often fascist almost so its very common for the catholic church to cuase great hatred among its corrupted followers and to direct this hatred against our comrades.

[freakazoid]

and that it is absolutely wrong to commit acts of violence

I am actually not a pacifist, I believe that there are certain times where act of violence is necessary. I believe that a violent revolution will be necessary and I have no problem in participating in it.


We have decided for a policy of looking at people at their face value, ie listening to what they actually stand for.

You do? I don&#39;t remember being treated in this way. <_<


Weid, because as far as I&#39;m aware the message of Christianity was from very early on: obey your earthly masters as you would obey the Lord.

Nope.


Perhaps we have different versions of the Bible?

Perhaps we do?


Except, if your neighbour happens to be gay, of course. Then you are to stone him to death instead -- according to the OT.

Not quite, http://theoldbill.typepad.com/thebackroom/2005/10/index.html


People like pope Urban II, who started the crusades, for instance?

And Stalin represents all of communism too right?


But they have to reject both worldly and &#39;otherwordly&#39; masters before they can become the masters of their own fate&#33;

I can&#39;t just reject all worldly masters?

[luxemburg89]

QUOTE
People like pope Urban II, who started the crusades, for instance?



And Stalin represents all of communism too right?


Well that could be a very valid point. Unfortunately the Popes were continuously violent - I mean look at the Medici Popes (although I recognise the contribution the Medici had to the Florentine Renaissance). I mean the Pope during World War Two (was it Benedict?) refused to condemn Hitler - in a situation like that you either support him or you don&#39;t, there can be no neutrality - I don&#39;t actually believe neutrality existed in WWII - Switzerland, for example, did not fight Hitler to protect their business interests (not because of the small size of their country - I mean some Belgians and Dutch people fought him). With regard to the crusades the fact that there were 3 of them, and they were all supported by the head christians (King Richard the Lionheart, the varying Popes, the Kings of France and Spain etc.) suggests that we can generalise support of the crusades to the christians of the time - they certainly represented Christianity at that time. Now, considering Stalin you must also consider there was much resistance to Stalin at the time and the actions/leadership of the Soviet Union were condemned by many prominant communists, this was not really the case in the Middle Ages and, as we saw with WWII, the Christian trend of violence continued. The Nazis, after all, were very spiritual people (although evidence would imply they were a mixture of pagan - the Volk myths etc - and christian, not exclusively christians).

Christians often make the idiotic mistake that the rules of their faith are dictated by God. This is very naive. The rules of Christianity are dictated by those who wrote the bible, even if God exists what proof is there that Moses didn&#39;t ignore what he said up on that mountain, and just wrote down his own laws? As the rules of the bible are man-made they are easily altered the men who are at the top of the religion. If, as is far more likely, God does not exist then the rules stated in the bible were made up by a few men - and you have blindly followed them. Having said that, all modern laws do stem from religious texts - murder is outlawed because it is forbidden in the bible. Anyway, as I have often said, whether or not God exists, I reject him anyway.