Marxist Freedom Of Religion

Karl Marx’s view of society was based around the economy. All other social structures according to Marx, such as religion, family values, and politics stem from the base, the economy. Religion played no part at all in Marx’s sociological views. He is known as an atheist. He believed that religion was nothing more than a burden on society. “The

Throughout John Knowles’ A Separate Peace, Gene’s internal struggle is reflected in the war taking place. In the beginning of the story, Finny tells Gene that he was reading the paper and saw that “[the United States] bombed Central Europe...”(25). At this point in the story, it is 1942, which is the midst of World War II. This reflects Gene’s attitude toward Finny. As the war starts to escalate and the United States enters, Gene starts to loathe Finny for reasons that are entirely from Gene’s head. When Finny returns to Devon for the winter session, he has convinced himself, and soon convinces Gene, that “there isn’t any war”(115). Around this time, Gene pushes away his hateful thoughts towards Finny and convinces himself that Finny and him

Though Marx and Kuyper agreed on the need to change the inequality between the different classes, their views regarding religion differed. Marx thought

In the Bible, the book of Hebrews states, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen” (King James Bible, Hebrews. 11.1).The spiritual tones of “things hoped for”, plays a significant role throughout Olaudah Equiano autobiography, “The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano OR, Gustavus Vassa, The African”. His narrative was originally published in 1789 and went through a series of revisions throughout his lifetime, finally becoming a bestseller. Equiano’s treasured writings, depicts his personal accounts from childhood, holding the status of an African aristocrat in Benin West Africa, to being kidnapped and forced into slavery in the infamous Middle Passage slave trade. While slavery attempts to divest Equiano of his hope for freedom, his narrative asserts that spirituality and literary works produce its own liberty and identity in the world.

Thesis: It has been acceptable and unacceptable to overstep constitutional limitations during a national crisis.

When America adopted the term Freedom, as far back as the country’s founding. To how we as a nation obtained freedom and the patriots who had to fight several wars in order to continue to possess it. As citizens and members of a society, we are extremely fortunate to have several different types of freedoms. Although this is a good thing in some cases, there comes to a point where too much freedom can be dangerous because there would essentially be no protection for the people. To prevent this from happening, we give up particular freedoms and swap it for safety. The freedoms that are most important to me are religion, economic, education, and gun control. With that being said, there should be the same “restriction” on each of the freedoms, no acts of violence will be condoned.

The act of defining religion has been a contentious issue in a wide variety of situations, particularly in the United States. The US is a nation that prides itself on religious inclusivity and freedom. There are consequences to this belief and tenant. Through the social, legal and moral structures of the United States, defining religion has become imperative. In The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, Winifred Sullivan outlines the legal implications of defining religion in the United States. In order for religious freedom to be protected by the American state, religion must be clearly defined. As a result, religious theory must be used to maintain some semblance of religious freedom in the United States. Likewise, Josh Dubler’s Down in

When Robert Matthews, self proclaimed Matthias, Prophet of the God of the Jews, came forth as a zealot promising prosperity and salvation in a time of great social turmoil and upheaval, people latched on to his assurances that they would be leaving behind economic oppression and impoverishment. During this time period between 1820 and 1840, people were so caught up in the urgency of religious zeal that they were desperate for a way to get out. Some historians believe Matthias and his influential, albeit debatably derailed, followers like Elijah Pierson seemed like prime examples of their time. Rather, their newfound religious faction undeniably regressed back to extreme old world practices, like those that occurred during the American Revolution, after Matthias fails to make it in the new world urban economy. Matthias’s search for religious freedom was wrapped up in patriarchal roles and avoidance of modern innovations in living and ideas, pointing his regressions back to the practices of the colonial period.

One major part of the first amendment is the freedom of religion and it's impact on America. The freedom of religion allows people to choose what God or gods to believe in. It also gives people the right to not believe. This right ensures that citizens can posses religious material, gather in places of worship, and live their life according to their beliefs as long as their beliefs do not go against the laws. All over America and other regions, religious tolerance opened a door to new religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and different branches of Christianity. This freedom impacted the U.S. by giving people new ideas and ways of life. Most people in the U.S. incorporate religion in their daily lives

Karl Marx on the other hand, has a wildly different opinion on property. In his most famous piece, The Communist Manisfesto, Marx’s opinion is set up in one line; "… the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property” (Marx in Cahn 885). Marx firmly believed that ownership of private property was a way in which the social classes became more divided, and in turn, a way to oppress the poor. His opinion largely stems from the time period in which he lived (1818-1883), where factory owners infamously underpaid employees for dangerous work in treacherous conditions. However, Marx idea of private property was a bit different from Locke and did not mean things like land ownership or personal items, but the relation of individuals used for the means of production in a privately owned enterprise. Marx points out however, that in this state, unlike the ideas and time of Locke (1632-1704), the laborers do not benefit or acquire any property from their labor. In fact, the capital they are producing is the “kind of property that exploits wage labor” (Marx in Cahn 886) and serves to oppress them and further the division of classes. Therefore, Marx aimed to take this “private property” and give it to the Proletariats in order to change its status from the elite ownership of the Bourgeoisie, to the

Marx dismissed the relevance of all but two of these classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, because they didn't have any real impact on society as a whole. They weren't in a position to exploit labor. His theory focuses on the conflict and antagonism between those who owned the modes of production, the bourgeoisie, and those who were forced into selling their labor to them, the proletariat. As Marx saw it, "class is about the transfer of surplus (profit) from below and the exercise of power from above". The class with the means of material production also has the means of intellectual control. Those in charge have a political doctrine to control their interests, at whatever cost. This led to what Marx terms "brain colonization". The concept of ideology was used in the defense of capitalism. It was a strategy used to support the system and keep the workers concerns quieted. Liberalism was the ideology used by the bourgeoisie. Marx said, "Liberal ideology is used to blind the workers to the injustice of exploitation". It was an official veil to persuade the masses that they are free by extolling the myths of progress to them. They argued that since slavery was no longer used for labor, the workers were indeed free. The workers were also told to find happiness and freedom through religion for their material conditions were as

Generally, Marx’s position on religion is drawn up in an entirely negative manner. In his writings, he expresses his belief that religion is a set of doctrines intended to stabilize, while at the same time bring into servitude the working class people. In addition to that, he argues that the society’s inclination towards religious excitement serves to represent a reaction to disaffection. Also, Marx contends that, since religion causes human beings to feel delusive happiness it makes an erroneous mental representation in as well as of itself. Indeed to him, it is an instrument utilized to sustain cultural systems together with ideologies that in most cases encourages oppression in the society (Parsons 38-46).

Following the Industrial Revolution in 19th century Europe, change was in full swing and religion began to have different meanings for different people. The upper-class citizens used Religion, namely Christianity, and the power that it possessed in an attempt to keep their high status in society, while the lower class turned to faith so that their lives could possibly improve. Instead of religion being the cornerstone of faith and worship amongst all people, it was being used for power and money by the upper class. Even worse, religious leaders were using the upper class people as well, gaining money and authority from their endorsement. A man by the name of Karl Marx saw

First, we have Karl Marx’s Capital: Critique of Political Economy and The Communist Manifesto, where we encounter the proletariat, or the working-class people regarded collectively. In these two texts, the latter of which was co-authored by Frederick Engels, we learn that the proletariat is enslaved just like the people in the matrix. And just like the people in the matrix, the proletariat is oblivious to this limit on its freedom. That is why in Karl Marx’s view, unfreedom is what we are living in now. According to him, many people think that abolishing private property through communism is what will infringe on our freedom, but that is not the case. Specifically, in The Communist Manifesto Marx states, "You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private

“Our country 's founders who were of different religious backgrounds themselves knew the best way to protect religious liberty was to keep the government out of religion. So they created the First Amendment to guarantee the separation of church and state. This fundamental freedom is a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart” (n.d.). The American Constitution refers to religious freedom as being able to practice the religion of your choice without it being forced upon you. Either individuals chose what religion to practice or they practice no religion at all. Like all things there will always be some sort of controversy. Freedom of religion has both positive and negative impacts. A positive impact of religious freedom is the fact that individuals have a choice. We have the freedom to practice whichever religion we chose. On the other hand, we have the choice to not practice any religion. A negative impact is; it allows people to avoid taking responsibility for their actions by justifying their misconduct with the religion they practice.