# Islamophobes 'r' us



## darren redparty (Jun 20, 2006)

lifted directly from the class war web site but written by me so not strictly a c+p

We recently became aware of a website called Islamophobiawatch. 

Whilst we are sure that it would not be of great interest to Class War readers, we were disappointed to discover that the lumineries behind it had negleted to include us alongside other such 'islamophobic bigots' as the National Secular Society or Rowan Atkinson, thus we wrote to them asking to rectify this oversight. 

In case they forget to publish our letter we reproduce it here;

Class War Federation

13th June 2006

Dear Mr. Pitt,


Your web site Islamophobiawatch has come to our attention. 

We notice that among those who have been denounced as ‘islamophobic bigots’ are the National Secular Society, the Worker-communist parties of Iraq and Iran, Peter Tatchell and his organisation OutRage!, and Rowan Atkinson(?).


We are disappointed that Class War should be omitted from this list. As real revolutionaries we are, of course, opposed to all and any attempt to cheat and hoodwink our class with superstitious lies about magic and miracles.


Thus we are proud to be Islamophobic, just as we are proud to be ‘Christianophic’, ‘Judeophobic’, ‘Hindoophobic’, ‘Buddhaphobic’, and whatever other mumbo- jumbo bullshit that the black crows of the Priestocracy try to foist upon us.


As proof of our suitability for inclusion on your hitlist/blacklist may I draw your attention to our latest issue and the article on Islam (just so you won’t think that we may have put that article in just for the glory of being on your hate list, check any other issue of Class War, or our website and you’ll find numerous insults to both mohammed (piss on him) and his modern day would be Torquemadas).


We look forward to your abuse and the chance to be included with such illustrious company.


Yours,


Darren Redstar


Class War International Secretary (cwfintsec@yahoo.co.uk)


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (Jun 20, 2006)

I dont get any of that,,,,


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jun 20, 2006)

nor me, is it sapam????

I mean spam????


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (Jun 20, 2006)

What!!!  

spammy spammmy spammmy spam spam???

do you mean?


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (Jun 20, 2006)

Oh dear,, what if it isnt spam,, and that it actually means something really intellectual???


----------



## darren redparty (Jun 20, 2006)

I left out the link
 Islamophobiawatch is a Islamotrotskyite site which treats all critisism of that particular religion as naughty and Wascist.
 As Militant athiests Class war are pissed at not being included


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (Jun 20, 2006)

Page cannot be displayed ,,,,


Didnt mean to cause offence,, still dont know what its about tho,,,
sozzz

* runs off sniggering*


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jun 20, 2006)

*Miss Daisy* said:
			
		

> Oh dear,, what if it isnt spam,, and that it actually means something really intellectual???



Fuck it i've never started a bin race>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Sweaty Betty (Jun 20, 2006)

*Miss Daisy* said:
			
		

> Oh dear,, what if it isnt spam,, and that it actually means something really intellectual???



We'd be shite as mods


----------



## darren redparty (Jun 20, 2006)

bloody hell!
 *gets out spanners*
 there thats better
 try this
http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/
 and also for a alternative this;http://www.londonclasswar.org/newswire_yvonneriddley.php


----------



## JoePolitix (Jun 20, 2006)

darren redparty said:
			
		

> We look forward to your abuse and the chance to be included with such illustrious company.



And so concludes a hopelessly ill thought out diatribe.

I wouldn't hold your breath mate. Class war are so mind numbingly irrelevant it wouldn't be worth Mr Pitt's time giving you the oxygen of publicity.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 20, 2006)

i dunno, they have a point.


----------



## JoePolitix (Jun 20, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i dunno, they have a point.



Which is?


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 20, 2006)

that on the whole religion is exploitative, divisive bollocks.  really, i'd have thought that was obvious.


----------



## JoePolitix (Jun 20, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> that on the whole religion is exploitative, divisive bollocks.  really, i'd have thought that was obvious.



But what about racist attacks against Muslims made under the pretence of criticising religion? Isn't the fact that Islamophobia has become one of the main tools of the racist right a good reason to counter it?


----------



## JHE (Jun 20, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> But what about racist attacks against Muslims made under the pretence of criticising religion? Isn't the fact that Islamophobia has become one of the main tools of the racist right a good reason to counter it?


Is there any criticism of Islam that you and your ilk do not classify as Ray Cyst?


----------



## JoePolitix (Jun 20, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Is there any criticism of Islam that you and your ilk do not classify as Ray Cyst?



Yes, this for example: 

http://www.counterpunch.org/tariq0425.html

But not the shit that comes out of your mouth


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 21, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> But what about racist attacks against Muslims made under the pretence of criticising religion? Isn't the fact that Islamophobia has become one of the main tools of the racist right a good reason to counter it?




my enemy's enemy is not my friend.


----------



## scott_forester (Jun 21, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> that on the whole religion is exploitative, divisive bollocks.  really, i'd have thought that was obvious.



And politics isn't?


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 21, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> that on the whole religion is exploitative, divisive bollocks.  really, i'd have thought that was obvious.



What a pathetic thing to say.  I'm not sure if its you or Class War saying it, but whoever it is is pathetic.


----------



## soulman (Jun 21, 2006)

Indeed god help them.

Go Phil...


----------



## TonkaToy (Jun 21, 2006)

"lifted directly from the class war web site but written by me so not strictly a c+p"

Copyright is not the only reason for not copying and pasting.

Even if the content on the other websites are owned by the poster, posting most of a webpage here after the search engines have already got the content from your site, would set off "duplicate content" alarm bells on the search engines.

Even worse for you, if the search engines find it on Urban75 first, the search engines would mark down your site as having duplicate content.

Not a big deal when we are only talking about a few articles...but if everyone did it.........


----------



## llantwit (Jun 21, 2006)

scott_forester said:
			
		

> And politics isn't?


Depends what kind of politics. The kind that allows people to emancipate themselves from wage slavery and chuck away the blinders of organised religion isn't, in my book.



			
				phildwyer said:
			
		

> What a pathetic thing to say. I'm not sure if its you or Class War saying it, but whoever it is is pathetic.


Why is it pathetic?
Fuck me. What's happened to the P&P forum?
It's not pathetic to criticise organised religion as an enemy of working class interests, the ally of those who weild power over the majority, and a repressive force for bad in the world generally. For me that's just obvious.
The OP is just takin that for granted, and fair fucks to it. It's also pointing out the spineless way that many people on the left have shied away from a critique of religion for opportunist political ends, and out of fear that they are being racist.


----------



## scott_forester (Jun 21, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> It's not pathetic to criticise organised religion as an enemy of working class interests, the ally of those who weild power over the majority, and a repressive force for bad in the world generally.



When we moved here we didn’t have much money and the only non-Governmental Organisation that did anything was the Salvation Army which pretty much clothed my family until my parents got a job and on their feet, the fact my Mother isn’t a Christian sort of points out it’s a pretty altruistic group – no working class champions to be seen anywhere then and I suspect it wouldn’t be different now either.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> What a pathetic thing to say.  I'm not sure if its you or Class War saying it, but whoever it is is pathetic.



arf.  says a man who regularly uses religion as a way of causing arguments on urban.


((((phil)))


----------



## llantwit (Jun 21, 2006)

scott_forester said:
			
		

> When we moved here we didn’t have much money and the only non-Governmental Organisation that did anything was the Salvation Army which pretty much clothed my family until my parents got a job and on their feet, the fact my Mother isn’t a Christian sort of points out it’s a pretty altruistic group – no working class champions to be seen anywhere then and I suspect it wouldn’t be different now either.


I can't argue against that - and I wouldn't say that all church-based work is bad - but I still think that on balance organised religion's done/does more bad than good, imho.


----------



## JoePolitix (Jun 21, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> my enemy's enemy is not my friend.



Who's the "enemy"? All religious people?


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> Who's the "enemy"? All religious people?



Not all religious people. But they are used as cannon fodder by the real enemy, the fanatics.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 21, 2006)

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with pointing out that Islam's a heap of shit just like any other religion, as long as care is taken to be completely even-handed and condemn all religions equally!


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 21, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> Who's the "enemy"? All religious people?



all people who use religion as a way of restricting the life, rights, freedoms and responsibilities of others, whether the pope and his stance on contraception, the zionists who use the bible as an excuse to repress the palestinians, the imams and mullah who encourage the dispossed to suicide atrocities, our glorious leaders who are subtly trying to make islam an enemy.

also enemies are racists of every hue.

i've no real problem with religious people per se. whatever gets them through their day.  but justifying prejudice and greed and hatred on religious grounds makes 'em my enemy.

and members of the left who ally themselves with the forces of religious conservatism and then make racist accusations against anyone whose not on team.  they're my enemy too.

people who aren't my enemy:  decent, tolerant, and honest human beings regardless of belief system.  hot chicks.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 21, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> all people who use religion as a way of restricting the life, rights, freedoms and responsibilities of others, whether the pope and his stance on contraception, the zionists who use the bible as an excuse to repress the palestinians, the imams and mullah who encourage the dispossed to suicide atrocities, our glorious leaders who are subtly trying to make islam an enemy.
> 
> also enemies are racists of every hue.
> 
> ...




Agreed - nice post. Esp the hot chicks.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 21, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> It's not pathetic to criticise organised religion as an enemy of working class interests, the ally of those who weild power over the majority, and a repressive force for bad in the world generally. For me that's just obvious.



Always beware of anything that seems "obvious."  FWIW, I'd agree with you about *organized* religion, but that wasn't what the article was attacking.  It was attacking religion in general.  Such attacks are indeed pathetic, and ignorant and reactionary to boot.


----------



## phildwyer (Jun 21, 2006)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> I don't think there's anything at all wrong with pointing out that Islam's a heap of shit just like any other religion, as long as care is taken to be completely even-handed and condemn all religions equally!



Even by your own consistently high standards, this is a remarkably accomplished piece of ignorant drivel.  You know nothing of any religion, as you have demonstrated on these boards many times.  Therefore, you should keep quiet until you have learned something.  For me, that's just obvious.


----------



## Yossarian (Jun 21, 2006)

Suggestion duly noted. Found anyone else to believe in your version of "the Creator" yet, you puffed-up, self-important fool?


----------



## smokedout (Jun 21, 2006)

*thanks class war*

youve just alienated yourself from every young muslim boy under the boot of the old bill in bradford, every palestian whose just seen their house bulldozed, every iraqi whos seen their village carpet bombed

please do not presume to argue that you represent the anarchist movement in any way

freedom of belief is pretty important in my view, all organised/personal religion can be challenged, tattacked, satirised, why pick islam why now?



> Thus we are proud to be Islamophobic, just as we are proud to be ‘Christianophic’, ‘Judeophobic’, ‘Hindoophobic’, ‘Buddhaphobic’, and whatever other mumbo- jumbo bullshit that the _black _crows of the Priestocracy try to foist upon us.



you stupid fucking wankers, would you consider yourselves anti-semetic?

well done class war for once again alienating the working class completely, you silly people


----------



## Lock&Light (Jun 21, 2006)

phildwyer said:
			
		

> Even by your own consistently high standards, this is a remarkably accomplished piece of ignorant drivel.  You know nothing of any religion, as you have demonstrated on these boards many times.  Therefore, you should keep quiet until you have learned something.  For me, that's just obvious.



I can't understand why you so frequently feel it necessary to act like a bloody fool.


----------



## JoePolitix (Jun 21, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> all people who use religion as a way of restricting the life, rights, freedoms and responsibilities of others, whether the pope and his stance on contraception, the zionists who use the bible as an excuse to repress the palestinians, the imams and mullah who encourage the dispossed to suicide atrocities, our glorious leaders who are subtly trying to make islam an enemy.
> 
> also enemies are racists of every hue.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. When I refer to Islamophobia I mean anti-muslim racism rather than reasoned criticism of Islam consistant with other criticism of other doctrines. 

It is a cause of concern for me that Muslims are regularly demonised in the mainstream press, targeted by fascists and suffer acts of violence and discrimination in this country. 

I think that Islamophobia Watch is often a useful tool in understanding, countering and documenting this worrying trend although I don't agree with it's over the top attacks on Outrage! or it's attempts to defend the reactionary cleric Qaradawi, but on the whole a useful resource.

I also think that Darren RedParty has finally taken leave of his tiny little mind, but I guess that's a manditory requirement for membership of Class War.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 22, 2006)

fair does hating all religions orgainsied or not lets face it 
rowan actinson and peter tachtell are not beating people up if its a choice between the likes of them and some religous type 
 pass me one of mrs miggins meat pies  
think class war has ther irght idea for once


----------



## Nigel (Jun 22, 2006)

Has everyone in Class War now got an executive position:-Darren Redparty-International Secretary.

IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO INVENT HIM!
IF GOD DOES EXIST IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO KILL HIM!!!!


----------



## Paul Marsh (Jun 22, 2006)

Nigel said:
			
		

> Has everyone in Class War now got an executive position:-Darren Redparty-International Secretary.



Yes I am Executive Officer, Office Services (Elastic Bands and Paper Clips)


----------



## smokedout (Jun 22, 2006)

> fair does hating all religions orgainsied or not lets face it
> rowan actinson and peter tachtell are not beating people up if its a choice between the likes of them and some religous type



so everyone religous is a twat ffs

can you define religion, does it include anyone who has any kind of belief that isnt based in western empiricist, rationalist logic

you know the scientific atheist rationalists, the vivesectors, biological waepons manufacturers, gm bods

some religious people are twats, some athiests are twats, some muslims are twats, some christians are twats

why make a point of attacking islam right now when islamic people face dangerous levels of prejudice in this country, and lethal levels of prejudice abroad

this is a real fuck up for class war, and shows a dangerous mentality imo, theres a very scary undercurrent of left and hard right forces joining up to have a go at muslims right now

something similar happened once before


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 22, 2006)

Lock&Light said:
			
		

> I can't understand why you so frequently feel it necessary to act like a bloody fool.



That'd be because he doesn't see his acts as foolish.

He's a bit dim like that.


----------



## la ressistance (Jun 22, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> why make a point of attacking islam right now when islamic people face dangerous levels of prejudice in this country, and lethal levels of prejudice abroad




it's precisely now that islam should be challenged.it's gaining more and more support around the world.
more and more young people are being dragged into it's way of thinking and so it should be challenged.

It's a good post from the original poster if perhaps badly worded.

sites like islamaphobe need to be told that there are many who do hate islam and what it stands for.


----------



## likesfish (Jun 23, 2006)

I hate orgainised religion not muslims or christians or spaghetti monsterism 
    Problem I see with the fanatical type of muslim in the UK is they demand respect and rights that they'd deny in a heart beat if the boot was on the other foot


----------



## mutley (Jun 23, 2006)

A definition from Tariq Ramadan which seems to fit with what some of the more sane contributors on this thread are saying:

'To criticise the religion and Muslims is not Islamophobia; a critical attitude towards religion must be accepted. But to criticise someone or discriminate against them only because they are Muslim—this is what we can call Islamophobia, this is a kind of racism.'

I'm sure Islamaphobiawatch will inore the tinny sound of Class War shouting 'yeah but we REALLY hate the prophet - go on, have a go, I dare ya'

A bit like the Black Night in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.


----------



## BAKU9 (Jun 23, 2006)

mutley said:
			
		

> A definition from Tariq Ramadan which seems to fit with what some of the more sane contributors on this thread are saying:
> 
> 'To criticise the religion and Muslims is not Islamophobia; a critical attitude towards religion must be accepted. But to criticise someone or discriminate against them only because they are Muslim—this is what we can call Islamophobia, this is a kind of racism.'
> 
> ...



Absolutely...because Islamaphobiawatch.com is SOOO huge and inspired and intrinsically intwined in the psyche of the nation.


----------



## mutley (Jun 23, 2006)

BAKU9 said:
			
		

> Absolutely...because Islamaphobiawatch.com is SOOO huge and inspired and intrinsically intwined in the psyche of the nation.



not sure what point ur trying to make.


----------



## X-77 (Jun 23, 2006)

> you’ll find numerous insults to both mohammed (piss on him)


wow, what an intelligent critique of Islam and religion...you'll really win people round with such a sophisticated argument as that!


----------



## smokedout (Jun 23, 2006)

> But to criticise someone or discriminate against them only because they are Muslim—this is what we can call Islamophobia, this is a kind of racism.



exact;y, because phobia implies irrational fear or hatred


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 23, 2006)

> 'To criticise the religion and Muslims is not Islamophobia; a critical attitude towards religion must be accepted. But to criticise someone or discriminate against them only because they are Muslim—this is what we can call Islamophobia, this is a kind of racism.'



Amazingly exactly the same difference between having a go at Zionists and being anti-semitic.

However, subtle distnctions, and a habit of making the religious identity merge into the personal means that as with some Jews, criticism of the religion _is_ bigotry because it becomes an attack on the person not the insitution.

But what do you expect from sky-pixie worshippers?


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 23, 2006)

Tariq Ramadan said:
			
		

> But to criticise someone or discriminate against them only because they are Muslim—this is what we can call Islamophobia, this is a kind of racism.


Since when was "Muslim" a race?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 23, 2006)

I think the key words there are 'kind of...' since it's prejudiced behaviour based solely around a person being a muslim (as opposed to them simply being a twat)

However, that doesn't work either since if you criticise someone for holding say, conservative religious beliefs your criticism is _entirely_ based around their being muslim/Xtian etc and that makes you XXX-phobic.

Load of bollocks frankly - if I discriminate on the basis of something people ultimately have a choice in (i.e. their religion) I'm not being racist, just a bigot.


----------



## Groucho (Jun 23, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Since when was "Muslim" a race?



Since when was 'immigrant' a race? Since when was 'Asylum Seeker' a race? Racism isn't a set of beliefs that is scientific or particularly honest is it? Racism hides behind ideas of culture not just skin colour. 'Those dark skinned people are ok provided they change their beliefs and culture to that which I find acceptable' is a racist position to hold.

Since Muslims are being targeted by racists of all hues the priority is to defend Muslims. Joining in the attack but masking it behind a supposed progressive opposition to all religion is inexcusable. Perhaps certain leftists and Anarchists would have prioritised opposition to Judaism had they found themselves in 1930s Germany? 

Religion is not in of itself the enemy, and supression of religious belief (as opposed to criticism) is never progressive. The mainstream pro-capitalist, pro-Globalisation ideas in our society are just as unscientific at root as any religion. Muslims are among the poorest and most oppressed people inm our society.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jun 23, 2006)

Would people find *Xenophobia* be a more appropriate and inclusive word?

For example, if Max Horkheimer were reincarnated in Luther Blissett, he would most certainly be saying this today: 





> "The root of fascist agitation is the fact that there is something rotten in language itself... We must beware of the idea that the fascist use of language is something new in our society... The distrust of the Unskilled against the Professional with his mastery of language... is an element of Xenophobia*... in the prehistory of what you explain as the fascist handling of language."





> *Eclipse of Reason*
> 
> Max Horkheimer (February 14, 1895 – July 7, 1973) was a Jewish-German philosopher and sociologist, known especially as the founder and guiding thinker of the Frankfurt School of critical theory.
> 
> ...



*_Horkheimer in a letter to Lowenthal of July 1946 used the term anti-Semitism_


----------



## likesfish (Jun 23, 2006)

xenophobia is a much better word and covers it all bases without giving islam special favours.
 as most of the people who are islamaphbic hate sikhs hindus and others as well.
 
  and its not a made up word


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jun 23, 2006)

Always remember, "years from now, in Guantanamo or in a refugee relocation "Enterprise Zone" on 'workfare', your kids will ask you,  "What did you do in the Class War, daddy?"


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 23, 2006)

And I'll say 'The same as everyone else little Johnny - absolutely sweet FA because no one could agree on what class they were, most of the left had by that point successfully alienated most of their natural support so all that was left were the facists and the statist-democrats. Which is why everything is so completely FUCKED for you'


----------



## llantwit (Jun 25, 2006)

X-77 said:
			
		

> wow, what an intelligent critique of Islam and religion...you'll really win people round with such a sophisticated argument as that!


This is Class War for fucks' sake - not new left review.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jun 25, 2006)

llantwit said:
			
		

> This is Class War for fucks' sake - not new left review.


Are you saying that an open discussion on how *Derogatory Class and Race Rhetoric* feeds the class-war is not relevant to *Class War* ?


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 25, 2006)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Since when was 'immigrant' a race? Since when was 'Asylum Seeker' a race? Racism isn't a set of beliefs that is scientific or particularly honest is it? Racism hides behind ideas of culture not just skin colour. 'Those dark skinned people are ok provided they change their beliefs and culture to that which I find acceptable' is a racist position to hold.


That's not racism, it's xenophobia.  They're two different things with different underlying causes and treating them as the same is not helpful.



> Since Muslims are being targeted by racists of all hues the priority is to defend Muslims.


The priority is to stand in solidarity with other working class people against racism.  I'd no more "defend" some biggotted nutter cleric than I would Nick fucking Griffin.



> The mainstream pro-capitalist, pro-Globalisation ideas in our society are just as unscientific at root as any religion.


Nonsense.  Capitalism and globilisation are rational ideologies, as long as you're ruling class.



> Muslims are among the poorest and most oppressed people inm our society.


Communitarian wank.


----------



## llantwit (Jun 25, 2006)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> Are you saying that an open discussion on how *Derogatory Class and Race Rhetoric* feeds the class-war is not relevant to *Class War* ?


No, I'm not.
I'm saying that you shouldn't expect 'inteligent critique', and 'sophisticated argument' from the group who's response to Diana's death was:
'Diana Dead: Two more Dead Parasites' D )
Which, IMO, is fine.
As far as the critique of religion is concerned - I made my points at the start of the thread.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 25, 2006)

*Class War ... Racist and Proud*

_We don't like to wash our dirty linen in public here at the void. We avoid controversy, shun scandal and spurn speculation in the name of avoiding confrontation and making the world a happier place all round ...

.. but we can't let this one go unmentioned. Long running anarchist group London Class War seem to have caught Barking and Dagenham-itus and launched a diatribe on Islam titled Islamophobes R us.

Class War are not reknown for reasoned criticism, no Chomky's to be found here, and that is to be welcomed. Ideally it should be a humourous and refreshing antidote to the likes of the Scum and the other tabloids it was largely established to parody. It seems recently however that Class War aims to go one better than the Scum having written to the website http://www.islamophobia-watch.com claiming "we are proud to be Islamophobic" before adding just as we are proud to be ‘Christianophic’, ‘Judeophobic’, ‘Hindoophobic’, ‘Buddhaphobic’, and whatever other mumbo- jumbo bullshit that the black crows of the Priestocracy try to foist upon us.'

This diatribe ends

"As proof of our suitability for inclusion on your hitlist/blacklist may I draw your attention to our latest issue and the article on Islam (just so you won’t think that we may have put that article in just for the glory of being on your hate list, check any other issue of Class War, or our website and you’ll find numerous insults to both mohammed (piss on him) and his modern day would be Torquemadas)."

Class War have featured three pieces on their newswire laying into Islam in the last two months, claiming as they do their anti-religious agenda. It seems strange then that in a Christian country Class War should choose to focus on Islam rather than the religion of the society we live in. Class War only features one anti-Christian story in the same period, laying into Christians for exercising their right to protest outside Jerry Springer the Opera.

We could not find any ‘Judeophobic’ (isn't there another word for that?), ‘Hindoophobic’ or ‘Buddhaphobic’ on their newsire, we did find a piece advertising a reggae dance raising money for Jah Spirit, a Hackney based Rastafarian fighting to keep his business on Broadway Market so presumably Class War are not rastaphobic, nor do they seem to be mumbo-jumbo pseudo-pagan-phobic after wishing stone age visitors a happy solstice recently.

So what's behind Class War's attack on Islam? Well the motivation seems to be islamophobia.com's list of islamophobes which includes the National Secular Society and Peter Tatchell. Now the void agrees that this may be slightly unfair and somewhat without foundation, it seems to be down to their participation in the recent and much villified failure the march for free expression.

This event, which only attracted slightly over 100 people was organised by posh fash' The Freedom Association in co-operation with various groups from the left and right including the National Secular Society and UKIP.

In reality the event was an excuse for Islam-bashing, the day also attracted criticism due to the focus on the Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed as well as the attendance and support of the BNP and their bastard child Civil Liberties.

We were in touch with Peter Tatchell at the time, the full story can be found here. Whilst we still believe his attendance was slightly naive we could find no fault in what Tatchell said and his reasons for being there, however there was some controversy over what he did actually say on the day (in the comments here).

Desperate to court controversy it seems that Class War has jumped on the back of this unholy alliance of the left and right and come down firmly on the right side of the fence.

Presumably they would defend their actions by claiming that they are not attacking Muslims but Islam as a religion, no gods, no masters an' all that. Islamophobia however has a slghtly different meaning. The Runnymede Trust offers an eight point definition of islamophobia here one of which reads "Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.", an attitude that Class War presumably are proud to share!

It goes without saying how divisive and damaging to the working class crass, schoolboy statements like this are, motivated I hope by immaturity and bravado rather than genuine prejudice.

The point will be argued that Islam is not a race, a boring arguments which merely shows an understanding of the lack of scientific validity of the term race. The OED defines race as: "3 a group of people sharing the same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group. 4 a group of people or things with a common feature."

adding

"USAGE Some people now feel that the word race should be avoided, because of its associations with the now discredited theories of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists about supposed racial superiority. Terms such as people, community, or ethnic group are less emotionally charged."

So can we let Class War off on a technicality? .. I think not. As both the right and the left are lining up to lay into the Muslim community , perhaps it's time to remember the atrocities carried out in the name of the cross, or even the athiestic and murderous instincts of Stalin and Hitler.

All of the religions named by Class War (and that includes Buddhists, you pseudo-fluffy feudalists you) have carried out atrocities, and all should be open to criticism and debate. But to single out one over the others, or to presume to deny the right of freedom of religion carries the charges of both racism and authoritarianism and Class War are treading a dangerous and sadly well trodden path._

what i thought


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jun 25, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> what i thought



What we thought too.
Read the full article here: http://johnnyvoid.blogspot.com/2006/06/class-war-racist-and-proud.html


----------



## BAKU9 (Jun 25, 2006)

What a load of old sanctimonious old guff.


----------



## treelover (Jun 25, 2006)

Rather vicious attack that, Mr Void, i hope you are right in your facts..


----------



## darren redparty (Jun 25, 2006)

a few nights go penn and tellers bullshit programme examined the bullshit around that 'saint on earth' the dalai lama, and weighed the crimes of the buddhistpriestocracy against that of thechinese occupation,
 they concluded that in the baslance the medievalist mumbo jumbalists were tghe 'lesser evil'; then they quite rightly pointed out that the 'lesser evil' is STILL FUCKING EVIL!
 Class War is condemned (ha!) for considering Islam  





> barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist



yep it is. So are all religions

The person writing this has obviously never read a copy of class war  





> It seems strange then that in a Christian country Class War should choose to focus on Islam rather than the religion of the society we live in


 if the writer had it would have noticed our regular CWACKERS page (class war against christian wankers,) an entire page given over every issue to taking on the christians twats.
 I alsonotice that rowan atkinsons name was left out by jonnyviod his inclusion as an islamophobe was due to his opposition to the religious hatred bill. A law that would have made the following


> All of the religions named by Class War (and that includes Buddhists, you pseudo-fluffy feudalists you) have carried out atrocities, and all should be open to criticism and debate.


a crime, and a law that the islamotrots welcomed.

 In its desparation to prevent its terminal decline the leninists have tied themselves to an obscurantist and fundamentally reactionary religious/political movement, Islamism.
They have lost any last lingering sight of the supposed object that, I assume, brought most of them into politics, the self-emancipation of the working class, and in their despair at the inexplicable refusal of the proletariat to listen to their _vanguard_ have decided that; 
'it just can't be the message, (that was revealed by lenin and trotsky and all of the saints and must never be challenged), it can't be the messengers ( who all have their degrees to prove their commitment and intelligence), it must the audiance who are ignorant and rude, buy their clothes at primark _and just won't listen_! they're smelly and poor and probrably all racists!
 lets talk to that nice imam, when he tells his flock what to do they don't argue, wouldn't it be nice if all the proles were like that'


----------



## soulman (Jun 25, 2006)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> What we thought too.
> Read the full article here: http://johnnyvoid.blogspot.com/2006/06/class-war-racist-and-proud.html



At least you recognise the inherent weakness that undermines your whole argument. As you say Islam is not a race. It's a monotheistic religion.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Jun 25, 2006)

Luther Blissett is Julie Waterson in drag, and I claim my five pounds!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 26, 2006)

> "3 a group of people sharing the same culture, language, etc.; an ethnic group. 4 a group of people or things with a common feature."



Interesting - the next time someone slags off the US or Australia by saying they're all idiots, wankers, etc etc I assume that everyone who applies this particular definition of 'race' to 'racism' will be quick to point it out?

As if.


----------



## smokedout (Jun 26, 2006)

so what definition of race would you use?


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 26, 2006)

I'd be more than happy to use the one above provided it was applied equally to all nations, but quite simply it isn't. I've seen posters make comments about North Americans and Australians that under that definition would be called racist.

But apparently Autralians and Americans _aren#t_ a race, and calling all Americans 'wankers' simply because they're American isn't racism because Americans are 'oppressors'...

So when there's another round of anti-Americanism on the boards I assume that you'll all be piling in to point out that while calling the American administration isn't racist (just as calling the Iranian Theocracy 'conservative aresholes' isn't racist), saying that 'all Americans are ignorant, war mongering idiots' (or similar) is.

And you know what? In nearly 5 years of posting on Urban i've seen this definition ignored as a justification for remarks that made about a developing nation or Islam would be roundly denounced as racism.

My issue isn't with the definition, but in it's application. Besides, pointing out that 'there was no mention of christianity except for the Jerry Springer opera'...well, it's Islam that's making the running in the news at the moment innit? If the Sikhs or Hindus had killed a load of people in London last year and flown 3 planes into buildings in the US do you think Muslims would be taking the shit? No, they wouldn't.


----------



## Paul Marsh (Jun 26, 2006)

smokedout said:
			
		

> _
> All of the religions named by Class War (and that includes Buddhists, you pseudo-fluffy feudalists you) have carried out atrocities, and all should be open to criticism and debate. But to single out one over the others, or to presume to deny the right of freedom of religion carries the charges of both racism and authoritarianism and Class War are treading a dangerous and sadly well trodden path._
> 
> what i thought



There have been 17 issues of Class War published since London CW took over editing the paper. 

11 issues have carried anti-religious articles. Of those articles:

8 have criticised Christianity, or the behaviour of certain christian churches

4 have criticised Islam, or Islamic fundamentalists

2 have dissed Jehovahs Witnesses

1 criticised some adherents of Sikhism (following the intimidation of a Sikh playright in Birmingham)

1 criticised Hari Krishna's

Oddly none of the above articles produced any of the liberal hand wringing we have seen on this thread. 

Can I venture that it is only because "Islamaphobia" is the current cause celebre of much of what remains of the left, that a few people have got their knickers in a twist _now_?


----------



## Hanoipete (Jun 26, 2006)

"it's Islam that's making the running in the news at the moment innit? If the Sikhs or Hindus had killed a load of people in London last year and flown 3 planes into buildings in the US do you think Muslims would be taking the shit? No, they wouldn't"

Yeah they would have invaded a couple of European countries, set up gulags, rendered people, torutured people, killed women and kids in the tens of thousands at least...you prick. Islam makes the running in the news because the news presses are controlled by the same poeple who like to invade wog countries and slaughter them to get at their natural resources, same as ever. And twats like you think there will be no response from anyone. you really should go suck **********

You bunch of fucking wankers the lot of you. Class War you are a fucking joke. Student fucking debating society cunts with long term mental issues. You aren't anarchists, you are nihilists, you are anything but anarchist.

You would have been saying the same thing about Jews in the 30's...sticking to their own, not speaking proper English, starting radical political movements that supported violence, running criminal gangs, not mixing. You'd have been right in there. As many of the left were in fact.

You're all a load of fucking nobheads, trying to gain respect from the big boys, trying to show how you share the right's views so you can bathe in their reflected hatred.

I didnt see you complaining about the Afghan guy stabbed in the chest outside Whitechapel Station and wrapped in George Cross and left to die. Or the 1000% increase in attacks on non-whites since 9-11, easier to try and get bigger boys to be your mates, you shithouses.


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 26, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> all people who use religion as a way of restricting the life, rights, freedoms and responsibilities of others, whether the pope and his stance on contraception, the zionists who use the bible as an excuse to repress the palestinians, the imams and mullah who encourage the dispossed to suicide atrocities, our glorious leaders who are subtly trying to make islam an enemy.
> 
> also enemies are racists of every hue.
> 
> ...



Top post, bluestreak.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 26, 2006)

OI, aren#t you the big man, eh? Lots of insults on a message board eh? Make you feel sexy does it?

Listen, prior to 9/11 it was Eastern European asylum seekers who were both those being derided in the press and getting the 'most opressed' badge of honour from the left. Now that's been switched to Muslims because of the actions of their 'brothers'.

Why didn't I complain about the Afghan guy? Well I didn't see the story in the news so it's kinda hard when you AREN'T AWARE of one of the countless things that happen (incidentally, do you have a link to that?)

TBH tho, you're little more than a teeny weeny child on the internet, screaming because someone has disagreed with you and that makes them 'racist'.

Tosser


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jun 26, 2006)

Hanoipete said:
			
		

> "it's Islam that's making the running in the news at the moment innit? If the Sikhs or Hindus had killed a load of people in London last year and flown 3 planes into buildings in the US do you think Muslims would be taking the shit? No, they wouldn't"
> 
> Yeah they would have invaded a couple of European countries, set up gulags, rendered people, torutured people, killed women and kids in the tens of thousands at least...you prick. Islam makes the running in the news because the news presses are controlled by the same poeple who like to invade wog countries and slaughter them to get at their natural resources, same as ever. And twats like you think there will be no response from anyone. you really should go suck **********
> 
> You bunch of fucking wankers the lot of you. Class War *Federation* you are a fucking joke. Student fucking debating society cunts with long term mental issues. You aren't anarchists, you are nihilists, you are anything but anarchist.


Haha. More like antichrist. You're wrong about 'Class War' I support 'Class War' but not this fakery of a 'Federation'. Pay for membership of Class War? In this digital age? Fuck off!



> You would have been saying the same thing about Jews in the 30's...sticking to their own, not speaking proper English, starting radical political movements that supported violence, running criminal gangs, not mixing. You'd have been right in there. As many of the left were in fact.


As a Jewish Anarchist myself, what can I say? Your assumption is believable. The techniques of scapegoating are tried and tested. Class War Federation are fakers. 



> You're all a load of fucking nobheads, trying to gain respect from the big boys, trying to show how you share the right's views so you can bathe in their reflected hatred.


They are. I'm certain that Original 80s Class Warriors would agree with you.


> I didnt see you complaining about the Afghan guy stabbed in the chest outside Whitechapel Station and wrapped in George Cross and left to die. Or the 1000% increase in attacks on non-whites since 9-11, easier to try and get bigger boys to be your mates, you shithouses.


They're pushing a common line. Look for the common thread shared across several ultra-'left' groups, and it will lead you all the way to .........


----------



## Paul Marsh (Jun 26, 2006)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> They're pushing a common line. Look for the common thread shared across several ultra-'left' groups, and it will lead you all the way to .........



Is this Fabian's first attempt to start pushing his (and Stewart Home's) old chestnut that the far-left is the same as the far-right, all anarchists are racists etc


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jun 26, 2006)

No, Paul.
Those 'old chestnuts' were well and truly roasted a decade ago, and related to National/Green Anarchism which split from the National Front. 

Instead of trying to find out 'who', you ought to be asking yourselves 'why'. 

Anyway. Some sad old news. I just found out that Paul Avrich died in February of this year, aged 74. A brilliant Anarchist Historian, he was twice nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for history.


> *In 1997, he told Q, the magazine of Queens College, that what had first drawn him to studying anarchists was their courage.
> 
> He said that anarchists confronted communists, saying, “We know what you’re after. You want to take over the government. You’re making revolution for yourselves, not for the workers.”
> 
> ...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 26, 2006)

> Those 'old chestnuts' were well and truly roasted a decade ago, and related to National/Green Anarchism which split from the National Front.



Would that make them a shibboleth?

(always wanted to use that word in correct context...)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jun 26, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> And I'll say 'The same as everyone else little Johnny - absolutely sweet FA because no one could agree on what class they were, most of the left had by that point successfully alienated most of their natural support so all that was left were the facists and the statist-democrats. Which is why everything is so completely FUCKED for you'




But kyser, surely your sterling work supporting the peasant farmers of Peru and Bolivia counts for *something*?


----------



## Hanoipete (Jun 26, 2006)

class war are not anarchists. you are Dickheadists, weak little twats you (as a group) deserve fuck all but contempt. look at all that shit on that `class war split` thread. just fucking bollocks. unfuckingbelievable you deluded blinkered dickwads.

Big up Luther.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 26, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> But kyser, surely your sterling work supporting the peasant farmers of Peru and Bolivia counts for *something*?



I'm still waiting for the Evo/Morales 'Coca Growers Cooperative' brand


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 26, 2006)

thanks for the link luther, i'd only heard of that fella.  i'm going to have to do some more reading!


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jun 26, 2006)

you're welcome, bluestreak  who are you reading at the moment? 




			
				Hanoipete said:
			
		

> class war are not anarchists. you are Dickheadists, weak little twats you (as a group) deserve fuck all but contempt. look at all that shit on that `class war split` thread. just fucking bollocks. unfuckingbelievable you deluded blinkered dickwads.
> 
> Big up Luther.



thanks, i think, Hanoipete.
the cartoon-marxist class war is over.

2006/06/cwm-class-war-membership-is-free.html
2006/06/news-cw-logo-redesign-competition.html


----------



## Tom A (Jun 26, 2006)

I once did have a small interest in anarchism, and activsim, albeit one eroded over years of fustration.

But this thread and the "class war split" thread have conspired to kill that stone dead, as it underlines exactly what is wrong with the "movement", and how a revolution based on the ideas of these groups would soon turn into a neo-Stalinist nightmare ie "think the way we think or else".

I give the Socialist Party credit, they do at least have a clear idea of what needs to be done and spend more time doing it (judging by the one Univeristy group meeting I managed to attend last year).


----------



## smokedout (Jun 26, 2006)

Paul

For the record luther blisset did not write the article, ive never met him and had never even heard of him till this morning, neither was i aware of the difficulties emerging on the other thread

i wrote that piece believe it or not, completely based on the piece in your newswire

as an anarchist i thought about it for a couple of days, but then felt it had to be addressed, as i found it such a frightening and dangerous statement

have you read the runnymede definition of islamophobia, do you really wish for CWF to be aligned with these principles

1) Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
2) Islam is seen as separate and 'other'. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
3) Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.
4) Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.
5) Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.
6) Criticisms made of the West by Islam are rejected out of hand.
7) Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
8) Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural or normal.

because youve now told every muslim that comes onto your site that you endorse the above

it is not a valid criticism of religious oppression, it is a flippant piece that genuinely seeks to align itself with what is considered by most racism

class war is a name almost synonymous with the anarchist community in the minds of the public at large

i would have hoped that anarchists would be able to provide support for minority communities under attack, but i can imagine the distrust that may be felt from those communities were a piece like that on one of our most well known media outlets is allowed to run unchallenged

im sorry if you feel differently, but i hope how you can see that that piece would be interpretated by most readers (regardless of the intention, and as ive said i hope that the intention was not genuine prejudice)

i brought up the march for free expression btw because thats when i first became aware of the dangerous allegiance against islam between the left and the far right. 

im of the opinion it needs to be addressed now whilst small it can be nipped in the bud.  i saw echoes of that way of thinking in the piece i criticised and from some of the comments ive seen about responding to it, it seems the criiticisms of it are much the same as the criticism i received from the bnp when i had a go at the march for free expression

so thats why i wrote it


----------



## Tom A (Jun 26, 2006)

*Playing devil's advocate (or being an appoligist for islamophobia depending on YO)*




			
				smokedout said:
			
		

> Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist.


Well they are a lot of people claiming to be Muslims who are IMO guilty of being "barbaric, irrational, primitive and sexist". (Mind you the same goes for Christians and probably subscribers of any belief or idelology).


> Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of civilisations'.


Likewise, there are a lot of people who committ terrorism in the name of Islam (although others point out that terrorism is stricly haraam), and there have been many "Jews" and "Christians" who have committed acts of terror.


> Islam is seen as a political ideology and is used for political or military advantage.


Some do indeed use Islam as such.

I am not condemming Islam outright, just highlighting that there ARE people out there who will use it to justify all kinds of autrocites, true of any religious practice. However they are also good people who believe that war, terror and hatred go against their beliefs as Muslims/Christians/Jews/etc, and I don't like it when they get tarred with the same brush as the people who think it's ok to martyr yourself on a bus or to force women to wear burqas, and that homosexuals should be stoned to death.


----------



## BAKU9 (Jun 26, 2006)

Tom A said:
			
		

> But this thread and the "class war split" thread have conspired to kill that stone dead, as it underlines exactly what is wrong with the "movement", and how a revolution based on the ideas of these groups would soon turn into a neo-Stalinist nightmare ie "think the way we think or else".



Another person on here who believes being anarchists means you cant fuck off dead wood-amazing!

No doubt splitting up with your other half in your 'ideal revolution' would be unforgivable too


----------



## The Black Hand (Jun 27, 2006)

BAKU9 said:
			
		

> Another person on here who believes being anarchists means you cant fuck off dead wood-amazing!
> 
> No doubt splitting up with your other half in your 'ideal revolution' would be unforgivable too



You are starting to irritate me shithead. FFS, your politics and principles look as non existent as your belief in a diverse movement - one that is, after all, necessary for political progress...


----------



## smokedout (Jun 27, 2006)

> I alsonotice that rowan atkinsons name was left out by jonnyviod his inclusion as an islamophobe was due to his opposition to the religious hatred bill.



can you offer a link at to where islamophobiawatch denounce Rowan Atkinson as an islamophobic bigot? ive searched their site and cant find anything remotely like that, maybe its just me


----------



## Masonic Mystery (Jun 27, 2006)

http://www.faithfreedom.org is a good site to debate about islam, worth a look.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 27, 2006)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> you're welcome, bluestreak  who are you reading at the moment?



nothing political.  tbh i'm not a massive reader of overt political texts anymore.  i'm of the opinion that you don't need to know the complete history of anarchist thought to be an anarchist.  but i'm always game for reading interesting stuff!


----------



## Hanoipete (Jun 27, 2006)

KS - as you said you "aren't aware" and it shows how you prioritise `Islam` as a threat when its Western governments doing the killing on a mass scale. Not that you give a fuck about that.

You may or may not be a racist but you are certainly an ignorant cunt, fuck off back to your advertising job and your cocaine problem.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 27, 2006)

Hanoipete said:
			
		

> KS - as you said you "aren't aware" and it shows how you prioritise `Islam` as a threat when its Western governments doing the killing on a mass scale. Not that you give a fuck about that.
> 
> You may or may not be a racist but you are certainly an ignorant cunt, fuck off back to your advertising job and your cocaine problem.



I have an issue with any religion that stops people thinking, and have made just as many comments about the Xtian right in the US and elsewhere as an equally significant threat to the rest of us as Islam, and have been more than vocal in criticising it so I don't 'prioritise' Islam as any more of a threat than loonspud Xtians, nationalistic Hindus in India who attack non-Hindus and who help maintain the caste system, Islam AND Christianity fucking up the Sudan and NE Africa - The Xtian right by supporting the rebels, Islam for stoning women to death for adultery for example.

I miss ONE example of racism in the UK (which BTW I still haven't found ANYWHERE online - got that link yet?) and am accused of being ignorant...you're the ignorant one here matey, with your 'These are the current most oppressed victims' eyeblinkers-on approach that has helped CAUSE much of the racial division in East London and elsewhere. And your on miserbale turf with the 'western governments' line as well - governments the world over are killing on a massive scale.

Tragic case of internet bigboi-ness really.


----------



## Hanoipete (Jun 27, 2006)

You're always right after a nose up.

Anyway, apart from you being a wad its nice to know Class War arent anarchsits anymore. You should keep that Attica bloke as your glorious leader he seems to fit the bonkers aspect of the tiny group.

Lifestyle anarchists can just fuck off into their burnt out version of Homes And Gardens. No doubt wearing black with some tattoos and `crazy` piercings.

Chomsky is right. Bookchin is right.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 27, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I have an issue with any religion that stops people thinking,



I have a bit of an "issue" with you using the word "religion" in this context.

salaam.
Aldebaran....








Thinking....












Or maybe I only imagine I'm thinking....





Life is illusion anyway.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 27, 2006)

And still not a single link to your Afghan Man story!! 

Amazing. Given the sensitive nature of race in London and especially given the man's religion and nationality I'd have thought to see somewhat more of this reported...unless you're making it up of course...

Mr Save the world from my bedroom...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 27, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> I have a bit of an "issue" with you using the word "religion" in this context.
> 
> salaam.
> Aldebaran....
> ...



If I though that was a good play on words I'd probably be laughing...

If you weren't faithful you'd know exactly what I mean. But you are so you don't/


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 27, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> If I though that was a good play on words I'd probably be laughing...



Nobody said you are not allowed to (yet it is not a "play of words" but merely a result of logical reasoning.)



> If you weren't faithful you'd know exactly what I mean. But you are so you don't/



Being able to reason is not linked to or intertwined with yes or no believing God exists. Hence everyone able to reason can see what you mean: you blame "religions" for the reactions of people on or to the religions. 
Since you claim to be able to think (since from your point of view being non-religious makes that a person's inherent treat) you should be able to see your own misrepresentation of truth = not the religion is responsible, but the people, when they start to worship (what they see in) the religion, instead of worshipping God. 

salaam.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 27, 2006)

I see the subtle difference, but from the perspective of an atheist even belief in a God can stop you thinking...

Gis a coupla days and we'll have a better discussion on another thread on this...


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 27, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Being able to reason is not linked to or intertwined with yes or no believing God exists. Hence everyone able to reason can see what you mean


But your faith can make you less willing to reason about certain unpalatable facts.  That's what faith's for in the first place.


----------



## BAKU9 (Jun 27, 2006)

Attica said:
			
		

> You are starting to irritate me shithead. FFS, your politics and principles look as non existent as your belief in a diverse movement - one that is, after all, necessary for political progress...



There you are with your pompous crap again Attica, you have me a quiverin' in ma mocassins. Now go stir your baked beans they're burning.


----------



## refugee (Jun 27, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> But your faith can make you less willing to reason about certain unpalatable facts.  That's what faith's for in the first place.


And the faith doesn't have to be attached to a religion. Any particular line on class war will do.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 27, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> But your faith can make you less willing to reason about certain unpalatable facts.  That's what faith's for in the first place.



No, it is not and it does not.




			
				refugee said:
			
		

> And the faith doesn't have to be attached to a religion. Any particular line on class war will do.



Any belief in no matter what will do.

salaam.


----------



## The Black Hand (Jun 28, 2006)

BAKU9 said:
			
		

> There you are with your pompous crap again Attica, you have me a quiverin' in ma mocassins. Now go stir your baked beans they're burning.



There you are with your fucking bullshit again etc.... Wanker


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 28, 2006)

refugee said:
			
		

> And the faith doesn't have to be attached to a religion. Any particular line on class war will do.


Perhaps, but I don't claim to have an unshakable faith in a "particular line on class war" nor to I identify myself by a title which refers to my total submission to such an idea.

Your point?


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 28, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> No, it is not and it does not.


Faith bridges the gap between what is evidently true and the tenents of your religion, simple matter of fact.

Jesus, at least the pre-modern religionists admitted it.


----------



## refugee (Jun 28, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Your point?


Faith bridges the gap between what is evidently true and the tenents of your politics, simple matter of fact.


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 28, 2006)

refugee said:
			
		

> Faith bridges the gap between what is evidently true and the tenents of your politics, simple matter of fact.


Do you have the first clue about my politics?

I'm not saying that I'm perfectly rational or objective, nobody can claim that, but exto lling* the virtues of faith, which is irrational by definition, is a bit fucked, IMO.

*Oh for Christs sake


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 29, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Faith bridges the gap between what is evidently true and the tenents of your religion, simple matter of fact.



What do you mean with "evidently" and "true"?

Evidenlty you believe in "something" and evidently you have faith in your belief.  
Evidently, you have also no clue about what I believe.




> Jesus, at least the pre-modern religionists admitted it.



?

By the way: If you don't follow a religion then why do you use "Jesus" in an attempt to "underscore" something (what you want to underscore is a mystery to me), like Christians often do?

salaam.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 29, 2006)

Well Xtians probably wouldn't use 'Jesus' in that context since it would be blasphemous - same goes for OMG and similar calls to the Lord. And it's usually used as a sign of frustration with someone...It's also a really trite point to make to anyone bought up in a judeo-Xtian culture that has state Churches and schools where you learn about it...it's a habit that takes a while to break, and TBH it sounds better than 'Gosh darn it' 



> What do you mean with "evidently" and "true"?



Without getting too arsey about it...

Evidently true - the world is here and I would hope we both agree with that 
Your Faith is - God made it so.
Mine is - not so much a faith more a general idea that on balance it might have been caused by a collection of gases, water and particles accreting together to form a star and the remaining stuff glomming* together to form the planets, asteroid belt and so on and so forth (OK, not exactly hard science but I assume you're familiar with the basic idea). This collection of material maybe came into being between 10 and 12 billion years ago when a single point of the quantum realm super-expanded in something termed the Big Bang. Or it could have been conjured into existance by some transdimensional being that people mistake for a deity or something entirely different (see Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy for more ideas)

Or something...


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 29, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> What do you mean with "evidently" and "true"?
> 
> Evidenlty you believe in "something" and evidently you have faith in your belief.
> Evidently, you have also no clue about what I believe.


I believe in what I can see and touch and measure and understand rationally, i.e. what is evidently true, that's not faith, it's sanity 



> ?
> 
> By the way: If you don't follow a religion then why do you use "Jesus" in an attempt to "underscore" something (what you want to underscore is a mystery to me), like Christians often do?


Like k_s says, a Christian would be unlikely to do that.  Besides which, it's a cultural thing.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 29, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Well Xtians probably wouldn't use 'Jesus' in that context since it would be blasphemous



I don't think it would be seen as blasphemous. We use "Allah" all the time 



> Evidently true - the world is here and I would hope we both agree with that



We could have a philosophical debate on that one. 



> Your Faith is - God made it so.



Yes and I never saw evidence of the opposite.
The "general ideas" you describe do not exclude the existence of God in any way.

Personally, from the theories known up to now and the little I read about them, I would be inclined to support the "Big Bang" idea, yet with the remark that what we "experience" now as forming what is described as the "universe" is not the first of its kind and hence most probably also not the last one (comes down to the principle of the perpetuum mobile).

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 29, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> I believe in what I can see and touch and measure and understand rationally, i.e. what is evidently true, that's not faith, it's sanity



It is merely having faith in your perception of what you see,  touch and measure with your human understanding of things. 



> Besides which, it's a cultural thing.



In my experience it is also an "English language" thing. 

salaam.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 29, 2006)

> Yes and I never saw evidence of the opposite.
> The "general ideas" you describe do not exclude the existence of God in any way.



No, but neither do they require one. For me it's enough to look at say, a tree and all the incredible biological processes contained within it and say 'Wow, that's an amazing piece of biology' without having to add on 'And God made it that way'. I just don't 'get' the need to fit God into the universe - it's magical enough without having to bring a deity into the equation. (It's also how I discovered how to be a 'spiritual' (I hate that word) atheist by being able to see the both the wonderous and the mundane - e.g. being in love is ultiamtely just a bunch of chemicals going off in your brain and body to make you want to stick with a mate long enough to breed and raise the young BUT that mundanity doesn't stop it being a magical state of affairs...IYSWIM...anyway)

I am intrigued by you last comment tho - I don't think I've ever come across someone with faith who even contemplates prior/post 'our' universe!!

Just out of interest, do you take the (broad)view that any and all things in nature and the universe are there to be found by humans or that there are limits on how far we push our knowledge (e.g. biotech, cloning, nanotech, AI)

OOO...yeah...were such a thing to exist would you consider an AI a sentient being with rights?


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 29, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> It is merely having faith in your perception of what you see,  touch and measure with your human understanding of things.


Pointless word play.  I'm a pragmatist, if I can't trust my senses, what can I trust?  What's the point of going through life assuming that the things that are so obviously real aren't?



> In my experience it is also an "English language" thing.


Not that language has anything to do with culture


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 29, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I just don't 'get' the need to fit God into the universe - it's magical enough without having to bring a deity into the equation.



God does not fit into the universe. God is beyond that.



> I am intrigued by you last comment tho - I don't think I've ever come across someone with faith who even contemplates prior/post 'our' universe!!



I find that a bit hard to believe. It is simple logical reasoning.



> Just out of interest, do you take the (broad)view that any and all things in nature and the universe are there to be found by humans or that there are limits on how far we push our knowledge



Do yo speak of "our" lifetime or do you speak of a few tens of thousands of years or much longer? (supposing the  human race survives its own lunacy, that is) .

AI, I gues you mean "artificial" intelligence"? 
How can something "artificial" ever be considered a "being" conforming the current ideas expressed by that word?

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 29, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Pointless word play.



I read this as: "I have no answer"



> Not that language has anything to do with culture



So for you only countries with this language have a Christian heritage in their cultural background?
My mother ddn't have English as one of her languages at all. She was Catholic. She never used the word "Jesus" like those using this language do. Nobody of her family does, nobody in her country does. 
I don't hear it used by people (Christians or non Christians) speaking other languages living in other countries.
So in my experience it is indeed a language related use of the word.

salaam.


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 29, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> I read this as: "I have no answer"


Except for this bit?


> I'm a pragmatist, if I can't trust my senses, what can I trust? What's the point of going through life assuming that the things that are so obviously real aren't?


Referring to accepting the evidence of one's own senses as "faith" robs the word of all meaning.



> So for you only countries with this language have a Christian heritage in their cultural background?
> My mother ddn't have English as one of her languages at all. She was Catholic. She never used the word "Jesus" like those using this language do. Nobody of her family does, nobody in her country does.
> I don't hear it used by people (Christians or non Christians) speaking other languages living in other countries.
> So in my experience it is indeed a language related use of the word.


Language is a part of culture, the two can't be separated out.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 29, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Except for this bit?



That is not an answer. It is a defence for the previous sentence.



> Referring to accepting the evidence of one's own senses as "faith" robs the word of all meaning.



Not at all. It only clears up the situation. You need to have faith in your senses or otherwise you have nothing left to believe in.



> Language is a part of culture, the two can't be separated out.



Read the word "also" in my post.

salaam.


----------



## In Bloom (Jun 29, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> That is not an answer. It is a defence for the previous sentence.


The sentence you were attacking, you mean?



> Not at all. It only clears up the situation. You need to have faith in your senses or otherwise you have nothing left to believe in.


Faith and belief are not synonymous.  They mean different things.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 29, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> The sentence you were attacking, you mean?



I mean: "Pointless word play". 
You clearly believe that is an "answer" and then you start defending it. 



> Faith and belief are not synonymous.  They mean different things.



Can you explain that in detail for the English illiterate?

salaam.


----------



## Xipe Totec (Jun 29, 2006)

darren redparty said:
			
		

> Thus we are proud to be Islamophobic, just as we are proud to be ‘Christianophic’, ‘Judeophobic’, *‘Hindoophobic’, ‘Buddhaphobic’*, and whatever other mumbo- jumbo bullshit that the black crows of the Priestocracy try to foist upon us.


Whats the problem with these guys?


----------



## JHE (Jun 30, 2006)

Xipe Totec said:
			
		

> Whats the problem with these guys?


Class War are irreligious.  It shouldn't be allowed.  Under a properly pius regime, their life expectancy would be short.  They'd be put to death in the name of Allah.

Irreligious and anti-clerical views used to be the norm among anarcho-wotsits.  Nowadays, some remain as anti-religious as ever - but, judging by posts from self-styled anarchists on this site, many more have converted to Islamophilia.  The latter are rather like vegetarians who enthuse about a really efficient slaughter house.  Come to think about it, they're also rather like sheep promoting a slaughter house.  (If they're more like the veggies than the sheep, that's only because they live in places that are not currently under full Mozzy domination.)


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 30, 2006)

JHE, do you cultivate and cherish - purely accidentally - some mild hate for  Islam, somewhere in the back of you mind? 

salaam.


----------



## JHE (Jun 30, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> JHE, do you cultivate and cherish - purely accidentally - some mild hate for  Islam somewhere in the back of you mind?
> 
> salama.


I'm not at all fond of it.

Salami to you too, mate.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 30, 2006)

You do know there are lots of types of salamis, do you? 

What you wrote I can translate in Arabic as "my peace" or peace-like etc.. (depending of how I want to spell/interprete the ending "i") 

I suppose that is what you meant of course. 

By the way: You mustn't "quote" my posts that quickly. Most of the time I try to re-read and correct my twinbrother Dyslex (if I notice his interferences, that is). 

salaam.


----------



## Xipe Totec (Jun 30, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Class War are irreligious.  It shouldn't be allowed.  Under a properly pius regime, their life expectancy would be short.  They'd be put to death in the name of Allah.
> 
> Irreligious and anti-clerical views used to be the norm among anarcho-wotsits.  Nowadays, some remain as anti-religious as ever - but, judging by posts from self-styled anarchists on this site, many more have converted to Islamophilia.  The latter are rather like vegetarians who enthuse about a really efficient slaughter house.  Come to think about it, they're also rather like sheep promoting a slaughter house.  (If they're more like the veggies than the sheep, that's only because they live in places that are not currently under full Mozzy domination.)


I was wondering whether the same criticisms of organised religion could be levelled at the non-Abrahamic religions.

That is to say: does Bhuddism cause/permit the same sort of effects as Christianity, for example. And in general, not from a Class War perspective.
Sorry for not clearing that up.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 30, 2006)

They don't even know that Buddhism is not a religion. 

salaam.


----------



## Xipe Totec (Jun 30, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> They don't even know that Buddhism is not a religion.
> 
> salaam.


Indeed.

For example Taoism instructs its followers to questions its core beliefs, making it more like a philosophy than what we'd call a religion.

All religions are not created equal, and I'm interested in knowing where things like Bhuddism come in the spectrum.


----------



## JHE (Jun 30, 2006)

Xipe Totec said:
			
		

> I was wondering whether the same criticisms of organised religion could be levelled at the non-Abrahamic religions.
> 
> That is to say: does Buddhism cause/permit the same sort of effects as Christianity, for example. And in general, not from a Class War perspective.
> Sorry for not clearing that up.


There are two religions that stand out as vicious and victorious in their expansionism:  Islam & Christianity.  Christianity learned to fight wars of expansion from its assailant, Islam.  Its conquests emerged from its reconquests - i.e., from its fight-back against Islam.  (Is it mere co-incidence that the conquests of the Americas began the very year, 1492, that the reconquest of Iberia was completed?)  Arguably, it then excelled its teacher.

Other religions, not least Buddhism, have also been ideological tools of subjugation.  In most respects, they are no better.  Christianity and Islam have just been more more determined to conquer unbelievers.

If you are particularly interested in the horrors of Buddhism, a few Googles should put you onto things worth reading.


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2006)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> They don't even know that Buddhism is not a religion.
> 
> salaam.


 Its a rare point to be joining this debate, but i'puzzled by that. 

Don't scarper Aldebran - stay a while


----------



## JHE (Jun 30, 2006)

4thwrite said:
			
		

> Its a rare point to be joining this debate, but i'puzzled by that.
> 
> Don't scarper Aldebran - stay a while


I bet you he means that, since Buddhists don't believe it God, it doesn't count.


----------



## Xipe Totec (Jun 30, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Other religions, not least Buddhism, have also been ideological tools of subjugation.  In most respects, they are no better.  Christianity and Islam have just been more more determined to conquer unbelievers.
> 
> If you are particularly interested in the horrors of Buddhism, a few Googles should put you onto things worth reading.


Of course.
I intend to look into other religions over the summer.

Just testing the water at the moment (its frothy and uncomforably hot).


Cheers for the info!


----------



## Wilf (Jun 30, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> I bet you he means that, since Buddhists don't believe it God, it doesn't count.



At the moment, i'm not sure what i mean (many beers, circa 12.55)


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 30, 2006)

> AI, I gues you mean "artificial" intelligence"?
> How can something "artificial" ever be considered a "being" conforming the current ideas expressed by that word?



That it would have the same (most likely enhanced) cognitive processes as a human, have emotional states and be able to learn and make conidered moral choices - basically a consciousness that can do all the things a human mind can do but that is a machine.


----------



## Tom A (Jun 30, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Other religions, not least Buddhism, have also been ideological tools of subjugation.  In most respects, they are no better.  Christianity and Islam have just been more more determined to conquer unbelievers.
> 
> If you are particularly interested in the horrors of Buddhism, a few Googles should put you onto things worth reading.


I somewhat naively used to find difficultly noting any horrific incidents which had been comitted by people purporting to be Buddhists (in comparison with Xtianity, Islam, Hinduism etc). Until a few years ago, when I heard about the discrimination against ethnic Nepalis in Bhutan (where Buddhism is the sole religion allowed), the attacks against Tamils in Sri Lanka, and the system of slavery imposted by the monk-aristocrat system in pre-invaison Tibet.

However, I refuse to become one of these people who calls for the abolition of all religious belefits so we can all live an atheistic paradise. People are *still* entitled to freedom of personal beliefs IMO, and there are many people who follow a faith who do a lot of good stuff in society, for example the Christian peacemaker activists, Islamic Relief who were among the first to respond to the earthquake in Pakistan and India about a year ago. Also, pretty much all religions generally tend to support peace co-existance among human beings, and IMO a lot of horrors that are commited in the name of religion are done by groups or individuals who bastardise the faith to suit their own ends.

Not that this will mean anything to the "all religions are evil so hence all religious people must be evil" camp.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jun 30, 2006)

Like anything else, as long as religion is practiced in a way that causes no harm to others there's nothing wrong with it - I also don't believe that you'll ever entirely get rid of it anyway since for some/many the need to believe in something 'more' than say, the class struggle, will still be there when capitalism is gone...


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 30, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> I bet you he means that, since Buddhists don't believe it God, it doesn't count.



You should not be betting so lightly, I've seen people ruining themselves with that. 

I mean that Buddhist do not worship the Buddha, nor do they worship God. I also mean that although for me the Buddha was a prophet of God, Buddhists do not see him that way.

Hint: when you start talking about history, you really sound like someone who never read a serious work about it. Maybe you should visit an academic library first, talk then ?

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 30, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> That it would have the same (most likely enhanced) cognitive processes as a human, have emotional states and be able to learn and make conidered moral choices - basically a consciousness that can do all the things a human mind can do but that is a machine.



It is an interesting and intriguing idea to play with, but as far as I'm concerned - at the moment - a man-made machine can't be considered a "living being".

salaam.


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jul 5, 2006)

JHE said:
			
		

> Class War are irreligious.


With impetous coming from the religious right, that wouldn't rank as among the best of appraisals of the current situation.


> It shouldn't be allowed.


Advocate more censorship then?


> Under a properly pius regime, their life expectancy would be short.


Nopt sure if you thought you'd be pulled up on this one, but I'm, gonna. Care to elucidate?


> They'd be put to death in the name of Allah.


Your imagination is quite something.


> Irreligious and anti-clerical views used to be the norm among anarcho-wotsits.  Nowadays, some remain as anti-religious as ever - but, judging by posts from self-styled anarchists on this site, many more have converted to Islamophilia.


 If I might be so bold as to explain to you. Aanarchists ought to have nothing against BELIEF or RELIGION. One can only determine one's own course with any authority.  


> the latter are rather like vegetarians who enthuse about a really efficient slaughter house.


And we do know so many people like that, don't we


> Come to think about it, they're also rather like sheep promoting a slaughter house.


Interesting analogy, but inappropriate.


> (If they're more like the veggies than the sheep, that's only because they live in places that are not currently under full Mozzy domination.)


You have some superiority complex you haven't worked through yet, but you're young, so maybe there's hope yet


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 5, 2006)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> Aanarchists ought to have nothing against BELIEF or RELIGION.


This sort of radical liberal nonsense makes me want to weep, it really does.

Durrutti would be spinning in his grave if the idea of continuing to move after being dead so long wasn't anti-materialist


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jul 5, 2006)

*Forty Years Later*




			
				In Bloom said:
			
		

> This sort of radical liberal nonsense makes me want to weep, it really does.
> 
> Durrutti would be spinning in his grave if the idea of continuing to move after being dead so long wasn't anti-materialist


Awww, you forgot to quote him!

I'm impressed you think you can know Durruti well enough to deduce that he would 'spin in his grave', especially after he seems such a spiritually minded fella...




			
				Durruti said:
			
		

> It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute."



"radical liberal nonsense" - do you _honestly_ believe that Durruti would have used that phrase?  He used terms such as "Bourgeoisie" "Republican" "Fascism" and 'inherit the earth' is a NT/Christian phrase linked to the deliverance of 'the Beatitudes'.

Do you count yourself as a 'Friend of Durruti' Towards a Fresh Revolution, The Friends of Durruti (1938, 1978)


----------



## revol68 (Jul 5, 2006)

well doesn't our friend Luther Blisset talk some shite.

I imagine Durruti was pretty anti religious, I mean the outbreak of revolution saw Church Burnings that would make a misanthropic Norwegian teenager blush.

Durruti and the other Spanish Anarchist's were "spiritual" in that they held a deep humanist belief in the potentiallity of the working class and a new society. They wanted heaven on earth, they had no time for religous clap trap and enjoyed executing priests.


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 5, 2006)

revol68 said:
			
		

> well doesn't our friend Luther Blisset talk some shite.
> 
> I imagine Durruti was pretty anti religious, I mean the outbreak of revolution saw Church Burnings that would make a misanthropic Norwegian teenager blush.
> 
> Durruti and the other Spanish Anarchist's were "spiritual" in that they held a deep humanist belief in the potentiallity of the working class and a new society. They wanted heaven on earth, they had no time for religous clap trap and enjoyed executing priests.


Well, quite.  It amazes me how clueless some people involved in the anarchist "movement" are sometimes.


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 5, 2006)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> and 'inherit the earth' is a NT/Christian phrase linked to the deliverance of 'the Beatitudes'.


Are you seriously suggesting that Buenaventura Durriti was sympathetic to Christianity?

I just want to be absolutely sure, before I lose all faith in humanity.


----------



## soulman (Jul 5, 2006)

In Bloom said:
			
		

> Are you seriously suggesting that Buenaventura Durriti was sympathetic to Christianity?
> 
> I just want to be absolutely sure, before I lose all faith in humanity.



If he is he's wrong IMO. Durruti experienced the dangers of organised religion first hand. Not just the catholic church but the communist party too. I think the Durruti's call to arms is spiritual but not religious. It's an honest and open call to all people who want something better for us all. It's a shame it's being used to justify organised religion and religious type fervour. Shame on you LB!


----------



## kyser_soze (Jul 6, 2006)

I'm utterly at a loss as to HOW LB could have got that Durruti was offering cuccour to Xtianity with that quote - while it uses a Xtian allegory (inherit the earth), the meaning is clearer than glass that's just been cleaned by the best window cleaner in the world - instead of having to wait for some nebulous, non-existing afterlife The Workers will build their own paradise right here and right now. Damn inspiring stuff about rebuilding and all that too.

Xtian...sheesh...


----------



## Luther Blissett (Jul 6, 2006)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I'm utterly at a loss as to HOW LB could have got that Durruti was offering cuccour to Xtianity with that quote


I didn't suggest "that Durruti was offering succcour to Xtianity with that quote". In Bloom offered what he thought I meant, based on my mentioning of Durruti's use of Christian 'socialist' rhetoric. You were asking about 'shibboleth' earlier, were you not?

In Bloom took my statement out of it's original setting. Add the following and final statement of opinion, and my own stance becomes a little clearer: _"One can only determine one's own course with any authority."_ (My emphasis, my opinion). 



> while it uses a Xtian allegory (inherit the earth), the meaning is clearer than glass that's just been cleaned by the best window cleaner in the world - instead of having to wait for some nebulous, non-existing afterlife The Workers will build their own paradise right here and right now. Damn inspiring stuff about rebuilding and all that too.


Damned inspiring social stuff from the Christian camp. You'll note I didn't offer a value judgement at the time. I personally don't have ANY objection to faith, religion, as long as I'm not forced to adhere to it. I prefer to enter into in-depth discussions about said subjects, on an ad hoc basis. 

I find the promises of a future utopia/distopia fascinating, yet Durruti, for all his rousing words, used the way of violence to achieve his support for a workers' utopia and was crushed violently in the process. Visions of Utopia don't work as well as Visions of Nightmarish Futures - Christian Apocalypticism is good for business.


> Xtian...sheesh...


The Beatitudes are from the New Testament/Christian Doctrine, yes? Always preferred the Desiderata, myself.  It was the only part of Christianity I was introduced to during my state education that "rang true". Durruti chose a Christian 'Socialist' phrase to convey his future vision. Since I wasn't there, I deduced that Durruti's audience would have been from a christian background, hence the choice of revolutionary praxis was relevant to Durruti's semantic field. 

Durruti's violent uprising quickly turned bloody, and was crushed. I was sure I was wondering next how it came to be that the Friends of Durruti made this statement about why Durruti failed to bring about his Utopia. Take on slum landlords rather than take up arms against them and be crushed by the state. Anyone who makes a martyr of the worker in his attempt to 'improve their lot' is just doing the state's work for them.


----------



## soulman (Jul 8, 2006)

As LB has now abandoned Durruti for being too violent here's Durruti's call again - 



> "It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities here in Spain and in America and everywhere. We, the workers, can build others to take their place. And better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth; there is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves the stage of history. We carry a new world here, in our hearts. That world is growing this minute."


----------



## In Bloom (Jul 8, 2006)

Luther Blissett said:
			
		

> _"One can only determine one's own course with any authority."_


You could say that about any action, it is completely meaningless.



> Since I wasn't there, I deduced that Durruti's audience would have been from a christian background, hence the choice of revolutionary praxis was relevant to Durruti's semantic field.


Yeah, I'm sure Durruti was deliberately trying to evoke Christian imagery in order to draw people towards his *STRONGLY ANTI-CLERICAL MOVEMENT THAT WAS WAGING WAR AGAINST AN ENEMY BACKED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH*.

Considering that Durrutti was a native Spanish speaker, it is somewhat unlikely that he deliberately chose to use a phrase that translates into modern English as a similar phrase to one used in the Bible, once, talk about Anglocentrism, fucking hell


----------



## 118118 (Jul 8, 2006)

JoePolitix said:
			
		

> But what about racist attacks against Muslims made under the pretence of criticising religion? Isn't the fact that Islamophobia has become one of the main tools of the racist right a good reason to counter it?


Thats just collapsing two things into each other, because you can only think it nice easy big terms. What are you saying, that CW is so redundent that all it achieves now is propping up s racist right. If they are any use, then perhaps they could only be so with condemning religion.

You can still show someone solidarity and insist that they must wear different clothes (Not "We will not continue to be your friend unless you stop wearing banadanas", but "We will continue to be your friend, but we will always oppose you wearing bandanas, to the point of setting fire to all your bandanas if we get the oppurtunity"). Bandanas.

Man, that sounds irrelevent.


----------

