Religion
Related: About this forumWarning Over Religious Believers in Chinese Communist Party Ranks
2015-05-25
The ruling Chinese Communist Party has warned that any of its members who harbor religious beliefs or take part in religious activities could become the targets of its powerful disciplinary arm.
In an opinion article published at the weekend, the newsletter of the party's Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), said the problem of religious believers within party ranks is "attracting serious concern."
"The fact that a small number of party members have forsaken the party's world view of dialectical materialism and have turned to religion is now attracting serious concern, to the extent that it now falls within the purview of disciplinary work," the article, published on Sunday, said.
"Marx himself stated baldly that communism, in essence, begins with atheism," the China Discipline Inspection Report article said.
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-religion-05252015112309.html/
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)"in essence"
Especially since atheism is silent on anything beyond nonbelief, including the reasons for nonbelief.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)to suggest that clear thinking will cause a rejection of religion in favor of communism.
rug
(82,333 posts)The "opiate" refers to the manner in which the ruling classes use religion to pacify people. It doesn't say a thing about the existence or nonexistence of a god.
Leontius
(2,270 posts)Jim__
(14,077 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)There is no doubt Marx was a materialist, specifically a dialectical materialist, and he seems to be using the term atheism in that sense. But he puts the notion of theism in the same artificial category as "family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc." That is, concepts that flow from the existence - and control - of private property. Frankly, under that analysis, atheism as an ideology could be as bourgeois as the rest of it.
I think that, to Marx, the concept, let alone existence, of a god, was irrelevant. What is at the core of his political philosophy is materialism. From there he moved on to the control of the matter as private property and a whole array of ideologies, including theism, that helped those who controlled the property to retain control of the property.
I wonder what he would think about the current discussions over atheism.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right
edhopper
(33,584 posts)the mirror image of the Republicans here.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)We want to reach out to religious people and communities, to find ways of improving our coalition work with them, and to welcome people of faith into the party, Yeager said. We invite questions and responses from people who would like to dialogue with us on matters pertaining to religion, Marxism and the struggle for more peaceful, just and secure world.
There is a common misconception concerning the position of the Communist Party USA about religion, Yeager noted. Many who are unfamiliar with the party wrongly assume that all Communists are atheists, or that the party requires its members to be atheists. Nothing could be farther from the truth, he said. Religious people are welcome to join. The partys Constitution specifically states that membership is open to [a]ny person living in the United States, 18 years of age or over, regardless of race, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, or religious belief
Yeager acknowledged that relations between some Marxist parties and religious institutions in other parts of the world have been marked by conflict. In tsarist Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church had been an arm of the state, and its leadership was opposed to the Revolution. The Bolsheviks adopted an official atheist position, and for many years waged a struggle against organized religion. Elsewhere, such as in Latin America, Marxist parties and religious progressives have worked together against repressive regimes and imperialist intervention.
http://www.cpusa.org/search/SphinxSearchForm?Search=religion&action_results=Search
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)No one ever has.
That's one of the notable things about religion - it's staying power and permeation.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Universal primary, then secondary schooling are less than one century old in rich countries.
It takes about 6 generations for populations to let go of traditional values.
Except in places where primary schooling remains sketchy (Central Africa, Indian subcontinent incl. Pak & Bengladesh)
one should expect to see massive departures from religion next century.
Earlier if WWIII is caused by religion this century.
rug
(82,333 posts)Or, at least one of the minor OT prophets.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)You, a stickler for syntax precision, such a looseness of language..
Tsk, tsk..
rug
(82,333 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)A speculation is "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence."
There is evidence religion recedes where education levels increase.
Ergo my pronostic is better than just speculative.
rug
(82,333 posts)A theory without firm evidence.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)A speculation has no evidenciary support.
My prognosis on the ultimate decline of religion has the support of evidence, i.e.
religion recedes in countries with rising levels of education and freedom of expression.
Wishful thinking is not prognosis.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)1- You attribute me the wish to see religion wane and disappear. It is a wrong supposition.
Should this disparition happen, it will take place in the course of the next 1,2,3 centuries.
I cannot wish for anything in that time frame as I won't see it or benefit from it.
2- But my prognosis was based on demonstrable causalities, hence was not a mere speculation.
3- is 'horseshit' a word that has its place in a civil discussion?
Even if we are discussing religion which, I myself, could be tempted to compare to manure?
rug
(82,333 posts)2 refers to trends not causalities.
3 depends on the conversation.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)2 refers to a trend correlation = element of proof of causality
3 depends on the conversation => I had mentioned 'civil', which is what I thought we had.
Do correct me if I was mistaken in my assumption this conversation should be civil.
rug
(82,333 posts)2 An element of proof of causality is not causality.
3 There are many uncivil conversations in which horseshit is not mentioned. Nevertheless, they are uncivil as well as supercilious.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)2- I never claimed 100% causality. IQ growth in populations is another cause religion wanes.
3- Supercilious? Pot, kettle calling on line 3.
rug
(82,333 posts)2 You claimed causality, with no limitation.
3 See 1.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)2- No. That's the problem with 'philosophers', you focus on words, playing and twisting
3 and beyond- I feel you prefer to play with words than discuss meant meanings
(which you probably would be able to discern and address with minimal effort)
rug
(82,333 posts)2 I'm sorry you are wary of words. Logophobia is treatable.
3 See 2.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)2- Acute logophilia degenerates into autistic logomachy
3- see my 3, last post
rug
(82,333 posts)2 PDD is not the stuff of lame jokes.
3 Thank God.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)This exchange of snarky one-liners is going nowhere.
fyi, from the start, I just mirrored your attitude of focusing on words, because any earnest attitude was bound to smash on your word syllabus wall.
If you care to discuss meanings without playing on syntaxic subttleties, I'll be game.
Over & out until a subject of substance.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)But so be it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I mean, you asked about my Church, may I know yours?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)That was the original biblical meaning.
But we tend to call the early saints by the title saint.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)Read everyday who the RCC 'saint of the day' is/was.
Between the frauds (levitation, sun disappearing for 3 days,..), the individuals who were suffering treatable psychological ailments (St Rosa de Lima and all the others inflicting wounds on themselves), missionaries killed when trying to gain market share in new lands, those which are so fictitious even the official RCC sites says should be reviewed, those which are clear case of nepotism (St Augustine's mum),
it's rare and refreshing to note when there's a person who could be deemed vaguely 'saint'
Kolbe in the German concentration camps is a good example.
Mother Theresa is a disastrous example. Padre Pio a likely fraud.
To take some XXth century examples.
The 10'000 saints are such a dubious lot, how can you buy it wholesale?
(no such problem in Pastafarianism: there's only one saint, me, and it's obvious I deserve it)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)And you won't read to see if your belief is solidly grounded?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yorktown
(2,884 posts)How can you believe in 10'000 'saints' when their bios are so full of holes?
And how can you believe these folks deserve to be 'saints' without ever having checked?
Be reasonable:
Join us in Pastafarianism, the demonstrably good religion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Enjoy your night.
Yorktown
(2,884 posts)I'll try again.
nil desperandum
(654 posts)can't have the ruling elite owing allegiance to anything other than the CCP, might interfere with pogroms and suppression of human rights. The concept that one is answerable to a higher authority doesn't sit well with those who intend to commit acts of wrongdoing on a large scale.
Party control of the populace is king.
While religion is also a method of control it would appear at times to be at cross purposes to the aims of those in the CCP and thus a potential enemy of the state.
Best to disallow rulers serving two masters.
Those crafty old CCP members.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)exhibiting the same intolerance for believers that some theistic fundamentalists exhibit toward non-theistic believers?
From the link:
"Our churches are still the targets of atheist persecution, for example, the forced demolition of crosses," Liu said, adding that the party seems determined to step up controls on religious practice in China."
My take:
Forced demolition of crosses? Is that how atheists behave when they seize power? Also according to the article, only 10% of Chinese are Party members. So the 10% minority are imposing their atheistic faith on the other 90% of Chinese? Why is this not a source of concern for freedom loving people everywhere?
But even with all their attacks on faith, faith does not die. Faith is obviously growing in China or it would not be "attracting serious concern", to quote the article.
Could this be the leading edge of a wave of "non-believer to believer" activity that might totally transform the world and bring the atheists back to faith?
Remember that the light of the sun illuminates the East before it arrives in the West.
phil89
(1,043 posts)There are no rules, tenets, claims etc to fundamentally adhere to. Atheism is silent on anything beyond non belief. Hope this helps. I doubt anything will cause atheists to believe in religious fairy tales.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)"atheistic-type fundamentalists". An important distinction. But what is your response to the rest of my post regarding intolerance exhibited by declared atheists?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)to subgroups within certain kinds of groups.
Saying things like "believe in religious fairy tales" might be an example of certain tenets of a certain subgroup of atheism.
rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)PoliticalPothead
(220 posts)Agnosticism is really the only "religion" that has no rules, tenets, claims, etc.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)This is not a declaration against the religious motivated by religion, but instead a declaration against religion motivated by a particular interpretation of a socioeconomic theory. This is not how atheists act when they take power--this is how the Chinese Communist Part acts. Were their interpretation of Marx different, they would not be motivated to suppress that which they believe is detrimental to their society in that particular manner.
For instance, I am (in a rather vague sense) a Trotskyist, and my interpretation of communism leads me to the conclusion that to force such a change on a people would be extremely harmful to the abolition of class society. I am still an antitheist in a similar manner as Marx was--I very much identify with this statement of his:
However, I also think that this change cannot be forced. It would serve to divide the laboring class along very intensely personal and usually irrational lines. Studies have shown that people will continue to hold and often reaffirm their demonstratably false beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. It is my understanding that the people must come to their own conclusions about the falsehood of the god myth to effect an eventual and gradual disappearance of religion as a major societal factor.
In much the same way that people must discover their own power for a revolution to occur, I believe that people must liberate themselves from religion.This is why I generally have little interest in converting people to atheism--I find that a good education and the opportunity to leave their faith without feeling uncomfortable mentally, emotionally, and physically are all that most people need in order to readily leave their religion. This, of course, not to suggest that those outspoken atheists among us are not welcome, and indeed, desirable. I, for one, am very outspoken about my lack of belief.
Anyways, my main point is that this is a specific interpretation of communism that drives this. I can still be an antitheist without advocating for a ban on the practice of religion.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)His use of the phrase "opium of the people" was a reference to religion being used by the capitalists as a distraction from what the capitalists were doing.
And I have read numerous posts here describing religion, or religious belief, as the inspiration for all types of misogynistic, racist, and generally bad behavior. Apparently that same simplistic, reductionistic logic cannot be applied to atheism?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Literally that simple.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Makes it easy for those who would presume to declare what rules apply, and what logic applies.