Skip to main content

How the Spiritually Pious Inadvertently Prove Marx Right

 Religious/spiritual people will scoff at Marx's critique of religion, especially the infamous quip that "Religion is the opium of the masses". Marx points out that their need for God is a desire for consolation, a need for a reason beyond all particular reasons for any specific suffering that allows them to accept the reasons for their suffering. It is an attempt to explain and cope with their deprivation and misery, but not to get rid of these reasons for the misery in the first place. They want an ultimate explanation for suffering as such, which they are convinced is simply the condition of man in total abstraction from any particular conditions or relations. (Thus the gloomy obsession with death.) 


Obviously Marx's criticism is simply scandalous to the religious mind because religion prohibits such heretical questioning from the start. Not questioning as such, but any questioning that calls this religious mode of questioning the world into question. 


And, in total outrage, they will then say something like: "I needed reassurance of some deeper justice, some cadence or rhythm that lurked beneath the heartache or chaos". (JD Vance, Hillbilly Elegy)


Or what else? Something along the lines of, "I believe in a loving God because it makes me happy to know that there is more to life than this reality I experience every day! I was depressed and thought everything was meaningless, that I was alone, but now that I believe, I have found bliss, beauty, communion, and purpose in the suffering. The suffering is there as a trial, a pathway to pass through to the real reason: as a test of our faith. This world is not all there is, but it is a vale of tears necessary to arrive at the true spiritual kingdom." 


In other words, in the very way they deny Marx's criticism of religion and affirm their own faith, they prove and demonstrate precisely that what Marx said about religion and theology -- in both its banal and crude forms and its sophisticated philosophical forms -- was true.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ghost Hunting - On the history of ideas about anti-communism

A rough and dirty translation from an article "Gespensterjagd -- Zur Ideengeschichte des Antikommunismus" from Gruppen Gegen Kapital Und Nation (Groups Against Capital and Nation). Original can be found here: https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/gespensterjagd-zur-ideengeschichte-des-antikommunismus/ “A specter is haunting Europe - the specter of communism."“ All the powers of old Europe have united in a holy hunt against this specter,” wrote Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto — and that, contrary to other claims in that work, is a pretty true statement. Hatred and fear of radical change in civil society is as old as its revolutionary implementation itself. At the latest with the French Revolution, which did not operate in a religious disguise like the Dutch and English revolutions, and which was much more radical in its theoretical justification than the American one, the fear of the “Red Terror” arose (before “La Grande, by the way. “Terreur” really started in ...

The concept of cultural appropriation – a critique of racism on its own foundations

Original here: https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/das-konzept-der-kulturellen-aneignung-eine-kritik-des-rassismus-auf-seinen-eigenen-grundlagen/ In recent years, a new form of racism,  cultural appropriation,  has been criticized in some anti-racist circles . They always discover this where members of a group adopt cultural productions (e.g. certain cultural customs, hairstyles, items of clothing,...) that, according to advocates of the concept of cultural appropriation, come from other groups, namely those who have less power over the acquiring group due to racial discrimination. When criticizing cultural appropriation, respect for these cultures is demanded. This respect should then contribute to combating racial discrimination. There was criticism that a non-indigenous artist in Canada integrated elements of indigenous art into her artwork.  1  Even when “white”  2  people wear dreadlocks or throw colored powder at each other (a practice inspired by th...

A Reader writes to Freerk Huisken: "I am not a nationalist because I fear foreigners taking my job!"

  A reader writes: ".... in a recent lecture in.... you framed the fears of fellow citizens for their jobs amid increasing demand from foreigners for work as nationalist. Your 'arguments' were not at all convincing to me. I personally have nothing against foreigners; I just fear for my job. Therefore, I am not a nationalist. I would never vote for the AfD or any other right-wing extremist party. That's why I think it's good when you and others speak out against the AfD. However, I am writing to you so that you reconsider your 'arguments' and refrain from calling harmless fellow citizens nationalists in the future..." Before anything, I'd like to set a few things straight: First, I didn't – directly – oppose the AfD in the aforementioned lecture. More on that in a moment. And second, I didn't call anyone a nationalist. Rather, I tried to criticize the slogan that foreigners are taking "our" jobs, and to point out its flaws and its ...