• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

They hate us

code1211 said:
Your edit of the quote changes the thrust of it entirely:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Karl Marx: Is Religion the Opiate of the Masses?
Click to expand...
That is because you are trying to change the meaning by arguing apples against oranges when they are different subjects.

That religion acts like an opiate to the people is a fact, and it is not an insult.

It is being falsely presented as an insult when it is not.

The quote you give above in red is a different subject, in that organized religions are an orchestrated way of controlling the people.

It has a different point, in that religion by the people is a comfort, while religion by organization has been an abuser.

Marx was correct in the 19th century and he is still accurate today.
 
Fearandloathing said:
Ah, PEW Research must have access to people in Canada I have never encountered, but there is no way in heel the US has a 72% approval rating. It would likely be among the highest, we have lived as friends through some pretty incredible asshole presidents and stayed friends, but not 72%. The ONLY way it could be is if it were asked in a fashion that seemed to be about the American people, whom we love and the the American government, whom, we loath, it is in our DNA.

The last poll I heard about was much lower and, in fact, was noted as saying the traditional approval rating for the US was in steep decline and foreign policy was the reason.
Click to expand...

Your anecdotal evidence isn't evidence at all actually, do you have any comments toward their actual methodology?
 
Fearandloathing said:
That is the very point I thought I made. I have indeed met Palestinians who have immigrated here, and they don't hate Americans or even America. I have met a few Afghani's and many Lebanese, who are now Canadian and they don't hate Americans. I doubt you could use a word like hate to describe their feelings toward US foreign policy...

Where I feel or sense hate, is in that generated by Americans toward their "enemies". In this forum, this morning, I responded to a post calling for nuclear warfare in Iraq. That's hate! The idea of incinerating the same sized population as Canada without hesitation is the kind of **** that will draw a lot of anger and fear, like letting a mass murder lose in a playground and it is worthy of hate....and will draw it certainly, on himself, not the nation that refuses to lock his ass up.

Why do people around the world fear and mistrust America? Let's start with how the US violated a treaty with Canada that destroyed our softwood lumber industry..10,000 jobs lost overnight. Maybe ask some Vietnamese, the ones who were left behind when the US promised them they would be supported. Or the Iraqi's who are now being overrun by madmen. Ask the University of British Columbia professor from Chile whose family had to escape [and was lucky to do so] when the US wanted Pinochet in power through another 911 incident, the 1973 overthrow of duly elected Salvador Allende. She by the way teaches International Studies now and has a course "Blood Soaked American Foreign Policy"

maybe ask the friends and relatives of Mahar Arar, a Canadian who was wrongly identified by the US and on thier order imprisoned and tortured in Syria.

And yes, it does seem universal. And while I point out that US relations are ebbing here right now, Canada has always been there for her neighbor as individuals and as a nation. As the jest came in when your air space was closed, I heard no one say "let them sleep on the floor", our homes were opened on both ends of the continent. Canadian boots were the first foreign aid workers to hit the ground on 911, seven hours after the first attack and are always en route as soon as there's a call about a brush fire.

There's no hate in any of that. There is objection and fear and wonder about when and if Americans are ever going to stop being afraid of everything, commies, terrorists and their own neighbors. Maybe if you hang up the six guns the world will ease up a bit.
Click to expand...

You did make that point and I thought it was time that I put my cards on the table about where I stand on America. Sorry If it came across differently. Many people here might think I hate Americans , I don't ,that was my distinction I hate the foreign policies and the corporate interested elites that drive it and the world suffering it causes. My motto is and always has been good and bad in all.

I agree with the rest of your post and I think along similar lines for what it's worth.
 
code1211 said:
You can try to make water stand on a hill top, but it will normally run to the valley. That's what water does.

What people do is compete. It is the way people are, it's genetic.

The only way to have everybody equal is to limit the the achievement of those with greater gifts. Capitalism allows for the advance of the gifted.

In a WELL REGULATED society, the gifted will advance and drag the rest of us along with them.

In an overly regulated society, like those dictated by the oppressive reality of real communism, the gifted are either quashed or so controlled as to be average.

The challenge to people in any society is to allow the gifted to achieve and not allow the average guys or the challenged to suffer as a result of the success of the gifted.

In communism, a small spring is discovered and the whole population divides the meager resource.

In capitalism, great fountains are created by the visionaries and the whole population worries about controlling the excess water rather than who gets their fair share of diminishing droplets.
Click to expand...

I don't think people are just self centred selfish individuals. If that were the case we would have no need for words such as charity , aid , compassion , empathy etc etc
 
oneworld2 said:
You did make that point and I thought it was time that I put my cards on the table about where I stand on America. Sorry If it came across differently. Many people here might think I hate Americans , I don't ,that was my distinction I hate the foreign policies and the corporate interested elites that drive it and the world suffering it causes. My motto is and always has been good and bad in all.

I agree with the rest of your post and I think along similar lines for what it's worth.
Click to expand...



It is a huge mistake to think in terms of Americans being hated abroad. In my travels Americans are very well received everywhere, in Nicaragua they still recall how US Air Force C-130's landed on a debris filled broken runway to bring medical aid in the early aftermath of the earthquake.

The term "Ugly American" coined in a book about American foreign policy in Vietnam as not about an American at all, but the policies enacted that cause hardship and ruin. I have friends here, a family of nine refugees who escaped Allende's Chile, libeled as enemies because of their religious beliefs, protestant. They fear American foregn policy, hate what's happening now but have no ill will toward individuals
 
Fearandloathing said:
It is a huge mistake to think in terms of Americans being hated abroad. In my travels Americans are very well received everywhere, in Nicaragua they still recall how US Air Force C-130's landed on a debris filled broken runway to bring medical aid in the early aftermath of the earthquake.

The term "Ugly American" coined in a book about American foreign policy in Vietnam as not about an American at all, but the policies enacted that cause hardship and ruin. I have friends here, a family of nine refugees who escaped Allende's Chile, libeled as enemies because of their religious beliefs, protestant. They fear American foregn policy, hate what's happening now but have no ill will toward individuals
Click to expand...

We agree on the distinction you mentioned earlier, so at least we're clear on that.

The two countries you cited , however , are glaring examples of what we are talking about regarding US foreign policies. But I'm sure you know that anyway , so no need for me to elaborate further
 
JP Cusick said:
That is because you are trying to change the meaning by arguing apples against oranges when they are different subjects.

That religion acts like an opiate to the people is a fact, and it is not an insult.

It is being falsely presented as an insult when it is not.

The quote you give above in red is a different subject, in that organized religions are an orchestrated way of controlling the people.

It has a different point, in that religion by the people is a comfort, while religion by organization has been an abuser.

Marx was correct in the 19th century and he is still accurate today.
Click to expand...



It is what Marx said and what marx said is what we are talking bout.

You can choose to ignore what he said. There is no objection to that.

you are saying that he said what he did not say. I do object to that. You edited the quote to change the meaning expressed by Marx.

You can express your own thoughts or you can express the thoughts of Marx. They are apparently not the same.

Why are you twisting the meanings of this important philosopher? I'm sure there is another philosopher that agrees with you.
 
oneworld2 said:
I don't think people are just self centred selfish individuals. If that were the case we would have no need for words such as charity , aid , compassion , empathy etc etc
Click to expand...



The Chinese have a saying that when the table is empty, there is one problem. When the table is full, there are many problems.

Working together as a society allows the table to be full and it is therefore a self centered goal to maintain society.

All of the qualities that you cite maintain society and provide bridges for those that need them to travel over the rough spots.

If there was no selfish justification for society, that is, if society was harmful to the individual in net, then societies would cease to exist.
 
Simon Feltser said:
"Big Atlas of the World"
American stand-up comedian, television presenter and writer Jay Leno once said: "There is a book with a complete list of countries which hate America. It's called: "Big Atlas of the world. "
Perhaps our government should be more attentive to these words?
Click to expand...

The top dog is always hated. Used to be the Brits, now it's us. I can live with it.
 
face said:
The majority of the world likes the U.S. and Obama actually.

Opinion of the United States (All) - Indicators Database | Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project
Confidence in the U.S. President (All) - Indicators Database | Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project
Click to expand...

The problem is that the European Left absolutely loathes the U.S. and everything it stands for. And unfortunately they - and their far left brethren in other parts of the world - still have an influence and impact far beyond their numbers. They've never actually forgiven us from saving them from Hitler and then consigning their great hope - the Soviet Union - to the dustbin of history.
 
JP Cusick said:
code1211 said:
Your edit of the quote changes the thrust of it entirely:

"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
Karl Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right

Karl Marx: Is Religion the Opiate of the Masses?
Click to expand...
That is because you are trying to change the meaning by arguing apples against oranges when they are different subjects.

That religion acts like an opiate to the people is a fact, and it is not an insult.

It is being falsely presented as an insult when it is not.

The quote you give above in red is a different subject, in that organized religions are an orchestrated way of controlling the people.

It has a different point, in that religion by the people is a comfort, while religion by organization has been an abuser.

Marx was correct in the 19th century and he is still accurate today.
Click to expand...
:attn1: See below:
code1211 said:
It is what Marx said and what marx said is what we are talking bout.

You can choose to ignore what he said. There is no objection to that.

you are saying that he said what he did not say. I do object to that. You edited the quote to change the meaning expressed by Marx.

You can express your own thoughts or you can express the thoughts of Marx. They are apparently not the same.

Why are you twisting the meanings of this important philosopher? I'm sure there is another philosopher that agrees with you.
Click to expand...
What I did and still doing is turning around the untrue propaganda and turning it around correctly where it belongs.

You are correct that I am changing the meaning as I am turning it around right where it belongs.

If I simply preach the hateful propaganda against Marx then I would be just as debased as others are.
===

The link and info you give are telling that Marx was in a dispute with Georg Hegel, and Hegel was a Protestant arguing for a religious based State or more specifically a Protestant Theocracy, which is why Marx cheered on religion as the opium of the people but religion as a State or an organization was not the way to proceed. If Marx had wanted to denounce God than Marx would have said "God" which is what Hegel did. Marx did not say that God was the opium nor did he say to abolish God, because the word "religion" has a much different meaning.

See here, said by Georg Hegel:
""The state is the march of God through the world" as well as being translated thus: "The existence of the state is the presence of God upon the earth". From these early translations came the criticism that Hegel justifies authoritarian or even totalitarian forms of government; Benedetto Croce, whose thought had a strong influence on Mussolini, bases his Hegelian revival on this point. However, Walter Kaufmann argues that the correct translation reads as follows: "It is the way of God in the world, that there should be a state".[1] This suggests that the state, rather than being godly, is part of the divine strategy, not a mere product of human endeavor." Wiki - Philosophy of Right.

Marx was a Jewish man who knew about God, and he had every reason to fear any talk of a new Christian State and that is what gets left out of Marx when the American propaganda tells the story.

The words are taken out of the context of a debate between Marx and Hegel, and American racist and bigoted propaganda twisted that around into a perverted claim.
 
Montecresto said:
Aunt Spiker said:
No - he's trying to speak for everyone as if we're all 'at fault' here.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. No we're not, and I hope that's not what he means.
Click to expand...
Of course that is what I meant and it is still what I mean.

All of us Americans share in the guilt and the crimes of our US government, and there is no true way for any American to claim innocence or not guilty of it all.

We can not say things like = "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" = and then try to claim that we "the people" are not guilty of what is done by our government.
 
JP Cusick said:
:attn1: See below:

What I did and still doing is turning around the untrue propaganda and turning it around correctly where it belongs.

You are correct that I am changing the meaning as I am turning it around right where it belongs.

If I simply preach the hateful propaganda against Marx then I would be just as debased as others are.
===

The link and info you give are telling that Marx was in a dispute with Georg Hegel, and Hegel was a Protestant arguing for a religious based State or more specifically a Protestant Theocracy, which is why Marx cheered on religion as the opium of the people but religion as a State or an organization was not the way to proceed. If Marx had wanted to denounce God than Marx would have said "God" which is what Hegel did. Marx did not say that God was the opium nor did he say to abolish God, because the word "religion" has a much different meaning.

See here, said by Georg Hegel:
""The state is the march of God through the world" as well as being translated thus: "The existence of the state is the presence of God upon the earth". From these early translations came the criticism that Hegel justifies authoritarian or even totalitarian forms of government; Benedetto Croce, whose thought had a strong influence on Mussolini, bases his Hegelian revival on this point. However, Walter Kaufmann argues that the correct translation reads as follows: "It is the way of God in the world, that there should be a state".[1] This suggests that the state, rather than being godly, is part of the divine strategy, not a mere product of human endeavor." Wiki - Philosophy of Right.

Marx was a Jewish man who knew about God, and he had every reason to fear any talk of a new Christian State and that is what gets left out of Marx when the American propaganda tells the story.

The words are taken out of the context of a debate between Marx and Hegel, and American racist and bigoted propaganda twisted that around into a perverted claim.
Click to expand...




You are adding meaning to my words where none was included. I pointed out that the edit of the words of Marx as you presented them changed the meaning of his statement. I did not assign good or bad, evil or virtue.

All I did was point out that the edit changed the meaning entirely.

He was clearly saying that religion was a comforter to those who held it. Why you seem opposed to accepting that this was his meaning eludes me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom