A one two punch Ive been pondering

[Wootah]

If it true that religion is the opiate of the masses then it cant be true that religion is inherently violent.

If it is true that religion is inherently violent then it cant be true that religion is the opiate of the masses.

And yet people hit from one side or the other as they please.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

Perhaps then the truth is more obvious. Religion is inherently neither, but demonstrably both...and in that is not alone in regard to any other human institute, naturally enough.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

I think I see me some typos, so I'm gonna go on and present these quotes in the spirit of who of us ain't never done it. I expect and respect any corrections of my own...

If it's true that religion is the opiate of the masses then it can't be true that religion is inherently violent.

I propose it is inherently violent to call for the deadin' of homosexuals.

I mean, ain't it better we kill us off the stupid and the ugly?

And how is it, we kill me by half?

If it is true that religion is inherently violent then it can't be true that religion is the opiate of the masses.

If only it were, the religious proponent didn't promote a violent god.

How 'bout that Christian God and his whole lake of fire deal?

Or are we to just conclude such claimants are on the dopes?

And yet people hit from one side or the other as they please.

Only if she tells me to.

The Christian God hates, and that's a fact.

If he didn't hate, he wouldn't get upset with me calling him a >cuss word<.

And 'you', the Christian, wouldn't get upset with me calling your claims the height of idiocy.

[Goat]

If it true that religion is the opiate of the masses then it cant be true that religion is inherently violent.

If it is true that religion is inherently violent then it cant be true that religion is the opiate of the masses.

And yet people hit from one side or the other as they please.

Are you using the phrase 'opiate of the masses' in the same way the Karl Marx used it and intended it to be understood? How about if you take the entire sentence Karl Marx used it in, and explain how your thesis relates to the phrase in context.

What Karl Marx wrote is "

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

[William]

[Replying to post 4 by Goat]

What Karl Marx wrote is

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

I have been thinking the solution to this war is for the pendulum to stop swinging altogether. Human beings should be able to acknowledge GOD within as the essence of which no demands are made other than unconditional acceptance while removing the costume of religion altogether as a thing unworthy of the role it has been used to play along with.

It is proven humans excel without such costume, and while we are at it, we would do well to identify other social costumes which have also been used to play roles. Is this not what is really going on in terms of enlightenment? Humans giving up their habits/addictions, vainglorious preconceptions and engaging with the world as if they were naturally enough part of it, the wild thing being tamed, the fear being faced, the ignorance being replaced with knowledge, the impossible being made possible, all like mountains which are moved, that our low ways become highways, and our success built on failure acknowledged as necessary for the purpose of succeeding?

Why does GOD need to die in order for humans to live? Are we not all GODs?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Wootah]

Alternatively it is both as controlled bouts of violence is a great way to placate the masses.