The REDSTAR2000 Papers

Listen to the worm of doubt, for it speaks truth. - Leftist Discussion

Communists Against Religion -- Part 3 August 9, 2003 by RedStar2000

On occasion, it becomes necessary to speak more harshly than usual...what is sometimes called "a flame thread". That doesn't relieve me of the responsibility to discuss the issues--which I think I do--but it does make for "livelier" reading.



Well, it's been about a month since I last visited this thread and I see it's time to "pull some more weeds" again.


The great religions, at their simplest level, advocate equality.

No they don't. There is no such thing as "equality" between humans and "gods" nor is "Heaven" a republic.


...I think one can reject the hierarchy of the churches and temples and still find insight and inspiration in religious texts.

About what? To put it bluntly, what do a bunch of superstitious nomads--the authors of "holy books"--have to say that is "insightful" or "inspirational" to anyone who claims to be civilized?


Jesus was a communist.

No he wasn't. To "read back" into the accounts of his views any sort of communist content is anachronistic...there was no such thing then and no such idea.

Yeshuah ben-Yosif was a country preacher, a reforming rabbi, a pious Jew...things that you would expect to find in first century Roman-occupied Palestine. He was not the only one...just one of the unlucky ones that got executed. "Christianity" was invented after his death, most notably by Paulos of Tarsus...and one of its outstanding characteristics was "submission to secular authority" except in matters of faith.

There is nothing "communist" about any of this.


A person could definitely be religious and revolutionary. UFOs and the supernatural, I think, have not much to do with a person's competence as a revolutionary.

It's not simply competence "as a revolutionary" but competence, period. People who believe in the supernatural, ufos, Atlantis, etc., etc. have shown that they are "disconnected" from reality. Therefore, how can you trust anything they say about anything?

Maybe they claim to be communists or pro-communist or in favor of revolution now...who knows what they will say or do tomorrow?

Moreover, the people who claim to combine communism and religion have a pretty bad track record...Nicaragua's Ortega, for example. Once the revolutionary leader of the Sandinistas, he is now a corrupt pig (and some suggest that he always was!).


I think the Stalinists were wrong 'cause they destroyed monasteries and churches in order to spread their ideas.

Actually, they only destroyed a few. Many were closed down but only a few were actually demolished.

Big mistake!

They should all have been demolished. Did you know that while "that godless bastard" Stalin was in power, there was actually a seminary to "train" Russian Orthodox priests...fully funded by the USSR government?


... but religion should not be oppressed, that is against communist theory.

No one has ever suggested that religious people should be persecuted because they are religious. What goes on inside people's heads is their own business.

It's when they bring their ideas out of their heads and into the world that it becomes the business of stop them from spreading the rot. One can argue about the best way to accomplish that end--I think the total abolition of religion in public life is the way to go.

If adults wish to gather in private homes and wallow in superstition, I think that's a shame but not a felony. But when they come out into public and "testify", that is going too far and needs to be stopped at any means necessary.

And brainwashing kids with superstitious drivel is child abuse.

That's intolerable!
First posted at Che-Lives on July 28, 2003

quote: will also find that every religion on its most basic level preaches equality between humans.

Nope, not even that. There's no "equality" between the "saved" and the "damned", the "obedient" and the "sinful", the "true believer" and the heretic or infidel.


I take it that you never help anyone under any circumstances.

Of course I do--though admittedly I can't do much to help you. Some ignorance is beyond help.

But if what you're trying to say is that no one would ever help anyone else unless one was first commanded to do so by one or another version of superstitious just demonstrates your gross ingnorance of human evolution. Co-operation is one of the small number of apparant constants in "human nature" and shows up all over the place...even among atheists.

No one needs a "god" to either know "the right thing to do" or to "do it"...though gods are useful in providing good excuses to do the wrong thing, as most of us (not you) know.


Socialism predates Plato, get it through your thick skull.

Oh? Granted that you can find sentiments in Plato that can be construed to suggest both communism and fascism (Plato favored a combination of both; he admired Sparta a lot), do you want to suggest that a backwoods country preacher spent his spare time hanging out with Greek philosophers? He wouldn't have known Plato from Pluto and there's not much likelihood that Saul of Tarsus did either.

I repeat: to suggest that Yeshuah ben-Yosif knew anything at all about communism is anachronistic nonsense.


The mythical Jesus (the one whom this poster is refering to) smashed up capitalist market places, reformed corrupt tax collectors and helped the poor; the mythical Jesus did a hell of a lot more towards communism than you have.

All horseshit, at least as written. The objection of Yeshuah to the "moneychangers at the Temple" was a religious objection and had nothing to do with "opposition" to capitalism. If the moneychangers had set up across the street, Yeshuah wouldn't have minded a bit.

Reformed corrupt tax collectors? Wasn't one of his disciples an ex-tax collector? Any others?

Helped the poor? You mean "healed some sick people" and sponsered a free meal once? Wow, that's really impressive.

Done more towards communism than me? By writing this post, I've done more for communism than Yeshuah did in his entire lifetime...which, to be fair about it, is not surprising. He was not interested in communism.


Refer again to Charles Darwin and Russell Stannard, they were/are a lot more connected to reality than you are.

Arguing from "authority" again? Your real thesis is that if some prominent person declares belief in "god" then it must be true, otherwise they wouldn't say it.

Throughout recorded history, even the most brilliant human geniuses have been profoundly wrong about some pretty important things. Isaac Newton, perhaps the most brilliant scientific mind ever (yes, even more than Einstein), took the "Book of Revelations" seriously enough to spend years on trying to work out the date of "the end of the world".

This also ignores the social context; it's not exactly unknown for prominent people to be "publicly religious" and privately atheist. You can be pretty smart and still be a coward when it comes to confronting superstition publicly. I believe that one of Newton's biographers suggests that he actually did incline towards atheism in his final years...but to say so publicly in the England of that era would have been a death sentence. (Religious people are always so "tolerant", aren't they?)


Same thing can be said about teenagers, however you are all willing to claim the "revolutionarry nature of the youth".

More of your characteristic irrelevance; I have never endorsed the thesis that people are naturally revolutionary because they are young. In Germany of the late 1920s and early 1930s, many more young people supported the Nazis than supported the communists.


You mean the child abuse allegations? The ones that were withdrawn after it emerged that the alledged victim had been in contact with the CIA?

No, I mean the agreement between Ortega and the reactionaries to "share power" in Nicaragua while rigging the electoral system so that no real radical party can get on the ballot. And I also mean the loot & plunder spree that Ortega and his cronies went on right before Ortega stepped down (they "privatized" into their own hands as much public property as they thought they could get away with). And I also mean the "immunity" law that protects Ortega and his cronies from being prosecuted for any crimes they may have committed while in office. And I also mean...well, you get the idea.


For someone so concerned with the religious oppression that you blame on religion, you are rather intolerant of free practice of religion.

No, I am consistent. I realize that's as alien to your way of "thinking" as hedonism. It works like this: it is better to oppress the oppressor-wannabes (like you) than to allow oneself to be oppressed by them, which they will do whenever they get the chance.


You get the fuck out of other people lives.

This from a neo-puritanical hypocrite who wants to get a job testing people for "illegal" drugs? Why don't you get the fuck out of other people's blood?

To other matters...


However, I must put an end to this delusion you have that leftists must be utter fools for believing in God, or even respecting Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua/Yashua/Isa as a philosopher.

Well, isn't it utterly foolish? Perhaps it would gain us some "easy popularity" to appear to "respect" superstition (like having an astrology column in a left newspaper).

It seems to me that if our ideas are to ever have any real support among the great masses of people, then we must be the ones, the only ones, who speak the truth.

All other political tendencies can and do lie their heads off; we can't do that...not even in "a good cause".

Communists must first of all tell the truth.


I think we all agree that Einstein was a great leftist and socialist.

No we don't "all agree". He was a great theoretical physicist who was mildly sympathetic to both socialism and Zionism. He was never noted for his political thought or activity. His religious sentiments came, as he admits, from childhood indoctrination.

As, of course, do nearly everyone's. And it is terribly difficult to break that early's just easier to pay public lip-service to it (even if you pay no attention to it at all in your daily life).


I never saw a contradiction between the ideas that sustain me and the ideas of that symbol, of that extraordinary figure [Jesus Christ].

Probably because he didn't look. I mean, how far would Fidel have gotten by "turning the other cheek" to Batista?

I do think Cuba's tolerance of Catholicism has hurt the Cuban revolution and will hurt it even more in the future.


Or Martin Luther King Jr- liberator and admitted Marxist?

Admitted Marxist??? He was a Christian minister, "for Christ's sake!" He may have picked up a few scraps of Marxism at the Highlander School...but if anyone had suggested in Marxist circles back in the 1960s that we should "learn from King", they would have been laughed out of the room. Indeed, the general opinion then was that King represented the more conservative segments of the African-American population...and that people like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers were the real progressives.

Toward the end of his life, King came out publicly in opposition to the war in Vietnam (though I do not think he ever named the enemy: U.S. imperialism). He was murdered while in Memphis to mobilize support for a sanitation workers' strike...suggesting a shift toward the urban working class.

But Marxist? No way!


Feel free to continue thinking religion is a blight on humanity, but please don't claim that only conservative fools accept it.

Fair enough. Foolishness on this issue is not limited to conservatives, even though it ought to be.

Because religion is conservative, that has serious consequences for leftists...undermining their radical convictions.

Or, as has been said, "you cannot serve two masters".
First posted at Che-Lives on July 30, 2003


Apparently, you haven't studied Christian apologetics in great detail. Without mentioning any of them, let me describe two people who were converted because of the evidence for resurrection. One was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. He was an atheist of Jewish descent who co-founded the Oxford law school, and whose manuscript "Treatise on the Law of Evidence", written around 1843, is STILL considered the foremost authority on law and evidence. The other is Sir Lionel Luckhoo, whom Oxford has credited with the record "Most Successful Lawyer", by winning 245 consecutive cases and was knighted twice. They were both atheists until they set out to prove the Bible wrong. Eventually, they became Christians until death.

Is this meant to be taken seriously?

Evidence for "resurrection"??? *laughs*


Later on, after LEARNING MORE about the universe, he concluded that God must exist. Strange, no?

Yet he never produced a shred of evidence for his conclusion. Strange, no?

In any event, I'm aware that some conservatives insist that King was always a "closet Marxist" as well as a sex fiend. The latter might have been true and is irrelevant to his political significance; the former is certainly false.


So, atheism is a religion...

Because one of the five definitions at doesn't mention "god" or "spirituality"? And it's the last of the five at that...meaning least common usage.

You are playing a word-game...pretending that anyone who argues vigorously for atheism and against religion is being "religious". That's a weak metaphor and factually just wrong. And everyone knows that...including the defenders of religion.

I might add that dictionary definitions are not very useful when dealing with ideas...their definitions (because of space limitations) must be too limited to properly explain anything really complex.

As for the claim that religion "can be nothing more than a philosophy", I'll believe it when I see it. And, of course, I won't see it. A religious philosopher would be writing thick, obscure books for other philosophers to read...not posting to Che-Lives about Jesus "the communist" or screaming in my face at the intersection of Powell & Market Streets.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 30, 2003


Have you ever bothered to actually examine it? You didn't explain why it converted Greenleaf and Luckhoo, which is rather brow-quirking. Here's a good introduction:

I looked at your link and it's just the same old crap. All the Christians have to offer is their own mythology...there's no independent evidence or verification at all.

Forget the rich guy and his fancy tomb. What happened, most likely, was the Yeshuah's body was thrown into the local burial ground and several of his most devoted followers removed the corpse and buried it elsewhere, going forth to the rest and proclaiming "Christ is risen". They thought it was "a lie in a good cause". All the rest of the stuff was invented afterwards, the rich guy, the fancy tomb, the appearances...and all after the people who lived through the experience were dead. My guess is Yeshuah's brother James was behind the whole thing...but whoever conceived and executed it, it certainly was and is the most successful scam in recorded history.


So you're saying that Einstein followed Judaism in his youth, converted to atheism, than converted back? Or was he lying at some point?

No, I'm saying what I said: he produced no evidence.

Only he knew if he was lying or not; at the very least, he was wrong.


I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.

Von Braun found many things "difficult to understand"...including the nature of the governments he worked for (the Third Reich and the American Empire).

But who cares what he "found difficult to understand" or, more likely, thought it politic to say?


Louis Pasteur, George Washington Carver, Leonardo DaVinci, Kevin Bacon, etc etc etc were all Christians. How coincidental.

Perhaps, but Karl Marx and Friedrick Engels were not.

The question is not how many impressive names you can drop, but who was right?


WHY wasn't he a socialist? After all, he did maintain that "all men are created equal", and was killed by the FBI. Need any further proof?

I looked at the first of the three links you posted on this subject...pure unfounded right-wing racist gossip and of a rather sickening nature.

Thomas Jefferson (slaveowner and non-Christian) wrote that line about "all men being created equal"...was he a "socialist"?

The FBI has killed a lot of people, including organized crime figures...were they "socialists"?

When it comes to people's political views, I need quite a bit of "proof". If you're going to say that so-and-so was a socialist or a communist, I want to know in some detail what your evidence is for that statement.

Right-wing gossip doesn't count. Christian mythology doesn't count either.


...would you not agree that religion is taken by faith? Now prove God doesn't exist.

I ought to make up a "cut & paste" answer for this one, since it comes up with tedious regularity.

Proving a "negative" is to all intents and purposes impossible; "prove" to me that unicorns don't exist, for example.

Therefore, in science, the burden of proof is on the positive conjecture. It is only the atheist who can say to the believer: "God" exists? Show me your evidence. When you say that you "take it on faith", you admit that you have no evidence.

That's unacceptable.

As regards the latest collection of neo-puritanical stupidities, there's really nothing much there worthy of reply.

But I liked this one...


Unfortunately since you see nothing wrong with people driving just after drinking 36 pints, I hope you die in a drunk driving accident, idiot.

If I were designing "Hell", one of the torments would be having to read the neo-puritan's posts for all eternity.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 31, 2003


The Gospels are historically accurate.



No serious historian- no matter how atheistic- can't deny that around 30 AD, Yashuah "Bar-Elohim" was crucified in Jerusalem.

"Bar-Elohim" is not an expression that occurs in the "New Testament" nor would any pious Jew accept it. The "im" suffix is, in Hebrew, a plural--so the phrase would mean "son of the gods".

Yes, a country preacher was crucified around 30 to 33CE...probably guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time--when the Romans wanted to teach the rebellious Jews a lesson and needed a victim.

Nothing special about that; the Romans did it all the time.


Even passionate atheists and anti-christs like Winwood Reade, Arthur Weigall, John Lennon, and Richard Darwin admit this.

I thought there was just one "anti-christ". If anyone can join, count me in!


Well, let's ask the co-founder of Oxford Law School about that, shall we?

"It was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead."

Why? People affirm "impossible" things all the time. Look at the neo-puritan.


OK, logically, WHY would he be wrong? I'm quite sure he was leagues ahead of you and I as far as knowledge of the universe goes, and obviously, he had to be CONVERTED to deism, considering that earlier in life he made atheistic claims.

Lack of evidence, obviously.

quote: still proves that there are intelligent people who believe in God.

Or at least who are careful to say they do in public.

As far as is known, people are about as "intelligent" now as they were 150,000 years ago...yet the amount of nonsense that has been believed has only begun to decline significantly in the last 250 years...and only in the "western" world at that.

There is still a long way to go.


I'm a Marxist, and so are all the other Christian communists...

Go and look at the thread you started in this forum--"How to select a dictator in communist/socialist society".

You're no more a "Marxist" than George W. Bush!


Oh, by the way, Marx never advocated banning religion. It was his belief that in a communist society, religion would fade away naturally, and eventually die altogether; however, he never advised Marxists to deliberately try to end religion.

Yeah, that's probably one of the things he was wrong about. I suspect he drastically underestimated the effects of childhood conditioning in keeping the "old shit" around.


Oh, and one more thing: He [Marx] used "The Gospel of St. John" as some inspiration for his communist utopia.

I'm sure he did. *Laughs*


But, bigoted and right-wing as it is, it's still true.

No it isn't. On some rare occasions, conservatives can "get the facts right". This ain't one of them.


Judging him by his fruits, I'd call him [King] a socialist.

That's because you have no idea of what a socialist is! That's also why you can call Yeshuah a "communist"...because you have not the slightest idea of what a communist is or what communism is!

Judging you "by your fruits", you ought to be posting in Opposing least until you learn something of what this stuff is about.


However, if you can prove that Yashuah was the Messhiach, and fulfilled the prophecies of several Jewish prophets throughout history, AND that the Bible is filled with other prophecies that came true, THEN one can safely say that yes, there is a God.

Not a shred of which you can "prove", of course. It's clear your reading has consisted entirely of fundamentalist need to check out the Infidels Forum and see what modern criticism of religion really looks like.

And if you really want to be a communist, why not read some Marx and Engels?

Just for the "hell" of it.
First posted at Che-Lives on July 31, 2003


Now give one instance where the Gospels contradict history.

The birth of Yeshuah in Bethlehem because a Roman census required "Joseph" and "Mary" to go there.

Utter nonsense; the Romans never conducted a census in that would have been totally chaotic.

It's in the "Gospels" because the authors were trying to "prove" that Yeshuah was the Davidic "Messiah" who "had" to be born in the "city of David".

I do not pretend to be a Biblical scholar, but I daresay there are probably dozens if not hundreds of historical inaccuracies in the "gospels". You have to remember that people who write "holy books" were not historians...modern standards of history writing cannot really be applied to them. They were creating a mythology...which has different standards.


If you maintain that Jesus was a religious revolutionary, and not a political one, this makes no sense. Besides, the Jewish community mostly rejected Jesus- with the exception of the proletarians (fisherman, carpenters etc.) If the Romans were trying to make a point to the Jews, they were incredibly ignorant, and besides that failed miserably.

No, it makes very good sense. The temple establishment would naturally have liked to get rid of anyone who threatened their monopoly on ritual piety (and the income thereof)...which Yeshuah obviously did. As far as the Romans were concerned, they thought all the Jews were actual or potential troublemakers and rarely passed up an opportunity to "teach the Jews a lesson". Recall the inscription supposedly placed above Yeshuah's head on the cross--INRI? That's a Latin abbreviation for "Jesus, King of the Jews" other words, this is what happens to rebels against Roman power. But we know that Yeshuah himself had no secular revolutionary intentions; his kingdom "was not of this world" and he even told the Jews to pay their taxes. (No wonder tax collectors liked him...he made their job easier.)


Because I think a leader should be breeded? Did Marx EVER publically- or privately, for that matter- condemn ANYTHING of that sort?

No, you miss the point again. Marx and Engels knew nothing of genes in their time. What they did reject was the racism of their time...the idea that humans are "naturally" inferior or superior; that some are "fit to rule" and others "fit only to be slaves".

Your proposal (borrowed from Plato?) is that there really are "genetically superior" people--or we could breed such people--that would be "fit" to be dictators.

Your idea is biological fascism pure and simple. If you worked some anti-semitism into your mixture, you'd be a Nazi.


He went on to explain how children should be taken and trained, etc etc. Read "The Communist Manifesto" yourself. The Soviet Union took this quite literally, and look what they accomplished- in sports, in the military, in the world of science... now imagine someone brought up to be a dictator.

You mean like the "Great Leader" of North Korea...who was certainly raised to be a dictator.

This is such a bizarre interpretation of the Communist Manifesto--not to mention the actual practices of the old USSR--that words nearly fail me.

Suffice it to say that the USSR's achievements were largely the result of supplying education and health care to a large nation that had previously been denied it.

And the idea that Marx would have endorsed a scheme of breeding dictators is just grotesque.


So I, who quote "The Communist Manifesto", "have not the slightest idea" about communism, as opposed to an arrogant, ignorant antichrist whose arguements are solely personal attacks, and who never quotes those he enforces OR attacks?

As was pointed out, anyone can quote anything. In your tradition, even the "Devil" can quote "scripture". That means nothing.

Whenever I or other communists point out the wretched inadequacy of the "arguments" of believers, we are accused of "personal attacks", of being "arrogant", or "dictators", etc.

Have it your way...we are all the bad things that you think we are.

And we are very proud of ourselves!
First posted at Che-Lives on August 1, 2003


Two members are flinging around remarks at other people not being Marxist because they are religious (I know you did not actually say that, however your blatant meaning was as clear as glass), yet from my understanding of basic leftwing principle any person should be able to believe what they like whether it is sunny Jesus or the tooth fairy.

That's because your "understanding" of "basic leftwing principle" is as nonexistent as his.

And it stems from the same motive...the desire to pass yourself off as some kind of "leftist" while dragging into the left as much reactionary crap as you think people will let you get away with.

He wants to drag in Christian bullshit and biological fascism and yet be accepted as a "leftist" and even a "Marxist".

You, of course, want to drag in support for British imperialism in the 19th century and U.S. imperialism in the 20th century, most recently in Iraq, and yet expect to be accepted as a "non-Marxist socialist". And weren't you one of the morons who defended the role of the military and the police in capitalist society in general?

Your "socialism", like his "communism", is nothing but scraps of meaningless rhetoric...the views of both of you are reactionary.

Damn, now I'm going to get accused of being "intolerant" again.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 1, 2003


Lastly, a papyrus found in Egypt gives directions for the conduct of a census and includes the order that the family return to their "hometowns", so to speak, if they are residing away from home. Joseph, Jesus' surrogate father, was a descendant of David and therefore the city of Bethlehem would be the ancestral home of the family.

Utter horseshit. A total fabrication by a Christian liar.

If such a document were found, there would be world-wide headlines about it. There have been no headlines because such a papyrus does not exist.

Take that crap and shove it!


"In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands without an error" says Norman Geisler in Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. That's impressive.

Then why am I not impressed? Would any sensible person expect something called the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Aologetics to recount all the mistakes of "Luke" or any "gospel"? Or any mistakes?

The shit you read!!!


I said that if two people are qualified, they should breed and produce a future dictator...And yes, it IS borrowed from Plato. So sue me.

What would be the point of that? I think it sufficient that you acknowledge your real sources: Christian apologetics and Platonic mystical fascism. Some "Marxism", eh?


I doubt that anyone is truly aware of what Marx's opinion would be on issues he didn't directly address, but we CAN infer a few things using.. oh, say.. his writings, maybe?

Yes, we can certainly infer Marx's possible opinions from his writings...he certainly paid frequent and eloquent tribute to the autocrats of his era, didn't he?

Well, no, he didn't. Total contempt would be a better description.

Pretty similar to my feelings towards fake you three.

Why do you persist in this folly? You have no real evidence for your positions. In fact, all you can do is piss and moan about "intolerance". No one is apt to be fooled by your pretensions...certainly not for much longer.

You clowns just want to throw some more bullshit pies at me while you still have the chance?

Ok, but it will change nothing.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 1, 2003


Redstar, I think we're all getting tired of your arrogance- how you claim to be blessed with the elusive power of determined who's a leftist and who isn't, how you pseudo-deftly dodge accusations using insults, and how you insist on using that stupid "cool" emoticon at the end of each post, thus effectively making yourself a cocky bastard. Also, your comment on "fake leftists" has conclusively proved you have some sort of complex in which you think that you're the reincarnation of Marx.

There's nothing "elusive" about the "power" to determine who's a leftist and who isn't. I just look at what people like you three stooges say and the evidence is clear and overwhelming.

And the idea of me thinking that I'm a "reincarnation" of Marx is just the kind of mystical absurdity I'd expect you to come up with. Why don't you just accuse me of being a card-carrying "agent of Satan" while you're at it? You're certainly dumb enough to believe in that sort of thing.


If your opinions mean so much, write a book and see how it sells. Any lazy fuck can write a website and bitch about his opinions. Let's see how successful "Redstarism" is.

Yes, "how it sells" is the real measure of all things, isn't it? To a cheap Christian hustler, maybe!


Ohh I am sorry, I was under the impression that tolerance was an important part of left wing ideology...

Where'd you get a dumb idea like that? No, don't tell me. I don't want to know.


I am going to accuse you of being an intolerant reactionary neo-totalitarian science denying idiot.... Did I miss anything out?

Yeah, you missed the part about me "not being above suspicion of cannibalism".
First posted at Che-Lives on August 1, 2003


How does anyone other than yourself following their own ideas in a completely secular state harm you?

Because, Margaret Thatcher to the contrary notwithstanding, we are not all "isolated individuals"...we are part of a collection of people who interact and affect each other.

Even though I am "white", a racist affects my life...his constellation of beliefs will, sooner or later, lead him to the conclusion that it is necessary to kill me too.

Even though I am male, a misogynist affects my life...for the same reasons.

Even though I am atheist, religious people who take their beliefs seriously must, sooner or later, come to the conclusion that unbelievers like me must be eliminated...we threaten their "salvation" by our very existence.

The entire history of organized religions demonstrates the truth of the hilt!

Of course, what believers can actually do to unbelievers, heretics, and infidels is limited by material conditions. A tiny powerless cult is no immediate threat to me or anyone save their own members.

A wealthy, reactionary religious group with millions of fanatical adherents is a deadly threat to me and any revolutionary...recent events in Venezuela demonstrate that.

But you must remember that all of the huge, wealthy and reactionary religions were once tiny, "harmless" cults.

And there is no way to reliably predict which group is going to stay small and harmless and which group will someday seek to "bring the world back to God" with armies of the faithful at their command.

As I've noted in previous posts, all religions are "meek and mild" at the beginning...given their weakness, it would be really insane to be otherwise. But let them grow, gain followers and wealth and weaponry...and see how they change, from "pretty" butterfly into ugly, insatiable locust.

The whole idea of superstition affects me in another way as well. The sight of human minds in mental chains offends me in the same way that the sight of people in physical chains would offend me. Both are shameful to our species...and thus to me.

For anyone to voluntarily renounce their capacity for rational thought strikes me, in a way, as far worse than suicide. To inflict that kind of thing on defenseless children strikes me as monstrous.

If I have anything to say about it, the day will come when that will not be permitted under any circumstances.


...being as you've given all the evidence I need to indite you as a dogmatic narciscist who's sole desire is to see himself ruling the world as part of a kleptocracy to destroy free thought.

Try: indict, narcissist, whose.

"Kleptocracy", of course, is "government by thieves". Try to look up those big words before you use them. Unless you think I plan to steal your crucifix...

And it is unfree thought that I wish to destroy.


I will do some weight training now, a brainwashing neoplasmic fool such as yourself isn't worth my time.

"A new mass of tissue that serves no purpose"?

But I heartily endorse your weight training fits your intellectual capabilities perfectly.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 2, 2003


Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

This is your idea of Marx's "stupidity"? Granted that it is formulated as a "quip" (as Marx often did), how does it stand up compared with social reality?

The importance of women in revolutionary movements has been neglected by historians over the last few centuries and is only now beginning to be understood theoretically.

But revolutionaries themselves have, I think, always known it as a "pragmatic assumption"...there are generally fewer women than men in revolutionary movements, but they tend to be far more active than the average guy.

There are obvious reasons for this; a revolutionary movement is an environment where women are "freer" to demonstrate their capacities and capabilities...there may still be sexism (and usually is), but there's less of it and, lately, it can even be directly attacked and overcome.

And Marx's suggestion that the social position of women is a good measure of how "progressive" a society really is...seems to me to be quite valid. It is not a matter of "formal" or "legal" equality; how much latitude do women actually have to participate in all of society's activities?

One reason that Scandinavian countries are widely admired--"capitalism with a human face"--is that women do participate in the political sphere far above the general planetary average. The reformists in those countries were never any good at socialism, but, to their credit, did push hard for full female equality...and it shows!

And I think it says a lot about you that you are so "intolerant" of Marx while being so "tolerant" of superstitious bullshit...and imperialist aggression.


...and consider whether you believe socialism to be a concotion of Right wing reactionary totalitarianism or a liberal movment which allows freedom of thought and expression. Which just happens to be one of your basic human rights...

Try concoction.

Yes, you think of "socialism" as a "liberal movement" which allows "freedom of thought and expression"...all perfectly respectable, non-threatening, orderly...and all outside the realities of class society.

What attracts you to this version of "socialism"? Obviously, it is freedom of reactionary "thought and expression" that concerns you. That's are a reactionary at heart.

Is that too harsh? You may indeed wish for masters to treat their wage-slaves more humanely (like your hero Robert Owen)...but your support of U.S. imperialism in Iraq demonstrates your real class bias.

As do your apologies for 19th century British imperialism (particularly in Ireland), your desperate insistence that proletarian revolution is "impossible", that Marx is "stupid", and that superstition should be "tolerated".

Assuming you ever learn how to spell your native language, your future successful career at Whitehall is certain. You could use all your posts at Che-Lives on your resume.


And the Margaret Thatcher reference comes in where?

Lady Thatcher once remarked that "there is no such thing as society, only individuals".

I guess you weren't paying attention.


In a completely secular state, this is illegal, therefore it doesn't affect you.

There haven't been any "completely secular states" so far. But your statement really reveals your own religious awe of "the law"...a typical bourgeois opinion.

The struggle between rational enlightenment and superstitious oppression will not be decided by an act of parliament.


The entire history of organized religions demonstrates the truth of the hilt!

Argued like a true convinced capitalist, "the entire history of communism demonstates a complete disregard for human life."

This is a good demonstration of why "arguing" with you is so ultimately pointless. You quote a statement from me...and instead of refuting it or even challenging its accuracy, you insert a totally irrelevant statement about how capitalists "would argue" a completely different point.

You are the absolute master of banal irrelevance on this board. Whenever you are unable to refute an argument (that is, almost always), you respond with something completely "off the wall".

Perhaps you think people will admire your "cleverness" in "debating"...I think it just shows your ignorance of the matter actually under discussion.


A completely irrelevant point, exactly the same thing applies to any large organization, do you want to disband all organisations as well? Wow, no more sports clubs, they might become like Manchester United.

Same thing? How many heretics have been burned alive by Manchester United, dummy?


Considering in a secular state such movements are illegal, the evil and oppressive military will actually protect your rights by killing these sick fuckers.

Your awe of legality has already been noted. But the sarcastic reference to the "evil and oppressive military" that will "protect my rights" is hilarious.

The point, as you have stated in many posts on this board, is that you do not "think" that the military is "evil and oppressive" rather admire professional killers, don't you? Perhaps it's those uniforms, yes?


The sight of people willing to have mens genitalia pushed up their arses probably offends homophobes, however non-homophobes have something called "tolerance".

The sight of non-vegetarians eating meat probably offends some vegetarians, however non-PETA members have something called "tolerance"

The sight of someone who's voluntarily decided "not to be saved" probably offends religious people just as much, why don't you practice what you preach.

Massive irrelevance! Followed by a question that makes no sense.

You are unable to mount a credible argument in defense of superstition (religion) and so you bring up all this other crap to distract people.

As is the case with the rest of your wretched post, but I did appreciate this one...


...the redstar papers (a chilling indictment against the human race)...

Certainly an indictment of your fake "leftism"...and well justified at that.


Face it Redstar, everything you're suggesting was practiced in Eastern Europe during the cold war, In Bulgaria it produced some of the most devout, non-fundamentalist Christians the world has ever seen.

A rare statement that actually relates to the topic...but, as usual, wrong.

I don't have a "devoutness-meter" like you, so I can't comment on the "quality" of Bulgarian Christians.

But the practice of the governments of the former "people's democracies" in eastern Europe was no particular improvement on that of the USSR itself and, in Poland at least, was not even up to the level of the USSR. There was some propaganda against religion in those countries, but the cathedrals were not demolished (and many were not even closed), the priesthood was not exiled (in fact, their salaries were paid by the government), and even the seminaries were still allowed to train fresh conmen (at government expense).

Poland was the really horrible example; enormous resources were spent in actually restoring cathedrals that were already half-demolished by war damage. Talk about monumental stupidity!


...or another idea, go to a gym and preach your crap about renaming the preacher curl because of its religious references, see how hard a 90kg brute who thinks you're the biggest dickhead on the planet punches you.

Just like your buddy, you enjoy fantasies of violence being inflicted on me...typical of a true "god-believer".

Beneath the veneer of "tolerance" burns a raging thirst for the blood of the unbeliever.

But things are changing...and if it's blood you want, you may well end up drinking your own.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 2, 2003


You'd probably find I [was? am?] looking to kill you like nazi hunters are looking to kill nazis.

More incoherent rage, eh?

You two are utterly pathetic.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 3, 2003


don't worry, rage is coming soon, real soon. Ah I love this.

I tremble before your wrath, oh great ones. *laughs*
First posted at Che-Lives on August 3, 2003

I will try once more to get to the heart of this matter.

These two fake leftists believe that "tolerance" is at the core of what it means to be a "leftist".

That is wrong!

The fact of the matter is that all human beings are "tolerant" about things that don't matter to them and intolerant about things that do matter to them.

To preach "tolerance" as an abstract virtue is the same as preaching any other abstraction...noise!

As was pointed out, fascists "tolerate" a lot of stuff that leftists find reprehensible. Likewise, leftists "tolerate" a lot of things that fascists find reprehensible. Either will be "tolerant" or "intolerant" as specifics dictate.

Consequently, "tolerance" as an abstract "virtue" is utterly meaningless.

It always comes down to specifics...are you "tolerant" or "intolerant" of this specific thing?


How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class? It is illogical to say the least, as well as ultimatly being counter productive to the success of your movment. No, the only way to gain the support of the working class is to indulge its desires and protect its "petty superstitions". In other words take a tolerant attitude to the habits which you believe to be foolish.

Yes, communism is opposed by the "vast majority" of the working better give it up. Socialism is also opposed by the "vast majority", etc.,, better give that up too. On the other hand, the "vast majority" just love superstition, so we'll accept that...or at least be "tolerant" of it, which means accepting it in practice.

If you begin with "what people will accept"...that's where you end. A few small changes, a few petty reforms...and everything goes on as it always has. This is why you two are reformists and all the rhetoric about "moneyless cooperatives" is just meaningless...fairy lights on a dead tree.

And that is why you are "tolerant" of does not matter to you if people's minds are crippled by a bunch of think being crippled is "normal", part of the "human condition", something that will "always" be true. (Not for you of course...just all the rest of the poor sods.)

It's also why you resent Marx so much...that guy refused to accept "what is" as "what will always be". Worse still, he proved that what was once acceptable is no longer acceptable and that what is acceptable now will someday be unacceptable. No wonder you hate him and anyone who speaks up for his views.

Some may suggest that I should be "tolerant" of reformism. I'm not sure what they would mean by that...perhaps that I should just let their anti-revolutionary "leftism" pass without comment or that any criticisms I make should be "gentle" and "kind".

Well, you folks know me...that ain't going to happen. I'm "intolerant" of fake "leftism" just as I am "intolerant" of superstition, imperialism, racism, misogyny, etc. I expect a communist revolution to really go after all that "old shit" with the determined intent to wipe it off the face of the planet.

I do not care how many people find the old crap "acceptable" now...but rather how many people will someday find it totally unacceptable under any circumstances.

If this be intolerance (and it is!), then make the most of it!
First posted at Che-Lives on August 4, 2003


The left is more tolerant than fascists simply because it is tolerant on a great many more issues that fascism is, and on wider ranging issues. Hence the reason why the left is generally considered to be libertarian rather than authoritarian...

That evades the point. You appealed for "tolerance of religion" on the basis that tolerance is, in and of itself, a virtue. It's not. What specific thing is to be tolerated? That's the issue in this thread.


How can you be helping the working class when you preach and practice ideals that alienate a vast majority of the working class?

Why don't you just put it in plain words? We "should" suck up to religion because right now "most workers" are religious.


...the "moneyless cooperatives" are the only model socialist communities to ever work efficiently with the possible exception of the Paris Commune. Why alter [reject?] a working model for an untested only theoretical [model?] with no guarantee of success other than the word of a Victorian age philosopher? He may well be correct, yet you are willing to take that risk. A risk which may produce yet another Stalin? Hardly a matter to be taken lightly.

Where are those "working models"? If they were really effective, why didn't they spread (slowly or quickly) throughout the capitalist world? Why did they either collapse or turn themselves into capitalist enterprises?

I note that you hold up Stalin as the bogey-man in this if to say "don't make revolution, kids, or Stalin will come and eat you up."


80% of the world's population is religious, you really want to take the joy they feel away from them? Do you really think that will help them?

Yes! I have my doubts about the "joy" that religion provides--fear and hatred seem to be more common. But if getting rid of the fake "joy" makes it possible to experience the real joy of liberation, then I think that's "helping them" more than anything in recorded history so far.


Also, you and I do not believe in God, however other people disagree, how can you justify you banning of religion to them? They will just think you are another foolish atheist who will be burning in hell when they die, why should they believe you?

The "hard-core" believers won't believe me and so what?

Try and remember the things that I have actually proposed. Nowhere have I ever said that adults can't "worship" in the privacy of their own living quarters or that believers should be persecuted simply for being believers.

In that restricted sense, I'm just as "tolerant" of religion as you are.

It is in the public sphere that religion is to be entirely removed.

And people are not to be permitted to fill up "their" kids heads with bullshit. Kids are not property and you cannot do with them "whatever you please".


How would you actually go about banning religion? It is an impossible task, even if you close the churches people will just do it in secret.

It's fine with me what they do "in secret" (as long as they don't fuck with "their" kids). Here are some steps I would take...

All obviously religious architecture is to be demolished (some modern churches don't "look" like religious buildings...they can be taken over for secular purposes). Knock down the most "famous" cathedrals sends the message that we're serious. The "little churches" can be the last to go.

All public religious ceremonies, processionals, holidays, etc. are to be abolished. Religious symbols to be removed from all public buildings.

All building names, street names, place names, city names, names of geographical features, etc. with religious connotations to be re-named.

All religious schools to be converted to secular use or torn down.

No new religious texts to be published...let the ones that exist gradually go out of circulation.

No further manufacture or distribution of religious paraphernalia; artifacts from demolished churches to be recycled into useful stuff or destroyed.

Cemeteries to be replaced with crematoriums; eventually to be cleared and the land used for some secular purpose, like a park for example.

Street-preaching is "disturbing the peace"...30 days on the back of a sanitation truck would seem appropriate.

As part of the transition, it might be appropriate to allow the temporary use of secular buildings for religious ceremonies...but nothing decent: something like an unused warehouse would be about right.

Demoralizing believers is very important; especially "holy" sites need to be profaned in an emphatic demonstrate that the old ways are finished.

Note that there's nothing here that directly involves persecuting believers for believing (unless they make a public nuisance of themselves).

And, mind you, even with these steps, I still think it likely to take a couple of centuries to rid ourselves of this took Christianity that long to destroy the old religions in the Roman Empire.

It won't be easy; but it can and must be done.


I refer you to quakers whose faith drives them towards pacifism, tolerance and socialism...

Ah yes, like Richard M. Nixon. He must have taken a wrong turn on the "drive".

quote: no fool and you may be forced to learn that the hard way...

Hmmm, what dire deeds do these grim words portend...?
First posted at Che-Lives on August 4, 2003


It must really hurt putting so much effort into a post that turns out to be utter crap.

Brilliant rejoinder! Faced with ideas and arguments that don't appeal to you (or that you can't understand), just yell real loud "utter crap!"...that will show me.


Renaming place names? Jeez, do you even know how difficult that is to enforce...

How difficult was it to convert to the metric system? Pretty difficult, right? People managed to do it, right?

As the old generation gives way to the new one, the new names will "seem natural" and in a hundred years (or less) the old names will be forgotten.


And Richard M. Nixon wasn't a real Quaker...

Haven't we been through this before? Christians who act like murderous thugs are not "true Christians"...they're just "faking it".

You always want credit for the "saints" while turning your back on the "sinners"...a most convenient response.

What happens to your celebrated "tolerance" when believers who act nasty are brought forward? Do you look the other way while they are consigned to the fiery pits of Hell? Do you pretend that "ye know them not"?

I can't remember now exactly where Dante placed the hypocrites in Hell...but I know they went there.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 6, 2003


It all comes down, I think, to freedom of speech.

This is another cliche, another abstraction that, without specifics, is just noise. What exactly do you wish to use your "freedom of speech" to advocate?


Some people refuse to entertain the idea of an organised religion. Now I find this disappointing. I would have thought that socialists and communists (and mixes etc) would be tolerant of those who thought differently (to some degree at least).

Why would you have thought that? Did you read the previous posts that discussed "tolerance"?

"Tolerance"--like "freedom of speech"--is another abstraction. Tolerant of what?

We are not tolerant about things that really matter to us. No one is. If they say they are, they're fooling themselves or they are lying.


... but in a communist society it would not matter if a group of people wanted to build a church and educate the children to what ever religion.

On the contrary, it would matter a great deal. Don't think so? Suppose this "whatever" religion demanded the sacrifice (ritual murder) of each member's first-born child?

Just lost your "tolerance", didn't you?

As far as I'm concerned, stuffing a kid's head full of religious bullshit is the moral equivalent of is the ritual murder of his/her ability to think rationally.

It cannot be tolerated!
First posted at Che-Lives on August 7, 2003


I say again, "There would be enough other people also educating the children so that they can think it out for themselves."

It doesn't work like that now. The overwhelming majority of people who are raised in a superstitious environment stay that way. They may have the nominal right to "think it out for themselves" but, in practice, it's just "too much trouble" or "too painful" or whatever.

And if you're thinking that a future society might be different, well, that hasn't worked out so good either. The 20th century socialist countries were all "officially atheist", taught a materialist view in the classrooms, etc. and yet huge numbers of people, brainwashed as small children, remained religious.

It's rumored that even Fidel and Raul can't "kick the habit".


I think, and many of you may disagree, that "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently"- Rosa Luxemburg.

What context did she say this in? What was the nature of the dispute that she was commenting on? Whose "freedom to think differently" was she defending?

As an abstraction, her statement is true...but abstractions don't help us. To really understand what she was getting at, we need to know the details.

The remainder of your post confuses the issue. We are not speaking here of "controlling people's thoughts" or punishing them for "impure thoughts" or any of that sort of thing. I don't care what people think and it wouldn't matter if I did...there's no way to get inside someone's head and run a check on their thoughts.

We speaking here of what will be "socially acceptable behavior" in communist society.

Racist behavior will be considered unacceptable. Sexist behavior will be considered unacceptable. Superstitious behavior (that is, inserting religious beliefs and practices into public life, brainwashing kids, etc.) will be considered unacceptable.

What people think is their own damn business. What people do in public life is another matter altogether.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 7, 2003

Yet another flock of irrelevant "arguments" flightless birds, they never leave the ground.

Your anecdotes about people who are raised in religious backgrounds and yet escape the crap miss the point (as usual).

The overwhelming majority of people who are raised in a religion stay with it or, at best, convert to another religion. You cannot possibly deny this! Well, I guess you could at that...there being no apparent limit to your foolishness.

Such as...


And another thing Redstar, when you're absolute belief in the destruction of all religion and free thought drives you to be European, Olympic and World Champion, World Number 1 and World Record Holder all at the same time when you're 38, I'll consider your ideas worthy of listening to, until then, I think Jonathon Edwards is a slightly better role model than you are.

Does this infantile babble have some kind of hidden meaning? Would my political arguments suddenly appeal to you if I won a few Olympic medals in some mindless physical exertion?

And where did you get the idea that I considered myself or wanted to be considered a "role model"? That is so stupid that it practically drools!

Then, following a semi-literate, confused, and just plain erroneous "summary" of my proposals, your response is...


...anyone who knows the most basic thing about atrocitology can see something wrong with this.

Anyone who knows the "most basic thing" about the English language knows you're an ignoramus. There's no such word as "atrocitology"...unless Jonathon Edwards made it up in the last few hours and it's not in the online dictionaries yet (I checked three different ones).

I know, it's not a fair comparison. You can squat much better than me and I can construct a rational, literate argument much better than you.

We each have our strengths.
First posted at Che-Lives on August 8, 2003
Guest Book
Additional Reading

Latest Theory Collections
Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
Parents and Children April 11, 2006
The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
Defining Theory Collections
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
Random Quote
Would I like to be a "revolutionary celebrity"? Definitely not.  

Search Internet
Search Website
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.

Copyright 2003-2006 -- Some rights reserved.