Homophobia in our government-Sally Kern

[anarchy666]

I was reading an article about this so called politician when I heard some of her words, I was just infuriated. She has said "...[the homosexual agenda] is the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam" I never new one sentence could be so offensive. This dirty homophobic ass has first off, called a religion a threat, and also compared homosexuals to terrorist. Now that is just sick. No homosexuals that I know ever bombed buildings or attacked innocent people. There is no other emotion feel about this woman but hate. She even tried to get books that have homosexual themes in them from libraries. Ok, so now we have this lady hating on different religions and sexual orientations and also wanted to pull books out of libraries. What is next? How did this woman even get in her position? Should she even be allowed to spread this kind of hate? What is your opinion on this lady?

[There is No God!]

I agree with you on everything you said except for:


called a religion a threat


Despite what you or I may want to believe Islam is a threat! It being a peaceful religion is a myth perpetuated by liberals who don't want to open their eyes to the real world.

[Raisa]

"Despite what you or I may want to believe Islam is a threat! It being a peaceful religion is a myth perpetuated by liberals who don't want to open their eyes to the real world. "
http://img.revleft.com/revleft/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1100282)


You got 22 posts here, i hope by the time you have like 100 you step your game up.
What is Islam a threat to?
One third of the world is muslim, has a muslim ever robbed you or kicked your ass?
Have any muslim people came to you and tried to convert you to be a muslim too?
WHAT in the hell of humanity has Islam ever did to you? And dont tell me about some crazy ass muslims who believe in tribal shit like female circumsizion or wearing burkas over the eyes or forced marriages...things that are cultural,

ISLAM is a peaceful faith, unless you try to physically impose yourself on muslim people.
In Islam opression is not tolerated.




(Now what people are taught to recognize as opression is an entirely different debate)

[RedStarOverChina]

All religions are a threat. There's nothing special about Islam.

Raisa, long time no see.

How could any religion be a "peaceful faith"? Islam, like any other religion I can think of, was built on blood and conquest. From the days of Muhammad to the Ottoman Empire, Islam was spread not by imams but by Muslim invasions.

Religions advocates "peace" only when it suits their purpose, such as in silencing of the oppressed.

[Bilan]

Raise, Islam, like Christianity is a backward religion.
In so far as, its social values are backward, though it holds some that are progressive - like all religions, like all cultures.

That point being is this, that as far as religion goes, people have the rich to choose, not to impose. Despite that, religious people rarely do not impose, equally with non-religious people (but thats completely contextual, on both parts).

[There is No God!]

What is Islam a threat to?



A Sunday Times survey taken in UK shortly after the 9/11 attack "revealed that 40% of British Muslims believe Usama bin Laden was right to attack the United States
The Age of Sacred Terror, by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, New York : Random House, c2002, p.213. (Source: Nicolas Le Quesne, `Islam in Europe: A Changing Faith` Time Europe, 24 December 2001, 44


Do you really think 40% of them would have supported Bin Laden had it not been for their religious beliefs? So aside from terrorism and whatnot, it is a threat to freethinking of the Islamic community.



One third of the world is muslim, has a muslim ever robbed you or kicked your ass?


I'm not sure, I didn't ask his religion as he punched my friend in the face :rolleyes:

Either way your question has nothing to do with what I'm getting at.


Have any muslim people came to you and tried to convert you to be a muslim too?

Nope. Only Hare Krishna's. But last time I checked no one ever planted a car bomb in the name of Krishna.



WHAT in the hell of humanity has Islam ever did to you? And dont tell me about some crazy ass muslims who believe in tribal shit like female circumsizion or wearing burkas over the eyes or forced marriages...things that are cultural,


If things have nothing to do with one's religion, and only with a societies 'culture', then how do you explain the American christian right being so pro-life, and the left being so much more pro-choice? It's because the left is driven by logic, and the right is driven by religion.



ISLAM is a peaceful faith, unless you try to physically impose yourself on muslim people.

In Islam opression is not tolerated.


Do you see any girls in mini skirts in Saudi Arabia?

[/quote]


The point I'm getting at is just because Islam ISN'T a threat to me, doesn't mean that's Islam isn't a threat to others.

[BobKKKindle$]

Despite what you or I may want to believe Islam is a threat! It being a peaceful religion is a myth perpetuated by liberals who don't want to open their eyes to the real world.Your attitude is a clear example of the prevalence of Islamophobia in many western societies. You have not given any explanation as to how Islam could be considered a "threat" - a "threat" to what?

It is of course true that there are people, who happen to be Muslim, who have committed terrorist attacks, including attacks on civilians. However, this does not mean that we should consider Islam a threat, because these attacks, and the ideas promoted by the groups involved, are not a reliable indication of what normal Muslims actually believe, and are, in fact, in conflict with prophet Mohammed's teachings. He wrote:

"Beware of extremism in religion, for it was extremism in religion that destroyed those who went before you"

Every religion has been used as a justification for terrorism - this is not something that is specific to Islam, as evidenced by the attacks on abortion clinics ascribed to Christian-right organizations in the United States. Your viewpoint shows a disgusting ignorance, clearly you have never spoken to a Muslim, you have never bothered to make an effort to find out what Muslims actually believe. Your viewpoint echoes the lies propagated by far-right groups in the UK, who want people to believe that Islam is a "barbaric" religion, to foster dislike for the immigrant community.


Do you see any girls in mini skirts in Saudi Arabia? Not in public, no, that's illegal - but what is your point? Do you think that wearing a miniskirt is liberating? Even if it is, once again, the Saudi system of government is based on a distorted conception of Islam, as shown thus:

Verse 2:256 from the Qur’an: “Let there be no compulsion in religion"

I hope you change your disgusting views, you ignorant fool.


Nope. Only Hare Krishna's. But last time I checked no one ever planted a car bomb in the name of Krishna.

I've dealt with this silly claim above, by why are you referring to Hindus as "Hare Krishnas"? Is this your attempt at being funny and covering up your laughable lack of knowledge?

Go read a book, you childish fuckwit.

[There is No God!]

Your attitude is a clear example of the prevalence of Islamophobia in many western societies.

Firstly, Islamaphobia is the irrational hatred of Islamic people. I have nothing against Islamic people. I only have a problem with religious fundamentalism and extremism, which is the threat I am referring to in regards to Islam.



You have not given any explanation as to how Islam could be considered a "threat" - a "threat" to what?


A threat to the innocent victims of silly wars for irrational reasons.


It is of course true that there are people, who happen to be Muslim, who have committed terrorist attacks, including attacks on civilians.

Which is why I am opposed to Islam, as well as any other religion which can be distorted into violence.


However, this does not mean that we should consider Islam a threat,

I don't consider Islam a threat to me personally. And I also don't consider Christianity a threat to me personally. But that does change that Islam, like other religious doctrines can be distorted to make people kill in the name of a fictional God.



because these attacks, and the ideas promoted by the groups involved, are not a reliable indication of what normal Muslims actually believe, and are, in fact, in conflict with prophet Mohammed's teachings. He wrote:

"Beware of extremism in religion, for it was extremism in religion that destroyed those who went before you"


The bible says 'Thou shall not kill', yet Christians still do. So just because Mohammed warned against extremism, doesn't mean that it's necessarily stopping many people.


Every religion has been used as a justification for terrorism - this is not something that is specific to Islam, as evidenced by the attacks on abortion clinics ascribed to Christian-right organizations in the United States.

You seem to presume just because I am Anti-Islam that I am for Christianity. Very wrong.


Your viewpoint shows a disgusting ignorance, clearly you have never spoken to a Muslim, you have never bothered to make an effort to find out what Muslims actually believe.

Actually I used to blindly defend Islam too until I became anti religion. The point is that Most Muslims are peaceful people who aren't going to be suicide bombers, but that doesn't change that fact that some will as a result of their religious beliefs.


Your viewpoint echoes the lies propagated by far-right groups in the UK, who want people to believe that Islam is a "barbaric" religion, to foster dislike for the immigrant community.

So this is a conspiracy now?



Not in public, no, that's illegal - but what is your point? Do you think that wearing a miniskirt is liberating? Even if it is, once again, the Saudi system of government is based on a distorted conception of Islam, as shown thus:

Verse 2:256 from the Qur’an: “Let there be no compulsion in religion"


Dude, EVERY theocracy has a distorted conception of religion. And I realize that this is not exclusive to Islam, just look at El Salvador for instance.



I hope you change your disgusting views, you ignorant fool.


Nope, still an ignorant fool.


I've dealt with this silly claim above, by why are you referring to Hindus as "Hare Krishnas"? Is this your attempt at being funny and covering up your laughable lack of knowledge?

Probably because they were Krishna you fucking idiot.

[BobKKKindle$]

You seem to presume just because I am Anti-Islam that I am for Christianity. Very wrong.
Which is why I am opposed to Islam, as well as any other religion which can be distorted into violence.What you don't understand is that any belief system, even those belief systems which are not of a religious character, has the potential to be twisted, so as to serve as a justification for acts of violence and oppression. This is the nature of ideology, which Marx understood as having a distorting effect on the way we view the world, giving rise to a false consciousness. This is perhaps most true of Marxism, which has, since its original formulation, been invoked to excuse brutality, especially the persecution of political dissidents in countries where a communist party has taken power, on the grounds that such dissidents are "enemies of the people". Does this mean that you are "anti-marxism" as well? By this logic, you should be opposed to every single belief system which exists, because every belief system has, at one point, been distorted in the interests of a group which aims to use violence to achieve their objectives.

We should recognize that Islam, like any religion, has some positive features, and some negative features, because religions are a reflection of the conditions in which their respective holy texts were written, as well as the people who made contributions to these texts - hence the fact that the New Testament contains messages of brotherhood, since it was written at a time when Judea was under Roman occupation. This is the materialist approach. Proclaiming one-self "anti-Islam" is just childish and not progressive.

[There is No God!]

By this logic, you should be opposed to every single belief system which exists, because every belief system has, at one point, been distorted in the interests of a group which aims to use violence to achieve their objectives.

I realise that every ideology can and has at times been distorted. But that does not mean that I should show tolerence to religion, just because of civilians killed by Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.

[BobKKKindle$]

I realise that every ideology can and has at times been distorted. But that does not mean that I should show tolerence to religion, just because of civilians killed by Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War.

It depends on what you mean by showing "tolerance" to a religion - I don't think that religion should be banned, and I have no problem with people having their own beliefs about how the world came to exist, but I am hostile to all political movements which seek to increase the role of religion in public life, and I don't think that religion should receive any public funding - if possible, religion should remain within the private sphere. If we want to get rid of religion, we have to think about the material conditions that give rise to belief in a supreme being, and then seek to eliminate those conditions. Religion is a direct result of a class society, because it provides the lower classes with a temporary relief from their problems, with the promise of a better life after death, which lets people accept their immediate hardship.

The classic Marx quote - "opium of the people" - is actually a small part of a much larger quote which contains an important insight:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

[There is No God!]

It depends on what you mean by showing "tolerance" to a religion - I don't think that religion should be banned, and I have no problem with people having their own beliefs about how the world came to exist, but I am hostile to all political movements which seek to increase the role of religion in public life, and I don't think that religion should receive any public funding - if possible, religion should remain within the private sphere. If we want to get rid of religion, we have to think about the material conditions that give rise to belief in a supreme being, and then seek to eliminate those conditions. Religion is a direct result of a class society, because it provides the lower classes with a temporary relief from their problems, with the promise of a better life after death, which lets people accept their immediate hardship.

The classic Marx quote - "opium of the people" - is actually a small part of a much larger quote which contains an important insight:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."

I agree with everything you just said haha. Now we're starting to get along.

[careyprice31]

I don't know this woman Sally Kern but I dislike her already.

btw since it got onto the subject of Islam, i find religious people often pick and choose what they want to discuss when telling people about there religion.

For example, oftentimes Islamic people at my university set up tables with information about Islam like brochures and things to read, sometimes dvds to watch and if people are interested. I visited one the other day and was reading through one of the brochures when I came across the statemene that slam emphasizes modesty and says that women should cover up and not show anything except for their face and hands. (Im not joking, the brochure had those exact words on it.) I looked up at the two islamic men and one islamic woman who was manning the table and I asked them, if islam likes modesty, why isnt it suggesting that men be equally modest and cover up? why only women? I also said I couldnt live like that. I like to wear my hair as free and my clothes as free as any Canadian girl.

I'll tell you what he said. He looked at me, then said, "We're not discussing that right now that isnt in our discussion topics for today". And I thought, what the fuck? The table was to educate about islam, was it not? What was written in the brochure was a part of islam, and they don't want to discuss it?

Point being, they only wanted to discuss what they wanted to talk about.

That is another thing on top of the trillion reasons why I hate religions with a vengeance, why I oppose religions (although as i said in the should religions be illegal topic, I do not oppose people practiccing and worshipping, as people's own personal relationship with their deities are their own personal private business.

Just thought I'd bring this up.

[Cheung Mo]

Was radical Islam our friend when Washington-backed Muslim extremists were fighting a bloody war trying to stop communists from dismantling feudalism and getting Afghan women into the classroom?

[anarchy666]

Despite what you or I may want to believe Islam is a threat! It being a peaceful religion is a myth perpetuated by liberals who don't want to open their eyes to the real world.

That is stereotyping Muslims. Not all of them are violent and people should have the choice to practice whatever religion they want. Forcing religion on someone is a different story.

[Global_Justice]

Your attitude is a clear example of the prevalence of Islamophobia in many western societies. You have not given any explanation as to how Islam could be considered a "threat" - a "threat" to what?

of course islam is a threat. as leftists surely religion is a threat to us? just as catholocism was a threat to the spanish revolution, evangilcism would be a threat to any progression in the USA, lslam is a threat to progression in communities and countries that are predominantly muslim


It is of course true that there are people, who happen to be Muslim, who have committed terrorist attacks, including attacks on civilians.

oh come on, they happen to be muslim? its a little more complex than that dont u think. of course the majority of muslims in western countries dont agree with them, but nevertheless there being muslim (an extreme version yes) is a major factor in them commiting murder.




Not in public, no, that's illegal - but what is your point? Do you think that wearing a miniskirt is liberating? Even if it is, once again, the Saudi system of government is based on a distorted conception of Islam,

:confused: having the choice to wear a miniskirt is liberating yes. whay is wrong with miniskirts? yes it is a distorted view, and it is a threat. a perfectly followed idealistic islam that exists only in the quran may not be a threat, but it doesnt exist. what does exist are various distorted conceptions of islam, and some of those are a real threat.

[Devrim]

Do you think that wearing a miniskirt is liberating? Even if it is, once again, the Saudi system of government is based on a distorted conception of Islam, as shown thus:

Verse 2:256 from the Qur’an: “Let there be no compulsion in religion"

I hope you change your disgusting views, you ignorant fool.

I would look to myself before accusing others of being ignorant. The quoted Sura does not suggest that religion should not compel people to do things, but that there shall be no compulsion in choice of religion. As such it is completely irrelevant to the point here.

Also, it is obviously not the practice in large parts of the Islamic world. How can you imagine that there is 'no compulsion in religion' when eight countries have the death sentence for apostasy.

Devrim

[Faux Real]

Was radical Islam our friend when Washington-backed Muslim extremists were fighting a bloody war trying to stop communists from dismantling feudalism and getting Afghan women into the classroom?You answered your own question; when American Imperialism gave them incentive to.

Right. Anyway, what a thread. This is supposed to be about homophobia is it not?
I was reading an article about this so called politician when I heard some of her words, I was just infuriated. She has said "...[the homosexual agenda] is the biggest threat that our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam" I never new one sentence could be so offensive. This dirty homophobic ass has first off, called a religion a threat, and also compared homosexuals to terrorist. Now that is just sick. No homosexuals that I know ever bombed buildings or attacked innocent people. There is no other emotion feel about this woman but hate. She even tried to get books that have homosexual themes in them from libraries. Ok, so now we have this lady hating on different religions and sexual orientations and also wanted to pull books out of libraries. What is next? How did this woman even get in her position? Should she even be allowed to spread this kind of hate? What is your opinion on this lady?It's an attempt to further divide the working class amongst sexual orientation. Ethnic, religious, and cultural divisions are all subject to this kind of exposure as well. Keeping the working class divided by these lines helps the bourgeoisie by preventing the workers to unify with all the surrounding social stratification. In a sense, she's acting like a political prostitute, which is uncommon for capitalist politicians.

As for religion being a threat to "this nation" or "capitalism" I would have to agree with her. The "fundamentals" of all Abrahamic religions call for certain types of social exchange that are incompatible with capitalism, e.g. self-sacrifice for the common good, unification among people, submission to no one but god, and condemnation for profiteering. Appealing to these core beliefs should be encouraged, as it's far more constructive than telling the religious worker "hey you fucking cretin that religious tripe shows how incapable you are of participating in worker's democracy," when acts like these only strengthen their beliefs.

[black magick hustla]

Religion is a remnant of past modes of production, and as such, you could make an argument that it is "incompatible" with the nihilism of capital. It has nothing to do with "self-lessness" and "union of peoples" that makes it "incompatible" though. Self-sacrifice, and some bankrupt, abstract cross conceptions of the "people" are the strongest foundations of class society. Without some rationalization of sacrifice for the "greater good", class society would crumble in a blink of an eye.

[Faux Real]

Religion is a remnant of past modes of production, and as such, you could make an argument that it is "incompatible" with the nihilism of capital. It has nothing to do with "self-lessness" and "union of peoples" that makes it "incompatible" though. Self-sacrifice, and some bankrupt, abstract cross conceptions of the "people" are the strongest foundations of class society.Which is why hijacking religion towards leftist beliefs isn't too shabby an idea as religion isn't going to collapse on itself.

Without some rationalization of sacrifice for the "greater good", class society would crumble in a blink of an eye.You've lost me there, wouldn't "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" be a tenet of self sacrifice for a greater good, i.e. the community?

[black magick hustla]

To be honest, I never liked that phrase.

I always envisioned communism as the movement of workers for self-emancipation and towards a "world of pleasures". That quote makes the communist task almost like christian.

[BobKKKindle$]

It's an attempt to further divide the working class amongst sexual orientation. Ethnic, religious, and cultural divisions are all subject to this kind of exposure as well. Keeping the working class divided by these lines helps the bourgeoisie by preventing the workers to unify with all the surrounding social stratification. In a sense, she's acting like a political prostitute, which is uncommon for capitalist politicians.The irony, of course, is that many "socialists" have also condemned homosexuality as a product of a capitalist society, and therefore something which should be eradicated under "socialism".


Religion is a remnant of past modes of production, and as such, you could make an argument that it is "incompatible" with the nihilism of capital. It has nothing to do with "self-lessness" and "union of peoples" that makes it "incompatible" though. Self-sacrifice, and some bankrupt, abstract cross conceptions of the "people" are the strongest foundations of class society. Without some rationalization of sacrifice for the "greater good", class society would crumble in a blink of an eye.I disagree; religion will continue to exist as long as we live in a class society, and, currently, instead of becoming less important, religion is actually becoming more influential in public life, especially in the center of the capitalist-imperialist system - the United States.

Religion is an essential part of the ideology of class society; a common feature of almost all religions is the idea of a better life after death, this is important because it can help convince people to accept their conditions, as they believe that, when they die, they will be able to enjoy themselves and will not have to worry about the problems they are forced to deal with on earth - this is why Marx described religion as an opiate, it gives people relief from their material problems, and prevents them from seeing the world as it really is. Religion is thus an ideological support for the capitalist class, and so long as people accept the idea of an afterlife, they are unlikely to fight against the capitalist system. Many religions, especially Buddhism, also promote the idea of reincarnation, which also supports class-society, because, according to this idea, our social status is the product of mistakes we made in our previous lives, and therefore something we should accept as a result of our own actions, not chance.

It is precisely because Capitalism is nihilistic ("It has drowned out the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation") that religion, as well as other forms of ideology such as economic liberalism, is still required - to obscure or a provide a justification for the tensions inherent within the capitalist system. The ruling class needs ideology to make their system seem "natural" or acceptable to the majority. Religion is an important part of the ideology of capitalism, and religious leaders create a mechanism for the transmission of religious ideology from the bourgeoisie to the working class.

[Sam_b]

Yes, religion is inherently reactionary: but should that stop us welcoming Christian or Muslim socialists into our worker's parties?

In today's society (I say this as someone living in the UK) Muslims are oppressed, discriminated against; and we have to stick up for them. None of this 'Islamo-Fascist Awareness Month' nonsense, that does more to divide people than to unite them. If socialists are overt in their condemnation and opposition to religion they side dangerously with the language of the far-right, and does absolutely nothing for building a broad, united-front leftist movement.

[Raisa]

Nope. Only Hare Krishna's. But last time I checked no one ever planted a car bomb in the name of Krishna.""

They got people over there who do that shit too....however, I wouldnt expect you to know about that because they dont usually show it on Faux News


"Actually I used to blindly defend Islam too until I became anti religion. The point is that Most Muslims are peaceful people who aren't going to be suicide bombers, but that doesn't change that fact that some will as a result of their religious beliefs."

Or maybe some will because AN OCCUPYING IRSREALI REGIME HAS FUCKED THEIR MINDS UP WITH VIOLENCE ALREADY, and to them it is fucking normal because they get treated with violence all the time and cant look forward to anything because it is taken away or destroyed by ISRAEL.
That IS where most of the suicide bombing takes place at in the world, and alot of other people who do this who are not from occupied Palestine are experiancing similar conditions of war and opression like the rebels in Chechnya who do crazy shit, but all the time RUssian soldiers do insane shit to the Chechen people and then destroy bodies so no one can discover the identity of the chechen dead.

You wish it was as simple as "thats islam!" but you know what...EVERYTHING is ECONOMICS. And to me, the fact that Islam even had to be revealed in itself is economics but we have to descuss that in a different part of the forum because this is Politics. Economics is survival for the proliteriat, and we have to think about how a persons survival situation effects their thoughts and life and value of life.

"having the choice to wear a miniskirt is liberating yes. whay is wrong with miniskirts?"
Its not having the choice that is the problem its usually the reason behind why a woman feels the need to make that choice, knowing htat most rooms are air conditioned and the mini skirt makes you like ....naked.
Why do you have to be naked. Are you afraid people wont care what youre all about if you dont look like a toy?

[Raisa]

"The irony, of course, is that many "socialists" have also condemned homosexuality as a product of a capitalist society, and therefore something which should be eradicated under "socialism".""

As everything I am, I believe that Homosexuals should be allowed by people in society to be gay.
Most people dont WANT to be gay except gay people.

If we surpress gay people we get this phemonom of homosexuals being in denial of hte fact that they like the company of hte same sex better hten the complimentary company of the opposite, and they marry the opposite sex, get kids with them and have a family and then inflict a MISERABLE life on their spouse.

LET THEM BE GAY. it saves alot of time and trouble to just leave gay people alone i believe so they can be happy and the straight people can be happy.
In societies that opress gay people you got all kind of crazy marriages and shit.

In socialism it doesnt even matter whos married, its all about if hter a proliteriat. Marriage should exist to the state or matter or be accounted for. Just who parented each child and then everoyne is reguarded as a comrade, single or married.

When the state recognizes married couples this is also counter revolutionary because it illudes to the fact that being married has somethnig to do with revolutionary activity, and we dont need people dropping out of the revolution just because their married now and got to do all that fluffly shit married people do- FUCK THAT...youre married...congratulations- I will see you at the next meeting with your wife or husband if you last that fucking long, because untill it is communism in our faces then every day of socialism is the revolution. The state recognizing marriages is consumeristic in my eyes, thats what it leads to. A diversion that a dictatorship of the proliteriat doesnt need to be involved with.

[Devrim]

Yes, religion is inherently reactionary: but should that stop us welcoming Christian or Muslim socialists into our worker's parties?

I think that there is a contradiction between religion, and Marxism. I would say that it is impossible to allow a religious believer into a Marxist organisation.

Devrim

[Raisa]

I think that there is a contradiction between religion, and Marxism. I would say that it is impossible to allow a religious believer into a Marxist organisation.

Devrim


I think that is a shame on behalf of that organization.
Malcolm X wouldnt have been able to join...along with alot of other people who wound up living and dieing for the advancement of the proliteriat.

The true thing is, that the class war is the real holy war because it is a contradiction to believe that there is a god who wants people to only submit to him, yet still be oppressed by other people. And if someone wants to participate in the class war on behalf of the proliteriat it should be welcomed and respected.

[Devrim]

Malcolm X wouldnt have been able to join...

Malcolm X wouldn't have been able to join because he wasn't a communist.

Devrim

[Raisa]

Yeah but if someone with the same logic and consciousness as himself wanted to, maybe he wouldnt do it based on your standards for a person who believes in god to not be able to join a marxist organization. Meanwhile we would have people believing in Marx as if he was god in the organization which is "just as bad".

Look at how people do Mao and Trotsky. Its almost like their replacing their 'need' for theology with people to worship, care who their second advisors were, who their wives were, what they drank, bla bla bla...what they thought on every little thing.
As long as class society exists people with that mentality are always going to exist.
Whether they believe in the One and Only God or they believe in historical figures to follow and submit their thoughts to. And then there are those from each group who are leaders and think logically about things.
And I think reguardless if someone wants to benifit the struggle of the proliteriat then they should be recognized encouraged and respected.
Cause who the fuck is anyone to say otherwise.

[RHIZOMES]

Despite what you or I may want to believe Islam is a threat! It being a peaceful religion is a myth perpetuated by liberals who don't want to open their eyes to the real world.


Former Muslim here. I agree.

Also: Addressing the "Not all Muslims are violent" statement - that's because MOST Muslims don't follow the religion properly and aren't aware of how reactionary the religion is, and like to make the religion sound all nice when really, it is not. AT ALL.

People who say Islam is as bad as Christianity are wrong. It is much worse.

I am not an Islamophobe (Or should I say, Muslimophobe). I have no problem with Muslims joining the movement and I'm against the discrimination against Muslims. I however I am NOT for whitewashing how incredibly oppressive the Islamic religion is by stupid hippies.

[Colonello Buendia]

I know tonnes of muslims. not one of them has said that Bin Laden or any of the other jihadist twats were right. in fact, most muslims deplore their acts. Islam like many religions and political ideas is meant to be treated one way but it's followers mis interpret it. Theism is reactionary "hold off doing world changing things now because we're going to a perfect place once we die" however this doesn't mean religion poses a threat. In fact early christians were basically theistic communards.

[Devrim]

Yeah but if someone with the same logic and consciousness as himself wanted to, maybe he wouldnt do it based on your standards for a person who believes in god to not be able to join a marxist organization.

'[S]omeone with the same logic and consciousness as him...' wouldn't be a communist either.

Having a materialist analysis of history and believing in God are diametrically opposed.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Meanwhile we would have people believing in Marx as if he was god in the organization which is "just as bad".

Look at how people do Mao and Trotsky. Its almost like their replacing their 'need' for theology with people to worship, care who their second advisors were, who their wives were, what they drank, bla bla bla...what they thought on every little thing.

This is a different problem.

Devrim