religion is poison

[trivas7]

Religion argues that people are not the main force for change. It attributes change to a divine power, offering hope for change in an afterlife. But dialectical materialism shows that both notions are false. Doesn't this mean that the influence of religion must be diminished before there is class consciousness -- let alone social revolution -- in advanced countries like the USA? How large an influence is the hold of religion on the masses in the USA?

[mykittyhasaboner]

yes, people need to stop reading the bible, and start reading the Communist Manifesto.

[Svante]

i dont think religion like force aabove m e but more spirituelle. religion i s organiisaton like church and there are many church in Québec.god i s not a church but god is esprit o f man.i think spirituelle force would make sombody want t o changer société s o this would be good thing.:)

[Lost In Translation]

Depends on what type of religion you are talking about. Christianity is quite sad, but some of the asian religions are fine.

[trivas7]

Depends on what type of religion you are talking about. Christianity is quite sad, but some of the asian religions are fine.
Why? What is enlightened re the caste system, priestcraft, superstition, and feudal social arrangements?

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

*shrugs* What do you expect? In a time of unerring economic insecurity, when capital is destroying most communities based on mutual aid and shared belief, there is little respite but for the church. It provides one of the few outlets for some semblance of stability and "loving community." Of course its all a shell game for the ruling class, but we can't expect anything else unless we organize a counterweight to it for working folk. We need to provide community and hope, and that requires serious organizing not diatribes against superstitious masses.

[Lost In Translation]

I was actually thinking of Confucianism, Taoism (both of which you could call religions, but not really...), and Buddhism (non-Mahayana).

They don't have a central supernatural figure watching your every move, and basically tell you to depend on yourself, and better yourself, not kissing God's backside.

[Dros]

Depends on what type of religion you are talking about. Christianity is quite sad, but some of the asian religions are fine.

Not at all!

I don't think you appreciate how oppressive a lot of the old Asian religions actually are.

[Lost In Translation]

Guess I need to brush up a bit on my religious studies...or take on a religion myself...

[bluerev002]

Religion is, indeed, the opiate of the masses as my good friend Marx said once. Religion is something that does, indeed, need to be abolished. The problem with that is....what is religion? Read Durkheim on religion and you'll see how it is a fallacy to attribute religion solely in the verse of a higher force, and intangible being, or a way of being saved. According to Durkheim religion will never be abolished because it will always come back in a new form. In the absence of a popular god, it will manifest itself in other things such as nationalism. But read him and analyze him on your own it will be a mind trip for all people who wish to abolish religiosity that revolves around some deity.

[Red October]

Religion argues that people are not the main force for change. It attributes change to a divine power, offering hope for change in an afterlife. But dialectical materialism shows that both notions are false. Doesn't this mean that the influence of religion must be diminished before there is class consciousness -- let alone social revolution -- in advanced countries like the USA? How large an influence is the hold of religion on the masses in the USA?


http://home.alltel.net/petronski/obvious.jpg

[Bright Banana Beard]

opiate = painkiller

[trivas7]

According to Durkheim religion will never be abolished because it will always come back in a new form. In the absence of a popular god, it will manifest itself in other things such as nationalism. But read him and analyze him on your own it will be a mind trip for all people who wish to abolish religiosity that revolves around some deity.
I don't believe this. Religion seems not to have been much of an influence during the far longer period of mankind's primitive communism, i.e., tribal loyalty and practice was the basis of ideology. It's to believe that man is inherently irrational.

[trivas7]

opiate = painkiller
How do you change drugged people into revolutionaries?

[BIG BROTHER]

Religion is, indeed, the opiate of the masses as my good friend Marx said once. Religion is something that does, indeed, need to be abolished. The problem with that is....what is religion? Read Durkheim on religion and you'll see how it is a fallacy to attribute religion solely in the verse of a higher force, and intangible being, or a way of being saved. According to Durkheim religion will never be abolished because it will always come back in a new form. In the absence of a popular god, it will manifest itself in other things such as nationalism. But read him and analyze him on your own it will be a mind trip for all people who wish to abolish religiosity that revolves around some deity.

if it came back, as an aspiration to reach a communist society, it wouldn't bad...

[bluerev002]

opiate = painkiller

I know very well what opiate means...and im pretty sure that Marx did as well while writing his introduction to "Critique Hegel's of Hegel's Philosophy of Right"


I don't believe this. Religion seems not to have been much of an influence during the far longer period of mankind's primitive communism, i.e., tribal loyalty and practice was the basis of ideology. It's to believe that man is inherently irrational

Well there lies the ambiguity of the term religion. I'm not too familiar with man's tribal communism, if you can shoot any readings my way I'd much appreciate it. But from what I can speculate it may be that the religion back then was the tribe itself, the tribe itself was idolized. But I don't know. Modern man is a bit more complex I suppose.

[Malakangga]

what about islam?

[trivas7]

if it came back, as an aspiration to reach a communist society, it wouldn't bad...
How can religion aspire to secular communism?

[Bright Banana Beard]

How do you change drugged people into revolutionaries?
That the thing, people are drugged into religion because some see it as "painkiller" for their suffering.

[Revolutiondownunder]

Depends on what type of religion you are talking about. Christianity is quite sad, but some of the asian religions are fine.

Is that racist?:confused:

[Plagueround]

Is that racist?:confused:

How could it be racist? There is no such thing as a "christian" race.

[bluerev002]

How can religion aspire to secular communism?



cool cool, let me explain Durkheim a bit. Extremly simpmlified but ehre goes:

Because it is actually difficult to think of a secular religion, but it is possible. The thing about religion is that it creates this overwhemling feeling that seems to transend everything. Add symbols to it, like the Christian Cross, and all those feelings are absorbed into it.

it may not feel like it, but anything that gives you that feeling is a religion. So, for example futbol (or soccer) for all you adoring fans of any given team (let's just say Liverpool cuz they crazy like that ;) ) Going to their stadium is like going to church. You get that overwhelming inexplicable feeling that seems to transend all rationality (what other time do you yell at a bunch of people kicking a ball around, and yell with almost hatred to anyone from Manchester?). If you pair that with the feeling that people get from church (the overwhelimg feeling that makes one feel like taking on a cruisade if too many people allow it to rob you of rationality)

Furthermore, you imput ALL those emotions into a symbol. You just look at a cross and you think Christianity. You just look at the jersey and you tink of Liverpool. You won't dare trample the cross, you wont dare trample the jersey to do so is to trample everything those symbols stand for.

So, in retrospect, religions need no ellaborate explanation of an afterlife, speak about good vs. evil, or whatnot. We have plenty of god-less religions such as buddhism.

How this could apply to communism is that if you create a symbol for it, have rallies for it, make people want to fight and preserve it, it can be done, politics CAN become the new age religion. Nazism falls under this category of religion, it had that overwhelming feeling that made people love and implement that to their symbols, so communism can do the same.

It's a bit of a rough explanation but I don't have the text in front of me.

[bluerev002]

what about islam?


sorry...I don't see where this stems from.

[trivas7]

Because it is actually difficult to think of a secular religion, but it is possible. The thing about religion is that it creates this overwhemling feeling that seems to transend everything. Add symbols to it, like the Christian Cross, and all those feelings are absorbed into it.

it may not feel like it, but anything that gives you that feeling is a religion.
Yes, I see, this is basically the Prussian theologian Schliemacher's definition of religion: it is a matter of feeling. But by this definition anything one feels strongly re is religion. It lacks a theoretical basis. A more phenomenological definition is that it is a symbol system which, along with ritual practice seeks ultimate meaning. And this definition is incompatible with the humanism of Marxism, which knows no ultimate meaning.

Of course you are right that people invest religious feeling into politics, but is this a good thing? To build communism will take much human activity, re-education along with huge amounts of thought. Big emotions alone won't get us there.

[reginaeme]

Is that racist?:confused:
not at all, we're talking about religions, not races, and I have to agree that the asian religions I've heard of (not that i'm an expert at all, i haven't even heard that much) sound way better that the whole fear/guilt christianism and catholisism base on.


what about islam?
I picture Islam as an incredibly opressive, I'm not sure if thats the truth or pure propaganda, but I know it is a huge part of a muslims life, and all that amount of faith (blindness) is actually the poison you people are talking about...


Doesn't this mean that the influence of religion must be diminished before there is class consciousness -- let alone social revolution -- in advanced countries like the USA? How large an influence is the hold of religion on the masses in the USA?

I do think religion is what stops people from trying to change "leave it all in Gods hands" is just much more confortable than solving the social problems we're all facing, also this "faith" I was talking about, its killing me inside, people waiting for miracles, and praying instead of acting.

but I don't think there's really a way to diminish the influence of religion, because this so called faith is what's keeping a lot o people "sain" (well, kind of), for better or for worse, it's just one of the biggest parts of their lifes, and they trust God and religion so much I don't think it will be an easy thing to do.

maybe if the next generations aren't so into religion, that would make a change, but right now. their faith is stronger. . .

in the end, it's the poor who get to heaven
right?
being in an economical disadvantage turned out to be helpful in the afterlife
why would we want to change?

[dirtycommiebastard]

We can't rely on the masses giving up their religion for the revolution to occur. Their loss in faith will be the result of eliminating their material need for it. Of course there will be the die-hard fundamentalists who will 'leave it in God's hands' and they will be the ones to take no action, but your average person who is facing economic crisis and trying to save his job and provide for his family will be the one to take action and let God sit this one out.

[Anarch_Mesa]

I think that religion is an "Evil Neccesity". Most people (Especially when the hit their midlife crisis) start to get nervous about death. Religion isn't something that you can prevent without using force. First off it is mans right to believe what they want to and if they choose to believe in any sort of "GOD" whether it be poly or mono theism they have a right.I do think however that religion should have financial and economical boundries and if you choose to believe whatever you believe that there should be no profit no-matter how high up the chain you may be it should be strickly for your own gain. I also think that you should be able to take action against someone who forces it upon you.

Religion is a mindcontroll and keeps "The poor from killing the rich - Napolean". I think that it is corrupt beyond controll, but at the same time I don't think it is preventable.

[trivas7]

I think that religion is an "Evil Neccesity".
I agree that religion shouldn't be illegal or banned, or that religious people need be discriminated against in anyway. But often, like radical Islam, religion aspires to political and cultural dominance and therefore must be opposed.

[trivas7]

in the end, it's the poor who get to heaven
right?
being in an economical disadvantage turned out to be helpful in the afterlife
why would we want to change?
This is hypocrisy of the highest order. The bourgeoisie don't believe this, mega-church leaders don't believe this, nor do they preach this. Like the Chinese nowadays, Dr. Creflo Dollar preaches "to be rich is good".

[bluerev002]

I picture Islam as an incredibly opressive, I'm not sure if thats the truth or pure propaganda, but I know it is a huge part of a muslims life, and all that amount of faith (blindness) is actually the poison you people are talking about...

this is, indeed, pure progaganda in the wests, the U.S. in particular. It feeds into the notion that there must always be an enemy- the redscare at one paoint, the muslim scare now, the immigration scare to boot.

It is far more tolerant that Christianity. In fact the most intolerant, violent, and over all brutal religion there has ever been in the middle east has been Christianity.

Islam is actually a very tolerant, open minded reilgion. The word Muslim itself means he/she who gives him/herself to god. So in essence anyone can be Muslilm. The thing that sets it so vulerable to outward attack and inward "fundamentalism" (a word that is very odd in its usage) is that it has no central control such as Catholics with the vatican or even a church in itsefl. Since a Mosk is just a place to go and pray. The only thing with Islam is the Q'uran that is open to interpretation. They do have older wise men who give their interpretation but anyone is free to interpret as they wish. It is when a few get their hands on it and use it for their own rise to power that it becomes negative, but never let that small percentage of Muslims that make the news every night make anyone think that all Muslims are like that.


n the end, it's the poor who get to heaven
right?
being in an economical disadvantage turned out to be helpful in the afterlife
why would we want to change?

Being from the same culture as you I can see where this is coming from, but NO, it is not to an advantage "Nosotros los pobres" mentality must change in the world.

[bluerev002]

Of course you are right that people invest religious feeling into politics, but is this a good thing? To build communism will take much human activity, re-education along with huge amounts of thought. Big emotions alone won't get us there.

No, they will not get us there. But I believe that implementing religious feelings into politics came come with great benefits. Holding massive rallies can get people "pumped up" and exited to continue to learn and continue on with the new system. Putting increasing value on logic and rationality. This love for the system will make them fight for it more than logic and logic will make them want to continue it. A love for logic, or a logical love.

Also, how does it not fit into Marx's humanits. I'll admit I havent' read everything there is to read about Marx so send me a link so we can have further discourse on the matter.

[Chapter 24]

I do find that organized religion has a mostly negative impact on society, however I believe that belief is a part of human spiritual evolution and the beliefs in a God or god(s) is a natural one. Though we may label such beliefs as superstitious we're really in no position to openly criticize those who wish to learn, used, and worship from a certain belief system.
That is, unless certain dogmas referenced by zealots who go after their own desires without the consideration of others come into question. That is, if someone says their "god" commanded them to rob, pillage, rape, murder, etc. then obviously there is moral obligation to stop that person.
It goes along with the basic principles of freedom: if you take away my right to have my freedoms and liberties, then it cannot be seen as a freedom. So if you murder in the name of a god then obviously you are taking away your victim(s)' freedom. And of course, the rights of humanity come before the rights of religious organizations - always.

[LivornoCalcioUK]

How this could apply to communism is that if you create a symbol for it, have rallies for it, make people want to fight and preserve it, it can be done, politics CAN become the new age religion. Nazism falls under this category of religion, it had that overwhelming feeling that made people love and implement that to their symbols, so communism can do the same.

Lenin did this. He was more successful than Hitler and Nazism, presumably because what Lenin was saying actually had some logic and truth behind it so there was no need for the suspension of disbelief that the German people had to employ with Nazism.

[trivas7]

In fact the most intolerant, violent, and over all brutal religion there has ever been in the middle east has been Christianity.

Islam is actually a very tolerant, open minded reilgion. The word Muslim itself means he/she who gives him/herself to god. So in essence anyone can be Muslilm. The thing that sets it so vulerable to outward attack and inward "fundamentalism" (a word that is very odd in its usage) is that it has no central control such as Catholics with the vatican or even a church in itsefl. Since a Mosk is just a place to go and pray.
I agree that historiically Christianity has been brutal in the mid-East. But it's not the case that Islam is a tolerant, open-minded religion. Brutally sexist, paternalistic, chauvanistic, xenophobic and sympathetic to violence is more like it. Of course they'd like the whole world to convert to Islam. Who needs central control when there is no concept of the idea of separation between the state and mosque? A most oppressive religion IMHO.