Pimp out your webpage with PimpWebpage
I have heard the saying by Karl Marx equating religion to an opiate several times, and each time I must stifle a laugh (some times less successfully than others). The very idea that religion act as a drug to people is amusing to me, considering the current Jihad in the Middle East. But I am getting ahead of my self; first for Karl Marx. Karl Marx had a philosophy that mainly involved economics and politics, but also encompassed religion as part of society. You may have heard of what his teachings evolved into: Communism, which would work splendidly in an ideal world (just like anarchy). Unfortunately we are not in an ideal world. His beliefs that evolved into Communism were that the manual laborer is doing the same work as the doctor, and thus to be fair, and avoid confrontation, the man operating on a kindey should be rewarded no differently than the man manufacturing sinks. No profits, profits was an invention of the Capitalists, who in Marx’s mind is the major protagonist keeping the poor wallowing in squalor, and the rich bathing in wealth. Marx felt that Religion was a way of comforting the poor, saying that this life may suck, but the next will be better, thus the opiate comparison. He further thought that Religion created apathy, instead of action, for a man on painkillers is less likely to act against the pain than the man feeling it. Also Marx felt that Religion is irrational, and delusional, and that it negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile, and thus more accepting to the status quo, and less likely to change things. Marx was convinced that Religion was dependant on economics (which is false, as I have seen Churches that don’t pay their pastor, because they’re in a poor area in Africa); and also despised the hypocrisy of religion (as do I, but the hypocrisy is in the people, human people, who cannot follow the doctrine, and I am as guilty as the next). An .. buddy recently brought Karl Marx’s opinions to my attention, and I have been pondering what to say for some time now. And first things first: Communism. Communism is in theory a good idea, except that it doesn’t value machine labor, and that there is no motivation for less than good people. What I mean by that is, a good person will do good for goodness sake, so to speak. A good man will do a hard days work, regardless of what he’s paid. He does it because it’s the right thing to do; a job worth doing is worth doing right, that kind of philosophy. However, ask yourself, would you do a good days work for half of the going rate? Whether or not you do is not the point of this missive, I am not attempting to call anyone a bad person, and this is just a broad generalization. However, for the people who don’t do good for goodness sake, what about them? In the Capitalist society, those who don’t want to do good to be good, can use the system, and do well for themselves. They can work hard, get schooling, advance in their field, get promoted, and become the boss. However in Communism, there is no reason to rise above, because even if you become King Shit of Turd Mountain, you’re still making the same. If you put in a days worth of crap labor, you are getting the same as if you put in a days worth of good labor. Hence, Communism goes against human nature at its very core, thus is bound to fail. When machine labor is not valued because it puts laborers out of a job, and when the laborers do a crappy job, the infrastructure of what they’re building is weak, thus the accidents in their space program to Chernobyl can be attributed to the very philosophy of Communism. Also remember that there is not private business, it’s all governmentally controlled; throw in the lack of checks and balances, and you have a tyrannical dictator and a nasty situation. If I remember correctly, religion was outlawed in Communist countries, and no matter what you feel about my religion, you must at least admit that a person deserves to be able to worship God in whatever way they choose, denying that is a violation of human dignity, more so than to believe that we should serve the one who created the universe. Now that I have attacked this long dead visionaries cherished belief, I shall proceed to the main target, his idea’s on religion. Now even though his main idea is a tad off the mark, one cannot throw the entire philosophy out the window (as much as I’d like to). Just because he was wrong about his entire government idea, the basis of his philosophy, doesn’t necessarily mean that a small facet of that belief is wrong too, does it? Shortly after my friend and I had a quick discussion on Religion and opiates, I logged off, and took a shower. I do my best thinking in the shower, I think it’s the water; I have always loved the water. I was replaying his thoughts and my responses, wondering how do debunk this attack on my Doctrine. I had initially responded in a similar way to the beginning of this. I was wondering what way I could prove that Religion was not an opiate, when I felt something tap me on the shoulder. I turned, hoping for some scantly clad babe, and was disappointed. I heard inside my head something saying “You’re missing something, something bigâ€. So, I started to strike off in different tangents in my mind, looking for the thing I am missing. Then I came to the thing I was not getting quite suddenly. Many people who attack Christianity or other religions voice the opinion that religion forces a point of view, a confinement of ideas, they feel that they should be the ones to decide what’s right and what’s wrong, and that Religion puts them in a box, and that’s just not fair (of course in that respect so does Science). What I came to in the shower was that Religion was not the opiate, but the absence of Religion. How easy it is to conform to your own standards, to settle for whatever you feel you should be. When you believe that there is no God, no one higher to respond to, you are at ease. You can do whatever the hell you want, who can tell you what to do with your life, it’s not like this is a Communist country or anything. Christians are always trying to conform to a higher standard that we can, I know firsthand. For instance, there’s an individual who apparently molests little girls, and is in prison at the moment for other charges. I went to elementary school with this person, and hated them then, and want to now. But I can’t! Arrg! I have to forgive, and even worse, love this piece of shit, who takes advantage of girls, regardless of their age (for I have talked with many girls mine and his age, and I have at least 5 or so that told me of his unwanted advances, a.k.a. molestation). This desire to succumb to human ideals is so strong, creating conflict, it’s easier to ignore Gods voice, saying “talk to him, be nice to him†because I have no desire to talk to that lowlife son of a bitch. But Jesus is quite clear on what I am to do: Matthew 9:10-13 ‘While Jesus was having a meal in Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and other outcasts came and joined Jesus and his disciples at the table. Some Pharisees saw this and asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with such people?†Jesus heard them and answered “People who are well do not need a doctor, but only those who are sick. Go and find out what is meant by the scripture that says: ‘It is kindness that I want, not animal sacrifices.’ I have not come to call respectable people, but outcasts.’ And if that’s not clear enough for me, I can find Luke 6: 27-36 Love for Enemies ‘But I tell you who hear me: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who ill-treat you. If anyone hits you on one cheek, let him hit the other one too; if someone takes your coat, let him have your shirt as well. Give to everyone who asks you for something, and when someone takes what is yours, do not ask for it back. Do for others just what you want them to do for you. If you love only the people who love you, why should you receive a blessing? Even sinners love those who love them! And if you do good only to those who do good to you, why should you receive a blessing? Even sinners do that! And if you lend only to those who from whom you hope to get it back, why should you receive a blessing? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount! No! Love your enemies and do good to them; lend and expect nothing back. You will then have a great reward, and you will be children of the Most High God. For he is good to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful just as your Father is merciful.†And next is the passage about how I should not judge others, thus showing my hypocrisy to anyone who reads this, because SOB is a tad judgmental. The bullet that hit me in the shower is that true religion is more like a sharpening stone, constantly honing you, testing you, seeing if you measure up, (and it appears I fail as usual, doesn’t mean I’m going to stop trying) and is in no way an opiate. The opiate is those who believe they have nothing to hold themselves too, there is no higher standard they have to conduct themselves too, there’s no Hell to worry them, no God to be saddened about their behavior. That my friends, is the opiate, the ultimate delusion, and a dangerous one as well. I hope God talks to you, through this or through the shower or whatever He might use, as he has spoken to me through my long statement to put on my Myspace. Thomas Sindlehttp://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/marx_2.ht m Is my main source for information about Karl Marx