Communism and Religion - Do they exclude each other?

[SlimJin]

Very Smart man, EC!

[sglb]

A person could definitely be religious and revolutionary. UFOs and the supernatural, I think, have not much to do with a person's competence as a revolutionary. I think atheism should be encouraged in a communist society, since religion has the potential to cause conflict and social classes, but religion should not be oppressed, that is against communist theory.

And in response to discussion topic #3, I think the most important is 2) dialectical materialism.

[truthaddict11]

found this online

http://www.stickernation.com/uaimages/stickers/godless.gif

[Elect Marx]

Jesus was a communist

[redstar2000]

Well, it's been about a month since I last visited this thread and I see it's time to "pull some more weeds" again.

The great religions, at their simplest level, advocate for equality.

No they don't. There is no such thing as "equality" between humans and "gods" nor is "Heaven" a republic.

...I think one can reject the hierarchy of the churches and temples and still find insight and inspiration in religious texts.

About what? To put it bluntly, what do a bunch of superstitious nomads--the authors of "holy books"--have to say that is "insightful" or "inspirational" to anyone who claims to be civilized?

Jesus was a communist.

No he wasn't. To "read back" into the accounts of his views any sort of communist content is anachronistic...there was no such thing then and no such idea.

Yeshuah ben-Yosif was a country preacher, a reforming rabbi, a pious Jew...things that you would expect to find in first century Roman-occupied Palestine. He was not the only one...just one of the unlucky ones that got executed. "Christianity" was invented after his death, most notably by Paulos of Tarsus...and one of it's outstanding characteristics was "submission to authority" except in matters of faith.

There is nothing "communist" about any of this.

A person could definitely be religious and revolutionary. UFOs and the supernatural, I think, have not much to do with a person's competence as a revolutionary.

It's not simply competence "as a revolutionary" but competence, period. People who believe in the supernatural, ufos, Atlantis, etc., etc. have shown that they are "disconnected" from reality. Therefore, how can you trust anything they say about anything?

Maybe they claim to be communists or pro-communist or in favor of revolution now...who knows what they will say or do tomorrow?

Moreover, the people who claim to combine communism and religion have a pretty bad track record...Nicaragua's Ortega, for example. Once the revolutionary leader of the Sandinistas, he is now a corrupt pig (and some suggest that he always was!).

I think the Stalinists were wrong 'cause they destroyed monasteries and churches in order to spread their ideas.

Actually, they only destroyed a few. Many were closed down but only a few were actually demolished.

Big mistake!

They should all have been demolished. Did you know that while "that godless bastard" Stalin was in power, there was actually a seminary to "train" Russian Orthodox priests...fully funded by the USSR government?

... but religion should not be oppressed, that is against communist theory.

No one has ever suggested that religious people should be persecuted because they are religious. What goes on inside people's heads is their own business.

It's when they bring their ideas out of their heads and into the world that it becomes the business of communists...to stop them from spreading the rot. One can argue about the best way to accomplish that end--I think the total abolition of religion in public life is the way to go.

If adults wish to gather in private homes and wallow in superstition, I think that's a shame but not a felony. But when they come out into public and "testify", that is going too far and needs to be stopped at once...by any means necessary.

And brainwashing kids with superstitious drivel is child abuse.

That's intolerable!

:cool:

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I am a communist and an agnostic, and that works out easily enough for me.

Can you be a communist and a member of religion at the same time? I think so.

The great religions, at their simplest level, advocate for equality. There is the question of hierarchy, but I think one can reject the hierarchy of the churches and temples and still find insight and inspiration in religious texts.

As my good fried 313C7 iVi4RX points out, Jesus of Nazareth was himself a communist. If Christians can get over the Cult of Personality that has been built around its namesake prophet, then they could easily be inspired by Jesus to become socialists.

[Moskitto]

No they don't. There is no such thing as "equality" between humans and "gods" nor is "Heaven" a republic.

Considering you don't believe in god or heavan, inequality between humans and god is irrelevant, you will also find that every religion on it's most basic level preaches equality between humans.

About what? To put it bluntly, what do a bunch of superstitious nomads--the authors of "holy books"--have to say that is "insightful" or "inspirational" to anyone who claims to be civilized?

I take it that you never help anyone under any circumstances.

No he wasn't. To "read back" into the accounts of his views any sort of communist content is anachronistic...there was no such thing then and no such idea.

Socialism predates Plato, get it through your thick skull.

Yeshuah ben-Yosif was a country preacher, a reforming rabbi, a pious Jew...things that you would expect to find in first century Roman-occupied Palestine. He was not the only one...just one of the unlucky ones that got executed. "Christianity" was invented after his death, most notably by Paulos of Tarsus...and one of it's outstanding characteristics was "submission to authority" except in matters of faith.

There is nothing "communist" about any of this.


The mythical Jesus (the one whom this poster is refering to) smashed up capitalist market places, reformed corrupt tax collectors and helped the poor, the mythical Jesus did a hell of a lot more towards communism than you have.

It's not simply competence "as a revolutionary" but competence, period. People who believe in the supernatural, ufos, Atlantis, etc., etc. have shown that they are "disconnected" from reality. Therefore, how can you trust anything they say about anything?

Refer again to Charles Darwin and Russel Stannard, they were/are a lot more connected to reality than you are. Need to refer to junkscience.com again? oh yes, we've allready hammered that disgusting website of yours.

Maybe they claim to be communists or pro-communist or in favor of revolution now...who knows what they will say or do tomorrow?

Same thing can be said about teenagers, however you are all willing to claim the "revolutionarry nature of the youth."

Moreover, the people who claim to combine communism and religion have a pretty bad track record...Nicaragua's Ortega, for example. Once the revolutionary leader of the Sandinistas, he is now a corrupt pig (and some suggest that he always was!).

You mean the child abuse allegations? The ones that were withdrawn after it emerged that the alledged victim had been in contact with the CIA?

They should all have been demolished. Did you know that while "that godless bastard" Stalin was in power, there was actually a seminary to "train" Russian Orthodox priests...fully funded by the USSR government?

For someone so concerned with the religious oppression that you blame on religion, you are rather intolerant of free practice of religion.

And brainwashing kids with superstitious drivel is child abuse.

Refer to the Simpsons episode where Ned and Maude think Homer and Marge are child abusers because the Simpson children are not baptised. You get the fuck out of other people lives.

If I were to speak the type of crap you speak, I would be banned by now, since I believe forcing kids to be vegetarian is a disgusting practice. However, since I have this special magical thing that you don't have called "tolerance," I am not going to tell the vegetarians on here how to raise their kids, however, if they come anywere near me with their "you must not eat meat" crap, i'm gonna knock their teeth out. Why don't you try this policy instead of your "you must not believe in god" crap.

[Moskitto]

And no, children shouldn't be baptised, that is one of the few things I agree with baptists about.

(Edited by Moskitto at 4:15 pm on July 29, 2003)

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Quote: from Moskitto on 4:09 pm on July 29, 2003
... you will also find that every religion on it's most basic level preaches equality between humans.

No he wasn't. To "read back" into the accounts of his views any sort of communist content is anachronistic...there was no such thing then and no such idea.

Socialism predates Plato, get it through your thick skull.

The mythical Jesus (the one whom this poster is refering to) smashed up capitalist market places, reformed corrupt tax collectors and helped the poor, the mythical Jesus did a hell of a lot more towards communism than you have.

Maybe they claim to be communists or pro-communist or in favor of revolution now...who knows what they will say or do tomorrow?

Same thing can be said about teenagers, however you are all willing to claim the "revolutionarry nature of the youth."

Moreover, the people who claim to combine communism and religion have a pretty bad track record...Nicaragua's Ortega, for example. Once the revolutionary leader of the Sandinistas, he is now a corrupt pig (and some suggest that he always was!).

You mean the child abuse allegations? The ones that were withdrawn after it emerged that the alledged victim had been in contact with the CIA?

They should all have been demolished. Did you know that while "that godless bastard" Stalin was in power, there was actually a seminary to "train" Russian Orthodox priests...fully funded by the USSR government?

For someone so concerned with the religious oppression that you blame on religion, you are rather intolerant of free practice of religion.

And brainwashing kids with superstitious drivel is child abuse.

Refer to the Simpsons episode where Ned and Maude think Homer and Marge are child abusers because the Simpson children are not baptised. You get the fuck out of other people lives.

If I were to speak the type of crap you speak, I would be banned by now, since I believe forcing kids to be vegetarian is a disgusting practice. However, since I have this special magical thing that you don't have called "tolerance," I am not going to tell the vegetarians on here how to raise their kids, however, if they come anywere near me with their "you must not eat meat" crap, i'm gonna knock their teeth out. Why don't you try this policy instead of your "you must not believe in god" crap.


Thank you, Comrade Moskitto. You understood exactly what I meant.

[Abiyot]

Hello everybody! I was reading some of your posts here and I just wanted to make a little contribution. I think the relationship between religion (organized or otherwise) and Marxism is a critical (i.e. important). The first point we have to bear in mind is that Marxism as science, as revolutionary program is by definition materialist. Marxism is above all else a materialist philosophy. In that sense, therefore it is fundametally distinct from all religions, which have as their underlying basis an "idealist" philosophy, world outlook. For those of us who are interested, Maurice Cornforth has a very good book on this issue.

Second, in the way of a generalization, it has to be remembered that the application of Marxism as a tool of science and methodology simplifies, illuminates and renders "stark" all social relations. Religions on the other hand "obfuscate", "complicate", "mystify" society and social relations. Therefore, one cannot make the mistake of assuming that some religions are better than others.

Some of the participants on the discussion list point out that Marxism and religions share a "similarities" in terms of their focus on equality etc and that therefore there are no fundamental contradictions between religion and Marxism. The contributors who make this point obviously don't know their Marxism at all. Marxism does not "advocate" a vacuous, asinine equality. Marxism as science starting out from an objective appraisal of Capitalist society and the level of development of the forces of production in capitalist society points out that the objective possibilities for a transistion to a new kind of society without exploitation, alienation, gender exploitation, racism and national oppression is possible. Many religions pay lip service to equality while at the same time institutionalizing patriarchy and the objectification of women as property. A religion like Hinduism ofcourse does not even bother to "preach" a false equlity and through its caste system tries to sanction a hereditary system of exploitation and oppression. All religions historically have always stood on the side of the possessing classes against those who we could describe as the poor and the oppressed.

Ultimaely the Marxist position on religion can be best described as "agnostic" position which for me translates into a position of not bothering overmuch about proving or disproving the existence of god (as this is in the true sense of the term a futile and academic exercise). The materialist position by definition entails atheism.

To quote the words of a great Anarchist revolutionary and philosopher
(Bakunin), "the new world will emerge when the last priest is strangled with the guts of the last king on earth".

UP THE REVOLUTION!!!

[Comrade Gorley]

To Redstar:

You've argued quite valiantly, and it's become clear that neither of us will change our minds. However, I must put an end to this delusion you have that leftists must be utter fools for believing in God, or even respecting Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua/Yashua/Isa as a philosopher.

I think we all agree that Einstein was a great leftist and socialist. Let's re-visit some of his quotes:

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene....No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

What about Fidel Castro?

"I never saw a contradiction between the ideas that sustain me and the ideas of that symbol, of that extraordinary figure [Jesus Christ]."

Or Martin Luther King Jr- liberator and admitted Marxist? This page (http://grove.ufl.edu/~leo/mlk.html) is filled with his quotes that enforce Christianity.

Feel free to continue thinking religion is a blight on humanity, but please don't claim that only conservative fools accept it.

[redstar2000]

...you will also find that every religion on it's most basic level preaches equality between humans.

Nope, not even that. There's no "equality" between the "saved" and the "damned", the "obedient" and the "sinful", the "true believer" and the heretic or infidel.

I take it that you never help anyone under any circumstances.

Of course I do--though admittedly I can't do much to help you. Some ignorance is beyond help.

But if what you're trying to say is that no one would ever help anyone else unless one was first commanded to do so by one or another version of superstitious divinity...it just demonstrates your gross ingnorance of human evolution. Co-operation is one of the small number of apparant constants in "human nature" and shows up all over the place...even among atheists.

No one needs a "god" to either know "the right thing to do" or to "do it"...though gods are useful in providing good excuses to do the wrong thing, as most of us (not you) know.

Socialism predates Plato, get it through your thick skull.

Oh? Granted that you can find sentiments in Plato that can be construed to suggest both communism and fascism (Plato favored a combination of both; he admired Sparta a lot), do you want to suggest that a backwoods country preacher spent his spare time hanging out with Greek philosophers? He wouldn't have known Plato from Pluto and there's not much likelihood that Saul of Tarsus did either.

I repeat: to suggest that Yeshuah ben-Yosif knew anything at all about communism is anachronistic nonsense.

The mythical Jesus (the one whom this poster is refering to) smashed up capitalist market places, reformed corrupt tax collectors and helped the poor, the mythical Jesus did a hell of a lot more towards communism than you have.

All horseshit, at least as written. The objection of Yeshuah to the "moneychangers at the Temple" was a religious objection and had nothing to do with "opposition" to capitalism. If the moneychangers had set up across the street, Yeshuah wouldn't have minded a bit.

Reformed corrupt tax collectors? Wasn't one of his disciples an ex-tax collector? Any others?

Helped the poor? You mean "healed some sick people" and sponsered a free meal once? Wow, that's really impressive.

Done more towards communism than me? By writing this post, I've done more for communism than Yeshuah did in his entire lifetime...which, to be fair about it, is not surprising. He was not interested in communism.

Refer again to Charles Darwin and Russell Stannard, they were/are a lot more connected to reality than you are.

Arguing from "authority" again? Your real thesis is that if some prominent person declares belief in "god" then it must be true, otherwise they wouldn't say it.

Throughout recorded history, even the most brilliant human geniuses have been profoundly wrong about some pretty important things. Isaac Newton, perhaps the most brilliant scientific mind ever (yes, even more than Einstein), took the "Book of Revelations" seriously enough to spend years on trying to work out the date of "the end of the world".

This also ignores the social context; it's not exactly unknown for prominent people to be "publicly religious" and privately atheist. You can be pretty smart and still be a coward when it comes to confronting superstition publicly. I believe that one of Newton's biographers suggests that he actually did incline towards atheism in his final years...but to say so publicly in the England of that era would have been a death sentence. (Religious people are always so "tolerant", aren't they?)

Same thing can be said about teenagers, however you are all willing to claim the "revolutionarry nature of the youth".

More of your characteristic irrelevance; I have never endorsed the thesis that people are naturally revolutionary because they are young. In Germany of the late 1920s and early 1930s, many more young people supported the Nazis than supported the communists.

You mean the child abuse allegations? The ones that were withdrawn after it emerged that the alledged victim had been in contact with the CIA?

No, I mean the agreement between Ortega and the reactionaries to "share power" in Nicaragua while rigging the electoral system so that no real radical party can get on the ballot. And I also mean the loot & plunder spree that Ortega and his cronies went on right before Ortega stepped down (they "privatized" into their own hands as much public property as they thought they could get away with). And I also mean the "immunity" law that protects Ortega and his cronies from being prosecuted for any crimes they may have committed while in office. And I also mean...well, you get the idea.

For someone so concerned with the religious oppression that you blame on religion, you are rather intolerant of free practice of religion.

No, I am consistent. I realize that's as alien to your way of "thinking" as hedonism. It works like this: it is better to oppress the oppressor-wannabes (like you) than to allow oneself to be oppressed by them, which they will do whenever they get the chance.

You get the fuck out of other people lives.

This from a neo-puritanical hypocrite who wants to get a job testing people for "illegal" drugs? Why don't you get the fuck out of other people's blood?


To other matters...

However, I must put an end to this delusion you have that leftists must be utter fools for believing in God, or even respecting Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua/Yashua/Isa as a philosopher.

Well, isn't it utterly foolish? Perhaps it would gain us some "easy popularity" to appear to "respect" superstition (like having an astrology column in a left newspaper).

It seems to me that if our ideas are to ever have any real support among the great masses of people, then we must be the ones, the only ones, who speak the truth.

All other political tendencies can and do lie their heads off; we can't do that...not even in "a good cause".

Communists must first of all tell the truth.

I think we all agree that Einstein was a great leftist and socialist.

No we don't "all agree". He was a great theoretical physicist who was mildly sympathetic to both socialism and Zionism. He was never noted for his political thought or activity. His religious sentiments came, as he admits, from childhood indoctrination.

As, of course, do nearly everyone's. And it is terribly difficult to break that early conditioning...it's just easier to pay public lip-service to it (even if you pay no attention to it at all in your daily life).

"I never saw a contradiction between the ideas that sustain me and the ideas of that symbol, of that extraordinary figure [Jesus Christ]."

Probably because he didn't look. I mean, how far would Fidel have gotten by "turning the other cheek" to Batista?

I do think Cuba's tolerance of Catholicism has hurt the Cuban revolution and will hurt it even more in the future.

Or Martin Luther King Jr- liberator and admitted Marxist?

Admitted Marxist??? He was a Christian minister, "for Christ's sake!" He may have picked up a few scraps of Marxism at the Highlander School...but if anyone had suggested in Marxist circles back in the 1960s that we should "learn from King", they would have been laughed out of the room. Indeed, the general opinion then was that King represented the more conservative segments of the African-American population...and that people like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers were the real progressives.

Toward the end of his life, King came out publicly in opposition to the war in Vietnam (though I do not think he ever named the enemy: U.S. imperialism). He was murdered while in Memphis to mobilize support for a sanitation workers' strike...suggesting a shift toward the urban working class.

But Marxist? No way!

Feel free to continue thinking religion is a blight on humanity, but please don't claim that only conservative fools accept it.

Fair enough. Foolishness on this issue is not limited to conservatives, even though it ought to be.

Because religion is conservative, that has serious consequences for leftists...undermining their radical convictions.

Or, as has been said, "you cannot serve two masters".

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

[Comrade Gorley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 02:19 AM


It seems to me that if our ideas are to ever have any real support among the great masses of people, then we must be the ones, the only ones, who speak the truth.

All other political tendencies can and do lie their heads off; we can't do that...not even in "a good cause".

Communists must first of all tell the truth.

I think we all agree that Einstein was a great leftist and socialist.

No we don't "all agree". He was a great theoretical physicist who was mildly sympathetic to both socialism and Zionism. He was never noted for his political thought or activity. His religious sentiments came, as he admits, from childhood indoctrination.

As, of course, do nearly everyone's. And it is terribly difficult to break that early conditioning...it's just easier to pay public lip-service to it (even if you pay no attention to it at all in your daily life).

"I never saw a contradiction between the ideas that sustain me and the ideas of that symbol, of that extraordinary figure [Jesus Christ]."

Probably because he didn't look. I mean, how far would Fidel have gotten by "turning the other cheek" to Batista?

I do think Cuba's tolerance of Catholicism has hurt the Cuban revolution and will hurt it even more in the future.

Or Martin Luther King Jr- liberator and admitted Marxist?

Admitted Marxist??? He was a Christian minister, "for Christ's sake!" He may have picked up a few scraps of Marxism at the Highlander School...but if anyone had suggested in Marxist circles back in the 1960s that we should "learn from King", they would have been laughed out of the room. Indeed, the general opinion then was that King represented the more conservative segments of the African-American population...and that people like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers were the real progressives.

Toward the end of his life, King came out publicly in opposition to the war in Vietnam (though I do not think he ever named the enemy: U.S. imperialism). He was murdered while in Memphis to mobilize support for a sanitation workers' strike...suggesting a shift toward the urban working class.

But Marxist? No way!

Feel free to continue thinking religion is a blight on humanity, but please don't claim that only conservative fools accept it.

Fair enough. Foolishness on this issue is not limited to conservatives, even though it ought to be.

Because religion is conservative, that has serious consequences for leftists...undermining their radical convictions.

Or, as has been said, "you cannot serve two masters".

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
Well, isn't it utterly foolish? Perhaps it would gain us some "easy popularity" to appear to "respect" superstition (like having an astrology column in a left newspaper).It seems to me that if our ideas are to ever have any real support among the great masses of people, then we must be the ones, the only ones, who speak the truth.

No, it's not utterly foolish. Apparently, you haven't studied Christian apologetics in great detail. Without mentioning any of them, let me describe two people who were converted because of the evidence for resurrection. One was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was an atheist of Jewish descent who co-founded the Oxford law school, and whose manuscript "Treatise on the Law of Evidence", written around 1843, is STILL considered the foremost authority on law and evidence. The other is Sir Lionel Luckhoo, whom Oxford has credited with the record "Most Successful Lawyer", by winning 245 consecutive cases and was knighted twice. They were both atheists until they set out to prove the Bible wrong. Eventually, they became Christians until death.

Yes, leaders HAVE used Christianity to further their own ends. (Hitler and George Lincoln Rockwell, whom I have nominated the Patron Saint of Capitalism, come to mind). However, remember the words of Yeshua Bar-Yoseph himself: "Ye shall know them by their fruits".

No we don't "all agree". He was a great theoretical physicist who was mildly sympathetic to both socialism and Zionism. He was never noted for his political thought or activity. His religious sentiments came, as he admits, from childhood indoctrination.

Allright, you have your opinions on his political orientation, and I have mine. He publically CLAIMED to be a socialist, and I personally don't see how anyone could think differently. Regardless; you say that he "admitted" to being indoctorined from birth. This would contradict many of the claims he made earlier in his life:

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."


"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."


"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

Later on, after LEARNING MORE about the universe, he concluded that God must insist. Strange, no?


Admitted Marxist??? He was a Christian minister, "for Christ's sake!" He may have picked up a few scraps of Marxism at the Highlander School...but if anyone had suggested in Marxist circles back in the 1960s that we should "learn from King", they would have been laughed out of the room.

I'd point you to ]http://www.youngbnp.com/The%20Truth%20Abou...her%20King.htm] (http://www.youngbnp.com/The%20Truth%20About%20Martin%20Luther%20King.htm), ]http://www.greaterthings.com/Editorial/Mar...rtinLuther.htm] (http://www.greaterthings.com/Editorial/MartinLuther.htm), http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html]. etc etc. Of course, these sites are meant to depict King as a liar and a fraud, but we all know better. After all, Redstar, their claims are that A) He was a communist and B) he was a sex addict. You, of all people, should have no problem with THAT, should you? (In reference to your comments on abortion- which, ironically enough, i agree with.)

Because religion is conservative...[/url]

By definition, religion is simply a belief about our purpose and the origin of humans, etc etc etc. It doesn't necessarily refer to a relationship between God and men, and often "God" is impersonal, if he even exists. I can prove this, using http://www.dictionary.com (because I know SOMEONE will ask):
[i]
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


So, atheism is a religion (especially since you've defended it with the zeal that Christian and Muslim fundamentalists use). So, obviously, religion is not inherently conservative. Hell, it can be nothing more than a philosophy.

So there. :)

[redstar2000]

Apparently, you haven't studied Christian apologetics in great detail. Without mentioning any of them, let me describe two people who were converted because of the evidence for resurrection. One was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was an atheist of Jewish descent who co-founded the Oxford law school, and whose manuscript "Treatise on the Law of Evidence", written around 1843, is STILL considered the foremost authority on law and evidence. The other is Sir Lionel Luckhoo, whom Oxford has credited with the record "Most Successful Lawyer", by winning 245 consecutive cases and was knighted twice. They were both atheists until they set out to prove the Bible wrong. Eventually, they became Christians until death.

Is this meant to be taken seriously?

Evidence for resurrection??? :lol:

Later on, after LEARNING MORE about the universe, he concluded that God must exist. Strange, no?

Yet he never produced a shred of evidence for his conclusion. Strange, no?

Two of your links were "This Page Cannot Be Displayed" errors; the third was a mystical treatise on the number "404" being predicted in the "Bible". May I suggest that you test a link after you post it to see if it will work.

In any event, I'm aware that some conservatives insist that King was always a "closet Marxist" as well as a sex fiend. The latter might have been true and is irrelevant to his political significance; the former is certainly false.

So, atheism is a religion...

Because one of the five definitions at dictionary.com doesn't mention "god" or "spirituality"? And it's the last of the five at that...meaning least common usage.

You are playing a word-game...pretending that anyone who argues vigorously for atheism and against religion is being "religious". That's a weak metaphor and factually just wrong. And everyone knows that...including the defenders of religion.

I might add that dictionary definitions are not very useful when dealing with ideas...their definitions (because of space limitations) must be too limited to properly explain anything really complex.

As for the claim that religion "can be nothing more than a philosophy", I'll believe it when I see it. And, of course, I won't see it. A religious philosopher would be writing thick, obscure books for other philosophers to read...not posting to Che-Lives about Jesus "the communist" or screaming in my face at the intersection of Powell & Market Streets.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

[Comrade Gorley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 03:50 AM
Apparently, you haven't studied Christian apologetics in great detail. Without mentioning any of them, let me describe two people who were converted because of the evidence for resurrection. One was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was an atheist of Jewish descent who co-founded the Oxford law school, and whose manuscript "Treatise on the Law of Evidence", written around 1843, is STILL considered the foremost authority on law and evidence. The other is Sir Lionel Luckhoo, whom Oxford has credited with the record "Most Successful Lawyer", by winning 245 consecutive cases and was knighted twice. They were both atheists until they set out to prove the Bible wrong. Eventually, they became Christians until death.

Is this meant to be taken seriously?

Evidence for resurrection??? :lol:

Later on, after LEARNING MORE about the universe, he concluded that God must exist. Strange, no?

Yet he never produced a shred of evidence for his conclusion. Strange, no?

Two of your links were "This Page Cannot Be Displayed" errors; the third was a mystical treatise on the number "404" being predicted in the "Bible". May I suggest that you test a link after you post it to see if it will work.

In any event, I'm aware that some conservatives insist that King was always a "closet Marxist" as well as a sex fiend. The latter might have been true and is irrelevant to his political significance; the former is certainly false.

So, atheism is a religion...

Because one of the five definitions at dictionary.com doesn't mention "god" or "spirituality"? And it's the last of the five at that...meaning least common usage.

You are playing a word-game...pretending that anyone who argues vigorously for atheism and against religion is being "religious". That's a weak metaphor and factually just wrong. And everyone knows that...including the defenders of religion.

I might add that dictionary definitions are not very useful when dealing with ideas...their definitions (because of space limitations) must be too limited to properly explain anything really complex.

As for the claim that religion "can be nothing more than a philosophy", I'll believe it when I see it. And, of course, I won't see it. A religious philosopher would be writing thick, obscure books for other philosophers to read...not posting to Che-Lives about Jesus "the communist" or screaming in my face at the intersection of Powell & Market Streets.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
Is this meant to be taken seriously?

Evidence for resurrection???

Have you ever bothered to actually examine in? You didn't explain why it converted Greenleaf and Luckhoo, which is rather brow-quirking. Here's a good introduction:

http://www.geocities.com/jesusotw/witness/...esurrection.htm (http://www.geocities.com/jesusotw/witness/Fact_Of_Resurrection.htm)

Yet he never produced a shred of evidence for his conclusion. Strange, no?

So you're saying that Einstein followed Judaism in his youth, converted to atheism, than converted back? Or was he lying at some point? B)

I think this quote from rocket scientist Werner van Braun- former director of NASA- says it aptly:

"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

BTW, Louis Pasteur, George Washington Carver, Leonardo DaVinci, Kevin Bacon, etc etc etc were all Christians. How coincidental.

OK, sorry about the links. I accidentally inserted a few characters were they didn't belong. Here they are:

http://www.youngbnp.com/The%20Truth%20Abou...ther%20King.htm (http://www.youngbnp.com/The%20Truth%20About%20Martin%20Luther%20King.htm)
http://www.martinlutherking.org/thebeast.html
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/stang011703.shtml

And, btw, WHY wasn't he a socialist? After all, he did maintain that "all men are created equal", and was killed by the FBI. Need any further proof? :lol:

Answer me this: would you not agree that religion is taken by faith?

Now proove God doesn't exist. :P

There you go.

[Moskitto]

Nope, not even that. There's no "equality" between the "saved" and the "damned", the "obedient" and the "sinful", the "true believer" and the heretic or infidel.

"There is no Jew nor Gentile, Man nor woman, rich nor poor, Greek nor Roman, all men are equal in gods eyes" - Read the bible next time you make stupid claims.

Of course I do--though admittedly I can't do much to help you. Some ignorance is beyond help.

Wow, having to resort to personal insults are we?

But if what you're trying to say is that no one would ever help anyone else unless one was first commanded to do so by one or another version of superstitious divinity...it just demonstrates your gross ingnorance of human evolution. Co-operation is one of the small number of apparant constants in "human nature" and shows up all over the place...even among atheists.

No, if you actually read my original post, You would see that it was a response to your claim that there is nothing worthwhile in religion, since every religion has in it something relating to helping less fortunate people I can only assume that you do not consider helping less fortunate people a worthwhile cause.

No one needs a "god" to either know "the right thing to do" or to "do it"...though gods are useful in providing good excuses to do the wrong thing, as most of us (not you) know.

More personal insults? ah well, this is just becoming lame, I should make a webpage of these, but it would probably be lame being as all the content will be writen by you.

Oh? Granted that you can find sentiments in Plato that can be construed to suggest both communism and fascism (Plato favored a combination of both; he admired Sparta a lot), do you want to suggest that a backwoods country preacher spent his spare time hanging out with Greek philosophers? He wouldn't have known Plato from Pluto and there's not much likelihood that Saul of Tarsus did either.

I said socialism predates Plato, not invented by Plato, idiot.

I repeat: to suggest that Yeshuah ben-Yosif knew anything at all about communism is anachronistic nonsense.

Well, being as you get tribes in the middle of the amazon rainforest who have never seen white people and still practice socialism, I think you're speak horseshit again,

All horseshit, at least as written. The objection of Yeshuah to the "moneychangers at the Temple" was a religious objection and had nothing to do with "opposition" to capitalism. If the moneychangers had set up across the street, Yeshuah wouldn't have minded a bit.

Modern evidence actually suggests he was a political activist rather than a religious figure. but we'll forget your minor error.

Reformed corrupt tax collectors? Wasn't one of his disciples an ex-tax collector? Any others?

being as you are so learned in reading the bible, you should know of the many others. As you are obviously not, I see no reason to consider anything you say in this discussion

Arguing from "authority" again? Your real thesis is that if some prominent person declares belief in "god" then it must be true, otherwise they wouldn't say it.

No, yet again you take me out of context (probably purposely being as you are incapable of argueing against my actual point), your claim is that these people have no connection to reality, fact is they don't believe a website which is so obviously wrong as "junkscience.com" (fitting name eh?) unlike yourself.

Throughout recorded history, even the most brilliant human geniuses have been profoundly wrong about some pretty important things. Isaac Newton, perhaps the most brilliant scientific mind ever (yes, even more than Einstein), took the "Book of Revelations" seriously enough to spend years on trying to work out the date of "the end of the world".

Your next paragraph tends to contradict this one, i'll ignore it. Most of the most fanatical christians I know do not do this.

This also ignores the social context; it's not exactly unknown for prominent people to be "publicly religious" and privately atheist. You can be pretty smart and still be a coward when it comes to confronting superstition publicly. I believe that one of Newton's biographers suggests that he actually did incline towards atheism in his final years...but to say so publicly in the England of that era would have been a death sentence. (Religious people are always so "tolerant", aren't they?)

HA HA, ever heard of some guy called "Pol Pot"? Atheists are really nice tolerant people aren't they

More of your characteristic irrelevance; I have never endorsed the thesis that people are naturally revolutionary because they are young. In Germany of the late 1920s and early 1930s, many more young people supported the Nazis than supported the communists.

Well, an earlier claim you made was that "Children nowadays are growing up more quickly and are therefore more revolutionarry."

No, I mean the agreement between Ortega and the reactionaries to "share power" in Nicaragua while rigging the electoral system so that no real radical party can get on the ballot. And I also mean the loot & plunder spree that Ortega and his cronies went on right before Ortega stepped down (they "privatized" into their own hands as much public property as they thought they could get away with). And I also mean the "immunity" law that protects Ortega and his cronies from being prosecuted for any crimes they may have committed while in office. And I also mean...well, you get the idea.

First of all, the election was rigged because the US government announced that "The war will continue if Ortega remains in power", until this announcement was made FSLN was leading the polls. Secondly the "immunity law" you speak of protects all Nicaraguan senators, including Ortega, FSLN, The liberal party (who banned condoms), they're all excempt from prosecution, this is why the child abuse alegation was brought, to remove him from the senate.

No, I am consistent. I realize that's as alien to your way of "thinking" as hedonism. It works like this: it is better to oppress the oppressor-wannabes (like you) than to allow oneself to be oppressed by them, which they will do whenever they get the chance.

More generalisations, more personal insults, where the fuck do I talk about wanting to oppress people? GIVE ME ONE QUOTE WHERE I WANT TO OPPRESS ANYONE LIKE YOU HAVE. Then I'll retract this statement.

Redstar "The Dictator" 2000

This from a neo-puritanical hypocrite who wants to get a job testing people for "illegal" drugs? Why don't you get the fuck out of other people's blood?

It's testing people for people Driving while under the influence of psychodelic and intoxicating drugs. Unfortunately since you see nothing wrong with people driving just after drinking 36 pints, I hope you die in a drink driving accident, idiot.

Redstar, I am very disappointed by you, instead of answering the original points you couldn't argue, you instead decide to refer everything I say to a completely new situation, I suppose it works though, I prevents other people seeing you as the dipshit you are and requires your foes to rewrite everything 3, 4 or 5 times.

[AdolfoMena]

:rolleyes:
Open your eyes! We are never going to be equal we are not the same mind working as one, We are all individuals with individual way of thinking and looking at things our own way. Now, we can try to develop a better and more equal society thru Socialism!. In order to have an open mind you have to do away with religion...Sorry to have to say this but, Only weak, selfish people go to religion. Why? (we only need god when is convenient to us). Go to churh you're save, don't go to churh you're Damn! Even when just after or before church you broke every single rule that they are trying to implement. DON'T LIE TO YOUR SELF!

I was a catholic, I have yet to meet a bigger hypocrate,
than a Religious priest.(applys to all priest)

Adolfo Mena

[Moskitto]

yes, priests are hipocrits, there are many religions that have abolished them.

[Comrade Gorley]

Moskitto,

Excellent post; however, I think we've all known for a long time that personal insults are the dictator's personal cop-out of choice.

Redstar,

Moskitto seems to think you'll actually check the Bible (snicker), but to save you the effort, let me show you a few instances were Jesus converted tax collectors ("publicans"):

Matthew 9
9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

Mark 2:
14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
15 And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.

Luke 19
2 And, behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus, which was the chief among the publicans, and he was rich.
3 And he sought to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature.
4 And he ran before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to pass that way.
5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and saw him, and said unto him, Zacchaeus, make haste, and come down; for to day I must abide at thy house.
6 And he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully.
7 And when they saw it, they all murmured, saying, That he was gone to be guest with a man that is a sinner.
8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

[AdolfoMena]

Are you trying to make Jesus and the Bible into a Socialist Religion. If you are, I think Marx can explain better than any of us why it does not work. Be affraid of what is now real, not what we think may be. Deal with it.

Adolfo Mena :)

[Comrade Gorley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 04:08 PM
Are you trying to make Jesus and the Bible into a Socialist Religion. If you are, I think Marx can explain better than any of us why it does not work. Be affraid of what is now real, not what we think may be. Deal with it.

Adolfo Mena :)
Well, technically, Yashuah Ben-Eloihom was not a communist, in the sense that he didn't have "opinions", just the facts (ma'am ;)), being God incarnate. However, communism is the basic political equivalent of his teachings, so by that definition, yes, he was a commie. Although the church is hardly communist, that doesn't mean that the man it worshipped wasn't. But then, the church has very little to do with Yashuah these days.

[AdolfoMena]

You got a good point on the man itself. But, being "God" incarnate leave that to the masses of the ignorant and ungry that have nothing better to look foward to, than a better after life. Because of people thinking that what is happenig in the world is gods will (Bush). For real problems, real solutions.

Adolfo Mena ;)

[Comrade Gorley]

OK, prove he wasn't God.

The Messianic prophecies said that Messiah would be gone, and Yashuah WAS the Messiah.

Or do you intend to proove that he wasn't? :blink:

[AdolfoMena]

I can't proof that! Now,can you or anyone for that matter even proof that there is a God! Y/N and if there is one which one is it? not that there is a physical or methaphysical all mighty conscious god. Only Pachamama(Mother Nature and all the physical laws that supports it).

Adolfo Mena

:D

[redstar2000]

Have you ever bothered to actually examine it? You didn't explain why it converted Greenleaf and Luckhoo, which is rather brow-quirking. Here's a good introduction:

I looked at your link and it's just the same old crap. All the Christians have to offer is their own mythology...there's no independent evidence or verification at all.

Forget the rich guy and his fancy tomb. What happened, most likely, was the Yeshuah's body was thrown into the local burial ground and several of his most devoted followers removed the corpse and buried it elsewhere, going forth to the rest and proclaiming "Christ is risen". They thought it was "a lie in a good cause". All the rest of the stuff was invented afterwards, the rich guy, the fancy tomb, the appearances...and all after the people who lived through the experience were dead. My guess is Yeshuah's brother James was behind the whole thing...but whoever conceived and executed it, it certainly was and is the most successful scam in recorded history.

So you're saying that Einstein followed Judaism in his youth, converted to atheism, than converted back? Or was he lying at some point?

No, I'm saying what I said: he produced no evidence.

Only he knew if he was lying or not; at the very least, he was wrong.

"I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Von Braun found many things "difficult to understand"...including the nature of the governments he worked for (the Third Reich and the American Empire).

But who cares what he "found difficult to understand" or, more likely, thought it politic to say?

Louis Pasteur, George Washington Carver, Leonardo DaVinci, Kevin Bacon, etc etc etc were all Christians. How coincidental.

Perhaps, but Karl Marx and Friedrick Engels were not.

The question is not how many impressive names you can drop, but who was right?

WHY wasn't he a socialist? After all, he did maintain that "all men are created equal", and was killed by the FBI. Need any further proof?

I looked at the first of the three links you posted on this subject...pure unfounded right-wing racist gossip and of a rather sickening nature.

Thomas Jefferson (slaveowner and non-Christian) wrote that line about "all men being created equal"...was he a "socialist"?

The FBI has killed a lot of people, including organized crime figures...were they "socialists"?

When it comes to people's political views, I need quite a bit of "proof". If you're going to say that so-and-so was a socialist or a communist, I want to know in some detail what your evidence is for that statement.

Right-wing gossip doesn't count. Christian mythology doesn't count either.

...would you not agree that religion is taken by faith? Now prove God doesn't exist.

I ought to make up a "cut & paste" answer for this one, since it comes up with tedious regularity.

Proving a "negative" is to all intents and purposes impossible; "prove" to me that unicorns don't exist, for example.

Therefore, in science, the burden of proof is on the positive conjecture. It is only the atheist who can say to the believer: "God" exists? Show me your evidence. When you say that you "take it on faith", you admit that you have no evidence.

That's unacceptable.

As regards the latest collection of Moskitto's stupidities, there's really nothing much there worthy of reply.

But I liked this one...

Unfortunately since you see nothing wrong with people driving just after drinking 36 pints, I hope you die in a drink driving accident, idiot.

If I were designing "Hell", one of the torments would be having to read Moskitto's posts for all eternity. :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
_________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
_________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Pingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 02:34 PM
:rolleyes:
Open your eyes! We are never going to be equal we are not the same mind working as one, We are all individuals with individual way of thinking and looking at things our own way. Now, we can try to develop a better and more equal society thru Socialism!. In order to have an open mind you have to do away with religion...Sorry to have to say this but, Only weak, selfish people go to religion. Why? (we only need god when is convenient to us). Go to churh you're save, don't go to churh you're Damn! Even when just after or before church you broke every single rule that they are trying to implement. DON'T LIE TO YOUR SELF!

I was a catholic, I have yet to meet a bigger hypocrate,
than a Religious priest.(applys to all priest)

Adolfo Mena
"Go to churh you're save, don't go to churh you're Damn!"
I am Christian but i don't think that black and white. If you have lived a "good" life you go to "heaven". "Good" = you tried to do the best, you wanted to be social. So people who don't believe can come there too.

I see the bible as a book where you can learn things from. It didnot all happen (that way) , just to get out the good things.

[Comrade Gorley]

I looked at your link and it's just the same old crap. All the Christians have to offer is their own mythology...there's no independent evidence or verification at all.



Yes, there is. The Gospels are historically accurate, contain many names that are verified as historical figures, ETC ETC. Among these was Joseph of Arimethea (who is remembered by history because the Zealots put a hit out on him). And yes, there IS independant evidence. No serious historian- no matter how atheistic- can't deny that around 30 AD, Yashuah "Bar-Elohim" was crucified in Jerusalem. Even passionate atheists and anti-christs like Winwood Reade, Arthur Weigall, John Lennon, and Richard Darwin admit this. That page describes Roman crucifixtion accurately. That's not "Christian mythology".

Forget the rich guy and his fancy tomb. What happened, most likely, was the Yeshuah's body was thrown into the local burial ground and several of his most devoted followers removed the corpse and buried it elsewhere, going forth to the rest and proclaiming "Christ is risen". They thought it was "a lie in a good cause". All the rest of the stuff was invented afterwards, the rich guy, the fancy tomb, the appearances...and all after the people who lived through the experience were dead. My guess is Yeshuah's brother James was behind the whole thing...but whoever conceived and executed it, it certainly was and is the most successful scam in recorded history.

Obviously, you know next to nothing about psychology, and/or the history of Christianity. Are you aware what happened after 33 AD? With the exception of Judah of Kerriot (who had commited suicide in remorse) and Yochanon, who outlived the persecution, they were decapitated, burned, fed to the lions, etc by the Romans. Why? For declaring the resurrection of Yashuah. And they were always given the option of changing their mind. Some had put forth that "they wanted to believe he was alive". Well, let's ask the co-founder of Oxford Law School about that, shall we?

"It was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead."

Only he knew if he was lying or not; at the very least, he was wrong.

OK, logically, WHY would he be wrong? I'm quite sure he was leagues ahead of you and I as far as knowledge of the universe goes, and obviously, he had to be CONVERTED to deism, considering that earlier in life he made atheistic claims. http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/relativity.html is an interesting page about Einstein's opinion of God in relation to the expansion of the universe.

However, even if Einstein was "wrong"- the fact is, he was still A) Brilliant and B) Believed in God. So, even if he was wrong, it still proves that there are intelligent people who believe in God.

Perhaps, but Karl Marx and Frederick Engels were not.

SO WHAT? I'm a Marxist, and so are all the other Christian communists, but the fact is, Karl Marx WAS falliable, and Engels even more so. The fact is (and I think you'll concur), Marx wasn't interested in religion. He was a political philosopher. He was a genius. He was insightful. But he wasn't always right, and I doubt he had a superior knowledge of the universe than Einstein.

Oh, by the way, Marx never advocated banning religion. It was his belief that in a communist society, religion would fade away naturally, and eventually die altogether; however, he never advised Marxists to deliberately try to end religion. Oh, and one more thing: He used "The Gospel of St. John" as some inspiration for his communist utopia.

I looked at the first three links you posted on the subject...pure right-wing racist gossip and of a rather sickening nature.

If you'll recall- THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

Of course, these sites are meant to depict King as a liar and a fraud, but we all know better. After all, Redstar, their claims are that A) He was a communist and B) He was a sex addict. You, of all people, should have no problem with THAT, should you?

But, bigoted and right-wing as it is, it's still true.

Thomas Jefferson (slaveowner and non-Christian) wrote that line about "all men being created equal"... was he a "socialist"?

Let us remember Yashuah's words: "Ye shall know them by their fruits". Jefferson was a rather arrogant man, and, as you said, he owned slaves, so we can safely infer this comment was just made to boost popularity, and make himself quotable. MLK, on the other hand, used that quote, AND GOT OFF HIS ASS AND WORKED TOWARDS CIVIL RIGHTS. Judging him by his fruits, I'd call him a socialist.

Neither atheists nor theists can utterly prove/disprove the existence of God as a creator. Arguing over God's sheer existence will get you nowhere. As Lee Strobel- former lawyer and news reporter, AND atheist, converted by looking at the facts, put it- "It's too mushy, too philisophical." However, if you can prove that Yashuah was the Messhiach, and fulfilled the prophecies of several Jewish prophets throughout history, AND that the Bible is filled with other prophecies that came true, THAN one can safely say that yes, there is a God.

If I was designing "Hell", one of the torments would be reading Moskitto's posts for all eternity.

Once you get there, put it in the suggestions box.

[redstar2000]

The Gospels are historically accurate.

:lol:

No serious historian- no matter how atheistic- can't deny that around 30 AD, Yashuah "Bar-Elohim" was crucified in Jerusalem.

"Bar-Elohim" is not an expression that occurs in the "New Testament" nor would any pious Jew accept it. The "im" suffix is, in Hebrew, a plural--so the phrase would mean "son of the gods".

Yes, a country preacher was crucified around 30 to 33CE...probably guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time--when the Romans wanted to teach the rebellious Jews a lesson and needed a victim.

Nothing special about that; the Romans did it all the time.

Even passionate atheists and anti-christs like Winwood Reade, Arthur Weigall, John Lennon, and Richard Darwin admit this.

I thought there was just one "anti-christ". If anyone can join, count me in! :D

Well, let's ask the co-founder of Oxford Law School about that, shall we?

"It was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead."

Why? People affirm "impossible" things all the time. Look at Moskitto!

OK, logically, WHY would he be wrong? I'm quite sure he was leagues ahead of you and I as far as knowledge of the universe goes, and obviously, he had to be CONVERTED to deism, considering that earlier in life he made atheistic claims.

Lack of evidence, obviously.

...it still proves that there are intelligent people who believe in God.

Or at least who are careful to say they do in public.

As far as is known, people are about as "intelligent" now as they were 150,000 years ago...yet the amount of nonsense that has been believed has only begun to decline significantly in the last 250 years...and only in the "western" world at that.

There is still a long way to go.

I'm a Marxist, and so are all the other Christian communists...

Go and look at the thread you started in this forum--"How to select a dictator in communist/socialist society".

You're no more a "Marxist" than George W. Bush!

Oh, by the way, Marx never advocated banning religion. It was his belief that in a communist society, religion would fade away naturally, and eventually die altogether; however, he never advised Marxists to deliberately try to end religion.

Yeah, that's probably one of the things he was wrong about. I suspect he drastically underestimated the effects of childhood conditioning in keeping the "old shit" around.

Oh, and one more thing: He [Marx] used "The Gospel of St. John" as some inspiration for his communist utopia.

I'm sure he did. :lol:

But, bigoted and right-wing as it is, it's still true.

No it isn't. On some rare occasions, conservatives can "get the facts right". This ain't one of them.

Judging him by his fruits, I'd call him [King] a socialist.

That's because you have no idea of what a socialist is! That's also why you can call Yeshuah a "communist"...because you have not the slightest idea of what a communist is or what communism is!

Judging you "by your fruits", you ought to be posting in Opposing Ideologies...at least until you learn something of what this stuff is about.

However, if you can prove that Yashuah was the Messhiach, and fulfilled the prophecies of several Jewish prophets throughout history, AND that the Bible is filled with other prophecies that came true, THEN one can safely say that yes, there is a God.

Not a shred of which you can "prove", of course. It's clear your reading has consisted entirely of fundamentalist crap...you need to check out the Infidels Forum and see what modern criticism of religion really looks like.

And if you really want to be a communist, why not read some Marx and Engels?

Just for the "hell" of it.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

Proving a "negative" is to all intents and purposes impossible; "prove" to me that unicorns don't exist, for example.
But of cause unicorns do exist. They may not exist in on Earth or even in this dimension but consider the infinite number of alternative universes they do exist.

Now we can't use this same arguement for the proof of God but we can say that something happened some billions of years ago and the universe was created or 'happened'. Or at least that is seems that way. Either nothing caused it or God caused it or some other being caused it. Now I and many others say that it was God for the simple reason that it makes the universe seem less cold and dark. (despite cold dark matter).

[Comrade Gorley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2003, 11:49 PM
The Gospels are historically accurate.

:lol:

No serious historian- no matter how atheistic- can't deny that around 30 AD, Yashuah "Bar-Elohim" was crucified in Jerusalem.

"Bar-Elohim" is not an expression that occurs in the "New Testament" nor would any pious Jew accept it. The "im" suffix is, in Hebrew, a plural--so the phrase would mean "son of the gods".

Yes, a country preacher was crucified around 30 to 33CE...probably guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time--when the Romans wanted to teach the rebellious Jews a lesson and needed a victim.

Nothing special about that; the Romans did it all the time.

Even passionate atheists and anti-christs like Winwood Reade, Arthur Weigall, John Lennon, and Richard Darwin admit this.

I thought there was just one "anti-christ". If anyone can join, count me in! :D

Well, let's ask the co-founder of Oxford Law School about that, shall we?

"It was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead."

Why? People affirm "impossible" things all the time. Look at Moskitto!

OK, logically, WHY would he be wrong? I'm quite sure he was leagues ahead of you and I as far as knowledge of the universe goes, and obviously, he had to be CONVERTED to deism, considering that earlier in life he made atheistic claims.

Lack of evidence, obviously.

...it still proves that there are intelligent people who believe in God.

Or at least who are careful to say they do in public.

As far as is known, people are about as "intelligent" now as they were 150,000 years ago...yet the amount of nonsense that has been believed has only begun to decline significantly in the last 250 years...and only in the "western" world at that.

There is still a long way to go.

I'm a Marxist, and so are all the other Christian communists...

Go and look at the thread you started in this forum--"How to select a dictator in communist/socialist society".

You're no more a "Marxist" than George W. Bush!

Oh, by the way, Marx never advocated banning religion. It was his belief that in a communist society, religion would fade away naturally, and eventually die altogether; however, he never advised Marxists to deliberately try to end religion.

Yeah, that's probably one of the things he was wrong about. I suspect he drastically underestimated the effects of childhood conditioning in keeping the "old shit" around.

Oh, and one more thing: He [Marx] used "The Gospel of St. John" as some inspiration for his communist utopia.

I'm sure he did. :lol:

But, bigoted and right-wing as it is, it's still true.

No it isn't. On some rare occasions, conservatives can "get the facts right". This ain't one of them.

Judging him by his fruits, I'd call him [King] a socialist.

That's because you have no idea of what a socialist is! That's also why you can call Yeshuah a "communist"...because you have not the slightest idea of what a communist is or what communism is!

Judging you "by your fruits", you ought to be posting in Opposing Ideologies...at least until you learn something of what this stuff is about.

However, if you can prove that Yashuah was the Messhiach, and fulfilled the prophecies of several Jewish prophets throughout history, AND that the Bible is filled with other prophecies that came true, THEN one can safely say that yes, there is a God.

Not a shred of which you can "prove", of course. It's clear your reading has consisted entirely of fundamentalist crap...you need to check out the Infidels Forum and see what modern criticism of religion really looks like.

And if you really want to be a communist, why not read some Marx and Engels?

Just for the "hell" of it.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
The Gospels are historically accurate.

:lol:

Yes, it's very amusing. Now give one instance where the Gospels contradict history.

"Bar-Elohim" is not an expression that occurs in the "New Testament" nor would any pious Jew accept it. The "im" suffix is, in Hebrew, a plural--so the phrase would mean "son of the gods".

Not quite. The "im" suffix makes it a uniplural noun. It makes it akin to the word "sheep", which can mean both a single sheep and a flock. God used this term to describe himself throughout the Old Testament. http://www.answering-christianity.com/elohim.htm is a good essay on it.

Yes, a country preacher was crucified around 30 to 33CE...probably guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time--when the Romans wanted to teach the rebellious Jews a lesson and needed a victim.

If you maintain that Jesus was a religious revolutionary, and not a political one, this makes no sense. Besides, the Jewish community mostly rejected Jesus- with the exception of the proletarians (fisherman, carpenters etc.) If the Romans were trying to make a point to the Jews, they were incredibly ignorant, and besides that failed miserably.

I thought there was just one "anti-christ". If anyone can join, count me in! :D

No, the Bible never calls the world leader "the anti-christ", it usually calls him "the son of peredition" or "the beast out of the sea". The Biblical definition of "anti-christ" is as follows:

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Elsewhere, Jocahan notes that "even now there are many anti-christs" (1 John 2:18).

People affirm "impossible" things all the time. Look at Moskitto!

Yes, but eleven people won't endure torture and death for something they're well aware is a lie. You seem to be aware of this, and try to mask it in cynical pseudo-humour.

Lack of evidence, obviously.

PLEASE don't tell me you seriously maintain this. So, early in life, Einstein rejected God because of lack of evidence, than, after learning more about the universe (and presumably gaining more "evidence") and accepting a supreme deity- he was still wrong because of "lack of evidence"?

Ever considered a career as a Republican speech-writer?

Or at least who are careful to say they do in public.

After claiming, earlier in life, that they don't. Yeah, that makes sense.

You're no more of a "Marxist" than George W. Bush!

Because I think a leader should be breeded? Did Marx EVER publically- or privately, for that matter- condemn ANYTHING of that sort? Besides, look at how he regarded the family-

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeoise family, based? On capital, private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoise. But this state finds its complement in the practical absense of the family among proletarians, and in public prostitution. The bourgeoise family will vanish as a matter of course when it's complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

He went on to explain how children should be taken and trained, etc etc. Read "The Communist Manifesto" yourself. The Soviet Union took this quite literally, and look what they accomplished- in sports, in the military, in the world of science... now imagine someone brought up to be a dictator.

..because you have not the slightest idea of what a communist is or what communism is!

So I, who quote "The Communist Manifesto", "have not the slightest idea" about communism, as opposed to an arrogant, ignorant antichrist whose arguements are solely personal attacks, and who never quotes those he enforces OR attacks?

Ooh, that hurt.

[truthaddict11]

Jewish community mostly rejected Jesus- with the exception of the proletarians (fisherman, carpenters etc.)

and tax collectors.


.

You're no more of a "Marxist" than George W. Bush!

Because I think a leader should be breeded? Did Marx EVER publically- or privately, for that matter- condemn ANYTHING of that sort?

you said that a dictator should be breeded, something Marx and Engles would be against.


So I, who quote "The Communist Manifesto", "have not the slightest idea" about communism, as opposed to an arrogant, ignorant antichrist whose arguements are solely personal attacks, and who never quotes those he enforces OR attacks?

anyone can quote Marx; fascists, capitalists, ect. And you are not a communist.
, as opposed to an arrogant, ignorant antichrist whose arguements are solely personal attacks, and who never quotes those he enforces OR attacks?

Better than an arrogant Christian "communist"

[redstar2000]

Now give one instance where the Gospels contradict history.

The birth of Yeshuah in Bethlehem because a Roman census required "Joseph" and "Mary" to go there.

Utter nonsense; the Romans never conducted a census in that fashion...it would have been totally chaotic.

It's in the "Gospels" because the authors were trying to "prove" that Yeshuah was the Davidic "Messiah" who "had" to be born in the "city of David".

I do not pretend to be a Biblical scholar, but I daresay there are probably dozens if not hundreds of historical inaccuracies in the "gospels". You have to remember that people who write "holy books" are not historians...modern standards of history writing cannot really be applied to them. They were creating a mythology...which has different standards.

If you maintain that Jesus was a religious revolutionary, and not a political one, this makes no sense. Besides, the Jewish community mostly rejected Jesus- with the exception of the proletarians (fisherman, carpenters etc.) If the Romans were trying to make a point to the Jews, they were incredibly ignorant, and besides that failed miserably.

No, it makes very good sense. The temple establishment would naturally have liked to get rid of anyone who threatened their monopoly on ritual piety (and the income thereof)...which Yeshuah obviously did. As far as the Romans were concerned, they thought all the Jews were actual or potential troublemakers and rarely passed up an opportunity to "teach the Jews a lesson". Recall the inscription supposedly placed above Yeshuah's head on the cross--INRI? That's a Latin abbreviation for "Jesus, King of the Jews"...in other words, this is what happens to rebels against Roman power. But we know that Yeshuah himself had no secular revolutionary intentions; his kingdom "was not of this world" and he even told the Jews to pay their taxes. (No wonder tax collectors liked him...he made their job easier.)

Because I think a leader should be breeded? Did Marx EVER publically- or privately, for that matter- condemn ANYTHING of that sort?

No, you miss the point again. Marx and Engels knew nothing of genes in their time. What they did reject was the racism of their time...the idea that humans are "naturally" inferior or superior; that some are "fit to rule" and others "fit only to be slaves".

Your proposal (borrowed from Plato?) is that there really are "genetically superior" people--or we could breed such people--that would be "fit" to be dictators.

Your idea is biological fascism pure and simple. If you worked some anti-semitism into your mixture, you'd be a Nazi.

He went on to explain how children should be taken and trained, etc etc. Read "The Communist Manifesto" yourself. The Soviet Union took this quite literally, and look what they accomplished- in sports, in the military, in the world of science... now imagine someone brought up to be a dictator.

You mean like the "Great Leader" of North Korea...who was certainly raised to be a dictator.

This is such a bizarre interpretation of the Communist Manifesto--not to mention the actual practices of the old USSR--that words nearly fail me.

Suffice it to say that the USSR's achievements were largely the result of supplying education and health care to a large nation that had previously been denied it.

And the idea that Marx would have endorsed a scheme of breeding dictators is just grotesque.

So I, who quote "The Communist Manifesto", "have not the slightest idea" about communism, as opposed to an arrogant, ignorant antichrist whose arguements are solely personal attacks, and who never quotes those he enforces OR attacks?

As truthaddict11 pointed out, anyone can quote anything. In your tradition, even the "Devil" can quote "scripture". That means nothing.

Whenever I or other communists point out the wretched inadequacy of the "arguments" of believers, we are accused of "personal attacks", of being "arrogant", or "dictators", etc.

Have it your way...we are all the bad things that you think we are.

And we are very proud of ourselves!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

As regards the latest collection of Moskitto's stupidities, there's really nothing much there worthy of reply.

But I liked this one...

Unfortunately since you see nothing wrong with people driving just after drinking 36 pints, I hope you die in a drink driving accident, idiot.

If I were designing "Hell", one of the torments would be having to read Moskitto's posts for all eternity.

English translation:-

"I couldn't argue against Moskitto just like when my junkscience.com arguement was completely destroyed therefore I am now ignoring him and using personal insults against him. But please, don't translate this into English, I don't want people knowing that I am constantly using personal insults against Moskitto. I am very disappointed that he opposes my dictatorship."

Yes Redstar, we all know you how stupid you are for believing a website claiming there were no CJD deaths amoungst butchers, farmers, slaughterhouse workers or people living in Quinnibourgh, Darlington or Ashford, but please, you don't have to constantly remind us of your stupidity.

[Invader Zim]

Excuse me guys I have no real desire to get into this rather boring debate, however I feal that some members should be slapped for just being plain old dumb.

Two members are flinging around remarks at other people not being Marxist because they are religious (I know you did not actually say that, however your balatant meaning was as clear as glass), yet from my understanding of basic leftwing principal any person should be able to believe what they like whether it is sunny Jesus or the tooth fairy. The very fact that certain members are insulting, attacking, flaming, dare I use the word gang "bullying" other members for not holding a view which they believe, makes me feal that the fake leftists/socialists are infact not the ones who have been accused.

In short the religious people should be able to believe what they like even if it ranges from paganism to Budism and not be told that there beliefs make it impossible to be a leftist. Any people who say that are stupid and intolerant reactionarys who do not belong on che-lives but on a rightwing site.

AK47

[redstar2000]

Two members are flinging around remarks at other people not being Marxist because they are religious (I know you did not actually say that, however your blatant meaning was as clear as glass), yet from my understanding of basic leftwing principle any person should be able to believe what they like whether it is sunny Jesus or the tooth fairy.

That's because your "understanding" of "basic leftwing principle" is as nonexistent as Gorley's.

And it stems from the same motive...the desire to pass yourself off as some kind of "leftist" while dragging into the left as much reactionary crap as you think people will let you get away with.

Gorley wants to drag in Christian bullshit and biological fascism and yet be accepted as a "leftist" and even a "Marxist".

You, of course, want to drag in support for British imperialism in the 19th century and U.S. imperialism in the 20th century, most recently in Iraq, and yet expect to be accepted as a "non-Marxist socialist". And weren't you one of the morons who defended the role of the military and the police in capitalist society in general?

Your "socialism", like Gorley's "communism", is nothing but scraps of meaningless rhetoric...the views of both of you are reactionary.

Damn, now I'm going to get accused of being "intolerant" again. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade Gorley]

AK47-

Yes, exactly. Very well put.

Moskitto:

LOL.

Redstar (cringe):

Many critics have argued through the ages that there was no census, that Quirinius was not Governor of Syria at that time, and that everyone did not have to travel to his ancestral home. The ramifications of this would be dire, insinuating that Luke made up the Gospel account of the birth of Jesus to take Him out of Bethlehem and disqualify Him from being Messiah. Before you get worried, look at the evidence.

First of all, archaeological discoveries have uncovered that the Romans had a regular enrollment of taxpayers and held censuses every 14 years. The was initiated by Augustus and the first one took place in 23 or 22 B.C. and the next in 9 or 8 B.C. The latter would be the one referred to by Luke.

Secondly, evidence has been discovered that Quirinius was Governor of Syria around 7 B.C. based on an inscription in Antioch giving Quirinius this post.

Lastly, a papyrus found in Egypt gives directions for the conduct of a census and includes the order that the family return to their "hometowns", so to speak, if they are residing away from home. Joseph, Jesus' surrogate father, was a descendant of David and therefore the city of Bethlehem would be the ancestral home of the family.

"In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without an error" says Norman Geisler in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics That's impressive.


Good try.


No, you miss the point again. Marx and Engels knew nothing of genes in their time. What they did reject was the racism of their time...the idea that humans are "naturally" inferior or superior; that some are "fit to rule" and others "fit only to be slaves".


This SHOULD be limited solely to the thread I started, but nevertheless: i NEVER said anything about the superiority of genes. I said that if two people are qualified, they should breed and produce a future dictator. They are passing on their natural abilities to one child. In a Marxist society, People are supposed to use their abilties (I'd quote "The Communist Manifesto" here, except even you probably knew THAT). There is nothing about "natural superiority". They are superior in one area.

And yes, it IS borrowed from Plato. So sue me.

This is such a bizarre interpretation of the Communist Manifesto--not to mention the actual practices of the old USSR--that words nearly fail me.

Too bad they didn't, or else we'd never have to endure your posts again.

And the idea that Marx would have endorsed a scheme of breeding dictators is just grotesque.

I doubt that anyone is truly aware of what Marx's opinion would be on issues he didn't directly address, but we CAN infer a few things using.. oh, say.. his writings, maybe?

Damn, now I'm going to get accused of being "intolerant" again.

What the hell would you call it?

in·tol·er·ant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tlr-nt)
adj.
Not tolerant, especially:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

[Moskitto]

This SHOULD be limited solely to the thread I started

not really unexpected, he did bring in a gross allegation that i wanted to test people for illegal drugs based on a statement i made a toxicologists working testing drink drivers and people operating power stations and large industrial machinarry (things which people intoxicated shouldn't be doing anyway.)


in·tol·er·ant ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-tlr-nt)
adj.
Not tolerant, especially:
Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

while a dictionarry is a source of enlightenment, I suspect there is a "junkenglish.com" website somewhere out there.

[redstar2000]

Lastly, a papyrus found in Egypt gives directions for the conduct of a census and includes the order that the family return to their "hometowns", so to speak, if they are residing away from home. Joseph, Jesus' surrogate father, was a descendant of David and therefore the city of Bethlehem would be the ancestral home of the family.

Utter horseshit. A total fabrication by a Christian liar.

If such a document were found, there would be world-wide headlines about it. There have been no headlines because such a papyrus does not exist.

Take that crap and shove it, Gorley!

"In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without an error" says Norman Geisler in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. That's impressive.

Then why am I not impressed? Would any sensible person expect something called the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Aologetics to recount all the mistakes of "Luke" or any "gospel"? Or any mistakes?

The shit you read!!!

I said that if two people are qualified, they should breed and produce a future dictator...And yes, it IS borrowed from Plato. So sue me.

What would be the point of that? I think it sufficient that you acknowledge your real sources: Christian apologetics and Platonic mystical fascism. Some "Marxism", eh?

I doubt that anyone is truly aware of what Marx's opinion would be on issues he didn't directly address, but we CAN infer a few things using.. oh, say.. his writings, maybe?

Yes, we can certainly infer Marx's possible opinions from his writings...he certainly paid frequent and eloquent tribute to the autocrats of his era, didn't he?

Well, no, he didn't. Total contempt would be a better description.

Pretty similar to my feelings towards fake leftists...like you, AK47, and Moskitto.

Why do you persist in this folly? You have no real evidence for your positions. In fact, all you can do is piss and moan about "intolerance". No one is apt to be fooled by your pretensions...certainly not for much longer.

You clowns just want to throw some more bullshit pies at me while you still have the chance?

Ok, but it will change nothing.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Comrade Gorley]

Redstar, I think we're all getting tired of your arrogance- how you claim to be blessed with the elusive power of determined who's a leftist and who isn't, how you pseudo-deftly dodge accusations using insults, and how you insist on using that stupid "cool" emoticon at the end of each post, thus effectively making yourself a cocky bastard. Also, your comment on "fake leftists" has conclusively proved you have some sort of complex in which you think that you're the reincarnation of Marx.

You really think that the papers would give THAT much of a shit? The census is a fine point of the Bible, and only scholars would REALLY care. The ossuary and the shroud- those would be conclusive evidences of Yashuah's existence, hence the media's obsession with them.

Then why am I not impressed? Would any sensible person expect something called the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Aologetics to recount all the mistakes of "Luke" or any "gospel"? Or any mistakes?

If there are so many fucking mistakes, NAME SOME.

Why do you persist in this folly? You have no real evidence for your positions. In fact, all you can do is piss and moan about "intolerance". No one is apt to be fooled by your pretensions...certainly not for much longer.


What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I've only mentioned intolerance ONCE, dumbass. All the other times have been about Yashuah's political orientation, the accuracy of the Bible, etc. etc. Sounds like a cop-out to me.

If your opinions mean so much, write a book and see how it sells. Any lazy fuck can write a website and ***** about his opinions. Let's see how successful "Redstarism" is.

[Sabocat]

"Joseph, Jesus' surrogate father".....LOL....that line gets funnier and funnier everytime I read it....Thanks. :lol:

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 1 2003, 12:56 PM
.

Redstar, I think we're all getting tired of your arrogance- how you claim to be blessed with the elusive power of determined who's a leftist and who isn't, how you pseudo-deftly dodge accusations using insults, and how you insist on using that stupid "cool" emoticon at the end of each post, thus effectively making yourself a cocky bastard

Look who's talking, this is quite a flame post.



Also, your comment on "fake leftists" has conclusively proved you have some sort of complex in which you think that you're the reincarnation of Marx.
A reincarnation of Marx? That would be interesting.



You really think that the papers would give THAT much of a shit?

I would think they would, they publish every other biblical "discovery", I remembered when I was in Chicago the Dead Sea Scrolls were on display in a museum, the papers sure made a hell of a deal about them.


Any lazy fuck can write a website and ***** about his opinions
Then write a website asshole


I suggest you stop identifying yourself as a Marxist or a leftist for that matter, from all the posts I have ever seen you are nothing but a christian apologist and a leaning fascist with your views on eugenic dictatorship

[Comrade Gorley]

Than write a website asshole

Hey, Brains, did you actually READ what I said? "Any lazy fuck can make a website"!

Idiot.

http://www.centerpub.com/images/smilies/stupid.gif

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2003, 03:17 PM
Two members are flinging around remarks at other people not being Marxist because they are religious (I know you did not actually say that, however your blatant meaning was as clear as glass), yet from my understanding of basic leftwing principle any person should be able to believe what they like whether it is sunny Jesus or the tooth fairy.

That's because your "understanding" of "basic leftwing principle" is as nonexistent as Gorley's.

And it stems from the same motive...the desire to pass yourself off as some kind of "leftist" while dragging into the left as much reactionary crap as you think people will let you get away with.

Gorley wants to drag in Christian bullshit and biological fascism and yet be accepted as a "leftist" and even a "Marxist".

You, of course, want to drag in support for British imperialism in the 19th century and U.S. imperialism in the 20th century, most recently in Iraq, and yet expect to be accepted as a "non-Marxist socialist". And weren't you one of the morons who defended the role of the military and the police in capitalist society in general?

Your "socialism", like Gorley's "communism", is nothing but scraps of meaningless rhetoric...the views of both of you are reactionary.

Damn, now I'm going to get accused of being "intolerant" again. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
That's because your "understanding" of "basic leftwing principle" is as nonexistent as Gorley's.

Ohh I am sorry, I was under the impression that tolerance was an important part of left wing ideology...

while dragging into the left as much reactionary crap as you think people will let you get away with.

From reading this thread I am under the impression that you drag enough reactionary crap itno the left for both of us thanks.


You, of course, want to drag in support for British imperialism in the 19th century and U.S. imperialism in the 20th century, most recently in Iraq, and yet expect to be accepted as a "non-Marxist socialist". And weren't you one of the morons who defended the role of the military and the police in capitalist society in general?


Really??? I was under the impression that I wanted a socialist state created under the economic theory of a moneyless co-operative socilist community. Do tell me are there any other beliefs I hold, of which I do not know about?

Damn, now I'm going to get accused of being "intolerant" again.

No, your views make it plain enough to every one who reads them of that fact. Ifact I am going to accuse you of being an intolerant reactionary neo-totalitarian science denying idiot.... Did I miss anything out?

[redstar2000]

Redstar, I think we're all getting tired of your arrogance- how you claim to be blessed with the elusive power of determined who's a leftist and who isn't, how you pseudo-deftly dodge accusations using insults, and how you insist on using that stupid "cool" emoticon at the end of each post, thus effectively making yourself a cocky bastard. Also, your comment on "fake leftists" has conclusively proved you have some sort of complex in which you think that you're the reincarnation of Marx.

There's nothing "elusive" about the "power" to determine who's a leftist and who isn't. I just look at what people like you and AK47 and Moskitto say and the evidence is clear and overwhelming.

And the idea of me thinking that I'm a "reincarnation" of Marx is just the kind of mystical absurdity I'd expect you to come up with. Why don't you just accuse me of being a card-carrying "agent of Satan" while you're at it? You're certainly dumb enough to believe in that sort of thing.

If your opinions mean so much, write a book and see how it sells. Any lazy fuck can write a website and ***** about his opinions. Let's see how successful "Redstarism" is.

Yes, "how it sells" is the real measure of all things, isn't it? To a cheap Christian hustler, maybe!

Ohh I am sorry, I was under the impression that tolerance was an important part of left wing ideology...

Where'd you get a dumb idea like that? No, don't tell me. I don't want to know.

I am going to accuse you of being an intolerant reactionary neo-totalitarian science denying idiot.... Did I miss anything out?

Yeah, you missed the part about me "not being above suspicion of cannibalism". :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

Redstar, you're posts may be 10 paragraphs long, however they fail to address 1 crucial point.

How does anyone other than yourself following their own ideas in a completely secular state harm you?

however after reading you're last post, I've decided you don't really care being as you've given all the evidence I need to indite you as a dogmatic narciscist who's sole desire is to see himself ruling the world as part of a kleptocracy to destroy free thought.

I will do some weight training now, a brainwashing neoplasmic fool such as yourself isn't worth my time.

[Abiyot]

"How does anyone other than yourself following their own ideas in a completely secular state harm you?"
The confusion of some of you is truly astounding. The premises, framework and outlook on which Religious beliefs and systems are based inherently contradicts the dialectical materialist outlook. So Moskito, AK$7 and Gorley, you lot, are definitely not Marxists, even in the most expanded sense of the term. You might be "leftists", but then again, even Blair, Clinton and many of the type could also be so considered as belonging to the "Left", at the very least they see themselves as part of the Left.
Whta is more surprising is that there's one of you who even supports this notion of the need for some sort of eugenic program to "breed dictators". As Redstar put, the person is flirting with "Nazism". What I would advise you guys is to really think of what you have written and definitely read your Marx, Engels & Lenin.

[redstar2000]

How does anyone other than yourself following their own ideas in a completely secular state harm you?

Because, Margaret Thatcher to the contrary notwithstanding, we are not all "isolated individuals"...we are part of a collection of people who interact and affect each other.

Even though I am "white", a racist affects my life...his constellation of beliefs will, sooner or later, lead him to the conclusion that it is necessary to kill me too.

Even though I am male, a misogynist affects my life...for the same reasons.

Even though I am atheist, religious people who take their beliefs seriously must, sooner or later, come to the conclusion that unbelievers like me must be eliminated...we threaten their "salvation" by our very existence.

The entire history of organized religions demonstrates the truth of this...to the hilt!

Of course, what believers can actually do to unbelievers, heretics, and infidels is limited by material conditions. A tiny powerless cult is no immediate threat to me or anyone save their own members.

A wealthy, reactionary religious group with millions of fanatical adherents is a deadly threat to me and any revolutionary...recent events in Venezuela demonstrate that.

But you must remember that all of the huge, wealthy and reactionary religions were once tiny, "harmless" cults.

And there is no way to reliably predict which group is going to stay small and harmless and which group will someday seek to "bring the world back to God" with armies of the faithful at their command.

As I've noted in previous posts, all religions are "meek and mild" at the beginning...given their weakness, it would be really insane to be otherwise. But let them grow, gain followers and wealth and weaponry...and see how they change, from "pretty" butterfly into ugly, insatiable locust.

The whole idea of superstition affects me in another way as well. The sight of human minds in mental chains offends me in the same way that the sight of people in physical chains would offend me. Both are shameful to our species...and thus to me.

For anyone to voluntarily renounce their capacity for rational thought strikes me, in a way, as far worse than suicide. To inflict that kind of thing on defenseless children strikes me as monstrous.

If I have anything to say about it, the day will come when that will not be permitted under any circumstances.

...being as you've given all the evidence I need to indite you as a dogmatic narciscist who's sole desire is to see himself ruling the world as part of a kleptocracy to destroy free thought.

Try: indict, narcissist, whose.

"Kleptocracy", of course, is "government by thieves". Try to look up those big words before you use them. Unless you think I plan to steal your crucifix... :lol:

And it is unfree thought that I wish to destroy.

I will do some weight training now, a brainwashing neoplasmic fool such as yourself isn't worth my time.

"A new mass of tissue that serves no purpose"? :lol:

But I heartily endorse your weight training program...it fits your intellectual capabilities perfectly.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

Because, Margaret Thatcher to the contrary notwithstanding, we are not all "isolated individuals"...we are part of a collection of people who interact and affect each other.

And the Margaret Thatcher reference comes in where?

Even though I am atheist, religious people who take their beliefs seriously must, sooner or later, come to the conclusion that unbelievers like me must be eliminated...we threaten their "salvation" by our very existence.

In a completely secular state, this is illegal, therefore it doesn't affect you. Religious people will also be directly threatened by your views, some may even say that since 80% of the world is religious, democracy must be upheld leading to the suppression of the "destructive" atheist view, however since I have tolerance (something you lack) I don't subscribe to this view.

The entire history of organized religions demonstrates the truth of this...to the hilt!

Argued like a true convinced capitalist, "the entire history of communism demonstates a complete disregard for human life."

Of course, what believers can actually do to unbelievers, heretics, and infidels is limited by material conditions. A tiny powerless cult is no immediate threat to me or anyone save their own members.

In a secular state there isn't government enforced action to oppose your view.

A wealthy, reactionary religious group with millions of fanatical adherents is a deadly threat to me and any revolutionary...recent events in Venezuela demonstrate that.

According to most news sources both sides are using the crucifix to gain support, catholicism is popular in South America.

But you must remember that all of the huge, wealthy and reactionary religions were once tiny, "harmless" cults.

A completely irrelevant point, exactly the same thing applies to any large organization, do you want to disband all organisations as well? Wow, no more sports clubs, they might become like Manchester United

And there is no way to reliably predict which group is going to stay small and harmless and which group will someday seek to "bring the world back to God" with armies of the faithful at their command.

Considering in a secular state such movements are illegal, the evil and oppressive military will actually protect your rights by killing these sick fuckers.

The whole idea of superstition affects me in another way as well. The sight of human minds in mental chains offends me in the same way that the sight of people in physical chains would offend me. Both are shameful to our species...and thus to me.

The sight of people willing to have mens genitalia pushed up their arses probably offends homophobes, however non-homophobes have something called "tolerance".

The sight of non-vegetarians eating meat probably offends some vegetarians, however non-PETA members have something called "tolerance"

The sight of someone who's voluntarily decided "not to be saved" probably offends religious people just as much, why don't you practice what you preach.

For anyone to voluntarily renounce their capacity for rational thought strikes me, in a way, as far worse than suicide. To inflict that kind of thing on defenseless children strikes me as monstrous.

We've allready discussed how by your logic smokers should be banned from having children since anyone who wishes to destroy their own health and inflict such things on their children is genuinely monstrous, I suggest we just both castrate each other,

Again, I doubt PETA want "evil" meat eaters abusing their children by giving them meat, again, why is this any different to what you're suggesting?

I also suspect that religious parents consider bring up children to be atheist and therefore "not saved" is a cruel practice, however again, why don't you practice what you preach.

If I have anything to say about it, the day will come when that will not be permitted under any circumstances.

The day will come when smoking infront of children will be illegal, then life expectancy will increase, nice.

"Kleptocracy", of course, is "government by thieves". Try to look up those big words before you use them. Unless you think I plan to steal your crucifix...

I do know what kleptocracy is, now go steal some children, Idiot.

And it is unfree thought that I wish to destroy.

AKA any thought which doesn't follow junkscience.com (and it's US government backed columnists), the redstar papers (a chilling indictment against the human race) or "in defense of smokers" (medical science, written by an attorney.)

"A new mass of tissue that serves no purpose"?

Yep, a very fitting desciption, luckily 2 part chemotherapy is advancing very quickly these days.

But I heartily endorse your weight training program...it fits your intellectual capabilities perfectly.

Considering you disn't know what a squat was, I don't see why I should care what you think about any exercise program, And just to get you pissed off, I will tell you now that I did Preacher curls.

definitely read your Marx, Engels & Lenin

Is this the same Lenin who advocated not oppressing religion because in a perfect world it wouldn't be there to oppress?

Face it Redstar, everything you're suggesting was practiced in Eastern Europe during the cold war, In Bulgaria it produced some of the most devout, non-fundamentalist Christians the world has ever seen. If you want to make religion go away, perhaps make a utopia, if you want to oppress people, they'll only become more determined. Also you've got the backlash of 80% of the worlds population against you.

And perhaps with your parenting laws why don't you try and think about the logical conclusion of your ideas like no more meat, or annother idea, go to a gym and preach you're crap about renaming the preacher curl because of it's religious references, see how hard a 90kg brute who thinks you're the biggest dickhead on the planet punches you.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2003, 12:38 PM
"How does anyone other than yourself following their own ideas in a completely secular state harm you?"
The confusion of some of you is truly astounding. The premises, framework and outlook on which Religious beliefs and systems are based inherently contradicts the dialectical materialist outlook. So Moskito, AK$7 and Gorley, you lot, are definitely not Marxists, even in the most expanded sense of the term. You might be "leftists", but then again, even Blair, Clinton and many of the type could also be so considered as belonging to the "Left", at the very least they see themselves as part of the Left.
Whta is more surprising is that there's one of you who even supports this notion of the need for some sort of eugenic program to "breed dictators". As Redstar put, the person is flirting with "Nazism". What I would advise you guys is to really think of what you have written and definitely read your Marx, Engels & Lenin.
What Moskitto and Gorley are not Marxist because they are Religious. And what part of socialist theory do you conform to, Marxist Lenism?

Also you obviously have not been reading this thread as I have never claimed to be religious, I only defend peoples right to believe in what they want to, as I am not a totalitarian prick.

You might be "leftists", but then again, even Blair, Clinton and many of the type could also be so considered as belonging to the "Left", at the very least they see themselves as part of the Left.

Only a complete fool or Nazi would ever class, Blairand and Clinton, as remotly leftwing. Which are you Abiyot?

Whta is more surprising is that there's one of you who even supports this notion of the need for some sort of eugenic program to "breed dictators". As Redstar put, the person is flirting with "Nazism". What I would advise you guys is to really think of what you have written and definitely read your Marx, Engels & Lenin.


Anyone who wishes to ban religion is "flirting with Nazism/Stalinism". What I would advise you to do is to go and read your Marx, Engels & Lenin and consider whether you believe socialism to be a concotion of Right wing reactionary totalitarianism or a liberal movment which allows freedom of though and expression. Which just happens to be one of tyour basic human rights... By suggesting to ban that right I believe you cannot be a leftist in any way shape or form. :angry:

Where'd you get a dumb idea like that?

Your an idiot... actually let me phrase that a "Stalisnist Nazi" seams a much more fitting description of a person who wishes to control the lives of the people around him to such an extent.

As to socialism and general leftwing opinions lets ask the people in the Commi club if they want the leftwing to be totalitarian shit which you obviously advocate or a more liberal movment based on tolerance. Odds on I will be right.

No, don't tell me. I don't want to know

You obviously do or else you would not have asked.

AK47 fighting totalitraian pricks world wide.

[Saint-Just]

'read your Marx, Engels & Lenin'

This is something Lenin said:

"Freedom" is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term "freedom of criticism" contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old.'

'the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed'

This is something Engels said:

'the proletariat uses the state not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist'

Marx:

'communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion'

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 2 2003, 05:53 PM
'read your Marx, Engels & Lenin'

This is something Lenin said:

"Freedom" is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed. The modern use of the term "freedom of criticism" contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old.'

'the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists. We must suppress them in order to free humanity from wage slavery, their resistance must be crushed'

This is something Engels said:

'the proletariat uses the state not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist'

Marx:

'communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion'
I notice you have a quote from Marx, however when looking at some of his other stupid quotes why should I take that seriously...

Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

Thats blatantly not true, so why should quotes on religion be true?

[Saint-Just]

Well, I think your argument is poor. If I'd be arguing it I would have said all Marx said is religion is abolished in communism. Not necessarily by law, but that it dies away. Marx did once say religion cannot be abolished by decree. I agree with him, but it can certainly be greatly damaged.

It depends whether your view is that religion should not be banned, but it is undesirable nonetheless. Or, if you think religion should always exist in socialism.

As to why I dislike your argument. Just because someone said one erroneous comment it does not mean that all their others could be too. In the majority, most of what Marx said is correct if you are a Marxist. Also, I think that comment is true to some extent. That in many periods of social change feminine upheaval has been a factor since woman were never part of the ruling elite. I'd look redstar2000's opinion on that statement from Marx.

Most importantly though, religion is a fairly important subject to make a throwaway and unconsidered comment on, and particularly in the Communist Manifesto. Whereas the other comment is fairly useless.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 2 2003, 09:19 PM
Well, I think your argument is poor. If I'd be arguing it I would have said all Marx said is religion is abolished in communism. Not necessarily by law, but that it dies away. Marx did once say religion cannot be abolished by decree. I agree with him, but it can certainly be greatly damaged.

It depends whether your view is that religion should not be banned, but it is undesirable nonetheless. Or, if you think religion should always exist in socialism.

As to why I dislike your argument. Just because someone said one erroneous comment it does not mean that all their others could be too. In the majority, most of what Marx said is correct if you are a Marxist. Also, I think that comment is true to some extent. That in many periods of social change feminine upheaval has been a factor since woman were never part of the ruling elite. I'd look redstar2000's opinion on that statement from Marx.

Most importantly though, religion is a fairly important subject to make a throwaway and unconsidered comment on, and particularly in the Communist Manifesto. Whereas the other comment is fairly useless.
I am an athiest, I do not see religion as being a necessary part of socialism. I do not however believe that just because I do not believe in god that others should have to stop believing. I also believe that only a capitalist or a Fascist would ever try and take away a persons right to believe in what they want.

Perhaps if socialism is implemented then religion will become obsolite and it will just fade away. That is not an excuse to ban religion in general. As I said before if people want to believe in sunny jesus or the tooth fairy thats there buisness. As long as long as they hold socialist beliefs as well why shoul they not be considered socialist?

As for my taking that quote from Marx it was an attempt (a poor one granted) to show that even Marx can be wrong and say dumb stuff, and not every thing he says should be taken as true, or correct.

[redstar2000]

Let's begin with a heart-felt tribute to religion from that great "humanitarian" V. Putin...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3115517.stm

Yes, the "moral foundations of the Russian state" are looking "good" these days...!

Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

This is Ak47's idea of Marx's "stupidity". Granted that it is formulated as a "quip" (as Marx often did), how does it stand up compared with social reality?

The importance of women in revolutionary movements has been neglected by historians over the last few centuries and is only now beginning to be understood theoretically.

But revolutionaries themselves have, I think, always known it as a "pragmatic assumption"...there are generally fewer women than men in revolutionary movements, but they tend to be far more active than the average guy.

There are obvious reasons for this; a revolutionary movement is an environment where women are "freer" to demonstrate their capacities and capabilities...there may still be sexism (and usually is), but there's less of it and, lately, it can even be directly attacked and overcome.

And Marx's suggestion that the social position of women is a good measure of how "progressive" a society really is...seems to me to be quite valid. It is not a matter of "formal" or "legal" equality; how much latitude do women actually have to participate in all of society's activities?

One reason that Scandinavian countries are widely admired--"capitalism with a human face"--is that women do participate in the political sphere far above the general planetary average. The reformists in those countries were never any good at socialism, but, to their credit, did push hard for full female equality...and it shows!

And I think it says a lot about AK47 that he is so "intolerant" of Marx while being so "tolerant" of superstitious bullshit...and imperialist aggression.

...and consider whether you believe socialism to be a concotion of Right wing reactionary totalitarianism or a liberal movment which allows freedom of thought and expression. Which just happens to be one of your basic human rights...

Try concoction.

Yes, you think of "socialism" as a "liberal movement" which allows "freedom of thought and expression"...all perfectly respectable, non-threatening, orderly...and all outside the realities of class society.

What attracts you to this version of "socialism"? Obviously, it is freedom of reactionary "thought and expression" that concerns you. That's understandable...you are a reactionary at heart.

Is that too harsh? You may indeed wish for masters to treat their wage-slaves more humanely (like your hero Robert Owen)...but your support of U.S. imperialism in Iraq demonstrates your real class bias.

As do your apologies for 19th century British imperialism (particularly in Ireland), your desperate insistence that proletarian revolution is "impossible", that Marx is "stupid", and that superstition should be "tolerated".

Assuming you learn how to spell your native language, your future successful career at Whitehall is certain. You could use all your posts at Che-Lives on your resume.


And the Margaret Thatcher reference comes in where?

Lady Thatcher once remarked that "there is no such thing as society, only individuals".

I guess you weren't paying attention.

In a completely secular state, this is illegal, therefore it doesn't affect you.

There haven't been any "completely secular states" so far. But your statement really reveals your own religious awe of "the law"...a typical bourgeois opinion.

The struggle between rational enlightenment and superstitious oppression will not be decided by an act of parliament.

The entire history of organized religions demonstrates the truth of this...to the hilt!

Argued like a true convinced capitalist, "the entire history of communism demonstates a complete disregard for human life."

This is a good demonstration of why "arguing" with you is so ultimately pointless. You quote a statement from me...and instead of refuting it or even challenging its accuracy, you insert a totally irrelevant statement about how capitalists "would argue" a completely different point.

You are the absolute master of banal irrelevance on this board. Whenever you are unable to refute an argument (that is, almost always), you respond with something completely "off the wall".

Perhaps you think people will admire your "cleverness" in "debating"...I think it just shows your ignorance of the matter actually under discussion.

A completely irrelevant point, exactly the same thing applies to any large organization, do you want to disband all organisations as well? Wow, no more sports clubs, they might become like Manchester United.

Same thing! How many heretics have been burned alive by Manchester United, dummy?

Considering in a secular state such movements are illegal, the evil and oppressive military will actually protect your rights by killing these sick fuckers.

Your awe of legality has already been noted. But the sarcastic reference to the "evil and oppressive military" that will "protect my rights" is hilarious.

The point, as you have stated in many posts on this board, is that you do not "think" that the military is "evil and oppressive"...you rather admire professional killers, don't you? Perhaps it's those uniforms, yes?

The sight of people willing to have mens genitalia pushed up their arses probably offends homophobes, however non-homophobes have something called "tolerance".
The sight of non-vegetarians eating meat probably offends some vegetarians, however non-PETA members have something called "tolerance"
The sight of someone who's voluntarily decided "not to be saved" probably offends religious people just as much, why don't you practice what you preach.

Massive irrelevance! Followed by a question that makes no sense.

You are unable to mount a credible argument in defense of superstition (religion) and so you bring up all this other crap to distract people.

As is the case with the rest of your wretched post, but I did appreciate this one...

...the redstar papers (a chilling indictment against the human race)...

Certainly an indictment of your fake "leftism"...and well justified at that.

Face it Redstar, everything you're suggesting was practiced in Eastern Europe during the cold war, In Bulgaria it produced some of the most devout, non-fundamentalist Christians the world has ever seen.

A rare statement that actually relates to the topic...but, unfortunately, wrong.

I don't have a "devoutness-meter" like you, so I can't comment on the "quality" of Bulgarian Christians.

But the practice of the governments of the former "people's democracies" in eastern Europe was no particular improvement on that of the USSR itself and, in Poland at least, was not even up to the level of the USSR. There was some propaganda against religion in those countries, but the cathedrals were not demolished (and many were not even closed), the priesthood was not exiled (in fact, their salaries were paid by the government), and even the seminaries were still allowed to train fresh conmen (at government expense).

Poland was the really horrible example; enormous resources were spent in actually restoring cathedrals that were already half-demolished by war damage. Talk about monumental stupidity!

...or another idea, go to a gym and preach your crap about renaming the preacher curl because of its religious references, see how hard a 90kg brute who thinks you're the biggest dickhead on the planet punches you.

Just like your buddy RAM, you enjoy fantasies of violence being inflicted on me...typical of a true "god-believer".

Beneath the veneer of "tolerance" burns a raging thirst for the blood of the unbeliever.

But things are changing...and if it's blood you want, you may well end up drinking your own.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 02:16 AM
Let's begin with a heart-felt tribute to religion from that great "humanitarian" V. Putin...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3115517.stm

Yes, the "moral foundations of the Russian state" are looking "good" these days...!

Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

This is Ak47's idea of Marx's "stupidity". Granted that it is formulated as a "quip" (as Marx often did), how does it stand up compared with social reality?

The importance of women in revolutionary movements has been neglected by historians over the last few centuries and is only now beginning to be understood theoretically.

But revolutionaries themselves have, I think, always known it as a "pragmatic assumption"...there are generally fewer women than men in revolutionary movements, but they tend to be far more active than the average guy.

There are obvious reasons for this; a revolutionary movement is an environment where women are "freer" to demonstrate their capacities and capabilities...there may still be sexism (and usually is), but there's less of it and, lately, it can even be directly attacked and overcome.

And Marx's suggestion that the social position of women is a good measure of how "progressive" a society really is...seems to me to be quite valid. It is not a matter of "formal" or "legal" equality; how much latitude do women actually have to participate in all of society's activities?

One reason that Scandinavian countries are widely admired--"capitalism with a human face"--is that women do participate in the political sphere far above the general planetary average. The reformists in those countries were never any good at socialism, but, to their credit, did push hard for full female equality...and it shows!

And I think it says a lot about AK47 that he is so "intolerant" of Marx while being so "tolerant" of superstitious bullshit...and imperialist aggression.

...and consider whether you believe socialism to be a concotion of Right wing reactionary totalitarianism or a liberal movment which allows freedom of thought and expression. Which just happens to be one of your basic human rights...

Try concoction.

Yes, you think of "socialism" as a "liberal movement" which allows "freedom of thought and expression"...all perfectly respectable, non-threatening, orderly...and all outside the realities of class society.

What attracts you to this version of "socialism"? Obviously, it is freedom of reactionary "thought and expression" that concerns you. That's understandable...you are a reactionary at heart.

Is that too harsh? You may indeed wish for masters to treat their wage-slaves more humanely (like your hero Robert Owen)...but your support of U.S. imperialism in Iraq demonstrates your real class bias.

As do your apologies for 19th century British imperialism (particularly in Ireland), your desperate insistence that proletarian revolution is "impossible", that Marx is "stupid", and that superstition should be "tolerated".

Assuming you learn how to spell your native language, your future successful career at Whitehall is certain. You could use all your posts at Che-Lives on your resume.


And the Margaret Thatcher reference comes in where?

Lady Thatcher once remarked that "there is no such thing as society, only individuals".

I guess you weren't paying attention.

In a completely secular state, this is illegal, therefore it doesn't affect you.

There haven't been any "completely secular states" so far. But your statement really reveals your own religious awe of "the law"...a typical bourgeois opinion.

The struggle between rational enlightenment and superstitious oppression will not be decided by an act of parliament.

The entire history of organized religions demonstrates the truth of this...to the hilt!

Argued like a true convinced capitalist, "the entire history of communism demonstates a complete disregard for human life."

This is a good demonstration of why "arguing" with you is so ultimately pointless. You quote a statement from me...and instead of refuting it or even challenging its accuracy, you insert a totally irrelevant statement about how capitalists "would argue" a completely different point.

You are the absolute master of banal irrelevance on this board. Whenever you are unable to refute an argument (that is, almost always), you respond with something completely "off the wall".

Perhaps you think people will admire your "cleverness" in "debating"...I think it just shows your ignorance of the matter actually under discussion.

A completely irrelevant point, exactly the same thing applies to any large organization, do you want to disband all organisations as well? Wow, no more sports clubs, they might become like Manchester United.

Same thing! How many heretics have been burned alive by Manchester United, dummy?

Considering in a secular state such movements are illegal, the evil and oppressive military will actually protect your rights by killing these sick fuckers.

Your awe of legality has already been noted. But the sarcastic reference to the "evil and oppressive military" that will "protect my rights" is hilarious.

The point, as you have stated in many posts on this board, is that you do not "think" that the military is "evil and oppressive"...you rather admire professional killers, don't you? Perhaps it's those uniforms, yes?

The sight of people willing to have mens genitalia pushed up their arses probably offends homophobes, however non-homophobes have something called "tolerance".
The sight of non-vegetarians eating meat probably offends some vegetarians, however non-PETA members have something called "tolerance"
The sight of someone who's voluntarily decided "not to be saved" probably offends religious people just as much, why don't you practice what you preach.

Massive irrelevance! Followed by a question that makes no sense.

You are unable to mount a credible argument in defense of superstition (religion) and so you bring up all this other crap to distract people.

As is the case with the rest of your wretched post, but I did appreciate this one...

...the redstar papers (a chilling indictment against the human race)...

Certainly an indictment of your fake "leftism"...and well justified at that.

Face it Redstar, everything you're suggesting was practiced in Eastern Europe during the cold war, In Bulgaria it produced some of the most devout, non-fundamentalist Christians the world has ever seen.

A rare statement that actually relates to the topic...but, unfortunately, wrong.

I don't have a "devoutness-meter" like you, so I can't comment on the "quality" of Bulgarian Christians.

But the practice of the governments of the former "people's democracies" in eastern Europe was no particular improvement on that of the USSR itself and, in Poland at least, was not even up to the level of the USSR. There was some propaganda against religion in those countries, but the cathedrals were not demolished (and many were not even closed), the priesthood was not exiled (in fact, their salaries were paid by the government), and even the seminaries were still allowed to train fresh conmen (at government expense).

Poland was the really horrible example; enormous resources were spent in actually restoring cathedrals that were already half-demolished by war damage. Talk about monumental stupidity!

...or another idea, go to a gym and preach your crap about renaming the preacher curl because of its religious references, see how hard a 90kg brute who thinks you're the biggest dickhead on the planet punches you.

Just like your buddy RAM, you enjoy fantasies of violence being inflicted on me...typical of a true "god-believer".

Beneath the veneer of "tolerance" burns a raging thirst for the blood of the unbeliever.

But things are changing...and if it's blood you want, you may well end up drinking your own.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Ohh god another long thread to pick tp pieces... how very boring. Though not requiring much intelectual effort.

Firstly the position of Womens social status, as being if you like a compass neadle pointing towards social upheaval is obviously inaccurate. In some of the most turbulent political times Women have had different social status. Leading up to the rise of Hitler women were afforded very liberal rights by the state etc and there were few suffragettes etc. From that could you tell a fascist state would emerge.

Also in the modern UK Women are enjoying a high social status unequiled in this nations history. Does this signify we are about to undergo revolution? I think not.

In the 1820's-40's the Chartist movment was demanding political equality between the classes the nearest to a leftwing revolution Britain has ever been. Yet Women were suffering under social injustice made infamous during the victorian era a little later.

As you can see the above show conflicting trends. This facts suggest that there is a major flaw with that particular "marxist theory".

And I think it says a lot about AK47 that he is so "intolerant" of Marx while being so "tolerant" of superstitious bullshit...and imperialist aggression.

Rather like you being so intolerant of religion and its culture while so tolerant of fascist dictators and capitalist propaganda from government lackys working for Fox news.

Try concoction.

I do appologise for my poor spelling. Rather like your shocking ignorance I cannot help it.

What attracts you to this version of "socialism"? Obviously, it is freedom of reactionary "thought and expression" that concerns you. That's understandable...you are a reactionary at heart.

And how do you work that out? Because I wish to see fascism cruhed... well I am very sorry that you find such a belief "reactionary".

You may indeed wish for masters to treat their wage-slaves more humanely (like your hero Robert Owen)...

Owen attempted to create a moneyless socioty, so wage slave is hardly an accurate description for those within his co-operative socioty.

Before you make such comments do try and read up on your theory first... you see some of us are not as ignorant as you are. :redstar2000:


your desperate insistence that proletarian revolution is "impossible", that Marx is "stupid", and that superstition should be "tolerated".

Well considering that nearly everybody in Britain/USA is infavour of the current system i find a revolution unlikley... I never said Marx was stupid just some of his ideals, and superstition should be tolerated. Or would you have people arrested for believing in the Lochness monster as well?

Assuming you learn how to spell your native language, your future successful career at Whitehall is certain. You could use all your posts at Che-Lives on your resume.

Yes very witty, nearly as funny as your whole pathetic ideology. Proclaming class freedom yet supporting those who publish material to crush class freedom.

As for my spelling I am dyslexic I have come to expect such jibes from cretinus capitalists, but then again you are openly a totalitarian...


Sorry Redstar, but your tangled mass of petty flame and misconceptions was far too easy to unravel, perhaps you are losing your touch.

[Moskitto]

Excellent Post AK47,

As to Redstar's continueing silliness accompanied by defending his position with rants of "irrelevance", Not much of any worthy of replying to, although this rather humoured me.


...or another idea, go to a gym and preach your crap about renaming the preacher curl because of its religious references, see how hard a 90kg brute who thinks you're the biggest dickhead on the planet punches you.

Just like your buddy RAM, you enjoy fantasies of violence being inflicted on me...typical of a true "god-believer".

Beneath the veneer of "tolerance" burns a raging thirst for the blood of the unbeliever.

But things are changing...and if it's blood you want, you may well end up drinking your own.

Yes Redstar, as I have pointed out before, all my "buddies" are atheists (except Ghost.) You'd probably find I looking to kill you like nazi hunters are looking to kill nazis. However, like nazis, you are confusing killing you with killing atheists the same way nazis confuse killing nazis with killing white people, and like white people, atheists (eg. Dark Capitalist, AK47, RAM, Stormin Norman, Andy Train) are often as disgusted by your ideas as I am, like white people are often as disgusted by nazis as jews are.

Redstar, I suggest you've studied this guy (http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame34.html) extensively. As has been suggested before, go to a gym, or pub, and see what happens when you start talking crap.

[redstar2000]

You'd probably find I [was? am?] looking to kill you like nazi hunters are looking to kill nazis.

More incoherent rage, eh? :wacko:

You two are utterly pathetic.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

You two are utterly pathetic.

From a 60 year old who spends his spare time brainwashing teenagers on the internet? right :unsure:

And the "cool.gif" name associated with that emoticon previously on the Ikonboard is very dated, Teenagers don't think smoking's cool these days, maybe in the 50s, not anymore.

don't worry, rage is coming soon, real soon. Ah I love this.

[redstar2000]

don't worry, rage is coming soon, real soon. Ah I love this.

I tremble before your wrath, oh great ones. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 02:48 PM
don't worry, rage is coming soon, real soon. Ah I love this.

I tremble before your wrath, oh great ones. :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
If only you knew, if only you knew.

[Saint-Just]

Ok AK47, I accept your reply to my post. Its to some extent pointless trying to argue with you by quoting Marx because you don't subscribe to him to a great extent anyway.

I think you are largely correct on Women's role in history redstar2000. I asked you to comment on it in my previous post because I knew you would have the same widely accepted leftist opinion as me on that subject. Women, over the world are, apart from the working-class, the most oppressed group.

redstar2000, I would have thought its fairly obvious AK47 can't help spelling poorly. He spells a number of reasonably complex words correctly and the mistakes he does make look ridiculous when compared with the rest of his diction.

'Rather like you being so intolerant of religion and its culture while so tolerant of fascist dictators and capitalist propaganda from government lackys working for Fox news.'

Some things should not be tolerated; traditionally, in civilised society we do not tolerate murder, stealing etc. In many situations in modern society we do not tolerate racism, bigotry etc. In a socialist society, we will be advanced such that will not tolerate bourgeois ideas, such as religion. Being left-wing isn't about being tolerant, being right-wing isn't about being intolerant. Fascists tolerate genocide, racism, money lending etc. But it doesn't make them tolerant. There are very tolerant individuals on the right, those liberals, the neo-liberals, extreme right yet tolerant. On the left you are very much more libertarian. Between socialism and fascism though; they are intolerant of progressive ideas, we are intolerant of reactionary ideas; religion is reactionary. Whether you are liberal or authoritarian on the left decides how you will deal with it; remove it or let it dissappear.

'I wish to see fascism cruhed... well I am very sorry that you find such a belief "reactionary".'

I would suggest that I can go out on the streets of Britain and find a lot of bourgeois reactionaries who still want Fascism crushed. Indeed, George Bush trumpeted the U.S. great success in crushing Hitlerism.

'Or would you have people arrested for believing in the Lochness monster as well?

Why make this argument again? redstar has already said: 'Same thing! How many heretics have been burned alive by Manchester United, dummy?'
How many heretics will the lochness monster burn? Probably less than Manchester United are likely to I admit.

'Teenagers don't think smoking's cool these days, maybe in the 50s, not anymore.' -Moskitto

I'd have to disagree with you entirely. I know many teenagers who think smoking is cool. This is though, unfortunate in that smoking too much does have harmful affects. But then again we have to tolerate everything. I do tolerate smoking however, maybe I'm the one who is tolerant now?


I'm siding with redstar2000 because I am a Marxist, even if redstar2000 himself doesn't think so. I think that your argument was good AK47, but in conclusion I am authoritarian, and I would not feel my freedom abridged if religion was banned.

[Moskitto]

Why make this argument again? redstar has already said: 'Same thing! How many heretics have been burned alive by Manchester United, dummy?'
How many heretics will the lochness monster burn? Probably less than Manchester United are likely to I admit.

I don't think the manchester united comparison is very accurate because the premise that redstar is now advocating is that sports clubs, even amatuer sports clubs with no desire to be huge, should be abolished because like cults, they might grow to become big. This basically ends every team sport, infact sport in total because events are always organised by groups, often as part of a club.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 03:40 PM
Why make this argument again? redstar has already said: 'Same thing! How many heretics have been burned alive by Manchester United, dummy?'
How many heretics will the lochness monster burn? Probably less than Manchester United are likely to I admit.

I don't think the manchester united comparison is very accurate because the premise that redstar is now advocating is that sports clubs, even amatuer sports clubs with no desire to be huge, should be abolished because like cults, they might grow to become big. This basically ends every team sport, infact sport in total because events are always organised by groups, often as part of a club.
I am arguing that it does not matter whether people join sports club because they are far less dangerous than religion. As redstar2000 said, Manchester United don't burn heretics. Equally, believing in the lochness monster is not dangerous, the lochness monster hardly preaches the burning of heretics either.

The point is that we let people join sports clubs and believe in the lochness monster because its not dangerous; redstar was suggesting religion is.

It does not matter if a sports club becomes big because it is not dangerous. Redstar2000 made this point when he said Manchester United are not likely to be burning any heretics. Equally religion is a lot more dangerous than belief in the lochness monster. In both comparisons to religion the point redstar 2000 made for one and would likely make in the second is that they are incomparable because religion is far more dangerous. So, it would be acceptable to form a sports club because it will never be dangerous to society. Thus, it is a nonsence to say that because redstar2000 is against organised religion he would be against organised sports activities.

Both a sports club and a religion can grow from small groups to large groups. This is the similarity AK47 preyed upon. However it is nonsense because a sports club is not a reactionary idea, religion is.

[Moskitto]

I take it you've never heard of football hooligans?

Besides, burning "heretics" isn't the only issue that matters. Manchester United in the present have recently been fined 1.6 million for price fixing, Newcastle United directors commented on how they "sold kits for £60 which cost less that £2," large sports clubs are some of the most capitalist, exploitative organisations in the world, some of them dominate events so much that they win after day 1 of a 2 day event and have the muscle to bully governing bodies into taking action towards issues of their interest, why anyone who defends socialism doesn't see these activities in the present as as much of an evil as a philosophical opinion which varients have persecuted other variants in the past amazes me.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 3 2003, 03:30 PM
Ok AK47, I accept your reply to my post. Its to some extent pointless trying to argue with you by quoting Marx because you don't subscribe to him to a great extent anyway.

I think you are largely correct on Women's role in history redstar2000. I asked you to comment on it in my previous post because I knew you would have the same widely accepted leftist opinion as me on that subject. Women, over the world are, apart from the working-class, the most oppressed group.

redstar2000, I would have thought its fairly obvious AK47 can't help spelling poorly. He spells a number of reasonably complex words correctly and the mistakes he does make look ridiculous when compared with the rest of his diction.

'Rather like you being so intolerant of religion and its culture while so tolerant of fascist dictators and capitalist propaganda from government lackys working for Fox news.'

Some things should not be tolerated; traditionally, in civilised society we do not tolerate murder, stealing etc. In many situations in modern society we do not tolerate racism, bigotry etc. In a socialist society, we will be advanced such that will not tolerate bourgeois ideas, such as religion. Being left-wing isn't about being tolerant, being right-wing isn't about being intolerant. Fascists tolerate genocide, racism, money lending etc. But it doesn't make them tolerant. There are very tolerant individuals on the right, those liberals, the neo-liberals, extreme right yet tolerant. On the left you are very much more libertarian. Between socialism and fascism though; they are intolerant of progressive ideas, we are intolerant of reactionary ideas; religion is reactionary. Whether you are liberal or authoritarian on the left decides how you will deal with it; remove it or let it dissappear.

'I wish to see fascism cruhed... well I am very sorry that you find such a belief "reactionary".'

I would suggest that I can go out on the streets of Britain and find a lot of bourgeois reactionaries who still want Fascism crushed. Indeed, George Bush trumpeted the U.S. great success in crushing Hitlerism.

'Or would you have people arrested for believing in the Lochness monster as well?

Why make this argument again? redstar has already said: 'Same thing! How many heretics have been burned alive by Manchester United, dummy?'
How many heretics will the lochness monster burn? Probably less than Manchester United are likely to I admit.

'Teenagers don't think smoking's cool these days, maybe in the 50s, not anymore.' -Moskitto

I'd have to disagree with you entirely. I know many teenagers who think smoking is cool. This is though, unfortunate in that smoking too much does have harmful affects. But then again we have to tolerate everything. I do tolerate smoking however, maybe I'm the one who is tolerant now?


I'm siding with redstar2000 because I am a Marxist, even if redstar2000 himself doesn't think so. I think that your argument was good AK47, but in conclusion I am authoritarian, and I would not feel my freedom abridged if religion was banned.
In a socialist society, we will be advanced such that will not tolerate bourgeois ideas, such as religion.

I disagree, religion is not remotly bourgeois, it appeals to members of all class. Perhaps those who profess the teachings of a religion may be in the upper classes, yet then again the majority of authors are from the upper classes as well, especially in the classic works. Do you wish to ban reading? Reading can be infinatly more damaging than a preacher, especially if the people are reading counter revolutionary material. Also since when has religion been specifically a tool of the middle classes? I would rather have thought it was traditionaly a weapon of the aritocracy rather than the "bourgeoisie".

Fascists tolerate genocide, racism, money lending etc. But it doesn't make them tolerant. There are very tolerant individuals on the right, those liberals, the neo-liberals, extreme right yet tolerant. On the left you are very much more libertarian. Between socialism and fascism though; they are intolerant of progressive ideas, we are intolerant of reactionary ideas; religion is reactionary.

That is true the right wing can rarley be tolerant, yet it is imperitive that the left wing is always tolerant. How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practise ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class? It is illogical to say the least, as well as ultimatly being counter productive to the success of your movment. No, the only way to gain the support of the working class is to indulge its desires and protect its "petty superstitions". In other words take a tolerant attitude to the habits which you believe to be foolish.

I would suggest that I can go out on the streets of Britain and find a lot of bourgeois reactionaries who still want Fascism crushed. Indeed, George Bush trumpeted the U.S. great success in crushing Hitlerism.

That is true, however I very much doubt you will ever meet a member of the "bourgeoisie", that is unless you devise a method of time travel, which allows you visit France in the 1800's. :cool:

However if you are like our dear friend Redstar, attemting to label me as a capitalist, I will admit to being a capitalist if you find me any capitalists who wish to implement a moneyless socioty, where the whole wealth and produse of the community is shared equily among its people, based on the co-operative community model developed by St-Simon and Owen... Sorry sounds like socialism to me, perhaps not quite what marx invisioned yet still socialism. Or do you believe that Marx is the be all and all of socialism, and unless you blindly follow his teachings to a fanatical extent, like RS2000, you cannot be a socialist? I am eager to know your opinion on this matter.

Both a sports club and a religion can grow from small groups to large groups. This is the similarity AK47 preyed upon. However it is nonsense because a sports club is not a reactionary idea, religion is.

I take it you have never seen a football riot then.

How many heretics will the lochness monster burn? Probably less than Manchester United are likely to I admit.

Again have you ever seen a football riot, atmitedly they burn no heritics just smash bottles and stab them instead.

but in conclusion I am authoritarian, and I would not feel my freedom abridged if religion was banned.

That is not the point, the point is that the freedoms of those who actually believe a religion would be damaged if religion was to be banned. Why should you have the right to dictate the beliefs of 80% of the worlds population, the beliefs of a person is soley the buisness of the individual and not the state. As such the state has no right to dictate an individuals cultural practises such as religion. To even suggest that religion should be banned is to be reactionary.

[Moskitto]

Both a sports club and a religion can grow from small groups to large groups. This is the similarity AK47 preyed upon. However it is nonsense because a sports club is not a reactionary idea, religion is.

I take it you have never seen a football riot then.

I think we can forgive Redstar and Mao (being Americans I believe) for not knowing the racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, nationalistic violence and xenophobia (all definitely reactionarry) associated with football riots.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2003, 05:14 PM

Both a sports club and a religion can grow from small groups to large groups. This is the similarity AK47 preyed upon. However it is nonsense because a sports club is not a reactionary idea, religion is.

I take it you have never seen a football riot then.

I think we can forgive Redstar and Mao (being Americans I believe) for not knowing the racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, nationalistic violence and xenophobia (all definitely reactionarry) associated with football riots.
No Mao is from Birmingham or Manchester i think.. well somewhere noth of us anyway. He is probably going to come on the next london meating.

[Saint-Just]

'Or do you believe that Marx is the be all and all of socialism, and unless you blindly follow his teachings to a fanatical extent, like RS2000, you cannot be a socialist? I am eager to know your opinion on this matter.'

I don't have exactly the same opinions as redstar2000 by a long way. I believe you are a socialist, but a very liberal one. I believe socialist government existed in Yugoslavia under Slobodan Milosevic, now under Hugo Chavez in Venezuala, under Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe (lets not start debating those countries an their leaders. Those countries are no Marxist-Leninist, but I believe them to be socialist, simply not the best type of socialism. I simply disagree with your brand of socialism, I don't deny it is socialism in some form.

I do not believe Marxism or Marxism-Leninism is the be all and end all of socialism. I'm not sure redstar2000 does either.

Our disagreement is that liberalism reminds me of the bourgeoisie, whilst Marxism-Leninism reminds you of fascism.

'I think we can forgive Redstar and Mao (being Americans I believe) for not knowing the racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, nationalistic violence and xenophobia (all definitely reactionarry) associated with football riots.'

An American? I don't know how many posts of mine you have ever seen, but theres never been any American content. I know as well as any British person about football hooliganism. I know about the big corporate outfit, Manchester United as well. I should imagine redstar2000 does too, and he is an American.

In socialism a football club would not be a private enterprise. Neither would racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, nationalistic violence or xenophobia be tolerated.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 3 2003, 05:58 PM
'Or do you believe that Marx is the be all and all of socialism, and unless you blindly follow his teachings to a fanatical extent, like RS2000, you cannot be a socialist? I am eager to know your opinion on this matter.'

I don't have exactly the same opinions as redstar2000 by a long way. I believe you are a socialist, but a very liberal one. I believe socialist government existed in Yugoslavia under Slobodan Milosevic, now under Hugo Chavez in Venezuala, under Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe (lets not start debating those countries an their leaders. Those countries are no Marxist-Leninist, but I believe them to be socialist, simply not the best type of socialism. I simply disagree with your brand of socialism, I don't deny it is socialism in some form.

I do not believe Marxism or Marxism-Leninism is the be all and end all of socialism. I'm not sure redstar2000 does either.

Our disagreement is that liberalism reminds me of the bourgeoisie, whilst Marxism-Leninism reminds you of fascism.

'I think we can forgive Redstar and Mao (being Americans I believe) for not knowing the racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, nationalistic violence and xenophobia (all definitely reactionarry) associated with football riots.'

An American? I don't know how many posts of mine you have ever seen, but theres never been any American content. I know as well as any British person about football hooliganism. I know about the big corporate outfit, Manchester United as well. I should imagine redstar2000 does too, and he is an American.

In socialism a football club would not be a private enterprise. Neither would racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, nationalistic violence or xenophobia be tolerated.
(lets not start debating those countries an their leaders.

No lets not, it is rather a long and complicated subject, as this discussion/flame fest (not incluing you, of course you seem remarkably restrained) is proving to be.

I simply disagree with your brand of socialism, I don't deny it is socialism in some form.

Thats fine, I do not expect you to agree with it, I also do not expect you to attempt to ban it just because you dont agree with it.

I do not believe Marxism or Marxism-Leninism is the be all and end all of socialism. I'm not sure redstar2000 does either.

I will wait for his input on that before I post any more on that.

[Saint-Just]

Birmingham or Manchester, to the north of you? - not at all. I would in no way expect you to know, I only imagine you would know I live in the UK. I actually live in Winchester, right in the South, 20 miles from the coast. Yes, I will be coming to the next London meeting hopefully. You are relatively restrained, at least you haven't threatened to punch me in the face for being a 'dirty bastard Stalinist' as one amiable member of this board did, but maybe I have a surprise in store for me in London.

I can see a lot of things that redstar2000 can refute in your post three posts ago that begins 'disagree, religion is not remotly bourgeois...'. I would like to see him do so since they are answers to what I posted, and I would like to see if he agrees with what I said, because as redstar2000 said, Marxism by itself is vague compared to my ideology that incorporates ideas and practice from a wide selection of socialists.

Although I won't ask him to since I wouldn't bother myself and your argument already turned into flaming.

You are right to a certain extent saying redstar2000 believes Marxism is the be all and end all of socialism. I think he gives that impression, but I remember him saying that Lenin was basically a bad Marxist or some such thing. What I imagine he might say is that your view of socialism is of little value at all to the working class.

[Moskitto]

I don't have exactly the same opinions as redstar2000 by a long way. I believe you are a socialist, but a very liberal one. I believe socialist government existed in Yugoslavia under Slobodan Milosevic, now under Hugo Chavez in Venezuala, under Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe (lets not start debating those countries an their leaders. Those countries are no Marxist-Leninist, but I believe them to be socialist, simply not the best type of socialism. I simply disagree with your brand of socialism, I don't deny it is socialism in some form.

Considering you have been called a stalinist, you have a remarkably tolerant approach to issues.

I do not believe Marxism or Marxism-Leninism is the be all and end all of socialism. I'm not sure redstar2000 does either.

Our disagreement is that liberalism reminds me of the bourgeoisie, whilst Marxism-Leninism reminds you of fascism.

I believe that by understanding each other in this way, discussion are clearer and smoother.

An American? I don't know how many posts of mine you have ever seen, but theres never been any American content. I know as well as any British person about football hooliganism. I know about the big corporate outfit, Manchester United as well. I should imagine redstar2000 does too, and he is an American.

Sorry, my mistake, I thought you were American.

In socialism a football club would not be a private enterprise. Neither would racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, nationalistic violence or xenophobia be tolerated.

Yes, a football club would be a not for profit organization (as I believe all sports club should be anyway), lots of local sports clubs run this way anyway, even ones producing international athletes.

However my point is that believing in god itself doesn't cause racism, sexism, homophobia, fascism, nationalistic violence or xenophobia, however reading scripture (and i'll admit, listening to many religious leaders) which incites these things does, like football itself doesn't cause these things, they are caused when people decide to follow leaders of hooliganism (Class A hooligans) and get carried away in fanatacism for their club. Both are dangerous, religion is only more dangerous because of the size and seriousness of the issues it raises.

at least you haven't threatened to punch me in the face for being a 'dirty bastard Stalinist' as one amiable member of this board did

Considering I remember you once explaining with remarkable tolerance the reason why a 1 party state is neccesary, I would not consider you deserving of a punch.

[redstar2000]

I will try once more to get to the heart of this matter.

AK47 and Moskitto believe that "tolerance" is at the core of what it means to be a "leftist".

That is wrong!

The fact of the matter is that all human beings are "tolerant" about things that don't matter to them and intolerant about things that do matter to them.

To preach "tolerance" as an abstract virtue is the same as preaching any other abstraction...noise!

As Chairman Mao pointed out, fascists "tolerate" a lot of stuff that leftists find reprehensible. Likewise, leftists "tolerate" a lot of things that fascists find reprehensible. Either will be "tolerant" or "intolerant" as specifics dictate.

Consequently, "tolerance" as an abstract "virtue" is utterly meaningless.

It always comes down to specifics...are you "tolerant" or "intolerant" of this specific thing?

How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class? It is illogical to say the least, as well as ultimatly being counter productive to the success of your movment. No, the only way to gain the support of the working class is to indulge its desires and protect its "petty superstitions". In other words take a tolerant attitude to the habits which you believe to be foolish.

Yes, communism is opposed by the "vast majority" of the working class...so better give it up. Socialism is also opposed by the "vast majority", etc., etc....so, better give that up too. On the other hand, the "vast majority" just love superstition, so we'll accept that...or at least be "tolerant" of it, which means accepting it in practice.

If you begin with "what people will accept"...that's where you end. A few small changes, a few petty reforms...and everything goes on as it always has. This is why AK47 and Moskitto are reformists and all the rhetoric about "moneyless cooperatives" is just meaningless...fairy lights on a dead tree.

And that is why they are "tolerant" of superstition...it does not matter to them if people's minds are crippled by a bunch of crap...they think being crippled is "normal", part of the "human condition", something that will "always" be true. (Not for them of course...just all the rest of the poor sods.)

It's also why they resent Marx so much...that guy refused to accept "what is" as "what will always be". Worse still, he proved that what was once acceptable is no longer acceptable and that what is acceptable now will someday be unacceptable. No wonder they hate him and anyone who speaks up for his views.

Some may suggest that I should be "tolerant" of reformism. I'm not sure what they would mean by that...perhaps that I should just let their anti-revolutionary "leftism" pass without comment or that any criticisms I make should be "gentle" and "kind".

Well, you folks know me...that ain't going to happen. I'm "intolerant" of fake "leftism" just as I am "intolerant" of superstition, imperialism, racism, misogyny, etc. I expect a communist revolution to really go after all that "old shit" with the determined intent to wipe it off the face of the planet.

I do not care how many people find the old crap "acceptable" now...but rather how many people will someday find it totally unacceptable under any circumstances.

If this be intolerance (and it is!), then make the most of it!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I agree completely redstar.

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 06:08 AM
I will try once more to get to the heart of this matter.

AK47 and Moskitto believe that "tolerance" is at the core of what it means to be a "leftist".

That is wrong!

The fact of the matter is that all human beings are "tolerant" about things that don't matter to them and intolerant about things that do matter to them.

To preach "tolerance" as an abstract virtue is the same as preaching any other abstraction...noise!

As Chairman Mao pointed out, fascists "tolerate" a lot of stuff that leftists find reprehensible. Likewise, leftists "tolerate" a lot of things that fascists find reprehensible. Either will be "tolerant" or "intolerant" as specifics dictate.

Consequently, "tolerance" as an abstract "virtue" is utterly meaningless.

It always comes down to specifics...are you "tolerant" or "intolerant" of this specific thing?

How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class? It is illogical to say the least, as well as ultimatly being counter productive to the success of your movment. No, the only way to gain the support of the working class is to indulge its desires and protect its "petty superstitions". In other words take a tolerant attitude to the habits which you believe to be foolish.

Yes, communism is opposed by the "vast majority" of the working class...so better give it up. Socialism is also opposed by the "vast majority", etc., etc....so, better give that up too. On the other hand, the "vast majority" just love superstition, so we'll accept that...or at least be "tolerant" of it, which means accepting it in practice.

If you begin with "what people will accept"...that's where you end. A few small changes, a few petty reforms...and everything goes on as it always has. This is why AK47 and Moskitto are reformists and all the rhetoric about "moneyless cooperatives" is just meaningless...fairy lights on a dead tree.

And that is why they are "tolerant" of superstition...it does not matter to them if people's minds are crippled by a bunch of crap...they think being crippled is "normal", part of the "human condition", something that will "always" be true. (Not for them of course...just all the rest of the poor sods.)

It's also why they resent Marx so much...that guy refused to accept "what is" as "what will always be". Worse still, he proved that what was once acceptable is no longer acceptable and that what is acceptable now will someday be unacceptable. No wonder they hate him and anyone who speaks up for his views.

Some may suggest that I should be "tolerant" of reformism. I'm not sure what they would mean by that...perhaps that I should just let their anti-revolutionary "leftism" pass without comment or that any criticisms I make should be "gentle" and "kind".

Well, you folks know me...that ain't going to happen. I'm "intolerant" of fake "leftism" just as I am "intolerant" of superstition, imperialism, racism, misogyny, etc. I expect a communist revolution to really go after all that "old shit" with the determined intent to wipe it off the face of the planet.

I do not care how many people find the old crap "acceptable" now...but rather how many people will someday find it totally unacceptable under any circumstances.

If this be intolerance (and it is!), then make the most of it!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
The mad ravings of an idiot who reads US government propaganda as the truth, how sad :(.


I agree completely redstar.

I disagree, as would most normal people

[elijahcraig]

I disagree, as would most normal people

Most people were also serfs and thought the tsar was placed there by god. Who cares? If we judge these things by moral collectives...you aren't going to get anywhere. MOST people supported slavery in America before civil rights movements began, and it still took a long time. God is oppression, it is a remnant of ignorance.

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 07:48 PM

I disagree, as would most normal people

Most people were also serfs and thought the tsar was placed there by god. Who cares? If we judge these things by moral collectives...you aren't going to get anywhere. MOST people supported slavery in America before civil rights movements began, and it still took a long time. God is oppression, it is a remnant of ignorance.
If you come to the conclusion that god is telling you to do what the fuck you like then it isn't oppression because the only thing stopping you doing what the fuck you like is your own conscience, not your belief in god. Religion can be reactionarry, but if you're convinced that god wants you to start a socialist revolution then how is that reactionarry? Religion can be ignorant, but so is completely closing yourself to any other world view.

[elijahcraig]

You are using idiotic examples which never occur.

Religion is primitive ignorance, there is no other view except one which forces you to become primitive and ignorant.

Abolish it? No. Help it to go away? Yes.

Read Lenin's "Socialism and Religion".

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 06:08 AM
I will try once more to get to the heart of this matter.

AK47 and Moskitto believe that "tolerance" is at the core of what it means to be a "leftist".

That is wrong!

The fact of the matter is that all human beings are "tolerant" about things that don't matter to them and intolerant about things that do matter to them.

To preach "tolerance" as an abstract virtue is the same as preaching any other abstraction...noise!

As Chairman Mao pointed out, fascists "tolerate" a lot of stuff that leftists find reprehensible. Likewise, leftists "tolerate" a lot of things that fascists find reprehensible. Either will be "tolerant" or "intolerant" as specifics dictate.

Consequently, "tolerance" as an abstract "virtue" is utterly meaningless.

It always comes down to specifics...are you "tolerant" or "intolerant" of this specific thing?

How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class? It is illogical to say the least, as well as ultimatly being counter productive to the success of your movment. No, the only way to gain the support of the working class is to indulge its desires and protect its "petty superstitions". In other words take a tolerant attitude to the habits which you believe to be foolish.

Yes, communism is opposed by the "vast majority" of the working class...so better give it up. Socialism is also opposed by the "vast majority", etc., etc....so, better give that up too. On the other hand, the "vast majority" just love superstition, so we'll accept that...or at least be "tolerant" of it, which means accepting it in practice.

If you begin with "what people will accept"...that's where you end. A few small changes, a few petty reforms...and everything goes on as it always has. This is why AK47 and Moskitto are reformists and all the rhetoric about "moneyless cooperatives" is just meaningless...fairy lights on a dead tree.

And that is why they are "tolerant" of superstition...it does not matter to them if people's minds are crippled by a bunch of crap...they think being crippled is "normal", part of the "human condition", something that will "always" be true. (Not for them of course...just all the rest of the poor sods.)

It's also why they resent Marx so much...that guy refused to accept "what is" as "what will always be". Worse still, he proved that what was once acceptable is no longer acceptable and that what is acceptable now will someday be unacceptable. No wonder they hate him and anyone who speaks up for his views.

Some may suggest that I should be "tolerant" of reformism. I'm not sure what they would mean by that...perhaps that I should just let their anti-revolutionary "leftism" pass without comment or that any criticisms I make should be "gentle" and "kind".

Well, you folks know me...that ain't going to happen. I'm "intolerant" of fake "leftism" just as I am "intolerant" of superstition, imperialism, racism, misogyny, etc. I expect a communist revolution to really go after all that "old shit" with the determined intent to wipe it off the face of the planet.

I do not care how many people find the old crap "acceptable" now...but rather how many people will someday find it totally unacceptable under any circumstances.

If this be intolerance (and it is!), then make the most of it!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
As you take issue with my spelling, I apologise in advance for this post.

AK47 and Moskitto believe that "tolerance" is at the core of what it means to be a "leftist".

Again you are reading my thoughts inaccurately, my main view on what the core of socialism is, is that the wealth of the world must be shared through out the world. However I will not deny that tolerance is high on the list of important qualities of the left wing.

The fact of the matter is that all human beings are "tolerant" about things that don't matter to them and intolerant about things that do matter to them.

To preach "tolerance" as an abstract virtue is the same as preaching any other abstraction...noise!

As Chairman Mao pointed out, fascists "tolerate" a lot of stuff that leftists find reprehensible. Likewise, leftists "tolerate" a lot of things that fascists find reprehensible. Either will be "tolerant" or "intolerant" as specifics dictate.

I would agree with that to a slight extent, yet see its obvious inaccuracies. The left is more tolerant that fascists simply because it is tolerant on a great many more issues that fascism is, and on wider ranging issues. Hence the reason why the left is generally considered to be libertarian. Rather than authoritarian, of course Marxist Leninists argue this, not to be the case. However they are a small minority on the left and do not comprise the vast majority of the lefts opinions.

Yes, communism is opposed by the "vast majority" of the working class...so better give it up. Socialism is also opposed by the "vast majority", etc., etc....so, better give that up too. On the other hand, the "vast majority" just love superstition, so we'll accept that...or at least be "tolerant" of it, which means accepting it in practice.


Unfortunately, you have misinterpreted what I said. So I will attempt to explain my point by breaking it down into the poorly explained parts and restating them in a different manner. It is most likely to be my fault, as I do not have your elegant righting skills.

How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class? It is illogical to say the least, as well as ultimately being counter productive to the success of your movement. No, the only way to gain the support of the working class is to indulge its desires and protect its "petty superstitions". In other words take a tolerant attitude to the habits which you believe to be foolish.

How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class?

Such as banning religion, I did not mean the general politics and economic strategies as a whole. Or even socialism in general rather just your specific view of socialism.

Yes, communism is opposed by the "vast majority" of the working class...so better give it up. Socialism is also opposed by the "vast majority", etc., etc....so, better give that up too.

I never said that, I said that the banning of religion as an ideal, not the movment in general.


If you begin with "what people will accept"...that's where you end. A few small changes, a few petty reforms...and everything goes on as it always has. This is why AK47 and Moskitto are reformists and all the rhetoric about "moneyless cooperatives" is just meaningless...fairy lights on a dead tree.

As you so correctly state, small reforms will be meaningless. Hence the reason why a socialist government must be elected to make vast reforms completely altering the economic structure of the nation.

This is why AK47 and Moskitto are reformists and all the rhetoric about "moneyless cooperatives" is just meaningless...fairy lights on a dead tree.

Perhaps, however the "moneyless cooperatives" are the only model socialist communities to ever work efficiently. With the possible exception of the Paris Commune, why alter a working model for an untested only theoretical with no guarantee of success other than that word of a Victorian age philosopher? He may well be correct, yet you are willing to take that risk. A risk which may produce yet another Stalin? Hardly a matter to be taken likely.

And that is why they are "tolerant" of superstition...it does not matter to them if people's minds are crippled by a bunch of crap...they think being crippled is "normal", part of the "human condition", something that will "always" be true. (Not for them of course...just all the rest of the poor sods.)

80% of the world's population is religious, you really want to take the joy they feel away from them? Do you really think that will help them?

Also, you and I do not believe in God, however other people disagree, how can you justify you banning of religion to them? They will just think you are another foolish atheist who will be burning in hell when they die, why should they believe you?

How would you actually go about banning religion? It is an impossible task, even if you close the churches people will just do it in secret. I am sure you are aware of the historical consequences of the attempted banning of different religions. In Britain it caused a civil war and a large number of executions and still Catholics and Anglicans have failed to wipe each other out. You just cannot successfully achieve a ban in religion, all you will do is damage your movements popularity.

It's also why they resent Marx so much...that guy refused to accept "what is" as "what will always be". Worse still, he proved that what was once acceptable is no longer acceptable and that what is acceptable now will someday be unacceptable. No wonder they hate him and anyone who speaks up for his views.

I neither Marx or his ideals. I disagree with a select few, and agree with some of the others. I just do not fanatically follow his teachings like you.

As for hating anyone who speaks up for his views, I am not the one declaring that religious views should be banned and those who believe in god to be reactionary neo-puritans. A little hypocritical of you, don’t you think?

Some may suggest that I should be "tolerant" of reformism. I'm not sure what they would mean by that...perhaps that I should just let their anti-revolutionary "leftism" pass without comment or that any criticisms I make should be "gentle" and "kind".

No the majority of reformists are more than happy to discuss the logic of reformism and revolution. Your criticisms are generally weak and easily parried, perhaps you should be "less" gentle in your debating, as you are convincing nobody of your views, only that are a totalitarian with no valid argument.

Well, you folks know me...that ain't going to happen. I'm "intolerant" of fake "leftism" just as I am "intolerant" of superstition, imperialism, racism, misogyny, etc. I expect a communist revolution to really go after all that "old shit" with the determined intent to wipe it off the face of the planet.

I do not care how many people find the old crap "acceptable" now...but rather how many people will someday find it totally unacceptable under any circumstances.

If this be intolerance (and it is!), then make the most of it!

"yawn"

If I wanted a sermon I would go to a church... :redstar2000:

[Moskitto]

You are using idiotic examples which never occur.

I refer you to quakers who's faith drives them towards pacifism, tolerance and socialism, historically they ended the barter system, refused to say the pledge of alliegence, they also worked towards abolishion of slavery and against the catholics, anglicans and puritans, they also abolished the concept of "clergy" and "ley" in their churches. Has your atheist group sent peacekeeping teams to Palestine to bring back the real news to the people who only get corporate media? Don't think so, quakers have.

Religion is primitive ignorance, there is no other view except one which forces you to become primitive and ignorant.

I've given you an example of a view which isn't like your description, that is the problem with using absolutist statements my friend, 1 contradictory example destroys them, by saying "religion is generally primitive ignorance" I would probably agree with you, however considering i've given you an example based completely on open interpretation, i've flawed your absolutist statement.

"yawn"

If I wanted a sermon I would go to a church...

LOL

[elijahcraig]

I refer you to quakers who's faith drives them towards pacifism, tolerance and socialism, historically they ended the barter system, refused to say the pledge of alliegence, they also worked towards abolishion of slavery and against the catholics, anglicans and puritans, they also abolished the concept of "clergy" and "ley" in their churches. Has your atheist group sent peacekeeping teams to Palestine to bring back the real news to the people who only get corporate media? Don't think so, quakers have.

Pacifism? That is bourgeois oppression.


I've given you an example of a view which isn't like your description, that is the problem with using absolutist statements my friend, 1 contradictory example destroys them, by saying "religion is generally primitive ignorance" I would probably agree with you, however considering i've given you an example based completely on open interpretation, i've flawed your absolutist statement.

Open interpretation? These people are bound to their faith. Faith in nothing but something they have created. This is not freedom, this is freedom so long you stay in your place in your religion.

[Umoja]

How is pacifism in anyway related to opression? The only bourgeois opression that relates to violence, is violence. It's better to have working class people killing each other then to have them using words to argue.

[Moskitto]

Pacifism? That is bourgeois oppression.

OMG, you support the US Imperialism is Iraq which the Quakers actually opposed, Jeez, if AK47 is a fake leftist then so the hell are you.


Open interpretation? These people are bound to their faith. Faith in nothing but something they have created. This is not freedom, this is freedom so long you stay in your place in your religion.

If you knew the slightest thing about quakerism you'd realise the bullshit in your statement, you don't have a "place" in quakerism. you are not bound to your faith, Read "practice and faith of Quakerism" before I will consider you capable of continueing this discussion.

[elijahcraig]

OMG, you support the US Imperialism is Iraq which the Quakers actually opposed, Jeez, if AK47 is a fake leftist then so the hell are you.

I supported US Imperialism? No, I did not. Where did you get this information from?


If you knew the slightest thing about quakerism you'd realise the bullshit in your statement, you don't have a "place" in quakerism. you are not bound to your faith, Read "practice and faith of Quakerism" before I will consider you capable of continueing this discussion.

I'm not reading it. Sorry. I have no time for idiotic religious fools.


How is pacifism in anyway related to opression? The only bourgeois opression that relates to violence, is violence. It's better to have working class people killing each other then to have them using words to argue.


Read Lenin. Read Engels. Read Marx. Please stop with these petty arguments.

[Moskitto]

I supported US Imperialism? No, I did not. Where did you get this information from?

From your assertion that opposing US Imperialism (Pacifism) which is what the quakers do is "bourgeois oppression." I'm sorry, if you opposed the pacifism I was refering to, therefore my only conclusion was that you support the Iraq war.

I'm not reading it. Sorry. I have no time for idiotic religious fools.

If you have no time to read it then I have no time to listen to your uninformed input in this discussion because you have allready demonstrated you know F-all about quakerism.

[elijahcraig]

From your assertion that opposing US Imperialism (Pacifism) which is what the quakers do is "bourgeois oppression." I'm sorry, if you opposed the pacifism I was refering to, therefore my only conclusion was that you support the Iraq war.

Pacifism is opposing all war/violence. This is a direct contradiction against Marxism. Class struggle is not pacifistic. Therefore, it is bourgeois nonsense.


If you have no time to read it then I have no time to listen to your uninformed input in this discussion because you have allready demonstrated you know F-all about quakerism.

F-all?

I do not doubt that quakers are better than most religious people, they were the ones who helped free slaves...but, in the end, religion is a primitive stain of ignorance.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 09:16 PM

OMG, you support the US Imperialism is Iraq which the Quakers actually opposed, Jeez, if AK47 is a fake leftist then so the hell are you.

I supported US Imperialism? No, I did not. Where did you get this information from?


If you knew the slightest thing about quakerism you'd realise the bullshit in your statement, you don't have a "place" in quakerism. you are not bound to your faith, Read "practice and faith of Quakerism" before I will consider you capable of continueing this discussion.

I'm not reading it. Sorry. I have no time for idiotic religious fools.


How is pacifism in anyway related to opression? The only bourgeois opression that relates to violence, is violence. It's better to have working class people killing each other then to have them using words to argue.


Read Lenin. Read Engels. Read Marx. Please stop with these petty arguments.
I supported US Imperialism? No, I did not. Where did you get this information from?

He was using completely flawed logic to make a point... he was (as usual...) correct though. the quakers opposed the war in Iraq because of there pacifist beliefs. By hating there pacifist beliefs logically you would support the wars they attempt to stop. Of course you dont, but according to your argument you do, however that only because your argument was relativly uninformed compaired to Moskitto's him actually being a Quaker, I believe.

I'm not reading it. Sorry. I have no time for idiotic religious fools.

You may well be soon retracting that statement, Moskitto is no fool and you may be forced to learn that the hard way...

[elijahcraig]

He was using completely flawed logic to make a point... he was (as usual...) correct though. the quakers opposed the war in Iraq because of there pacifist beliefs. By hating there pacifist beliefs logically you would support the wars they attempt to stop. Of course you dont, but according to your argument you do, however that only because your argument was relativly uninformed compaired to Moskitto's him actually being a Quaker, I believe.

You are living in a fantasy world with that sort of logic? Because I am against pacifism, I HAVE to support imperialism? No. That is nonsensical. Obvious though, coming from an Owenist. Now, I oppose pacifism because it is petty bourgeois nonsense, and rejects class war. A must if you are a communist.


You may well be soon retracting that statement, Moskitto is no fool and you may be forced to learn that the hard way...

Why don't we go let RAF ass rape you some more you Utopian monkey?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 09:44 PM

He was using completely flawed logic to make a point... he was (as usual...) correct though. the quakers opposed the war in Iraq because of there pacifist beliefs. By hating there pacifist beliefs logically you would support the wars they attempt to stop. Of course you dont, but according to your argument you do, however that only because your argument was relativly uninformed compaired to Moskitto's him actually being a Quaker, I believe.

You are living in a fantasy world with that sort of logic? Because I am against pacifism, I HAVE to support imperialism? No. That is nonsensical. Obvious though, coming from an Owenist. Now, I oppose pacifism because it is petty bourgeois nonsense, and rejects class war. A must if you are a communist.


You may well be soon retracting that statement, Moskitto is no fool and you may be forced to learn that the hard way...

Why don't we go let RAF ass rape you some more you Utopian monkey?
You are living in a fantasy world with that sort of logic?

I did call it flawed and stated that you did not support the war. I Mearly explained Moskitto's Logic, I did not make it.

Now, I oppose pacifism because it is petty bourgeois nonsense, and rejects class war. A must if you are a communist.


You are going to get a hammering from Umoja for that, it will be interesting to see you get your arguments ripped to shreds... again. Or have you been reading a different Biography again?

Why don't we go let RAF ass rape you some more you Utopian monkey?

Considering you do not even know what a Utopian is, as you have displayed several times, then it is very Ironic you are using such insults.

It is even more amuzing that you need RAF to think up your flames for you as well. I suppose that you have no though of your own and follow those you persieve to be smarter than you. In short you are a sheep, go and follow your sheperd, sheep and dont come back to, if not the wolves, at least the smarter sheep, until you learn you theory. Talk to Redstar I may disagree with him on several issue, he is however very good at the theory part. I am sure he would be happy to steer you in the right direction.

[elijahcraig]

I did call it flawed and stated that you did not support the war. I Mearly explained Moskitto's Logic, I did not make it.

This is really pathetic. I have to support a war because I am against pacifism? That's just nonsensical.

Comrade Lenin was not a pacifist, he was against it...did he support imperialist wars?


You are going to get a hammering from Umoja for that, it will be interesting to see you get your arguments ripped to shreds... again. Or have you been reading a different Biography again?

Really? Can he also "hammer" Comrade Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, Marx, Stalin, and Mao? That would be very unlikely.


Considering you do not even know what a Utopian is, as you have displayed several times, then it is very Ironic you are using such insults.

Utopianism? I know what it is, my using the analogy towards Trotskyism doesn't change that.


It is even more amuzing that you need RAF to think up your flames for you as well. I suppose that you have no though of your own and follow those you persieve to be smarter than you. In short you are a sheep, go and follow your sheperd, sheep and dont come back to, if not the wolves, at least the smarter sheep, until you learn you theory. Talk to Redstar I may disagree with him on several issue, he is however very good at the theory part. I am sure he would be happy to steer you in the right direction.

Sheep? Really? Your criticisms are pathetic bourgeois nonsense.

RAF and Redstar are both smarter than me in all probability...but they are also much older and have studied more on Marxism. I see nothing wrong in admitting that. I agree with both on several issues, yet disagree with both on others.

[redstar2000]

The left is more tolerant than fascists simply because it is tolerant on a great many more issues that fascism is, and on wider ranging issues. Hence the reason why the left is generally considered to be libertarian rather than authoritarian...

That evades the point. You appealed for "tolerance of religion" on the basis that tolerance is, in and of itself, a virtue. It's not. What specific thing is to be tolerated? That's the issue in this thread.

How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class?

Why don't you just put it in plain words? We "should" suck up to religion because right now "most workers" are religious.

...the "moneyless cooperatives" are the only model socialist communities to ever work efficiently with the possible exception of the Paris Commune. Why alter [reject?] a working model for an untested only theoretical [model?] with no guarantee of success other than the word of a Victorian age philosopher? He may well be correct, yet you are willing to take that risk. A risk which may produce yet another Stalin? Hardly a matter to be taken lightly.

Where are those "working models"? If they were really effective, why didn't they spread (slowly or quickly) throughout the capitalist world? Why did they either collapse or turn themselves into capitalist enterprises?

I note that you hold up Stalin as the bogey-man in this argument...as if to say "don't make revolution, kids, or Stalin will come and eat you up."

80% of the world's population is religious, you really want to take the joy they feel away from them? Do you really think that will help them?

Yes! I have my doubts about the "joy" that religion provides--fear and hatred seem to be more common. But if getting rid of the fake "joy" makes it possible to experience the real joy of liberation, then I think that's "helping them" more than anything in recorded history so far.

Also, you and I do not believe in God, however other people disagree, how can you justify you banning of religion to them? They will just think you are another foolish atheist who will be burning in hell when they die, why should they believe you?

The "hard-core" believers won't believe me and so what?

Try and remember the things that I have actually proposed. Nowhere have I ever said that adults can't "worship" in the privacy of their own living quarters or that believers should be persecuted simply for being believers.

In that restricted sense, I'm just as "tolerant" of religion as you are.

It is in the public sphere that religion is to be entirely removed.

And people are not to be permitted to fill up "their" kids heads with bullshit. Kids are not property and you cannot do with them "whatever you please".

How would you actually go about banning religion? It is an impossible task, even if you close the churches people will just do it in secret.

It's fine with me what they do "in secret" (as long as they don't fuck with "their" kids). Here are some steps I would take...

All obviously religious architecture is to be demolished (some modern churches don't "look" like religious buildings...they can be taken over for secular purposes). Knock down the most "famous" cathedrals first...it sends the message that we're serious. The "little churches" can be the last to go.

All public religious ceremonies, processionals, holidays, etc. are to be abolished. Religious symbols to be removed from all public buildings.

All building names, street names, place names, city names, names of geographical features, etc. with religious connotations to be re-named.

All religious schools to be converted to secular use or torn down.

No new religious texts to be published...let the ones that exist gradually go out of circulation.

No further manufacture or distribution of religious paraphernalia; artifacts from demolished churches to be recycled into useful stuff or destroyed.

Cemeteries to be replaced with crematoriums; eventually to be cleared and the land used for some secular purpose, like a park for example.

Street-preaching is "disturbing the peace"...30 days on the back of a sanitation truck would seem appropriate.

As part of the transition, it might be appropriate to allow the temporary use of secular buildings for religious ceremonies...but nothing decent: something like an unused warehouse would be about right.

Demoralizing believers is very important; especially "holy" sites need to be profaned in an emphatic way...to demonstrate that the old ways are finished.

Note that there's nothing here that directly involves persecuting believers for believing (unless they make a public nuisance of themselves).

And, mind you, even with these steps, I still think it likely to take a couple of centuries to rid ourselves of this blight...it took Christianity that long to destroy the old religions in the Roman Empire.

It won't be easy; but it can and must be done.

I refer you to quakers whose faith drives them towards pacifism, tolerance and socialism...

Ah yes, like Richard M. Nixon. He must have taken a wrong turn on the "drive". :lol:

Moskitto is no fool and you may be forced to learn that the hard way...

Hmmm, what dire deeds do these words portend...? :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2003, 02:57 AM
The left is more tolerant than fascists simply because it is tolerant on a great many more issues that fascism is, and on wider ranging issues. Hence the reason why the left is generally considered to be libertarian rather than authoritarian...

That evades the point. You appealed for "tolerance of religion" on the basis that tolerance is, in and of itself, a virtue. It's not. What specific thing is to be tolerated? That's the issue in this thread.

How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class?

Why don't you just put it in plain words? We "should" suck up to religion because right now "most workers" are religious.

...the "moneyless cooperatives" are the only model socialist communities to ever work efficiently with the possible exception of the Paris Commune. Why alter [reject?] a working model for an untested only theoretical [model?] with no guarantee of success other than the word of a Victorian age philosopher? He may well be correct, yet you are willing to take that risk. A risk which may produce yet another Stalin? Hardly a matter to be taken lightly.

Where are those "working models"? If they were really effective, why didn't they spread (slowly or quickly) throughout the capitalist world? Why did they either collapse or turn themselves into capitalist enterprises?

I note that you hold up Stalin as the bogey-man in this argument...as if to say "don't make revolution, kids, or Stalin will come and eat you up."

80% of the world's population is religious, you really want to take the joy they feel away from them? Do you really think that will help them?

Yes! I have my doubts about the "joy" that religion provides--fear and hatred seem to be more common. But if getting rid of the fake "joy" makes it possible to experience the real joy of liberation, then I think that's "helping them" more than anything in recorded history so far.

Also, you and I do not believe in God, however other people disagree, how can you justify you banning of religion to them? They will just think you are another foolish atheist who will be burning in hell when they die, why should they believe you?

The "hard-core" believers won't believe me and so what?

Try and remember the things that I have actually proposed. Nowhere have I ever said that adults can't "worship" in the privacy of their own living quarters or that believers should be persecuted simply for being believers.

In that restricted sense, I'm just as "tolerant" of religion as you are.

It is in the public sphere that religion is to be entirely removed.

And people are not to be permitted to fill up "their" kids heads with bullshit. Kids are not property and you cannot do with them "whatever you please".

How would you actually go about banning religion? It is an impossible task, even if you close the churches people will just do it in secret.

It's fine with me what they do "in secret" (as long as they don't fuck with "their" kids). Here are some steps I would take...

All obviously religious architecture is to be demolished (some modern churches don't "look" like religious buildings...they can be taken over for secular purposes). Knock down the most "famous" cathedrals first...it sends the message that we're serious. The "little churches" can be the last to go.

All public religious ceremonies, processionals, holidays, etc. are to be abolished. Religious symbols to be removed from all public buildings.

All building names, street names, place names, city names, names of geographical features, etc. with religious connotations to be re-named.

All religious schools to be converted to secular use or torn down.

No new religious texts to be published...let the ones that exist gradually go out of circulation.

No further manufacture or distribution of religious paraphernalia; artifacts from demolished churches to be recycled into useful stuff or destroyed.

Cemeteries to be replaced with crematoriums; eventually to be cleared and the land used for some secular purpose, like a park for example.

Street-preaching is "disturbing the peace"...30 days on the back of a sanitation truck would seem appropriate.

As part of the transition, it might be appropriate to allow the temporary use of secular buildings for religious ceremonies...but nothing decent: something like an unused warehouse would be about right.

Demoralizing believers is very important; especially "holy" sites need to be profaned in an emphatic way...to demonstrate that the old ways are finished.

Note that there's nothing here that directly involves persecuting believers for believing (unless they make a public nuisance of themselves).

And, mind you, even with these steps, I still think it likely to take a couple of centuries to rid ourselves of this blight...it took Christianity that long to destroy the old religions in the Roman Empire.

It won't be easy; but it can and must be done.

I refer you to quakers whose faith drives them towards pacifism, tolerance and socialism...

Ah yes, like Richard M. Nixon. He must have taken a wrong turn on the "drive". :lol:

Moskitto is no fool and you may be forced to learn that the hard way...

Hmmm, what dire deeds do these words portend...? :o

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
It must really hurt putting so much effort into a post that turns out to be utter crap. Renaming place names? jeez, do you even know how difficult that is to enforce, think Peking ---> Beijing, Bombay ---> Mumbai.

And Richard M Nixon wasn't a real Quaker as RedCeltic has pointed out in the Pledge of Alliegence thread in opposing ideologies.

[Pingu]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2003, 09:44 PM

You may well be soon retracting that statement, Moskitto is no fool and you may be forced to learn that the hard way...

Why don't we go let RAF ass rape you some more you Utopian monkey?
peace men :P

[redstar2000]

It must really hurt putting so much effort into a post that turns out to be utter crap.

Brilliant rejoinder! Faced with ideas and arguments that don't appeal to you (or that you can't understand), just yell real loud "utter crap!"...that will show me. :lol:

Renaming place names? jeez, do you even know how difficult that is to enforce...

How difficult was it to convert to the metric system? Pretty difficult, right? People managed to do it, right?

As the old generation gives way to the new one, the new names will "seem natural" and in a hundred years (or less) the old names will be forgotten.

And Richard M Nixon wasn't a real Quaker...

Haven't we been through this before? Christians who act like murderous thugs are not "true Christians"...they're just "faking it".

You always want credit for the "saints" while turning your back on the "sinners"...a most convenient response.

What happens to your celebrated "tolerance" when believers who act nasty are brought forward? Do you look the other way while they are consigned to the fiery pits of Hell? Do you pretend that "ye know them not"?

I can't remember now exactly where Dante placed the hypocrites in Hell...but I know they went there.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2003, 03:33 PM
It must really hurt putting so much effort into a post that turns out to be utter crap.

Brilliant rejoinder! Faced with ideas and arguments that don't appeal to you (or that you can't understand), just yell real loud "utter crap!"...that will show me. :lol:

Renaming place names? jeez, do you even know how difficult that is to enforce...

How difficult was it to convert to the metric system? Pretty difficult, right? People managed to do it, right?

As the old generation gives way to the new one, the new names will "seem natural" and in a hundred years (or less) the old names will be forgotten.

And Richard M Nixon wasn't a real Quaker...

Haven't we been through this before? Christians who act like murderous thugs are not "true Christians"...they're just "faking it".

You always want credit for the "saints" while turning your back on the "sinners"...a most convenient response.

What happens to your celebrated "tolerance" when believers who act nasty are brought forward? Do you look the other way while they are consigned to the fiery pits of Hell? Do you pretend that "ye know them not"?

I can't remember now exactly where Dante placed the hypocrites in Hell...but I know they went there.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
LOL, you really are an idiot, try talking to Redceltic about your views, I really don't care.

Beijing was renamed Peking hundreds of years ago, they changed the name back because the people hundreds of years on didn't actually like their town being forcably renamed by westerners, same with Mumbai.

Considering Richard M Nixon actually swore an oath (to become president) he actually directly contravened quaker philosophy which is actually against swearing oaths, well, yeah, muslims can worship shiva if they really want.

Considering neither of us believe in hell, why do you consider it relevant?

[apathy maybe]

It is amazing that people who other wise agree on things, (such as how a society should be organised) can get so aggressive when talking about religion. Even people who are agnostic or atheist fight other agnostics/atheists. It all comes down, I think, to freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if there is a God or six Gods or a hundred or infinity. Some people refuse to entertain the idea of an organised religein. Now I find this disapointing. I would have thought that socialists and communists (and mixes etc) would be tolerent of those who thought differently (to some degree at least).
Most religiens even non organised ones (such as Quakerism) require people to meet regurly (sp?). Now some people here find the idea of a church distasteful, but in a communist society it would not matter if a group of people wanted to build a church and educate the children to what ever religien. There would be enough other people also educating the children so that they can think it out for themselves. What we must stop however, is that which happened in Animal Farm. An indervidual having compleate control over the education of a group of people.

[Pingu]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 7 2003, 05:32 AM
It is amazing that people who other wise agree on things, (such as how a society should be organised) can get so aggressive when talking about religion. Even people who are agnostic or atheist fight other agnostics/atheists. It all comes down, I think, to freedom of speech. It doesn't matter if there is a God or six Gods or a hundred or infinity. Some people refuse to entertain the idea of an organised religein. Now I find this disapointing. I would have thought that socialists and communists (and mixes etc) would be tolerent of those who thought differently (to some degree at least).
Most religiens even non organised ones (such as Quakerism) require people to meet regurly (sp?). Now some people here find the idea of a church distasteful, but in a communist society it would not matter if a group of people wanted to build a church and educate the children to what ever religien. There would be enough other people also educating the children so that they can think it out for themselves. What we must stop however, is that which happened in Animal Farm. An indervidual having compleate control over the education of a group of people.
good post :) , freedom of speech ---) woohoo

[redstar2000]

It all comes down, I think, to freedom of speech.

This is another cliche, another abstraction that, without specifics, is just noise. What exactly do you wish to use your "freedom of speech" to advocate?

Some people refuse to entertain the idea of an organised religion. Now I find this disappointing. I would have thought that socialists and communists (and mixes etc) would be tolerant of those who thought differently (to some degree at least).

Why would you have thought that? Did you read the previous posts that discussed "tolerance"?

"Tolerance"--like "freedom of speech"--is another abstraction. Tolerant of what?

We are not tolerant about things that really matter to us. No one is. If they say they are, they're fooling themselves or they are lying.

... but in a communist society it would not matter if a group of people wanted to build a church and educate the children to what ever religion.

On the contrary, it would matter a great deal. Don't think so? Suppose this "whatever" religion demanded the sacrifice (ritual murder) of each member's first-born child?

Just lost your "tolerance", didn't you?

As far as I'm concerned, stuffing a kid's head full of religious bullshit is the moral equivalent of child-sacrifice...it is the ritual murder of his/her ability to think rationally.

It cannot be tolerated!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

I think it's probably safest for everyone to ignore Redstar2000, he has allready said that he takes deep personal offense at other people holding a different worldview to himself, he is probably suffering from a psychiatric condition based on previous evidence provided that he believes he is both a "marxist" and a believer in US government propaganda.

[apathy maybe]

As far as I'm concerned, stuffing a kid's head full of religious bullshit is the moral equivalent of child-sacrifice...it is the ritual murder of his/her ability to think rationally.

I say again, "There would be enough other people also educating the children so that they can think it out for themselves."



On the contrary, it would matter a great deal. Don't think so? Suppose this "whatever" religion demanded the sacrifice (ritual murder) of each member's first-born child?

Just lost your "tolerance", didn't you?
"...tolerent of those who thought differently (to some degree at least). "

May be you should read all the post and quote all the relevent parts.

While I understand your objection to the terms "freedom of speech" and "tolerance", this doesn't subtract from the message I was trying to get across.
I think, and many of you may disagree, that "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently"- Rosa Luxemburg. This means that people with different views have to be allowed to have those views. They have to be respected in having a different view and they mustn't be forced to change their views on life etc. While those who think that child sacrafice is OK may be strange and they mustn't be allowed to carry out any sacrafices they must be allowed to hold that idea. Just like capitalists must be allowed to think that their system is the best system.
They may be wrong, but it is up to you to convince them that they are wrong. Not for you to say that they are wrong and they mustn't think such thoughts and if they think such thoughts they will be drawn and quartered. Down that road is a totalitarian state.

[redstar2000]

I say again, "There would be enough other people also educating the children so that they can think it out for themselves."

It doesn't work like that now. The overwhelming majority of people who are raised in a superstitious environment stay that way. They may have the nominal right to "think it out for themselves" but, in practice, it's just "too much trouble" or "too painful" or whatever.

And if you're thinking that a future society might be different, well, that hasn't worked out so good either. The 20th century socialist countries were all "officially atheist", taught a materialist view in the classrooms, etc. and yet huge numbers of people, brainwashed as small children, remained religious.

It's rumored that even Fidel and Raul can't "kick the habit". :o

I think, and many of you may disagree, that "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently"- Rosa Luxemburg.

What context did she say this in? What was the nature of the dispute that she was commenting on? Whose "freedom to think differently" was she defending?

As an abstraction, her statement is true...but abstractions don't help us. To really understand what she was getting at, we need to know the details.

The remainder of your post confuses the issue. We are not speaking here of "controlling people's thoughts" or punishing them for "impure thoughts" or any of that sort of thing. I don't care what people think and it wouldn't matter if I did...there's no way to get inside someone's head and run a check on their thoughts.

We speaking here of what will be "socially acceptable behavior" in communist society.

Racist behavior will be considered unacceptable. Sexist behavior will be considered unacceptable. Superstitious behavior (that is, inserting religious beliefs and practices into public life, brainwashing kids, etc.) will be considered unacceptable.

What people think is their own damn business. What people do in public life is another matter altogether.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I agree with Redstar completely on this subject. Religion is not "freedom", just the same as telling my children for the next 20 years that if they think about it really hard...they might just turn into a large round purple-pink retarded panda-elephant. It's rubbish. Ignorance is not an excuse for persecution, neither is it an excuse for destroying your child's life.

[Moskitto]

yet huge numbers of people, brainwashed as small children, remained religious.

yet again, this takes no account of real life,

2 girls, called Crystal and Susanna, brought up by a christian member of the conservative party and a follower of far eastern philosophy, grandfather is one of the most right wing conservative party and christian activists' in the country, they were both baptised as children and brought up by with godparents and church services, they are both atheists.

A guy called David, brought up by staunchly christian parents, baptised, as he gets older he begins doubting and decides not to have his children baptised. Has to children, Andy and Steve, Andy becomes a staunch atheist and anti-monarchist in a village of generally right wing stock exchange workers, Steve doesn't give a fuck about religion, until...
Steve marries a staunchly religious woman, they have 3 children, she insists they are all baptised, one of their children called James is now studying philosophy, ethics and religious studies and is an expert on christian ethics, he, like his day, is also an atheist.

A guy called Richard grows up in an Anglican household attending church with long boring sermons and long boring hymns on the extremely holy day of Sunday, he became a Quaker and now attends a church of complete silence where Sunday is merely the day of conveinience.

Annother guy named Kerry is one of the lads in a school where atheism makes you cool, surprisingly enough, his grandfather is a well respected physics professor and christian writer.

You're idea that somehow children brought up in religious environments are somehow more "brainwashed"
than children brought up in atheist environments is quite frankly false. You're other idea that somehow "brainwashing" children with religion is more "dangerous" (which no psychological studies have shown any evidence of) than "brainwashing" children with a diet which has been cited as being unhealthy for growth and with debatable ethics which frequently cause disruption in primary schools, is likewise false.

And annother thing Redstar, when you're absolute belief in the destruction of all religion and free thought drives you to be European, Olympic and World Champion, World Number 1 and World Record Holder all at the same time when you're 38, I'll consider your ideas worthy of listening to, until then, I think Jonathon Edwards is a slightly better role model than you are.

[truthaddict11]

i was "raised" christian for about 14 years before I became an athesist I was "born again" and "baptized" in that time. Now that I am an atheist I am outraged over the dictatorship and brainwash that my parents and to a greater extent my grandparents FORCED on me. I definitly do not want to see further generations to go through the same thing.

[Moskitto]

No, I don't think that children should be forced to follow any religion (that includes atheism as well as theistic beliefs),

but what Redstar is proposing is that parents should be forced to lock up religious books like guns (remind anyone of a stalin quote about ideas), force parents to tell children if they encounter religion that "some people are just stupid", carry out widescale public persecution of people with religious beliefs (ie. no squad place for you world no 1, no job for you with 3 degrees, no Proffesorship for curing AIDS), Censor publication of text, rename place names which people nowadays attach nothing religious to simply because of when they were named, demolishion of buildings, even ones which get used for religious purposes once a month, simply because of who they're owned by, everyone would be banned from being buried whether religious or not, anyone who knows the most basic thing about atrocitology can see something wrong with this.

[truthaddict11]

if they arent hardly used why not demolish them? i see no problem with knocking down Notre Dame then a do with knocking down the local chapel

[Moskitto]

they are used, they're just not used for religious perposes, eg. mother and baby groups. they just belong to churches who's religion doesn't require them to use the buildings as often as other churches.

[redstar2000]

Yet another flock of irrelevant "arguments"...like flightless birds, they never leave the ground.

Your anecdotes about people who are raised in religious backgrounds and yet escape the crap miss the point (as usual).

The overwhelming majority of people who are raised in a religion stay with it or, at best, convert to another religion. You cannot possibly deny this! Well, I guess you could at that...there being no apparent limit to your foolishness.

Such as...

And another thing Redstar, when you're absolute belief in the destruction of all religion and free thought drives you to be European, Olympic and World Champion, World Number 1 and World Record Holder all at the same time when you're 38, I'll consider your ideas worthy of listening to, until then, I think Jonathon Edwards is a slightly better role model than you are.

Does this infantile babble have some kind of hidden meaning? Would my political arguments suddenly appeal to you if I won a few Olympic medals in some mindless physical exertion? :wacko:

And where did you get the idea that I considered myself or wanted to be considered a "role model"? That is so stupid that it practically drools!

Then, following a semi-literate, confused, and just plain erroneous "summary" of my proposals, your response is...

...anyone who knows the most basic thing about atrocitology can see something wrong with this.

Anyone who knows the "most basic thing" about the English language knows you're an ignoramus. There's no such word as "atrocitology"...unless Jonathon Edwards made it up in the last few hours and it's not in the online dictionaries yet (I checked three different ones).

I know, it's not a fair comparison. You can squat much better than me and I can construct a rational, literate argument much better than you.

We each have our strengths.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

It doesn't work like that now. The overwhelming majority of people who are raised in a superstitious environment stay that way. They may have the nominal right to "think it out for themselves" but, in practice, it's just "too much trouble" or "too painful" or whatever.

And if you're thinking that a future society might be different, well, that hasn't worked out so good either. The 20th century socialist countries were all "officially atheist", taught a materialist view in the classrooms, etc. and yet huge numbers of people, brainwashed as small children, remained religious.
Wow, a compleatly relevent and true statement. Except for the bit about future society. We are talking about compleat communism aren't we? With at least a few generations beyond the last capitilist country fell? Where all the children are not raised in nuclear families? Wait a minute is this an assumption that others are not making?

As I understand it the nuclear family would have no place in a communist society. Sure some people may want to live together but the children do have to go to creche etc. Sheer peer pressure will surly have some effect.

[Moskitto]

The overwhelming majority of people who are raised in a religion stay with it or, at best, convert to another religion. You cannot possibly deny this!

yes, and the overwhelming majority of people growing up in atheist backgrounds remain atheist, the only difference is that you as an individual take deep personal offense at the first view because it isn't your view. search for is their a god on a search engine and any decent website will conclude that god is a question beyond human comprehension, but the christian god is horseshit.


There's no such word as "atrocitology"

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

Urm, I take it you've never heard of Rudolf J Rummel? he writes about atrocitology, it's the study of genocides and mass murders. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/welcome.html

try these links - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atrocitol...F-8&hl=en&meta= (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=atrocitology&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=)

also these - http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UT...itologist&meta= (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=atrocitologist&meta=)

yes atrocitology is a word, if you want to argue about linguistics (or theology for that matter) then i'll put you in touch with my brother, he's a bit more your speed, the over zealous english expert and baptist fundamentalist.

LOL, that is going onto my signature, classic, absolutely classic.

[redstar2000]

...search for is there a god on a search engine and any decent website will conclude that god is a question beyond human comprehension...

I can't speak for "any decent website", but it's not beyond my comprehension. If there's no evidence--and there isn't--then it ain't so!

I take it you've never heard of Rudolf J Rummel? he writes about atrocitology, it's the study of genocides and mass murders.

No, I have never heard of this person or his "science"...as I indicated, his neologism has not yet made it into the dictionaries.

There's nothing wrong with coining a new word, of course...that's how the language grows. You should make it clear when you are doing that instead of just presuming that everyone who is really "cool" has already run across it.

In what way my proposals for removing religion from public life have to do with "atrocitology" remains unexplained by you. I never proposed killing anyone...much less large numbers of people--or "democide" as your site calls it.

Perhaps you wish to suggest that the "end of religion" is an "atrocity" in and of itself???

I guess that's fair enough...since I certainly consider religion itself a major atrocity.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[rcpnz]

SOCIALISM AND RELIGION

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN

LONDON, 1911 (Reprinted 1925)

PREFACE to the Second Edition

THE CALL for a new edition of this pamphlet so soon after its original issue
is proof that its message is heeded and its frankness welcomed.

Its publication is a challenge. It meets those professed Socialists who claim
that religion and Socialism are in harmony, and those rabid opponents who
rave of the ?Socialist menace? to religion, with a plain statement of the
facts. The anti-Socialists, however, ignore the vital attack upon their whole
position, and simply use some of its evidence against their pseudo-Socialist
competitors. The latter, on the other hand, maintain a very significant silence
on the subject. This attempted boycott, as futile as it is cowardly, is
sufficiently
explained by the logic of the position present in the following pages.

It was prophesied that the issue of an official manifesto showing the antagonism
between Socialism and religion, would hinder propaganda and make harder the
work of recruiting the toilers for Socialism. But no such result has followed.
At a time when so-called working class organisation complain of apathy among
the rank and file, or of a decrease in numbers, the Socialist Party has to
record a greatly increased activity and a considerable accession of new members.
This is only to be attributed to the logic of passing events and the all-round
propaganda activity of the Party, but it shows that the statement of the
truth regarding Socialism and religion by no means hinders the advance of
the cause.

In the present pamphlet a vast subject has been compressed into a small space
by the rigorous exclusion of non-essentials, and without, it is believed,
any sacrifice of clearness. Moreover, the many quotations given serve not
only to show the authoritative nature of the evidence, but also to indicate
where further information may be obtained.

Many further illustrations of the truth of the contentions made in the body
of the pamphlet have come to light since the issue of the first edition.
But from a fear of overburdening the argument, we quote only the following
Nonconformist boast of the commercial value of ?missions to the heathen.?
It adds a fresh point to the position argued for in the pamphlet, that modern
Christianity closely reflects capitalist interests. The President of the
Assembly of the Baptist Union on Missionary Day, 1910, said:-

?...Labour given and money spent in foreign missions, regarded even in the
most business﷓like way, were good investments.... The export trade
of our country would be much smaller if foreign missionaries had not in days
gone by opened up new countries by proclaiming the Gospel.?

A ?good investment,? undoubtedly, as far as the capitalist and his churches
are concerned, but from the point of view of the ?poor heathen,? how should
we describe the transaction by which he has been brought to exchange his
country and his liberty for a bottle of rum and a pair of trousers?

The Socialist case against religion differs widely from the usual Freethought
position. There are Rational superstitions as well as Christian. Religion
was not the wicked invention of charlatans, nor is the passing of superstition
simply to be explained by the ?triumph of Reason.? As shown in the following
pages the ?march of mind,? the development of science, and the decay of
religion,
are themselves ultimately explicable only from the evolution of economic
conditions. Ideas play a secondary part in social development. They are the
effects of the material environment upon human beings, and are not the creative
motive force of social evolution. Consequently, in his worship of the ?idea?
the bourgeois freethinker is, like the Christian, attributing miraculous
powers to the figments of men?s brains.

The fact that the attitude outlined in this pamphlet is an integral part
of the Socialist view of life, guarantees that the religious question will
not be allowed to overshadow the main issue. It indicates, indeed, that the
necessary work of general Socialist education (which includes the position
here laid down on religion, as the greater includes the less) will be
unflinchingly
continued. It is a work that has remained for the Socialist Party of Great
Britain to consistently develop.

In this work of education we are glad to acknowledge the debt the toilers
owe to Marx. It is fashionable in superficial labour circles to patronise
his undoubted genius, while professing that his work is now superseded. By
what? That is a question they cannot answer. Men who have obviously never
studied his work repeat mechanically the twaddle of bourgeois apologists,
and claim that they are ?emancipated? from ?systems? and from the ?dogma?
of Socialist principles. They take refuge in an inconsistent and lazy
eclecticism,
made up of odds and ends of bourgeois learning and a narrow rule-of-thumb
expediency. It is as though the modern mechanical engineer sought to emancipate
himself from the rigidity and ?dogmatism? of mechanical science by going
back to the pottering, rule-of-thumb methods of the garret worker! The impotent
?freedom? of expediency is no compensation for the power given by comprehensive
theoretic knowledge. The superficial expediency now prevalent in social study
is, indeed, a confession of mental bankruptcy. Apart from looseness of thought,
such an attitude often goes with a desire to curry favour with the powers
that be, possibly with an eye to appointments. It is clear that the ruling
class, on their part, cannot admit the truth of social science which
demonstrates
their uselessness and worse. They hide behind the ?complexity? of social
life, and refuse to admit the possibility of a science of history. To suit
their interests science must halt on the threshold of society; theory must
be decried, scientific method derided, and its conclusions scorned in social
affairs, because, forsooth, social science exposes them for the thieves they
are! Their henchmen and camp followers, the ?intellectuals,? are ever ready
to serve them. As an example: when the capitalist class was young, and its
members directly concerned in the labour of production, it was ?correct?
to admit (with Ricardo) that labour is the source of value. As the capitalist
became entirely an idle class, however, a less awkward principle became
necessary,
and the idea was accordingly propagated that not the producer, but the consumer,
by his demand for goods, stated in terms of their utility to him, creates
all values! The working class, who are painfully aware of the primary importance
of their labour in all this, can scarcely take such phantasies seriously,
and will fail to be convinced that labour is not the source of value until
they find that banquets, palaces, and motor cars, descend on demand ready-made
from the clouds.

It is because Marx has analysed the production of commodities and placed
the labour theory of value upon a scientific basis, that he is anathema in
capitalist circles. Hence capital?s intellectual flunkeys vie with each other
in attempts to find some plausible substitute for science in the social field.
It is, indeed, amusing to note that hundreds of replies to Marx have been
penned, and that every succeeding capitalist apologist, realising and confessing
that all his predecessors had failed, essays once more the impossible task
and adds yet another to the long list of testimonials to the impregnability
of the Socialist position.

So with the Socialist key to history which has been applied in the following
pages, and which we owe to Marx and Engels. It is of a piece with the analysis
of capital. By it, as Engels says:-

?History for the first time was placed on its real foundation; the obvious
fact hitherto totally neglected, that first of all men must eat, drink, have
shelter and clothing, and therefore work, before they can struggle for
supremacy,
or devote themselves to politics, religion, philosophy, etc. - this fact
at last found historical recognition.?

But this also the ruling class cannot accept. As with the robber classes
throughout history, they cannot admit that society in its advance depends,
not upon their puny selves and their muddled ideas, but upon the daily
activities
of the mass of disinherited who produce society?s means of existence. This
fact only the social revolution can teach them.

Clearly, then, the science that is to help the workers in their struggle
for supremacy can receive no help from the capitalists as a class. On the
proletariat must its advance and defence depend. Theoretically as well as
practically, the emancipation of the workers must be accomplished by the
working class alone.

As part of the essential educational work that must be done before this
emancipation
can be achieved the present pamphlet has its place. It is an entirely
proletarian
product, and treats a serious subject seriously and scientifically. It is
issued, not as the view of an individual, but as the accepted manifesto of
the Socialist Party on the subject; and agreement with it and the general
position of the Party, entails upon every member of the working class the
duty of joining the Socialist Party of Great Britain and helping forward
its work.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN.
January 1911.

THE SOCIALIST VIEW OF RELIGION

I - THE NEED FOR FRANKNESS

Is Socialism antagonistic to religion? Can a Socialist be a Christian? These
questions are repeatedly being asked, and are being answered in many different
ways. Yet Socialism has an unequivocal answer to them, and it is the purpose
of this brochure to make that plain. Unfortunately for the political trickster,
however, that answer runs counter to popular prejudice - it will not win
votes from those who are not Socialists - and therefore his tribe deprecate
the free discussion of the implications of Socialism in regard to religion
on the ground of ?political expediency.? It is urged that such discussion
is unnecessary, and that it will retard the cause by prejudicing people against
it. But it must be recognised that the policy of hiding the truth and avoiding
discussion is precisely the most likely way to injure the cause. It is, indeed,
a distinction of the Socialist Party that it stands for the fullest discussion
of every point of its principles and policy. Moreover, since the Socialist
view is right it can be shown to be so, and a knowledge of the facts will
remove prejudice and help to arm the workers against hypocrisy and reaction.

An explanation of the Socialist position on this question is the more urgent
now, because the hypocritical and time-serving procedure of so many professed
Socialists has enabled those who are frankly our opponents to keep the
anti-religion
aspect of Socialism effectively to the fore. Politicians angling for votes
and office, and organisations scheming for members and subscriptions, have
almost all evaded the charge that Socialism implies atheism and materialism,
either by pretending that religion is in no way related to the question of
Socialism, or by asserting that Socialism is the outcome of religion, and
is indeed, true Christianity!

No apology, then, is needed for the present pamphlet. A frank and definite
exposition of the Socialist attitude is doubly necessary. And in the belief
that the worker will be helped to see the hollowness of the charges of the
anti﷓Socialist, and to avoid the pitfalls of quackery and confusion,
the following summary of the facts is issued by the Socialist Party of Great
Britain.

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF RELIGION

II - THE GENESIS OF RELIGION

No idea of the relation of Socialism to the religious question can be correct
that is not based upon an accurate conception of religion. This is of the
first importance, for erroneous notions in this respect are responsible for
much of the present confusion.

What, then is religion?

The answer to this question can be given most usefully and interestingly
by historical analysis. ?History,? says the founder of scientific Socialism,
?has been explained by religion long enough, let us explain religion by
history.?

The labours of many patient investigators - travellers, missionaries and
ethnologists - have thrown a flood of light upon primitive religion, and,
from the wealth of information they have provided, certain fundamental
principles
have been definitely established. It is generally accepted that the earliest
form is that of ancestor worship, to which Herbert Spencer?s Ghost Theory
has given us the master-key; indeed, Grant Allen has shown, in his ?Evolution
of the idea of God,? that what is called animism, or the accrediting of things,
both living and non-living, with indwelling spirits, is but a side development
of ancestor worship. Let us, then, briefly trace the rise of this early
religion,
confining ourselves to its main features.

The fundamental idea of religion is a belief in the persistence of life after
death. Originally, and in essence throughout, religion is a belief in the
existence of supernatural beings, and the observance of rites and ceremonies
in order to avert their anger or gain their goodwill. ?Corpse worship,? as
it has been tersely called, ?is the protoplasm of religion.? How did this
arise? It is, of course, difficult for us to realise the mental attitude
of primitive man. We live in immense communities, have access to vast
literatures,
and have inherited the results of the experience of many ages. In contrast
with the savage, our command over Nature is of remarkable extent, and the
advance of industry and science has substituted the idea of a regular natural
order in place of a belief in the caprice of spirits. But the member of a
petty tribal settlement was restricted to a very narrow circle of human
intercourse,
limited in speech, without industry, science, or literature, and all the
accumulated knowledge of Nature?s working that these have brought; and
consequently
the disquieting phenomena of death, loss of consciousness, hallucination,
insanity, trance, and dream, together with the awful and seemingly capricious
powers of the elements, presented a problem to primitive man that could not
be correctly solved on the basis of his slender knowledge and experience.
He read his own passions and motives into the elements about him, and thought
he saw in Nature?s working the activity of beings like himself. Moreover,
his dreams were realities to him. He believed that the dead man he had dreamed
of had really visited him, or that in his sleep he had really hunted in some
distant forest - yet the savage had not left his companions, and the dead
were still covered with earth. The idea of a ghost that could leave the body,
was , therefore, irresistibly forced on him. The loss of consciousness of
an injured man was to be explained by the temporary absence of the spirit
from the body. Madness was possession by an alien spirit. The dead man, to
the simple mind of the savage, still lived as a spirit, and might return.
Fear therefore took possession of his mind; fear of the evil power of the
dead and of their spirits in the trees, streams, and elements that surrounded
him. This fear gave rise to religious observance.

Primitive man buried his dead, put heavy stones upon them or even drove stakes
through their bodies to prevent their ghosts troubling the tribe; or he gave
them their weapons and ornaments and made offerings of food and drink to
them (even after the decay of the bodies had demonstrated the fact of death)
in order either to appease the anger or gain the goodwill of their spirits.
Thus in his ignorance of causality other than personal, the savage projected
his own characteristics into the world about him and imagined its working
as due to the activity of spirits, mainly malignant, who had to be conciliated
or kept away.

From these early superstitious fears there also arose a belief in sorcery,
miracles, and witchcraft. Herbert Spencer states that

?The primitive belief is that the ghosts of the dead, entering the bodies
of the living, produce convulsive actions, insanity, disease and death; and,
as this belief develops, these original supernatural agents conceived as
causing such evils differentiate into supernatural agents of various kinds
and powers ... Along with a belief in maleficent possession there goes a
belief in beneficent possession, which is prayed for under the forms of
supernatural
strength, inspiration, or knowledge. Further, from the notion that if maleficent
demons can enter they can be driven out, there results exorcism. And then
there comes the idea that they may be otherwise controlled and may be called
to aid; whence enchantments and miracles.?

Thus religious legends of miracle, when adduced as proof of the divine origin
of a religion, are actually evidence of its earthly origin and of its community
with the crudest superstition of the lowest savage. Primitive man?s knowledge
and experience were not sufficiently extensive to give him the idea of an
inviolable natural order. He believed that all things were swayed by the
ghosts of the dead, and consequently the ?miracle? was his explanation of
a normal happening. So the whole of man?s early religious beliefs were due
to the limitations of his knowledge and experience. Religion, therefore,
has a natural, not a supernatural, genesis.

III - THE REFLEX OF TRIBAL LIFE

How completely religion was the outcome of material conditions may be gathered,
not only from the character of the ideas connected with it, but also from
the exactness with which it reflected the kinship and social forms of tribal
society. Since the social world of primitive man was confined to his kinsmen,
and these were his only friends, not only did the ghosts of his kinsmen loom
largest in his eyes, but they also appeared to him as the least malignant
or more friendly of the inhabitants of the spirit world, and more or less
powerful in proportion to their importance during life. A great warrior kinsman
thus, after his death, tended to become a chief object of tribal propitiation
and worship. So gods began to be.

The burial-place of a great chief (often his abandoned hut) became the abode
of a god to whom offerings were brought and before whom reverence was made.
Thus the temple originated - it was originally a covered tomb, and retains
that characteristic to this day. Tribal customs as applied to satisfying
the supposed wants or appeasing the ire of the deceased became religious
rites. And with the lapse of time and the flattery of his worshippers, the
glorified personality and power of a great dead chief became magnified into
the attributes of a great tribal god. At the same time his nearest of kin
became naturally the mediators between him and the rest of the tribesmen.
They became the keepers of the temple, the guardians of religious ceremonial,
and consequently the early priesthood. Such are the broadest outlines of
the origin of God, the temple, religious rites, and the priesthood. Herbert
Spencer thus summarises the matter in the ?Principles of Sociology.?

?Awe of the ghost makes sacred the sheltering structure for the tomb, and
this grows into the temple; while the tomb itself becomes the altar. From
provisions placed for the dead, now habitually, and now at fixed intervals,
arise religious oblations, ordinary and extraordinary - daily and at festivals.
Immolations and mutilations at the grave pass into sacrifices and offerings
of blood at the altar of the deity. Abstinence from food for the benefit
of the ghost develops into fasting as a pious practice; and journeys to the
grave with gifts become pilgrimages to the shrine. Praises of the dead and
prayers to them grow into religious praises and prayers. And so every holy
rite is derived from a funeral rite.?

In another aspect also the dependence of religious ideas upon social conditions
is clear. ?Strangers? were not admitted to the privileges of tribal social
life, or if admitted it was only in exceptional circumstances, and after
an elaborate ceremonial of ?adoption? into the tribe was gone through. This
exclusiveness was plainly reflected in the religion of ancestor worship,
for kinship with the dead ancestor was regarded as a privilege, and his
intervention
in mundane affairs at the request of his relatives was considered the
prerogative
of the tribesmen. A knowledge of the forms of worship that accumulated was,
therefore, jealously kept from the ?stranger.? Disaster, indeed, was often
attributed to the offering of ?strange fire? upon the ancestral altar.

Moreover, the supreme importance of rigid custom to the tribe had a profound
influence on religion. It is reflected in the careful preservation of religious
ceremonial even today, and in the tenacity with which old and now meaningless
forms are adhered to. In contrast to the constant change and hunt for novelty
which characterises modern social life, the peaceful and prosperous continuance
of tribal institutions depended on the faithful following of venerated custom.
What was old was tried and safe, what was new meant strife and confusion.
Innovation was a crime, and was punished accordingly. (Modern religion preserves
this spirit, just as it perpetuates the mummeries of ancient society.) With
the development of the religious idea, ancient and mysterious custom began
to merge into ?law? by becoming attributed to the glorified ancestor or god.
So god became the lawgiver,? and tribal custom became divine ordinance, while
social bonds were undoubtedly strengthened. This phase is illustrated in
the Old Testament, which, indeed, is valuable as an illustration of the later
and transitional forms of ancestor worship; and much of it portrays clearly
the religion and customs of a people living in what Lewis Morgan, the great
American ethnologist, defines as the ?upper status of barbarism.?

As a belief, therefore, religion was the outcome of man?s ignorance of Nature?s
working, and of the mastery which awful and uncomprehended natural forces
had over him, while as rites and ceremonies it reflected the forms, customs,
and unchanging nature of primitive society. Thus the obscurity of material
conditions is the source of religion; God did not create man, man created
God in his own image.

By the ?inertia of the mind,? religion tends to persist, even through vast
changes in the environment, in so far as it serves some interest and does
not directly conflict with the new conditions. But in spite of this tendency
to independent existence, religion has been modified continuously as the
result of changing conditions and interests; while, notwithstanding repeated
endeavours to adapt the ancient legends to modern requirements, its influence
has waned. Nevertheless, in the degree that it survives, religion reacts
upon society; it is the paralysing hand of the dead past upon the living
present.

As we must, necessarily, within the limits of a pamphlet, deal with the main
stream of development to the exclusion of relatively unimportant variations,
let us follow the next great step in religious evolution, and we shall see
that the change from tribal worship to universal propagandist creeds, such
as Mohammedanism and Christianity, was also the result, not of revelation,
but of material change.

IV - THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY

The well disciplined legions and magnificent roads of the Roman Empire played
a most important part in disrupting tribal religion and organisation throughout
Western Europe; and in this they were ably seconded by the political genius
of the Romans, as shown in the policy adopted towards the various tribal
religions. Provincial gods were granted an honoured place within Roman temples,
and so the military allegiance of the subject races to Rome was supplemented
by their devotion to their ancestral deities. By this means the religious
exclusiveness of the conquered peoples was determined, and the Empire bound
more firmly together. How all this prepared the way for religious change
is thus indicated by Gibbon:

?The Policy of the emperors and the Senate, as far as it concerned religion,
was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits
of the superstitious part of their subjects. The various modes of worship
which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people, as
equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate,
as equally useful. And this toleration produced not only mutual indulgence,
but even religious concord ......A republic of gods of such opposite tempers
and interests required, in every system, the moderating hand of a supreme
magistrate, who, by the progress of knowledge and flattery, was gradually
invested with the sublime perfections of an Eternal Parent and an Omnipotent
monarch.... The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian, as they met before their
respective altars, easily persuaded themselves that, under various names
and with various ceremonies, they adored the same deities.?

So the soil was prepared, and narrow, exclusive tribal religion began to
give place to universal propagandist religions which were more in harmony
with the needs of the aggressive and expanding political State. Of these
religions Christianity was one. It was not manufactured, it grew. It took
centuries to develop. Its rites, beliefs, and ceremonies were not inventions,
they were legacies and adaptations from the old religions that it replaced.
Christianity, indeed, is a cemetery of dead religions. The great legal codes
of Rome were the codification of multitudinous tribal laws. So Christianity
(though not at all definitely and consciously) was the systematisation and
adaptation of ancient beliefs in accord with the new social principle. It
had an impetus given it by a more directly economic factor. With the decay
of the Roman Empire, owing to the utter exhaustion of the Italian provinces
by a wholesale and ruthless system of agricultural slavery, and amid
unparalleled
political and physical disasters, despair fell upon all, and upon none more
than the wretched slaves. Despair and disaster drove men to religion for
consolation, while as Prof. Seeley, says: ?the age was religious because
it was an age of servitude.? The hopelessness of this world encouraged an
aspiration for a world to come, and this provided the motive and helped to
determine the form of the religious revival.

The religion that rose to chief place amid such circumstances could only
be the religion of the subject and the slave. So Christianity, with its cardinal
ethic of submission, was pre-eminently suitable, and was a most useful ally
to the despot who was struggling for the throne. Christianity, says Professor
Seeley:

?Produced a complete change in the attitude of the people to the Emperor.
It made their loyalty more intense, but confined it within definite limits.
It strengthened in them the feeling of submissive reverence for government
as such; it encouraged the disposition of the times to political passiveness
.... Constantine, if he was influenced by a wise policy when he extended
his patronage to the Church. By doing so he may be said to have purchased
an indefeasible title by a charter.?

Recognised by the State, the progress of Christianity became very rapid,
and the Church assumed more clearly the monarchical tendencies that has been
developing within it. Indeed, the spread of Christianity throughout Europe
was largely due to its utility as an instrument of government in the hands
of kings.

With the dissolution of the Roman Empire, Western Europe did not entirely
relapse into barbarism, largely because of the profound influence of the
traditions of Roman world-power. And the Bishop of Rome, by his position
at the heart of this traditional empire, came to be looked upon as its spiritual
head. His position, indeed, had become definitely monarchical within the
Church, and the Lombard conquest threw the temporal rule of the little territory
about Route into his hands, owing to the Roman Governor being kept distant
at Ravenna by the invaders.

This establishment of the Christian Church as a temporal power, indissolubly
associated with the traditions of Rome, had an enormous influence on the
future of Christianity, for it caused it to be eagerly sought as ally by
the Frankish aspirants to the throne of a revived Roman Empire. The greatest
of these, Charlemagne, was, significantly enough, crowned in Rome by. the
Pope on a Christmas Day, in solemn confirmation of his claim to the title
of Emperor, and as Prof. Jenks says:

?In the name of Christianity Charles the Great rolled back the tide of Saracen
invasion from the Pyrenees, and established the frontiers of Christendom.?

In Saxon England also, the establishment of political society was closely
followed by the replacing of the older tribal religious forms by Christianity.
The rule of the King and his warrior band over the agricultural settlements
of the tribes undermined patriarchalism and weakened its religious reflex.
Consequently, the conversion of Ethelbert of Kent to Christianity was the
signal for the conversion of England. The new religion spread from court
to court in the Heptarchy, aiding the kingship in its struggle with the older
system of kinship, and introducing a model of political organisation that
was the ripened result of Roman political experience. Indeed, the early days
of the State show clearly the close connection between Christianity and the
institution of monarchy, although the Church and the King strove in turn
for mastery. As Prof. Jenks says in his ?Short History. of Politics?:

?Christianity well repaid the favour of princes. Under the cry of ?one church
and one king?, the older tribal divisions were ultimately wiped out, and
England became one nation, with Church and.state in intimate alliance. Even
more obviously had Mohammedanism the result of breaking down tribal divisions
and establishing mighty kingdoms, like the kingdom of Akbar in India, the
kingdom of Ismail in Persia, and the kingdom of Mahomet at Constantinople...
The intimate connection between the King and the Church was the best possible
safeguard against any revival of patriarchalism in connection with ancestor
worship.?

Thus the spread of ?universal? religions was the consequence and accompaniment
of the development of a new social system. Kinship ceased to be the social
bond; its place was taken by an expanding military or feudal power. The older
religion ceased to be in harmony with the social order, it gave place to
a religion whose principle was not exclusiveness, but universality; and the
ethic associated with the new religion was necessarily that of submission,
in order to encourage the obedience to government that was essential to the
security. of the political State.

V - THE REFORMATION

From its origin in the early political or feudal State the unreformed Roman
Catholic Church remained the religious counterpart of the feudal system as
this developed to completeness. The ?Universal? Church, indeed, became a
great feudal power, owning one-third of the land of Christendom. But economic
forces began to undermine feudal society; the social organism was developing
to the point where it had to burst its feudal bonds; and those directly
dependent
upon the newer economic forces found their religious reflex of the real world
correspondingly modified. It is not a mere coincidence that (as Professor
Thorold Rogers puts it)

?The success of a religious movement has generally, if not invariably, been
associated with a movement for improving the moral and secular advantages
of those whom it seeks to benefit.?

And religious movements have also often been in part the forms taken by racial
or international strife. The Lutheranism of the German princes at the
Reformation
was largely their standard of revolt against the foreign rule of the ?very
catholic? emperor, Charles V, and rebellion against an alien yoke or
interference
has everywhere been reflected in religious matters. More important still,
however, has been the direct influence of economic change upon religious
development.

The Reformation in England is a type. It was the accompaniment of the revolt
of peasant, yeoman, craftsman, and merchant against feudalism; and the Puritan
rebellion was the culmination of this religio-political movement. The reason
for this is not far to seek. In a scientific age the theoretic basis and
sanction of great movements are sought in science, but in a theological age,
when tradition holds overwhelming sway over men?s minds, the theories that
support and codify social and political demands are often cast in a religious
mould. The smaller the circle of knowledge the greater is the influence of
faith, and the more necessary does its sanction appear to those engaged in
new and little understood movements. Moreover. those who found feudal
institutions
inimical in mundane affairs found it easy to believe that in religious matters
they were equally wrong; thus such doctrines as were not in accord with their
secular aspirations were least likely to be accepted as true while religious
traditions were strained and reinterpreted in order to sanctify the new demands.

The pre-Reformation Roman Church was, in doctrine and organisation, the
oppressive
reflex of feudal society, and consequently it lost ground along with the
feudal lords. It was, indeed, the development of the economic factors of
trade, industry, and capitalist farming that threw burgher and yeoman into
conflict with the feudal class and led them to question in the world of religion
all that they found incompatible with their advance in secular matters. As
their real social world had changed, its religious reflex had to follow.
Economic evolution was undermining tradition and making ancient custom a
broken reed; while the more extensive reliance on reason than on tradition
that was directly. fostered by the new conditions, and the increasingly apparent
necessity of going to the roots of things for knowledge, led men to question
priestly authority and to seek religious truth in (what was believed to be
its source) the Bible. And into the texts of the Scriptures, the Puritan
learned to read the ideas of mental independence and democracy that were
developing in him. But since the spirit of liberty and revolt could not easily
be read into the New Testament - the essentially Christian part of the Bible
- recourse was had to Habakkuk and Isaiah, for, as Professor Seeley says:


?Passive obedience was plausibly preached by the Anglican clergy out of the
New Testament. When the opposite party sought scriptural sanction for their
principles of freedom, they were swayed irresistibly back upon the Old
Testament,
where rebellions and tyrannicides may be found similar to those which fill
classical history.?

As the Puritan movement itself shows, however, religious views were not without
a powerful reflex action on mundane affairs. The Bible had been distributed
broadcast in the struggle against the Pope; and reverence for its traditions,
added to the almost complete lack of other popular literature, gave it
prominence
that can hardly be exaggerated. It became, therefore, the alphabet of the
Puritans, it coloured their speech and distorted their politics, at the same
time that it provided the then inevitable religious sanction for their social
and political aims.

We find. indeed that Puritanism was weak in the industrially backward North
and West of England, and strong in the East and South, where economic
development
had proceeded furthest. The boroughs were the natural centres of its enthusiasm,
and the aspect of the Christian religion that was favoured indicated in general
the group of material interests that lay behind. Modern Nonconformity, moreover,
is clearly a modified survival of Puritanism, and is also still the religion
of the small manufacturer, the shop-keeper, and small capitalists generally;
while its intense political activity reflects the modern and reactionary
phase of their struggle.

Much might be written regarding the economic basis of Protestantism in all
its phases, but it is sufficient here to lay stress on the fundamental part
played throughout by the change in material aims and interests engendered
by the development of the new methods of gaining the material living.

Say Marx and Engels:

?When people speak of ideas that revolutionise society they do but express
the fact that within the old society the elements of a new one have been
created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps ever pace with the
dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

?When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were
overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth
century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with
the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom
of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within
the domain of knowledge.?

Therefore, instead of the vast social and political changes that accompanied
the great Protestant movements being caused by the new religious ideas, these
ideas are themselves only explicable as the outcome of the rise of capitalist
farming, industry, and commerce, and the advance of a new class to political
domination.

V1 - THE EXODUS OF RELIGION

In the light of the foregoing historical facts it is clear that religion
has evoked continuously under the pressure of natural causes. and in this
it does not differ from all other things; but a distinct characteristic is
exhibited by religion?s modern phase. In contrast with science, which grows
in volume, complexity, interdependence, and definiteness, religion decreases
in volume, cohesion, and definiteness, and is now in process of evolution
- if such it can truly. be called - into nothingness. It is, in fact, more
accurately an evaporation than an evolution.

From the dawn of civilisation, indeed, religious change has always been more
remarkable for what was abandoned, rather than for what was added or retained.
From being inextricably bound up with the whole social life of a people,
it becomes a more and more insignificant reflex of the remaining dark corners
of that social life. This is illustrated in the passing of its dogmas and
beliefs. The vividness of hell-fire and the unending terrors of eternal
damnation
are considered mere allegories by many a modern Christian; and his views
on miracles, the casting out of devils, and the creation of the world, would
have been the cause of an auto-da-fe if adopted a few centuries ago. This
fading of religious beliefs is unmistakably due to the accumulation of
experience
and the advance of industry and science, for these have shown that Nature
is not moved by the caprice of spirits, but works according to an ascertainable
and regular order. It gives point, moreover, to the truth uttered by Naquet
that ?whenever knowledge takes a step forward God takes a step backward.?
Fundamentally, indeed, the supernatural is totally excluded from the whole
universe by the logical modern concept of an interminable warp and woof of
cause and effect.

The present is rightly called an age of religious indifference, and religious
censuses, such as that instituted some years ago by the Daily News, have
made it particularly noticeable how largely this indifference has gained
the urban proletariat. It is the development of industrial forces, and mankind?s
consequent growing control over Nature and increasing knowledge of her working,
that provide a wider and firmer basis for science and leave less room for
superstition in the minds of working men. Science itself is the direct outcome
of economic development. It is the torch, which, as its flame is fed by material
advance, sheds a light of increasing power and drives obscurity and superstition
from an ever larger circle.

This indifference of the workers is fostered by the fact that religion, when
put to the test, is ever found on the side of their oppressors. It is encouraged
by the workers? daily contact with the hard mechanical realities of life
which leave little room for illusion. In spite of their lack of learning,
the mass of the toilers find no basis for belief in divine interference,
and little reason for doubting that the inevitable sequence that we call
cause and effect, as seen in all industrial processes, extends unremittingly
over the whole world. The workers learn in the factory, that the most awful
natural forces are regular, explicable, and controllable; while the feeling
of helplessness before the powers of Nature, and the incomprehensibility
of these to man, recede before the lessons of man-made productive forces
that rival Nature in their giant strength and rational complexity.

As Paul Lafargue says:

?The labour of the mechanical factory puts the wage-worker in touch with
terrible natural forces unknown to the peasant, but instead of being mastered
by them he controls them. The gigantic mechanism of iron and steel which
fills the factory, which makes him move like an automaton, which sometimes
clutches him, bruises him, mutilates him, does not engender in him a
superstitious
terror as the thunder does in the peasant, but leaves him unmoved, for he
knows that the limbs of the mechanical monster were fashioned and moulded
by his comrades, and that he has but to push a lever to set it in motion
or stop it. The machine, in spite of its miraculous power and productiveness,
has no mystery for him. The labourer in the electrical works, who has but
to turn a crank on a dial to send miles of motive power to tramways or light
the lamps of a city, has but to say, like the God of Genesis, ?Let there
be light,? and there is light. Never sorcery more fantastic was imagined,
yet for him this sorcery is a simple and natural thing. He would be greatly
surprised if one were to come and tell him that a certain god might, if he
chose, stop the machines and extinguish the lights when the electricity had
been turned on; he would reply that this anarchistic god would be simply
a misplaced gearing or a broken wire, and that it would be easy for him to
seek and find this disturbing god. The practice of the modern factory teaches
scientific determinism to the wage-worker, without it being necessary for
him to pass through the theoretic study of the sciences.?

Upon such foundation, therefore, religion cannot firmly stand. Nevertheless,
so long as the anarchy of modern competitive society exists, the accompanying
obscurity and confusion in social life will continue to shelter superstition.
This point is illustrated in the following reference by Marx to the United
States:

?When we see in the very country of complete political emancipation not only
that religion exists, but retains its vigour, there is no need, I hope, for
other proofs in order to show that the existence of religion is not incompatible
with the full political maturity of the State. But if religion exists it
is because of a defective social organisation, of which it is necessary to
seek the cause in the very essence of the State.?

Class domination is the essence of the modern State. It is based on competitive
anarchy and parasitism - the evidences of a defective social organisation.
It still leaves room for religion, because it maintains ignorance and confusion
by its structure and contradictions and because religion is fostered as a
handmaiden of class rule. Nevertheless, the growth of the social forces of
production within modern society, and the better knowledge the workers obtain
of their true relations to each other and to Nature, loosen the chains of
ghost worship and mysticism from their limbs and lessen the power of religion
as a political weapon in the hands of the ruling class, while they form,
at the same time, the material and intellectual preparation for an intelligently
organised society. The matter has been put in a nutshell by Marx in the chapter
on ?Commodities? in ?Capital,? volume 1:

?The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally
vanish, when the practical relations of everyday life offer to man none but
perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellow
men and to nature.

?The life process of society, which is based on the process of material
production,
does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by
freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance
with a settled plan.

?This, however, demands for society a certain material groundwork or set
of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product
of a long and painful process of development. ?

It is, therefore, a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of
religion. Through Socialism alone will the relations between men in society,
and their relations to Nature, become reasonable, orderly, and completely
intelligible, leaving no nook or cranny for superstition. The entry of Socialism
is, consequently, the exodus of religion.

THE SOCIALIST PHILOSOPHY

V11- THE MATERIALIST EXPLANATION OF SOCIETY

Our brief outline of the natural history of religion has shown that Socialism,
as a system of society, means the end of supernatural beliefs. But that is
only half our present task. What is the relation of Socialism as a propagandist
movement toward modern Christian teaching? Or, since general principles should
here be first considered, is Socialism as a working philosophy also opposed
to modern religious ideas?

In the first place, all religious teaching is directly opposed to the scientific
materialism, or monism, which is an integral part of Socialist philosophy.
As Dr. Shadwell said at the 1909 Church Congress at Swansea:

?The purely materialistic view on which Socialism is based is absolutely
opposed to Christian teaching.?

Socialism does not - as does Christianity - mock the wage-slave by telling
him that he has a free will, and that environment does not count. It points
out the overwhelming influence of environment on the individual, and insists
that to remove the poverty, unhappiness, and degradation of the many, it
is necessary to depose the few and change material conditions. Socialism
relies on an alteration in political and economic conditions for human
improvement.
It attributes to capitalist exploitation, and the social conditions this
engenders, the general poverty, crime, drunkenness, and degeneracy. Thus
it is entirely antagonistic to the Christian teaching that not social change
but a ?new heart? is all that is required. In contrast with the Idealist
metaphysics of the Churches, the Socialist movement is materialist in
philosophy,
object, and method. Let us look more closely at this.

Since Nature has been discovered to work according to ascertainable and
inevitable
order, society as part of Nature can be no exception. The Christian ideas
of free will and supernatural interference therefore become absurd, and give
way to determinism. Natural history has shown us that the struggle for the
food supply is the fundamental principle of organic evolution, and this cannot
halt on the threshold of human society. Just as the available quantity of
the means of subsistence, and how and where this is obtainable, has determined
and modified the structures of plants and animals, and settled their mode
of life: so man, being a tool-using animal, has his social organisation and
mode of life determined in the ultimate by an essentially similar process.
In both cases it may be said that the ?economic? is the basic factor, for
the overwhelmingly important tools or instruments of production, which are,
in effect, supplemental organs to the human body, are represented in the
lower organism by the special adaptation of its parts to the quest for food.
In essence, therefore, this factor is as truly the basis of social evolution
as it is of what is generally called organic evolution. The mainspring of
progress of all kinds is thus material, not ideal.

To endeavour to explain social or organic evolution by its ideal reflex is
to reverse the natural order. ?In the beginning was the thing.? The evolution
of the brain, the world of ideas, and all intellectual activity can only
be explained by the preceding and accompanying material environment, for
any other attempt at explanation postulates something uncaused, which is
contrary to all scientific experience. Intellectual changes are made and
stimulated by material change. That ideas have an important reflex action
on social conditions in no way alters the fact that material conditions form
the base, origin, and material of all intellectual life.

Obviously, in order that there may be ideas and human history, two material
things must first be present: human beings, and food and shelter for them.
And the fundamental fact that is so seldom realised is, that where, by what
means, and how much, food and shelter can be obtained, determines if, where,
and how, man shall live, and the forms his social institutions and ideas
shall take.

It is, indeed, the very basis of Socialist philosophy that, in the words
of Frederick Engels:

?In every historical epoch the prevailing mode of economic production and
exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it, form
the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained,
the political and intellectual history of that epoch.?

This materialist concept is the Socialist key to history. It has been applied
in the preceding analysis of religious development. It is the first principle
of a science of society, and, being directly antagonistic to all religious
philosophy, it is destined to drive this ?philosophy? and all its superstitions
from their last ditch.

It is usually asserted by Christians that the regeneration of mankind must
precede, and not follow, social amelioration. They, therefore, expect hell
to breed angels. General Booth, for example, says:

?Socialists want to make the world a paradise without having a paradise people.?

But the Socialist knows that a paradise people could only be born of paradise
conditions. Unlike the Christian, he does not expect figs to grow on thistles.

Even among those Christians who nominally accept ?Socialism? this cleavage
in ideas is not less marked. Their ?philosophy? inverts the natural order.
Thus Dr. Clifford , like General Booth, says:

?You cannot remould society out of illiteracy, indiscipline, intemperance,
and selfishness .... Men are not ?moralised? up to the point where a
co-operative
community is possible.?

And so on. He urges the churches to provide the impossible in the way of
?man building? amidst capitalist conditions. But this, as a general policy,
is as futile as it would be to expect to pick ripe and beautiful fruit before
the soil and the season were suitable to grow them. The Socialist knows that
industrial evolution and working-class self-interest are inevitably preparing
?the soil and the season? for that social change that alone can make possible
the highest development of men and women. The rise of Socialist ideas is
itself but the reflex of this economic evolution and class interest. But
the contradiction in terms known as the Christian Socialist is inevitably
antagonistic to working-class interests and the waging of the class struggle.
His policy is the conciliation of classes, the fraternity of robber and robbed,
not the end of classes. His avowed object, indeed, is usually to purge the
Socialist movement of its materialism, and this, as we have seen, means to
purge it of its Socialism and to divert it from its material aims to the
fruitless chasing of spiritual Will-o-the-wisps. A Christian.Socialist is,
in fact, an anti-Socialist.

Clearly, then, the basis of Socialist philosophy is utterly incompatible
with religious ideas; indeed, the latter have been reduced to their logical
absurdity in what is called ?Christian Science.? Moreover, the consistent
Christian (if such exists) could only look upon the existing world as an
essential part of God?s plan, to be accounted for only through God, and modified
at God?s pleasure. He could only regard those who sought the explanation
of social conditions in purely natural causes, and who also sought to take
advantage of economic development in order to turn this vale of tears into
a pleasant garden, as men who denied by their acts the very basis of his
faith.

The concept of God as an explanation of the Universe is becoming entirely
untenable in this age of scientific enquiry. The laws of the persistence
of force and the indestructibility of matter, and the unending inter-play
of cause and effect, make the attempt to trace the origin of things to an
anthropomorphic God who had no cause, as futile as is the Oriental cosmology,
which holds that the world rests on an elephant, and, as an afterthought,
that the elephant stands on a tortoise.

The inflexible laws of the known universe cannot logically be held to cease
where our immediate experience ends, to make way for an unscientific concept
of an uncaused and creating being. The Creation idea is unsupported by evidence,
and is in conflict with every scientific law. Socialism is consistent only
with that monistic view which regards all phenomena as expressions of the
underlying matter-force reality and as parts of the unity of Nature which
interact according to inviolable laws. It is the application of science,
the arch-enemy of religion, to human social relationships; and just as the
basic principle of the philosophy of Socialism finds itself in conflict with
religion, so does it, as a propagandist movement, find religion acting against
it, as we shall show.

VIII - THE MODERN PURPOSE OF RELIGION

In the early, days of the political State the role of Christianity was
revolutionary;
it helped to disrupt the ancient order. Today, in the dotage of the political
State, its role is conservative and reactionary. In its birth and death it
is the ally of the forces of oppression. It helped to break down the last
vestiges of early communism, and it is utilised now as a bulwark against
the higher communism to come. That Christianity, in its individualism, its
false idealism, and its political connections, is utterly opposed to Socialism
is recognised by the capitalist class itself most clearly; while priests
of all denominations proclaim with emphasis that religion is the antidote
par excellence to Socialist ideas.

Addressing a meeting at Grosvenor House in support of the ?Bishop of London?s
Fund,? on Tuesday, May 11th, 1909, under the presidency of the Duke of
Devonshire,
the Bishop of London quoted a statement made by a slum missionary and described
how a whole family in Notting Dale existed on five shillings a week, earned
by a boy, and out of that four shillings was paid in rent. He said:

?Can you expect that boy to believe in the goodness of God? Will he not want
to know where God comes in? Under all circumstances I cannot regard the prospect
as rosy. In forty years the Bishop of London?s Fund has built two hundred
and thirty churches, and I believe saved London from such a revolution as
would astonish the world. If it were not for the influence of religion, perhaps
the people of the East End would not take things so quietly as they sometimes
do.?

New churches for families starving on one shilling a week! For, after all,
the Bishop did not appeal to his noble and wealthy hearers to remove hunger
and poverty; the point of his appeal was the necessity, not of feeding the
starvelings, but of keeping them quiet. Such is the service religion renders
to the propertied class. And the Bishop?s appeal was not in vain. Within
a month Mr. Morrison, the city millionaire, left £10,000 to the Bishop of
London?s Fund; £10,000 to the Bishop of St. Alban?s Fund; £10,000 to the
East London Church Fund; and £10,000 to the Rochester Diocesan Society. Mingled
with the millionaire?s thoughts of death was his instinctive solicitude for
the interests of his class, and, out of the amassed wealth he could no longer
enjoy, a portion was earmarked for the purpose of keeping the victims of
capitalism from revolting.

The Church of England, however, is by no means alone. The Roman Catholic
Church recognises that it, also, has a similar mission. The Archbishop of
Westminster, speaking before the Society of St Vincent de Paul, at Manchester,
on September 19th, 1909, deplored

?The terrible cleavage between class and class, which unhappily existed in
this country.?

Here in England we were face to face with ?terrible social difficulties,?
Dr. Bourne declared, and in order that the people should not be carried away
by their sympathies into the adoption of Socialist principles, he advised
the teaching of the Catholic Church as

?a real bulwark against those theories which are undoubtedly gaining ground
in this country.?

After the Lord Mayor?s show comes the dustcart. The majesty and solemnity
of the Roman Catholic Church is followed by the big drum and cornet of
Salvationism.
In a ?foreword? to the annual report of the social work of the Salvation
Army - written by Mr. Arnold White, under the title of ?The Great Idea,?
the author expresses

?the conviction that in the Salvation Army we have a strong barrier against
Godless Socialism.?

The main reason for capitalists? liberality toward religions bodies is plain.
They know that religion is incompatible with Socialism, and look upon it
rightly as a working-class soporific; indeed as Marx said, ?religion is the
opium of the people.? And it is thus the agent of class domination, not only
because of its beliefs and organisation, but also, in spite of opinions to
the contrary, by virtue of the ethics with which it is associated﷓
The teaching of the Gospels, as we shall show, so far from supporting Socialism,
is directly, hostile to it.

IX ﷓ WAS JESUS A SOCIALIST ?

The mistaken view so largely held today, that the ethics connected with
Christianity
are the essence of that religion, makes it necessary to include this aspect
of the matter in our survey. The truth that ethics and religion are separate
things is obscured by the confusion that reigns in the Christian camp. Frankness
was never the characteristic of the priestly cult, and in the strenuous
endeavours
of up-to-date reverends to retain some hold upon the minds of the people,
there is hardly any length to which they will not go. Some who deny the
inspiration
of the Gospels and accept the conclusions of science still claim to be
Christians
because they admire the ethics associated with that religion. Grant Allen,
however, has clearly, shown in his ?Evolution of the Idea of God? that religion
and ethics had distinct origins and that their association is relatively
modem and by no means universal. As a matter of fact, the so-called ethics
of the Bible are no monopoly of Christianity. They existed before Christ
and abound in ancient philosophies; while other and older religions, such
as Buddhism, are connected with an ethical code in some respects superior
to that of the New Testament. Buddha died in the fifth century before Christ;
and Mr. A. Lillie, in his ?Buddha and Buddhism,? shows that there is an almost
absolute likeness between the moral lessons embodied in the teaching of Buddha
and those of Christ, and suggests that the so-called ethics of Christianity
have an Indian origin. Buddhism, moreover, is the one religion guiltless
of coercion. Not only, therefore, are the ethics not the essence of the
Christian
religion but they, are only Christian by adoption.

The most absurd claim of all, however, is that Christ was a Socialist. This
is the last refuge of the confusionist and mystery-monger. Let us briefly
examine this claim. It is made, for instance, by Dennis Hird in ?Jesus, the
Socialist,? ?Clarion Pamphlet, No. 46.? In that somewhat hysterical publication
patriarchal regulations are quoted from the Old Testament, and two quotations
from the Acts are given in reference to the communal life in the early Church,
as evidence that Christ was Socialist! Yet it is obvious that neither the
primitive institutions of the Hebrews, nor the monasticism of the early Church,
have any connection with Socialism. The democratic ownership and control
of industry, by and for the wealth producers could not come to pass before
the capitalist system had developed and the productive forces had become
social in character, therefore Socialism was unthinkable, and its propaganda
impossible, two thousand years ago. Christ?s denunciation of wealth is not
Socialism. ?Sell that thou hast and give to the poor? was his advice to a
rich man. This is not Socialism, but anarchism and social suicide, for the
wholesale distribution of aims is a ?remedy? more deadly than the disease.
?Take no thought for the morrow? was his repeated anti-social advice, and
the whole trend of his teaching was to despise worldly things for the sake
of a reward in heaven. But Socialism, on the contrary, is the appreciation
of the things of this world and the endeavour to make a paradise here.

The contrast between Socialism and Christian teaching is plain even where
the Christian precept is otherwise admirable. Thus we are enjoined to love
our neighbours as ourselves, and to do unto others as we would that others
do unto us. But the Socialist has learnt that present vile economic conditions
make such an ethic utterly impossible of general application today. Ruthless
exploitation and the antagonism of aims and interests that this implies together
with the cut-throat competitive struggle of each against all that capitalism
engenders, cause men to prey upon one another, and make the Christian precept
a mockery. It can only become possible of general practice when capitalism
is abolished, when cooperation replaces competition as the basis of society,
and when the interests of each cease to be antagonistic to those of others,
because economic conditions have made the welfare of each at last identical
with the welfare of all. Therefore the materialistic movement of Socialism
will alone make possible what the dualistic ethic is utterly powerless to
bring about, namely, the fulfi

[Moskitto]

No, I have never heard of this person or his "science"...as I indicated, his neologism has not yet made it into the dictionaries.

Oh so you haven't heard of it therefore it doesn't exist, right.

Atrocitology predates this person anyway, it has been a recognised part of historical studies, Samuel Dumas published Losses of Life Caused By War in 1923

Unfortunately, the weight of world opinion is yet again against you, Rudolf J Rummel was nominated for the nobel peace prize in 1996, his most famous works are China's Bloody Century : Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900, Lethal Politics : Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917, Democide : Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder, Death By Government and Power Kills. Rummel's major problem is that in death by goverment he blames 120 million out of the 175 million deaths he estimates on only 3 governments.

Rummel would most likely agree with my analysis of your proposals as being identical to the proposals to "Cleanse the German people."

I can't speak for "any decent website", but it's not beyond my comprehension. If there's no evidence--and there isn't--then it ain't so!

Some people who actually studied the subject in depth (something which you haven't) will tell you about the Cosmological Argument, Paley's Watch, moral argument, Ontological Arguement, Causal Arguement, Design Arguement, Modern design argument, Experiential argument, Pragmatic arguement as well as the Evil, Pain, Injustice, Multiplicity and Simplicity arguements. The word you are actually looking for is "proof", you have the right to be atheist, you do not have the right to force that view onto anyone else.

[Invader Zim]

OK rcpnz, Im neot even going to pretend to have read that tome of an artical you posted.... One of the unwritten rules (then again it may be written somewhere) that unless you write the artical your self, link to the web page where the artical comes from rather than post the whole giant artical. Its saves space etc, and generally because lazy people like me cant be arsed to read through the entire artical.

See you around.

[redstar2000]

Oh so you haven't heard of it therefore it doesn't exist, right.

Not according to the three on-line dictionaries that I consulted.

"Atrocitology" may have "existed since "1923" but the word is too new to have made it into the dictionaries.

It does so happen that I did read once a book that probably fits into this new "field"...The 20th Century Book of the Dead.

Graphs and charts to the contrary notwithstanding, however, I'm sceptical that there is much utility in treating mass murder outside of its historical (class) context.

Perhaps that's why you like it; it avoids uncomfortable things like class struggle.

Unfortunately, the weight of world opinion is yet again against you, Rudolf J Rummel was nominated for the nobel peace prize in 1996...

Considering the fact that the infamous war-criminal Henry Kissinger actually won a Nobel "Peace" Prize, I'd say the credibility of that "prize" currently rests at zero. Perhaps Rummel was lucky not to win.

Rummel's major problem is that in death by goverment he blames 120 million out of the 175 million deaths he estimates on only 3 governments.

Gee, wonder who they might be?

You're just making me more suspicious, Moskitto. If all this guy is doing is trying to put a "scientific" gloss on The Black Book of Communism, then he's just another bourgeois fraud.

Rummel would most likely agree with my analysis of your proposals as being identical to the proposals to "Cleanse the German people."

Well, he's not here to speak for himself. But if you are right about his views, then that would make him as dumb as you are, right?

Some people who actually studied the subject in depth (something which you haven't) will tell you about the Cosmological Argument, Paley's Watch, moral argument, Ontological Argument, the blah, blah, blah argument, etc.

You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what kind of "argument" you contrive unless you can provide evidence to support it.

You have no evidence! Admit it!!!

Everything you and other god-suckers have to say boils down to: "it's true because I say it's true".

Well, no, it isn't.

...you have the right to be atheist, you do not have the right to force that view onto anyone else.

I'm not "forcing" anyone to believe or not believe anything; I'm in favor of putting an end to your scam...at least in public. Once you are no longer allowed to brainwash "your" kids, then your scam comes to an end.

Isn't that just "awful"? :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

/:angry:/

The fact that you start every one of your posts with an angry face suggests you take deep offense at people holding opposing opinions to yourself, a mental disorder I presume.

Not according to the three on-line dictionaries that I consulted.

"Atrocitology" may have "existed since "1923" but the word is too new to have made it into the dictionaries.

depends which dictionarry you consult, most technical terms you will not find in standard dictionarries because they are very field specific terms, you would not find LD50, TD50, TC50, Kai Test, Cytochrome C450 in standard dictionarries either, yet they are words.

It does so happen that I did read once a book that probably fits into this new "field"...The 20th Century Book of the Dead.

Graphs and charts to the contrary notwithstanding, however, I'm sceptical that there is much utility in treating mass murder outside of its historical (class) context.

Perhaps that's why you like it; it avoids uncomfortable things like class struggle.

Atrocitology does look at the reasons why genocides and mass murders occur, a left wing atrocitologist would certainly look at the class struggle behind such genocides, a right wing atrocitologist, not believing in such things, would not. It's called difference of opinion, something which you demonstrate time and again you are unable to deal with.

Considering the fact that the infamous war-criminal Henry Kissinger actually won a Nobel "Peace" Prize, I'd say the credibility of that "prize" currently rests at zero. Perhaps Rummel was lucky not to win.

Rummel's major problem is that in death by goverment he blames 120 million out of the 175 million deaths he estimates on only 3 governments.

Gee, wonder who they might be?

If you don't know, you are quite stupid, although there is debate between 2 of them.

You're just making me more suspicious, Moskitto. If all this guy is doing is trying to put a "scientific" gloss on The Black Book of Communism, then he's just another bourgeois fraud.

Well, did I actually claim he was a left wing activist? exactly. I said he is the worlds formost and most respected atrocitologist, which is true.

Well, he's not here to speak for himself. But if you are right about his views, then that would make him as dumb as you are, right?

Are you a PhD in political science? I think not, why don't you contact him with some of your theories. I think he could eat them in a couple of days

Some people who actually studied the subject in depth (something which you haven't) will tell you about the Cosmological Argument, Paley's Watch, moral argument, Ontological Argument, the blah, blah, blah argument, etc.

So you simply blahed out all the atheist arguements in philosophy that I mentioned? Yet again you show that you have no knowledge of philosophy. You atheism is simply based on a reaction against [most likely] christian fundamentalism.

You still don't get it, do you? It doesn't matter what kind of "argument" you contrive unless you can provide evidence to support it.

You have no evidence! Admit it!!!

Study some of the arguements then, what type of evidence are you looking for? The arguements all explain the evidence themselves, if you actually bothered to study them you're views might be worthwhile listening to, as you have not, then your views are simply uninformed.

Everything you and other god-suckers have to say boils down to: "it's true because I say it's true".

Well, no, it isn't.

Again, you haven't studied any of the arguements, because you don't like the idea and you fear and are greatly angered by opposing ideas. Consult RAM or a guy called James Train for some reasonable arguements about God.

I'm not "forcing" anyone to believe or not believe anything; I'm in favor of putting an end to your scam...at least in public. Once you are no longer allowed to brainwash "your" kids, then your scam comes to an end.

Isn't that just "awful"?

Urm that's actually forcing your view onto other people because your ideas themselves admit that "educating" children to be atheist is the way forward. It tends to rely on your philosophy which may or may not be true is allowed whereas philosophies deemed offensive to you (ie. opposing ones) are not. Quite egotistical and self centered really, modeling a society to suitably cause yourself only the least offense, what it is to be the dictator. Although I don't think it matters what you think, you'll be dead before I have any children anyway, RedCeltic may have a different opinion though.

[redstar2000]

Here's some more pious bullshit for you to defend, Moskitto...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3139549.stm

When the pope prays for rain, Europe floods, right?

The fact that you start every one of your posts with an angry face suggests you take deep offense at people holding opposing opinions to yourself, a mental disorder I presume.

Yes, I have a deeply rooted hatred of mendacious idiocy, such as all forms of religion. Perhaps a new word can be coined for it.

...most technical terms you will not find in standard dictionarries because they are very field specific terms...

True enough, but you're talking about an entire field of study...one that if it were widely regarded as legitimate would certainly have found its name added to ordinary dictionaries.

That's not to say that it's not legitimate...just to say that it's too new to tell.

Atrocitology does look at the reasons why genocides and mass murders occur, a left wing atrocitologist would certainly look at the class struggle behind such genocides, a right wing atrocitologist, not believing in such things, would not.

So what is your guy? Left or right??

Well, did I actually claim he was a left wing activist? exactly. I said he is the worlds formost and most respected atrocitologist, which is true.

More weaseling, Moskitto? I ask you again: is this guy trying to put a "scientific gloss" on The Black Book of Communism?

If so, he's a fraud. (They ought to have a "Nobel Prize" for frauds...there'd be plenty of nominations!)

It's called difference of opinion, something which you demonstrate time and again you are unable to deal with.

I know exactly what you mean by "dealing with a difference of opinion", Moskitto. You refer to that infinitely flabby "post-modernist" style in which all statements are suppose to receive the brilliant and profound response: "whatever!". Duh!

What you desire is an intellectual climate where any and all of your bullshit can pass without challenge; a "discourse" where you can say anything and get away with it.

Try a different board; we don't do things that way here.

Are you a PhD in political science? I think not, why don't you contact him with some of your theories. I think he could eat them in a couple of days

I note once again your religious belief in credentials. Earlier you suggested that if I would win some Olympic gold medals then you'd take my views more seriously. Now, you suggest that a Ph.D. in political "science" would make some kind of positive difference to the credibility of my opinions.

Had you actually lived in the time of Yeshuah ben-Yosif, you would have rejected him, not because he was wrong, but because he didn't have a Ph.D. in theology.

As for this guy you keep touting, let him start posting at Che-Lives and we'll see who "eats" who.

Yet again you show that you have no knowledge of philosophy. Your atheism is simply based on a reaction against [most likely] christian fundamentalism.

No, my atheism is based on the fact that there is no reliable evidence for the existence of the supernatural in any form.

Study some of the arguments then, what type of evidence are you looking for? The arguments all explain the evidence themselves, if you actually bothered to study them your views might be worthwhile listening to, as you have not, then your views are simply uninformed.

Do you ever actually read what you type? Look at what you have just said: not being informed about the "arguments" in defense of religion is the same thing as not being able to say whether or not any of them are possibly valid.

When you study chemistry, do you take into account the arguments in defense of alchemy? Are you even familiar with the arguments in defense of alchemy? How do you know the alchemists weren't right all along and modern chemistry is nothing but a fraud?

Evidence! That's how you know things. None of those theological "arguments" that you listed have so much as a scrap of evidence to support them. You just brought them up to show off your (dubious) erudition...and to distract people from the substance of this entire thread.

I'll say it again and again and again: where is your fucking evidence?

Again, you haven't studied any of the arguments, because you don't like the idea and you fear and are greatly angered by opposing ideas. Consult RAM or a guy called James Train for some reasonable arguments about God.

If "James Train" has real evidence for the existence of "God", why don't you produce it?

He doesn't, of course, because if he really did, he'd be the most famous guy on the planet. And he's not.

Consult RAM? :lol: :lol: :lol: That gormless twit couldn't find his ass in the dark with both hands and a flashlight!

Urm that's actually forcing your view onto other people because your ideas themselves admit that "educating" children to be atheist is the way forward.

Ok, have it your way. If teaching kids about the real world is "forcing my views on others", so be it. If stopping the brainwashing of helpless children with religious bullshit makes me a "Stalinist dictator", I'll just have to live with that.

But it's going to happen!

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

you know what redstar, I actually thought you might have a level of maturity suffiecient enough to understand basic philosophy, as you have demonstated time and again, you don't.

although, you have given me 3 gems.


True enough, but you're talking about an entire field of study...one that if it were widely regarded as legitimate would certainly have found its name added to ordinary dictionaries.

does your dictionarry have "kinsiology" in it? What about "epistimology."


I note once again your religious belief in credentials. Earlier you suggested that if I would win some Olympic gold medals then you'd take my views more seriously. Now, you suggest that a Ph.D. in political "science" would make some kind of positive difference to the credibility of my opinions.

well, actually the original suggestion was if religion is so bad for you then why does it keep people at the top of their sport when they're 38 and their main rivals are 26 years younger than them. However you're belief that a PhD in political science doesn't make your opinions any more valid, let me give you annother analogy.

I am a trained and qualified weight training instructor, if you are doing bench press, I will tell you to keep your feet on the floor, as usual you would disagree with me, a person watching has 2 choices, they can choose to listen to you, even though you have no idea what you are doing, or they can choose to listen to me being as i'm qualified to teach them. Your call.


When you study chemistry, do you take into account the arguments in defense of alchemy? Are you even familiar with the arguments in defense of alchemy? How do you know the alchemists weren't right all along and modern chemistry is nothing but a fraud?

are you sure you know the history of alchemy? Al was removed from Chemist because saying The The Chemist was actually pretty stupid. Yes, the early chemists were alchemists.

If however you are refering to turning lead into gold, then from theories in chemistry which explain the current data and chemical reactions, then the best suggestion we can make is that we cannot do that unless we built gold from lead at a sub-atomic level, something which we cannot do.

Science, like philosophy is a collection of theories to explain events and ideas, in science there is general agreement with numerous outcasts, in philosophy there is most certainly not.

[redstar2000]

does your dictionarry have "kinsiology" in it? What about "epistimology."

It not only has those words, Moskitto, it has them spelled correctly:

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

ki·ne·si·ol·o·gy n. The study of the anatomy, physiology, and mechanics of body movement, especially in humans. The application of the principles of kinesiology to the evaluation and treatment of muscular imbalance or derangement.

You've been taking English lessons from AK47 and RAM, haven't you? :lol:

I am a trained and qualified weight training instructor, if you are doing bench press, I will tell you to keep your feet on the floor, as usual you would disagree with me, a person watching has 2 choices, they can choose to listen to you, even though you have no idea what you are doing, or they can choose to listen to me being as i'm qualified to teach them. Your call.

My call? What a stupid waste of time! What kind of a mindless dummy would want to do that sort of thing...much less "train" others to do it?

And, as usual, what does it have to do with anything in this thread?

If you are suggesting that political views should be "rated" according to the number of advanced degrees held by the advocate, you have simply identified yourself as a vulgar academic elitist.

Science, like philosophy is a collection of theories to explain events and ideas, in science there is general agreement with numerous outcasts, in philosophy there is most certainly not.

That's as cryptic as anything ever heard from the Oracle at Delphi...what is it supposed to mean?

you know what redstar, I actually thought you might have a level of maturity suffiecient enough to understand basic philosophy, as you have demonstated time and again, you don't.

No, my talents are limited to writing coherent sentences, correctly spelling the words of my native language, and expressing communist ideas that strike you as disgusting and frightening.

Isn't that enough? :lol:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Moskitto]

It not only has those words, Moskitto, it has them spelled correctly:

Colour, Color, Flavour, Flavor, are you using an American dictionarry or an British dictionarry? You might find the spellings

e·pis·te·mol·o·gy n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

No, I don't study epistemology, so there's no gaurantee i'd know how to spell it.

ki·ne·si·ol·o·gy n. The study of the anatomy, physiology, and mechanics of body movement, especially in humans. The application of the principles of kinesiology to the evaluation and treatment of muscular imbalance or derangement.

According to my BWLA leaders course notes, it's spelt "Kinsiology", not "Kinesiology". I'm rather more inclined to believe a governing body for weight training than a dictionarry, unless there's an American and British spelling, in which case where's the disagreement?

You've been taking English lessons from AK47 and RAM, haven't you?

As a matter of fact I have. No, of course I haven't, I spend my spare time strangling RAM and watching AK47 remain calm as the atrium degenerates into chaos if you're really that interested.

My call? What a stupid waste of time! What kind of a mindless dummy would want to do that sort of thing...much less "train" others to do it?

I think we went through the benefits of weight training in junk science, although the fact remains that i'm an athlete and you're not so it's essential for me, less so for you.

And, as usual, what does it have to do with anything in this thread?

people who've trained to do things generally do them better than people who have not, that is fairly obvious. You'd rather have a plumber doing your central heating than a surgeon, right?

If you are suggesting that political views should be "rated" according to the number of advanced degrees held by the advocate, you have simply identified yourself as a vulgar academic elitist.

Well, you will find that the average guy on the street believes a PhD political scientist than someone who writes cocaine induced political theories, also PhD's in political science have generally studied other political theories than their own.

That's as cryptic as anything ever heard from the Oracle at Delphi...what is it supposed to mean?

Philosophy can be very cryptic, there's a guy who used to post here called "the derminator", maybe you should look at his site, you might find it interesting (no, it's certainly not a christian nutball site.)

No, my talents are limited to writing coherent sentences, correctly spelling the words of my native language,

So you've only got talents for writing coherant sentances, not quality of sentance? neah, I won't have that one, that's way too easy.

and expressing communist ideas that strike you as disgusting and frightening.

Isn't that enough?

And Where did I describe you're ideas as disgusting and frightening?!?! They might be stupid, but describing them as "disgusting and frightening" actually avoids the question of dealing with them, and it reduces the significance of "disgusting" and "frightening", the growing speed of the HIV pandemic in my country, that's "frightening", the fact that so many heterosexuals think it won't infect them, that's "disturbing", the fact there's so much about the pandemic that looks like biological warfare, that's "disturbing."

[elijahcraig]

I can't believe this thread has gone on this long.

I agree with RedStar. Religion is not "freedom". You do not have the right to brainwash your kids into believing in these nonsensical ignorant religions. Period.

Although RS, it seems to me that you are something of a Leninist in this thread...telling the "ignorant brainwashed masses" what they will or will not do? :lol:

[Moskitto]

I don't think you should be able to brainwash children with anything either, if you force them to come to church with you, I do think that's wrong, but locking up bibles and telling them to be atheist and that all theists are fools is also brainwashing, educate evolution over creation, but you have to expect that if any of them ask what caused the big bang and one guy says they don't know and the other guy says god, they will be intruiged by this mysterious "god."

I was very disappointed that lower school and middle school education focused exclusively on religion, being brought up in a highly christian background (which has slackened greatly) I was unaware that atheists existed until middle school. I would rather philosophy (rather than religious education) was only taught in upper schools and universities and with a greater focus on sex and social education.

[elijahcraig]

I think destroying knowledge of our past is a little...1984ish. So, no burning bibles. Educating people to the level where they UNDERSTAND instead of just being forced by brainwashing is the goal.

RedStar sounds like a fascist now. :lol:

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2003, 04:20 PM
You've been taking English lessons from AK47 and RAM, haven't you? :lol:


Yoo jelous ov mi gret spling abilty? <_<


No I dont mind, like all capitalists and fascists when they are made to look obviously foolish they attack the poster. Dont take it hard Moskitto, Redstar here is just trying to flame you, as well as having a crack at me. Just remember I spell like a six year old in the same way he debates like a six year old.

:redstar2000:

[Moskitto]

Redstar, little bit of commic relief for you, I just got this from my former girlfriend

charlieindiamike: my head is fucked up
charlieindiamike: booze with sort that out
charlieindiamike: oh and smoking
charlieindiamike: good old smoking
charlieindiamike: Redstar2000 rules
charlieindiamike: he he

don&#39;t worry AK47, I did find his flame rather humourous (hence my reply) however Kinsiology is spelt "Kinsiology" in the UK at least.

[redstar2000]

Someday, perhaps, this thread will again discuss the subject of communists and religion. Since that looks unlikely in the immediate future...

Well, you will find that the average guy on the street believes a PhD political scientist than someone who writes cocaine induced political theories, also PhD&#39;s in political science have generally studied other political theories than their own.

You, of course, have carefully surveyed "average guys on the street" regarding their elevated opinion of political "scientists" and drawn your "thoughtful" conclusion.

Sure. :lol:

The only author of "political theory" also known to be a regular user of cocaine that I&#39;ve ever heard of is Hunter S. Thompson...and he&#39;s actually a journalist, not a theorist.

Perhaps you had someone else in mind. :lol:

As to studying "other political theories"...what has that got to do with anything?

Do chemistry students study Hermes Trismegistus? Do medical students study Galen? Does your expertise in weight-training qualify you to comment on communists and religion??? :lol:

...but locking up bibles and telling them to be atheist and that all theists are fools is also brainwashing...

Why? Isn&#39;t that the truth?

No I dont mind, like all capitalists and fascists when they are made to look obviously foolish they attack the poster.

I agree that does explain a lot... :lol:


Although RS, it seems to me that you are something of a Leninist in this thread...telling the "ignorant brainwashed masses" what they will or will not do?

Elijah, you&#39;re reading your own prejudices into my remarks...or perhaps you simply didn&#39;t read the whole thread (can&#39;t say I blame you). The premise of all the measures against religion in public life that I&#39;ve proposed is that they would be approved by a substantial majority of the population in the aftermath of proletarian revolution.

In fact, it&#39;s parallel with the kinds of measures that a proletarian majority would take against a bourgeois minority in the realm of politics, economics, etc. It is the deliberate destruction of another "fortress of reaction".

By the time the proletariat is ready to make revolution, religion will not exist for the majority. As I said once before, a "believing proletariat" probably cannot make an effective proletarian revolution.

I think destroying knowledge of our past is a little...1984ish. So, no burning bibles.

I did not propose that; I simply said that no more would be published.

And, actually, I&#39;d make an exception even there: scholarly critical editions like the Anchor Bible would be regularly updated and readily available in libraries.

RedStar sounds like a fascist now.

And you sound as foolish as the believers. :wacko:

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Although RS, it seems to me that you are something of a Leninist in this thread...telling the "ignorant brainwashed masses" what they will or will not do?

Elijah, you&#39;re reading your own prejudices into my remarks...or perhaps you simply didn&#39;t read the whole thread (can&#39;t say I blame you). The premise of all the measures against religion in public life that I&#39;ve proposed is that they would be approved by a substantial majority of the population in the aftermath of proletarian revolution.

But if the "substantial majority" are christians, there is no way they&#39;re going to throw out religion as you would like it to be done.


In fact, it&#39;s parallel with the kinds of measures that a proletarian majority would take against a bourgeois minority in the realm of politics, economics, etc. It is the deliberate destruction of another "fortress of reaction".




By the time the proletariat is ready to make revolution, religion will not exist for the majority. As I said once before, a "believing proletariat" probably cannot make an effective proletarian revolution.

Well, see you in the future about 10,000 years down the road, or maybe the capitalism will have destroyed the world far far ahead of then.



I think destroying knowledge of our past is a little...1984ish. So, no burning bibles.

I did not propose that; I simply said that no more would be published.

Still...it could be a historical book to study as education. Not as fact. We didn&#39;t stop printing books on Greek Myths just because the belief died out. Education as to "why" the bible is better than letting it die out completely. It is evolution of economy, politics, and culture.


And, actually, I&#39;d make an exception even there: scholarly critical editions like the Anchor Bible would be regularly updated and readily available in libraries.

You made my point, sorry, I was going paragraph to paragraph answering this. :lol:



RedStar sounds like a fascist now.

And you sound as foolish as the believers

Just as foolish as you calling me a Fascist for no reason other than I quoting the Communist Manifesto?

[redstar2000]

Well, see you in the future about 10,000 years down the road, or maybe the capitalism will have destroyed the world far far ahead of then.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t been paying attention. Inspite of all the headlines to the contrary, religion has been declining in influence and that decline is continuing.

We could argue about the speed of the decline...but to suggest that it will take 10,000 years for religion to become irrelevant for most people is remarkably pessimistic, to say the least. In western Europe, where I expect the real proletarian revolution to begin, religion is dying out, especially in the working class.

So cheer up. It ain&#39;t as bad as you think.

...as you calling me a Fascist for no reason other than I quoting the Communist Manifesto?

Elijah, I didn&#39;t "call" you a fascist. Please return to the thread on the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and read my posts again: I pointed out the disturbing parallel between your view of "human nature" and the fascist view of "human nature".

I know it&#39;s difficult, but let&#39;s at least try to keep the discussions confined to the appropriate threads.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

Well, see you in the future about 10,000 years down the road, or maybe the capitalism will have destroyed the world far far ahead of then.

Perhaps you haven&#39;t been paying attention. Inspite of all the headlines to the contrary, religion has been declining in influence and that decline is continuing.

80-85% of the US is Christian. Atheism? I&#39;d say below 3%.


We could argue about the speed of the decline...but to suggest that it will take 10,000 years for religion to become irrelevant for most people is remarkably pessimistic, to say the least. In western Europe, where I expect the real proletarian revolution to begin, religion is dying out, especially in the working class.

That was a joke, 10,000 years is insane, I was alluding to your "wait for everyone to rebel" kind of theories.


So cheer up. It ain&#39;t as bad as you think.

:lol:



...as you calling me a Fascist for no reason other than I quoting the Communist Manifesto?

Elijah, I didn&#39;t "call" you a fascist. Please return to the thread on the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and read my posts again: I pointed out the disturbing parallel between your view of "human nature" and the fascist view of "human nature".

So, you basically called my views fascist, call it what you like.


I know it&#39;s difficult, but let&#39;s at least try to keep the discussions confined to the appropriate threads.

:lol:

[redstar2000]

That was a joke...

So, I gather, is pretty much everything you have to say.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

That was a joke...

So, I gather, is pretty much everything you have to say.

Most ISF feels the same about you.

:lol:

You should see Chairman Mao&#39;s reply to the "Lenin Wax Museum"...classic.

[redstar2000]

Most ISF feels the same about you.

You should see Chairman Mao&#39;s reply to the "Lenin Wax Museum"...classic.

Yes, I don&#39;t suppose they like me very much over there; the replies to me they made here were pretty lame.

I&#39;ve learned to accept, however, that communists are by and large "disliked" (at this point in history)...telling people the painful truth about their illusions has a negative influence on one&#39;s "popularity".

I think there&#39;s a lot of similarity in the attitudes of the god-believers at this board and the Lenin-believers at ISF; they get really pissed off at me when I challenge their faith.

It&#39;s "bad enough" when I say that "Jesus" was never a communist. But to criticize Lenin??? :o

Did you know that after the revolution but prior to Lenin&#39;s death that Zinoviev (party-boss in Petrograd and despised by the workers there) actually made a speech in which he said that "God has sent Lenin to the Russian people"?

Makes you think, doesn&#39;t it?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Suffer the little children...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3157555.stm

but keep it quiet. Note that it was not the "bad pope" (John Paul II) but the "good pope" (John XXIII) who was responsible for the cover-up.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2003, 03:59 PM
Suffer the little children...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3157555.stm

but keep it quiet. Note that it was not the "bad pope" (John Paul II) but the "good pope" (John XXIII) who was responsible for the cover-up.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Yes I actually completely agree with you on that, the Church is a fucking disgrace to humanity. Its the same with all large organisations of such type, the catholic church being the largest and as such the worst.

[truthaddict11]

i found this site tonight pretty good making fun of christianityhere (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2003, 02:32 AM
Most ISF feels the same about you.

You should see Chairman Mao&#39;s reply to the "Lenin Wax Museum"...classic.

Yes, I don&#39;t suppose they like me very much over there; the replies to me they made here were pretty lame.

I&#39;ve learned to accept, however, that communists are by and large "disliked" (at this point in history)...telling people the painful truth about their illusions has a negative influence on one&#39;s "popularity".

I think there&#39;s a lot of similarity in the attitudes of the god-believers at this board and the Lenin-believers at ISF; they get really pissed off at me when I challenge their faith.

It&#39;s "bad enough" when I say that "Jesus" was never a communist. But to criticize Lenin??? :o

Did you know that after the revolution but prior to Lenin&#39;s death that Zinoviev (party-boss in Petrograd and despised by the workers there) actually made a speech in which he said that "God has sent Lenin to the Russian people"?

Makes you think, doesn&#39;t it?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Yes, I don&#39;t suppose they like me very much over there; the replies to me they made here were pretty lame.


Well elijahcraig, he&#39;s got you by the balls there...

[apathy maybe]

I think that some people on this board want under a communist society a system so that anyone can hold any view at all no matter what. But they are not allowed to try and convince others that their view is right. There no allowed to pass on there view with out the permission of all parties concerned. I can see some problems with this.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 19 2003, 12:35 AM
I think that some people on this board want under a communist society a system so that anyone can hold any view at all no matter what. But they are not allowed to try and convince others that their view is right. There no allowed to pass on there view with out the permission of all parties concerned. I can see some problems with this.
I&#39;m not sure I understand this. Could you clarify what you mean by "without the permission of all parties concerned" and what kinds of "problems" you see.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

Right I take it that you know what I mean by everyone allowed to think what they want,
Now you take that and you say that they are not allowed to try and convince any one they they are right,
UNLESS they are asked to. So for instance at an election for what every posisition, unless someone asks the person running why they would be better then the others running, they are not allowed to try.

Problems would of course include the fact that it would be basicly unenforcable. Even today you (metaphoricly(sp?)) will try and convince someone to try some food. They will be disgussted(sp?), and you will say it really good etc. You would be breaking the law.

We could limit it to just politics, religion and philosephy(sp?) but it would still not work properly.

If you still don&#39;t understand parts of this post or the other, post again and I will try and rearrange my thoughts.

[redstar2000]

I think you are generalizing what I would regard as measures limited to specific situations.

In general, I think there would be more "freedom of advocacy" in a communist society than exists at present.

What people would not be "free" to publicly advocate would be specific ideas: racism, sexism, superstition (religion), and, most likely, pro-capitalist ideologies.

If they did those things anyway, there would be social penalties to pay; how severe those penalties would be would depend on how pissed off people were.

This has always been the case in human societies...we regard some ideas as "outrageous" and "intolerable" and we refuse to put up with them for a second.

The controversy arises when it comes to identifying just what those "intolerable ideas" really are.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[elijahcraig]

I&#39;ve learned to accept, however, that communists are by and large "disliked" (at this point in history)...telling people the painful truth about their illusions has a negative influence on one&#39;s "popularity".

Wow, such unrestrained arrogance. :lol: That&#39;s pathetic.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 12:29 PM
I think you are generalizing what I would regard as measures limited to specific situations.

In general, I think there would be more "freedom of advocacy" in a communist society than exists at present.

What people would not be "free" to publicly advocate would be specific ideas: racism, sexism, superstition (religion), and, most likely, pro-capitalist ideologies.

If they did those things anyway, there would be social penalties to pay; how severe those penalties would be would depend on how pissed off people were.

This has always been the case in human societies...we regard some ideas as "outrageous" and "intolerable" and we refuse to put up with them for a second.

The controversy arises when it comes to identifying just what those "intolerable ideas" really are.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
Of course if people were not allowed to advocate any ideas at all, related to politics etc, it would not be any worse then only banning specific types of advocacy. After all if someone thinks something you can not (at the moment at least) brainwash them to think something else. And while they hold a specific view most will try and convert others. Natural progresion of socital views. We think that it is bad that children are allowed to work for pitance (just one example) but 100-200 years ago they thought nothing of it.

Either you ban all or you ban none. The community can decide what is acceptable (they always have) if something is not acceptable the person giving those views will be a social outcast. It is up to you (not you specificly (these bits in brackets are not directed at you redstar2000)) to convince enough people to come around to your point of view.

[crazy comie]

i think religon should be a private mater in a socialist society. i am athiest

[redstar2000]

Autistic child murdered by faith-healers...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/3181637.stm

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif
___________________________

U.S. GET OUT OF IRAQ NOW&#33;
___________________________

"...a disgusting and frightening website"
The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[Sabocat]

I posted that as well in Politics. Another disgraceful display of witchdoctor religious brainwashing. They were trying to "exorcise" the autism out of him. Pathetic.

This news item alone should be reason enough to demonstrate that the "next" society shouldn&#39;t tolerate it.

[redstar2000]

People who experience a sense of spirituality in church may be reacting to the extreme bass sound produced by some organ pipes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/science/nature/3087674.stm

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[mEds]

religion and communism/communist thought to align togther. Jesus wheteher you think he was God or not was a communist.

[redstar2000]

Jesus...was a communist.

No, he was most certainly not. But since you obviously didn&#39;t bother reading at least a few of the pages of this enormous thread, why don&#39;t you tell us why you think he was a communist and then I&#39;ll tell you which pages you can find the answers to your arguments.

It&#39;s amazing to me that this nonsense comes up over and over again.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Here&#39;s a funny example of theological "logic"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3101198.stm

Now imagine this had never come to light...so you&#39;d have all these dummies thinking they were married, thinking they had confessed their sins and were forgiven, thinking their kids were baptized, etc. ... and they&#39;d all actually be going to Hell. :lol:

Some people will believe anything.

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[RyeN]

No... Religion, gives people hope and sometimes a reason to live but, that doesnt make it a good thing. The hope that religion gives is fales, and the morales they teach are hatred, bigatry and racism. How could an exclusive group of people with fanatic views on purity, and human existence could posibly be a good thing. Although Extra Terestial life is a very strong posibility. In fact it might be what brings this crazy world together. Instead of fighting between brothers and sisters, we could have a common goal. Hopefuly we wont need to fight anything but that is the nature of human kind.

[redstar2000]

Woo hoo&#33; A new gospel for teenage girls...

http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Pretty clever, eh?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas

[truthaddict11]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2003, 08:40 AM
Woo hoo&#33; A new gospel for teenage girls...

http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Pretty clever, eh?

http://www.sawu.org/redgreenleft/YaBBImages/smoking.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.sawu.org/redstar2000)
A site about communist ideas
lol I read about this awhile ago lol makeup "tips" from the "holy spirit"

[redstar2000]

An odd story about Mussolini, the Vatican, and Hitler...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/3144984.stm

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

The Vatican and the condom...

The Catholic Church has been accused of telling people in countries with high rates of HIV that condoms do not protect against the deadly virus.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/3176982.stm

Just what the sinners need...an early death and an express ticket to "Hell".

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

From the Anarchist News Service...

In my homeland The Netherlands and, perhaps, also in other countries Christian opinion makers show often concern when Christians, mainly of their own denominations, are persecuted or experience difficulties because of their religious practices or beliefs. Where they have power, for instance the Roman Catholics in Poland, their brothers and sisters in the faith harass, if not plainly persecute people holding views clashing with theirs or have them harassed/persecuted by the authorities.

A case in point is that of the installation shown in an art gallery in Gdansk for which the Roman Catholic political party League of Polish Families demanded and obtained punishment of the maker by a district judge.

In a recent issue of the www.poprostu.pl <http://www.poprostu.pl> newsletter I read about the case of the maker of an installation exhibited in an art gallery who sentenced to 6 months of restricted liberty and 20 hours of "socially useful work". The public prosecutor had asked for a fine of 2000 zlotys (500 euros).
The installation consisted of a film showing men doing exercises in a fitness room and an iron cross with arms of equal length and a picture of male genitals in the middle. No visitor had complained but when the exhibition was over and the installation had already been wrapped up for removal people of the League of Polish Families asked to unwrap the installation and subsequently lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor for offence of religious feelings.

This happened not in some backward countryside court but in Gdansk the birthplace of Lech Walensa&#39;s Solidarity.

The considerations of the judge: "In Poland a cross is associated with the martyr&#39;s death of Jesus Christ. A cross is a symbol of suffering because Christ died on it. The installation was called "Passion", a word associated with the martyrdom of Jesus Christ. Precisely this cross was insulted. In the centre of the cross, where usually Christ is placed, was a male member.". And to justify the heaviness of the punishment: "The defendant has caused a scandal. She has become more known".
-------------------------------

This is how the Christians behave when they have the upper hand.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[marial]

I believe in JesusChrist, but don&#39;t believe in any of those religions that just use people for their interests.
TxusKris was a revolutionary too and the religious killed Him just for fighting against their power over people.
Sorry if my English is not very good...

:unsure: <_<

[redstar2000]

I believe in JesusChrist

Well, stop it&#33;

Just Say No&#33; to Jesus. :D

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

I believe in JesusChrist, but don&#39;t believe in any of those religions that just use people for their interests.


Well said, "marial".
I too, believe in Jesus.
Just say no&#33; to soul-less atheists&#33;&#33;&#33; :P

Ah, you&#39;re all going to hell anyway...

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 02:40 AM

I believe in JesusChrist

Well, stop it&#33;

Just Say No&#33; to Jesus. :D

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
:D Redstar I think making a public service anouncement would be way more affective

[redstar2000]

Redstar I think making a public service announcement would be way more affective

Possibly true.

Or perhaps a special email program; entering the believer&#39;s email address would cause the program to generate "just say no to Jesus" messages to his email address several hundred times a day.

Call it devilspam.exe. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Nyder]

Considering socialism and communism is &#39;rule by the collective&#39;, and if you look at the official nationwide statistics of most countries, you will find that there is usually a predominant religious denomination.

THEREFORE, if the majority of people practice religion (like Christianity in the Western nations), how will Communism deter religion?

Won&#39;t religion flourish as with collective control with the majority of people being influenced by religion - logically we would have a much more religiously controlled society. <_<

[Misodoctakleidist]

Considering socialism and communism is &#39;rule by the collective

Communism is a classless society, it can equaly be democratic or totalitarian.


and if you look at the official nationwide statistics of most countries, you will find that there is usually a predominant religious denomination.

let&#39;s test this theory, in britain there a roughly 60,000,000 people, of these 60 million in 1990 6,764,441 of them were members of a christian religion or about 10% of the population and these were diveded into many denomination, mainly roman catholic, anglican, presbyterian and orthodox, who hate each other more than they hate atheists. If in britain christianiy is the "predominant religion" then the other religion are even weaker.


THEREFORE, if the majority of people practice religion (like Christianity in the Western nations)

Well, i&#39;ve already stated that the majority dont practice religion and even regardless of this you make the assumption that they practice the same religion when infact the biggest denomination in Britain in the roman catholic church with only 1,945,626 members (about 3% of the population).


how will Communism deter religion?

It&#39;s not so much the case that communism would deter religion but rather would remove the causes of religion. Religion is a reaction to alienation, in a communist society alienation would be eliminated and therefor the need for religion would disapear and with it religion.


Won&#39;t religion flourish as with collective control with the majority of people being influenced by religion - logically we would have a much more religiously controlled society.

ermmm...NO
Infact society would be less religiosly controlled as it would be a reflection of the population rather than of the more religeous upper class.

[Blackberry]

Read this letter to the editor to the bourgeois Herald Sun:

Christianity Besieged

Like so many other voices condemning permissiveness in society, Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney is a voice in the wilderness.

The increase in homosexual and lesbian relationships portrayed on the large screen and television are written, directed and produced by people to reflect their own lifestyles.

Christianitry all over the world is under siege by evil minorities. Christians are docile lambs.

Where is the spirit of Jesus, who drove the moneylenders and greedy merchants from the temple of Jerusalem?

=====

Emphasis added.

:lol:

[communist_comrade]

hey,

I think that you can be a commie and a religios person , i am not a really religios person i dint go to church every sunday but im still a christian..i believe in the ideals of that and it would be ridiculous for religion and communism to forbid/out rule each other ..if anything religion and communism pretty much go together ( well some religions at least) : in the practice of communism you help out your fellow man like che did in his factories..if i have missed the point then im sorry for waisting everyone&#39;s time :D oh and as for the alien/ufo/atlantis i dont think any of that stuff is real.....STUPID ALIENS...ILL FIGHT &#39;EM.

[redstar2000]

The god-suckers up to their old tricks again...


Speaking at Venezuela&#39;s national shrine dedicated to national patroness, Our Lady of Coromoto in Guanare (Portuguesa), former Vatican official and retired Cardinal Rosalio Castillo Lara has criticized the Venezuelan government, calling its political project "an anachronism and absurd."

...the Catholic Church in Venezuela wants to see an end to hatred and says Venezuela is "sick and wounded. "

"In the last couple of years, they have forcibly tried to impose through deceit and lies an out-of- date and absurd political project, which has brought ruin, destruction and slavery where force and tyranny reigns. ... hatred, lies and violence have been the natural sprout of the seed."

Furthermore, the prelate insists that poverty, unemployment, loss of moral and ethical values, increase of crime, violation of fundamental rights and the absence of institutions defending those rights are results of government policies, adding that the destruction of statues of the Virgin Mary allegedly by government supporters before Christmas is an example of a new kind of hatred unknown in Venezuela.

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=14459

If I&#39;m not mistaken, that "out-of-date", "absurd political project" is probably a reference to Cuba.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Regardless of what you think, any communist constitution would consist of these 2 laws.
1. No private ownership of land.
2. Separation of church and state.
Given these 2 statements, it is implied that the government cannot give any land to a religious organization, because that would be that state sponsering of religion, thus making it impossible to build any place of religious worship.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 12:02 AM
Regardless of what you think, any communist constitution would consist of these 2 laws.
1. No private ownership of land.
2. Separation of church and state.
Given these 2 statements, it is implied that the government cannot give any land to a religious organization, because that would be that state sponsering of religion, thus making it impossible to build any place of religious worship.
The state wouldn&#39;t need to sponser the organization. I don&#39;t see why it could not sponser itself thought the public, unless you see communism as some sort of police state. They can still be seperate and the government could still allot them land, there is more than enough land as long as it isn&#39;t hoarded. Unless you are being discriminatory toward organizations and oppressing religion, which I really don&#39;t think would work anyway. It&#39;s best to let the people chose and pass laws against the intrusive actions of organized religion. Communism is about the people, not rulers. If religion phases out, it will phase out. May people or regimes have tried to crush religion...they failed miserably, the populus is still mostly religious to an extent. These organizations have a well organized heirarchy and will use their great power as resistance. Just don&#39;t give them any valid reason to oppose the communist movement and appeal to the working class through methods that they will appricitate and understand, don&#39;t aleinate then, it&#39;s counterproductive. A lot of churches use socialist resistance toward organized religion as an excuss to oppress leftists and villify the movement. I just oppose the false images and concepts of god I see everyday, we must stand against dogmatic religious influances but not the working class people that hold them. I see church buildings as well made structures that are used for gatherings of people, they can still serve the people but organized religion should be phased out of them.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2003, 06:12 PM

Redstar I think making a public service announcement would be way more affective

Possibly true.

Or perhaps a special email program; entering the believer&#39;s email address would cause the program to generate "just say no to Jesus" messages to his email address several hundred times a day.

Call it devilspam.exe. :lol:

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
I would say organized religion has a 1up on you in the spam area. Though it would enfuriate those people and they would probably find a way to stop you but a good idea none the less, though I believe Jesus was a man that existed. He may even have done some of the good deeds writen of him. So I suggest writing "Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, Jesus is not a god, "

How is that for spam? Muhuhahaha&#33; devilspam.exe. (it could be a virus, devil inside your computer&#33;)

[Blackberry]

Bibebelievers.org.au say: "Franco...anything but a "Black" Nazi which Communist propaganda would have the public believe him to be."

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/pawns1.htm

[Reeno]

I might born into a religious family, i respect my family religion and people&#39;s religion.

I&#39;m a secularist.

[redstar2000]

I respect my family religion and people&#39;s religion.

Why would you want to do a thing like that?

Where do people get the idea that a con game "deserves" to be "respected"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Soviet power supreme]

Now I have a question for you believers.What religion should communists adopt?Now think carefully since you might end up in hell or incarnate as a piece a shit for your wrong answer.

[mia wallace]

(i&#39;m not really a believer nor a non-boliever.. i&#39;d say i&#39;m undecided)
communists should believe in what they like the most. i think there isn&#39;t a religion that&#39;s only for commies or cappies or so. the religion doesn&#39;t have anything to do with your political belief

[Soviet power supreme]

communists should believe in what they like the most.

That would be heretical.You would go to hell for your statement as you would break the christian commandment if you would keep some other mumbo jumbo god as your god.


communists should believe in what they like the most.

Right.So the communists should have ateism as their religion if you count ateism as a religion.


the religion doesn&#39;t have anything to do with your political belief

Well christianity for example tells that you shouldnt fight opressors back and only turn other cheek.So there would not be any revolution except some hippy utopia about non-violent revolution.

[mia wallace]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 18 2004, 10:47 PM

communists should believe in what they like the most.

That would be heretical.You would go to hell for your statement as you would break the christian commandment if you would keep some other mumbo jumbo god as your god.


communists should believe in what they like the most.

Right.So the communists should have ateism as their religion if you count ateism as a religion.


the religion doesn&#39;t have anything to do with your political belief

Well christianity for example tells that you shouldnt fight opressors back and only turn other cheek.So there would not be any revolution except some hippy utopia about non-violent revolution.
you can believe in god and still fight. i should be a christian. all my family is and it is expected of me also.
there are a lot of religious people in the world at the moment, but there are still wars. their religion do&#39;t stop them. after the revolution there should be no military and no wars cause there wouldn&#39;t be need for them, and since people&#39;d live in piece, why wouldn&#39;t they believe in god??

i used not to believe in god, but there were some things i experienced that made me confused and i&#39;m now not sure in what i believe...

there isn&#39;t any rule by witch people who are communists must or mustn&#39;t believe in god or some force or anything they like, it&#39;s up to them to decide.

[Postteen]

Christianity and communism have a common point:they both say that everything is for all.Christ said that we don&#39;t possess anything(because whatever exists on earth is God&#39;s)I think that real Christians and not those who go to church say "i believe in God" and "God will save me"could be communists.I belive in Christ&#39;s message(concerning love,peace"love your neighbour"etc)but i&#39;m convinced that there is no God.

[cubist]

christianity and communism show little similarity, jesus was a revolutionary i do not doubt but the christian relgion is corrupt and decietful, communism would be silly to adopt any religion, using religion to gain political affluence wrong.


i did ask a similar question as cappies utilise christianity and islam very well but i personally feel relgion is for personal comfort only and should not be promoted by government or leadership in any national ideal.

[SittingBull47]

In a way, yes. I know many a close-minded religion that encourages segregation and discrimination of certain peoples. (Mennonite, Amish, etc.)

[mia wallace]

that&#39;s all great, but you guyz must admit that most of religions became close-minded during the centuries, at first none of them was like that.
for example, christ never said you must go to church every sunday or your not religious - no, he said you should remember to celebrate lords day (this would be a translation from croatian, i don&#39;t know the exact phrase in english, but you get the picture), and, in my opinion, this has a quite different meaning. i mean, you can celebrate it if you pray before lunch or something, you don&#39;t have to spend hours and hours in church.
this isn&#39;t much of exsample, but it&#39;s the first thing i thinked of.
i don&#39;t like what christianity is today, but still think it&#39;sw first idea wasn&#39;t that bad.

[orangemonkey]

I&#39;m sorry if this has already been said but i got bored reading through all the thread

It has been suggested that the teachings of Jesus are moderately socialist in nature. As they teach a love of your neighbour and benevolence to the poor (working class not existing t time u have to bend it a bit). The teaching of the beggar woman in the temple who only puts in a few pennies but has given as much as she can afford can be tied in with variable taxation. Also the teaching of sharing ur posessions "if u have two shirts but ur neighbour has none then u must give one to him" is clearly redistribution of wealth.
Finally there is a lesson for early christians about giving all posessions to the church for communal ownership which to me seems pretty damned communist. So the bible does support communism which allows christianity and communism to be consolable if we are talking communism with no dictatorship or state sponsored murders...so the bollock communism that has existed so far is not possible to go hand in hand with true christianity.

However revolution is not as it is suggested in one of Paul&#39;s letters (no idea which one) that governments are put in place by god and jesus advises benevolence towards authority figures (the whole "extra mile" thing")


So if u can bring about communism through the accepted democratic process with no oppression then u can tie it in with at least one religion



That do ya?
(by the way i&#39;m not a christian)

[redstar2000]

That do ya?

No.

The biggest problem of the "Jesus was a communist" hypothesis is that no where does he specifically say so.

It would have been easy for him to do so had he been able to think in those terms; for example "always share with one another even as I have shared with you".

Thus the defenders of the hypothesis have to "tease out" the "egalitarian implications" of what he did say.

This is anachronistic...reading back into someone&#39;s views the ideas of the present -- ideas they could not possibly have had in those times.

It would be rather like arguing that "Jesus" was a "feminist" because he was nice to women. The idea of female equality was literally unimaginable to a first century country preacher from northern Palestine.

So was communism.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[orangemonkey]

never said jesus was actually a communist....just pointing out that his teachings are of a socialist nature
which allows them and communism to go side by side

[Soviet power supreme]

Christianity and communism have a common point:they both say that everything is for all.Christ said that we don&#39;t possess anything(because whatever exists on earth is God&#39;s)I think that real Christians and not those who go to church say "i believe in God" and "God will save me"could be communists.I belive in Christ&#39;s message(concerning love,peace"love your neighbour"etc)but i&#39;m convinced that there is no God.



You are wrong and why is that everbody mix the christianity and religion?


i mean, you can celebrate it if you pray before lunch or something, you don&#39;t have to spend hours and hours in church.
this isn&#39;t much of exsample, but it&#39;s the first thing i thinked of.
i don&#39;t like what christianity is today, but still think it&#39;sw first idea wasn&#39;t that bad.

That is too much.If I were warden of mental hospitality, I would lock these weirdos praying for nothing or dancing and babbling some bullshit.Crazy people are locked because of this kind of activity but when they it is ritual, it is suddenly normal behaviour.


never said jesus was actually a communist....just pointing out that his teachings are of a socialist nature
which allows them and communism to go side by side

Bullshit.
Christ said not to stand against the opressors.He said that what belongs to cappie, you mustn&#39;t get it from him.Not the excact words but you get the point.

[iloveatomickitten]

"The biggest problem of the "Jesus was a communist" hypothesis is that no where does he specifically say so" :lol:

Religion will simply adapt itself to something that is acceptable in communism. It will not remain a capitalist institution as it is not longer feudalistic.

[redstar2000]

Religion will simply adapt itself to something that is acceptable in communism. It will not remain a capitalist institution as it is no longer feudalistic.

Well, they&#39;ll try...that&#39;s for sure&#33;

The question is, will we let them get away with that shit? :angry:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Neelie The Great]

I just think they don&#39;t mix

[leftwinghistorynut]

I think that in a true socialist state, it dosnt matter what religon you follow. Just as long as it dosnt get in the way of your polictal thinking. the idea of seperation between church and state is the smartest thing ever thought of. But yes back to the orignal idea, i dont know how to answer the rest of the questions. I am newbie in the socialist ideas ( i mean i just finished reading the Communist Manifesto). So this is just my opinon

[Raisa]

I believe in aliens. why not?
I believe in god. why not. you dont know there is aliens or god, but you dont know that there is not.
But for goodness sake I hope the both of them stay where they are for now&#33;

Religon and god is two different things&#33;
But the important question at hand, is why do we need to have religon? Think about the demands for it. It comes from opression. people hoping for justice and peace after a life of slavery, and of hoplessness.
I do not believe in taking away religon from the people.
If you want to screw the revolution up then go right ahead and do it. But my belief is:
The more people can place faith in oursleves, the less faith we will place in fate.
We are capable of being gods of this planet&#33; The job of the communists ultimately should be to show people that they are great. To make a basis for haveing faith in ourselves. Communists believe humans are great, but the general masses have to see it to believe it. I believe in taking the political power out of religon, but i oppose prohibiting it.

[leftist manson]

shoot
itried to open redstar bro&#39;s threads but they didn&#39;t open
now what
bullshit
helllllppppppppppp

[redstar2000]

Yes, I can see where you&#39;d have a problem; those are the old urls from the old version of Che-Lives.

One way to solve the problem is to do a search under the word "religion" in each forum. :o :o :o

Much easier would be to check out these collections from my site:

Communists and Religion Part 1 May 17, 2003 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1053102811&archive=1054467213&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communists and Religion Part 2 June 16, 2003 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1055691778&archive=1057041165&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communists and Religion Part 3 August 9, 2003 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1060354889&archive=1062413506&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communists and Religion Part 4 September 7, 2003 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1062867055&archive=1067850372&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communists and Religion Part 5 October 12, 2003 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1065967132&archive=1067850372&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communists and Religion Part 6 November 21, 2003 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1069381085&archive=1070511748&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communists and Religion Part 7 February 9, 2004 (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/monthlytheoryarchives.php?subaction=showfull&id=1076278767&archive=1078200323&cnshow=archive&start_from=&ucat=&)

There is also a Part 8 which hasn&#39;t yet been archived and a Part 9 which hasn&#39;t yet been added to the site.

Religion is, at present, a bottomless pit of shit.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Revolt!]

Religion is not needed in our Communist vision. It slows us down and keeps the working class down.

We should tolerate it alone.

[Forward Union]

I believe communism and religion are not compatible, but in a communist state i believe people can worship what they want so long as it doesn&#39;t interfere with the communities advancements. The politics don&#39;t have to be tied in with religion.

[Maomorethanever726]

Religion is a neutral thing. It could be harmful to the revolution or it could help it. It should be opposed in the places where it hurts and supported where it helps. We must remember that for people who belive in a particular religion or god often hold that belife very strongly and hold it as more important than anything else since to them it represents eternity. So in some case a revolutionary group speaking out against religion can really hurt their cause in a deeply religious area. As revolutionarys we must learn how to harness the power of religion and learn to make appeals to religious morality and such to gain support for our cause.
I consider myself an Atheist/Taoist and constantly read the Bible, Koran, and eastern text. I find that my studys and beleifs help with my revolutionary beleifs. But I am also very sceptical and make sure to look at things from a dialectic materialist point of veiw.

[redstar2000]

Religion is a neutral thing. It could be harmful to the revolution or it could help it.

Wrong on both counts. It is always an enemy of real revolutionaries and always does whatever it can to harm the revolution.


As revolutionaries, we must learn how to harness the power of religion and learn to make appeals to religious morality and such to gain support for our cause.

A ludicrous notion. You may just as well speak of "harnessing the power of racism".

Religious "morality" is disgustingly anti-human.

And using religion to "gain support" is fundamentally dishonest...a practice that always ends by blowing up in our faces.

Honesty is one of our most important strengths...to act dishonestly is to give up that strength for nothing.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Conghaileach]

Like Marx said, religion is an opium. It gives a kind of hope to the exploited. I think it interesting that Latin America (where Liberation Theology first sprouted), sub-Saharan Africa and Ireland (the only western European country to have been colonised by an imperial power) are all strongly Catholic regions. In each area, however, the Church has always supported the imperialists against the anti-imperialists. There were indiviudal priests who stood with the people against their oppressors, but for the most part they were few and far between.

As that famous saying goes, "When you came, we had the land and you had the Bible. Now, you have the land and we have the Bible."

The issue at hand, as far as I&#39;m concerned, is not religion itself bit with the various Churches and the stranglehold they exhibit over their followers. In South Africa for instance, a country rife with AIDS, the Catholic Church has decreed that Catholics cannot use condoms because they&#39;re "sinful" and "immoral" and whatever else. In Ireland (and probably in otehr countries as well) churches don&#39;t have to pay any kind of rent on the land that they take, while in surrounding areas the prices skyrocket until the working class can&#39;t pay them anymore.

I believe that religion should be a private matter with no interference from the state. Anyone who actively tries to supress a religion will have their efforts blow back in their faces - the attempts of the British to do so here in Ireland have proved that point time and again. It&#39;s the reactionary role of the Church that should be fought.

[Timon of Athens]

To each according to his need, from each according to his ability. If you subscribe to this, you must accept that for some, it is their spiritual need to embrace God, whether or not you do yourself. To forcibly abolish a religion because of your own ideals is a petty fachism under the guise of socialism.

[redstar2000]

Anyone who actively tries to suppress a religion will have their efforts blow back in their faces - the attempts of the British to do so here in Ireland have proved that point time and again. It&#39;s the reactionary role of the Church that should be fought.

The reason that British efforts to suppress Catholicism failed in Ireland is because it was part of an effort to suppress and dispossess the Irish peasantry altogether.

The Church very successfully responded with an appeal based on Irish nationalism: "The Brits may take your land, but they can&#39;t take your god...and your god will help you get your land back." Or even more crudely, "to be Irish is to be Catholic."

Same thing in Poland, by the way: the line of the Catholic hierarchy there was "to be Polish is to be Catholic."

These are considerations that will not apply in post-capitalist society in the "west"...appeals to vulgar nationalism will likely be considered as disgusting as appeals to religion itself.

Further, I know of no way to "separate out" the reactionary role of the church from the church itself. Are we to "sack" the entire hierarchy and appoint a "revolutionary priesthood" ourselves?

What a mess that would be.


To each according to his need, from each according to his ability. If you subscribe to this, you must accept that for some, it is their spiritual need to embrace God, whether or not you do yourself.

In other words, those who were brainwashed with superstition as children must now be catered to...given a "space" in which to wallow in self-degradation.

Very well, their allocated "space" for that sort of thing is the space in which they live.

The public space is denied them.


To forcibly abolish a religion because of your own ideals is a petty fascism under the guise of socialism.

I would recommend that you learn the meaning of the word "fascism" before you just start tossing it around at anything you happen to dislike.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[OverthrowtheGovt16]

I am a hardcore atheist and I do believe that communism and religion exclude each other. I do support religious freedom, but I oppose religion in all it&#39;s forms. Marx once said something like this :hammer: "Religion is the opium of the people, it keeps them suffering hoping for a heaven after their miserable life, only to keep them from realizing heaven on earth." :hammer:

[Timon of Athens]

Redstar has often alleged that I simply call whatever I disagree with fascist, and that I should learn what fascism means. I intend to support my statements. I credit this quote to Comrade James who posted it to another thread. Let’s look at it piece by piece shall we?


In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life,
Redstar has advocated that policy on a number of occasion, once replying to something along the lines of ‘It’s a free world for religious beliefs’ with ‘Not for much longer’.

but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. ...For the Fascist, everything is within the State and ... neither individuals or groups are outside the State. ...For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative."
In Redstar’s philosophy, there appears to be no room for groups or individuals at all.


...

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini&#39;s, that exalts nation and often race above the individual,
Granted, he doesn’t exalt race over the individual, but we have seen that under his philosophy the ‘individual’ as a part of the state doesn’t exist at all, so the state is obviously exalted above the individual.

and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition,
Redstar supported Comrade Raf when the latter suggested that the communist party would hunt down and publically execute clergymen and ‘fanatical believers’. So maybe we should add &#39;genocide&#39; to the quote.

engages in severe economic and social regimentation,
for this I’ve borrowed a definition from Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.reference.com) To clarify my meaning: (see definition 3)

tr.v. reg·i·ment·ed, reg·i·ment·ing, reg·i·ments
1. To form into a regiment.
2. To put into systematic order; systematize.
3. To subject to uniformity and rigid order.


and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism):

Again I’ve borrowed a definition from Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com)

na·tion·al·ize
tr.v. na·tion·al·ized, na·tion·al·iz·ing, na·tion·al·iz·es
1. To convert from private to governmental ownership and control

I’d like to see Redstar dipute this one

So we see that the only ideal of fascism that redstar has not advocated at some point or another is racism, and that is more than compensated for in his hatred of all religions and religious peoples.

[redstar2000]

I am glad to see that you have learned something about fascism.

Now, here&#39;s a brief introduction to what I support...communism.

What is Communism? A Brief Definition (June 19, 2003) (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

See the difference?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Redstar supported Comrade Raf when the latter suggested that the communist party would hunt down and publically execute clergymen and ‘fanatical believers’. So maybe we should add &#39;genocide&#39; to the quote.

Okay son, if you are going to play the game, at least learn how to play it properly.

Here is my original quote;


If you silly kids think RS is intolerant, wait until you get a load of me. I will not stop until ALL members of the clergy, right down to the "flock" they "lead" are publically executed for their crimes.



Here is RS&#39;s reply to my quote;


Listen up, godsuckers&#33; If you think I&#39;m a "mean old Stalinist", wait until you run into the real thing&#33;



Obviously this kid is attempting to somehow discredit RS by, in this case, blatently LYING in another thread. Typical nonsense from a reactionary "believer".

You can label me whatever you like son, whether it be a "fascist" (note the spelling) or even a "genocidal maniac". I personally don&#39;t care. We are not here to cater to the childish fantasies of those that lack the necessary intellect required to expose mythology and superstition for what it is; we are here to change the world.

Some of us take that very seriously. Seriously to have no problem creating the appropriate conditions necessary to make sure the next generation will not be exposed to your pedomorphic superstitions. It&#39;s a tough job dear but someone will have to do it.

Let me guess, you&#39;re a huge fan of "Crossing Over" right? :lol:

[emmissary]

I can not speak for anyone else but for myself I have aneed to belive in a supernatural being. Religion itself is another topic since I dont believe inn in just one. I just feel that time had a beginning, and in the beginning there was God (or Allah, or Buddha or whatever.). At the same time I am a communist. I believe that change is neccessary and communism is the way to go. I believe in the Bible. I belive in Jesus. I belive Jesus would have been a communist.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I believe that change is neccessary and communism is the way to go. I believe in the Bible. I belive in Jesus. I belive Jesus would have been a communist.

You may be a lot of things, but a communist you are not.

[mEds]

Emissary is 90% correct and that God always existed. Creation of the universe could not have just started without some kind of force or power aka God/god/creator. Science says well, you can&#39;t create something from nothing. Well, than how did atoms and particle start? There HAD to be some kind of force- which we can call God or whatever. Now, when religion ties things to God that&#39;s where I can see a point between some religious people not mixing well into communism. BIG difference. Also, I&#39;ve realized discussing God on these forums is quite pointless because it never get&#39;s anywhere.

Now the bible on the otherhand, while some of the stuff may be correct a significant part/ a lot isn&#39;t.

[Timon of Athens]

On redstar&#39;s note: I can&#39;t go any further with this until you expand on this quote,


Religion, if it survives at all, will be in the nature of a hobby, without the power to influence people&#39;s lives in any significant way.


I have two questions concerning this.
1. &#39;influence peoples lives..&#39; Is this just their lives in a political sense?
2. Would religious people be allowed to gather in the same way they do now?
3. If I am to understand the quote, you would take no active part in the destruction of religion?


Listen up, godsuckers&#33; If you think I&#39;m a "mean old Stalinist", wait until you run into the real thing&#33;


Raf has me here. Okay, so substitute &#39;Comrade Raf&#39; for &#39;redstar&#39; in that particular area. Satisfied?

[emmissary]

COMRADE RAF, your opinion is your own and I will not try to change that. but tosay I am not a communist is wrong. Me beliefs are my own and will never come between my revolutionary actions. I will never try to impose my beliefs on you our anyone else. That change is neccessary is a fact. That I am a communist as well. Did Jesus care for material wealth. No. Did he also say, "Give to Caesar what is of Caesars". Yes.

[redstar2000]

I have two questions concerning this.
1. &#39;influence peoples lives..&#39; Is this just their lives in a political sense?
2. Would religious people be allowed to gather in the same way they do now?
3. If I am to understand the quote, you would take no active part in the destruction of religion?

Even counting to three is an intellectual challenge for the faithful.

1. "any significant way" means what it says.

2. I have no objection to religious people gathering to collectively reinforce their individual delusions, but they must do so privately and not disturb their neighbors.

3. My activity would confine itself to ending the public presence of religion and the religious indoctrination of children. But believers who do not make a nuisance of themselves would be left alone.

For all its many advantages, communism cannot eliminate human folly.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Timon of Athens]

Even counting to three is an intellectual challenge for the faithful.

Ouch. No actually, it&#39;s the typing part...

Though I may have problems with some of your beliefs, I totally agree with what you&#39;re saying here. Religion cannot and should not interfere with anything outside of religion.
I have another couple (this time really two) questions though:
1. If the parents cannot make their child religious, can the child choose to adopt a religion?
2. Doesn&#39;t what you&#39;ve said here contradict some of what you&#39;ve said in other threads, and indeed, other parts of the Redstar Papers? And (this is the second part of the same question) aren&#39;t you sort of alienating Raf? :lol:

[redstar2000]

1. If the parents cannot make their child religious, can the child choose to adopt a religion?

What is "child" in this context?

I suppose it cannot be denied that if kids can have sex when they reach puberty, there&#39;s no objective reason why they couldn&#39;t join some private community of believers...or at least "take instruction" in the faith.

Why they would wish to do this, having had no exposure to the whole concept of religion throughout their childhood, would be a puzzle.

I don&#39;t think it would happen very often.


2. Doesn&#39;t what you&#39;ve said here contradict some of what you&#39;ve said in other threads, and indeed, other parts of the Redstar Papers? And (this is the second part of the same question) aren&#39;t you sort of alienating Raf?

There are almost certainly contradictions between what I wrote a year or two ago and what I may write now...contrary to the views of some, my ideology is always "a work in progress".

But I&#39;m not aware of any gross discrepancies in the views I&#39;ve expressed here and those in the voluminous "Communists and Religion" collections.

As to "alienating Comrade RAF", we do have many substantial disagreements. He is a Leninist and I am not.

But on the issue of religion, we are in substantive agreement: it is always reactionary.

If you hang around lefties for a while, you will discover that "alliances" change depending on the issue. You may argue heatedly with someone over one question only to turn around and unite with that person over another issue.

That&#39;s probably why we don&#39;t take personal attacks too seriously, whether we&#39;re on the giving or the receiving end. Today&#39;s "sectarian idiot" or "reformist moron" may turn out tomorrow to be "a good comrade in the struggle".

It&#39;s been known to happen.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 04:59 AM
COMRADE RAF, your opinion is your own and I will not try to change that. but tosay I am not a communist is wrong. Me beliefs are my own and will never come between my revolutionary actions. I will never try to impose my beliefs on you our anyone else. That change is neccessary is a fact. That I am a communist as well. Did Jesus care for material wealth. No. Did he also say, "Give to Caesar what is of Caesars". Yes.




I certainly don&#39;t care if you change your opinions or not. you do however have to realise that you are not a communist, and will never be a communist so long as you remain a "believer". To be honest, we really do not want you.


. My activity would confine itself to ending the public presence of religion and the religious indoctrination of children. But believers who do not make a nuisance of themselves would be left alone

No worries RS, we will take care of the rest of the remaining believers.

[apathy maybe]

RAF you may well not want him; but I think that anybody that recognises that all humans are equal (even if some are better then others at different areas) and thus should have equal rights ("Equal Rites" is a great book for those of you who like fantasy), should be welcome in any leftist community. Even if you don&#39;t like religion, some religious communes paved the way for the more &#39;classical&#39; commune. Plus, if religion doesn&#39;t effect anything outside that religion, it isn&#39;t affecting a person&#39;s politics therefore it should be allowed.

[Vinny Rafarino]

RAF you may well not want him; but I think that anybody that recognises that all humans are equal (even if some are better then others at different areas) and thus should have equal rights

It is my experience in the practical world that religious people NEVER recognise that ALL people are equal; They believe that only those that "believe" are equal, the rest are going to hell.

I will never fall for their excuses and am actually shcocked that you have.


Even if you don&#39;t like religion, some religious communes paved the way for the more &#39;classical&#39; commune

What exactly do you mean by "classical communes"? As far as I know, religion has never created any society that even resembled communism, nor will it ever do so in the future.


Plus, if religion doesn&#39;t effect anything outside that religion, it isn&#39;t affecting a person&#39;s politics therefore it should be allowed

I agree but unfortunately history has proven that religion will ALWAYS attempt to "interfere" with politics and will also attempt to "expand".

I will say it again, communism is TOO IMPORTANT to be left to the whims of those that "promise" to "be good" but have never shown any evidence of ever intending to keep to that promise.

Quite the contrary actually, religious whackos have always been very honest and forthright about their intentions of gobal domination.

They have had several thousand years to crap all they want and now it&#39;s time to flush the toilet.

[apathy maybe]

The classic communes that I am thinking of include the Paris Commune of 1870-71. The communes which are run on secular grounds and include people who are communists or anarchists.

As to "As far as I know, religion has never created any society that even resembled communism, nor will it ever do so in the future. "
Have you heard of the Diggers? or the Levelers? These are an example of religous people pushing for what might be termed a variety of communism. Admitidly many of these people did still believe that men were superior to women this was the accepted view at the time. There were also a number of relgious communes set up in both Australia and the US, which admitidly did either disintigrate after the founder died or the founder was a fraud (which has nothing to do with religion as such, he (always a male as far as I know) just used it as a tool).

[Timon of Athens]

No worries RS, we will take care of the rest of the remaining believers.

Okay, I still have a practical problem with this. Are you:
a.) saying you are going to kill all believers?
b.) aware that the religious world constitutes an immense majority of the world&#39;s population?

If you ask me, RAF&#39;s plan is fundamentally flawed.

[redstar2000]

...if religion doesn&#39;t effect anything outside that religion, it isn&#39;t affecting a person&#39;s politics; therefore, it should be allowed.

That&#39;s self-contradictory.

That is, if people claim to be "communists" for "religious reasons", then it is "affecting their politics".

But what&#39;s really wrong with putting it this way is that it assumes that people&#39;s minds consist of "air-tight compartments"; over here we have the "politics compartment" and over there is the "religion compartment" and these compartments "never communicate with each other".

You know that cannot possibly be true. A superstitious "world-view" will affect everything a person thinks, says, does.

And the effects will be, as I think you also know, reactionary.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

Okay, I still have a practical problem with this. Are you:
a.) saying you are going to kill all believers?
b.) aware that the religious world constitutes an immense majority of the world&#39;s population?



a.) perhaps you should review this entire thread, I believe I have been quite clear. Several times.

b.) Yes, I am aware that the "religious world" constitutes an "immense majority" of of the world&#39;s population and is decreasing every day.



If you ask me, RAF&#39;s plan is fundamentally flawed.


Of course it is, to you.





The classic communes that I am thinking of include the Paris Commune of 1870-71. The communes which are run on secular grounds and include people who are communists or anarchists.


Are you saying that the Paris Commune was modeled after a religious sect? :lol:

You have yet to explain how religion "paved the way" for the Paris Commune.

The reality of the situation is that religion in the Paris Commune was actively attacked, and had no relation at all to the commune.

I present to you a portion of the writing of Engels;

On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary received by any employee of the Commune, and therefore also by its members themselves, might not exceed 6,000 francs. On the following day the Commune decreed the separation of the Church from the State, and the abolition of all state payments for religious purposes as well as the transformation of all Church property into national property; as a result of which, on April 8, a decree excluding from the schools all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers — in a word, "all that belongs to the sphere of the individual&#39;s conscience" — was ordered to be excluded from the schools, and this decree was gradually applied



Have you heard of the Diggers? or the Levelers? These are an example of religous people pushing for what might be termed a variety of communism.

Their movements certainly were a variety of something but communist they most certainly were not.

Calling something a "commune" does not make it in any way related to what Marx and Engels call communism.

[apathy maybe]

When I said "paved the way", I meant that the ideas of communual living were tried. I did not mean that there was a direct link between the two. The ideas I&#39;m think of are, equality, democracy and all working together.

And yes I agree that calling something a commune does not make it automaticly communism. However, democracy (rule by the people, rather then what we have now) and equality are two very important parts of communism and these were shown by these religious communities. You did state that "As far as I know, religion has never created any society that even resembled communism, nor will it ever do so in the future. " I was just pointing out examples were religion did create a society that resembled communism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I was just pointing out examples were religion did create a society that resembled communism.


And I am merely pointing out that religion has never created, or even been remotely responsible for creating, a society where "democracy" "equality" and "teamwork" are the framework of the governmental body.

I fail to see how either of your examples follow this model. I will go ahead and make a couple comments so we can bury this topic;

The Levellers supported both the state and privitisation of land ownership. As far as I know, that&#39;s exactly what we don&#39;t want.

As far as the Diggers are concerned, I would suspect that Gerrard Winstanley was more closely knit with Jim Jones rather than Karl Marx.

I&#39;m still confused how you could ever consider either of these two movements as models of "classical" communism; communal yes, communism no.

[cubist]

timon, of athens

the religious world may indeed conclude an large amount of the global population but so does china,

all religions contradict eachother and will be happy to rid the others out,

a question is that in perfect communism will people need a god, could it be that animals don&#39;t concieve god, because they don&#39;t need to rather than they can&#39;t

[Sideshow Luke Perry]

The Diggers, from what little I know about them, had a pretty good grasp on things, and could be called socialists of a sort. But they still had the problem of having God in there somewhere. As I was arguing with someone the other day, any belief in God takes the pressure of us to sort our own problems out- "pray to the big man, he&#39;ll sort it out". No thanks.

[Conghaileach]

I love this song. The Diggers were legends.


The World Turned Upside-Down

In 1649 to St. George&#39;s Hill
A ragged band they called the Diggers came to show the people&#39;s will
They defied the landlords, they defied the laws
They were the dispossessed reclaiming what was theirs

We come in peace, they said, to dig and sow
We come to work the lands in common and make the waste ground grow
This earth divided we will make whole
So it may be a common treasury for all

The sin of property we do disdain
No man has any right to buy or sell the earth for private gain
By theft and murder they took the land
Now everywhere the walls spring up at their command

They make the laws to chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven, or they damn us into hell
We will not worship the God they serve,
a God of greed who feeds the rich while poor folk starve

We work and eat together, we need no swords
We will not bow to masters, nor pay rent to the lords
Still we are free, though we are poor
Ye Diggers all, stand up for glory, stand up now&#33;

From the men of property the orders came
They sent the hired men and troopers to wipe out the Diggers&#39; claim
Tear down their cottages, destroy their corn
They were dispersed - only the vision lingers on

Ye poor take courage, ye rich take care
This earth was made a common treasury for everyone to share
All things in common, all people one
They came in peace - the order came to cut them down


Words and music © Leon Rosselson, 1975
(Lyrics based on a pamphlet attributed to the Digger leader Gerrard Winstanley)

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 10:49 PM
The reason that British efforts to suppress Catholicism failed in Ireland is because it was part of an effort to suppress and dispossess the Irish peasantry altogether.

The Church very successfully responded with an appeal based on Irish nationalism: "The Brits may take your land, but they can&#39;t take your god...and your god will help you get your land back." Or even more crudely, "to be Irish is to be Catholic."
That is true. It shows the lengths a Church will be willing to go to to protect its own interests. Consider as well which side the Catholic Church aligned itself with in the Spanish Civil War. It certainly wasn&#39;t the Republicans.



Further, I know of no way to "separate out" the reactionary role of the church from the church itself. Are we to "sack" the entire hierarchy and appoint a "revolutionary priesthood" ourselves?
I meant that we should fight the Church, and its role in society, as opposed to religion itself. Marx saw religious faith for the false consciousness it creates, something that I seriously doubt we can just get rid of while capitalism remains in existence.

People believe in whatever deity they believe in, many because they&#39;re taught they&#39;ll go to Hell if they don&#39;t - making people into a God-fearing flock seems to still be the only way to keep them tied to their church. There are also those who genuinely believe in some higher power.

It&#39;s impossible to have a mature, logical argument with a religious person over the very ideology of religion, because it is not logical at all. It is based more on superstition that on science. Ask a person to prove that their god exists, and they&#39;ll answer with &#39;faith&#39; - though there are some who might go on about how everything is a miracle created by their god, again without any evidence. But a logical argument will not shake their beliefs.

This is why I say it&#39;s better to fight the Church rather than the religion. If Marx was correct in asserting that religion is an opiate, then with the destruction of capitalism and the creation of a better form of society will you see people leaving religion behind.

If you try to crush religion, you will only make it stronger. If you try to discuss religion maturely, you&#39;ll end up wanting to bash your head off a rock. There is no other way to fight it.

[Postteen]

Originally posted by Revolt&#33;@Apr 14 2004, 07:24 PM
Religion is not needed in our Communist vision. It slows us down and keeps the working class down.

We should tolerate it alone.
Aha,and it distracts people from their everyday life.So i think that communism and religion do exclude each other,as Marx said

[elijahcraig]

I don&#39;t think distraction from everyday life is an argument against religion--sex, drugs, music, art, and many other things "distract" you from everyday life. Should they be banned as well?

[Postteen]

I don&#39;t think distraction from everyday life is an argument against religion--sex, drugs, music, art, and many other things "distract" you from everyday life. Should they be banned as well?

I think sex,music,art and many other things(i don&#39;t know for drugs) are a part of our everyday life.

Religion is a symptom of people&#39;s alienation from society. People are unhappy with all the misery and suffering of an unjust world. Religion encourages them to accept their lot by promising that those who are good will find happiness in the next life. Marx asserts that we do not have to wait for the afterlife to live in an ideal world. We can create one right here on earth. Atheism is considered not only to be true, but also to be a value because it frees people from the belief that they can do nothing to improve the world. It encourages people to take action rather than to passively accept their lot in life.( as i have said in another thread)

[worst-opinion-ever]

religion is just used to trick the idiots who are oppressed but also capitalist

[Danton]

Communism and Religion - Do they exclude each other?

No, they are one and the same thing.

[refuse_resist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 03:16 PM
Communism and Religion - Do they exclude each other?

No, they are one and the same thing.
How so?

[V.I.Lenin]

Communism and organized religion cannot co-exist,at least not in the heart of either a Communist or a religionist in that one will always prefer the one over the other,in this regard Communism is religion in that one is ultimately what they believe themself to be.

This is Hindu&#39;s take on Hinduism and the criteria of what constitutes one being a Hindu,simply this says the Hindu creed, &#39;One who believes themself to be Hindu is Hindu&#39;.

By this line of reasoning it should be quite clear that for those of us who accept the Communist creed then by this we are Communists,its our creed - our religion&#33;

[Danton]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 04:15 AM
How so?
Communism has evolved from a psuedo-science into a psuedo religion. It&#39;s primary function is control. Marx, Engels and others are venerated by it&#39;s followers almost like Gods or at least Saints - their words are considered "Gospel". The manifesto has become somekind of "holy book". The absurd personality cults of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro etc.. The rigid moral code, the intellectual hierachies, the murder and destruction carried out in it&#39;s name.

[Danton]

dOUBLICIOUS

[V.I.Lenin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 05:20 AM
Communism has evolved from a psuedo-science into a psuedo religion. It&#39;s primary function is control. Marx, Engels and others are venerated by it&#39;s followers almost like Gods or at least Saints - their words are considered "Gospel". The manifesto has become somekind of "holy book". The absurd personality cults of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro etc.. The rigid moral code, the intellectual hierachies, the murder and destruction carried out in it&#39;s name. The mindless, unquestioning followers, the tired symbolism the comparisons go on..
Though my posts appear at this site under such a pseudonym as what I chose this should not be taken as indication that I embrace Leninism whole-heartedly nor that I wish to reverence Comrade Lenin above all other men.

What I admire most is the purest expression of mind (intellect),whether this come by means of the classical works of Beethoven,the beauty and symetry of da Vinci or the theoretical ponderings of men such as Marx and Lenin.

It is largely for this cause that I despise Stalism all the more,because of his efforts to create a cult of personality by which to perpetuate his own petty bourgeois empire under the guiese of socialism while at the same time undermining the basic tenets of Marx and Lenin.

While I will unhesitantly admit that Communism,in the deepest aspects of mass psychology,is forged under the same premise as religion,though with a completely different emphasis,still,Communism can be seen as a religion without saints.

Moreover,it was,as I earlier touched upon,none other than Stalin which took it upon himself to institute the nonsensical idea of a personality cult,a phenomenon which Comrade Lenin personally abhorred.

[leftist resistance]

I think both does not exclude each other.

Religion teaches mankind to be good,etc.

Communism to strive for equality,etc.

Personally,i find both overlap each other.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 08:32 PM
I think both does not exclude each other.

Religion teaches mankind to be good,etc.

Communism to strive for equality,etc.

Personally,i find both overlap each other.
Thats not religions primary goal. Its goal is to ready people for the afterlife and to accept god. Being good is just one of qualifications of heaven.

Communism works on people contributed for the good of society, believing there is no after life a society is created for the good of all people without oppression.

The fundemental&#39;s that make communism are materialism and disprove and idealist religion philosophy.

Personally you may find they dont over lap but so many times objectivly they do overlap.

[FARAcmsr]

i do beleive that religion has contradictions with socialism, but the peoples faith is strong. the question that sticks in my mind is this:


If socialism takes religion away, wont the people become weary and angry? the masses arent sheep and they will not give up faith in whatever church or faith they belong to.


i am not saying that religion will be taken away, because i believe religion and communism have much in common (what with equality), but some of my friends say religion should be dismantled.


i just need an answer

thatnx if u can help

[redstar2000]

In Europe today, probably 80% or 90% of the people have already given up religion...which is why I expect revolution to break out there first.

When the time comes to "dismantle religion", most of it will be already gone.

It will be less like a "crusade" and more like "cleaning up a toxic waste dump".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[FARAcmsr]

thanx

[trex]

Earlier on this thread, near the bottom of the first page, someone was mentioning how Catholics have taken up arms for communism. I can completely understand how religion will accept communsim.

If you had the choice between a military junta/single man dictatorship/government that burned your books, jailed your writers, and murdered religious leaders, or communism, which would you choose?

Equality, tolerance, the social good, mabye even charity? As long as the communism isn&#39;t Stalinistic or militant aethiestic(as many, including myself, has been told communism is), I suppose the two can work together.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by trex
Earlier on this thread, near the bottom of the first page, someone was mentioning how Catholics have taken up arms for communism. I can completely understand how religion will accept communsim.

They were mistaken...or you misunderstood their post.

Believers in religion are the least likely to "accept communism" and religious hierarchies are militantly opposed to communists.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

This might have been mentioned earlier in this thread but I am too lazy to go through 25 pages... As the Nazis were entering Moscow, Stalin reopened all of the churchs and everyone went to the services and got fired up beliveing God was on their side etc. and held off the Nazis. Basically, what I am saying is that communism can use religion to serve it&#39;s own purposes as well as vice versa. Sort of like in Animal Farm.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Dysfunctional_Literate
As the Nazis were entering Moscow, Stalin reopened all of the churches and everyone went to the services and got fired up believing God was on their side etc. and held off the Nazis.

This does not sound plausible; for one thing, the Nazis never "entered Moscow". The drive on Moscow stalled some 25 miles west of that city. Then there was a counter-attack by the Russian army and the Nazis were driven back.


Basically, what I am saying is that communism can use religion to serve its own purposes...

No, that&#39;s definitely wrong.

Whenever communists opportunistically attempt to to use reactionary ideas or institutions "for communist purposes", the result is a bad one...for the communists.

There are many examples of this.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dysfunctional_Literate]

Here are some interesting links about the USSR&#39;s especially Stalin&#39;s involvment with religion
Orthodox Church (http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/THE%20ORTHODOX%20CHURCH%20-%20II.htm)
WWII Timeline (http://home.carolina.rr.com/burntofferings/CHAPT8.htm) I put that one to show how close Nazi&#39;s had come getting inside of Moscow. They were "entering" as in in the process of entering before they were stopped.

Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.

After Nazi Germany&#39;s attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active.
some more (http://www.hellerud.vgs.no/HistVKII/Stalin%28antireligis%29.htm)
probably the best one (http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?tablet-00713)

[redstar2000]

Those were interesting links (except the first one which was horrendously long-winded).

On the Nazis "entering Moscow", your link says this...


Second Panzer Army, still well southwest of the capital, bypasses Tula in their advance on Moscow. Guderian&#39;s move threatens to cut off and destroy three more Russian Armies; the 50th, 49th and 43rd. Between Hoeppner&#39;s 4th Panzer, and Guderian&#39;s 2nd Panzer, is Kluge&#39;s 4th Army. But the frostbitten German infantry are now facing an enemy that is better equipped and prepared for the bitter cold than they are. They cannot continue their offensive action, even though Hoeppner&#39;s tanks reach the Moscow-Volga Canal, only 25 miles from the city itself.

As I said.

My personal opinion is that Stalin&#39;s "alliance" with the church during the war did not help matters...that is, did nothing to improve Russia&#39;s ability to resist the Nazis. It was probably the appeal of Russian nationalism that "did the trick".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[apathy maybe]

I&#39;ve had some thoughts on religion since I last posted and one thing that I&#39;ve come up with is that denial is a religion itself. Though there are no ceremonies or rituals, atheism, being a denial that a god exists, is a form of religious belief (as is agnosticism). Noting also that you can have an organised religion that is atheistic (example Buddhism).

As to can "communism" and "religion", I don&#39;t see why the two can co-exist. Sure hierarchical religions (such as the Catholic Church) or religions that espouse beliefs that are contrary to "communism" (such as some steams of Islam) can&#39;t co-exist, but others (such as Quakerism maybe or nature worship), don&#39;t have these problems.

If talking about socialism in a broad sense rather then specifically "communism", it can also co-exist with religion. There have been many examples of Christian socialists, and one think that they have in common, the people are generally committed socialists because of how they interpret Christianity. And thus they stay socialist until they either die, or lose their religion, despite whatever financial situation they find themselves in.

Whether this form of Christianity leads to a form of "communism" is questionable. But if talking about religion in a broad sense and including spirituality, I see no reason that the two ("communism" and religion) can not exist together.

[USAcommunist]

I would have to agree with Apathy Maybe;
[ I see no reason that the two ("communism" and religion) can not exist together.]

Freedom of thought/belief is mandatory in a free society, even the USSR under communist rule did agree with that sentiment, if they didn&#39;t they would have made greek orthadox christianity illegal, they did not,and they would have torn down all the beautiful gold domed cathedrals (such as St Basils in Moscow) they did not do that either.

No one can tell you what to think/believe,they can only sugjest it. Altho many communists are atheist, that does not mean that all communists should be atheist.


President Putin of Russia was babitized by the church then he joined the USSR military, then he joined the KGB (as a communist) got married in a church, babitized his children in a church, worked as a KGB agent all along being a practicing christian.


Today he is Russias president and he still practices christianity, he claims to be a political independant but, thats only for political reasons, in his heart I think he&#39;s still a communist. Yes, communisim and religion can coinside together in my opinion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe+--> (Apathy Maybe)I&#39;ve had some thoughts on religion since I last posted and one thing that I&#39;ve come up with is that denial is a religion itself. Though there are no ceremonies or rituals, atheism, being a denial that a god exists, is a form of religious belief (as is agnosticism).[/b]

Well, that&#39;s nice. Do you intend to enlighten us as to the rationale behind this astounding assertion or is it just a "revelation"?


Noting also that you can have an organised religion that is atheistic (example Buddhism).

No, Buddhism is not "atheistic". The Buddha did not deny the existence of the Hindu pantheon, he simply thought the gods were not very important...they were also bound to the "wheel of existence".


But if talking about religion in a broad sense and including spirituality, I see no reason that the two ("communism" and religion) can not exist together.

Well, as a communist, I dispute your contention.

I think it quite impossible for a rational, humane society to co-exist with an inhumane and barbaric superstition.

You seem to think that "quakers" or "nature worshipers" would not persecute unbelievers if they had the chance.

I think you&#39;re wrong. The gods never brook any rivals unless they&#39;re not yet strong enough to eliminate them.

Their worshipers feel the same way.


USAcommunist
Freedom of thought/belief is mandatory in a free society; even the USSR under communist rule did agree with that sentiment; if they didn&#39;t, they would have made Greek Orthodox Christianity illegal; they did not, and they would have torn down all the beautiful gold domed cathedrals (such as St Basil&#39;s in Moscow); they did not do that either.

Yeah...big mistake&#33; They should have torn down all those "beautiful gold domed cathedrals"...especially "St. Basil&#39;s".

It&#39;s pointless to "outlaw" a religious belief...there&#39;s no way to get inside someone&#39;s head and find out if they believe or not.

What can be outlawed is the public practice of superstition...and the failure of Lenin and Stalin to do that was one of their most disastrous fuckups.


President Putin of Russia was baptized by the church; then he joined the USSR military; then he joined the KGB (as a communist) got married in a church, baptized his children in a church, worked as a KGB agent, all along being a practicing Christian.

As we used to say back in the 60s, the problem with Stalin is not merely that he executed the innocent but that he let so many of the guilty escape. Putin was obviously a counter-revolutionary TURD who should have been SHOT&#33;


Today he is Russia&#39;s president and he still practices Christianity; he claims to be a political independent but that&#39;s only for political reasons; in his heart I think he&#39;s still a communist.

Being an atheist, I&#39;m completely unable to see into his "heart" -- by his public record, it&#39;s clear that he&#39;s an imperialist thug.

USAcommunist, you seem to have mixed up communism with Russian nationalism (and Russian Orthodoxy). I think you need to read some Marx before you start passing out medals for "communism".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[trex]

Does anyone have the statistics of the world&#39;s breakdown of religions? and their percentages? I saw the pie chart long ago, but remember that no more then 15% of the world was aethiest/no religion.

Redstar, if a communism were to try and be launched by this 15%, and were to become the glorious world system I&#39;ve so heard it will be, it&#39;s going to be very, very difficult to do that without religion.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by trex
Does anyone have the statistics of the world&#39;s breakdown of religions?

Actual Numbers (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=29964)


Redstar, if a communism were to try and be launched by this 15%, and were to become the glorious world system I&#39;ve so heard it will be, it&#39;s going to be very, very difficult to do that without religion.

Fortunately, we don&#39;t have to do it "all at once". :)

In Europe (except Poland and Ireland), it&#39;s the godsuckers who are down there with only 15% of the population and falling.

That&#39;s one important reason communism is most likely to be established there first.

In other places, it will take longer. :(

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[USAcommunist]

Yes,much of the bible is wrong and should not be acceped by christians,there have always been communists and socialists that consider themselfs christian and I am one of them,my christian beliefs are very liberal compared to conventional christianity.I see Christ as one of the first socialists however,he didn&#39;t say anything about politics,he didn&#39;t have to,his selflish actions demonstrated how all people should be,his life and teachings represent him as a conceptual socialist to me and should be taught as such to christians.
As a christian myself I only believe/support 4 books out of the bible,mathew,mark,luke,and john,(new testament).Christianity has screwed itself by adhereing/believing in to much of the old testament.From a purely anilitical and logical perspective the relevence of the truth of the books I support in my aclaimed faith don&#39;t even matter from my own point of view but yet,I still can admit to being a christian and supporting christianity solely on the life and teachings of Jesus.The fact of(or not) his authentic existence is not important to me.

Redstar, you are the one actting like a dictator instead of a real communist, if anyone needs to read more about true communist belief it is you not me, I believe in a communist society that is all inclusive, I will not attack a fellow communist for thier opinion and infer that they are not a communist, but, when someone acts like a dictator and trys to tell everyone what they can believe and what they cannot I will call them for what they are, a dictator.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by USAcommunist
Redstar, you are the one acting like a dictator instead of a real communist, if anyone needs to read more about true communist belief it is you not me, I believe in a communist society that is all inclusive, I will not attack a fellow communist for their opinion and infer that they are not a communist, but, when someone acts like a dictator and trys to tell everyone what they can believe and what they cannot I will call them for what they are, a dictator.

If I am a "dictator", where are my secret police? :lol:

You seem to be under a whole lot of misapprehensions...and I simply tried to correct the most glaring examples.

That&#39;s not "being a dictator" unless you think that insisting that 2 + 2 = 4 (and not 3 or 5) is "being a dictator".

One of your misapprehensions is apparently the conviction that anyone who calls themself a communist "must be one".

That is false.

While it is true that a tiny minority of Christians have been socialists, communalist, and even anarchist -- the modern revolutionary sense of the word communist is entirely materialist and has no "room" for the supernatural at all.

This isn&#39;t just a matter of "word-spinning" -- it&#39;s based on actual historical experience.

Thus there is no real world meaning to your statement that "I am a Christian and a communist".

In fact, if one were to take your statement at "face value", it would immediately explode with internal and external contradictions.

If you are a Christian, then you believe that "Jesus" will return to "save the world". Well, "if" that&#39;s going to happen, then communism is pointless...as is any other human activity. It&#39;s all "in God&#39;s hands" and "anything" can happen at any time for any or no reason at all.

Instead of concerning yourself with "earthly matters", you should be concerning yourself with "salvation"...particularly, your own "soul".

"What would Jesus do?" That&#39;s what you should be thinking about, not trivial stuff like communism...which will all pass away "when Jesus returns".

In brief: communists want to change the world.

Christians want to go to "Heaven".

You cannot do both.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[trex]

could you change the world for the forces of good, no matter how cliche that sounds?

Redstar, that avatar just makes me see every one of your posts as the extremely angry writing of a formerly smiling smiley. It sets an interesting tone.