I discarded religion from the day I was born and by eight I was debating the contradictions in religion with adults who thought they were smarter than an eight year old. In fact those adults were smarter than an eight year old; I reckon most of them were as smart as ten year olds.

Master Opinionated,

Other people have religion, faulty beliefs, which they believe with little or no evidence.

And WE have knowledge.

So, Marxism has never been corrupted into a religion ? Something to be believed and obeyed without question ?

I think even Marx would be horribly disillusioned by how his 'materialist' proposals turned out - even in his lifetime, after all, the Paris Commune (1871) didn't inflame workers all over Europe to carry out revolutions as he assumed. After the Berlin Conference in 1884, he would have grieved at how easily the working classes of imperialist countries went along with the overseas ventures of their rulers.

And have any Marxist-inspired revolutions ever gone to plan ? I'm writing as a born-Communist, Stalinist and Maoist, who abandoned all of that thirty or forty years ago, and became a Popperian incrementalist/democrat/liberal/socialist. So, any successful socialist revolutions ?

* Russia: Stalin, the millions starved, the millions shot, the millions in gulags ? And it ended up with Brezhnev and Andropov ?

* Cuba: a family dynasty for sixty years ? As much poverty as ever ?

* China: once an imperial empire, always an imperial empire, it seems. Proof that the drift towards fascism isn't just an authoritarian/ right-wing phenomenon.

* East Germany ? Hungary ? Rumania ? Bulgaria ? Vietnam, a 'socialist' state ? Ho ho ho.

So no successful Marxist revolutions then ? Perhaps all Utopias collapse very quickly, to be replaced by a facade covering a repressive system which, ultimately, doesn't know what to do, except perpetuate itself.

Marxist revolutions were supposed to lift the masses, to bring out the genius of the people. Every Marxist revolution and the dreary regimes which followed, was led by people who grew up in pre-revolutionary times - the first country to appoint a leader born and/or educated AFTER the revolutions was: Gorbachev, in 1985, sixty eight years after the revolution. i.e. after the old guard had reached its biological limits.

Marxism is thus a religion no less flawed than any other. And its gods have failed.

Joe

Dear Foxy,

«Please explain.»

Religion is about coming closer to God.

«By their very nature religions are divisive.
They promote the we-versus them notion.»

Does this kind of behaviour bring us any closer to God?
Both "we" and "them" are God, for there is nothing other than God, so if we feel separated from others, this also separates us from God.

«Our God is better»

Whoever thinks so believes that there is more than one God.
This logical absurdity can only disturb our intellectual discernment when we try to consider which way takes us to God.

«we are more devout,»

Some people are more devout than others, but it is individual and not about external show. What you describe is a social ego attitude.

«our leader was the best»

This is only a social attitude. Religious people want to be led by God and only by God, not by people.

«we will go to heaven,
you will not,»

Desire for pleasures, plus jealousy that others will not share them - these lead one furthest from God!

«Religion is all about believing under fear of
punishment»

Fear is born of selfishness, when one wishes to remain separate from God. One should love God instead, one cannot fear and love at the same time.

«all the admonitions, divisiveness and
fear that is at the root of religion.»

The root of religion is the longing of everything to reunite with God. When one realises their unity with God, one comes to know their limitlessness, hence fear is not a possibility, nor divisiveness which is another form of limitation.

«religion to be used as an excuse for the
most inhumane and ungodly acts.»

A claim to religiosity is not religiosity.
So there are the inhumane and ungodly who wish to LOOK religious, so what? they are not!

«religion is a
universal social institution»

Religion is an individual path to God.
While there can be institutions designed to suport one on their path, such institutions are anything but social. As one comes closer to God, one loses all needs for society.

Shall I continue?

Hi Foxy,

To answer your initial question; " Does religion breed hatred, bigotry, and violence?" Give the clear track record of the main three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam of breeding hatred, bigotry and violence, and not limiting it to just them. It is an interesting question does that truth still apply today. It is my view that on a global bases religion is still an inducement to violent human behaviour as it has ever been. The following link is factual when it comes to answering the question.

http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/how-should-faith-communities-halt-the-rise-in-religious-violence/

Dear Paul,

Rather than about religion, you speak about Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: the question is, to what extent are these three still religions, or have they in the main instead become social institutions. That some social institutions can breed hatred, bigotry and violence, is nothing new.

---

Dear Belly,

«Every faith tells us it is the only one true faith»

Hinduism does not.

«Many faiths say it is ok to kill others from different faiths»

Possibly, but are those faiths then still religious?
They could perhaps have once originated from a religion, but are they still? Not if they advocate violence!

«If we had no God we may well learn to live together»

We do not HAVE God - we ARE God. It is utter nonsensical to speak of not having God, because then who is the speaker and who are the "we"?

---

Dear Foxy,

«The great variety of religious behaviour and belief makes
it very difficult to say exactly what "religion"is.»

Of course: religious behaviours and beliefs are only expressions of religion, they are not religion itself. To complicate matters further, some behaviours and beliefs that are commonly considered religious are not even so.

I remember growing up as a kid and seeing both the fights and the unity between religions. My grandmother wanted to rescue my father from his beliefs and his religion, (not a bad thing to do regarding some religions out there). As a result though, the tension caused many fights between the two of them. My dad on the other hand his religion had the belief that all mayor religions were from God. Therefore it was something I enjoyed discussing with him as I grew up, even when I went a different path then his religion, I always enjoy talking to him and what's going on in that community, or on religious matters between my faith and his.

As for my grandmother, it should be noted that the fights were not caused out of hatred or bigotry. They were caused out of concern and the tension of convince the other person of their views (both my grandmother and my father tried to make their points even when it got heated and they had to walk away.

My point? Religion does not cause divisiveness or else there would be no good conversations and good relationships between people of different religions. Nonetheless divisiveness does exist in the world and aims as a contributing factor to the hatred, terrorism, and everything else negative that I assume this topic is seeking to talk about. Religion is not the cause of that. It is one element of an identifier between one people and another.

(Continued)