Communism and Religion - Do they exclude each other?

[USAcommunist]

Redstar, I said before that I don't believe in a literal interpitation of the Bible, and I do not believe in Christ nessasarily as a real person. I don't believe Christ is coming back to earth to save everyone. The story of Christ's life is all I support and it does not matter to me if he ever exhisted or not. I don't say I'm a christian because I believe in or fear a afterlife, I say it because of the good values taught by Jesus in the story of his life I did not realize you take the Bible so seriously, I don't.

If you think that this shows you that I am not a communist then maybe I should go by your rules for being a communist and become an atheist like you, correct?

[apathy maybe]

1) Atheists have a belief about a God or Gods. So why shouldn't they be classified as religious? Do you have a good definition of religion?
2) OK so Buddhism wasn't a good example to pick (though I have found some websites that claim that certain sects are atheistic). So I can't think of an 'organised' religion which is atheistic (Jainism?)
3) So if it is only the Gods we have to worry about, then why worry about religions that don't have any? What if it is explicit in the religion that respect for other religions and belief systems was compulsory?
4) What if it was a rational, humane religion?
5) Who decides what is superstitious or not? Or what is public or not? Surely in the middle of mall at peak hour is public, but at midnight in the same mall? Or in a forest 20KM from the nearest road?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by trex+--> (trex) Could you change the world for the forces of good, no matter how cliche that sounds?[/b]

When religions try to "change the world", their objective is invariably the dominance of their own hierarchy and the destruction of all their rivals.

That's what they really mean by "the forces of good".


Redstar, that avatar just makes me see every one of your posts as the extremely angry writing of a formerly smiling smiley.

Yes, I picked it to fit my general mood.

I really hate the world as it is and as it has been!

And I'm not happy with those who want to change "just part of it".


Originally posted by [email protected]
If you think that this shows you that I am not a communist then maybe I should go by your rules for being a communist and become an atheist like you, correct?

Yes. :)


Apathy Maybe
Do you have a good definition of religion?

All religions posit the existence of some kind of supernatural realm.

All religions agree that this realm is inhabited.

And all religions teach obedience to authority.

If you find these characteristics in any social formation...it's a religion.

Atheism does not qualify.


What if it is explicit in the religion that respect for other religions and belief systems was compulsory?

An oxymoron. Every religion secretly or openly believes that it is "the correct religion" and all others should be wiped out.


What if it was a rational, humane religion?

Another oxymoron. There can't be a "rational, humane" religion. To posit the existence of a supernatural realm is irrational on its face.


Who decides what is superstitious or not?

It's a "common sense" decision, obviously. In the eyes of any particular religion, all other religions are "superstitious cults".

But, the fact is, all religions are superstitious cults.


Or what is public or not?

Also a "common sense" decision. If you wish to go up in the mountains and preach to the eagles, I won't stop you.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[trex]

someone once said, "there are no aethiests, only accidental religions"

Goes along with the above definition of religion just a little?

sample religions: UN, a rock band, sex, Patriotism (to the point of shooting a Skikh because he looks like one of them dirty Aller worshippers), celebrities, democracy, democrats, republicans, me, you, the end of life, the beginning of life, the unknown, the known, nature, counter-culture, and conforming.

[redstar2000]

Trex, please don't babble in the serious forums.

Thanks.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[USAcommunist]

Redstar, I do respect your views and would agree that most scientists are atheists because it is the only logical truth and, I would be the first to say that Religion is the major cause of war thruout history, yes religion is totally illogical but, I am not a typical christian, I support only the story of Christ, I never would claim it to be a real life story, I also attack christianity for what it is and what it is not. I don't think my position on the subject is illogical, it is a way to debunk the wrongs of christianity and attack the falsehood of the christian church with logical reasoning against fellow christians. All religions are illogical but , human nature wants to belief in something besides the unfair, greedy, capitalist world that they live in.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by USAcommunist
All religions are illogical but , human nature wants to believe in something besides the unfair, greedy, capitalist world that they live in.

Europe is an "unfair, greedy, capitalist world"...and yet their "human nature" does not seem to require "belief in something".

Is that because Europe is 85% "Marxist"?

Or is it because nearly everyone there is a "philosopher" who's "thought deeply" on these matters?

I think there's a simpler explanation. Over the 20th century, people in Europe saw that religion was helpless in the face of their traumatic experiences...and indeed, was often found openly on the side of reaction.

So what did ordinary people there do? They stopped indoctrinating their kids with useless superstition!

It has become "common knowledge" that there are no gods.

Religion there is "withering away"...though it still enjoys an unnecessary "respectability", primarily in the eyes of the ruling class.

What "human nature" needs is explanations that make sense.

In Europe, religion has fallen out of the race in that regard.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[(R)evolution of the mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 02:05 AM
So what did ordinary people there do? They stopped indoctrinating their kids with useless superstition!

I can only say for sure for the country where I live in, but I don't think it is quite that simple. You see, many parents have pretty much left all upbringing, and not just religious propaganda, to the school system. And although not overly religious, most do still belong to the church and that means the kids have to listen to religious propaganda at school. However, the situation with regards to belonging to church is getting better (in this country), especially after a new law was passed a few years ago that makes it easier to quit the church. Most of my friends don't belong to the church, but there are a few that although they do not believe in the bs, have not quit the church perhaps due to family reasons etc.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jan 16 2005, 02:42 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jan 16 2005, 02:42 AM)
Apathy Maybe
Do you have a good definition of religion?

All religions posit the existence of some kind of supernatural realm.

All religions agree that this realm is inhabited.

And all religions teach obedience to authority.

If you find these characteristics in any social formation...it's a religion.

Atheism does not qualify.


What if it is explicit in the religion that respect for other religions and belief systems was compulsory?

An oxymoron. Every religion secretly or openly believes that it is "the correct religion" and all others should be wiped out.


What if it was a rational, humane religion?

Another oxymoron. There can't be a "rational, humane" religion. To posit the existence of a supernatural realm is irrational on its face.


Who decides what is superstitious or not?

It's a "common sense" decision, obviously. In the eyes of any particular religion, all other religions are "superstitious cults".

But, the fact is, all religions are superstitious cults. [/b]
I agree that athesism does not qualify as a religion if you use these characteristics. But were does spirituality come into it then? I see the major problem with the question posed in the topic. That of definitions. If religion is as you say, then it does not and can not co-exist with communism.

Though I am sure that I could create "religious" texts which would qualify as rational, but it wouldn't qualify as a religion under your definiton.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Apathy Maybe
But where does spirituality come into it then?

Well, they clearly meet the first two criteria -- they think a supernatural realm exists and that it's inhabited.

Perhaps we could say that such people are "proto-religious"...they are "on the edge" of starting/joining a religion.

But that third criterion -- obedience to authority -- is crucial to the whole enterprise.

Those who claim to speak authoritatively for the inhabitants of the supernatural realm must be obeyed.

If someone tells you "I was one with the goddess last night", you may shrug and wander off to find someone sensible to talk to.

It's when they tell you "I have a message from the goddess for you -- you must start worshiping her now or else!" that you've encountered a real religion.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Dyst]

It's when they tell you "I have a message from the goddess for you -- you must start worshiping her now or else!"
Sort of reminds me of some old ""communist"" propaganda, like "We know what is best for the workers -- you must join the revolution or else!"

Not that it is relevant at all. Or maybe. Nevermind.

[encephalon]

atheism is based solely on belieiving that which is tangible, mathematically, logically, or scientifically; that is, it is the result of rational thought. If one believes something of which has no evidence to support it, they are not only irrational, but delusional. Period. There is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god or supernatural realm.

Don't be stupid.. damn. I usually try to not be so abrasive, but this is plainly ridiculous.

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 05:53 PM
atheism is based solely on belieiving that which is tangible, mathematically, logically, or scientifically; that is, it is the result of rational thought.


I disagree. I will explain below


If one believes something of which has no evidence to support it, they are not only irrational, but delusional. Period.

Yes!


There is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god or supernatural realm.

As well as no evidence to the contrary. You can't decide without conclusive evidence :(
That is why I disagree; math and logic do not allow for assumptions and atheism assumes lack of evidence means lack of god(s).

If you would be so kind, I would gladly debate this with you in the more aptly named thread Agnosticism (Debate it) (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=33171).

[farleft]

I'm at work right now so I dont have time to read all 26 pages so i'll just add my pennies worth.

No-one can be a communist and religious. You should all be aware of dialectics and dialectical materialism which explains this clearly.

If you are not aware of what im taliking about see the link below.

Dialectical Materialism (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide1.html)

[Rural_Communalist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:07 AM
I'm at work right now so I dont have time to read all 26 pages so i'll just add my pennies worth.

No-one can be a communist and religious. You should all be aware of dialectics and dialectical materialism which explains this clearly.

If you are not aware of what im taliking about see the link below.

Dialectical Materialism (http://www.marxist.com/Theory/study_guide1.html)
What constitutes religious belief? If I don't believe in the scientifically proposed reasons for the creation of the universe, earth and life, does that make me not a communist?

[LSD]

What constitutes religious belief? If I don't believe in the scientifically proposed reasons for the creation of the universe, earth and life, does that make me not a communist?

It depends on why you don'y believe them.

If you find the said theories to be faulty or to be illogical or, better yet, if you have a mroe logical and rational theory, then you are not superstitious for challanging prevailing scientific theories.

If on the other hand, you disblieve scientic consensus because of "holy texts", "faith", or for any supernaturalistic or superstitious reason, then you are, by definition, superstitious and hance not a true communist.


If you would be so kind, I would gladly debate this with you in the more aptly named thread Agnosticism (Debate it).

I wish you would! :P

[Rural_Communalist]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 18 2005, 12:51 AM

What constitutes religious belief? If I don't believe in the scientifically proposed reasons for the creation of the universe, earth and life, does that make me not a communist?

It depends on why you don'y believe them.

If you find the said theories to be faulty or to be illogical or, better yet, if you have a mroe logical and rational theory, then you are not superstitious for challanging prevailing scientific theories.

If on the other hand, you disblieve scientic consensus because of "holy texts", "faith", or for any supernaturalistic or superstitious reason, then you are, by definition, superstitious and hance not a true communist.
Lack of physical evidence. The same reason atheists don't believe in God.

There is no holy text for my beliefs. However, I think I heard that they were a philosophy and not a religious so to speak.

[A_True_Anarchist]

And I want to know, how do supernatural beliefs automatically negate one being a communist? According to who? Speaking strictly of Marxist communism, that's a little centrically viewed. There are other forms of communism.

[Free Spirit]

Why would it be strange to say that there might be life in another galaxy, in another solar system? Existence of water on another planet is quite realistic and if there’s water, there’s probably life, perhaps not something as developed as humanity just primitive life as bacteria.

[Ace]

I think if a communist revolution were to come about, with the reds as being victorious and then they turn around and outlaw religion, more specifically Christianity. The new government would see a storm of counter-revolutions/resistance.

We are fighting for communism with the idea of freedom and happiness in mind, how will oppression serve the new government and its people? I'm a Christian but also a dedicated communist. I have come to a sensible conclusion that there is a god. Weather its the Christian or Islamic god is debatable. But there is indeed a god.

With all the theories of evolution, the big bang, apes to man and so on. That question always hangs over the heads of man, and forever will. Who created it? Assuming we finally discovered how the earth was created, that question will always loom over man. Lets assume the big bang theory is correct, who created that? that question can be asked over and over, until you come to the "logical" conclusion that there had to be a god.

Many people would love to dismiss a god just for the sake of people not being afraid of killing, to rally certain people to there cause. Redstar once said that he would be cautious of any of his fellow revolutionists who claimed to be Christian. This is a great disappointment to me because I respect and admire what he has to say. I would gladly die by you and fight along side you in a common goal, my personnel faith has nothing to do with my earthly loyalties. Isn't closed minded of you to be suspicious of me just because I think differently then you? But then again, I guess an atheist is "statistically smarter then a Christian".

At the end of the day however, God is more important to me then the revolution, this is true. But if you can't understand what I mean by that, then that's your fault. As far as Christianity dictating peoples personal decisions, or influencing wars. Those people do not know the lord, your faith with god and your status as a Christian is to remain a private matter, so says the bible. If people followed the word instead of taking what they liked and dismissing the rest, there would be no problems.

In conclusion, I feel that communism and Christianity are two separate good ideas with much common ground. You guys seem to think that Catholics and southern Baptists represent what a Christian is, those cults are not what we are.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ace
At the end of the day however, God is more important to me than the revolution, this is true.

Thou hast said it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Ace]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 30 2005, 01:56 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 30 2005, 01:56 PM)
Ace
At the end of the day however, God is more important to me than the revolution, this is true.

Thou hast said it.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]

But if you can't understand what I mean by that, then that's your fault.

See what I mean? You totally misunderstand what I mean by that. The revolution is the only focus of mine you should be concerned about, but for some reason you see my faith as a threat. I'm not claiming my faith is more important then the primary goal of revolution, I'm saying for me the revolution is important, but god is more important. But how does my "Spiritual enlightenment" conflict with the primary goal of revolution and victory?

Why do you see your fellow comrades as a threat because of there beliefs?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ace
I'm not claiming my faith is more important then the primary goal of revolution, I'm saying for me the revolution is important, but god is more important. But how does my "Spiritual enlightenment" conflict with the primary goal of revolution and victory?

I don't think it's a matter of how you word your priorities...it's a problem with your priorities as such.

1. God

2. Revolution & Communism

At such time that Priority 1 and Priority 2 come into conflict, then you will, as you've indicated, choose Priority 1.

This will happen, of course, as soon as a neo-communist movement emerges into public notice in the country where you live.

All the religions in your country will immediately attack it with all the resources at their command -- "godless communism" is "enemy no. 1" on their shit list.

Why? Because they understand (however crudely) that the establishment of a really just social order on earth means the permanent end of their racket.

When everyone is, for example, educated in a scientific and materialist outlook on the world, who will believe? Who will donate money? Who will even want to be a priest or preacher? Who will pay any attention to their "spiritual truths"?

Even if you are an "independent" believer unaffiliated with any particular denomination, you're going to "feel the pressure". You're going to be asking yourself "do I really want to see God disappear from the world entirely?"

It may not be so bad at first, but as the struggle intensifies, you're going to be "torn" more and more.

When you see some "great and historic cathedral" fall to the wrecking ball, what then?

Or that all the seminaries and religious schools have been closed down?

Or even something as small as the names of streets -- the signs say "Peter Street" now instead of "St. Peter Street"...how will you feel?

Or when San Francisco becomes Yerba Buena?

And when a statue of the "Virgin Mary" is simply no longer to be found...anywhere?

And when the 25th of December is just another date on the calendar?

What I've discovered over the last three years on this board is that people who think of themselves as being both religious and communist...simply haven't really thought seriously about either.

And that's what you really have to do.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Ace]

At such time that Priority 1 and Priority 2 come into conflict, then you will, as you've indicated, choose Priority 1.

This will happen, of course, as soon as a neo-communist movement emerges into public notice in the country where you live.

All the religions in your country will immediately attack it with all the resources at their command -- "godless communism" is "enemy no. 1" on their shit list.

A pastor doesn't dictate or decide what my relationship with god is, infact GOD tells us to prepare the world for his return, to make the world more godly. In which if you follow the bible, communism is the pretty much the idea of what Christ had in mind for a perfect world. If you were apart of the CPUSA and they told you to submit to the chairmen and follow his every command, would you do it? No! Of course not, it goes against what you believe. Christians, like myself also are wary of what we are taught in church.

I don't view the pastor as my lawyer in heaven, I don't think he offers a golden ticket into eternal bliss. Don't judge us buy what our church says and does, they do not represent me and may Christians believe the same thing.


When everyone is, for example, educated in a scientific and materialist outlook on the world, who will believe? Who will donate money? Who will even want to be a priest or preacher? Who will pay any attention to their "spiritual truths"?

Heh, the church is not the means by which we become Christians. If you read the word, that alone is inspiring, it speaks directly to you. I have seen to much to think god does not exist, none of which was miracles performed by a pastor, I assure you with or without the church, there will always be Christians.

Not because these people are dumb or illogical, many Christians come to the faith through logic. If many people were to turn to science as a means to explain things, that's fine. But many will also turn to faith because they know science now and then will never come up with a solid non-disputable reason to the really hard questions (i.e. creation vs. evolution, what happens after death, the existence of a god). Communism is in no way a conflict with Christianity.


Even if you are an "independent" believer unaffiliated with any particular denomination, you're going to "feel the pressure". You're going to be asking yourself "do I really want to see God disappear from the world entirely?"

You make a valid point, and the chances of me feeling the pressure are high, but logic will bring me back to my faith. If communism destroys the church (by reason and not oppression) I will have no problem with that, Christ lives in us, not a building. I have only been to church 5-7 times in my life, I despise people who flaunt there faith as I have been commanded "If you must pray, go into your inner room, shut the door and give thanks to the lord" That passage means to keep your intimacy and faith with god a private matter, as Marx also said. Science and "reason (scientific reason)" will never conflict with those you truly believe.

If people wish to destroy symbols of the Christian faith, that would please me as it would please god. God and Christ strongly protested the use of symbols for they take away from the faith in the lord. A Christian wearing a cross could very well be the comparison of Jesus throwing the money trading tables in the air. Tradition is what you should fight against, tradition has started wars and caused bigotry, not faith.


It may not be so bad at first, but as the struggle intensifies, you're going to be "torn" more and more.

When you see some "great and historic cathedral" fall to the wrecking ball, what then?

I'm not sure if your making a statement of oppression or people being reasonable. As far as being torn apart? I would be the guy controlling the wrecking ball, A church is not the means by which we come to the faith, a church is a building, which is worldly. Its meaningless.


And when a statue of the "Virgin Mary" is simply no longer to be found...anywhere?

And when the 25th of December is just another date on the calendar?

Virgin Mary? Fine by me, that's another form of Christian cult symbols. Christmas is also a "Tradition" not an actual date of the birth of Christ, there is no evidence to support this date. Also, your talking about destroying tradition more then you are talking about people losing faith. You can't destroy that, the individual must destroy it themselves. If by science they happen to leave the faith, very well. But I assure you the "Pressure" will not get to me.


What I've discovered over the last three years on this board is that people who think of themselves as being both religious and communist...simply haven't really thought seriously about either.

And that's what you really have to do.

Indeed I have. The comparisons between Christianity and communism are very close. If in the event you should show me passages weighed against Marxist writings, you must remember a true Christian would not see anything wrong with the contradiction, there is worldly and then there is godly.

I'm glad you have decided to debate this with me instead of just shrugging me off as a confused communist. I think this debate will help us make a progressive jump to a communist society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ace
In which, if you follow the bible, communism is pretty much the idea of what Christ had in mind for a perfect world.

A common misconception...but entirely wrong.

"Jesus" himself never uttered a single word on the subject of "a perfect world".

Some lefties conclude from a few verses in Acts that early Christians were "communists" because "they had all things in common".

But, at best, this could refer only to the "Jerusalem Church" (destroyed c.70CE). Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") had occasion to discuss early Christian communities in many locations...and not even once does he say a word about "all things in common".

Since Acts was, in fact, written considerably after the destruction of the "Jerusalem Church", it could very well be the case that its "communism" was entirely legendary.


Don't judge us by what our church says and does, they do not represent me and many Christians believe the same thing.

But what else do we have to go on? This or that individual Christian may believe this or that individual interpretation of Christianity -- but what we see are the churches themselves.

A member of the old Communist Party U.S.A. may have privately thought that Earl Browder or Gus Hall were not qualified to clean toilets at the YMCA...but unless that member made his opinions public, who would know?


If you read the word, that alone is inspiring, it speaks directly to you.

I've read a fair amount -- probably more than most Christians who come to this board.

I did not find it "inspiring" in the least.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Ace]

A common misconception...but entirely wrong.

"Jesus" himself never uttered a single word on the subject of "a perfect world".

Some lefties conclude from a few verses in Acts that early Christians were "communists" because "they had all things in common".

But, at best, this could refer only to the "Jerusalem Church" (destroyed c.70CE). Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") had occasion to discuss early Christian communities in many locations...and not even once does he say a word about "all things in common".

Since Acts was, in fact, written considerably after the destruction of the "Jerusalem Church", it could very well be the case that its "communism" was entirely legendary.


Its a misconception that jesus was a communist, its not a misconception that jesus showed traits and the mindset of a communist individual. There are numerous reasons why many leftists consider "Jesus a communist". But these people take two or three details of what was said in the bible that happens to match up with the idea of communism. I take jesus's personality, his way of explaining things, his whole way of conducting himself.

Jesus did not show traits of an ideological communist, a communist whos bent on theory, ideology, and communist dogma. An extremely radical communist, if you will. But his manner of dealing with the jewish elite, and the Roman hierarchy was very "Socailist" in some respects. I'm not making an argument that jesus was a communist, just that he way of presenting himself and his new form of worship showed some signs of leftism, if not revolutionary leftism. Not in the sense of killing, of course, but rather a passive agressive revolution (which I understand most communists could do without) in which he changed some aspects of both the jewish elite and Roman authorities.

Also, to deny that early christians weren't communists(in the sense of living in a traditional commune) is speculation at best. Rome couldn't govern every part of thre territories and provinces, its possible that not only christian, but non-christian groups could have indeed lived in your tradtional communes. Monks for one is an example of communism throughout the middle ages. They may not have been your idea of a communist, but they showed many, many triats of communism.



But what else do we have to go on? This or that individual Christian may believe this or that individual interpretation of Christianity -- but what we see are the churches themselves.


Good point, well then judge me. Let me be a person to be judged in your eyes, maybe I can give you some insight as to how true christians live and think. Let me also give you an example of how the church is not even a good representation of the word of god. Homosexuals, when found in a church are thrown out and banned. Becuase they are "sinners", they are not allowed in the church. First, no man is without sin, If I acuse you of being a homosexual, what does that make me? If there is one thing all men and all christians have in common, its sin. I would be quite the hypocrite if I acused you of sin yet I myself am a sinner.

The second thing is, christ was called by many the "Friend of sinners". He promised eternal life to a theif, he promised eternal life to a whore, he promised eternal life to a man that hunted down and killed many christians, not only that but he made that man a saint. This is a very important message in the bible, no man is better or worse then any other man. And do not be fooled, there is no such thing as a mortal sin. If you steal a pack of gum from the supermarket, or if you kill nine million people. The bible says there is no differences between the two.



I've read a fair amount -- probably more than most Christians who come to this board.

I did not find it "inspiring" in the least.


Really? Emotions are always running high when I read it, and other people (Christian or not have claimed the same) I think it was Albert Einstien who said "No myth can fill you with such life". Have you tried reading it with an open mind? Being open to the possibility that it could be true?


BTW, thanks fo discussing this with me on an intelligent and calm level. I was half expecting to be insulted for my beliefs.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ace
The second thing is, Christ was called by many the "Friend of sinners".

Then they weren't paying attention. Jesus invented "Hell".

Or, possibly, borrowed the concept from some other superstition...but it was certainly perceived as a theological innovation at the time and afterwards.

In the Mosaic code -- an eye for an eye, etc. -- once you "paid" your "debt of sin", then your punishment was over.

Only in Christianity (and Islam, which borrowed the idea from the Christians) do we find the genuinely incredible concept of eternal punishment for sin.

Jesus "says it"...over and over again, throughout the "gospels". If, for any reason, you don't "follow him", then it's the fiery pit for you, boy.

Some friend. :o


This is a very important message in the bible, no man is better or worse than any other man.

But do you really think that's true?

That Hitler was "no worse" than one of his victims?

What I observe is that most humans behave pretty decently most of the time...unless constrained, by force or custom, to act badly.

But some people behave very badly indeed whenever they have the opportunity to do so. Religious hierarchies are rather outstanding in this respect.

Indeed, as I have argued elsewhere, it seems to me that history shows religious belief to be highly correlated with "bad behavior"...from beating your kids to massacre.

There's a great deal of very bad behavior in the "Bible"...and much of it at the direct command of the "Lord".

His worshipers have not been laggard...at least in that regard.


I think it was Albert Einstein who said "No myth can fill you with such life".

You know there are a whole bunch of "quotations" attributed to Einstein in the attempt to "prove" that he was "religious".

But any reputable biography of the man will reveal that he was totally uninterested in religion...and the "quotes", even if legitimate, likely were "public relations" remarks intended to deflect the ire of the clerics.

Whenever a scientist says "something nice" about religion, you may assume a similar motive. Not to mention the fact that it may be a Christian who decides whether or not your next research grant gets approved.

And if you say "nice things" about religion, you might even get a "Templeton Prize"...a little over $1,000,000. (!)

A Glimpse into the Godracket (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1114361146&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Have you tried reading it with an open mind? Being open to the possibility that it could be true?

No. I am a modern human; from the age of eight or so, I have known about scientific theories of the earth's origins.

The very first sentence of Genesis is clearly wrong.

And it doesn't improve in accuracy thereafter.


I was half expecting to be insulted for my beliefs.

Well, you're obviously trying to be "nice"...so I'm trying to respond accordingly.

Most Christians who come to this board are pretty aggressive...and we tend to "counter-attack" in strong terms.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[anomaly]

While on the topic of Christianity, have any of you noticed this: Christianity, like most religions, embraces free will when it proves beneficiary (it greatly answers the 'problem of evil'...there is evil because God gave us free will), but then Christianity (probably other religions, but I'll make no judgements since I'm uneducated in other religions) punishes this very free will it needs. If one does not believe Jesus was the Saviour, choosing to believe this by one's own free will, one goes to hell. Many other religions punish some 'wrong action', but Christiantiy has the audacity to punish 'wrong belief'. And that's not all. Not only does Christianity punish the most innocent free will (one's personal belief), but also this belief is not temporary. There are no varying degrees to people's sentences to hell, they are all permanent. In this sense, I always find Christianity extremely contradictory: in one case, it embraces and uses free will, in another it punishes this same free will in the harshest of ways!

[Ace]

Some friend.

The point I was trying to make, is the church and all it stands for is in direct violation of the bible. Saying jesus was a friends of sinners, I was trying to point out how jesus did things. It would seem everyone he promised to save and everyone who had sinned, was somebody that even today society considers to be "bad people".

He was very in touch with everybody accept those who "thougght they were sin free and better then everyone else". The modern church, however, does everything the bible says not to do,they kick those out of the church would are suspected homosexuals, whores, etc.. Those that the bible considers sinners, yet these same people jesus accepted.

In conclusion, the church is in violation of everything Christ stood for. So to trust the church when it comes to matters of the christian faith, is folly.


But do you really think that's true?

That Hitler was "no worse" than one of his victims?


I was kinda expecting this question, well my awnser is undecided. In the bible Christ commanded his followers to "Be more holy then the preists". This statement, of course, shocked the people. The jewish pharasies were considered to be very respectable and holy. To be like them would be quite a feat in the eyes of the people. There is obviously another morale to this statement, but jesus did say to be more then someone else. Now thats how I feel on the statement.

I think hell was created just for people like hitler, those who have done great evils. As far as seeing hitler "no worse" then his victims, I personaly think hitler was worse then his victims, I can't express how much I harbour hatred for him and his SS thugs. But the bible does teach to "love" instead of hating. This I think is somthing everyone can embrace. I think people misunderstand pharses in the bible like "Love thy enemy" and "Turn the other cheek". Jesus wasn't saying to ***** out infront of your enemies, he was tired of watching humans battle evil with evil.

This results (and can only result) in more evil. God, however, didn't approve of war, but then again he never disapproves of war. In the bible it says "Thou shalt not kill", which jesus expands on when he says not to murder. Murder, we should not murder, but self defense and war is somthing christ realized men cannot avoid. God said that your enemies will come at you from one direction and shall run away in seven, Clearly stating his approval of war when it is unavoidable.

The point I'm trying to make is taking the bible literaly in all its words is folly, don't take what was said out of context. The bible has some damn good ideas and codes to live by. It was one of the apostles who said, "Love your brother, in this command you will have fulfilled everyother command.



You know there are a whole bunch of "quotations" attributed to Einstein in the attempt to "prove" that he was "religious".

But any reputable biography of the man will reveal that he was totally uninterested in religion...and the "quotes", even if legitimate, likely were "public relations" remarks intended to deflect the ire of the clerics.

Whenever a scientist says "something nice" about religion, you may assume a similar motive. Not to mention the fact that it may be a Christian who decides whether or not your next research grant gets approved.

And if you say "nice things" about religion, you might even get a "Templeton Prize"...a little over $1,000,000. (!)


I could very well be wrong, I just thought it was an excellent quote as it spoke directly to me.


Well, you're obviously trying to be "nice"...so I'm trying to respond accordingly.

Most Christians who come to this board are pretty aggressive...and we tend to "counter-attack" in strong terms.

I can understand that, I use to be the same way until I grew up. Forcing my ideas and beliefs on people by screaming at them will get me nowhere. And yes, I'm trying to be nice, thats because I really want to hear what you have to say before the conversation ends on a bad note, who knows? Maybe we might both get somthing out of this conversation.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ace
But the Bible does teach to "love" instead of hating. This, I think, is something everyone can embrace.

Not me! I am full to overflowing with rage at "the bad guys".

I do not think they should be "forgiven".

Let justice be done though the heavens fall!


This results (and can only result) in more evil.

I disagree. There was much evil that followed the fall of the Third Reich...but nothing even approaching the evil that was done by the Third Reich.


The point I'm trying to make is taking the Bible literally in all its words is folly...

Isn't that just a way to protect the "Bible" from any criticism at all?

If we are "not allowed" to critically examine what it actually says, then what's left to say? Anyone can make up any interpretation they like and call it "Christianity"...and who would dare to disagree?


The Bible has some damn good ideas and codes to live by.

I disagree strongly; I find the various "codes" in the Old Testament and the New Testament to be either wildly unrealistic -- "love thy neighbor as yourself" -- or just simply horrible -- "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

Not to mention the impossibility of reconciling them -- what do you do if your neighbor is a "witch"?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Jesus invented "Hell".

That's not true. The christians took the concept of "heaven and hell", "commandments" over from the jews. The jews in turn took it over from the Persians. The Persian; Zoroastrian religion, the worlds first monotheist religion and the inventor of these concepts. In fact the jewish religion changed from a multi-god tribal religion, in what it is today under heavy influence of the Persian conquerers.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!
The Christians took the concept of "heaven and hell", "commandments" over from the Jews.

Murky waters here.

There are verses in the OT that suggest a few especially pious prophets were taken up into "Heaven" to live with "Yahweh Himself". Otherwise, there's nothing about an "afterlife" at all...in the canonical texts.

Of course, the Jews wrote some "holy books" that were not accepted into the canon...and some of them are quite colorful and may possibly have included vivid descriptions of an afterlife. There was certainly a current of Jewish opinion by the time of "Jesus" that thought there was an "afterlife".

My understanding is that those Jews who did accept that idea envisioned the pious as going to "Heaven"...but those who weren't didn't go to "Hell", they were sent to "the valley of shadows" -- much like the Greek conception of the afterlife. There were no punishments...just an eternity of boredom.

It is certainly possible that "Jesus" borrowed the idea of "Hell" from a forgotten Jewish sect or a lost "holy book" that didn't make it into the Old Testament. It's even possible that he got the idea from a passing Greek or Persian...or a garbled third-hand account of some kind (since there's no evidence of "Jesus" being able to read).

But one thing is indisputable: "Jesus" embraced the idea of eternal punishment for sin with genuine enthusiasm. He brings it up over and over again. He looks "benign" in comparison to Old Testament prophets -- but that is very misleading. To him, earthly punishments for those who reject him are trivial...he awaits the real fun in "Hell".

One of the great pleasures of "Heaven", according to an early Christian text (3rd century?), is an area where the saved can picnic while looking out over the edge into the fiery pit and being entertained by the writhings and screams of the damned.

The doctrine of "Hell" is deeply entrenched in Christian theology now...inspite of occasional "heresies" that argue that the punishments are really not eternal.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[DaCuBaN]

Don't judge us buy what our church says and does, they do not represent me

This certainly is true, and having been raised by a "questioning catholic" :lol: I have seen the doubt and mistrust with my own eyes, not to mention the blatant disregard for the church's teachings - for one thing, I'm the last of four children... had my mother and father paid full attention to the teachings of the catholic church, we'd have had an awful lot more siblings ;)

Like most people who pick some form of ideology, irregardless of what field it is in, you pick and choose the bits you like - However, when push comes to shove - and I can think of no example of this greater than revolution - we all choose to side with what we know and love.

For me, that would be my friends, our vehicles and our home (for we all cohabit now, and I'll make communists of them yet - starting with redistribution of the wealth, aka the fridge, despite the fact most of that wealth does some to come out of my own pocket...). For you, it would most likely be the comfort of your parish and your family...

What we see there will be a conflict of priorities - and one must triumph. The problem here is that whilst religion is intoned (in regards to Christianity and Islam) with the saviour of your ethereal spirit (and everyone else's), and communism with the saviour of both our mortal bodies and sanity, I consider the latter to be of much higher priority than the former. I'm an agnostic - whilst I will cry out that there is no god, I always leave space to say "Oh shit, I'm sorry - I didn't see you there", as we all know what a blind and bumbling creature the human being is. If you fear divine retribution, you can't say fairer than that...

:redstar2000:

[Ace]

Not me! I am full to overflowing with rage at "the bad guys".

I do not think they should be "forgiven".

Let justice be done though the heavens fall!

I mean that everyone can embrace the teachings of love, the overall message of the bible.



I disagree. There was much evil that followed the fall of the Third Reich...but nothing even approaching the evil that was done by the Third Reich.

Come now. The third Reich certainly was more blatant and outspoken about its crimes against the work force and humanity for that matter, But the result of the Reich's downfall is Americas ascension to Imperialist power, which America has done far more brutal things then Hitler did, its just that the evening news isn't to keen on reporting it.

Hitler killed his people in mass numbers, America does it by "each country they invade", and "Each person that a government spook picks off". Not to mention Americas booming capitalist economy, which is helping to lay many people off, which in my opinion is worse then death. Need I even mention the other nations that profited from Germany's downfall and there crimes against the people?


Isn't that just a way to protect the "Bible" from any criticism at all?

No, it means what I wrote. A good example would be revelations, in which many take that literally, but they forget john was having a dream. Also the bible almost always uses parables, like "If you sin with your eye, cut it out". This line was never to be taken literally, but most do. The bible is more complicated then one could imagine, and most of its phrases and meanings are still trying to be better understood.


I disagree strongly; I find the various "codes" in the Old Testament and the New Testament to be either wildly unrealistic -- "love thy neighbor as yourself" -- or just simply horrible -- "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

Not to mention the impossibility of reconciling them -- what do you do if your neighbor is a "witch"?

I was referring more to "the ten commandments" then anything. Which are laws that are used by Christian and non-Christian nations. Also understand that a witch can be a women who "curses" another person. Once again, to kill this person is not to be taken literally. I really suggest you read it with an open mind, you might like what you here. I know most people (and many communists) see this book of a "right" way of thinking.

But this book was not written for communists, conservatives, Nazis, or any political idea or way of thinking, it was written for people in general. This book has brought much wrong to the world because people poorly read it, and didn't understand it. But, this book has also brought much good to the world, that know one can deny.

I think we have both laid out our reasons for (dis)approveing of religion. Now I want to get back as to what the topic of oppression and fading. Would you (if you had the authority) oppress the church, believers, followers, priests, etc.. if you could, or would you follow our ideology of religion just fading away as science becomes more of an influence?


The problem here is that whilst religion is intoned (in regards to Christianity and Islam) with the saviour of your ethereal spirit (and everyone else's), and communism with the saviour of both our mortal bodies and sanity,

I really still don't see a problem here, my spirituality is important to me, my mind is important to me, my body is important to me, my freedom is important to me. All these things matter. Priorities is a whole other discussion, we would have to go into theology, understanding the bible and its meaning, placing that grid over communism, etc.. etc.. But personally, I really have no trouble balancing the two. Perhaps redstar is correct though, maybe I will "feel the pressure" when the revolution does come, but I highly doubt it.

I think I have done my math well enough to know that my ideologies don't collide as much as some leftists would like them to, because many see my way of thinking dangerous as it includes a higher figure, an enterable authority. That's all well in good, however, as long as the left stays focused on keeping the church and its political influences out of the government, I'll be happy. Because it sounds as though redstar loading his weapon and making practice shots on the popes cutout ( :lol: j/k).

Edit: Spelling

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ace
Would you (if you had the authority) oppress the church, believers, followers, priests, etc.. if you could, or would you follow our ideology of religion just fading away as science becomes more of an influence?

I'd begin by removing religion from public life -- which the clergy and serious believers would indeed find "outrageously oppressive".

Then, I'd go after parents who indoctrinated their kids with religion -- and I'm sure that would also provoke cries of "oppression".

They'd scream that I was "worse than Stalin"...and it would be true, even if I did not so much as break a believer's fingernail.

The twin towers upon which religion rests are public respectability and parental indoctrination. Take those away and religion dwindles into obscure nutball cults.

So that's what I think needs to be done.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[anomaly]

I think Redstar's idea might actually bring out the best in the new generation. Religion these days is all too often adopted, passed on from generation to generation. Children go to church with their parents, and later in life they miraculously 'decide' that their parents were indeed right. Instead of shoving faith down the throats of their children, this idea could help to open children's minds to other religious ideas. This would enable each child to determine what they think, rather than have each child simply inherit their spiritual beliefs from their parents.

[KC]

Ace, can you please explain your belief of what god is/does/has done logically?

[Martyr Machine]

1. Can you be a revolutionary and still be part of a large religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)?


Absolutely. Communism and Christianity however, are mutually exclusive. Morality at gun point is not morality, and Jesus said that if one gives reluctantly, he should keep his money. Jesus supported charity, not a communist/fascist (same thing really) government forcing welfare at gunpoint.

[KC]

Absolutely. Communism and Christianity however, are mutually exclusive. Morality at gun point is not morality, and Jesus said that if one gives reluctantly, he should keep his money. Jesus supported charity, not a communist/fascist (same thing really) government forcing welfare at gunpoint.

Communism and Christianity are mutually exclusive because Christianity is illogical. Where are these guns coming from? Nobody said anything about guns. And since there is no money in a communist society, there is no such thing as charity or welfare. And communism and fascism are completely different. You're so ignorant; next thing you're going to be arguing is that russia and/or cuba and/or north korea and/or china are/were communist!

[Martyr Machine]

And communism and fascism are completely different.

Both ideologies seek to strip the individual of their rights through force. All other differences are irrelevent.


You're so ignorant; next thing you're going to be arguing is that russia and/or cuba and/or north korea and/or china are/were communist!

Not in the true definition of the word, no. They demonstrate quite well however, how communism fails in practice. They are the end result of communism collapsing in on itself.

[KC]

Both ideologies seek to strip the individual of their rights through force. All other differences are irrelevent.

Not true.



Not in the true definition of the word, no. They demonstrate quite well however, how communism fails in practice. They are the end result of communism collapsing in on itself.

Not the true definition of the word at all. In fact, they aren't communist and never were. They demonstrate no such thing. They are the end result of communism collapsing in on itself, yet they weren't communist? And how has Cuba collapsed in on itself?

[Martyr Machine]

Not true.

Very true. All rights stem from property, and any ideology that does not recognize property is anti-rights. All leftism is tyranny. All socialism is tyranny. Communism is tyranny.

[LSD]

All rights stem from property

That's one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen.

All rights stem from society and do so to maximize the bennefits of all members of said society. If property causes more harm than good, then it must be abolished. Plain and simple. There is no "higher" morality here!

[Martyr Machine]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 01:32 AM

All rights stem from property

That's one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen.

All rights stem from society and do so to maximize the bennefits of all members of said society. If property causes more harm than good, then it must be abolished. Plain and simple. There is no "higher" morality here!
The belief that rights stem from society is a contradiction. If they stem from society, then they can be changed at the whim of society, which makes them priviledges, not rights.

[LSD]

The belief that rights stem from society is a contradiction.

No it isn't.

Rights only exist when they are societal. Outside of a societal context, rights are meaningless. Just look at fish.


If they stem from society, then they can be changed at the whim of society

No they can't. Rights stem from the fundamental responsibility of society to the individual. Rights are established nescessities which society can protect without adversely affecting others. A society which "by whim" fails to respect these duties has not met its burden.

But, regardless, without society, rights do not exist.

[comrade red angelwing]

i'll be fast and objective on answering your questions bro
yes you can be part of any religion you can be atheist you can believe in UFO's etc

the true comunism says that you are free to believe in what you want,but just if it doesn't make things hard to other people. :ph34r:
you can believe in UFO's or atlantis if u want that doesn't really bothers the others

about the exclusion of christianism comes the better part!


JESUS WAS COMUNIST!!! (who disagrees can contact me, my e-mail is [email protected]) he said that people above all differences should be equal that is comunism! the god he referred was just a coalition point that they should follow above all things to reach an equallitary
but obviously there is a creator of the universe, how can somebody think that everything is just spontaneous? that sounds nuts!(crazy)

[comrade red angelwing]

i forgot something very important in my last topic hermanos
if you read the bible of course you will see that jesus was not a comunist like a marxist should be descripted
but yes he was also murdered for political reasons and the fact that implies the church and the modern christians to be so anti comunists is that since the church estabilishment by emperor constantino they distorcione the facts
but in some sites you can read the dead sea(i don't know the real name in english :P)scrolls, you can see that jesus really was a comunist!
and of course during the middle ages ,the high church society discovered that they loved money, and when marx transformed the utopia of comunism in a concrete theory these priests got scared and forgot their ancient roots to keep with their lust and fighted comunism until now.
in marx's works about religion he described it ans drugs for the people, the church used it as a motivation to fight against the comunism but if the church stayed just like when jesus died of course we would live in a better world
at least i hope that because if it is true, we will need to work lighter to do it now than if it is not
think about

[KC]

yes you can be part of any religion you can be atheist you can believe in UFO's etc

No you can't. A scientist that believes in alchemy wouldn't be a scientist for long.


the true comunism says that you are free to believe in what you want,but just if it doesn't make things hard to other people. ph34r.gif

No it doesn't. It doesn't sound like you're very learned in Marxist philosophy (which is the foundation of communism).



you can believe in UFO's or atlantis if u want that doesn't really bothers the others


But it does.



JESUS WAS COMUNIST!!! (who disagrees can contact me, my e-mail is [email protected]) he said that people above all differences should be equal that is comunism!

That isn't what communism is. People don't need to contact you, they can debate it right here.


the god he referred was just a coalition point that they should follow above all things to reach an equallitary

So he tricked them into believing in this? What a nice guy! :lol:


but obviously there is a creator of the universe, how can somebody think that everything is just spontaneous? that sounds nuts!(crazy)

Prove it.


if you read the bible of course you will see that jesus was not a comunist like a marxist should be descripted

A Marxist is a Communist.


but yes he was also murdered for political reasons and the fact that implies the church and the modern christians to be so anti comunists is that since the church estabilishment by emperor constantino they distorcione the facts
but in some sites you can read the dead sea(i don't know the real name in english tongue.gif)scrolls, you can see that jesus really was a comunist!

Again, prove it. We're not here to look up evidence supporting your claim. You're here to provide it.


and of course during the middle ages ,the high church society discovered that they loved money, and when marx transformed the utopia of comunism in a concrete theory these priests got scared and forgot their ancient roots to keep with their lust and fighted comunism until now.

Organized religion is terrified of communism because communism is the polar opposite to religion. They are completely in conflict with one another.



in marx's works about religion he described it ans drugs for the people, the church used it as a motivation to fight against the comunism but if the church stayed just like when jesus died of course we would live in a better world

Well that didn't happen. So stop being so idealist.



at least i hope that because if it is true, we will need to work lighter to do it now than if it is not
think about

Huh? :huh:

[idealisticcommie]

You cannot empirically prove whether God does, or does not exist. Organized religion is chicken-shit because the followers abrogate their personal responsibility for answering the whys and what-fors of the question to a self-appointed muckety-muck.

This being said, there is much deep spiritual truth in the teachings of Jesus, (as well as in the Quran), etc. according to me: FOR ME.

I personally am a practitioner of Buddha Dharma,(notice I didn't say Buddhism), and agree with wholeheartedly with Marx's analysis of capitalist materialism.

But back to the original issue: Since none of this can be empirically established; why are we debating something which can only be individually actualized?

Don't we have other objectively obvious issues to attend to? :(

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by idealisticcommie
You cannot empirically prove whether God does, or does not exist.

Three centuries of scientific research have failed to come up with so much as a shred of credible evidence in favor of the "supernatural"...much less one that is "inhabited" by "entities" that interact with the known universe.

That's "proof enough" for me...and I think for any rational person. The "God hypothesis" has been totally discredited from an empirical standpoint.

The motives of those who nevertheless continue to defend it are obviously self-interested.

More difficult to grasp are the motives of those who think we should still treat the "God hypothesis" as a "possibility" inspite of the fact that 100% of the evidence is negative.

Even in circles that purport to be "leftist" or "revolutionary", one continues to run across a few people who are "squeamish" about openly confronting and opposing all forms of superstition.

I confess I find this very difficult to understand. To suggest that "people might be offended" by our attacks on their superstition overlooks the fact that people "might also be offended" when we attack their racism, sexism, homophobia, patriotism, or any other reactionary views they might hold.

Communism is offensive...it's an implacable enemy of all forms of oppression.

What is to be gained by pretending otherwise?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[idealisticcommie]

I restate: You cannot empirically prove whether God does, or does not exist. :)

I agree with you Redstar that we should take no prisoners with people who believe in superstition; or arbitrary forms of hierarchy for that matter. I just finished reading your eviceration of St. Avakian. But that said, you did not negate my statement in your reply. :blush:

One of the most attractive elements of socialism to folks on the street is its subjective moral appeal to their viceral sense of "justice". This moral "high ground" is one of socialism's strengths. Compare this to the reaction of people to the Social Darwinistic business practices of Walmart. :ph34r:

Its to socialism's advantage to coopt theism, while destroying the baseless superstitions which have accreted to it. :D

[KC]

I restate: You cannot empirically prove whether God does, or does not exist. smile.gif

Do you know what empiricism is?



Its to socialism's advantage to coopt theism, while destroying the baseless superstitions which have accreted to it. biggrin.gif

Here you contradict yourself. Theism is a baseless superstition.

[idealisticcommie]

Transcendentalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Transcendentalism was the name of a group of new ideas in literature, religion, culture, and philosophy that advocates that there is an ideal spiritual state that 'transcends' the physical and empirical and is only realized through a knowledgeable intuitive awareness that is conditional upon the individual. Essentially, the ability to perceive the spiritual, because you "feel" it. The concept emerged in New England in the early-to mid-nineteenth century. It is sometimes called "American Transcendentalism" to distinguish it from other uses of the word transcendental. It began as a protest against the general state of culture and society at the time, and in particular, the state of intellectualism at Harvard and the doctrine of the Unitarian church which was taught at Harvard Divinity School.

Prominent Transcendentalists included Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Margaret Fuller, as well as Bronson Alcott, Orestes Brownson, William Ellery Channing, Frederick Henry Hedge, Theodore Parker, and George Putnam.

Yes, I know what empiricism is; don't be condecending with me. :)

[KC]

Originally posted by Wikipedia
Empiricism (greek εμπειρισμός, from empirical, latin experientia - the experience), is the philosophical doctrine that all human knowledge ultimately comes from the senses and from experience. Empiricism denies that humans have innate ideas or that anything is knowable a priori, i.e., without reference to experience.

[John Dory]

1. Can you be a revolutionary and still be part of a large religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)?
2. Can you be a revolutionary and be part of an "alternative" religion (e.g. Paganism, neo-Paganism, New Age, etc)?
3. Could a revolutionary believe in the supernatural (UFOs, the occult, etc)?

The answer to all of these questions is yes. You must only, and actively, side with the oppressed and exploited masses to be a revolutionary.

1. Do you have to be a materialist to be an ideologically true revolutionary (not all atheists are materialist).
2. Could a religious atheist be a revolutionary (e.g. some Buddhist sects, some Hindu sects and some "alternative" religions have atheistic followers)?
3. Which is more important: (1) Not believing in a deity, (2) Being a dialectic materialist, (3) Not being part of an organized religion - or a combination of the three?

Religion should not, and could not, be the dividing line for a truly liberating revolution. Once again, you must only side with the oppressed and exploited of the world to be a real revolutionary.

"If you tremble with indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine."

-Ernesto "Che" Guevara


Fuck the knit-picking idealists. There is no such thing as an ideal revolutionary. We have to unite along along the broadest line possible, this cannot happen while refusing to address religious people that side with us as what they really are... our comrades.

[John Dory]

This article may add to this discussion. (http://rwor.org/a/013/avakian-religion-fascism.htm)

[ItalianCommie]

I think Religious belief=Illusion, Communism/Socialism/anrchism(Marxism as a whole)=Reason. It's as simple as that.

[violencia.Proletariat]

The answer to all of these questions is yes.

I'm afraid not. Your not very revolutionary if you have thousands year old explanations for things (religion)


You must only, and actively, side with the oppressed and exploited masses to be a revolutionary.

Thats not true, I could side with the opressed and convince them to let me rule them in a leninist despotism, does that sound very revolutionary to you?


Religion should not, and could not, be the dividing line for a truly liberating revolution. Once again, you must only side with the oppressed and exploited of the world to be a real revolutionary.

As above that deffinition of revolutionary is not accurate and religion should be a dividing line in whether or not you are revolutionary. Barbaric bullshit ideas ARE NOT revolutionary.


We have to unite along along the broadest line possible, this cannot happen while refusing to address religious people that side with us as what they really are... our comrades.

No we dont! Religious reactionaries are not revolutionaries and should never be united with! No ifs ands or buts. You can side with everyone you want to, the demoncratic party, jesusleft.com, or whatever scam you can find, but it will not make a revolutionary change.

You are completely ignoring the material and historical inffluences on revolution. You act as if we dont get as many shitheads as we can find to call themselves left, everyone is just gonna decide to live in shit for the rest of their lives :lol:

[Raisa]

I dont need a god to justify communism, but I think communism is a plan of nature and a divine right.

The last will be first. Read between the lines people, it says it everywhere when you add it all up correctly and disreaguard the bourgeois altercations which were imposed on the iliterate masses for the longest times.

Dont bother trying to change my ignorant ass opinion. Its been revealed to me.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by idealisticcommie
I restate: You cannot empirically prove whether God does or does not exist.

And I repeat: the failure to locate even a shred of reliable empirical evidence in support of the "god hypothesis" over three centuries of scientific inquiry proves that there are no gods.

Is three centuries "not enough" for you?

How about four? Five? Ten? :lol:

If your standard of "negative evidence" is finite, then the point must come where you have to concede that it's been proved that there are no gods.

Only if your standard of negative evidence is infinite can you be a consistent agnostic on the question.

That is, the consistent agnostic argues that it must be proved that "all possible gods do not exist" before atheism is "logically justified".

Is that what you think?


One of the most attractive elements of socialism to folks on the street is its subjective moral appeal to their visceral sense of "justice"....It's to socialism's advantage to coopt theism...

The presumes that our "sense of justice" is based on theological assumptions.

But it's actually been demonstrated in laboratory experiments that chimpanzees have a "sense of justice" with regard to unequal rewards for similar work.

Not even the most fervent theist would argue, I think, that chimpanzees are "just" because "God told them it was a good thing".

If chimps don't need "God", then why do we? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Ice]

Read this, it might be useful to your discussion.

Socialism and The Churches (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1905/misc/socialism-churches.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg

[FULL METAL JACKET]

Why did Stalin open churches in the USSR during WWII?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Ice+--> (Ice)Read this, it might be useful to your discussion.[/b]

I'm afraid its merits are entirely historical.


Originally posted by Rosa Luxemburg in [email protected]
But never do the Social-Democrats drive the workers to fight against clergy, or try to interfere with religious beliefs; not at all! The Social-Democrats, those of the whole world and of our own country, regard conscience and personal opinions as being sacred. Every man may hold what faith and what opinions seem likely to him to ensure happiness. No one has the right to persecute or to attack the particular religious opinion of others. That is what the socialists think.

Even the "best" revolutionaries of that era were really not very revolutionary at all...by modern standards.


Luxemburg
However we see the clergy on the one hand, excommunicating and persecuting the Social-Democrats, and, on the other hand, commanding the workers to suffer in patience, that is, to let themselves patiently be exploited by the capitalists. The clergy storm against the Social Democrats, exhort the workers not to "revolt" against the overlords, but to submit obediently to the oppression of this government which kills defenseless people, which sends to the monstrous butchery of the war millions of workers, which persecutes Catholics, Russian Catholics and "Old Believers". Thus, the clergy, which makes itself the spokesman of the rich, the defender of exploitation and oppression, places itself in flagrant contradiction to the Christian doctrine. The bishops and the priests are not the propagators of Christian teaching, but the worshipers of the Golden Calf and of the Knout which whips the poor and defenseless.

With the evidence of the reactionary nature of religion right before her eyes, she presumes to lecture the clergy on "Christian doctrine".

As if to claim that the Social Democrats are "better Christians" than the Christian clergy of her era. :lol:

You can see Luxemburg's thesis developed fully in Karl Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity (1908) (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/index.htm)...a torturous attempt to verbally "appropriate" early Christianity into the social democracy of his era.

How could they possibly articulate such nonsense?

Well, they reflected the conditions that prevailed at that time. The working class of that era was deeply pious...they took all that shit really seriously.

Indeed, an average Christian of 1905 would regard modern Christians as "practically atheist" -- except for the fundamentalists. That's how much progress we've made.

Interestingly enough, I have run across occasional hints that the social democrats in France were having none of that crap...even back then! The role of Catholicism in France was considered so self-evidently reactionary that no one would have even considered babbling about early Christian "communism".

Probably one of the many things I'll never live long enough to "look up". But it sounds plausible.

We're so used to thinking of German social democracy as the "crown jewel" of the 2nd International that we overlook the possibility that some other parties may have been more advanced on some questions.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Redstar
Interestingly enough, I have run across occasional hints that the social democrats in France were having none of that crap...even back then! The role of Catholicism in France was considered so self-evidently reactionary that no one would have even considered babbling about early Christian "communism".
Now that is interesting. Perhaps a legacy of the differing forms of bourgeois revolution in those countries? The French revolutionaries of 1789 had done quite a through job in ridding the country of all that nonsense.

Just thought it was worth noting.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

God can not be proven not to exist from an empirical standpoint, but there are strong philosophical arguments for his nonexistence. At the very least, one should disclude his existence because the possibility of a God is unlikely beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 14 2006, 12:31 AM
God can not be proven not to exist from an empirical standpoint, but there are strong philosophical arguments for his nonexistence. At the very least, one should disclude his existence because the possibility of a God is unlikely beyond a reasonable doubt.
Well, it all depends on what you mean by a God. There are about as many different definitions of God as there are theists. But I think that, depending on how you define it, the idea can be disproven, the same way that we can show that square circles don't exist.

For instance, God is often claimed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. So say he knows that you are going to die next Tuesday. Can he change his mind at the last minute and spare you? If he can, then he wasn't truly all-knowing since he incorrectly predicted the time of your death. If he cannot, then he is clearly not all-powerful. If God knows everything, then he lacks the power to learn new information and form new ideas.

However, there are those who say that God truly can do anything, including bending the laws of logic to make up for the fact that he can't logically exist. This line of reasoning of course leads to utter nonsense. We humans can only conceive of things which follow the rules of logic, so by defining a word like "God" as an entity which is inherently illogical you render the word completely meaningless. These people try to make a logical argument for the existence of an illogical being, which just doesn't work.

However, your point is still valid for gods that are limited in some way. There is no way to prove that there isn't a really smart really powerful guy out there who is invisible and created the universe. But even if he did exist, it would have no impact on our lives since he doesn't seem to be interfering with our universe in a detectable manner, making the whole issue a moot point. We should only busy ourselves with things that have actual measurable impacts on our lives, that is to say, things whose existence can be demonstrated.

Getting back to the original intent of the thread, I'm not sure if faith in God is incompatible with communism, but it certainly is with anarchism. That isn't to say there aren't people who consider themselves religious anarchists; I just think their position is logically flawed. Anarchy, etymologically speaking, refers to a condition without rulers or leaders, without authority. It seems to me that recognizing and bowing down to any higher power and his absolute morality is inherently unanarchistic. You cannot be free from authority as long as you are chained by the dictates of dead men and an invisible dictator of the universe.

[cyu]

I'm not sure if faith in God is incompatible with communism, but it certainly is with anarchism.

I'd think religions would be more incompatible with Marxism, since Marx explicitly comes out against religion, whereas communism and anarchism as nebulous concepts don't necessarily include a stand on religion.

I could easily imagine, for example, a religious person refusing his government's order to join the military or execute someone because it is against God's law to kill. Or I could imagine a religious person's support of communism because of their religious beliefs to love others as much as they love themselves.

If a religious person were going to claim to not be bound by the laws of governments or politicians, because she's devoted a "higher law" - I'd call that person a religious anarchist.

[Eleutherios]

Anarchism isn't simply a negation of governmental or political power. Anarchism comes from a Greek word meaning "without rulers" and means the negation of all authority. That's why the anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. You wouldn't call them "capitalist anarchists" just because they claim to be opposed the laws of governments or politicians. If you are an anarchist, you have to reject all forms of coercive authority, be they kings, bosses or gods. I do not see how you can be truly devoted to the rejection of all authority if you believe in an indestructible dictator of the universe.

Of course religion is equally incompatible with Marxism, but it is not necessarily at odds with the idea of communism. Communism is defined simply as a stateless, classless society. It is theoretically possible for such a society to exist and be religious. In fact, many claim that Jesus and the original Christians practiced a form of communism. And then there's the communistic Jewish kibbutzim of Israel. But it only works with non-Marxist communism.

[RevMARKSman]

Communism and Religion - Do they exclude each other?


Answer = no. In its most simplified form, Communism is the idea that all people, regardless of "class" or economic status, are equal. Early Christians WERE Communists, and not Catholics as some Catholics would have you believe. For you Christians: read Galatians 3:28. We are all equal. Communism is compatible with religions that assume/teach that all people are equal.

My opinion (again). Feel free to take it with a grain of salt as it is worth no more than anyone else's.

[Sentinel]

Early Christians WERE Communists

Communism is the theory of the liberation of the working class, not to even mention slaves.

The 'early christian' stance on this?


Originally posted by Saulos of Tarsos ("St.Paul")@ ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Not extremely communist, wouldn't you agree, Monica? The purpose of christianity is to enslave people, while communism strives to emancipate them. They are fundamentally opposed as ideologies.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Early Christians WERE Communists

Communism is the theory of the liberation of the working class, not to even mention slaves.

The 'early christian' stance on this?


Originally posted by Saulos of Tarsos ("St.Paul")@ ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Not extremely communist, wouldn't you agree, Monica? The purpose of christianity is to enslave people, while communism strives to emancipate them. They are fundamentally opposed as ideologies.

I think what Monica is talking about is a form of communism called christian communism. It's believes are that Christ's disciples lived a communistic exsistence after Christ's death

take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

[violencia.Proletariat]

I think what Monica is talking about is a form of communism called christian communism. It's believes are that Christ's disciples lived a communistic exsistence after Christ's death

take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism

Thats still not communism as The Sentinel has already pointed out. It says in the article the first christian "communist" societies were hinted at in the bible, well the bible is not communistic. :)

[Sentinel]

What does it matter how that gang lived among themselves, when they preached obedience to authority as a virtue for their followers? And I wouldn't call that bunch of sexists and homophobes communists no matter what. They were not advocating equality for all, only for loyal servants to the rules of 'god' as well as earthly rulers, appointed by 'god'.

Instead of revolting, people were supposed to 'turn the other cheek'. The liberation would come in the 'afterlife'. Sorry, comrades, but christianity is completely reactionary crap and has nothing to do with communism. Period. :angry:

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by The [email protected] 18 2006, 05:31 PM
What does it matter how that gang lived among themselves, when they preached obedience to authority as a virtue for their followers? And I wouldn't call that bunch of sexists and homophobes communists no matter what. They were not advocating equality for all, only for loyal servants to the rules of 'god' as well as earthly rulers, appointed by 'god'.

Instead of revolting, people were supposed to 'turn the other cheek'. The liberation would come in the 'afterlife'. Sorry, comrades, but christianity is completely reactionary crap and has nothing to do with communism. Period. :angry:
Touchez...

[RevMARKSman]

What does it matter how that gang lived among themselves, when they preached obedience to authority as a virtue for their followers? And I wouldn't call that bunch of sexists and homophobes communists no matter what. They were not advocating equality for all, only for loyal servants to the rules of 'god' as well as earthly rulers, appointed by 'god'.

Instead of revolting, people were supposed to 'turn the other cheek'. The liberation would come in the 'afterlife'. Sorry, comrades, but christianity is completely reactionary crap and has nothing to do with communism. Period.


When I said that early Christians lived in a communist society, I meant that the poor were supported, money was redistributed (yes, that had major flaws too). I'm not going to try and recreate the early Christian society. I'm just saying that Communism is compatible with all religions advocating equality.

[Orange Juche]

Communism and Religion always exclude eachother.

Communism and spirituality? Not necissarily.

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+--> (MonicaTTmed) You may have seen this somewhere else but I only take the words of Jesus as Gospel [/b]

Somewhere else? No, it was said by Jesus, in Matthew 5:39.


I meant that the poor were supported

The poor are not to be 'supported', but liberated. Communism is not about charity, but re-making of society. It's about progress, something fervently opposed by the superstitious.


money was redistributed (yes, that had major flaws too).

I agree, major indeed. See, money is to be abolished, not 'redistributed'.


I'm not going to try and recreate the early Christian society.

Good for you, since following the teachings of 'the lord' Jesus could get you locked in a soft cell, if lucky. :o


Originally posted by [email protected] Matthew 18:8
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

:lol:


I'm just saying that Communism is compatible with all religions advocating equality.

How about you now explain how Jesus advocating submission is compatible with a revolutionary theory. I'm eagerly waiting!


MeetingPeopleIsEasy
Communism and spirituality? Not necissarily.

Communism is a rational approach to the world. Spirituality is a irrational one. Sorry.

[RevMARKSman]

The "turn the other cheek" attitude means that one should not take revenge for something and thus further the cycle of violence.


How does one delete a post?

[Sentinel]

Ok, let's get this straight. You say that you are only a follower of Jesus. Jesus, on the other hand, said the following:


Originally posted by Jesus @ Matthew 5:17
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Where did the equality go? So there will be a ranking system, perhaps even a caste-system, in heaven? :o


The "turn the other cheek" attitude means that one should not take revenge for something and thus further the cycle of violence.

And is that a communist attitude? Doesn't it sound a little bit like the opposite of such? Communism, after all, still is the theory of the liberation of the proletariat, a violent liberation if necessary.


I honestly don't really care about the moral statements of the Old Testament or Paul

Paul was the one responsible for spreading christianity outside the jewish community. He was the true starter of christianity. Do you not think it matters what advise he gave to the slaves?

Or do you think it was opposite of what Jesus 'really' meant? That Jesus somewhere said that the slaves should rise up against their oppressors? If so, where??

Jesus and Paul were personal friends if I'm not mistaken, so it sounds unlikely. Especially in the light of Jesus' drivel about turning the other cheek to oppressors.

But you are of course welcome to come up with proof about how Jesus really was a communist. As long as there is none, we have no reason whatsoever to assume so, though. Please answer all my questions. :)

[Horatii]

Jesus and Paul were personal friends if I'm not mistaken, so it sounds unlikely. Especially in the light of Jesus' drivel about turning the other cheek to oppressors.

That's simply in-correct. If you wish to refute a belief system, one should, as is expected, know a little more than the basics. A vast knowledge of faith and belief in one's own system of morality is useless unless one can understand other systems, and as a result - WHY their beliefs are inferior/injust/etc. (that was terribly worded, but its 1:30)


Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Indeed. However, his actions and associations speak leaps and bounds of his "fulfillment" of the law. He associated with Lepers, Prostitutes, Gentiles! and other "undesireables"- and extremely "heretical" type of behavior according to the extremely elitest Pharisee and Saducee camps of Jewish faith (and also political and social movements - conflicts between whom countless Marxist conclusions can be drawn).


Where did the equality go? So there will be a ranking system, perhaps even a caste-system, in heaven?

Taking literally every verse of the bible is a great fallacy that many self proclaimed "athiests" as well as "Christians" do. If you wish to debate about the Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) nature of heaven, I'm game - but that is too broad a theological topic to discuss in this thread.


And is that a communist attitude? Doesn't it sound a little bit like the opposite of such? Communism, after all, still is the theory of the liberation of the proletariat, a violent liberation if necessary.

Again, what you're guilty of here is not taking religious scripture in context. Any theologian will argue that scriptures are meaningless unless placed into context. What one must understand is the attitude of Christianity as a whole. Throwing aside loaded leftist terms like "reactionary" or "bourgoeise" I'll attempt to explain this:

As a revolutionary leftist, the goal is to secure an egalitarian existance in this life time, on this earth. To a Christian, this is simply impossible - it is incomprehensible that we exist for 60 or so years on this miserable planet (trust me - it is miserable) and then die. Thus, petty issues of this world are irrelevant when it comes to the larger picture - an eternal life.

But isn't this what Marx was saying? Of course it is. One just has to understand it (as I would expect a Christian to understand a leftist viewpoint) from the other side of the spectrum so to speak.


Ok, let's get this straight. You say that you are only a follower of Jesus. Jesus, on the other hand, said the following:

Most Christian theologians will say that accepting Jesus as merely a "good moral teacher" is a complete farce. No sane, "good moral teacher" has ever claimed to be the "Son of God." In this respect, it's an all or nothing package -

[jaycee]

people here tend to take a very un marxist approach to these questions, you have to realist that at a certain time in history christianity was progressive in the same way capitalism was, both are now as reactionary as each other.

[Sentinel]

Well, it appears I was wrong about the relationship between Jesus and Paul. Paul didn't meet him physically in person, only in some sort of a 'vision'. I was under the impression that they had actually met on the road to Damascus, not only in a hallucination of some sort. I wasn't sure about this to begin with, therefore I wrote 'if I'm not mistaken'. It was speculation from me.

I am no bible expert, therefore I'm asking those who are to educate me.


Originally posted by horatii+--> (horatii) A vast knowledge of faith and belief in one's own system of morality is useless unless one can understand other systems, and as a result - WHY their beliefs are inferior/injust/etc. [/b]

I don't have any 'system of morality of my own', I'm a rationalist, only interested in facts. Neither do I see how not knowing every inch of the bible is evidence of not understanding 'christian morality' - if that was the case not even the christians would (with the exception of some scholars in the halls of the Vatican), as I doubt many of them remember, or have read, every word of that dull tome.

I'm still waiting for some proof of the claim that Jesus was a revolutionary (that Paul wasn't one is pretty self evident at this point), or that christianity and communism are compatible. Something to contradict the vast resources of reactionary material.


However, his actions and associations speak leaps and bounds of his "fulfillment" of the law. He associated with Lepers, Prostitutes, Gentiles! and other "undesireables"- and extremely "heretical" type of behavior according to the extremely elitest Pharisee and Saducee camps of Jewish faith (and also political and social movements - conflicts between whom countless Marxist conclusions can be drawn).
Which were those movements, and in what kind of political work did Jesus participate in? Charity isn't revolutionary.


Thus, petty issues of this world are irrelevant when it comes to the larger picture - an eternal life.

But isn't this what Marx was saying? Of course it is.

Where did Marx say anything like that? His theories were revolutionary, and he found 'petty' issues of this world very relevant indeed. Also, his statement that religion is the opiate of the masses, among other similar ones, contradicts any claims like the one above.


jaycee
people here tend to take a very un marxist approach to these questions, you have to realist that at a certain time in history christianity was progressive in the same way capitalism was, both are now as reactionary as each other.

I would partly agree on this. Some aspects of christianity might have been progressive at the time, compared to contemporary pagan beliefs. Some, on the other hand, were rather regressive. But here we are discussing whether or not christianity is compatible with communism, a very bold claim indeed.

[Horatii]

Which were those movements, and in what kind of political work did Jesus participate in? Charity isn't revolutionary.

Sadducees: These were a wealthy camp of religious zealots (priests and other elites - not to be confused with zealotry) that began as a political party. They were also a social movement They interpreted the Talmud literally and carried out execution over literal "eye for an eye." These people were about as reactionary as as reactionaries could be. They even denied any of the Hebrew bible that came after the Torah (first five books).

During Jesus' era, their social policies ruled over the Jewish people, as well as the weaker Pharisee camp. To make a long story short, Jesus was a "Jewish" social revolutionary in his actions, breaking the traditions and law of the Jewish people. That's kind of revolutionary, ain't it? No, he didn't massively behead groups of dissenters or anything like that, that was the Jewish revolutionaries in around 70. You're right, Charity isn't revolutionary, but destroying established elitist social customs is.


I don't have any 'system of morality of my own', I'm a rationalist, only interested in facts. Neither do I see how not knowing every inch of the bible is evidence of not understanding 'christian morality' - if that was the case not even the christians would (with the exception of some scholars in the halls of the Vatican), as I doubt many of them remember, or have read, every word of that dull tome.

Rationalism is a philosophical doctrine - just as Biblical law is a philosophical doctrine, or anything else. Wether you view your doctrine as more "legitimate" than others is what really matters here.

No, you don't have to know every inch of the Bible, but I'd expect anyone to so radically denounce something as ignorant and irrational to give it a little more than a second glance in the media.


Where did Marx say anything like that?

I forgot to add a comment about "Opiate of the Masses."

[Sentinel]

Did I misunderstand you? So you actually meant that Marx was opposed to the religious idea of eternal life in your above post? Then we are in agreement over that. :)

English isn't my first language and sometimes I get things wrong.

The promise of eternal life granted to those willing to obey authorities and suffer without complaining, turning the other cheek as Jesus put it, is the main fault of Christianity and other religions as I see it.

Another being that it is irrational, and dangerous, to believe in unproven myths.


Sadducees: These were a wealthy camp of religious zealots (priests and other elites - not to be confused with zealotry) that began as a political party. They were also a social movement They interpreted the Talmud literally and carried out execution over literal "eye for an eye." These people were about as reactionary as as reactionaries could be. They even denied any of the Hebrew bible that came after the Torah (first five books).

During Jesus' era, their social policies ruled over the Jewish people, as well as the weaker Pharisee camp. To make a long story short, Jesus was a "Jewish" social revolutionary in his actions, breaking the traditions and law of the Jewish people. That's kind of revolutionary, ain't it? No, he didn't massively behead groups of dissenters or anything like that, that was the Jewish revolutionaries in around 70. You're right, Charity isn't revolutionary, but destroying established elitist social customs is.

While I grant that Jesus might have been a great reformer of Judaism, he was hardly a liberator of the oppressed as I see it, merely a comforter.
He never aimed to liberate the masses in a 'communist' sense. He was no more a revolutionary, than reformist 'leftists' are in modern politics. They want to make capitalism work.

Jesus wanted to make superstitious oppression work, by making it more appealing. He didn't want to abolish it, quite the contrary.

Damn, he might even have had good intentions, for what I know. Or maybe he just wanted to get famous. But that's not the point. What matters is what he did.


No, you don't have to know every inch of the Bible, but I'd expect anyone to so radically denounce something as ignorant and irrational to give it a little more than a second glance in the media.

I challenge 'faith' radically, because I believe everything should be challenged. In that process, I also learn about it, for what it's worth.

I don't want to believe in anything, I want proof. My tone might sound agressive, and I agree that I'm biased, but that is due to the track record of the godracket, and it's clearly visible flaws, the reactionism and crimes of it's practisers, etc.

I might be prejudiced against the Bible. That is because I don't enjoy spending my time studying a book that says I should be 'put to death'. Even though it might make refuting it easier..

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by jaycee+--> (jaycee)People here tend to take a very unmarxist approach to these questions; you have to realize that at a certain time in history Christianity was progressive in the same way capitalism was; both are now as reactionary as each other.[/b]

A dubious hypothesis. After c.300CE, Christianity fully integrated itself into the structures of the Roman Empire and was, in no sense, a "force for progress". Where it was strongest, in the Eastern Roman Empire, it was actually reactionary from the beginning and stayed that way.

In the disintegrating Western Empire, church institutions "took the place" of Roman institutions that had effectively ceased to function...but without noticeable improvement in their effectiveness.

One may, I suppose, argue that Christianity "preserved literacy" (in Ireland and Constantinople)...but I think when you've said that, you've said all there is to say.

Certainly Christianity did not "revolutionize" social relations the way capitalism did when it emerged.

Thus from a Marxist standpoint, I don't think it's really reasonable to assert that Christianity was ever "progressive".

It was, if anything, a symptom of decay in the classical world.


Horatii
Rationalism is a philosophical doctrine - just as Biblical law is a philosophical doctrine...

I think that's a rather drastic mis-use of the word "philosophical".

Rationalism is a tool for investigating objective reality.

Biblical "law" comes from revelation..."God speaks" to humans and "commands" them to "do this" and "not do that". Objective reality is irrelevant.

There's really no comparison.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[jaycee]

i don't mean that christianity was in itself progressive in the same way that capitalism was, because christianity was an ideology not a social system, but its ideals were progressive in that ideas such as 'love thy neighbour' which questioned the authority of the old order.

On the question of communism and religions compatability, firstly communism means freedom therefore religion won't be forcibly stopped, however religion in the way it exists now will also be impossible to maintain in a communist society. The main problem with religion is that it supports the status quo and is used to preserve the power structure. When ther is no power structure this will be impossible.

THere have been examples of religious communistic societys in history. For example the Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls, the aerly christians held a lot of communistic ideas, John Ball during the Peasants revolt in Britain also put forward a communist society as being the one most in accordance with Christianity. Obviously commuism was materially impossible at this time and his ideas were also a product of his times which means that he couldn't fully see communism as we do.

[jaycee]

come on i was hoping this would start some conversations or something isntead of just being ignored.

[theCruzanCheGuevara]

This is my opinion don't take it as gospel. I do believe that you can be a part of any religion and be a communist. I myself have both Christian and Jewish religious background. I will never call myself atheist cause that pretty much says that I know there is no god. I don't myself subscribe to any religion because historically they have been constantly used as an excuse for man to kill his fellow man. When the Bolsheviks attacked Russian churches it wasn't because they were atheist many were deeply religious people. It isn't religion that communism is opposed to but rather the people in charge, the bishops, the priests, the pope, i.e the "religious leaders". Fidel Castro believes that if Jesus was alive today he would be a socialist because he preached many of the views enclosed in the pages of the communist manifesto. The cardinal, the Pope, the Bishop and the Priest are all represent power and a social class that goes untouched. Lenin was opposed to the fact that these men who were supposed to represent the generosity and kindness of Jesus were counseling the poor on paradise after death instead of giving out the money they had. The Catholic Church is one of the richest religions in the world with entire cities, states and countries loyal to it. Around the world millions of its followers starve or die of preventable disease and live in dumps eating what others throw away while their leader parades around the Vatican with $600 dollar shoes and a half a million dollar golden cane bearing a crucified Jesus. The idea that the such a wealthy organization can enable its followers to go on in these conditions asking others to be generous while they sit on a thrown kissing babies spending their money on needles items is why churches were ransacked. A communist should be guaranteed the same rights that were proclaimed in the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution, however unlike in America these rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality etc. should be more then just words on a page. As for can he or she be a revolutionary with this or that belief yes they can revolutionaries are supposed to be different. Sorry if this response seems to be just a bunch of organized thoughts but im tired and that’s exactly what it is maybe sometime later I’ll write it better.

Viva la revolucion!

[Johnny Anarcho]

Of course you can be Communist and still have religion. Just look at Malcolm X.

[RevMARKSman]

Communism and religion: no. No moralism or patriarchy is going to enter a communist society.
Communism and belief in a god: Possibly. Just as long as you don't shove your unfounded belief down everybody's throats.
Science and belief in a god/religion: Nope. No evidence, no burrito.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Islam doesnt have a patriarchy and I figure theres no harm in allowing patriachal religions to stay around as long they dont enter government and government doesnt enter them.

[LSD]

Islam doesnt have a patriarchy

What on earth are you talking about? :huh:

Does "men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other" sound familiar?

How about "your women are a tilth for you so go to your tilth as ye will"? :o

[Johnny Anarcho]

So, its historical fact that Islam actually increased women's rights. As far as your quotes they are true but only apply to women of the Muslim faith, these women are free to stay single if they want and they may even change religion for as the Qur'an says, "There is no compulsion in religion".

[LSD]

So, its historical fact that Islam actually increased women's rights.

In 660 perhaps; but it's been reactionary ever since.

Remember, there was a time when feudalism was progressive; that doesn't mean that it didn't need to be eventually dumped in favour of something demonstrably better.

The same is now true for Islam.


As far as your quotes they are true but only apply to women of the Muslim faith

:lol:

Well, yeah. Typically religion doctrine only applies to those who are subject to it. So what?

Do Muslim women "not deserve" basic human rights by virtue of where they were born? Are arab or Indonesian or Pakistani women to be "punished" because they happen to be living in particularly regressive regions?

It doesn't matter what a woman's "faith" is; she always has a fundamental right to equality and free motility.


these women are free to stay single if they want

Really?

Exactly what options does an unmarried woman have in the modern Islamic world? How will her family and community react to such a decision?

Without a man, she can't go out on her own; she must be covered at all times; and will be subject to her father's laws in perpetuity.

If she choses to become an adult in her community's eyes, however, and get married, you are saying that she effectively cedes all individual rights; that she becomes de facto "property" and "subject" to her husband; and it would seem that you have no problem with that.

So tell me, why are men "in charge" of women? How, practically are they "superior"?

What is it about women that makes them "a tilth for [men] so [as they can] go to tilth as [they] will" while men are whole human beings?

In short, explain to me why I should not restrict you right here and now for advocating blatant misogynist sexism! :angry:


and they may even change religion for as the Qur'an says, "There is no compulsion in religion".

um...correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't a man in Afghanistan recently put on trial for converting to Christianity. He was ultimately released due to massive international pressure and an indiciation that he was clinically insane.

But at no point did the Islamic government of Afghanistan or the general Islamic community ever renounce the principle that death is a fair "punishment" for "abandoning the faith".

Now, I obviously can't speak to what the Quronic authors' "intended", but it is quite clear that practical Islam is anything but a choice.

Once people are born into that world, they have no choice but to play by it's rules; and the reality that those rules are patently reactionary and anachronistic can be avoided by invoking "free will".

People don't "chose" to be Muslim, they are raised to be Muslim.

[Johnny Anarcho]

You cant blame a religion for what a dictatorship has done. I'll be the first one here to say that I dont like Saudi Arabia's government and something should be done about their human rights violations. Their crimes arent the fault of Islam but the fault of those who hide behind Islam and re-word it for their own uses. The governments must change but the religion of Islam will always remain.

I agree with you that all women deserve to have human rights as does every human being on Earth.

Just like every religion Islam is open to interpretation, just because the Ku Klux Klan tries to use Christianity to justify their crimes doesnt make Christianity bad, the same thing with Islam.

These laws that say women cant go out on their own are entirely man-made and arent a part of Islamic teaching. The Qur'an teaches that men and women are equal. In the matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance women are given the same rights as men(4:7; 4:19). No guardian can force any girl into marriage without first obtaining her consent(2:19). She does not lose her identity or name after marriage and has an equal right of divorcing her husband. Accusing women and punishing them for being sexually flagrant requires producing at least four eye witnesses - a law clearly for the protection of women against false charges and accusations(4:15; 24:4).

I never advocated sexism, you just accused me of it.

I think it shows a major problem in Afghanistan's development that something like that would happen but thats a country and religions cant be held accountable for a governments mistakes. Why should we appologize when not all of us were involved, thats like me asking you to appologize for something someone else did.

I agree with your last statement about free will. God gave us free will for just such reasons. I personally think that a person should practice whatever they feel brings them closer to God.

[LSD]

You cant blame a religion for what a dictatorship has done.

How about for what the religion has done? Can I blame it for that?

Can I condemn the Quran for its embrace of sexism and its glorification of reaction? How about for its overt promotion of prejeduce and hatred? How about for its toleration of oppression and endorsement of hierarchy?

Islam is now over 1400 years old; to claim that it is not antiquated is simply ubsurd. Moral codes are products of their times and times change. There just comes a time when a set of rules are no longer relevent and need to be junked.

Otherwise we end up with regressive and stultifying social manifestations; e.g., the modern Middle East. <_<


Their crimes arent the fault of Islam but the fault of those who hide behind Islam and re-word it for their own uses.

:lol:

What precisely was "re-worded" here?

I would remind you that you yourself acknowledged the sexist quotes I posted to be authentic. In fact, you even suggested that the only way for women to not be bound by these anachronistic patriarchal "laws" was to "not get married" or convert&#33;

This has nothing to do with the government of Saudi Arabia, it has everything to do with "Islamic law".


I agree with you that all women deserve to have human rights as does every human being on Earth.

Then how can you defend the Quron&#39;s declaration that women are inferior to men ("men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other") and are their de facto sexual property ("your women are a tilth for you so go to your tilth as ye will")?

In response to these questions, your previous evasion was to claim that women "don&#39;t have to" get married; the implication obviously being that if they do "choose" to marry, they are obligated to "submit" to their husbands.

It would appear that you&#39;ve backed away from this statement, but I&#39;m not letting you off the hook that easily&#33;

In your own words, the quotes above "apply to women of the Muslim faith". That, by definition, means that the Muslim faith endorses sexism. You can try and avoid this reality all you want -- claiming "misinterpretation" and "perversion" -- but the truth and your own words belie any such attempts.

So again, how do you defend the misogynistic statements of the Qoran that you have admitted are authentically and validly Muslim?


Why should we appologize when not all of us were involved, thats like me asking you to appologize for something someone else did.

Who said anything about "apologizing"? I was talking about condemnation.

If, as you claim, the Afghani trial in question was truly a "perversion" of Islam, where were the "true" Muslims to say so?

Why didn&#39;t the peoples of the middle east or of Afghanistan leap to the defense of their "faith" as they did in that horrible "cartoon" situation last year?

And if your answer is that they&#39;ve all been "misled" on the meaning of Islam, I would ask you of what use is a belief system that is so prone to "misuse"? Isn&#39;t this the very danger of doctrine and dogma; that they perpetuate social values of submission?

You see Islam isn&#39;t only dangerous because it is oppressive and prejeduced (and it is) but also because, like other religions, it advocates the abandonment of reason in favour of illogical "faith"; and there is simply no greater historical villain than "faith".

Nothing has caused more suffering, destruction, and death.

[Johnny Anarcho]

"I cannot agree with you that faith is absurd. It may be one of the most compelling forces that moves humans to achieve an end. Many revolutionaries or those who made great changes throughout history eventually had to have some kind of faith. General Washington called it "Providence", and used to capitalize it that way. How could you blame him? He was leading a revolution against what was at the time the greatest military on Earth. Ghandi had faith; without it what would he have been? I suppose Sparticus had to have something like it.

I don&#39;t know you and your personal life, but faith comes a little easier after you have a couple of kids.

If you can&#39;t rationally demonstrate faith, the same would probably true of love, and a bunch of other stuff."--Murder Inc

I think she says it best.

[violencia.Proletariat]

I cannot agree with you that faith is absurd. It may be one of the most compelling forces that moves humans to achieve an end.

How does that not make it absurd? Lots of humans used to think the earth was flat too, I don&#39;t see you upholding that philosophy.


Many revolutionaries or those who made great changes throughout history eventually had to have some kind of faith.

Not marxist or anarchist revolutionaries, thats what we are.


He was leading a revolution against what was at the time the greatest military on Earth.

Subjective, I doubt a lot of people here would consider the American revolution a real revolution.


Ghandi had faith; without it what would he have been?

Less of a reactionary piece of racist shit. Using racist reactionary leaders in history doesn&#39;t make your arguement any better.


I suppose Sparticus had to have something like it.

And guess what. Marx, Engels, Lenin, Guevara, the Spanish anarchists, and every other Marxist/Anarchist revolutionary DOESN&#39;T HAVE FAITH.


I don&#39;t know you and your personal life, but faith comes a little easier after you have a couple of kids.

I&#39;ll make sure to never have kids then ;)


If you can&#39;t rationally demonstrate faith, the same would probably true of love, and a bunch of other stuff.

Love is a feeling which people have. It&#39;s not a theory or explanation for the functioning of the earth.

FAITH IS IRRATIONAL&#33;

[Johnny Anarcho]

"Here is my opinion, &#39;Everything is rational and logical&#39;. This applies to God, the only metaphysical objective condition. Faith is merely blindly follwing something. To have Faith is to say you are placing your eggs into a basket which you are not sure of. Essentially, you say it is there and say it is not there. To know, to reason the exstitence of God is a much higher act of theism."--Le People

[RevMARKSman]

Any EVIDENCE or LOGICAL ARGUMENTS for the existence of your god? Remember, no fallacies or I&#39;ll have to put you in time-out&#33; :rolleyes:

[More Fire for the People]

I think that for practical reasons religious leftists groups can work with communists, but religion and communism are incompatible. If the religious attempted a counter-revolution under socialism then I think some measures would be needed to restrict persons ‘freedom of expression’ — no one under thirteen can attend religious instruction and confiscation of religious text from houses with children.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 10 2006, 05:31 PM
I think that for practical reasons religious leftists groups can work with communists, but religion and communism are incompatible. If the religious attempted a counter-revolution under socialism then I think some measures would be needed to restrict persons ‘freedom of expression’ — no one under thirteen can attend religious instruction and confiscation of religious text from houses with children.
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 PM
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.
How?

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+Jun 11 2006, 12:14 AM--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ Jun 11 2006, 12:14 AM)
Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 PM
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.
How? [/b]
Confiscation of literature, infringment of peoples religous rights.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+Jun 10 2006, 09:30 PM--> (Johnny Anarcho @ Jun 10 2006, 09:30 PM)
Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 11 2006, 12:14 AM

Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 PM
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.
How?
Confiscation of literature, infringment of peoples religous rights. [/b]
To speak of "religious rights" is like speaking of the "right" to own slaves.

There&#39;s no such thing&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 11 2006, 01:11 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 11 2006, 01:11 PM)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 11 2006, 12:14 AM

Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 PM
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.
How?
Confiscation of literature, infringment of peoples religous rights.
To speak of "religious rights" is like speaking of the "right" to own slaves.

There&#39;s no such thing&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
Then why did Lenin support freedom of religion?

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+Jun 12 2006, 02:43 AM--> (Johnny Anarcho @ Jun 12 2006, 02:43 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 11 2006, 12:14 AM

Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 PM
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.
How?
Confiscation of literature, infringment of peoples religous rights.
To speak of "religious rights" is like speaking of the "right" to own slaves.

There&#39;s no such thing&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Then why did Lenin support freedom of religion? [/b]
Like when he ordered all those churches blown up? ;)

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by CCCPneubauten+Jun 12 2006, 05:56 AM--> (CCCPneubauten @ Jun 12 2006, 05:56 AM)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 12 2006, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 11 2006, 12:14 AM

Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 PM
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.
How?
Confiscation of literature, infringment of peoples religous rights.
To speak of "religious rights" is like speaking of the "right" to own slaves.

There&#39;s no such thing&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Then why did Lenin support freedom of religion?
Like when he ordered all those churches blown up? ;) [/b]
Your thinking of Stalin. Although Lenin oppossed religion ideologically I remember something about him passing a law that legalized religious and anti-religious propaganda and the freedom to practice religion without government meddling.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 11 2006, 01:11 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 11 2006, 01:11 PM)
Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 11 2006, 12:14 AM

Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 PM
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.
How?
Confiscation of literature, infringment of peoples religous rights.
To speak of "religious rights" is like speaking of the "right" to own slaves.

There&#39;s no such thing&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif [/b]
A part of Socialism is freedom of speech without censorship, this should and must apply to everything including religion or otherwise a revolution wont happen. The masses wont join or fight for something they know will criminalize religion.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+Jun 12 2006, 09:11 AM--> (Johnny Anarcho @ Jun 12 2006, 09:11 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 11 2006, 12:14 AM

Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 PM
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.
How?
Confiscation of literature, infringment of peoples religous rights.
To speak of "religious rights" is like speaking of the "right" to own slaves.

There&#39;s no such thing&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
A part of Socialism is freedom of speech without censorship, this should and must apply to everything including religion or otherwise a revolution wont happen. The masses wont join or fight for something they know will criminalize religion. [/b]
Basically.

[bezdomni]

The government should actively discourage religion, but not necessarily abolish it. Society will abolish religion when it is ready.

De facto atheism is the goal.

[CCCPneubauten]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+Jun 12 2006, 02:07 PM--> (Johnny Anarcho @ Jun 12 2006, 02:07 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 12 2006, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 11 2006, 12:14 AM

Johnny [email protected] 10 2006, 04:23 PM
If you do that then your Socialism will be a fraud and the reactionaries will have been proven right.
How?
Confiscation of literature, infringment of peoples religous rights.
To speak of "religious rights" is like speaking of the "right" to own slaves.

There&#39;s no such thing&#33;

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Then why did Lenin support freedom of religion?
Like when he ordered all those churches blown up? ;)
Your thinking of Stalin. Although Lenin oppossed religion ideologically I remember something about him passing a law that legalized religious and anti-religious propaganda and the freedom to practice religion without government meddling. [/b]
Ummm....no?

Stalin outlawed Anti-Semitism.

Lenin did blow Chruches up. Or at least the Guard did. Stalin did re-open churches durring WWII and let priests bless tanks going off to the front.

[Herman]

Religion is incompatible with Communism. It is to be oppressed - No freedom, no voice.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 10 2006, 05:31 PM
I think that for practical reasons religious leftists groups can work with communists, but religion and communism are incompatible. If the religious attempted a counter-revolution under socialism then I think some measures would be needed to restrict persons ‘freedom of expression’ — no one under thirteen can attend religious instruction and confiscation of religious text from houses with children.
mixing children and religion, under any circumstances, should be prohibited.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 12 2006, 02:43 AM
Then why did Lenin support freedom of religion?
you cannot make arguments that appeal to authority, as if lenin&#39;s opinion on the matter is some sort of tragic finalization. while i may, to an extent, respect lenin, i don&#39;t at all admire him, nor do i admire the bolshevik coup.

we are all sensible people, and we&#39;re entitled to dissent.. not only are we entitled to dissent, but we should feel it a certain duty. whatever i disagree about with lenin (which is most things), i throw out. same goes for marx. i shouldn&#39;t be compelled to listen on authority, but on argument. that makes sense. my dislike for religion is not based on any specific people&#39;s &#39;requirements&#39; of me.. it&#39;s based on argument. i don&#39;t think it wise for parents to slap their children with religion before they can even legitimately understand anything about the real world. some kids grow up afraid of sex and alcohol, afraid of love and afraid of going out with friends. they&#39;re even afraid to contradict their parents&#39; hostility and mis-treatment. personally, i consider such superstitious fright a tragedy.. to have a teenager that&#39;s afraid to be a human being for his parents&#39; sake is simply criminal.

i wouldn&#39;t care about religion if it didn&#39;t have real-world consequences, but that&#39;s simply not the case. parents that intentionally teach their kids bullshit about the real world, teach their kids to, for example, be scared of a yellow plastic bag, or tremble at the sight of a piece of carton, would be considered psychologically abusive. i don&#39;t see the situation being any different with religion, except for the things they wish to be our points of fright. instead of cardboard boxes, you have sex being called a taboo, which, in the scheme of things, is just as physically and un-intentionally meaningless as that cardboard box. sure, it can have some meaning, but that&#39;s not my business, nor the parents&#39; business, to decide for the kid.

at a certain age, i don&#39;t care what people believe. want to worship at the altar of your favorite beanie baby? go ahead. but, to fuck a kid up so badly as to always have him believe that the beanie baby will protect him, or chop his dick off for bad behavior, is a little sick, at best, and maliciously criminal at worst.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by Johnny [email protected] 12 2006, 02:11 PM
A part of Socialism is freedom of speech without censorship..
if a nazi decides to put on a march in the center of a communist society, i don&#39;t think the local militia will protect him from the consequences.

[southernmissfan]

Religion is incompatible with communism. Revolution will not happen until various backwards, precapitalist mindsets such as racism, sexism, religion, etc., are minimized to the point of irrelevancy in the big picture. That is why it is important for communists of all types to promote rational thinking.

On a practical, local level, I don&#39;t believe working with a liberal church or something similar for this or that is necessarily reactionary. Whether the action itself is worth anything is open for debate.

It&#39;s really sad to see so many so-called leftists here talking about Gawd and other such fairy tales. The fact the we even have to have a religion board on a revolutionary left forum is troubling and exposes how much work has to be done even from within.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 08:39 PM
It&#39;s really sad to see so many so-called leftists here talking about Gawd and other such fairy tales. The fact the we even have to have a religion board on a revolutionary left forum is troubling and exposes how much work has to be done even from within.
How is it troubling? It&#39;s in the "Opposing Ideologies" section. It&#39;s pretty clear to most people here that religion is a bunch of hogwash that necessarily hinders revolution, and we come here to discuss it.

[southernmissfan]

Originally posted by sennomulo+Aug 2 2006, 09:18 PM--> (sennomulo @ Aug 2 2006, 09:18 PM)
[email protected] 2 2006, 08:39 PM
It&#39;s really sad to see so many so-called leftists here talking about Gawd and other such fairy tales. The fact the we even have to have a religion board on a revolutionary left forum is troubling and exposes how much work has to be done even from within.
How is it troubling? It&#39;s in the "Opposing Ideologies" section. It&#39;s pretty clear to most people here that religion is a bunch of hogwash that necessarily hinders revolution, and we come here to discuss it. [/b]
I guess the fact that it has its own seperate board (and I&#39;m sure there&#39;s a lot of people here who oppose it being in OI too). Or the dozens of "leftists" who flock to defend "their faith" everyday.

[kifl]

I feel that religion is compatible, but I think that church and state should be split. Their have been
leftist-religious groups in the past because lets face it if you go to the basics of religion they are the same as communist, socialist and anarchist ideals.

They shouldn&#39;t have to defend their faith, nobody should.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 04:52 AM
I feel that religion is compatible, but I think that church and state should be split. Their have been
leftist-religious groups in the past because lets face it if you go to the basics of religion they are the same as communist, socialist and anarchist ideals.
?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;
Try telling that to the Pope. He&#39;ll laugh in your face. Religion, especially organized religion, is extremely hierarchical and supportive of the status quo. If the basics of religion are the same as communist, socialist and anarchist ideals, why are all the major organized religious institutions extremely reactionary in their goals? Why is the religious right so much larger than the religious revolutionary left?

I don&#39;t know of a single religion that supports the core ideal of communism/anarchism, namely, encouraging the proletariat to wage a revolution and set up a classless, stateless society. Religion has had no problem with classes or states, and has been favored by just about every king and slave-owner in history.

The holy texts of the main religions make this painstakingly clear. The Bible is rife with sexism, justifications of slavery, and nationalist warfare. Furthermore, the basic idea of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is unquestioning obedience to a totalitarian dictator of the universe who makes all the laws and expects everybody to obey them unquestioningly while worshiping the dictator at all times. Communism and anarchism are directly opposed to sexism, slavery, nationalist warfare and dictator worship. They encourage people to take their societies into their own hands and make their own rules based on human reason in a democratic manner. We oppose all leaders who tells us exactly what we should and shouldn&#39;t do without logical justification while demanding that we worship him all the time. You cannot be a communist/anarchist and believe in Christianity, Judaism or Islam without some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

And it&#39;s not just monotheistic religions that are incompatible with communism. Take the caste system of Hinduism; it&#39;s about as anti-communistic as you can get. Or the Church of Scientology, which is also a very successful corporation that dupes its followers out of tons of money for its own benefit. Or, well, just about any other religion on the face of the planet&#33; There is a reason why atheists are the majority among the revolutionary left. Most religious teachings, especially the superstition of a "higher power", are simply incompatible with reason, materialism, democracy and egalitarianism, which are the core principles of communism and anarchism.

They shouldn&#39;t have to defend their faith, nobody should.
That&#39;s just ludicrous. Why should someone not be held accountable for their beliefs, and not be expected to try to back them up when asked why they believe in them? If I told you I was a deeply faithful Nazi and you can&#39;t attack my faith in Hitler just because it&#39;s my faith and I don&#39;t have to defend it for some reason, how would you react?

Critical thinking means questioning all ideas and examining the evidence for them, so that we may discover what is true and what is not true. How is that possible if everybody thinks it&#39;s not okay to challenge other people&#39;s deeply held beliefs? If somebody holds an incorrect belief very dearly, sure it&#39;ll upset them if you shine the light of reason on it, but it has to be done if human knowledge is to advance. It is absolutely absurd to assert that, if somebody believes something without any evidence and holds that belief very dearly, they should somehow be immune from criticism of their irrationality. The more deeply held an incorrect belief is, the more serious the problem is and the harder we should be trying to correct that belief. There is no excuse for allowing false and dangerous ideologies to delude people and screw up society if you can do something to help it.

[Tarik]

Lenine thought that the religion is an illusion that it permit to resolve our fears.
And me I don&#39;t need religion to hide my fears, I prefer accept the reality and all things and phenomenons that we cannot explain for the moment.
The religion is a human made concept, that which help us in the past to give us answers to reassure us, but actually that&#39;s only illusions of mens lived 3000, 2006, 1500 years ago...
And all the more, the science break the religion in each discovered and works.There&#39;s no place to religion if we&#39;re not a simple minded person.
And how many wars could have been avoided without religion...?Like John Lennon said "imagine there&#39;s no religion, a brotherhood of mens"
And Lenine understood it.

[Communism And Freedom]

Hi&#33; First post here. :D

I&#39;ve viewed this conversation for a while, and I&#39;d have to say that I do not see religion and Communism as incompatible. In fact, in many faiths they are complimentary (progressive sects of religions and theologies like Libertarian Theology). And to answer upcoming questions, I&#39;m neither a theist or an atheist, I&#39;m a non-theist.

To say that Communism and religion are incompatible is to ignore the long history of religious support of socialism/communism. Let us also not forget that religious communities were some of the first &#39;communists&#39; (such as the Essene Community and early Christian communities who fought against imperialist/proto-fascist Rome). Atheism is no more compatible with Communism than Theism. In fact, most of the original thinkers/designers/coordinators of Capitalism were atheists and many bourgeois capitalist intellectuals to this day are atheists. It is true that historically organized religion has been one of the biggest supporters of class society and capitalist rule, but it has also been one of the biggest opposers of it as well. Many of the Utopian Socialist movements of the 18th century were religious and many of the Scientific Socialist movements of the 19th century enjoyed religious support, including the Bolshevik movement. The Sandanista government in Nicargua enjoyed much of it&#39;s support from churches and religious congregations. Black churches in America sheltered the Black Panthers and Anarchists.

If one really believes that non-atheistic beliefs are a product of class society, that is contrary to history. Historically, the original state of human society were communistic societies (tribes). And historically (and even today) most tribes were Animists. If one wanted to be technical, they could say that the original communist socities were Animist and therefore animism is the philosophy of choice for communist societies. Not to mention that Western atheism (let&#39;s be serious, the atheism being touted by some communists/socialists here is European/Eurocentric atheism, not general cross-cultural atheism) originated from Classical Greek society (a CLASS (&#33;) society). Technically it appears that both theism and atheism are rooted in class society and pantheistic animism seems to be the most frequent belief in a classless society.

But that&#39;s beside the point. The point is, that it is not the role of any society or state to dictate what people should or should not believe. If people want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fine whatever. The line should only be drawn on religions when they try to force other people to join their religion or abide by their religious morals. Just like if people want to believe there is no God, fine whatever. But a line should be drawn if they feel that should have the right to enforce their non-belief on others through propagandization or banning of religions by way of state or laws. State-sponsored atheism is just as totalitarian as state-sponsored theism.

If you are an atheist, fine. But to say that your non-belief (atheism) is the only legitimate existential belief one can have to be a communist or that communism should strive to forcibly or coercively extinguish non-atheistic beliefs, then you are being just as totalitarian and insidious as religious capitalists who use the state to enforce their religious dogma, no matter how much you claim otherwise. Theism and non-atheism will always exist, and no society will change that. Theism and atheism have always existed in some form or another in every society (there were theistic and atheistic animists), and neither of them will ever disappear no matter how much we may not like it. Spiritual beliefs don&#39;t HAVE to be organized religions and religions don&#39;t HAVE to be like the Roman Catholic Church (remember that traditionalist Roman Catholicism and conservative Protestantism were the only religions Marx had any experience with) or the Hindu caste system, in fact there are many religions which contradict these hierarchies and are firmly compatible with communism. Just like there are atheists who are perfectly compatible with capitalism.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Many of the Utopian Socialist movements of the 18th century were religious and many of the Scientific Socialist movements of the 19th century enjoyed religious support, including the Bolshevik movement.

So what?


In fact, most of the original thinkers/designers/coordinators of Capitalism were atheists and many bourgeois capitalist intellectuals to this day are atheists.

Yes they were/are atheists, how is this relevant to communism and atheism? Are you implying that being an atheist is more "capitalist" than communist?


Atheism is no more compatible with Communism than Theism.

Marxist communism and for that matter anarchist communism is MATERIALIST. It accepts the world works on a material basis, which god is not a part of. Therefore communism is not compatable with theism.


Historically, the original state of human society were communistic societies (tribes).

You know people say this all the time but this is not comparable to what we call communism today. Did these tribes work in hierarchacal ways? Was there male dominance? Not to mention thefact that they did not have a means of production to organize themselves around. There "communism" is irrelevant to what we are pushing for this day.


The line should only be drawn on religions when they try to force other people to join their religion or abide by their religious morals.

Which is any religion of significant number. You may call force "at gun point" but bringing your child up going to church is force. That will not be tolerated post revolution.


But a line should be drawn if they feel that should have the right to enforce their non-belief on others through propagandization or banning of religions by way of state or laws

The point is not to ban religion. The point is to get society to a point where non belief is the vast majority. It is already moving in that direction.


But to say that your non-belief (atheism) is the only legitimate existential belief one can have to be a communist or that communism should strive to forcibly or coercively extinguish non-atheistic beliefs, then you are being just as totalitarian and insidious as religious capitalists who use the state to enforce their religious dogma, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

There is nothing totalitarian about the fact that communism is atheistic. Marxism is materialism, materialism is atheism.


Spiritual beliefs don&#39;t HAVE to be organized religions and religions don&#39;t HAVE to be like the Roman Catholic Church

...then these people can meet in their homes. Your arguement has been argued 100000 times here.


Just like there are atheists who are perfectly compatible with capitalism.

Atheism isn&#39;t a political idealogy. Modern atheism is an idea developed out of material reality. Materialism is the basis of marxism therefore marxism is atheistic.

[Eleutherios]

I&#39;ve viewed this conversation for a while, and I&#39;d have to say that I do not see religion and Communism as incompatible. In fact, in many faiths they are complimentary (progressive sects of religions and theologies like Libertarian Theology).
Such "progressive" sects are always in the extreme minority among religious folk, and the fact that a small number of religious people believe religion and communism are compatible proves nothing. There are also small groups of people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists, and there&#39;s even a "National Socialist Libertarian Green Party" (seriously, look it up&#33;) The fact that people can hold contradictory ideas and not see that they are contradictory shows nothing. When communism and religion are put into practice and both don&#39;t have a problem with one another, well, that&#39;ll be a different story.

To say that Communism and religion are incompatible is to ignore the long history of religious support of socialism/communism.
Long history of religious support of socialism/communism? :lol: Good one. Examples please?

Let us also not forget that religious communities were some of the first &#39;communists&#39; (such as the Essene Community and early Christian communities who fought against imperialist/proto-fascist Rome).
The early Christian communities may have shared stuff, but that doesn&#39;t mean they were communists. They still bowed down to an absolute dictator, took the abominable Biblical laws seriously, and opposed violent insurrection against the established order. If someone claims to be following the philosophy of Jesus and be a communist at the same time, they either don&#39;t understand Jesus or don&#39;t understand communism, or both. Resisting not evil, loving your enemies, and doing good to them that hate you can only further the status quo.

Atheism is no more compatible with Communism than Theism.
Except for the fact that theism requires belief in a supreme dictator of the universe, and communism requires the rejection of all dictators.

In fact, most of the original thinkers/designers/coordinators of Capitalism were atheists and many bourgeois capitalist intellectuals to this day are atheists.
So? That doesn&#39;t change the fact that the vast majority of religious people are capitalists, and the more religious one is the more likely one is to be supportive of capitalism.

It is true that historically organized religion has been one of the biggest supporters of class society and capitalist rule, but it has also been one of the biggest opposers of it as well.
What?&#33; Name one organized religion that has opposed capitalist rule.

Many of the Utopian Socialist movements of the 18th century were religious and many of the Scientific Socialist movements of the 19th century enjoyed religious support, including the Bolshevik movement. The Sandanista government in Nicargua enjoyed much of it&#39;s support from churches and religious congregations. Black churches in America sheltered the Black Panthers and Anarchists.
So a tiny minority of religious people supported some communist movements. That doesn&#39;t prove anything. Some bourgeois democracies supported the "Republican" side of the Spanish Civil War, which consisted largely of communists and anarchists, so does that mean bourgeois democracy is therefore compatible with communism?

If one really believes that non-atheistic beliefs are a product of class society, that is contrary to history. Historically, the original state of human society were communistic societies (tribes). And historically (and even today) most tribes were Animists. If one wanted to be technical, they could say that the original communist socities were Animist and therefore animism is the philosophy of choice for communist societies.
Well, duh. That was centuries before anybody had scientific explanations for the things we experience every day. What were they supposed to say, "we have no idea how the world works"? Of course they&#39;re going to make stuff up. The fact that primitive communist societies had mystical beliefs does not prove that religion is compatible with modern insurrectionary movements to establish a classless, stateless, egalitarian society.

Not to mention that Western atheism (let&#39;s be serious, the atheism being touted by some communists/socialists here is European/Eurocentric atheism, not general cross-cultural atheism) originated from Classical Greek society (a CLASS (&#33;) society).
So? The fact that atheism is compatible with class society has no relevance to whether religion is compatible with communism.


The point is, that it is not the role of any society or state to dictate what people should or should not believe.
True, but we shouldn&#39;t allow everybody to act on their beliefs in whatever way they want. If somebody wants to believe murder is okay, fine, but you can bet your ass we&#39;re going to do something about it when he acts on that belief. And I think we have the right to keep a very watchful eye on him, and to destroy any attempt he makes at creating a Murder Is Okay Club.

If people want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fine whatever. The line should only be drawn on religions when they try to force other people to join their religion or abide by their religious morals.
Like when parents indoctrinate their children? I agree, that should be stopped. And when that is stopped, how is religion going to survive?

Just like if people want to believe there is no God, fine whatever. But a line should be drawn if they feel that should have the right to enforce their non-belief on others through propagandization
What&#39;s wrong with propaganda? I think it is a very good way to spread your ideas and make people more aware of them, and I&#39;m going to fight to the death for my right to publish whatever I want to publish.

or banning of religions by way of state or laws. State-sponsored atheism is just as totalitarian as state-sponsored theism.
In a communist society, there would be no state, and I think we are all against state-sponsored anything in communism. And I think you&#39;re misinterpreting what we are saying. We&#39;re not going to hold a gun up to every theist&#39;s head and force them to stop believing in God. That&#39;s just cruel, and impossible. You can&#39;t change beliefs through the barrel of a gun. But you can stop them from indoctrinating children, wasting public land with giant monuments to their imaginary dictator of the universe, and so forth.

Spiritual beliefs don&#39;t HAVE to be organized religions and religions don&#39;t HAVE to be like the Roman Catholic Church
Would you be in favor of abolishing the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore Catholicism which relies on its dogmas? If you do support abolishing the Roman Catholic Church, what do you think justifies the suppression of that religious sect? If you don&#39;t support abolishing a reactionary, pro-capitalist, sexist, homophobic, child-brainwashing institution like the Roman Catholic Church, why not?

(remember that traditionalist Roman Catholicism and conservative Protestantism were the only religions Marx had any experience with)
Who cares what religions Marx had experience with? He was still right in saying religion is incompatible with communism.

in fact there are many religions which contradict these hierarchies and are firmly compatible with communism.
Such as...?

Just like there are atheists who are perfectly compatible with capitalism.
Again, that is irrelevant since we are talking about the compatibility of religion and communism, not the compatibility of atheism and capitalism. You might as well be talking about the compatibility between agnosticism and feudalism.

[Cryotank Screams]

The world’s religions (aside from "religions," like mine (Hedonism), Satanism, and Atheism) are all oppressive, and rely on the masses natural and instinctual fear to propel it. The major religions are oppressive and counter-human, and abuse the masses and give them false hopes in some spiritual-pipedream. Freud summed up the human need and the "sacred," role of a god figure quite nicely;

"The gods retain the threefold task: they must exorcize the terrors of nature, they must reconcile men to the cruelty of Fate, particularly as it is shown in death, and they must compensate them for the sufferings and privations which a civilized life in common has imposed on them."-Future of an Illusion, pg.18.

Aside from the socio-political beliefs of Communism, religions in general should be abolished. An oppressor is an oppressor regardless if he is here or in some imaginary palace on high.

Long-live Carnality&#33;

[Communism And Freedom]

So what?

So, there were socialist and communist movements based on religious ideals.


Yes they were/are atheists, how is this relevant to communism and atheism? Are you implying that being an atheist is more "capitalist" than communist?

No, I&#39;m implying that atheism is just as pliable as theism and can be used to justify capitalism just like theism can be used to justify communism.


Marxist communism and for that matter anarchist communism is MATERIALIST. It accepts the world works on a material basis, which god is not a part of. Therefore communism is not compatable with theism.

Marxism may be materialist, but Anarchism does not neccessarily include historical or dialectical materialism (even though many of us see it of high importance).

Actually, materialism doesn&#39;t even have to be atheistic, there are materialist pantheists. The view that God is not part of the material world is a distinctly Western European Cartesian dualist assumption.


You know people say this all the time but this is not comparable to what we call communism today. Did these tribes work in hierarchacal ways? Was there male dominance? Not to mention thefact that they did not have a means of production to organize themselves around. There "communism" is irrelevant to what we are pushing for this day.

I agree to an extent. Many tribes were the way you describe, but there were also some that were not. Some tribes seemingly had no leaders, and some tribes were matriarchies instead of patriarchies. They did have means of production unless you don&#39;t consider people to have means of production without factories.

And anyway, if you consider the organization of these primitive communist societies to be irrelevant, then don&#39;t use them for state of nature arguments. You can&#39;t justify communist theory by using pre-classical societies for state of nature arguments then say they have no relevance when someone brings up a fact about them you don&#39;t like (that they did indeed have religions, even though not organized ones). I never said that we should push for their type of primitive communism (although some anarcho-primitivists might disagree with me), but their existence and structure is key to communist theory when it comes to State of Nature arguments.


Which is any religion of significant number. You may call force "at gun point" but bringing your child up going to church is force. That will not be tolerated post revolution.

I agree with you here. Children shouldn&#39;t be indoctrinated, they should be free to make up their own mind.


The point is not to ban religion. The point is to get society to a point where non belief is the vast majority. It is already moving in that direction.

How does one do that without force? Propaganda? That&#39;s no better than religious people who spread propaganda.

Non-religious people have all the right in the world to express their non-belief. It becomes wrong if they start using the tactics that religious people use to indoctrinate others. And quite frankly, I don&#39;t see why non-belief is necessary as there were many socialist societies with lots of believers, and many anarchist societies with no need for established atheism.

I don&#39;t see why belief or non-belief is a must for any system.


There is nothing totalitarian about the fact that communism is atheistic. Marxism is materialism, materialism is atheism.

No, there is nothing totalitarian about atheism in and of itself. But communism is not neccessarily atheistic as there are religious and non-religious communists alike. Marxism may be atheism (that is up for dispute as well) but Marxism is not the only type of communism.

And the fact that you said materialism means atheism shows that you are specifically talking about Western atheism. There are materialistic forms of animism which are not atheistic.


Atheism isn&#39;t a political idealogy.

Neither is theism.


Modern atheism is an idea developed out of material reality. Materialism is the basis of marxism therefore marxism is atheistic.

By "modern", I assume you mean Western academic. That may be true, but I wonder how Marxists who are atheists and see atheism as a key goal of communism plan on spreading atheism.

[Communism And Freedom]

Such "progressive" sects are always in the extreme minority among religious folk, and the fact that a small number of religious people believe religion and communism are compatible proves nothing. There are also small groups of people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists, and there&#39;s even a "National Socialist Libertarian Green Party" (seriously, look it up&#33;) The fact that people can hold contradictory ideas and not see that they are contradictory shows nothing.

So you&#39;re saying that because some people believe that communism and religion are compatible doesn&#39;t make it so. Conversely, I could say that because many believe that religion and communism aren&#39;t compatible doesn&#39;t make it so either.

Is this an argument by popularity thing?


When communism and religion are put into practice and both don&#39;t have a problem with one another, well, that&#39;ll be a different story.

Historically many communist movements had religious support. I don&#39;t see what the problem is.


Long history of religious support of socialism/communism? :lol: Good one. Examples please?

The Sandanista government for one. The Contra government that came after it destoyed many Nicarguan churches because they were sympathetic to the Sandanistas. Patrice Lumumba enjoyed religious support as well. Black Panthers (Marxists) in America were sheltered by churches from the police.



The early Christian communities may have shared stuff, but that doesn&#39;t mean they were communists. They still bowed down to an absolute dictator, took the abominable Biblical laws seriously, and opposed violent insurrection against the established order. If someone claims to be following the philosophy of Jesus and be a communist at the same time, they either don&#39;t understand Jesus or don&#39;t understand communism, or both. Resisting not evil, loving your enemies, and doing good to them that hate you can only further the status quo.

Took abominable Biblical laws seriously? Did these communities have stoning and eat matzah bread? Since when did religious socialist/communist communities follow Draconian laws of the Bible? I don&#39;t recall reading about Quaker communities sacrificing lambs to God or stoning people for blasphemy.

Not every Christian has the same image of God. Not every Christian is like the Roman Catholic Church or Protestant Fundamentalists. I&#39;ve known Christian communists and Christian socialists who are theo-monists (look it up) who don&#39;t worship a tyrannical god.

To paint every Christian as a worshipper of a totalitarian figure or a defender of the status quo is to paint every atheist as a hateful militant person or a Libertarian.


Except for the fact that theism requires belief in a supreme dictator of the universe, and communism requires the rejection of all dictators.

Then why have there been dictators who ruled in the name of Communism with public communist support? There are some Marxists who believe in strong leaders and a powerful state to the point of being dictatorian. And there are theists like theistic animists who don&#39;t believe in an all-powerful deity. Just because there have been dictators who used communist theory to justify their actions does not mean that communism is inherently dictatorial. Just like the fact that there have been dictators and absolute rulers who used religion to justify their actions does not mean that religion is inherently supportive of hiearchical rule. People who say that religion inherently means a Pope or the Vatican are like people who say that Communism inherently means Stalin or Pol Pot.

What you seem to be describing is platonized Abrahamic religions which makes me wonder what "religions" are you talking about.


So? That doesn&#39;t change the fact that the vast majority of religious people are capitalists, and the more religious one is the more likely one is to be supportive of capitalism.

So this is guilt by proxy? Using this logic, one could say that Anarchists are Stalinists or Leninists because many Russian anarchists suppported the early Bolshevik Revolution. Because many Christians support capitalism it means that Christianity is necessary for capitalism or that it can&#39;t support communism? Before capitalism, many Christians supported feudalism, and before that many Christians were anti-government/anti-imperialist (specifically anti-Rome) communalists.

Most people will tend to use their religion to justify whatever type of society they live in. A communist society would be no different, I&#39;m sure Christians in a communist society would use Christianity to justify it.


What?&#33; Name one organized religion that has opposed capitalist rule.

Liberation Theology. The Black Christians and Black Muslims under MLK&#39;s Poor People Movement and Malcolm X&#39;s Black Nationalism and Black Liberartion. The Catholic Workers&#39; Movement. The Anabaptists and the Quakers. Buddhist Anarchists. The Mojahadeen in Iran.


So a tiny minority of religious people supported some communist movements. That doesn&#39;t prove anything. Some bourgeois democracies supported the "Republican" side of the Spanish Civil War, which consisted largely of communists and anarchists, so does that mean bourgeois democracy is therefore compatible with communism?

No. My point is that most people will use their religion to just whatever system/society they live in. The reason communist-sympathetic Christians are a minority is that communism is still a minority movement. That would probably change if/when communism becomes more popular.

To claim that religion (I&#39;m guessing you mean Abrahamic faiths) are incompatible with communism is like saying that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism because many of the founding fathers of capitalism were atheists.


Well, duh. That was centuries before anybody had scientific explanations for the things we experience every day. What were they supposed to say, "we have no idea how the world works"? Of course they&#39;re going to make stuff up. The fact that primitive communist societies had mystical beliefs does not prove that religion is compatible with modern insurrectionary movements to establish a classless, stateless, egalitarian society.

And there are scientific advancements today that cast doubt on 19th century materialism, such as 21st century Quantum Physics and knowledge of qualia consciousness.

19th century materialism may have been based on science, but it too is relatively outdated today like early 17th century science was in Marx&#39;s day.



So? The fact that atheism is compatible with class society has no relevance to whether religion is compatible with communism.

Now you&#39;re contradicting yourself. You just said that atheism is compatible with both class society and classless society. When I said the same thing about religion, you claimed I was full of it. Now you&#39;re giving a free pass for atheism on a point that you derided me on.


True, but we shouldn&#39;t allow everybody to act on their beliefs in whatever way they want. If somebody wants to believe murder is okay, fine, but you can bet your ass we&#39;re going to do something about it when he acts on that belief. And I think we have the right to keep a very watchful eye on him, and to destroy any attempt he makes at creating a Murder Is Okay Club.

When have I ever disagreed? ;)


Like when parents indoctrinate their children? I agree, that should be stopped. And when that is stopped, how is religion going to survive?

Many people gain a religious faith as adults or as teenagers. Unless you&#39;re saying that we should replace indoctrinating children with religions with indoctrinating children with atheism....

Quite frankly, I think a parent&#39;s role, as far as belief and non-belief go, should be to introduce their children to different ideas and let them decide when they get older.



What&#39;s wrong with propaganda? I think it is a very good way to spread your ideas and make people more aware of them, and I&#39;m going to fight to the death for my right to publish whatever I want to publish.

What you&#39;re describing is freedom of the press, which I absolutely believe in along with you. When I say "propaganda", I&#39;m referring to dishonest press. To most people "propaganda" means distributing lies, distortions, exaggerations and brainwashing. That is what I meant by that term, not simply freedom of the press to get our message out. We don&#39;t have to lie to get our message out.


In a communist society, there would be no state, and I think we are all against state-sponsored anything in communism.

You&#39;re right, I meant the Marxian definition of socialism. Sorry about that.


And I think you&#39;re misinterpreting what we are saying. We&#39;re not going to hold a gun up to every theist&#39;s head and force them to stop believing in God. That&#39;s just cruel, and impossible. You can&#39;t change beliefs through the barrel of a gun. But you can stop them from indoctrinating children, wasting public land with giant monuments to their imaginary dictator of the universe, and so forth.

And I completely agree.


Would you be in favor of abolishing the Roman Catholic Church, and therefore Catholicism which relies on its dogmas? If you do support abolishing the Roman Catholic Church, what do you think justifies the suppression of that religious sect? If you don&#39;t support abolishing a reactionary, pro-capitalist, sexist, homophobic, child-brainwashing institution like the Roman Catholic Church, why not?

I don&#39;t want to "abolish" the Roman Catholic Church per se, but I am willing to fight against it so that it no longer has the power to influence politics and social structure.

My morality is this: Our rights don&#39;t extend beyond our noses unless someone interferes with another person&#39;s freedom. Then we have the responsibility to protect the person who&#39;s freedom is being abridged. That is why I fight against capitalism because it is a system of private property which infringes upon the liberty and equality of others.


Who cares what religions Marx had experience with? He was still right in saying religion is incompatible with communism.

How can he say that with factual authority when he had only lived in a society with 2 prominent religions? Being under the thumb of 2 religions doesn&#39;t make one qualified to make an authoritative judgement on all 1,600 of them. That would be like me saying that all White people are bad just because most of the White people in my town are bad.

Marx was right on many things but he wasn&#39;t always right.


Such as...?

Some, myself included, would argue Buddhism for instance or Quakerism. Although Buddhism is not a theistic religion, it&#39;s non-theistic and pantheistic.


Again, that is irrelevant since we are talking about the compatibility of religion and communism, not the compatibility of atheism and capitalism. You might as well be talking about the compatibility between agnosticism and feudalism.

If atheism can be compatible with two contradictory systems (capitalism and communism), then cannot religion be the same way?

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by Communism And [email protected] 16 2006, 12:53 AM
So you&#39;re saying that because some people believe that communism and religion are compatible doesn&#39;t make it so. Conversely, I could say that because many believe that religion and communism aren&#39;t compatible doesn&#39;t make it so either.

Is this an argument by popularity thing?
No, it&#39;s a truth thing. Communism and religion are incompatible, because they contain contradictory ideas. For example, religion is based on authority, tradition, and faith, while communism is based on egalitarianism, disregard of tradition for tradition&#39;s sake, and materialism. They simply can&#39;t be reconciled without a great deal of cognitive dissonance, and the fact that some people can live with that cognitive dissonance has no bearing on the fact that those contradictions exist.

Historically many communist movements had religious support. I don&#39;t see what the problem is.
Historically most religions have been vehemently opposed to communism, and still are. Also, most communists have been vehemently opposed to religion, and still are. How can you deny that there is a problem?


The Sandanista government for one. The Contra government that came after it destoyed many Nicarguan churches because they were sympathetic to the Sandanistas.
But the question is, were they sympathetic to the Sandinista movement because they supported communism, or because they also opposed the despotic Contras?


Patrice Lumumba enjoyed religious support as well.
Patrice Lumumba was not a communist, and I&#39;m guessing neither were his religious supporters.


Black Panthers (Marxists) in America were sheltered by churches from the police.
But surely these churches were not Marxist churches. Just because somebody helps or supports some communists does not mean their ideas are fully compatible with communism. If I sheltered a capitalist in my house against the police, would that make communism compatible with capitalism?


Took abominable Biblical laws seriously? Did these communities have stoning and eat matzah bread? Since when did religious socialist/communist communities follow Draconian laws of the Bible? I don&#39;t recall reading about Quaker communities sacrificing lambs to God or stoning people for blasphemy.
True, no Christians or Jews follow ALL the laws of the Old Testament, or else we&#39;d still see animal sacrifices going on. But they continue to regard the Old Testament as holy, continue to publish it and continue to derive some moral principles from this obviously reactionary text. Clearly the laws of the Old Testament are incompatible with communism, so only one who rejects the Old Testament can be a communist.

Which means you can&#39;t take Christianity very seriously either, since Jesus also supported Mosaic law and encouraged people to follow it. (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teach...es/mt05_17.html (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_teachings_of_jesus/on_the_law_of_moses/mt05_17.html))Like I said before, people who claim to be Christian communists either don&#39;t understand Jesus or don&#39;t understand communism, or both.


Not every Christian has the same image of God. Not every Christian is like the Roman Catholic Church or Protestant Fundamentalists. I&#39;ve known Christian communists and Christian socialists who are theo-monists (look it up) who don&#39;t worship a tyrannical god.
Well, they&#39;re obviously kidding themselves, because the Bible clearly describes a tyrannical God, and if you&#39;re not going to take the Bible seriously when it describes God how can you take it seriously when it describes Jesus? Do you just make stuff up about Jesus and hope it&#39;s right? Or do you just selectively pick and choose out of the Bible what fits your pre-existing beliefs?

To paint every Christian as a worshipper of a totalitarian figure or a defender of the status quo is to paint every atheist as a hateful militant person or a Libertarian.
Huh? I&#39;m just saying that the teachings of Jesus, when taken to their logical conclusions, completely contradict communism. Either the Christian communists aren&#39;t taking Jesus seriously, or they&#39;re not taking communism seriously, or both. I honestly don&#39;t care if some people have such a warped view of Jesus that they actually think his philosophy is reconcilable with communism. It&#39;s not. As long as they continue to publish the Sermon on the Mount and encourage the principles described therein, I&#39;m going to call them counterrevolutionaries whether they like it or not.

Then why have there been dictators who ruled in the name of Communism with public communist support? There are some Marxists who believe in strong leaders and a powerful state to the point of being dictatorian.
The fact that some people claim to believe in both communism and dictatorship and have no problem with the inherent contradictions there has no bearing on the fact that communism is opposed to dictatorship. How exactly are you defining "communism" that you would include dictatorial rule over workers by an elite minority? Again, the fact that some people can live with two contradictory ideas in their heads is no proof that contradictions between the two ideas do not exist.

Just because there have been dictators who used communist theory to justify their actions does not mean that communism is inherently dictatorial. Just like the fact that there have been dictators and absolute rulers who used religion to justify their actions does not mean that religion is inherently supportive of hiearchical rule. People who say that religion inherently means a Pope or the Vatican are like people who say that Communism inherently means Stalin or Pol Pot.
I never said religion inherently means an organized hierarchical church. I&#39;m saying the God idea that is rampant throughout our culture, the idea of an omnipotent creator/dictator of the universe, is destructive to communism and inherently incompatible with its principles of egalitarianism, autonomy, democracy, humanism, materialism, and rationalism. Some people may have less authoritarian views on what "God" is supposed to be, but still when you get down to it these people aren&#39;t seriously suggesting that God is equal to us and should participate in democratic decision-making on a level playing field with us. They still tend to believe, for example, in absolute divine codes of morals. You almost have to, if you seriously think there is a being out there that is way smarter than anybody on earth. He must know way more about morality than any of us do, thus his dictates should be taken with more weight that human-derived ethics. Then what do you do once your God holds an idea that contradicts the democratically arrived at principles of the society around you?

What you seem to be describing is platonized Abrahamic religions which makes me wonder what "religions" are you talking about.
Well, obviously, I&#39;m most familiar with the religions practiced in my society, so I am most knowledgeable about how those belief systems are incompatible with communism. But anything I said could equally be applied to, say, Scientology or Hinduism.

So this is guilt by proxy? Using this logic, one could say that Anarchists are Stalinists or Leninists because many Russian anarchists suppported the early Bolshevik Revolution.
Huh??? That is not using my logic at all. It is a clear fact that very religious people tend to be reactionary, and reactionary types tend to be very religious. The more religious one is, the more likely one is to be reactionary. This is an extremely strong positive correlation, and I can&#39;t see why you&#39;re denying that it has any significance. How is that anything like calling anarchists Stalinists/Leninists? The more anarchist one is, the less likely one is to support Lenin or Stalin&#33;

Most people will tend to use their religion to justify whatever type of society they live in.
So now you&#39;re admitting that religions tend to support the status quo? <_<

A communist society would be no different, I&#39;m sure Christians in a communist society would use Christianity to justify it.
How? It would take a lot of linguistic gymnastics to extract a pro-communist message from the Bible. Not that religious people aren&#39;t skilled at bending the Bible to whatever beliefs they already hold, but it&#39;s intellectually dishonest and self-delusional.


No. My point is that most people will use their religion to just whatever system/society they live in. The reason communist-sympathetic Christians are a minority is that communism is still a minority movement. That would probably change if/when communism becomes more popular.

To claim that religion (I&#39;m guessing you mean Abrahamic faiths) are incompatible with communism is like saying that Christianity is incompatible with capitalism because many of the founding fathers of capitalism were atheists.
I&#39;m not saying communism is incompatible with religion because its architects have been primarily atheists. I&#39;m saying the vast majority of communists are atheists for a reason: the two ideologies are fundamentally contradictory in their ideals, one being based on rationality, materialism, egalitarianism and revolution, and the other being based on irrationality, faith, authority and tradition.

Now you&#39;re contradicting yourself. You just said that atheism is compatible with both class society and classless society. When I said the same thing about religion, you claimed I was full of it. Now you&#39;re giving a free pass for atheism on a point that you derided me on.
Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god/gods. That idea is not contradictory with anything in capitalism. Unless you can demonstrate to me some fundamental incompatibility between the lack of a belief in a god/gods and, say, private property rights or the boss/worker relationship, then I can&#39;t take the idea that atheism is incompatible with class society seriously. I don&#39;t see any contradiction in my argument.

Unless you&#39;re saying that we should replace indoctrinating children with religions with indoctrinating children with atheism....
Atheism is a single idea; it is not a doctrine. Talking of "indoctrinating" children with atheism is like talking of "indoctrinating" children into the lack of belief in unicorns.

When I say "propaganda", I&#39;m referring to dishonest press. To most people "propaganda" means distributing lies, distortions, exaggerations and brainwashing. That is what I meant by that term, not simply freedom of the press to get our message out. We don&#39;t have to lie to get our message out.
I agree, but there is nothing in the concept of propaganda which means it has to be based on lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

How can he say that with factual authority when he had only lived in a society with 2 prominent religions? Being under the thumb of 2 religions doesn&#39;t make one qualified to make an authoritative judgement on all 1,600 of them. That would be like me saying that all White people are bad just because most of the White people in my town are bad.

Marx was right on many things but he wasn&#39;t always right.

I&#39;m not saying Marx spoke with factual authority or that he&#39;s always right (I am by no means a Marxist). He just happened to make a statement that was correct, even if it was based on limited knowledge.

If atheism can be compatible with two contradictory systems (capitalism and communism), then cannot religion be the same way?
Atheism and religion are two very different things. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, while a religion is a structured set of positive beliefs in the supernatural based on authority, tradition and faith. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

[Communism And Freedom]

Originally posted by Communism And [email protected] 16 2006, 12:53 AM

No, it&#39;s a truth thing. Communism and religion are incompatible, because they contain contradictory ideas. For example, religion is based on authority, tradition, and faith, while communism is based on egalitarianism, disregard of tradition for tradition&#39;s sake, and materialism. They simply can&#39;t be reconciled without a great deal of cognitive dissonance, and the fact that some people can live with that cognitive dissonance has no bearing on the fact that those contradictions exist.

I agree with your chracterization of communism (except for the materialism part) and your chracterization of most religions. However, you are wrong to say that ALL religions are organized like this. The Quakers for instance do go on tradition (one of egalitarianism) and faith but don&#39;t go authority.

I still say you&#39;re only dealing with Western religious traditions because you&#39;re mass generalizing from a Eurocentric point of view to say that African and Native animism are the same way.



Historically most religions have been vehemently opposed to communism, and still are. Also, most communists have been vehemently opposed to religion, and still are. How can you deny that there is a problem?

I never said there isn&#39;t a problem. But some people make a problem where there isn&#39;t one. Just because religion and communism have traditionally been opposed doesn&#39;t mean they have to stay that way. I&#39;ve never advocated that the Roman Catholic Church and communists should work together, I&#39;m saying it is very arogant, bigoted and intolerant to exclude say people like Quakers from our ranks simply because they are not atheists.

Religion supports capitalism in many countries because religion is controlled by the established class. Not because it was born of the ruling class. Abolish the ruling class and it would likely remain (like it did in anarchist societies).


But the question is, were they sympathetic to the Sandinista movement because they supported communism, or because they also opposed the despotic Contras?

Because they supported communism. Communism has a much greater following and acceptance among the general public in third and second world countries as opposed to bourgeois-minded first world countries.


Patrice Lumumba was not a communist, and I&#39;m guessing neither were his religious supporters.

Then what about the Communist Party of the Philippines which enjoys regular religious support? Or the Maoist Black Panthers who enjoyed support from Black churches?


But surely these churches were not Marxist churches...

Doesn&#39;t matter, they still sympathized with them and defended them. The reason they weren&#39;t Marxist churches is because Marxism has a tradition of being opposed to religion. Of course religious people would be hesitant to call themselves Marxist.


True, no Christians follow ALL the laws of the Old Testament, or else we&#39;d still see animal sacrifices going on. But they continue to regard them as holy texts and continue to publish them. Obviously the laws of the Old Testament are incompatible with communism, so only one who doesn&#39;t take the Old Testament very seriously can be a communist.

True. But then again, Kibbutzim and Jewish anarchists follow the Old Testament......


Which means you can&#39;t take Christianity very seriously either, since Jesus also supported Mosaic law and encouraged people to follow it. Like I said before, people who claim to be Christian communists either don&#39;t understand Jesus or don&#39;t understand communism, or both.

You&#39;re acting as if there is a definite, monolithic consensus on Jesus&#39; teachings or how to interpret and follow them. The Bible contradicts itself because Jesus claims to support the Law, but then radically re-interprets and even seemingly nullifies some of the Mosaic Law. I guess that&#39;s up for Christians to interpret how to follow Jesus&#39; teachings. Some interpret communism as the way.


Well, they&#39;re obviously kidding themselves, because the Bible clearly describes a tyrannical God, and if you&#39;re not going to take the Bible seriously how can you take Jesus seriously and consider him the divine son of the tyrannical God described in the Bible?

I suppose it depends on how literally you take the Bible. Certainly at a literal value, God of the OT does indeed appear to be a divine Hitler. But then there are Christians and Kabbalists who don&#39;t interpret the OT like that at all.



Huh? I&#39;m just saying that the teachings of Jesus, when taken to their logical conclusions, completely contradict communism. Either the Christian communists aren&#39;t taking Jesus seriously, or they&#39;re not taking communism seriously, or both. I honestly don&#39;t care if some people have such a warped view of Jesus that they actually think his philosophy is reconcilable with communism.

What were the teachings of Jesus that contradict commuism? If anything, Jesus&#39; teachings seem to almost completely contradict capitalism.


If you want to call Stalinism or Juche "communism", go ahead, but you&#39;re deluding yourself if you actually think such ideologies aim to create a classless, stateless society. I&#39;m talking about real communism here, not state capitalism.

That&#39;s exactly my point. We don&#39;t consider them to be reflective of true communism just like some Christians don&#39;t consider much of their tradition in the hands of the Church and organized religion to be reflective of the original nature of their faith.


How exactly are you defining communism that you would include dictatorial rule over workers by an elite minority?

I don&#39;t consider that communism. Far from it. I consider it state capitalism.


But their ideas are just as silly and just as incompatible with materialism.

Who&#39;s materialism? There are materialistic forms of animism and materialistic forms of Hindu thought. And silly from who&#39;s perspective? Agreed that I don&#39;t find their beliefs particularly likely, but this sounds like a rather Eurocentric point of view.

And if they are incompatible with materialism, that doesn&#39;t make them incompatible with communism. Materialism &#33;= communism. In fact, I think of crass materialsm (not saying all materialism is crass) as being central to capitalism because capitalism believes that mere material goods and monetarial wealth can provide happiness, when that is obviously not so. As Peter Kropotkin said (I&#39;m paraphrasing) a communist society should also support man&#39;s creative and imaginative (idealistic) nature. Capitalism fails to foster man&#39;s non-material needs which is why so many middle strata American citizens take anti-depression medicene to deal with their bleak lives confined to material labor.



I never said religion inherently means an organized hierarchical church. I&#39;m saying the God idea that is rampant throughout our culture, the idea of an omnipotent creator/dictator of the universe, is destructive to communism and inherently incompatible with its principles of egalitarianism, autonomy, democracy, humanism, materialism, and rationalism.

Which brings me to my next question, what is "God"? :) The "God idea" differs from religion to religion and sect to sect. Even many atheists have ideas comparable to "the God idea", such as the immutable laws of nature. And does religion have to mean "God" is involved? Buddhism, Daoism, Jainism and Ifa rarely or never refer to their concept as "God".


Well, obviously, I&#39;m most familiar with the religions practiced in my society, so I am most knowledgeable about how those belief systems are incompatible with communism. But anything I said could equally be applied to, say, Scientology or Hinduism.

To say it can be applied "equally" assumes some sort of uniformity amongst all religions. You can only say that when you have thoroughly studies and familiarized yourself with the central concepts of all religions.


Huh??? That is not using my logic at all. It is a clear fact that very religious people tend to be reactionary, and reactionary types tend to be very religious. The more religious one is, the more likely one is to be reactionary. This is an extremely strong positive correlation, and I can&#39;t see why you&#39;re denying that it has any significance. How is that anything like calling anarchists Stalinists/Leninists? The more anarchist one is, the less likely one is to support Lenin or Stalin&#33;

Your logic was, that religion tends more often than not to support reactionaryism in this society. Thus religion has a correlation to totalitarianism. Many Anarchists were supporters of the Marxist Bolshevik movement early on. If being religious means supporting totalitarianism, then an ignorant person could say that being an Anarchist means supporting revolution that becomes Stalinist.



So now you&#39;re admitting that religions tend to support the status quo? <_<

Yes. Most religious people that is, not all. If/when communism becomes the status quo, most religious people would probably support it.

Most atheists are capitalists as well. Does that mean that atheism is any more inherently tied to capitalism than theism? No. <_<

By nature, most humans are status quoists. They will support the status quo whatever their existential views. In fact, most times they build their existential view around the social status quo. Many theists use their belief in divine hierarchy to justify capitalism and many atheists use their belief in the inherent supremacy of Man and man&#39;s rights and lack of a God/gods to intervene justify capitalist private property. And some theists believe in a loving and fair God who created all men equal to justfy communism and some atheists believe in a non-hierarchical due to lack of Deity to justify communism.

I&#39;ve seen theists justify capitalism saying that some people have property because God blessed them that way, and I&#39;ve seen atheists justify capitalism saying that equality is an antiquated Christian notion with no relevance in scientific reality outside of religious moralism.


How? It would take a lot of linguistic gymnastics to extract a pro-communist message from the Bible.

I&#39;d say the New Testament (at least Jesus) is pretty easy to interpret as pro-communist. If anything, it takes a lot of gymnastics to turn Jesus into a capitalist.


Not that religious people aren&#39;t skilled at bending the Bible to whatever beliefs they already hold, but it&#39;s intellectually dishonest and self-delusional.

That&#39;s the thing, does the Bible hold an internally consistent message throughout? You seem to be accepting the argument of religious Fundamentalists, that the Bible has a clear-cut consistent message, then dismissing it on those bounds.

The Bible, like most religious books, is like an inkblot. You see what you want to.


I&#39;m not saying communism is incompatible with religion because its architects have been primarily atheists. I&#39;m saying the vast majority of communists are atheists for a reason: the two ideologies are fundamentally contradictory in their ideals, one being based on rationality, materialism, egalitarianism and revolution, and the other being based on irrationality, faith, authority and tradition.

It&#39;s hard to have a meaningful conversation with you when you use biased emotionalistic terms like "rational" and "irrational" to describe your position and positions in contrast to it. It&#39;s like talking to a Christian who says, "There are two camps, those who are with God and those who are with Satan."


Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god/gods. That idea is not contradictory with anything in capitalism.

Yes, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a God/gods. That means one could be an idealist and an atheist. They just believe the ideal realm has no God/gods.


Unless you can demonstrate to me some fundamental incompatibility between the lack of a belief in a god/gods and, say, private property rights or the boss/worker relationship,

The two are very compatible. The idea of private property is very compatible with the idea of hierarchical gods. However, capitalism does not have to hinge on that idea. An atheist could believe in no divine hiearchy but believe in secular hierarchy like many of the classic Greek atheists.


then I can&#39;t take the idea that atheism is incompatible with class society seriously. I don&#39;t see any contradiction in my argument.

Are you saying that atheism is compatible with class society? Was that a typo? :mellow:



Atheism is a single idea; it is not a doctrine. Talking of "indoctrinating" children with atheism is like talking of "indoctrinating" children into the lack of belief in unicorns.

If you tell a child "there is no such thing as successful communism", that&#39;s indoctrination although it is a non-belief. Telling a child, "There is no God" is still instilling an idea.


I agree, but there is nothing in the concept of propaganda which means it has to be based on lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

I know that too, I was just using the word in the negative sense in that instance. ;)


I&#39;m not saying Marx spoke with factual authority or that he&#39;s always right (I am by no means a Marxist). He just happened to make a statement that was correct, even if it was based on limited knowledge.

I agree with him too in most occassions. But I am saying that his statement is not absolutely correct. It&#39;s mostly correct. His statement can be correct in some situations and incorrect in others.


Atheism and religion are two very different things. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods, while a religion is a structured set of positive beliefs in the supernatural based on authority, tradition and faith. What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

True, but my point is that both have been used to justify both. Atheism is no more inherently communist than theism is inherently capitalist. Both existed in some form before capitalism and both will continue to exist in some form afterwords.

Who knows? Another 2,000 years from now Western atheism may viewed by future atheism as most modern theists view theistic shamanism.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Marxism may be materialist, but Anarchism does not neccessarily include historical or dialectical materialism (even though many of us see it of high importance).

Class struggle anarchism is materialist. It is influenced very much by marx. Besides being a theist and an anarchist is an inherent idealogical contradiction.


Some tribes seemingly had no leaders, and some tribes were matriarchies instead of patriarchies.

...does that make it communism?


They did have means of production

Hunting/gathering and an industrialized society don&#39;t have much in common. ;)


You can&#39;t justify communist theory by using pre-classical societies for state of nature arguments then say they have no relevance when someone brings up a fact about them you don&#39;t like

I don&#39;t use this for justification of anything. The running of ancient societies is irrelevant to the communist movement today. Going back that far in history makes your arguement seem weaker.


I agree with you here. Children shouldn&#39;t be indoctrinated, they should be free to make up their own mind.

Then you are going to have to restrict religion. If you expect to leave religion be and think that people will quit taking their kids after the revolution then your nuts.


How does one do that without force? Propaganda? That&#39;s no better than religious people who spread propaganda.

Force? It&#39;s a social occurance thats happening without force. Yes there would be encouragement but nothing physical.


It becomes wrong if they start using the tactics that religious people use to indoctrinate others.

This wasn&#39;t proposed anywhere, why don&#39;t you quit making stuff up.


and many anarchist societies with no need for established atheism.

Like where?


There are materialistic forms of animism which are not atheistic.

How many people follow this religion? How many people follow it in the western countries?

[Communism And Freedom]

Class struggle anarchism is materialist. It is influenced very much by marx. Besides being a theist and an anarchist is an inherent idealogical contradiction.

Not neccessarily, there are Christian and Buddhist Anarchists and Anarchist communities built on religious principles. Although someone might consider them "utopian" anarchists.

If our approach is materialist, it doesn&#39;t mean someone can&#39;t be a theist. They can be a theist and simply use a materialist approach.


...does that make it communism?

In &#39;primitive&#39; form. That&#39;s why we use them in State of Nature arguments.


Hunting/gathering and an industrialized society don&#39;t have much in common. ;)

Of course not, an industrialized society is a class society as it stands today. An industrialized communist society would have much in common with a primitive communist society structurally, although not culturally. ;)


I don&#39;t use this for justification of anything. The running of ancient societies is irrelevant to the communist movement today. Going back that far in history makes your arguement seem weaker.

So what do we base our arguments off of? If there&#39;s no society to base it on, doesn&#39;t it just become pure idealism?


Then you are going to have to restrict religion. If you expect to leave religion be and think that people will quit taking their kids after the revolution then your nuts.

I never suggested (or at least never meant) not restricting religion. I simply meant "leave it be" in terms of letting it exist or. It definitely needs to be restricted as long as it continues to be counter-productive.


Force? It&#39;s a social occurance thats happening without force. Yes there would be encouragement but nothing physical.

How would it happen socially? Atheists are a minority socially. Likely it would be restricted by progressive-minded and radical-minded religious people willing to encourage restriction of religion to private matters.


This wasn&#39;t proposed anywhere, why don&#39;t you quit making stuff up.

Not by you but another member said this:


Atheism is a single idea; it is not a doctrine. Talking of "indoctrinating" children with atheism is like talking of "indoctrinating" children into the lack of belief in unicorns.

Implying that if children were taught atheism, it wouldn&#39;t be indoctrination. At least that&#39;s what I took it to mean.


Like where?

Quaker and Anabaptist communities. Are they irrelevant too? <_<


How many people follow this religion? How many people follow it in the western countries?

Probably very, very few. But the revolution is worldwide, not just in the West.

It would be foolish and arrogant to apply a single cultural philosophy (Western atheism) to the revolution and expect it to be applied worldwide. Our revolution is internationalist and we respect cultural differences, not like capitalist globalism which tries to impose a single world culture.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Not neccessarily, there are Christian and Buddhist Anarchists

No there aren&#39;t. Thats a contradiction.


They can be a theist and simply use a materialist approach.

Theism is anti-materialism. There is no significant number of deists anymore.


An industrialized communist society would have much in common with a primitive communist society structurally

No they wouldn&#39;t. Primitive societies didn&#39;t have workers councils or trade federations.


How would it happen socially?

It is happening.


Quaker and Anabaptist communities. Are they irrelevant too?

Yes.


Probably very, very few. But the revolution is worldwide, not just in the West.

This is debateable and depends on what you accept.


It would be foolish and arrogant to apply a single cultural philosophy (Western atheism) to the revolution and expect it to be applied worldwide.

I don&#39;t expect it to be applied worldwide because I dont think the revolution will be world wide. I think it will take place in advanced western countries first.

[Communism And Freedom]

No there aren&#39;t. Thats a contradiction.

What makes them any less Anarchist?


Theism is anti-materialism. There is no significant number of deists anymore.

Theism is not anti-materialism. Western theism is usually pluralism. Idealism is anti-materialism and most Western theists are not idealists. Some sects of Buddhism and Gnosticism would however be idealist.

One of my close friends is an Anarcho-Syndicalist an a practicioner of the Yoruban Ifa religion and a member of IWW. Are they a false Anarchist?


No they wouldn&#39;t. Primitive societies didn&#39;t have workers councils or trade federations.

Because they weren&#39;t industrialized. That was my point about how they would differ technologically.


It is happening.

Okay, but there have been successful revolutions where no established atheism was necessary.


Yes.

Why? They still held a successful revolution.


This is debateable and depends on what you accept.

What is debatable?


I don&#39;t expect it to be applied worldwide because I dont think the revolution will be world wide. I think it will take place in advanced western countries first.

I don&#39;t know, there is more acceptance of Anarchism in third and second world countries and there is more active resitance in those countries. I&#39;m not sure where it will happen first, but it will cause a chain reaction. That&#39;s what I meant about worldwide.

And I doubt that outside of Western countries they would feel that established atheism is a must for the revolution. &#39;Scientific&#39; materialism is a Western ideology.

[violencia.Proletariat]

What makes them any less Anarchist?

Anarchists reject hierarchy. A god is one of the largest forms of hierarchy.


One of my close friends is an Anarcho-Syndicalist an a practicioner of the Yoruban Ifa religion and a member of IWW.

If it accepts the position of power of a god over him then yes. Being in the IWW doesn&#39;t give you "anarchist credentials" btw, its not an anarchist syndicalist union.


Because they weren&#39;t industrialized. That was my point about how they would differ technologically.[quote]

No you said they would be structured the same and that is not true. There would be no patriarchy or matriarchy, there would be organizational structures that never existed in those times.

[quote]Okay, but there have been successful revolutions where no established atheism was necessary.[quote]

What comes to my mind is Spain and the reason they didnt "need" established atheism is because the majorities of the freed communities were anti-church to begin wtih.

[quote]Why? They still held a successful revolution.

What revolution? The quakers live under capitalism.


What is debatable?

Whether or not a revolution will be global.


there is more acceptance of Anarchism in third and second world countries and there is more active resitance in those countries.

Where? What third world anarchist organizations have 60,000+ members?


And I doubt that outside of Western countries they would feel that established atheism is a must for the revolution.

Because those countries are more backwards and have larger numbers of god suckers. What we have seen is that development leads to atheism. The more advanced countries have more atheists.

[Communism And Freedom]

Anarchists reject hierarchy. A god is one of the largest forms of hierarchy.

Again, it comes back to one&#39;s view of God. Not everyone believes in a dicatator-god.


If it accepts the position of power of a god over him then yes. Being in the IWW doesn&#39;t give you "anarchist credentials" btw, its not an anarchist syndicalist union.

Ah, so no one is a true anarchist unless they accept European atheistic materialism. I see. <_<

Isn&#39;t matter over a mind a hierarchical existential position?


No you said they would be structured the same and that is not true. There would be no patriarchy or matriarchy, there would be organizational structures that never existed in those times.

This is what I said:


Of course not, an industrialized society is a class society as it stands today. An industrialized communist society would have much in common with a primitive communist society structurally, although not culturally. :)

I never said I supported matriarchy, I simply noted that some of those societies were matriarchal. Nor did I say that we wouldn&#39;t have things that didn&#39;t exist in their time.


What comes to my mind is Spain and the reason they didnt "need" established atheism is because the majorities of the freed communities were anti-church to begin wtih.

Anti-Church (anti-Roman Catholic Church) doesn&#39;t mean atheistic. You would need to show that they were specifically an atheist society.


What revolution? The quakers live under capitalism.

I&#39;m talking about Anarchist Quaker communities. When you say "live under capitalism" do you mean practiced it or existed in the midst of it? If you mean in the midst of, the Spanish Anarchists lived in a capitalist (actually Fascist) country as well.


Whether or not a revolution will be global.

I see. Well I would hope it is global (I don&#39;t mean simultaneous) because I don&#39;t see how anarchism could successfully co-exist with capitalist societies. The Spanish Revolution is an example of what can happen if anarchism does not spread, capitalists will try to crush it.


Where? What third world anarchist organizations have 60,000+ members?

I&#39;m not talking about organization membership necessarily. I&#39;m talking about general popularity and/or acceptance amongst the public. Here in the West, anarchists are viewed as a dangerous fringe group. In third world countries, anarchist organizations actively do widespread community work. Anarchism is more socially accepted in South Africa than in America.


Because those countries are more backwards and have larger numbers of god suckers. What we have seen is that development leads to atheism. The more advanced countries have more atheists.

*sigh* More Eurocentrism I see. Countries that don&#39;t accept industrial European ideologies are "backwards". You&#39;re beginning to sound like a colonialist the way you speak of those countries.

I really hate to say this, but that last comment in particular made me wonder if the suspicions of some Black Anarchists are true. That White Anarchists wouldn&#39;t seek unity with non-White Anarchists, they want converts to their Europeanized version of revolutionary thought and reject anyone as "false anarchists" who don&#39;t meet every jot and tittle of Western anarchist theory.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Again, it comes back to one&#39;s view of God. Not everyone believes in a dicatator-god.

Whether you view god as your "friend" or whatever, if they have power over you thats hierarchy.


Ah, so no one is a true anarchist unless they accept European atheistic materialism. I see. <_<

Where exactly did you get that out of the sentence you quoted.


This is what I said:

"An industrialized communist society would have much in common with a primitive communist society structurally"


You would need to show that they were specifically an atheist society.

I never requested for the society to be atheistic, I invision that it will be mostly though. What is a must is organized opposition to suppress organized religion. People can worship in their homes all they want.


If you mean in the midst of, the Spanish Anarchists lived in a capitalist (actually Fascist) country as well.

No the spanish anarchists made revolution by seizing the means of production. When did the anarchist quakers seize the means or production?


I&#39;m talking about general popularity and/or acceptance amongst the public. Here in the West, anarchists are viewed as a dangerous fringe group. In third world countries, anarchist organizations actively do widespread community work. Anarchism is more socially accepted in South Africa than in America.

You have no evidence of this. While in certain third world countries anarchism might be favorable than certain first world countries, anarchism is not more popular in say Somolia or Indonesia than it is in Spain.


Countries that don&#39;t accept industrial European ideologies are "backwards".

Yes if you don&#39;t accept industrial society you are technologically backwards. Industrial development changes society and uproots the more feudal practices of backwards countries. Industrialization is a must for there to be communism.

[Communism And Freedom]

Whether you view god as your "friend" or whatever, if they have power over you thats hierarchy.

Some religious anarchists view God as a "friend". Others have a view of God along the lines of Process Theology. As a reality, not a Being.


Where exactly did you get that out of the sentence you quoted.

I was referring to this sentence of yours:


If it accepts the position of power of a god over him then yes.

In other words, you&#39;re saying being an atheist, specifically a materialist atheist, or else you&#39;re not an Anarchist.

I didn&#39;t know that Anarchists who accept the European ideology of materialist atheism have a monopoly on Anarchism. <_<


I never requested for the society to be atheistic, I invision that it will be mostly though. What is a must is organized opposition to suppress organized religion. People can worship in their homes all they want.

When have I ever said different? I&#39;ve always supported crushing organized religion&#39;s power over society.

I just take offense when someone says, "If you&#39;re not a materialist or an atheist, you&#39;re not an Anarchist." As if that person has the ultimate authority [how ironic] over what anarchism is.


No the spanish anarchists made revolution by seizing the means of production. When did the anarchist quakers seize the means or production?

The took over their own farms and mills. They voluntarily collectivized farms, mills, shops, etc.

A society doesn&#39;t need industrial means of production to be Anarchist. Industrial anarchism is simply relevant to industrial countries. So in that sense, I can see the Quaker anarhcism being irrelevant to anarchism in an industrial nation since the Quakers lived in an agrarian society.


You have no evidence of this.

Shall I list articles on anarchist action in third world countries?


While in certain third world countries anarchism might be favorable than certain first world countries, anarchism is not more popular in say Somolia or Indonesia than it is in Spain.

Of course not, Somalia and Indonesia had purges of anarchists during the Cold War. South Africa is not Somalia or Indonesia however. All third world countries are not the same as all first world countries are not the same.


Yes if you don&#39;t accept industrial society you are technologically backwards. Industrial development changes society and uproots the more feudal practices of backwards countries. Industrialization is a must for there to be communism.

Didn&#39;t you mean "backwards" philosophically?

You said:


Because those countries are more backwards and have larger numbers of god suckers.

I would even disagree that they are "backwards" technologically. They are "backwards" from an industrial European perspective that sees industrialization as a mark of civilization advancement. Calling them backwards for being non-industrialized (mostly) is exactly what the European colonialists did in the 19th century.

As revolutionaries, we are supposed to overcome imperialist Eurocentric mindsets.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Some religious anarchists view God as a "friend". Others have a view of God along the lines of Process Theology. As a reality, not a Being.

...they still aren&#39;t anarchists.

In other words, you&#39;re saying being an atheist, specifically a materialist atheist, or else you&#39;re not an Anarchist.


I didn&#39;t know that Anarchists who accept the European ideology of materialist atheism have a monopoly on Anarchism. <_<

Anarchism has always been atheist. Remember Bakunin?


As if that person has the ultimate authority [how ironic] over what anarchism is.

Anarchism has basic principles, one of those is the rejection of hierarchy.


The took over their own farms and mills. They voluntarily collectivized farms, mills, shops, etc.

They took over land they already owned? How revolutionary.


Shall I list articles on anarchist action in third world countries?

You shall, but I shall be waiting for the statistics on how popular anarchism is to third world countries as a whole compared to first.


All third world countries are not the same as all first world countries are not the same.

So to claim that it is more popular in the third world is not accurate.


Calling them backwards for being non-industrialized (mostly) is exactly what the European colonialists did in the 19th century.

I&#39;m sorry but if you think wanting industrial society is eurocentric then so fucking be it.

[Communism And Freedom]

...they still aren&#39;t anarchists.

I looked up the definition of Anarchism. Anarchist theory says nothing about what a person&#39;s religious beliefs are. Only that we reject private property, the state, capitalism and hierarchy in human society, nothing about what we believe about beyond human society.


Anarchism has always been atheist. Remember Bakunin?

Of course, he was one of my first Anarhcist reads.

Maybe the European tradition of Anarchism is atheist, but that doesn&#39;t mean others have to be as well to be "genuine anarchists". Nothing in Anarchist theory requires atheism other than Bakunin&#39;s personal opinion/interpretation of anti-hierarchicalism. So Bakunin was an atheist and viewed atheism as complimentary to anarchism; and Karl Marx and Fredreich Engels referred to Blacks as "niggers" and Karl Marx made some rather anti-Jewish comments in his life. Does that mean Marxists should be racists and anti-Semites?

Political theory doesn&#39;t hinge on the personal opinions of the theorists. And Bakunian and Kropotkinist Anarchism aren&#39;t the only theories of Anarchism. If one cannot be an Anarchist without also having to subscribe to European atheism, I guess that leaves out a lot of non-European people unless they convert to European atheism.


Anarchism has basic principles, one of those is the rejection of hierarchy.

I know. But it pertains to hiearchy in human society. It doesn&#39;t pertain to hierarchy in religious thought other than how religious organizations operate in society. Not how one views God.

There&#39;s a line between being a poltical philosophy and being a theological philosophy. God has nothing to do with politics, economics and society other than how those who worship God operate in society with others. Anarchism is a secular ideology and has nothing to do with God for or against other than how those who believe in God operate in society.

Come to think of it, isn&#39;t viewing the material world as dominant over the ideal world as hiearchicalist as idealists who view the material world as illusory and the ideal world as dominant?


They took over land they already owned? How revolutionary.

They de-privitized the land. That is revolutionary, even if small-scale. Revolutionary practice anywhere is an inspiration everywhere.

They also faced coercion and violence from the states of the nations that they lived in.


You shall, but I shall be waiting for the statistics on how popular anarchism is to third world countries as a whole compared to first.

Of course there&#39;s no statistis on it because there generally aren&#39;t popular polls done on what people think of existing political movements in their societies. You can tell Anarchist organizations and movements are popular in South Africa for instance because they are welcomed by many communities in South Africa and are well-known, even by the media, to do public works. That doesn&#39;t mean they are popular everywhere there, I simply said they are accepted by more people relatively.

Here in America, outside of the Internet world, we Anarchists are feared and despised by much of the general public. Most Americans still view us as a bunch of college kids and teenagers who listen to punk rock and wear spiked hair.


So to claim that it is more popular in the third world is not accurate.

I never included all third world countries. But I&#39;d venture to say there are more relatively accepting third world countries than accepting first world countries.


I&#39;m sorry but if you think wanting industrial society is eurocentric then so fucking be it.

I said calling a country "backwards" for not being industrialized is Eurocentric. Industrialization in and of itself is not Eurocentric. Viewing a country as somehow less than yours for not being is Eurocentric. Or if not Eurocentric, at the very least it is elitist. Elitism isn&#39;t something to be like "so fucking what" about.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Can I join the Communist Party if I’m religious? Isn’t Marxism against religion?
The Communist Party is a political movement for all who oppose capitalism, oppression and exploitation. We welcome religious people into our ranks. We have priests, ministers and religious activists from many churches as members. We see no contradiction in atheists and religious people joining together in a Party that works for social justice, peace and socialism.

Marxism is not against religion, just against those who use religion and religious organizations for reactionary purposes; we are against the right wing in the religious community as we are against the right wing elsewhere in society.

The CPUSA stands for freedom of religion and welcomes members from all religions, and supports the progressives in every religion who fight for the poor, for workers, for a humane and just society.

Aren’t socialist countries anti-religion?

The issue of religious freedom under socialism is complex. It is not as simple as is often presented in the popular media. All socialist countries have substantial religious freedom. Some of those countries also have taken actions against those who they feel use religion in an attempt to politically attack socialism.

In Vietnam and Cuba, there are many religious institutions, many millions who worship freely, many churches that are growing. There is a worthwhile book entitled Fidel on Religion, consisting of an extended interview and discussion with Fidel Castro by a Brazilian journalist.

One example of a counter-revolutionary use of religion was during the period in Vietnam between the signing of the Geneva Accords (1954) and the elections, which were supposed to be held in 1956. During this period, the CIA ran a "disinformation" campaign in North Vietnam, attempting to convince the Catholic minority that the Communists were out to kill them all, encouraging them to flee for South Vietnam. Many believed this propaganda and fled. The Catholic minority in South Vietnam, boosted by those who had fled south, became the political basis for the corrupt government of Diem in South Vietnam.

This was a conscious propaganda campaign, run by the infamous CIA operative Edward Lansdale. He later boasted about his successes, and the campaign has been written about in much of the literature on the history of Vietnam, as well as the books on history of the CIA.

The North Vietnamese did not engage in any campaign of repression against the Catholics. They had no intention of doing so—this was a clever invention of Lansdale&#39;s fertile imagination, an effort to deprive North Vietnam of the more highly educated and trained Catholics and to build a base of support in the south for the minority government run by Catholics, who instituted repressive measures against the religion of the majority, namely Buddhism.

Do communists believe in god? Do they outlaw religion?

Some communists believe in god, some don&#39;t. Gus Hall, the former chair of the CPUSA says, "Our fight is not with God, but with capitalists." Freedom of religion would continue under communism--as long as the organized religion does not seek to destroy the system and replace it with capitalism or any other earlier system (such as slavery or feudalism).

http://cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question17

http://cpusa.org/article/static/511/#question18

http://yclusa.org/article/articleview/1445/1/278/

[JKP]

When an organization like the CPUSA supports Kerry for president, it draws into serious doubt their opinion on everything else.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I&#39;m sorry but the CPUSA cannot be taken seriously. It supports the democrats. Its a joke and understands little about marxist theory. If it wants to be taken seriously by communists, it needs major change.

[The Beat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2006 06:55 am
I&#39;m sorry but the CPUSA cannot be taken seriously. It supports the democrats. Its a joke and understands little about marxist theory. If it wants to be taken seriously by communists, it needs major change.
I couldn&#39;t agree more. Woodie Guthrie and others would be ashamed. To see the Communist Party actually back a Democrat was perhaps one of the sickest things I&#39;ve ever seen.

Fire sale at Arlo&#39;s house.

[anarchy]

I suppose it depends on who you ask, as for myself;

1. I am Christian.
2. I am Socialist/Communist.

[omegaflare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2003 04:26 am
Communism and religion - do they exclude each other?

Here are the main topics for discussion in this thread:
1. Can you be a revolutionary and still be part of a large religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)?
2. Can you be a revolutionary and be part of an "alternative" religion (e.g. Paganism, neo-Paganism, New Age, etc)?
3. Could a revolutionary believe in the supernatural (UFOs, the occult, etc)?

Since most of us are atheists, here are several other interesting discussion topics regarding atheism (not believing in deities).
1. Do you have to be a materialist to be an ideologically true revolutionary (not all atheists are materialist).
2. Could a religious atheist be a revolutionary (e.g. some Buddhist sects, some Hindu sects and some "alternative" religions have atheistic followers)?
3. Which is more important: (1) Not believing in a deity, (2) Being a dialectic materialist, (3) Not being part of an organized religion - or a combination of the three?

This should be an interesting thread.

Note... I&#39;ve been an atheist for 10 years.
I will answer this concerning the religion to which I adhere:


Judaism. Orthodox.


First, short-term and idealistically (and non-pragmatically) I am a Labor Zionist in the sense used in Amos Elon&#39;s book "The Israelis." Purge me?

"We see before us two great and powerful movements: on one hand, communism which seeks to liberate us from economic and political slavery; and on the other hand, Zionism, which seeks to liberate us from the yoke of the Diaspora."

However, I do not see it to be contradictory to the establishment of the all-encompassing communist society. Nor do I see my religion to be contradictory. "Social Progression & Petty Nationalism"

Following the autonomist stance, I see that communism still allows a bit of leeway for my people to follow what they so wish, as long as we do not exploit the labour of others. So here&#39;s why I believe my ideology and religion to not contradict:

First, we are required to perform tzedakah. The voluntary nature of the Jew and his willingness to perform mitzvot is what provides the very basis of communism. None of the 613 laws run opposite of communism or any of its far-leftist cousins. Perhaps "Libertarianism," (bullshit) in the sense that loans are to be forgiven in Judaism. However, the very nature of Judaism is the essence of voluntary association, and since we are required by our own Rabbis and Religion to keep the Tzedakah, then it is on those grounds alone that I believe Judaism to run parallel to communism. They are not mutually exclusive. Judaism, then, can be said to be anti-class antagonisms. Sure, we have a priestly class and stuff, but that is an artificial structure created by the situation. It is truly voluntary to leave, and now i&#39;m on a rant.


I&#39;m always open to new ideas, so rant and dissect on.


(For the Record, i&#39;m a Marxian Libertarian Socialist with an eye for Reciprocal Altruism as means for establishing communism within the world)

[ComradeSnowball]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2003 04:26 am
Communism and religion - do they exclude each other?

Here are the main topics for discussion in this thread:
1. Can you be a revolutionary and still be part of a large religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)?
2. Can you be a revolutionary and be part of an "alternative" religion (e.g. Paganism, neo-Paganism, New Age, etc)?
3. Could a revolutionary believe in the supernatural (UFOs, the occult, etc)?

Since most of us are atheists, here are several other interesting discussion topics regarding atheism (not believing in deities).
1. Do you have to be a materialist to be an ideologically true revolutionary (not all atheists are materialist).
2. Could a religious atheist be a revolutionary (e.g. some Buddhist sects, some Hindu sects and some "alternative" religions have atheistic followers)?
3. Which is more important: (1) Not believing in a deity, (2) Being a dialectic materialist, (3) Not being part of an organized religion - or a combination of the three?

This should be an interesting thread.

Note... I&#39;ve been an atheist for 10 years.
My unequivocal answers are:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.

I&#39;ll leave the rest alone. By the way, I am a Catholic and a Marxist.

[ichneumon]

Since most of us are atheists, here are several other interesting discussion topics regarding atheism (not believing in deities).
1. Do you have to be a materialist to be an ideologically true revolutionary (not all atheists are materialist).
2. Could a religious atheist be a revolutionary (e.g. some Buddhist sects, some Hindu sects and some "alternative" religions have atheistic followers)?
3. Which is more important: (1) Not believing in a deity, (2) Being a dialectic materialist, (3) Not being part of an organized religion - or a combination of the three?

This should be an interesting thread.

Note... I&#39;ve been an atheist for 10 years.

i&#39;m really not sure what "materialist" means in this context - wikipedia gives several definition, some of which are openly bizarre. for instance, apparently materialists don&#39;t believe in gravity???

for me, materialist="happiness only comes from owning material goods". thus i consider standard marxism a materialistic philosophy, and deeply in error because of it. BUT i suspect that&#39;s not what self-described materialist socialists mean by the term. clarification, please? and yes, i understand DM, i don&#39;t get what M means when it gets separated from that...

for the record:
1. yes
2. yes
3. yes

1. ????
2. obviously yes
3. ????



(For the Record, i&#39;m a Marxian Libertarian Socialist with an eye for Reciprocal Altruism as means for establishing communism within the world)

finally, someone who understands that RA is the basis of true communism&#33; dammit, SOCIOBIOLOGY is more important that marx&#33;

[ComradeSnowball]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:57 pm


I forgot to include responses to the second 3:

1. No.
2. Yes.
3. I&#39;m not sure how terribly important ANY of these are, but I&#39;d say 2 is only one of the three that could reasonably be considered important.

As to the criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church, Catholics, especially clergy and religious, spearheaded Liberation Theology, supported the Sandinistas, and opposed the fascist dictatorship of El Salvador. Catholicism is not inherently pro-capitalist; even the conservative Pope John Paul II denounced what he termed "savage capitalism." In addition, there are many LGBT Catholics and Catholic feminists who are fighting the Church&#39;s institutional homophobia and sexism. I believe they will ultimately triumph.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2003 05:26 am
Communism and religion - do they exclude each other?

Here are the main topics for discussion in this thread:
1. Can you be a revolutionary and still be part of a large religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)?
2. Can you be a revolutionary and be part of an "alternative" religion (e.g. Paganism, neo-Paganism, New Age, etc)?
3. Could a revolutionary believe in the supernatural (UFOs, the occult, etc)?

Since most of us are atheists, here are several other interesting discussion topics regarding atheism (not believing in deities).
1. Do you have to be a materialist to be an ideologically true revolutionary (not all atheists are materialist).
2. Could a religious atheist be a revolutionary (e.g. some Buddhist sects, some Hindu sects and some "alternative" religions have atheistic followers)?
3. Which is more important: (1) Not believing in a deity, (2) Being a dialectic materialist, (3) Not being part of an organized religion - or a combination of the three?

This should be an interesting thread.

Note... I&#39;ve been an atheist for 10 years.
I&#39;m an athiest aswell....
1. it&#39;s possible
2. possible
3. no, these people are usually conspiracy-nuts (A là Alex Jones)

1. It helps
2. possibly
3. 2

[Jazzratt]

I think I&#39;ll join in, as the way to give my opinion is quite easy:

The first 3.

1. It is quite possible to be a revolutionary from any of these religions as long as you recognise their clerical structure will have to come down with everything else. This means it&#39;s hard for a catholic to be a revolutionary as they would have to recognise the need to remove the pope.

2. Yes. In all honesty though I&#39;d probably mock them viciously for it.

3. As above, except possibly with a sharper mocking.

The next 3.

1. Yes. You don&#39;t need to be "ideologically true", whatever that means, to struggle for your class though. As long as you aim for the same outcome it doesn&#39;t matter whether or not you&#39;re doing it because you have studied it in a materialist fashion or whether you believe a little goblin on your shoulder is telling you to do it.

2. See 2, above.

3. I&#39;d say that rejecting DM is most important.

[Sickle of Justice]

first three: yes. though many religions have been hijacked by the capitalist "powers that be", religion itself is not necesarilly anti-revolutionary. i would also note that as far as opiates to the masses go, television probably ranks higher than religion in the modern day. can revolutionaries watch tv? i think so....
the third one seems not to relate at all... i dont see the connection between beleif in ufos and established government.

there are, in fact, religions that encourage revolutionary veiws. i beleive oscar romero has been mentioned already, but theres also many other religions worldwide like liberation theology.

A religion is, in essance, a system of beleifs that justafies a moral code by, essentially, boiling it down to "cuz god/gods/godess/etc said so". My personal beleif system (which would fall under neopaganism, discordianism, or perhaps animism) actually encourages revolution, if the government in question is acting in manners that are detrimental to living things (which it consistantly does). i&#39;m not a revolutionary because of my religion, but my beleifs on religion complement those on politics.

[Raúl Duke]

Didn&#39;t notice till now...but I&#39;ll go ahead and post my current opinions:


Here are the main topics for discussion in this thread:

1. Can you be a revolutionary and still be part of a large religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism)?

Religious people can do revolutions...but I suppose you mean being a leftist?
A marxist communist cannot be religious due to their inclination towards materialism; being a marxist and religious is quite inconsistent/incoherent. There might be some "room" for religion in anarchism, socialism, non-marxist communists. There are also groups of "religious radicals" like, for example, christian communists and christian anarchists.

Personally, as a materialist, I am weary of religious revolutionaries and prefer that leftist revolutionaries be materialist too.

(by weary, it doesn&#39;t mean I wouldn&#39;t be "fighting alongside" or whatever by principle...It means I&#39;m cautious/suspicious of such revolutionaries.)

2. Can you be a revolutionary and be part of an "alternative" religion (e.g. Paganism, neo-Paganism, New Age, etc)?

For this one, the 1st answer also applies. Again, personally I think that leftist revolutionaries should be materialists.

3. Could a revolutionary believe in the supernatural (UFOs, the occult, etc)?
No, unless proof for these supernatural beliefs have been provided/found/etc


Since most of us are atheists, here are several other interesting discussion topics regarding atheism (not believing in deities).

1. Do you have to be a materialist to be an ideologically true revolutionary (not all atheists are materialist).

I prefer that most revolutionaries are materialists; but I really don&#39;t care much for "ideological purity". Although I cannot understand why one not be a materialist if they are athiests if mostly one begets the other usually...unless it&#39;s a "special case" or a religious atheist.

2. Could a religious atheist be a revolutionary (e.g. some Buddhist sects, some Hindu sects and some "alternative" religions have atheistic followers)?

Again, I&#39;m weary of religious revolutionaries no matter if they are atheistic. However, at least they don&#39;t "submit themselves"/bow/obedience to a hypothetical "celestial master"; so I have slightly more trust in these than in theistic kinds of revolutionaries.

3. Which is more important: (1) Not believing in a deity, (2) Being a dialectic materialist, (3) Not being part of an organized religion - or a combination of the three?

A combination of 1 and 3; and instead of dialetic materialist only materialist. (so basically kinda all 3 except the dialectic part)

[RHIZOMES]

I think you can be religious and a communist, as long as you do support religious institutions. Most religions at their core advocate some kind of "equality" ethos, even if a lot of negative things have been added on later which we as a communist society could work to eliminate (Oppressing women, pro-lifers, stoning to death adulterers, etc).

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by The Red [email protected] 29, 2007 09:23 am
I think you can be religious and a communist, as long as you do support religious institutions. Most religions at their core advocate some kind of "equality" ethos, even if a lot of negative things have been added on later which we as a communist society could work to eliminate (Oppressing women, pro-lifers, stoning to death adulterers, etc).
No, religions have always been unequal, eespecially at their core. Those negative things were not "added on later", religions have always been reactionary. Can you even offer proof that they have equality at their core, or are you just trying to make religion look better than it is?

[RHIZOMES]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+August 29, 2007 06:59 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ August 29, 2007 06:59 pm)
The Red [email protected] 29, 2007 09:23 am
I think you can be religious and a communist, as long as you do support religious institutions. Most religions at their core advocate some kind of "equality" ethos, even if a lot of negative things have been added on later which we as a communist society could work to eliminate (Oppressing women, pro-lifers, stoning to death adulterers, etc).
No, religions have always been unequal, eespecially at their core. Those negative things were not "added on later", religions have always been reactionary. Can you even offer proof that they have equality at their core, or are you just trying to make religion look better than it is? [/b]
Well I know that originally Muhammad&#39;s main message was criticizing the Meccan authorities for their treatment of the poor and women. Muhammad gave rights to women in Arabian society that they never had before. Then after Muhammad died they started adding on all these things called "hadiths" where all these misogynistic verses completely out of touch with the original Qur&#39;an started popping up.

Same with early Christian communities, they equally distributed the wealth, etc. Then organized religion came along, Pat Robertson came along, etc.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don&#39;t enjoy bringing a thread to life after it&#39;s been dead for a month, but I think religion, although perverted in its more organized forms, has a lot to contribute to communist thought and especially practicality. Without money as a mode of security, labor [charity] will, I think, be the means people glorify God.

I could see a radical shift in Muslim/Mormon/Baha&#39;i/Jewish/Christian idealogy where instead of giving X% to charity, they&#39;re obligated to give x% of their free time to labor.

And, of course, for secularists and spiritualists it would be a matter of logistics, humane compassion, and natural obligation. :)

[Ramachandra]

What about science?
science and scientific products are used to brain wash the masses to proceed the hegemony of the ruling classes.Especially it is done in the capitalist society.
"Keep doped with religion sex and tv
you feel your so clever classless and free
but you re still f..... peasents as far as i see"
-Lennon
Though scientifific knowledge is used to proceed the system do communists oppose the KNOWLEDGE?The internet is used to brainwash people by capitalism but we the commmunists use the same to fight capitalism.
So i see the same in religion.Its true that religion was/is used to hypnotise the masses but if we be more creative the very same religion can be used to struggle against the existing system.Its obvious that people are strongly connected with religious stuff.As i belive its a part of the human nature(having faith on something eh lets say kind of spiritual.Its hard to be a total atheist.I appreciate if a one can be.But the majority cannot.I consider myself as semi atheist)That faith can be used as the key to enter the thinking pattern of the people and to revolutionise it.In buddhist phylosophy they say"Najajja wasalo hothi-najajja hothi brahmano
kammana wasalo hothi kammana hothi brahmano"
(The birth does not makes a person noble or not.His behaviour decides it)
If we mordenise it as "The capital does not make a person superior"it would be a powerful argument among the masses to construct an alternative( anti capitalist) value system.

[hajduk]

communism and religion exclude each other only by political platform and ideas for making society,but in practice they tight together becouse they got same enemy

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:05 pm
communism and religion exclude each other only by political platform and ideas for making society,but in practice they tight together becouse they got same enemy
Who is this "same enemy"?

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+October 16, 2007 11:10 am--> (Red_Anarchist &#064; October 16, 2007 11:10 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 12:05 pm
communism and religion exclude each other only by political platform and ideas for making society,but in practice they tight together becouse they got same enemy
Who is this "same enemy"? [/b]
for the true religion believers enemys are nonbelievers
for revolutioners enemys are capitalist and imperialists

i think that those are in moust cases are the same,what do you think?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by hajduk+October 16, 2007 12:26 pm--> (hajduk @ October 16, 2007 12:26 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:10 am

[email protected] 16, 2007 12:05 pm
communism and religion exclude each other only by political platform and ideas for making society,but in practice they tight together becouse they got same enemy
Who is this "same enemy"?
for the true religion believers enemys are nonbelievers
for revolutioners enemys are capitalist and imperialists

i think that those are in moust cases are the same,what do you think? [/b]
I think you&#39;re wrong. The richest people in the world tend to be religious, world leaders often identify themselves by their religion (look at America, Iran, Brunei and a whole myriad of others for examples).

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 16, 2007 02:41 pm--> (Jazzratt @ October 16, 2007 02:41 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:26 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:10 am

[email protected] 16, 2007 12:05 pm
communism and religion exclude each other only by political platform and ideas for making society,but in practice they tight together becouse they got same enemy
Who is this "same enemy"?
for the true religion believers enemys are nonbelievers
for revolutioners enemys are capitalist and imperialists

i think that those are in moust cases are the same,what do you think?
I think you&#39;re wrong. The richest people in the world tend to be religious, world leaders often identify themselves by their religion (look at America, Iran, Brunei and a whole myriad of others for examples). [/b]
moust of them just pretend to be religious Jazzarat in manner to represent himselfs like some sort of religious people,but behind that as you can see they go in church just to provide own political and busines interests,the proof for that you can see how they behave,for example Bush says that he believe in god just to get more votes on elections from those voters who goes in a church,becouse if we can say that he believe in god then why he send american soldiers and Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq to kill and to be killed?
you got my point?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by hajduk+October 17, 2007 01:30 pm--> (hajduk @ October 17, 2007 01:30 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:41 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:26 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:10 am

[email protected] 16, 2007 12:05 pm
communism and religion exclude each other only by political platform and ideas for making society,but in practice they tight together becouse they got same enemy
Who is this "same enemy"?
for the true religion believers enemys are nonbelievers
for revolutioners enemys are capitalist and imperialists

i think that those are in moust cases are the same,what do you think?
I think you&#39;re wrong. The richest people in the world tend to be religious, world leaders often identify themselves by their religion (look at America, Iran, Brunei and a whole myriad of others for examples).
moust of them just pretend to be religious Jazzarat in manner to represent himselfs like some sort of religious people,but behind that as you can see they go in church just to provide own political and busines interests,the proof for that you can see how they behave,for example Bush says that he believe in god just to get more votes on elections from those voters who goes in a church,becouse if we can say that he believe in god then why he send american soldiers and Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq to kill and to be killed?
you got my point? [/b]
Yes, and it&#39;s fallacious.

These people are not the enemies of religion, hell some of them are even genuinely religious. Also the fact that bush started a war doesn&#39;t make him a non-believer, unless you want to call the popes who called for the various crusades "non-believers" and then the whole thing just loses all meaning.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 16, 2007 04:41 pm--> (Jazzratt @ October 16, 2007 04:41 pm) I think you&#39;re wrong. The richest people in the world tend to be religious, world leaders often identify themselves by their religion (look at America, Iran, Brunei and a whole myriad of others for examples). [/b]
The level of religious belief among a country&#39;s ruling class tends to reflect the level of religious belief among the general population. America, Iran and Brunei have overtly religious heads of state, but that&#39;s because a majority of their population is overtly religious. By contrast, in many countries in Western Europe politicians simply don&#39;t talk about religion - yet they are just as bourgeois as American politicians who invoke God every other sentence.

The bourgeoisie is religious in religious countries and secular in secular countries. I believe this proves that religion is not nearly as important in influencing social relations as some people make it out to be.


Jazzratt
Also the fact that bush started a war doesn&#39;t make him a non-believer, unless you want to call the popes who called for the various crusades "non-believers" and then the whole thing just loses all meaning.
In all fairness, it&#39;s a safe bet that at least some popes weren&#39;t all that serious about the whole God thing. I mean, there were popes back in the Renaissance who bought their papacy and went on to have illegitimate children.

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 17, 2007 03:08 pm--> (Jazzratt @ October 17, 2007 03:08 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 01:30 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 02:41 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 12:26 pm

Originally posted by Red_A[email protected] 16, 2007 11:10 am

[email protected] 16, 2007 12:05 pm
communism and religion exclude each other only by political platform and ideas for making society,but in practice they tight together becouse they got same enemy
Who is this "same enemy"?
for the true religion believers enemys are nonbelievers
for revolutioners enemys are capitalist and imperialists

i think that those are in moust cases are the same,what do you think?
I think you&#39;re wrong. The richest people in the world tend to be religious, world leaders often identify themselves by their religion (look at America, Iran, Brunei and a whole myriad of others for examples).
moust of them just pretend to be religious Jazzarat in manner to represent himselfs like some sort of religious people,but behind that as you can see they go in church just to provide own political and busines interests,the proof for that you can see how they behave,for example Bush says that he believe in god just to get more votes on elections from those voters who goes in a church,becouse if we can say that he believe in god then why he send american soldiers and Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq to kill and to be killed?
you got my point?
Yes, and it&#39;s fallacious.

These people are not the enemies of religion, hell some of them are even genuinely religious. Also the fact that bush started a war doesn&#39;t make him a non-believer, unless you want to call the popes who called for the various crusades "non-believers" and then the whole thing just loses all meaning. [/b]
its very easy to say that you "believe in god" when you are capitalist and imperialist or both

[NorthStarRepublicML]

In all fairness, it&#39;s a safe bet that at least some popes weren&#39;t all that serious about the whole God thing. I mean, there were popes back in the Renaissance who bought their papacy and went on to have illegitimate children.

indeed they are known as the Secular Popes, Alexander VI, or instance, was the father of Cesare Borgi, the inspiration for "The Prince" by Machiavelli .. Pope Alexander IV had four children, one of which, his daughter Lucrezia was married in the Vatican palace.

she ended up being engaged four times and married twice fathering a total of eight children to solidify her father and brothers alliances with the nobles and kings of Europe ...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 10:49 am
Religion is incompatible with Communism. It is to be oppressed - No freedom, no voice.
That&#39;s ridiculous. Marx is rolling over in his grave listening to people talk about restricting religion. He specifically saw religion as a symptom of an oppressed society, not the problem itself. Not to mention Marx isn&#39;t the final say in everything. The theory is larger than any one person.

The goal is complete liberation for man. No respectable communist should use the word "oppress" unless talking about the counter-theory.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

He specifically saw religion as a symptom of an oppressed society, not the problem itself.

agreed, the way some people around here talk about burning churches and outlawing religion is not only unrealistic but pretty stupid ...

the idea presented here by some members that religion is an enemy on par with global capitalism is not only misguided but flat out wrong, i have argued here many times that religion as an institution reflects the institutions of capitalism not the other way around. I would imagine that once the corrupt system of capitalism is abolished in favor of an equitable and just society the corrupt religious institutions will also be abolished in favor of more equitable and just religions ...

it might wither away and it might not ... either way it is not a central issue we should be overtly concerned with ... we should be concerned with the abolition of capitalism first and foremost .....

[al8]

You cannot dictate central issues in a mass movement . Which is by nature all-encompassing, touching every aspect of life. And you neglect that each idividual will naturally emphesize aspects of the struggle, in accord with interest and ability. And more, this is a religion thread - so of course your going to find posts by communist &#39;overtly&#39; concerned with religion.

But religion is no small issue. The material force of organized ignorance is no friend to the full emancipation of mankind.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

You cannot dictate central issues in a mass movement .

what mass movement are you speaking of?

because all i see are a couple of juveniles with some misplaced contempt ...

I think that the central issue to a Communist movement ... (although anarchists and their liberal lifestyle leanings could be a different story) ... is the abolishing of capitalism ... all other goals are secondary ....



And you neglect that each idividual will naturally emphesize aspects of the struggle, in accord with interest and ability.

i didn&#39;t say they weren&#39;t involved or whatever only that they are idiots for placing any goals above the destruction of capitalism ...


But religion is no small issue.

maybe not but it&#39;s not the most important one as some here would like you to believe, the most important issue is to abolish capitalism. full stop.



The material force of organized ignorance is no friend to the full emancipation of mankind.

maybe not, although many people here tend to view religion as some opressive institution that fosters idiots ... however as has been pointed out in this forum several times various churches have historically been bastions of learning ... think of the Islamic contributions to mathematics (geometry, algebra, calculus, and trigonometry) or the christian contributions to astronomy or philosophy.

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chris...kers_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science)

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mathematics

like it or not the distinction of religions being institutions of systematic ignorance is wrong ... this is not a black and white issue ...

honestly people who would rather vent their frustrations on people of religion then challenging the capitalists need to get their head back in the game if we are going to get anywhere ...

edit: missed this little gem of a comment


And more, this is a religion thread - so of course your going to find posts by communist &#39;overtly&#39; concerned with religion.

i got no problem with people criticizing religious institutions, but most of the time this thread and the people that post in it are seemingly dedicated to ostracizing members of the board who happen to be religious as well as generally setting up yet another divide between workers .... that workers, communists and others of the revolutionary left (even if they are 100% dedicated to the destruction of capitalism) must be atheists or else they are misguided or enemies ....

that is the type of attitude i criticize here, not a critique of organized worship (which i am happy to discuss in detail as i happen to believe that religion will still be present in a communist society) ...

[al8]

Originally posted by NorthStarRepublicML+October 23, 2007 09:27 pm--> (NorthStarRepublicML &#064; October 23, 2007 09:27 pm)
You cannot dictate central issues in a mass movement .

what mass movement are you speaking of?

because all i see are a couple of juveniles with some misplaced contempt ...

I think that the central issue to a Communist movement ... (although anarchists and their liberal lifestyle leanings could be a different story) ... is the abolishing of capitalism ... all other goals are secondary .... [/b]

Perhaps more the eventual mass movement that would work towards the full emancipation of mankind from all yokes of oppression. One were many tasks can be performed because of the many different kinds of people taking part in it.

And one contempt does not exlude the other. Hate for the clergy (or other fraudsters) and their ilk does not detract from the hatred of the capitalists and their running-dogs.

When you write "all other goals are secondary" you seem to be saying that we shouldn&#39;t have &#39;secondary goals&#39; at all.
So, you think that a movement of many people, can&#39;t have &#39;secondary goals&#39;?

With many people you can, per force, takle many problems. So why can&#39;t we burn churches, smash their icons, isolate and condemn relgious exspression, behavior, perihery sympathy and support - or... more precisely... just squelch (organized) superstion by whatever political means necessary?



Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:27 pm


And you neglect that each idividual will naturally emphesize aspects of the struggle, in accord with interest and ability.

i didn&#39;t say they weren&#39;t involved or whatever only that they are idiots for placing any goals above the destruction of capitalism ...

Well so long as communists pay cheap and contemtible lip-sevice to religion it&#39;s not supprising that some comrades feel the it necissary to emphesize anti-religion. We are not supposed to water down like some parlimentary cretinist hustling for electoral votes.
And I don&#39;t see what is exlusionary about fighting relgious political influence and power, institutions, ideas ect. ... and the power, influence, ideas and institutions of the capitalists.




Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:27 pm

But religion is no small issue.

maybe not but it&#39;s not the most important one as some here would like you to believe, the most important issue is to abolish capitalism. full stop.

What constitues "to abolish capitalism"? Is it more unionwork? Giving out more pamphlets in you neighborhood instead of transating communist literature from s-korea for marxist.org? Stockpiling arms for the revolution instead setting up a free (of charge) library specializing in radical literature? Organiszing study groups? What exactly? There are many differing opinions on what methods should be used and on what to lay emphasis. So I want to know where I have you, so I wouldn&#39;t be attacking a straw-man in the dark.

Because what I&#39;m afraid of is that your catch-frase will effectively exlude all modes of struggle - when you can say; This is obscure and secondary, what you need to to is to abolish capitalism. You can say that to anything. Unionwork is secontary, the most important issue is to abolish capitalism. Making pamphlets is secontary, the most important thing is to abolish capitalism. Stockpiling arms is not abolishing capitalism, which should be your primary task. Setting up a radical library is all good and well but your efforts would be better spent abolishing capitalism.



Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:27 pm


The material force of organized ignorance is no friend to the full emancipation of mankind.

maybe not, although many people here tend to view religion as some opressive institution that fosters idiots ... however as has been pointed out in this forum several times various churches have historically been bastions of learning ... think of the Islamic contributions to mathematics (geometry, algebra, calculus, and trigonometry) or the christian contributions to astronomy or philosophy.

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chris...kers_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science)

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mathematics

like it or not the distinction of religions being institutions of systematic ignorance is wrong ... this is not a black and white issue ...

honestly people who would rather vent their frustrations on people of religion then challenging the capitalists need to get their head back in the game if we are going to get anywhere ...



The lists;

1. The one about the christians;

The list is incredible scant compared to those millions scientist today that don&#39;t waste their time on superstiton. And as for churches once being &#39;bastions of learning&#39; that makes sence for a strong and politically powerful institution to own secular undertakings and having them undir its auspices - just like other instituions buy political power by doing social task undir its auspieces. (ex. The bread program of the Black Panther Party or more widely the current (and near universal) state control of education, healthcare and social wellfare).

I found no examples of this on on the list - but grant that maybe some respective scientists have use personal superstion as a catalist for the fixation for some problem ("knowing the mind of god" or something) - which by use of other means (thinking, testing) lead to a solution or an advance. Just like some scienticts get insperation for a hypothesis in a dream.

But what I found through cheking the list was that they degrade their actual work by giving thanks to their respecitive superstition or by wording their aspirations in religious language (thus giving creedence to religious political power).

2.The list about the "islamic" mathematics;

What I find interesting is that you call this "islamic" mathematics intead of arabic mathematics. You choose to identify the human achivements in that region between 622 and 1600, not to gegraphical location but to a religion (that wants to take credit fore something that happened inspite of it).

Religions try this kind of ownage all the time, some more succsessful than others.
The (relgious) Jews have f.ex. coupled ethnic identity with relgious affiliation, if your of semitic ancestry your supposed to take upp the tribal stupitity of your ancestors as a only way to &#39;know who you (truely) are&#39;. And if you refuse, you&#39;re either &#39;just nothing&#39; or a self-hating Jew. The same trick is done with national identity.



[email protected] 23, 2007 09:27 pm
edit: missed this little gem of a comment

And more, this is a religion thread - so of course your going to find posts by communist &#39;overtly&#39; concerned with religion.

i got no problem with people criticizing religious institutions, but most of the time this thread and the people that post in it are seemingly dedicated to ostracizing members of the board who happen to be religious as well as generally setting up yet another divide between workers .... that workers, communists and others of the revolutionary left (even if they are 100% dedicated to the destruction of capitalism) must be atheists or else they are misguided or enemies ....

that is the type of attitude i criticize here, not a critique of organized worship (which i am happy to discuss in detail as i happen to believe that religion will still be present in a communist society) ...

You say the relgious comrades get ostracized. Well quite frankly it is embarrasing. When someone reveals such things it&#39;s just so unimaginably stupid. It can be quite uncomfortable to reveal to the comrade that he has no clothes.
But when we do, we do it out of care and consideration. When we try to correct them we get accused of alienating them. But somebody has to do the dirty work.

As to the devide against the workers - Were am I to begin?... Do you know that by being a communist you set up yet another devide between workers. Communist workers on the one hand and pro-capitalist workers on the other. Isn&#39;t that a sad state of affairs?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

When you write "all other goals are secondary" you seem to be saying that we shouldn&#39;t have &#39;secondary goals&#39; at all.
So, you think that a movement of many people, can&#39;t have &#39;secondary goals&#39;?

no, read what i wrote ... don&#39;t just make things up ... if i said that some goals should be secondary then that is what i meant. The main goal is the elimination of capitalism, every other goal, if it includes abolishing religion (which i think is pretty much impossible) or granting free health care ...


So why can&#39;t we burn churches, smash their icons, isolate and condemn relgious exspression, behavior, perihery sympathy and support - or... more precisely... just squelch (organized) superstion by whatever political means necessary?

because it won&#39;t work, it didn&#39;t work for the Romans when they destroyed the Jewish Temple, it didn&#39;t work when they threw Christians to the lions. most of the world has some religious beliefs, if you destroy the churches they are simply going to worship at home in private, they will go underground, and unless you are totally invasive and have a massive secret police to arrest and detain all of these people you will not be able to eliminate religion ....

when the anarchists started burning churches and executing clergy in Spain the population turned against them, what makes you think anything will be different this time around?


What constitues "to abolish capitalism"?

it means to work for the overthrow of the economic system of capitalist expolitation, to put the means of production into the hands of the producers ...

you appear to go on to answer your own question so i won&#39;t spend much time on this:

Is it more unionwork? Giving out more pamphlets in you neighborhood instead of transating communist literature from s-korea for marxist.org? Stockpiling arms for the revolution instead setting up a free (of charge) library specializing in radical literature? Organiszing study groups?

except to say, YES, these actions you have put forward are steps towards educating and lessening dependence on the global capitalism. thus working towards its elimination .... burning churches or organizing against religious institutions is not


I&#39;m afraid of is that your catch-frase will effectively exlude all modes of struggle

its not a catch phrase dummy. Religion is not inherently linked to global capitalism, religion has existed in all other forms of production previous to capitalism ... in fact it was much stronger under previous forms such as feudalism, mercantilism, colonialism, or whatever ... religion has a proven track record of supporting whatever social order happens to be in power .... it is not a facet exclusive to capitalism ... thus your attempts to claim that it is are unfounded.

i&#39;m not even saying the abolishing religion should be a secondary goal of communists ... it should not be a goal at all ... its pointless and a waste of resources.


The list is incredible scant compared to those millions scientist today that don&#39;t waste their time on superstiton.

I would not say that a list which contains the foundations of Empiricism, the discovery of the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction, a heliocentric world view, inventing logarithms, and Kepler&#39;s laws of planetary motion is &#39;scant".

and remember those "million" scientists you speak draw upon past knowledge, often knowledge drawn from these very Christian and Islamic scientists. all new discoveries are built upon those of past observations, including those of persons of religion.


What I find interesting is that you call this "islamic" mathematics intead of arabic mathematics. You choose to identify the human achivements in that region between 622 and 1600, not to gegraphical location but to a religion (that wants to take credit fore something that happened inspite of it).

I do not call it that, that is the name of the source, which you would have realized had you bothered to read it in any detail, here is a particularly noteworthy paragraph that would have answered your foolish comment:


Islamic science and mathematics flourished under the Islamic caliphate (also known as the Arab Empire or Islamic Empire) established across the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa, Sicily, the Iberian Peninsula, and in parts of France and Pakistan (known as India at the time) in the 8th century. Although most Islamic texts on mathematics were written in Arabic, they were not all written by Arabs, since—much like Latin in Medieval Europe—Arabic was used as the written language of scholars throughout the Islamic world at the time. In particular, a large number of Islamic scientists in many disciplines, including mathematics, were Persians.


But when we do, we do it out of care and consideration.


here are a couple of examples of members here acting "out of care and consideration"

(noXion)

Flatten all overtly religious buildings, remove all religious symbols in public view, ban all public displays of faith, and cease printing holy books (Except perhaps heavily annotated ones pointing out the inherent cruelty, absurdity and falsehoods).

(STJ)

Wow what you call easily some of the greatest forms of thought to ever grace the planet i call steaming piles of poo.

(Jazz)

Whatever religion helps does not absolve it from being utterly heinous.

(STJ again)

The only thing your bible is useful for is toilet paper.

(al8)

So why can&#39;t we burn churches, smash their icons, isolate and condemn relgious exspression, behavior, perihery sympathy and support - or... more precisely... just squelch (organized) superstion by whatever political means necessary?

point made ...


When we try to correct them we get accused of alienating them.

[sarcasm] well judging by the quotes above i can&#39;t imagine where they would get that idea [sarcasm]


Do you know that by being a communist you set up yet another devide between workers. Communist workers on the one hand and pro-capitalist workers on the other. Isn&#39;t that a sad state of affairs?

HA .. you don&#39;t know jack shit about class struggle do you? if you honestly want me to address this point i will ...but it will only affirm how utterly clueless you are ...

please consider yourself totally spanked ...

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 09:25 pm

Do you know that by being a communist you set up yet another devide between workers. Communist workers on the one hand and pro-capitalist workers on the other. Isn&#39;t that a sad state of affairs?

HA .. you don&#39;t know jack shit about class struggle do you? if you honestly want me to address this point i will ...but it will only affirm how utterly clueless you are ...

please consider yourself totally spanked ...
Maybe I should baby-feed you with [sarcasm] brackets. I was refrasing a statement that you made (that promoting atheism would devide the class...) so you could just get a sniff at how truely rediculous it was. Just as I you just don&#39;t know were to begin. But please do answer the question; Why is it not sad that the communist devide themselves from pro-capitalist? Why can&#39;t they just drop the idiological bunk and demarcate themselves solely on class-lines instead? Why? :P

[Dean]

Divisions among people are sad and unwanted, including class divisions. That is what Marxism is against; dividing the human race. It is the recognition of these differences that is necessary in order to fight the division, however.

[al8]

I think I agree with you Dean. Fighting devision does not mean ignoring devisions.

I think the smartest answer to religious devision is the atheist program. Atheism does not need pr seek to continually perpetuate itself. It exists only as the rational response to (organized) superstition. Every atheist I know knows that (active/concious) atheism that we know today will "wither away" as a meaningless concept when relgions no longer exist anywhere else than perhaps in textbooks, comparitive relgion courses or museums etc.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I was refrasing a statement that you made (that promoting atheism would devide the class...)

rephrasing? well actually you have managed to take a snipet from a larger idea and paraphrase it into a deceptive line of text ....

actually what i said was:

i got no problem with people criticizing religious institutions, but most of the time this thread and the people that post in it are seemingly dedicated to ostracizing members of the board who happen to be religious as well as generally setting up yet another divide between workers .... that workers, communists and others of the revolutionary left (even if they are 100% dedicated to the destruction of capitalism) must be atheists or else they are misguided or enemies ....

you seem to think that i said this:

Do you know that by being a communist you set up yet another devide between workers. Communist workers on the one hand and pro-capitalist workers on the other. Isn&#39;t that a sad state of affairs?

I will get to answering your question, but first i want to tell you the difference between what i said and what you said i said. I said that i do not refrain from criticizing religious institutions, i actually like to hypothesize how religious belief systems could be made more in line with socialism ... I did say that it is unfortunate that workers who are communists and happen to hold religious views are called and treated as through they are unintelligent or fundamentalist traitors to socialism by persons like yourself ... this is an Unnecessary division because it is based on religion, an immaterial factor that does not exclude one from engaging in class struggle.

you interpreted this to mean that because i am against persons like yourself creating an unnecessary division within the working class i should also be against any divisions within the working class ... you are wrong ...

as i stated before the difference between dividing workers based on athiest/theists is an unnecessary division ... while the division of communist/capitalist is an unavoidable one ...


that promoting atheism would devide the class...

well once again ... i never said that .... and you are not so much promoting atheism, as much as you are defining atheist workers as morally or intellectually superior to other workers as well as implying that non-atheist workers and communists are traitors ... you are acting like an asshole ...

i will explain further by answering your stupid questions:

Why is it not sad that the communist devide themselves from pro-capitalist?

even though your question and your logic is flawed i will answer you ...

actually it is sad, it is sad because global capitalism has created and propagated misinformation and misunderstanding of class struggle, they create false divisions between workers based on a number of things religion, race, language, and most importantly class ....

this is sad because it keeps workers divided and class ignorant ....


Why can&#39;t they just drop the idiological bunk and demarcate themselves solely on class-lines instead?

because of the false divisions that capitalism has created (mentioned above)


Why?

because of dipshits like you ...


Divisions among people are sad and unwanted, including class divisions.

agreed ...

by fostering a hatred of communists that happen to be religious is stupid ... persons like al8 is contributing to the divisions that capitalism works to maintain ....

the only divisions that should concern a socialist are those dealing with class, not those dealing with immaterial concepts such as religion, concepts used as wedges to keep the working classes from realizing their power ...


I think the smartest answer to religious devision is the atheist program.

so you are saying the only way to solve religious division is to eliminate religion? so would you say the smartest solution to ethnic division is the eugenics program?

what is the atheist program? is it an organized non-belief system?


Atheism does not need pr seek to continually perpetuate itself.

is this why you want to do the following?:
burn churches, smash their icons, isolate and condemn relgious exspression, behavior, perihery sympathy and support - or... more precisely... just squelch (organized) superstion by whatever political means necessary

i don&#39;t know if you are some sort of speaker for atheism but you sure are contradicting yourself a lot ...



when relgions no longer exist anywhere else than perhaps in textbooks, comparitive relgion courses or museums etc.

and how will this be accomplished?


But please do answer the question

(see above for answers)

oh, by the way .... here is a question that i raised that you have not responded to:


when the anarchists started burning churches and executing clergy in Spain the population turned against them, what makes you think anything will be different this time around?


Just as I you just don&#39;t know were to begin.

not sure where you pulled this idea from .... i am pretty sure the best place to begin is by organizing groups that educate and create social programs independent of the capitalist governments (like community food shelves and communist newspapers for starters) ...

i guess its pretty obvious you have no idea where you begin as your blind hatred and elementary knowledge of religion has handicapped your ability to engage in worker solidarity ...

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:41 am

I was refrasing a statement that you made (that promoting atheism would devide the class...)

rephrasing? well actually you have managed to take a snipet from a larger idea and paraphrase it into a deceptive line of text ....

actually what i said was:

i got no problem with people criticizing religious institutions, but most of the time this thread and the people that post in it are seemingly dedicated to ostracizing members of the board who happen to be religious as well as generally setting up yet another divide between workers .... that workers, communists and others of the revolutionary left (even if they are 100% dedicated to the destruction of capitalism) must be atheists or else they are misguided or enemies ....

you seem to think that i said this:

Do you know that by being a communist you set up yet another devide between workers. Communist workers on the one hand and pro-capitalist workers on the other. Isn&#39;t that a sad state of affairs?
No, I did not. I did not say you where saying that. I was taking an entirely different "jet another" deviding point, into the issue. You however spoke of atheism needing to be avoided just as much as the religions -- as atheism was supposed to be just as much a devision-point in the working class as the relgions are. I thought this was ludicrous. Because the atheist program (the erradication of all relgion) is the sole solution to the religious devisions in the working class. There would be no religious devision in the working class, if there were no religion.

So, as I said, I took in another of those "jet another devision" that exists in the working class. The devision between pro-capitalist workers and anti-capitalist workers (or communists). A real devison, just as the devision between the secular and the superstitious, that cannot just be ignored away. This (capitalist vs. communist) devision can only be solved if it is battled out and the communist win. Then there can be unity. Else unity will not happen. It won&#39;t happen if you just fold your hands and &#39;stop the devision&#39; by stop being a communist yourself. That is the solution of a weakling. It is a cop-out.

I knew, or suspected as much, that you would not be able to answer this question;


Do you know that by being a communist you set up yet another devide between workers. Communist workers on the one hand and pro-capitalist workers on the other. Isn&#39;t that a sad state of affairs?

You chose to misunderstand it and answer with abuse. You of course (should) understand that you can&#39;t bring unity and bring a stop to the devision by stop being communist yourself. You can only do it by battling it out.
The exact same thing goes for atheism and religion. You can&#39;t bring an end to religious devision by stop being an atheist. You can only do so by being one and battling the devision out until you win.


So to be more exact; I was refrasing your strategic thought in another context, not merely refrasing "what you said". Versteen Sie?

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:41 am

that promoting atheism would devide the class...

well once again ... i never said that .... and you are not so much promoting atheism, as much as you are defining atheist workers as morally or intellectually superior to other workers as well as implying that non-atheist workers and communists are traitors ... you are acting like an asshole ...
Well yes. Religion is first of all stupid. And a divisive tool used against the working class, to keep it servile, confused and obedient. And that some communist haven&#39;t realized this I regard as a serious handicap and lack of judgement. If some professed &#39;communist&#39; concidered him or herself religious I would regard that as the first outward indicators of rotten content.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:41 am
oh, by the way .... here is a question that i raised that you have not responded to:


when the anarchists started burning churches and executing clergy in Spain the population turned against them, what makes you think anything will be different this time around?
What this tells me is that we as communists need to be more ardent in discrediting religion in the pre-revolutionary period. And that religion is a rallying point of reactionaries.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:41 am

I think the smartest answer to religious devision is the atheist program.

so you are saying the only way to solve religious division is to eliminate religion? so would you say the smartest solution to ethnic division is the eugenics program?

No, because religious division is an ideological matter not a biological one. You can stop adhering to a religion, but you can&#39;t stop being of an ethnicity. These are just not comparable divisions. I think have the same stance on ethnic devision as you have on religious devision, or "devision based on relgion" as you word it.


what is the atheist program? is it an organized non-belief system?

Yes, you might say so.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 05:41 am


Atheism does not need pr seek to continually perpetuate itself.

is this why you want to do the following?:
burn churches, smash their icons, isolate and condemn relgious exspression, behavior, perihery sympathy and support - or... more precisely... just squelch (organized) superstion by whatever political means necessary

i don&#39;t know if you are some sort of speaker for atheism but you sure are contradicting yourself a lot ...



when relgions no longer exist anywhere else than perhaps in textbooks, comparitive relgion courses or museums etc.

and how will this be accomplished?

(In the top quote there is a spelling error; pr seek -> per se seek)

There is no contradiction in this. There is a big difference between teaching religion, and teaching about relgion. And museums would of course document past relics as they have always done.

So f.ex. imagine if a church is desicrated by burning, or by some other more crative measure, pictures of the merry event would would of course be taken. And then later stored in a museum.

The society would of cource be atheistic, just as it would be aleprechaunic. Atheism would slowly miss its meaning in this context -- that is, in a society where religion has withered away into non-existence or near non-existence.

[freakazoid]

There would be no religious devision in the working class, if there were no religion.

And there would be no division among races if there were no races, so why don&#39;t we start committing genocide?


If some professed &#39;communist&#39; concidered him or herself religious I would regard that as the first outward indicators of rotten

What about the self professed anarchist?


Religion is first of all stupid. And a divisive tool used against the working class, to keep it servile, confused and obedient.

I use it to unite not to divide. But I see that YOU would rather use it to divide than to unite.


You can&#39;t bring an end to religious devision by stop being an atheist. You can only do so by being one and battling the devision out until you win.

Or they could co-exist.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, while I&#39;m not exactly sure if Marxism and religion are compatible at all, I do know that anarchism and religion have been combined in the past, the most notable example being Leo Tolstoy.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:00 am

There would be no religious devision in the working class, if there were no religion.

And there would be no division among races if there were no races, so why don&#39;t we start committing genocide?
No, your confusing biology with ideas. Racial classification is an idea, it has round about as much firm grounding as relgion in its classification of people. So it to should be suppressed by the same methods as I propose towards relgion.

The thing is even though your labeled of an inferior race within the paradigm of a racist, you can fight the racist but not his professed race - since race is a meaningless concept (or at least a wildly inaccurate term).

And by virtue of the same, atheist don&#39;t have to battle with deities and angels even though the believer classifies the struggle in spiritual terms. Nor does an atheist need to attack the professed "flock" of the superstitious, as if their ideas and their bodies where biolocally inseperable. We can fight religion and racism without seeing thing through their paradigm.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:00 am

Religion is first of all stupid. And a divisive tool used against the working class, to keep it servile, confused and obedient.

I use it to unite not to divide. But I see that YOU would rather use it to divide than to unite.

You sound like a spineless politician. You want to hustle your influance by prying on the stupitity of people, don&#39;t you?. Are you looking for votes ?&#33;?

And unite around what? Middle-age superstitions? If you want to unite on that basis your uniting against atheists. (and all the other superstitions you so happen not to unite around)

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:00 am

You can&#39;t bring an end to religious devision by stop being an atheist. You can only do so by being one and battling the devision out until you win.

Or they could co-exist.
No way. Religion is a shameless racket and an insult to human dignity.

[Yardstick]

If only we could covnert everyone to atheism, then we&#39;d all get along :rolleyes:

[al8]

You mean de-convert to atheism.

[Yardstick]

to cause to adopt a different religion, political doctrine, opinion, etc.: to convert the heathen.

No, I mean convert.

[al8]

Ok then. Let&#39;s not get more bought up in barely significant details. But as to us all getting along if we&#39;d all &#39;convert&#39; to atheism. I can agree that it would at least go a long way.

[Yardstick]

I could also say that everyone converting to hinduism would go a long way to get people to get along. In fact hinduism would go farther than atheism due to its universalist ideas.

Your just saying "gee, if everyone believed the same way I did then we&#39;d all get along"

An argument could be made to support that but its still ridiculous&#33;

[al8]

Well that&#39;s not my argument. What I am for is that people don&#39;t belive the same - atheism really isn&#39;t about converting - it&#39;s about deconverting. There still is alot of leeway that you have in the non-superstious position. I think of leting go off religion as really opening up everything - every possibility.

[Yardstick]

So you don&#39;t believe everyone should believe the same thing, but they can&#39;t believe in religion....which leaves....atheism? Or maybe they are at least allowed the maneuverability of agnosticism?

You claim to support people having diverse beliefs, yet on the other hand say that everyone &#39;deconverting&#39; to atheism will allow for a diversity in beliefs. And how will conflict not arise through these other diversifications?

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:16 am
So you don&#39;t believe everyone should believe the same thing, but they can&#39;t believe in religion....which leaves....atheism? Or maybe they are at least allowed the maneuverability of agnosticism?
You don&#39;t seem to grasp the depths of atheism. Really when you&#39;ve broken off the shackles of religion you enter freedom. The posibilities are per force endless. It is the first step of a liberated mind. Dan Barker was once asked; What comes then instead of religion? He answered; Both nothing and everything.

...and I can&#39;t really cover everything in one short post.


(p.s What is "the maneuverability of agnosticism"?"

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:16 am
You claim to support people having diverse beliefs, yet on the other hand say that everyone &#39;deconverting&#39; to atheism will allow for a diversity in beliefs. And how will conflict not arise through these other diversifications?
Maybe your confused because you do not make a destiction between beliefs held with faith, and beliefs held with reason. But I haven&#39;t said that conflict would not arise from these &#39;other diversifications&#39;. But I say now; the conflicts of &#39;these other diversifications&#39; would first of all be fought along more rational lines.

If people no longer base their beliefs on faith, but on reason, they would then change their beliefs in accord with evidence and argument. And base their action on their own point of view on what their own self material interest would be. And as Marx so wonderfully put it the "Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right";

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

If people no longer base their beliefs on faith, but on reason, they would then change their beliefs in accord with evidence and argument. And base their action on their own point of view on what their own self material interest would be.

you seem to be assuming that people that happen to belong to religious institutions base all of their decisions on faith as opposed to reason and logic ....

well as was pointed out earlier in the threat ... it was determined that religion was not a hindrance to science it could also be argued that although there are secular governments several of the members of those governments happen to be religious individuals ....

also (pointed out earlier) several popes of the renaissance were secular

in these instances persons base material real world decisions on logical factors such as argument and analysis while still maintaining religious association in their personal lives ... that is what separation of church and state means ...



You don&#39;t seem to grasp the depths of atheism. Really when you&#39;ve broken off the shackles of religion you enter freedom.

the depths of atheism? freedom?

so by having the right to freely associate taken away you are gaining freedom?

how many dictators or fascists have promised to break the shackles and grant us freedom in exchange for a couple of our rights?

i always have a problem with people throwing the word "freedom" around casually ... most likely because i am in the USA and i happens a lot here ... so how is what you are calling freedom defined?

[al8]

Well in one sense - like the freedom when you&#39;ve done away with a heavenly dictator that scrutinizes you with a 24/7 survaillance. The freedom to think freely within logic. The freedom from relgious guilt and traditions. That&#39;s what I can think of at the moment.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:39 pm
so by having the right to freely associate taken away you are gaining freedom?

how many dictators or fascists have promised to break the shackles and grant us freedom in exchange for a couple of our rights?
First of all; who is "us"?

It&#39;s very obvious that you get to hear alot of mainstream american political discourse. "The right to freely assiciate" is a joke. It exists because it sounds good. This does not apply to politcal enemies. The state keeps surveillance on potential trouble, and brakes up the party when things get significant.

When the prolitariat has power as a class it should have no petty liberal illusions about &#39;rights&#39;. It should be just as practical as those that wield power now.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

First of all; who is "us"?


"us" referring to the people of the planet earth ya dipshit ...


"The right to freely assiciate" is a joke. It exists because it sounds good.

well like a lot of rights the ideals often fall sort of the actual implementation ... but does that mean they should be thrown out the window?


When the prolitariat has power as a class it should have no petty liberal illusions about &#39;rights&#39;. It should be just as practical as those that wield power now.

wow ... dropped a bombshell there ...

all in this thread should take notice of this ...

because it sounds to me that you want to do away with rights, the sort of system you are looking to implement, with all your talk of not only denying the people a choice in matters of association and now dismissing the concept of rights as "petty liberal illusions", well it doesn&#39;t sound like communism to me ....

it sounds like Stalinism ...

although i have argued that no rights are "natural" before ... rights within a state or country are necessary .... i suppose you are not terribly well read in terms of civics ... while i am mostly familiar with the United States form of representative democracy i am aware that the constitution and the bill of rights (however flawed and lacking on living up the ideals they may be) were intended to preserve minority rights, limit the power of factions, seperate the powers of government, and protect citizens from that government ....

again although we can find many flaws with the US constitution and bill of rights i would argue that any new constitution under a communist system must also seek to embody these principles ...

you apparently want to offer no protections except the benevolent protection of the "we know best" attitude ...

people are not that stupid that they will hand over the reigns of power to someone like you without a guarantee of their protection ....

governments are based upon social contracts (or should be) they are not all powerful father figures and by attempting to legislate or suppress the right of citizens to freely choose their association then you are acting in a way that you apparently associate with a god ....

people should be allowed to make their own decisions in terms of association, be they concerning religion or government ....

in fact the ability of people to choose their association or "self determination" is one of the principles for communist (and other) revolutions ... how can you deny this right to your citizens?

maybe religion is not a good choice but people should be free to make that decision themselves without an all powerful state telling them how to express their personal spiritual beliefs ...

so its obvious that we are arguing with a rapid uneducated authoritarian that isn&#39;t really taking in the information that has thus far been presented and is more interested in violence (burning churches), thought control (see above), and the elimination of "rights" (see above) .... yes i am referring to al8


The freedom to think freely within logic.

look up the term "Separation of Church and State" on Wikipedia (or wherever)


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

-Thomas Jefferson

[NorthStarRepublicML]

First of all; who is "us"?


"us" referring to the people of the planet earth ya dipshit ...


"The right to freely assiciate" is a joke. It exists because it sounds good.

well like a lot of rights the ideals often fall sort of the actual implementation ... but does that mean they should be thrown out the window?


When the prolitariat has power as a class it should have no petty liberal illusions about &#39;rights&#39;. It should be just as practical as those that wield power now.

wow ... dropped a bombshell there ...

all in this thread should take notice of this ...

because it sounds to me that you want to do away with rights, the sort of system you are looking to implement, with all your talk of not only denying the people a choice in matters of association and now dismissing the concept of rights as "petty liberal illusions", well it doesn&#39;t sound like communism to me ....

it sounds like Stalinism ...

although i have argued that no rights are "natural" before ... rights within a state or country are necessary .... i suppose you are not terribly well read in terms of civics ... while i am mostly familiar with the United States form of representative democracy i am aware that the constitution and the bill of rights (however flawed and lacking on living up the ideals they may be) were intended to preserve minority rights, limit the power of factions, seperate the powers of government, and protect citizens from that government ....

again although we can find many flaws with the US constitution and bill of rights i would argue that any new constitution under a communist system must also seek to embody these principles ...

you apparently want to offer no protections except the benevolent protection of the "we know best" attitude ...

people are not that stupid that they will hand over the reigns of power to someone like you without a guarantee of their protection ....

governments are based upon social contracts (or should be) they are not all powerful father figures and by attempting to legislate or suppress the right of citizens to freely choose their association then you are acting in a way that you apparently associate with a god ....

people should be allowed to make their own decisions in terms of association, be they concerning religion or government ....

in fact the ability of people to choose their association or "self determination" is one of the principles for communist (and other) revolutions ... how can you deny this right to your citizens?



like the freedom when you&#39;ve done away with a heavenly dictator that scrutinizes you with a 24/7 survaillance.

to repress thought on a scale that you describe you will require an earth bound dictator with 24/7 surveillance ... the difference is that one of these two lords does not limit your freedom to choose how you will follow his teachings ... the other does ....

maybe religion is not a good choice but people should be free to make that decision themselves without an all powerful state telling them how to express their personal spiritual beliefs ...

so its obvious that we are arguing with a rapid uneducated authoritarian that isn&#39;t really taking in the information that has thus far been presented and is more interested in violence (burning churches), thought control (see above), and the elimination of "rights" (see above) .... yes i am referring to al8


The freedom to think freely within logic.

look up the term "Separation of Church and State" on Wikipedia (or wherever)


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

-Thomas Jefferson

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 10:23 pm

First of all; who is "us"?


"us" referring to the people of the planet earth ya dipshit ...

In that case I&#39;m going to obstuct the rights of Inuits to associate on a hill of chickens in Madagasgar. While farting in your genaral direction, of coarse. :P

[NorthStarRepublicML]

In that case I&#39;m going to obstuct the rights of Inuits to associate on a hill of chickens in Madagasgar. While farting in your genaral direction, of coarse.

ok then ....

does this we aren&#39;t going to be hearing any more of your inane babble about burning churches and whatnot ?

[phil22091991]

well personally i think that in a equal sociaty you of course can have no god, people may agru that churches and things do usefull things but from what i can see the state can easily take care of it.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 01:48 pm
well personally i think that in a equal sociaty you of course can have no god, people may agru that churches and things do usefull things but from what i can see the state can easily take care of it.
The state?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

people may agru that churches and things do useful things but from what i can see the state can easily take care of it.

yeah that worked really good in the USSR didn&#39;t it?

seriously i don&#39;t have a problem with a strong state, but some of the Stalinists posting on here need to brush up on their history, especially in relation to the USSR and religion ...

because as far as i can tell the oppressive anti-theist policies of the USSR did not eliminate religion in Russia ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Russia

[Kitskits]

Not saying I support Stalinist policies but take a look in China and Albania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Not saying I support Stalinist policies but take a look in China and Albania.


well neither of these countries have succeeded in eliminating religion either ...

and i am pretty sure that you are working with some old data as far as china is concerned, read this:


The majority of Chinese people follow Buddhism (between 660 million, 50%, and over 1 billion, 80%[1]) and/or Taoism (400 million, 30%[2]). Number of adherents to these religions can be overlaid in percentage due to the fact that some Chinese consider themselves both Buddhist and Taoist. Minority religions are Christianity (between 40 million, 3%[3], and 54 million, 4%[4]), Islam (20 million, 1.5%), Hinduism, Dongbaism, Bon, and a number of new religions and sects (particularly Xiantianism and Falun Gong). According to Adherents.com, in 1998 59% of the Chinese population was irreligious.

also Chinese traditional religion (or folk religion) accounts for 6% of the worlds population ... http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

as far as Albania is concerned:


While there is no law restricting the demonstration of religious affiliation in public schools, there have been instances when students were not allowed to do so in practice. In December 2003, a male Muslim student was prohibited from having his diploma photograph taken because he had a beard.

if this is the type of society that you are looking for ... count me out ...

[w0lf]

I don&#39;t see how they would exclude each other in anyway at all.

[proleterian fist]

I believe sincerely that after socialist revolution,people won&#39;t be needing to any God.(Christian,Muslim or other religions it is not a problem.)
Karl Marks says that religion is an opium that poisons minds of people.
According to the Marksist opinion,religion is being used by capitalism in order to poison minds of people.Therefore if someone wants to be continue it&#39;s religious belief,nobody can say anything to it&#39;s idea but religion must be his conscience.

[al8]

so by having the right to freely associate taken away you are gaining freedom?

how many dictators or fascists have promised to break the shackles and grant us freedom in exchange for a couple of our rights?



First of all; who is "us"?
"us" referring to the people of the planet earth ya dipshit ...

Every single individual!? People are different you know.
One might presume that were all in this together like merry happy bunch, capitalists and communists alike. :rolleyes:

Dictators and fascists have of cource used power for their objectives. What I'm saying is that the prolitariat should take those powers firmly in their own hands and wield them for their own purposes.

[al8]

in fact the ability of people to choose their association or "self determination" is one of the principles for communist (and other) revolutions

That has never applied to political enemies. If someone joins a counter-revolutionary army fx., it is not taken "lightly", even if it is of that individuals own 'self determination'.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Dictators and fascists have of cource used power for their objectives. What I'm saying is that the prolitariat should take those powers firmly in their own hands and wield them for their own purposes.you have already made it clear that you intend to use fascism and dictatorial powers to force people to change .... you don't need to spell it out ...

you are a fascist .... we know .... change the record


Every single individual!? People are different you know.ok .... but just to refresh this argument, here is the comment where i was using the term "us" that i explained could mean anyone on the planet earth:


how many dictators or fascists have promised to break the shackles and grant us freedom in exchange for a couple of our rights?so yeah .. some people are happy living in fascist police states .... but usually those people happen to be the fascists ....

bottom line: don't focus on the wrong part of the argument ... the word "us" is a general term .... just make some counterpoints instead of picking semantically



One might presume that were all in this together like merry happy bunch, capitalists and communists alike.look dipshit .... we are all in this togeather .... the project for communism is not about enriching or empowering only people that identify as communists .... its about making society better for all people... yes that includes capitalists ..


That has never applied to political enemies.huh .. thats funny .... do yourself a favor and do a bit of reading on the Yalta conference .... the Tehran Meeting .... perhaps if you did a bit of study on the topics that you argue you wouldn't look like such an idiot ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/index.htm

here is what Lenin had to say about religious freedom:


Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen's religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfillment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men's consciences, and linking cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

The Russian revolution must put this demand into effect as a necessary component of political freedom.

[al8]

Yeah, you can quote scripture. Well done.

But I'm afraid St.Lenin is merely pussy-footing there. Really spinless of him.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

sorry Pol Pot jr. but I couldn't help but notice that once again your "arguments" have collapsed ...


Really spinless of him.

really sad that Lenin not being a dictator or a fascist and recognizing the right of people to freely associate is a cause for you to call him spineless ...

how can you consider yourself even remotely progressive when advocating the use of powers in line with "dictators and fascists" to achieve your political aims?

that, little Hitler, is the height of cowardice ...

actually never mind ... instead please just shut your idiot fascist mouth ...

consider yourself owned ...

[al8]

how can you consider yourself even remotely progressive when advocating the use of powers in line with "dictators and fascists" to achieve your political aims?

Because it is for whom I want it for, that is the difference. I want genuine and rutheless peoples power. Not power for facists or religious suck-ups like you.


consider yourself owned ...

I don't share your ideas of property. :p

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Because it is for whom I want it for, that is the difference.

keep dreaming kid ... if you want to be a closet fascist you have to do a better job at disguising your intentions ...


I want genuine and rutheless peoples power.

you know that the majority of the people are religious right? sounds like you are more interested in genuine and ruthless minority power ..

like i said before .. change the record you are boring me

[al8]

keep dreaming kid ... if you want to be a closet fascist you have to do a better job at disguising your intentions

I don't consider myself af fascist and I think your useing the term as a vague political epithet.



you know that the majority of the people are religious right?

No, the majority is apathetic or nominally relgious. Those who care, either way, are on the minority.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I don't consider myself af fascist and I think your useing the term as a vague political epithet.there is nothing vague about it, in case you were ignorant a fascist seeks to impose their morality forcibly on others ... that would include all the church burning and surveillance tactics to enforce your Khmer Rouge style socialism ...


No, the majority is apathetic or nominally relgious. Those who care, either way, are on the minority.nope fraid not ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/60/Worldwide_percentage_of_Adherents_by_Religion.png

where do you come up with this shit?

[al8]

What I was refering to was that people don't follow or act in line with relgions that they are nominally asociated with. Using contraseptives fx. and just genarally not that opserveant of the traditions and dogmas exept superficially, taking part in seremonies of marriage and confermation.

Did you get the graph from adherents.com?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

What I was refering to was that people don't follow or act in line with relgions that they are nominally asociated with.

so do you have some data to back that up? or should we just take your word for it?


Did you get the graph from adherents.com?

Encyclopedia Britannica

[al8]

so do you have some data to back that up? or should we just take your word for it?

No, I'm the last person that would demand you take things on faith. And yes, I have country specific statistical data regarding Iceland and Sweden that backs up my point. And those were the contries that I had in mind. I also think they are examples how things are in other western industrialised capitalist countries in general.

In Sweden we see that everybody was registered into the state church prior to 1996 although. That means that a majority is registered to a church. But at the same time Sweden is estimated to have atheist and agnostics compose an entire 64 to 85&#37; of its population, depending on surveys. Those who regularly (meaning montly or more) attendend relgious services are only about 9,5% (World Values Survey 1999).

In Iceland 90,3% are registered into christian denominations according to the state census. Primarily because of automatic registration at birth. Religious registration is inherited from the mother and the high % is a auto-recurring remnant of the manditory memership to the state church, prior 1897, when a 100% were members.
There was a survey (Truarlifskonnun Islendinga) done in Iceland 2004 by Gallup Capacent for the theology department of the University of Iceland. In it one could see that only 54,4% of Icelanders described themselves christian. Whilst a bit less, 44,4% of Icelander believed in the core precept of christianity "Jesus Christ is the son of God and the Savior of mankind". So, again 90,3% of people are registered to christian denominations there whilst only about 50% profess christianity. And still fewer attend church regularly (12%). This combined tells me that people are mostly nominally christian. And I have seen priests admit this to. They sometimes refer to this as serimonial christianity or cultural christianity. People do not know whats in the bible, nor do they know the core precepts, but they take part in the seremonies such as christening, confirmation, marriage and burial. (There are of cource other examples, but I don't want to make my post to long.)

I think this has to do with that modern and developed industrial capitalist countries (like those above) can offer secular alternatives to the opium of religion. There are more ways to vent alienation. People can fx. lose themselves in the dummy-vision, computergames, in drug use or other consumerisms. People simply have more to do than to work and pray, live on hay and 'read the bible for fun every evening'.

But also a sidenote. Surveys on a whole have a bias in finding out opinion versus not finding them. If not in-them-selves then in their presentation. Those how say "I don't know" or don't answer are often left out (in the final %). I think this is a factor in the deducing or shadowing in part of the fact that many to most people, in the western industrialized countries, live and conduct themselves purely independently of any religious considerations.



Encyclopedia Britannica

When?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

I have country specific statistical data regarding Iceland and Sweden that backs up my point.you cannot pick out two countries and claim they represent all of the west ....that just doesn't work.... provide some data on the west as a whole if you want to make claims about the west as a whole ...

iceland population: 301,931
sweden population: 9,031,088

combined that equals 1.549758277305955% of the worlds population ....



And those were the contries that I had in mindnow you are changing your argument, we were addressing the majority of the world ... not the western world ... and not simply two relatively small countries in the west ....

you fail ...


I also think they are examples how things are in other western industrialised capitalist countries in general.you are just assuming .... provide some data on that then ....

oh wait here is some that refutes your points: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf

and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe#Religiosity

and


Surveys on a whole have a bias in finding out opinion versus not finding them. If not in-them-selves then in their presentation. Those how say "I don't know" or don't answer are often left out (in the final %). I think this is a factor in the deducing or shadowing in part of the fact that many to most people, in the western industrialized countries, live and conduct themselves purely independently of any religious considerations.
don't attack the sources just because they don't back up your arguments...


When?trying looking at the graph with your eyes ...

[Jazzratt]

Listen fuckstick, you have not actually adressed the point that many people who are "religious" are only nominally so. That and a lot of people face being ostracised or even killed for professing non belief and thus pay lip-service to whatever barbaric sky wizard is popular in their area.Given this I think that these statistics are vastly overblown.

As for your "it's not worldwide" bullshit, consider that adherents.com infamous for their pro-religious bias identify Japan as having at least 81,493,120 (roughly 64% pop.) non-believers and that's using their deflated figures. Consider also that Vietnam has a staggering 81% atheist level, again according to their misleadingly low figures.

This is, however, an irrelevant aside to the main question of whether or not religion and communism are incompatible. The answer is naturally yes unless you choose to follow religion that confuses, disgusts or enrages your fellow nutcases or if you abandon most of the writings on communism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

The answer is naturally yes unless you choose to follow religion that confuses, disgusts or enrages your fellow nutcases
No matter what you believe (or don't believe), most people in the world will think you are a godless infidel. This is because neither atheism nor any single religion comes close to having half of humanity on its side. So there will always be more than 50&#37; of people in the world with a religion different from yours.

Given this, I'm not particularly worried that my religion might confuse, disgust or enrage other religious people, since it is unavoidable that it will, no matter what I believe. Religious people are not a monolithic group and should not be expected to act as such.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

adherents.comjazz fuck off, no one here has used that source ... i used Encyclopedia Britannica .. again don't just attack the sources because they don't agree with you, find your own sources that support your views ... and if there are no sources that support your claims then perhaps your claims are false ...


you have not actually adressed the point that many people who are "religious" are only nominally so.ummm ...

what does it matter if they are sorta religious or full blown catholics ... this dipshit al8 wants to burn all the churches and persecute the practice of religion in any form .... that includes the "nominally" religious and the fundamentalists ...

anyway i will address this point when it is relevant or you and your ass clown friend provide some data to make it relevant ...

he made this statement when he expressed the desire to persecute all people who hold religious beliefs to which i responded that would mean he would be persecuting the majority of the worlds population ... which is pretty fucking stupid ... he countered by claiming that the majority of people in the world were apathetic or nominally religious ....


No, the majority is apathetic or nominally relgious.he could not prove this statement so he changed it to the western world ... and unable to find evidence of that in the western world as a whole .. changed his argument to essentially "the majority of sweden and iceland are apathetic or nominally religious"

don't expect me to respond to this bullshit, try putting together an argument that is consistent or relevant and then get back to me ..


That and a lot of people face being ostracised or even killed for professing non belief and thus pay lip-service to whatever barbaric sky wizard is popular in their area.are we talking about the western world again? be more specific ... and hey if you're really feeling limber provide some sources to back that up ...


the main question of whether or not religion and communism are incompatible. look shitheel here is my position on it ... as i stated a while ago ..


the idea presented here by some members that religion is an enemy on par with global capitalism is not only misguided but flat out wrong, i have argued here many times that religion as an institution reflects the institutions of capitalism not the other way around. I would imagine that once the corrupt system of capitalism is abolished in favor of an equitable and just society the corrupt religious institutions will also be abolished in favor of more equitable and just religions ...

it might wither away and it might not ... either way it is not a central issue we should be overtly concerned with ... we should be concerned with the abolition of capitalism first and foremost .....also look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism#Christian_communists

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Liberation_theologians

[al8]

Now listen NorthstarRepublic. The destiction between the relgious and the nominally religious is an important one. There are benefits and downsides of having the majority nominally religious versus hardcore religious (from my point of view). The benefits being that religion doesn't have as a firm footing as it advertises itself to have, and the loss of relgion would't be that big of lost for a large procentage of people . The downsides are that they still have a foothold and general influance in the populace, and thus some latent support. Be it from indoctrinated identety or partially ingraned ideology. Even though a 52&#37; people in Europe (as a whole) profess a belief in a god according to Eurobarmeter, there is always a softcore and a hardcore and a difference between the organized and the disorganized. Other more detailed surveys shed some light on this. Such as worldvaluessurvey.com. Where you can find polling on several other religious precepts. Such as belief in a afterlife, soul, heaven and the devil.

There are many counties in the world. I have already explained misconseptions about two western countries in a fair amount of detail. Answer those examples! Since they are only two, that shouldn't be to hard. You would not answer a 20 meter long post where I'd take a similar apporach to every single country available. So lets take this one step at a time. We could perhaps take Denmark, Great Britain and France next for descussion. But first; Am I correct about Sweden and Iceland?

And even though people who accept relgion in some way are more numerous then thoughs who do not dosen't make religion any better. Just as the fact that people who accept capitalism in some way are more numerous than thoughs who don't, doesn't make capitalism any better or less any worthy of opposition(!).
That more people profess a religious stance only tells us that we have alot of work ahead of us in the pre-revolutionary period. I think the the most important pre-revolutionary work for revoutionaries is to cut the social base from under the auspices of religion and other reaction. As less reactionary influance makes revolution more do-able.

RedstarRepublic, you still don't phathom how I envision religion to be suppresed, (so you make silly senarios in the process). I want all religion to be suppressed in one way or another, but in a way that takes account of the particular situation at each time. And there is a difference between tactics used in a pre-revolutionary situation where class antagonism aren't as accute as they would be in a revolutionary period. And also there is naturally a difference in approach towards the hardcore and the variously tightly nit social bases.

[al8]

Did you get the graph from adherents.com?

Encyclopedia Britannica

Could you provide a link?

[Jazzratt]

Since Northtsar is gone their is no point really replying to him but for the sake of people who think he's intelligent [get help] or winning the argument [learn to read], I'll point out that his objection here, in reply to me talking about adherents.com, was gobsmackily cretinous:


jazz fuck off, no one here has used that source ... i used Encyclopedia Britannica .. again don't just attack the sources because they don't agree with you, find your own sources that support your views ... and if there are no sources that support your claims then perhaps your claims are false ...

If anyone with a reading comprehension at a level beyond that of, say, a spoonful of faecal matter will see that it was in fact, me, using adherents.com as a source in order to show that even people as baised as that put the number of non-believers higher than Northtsarrepublican.

Everything else was also perfectly indicative of what a useless twat NorthTsarRepugnant was, but most people can see that for themselves.

[F9]

communism can not be along with the religion.religion was always a way to make people stupidier for the good of rich and powerful people and to make wars in the name of religion!Church is one of the richiest bussiness and is the helper of a lot of fascist-rascist actions!:star:

[BIG BROTHER]

The only religion I know well enough is christianity, so refering to that religion in particular, I believe communism does exclude it, since communism favors atheism and a revolution.

But capitalism, promotes greed, and their good is profit.

So I believe that if anybody ever oposes communism and favors capitalism, just because it excludes religion, they don't know what they're talking about.

Long live the revolution!

[Sky]

Religion, which is essentially one of the idealist world views, is opposed to the scientific world view. The principal characteristics of religion is belief in the supernatural, but this does not mean that religion is the relationship that links man with god, as theologians usually argue.

Engels observed: “All religion is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces.” In religion, man is enslaved by the products of his own imagination. Religion represents a specific form of social consciousness and functions as a regulator of social behavior.

Profoundly scientific and materialist, the Marxist-Leninist world view is opposed to religion as an expression of illusory, inverted consciousness. Communism, which has revealed scientifically sound prospects for the establishment of social justice and which has transformed social from a utopia to a science and into social reality, is the opposite of religion. Communism is genuine humanism, which does not recognize the humanism of consoling lies or self-deceptions. As Marx wrote, to abolish religion as the illusory happiness of the people is to demand their real happiness.

[Maybe-not]

Communist thinking might not, Marxism does. To me, religion should stay the fuck out of politics.

[darkened day 92]

My idea was to be this. first thing to know about me i am religious and i take a lot of pride in my religion. the leader could practice the religous and universal morals but would not declare that his doings repersent all religion because obviously he is not god to talk for religion and having not done that the religion could have an opinion about what is working for the country without the censorship of the government. Many people scared me saying that i would be an atheist after reading Karl Marx but i still believe in religion. Plus to me 80&#37; of what Karl Marx said is right the other 20% i think we learned from trail and error from stalin's mistakes and from the Castro's success. Castro is an atheist but welcomes the good that comes out of religious belifs

[Module]

Religion is something that society must overcome, as a whole, but nobody and nothing can force people to do it.
Communism is by nature atheistic, I think, however, they can exist side by side, religion and communism. I wish they wouldn't, mind you.
I would imagine that religion would slowly begin to wither away under communism, although recent developments in Cuba, for example, suggest it won't be as simple - maybe that has something more to do with Cuba. Er...
I do generally believe that religion will become obsolete under communism, though.
:)