It was/is a ruleset made by humans for humans to ensure cooperation within huge groups.
Bit outdated nowadays but the concept is continued in form of laws, human rights, social norms etc.
It’s also commonly used to create a strong sense of “us”/“them”, inferiority to the unquestionable elite, superiority and self righteousness over non-believers, and a great way to force your underlings to do your bidding disguised as words from “God”, whoever that might be.
Sure, but it seems those same structures remain in place today but in a secularized form. Nation-States create this divisive sentiment which the bourgeois classes utilise in order to bid the oppressed against each others. The struggle between the state and the church is secondary to the material struggle between an upper and a lower class.
The “but” indicates some kind of opposition - is your stance that only one kind of oppression can exist at once, that some oppression is okay if there is worse oppression existing simultaneously or is your stance something else entirely, not properly indicated by your message?
These are not two distinct oppressions. Religion is part of the superstructure (i.e. the state, the laws, the culture, etc.) which is held up by the class struggle and the socioeconomic dynamics of power. Religion, like the state, is simply the tool and not the cause of oppression.
In a capitalist society, the superstructural institutions are mobilized to protect capital. Those could and were effectively conquered by the oppressed class at times in recent history, including religion. An example would be liberation theology in Latin America, or the movements of Marxist Muslim scholars in Central and South Asia.
I am aware. My replies, however, were addressed to you. I am simply moving the conversation towards a wider scope that doesn’t mystify religion and reduce it to something inherently bad or irrational.
Intriguing, as that scope change was not at all what I managed to gather from your replies. My understanding of your messages were that religion is a tool of oppression used by the bourgeoisie and that multifaceted oppression is used on the daily to keep us from fighting the class war, which you seemingly tried to frame as some opposive thought to mine although we seem to be in agreement?
I often reflect on the role it filled for mental health before the advent of science, psychology, and neuropsychiatry.
I was raised in a very opressive sect of protestantism, where I was instructed to pray and meditate. I find it analogus to visualisation and self reflection. I learned silence and meditation, I was put in situations where sitting silent by the hour listening to empty droning speech was my only recourse. My first awareness of the concept of mental illness was from bible stories of those people being healed implying their condition was not inherent to them, they were innocent.
The act of singing together about our beliefs and feelings has always seemed like a powerful thing that has vanished from our society, except at baseball games.
Also an explanation for things we couldn’t explain. Humans hate uncertainty and randomness. A random flood is scary because it could repeat without warning, but if it happened because you pissed off the gods then you can just avoid doing that and you’re safe.
I’m pointing out patterns in the development of human kind.
If you want to judge everything retroperspectively through your ideological glases that’s on you.
You’ll always find in History a group that will push for the spread of a religion because it allows them to oppress others and take shit for themselves. And slaughter people who say no. Some religions may start as philosophical and social liberation for small groups, but it is still violence that spreads them the most in a larger society. Yes, even the ones about internal peace, as long as others create external riches and influence about it.
Everything is convenient when you close your eyes for whatever doesn’t suite the agenda.
Yellow Turban Rebellion didn’t happen, or did it not qualify as a war?
Right! “The way of the great peace.” Peace for us, step 1: violently overthrow the corrupt ruling class. Not that I’m disagreeing, that’s an example of someone preaching peace and finding that it doesn’t exist without standing for the people, and protecting them from oppression means killing those that are doing the oppressing (Ed Sheeran in shame), we’re just putting that in a book and calling it a religion.
To be fair, in China through these ~500 years, every current of thought or philosophy was called a religion, and the line between religion, politics, and philosophy, was pretty much nonexistent. If someone had an idea and put it in a book so others can think about it, that was a religion. It’s a bit weird for us today to read “legalism is considered a religion? and legalism is… Absolute administrative power, everyone is equal under the rule of law? Sounds familiar… Oh, there you go, the ruler writes whatever he wants and then kills whoever he wants by designating them as enemies. Like those dummy thinkers and book-writers.” “all right, fine, let’s look at Mohism: egalitarian society and universal love, cool! First paragraph on Wikipedia: paramilitaries-- oh.”
I’ll admit I’ve dismissed them all as mumbo-jumbo but please correct me if I’m wrong - not eating cows (hinduism?) despite being a suitable source for protein seems pretty limiting. Living in celibacy with an odd haircut (Buddhism) is downright weird to me. Sihks seem alright, although those turbans (the name escapes me) seem oppressively heavy. Do you have any other religion in mind that isn’t a tool for oppression?
Edit: Sikhs are warriors with swords as part of their uniform. Doesn’t get much more oppressive than war.
Scientology extracts wealth from the members to keep the leaders happy. I don’t know of any “concepts and ideas” religions. Please feel free to enlighten me.
I wanna see your bad faith uncharitable takes on Humanism and FSM, these are hilarious to see how you’ll twist anything even slightly religious to look evil
I find it quite humorous how you try to defend religion by bringing up the truly defining beliefs with up to a staggering 500 practitioners worldwide to support your point. Arguing that “there is nothing to believe in” is a religion sure is something else.
Taoism basically wants you to disappear so that others can decide what happens next. Very oppressive.
Confucianism oppresses women heavily, they’re supposed to follow their father, husband or sons depending on what stage of life they’re in. Suicide to protect chastity after a husband has died has also been a theme there, as losing your chastity has been seen worse than starvation.
Spiritualism isn’t considered a religion where I’m from, can’t say I’m familiar.
Wicca seems to be whatever you want it to be, where many think there are two gods, some think there are many, some one and some none. Some seemingly think karma is a thing (called something else) which is very limiting (although mostly sound), while some say there’s no such thing. I guess those get a pass, as they don’t really exist as a homogenous group?
An incredibly uncharitable reading of all of them.
Taoism especially bad. It wants you and the world to become no longer at odds, with two main paths argued for it, you shape the world, or you let the world shape you.
Wicca it’s fully a faith about “customisation is the point” yeah, so it can be basically anything (though sadly a lot just use it as Christianity+)
Spiritualism is inspired by Native American faiths, and the root of it is “every thing, living or dead, have some sort of essence be it a spirit or a soul or just an amount of energy”, and then from that extends the idea that because of it you should treat nature and by extension each other with respect. Rocks have a spirit, trees have a spirit, dogs have a spirit, etc.
Hindu eat beef? It’s not against the religion to eat it.
That’s a misconception, they just make sure they die with dignity and lived as happy a life as possible.
Which some sects argue it’s impossible if they’re not living a wild life in nature, and argue one shouldn’t eat them ever (as there’s basically no such thing as wild cow anymore.) But there’s no ban, it’s just seen as immoral.
Sikh having a warrior thing is funnily enough fuck all to do with war. It’s a holdover from ancient times that’s just stuck around as part of it.
It’s atheism, but they formed a “religion” just so that they were able to use it as a form of activism against any religious freedom laws by going “oh, so we’re allowed in right?” to show the contradictory nature if they say no
Men and older women should dress in black robes during rituals, young women should dress sexy to please and arouse the men. Naked woman to be used as an altar when an altar is needed.
Edit: granted, this is according to the Wikipedia page on LaVeyan Satanism - maybe the spelling difference is of significance?
Was religion ever intended to fill a different role?
It was/is a ruleset made by humans for humans to ensure cooperation within huge groups. Bit outdated nowadays but the concept is continued in form of laws, human rights, social norms etc.
It’s also commonly used to create a strong sense of “us”/“them”, inferiority to the unquestionable elite, superiority and self righteousness over non-believers, and a great way to force your underlings to do your bidding disguised as words from “God”, whoever that might be.
Sure, but it seems those same structures remain in place today but in a secularized form. Nation-States create this divisive sentiment which the bourgeois classes utilise in order to bid the oppressed against each others. The struggle between the state and the church is secondary to the material struggle between an upper and a lower class.
The “but” indicates some kind of opposition - is your stance that only one kind of oppression can exist at once, that some oppression is okay if there is worse oppression existing simultaneously or is your stance something else entirely, not properly indicated by your message?
These are not two distinct oppressions. Religion is part of the superstructure (i.e. the state, the laws, the culture, etc.) which is held up by the class struggle and the socioeconomic dynamics of power. Religion, like the state, is simply the tool and not the cause of oppression.
In a capitalist society, the superstructural institutions are mobilized to protect capital. Those could and were effectively conquered by the oppressed class at times in recent history, including religion. An example would be liberation theology in Latin America, or the movements of Marxist Muslim scholars in Central and South Asia.
You do see that gwl wrote “…use it as a tool for oppression”, correct?
I am aware. My replies, however, were addressed to you. I am simply moving the conversation towards a wider scope that doesn’t mystify religion and reduce it to something inherently bad or irrational.
Intriguing, as that scope change was not at all what I managed to gather from your replies. My understanding of your messages were that religion is a tool of oppression used by the bourgeoisie and that multifaceted oppression is used on the daily to keep us from fighting the class war, which you seemingly tried to frame as some opposive thought to mine although we seem to be in agreement?
I often reflect on the role it filled for mental health before the advent of science, psychology, and neuropsychiatry.
I was raised in a very opressive sect of protestantism, where I was instructed to pray and meditate. I find it analogus to visualisation and self reflection. I learned silence and meditation, I was put in situations where sitting silent by the hour listening to empty droning speech was my only recourse. My first awareness of the concept of mental illness was from bible stories of those people being healed implying their condition was not inherent to them, they were innocent.
The act of singing together about our beliefs and feelings has always seemed like a powerful thing that has vanished from our society, except at baseball games.
Also an explanation for things we couldn’t explain. Humans hate uncertainty and randomness. A random flood is scary because it could repeat without warning, but if it happened because you pissed off the gods then you can just avoid doing that and you’re safe.
And who decides what pissed off the gods? Typically someone with something to gain from the changes required from the common folk.
Not necessarily.
If you think church in medival Europe: Yes.
However if you think shaman in an animistic tribal religion the material or hirarchical insensitive is far less clear.
Oppression can be a byproduct of religion but isn’t necessarily one.
Human rights wasn’t a thing until the Enlightenment, The Bible, Koran, and Tanakh all limit rights, not expand them.
You’re giving credit for human rights to the oppressor. Horrifying.
I’m pointing out patterns in the development of human kind. If you want to judge everything retroperspectively through your ideological glases that’s on you.
Right, so oppression.
Most religions have a lot of stuff about giving money to poor people.
… but also murdering them, therefore the criticism.
Nobody would have a problem with them if it wasn’t for all the murder.
Scamming money maybe?
Sounds very oppressive, yes.
Exact same question I had
Look at basically every none-abrahamic faith
Especially those religions without gods per se, but rather concepts and ideas
You’ll always find in History a group that will push for the spread of a religion because it allows them to oppress others and take shit for themselves. And slaughter people who say no. Some religions may start as philosophical and social liberation for small groups, but it is still violence that spreads them the most in a larger society. Yes, even the ones about internal peace, as long as others create external riches and influence about it.
Looks up “Taoist Religious Wars” - 0 results
Everything is convenient when you close your eyes for whatever doesn’t suite the agenda. Yellow Turban Rebellion didn’t happen, or did it not qualify as a war?
Right! “The way of the great peace.” Peace for us, step 1: violently overthrow the corrupt ruling class. Not that I’m disagreeing, that’s an example of someone preaching peace and finding that it doesn’t exist without standing for the people, and protecting them from oppression means killing those that are doing the oppressing (Ed Sheeran in shame), we’re just putting that in a book and calling it a religion.
To be fair, in China through these ~500 years, every current of thought or philosophy was called a religion, and the line between religion, politics, and philosophy, was pretty much nonexistent. If someone had an idea and put it in a book so others can think about it, that was a religion. It’s a bit weird for us today to read “legalism is considered a religion? and legalism is… Absolute administrative power, everyone is equal under the rule of law? Sounds familiar… Oh, there you go, the ruler writes whatever he wants and then kills whoever he wants by designating them as enemies. Like those dummy thinkers and book-writers.” “all right, fine, let’s look at Mohism: egalitarian society and universal love, cool! First paragraph on Wikipedia: paramilitaries-- oh.”
The rebellion against the oppressive regime? That one?
I’ll admit I’ve dismissed them all as mumbo-jumbo but please correct me if I’m wrong - not eating cows (hinduism?) despite being a suitable source for protein seems pretty limiting. Living in celibacy with an odd haircut (Buddhism) is downright weird to me. Sihks seem alright, although those turbans (the name escapes me) seem oppressively heavy. Do you have any other religion in mind that isn’t a tool for oppression?
Edit: Sikhs are warriors with swords as part of their uniform. Doesn’t get much more oppressive than war. Scientology extracts wealth from the members to keep the leaders happy. I don’t know of any “concepts and ideas” religions. Please feel free to enlighten me.
I wanna see your bad faith uncharitable takes on Humanism and FSM, these are hilarious to see how you’ll twist anything even slightly religious to look evil
FSM is a joke, made for a dude to be able to wear a colander on their passport.
Humanism as a religion - where do we draw the line on “is a religion”? Is coffee a religion? Is Marxism a religion? Is the color purple a religion?
I mean you called Satanism a religion, so by the same definition, so is Humanism, and so is Marxism
I did? You’re the one that brought it up, and unlike the other fringe ones I’ve at least met 20+ people that consider themselves satanists.
Damn that’s the good stuff, I’ll have to share this thread with my friend, this is hilarious
I find it quite humorous how you try to defend religion by bringing up the truly defining beliefs with up to a staggering 500 practitioners worldwide to support your point. Arguing that “there is nothing to believe in” is a religion sure is something else.
Spiritualism, Wicca, Taoism to a degree, Confucianism
Taoism basically wants you to disappear so that others can decide what happens next. Very oppressive.
Confucianism oppresses women heavily, they’re supposed to follow their father, husband or sons depending on what stage of life they’re in. Suicide to protect chastity after a husband has died has also been a theme there, as losing your chastity has been seen worse than starvation.
Spiritualism isn’t considered a religion where I’m from, can’t say I’m familiar.
Wicca seems to be whatever you want it to be, where many think there are two gods, some think there are many, some one and some none. Some seemingly think karma is a thing (called something else) which is very limiting (although mostly sound), while some say there’s no such thing. I guess those get a pass, as they don’t really exist as a homogenous group?
An incredibly uncharitable reading of all of them.
Taoism especially bad. It wants you and the world to become no longer at odds, with two main paths argued for it, you shape the world, or you let the world shape you.
Wicca it’s fully a faith about “customisation is the point” yeah, so it can be basically anything (though sadly a lot just use it as Christianity+)
Spiritualism is inspired by Native American faiths, and the root of it is “every thing, living or dead, have some sort of essence be it a spirit or a soul or just an amount of energy”, and then from that extends the idea that because of it you should treat nature and by extension each other with respect. Rocks have a spirit, trees have a spirit, dogs have a spirit, etc.
Hindu eat beef? It’s not against the religion to eat it.
That’s a misconception, they just make sure they die with dignity and lived as happy a life as possible.
Which some sects argue it’s impossible if they’re not living a wild life in nature, and argue one shouldn’t eat them ever (as there’s basically no such thing as wild cow anymore.) But there’s no ban, it’s just seen as immoral.
Sikh having a warrior thing is funnily enough fuck all to do with war. It’s a holdover from ancient times that’s just stuck around as part of it.
And nazism didn’t start any wars these last 10 years so it’s all good? Geez, I’ve selldom seen cherry-picking this obvious.
It literally did? Israel Palestine
That’s zionism. Don’t be silly.
And those that don’t eat beef out of religious conviction that it’s not moral are not hindu, or is their religion not true?
They’re just a different subsection of the same faith
So they are hindu and doesn’t eat beef, just as I said? Wew.
Oh of course, the best religion, Leveyan Satanism
Objectifying women was considered oppressive last I heard.
Leveyan Satanism does that?
It’s atheism, but they formed a “religion” just so that they were able to use it as a form of activism against any religious freedom laws by going “oh, so we’re allowed in right?” to show the contradictory nature if they say no
Men and older women should dress in black robes during rituals, young women should dress sexy to please and arouse the men. Naked woman to be used as an altar when an altar is needed.
Edit: granted, this is according to the Wikipedia page on LaVeyan Satanism - maybe the spelling difference is of significance?
It’s literally not an actual religion???
It’s a satire of religion.
I don’t know, seems some take it seriously.
Oh, and I forgotten about Humanism and FSM
An alternative heirarchy for second and third sons.
[Its_the_same_picture.jpg]