A Satire On Religion (Very Funny)

[blabla]

Satiric!!

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jhN6S_BdZw>


<http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2004/septemberweb-only/9-13-11.0.html>

<http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article32197.ece>

[RebelDog]

That youtube video was utterly hilarious. Thanks.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

put these bullshit spam postings in chit chat

not only offensive to those of religious persuasions but to southern trailer park residents

grow the fuck up!

[blabla]

put these bullshit spam postings in chit chat

not only offensive to those of religious persuasions but to southern trailer park residents

grow the fuck up!

You are restricted, right. I wonder why???

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4VVFc-M8p4>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8ZHHE7oWl0&feature=related>

[NorthStarRepublicML]

wonder away, in fact i hope you wander away too ...

how about doing something constructive instead of posting trash and spam in a board dedicated to serious discussion of religious topics? ...

this belongs in chit chat as this was intended as nothing more then flamebait for members with religious beliefs ...

but no .. i understand you are some lifestyle anarchist that views religion as an evil on par with capitalism ... don't worry kiddo you'll grow out of it but until then just shut the fuck up ...

actually I'm restricted because i tell lifestyle liberal posers like you how it is ... please consider yourself spanked ...

[blabla]

wonder away, in fact i hope you wander away too ...

how about doing something constructive instead of posting trash and spam in a board dedicated to serious discussion of religious topics? ...

this belongs in chit chat as this was intended as nothing more then flamebait for members with religious beliefs ...

but no .. i understand you are some lifestyle anarchist that views religion as an evil on par with capitalism ... don't worry kiddo you'll grow out of it but until then just shut the fuck up ...

actually I'm restricted because i tell lifestyle liberal posers like you how it is ... please consider yourself spanked ...

Who made you the moderator of the religion forum???

[Jazzratt]

Who made you the moderator of the religion forum???

He isn't, but he dearly wishes he was so that all the threads here can be dedicated to slurping away at the cock of organised religion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

NorthStarRepublicML, extract that bug from your ass. Religious beliefs are not sacrosanct from mockery or criticism.


actually I'm restricted because i tell lifestyle liberal posers like you how it is ...

No, you're restricted because your nose appears to be permanently lodged up a copper's arse.

[blabla]

He isn't, but he dearly wishes he was so that all the threads here can be dedicated to slurping away at the cock of organised religion.


LOL. Ha ha!-- good metaphor!

[NorthStarRepublicML]

you guys want to spend all your days laughing like idiots at videos on the Internet that ridicule people have fun ... it gets old after a while ... maybe one day you shits will grow up to understand that religion is not an enemy on par with global capitalism ... sure there are a lot of things we don't like about it ... but give it a rest you are merely creating an unnecessary devision between the majority of the worlds population (88&#37; religious) and leftists ...

so just get over it and quit wasting your time on bullshit like this ...

[RedAnarchist]

you guys want to spend all your days laughing like idiots at videos on the Internet that ridicule people have fun ... it gets old after a while ... maybe one day you shits will grow up to understand that religion is not an enemy on par with global capitalism ... sure there are a lot of things we don't like about it ... but give it a rest you are merely creating an unnecessary devision between the majority of the worlds population (88% religious) and leftists ...

so just get over it and quit wasting your time on bullshit like this ...

Just because 88% are religious doesn't mean that they are actually practising their religion, nor does it mean that they will be alienated by the mockery adn criticism of religion.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you guys want to spend all your days laughing like idiots at videos on the Internet that ridicule people have fun ... it gets old after a while ...

A couple of Youtube videos is not "all day" and anyone with more comprehension than a bucket of clams only needs to see them once.


maybe one day you shits will grow up to understand that religion is not an enemy on par with global capitalism ...

So all that religious persecution, those abortion clinic bombings, those religious laws, and all that religiously mandated hatred and violence against homosexuals, women, atheist and other religionists is a figment of my imagination?

As well as the fact that most people's view of the universe is plain wrong, that is what makes religion as bad if not worse than capitalism. It is a whole lot more pervasive than capitalism


sure there are a lot of things we don't like about it ...

Try all of it. Religion is an absurdity wrapped in a fallacy covered in nonsense with a large side of bigotry.


but give it a rest you are merely creating an unnecessary devision between the majority of the worlds population (88% religious) and leftists ...

Sure, in the same way that by arguing against capitalism we are creating a divide between those who accept capitalism in some form and revolutionary leftists (a definate minority).

[NorthStarRepublicML]

It is a whole lot more pervasive than capitalism

you're just a straight up idiot aren't you?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

It is a whole lot more pervasive than capitalism.
Um, are you talking about ideas in people's heads or material reality? In terms of ideas in people's heads, religion and capitalism are probably evenly matched (in the sense that around 80% of people support them in one form or another). You may even be correct that there are more religious people than supporters of capitalism - though I think the number of atheist capitalists is larger than the number of religious anti-capitalists, which would imply that capitalism has more support than religion.

On the other hand, if you're talking about material reality, you are just plain wrong. The bourgeoisie rules the world, not the clergy. The capitalist ruling class is at the height of its power, while religious institutions are arguably weaker than ever before in human history.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

you're just a straight up idiot aren't you?

No, you're a fucking idiot who doesn't realise that more people are brought up to be religious than to support capitalism. Most people don't have Adam Smith drummed into their heads at an early age, unlike religious brainwashing. How many buildings glorifying capitalism and built specifically to aid in a brainwashing process can you name, compared to all the churches, mosques, temples etc in the world?


Um, are you talking about ideas in people's heads or material reality? In terms of ideas in people's heads, religion and capitalism are probably evenly matched (in the sense that around 80% of people support them in one form or another). You may even be correct that there are more religious people than supporters of capitalism - though I think the number of atheist capitalists is larger than the number of religious anti-capitalists, which would imply that capitalism has more support than religion.

Religion affects your entire worldview - if you sincerely believe in gods, souls, demons and the like, you cannot help but allow those beliefs to influence your decisions, no matter how reactionary, wrong or just plain banal those beliefs are.


On the other hand, if you're talking about material reality, you are just plain wrong. The bourgeoisie rules the world, not the clergy. The capitalist ruling class is at the height of its power, while religious institutions are arguably weaker than ever before in human history.While most clerical organisations lack the physical clout they once had, the clergy still forms a part of the ruling class, a segment of the ruling class that regularly employs brainwashing, emotional blackmail, and lies to get its way. The clergy piggyback on the power of politicians whenever they can, but they don't really need it - they just need to encourage the spread of the mental virus of religion.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

more people are brought up to be religious than to support capitalism.
I beg to differ. Let me reiterate what I said in my previous post, but in more detail:

(a) the number of capitalists = the number of religious capitalists + the number of atheist capitalists

(b) the number of religious believers = the number of religious capitalists + the number of religious non-capitalists

Both (a) and (b) have in common the number of religious capitalists. Therefore the difference between (a) and (b) is equal to the difference between the number of atheist capitalists and the number of religious non-capitalists. I think we can all agree that there are certainly more atheist capitalists than religious anti-capitalists. Therefore (a) is greater than (b): There are more supporters of capitalism than religious people in the world.


Most people don't have Adam Smith drummed into their heads at an early age, unlike religious brainwashing. How many buildings glorifying capitalism and built specifically to aid in a brainwashing process can you name, compared to all the churches, mosques, temples etc in the world?
Arguably every school, television or radio station and most printing houses aid in the capitalist brainwashing process. The overwhelming majority of the media - which is far more pervasive than religious institutions - bombards the population with advertising, news stories and talk shows that promote capitalism in some form or another.

As far as buildings glorifying capitalism, let's start with all banks and financial institutions. Add to that every building that has a billboard or other form of advertising on it.


Religion affects your entire worldview - if you sincerely believe in gods, souls, demons and the like, you cannot help but allow those beliefs to influence your decisions, no matter how reactionary, wrong or just plain banal those beliefs are.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that material conditions influence ideas rather than the other way around. Silly me. :rolleyes:

But in any case, what makes you think that religion has any particularly coherent influence on worldviews? I have seen religion being used to justify almost everything under the sun - good, bad, progressive or reactionary. This leads me to conclude that religion has a more or less random influence on people's worldviews, making some of them more progressive, others more reactionary and so on.


While most clerical organisations lack the physical clout they once had, the clergy still forms a part of the ruling class, a segment of the ruling class that regularly employs brainwashing, emotional blackmail, and lies to get its way. The clergy piggyback on the power of politicians whenever they can, but they don't really need it - they just need to encourage the spread of the mental virus of religion.
The clergy is part of the ruling class in the same way the British royal family is part of the ruling class. They are a shadow of what they once were, their power and influence pretty much restricted to convincing people with words rather than applying any physical force or being able to use any economic constraints. The Pope has no army, no significant influence in global politics and no economic clout. All he can do is shout and complain and hope that people will agree with him. Forgive me if I'm not particularly worried.

Basically, you are looking at a minor inconvenience and blowing it out of all proportion to make it sound like it's some sort of major threat. Religion is on the way out as a political force. Today's fundamentalism is a last ditch attempt by religious authorities to save the last of their influence. It is doomed to fail as secular capitalism sweeps all before it. Get over it. Stop fighting yesterday's battles.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I beg to differ. Let me reiterate what I said in my previous post, but in more detail:

(a) the number of capitalists = the number of religious capitalists + the number of atheist capitalists

(b) the number of religious believers = the number of religious capitalists + the number of religious non-capitalists

Both (a) and (b) have in common the number of religious capitalists. Therefore the difference between (a) and (b) is equal to the difference between the number of atheist capitalists and the number of religious non-capitalists. I think we can all agree that there are certainly more atheist capitalists than religious anti-capitalists. Therefore (a) is greater than (b): There are more supporters of capitalism than religious people in the world.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/rel_pie.gif

Atheists are very much in the minority. Religious believers are not. Religious belief crosses lines of class, race and political stance. More people attend religious services than own a means of production. More people proslytise the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed et al than capitalist theoreticians. Therefore there are more religious believers than capitalists.

Anyway, I don't have a list a list of priorities where religion takes precedence over capitalism or vice versa, I consider them equally invalid. I just think that capitalism is criticised well enough on this forum for it to be unnecessary for me to add anything, whereas religion still has a degree of respectability that I find unacceptable.


Arguably every school, television or radio station and most printing houses aid in the capitalist brainwashing process. The overwhelming majority of the media - which is far more pervasive than religious institutions - bombards the population with advertising, news stories and talk shows that promote capitalism in some form or another.

As far as buildings glorifying capitalism, let's start with all banks and financial institutions. Add to that every building that has a billboard or other form of advertising on it.Yes, capitalism has one thing to learn from religion - the art of subtlety. Another important difference is that despite it's pervasiveness, capitalism is not immune from harsh criticism in the same way that religion is. It is slowly being realised that this is not the case, hence the increased interest in atheism recently.

And of course, the fact that capitalism also brainwashes people doesn't make it acceptable for religion to do so.


Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that material conditions influence ideas rather than the other way around. Silly me.You fucking simpleton, what material conditions do you think leads abortion clinic bombers (and other religious nuts) to do the things they do? They were indoctrinated to believe that abortion is murder.

Now that's an extreme example, but if you sincerely believe in a God that judges you after you die and will send you to a terrible place full of suffering called Hell if you don't obey him, how could that not affect the decisions you make? Hey, why not get into his good books early on and do "God's work", whether it's feeding the poor or becoming a suicide bomber?


But in any case, what makes you think that religion has any particularly coherent influence on worldviews? I have seen religion being used to justify almost everything under the sun - good, bad, progressive or reactionary. This leads me to conclude that religion has a more or less random influence on people's worldviews, making some of them more progressive, others more reactionary and so on.Coherent or not, religion is an irrational influence that must be removed. People should be brought up to do good things because they benefit society, not in order to cosy up to some bronze age war god.

Conversely, removing the bad influence of religion will make the world a better place. Not a perfect place by any means, but still better.


The clergy is part of the ruling class in the same way the British royal family is part of the ruling class. They are a shadow of what they once were, their power and influence pretty much restricted to convincing people with words rather than applying any physical force or being able to use any economic constraints. The Pope has no army, no significant influence in global politics and no economic clout. All he can do is shout and complain and hope that people will agree with him. Forgive me if I'm not particularly worried.That may be the case in most developed countries, but you can't say the same for the rest of the world. And the Catholic church as well as other christian denominations still have enough clout to bring more misery to places like Africa.

Not to mention the fact that, in the US at least, there's no need to for an established church as evangelical christians wield considerable political clout.



Basically, you are looking at a minor inconvenience and blowing it out of all proportion to make it sound like it's some sort of major threat. Religion is on the way out as a political force. Today's fundamentalism is a last ditch attempt by religious authorities to save the last of their influence. It is doomed to fail as secular capitalism sweeps all before it. Get over it. Stop fighting yesterday's battles.No. Take your Eurocentric view of religion and shove it in the same hole you pulled your arguments out of. Capitalism does just fine with religion, and both need to go for the good of humanity as a whole.

[apathy maybe]

I object Edric O to this:

(a) the number of capitalists = the number of religious capitalists + the number of atheist capitalists

(b) the number of religious believers = the number of religious capitalists + the number of religious non-capitalists

It really depends on how you define capitalist. If you take it to mean those who believe in capitalism and support it to the same extent as they support their religion, then the number of non-capitalists is much much higher then what you are suggesting.
You are reading non-capitalist as anti-capitalist, and that is bad thinking.

You see, most people aren't capitalist, but they aren't anti-capitalist either. It is just the system they live in.

[Demogorgon]

You fucking simpleton, what material conditions do you think leads abortion clinic bombers (and other religious nuts) to do the things they do? They were indoctrinated to believe that abortion is murder.

That is a deeply flawed position. People who bomb abortion clinics or carry out similair stuff usually haven't been indoctrinated at all. It generally takes the fervor of a convert to do that sort of thing. You'll find people who get into the real extreme right wing of Christianity and do stuff like that (as well as the more or less harmless ones who hand out nutty leaflets on street corners) will have had relatively secular upbringings and will have turned to this sort of stuff early in their adult lives.

Given that it can hardly be indoctrination at all. People turn to these groups seemingly by choice and do these kind of things despite an upbringing that should not have encouraged it. And there are certainly material reasons for them doing that.

It is amazing the way this board is willing to throw out all material analysis whenever it wants to stick the knife into religion any way it can.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That is a deeply flawed position. People who bomb abortion clinics or carry out similair stuff usually haven't been indoctrinated at all. It generally takes the fervor of a convert to do that sort of thing. You'll find people who get into the real extreme right wing of Christianity and do stuff like that (as well as the more or less harmless ones who hand out nutty leaflets on street corners) will have had relatively secular upbringings and will have turned to this sort of stuff early in their adult lives.

My, what an interesting generalisation. Can you substantiate it?

And regardless of the truth of your statement, a large element of conversion is brainwashing and suppression of any urge to question. People don't just suddenly decide, "Hey, I wanna be a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist", there is some kind of thought process going on, even if it isn't always coherent or rational.

I don't see how crying out "material conditions!" somehow makes criticism of religion redundant. Why not find out what material conditions make a person religious, and seek to remove those material conditions from society? I suspect all this blathering about "material conditions" is a smokescreen for apologism.


Given that it can hardly be indoctrination at all. People turn to these groups seemingly by choice and do these kind of things despite an upbringing that should not have encouraged it. And there are certainly material reasons for them doing that.

You go on about material conditions, but you also mention choice. How do you reconcile "free will" with a materialist analysis? Either people have have a certain religion or not due to material conditions, or they made a choice.

[Demogorgon]

My, what an interesting generalisation. Can you substantiate it?

And regardless of the truth of your statement, a large element of conversion is brainwashing and suppression of any urge to question. People don't just suddenly decide, "Hey, I wanna be a Christian/Muslim/Buddhist", there is some kind of thought process going on, even if it isn't always coherent or rational.You should read some of the assesments of people who do this stuff. YOu will see what I mean.

As for what makes people convert, well it depends whether you are talking about mainstream religion or the extreme ends that you are citing here. For mainstream religion, conversions are often about family members joining a loved ones church or people being brought along by friends and liking what they see. Also in some places, most notably India, conversion is a great way of escaping the Hindu Caste system. There are all sorts of reason for conversion and I don't know what you are imagining, but it certainly isn't sinister.

As for the more extreme ends, well again there are many reasons.. I guess there, there is a degree of people looking for extreme ideologies. It will essentially be exactly the same thing that makes certain people adopt extreme political positions, we should know the type, we get them here sometimes, Communism and anarchism obviously attracting them. They are easy to spot, they are the ones who think Communism is about fetishisng violence, seeking fist fights with anyone they think might be a fascist, vandalising things for the sake of vandalising, doing ridiculous "anti-theist" stunts like pissing on churches or throwing pigs heads into Mosques and so forth. The people who blow up abortion clinics are Christianity's version of them.


I don't see how crying out "material conditions!" somehow makes criticism of religion redundant. Why not find out what material conditions make a person religious, and seek to remove those material conditions from society? I suspect all this blathering about "material conditions" is a smokescreen for apologism.

Well the material conditions that lead to religion are many but the most obvious ones we have known for a long long time and they will go away if and when we achieve Communism. I imagine that in a Communist society religion will slowly go away as the conditions it thrives in dry up. But let me be clear, I don't actually care about that in the slightest. I am not a Communist because I want an excuse to be a bigot. I have nothing at all against religious people and have no wish to do anything to prevent them practicing their religion as they see fit. Contrary to your claims religion does not make people reactionary bigots, some of the most accepting people I have ever met have been religious and some of the biggest bigots atheists.

I was raised religious and gave it up in my mid teens, rejecting religion entirely, but it never did me the slightest harm to be raised that way and I think it might have even done me some good as it was definitely there that I learned to hate racism and other prejudices as well as where the idea of social justice really started forming in me. I might have given up on religion, but I am long over the childish anger at it. If that makes me an "apologist", so be it, I'd rather be that than a bigot.


You go on about material conditions, but you also mention choice. How do you reconcile "free will" with a materialist analysis? Either people have have a certain religion or not due to material conditions, or they made a choice.
No, they made a choice sue to their material conditions. This was not a choice based on metaphysical mumbo jumbo about free will, but rather they were not put under pressure to do it. Someone raised in a strictly religious family (though hardly most religious families) is going to be under a degree of pressure to be religious. Yet they are not the ones who bomb clinics (Or hand out nutty leaflets on the street), it is the converts who are doing it and they did have a choice (in the non-metaphysical sense) as they were not under pressure to do so. In truth, their material conditions will have pushed them that way, but they way the mind seems to work, choice is an appropriate word to use.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Atheists are very much in the minority. Religious believers are not.
Look at the pie chart you just posted. Atheists (or rather "nonreligious people") are 16% of all people in the world - probably a historical record. That means that about 1 in every 6 people is nonreligious - hardly the tiny minority you try to make them out to be. The nonreligious group is the third largest after Christianity and Islam.


Religious belief crosses lines of class, race and political stance.
Exactly. Surely you see the reasons why it is a bad political move to attack something that many workers hold very dear.


More people attend religious services than own a means of production.
You're comparing apples and oranges - specifically, you're comparing the capitalist ruling class with the religious rank and file. You should be comparing rulers with rulers, or the rank and file with the rank and file. The religious equivalent of the bourgeois owner of means of production is the clergyman, not the average churchgoer. Are there more clergymen than owners of the means of production? I don't know.


More people proslytise the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed et al than capitalist theoreticians.
On the contrary, the average person is bombarded with far more pro-capitalist propaganda from the media and educational institutions than they are bombarded with religious propaganda.


Anyway, I don't have a list a list of priorities where religion takes precedence over capitalism or vice versa, I consider them equally invalid.
That's all nice and good, but only a fool fights a war on two fronts. Whenever you have more than one enemy you should always prioritize and fight them one by one rather than all at once.

Capitalism is the greater threat, and also very likely the weakest of the two (since it has existed for considerably less time than religion). Therefore it makes perfect sense to prioritize the fight against capitalism.


I just think that capitalism is criticised well enough on this forum for it to be unnecessary for me to add anything, whereas religion still has a degree of respectability that I find unacceptable.
That's because this is a forum for discussion among all revolutionary leftists, rather than merely revolutionary leftist anti-theists. The focus of revleft is and should be politics, not religion. Of course, you could just create a group forum for anti-theists...


Yes, capitalism has one thing to learn from religion - the art of subtlety. Another important difference is that despite it's pervasiveness, capitalism is not immune from harsh criticism in the same way that religion is. It is slowly being realised that this is not the case, hence the increased interest in atheism recently.
Do we really live in such different societies? Apparently we do, because where I live it is much, much more acceptable to criticize religion than capitalism.


You fucking simpleton, what material conditions do you think leads abortion clinic bombers (and other religious nuts) to do the things they do? They were indoctrinated to believe that abortion is murder.
...and they were vulnerable to such indoctrination because they came from societies with a rigid class structure, a high degree of exploitation, and little or no socialist activity. In the absence of socialist explanations for their condition, oppressed people often turn to idealist ideologies which place all the blame for human suffering on "decadent ideas" or on some kind of conspiracy perpetrated by an external group - Jews, communists, homosexuals, godless infidels etc. In other words, abortion clinic bombers do what they do because their life sucks and they have been led to believe that people with progressive social attitudes are to blame for this. If religious fundamentalism hadn't scooped them up, it is very likely that they would have simply joined another idealist reactionary ideology, such as a form of secular fascism.

Basically I'm saying that religion doesn't have a magical ability to brainwash anyone anywhere under any conditions, like so many anti-theists seem to believe. People who turn to religious fundamentalism usually do so because of social and economic conditions.

Also, abortion clinic bombers are a particularly bad example not because they are extreme, but because they are exceedingly rare. They have no social base of support. Islamists are a much better example because they have succeeded in building themselves a social base.


Now that's an extreme example, but if you sincerely believe in a God that judges you after you die and will send you to a terrible place full of suffering called Hell if you don't obey him, how could that not affect the decisions you make? Hey, why not get into his good books early on and do "God's work", whether it's feeding the poor or becoming a suicide bomber?
You are correct, but the point is that it does not affect everyone in the same way.


Coherent or not, religion is an irrational influence that must be removed. People should be brought up to do good things because they benefit society, not in order to cosy up to some bronze age war god.
Yeah, good luck with that. People are a million times more likely to act in their (real or perceived) self-interest than in the interest of society.

Dawkins is fond of saying that religion can make good people do evil things, but he forgets that the reverse is also true: religion makes evil people do good things.


Conversely, removing the bad influence of religion will make the world a better place. Not a perfect place by any means, but still better.
We have agreed that religion has both positive and negative influences on people's behaviour, correct? (even if you believe that the positive influences are for all the wrong reasons, they still remain positive) Now, what makes you think that the negative influences are greater than the positive ones? How can you even begin to measure that sort of thing?

I have no idea whether a world without religion would be a better or worse place, because the influence of religion is so complex and because nothing remotely close to a world without religion has ever existed.


That may be the case in most developed countries, but you can't say the same for the rest of the world. And the Catholic church as well as other christian denominations still have enough clout to bring more misery to places like Africa.
Ok, fine. Then why are you fighting against religion in developed countries? Why do all anti-theists preach to an almost exclusively Western audience? I certainly haven't seen any anti-theist work being done in Africa.


No. Take your Eurocentric view of religion and shove it in the same hole you pulled your arguments out of. Capitalism does just fine with religion, and both need to go for the good of humanity as a whole.
Capitalism does just fine with religion, yes, but religion doesn't do fine at all with capitalism. With the notable exception of the United States, the most developed capitalist countries in the world are also the least religious countries in the world.

My view is only Eurocentric to the extent that capitalism itself is Eurocentric.