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Bit outdated nowadays but the concept is continued in form of laws, human rights, social norms etc.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?
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,
Yes, and that additionally it can and has been equally a revolutionary tool to mobilize the masses against oppression. And to shun it completely would be reductive.
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.
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?
Yes, and that additionally it can and has been equally a revolutionary tool to mobilize the masses against oppression. And to shun it completely would be reductive.
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.