Political Crossfire Forums

[Kindred]

Quote: Nelson's 'clear off' comments go too far, Labor says

Labor has accused federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson of going "over the top" by suggesting that Muslims who do not support Australian values should clear off.

Dr Nelson made the comment ahead of meetings with Islamic schools about the teaching of Australian values.

Labor education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin agrees with the Federal Government's push to make school funding conditional on the teaching of Australian values.

But Ms Macklin has told ABC TV's Insiders program that Dr Nelson has gone too far.

"In suggesting that if people don't do particular things they just clear off - what Labor's about is not those over-the-top sort of statements," she said.

"What we put forward were practical ways in which we can make sure that young people learn to understand each other's beliefs and values."

So what is Nelsons archetypical example of 'australia values' which should be expressed to young muslims students for assimilative purposes? Simpson and his Donkey

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/simpson.htm



I find it somewhat strange that we are trying to assimilate young Muslims by teaching them about an Australia who was part of a planned invasion of a Muslim nation. I do personally appreciate and admire Simpson, who helped many fellow soldiers whilst being unarmed, however I don't think Nelson could have dreamed up a worse example for dissemination to young people of Muslim faith.

Furthermore Simpson was an ardent unionist, and would have been disgusted by Howard's attack on unionism and collective bargaining etc.

What are your thoughts on the topic?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Yey for Brendon Nelson - finally some common sense :clap:

[Eternal]

A.D wrote: Quote: Nelson's 'clear off' comments go too far, Labor says

Labor has accused federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson of going "over the top" by suggesting that Muslims who do not support Australian values should clear off.

Dr Nelson made the comment ahead of meetings with Islamic schools about the teaching of Australian values.

Labor education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin agrees with the Federal Government's push to make school funding conditional on the teaching of Australian values.

But Ms Macklin has told ABC TV's Insiders program that Dr Nelson has gone too far.

"In suggesting that if people don't do particular things they just clear off - what Labor's about is not those over-the-top sort of statements," she said.

"What we put forward were practical ways in which we can make sure that young people learn to understand each other's beliefs and values."

So what is Nelsons archetypical example of 'australia values' which should be expressed to young muslims students for assimilative purposes? Simpson and his Donkey

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/simpson.htm



I find it somewhat strange that we are trying to assimilate young Muslims by teaching them about an Australia who was part of a planned invasion of a Muslim nation. I do personally appreciate and admire Simpson, who helped many fellow soldiers whilst being unarmed, however I don't think Nelson could have dreamed up a worse example for dissemination to young people of Muslim faith.

Furthermore Simpson was an ardent unionist, and would have been disgusted by Howard's attack on unionism and collective bargaining etc.

What are your thoughts on the topic?

Brendon nelson is a tw*t pure and simple.

His comments were about implying no muslims in Australia share Australian values which is utter racist bollocks.


Cheers, Eternal

[Lord Hargreaves]

Eternal wrote:

His comments were about implying no muslims in Australia share Australian values which is utter racist bollocks.


Cheers, Eternal

If I am correct he said nothing of the sort - and if he did, I doubt thats what he meant. I understood it as those muslims who don't respect Australian values should leave - that those that do can stay.

And I suspect you knew full well what he meant, but just prefered to give the age old lefty "racist" chant to anyone who dares dissent.

[Eternal]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: If I am correct he said nothing of the sort - and if he did, I doubt thats what he meant. I understood it as those muslims who don't respect Australian values should leave - that those that do can stay.

And I suspect you knew full well what he meant, but just prefered to give the age old lefty "racist" chant to anyone who dares dissent.

Well not to pull rank, but the fact of the matter is that I live in Australia and as such are far more familiar with the antics of our beloved Federal Education minister than yourself. The fact of the matter is that Brendon Nelson is a wannabe who's trying to paint himself as leadership material by saying what he thinks the public and his party want to hear.

His comments were simply outright racism and were implying that Muslims, who incidently have lived in Australia for well over 100 years with barely a peep, held values that were incompatible with Australian values. It's a position and statement that was made very popular by One Nations Pauline Hanson, and like Pauline Hansons comments were about as factually based.


Cheers, Eternal

[Lord Hargreaves]

Granted, it was a populist statement intended for realpolitik - and I know jack about Australian politics.

But what I don't understand is that by rejecting Nelson's absolutism you are introducing your own, as if you are saying all Muslims in Australia respect Australian values. If this is not the case, then what is wrong with saying that those Muslims who do not respect Australian values should leave? And how is living in this silly PC world of pretending that Muslims are not more susceptible to anti-western values than other faiths helping anyone?

[Eternal]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Granted, it was a populist statement intended for realpolitik - and I know jack about Australian politics.

But what I don't understand is that by rejecting Nelson's absolutism you are introducing your own, as if you are saying all Muslims in Australia respect Australian values. If this is not the case, then what is wrong with saying that those Muslims who do not respect Australian values should leave? And how is living in this silly PC world of pretending that Muslims are not more susceptible to anti-western values than other faiths helping anyone?

Well first of all the statement about Muslims not wanting to abide by Australian standards, whatever that means, should leave implies that they're not originally from Australia in the first place. The fact of the matter is that many of Australia's Islamic community were born in Australia.

Secondly for those that weren't born in Australia and do have duel citizenship with their birth country, is it right for us to kick them back home to their country? Let's face it, if one of these radical clerics was a duel British citizen, would you want them back in your country?

The fact of the matter is that the whole idea of just kicking them out is not solving the problem, it's just giving it to someone else. I've always believed in taking responsibility for ones own problems, and if there are those in Australia who wish to incite violence - be it religious or ethnic related, then we must deal with it ourselves, and not simply hand it over to someone else.

Australia, like most western democracies, has freedom of speech. I find it interesting that when One Nations Pauline Hanson was sprouting her hatred and vitriole towards non-white Australians their was barely a peep out of Brendon Nelson and other conservatives in Australia. Suddenly, some minority whacko Islamic clerics who believe September 11 2001 was some kind of US/Jewish conspiracy and suddenly the conservatives are clamouring to take the moral high ground. What is even more ironic was that many in One Nation had sympathies towards the Nazi's and many of them were holocaust deniers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way suggesting that all Muslims are good and that the Islamic faith has no problems. Indeed I believe that the Islamic faith is in dire need of one big wake up call, something that one of the heads of the Australian Islamic community recently stated when he openly acknowledged that Muslims have to accept that it is Muslims who are committing the acts of terror. That is to say that it is not enough to simply say it is a minority, or brush it off with some conspiracy theory. They have to take charge of there faith if they want to progress it into the 21st century.

I might also add that being not the greatest fan of religion I believe that this is a messsage that all religions should heed. I find it ironic that everyone is expecting Muslims to apologise for terrorism committed in their name, yet groups like GodHatesFags.com can continue to sprout their hatred and not a single Christian challenges their doctrine. Whilst it may be true that GodHatesFags.com haven't committed any killings yet, how long do you think it's going to be before at least one of their members commits an act of violence.


Cheers, Eternal

[Lord Hargreaves]

Eternal wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Granted, it was a populist statement intended for realpolitik - and I know jack about Australian politics.

But what I don't understand is that by rejecting Nelson's absolutism you are introducing your own, as if you are saying all Muslims in Australia respect Australian values. If this is not the case, then what is wrong with saying that those Muslims who do not respect Australian values should leave? And how is living in this silly PC world of pretending that Muslims are not more susceptible to anti-western values than other faiths helping anyone?

Well first of all the statement about Muslims not wanting to abide by Australian standards, whatever that means, should leave implies that they're not originally from Australia in the first place. The fact of the matter is that many of Australia's Islamic community were born in Australia.

How is where they were born relevant? Just because you were born somewhere doesn't mean you respect that country's values, nor does the request that you "leave" imply that you have a place "to go back to"

Eternal wrote:
Secondly for those that weren't born in Australia and do have duel citizenship with their birth country, is it right for us to kick them back home to their country? Let's face it, if one of these radical clerics was a duel British citizen, would you want them back in your country?

Indeed, that is a reasonable exception. But I see no reason why countries that will take extremists shouldn't be asked to take them

Eternal wrote:
The fact of the matter is that the whole idea of just kicking them out is not solving the problem, it's just giving it to someone else. I've always believed in taking responsibility for ones own problems, and if there are those in Australia who wish to incite violence - be it religious or ethnic related, then we must deal with it ourselves, and not simply hand it over to someone else.

That is a good point. Although I would like to see how you would "deal with it" yourselves. Plus you cannot reasonably expect a nation to think in this globalist way all the time: if you won't accept the rules of club membership, you should leave the club - whether or not that person will become a member of another club should be of little concern.

Eternal wrote: Australia, like most western democracies, has freedom of speech. I find it interesting that when One Nations Pauline Hanson was sprouting her hatred and vitriole towards non-white Australians their was barely a peep out of Brendon Nelson and other conservatives in Australia. Suddenly, some minority whacko Islamic clerics who believe September 11 2001 was some kind of US/Jewish conspiracy and suddenly the conservatives are clamouring to take the moral high ground. What is even more ironic was that many in One Nation had sympathies towards the Nazi's and many of them were holocaust deniers.

But freedom of speech has limits. In Britain we have anti-racism laws including speech - these are restrictions on speech but you would be hard pressed to find many people who are against those laws. Similar with anti-terrorist laws.

And I can't speak on the conservative hypocrisy, but due to the nature of partisanship i'm willing to bet a conservative would view this hypocrisy slightly differently than you do :wink:

Eternal wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way suggesting that all Muslims are good and that the Islamic faith has no problems. Indeed I believe that the Islamic faith is in dire need of one big wake up call, something that one of the heads of the Australian Islamic community recently stated when he openly acknowledged that Muslims have to accept that it is Muslims who are committing the acts of terror. That is to say that it is not enough to simply say it is a minority, or brush it off with some conspiracy theory. They have to take charge of there faith if they want to progress it into the 21st century.

Agreed :tu:

Eternal wrote: I might also add that being not the greatest fan of religion I believe that this is a messsage that all religions should heed. I find it ironic that everyone is expecting Muslims to apologise for terrorism committed in their name, yet groups like GodHatesFags.com can continue to sprout their hatred and not a single Christian challenges their doctrine. Whilst it may be true that GodHatesFags.com haven't committed any killings yet, how long do you think it's going to be before at least one of their members commits an act of violence.

Firstly, religion literally helped build the world. There are so far interlinked that not being a "fan" of religion is literally ike not being a "fan" of society, a la Karl Marx.

Secondly, I don't even know who GodHatesFags.com are, and Islamic extremism, even if a mere 1% of the global 1 billion Muslim population (and its probably a lot higher), represents - if my maths serve me correctly - 1 million people ready for Jihad. We are talking such immensely different scales that comparing the two is so ingrained only in theory that it would make a wholly pointless debate

Eternal wrote: Cheers, Eternal

Cheers, Lord Hargreaves

[Eternal]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: How is where they were born relevant? Just because you were born somewhere doesn't mean you respect that country's values, nor does the request that you "leave" imply that you have a place "to go back to".

Why say that clearoff statement in regards to Muslims? Why not state it in regards to white collar criminals as well?

Eternal wrote:
Secondly for those that weren't born in Australia and do have duel citizenship with their birth country, is it right for us to kick them back home to their country? Let's face it, if one of these radical clerics was a duel British citizen, would you want them back in your country?

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Indeed, that is a reasonable exception. But I see no reason why countries that will take extremists shouldn't be asked to take them.

So rather than monitor potential extremists at home we send them abroad where we loose all contact with them? Sounds great, just hope they don’t launch another attack on the USA, Brittain, Spain or Bali – that would be embaressing.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: That is a good point. Although I would like to see how you would "deal with it" yourselves. Plus you cannot reasonably expect a nation to think in this globalist way all the time: if you won't accept the rules of club membership, you should leave the club - whether or not that person will become a member of another club should be of little concern.

What we need is calm rational minds, and whilst I’m no fan of our government (or the opposition for that matter), the decision by the government to call a round table discussion with Australia’s Islamic leaders is the right way to go. Before any plan can be set in progress, we must first determine what the potential problems are. That is of course, if there are actually any problems. The governments’ decision, as opposed to Brendon Nelson’s statements, was to choose inclusive discussion over rhetoric. An approach I fully believe in the long term is beneficial not just to Australia, but the world as a whole.

Incidently, Brendon Nelsons statements were also not warmly received by his cabinet members either. As I stated before, there are certain political machinations occuring behind the scenes in Australia which, when understood in there full context, do shine a different light on Nelsons comments.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: But freedom of speech has limits. In Britain we have anti-racism laws including speech - these are restrictions on speech but you would be hard pressed to find many people who are against those laws. Similar with anti-terrorist laws.

And I can't speak on the conservative hypocrisy, but due to the nature of partisanship i'm willing to bet a conservative would view this hypocrisy slightly differently than you do :wink:

Yes freedom of speech, like all freedoms, does have limits. However in our zeal to prevent terrorism we must not sacrifice the very thing we are aiming to protect. As for my comment regarding the conservative hypocrisy of not attacking One Nation, it was a failure that conservatives themselves admitted too as well.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Firstly, religion literally helped build the world. There are so far interlinked that not being a "fan" of religion is literally like not being a "fan" of society, a la Karl Marx.

Secondly, I don't even know who GodHatesFags.com are, and Islamic extremism, even if a mere 1% of the global 1 billion Muslim population (and its probably a lot higher), represents - if my maths serve me correctly - 1 million people ready for Jihad. We are talking such immensely different scales that comparing the two is so ingrained only in theory that it would make a wholly pointless debate.

Well your first point is an entirely different discussion altogether. However as for your second point, here is the web page to GodHatesFags and this is how they respect dead US soldiers being returned from Iraq Phelp’s Group Protests at Soldiers Funeral. Remember this is a conservative Christian group.

As for how many Muslims are ready for Jihad, you need to appreciate that the Muslim religion, like the Christian and Jewish religions, is not one big homogenous family. Remember it was Christian Serbs who massacred 8000 Bosnian Muslims. It’s Christians who are protesting at the funerals of returned soldiers. Should we start banning the Christian faith now?


Cheers, Eternal

[social]

A.D wrote: Quote: Nelson's 'clear off' comments go too far, Labor says

Labor has accused federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson of going "over the top" by suggesting that Muslims who do not support Australian values should clear off.

Dr Nelson made the comment ahead of meetings with Islamic schools about the teaching of Australian values.

Labor education spokeswoman Jenny Macklin agrees with the Federal Government's push to make school funding conditional on the teaching of Australian values.

But Ms Macklin has told ABC TV's Insiders program that Dr Nelson has gone too far.

"In suggesting that if people don't do particular things they just clear off - what Labor's about is not those over-the-top sort of statements," she said.

"What we put forward were practical ways in which we can make sure that young people learn to understand each other's beliefs and values."

So what is Nelsons archetypical example of 'australia values' which should be expressed to young muslims students for assimilative purposes? Simpson and his Donkey

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/simpson.htm



I find it somewhat strange that we are trying to assimilate young Muslims by teaching them about an Australia who was part of a planned invasion of a Muslim nation. I do personally appreciate and admire Simpson, who helped many fellow soldiers whilst being unarmed, however I don't think Nelson could have dreamed up a worse example for dissemination to young people of Muslim faith.

Furthermore Simpson was an ardent unionist, and would have been disgusted by Howard's attack on unionism and collective bargaining etc.

What are your thoughts on the topic?

Personally, I see Nelson’s comments as being part of the West’s ideological offensive against Muslims and, principally, Islam. Though this could be interpreted as a crude example of demagoguery on the part of a few Right-wingers in government, this is not, I feel, just a few Christians bashing the Islamic faith for the sake of inciting racism and xenophobia.

Rather, it is a calculated attempt to marginalize any alternative to the current ideological agenda of this government. The fact that this government, and most Western governments are attempting to assimilate ethnic minorities and people from different religious backgrounds into the prevailing national culture, and are using the existing state of affairs as a basis for their attempts, is rarely discussed in the media. But, it becomes increasingly worrying after you realise that the same people in government are proclaiming (as Nelson has done) what constitutes national values, with the clear aim of controlling the nature of national culture as well. It simply does not matter if the national values these politicians appeal to are right or wrong, good or bad, moral or immoral. This is an issue of cultural control, and the bottom line is: a government has neither the right nor the authority to dictate to an electorate what they can and can't do, in what ways they should think, and how they should act.

On a somewhat more fundamental (and perhaps abstract) note, there is an inherent flaw in the idea of using national culture as a basis for cultural assimilation. Although people from different places have incredibly different ways of life, their cultures, especially in advanced capitalist societies, are always changing and are never constant. Thus, contrary to the age-old conviction that certain people from certain nations have a determined way of life that never changes, the nature of culture is so complex and perplexing a social phenomenon to understand, that any attempt to rationalise it or describe it, as if it has concrete or material existence, ultimately ends in failure – and, to be quite frank, reification.

[social]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Eternal wrote:

His comments were about implying no muslims in Australia share Australian values which is utter racist bollocks.


Cheers, Eternal

If I am correct he said nothing of the sort - and if he did, I doubt thats what he meant. I understood it as those muslims who don't respect Australian values should leave - that those that do can stay.

And I suspect you knew full well what he meant, but just prefered to give the age old lefty "racist" chant to anyone who dares dissent.

Tell me, Lord, what are Australian values?

[social]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Firstly, religion literally helped build the world. There are so far interlinked that not being a "fan" of religion is literally ike not being a "fan" of society, a la Karl Marx.

People who don't like religion don't like society, eh?

Do you even understand what you're saying? That's a load of b*****, Hargreaves.

[thundertaker]

social wrote:

Tell me, Lord, what are Australian values?

Fosters, corked hats, and glorying in their supremacy over the poms at cricket. Ha! That won't last long..... :twisted:

[Lord Hargreaves]

social wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Firstly, religion literally helped build the world. There are so far interlinked that not being a "fan" of religion is literally ike not being a "fan" of society, a la Karl Marx.

People who don't like religion don't like society, eh?

Do you even understand what you're saying? That's a load of b*****, Hargreaves.

You've slightly twisted what i meant. I was refering to those who don't like the idea of religion playing a part of society, rather than people who don't like religion for themselves (atheists, agnostics etc).

[Lord Hargreaves]

social wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Eternal wrote:

His comments were about implying no muslims in Australia share Australian values which is utter racist bollocks.


Cheers, Eternal

If I am correct he said nothing of the sort - and if he did, I doubt thats what he meant. I understood it as those muslims who don't respect Australian values should leave - that those that do can stay.

And I suspect you knew full well what he meant, but just prefered to give the age old lefty "racist" chant to anyone who dares dissent.

Tell me, Lord, what are Australian values?

Democracy, liberty, tolerance, freedom of religion and of speech, and other values which the vast and overwhelming majority of Australians consider important.

[social]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: social wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Firstly, religion literally helped build the world. There are so far interlinked that not being a "fan" of religion is literally ike not being a "fan" of society, a la Karl Marx.

People who don't like religion don't like society, eh?

Do you even understand what you're saying? That's a load of b*****, Hargreaves.

You've slightly twisted what i meant. I was refering to those who don't like the idea of religion playing a part of society, rather than people who don't like religion for themselves (atheists, agnostics etc).

For the sake of clarification, Marx abhored religion not because he didn't want it playing a role in society, but because at the time of writing religion played a crucial role in oppressing the masses. It's clear you can't say the same of religion today. This explains why so many people twist Marx's ideas on religion, and why his famous quote "Relgion is the opium of the masses" is almost always taken out of context.

[social]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: social wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Eternal wrote:

His comments were about implying no muslims in Australia share Australian values which is utter racist bollocks.


Cheers, Eternal

If I am correct he said nothing of the sort - and if he did, I doubt thats what he meant. I understood it as those muslims who don't respect Australian values should leave - that those that do can stay.

And I suspect you knew full well what he meant, but just prefered to give the age old lefty "racist" chant to anyone who dares dissent.

Tell me, Lord, what are Australian values?

Democracy, liberty, tolerance, freedom of religion and of speech, and other values which the vast and overwhelming majority of Australians consider important.

Leaving aside the fact that you appear to be making a (rather sizeable) generalisation about the population of a country you've probably never been to let alone lived in, I'd like to point out, before this debate continues, that if the values you claim unite "the overwhelming majority of Australians" were, in fact, Australian values, in the sense that the majority of Australians accepted them, then the current Howard government would find it very difficult to govern the Australian people, given its trackrecord of "achievments".

What's more, there would be certain difficulty in accepting people, who dont tolerate different religions, into Australia. One such candidate, Dr. Nelson, given his clear disdain for people who don't accept his ideas of what constitutes Australian values, appears like the rest of his peers in the Howard government to satisfy the criteria for not being Australian on every possible count imanigable, and was lauded by yours truly in the first post of this thread.

Does this mean you, Hargreaves, would not be accepted into the big happy Australian family? Why, if each and every single Aussie really was tolerant and accpeted freedom of religion and speech, there wouldn't be comments made by people like Nelson, and there certainly wouldn't be a Howard government. But I suppose there really isn't such a thing as Australian values, as the concept exists only as an abstraction in the minds of people such as yourself. :wink:

[Lord Hargreaves]

social wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: social wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Firstly, religion literally helped build the world. There are so far interlinked that not being a "fan" of religion is literally ike not being a "fan" of society, a la Karl Marx.

People who don't like religion don't like society, eh?

Do you even understand what you're saying? That's a load of b*****, Hargreaves.

You've slightly twisted what i meant. I was refering to those who don't like the idea of religion playing a part of society, rather than people who don't like religion for themselves (atheists, agnostics etc).

For the sake of clarification, Marx abhored religion not because he didn't want it playing a role in society, but because at the time of writing religion played a crucial role in oppressing the masses. It's clear you can't say the same of religion today. This explains why so many people twist Marx's ideas on religion, and why his famous quote "Relgion is the opium of the masses" is almost always taken out of context.

OK, here is the context:

Quote: 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

Just my own opinion you understand, but what you said is bollocks. Marx opposed religion istelf, not how it was being used. Religion is at best the "heart of a heartless world", a mask protecting people from the realities of their situation - or at worst, something that ultimately gets in the way of people finding "real happiness".

Damn Commie \/

[Lord Hargreaves]

social wrote:

Does this mean you, Hargreaves, would not be accepted into the big happy Australian family? Why, if each and every single Aussie really was tolerant and accpeted freedom of religion and speech, there wouldn't be comments made by people like Nelson, and there certainly wouldn't be a Howard government. But I suppose there really isn't such a thing as Australian values, as the concept exists only as an abstraction in the minds of people such as yourself. :wink:

Tolerance of intolerance is not the "tolerance" of which I praise. Being tolerant of religion does not include being tolerant of people who preach an intolerance of other religion, for instance, because it will eventually destroy social norms. It is unreasonable to expect tolerance of all in a free society whilst at the same time maintaining that free society - is a society that bans racist comments intolerant in your view?

And cut the partisan crap about Howard too - by suggesting that Howard voters are intolerant racist bigots you merely help to highlight the idiocy of your entire post. Good day sir.

[social]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: social wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: social wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Firstly, religion literally helped build the world. There are so far interlinked that not being a "fan" of religion is literally ike not being a "fan" of society, a la Karl Marx.

People who don't like religion don't like society, eh?

Do you even understand what you're saying? That's a load of b*****, Hargreaves.

You've slightly twisted what i meant. I was refering to those who don't like the idea of religion playing a part of society, rather than people who don't like religion for themselves (atheists, agnostics etc).

For the sake of clarification, Marx abhored religion not because he didn't want it playing a role in society, but because at the time of writing religion played a crucial role in oppressing the masses. It's clear you can't say the same of religion today. This explains why so many people twist Marx's ideas on religion, and why his famous quote "Relgion is the opium of the masses" is almost always taken out of context.

OK, here is the context:

Quote: 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

Just my own opinion you understand, but what you said is bollocks. Marx opposed religion istelf, not how it was being used. Religion is at best the "heart of a heartless world", a mask protecting people from the realities of their situation - or at worst, something that ultimately gets in the way of people finding "real happiness".

Damn Commie \/

I'm getting tired of refuting the same characteristically impotent attacks on Marx, which like racism and xenphobia seem to have a perennial likeness to them, despite their clearly erroneous assumptions. The "context" you've provided takes the form of a couple of sentences from a famous essay of Marx's. It does not, however, contextualise the times in which Marx wrote, where religion was used by both government and aristocracy to dupe people into working harder for longer hours, which had the affect of convincing people that revolting and taking control of their own lives was not acceptable, both religiously and ethically. Cleary, it was acceptable. it was not only acceptable but also entirely understandable, given the conditions of pay and the nature of the work that fuelled the industrial revolution. Thus, religion, when it's used in this way, is, as Marx describes it, false consciousness. That is, it is the opium of the masses, and I appluad Marx for pointing it out, notwithstanding the backlash it created.