[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

I don't see the point of expressing disagreement just because? Like if I was being proselytized, sure, absolutely. *snip*

Oh sure. Frankly, the only things I can think of in which I actually think it's worth confronting any belief is either proselytizing, someone's safety, or politics/social issues and discussions of such. But going on witch hunts? That sounds exhausting. I didn't do that even in my most strident days.

If it wouldn't be impossible, it would take a hell of a lot longer. We didn't join Canada until 1949, until then Newfoundland was effectively ruled by a merchant caste who could give no fucks about the proletariat. *snip*

And my point is that religion was simply an accessory to the thing that happened; NOT the religion you owe fealty to just because Christians were the ones that did it. Perhaps without joining Canada, the proles would have rose up in conflict with the merchants and Newfoundland would be practically a communist state instead. History didn't play out that way though.

Some? Some make good formations, some claim they don't and yet we know they do. Conservative religious people fought Liberation theology because they said the church should be apolitical. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARGUED THAT IT SHOULD BE APOLITICAL. *snip*

Well it certainly DOES depend, doesn't it. Admittedly, there wouldn't be an A+ if there wasn't a need for it, so they are wrought with their own problems. But right now; it looks to me like I'd put my eggs into the non-believer basket as far as that kind of attempt for equality is concerned. Maybe part of it is because religions seem to determine the politics of atheists. Many of us are set against religions, so it goes that if we're exposed more towards religiously motivated inequality towards a certain people, it would follow that we would be opposed to it, even if it's for crappy reasons as just sticking it to the papacy.

I think CPC is decent and I did consider joining, but there's just some things they do that make me a little iffy.

It really does depend. To me, there's a certain point that I can't align myself with certain liberal notions. It's sort of a tit for tat thing. I'm not sure what their line is because I'm not familiar with them. But some things that DO cause me to take pause is when people talk about freedom and democracy and these sort of non-formed ideals that lack figure. Who's freedom? Why does the proletariat need bourgeois democracy? Why should the privileged have a chance to dominate those who have none? What kind of democracy is that but one that I can't imagine really benefits those that would be better off without such a kind? But that's really beside the point I guess because I've come to find that more and more, it's more expedient to admit that I myself AM a statist and an authoritarian. Sort of that... I like your freedom of speech, but only if I agree with it.

I had a big response to this and I'm more than annoyed that its gone, so I'm just going to point to the controversy over Liberation Theology. Conservative religious people, *snip* Its just a matter of not wanting Christians to be Marxists.

Yes and those people are enemies to the people. I myself am not so convinced that religion is necessarily an opiate as Marx had asserted. I make a distinction between organizations, religious myth stories, and belief. The organizations are going to be there. But popularity doesn't make the divinity of Jesus real. Beliefs will be there. But this doesn't mean the beliefs are correct... just potentially useful.

Meanwhile, all Liberation Theology really asserts is Jesus was political and he is with the oppressed. In black theology this takes the form of black *snip*

I find problems of white Jesus. I also think that it doesn't follow that one should say Jesus was black BECAUSE he was with the oppressed. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense except in a symbolic kind of way. Jesus could have been a red-skinned Jew for all we know. I don't think that his ethnicity should necessarily hinge on what he was all about. I equate Jesus to the same standings of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Che, Sankara, and Tecumsah. They are good leaders to learn from of their people. I am convinced that Jesus was a revolutionary figure, not the son of God. And I also think it's problematic to hedge one's bets on the divinity of Jesus into a useless pacifism because one expects Jesus to do all the work for them. That's bad politics.

My point being, I'd rather stick with the liberation guys who are honest about their intentions at least. Religion can't help but be political, it seems.

Of course. Religion IS a political force. I would almost argue that religion is in some ways... a very common people's politic. But the "mysticism" or magical aspects of it are terribly problematic. Basically; Jesus aint comin' back yo.

Necessary how?

I'm getting the impression that you're saying that it is, so I AM asking you that. Unless you don't think religion is necessary.

I don't blame you because I think the media really downplayed her death, white cops being scared trumps dead black women I suppose. But I don't think targeting people who had nothing to do with it, especially associated women, is a war tactic that isn't very revolutionary at all.

The extent of what I heard was that some cop went Rambo on a bunch of corrupt cops. That's really all I heard and then the LAPD was going ballistic with hunting him down. My point was even if that were the full extent of the matter; there wouldn't be popular support for the man which I find unfortunate. I would chalk that up to political and economic stability though. People don't seem to be happy with the institutions in play right now; but they still think that voting corruption away and putting markers to some poster board will actually work... eventually. It'd be nice if those that did it like that would admit that they may as well be thinking in terms of centuries like the Church instead of years or decades.

Again, I had a big long response, but what it amounts to is this: The only Muslim country I can find that has laws against apostasy and was not ever colonized is Saudi Arabia, *snip*

Yes. Absolutely. Do away with the west entirely. Let's say that tomorrow the west was gone. The rest of the world was free of its influence. The issue that I see is that certain attitudes and ideas... certain things that are objectively a good thing that non-westerners actually have in common with westerners becomes a thing of ONLY westerners. I honestly feel like it'd be pretty tragic if at the end of the day, the things that they had in the past with their equality and their secularism becomes forever the brand of their western enemy thus locking themselves strictly into a very severe brand of extremism. That'd be pretty unfortunate. Hopefully it doesn't play out like that.

When its a direct response to Western aggression, I don't feel comfortable telling them to go suck an egg *snip*

So what you're saying is that we should avoid asking the question of "Can you prove it?" because currently it's in bad tastes because we're being the bullies right now? Hmm. I'm not one to go on a crusade of asking the question; but frankly if someone professes their faith to me, I can't help but simply ask to prove the claim. Most people don't go testifying their faith though, so it's rare that I ever have to ask.

Yeah Aristotle *snip*

No. If Aristotle was saying senseless shit like that, I'd have to beg him to prove his point. Are you even arguing the same things here or are you saying that because Aristotle was stupidly and terribly wrong that somehow that makes religion an appropriate substitute for reason? What the actual hell, Saya? Aristotle's opinion of women betrays reason. Logic is a useful tool. But seriously... you can't honestly say that superstitious thinking is an appropriate filler for faulty logic or bad reasoning. Saya, seriously. Since when was belief in unicorns a better solution to a problem than trying to actually figure out how to solve a problem? Damn.

I'm just saying proletariat feminism isn't exactly an independent thing. While more academic, *snip*

Yeah. And in a communist society, there wont BE a bourgeois feminism. Come on. They're certainly not comrades here. Over time one will necessarily absorb the other, Saya. Some matters actually DO get settled.

Who said anything about a stake? Did I say it was sacred? I think religion can be a positive thing or a negative thing, and I don't think I'm going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Religion is certainly useful, Saya. But someday; we're all going to have to get to the truth of the matter. Frankly, I don't think it's going to have to take that long. The more the prophecies and divine claims and promises of Heaven get less and less likely to be fulfilled; the more cavalier and casual people are going to be about their religion. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of people are religious just because they were raised that way and they observe out of habit instead of actually being convinced of the veracity of a man surviving days inside the belly of a big fuck off fish.

I don't think religion does that, but okay.

Well I think it does, but oh well.

Good day, ma'am.