David f.,

"I do not ridicule Christianity or other religions..."

"runner,
Shirley McClaine and the practitioners of New Age nonsense are loonies. Imagining such nonsense as a spiritual realm is an example of looniness. Acknowledging Jesus Christ or any other non-existing entity as lord of the spirit world or any other imaginary entity is looniness..."
david f. Thursday, 22 September 2011, 5:23:06 pm

Yes you do.

I presume, however, that you don't consider yourself a hate-filled bigot, and nor do I.
Pinning human depravity onto an ideology is convenient, yet it's often a deliberately skewed perspective fashioned to suit an argument.

Thanks for reading the article, davidf, though your mind is hopelessly prejudiced and it seems futile trying to get you to rethink it. (most of your founding fathers were far bigger bigots than Marx could ever be, even in your imagination. Do you also revile them?) There is nothing in the manifesto, or on the Jewish Question that, read in context, justifies your position, quite the opposite. Same with Peter's and Jay of Melbourne's arrant rubish (did you note the Mises quote btw, Peter, in Eagleton's article?) This is why you all rely on colourful language and piles of corpses--because there is no substance to your prejudice--pure ignorance.
It's your burden to carry around, however; I'm only sorry I can't help to lighten it for you a bit.
I do hope those who are capable of critical thought are not dissuaded from making their own appraisal of Marx's thought--which is more relevant than ever--based on actually reading it.

Dear Poirot,

You are right. I did ridicule Christianity in my words which you cited.

However, I take back nothing what I said about Marx and Marxism. The Marxist generated corpses were once people and were no accident. The facts and bodies are there.

I don't have a skewed perspective on Marxism. I think I see it for what it is. Human depravity exists, and ideology can give one a sense of rightness while committing atrocities. So can religion.

If we can refrain from demonising those human beings who are on the other side of ideological or religious barriers from us we might be able to treat them with consideration. If we use language to the effect that they must be swept out of the way as the Manifesto does we invite atrocity.

Dear Squeers,

I actually read enough of the words of Marx to make a judgment. If you can see "On the Jewish Question" as other than rank bigotry I think you must disable your critical faculties when it comes to that person.

Thank you David.
Here is the text, "On the Jewish Question" for anyone interest: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

It's not a long read
And here's a wiki appraisal of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question
From which I've taken the quote:

"This work [On The Jewish Question] has been cited as evidence for Marx's supposed anti-semitism, but only the most superficial reading of it could sustain such an interpretation."

Here also is the Communist Manifesto:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

I invite anyone to read it and offer justified criticism of the content.

Dear Squeers,

I disagree with you. That does make me hopelessly prejudiced. You disagree with me. That does not make you hopelessly prejudiced. Let's curb the rhetoric. I am merely one of the many people who do not subscribe to Marx's idea. You are one of the many people who do.

Let's avoid putting down the other guy. It is fair to disagree with ideas. It is not fair to attack or call the other person names. It is not fair to ascribe negative characteristics because you disagree with a person. I do not do it to you, and I would appreciate it if you stop doing it to me.