| Theory |
|
Communists Against Religion -- Part 2 June 16, 2003 by RedStar2000 |
Yes, there's more. *groans*
As the Roman Empire decayed, superstitious beliefs exploded throughout the Mediterranean world, of which Christianity happened to be "the lucky winner".
Now things are different. The American Empire is making what may hopefully be its final bid for world hegemony...and religious superstitions are turning up like maggots on a corpse. Perhaps this represents a "hidden weakness" of the ruling class; once you start operating on the sincere belief that "God is with you", you are in serious trouble...you will overestimate your strengths and underestimate your enemies.
In the meantime, the smog of religious belief continues to foul the air at left message boards like Che-Lives...and I "blow as hard as I can" to clear it away.
===============================================
I'm sorry to inform you that there appears to be a substantial number of people on this board who still take religion seriously.
I personally find it utterly incomprehensible that intelligent people--assuming lefties are intelligent--can still speak as if these superstitions had any validity whatsoever or are any more deserving of "tolerance" than cannibalism.
I've argued the subject until my fingers were about to fall off...without much success (that I know of). I'm convinced that even after the revolution, the struggle to emancipate the human mind from superstition of all kinds will be lengthy and arduous.
I have no doubt that eventually religion will only be of interest to a few dour and crabbed historians...but I couldn't even begin to guess how long that will take.
Perhaps just two or three centuries...if we're lucky.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 10, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
People's intelligence is not measured by how much they agree with you.
Did I suggest that? There are people who disagree with me about many things but agree with me that religion is superstition in theory and barbaric in practice. Indeed, I suspect this is the consensus among people who've given the matter any real thought.
quote:
Now please explain to me exactly why you wish to abolish religions that preach love, peace and compassion.
Because I look at what social institutions actually do...not simply what they claim to do.
With a few trivial exceptions, all religions have been resolutely opposed to the emancipation of the working class since the ink on the Communist Manifesto was still damp.
In addition to which, despite all the yapping about "love, peace, and compassion", all religions without hesitation support their local ruling class against ordinary people at home and abroad.
quote:
And then explain why you're trying to make everyone think the same way you do.
Because I'm right.
quote:
I thought leftists weren't supposed to be elitist snobs...
Well, they're not. If you find one on this board, let me know, and I'll criticize his attitude.
On the other hand, if you propose that "it doesn't matter what people think," that's not "anti-elitism", that's hyper-elitism.
What that would be saying, in effect, is that one should simply dismiss out of hand the possibility that anyone on this board will "matter", will play any kind of significant role in times to come. Only those who are "significant" now, really "count". The rabble can believe any nonsense they wish...as long as they obey their "proper" masters, who cares what they think?
Me.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 14, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Those people who are "religious" may have given the matter more thought then you think, Redstar.
Perhaps they have, but then why don't they show it?
I've long since completely lost track of how many times this stuff has come up, how many posts I've made on the subject, etc....it feels like a gigabyte at least.
Do you know that not once have I seen anyone produce any credible evidence on the subject?
Not once has anyone actually produced a single example of a real communist who also is "deeply and sincerely religious"? (You can't just "say" it's true, you have to actually show that Fidel, for example, goes to mass and confession, takes the host, etc.)
It's all this nebulous crap and flabby "leave me alone to believe whatever horseshit I wanna believe" stuff.
Not to mention "you're a cynical old meanie for not allowing me to pass off dog turds as pearls of divine wisdom."
Ok, have it your way. I'm a "cranky, stiff-necked, arrogant old bastard" who will not let you pass off "liberation theology" as anything but a transparent fake. That goes for any other kind of theology as well!
No pasaran!
And I mean it!
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 14, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
When I say that "liberation" theology is fake, I'm not talking about the personal sincereity of the proponents. I mean that it's fake by virtue of its central premise.
Some decades ago, a few of the more intelligent catholics observed that their church was losing influence among the ordinary people of Central and South America.
At the same time, they noticed that their rivals, protestant evangelicals and various strands of "marxism", were gaining influence.
Clearly a "re-branding", a new "image" was required to make the church "relevant" again.
They actually used the word "relevant", by the way. One would imagine that a really sincere follower of "the one true god & his holy path" would not give a crap about "relevance"...there would seem to be in principle a rather wide gulf between "real" spirituality and "today's paid attendance".
Be that as it may, the catholics involved in this stuff began to suggest that the church should actively and publicly concern itself with the fate of the peasantry...should suggest in forceful terms that the old landowning aristocracy should be compelled to disgorge at least some of their lands in order that the peasantry might rise up at least a little from absolute misery.
This would make Catholicism "relevant" again, not to mention discouraging defections to protestantism or, worse, "Marxism" (it was really Leninism-Maoism that was giving them nightmares...they didn't know Marxism from rheumatism).
Thus, the central premise is a fake: their "concern" for the "poor" of Central and South America does not have any independent foundation (much less a communist theoretical basis); it's simply a maneuver to preserve their dominant role in the rural social life of those unhappy lands.
Here's how it works. To really support the landless peasantry in Central and South America, you would need a movement prepared to attack and dispossess the rural ruling class, the landowning aristocracy.
But that's not allowed. A good Catholic is not permitted to harm "his brother in Christ".
The Vatican itself likes to remind the "liberation" theologians of this every so often; it does not matter what the peasantry wants...what matters is what they are permitted to acquire without harming other catholics, namely, the rich ones.
Thus it can only be a fake; sincere or not, but still a fake.
Either you are genuinely concerned with the fate of the poor...in which case, you have no problem with the complete liquidation of the old aristocracy--hang all those bastards!--or you're worried that your religious institution is in "trouble" with its "customers" and must change its "image" to hold onto its "market share".
That there are people on this board who are fooled by this is a good sign of how well this maneuver works. It's quite likely that many rural people in Central and South America, lacking the sophistication of westerners, are fooled even more.
But to quote that perceptive old bourgeois radical, "You can't fool all of the people all of the time".
For one, you can't fool me!
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 15, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Jesus and his followers played an unmistakably revolutionary role for over 300 years. That is what we Christians must return to.
You could have fooled me. What government did they overthrow? In what fashion did the Roman Empire function in a "revolutionary" way after the first Christian Emperor took power?
Arguing that the social role of religion is due to "corrupt leaders" is un-Marxist and resembles those "communists" who blame this or that Soviet leader for the fall of the USSR.
If you believe that the Christian followers are somehow better than their leaders, then you have to ask yourself why do they submit to these bad leaders? How is it that Christianity doesn't ever seem to produce anything but bad leaders?
You appear to think that it is the job of communists to "liberate Christianity" from the control of the capitalist class. The evidence suggests that they don't want to be liberated...that they like capitalism just fine! That some of them are capitalists.
Indeed, I suspect that clerical fascism would really be a wet-dream-come-true for the vast bulk of "Christendom"...repressive, puritanical, obscurantist, etc. Certainly this has been the behavior characteristic of Christians in power...and with a great deal of popular support from the pious rank-and-file.
quote:
Redstar, do you oppose freedom of religion?
As you would define it, the answer is probably yes. If I could, I would make it nearly impossible for you to win fresh converts (suckers) to your faith. You could personally believe, but almost every activity that religions now engage in to recruit fresh suckers would be against the law. No churches (all demolished); no place names with religious implications (San Francisco would go back to its old name, Yerba Buena); no public demonstrations of the faithful; no street preaching; no theology or divinity schools; no taking money from people to perform religious rituals or ceremonies; no production of religious pamphlets; no indoctrination of children; etc.
It wouldn't happen all at once...but it would happen. You Christians would find yourselves in the situation that you put the pagans in between 300 and 600CE. You wiped them out; there's no reason why we can't wipe you out. There'd even be a kind of justice to the whole process.
That pleases me.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 17, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
Not the first country boy to get upset at big city ways, that's for sure.
What Yeshuah didn't understand was that (1) Jews came from all over the Mediterranean world to worship at the Temple...naturally many of them had foreign currency they needed to exchange in order to purchase food and lodging; what better place to locate the "money-changing" business than in the outer precincts of the Temple itself? and (2) it would have been awkward though certainly possible to bring an animal sacrifice with you to the Temple; the "acceptable sacrifice" for an average person was a dove, readily available for purchase again in the outer part of the Temple.
Christian Churches later became centers of commerce in their own right...as late as the 17th century, if you needed a lawyer, the place to go in London was the entrance of the big St. Paul's Cathedral. It was considered "poor form" to actually do business inside the cathedral, but it was quiet and out of the rain, so...
I think it unjustified to read more into the dubious tale of Yeshuah's moral outrage than is really there...a rural fundamentalist on the look-out for big city sin and, not surprisingly, finding it.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 17, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
Well, well, well, what do we have here? A Christian resorting to deliberate distortion when he runs out of arguments?
I don't need to find "excuses" for capitalism, the real material world provides them in abundance. If I observe and report them, that does not constitute some kind of endorsement on my part.
As Marx and Engels pointed out, capitalism was progressive compared to pre-capitalist forms of class society, not least in the fact that its acidic criticisms of religion have helped to undermine that ancient burden on the minds of men and women.
If you want to restore religion to its once proud position in society, forget about left politics altogether.
Your slogan should be: Back to Feudalism! For a New Dark Age!
Good luck with that one.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 17, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
However, you were defending it from the socialist message that Jesus was trying to get across.
Oh, come on! Do you want to argue that Yeshuah was prowling the streets of Jerusalem looking for money-changers to flog? If the event actually took place at all, Yeshuah was protesting the fact that those activities were taking place close to the precincts of worship...at least that's what he says. It was a religious objection, not a "socialist" one.
quote:
...a freedom which you seem to be eager to deny to the rest of the world
I have never denied the right to anyone to have any opinion about anything. Indeed, it would be utterly foolish to attempt such a thing; we cannot see inside a person's brain and "inspect" it for "correct or incorrect opinions".
It is possible to regulate public conduct...every society does so. What really bothers you, I suspect, is that communist society will withdraw public sanction from religion...and you guys will find yourselves where you belong, in the tiny minority of nutballs who believe in Atlantis, flying saucers, etc.
It's not a matter of "stereotypes", by the way. What you guys profess to believe is a howling absurdity and spray-painting a hammer and sickle on it doesn't help. I cannot stop people like you, from calling yourselves "communists"...but I can certainly expose your charade.
And I will!
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 17, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Their revolution failed.
Wait a minute here. Are you now going to argue that the Christian emperors were not really Christian after all?
If so, why not?
Could it have something to do with the fact that when Christians get into power, they act worse, much worse, than pagans?
quote:
Oh, so you mean that the Soviet leadership is NOT to blame for the fall of the USSR? Then please enlighten me: who's fault was it, exactly?
There's no "short" answer to that one. But Marxists understand that when social systems fail, material conditions are always at the root of the explanation. The role of human personalities is usually marginal...and even when it appears to loom somewhat larger than customary, the real economic causes reassert their power in a historically brief period of time.
quote:
A lot of communist leaders have been selfish traitors as well. Does that somehow make communism bad?
Well, it suggests that, at the very least, there was something seriously wrong in their understanding of Marxism.
But as I noted above, material conditions prevail.
quote:
Oh, and by the way, last time I checked our job was supposed to be the liberation of the working class.
Wrong again. As communists, our job is to furnish the tools (an understanding of Marxism and how to use it) for the working class to liberate itself. The Leninist concept of "great leaders" as secular versions of Moses "leading" the working class into "the promised land" is discredited among serious Marxists. It didn't work.
quote:
You [would] make Stalin proud.
And you make me sick. You are so insecure in your atheism that you actually fear us so much as to want to drown religion in blood. Yes, the big bad Christians might actually tell people to be kind to each other, and not put Comrade Redstar's photo on every wall, like the good party sheep... err, members do.
Communism is about freedom, about liberation. YOU want to make it about repression and slavery. You, sir, are a fascist
I thought my remarks would "get to you" and I was right. Though I said nothing of "blood" and likewise nothing of "having my picture on people's walls", you are ready at one and the same time to call me a "Stalinist" and a "fascist".
Has anyone noticed besides me that Christians always assume that their enemies, if in power, will behave just like they do? None of the proposals I made are necessarily connected to violence in any way unless Christians take up the sword in defense of their "Lord" (really in defence of their right to prey on the gullible, especially children).
A sincere Christian would not need a cathedral, a public procession, a tax break or subsidy, or any "worldly crap" to worship his/her "Lord"...but we're not talking about sincereity here, are we?
Not one little bit. We're talking about people who think they "deserve" a special "place", a special "status" in human society as the authorized and official "representatives of GOD on earth"...with a very generous slice of life's goodies as is only "right and proper" for such "exalted" men.
You'd think the promise of "eternal salvation" would be more than enough for you guys...ha! What you're really concerned with is perpetuating your dirty little scam on the human species.
No!
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 18, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You know what I'm accusing you of: complete intolerance of opposing points of view.
An interesting concept, "intolerance". In the abstract, it's supposed to be "a bad thing"...but everyone has things they are definitely "intolerant" of. They don't use the word then, of course. There are other words for that purpose.
As I noted earlier, there are views that I am indeed intolerant of and will try to wipe out in whatever seems to be the most practical way. (Mass murder, by the way, is not very practical.)
Does that make me the next "Stalin"? In your eyes, it certainly does...it's your ox I intend to fatally gore.
Among those who will agree with you about my "evil" intent are capitalists, fascists, sexists, child abusers, etc. I intend to be "Stalinist" towards them as well.
Christians, of course, have a much longer track record of bloody intolerance than communists...even counting Joesph Stalin and Pol Pot into our total. (By the way, the same is true of nearly all other religions whenever they had the chance.)
quote:
I despise people who push their opinions on others.
What else do you think takes place on a message board besides advocacy? True, sometimes people ask specific questions, get the answers (or not) and that's it. But on matters of controversy, people argue and try very hard to "push" their viewpoints...especially if they take the question very seriously.
Things are, well, different in the real world. Opinion doesn't matter all that much in the long run (100 to 500 years?)...but can matter a lot over the next decade or two. If you Christians are allowed to "poison the wells" of communist society, there is a measurable increase in the possibility of counter-revolution that I will not permit if I can stop it.
quote:
You [will] become a totalitarian despot.
I understand that you see it that way. Do you grasp that in my eyes, you Christians are the despots?
It's called being on different sides of the barracades.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 18, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
This arguement is a bit too heated! Since religion is about opinion and your opinion is your own, making it not right nor wrong, just yours!!
No, it's not "a matter of opinion."
The opinions expressed here or anywhere are reflections of the material conditions of the world we live in, a world of exploitation, hierarcy, oppression, war, etc.
It matters what people think. When you see that people are arguing vehemently over a serious subject, you should applaud...it means that at least one of the parties to the argument (and perhaps both) has set aside the trivial distractions that capitalism provides us on such a generous scale, in order to discuss reality and how it might be preserved or changed.
And, by the way, all "opinions" are not "created equal"; some are right and some are wrong.
quote:
Really? Youre beginning to sound like a fucking Nazi!
Were the Christians who wiped out the pagans "fucking Nazis"? It's stupid to use the word "Nazi" for anything we don't like; the word has a specific historical meaning.
When I used the phrase "wiped out", I obviously did not mean "put them all on a train to a death camp." I meant end for all time the significant social existence of Christianity (and all other religions), reducing it to a handful of harmless nutballs...just as Christianity wiped out all the pagan religions of classical Rome. They didn't do it by "killing all the pagans"...we will not need to "kill all the Christians".
quote:
I would argue that the second view is the "correct" one and that the founders of Christianity were revolutionary and they presented Jesus as a revolutionary. He stood against the religious elite and their corrupted views of Judaism.
I would also argue that the leaders of Christianity today and in history have completely misunderstood or chosen to ignore what the religion is actually about. They are not Christian at all. Marxs view of Christianity is based on them. If Jesus came back today would he still continue to struggle against the religious elite? I think that he would.
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you were right. The obvious response is so what?
"Jesus" ain't coming back...it doesn't matter what he thought. I'm talking about the social role today of those religious institutions (and the ideas associated with them now) which "fly the flag" of Christianity.
They are reactionary bastards and enemies of communist revolution. Perhaps "Jesus" would agree with me. Perhaps Sr. Gustavo Gutierrez would agree with me. I can't see how that would make any difference, one way or the other.
Unless the "plan" is that when communists are "in power", we are supposed to "purge" the Church of all its bad leaders and their lackeys and put you guys in charge.
Ha ha! Neat trick! The answer is no!
Here's my suggestion, in some respects not all that different from your Founder's: go find a private place and pray silently for whatever you perceive to be "good". Otherwise, leave people alone! And if you won't do it voluntarily, we'll make you.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 19, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Christians might have the longer track record, but communists have the highest body count.
Oh come now, not another "body count" argument. *groans*
No one knows how many people were killed "in the name of Communism" or "in the name of Christianity" or "in the name of Allah", etc.
It's a stupid and hopelessly unresolvable argument.
What we can know with considerable certainty is who has been up to no good for the longest period of time? Christianity enjoys a wide lead over all its competitors, religious and secular.
quote:
And others that would agree with me are Mohatma Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, Albert Einstein, and millions of libertarian leftists worldwide.
Agree with you about what? That I'm a "Stalinist"? Or that Christianity is really "communist"? None of the illustrious gentlemen that you mention were particularly well-known for anything resembling Marxist revolutionary politics...so I don't see why I should concern myself with their opinions.
As to those "millions of libertarian leftists", those are the people we are arguing in front of. You want them to accept Christians into the revolutionary communist movement...I want Christians kept out. They will decide based on millions of arguments like this one.
quote:
Doesn't it seem a little wrong to you that fellow communists should be fighting against each other?
It's not "wrong" if one of the "communists" really isn't a communist. When it comes to liberating the human species from the tyranny of ancient superstitions, you forget all about communism and leap to the defense of your "right" to not only indulge in superstition yourself but to inflict it upon others, especially defenseless children. What kind of a "communist" is that?
quote:
I am fully aware that the current role of religion (as an institution) is reactionary. But with Christianity, we have the unique opportunity to change that. You see, Christians were socialists before, and there's no reason why that can't happen again.
Fighting against Christianity is counter-productive, Redstar, even if you win! By doing this, you are antagonizing us, and putting yet more obstacles in the way of the revolution. Why don't you try to make them see the socialist nature of the Bible instead? Christianity is a communist religion at its core, Redstar. This core has been buried, and we need to bring it out again, not bury it deeper!
I'm sorry, but I do not find any convincing evidence that Christians were "socialist before" (with the possible exception of the Jerusalem congregation from 33 to 70CE). Furthermore, even if they were, they are not now and there is no evidence to suggest that they ever could be...except verbally, when they think it might be useful to pretend a concern for ordinary working people.
You are an obstacle to the revolution, whether you realize that or not. When you mix Marxism with superstition, the result is not "spiritual Marxism"...it's just a foul-smelling mess.
It doesn't bother me that a few Christians with communist sympathies will "go over to the other side"...because I'd expect that to happen anyway. I want to see the revolutionary working class renounce "all the old shit" (as Marx called it)...and let it take as long as it takes. We're not on a deadline here.
To talk of things like the "socialist nature" of the "Bible" makes no sense at all; I'm not trying to "trick" people into supporting communism. The totality of the "Bible" is reactionary to the core...the central proposition is that humans, above all else, should be obedient to Authority.
No!
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 20, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
A group of Christians get together, find a stretch of unused barren land, and build a church themselves, with their own hands.
Then Redstar's political police comes along and tells them that they are forbidden by law to have a church, so they bring in a bulldozer and tear down the building that those people put their heart into building.
Yes, I'm certainly a "heartless" bastard, ain't I?
Having settled that, let's look a little more closely into this dramatic scenario of "Stalinist tyranny"?
Buildings more elaborate than mud huts require materials...where did they come from? Were resources for this purpose actually allocated by some body representative of the working class? Were they stolen?
Then the materials had to be transported. Where did the truck(s) come from? Were public property and resources "diverted" for this purpose in the hopes that "no one would notice"?
Then, under what guise were the utilities connected?
I don't think that such a structure could be erected, even in a barren wilderness, without violating severe laws against public corruption (stealing of social property for private use). (I overlook possible violations of environmental regulations; "unused, barren land" might still be protected.)
I have no understanding why it is "necessary" to "worship" in company, of course...not to mention why the faithful cannot gather in each other's living rooms. But if, for some reason, a group of adult Christians wish to meet in numbers too large for a private dwelling, here's a legal way to do it: start a small business (like a restaurant) which would normally be open to the public (small businesses would enjoy considerable tolerance by communist authorities for an extended period of time). Every Sunday morning, cover the windows and put a sign on the door--"Private Party". Bring out all your "holy apparatus" and "worship" away...quietly, of course. Don't disturb your neighbors, if any. Afterwards, put the apparatus away, take down the sign, open the curtains, and go on about your business.
Surely the "Lord" doesn't "require" more than that, does "He"?
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
People agree that religion is a matter of opinion!!
That might well be the case, if people would leave it at that.
But they don't, do they?
No, whenever a given religion or even a coalition of religions has the chance to enact their superstitious prejudices into law and make you obey them or go to prison, they don't hesitate a New York minute.
You see, I understand you guys. You ooze tolerance and love and compassion from every orifice...until you get the chance to implement your real program which is always obey our version of "God's Will" or we will give you a real taste of Hell right here on earth.
Who do you think you're fooling?
Not me!
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 21, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Do you believe that all religion should be banned, made illegal, etc.?
Trying to make a belief "banned" or "illegal" is both impossible and counter-productive...the Romans tried to kill Christianity by killing Christians; it didn't work. (It did work for the medieval Japanese...but only because Japan was an island.)
What public authority does and can always do is restrict the public expression of beliefs. Religion without public validation usually withers and dies...which is how the Christians killed off all the competing religions of antiquity. Once the Temples of Isis are closed; once the public rituals of Jupiter or the private rituals of Mithras are prohibited...they just fade away. (I've read that the last sacrifice to Zeus took place in rural northern Greece around 900CE. Our word "pagan" comes from a Greek word that means, roughly, "ignorant country shitkicker"...because only in the countryside could the old religions be practiced after the Christians took power.)
quote:
Your opinions on Marx are just a belief, no material evidance exists to suggest that his theories will ever be successful, yet you believe that they would work.
I think we have different standards for what constitutes acceptable "material evidence". There are certainly parts of Marxist theory that have yet to be fully validated, most notably the rise of revolutionary class consciousness in the western proletariat. You could then say that I "believe" that will happen, but I would argue that my "belief" is based on the success of the Marxist analysis of capitalism that has been demonstrated, not to mention the general validation of historical materialism.
If a gambler develops a betting system that keeps predicting winners successfully, you can call his next bet a "belief" if you want to...but to him it's a certainty, based on prior experience.
Still, it's well to keep in mind that Marx might have been wrong and the transition to a classless, egalitarian society may take a completely different path than the one he predicted. Time and evidence will tell.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 22, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Ah, so I see, you are the supreme authority that decides who is a communist and who isn't!
Hardly. But I do have the right to decide who I will accept as a "real communist" and who I won't...just as you have the right to decide who is a "real Christian" and who isn't. We both have been plagued by imposters, have we not?
quote:
It's a historical fact that most leaders who wanted to "liberate" their people from "ancient superstitions" also got around to "liberating" many of them from life.
Can't imagine who you're talking about there. If it's Stalin, I don't think the record shows that he killed any significant number of people because they were Christians; in fact the Russian Orthodox Church continued to enjoy "semi-official status" throughout the existence of the USSR. There were periods when the government was pretty tough...but there was never a period when they were tough enough. The proof is that Russia is once more rotten with religion as it is rotten with gangster capitalism and corruption. Rather like the U.S.A. c.1890.
quote:
...if the children are mature enough to decide on these things for themselves, how come you still claim that they are not mature enough to decide on religious matters?
What I am assuming is that in a communist society no child will even be aware that there ever was such a thing as religion...except as a passing subject (a chapter of horrors) in a survey of world history written for kids.
However at puberty, if a kid expresses an interest in the subject, then by all means give her/him an "introduction to comparative religion" course...show her/him the "whole package"...the vast panorama of beliefs that deluded humans were willing to kill for, die for, torture for, etc., etc.
If, after that, there are a few that still want to wallow in that shit...I guess we'll just have to let them do it. Perhaps we'll learn someday that there is a biochemical defect in the brain that causes a small number of people to be susceptable to religious delusions and then maybe we'll find a cure. In the meantime, a strict quarantine is clearly in the best interests of the human species as a whole.
quote:
...most Christians are ordinary working people.
Indeed they are, at least at the present time. Will that still be the case when the working class has developed sufficient class consciousness to make communist revolution a realistic possibility? I don't think so.
I suspect, in fact, that a "believing" proletariat either cannot make a revolution at all or, if they did, would piss it away. I can't substantiate this suspicion; it just originates in my overall understanding of what revolutions need to win. But history may provide some insights before this century is over; I'm willing to wait.
As to your quotation from "Mark", what is your fate if you dare not to "love God"? What if your neighbor is a jerk? I know that you say that you don't care, that if somebody wants to go to "Hell", you'll stand aside and let them.
I don't believe you.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
But we will worship in public and tell people about Jesus Christ.
Yeah, the usual superstitious horseshit. Well, the early years after a revolution tend to be rather tumultuous...and this will be just one more complication that we'll have to deal with.
Unlike the Romans, however, we will not kill you because you are a Christian...but we might give you 30 days of street-sweeping for being a public nuisance. Does that count as "glorious martyrdom"? Do you make "Heaven's A-List" for that?
quote:
The God I believe in is a God of love, mercy and compassion.
That the same "god" who invented eternal torment in the fires of "Hell"?
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
At least three major religions have Love of fellow man at their core. Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.
That's what they say. In the case of your first and third examples, history mounts an overwhelming argument against that supposition. Both Christianity and Islam have repressed, tortured and murdered with enthusiasm on such occasions that they thought appropriate and possessed the secular power to get away with it. They still do.
Buddhism is, I will grant, a "difficult" case; perhaps a Buddhist "reservation" in some nearly inaccessible location would be appropriate...I just don't know the right answer to that one at this point. The number of Buddhists in the advanced capitalist countries (except Japan) is quite small...maybe it will not be even worth bothering about. I can hope, anyway.
quote:
redstar2000, you draw a line that says all religion is bad; this sounds like the cappies that say that all socialism is bad, and yet they accepted it in the 'New Deal'.
The "New Deal" was not "socialist" in any sense; it was simply an attempt to use governmental powers to save capitalism. It worked poorly and the Great Depression ended with rearmament in preparation for World War II.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
Deleting all your emotional and inflammatory language, you have grasped the essence. You Christians (and, don't forget, all other religions as well) shall no long be able to brainwash kids into your odious and anti-human doctrines.
If you're starting to feel sorry for yourself, just imagine how the last High Priest of Zeus must have felt...or the philosopher Hypatia when she was in the process of being murdered by...(surprise!) a Christian mob.
It's almost funny, ain't it? After 1,700 years of shitting on anybody any time you wanted for any reason at all...your era draws inexorably to a close and you don't like that.
Maybe the "rapture" will save your ass.
Nothing else will.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Just because you aren't a fan of religion, redstar, doesn't mean you have to try and destroy it.
In case you hadn't noticed, we're not disputing the merits of sports teams or music groups here. It ain't a matter of "fandom".
We talking about opposing concepts of human freedom. Freedom of superstition vs. freedom from superstition.
Big difference.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 23, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Do the people want religion ended or do you want religion ended?
If the people don't agree with me then it becomes moot. Obviously we are talking about measures that will be advocated by real communists and, hopefully, be approved by substantial majorities of working class groups. Although certain folks like to compare me to "Comrade Stalin", I am not interested in the position of "Great Leader" now or ever.
quote:
Most Communist nations favor "freedom of religion".
Yes, and it didn't help them a bit. In Eastern Europe, particularly, the various churches ceaselessly worked to restore capitalism and, now, religion flourishes there once more. It seems to me that's pretty clear evidence of a major fuckup by the communists, wouldn't you agree?
quote:
However, destoying religion or promoting "atheism" as the truth as immoral.
I'm not sure what "immoral" refers to, but it seems to me that the liberation of the human species from all forms of superstition is highly moral in my book.
quote:
Atheism is not essential to Communism. Lenin said, "Religion is to be a private matter of the individual as far as the state is concerened."
Lenin was wrong about many things; this is one of them.
quote:
Atheism is a religion. So actually you're promoting Atheism as the state religion.
It's a common, if shabby, debating gambit for believers to label atheism as a "religion" even though it shares no characteristics with religion at all. Atheists don't worship. Nor do we extort money from people on the pretext of assuring them of "divine concern for their welfare", a con if there ever was one.
"State religion of Atheism"? Get serious!
quote:
People have a right to believe in an afterlife or to not believe in one.
Yes, but they do not have the "right" to indoctrinate their kids with fear of the "fires of Hell" or the obligation to obey stupid and cruel "commandments".
quote:
How can you prove there is a God? How can you prove there isn't one?
We "can't prove" that the gods of the Aztecs or of Carthage "don't exist" either; but we can make the sacrifice of children to the "gods" a very serious crime.
And we will!
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 24, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
Without any detailed knowledge of the "People's Democratic Republic" of Yemen, I rather doubt that it was any of those things in its name.
From what I know, it was a tribal despotism...that being the more or less traditional social arrangement over there. Whatever scraps of Marxist rhetoric that they may have used were probably for foreign consumption, namely the old USSR.
Beyond that, there's a fundamental misunderstanding in your conception of communist revolution. It's not a matter of a small group "seizing power" and then imposing at gunpoint the most radical measures that they believe they can get away with. That's the old Leninist version and we've seen how poorly it actually works.
What we're looking for is a massive uprising of the working class itself--think February 1917 in Russia--during which millions of people deeply question everything from the old order of things, what Marx called "all the old shit."
In such a climate, the reaction against all the established religions (which had always supported the old regime as "God's Will"...) is such that I think it will be easy to win support for the kinds of proposals that I advocate. Indeed, I suspect that 80-90% of the working class will be atheist or indifferent to religion by that point...that a "believing" proletariat can't make a revolution or, if they do, they will piss it away. (Again, February 1917 might be a good illustration of this.)
In the "long sweep of history", I would imagine that Malaysia will be the first predominately Muslim country to have a communist revolution (a guess: 2125?)...but the same conditions apply that I outlined above.
As to "Muslim fundamentalist terrorism", naturally I agree with all the old communists on how to deal with counter-revolutionary violence...ruthlessly. Give them a trial as fair as circumstances permit; but don't fool around. They want to kill communists; we should kill them first.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 24, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Why must it be atheist? Why must there be no god? It has been proven from the dawn of mankind that we need some kind of authority figure. When we hit pure communism(no government) there must be some kind of authority figure; humans have never been able to live without one.
I can live without one just fine. So, I think, can others...once they stop listening to people like you who tell them that they "must" have someone to obey.
quote:
And if we refuse to clean the streets? If we instead do the jobs that we were doing before. If the government's authority is not recognised, if an alternative is set up, will you fight it?
Counter-revolutionary activity will be dealt with in whatever manner appears to be most effective. If you really want an open bloody struggle, you'll get one. But the onus of the first violent blow will be on you, not us.
quote:
I agree with most of what you said, I'm also non-religious but Christianity never advocates human sacrifice or anything of that sort.
You don't see the parallel? Just as children were bodily sacrificed to the gods of Carthage, children are today mentally, emotionally, and psychologically sacrificed to (primarily) the monotheistic "gods"...the next generation of suckers for a shabby con.
That should not be permitted.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 25, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Judge: You are found guilty of praying in public, and are sentenced to community service (cleaning the streets) for 30 days.
Christian: I won't do it.
Well? What is your wonderful government going to do then? FORCE the Christian to work? Hmmm... forced labour... now what does this remind me of?
A sneaky blow, but not ineffective. You know, of course, that modern communists have a strong bias against forced labor, due to the experiences of the USSR.
So how would we handle this obstinate con-artist?
1. We could stick him in an unlighted cell with only water (no food) for 30 days or until he agreed to perform his community service...
2. We could bring back that fine Puritan institution, the stocks (this was a device for restraining people in a public place where they could be subjected to public ridicule)...
3. We could revive the Athenian practice of banishment...if there are still places where superstition enjoys governmental tolerance...
4. Or, and I kind of like this one if the logistics can be worked out, we could create a "reservation" for the really pestiferous believers...a large area entirely separated from the outside world where they could live a primitive Christian existence until they died off. They couldn't take their kids, of course, and they'd be sterilized (the males) so that they couldn't make any babies in the midst of their barbarism. But otherwise, we wouldn't interfere with them at all...even when the "true Christians" decided to slaughter the "false Christians"...it would be all the same to us.
Or perhaps we'd think of other ways...hopefully more humane that those used by the Christians, but whatever we did would have to work.
quote:
Do you really think that belief in a God causes harm to people?
Yes, I think it can be argued from a simple axiom: an erroneous view of reality is always harmful. Since there are no gods (lack of evidence), "belief" in a god or gods will lead to mistaken conclusions about other matters...matters that can and have had catastrophic consequences for humanity.
The notion that torturing a "heretic" to save her "soul" is a "moral act", for example.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 27, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I am sure that some how someone could create a clone or some other form of non natural human life.
No, they will have no sophisticated technology...so they won't be doing cloning or anything of that sort. Nor would they be able to reverse sterilization without sophisticated medical technology. Of course, there's always a "virgin birth"...!
quote:
You would have to go and wipe out the population of the area every few years to make sure that nothing of that sort was going on.
Nonsense. Have you forgotten who Christians like to kill when there are no heathen available? Each other!
-------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May27, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...because, apparently, you will have the monopoly on brainwashing.
Call it that if it makes you feel better; in my view, it is the absence of brainwashing that drives you up the wall...you are well aware that without the ability to brainwash kids, your superstition is just so much rotting meat. Your worst fears are justified.
quote:
Behold how a supposedly rational person wishes to exact vengeance on millions of people for what their ancestors did 1700 years ago!
Not exactly. "Revenge" would involve a substantial number of summary executions for Christian crimes; after 1700 years, I think the psychological "statute of limitations" has expired.
But we shall make very sure that you never get the chance to do it again.
quote:
But he who laughs last, laughs best.
It ain't funny and I ain't laughing.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 27, 2003
----------------------------------------------------
quote:
As you can plainly see, the majority (of the world population) is currently against you on this.
Ah, but the needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of Redstar and his following of stalinists bent on genocide, aren't they?
I wasn't aware that I had any "followers". If you're speaking of people who agree with me, the word I generally use is "comrade".
Of course "the world is currently against me"...and not just about religion but damn near everything. So what?
Are you suggesting that I have diabolical powers of such magnitude that I can impose atheism by command? Am I the anti-christ?
As a communist, I attempt to speak for the future of the movement in the present (as Marx put it). I attempt to convey as best I can what understanding is needed now in order to make forward progress. I expect to be in the minority for decades and perhaps even centuries after my death.
If immediate and cheap popularity was my objective in life, I'd take up preaching the gospel for a living...perhaps even invent my own new religion. There's still a lot of money to be made in that racket, as I don't need to remind you but will anyway.
I have a much more difficult task...to teach people how to be free, how to free themselves from "all the old shit" (yes, Marx again). And I've discovered that, in many cases, they don't like that. Slavery is what they're used to...and they wish I'd shut the fuck up about this freedom crap.
I may never be "popular", but I won't shut up.
PS: The logic would work like this: There are no "unicorns." Why? Because no verifiable evidence for the existence of "unicorns" has ever been discovered. Just cut and paste the word "gods" to replace the word "unicorns" in those sentences. Isn't that easy?
PPS: "Genocide" doesn't mean just killing a lot of people; it has a specific meaning. Look it up and use the word correctly.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 28, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I was never an advocate of raising kids to believe in a certain religion.
Perhaps not, but most religious parents include their children in religious ceremonies before the kids are old enough to stand unassisted.
quote:
Parents should not try to impose their beliefs (or lack thereof) on their children.
Perhaps they "shouldn't", but they do...particularly in a social environment which places high approval on the idea of religion itself.
And it's not simply a matter of "overt instruction"--believe or I will hurt you--parents and other caretakers have many subtle and casual ways of communicating their preferences to children who, remember, have no way of knowing when they are being lied to...especially when the liar believes the lie himself.
quote:
Kids should be told about all religions, without favouring one or another (or atheism).
Very amusing fantasy; I'm sure that must actually happen once or twice...per century!
quote:
And just for your information, Christianity is currently the major world religion with the least number of children being made to join it by their parents. On the other hand, we have the highest adult conversion rate of all religions.
An interesting claim...how it could possibly be substantiated is completely beyond me. I suspect it's a defect of methodology if it is true at all; people indoctrinated as children with religion who then leave the church as young adults only to be drawn back into the crap as they undergo negative life experiences...are counted as "adult converts".
quote:
I myself was an atheist as a kid.
And...a case of early onset senility?
quote:
Oh, so you make sure that Christians don't ever discriminate again, because you will be the ones doing all the discriminating.
"Discrimination" is such a mild term for your 1700 years of horrors...which, in somewhat attenuated forms, continues even today. But the answer to your question is yes...it's time to see how the human species can do without any "divine" authority whatsoever.
quote:
All throughout history, various faiths and religions have fought against each other and oppressed each other whenever they got the chance. Now, instead of ending that cycle, you want it to continue, only with atheism as the oppressor this time around.
Well you certainly don't expect us to trust you to end it, do you? If we communists don't put an end to it, you guys will be killing each other (and any bystanders in the immediate vicinity) until the sun burns out!
quote:
Is it that hard to let go of your hate?
What makes you think I'm trying to do that? There are things that are worthy of hatred. Capitalism is one. Religion is another.
A slave that cannot hate the master will never be free.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 28, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes, as far as we can tell, there is no "special purpose" or "meaning" to the universe, the earth, life, etc. That is, no clear verifiable evidence has ever been produced to support any assertion along those lines.
We all like to think of ourselves as "special", of course, and we are...to us. But that's it...as far as real knowledge is concerned.
Now, is that really so hard to take? Are we really, as a species, so pathetically immature, so monumentally narcissistic, that we absolutely must have some kind of "cosmic importance"...be the "special darlings" of some cosmic entity that will arrange things to suit our every whim if we only kiss its divine ass in a ritually appropriate way?
I do not see how any rational person could consider such an absurd proposition for a second, provided only that rational thought was applied to the question.
And that's the catch! People don't think about this crap because they learn it when they are children, before they have anything in the way of critical facilities to apply to the proposition.
If you are raised to speak a certain language as a child, it's not necessary for you as an adult to stop and think carefully about the rules of grammar and syntax before you speak as an adult...you know the "right" way to speak that language "without thinking".
I submit it is much the same with views like religion, ethnic & "racial" views, and quite a few other things. Childhood conditioning is hard to shake off; it takes, for many people, a real effort.
And effort does not come naturally to us or any animal; we devote our limited energies to matters that concern our more immediate practical goals...it is unusual for people to stop and think about whether something they've always believed is, in fact, nonsense.
A future communist society that would actively encourage rational thought while expressly disapproving superstitious beliefs and surpressing public superstitious activities would be the best way to free the human species of this irrational delusion.
It can't be done by simple argument...the conditioning is too strong. But a judicious combination of argument and practical repression ought to work.
At least I hope so.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 28, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You can't get rid of religion. Religion is a natural human practice. You might as well make a law against using the bathroom. Religion cannot be destroyed.
This, of course, cannot possibly be a valid analogy. Every human being, without exception, must urinate and defecate or die.
But if I can live in the complete absence of religion (and assuming that I am human, of course), does that not suggest that any human of normal intelligence can do so? Provided they think about it?
quote:
Because the real communists and working class groups will be brainwashed. They will recieve biased pro-atheist education from the early childhood to the present. Redstar, do you call that democracy?
I sure do! To be "biased" towards atheism is, in my view, the same as being "biased" towards the answer "4" to the question "what is the sum of 2 + 2?".
quote:
Communists should tolerate some opposition. Otherwise, it will cause the government to lose popular support.
That, as written, makes no sense at all. But if I can guess the meaning behind that statement, I think you misunderstand the nature of communism...which will not even have a government in the sense that is usually meant by that word.
In the case of the communist governments of Eastern Europe, it was not simply a matter of "opposition" to this or that policy (which should certainly be tolerated) which was at stake...it was a calculated effort by organized religion to undermine and, ultimately, overthrow "atheist tyranny" that took place. It should never have been allowed to happen.
quote:
What is wrong with imagination and dreaming? If people want to believe in an afterlife than that is their business. If people want to indoctrinate their kids, then that's OK. As long as they are not indoctrinating their kids in anti-human beliefs like racism.
It is precisely my contention that religion is anti-human. I think its track record proves that.
What is "wrong" with imagination and dreaming? Not a thing. It is deeds we are concerned with here, not thoughts. People can privately believe any nonsense they wish (no one could stop that anyway); when they communicate it...especially to kids, it is time to step in.
quote:
In a sense religion sucks. However, atheism sucks too. You die and nothing happens! How boring. People might as well say "Life sucks and then you die!"
Yes, isn't it a damn shame that the universe does not exist to entertain us? Get over it!
quote:
Redstar, you assume all religious groups are the same. They are not all the same.
I think that all religions share two fundamental characteristics: (1) They are all completely wrong about the nature of the universe; and (2) they all teach as the "highest virtue" the idea of obedience to authority (meaning their authority, of course). I see those things as absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances.
quote:
The main point of communism is to eliminate social inequality and poverty. Once a Communist government seeks to do to more than it has become a tyranny. Redstar, why not allow the communist government to kill people who wear glasses? Pol Pot did that in 1970's. Where is the limit to the power of the Communist government?
No, the main point of communism is not simply economic...we want to liberate the human species from "all the old shit". As to Pol Pot, it's questionable whether he was ever any kind of "communist" at all; I personally think that he was a peasant revolutionary gone mad...a few scraps of Marxist rhetoric and a burning hatred of "city-dwelling bloodsuckers" who deserved extermination for exploiting the peasantry. Tragic, but understandable.
As to the "limits" of communist power, there aren't any except those we decide to set for ourselves. We do not recognize the "legitimacy" of any part of the old shit...a classless society is going to be extraordinarily different from anything ever seen before in human history. Get used to the idea.
quote:
...so long as people act towards each other as most religions call for. Love and kindness. If you can get all people to be able to love one another without religion or with, I will applaud.
I haven't seen much in the way of "love and kindness" coming from religion, rather the opposite. But, as to the future, I would settle for the ethical advice of Rabbi Hillel (a contemporary of "Jesus" as it happens): Don't do to other people would you would not like other people to do to you. That seems like a good basic minimum to start with.
PS: I'm sure that there are many underlying material causes for particular religious practices, such as the demands of the environment. It is said that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and cannibalism simply because there were no other substantial sources of animal protein in their vicinity. Could be.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 29, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
We do have a place in the Universe, because we are part of it on a purely material level.
No argument here on that one...it's just not a special place except to us.
quote:
To encourage nihilism in my mind is just as bad as encouraging "brainwashing".
quote:
1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths.
That's a quick cut & paste from a dictionary definition of nihilism.
As you can see, I'm only partially guilty. Existence is not senseless and useless to us...though it may certainly be so to some individuals. We get to decide, at all times, whether our lives are "worth living" or not, whether human effort "makes any difference" or not, etc. There's no divine "scoreboard" that's "out there" recording our hits and errors...the only scoreboard that really exists is the one in our own heads.
But I would certainly maintain that the universe objectively exists and is knowable (objective truth), at least above the quantum level.
Even some kinds of "morality" could be grounded in objective truth--though matters get tricky at this point. A policy of deliberate destruction of the planetary environment might be criticized as "immoral"...but the objective fact of the matter is that it is species suicide by excessive stupidity (not to mention pure greed). So, in a funny kind of way, some kinds of "morality" do have a foundation in objective truth...and I am thus only a "partial" nihilist even at my worst.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 29, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...and most atheist parents tell their children that God doesn't exist long before the kids can decide for themselves. So I fail to see how you atheists are any better.
*yawns* We are "better" because we are telling them the truth. You are "worse" because you are lying to them; even if you believe the lie yourself, it is still a lie.
quote:
But, of course, since the prospect of seeing an intellectual Christian fills you with horror...
Stunned disbelief would be closer to the mark. Seriously, who would deny that Christians cannot be intellectual? All that's actually required to be religious is the suspension of rational thought concerning the fundamental ideas of a particular faith. If you can "believe because it is absurd" (as one very intellectual Christian put it)...then you can elaborate on that absurdity in as intellectual a manner as you wish; it's all smoke and mirrors, of course, but it looks very learned and erudite...almost as if it were real knowledge. But it's not.
quote:
"You"...? What "you"? I'm a communist, Redstar, and a liberal one on top of that! We're on the same side.
No, you only think you're a communist. Even beginners understand that communists are atheists by definition.
If someone came up to you and said he was a "Christian" and then proceeded to go on with a rant on how Jesus was "only" a prophet and not the real "Son of God", would you accept the label that he had appropriated for himself?
How can you be a "Christian" and not believe that "Jesus" was the "son of god"?
How can you be a "communist" and believe in any gods at all?
quote:
In other words, you hate me.
Now, now, let's calm down. Just because I want all forms of superstition (including your own) banished from the human mind does not imply any personal animosity...supposedly 96% of the people in the world are still flopping on their bellies in adoration of one "god" or another (or a whole bunch). I have no reason to single you out...unless you're one of those jerks that screams at people on the streets. If that should be the case, I must confess that I wouldn't exactly mourn at the news of your untimely demise.
But "hate" for individuals? How petty!
quote:
Hate can only teach you to destroy. Let hate be your guide, and you will never build a better world - only destroy the current one.
Reminds me of an old joke. Know what you call a hundred businessmen at the bottom of a river? A start.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 30, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Ah, but the needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of Redstar and his stalinist comrades bent on mass slaughter, aren't they?
You really are obsessed with this "mass slaughter" thing, aren't you? No matter how many times I suggest otherwise, you seem to think my plan is to drown Christianity in its own blood.
I don't see any effective reply to that, even if I've never personally killed anything larger than a cockroach...or "ordered" anyone else to do so, either.
Perhaps it is necessary to portray me as a would-be mass murderer to shore up your own case; it would be kind of disappointing if only a handful of Christians chose glorious martyrdom and all the rest just said "screw it."
I think that's how things will play out, myself.
quote:
But in my book, teaching people to restrict the freedoms of others does not count as "teaching them to be free".
Then you need to add some pages to your book. There are obviously "freedoms" that are mutually exclusive.
When I say "free", I mean "free from all forms of superstition." When you say "free", you mean "free to perpetuate superstition". There is no way to combine those two concepts and have anything but a hopeless muddle.
Just as, by the way, there is no way to reconcile the capitalist "freedom to exploit labor" and the communist "freedom from wage slavery".
You see, what I have been trying to get across to you all along is that you have attempted to combine two "world-views" that are irreconcilable.
In the end, you must choose between Christianity and communism...although I dare say that you can put off the decision for years or even decades. But choice is ultimately inescapable.
Choose wisely.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on May 30, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
========================================== |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| The "blue culture" of the police is essentially a fascist culture.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
