"Religion...is the Opium of the People" - What did Marx Mean?

by cofty 82 Replies latest social current

• 

  Nickolas

  I've spent quite a bit of time in this thread and come away (feeling) considerably more enlightened. Thank you in particular for those reviews, glenster. I very much enjoyed Hitchens' God is not Great treatise, to the extent that I listened to it three times (the audiobook is narrated by Hitchens himself, which adds an insightful dimension of vocal inflection to the words.) I must confess that I took much of what Hitchens is saying on face value - that he would not be so unwise as to expose himself to unsubstantiated statements - and I am now just a little disillusioned after reading Peterson's critical review. I would be interested to see Hitchens' rebuttal, if one indeed exists.

  Like so many things, it is a necessary challenge within the pursuit of truth to separate out bald fact from the words in which it is spun. In that sense, everything we read needs to be treated with at least some small measure of scepticism, including the contributions of the reviewers of Hitchens', Dawkins' and Harris' books.
• 

  PSacramento

  One of the things that itry my best to do ( although not always succesful) is to read the rebuttals of Books that I like or even dislike.

  We should never take for granted what anyone says just beacuse we may agree with it in principle.
• 

  cofty

  "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - Mother T. 1981 press conference

  MT does not deserve her saintly reputation. She was a friend of poverty not of the poor. Despite millions of dollars of donations the dying of Calcutta ended their days in dreadful conditions deprived of even basic comforts. The cash was used to open new convents all over the world instead of for the purpose of improving medical care for which it was given.

  If she cared about improving the lot of he poor she never showed any sign of it. Giving women control over their own reproduction is the one thing that would make a massive difference but she relentlessly preached the Catholic nonsense about birth control describing it as the "greatest threat to world peace".

  If you accept her worldview regarding suffering and the afterlife then it's just possible that her behaviour was acceptable - but that's the whole point of this thread. Take away the futile hope of a here-after and her teaching and actions are an appalling disservice to the poor.

  The opium of religion is nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in the life of Mother Teresa
• 

  beksbks

  Beyond opium. Peyote, MD 20/20, PCP.
• 

  beksbks

  Right on Cofty!

  Mother Teresa was a superior biddy

  It's interesting that some can see the self serving nature of JW's in the door to door work, or the "love bombing" new ones at the KH. But they can't see the same in Mother Teresa.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I agree with the argument that Mother Theresa was a friend of poverty not of the poor. That seems perfectly clear. Where Hitchens' analysis disappionts is that he focuses more on the personality and motivations of this single wretched person and her faith rather than on the political and economic system which found her a useful icon in support of the global capitalist status quo. Having swapped the Marxian analysis of his youth for the personality politics of recent years I do not think it has aided him in identifying the central ethical and political dimensions of the issues he addresses.

  I enjoyed the debate between Hitchens and A C Grayling on whether the allied bombing of Dresden was justified: interesting because I think Hitchens was floundering toward the end as he realised just how ethically indefensible his position was.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_I7-fib_7s
• 

  Nickolas

  That is an interesting video, slimboyfat. It goes a long way toward humanising my image of Christopher Hitchens. To quote him:

  "I do not set myself up as a moral exemplar, and would be swiftly knocked down if I did"

  Hitchens is a human being and therefore fundamentally flawed. Some of what he says is gold, some is shit. Same goes for Mother Teresa. Who really gives a damn that she's being sainted? It conveys no benefit upon her. She's dead. She did some good stuff during her life. You can't deny that. But she had screwed up personal priorities because of her Roman Catholicism and that in the end caused real harm to many people. Unless you think she was a sociopath, what do you think her personal agenda might have been? To screw over as many innocent people she could before she died? No, she thought she was doing good because of her faith. If you want to find a demon in her story, look to Rome.

  Still, it's good to have one's idols dressed down to size from time to time. Keeps them human. Like all that not so admirable stuff about Archibald Belaney that came out, slimboyfat. Gets to a point where you don't know what to believe.
• 

  beksbks

  Heh, just went to some websites on Opium

  Opium can cause euphoria, followed by a sense of well-being and a calm drowsiness or sedation. Breathing slows, potentially to the point of unconsciousness and death with large doses. Other effects can include nausea, confusion and constipation. Use of opium with other substances that depress the central nervous system, such as alcohol, antihistamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, or general anesthetics, increases the risk of life-threatening respiratory depression.

  And another site with personal experiences

  It feels very mellow and dreamlike, euphoric

  That Marx, he knew of what he spoke...........
• 

  slimboyfat

  What came out about Grey Owl?
• 

  villabolo

  Thank you, cofty, on posting that expose about Mother Theresa. It just goes to show us that most of what we know about the world around us are fabricated myths.

  I haven't read Marx but I think I know what he meant when he said that religion was the opium of the masses. He meant that religion was what allowed the masses to be deadened to the injustices of the oppressor class.

  I agree with that as far as Christianity and some other religions are concerned. People were simply told that they should not look to this world for their reward but should wait for their "pie in the sky when they die".

  My disagreement is with the usage of the term religion in the general sense. I believe that religion becomes (not originates from) a projection of the civilization/society in which people live. To the extent that the society is oppressive so will their religions be.

  Religion in general, though comes from a completely different place in the psyche of humanity.

  Prehistoric cave paintings were religious in nature. They worshipped what they ate. In oppressive civilizations you worship what eats you, if you catch my drift. In the case of Christianity, it deadens you to the pain of being 'eaten'. Christianity is indeed an anaesthetic.

  The religious impulse is simply a way to organize the world in the mind of the believer so that things make sense. That doesn't necessarily mean that the religion is rational but that the psyche, ego or whatever you call it, needs a framework of ideas to give the world meaning. It is basically a narrative, a story of stories, that we learn and recite to ourselves, whenever something perplexing needs explanation.

  In it's original, uncorrupted form it's simply a way of making sense of life and the world.

  Villabolo