The argument of social/political oppression is to me the most moving argument against organized religion. Karl Marx made this argument in the Communist Manifesto and is as true today as ever.

Here in California the canonization of Serra caused outrage. Serra was a Spanish imperialist who enslaved Indians in the name of the cross.

Constantine hijacked nascent Christianity for the Roman Empire. The Ottomans did the same for Islam. And so on, ad infinitum.

Friedrich Nietzsche made much the same point.

Religion is a tool of political oppression.

Comments?

Comments?

I totally agree.

The full quote from Karl Marx translates as: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

Just FYI. The cherry-picking done on that quote makes it sound quite different than it does in context :)

Heh.

Didn't see this.

Sometimes we do see eye to eye, eh?

Cheers,

Human

Amen, brother Human :)

Hi brianberkeley.

If we are going to quote Marx, especially this famous quote, too often quoted way out of context, let us quote the whole, eh?

"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

--Karl Marx--
--A Contribution the the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right--

(It saddens how many bright, literate students think this came from the Manifesto.)

Opium, here, doesn't mean what you think it means.


Marx goes on:

"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

If the desire is to extricate the people from an illusory happiness, then you must first "give up a condition that requires illusions."

Short of that, better keep the halo, eh?

Human

It just goes to show how dumb Marx and Mao were.

In most of the world, opiates that promote social control are legal. Opiates that do the opposite are illegal. Those guys tried to get rid of the greatest social control mechanism ever invented. Because drugs are bad, mmkay? Ideology is the quickest way to get it caught in your zipper.

I still see Marx as believing that 'religion' was a tool in the hands of the oppressors used to continue to keep the oppressed subjugated and satisfied in their subjugation. He wanted the oppressed to be free, and one of the constraint to their freedom was, in his view, religion.

Why, I don't know, but it just occurred to me that the afossils should look into selling ads to be displayed during Conference!

I completely agree. Religion is a dangerous, mind-altering substance which is nonetheless promoted by governments and rulers to exert control over people. It makes people pliable and obedient.

Mormonism is a prime example of this. I've always said that if you can control something so personal and private as a person's sexuality, then you control that person completely. Which is exactly what Mormonism does, going so far as to regulate what can and can't be done in the bedroom and even issuing "magic underwear."

It can also be seen in Mormon history -- many places where Mormons stopped on their trek westward, like Kirkland and Nauvoo, "normal" people were downright afraid of Mormons because they all voted exactly how their leader wanted them to, which of course afforded them great political power. The whole Prop 8 fiasco is a modern-day example.

And I don't think the full context changes the meaning much. In order to be truly free we must cast off oppressive religious regimes. But of course believers will always turn a blind eye to the truth, because they need their fairy tales to feel good about themselves. It's such a sad commentary on the state of humanity.

oneinbillions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've always
> said that if you can control something so personal
> and private as a person's sexuality, then you
> control that person completely. Which is exactly
> what Mormonism does, going so far as to regulate
> what can and can't be done in the bedroom and even
> issuing "magic underwear."



That's exactly how individual abusers operate on a personal level:

"You will dress like this."
"You will answer me thus."
"You will not talk to [whoever]."
"You will not look at [what/whoever]."
"You will have sex only with my permission, how and when I say."
"You are not trusworthy enough to have privacy."
"When I feel wronged, you will apologize in this manner."
"You are worthless without me."
"Your opinion means nothing."
"If you don't agree with me, it is because you are wrong."


"Break my rules, and you will be punished."


Wow. The parallels are so obvious.

Kolob,

I wrote this in a motel room, without access to my library. I stand corrected on the attribution.

How embarrassing. UC Berkeley will want my diploma back.

I was thinking of the Young Marx, pre revolution of 1848.

Kolob,

Perhaps you can help me. I have another quote banging around my head.

"It is not the consciousness of men that determine their social existence, but, on the contrary, their social existence determines their consciousness"

Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts?

"A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy"
(in the preface)

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm

I think organized is mostly I'm spiritual because secular humanism and atheism didn't help me...mostly because I still found human bias. I think humans think too much of themselves honestly, people no matter what suck.

I think that it helps to associate with the people who suck the same way I do, which is why I am such a loner.

...Maybe not too spiritual though anyone who says anything relating to Adam/Eve, 6000 year old Earth, or Dinosaurs are a myth get hell from me quickly

It's actually opium.
Here's the whole text:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

What concerns me is that Yves Saint Laurent might start marketing a perfume named "Religion."

I mean, I've never had a problem with their "Opium" brand--a former insignificant other used to wear it, and it done her proud. She was a dirty girl, and a spritz of "Opium" gave her a certain dirtier je ne sais quoi. But I don't know if I could stand being around a lady who was wearing "Religion," much less give her a smooch. My ladyfriend might have been dirty but at least she wasn't contagious.

As for the "Opiate" vs. "Opium" question, I've abused both in a galaxy long ago and far away (ah! errant youth!) and probably prefered the former. (No mas. As Willie Dixon wrote, "I can't quit you, baby, but I gotta put you down for awhile.") But from a semantic standpoint I have to go with "Opium." "Opiate" sounds like "Diet Coke."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2016 08:39PM by getbusylivin.

¿ when did opium stop being the opium of the people ?