NounsareVerbs posted:
These days, the overwhelming function of religion is that of existential justification - the classic "God has a plan for everyone and people will get what they deserve after death." And that's fucking retarded - prevents any social change for the poor - and exactly what Marx meant when he said "opiate for the masses."

Marx was speaking of medieval (European, though of course as a 19th C European intellectual he never specifies that) religious institutions. He begins the introduction to Hegel's Philosophy of Right by stating

For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed, and the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all criticism.

Why would he say this, if he was arguing for the total abolition of religious belief as a prerequisite to social revolution? I'll remind you that by 1843 (when this was written), America had already followed the French revolution and established a secular government. Germany was not yet unified.

If we were to begin with the German status quo itself, the result – even if we were to do it in the only appropriate way, i.e., negatively – would still be an anachronism. Even the negation of our present political situation is a dusty fact in the historical junk room of modern nations. If I negate powdered pigtails, I am still left with unpowdered pigtails. If I negate the situation in Germany in 1843, then according to the French calendar I have barely reached 1789, much less the vital centre of our present age.

He explicitly states there that a Jacobin revolution is irrelevant historically by that stage.

So let's continue to the bit directly following the famous lines you quoted:

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

Looks good so far right? "Religion" fools man into accepting his lot on this Earth. Let's continue:

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.

The following exposition – a contribution to this undertaking – concerns itself not directly with the original but with a copy, with the German philosophy of the state and of law. The only reason for this is that it is concerned with Germany.

This struggle against the limited content of the German status quo cannot be without interest even for the modern nations, for the German status quo is the open completion of the ancien régime and the ancien régime is the concealed deficiency of the modern state. The struggle against the German political present is the struggle against the past of the modern nations, and they are still burdened with reminders of that past. It is instructive for them to see the ancien régime, which has been through its tragedy with them, playing its comedy as a German revenant. Tragic indeed was the pre-existing power of the world, and freedom, on the other hand, was a personal notion; in short, as long as it believed and had to believe in its own justification. As long as the ancien régime, as an existing world order, struggled against a world that was only coming into being, there was on its side a historical error, not a personal one. That is why its downfall was tragic.

On the other hand, the present German regime, an anachronism, a flagrant contradiction of generally recognized axioms, the nothingness of the ancien régime exhibited to the world, only imagines that it believes in itself and demands that the world should imagine the same thing. If it believed in its own essence, would it try to hide that essence under the semblance of an alien essence and seek refuge in hypocrisy and sophism? The modern ancien régime is rather only the comedian of a world order whose true heroes are dead. History is thorough and goes through many phases when carrying an old form to the grave. The last phases of a world-historical form is its comedy. The gods of Greece, already tragically wounded to death in Aeschylus’s tragedy Prometheus Bound, had to re-die a comic death in Lucian’s Dialogues. Why this course of history? So that humanity should part with its past cheerfully. This cheerful historical destiny is what we vindicate for the political authorities of Germany.

Marx taunts the kingdoms of Germany for being on the "wrong side of history". This is precisely equivalent to, as you claim, "God having a plan for everyone". he is explicitly substituting Divine Will with History. You also claim that religion today is not used to justify political power. I would agree. And so Marx would not be interested whatsoever in the religious beliefs of people, as they would be irrelevant to the forward movement of history in an era such as ours. If there is any equivalent whatsoever in modern times, it is that secularism justifies political power. I would not argue that therefore the forward movement of history demands a religious criticism on the irreligious state, but I would say that you should understand what his point was and apply it to your own circumstances in a suitable way, and not parrot the bourgeois intellectuals' justifications for the status quo so impotently.

babyfinland posted:
you cant talk people in or out of faith guys, thats why its obnoxious and stupid to act a vigilante missionary for atheism or religion. its not even the pretension or confrontational nature of the act, its just the total mishanlding of the subject matter. its like taking the tools out of someones hands and being like "let me show you how to do this" and then totally borking up

Lessons posted:
-the author of over nine thousand islam threads in lf

discipline posted:
up next: gay people were born that way & other fascinating opinions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fF34Uqulmfs#t=186s

babyfinland posted:
you cant talk people in or out of faith guys, thats why its obnoxious and stupid to act a vigilante missionary for atheism or religion. its not even the pretension or confrontational nature of the act, its just the total mishanlding of the subject matter. its like taking the tools out of someones hands and being like "let me show you how to do this" and then totally borking up

isn't this really against the spirit of e.g. evangelical christianity? and maybe specifically why so many atheists, especially american atheists, are so "obnoxious" about this sort of thing, precisely because of how aggressive christians are about evangelizing?

Lessons posted:

babyfinland posted:
you cant talk people in or out of faith guys, thats why its obnoxious and stupid to act a vigilante missionary for atheism or religion. its not even the pretension or confrontational nature of the act, its just the total mishanlding of the subject matter. its like taking the tools out of someones hands and being like "let me show you how to do this" and then totally borking up

you used to brag about converting people to islam with your lf posts. i swear to god, (who doesn't exist), you two are the biggest hypocrites on planet earth.

u mad

just fyi people continually contact me of their own volition with an interest in islam and some of those people have since converted. i dont really think i need to apologize for that nor does it makes me a hypocrite

Edited by babyfinland (Oct. 24, 2011 01:00:05)