Religion Is the Opium of the People

Religion Is the Opium of the People

  • Submitted By: bluegrass
  • Date Submitted: 10/24/2011 1:48 AM
  • Category: Religion
  • Words: 1384
  • Page: 6
  • Views: 546

"One frequently hears that this statement was a blanket condemnation of religion. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth" - How, exactly?

I'd like to hear how also, since it can certainly be argued that most communist regimes have interpreted it as a blanket condemnation of religion.

"The soul of the soulless" doesn't sound critical, byt "illusary happiness" does.

"The soul of soulless conditions", religion is the soul, the guiding part, of "soulless" conditions, capitalism, feudalism and their ilk. Either he's saying that, or else Marx means that religion brings the soul to those. It could be taken either way, I'm not really sure, though I lean to and prefer the former. Curufinwe 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a quote, this page should be transwiki'ed to wikiquote. Alternatively, shouldn't it be redirected to religion. Feco 04:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a quote right now, but I'd prefer it to develop into more then just that. There's a fair bit more that could be said. Curufinwe 04:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

A cursory look through some of Marx's writings, such as "Introduction to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law and Critique of Religion," will prove that Marx was an atheist. While I realise that the volumes of clear statements written by Marx on the subject (one of which, I believe, is this one) hold no direct bearing on the meaning of this quote, I find it hard to believe that Marx would repeatedly denounce religion as a method of "enslaving" humanity, and then say something that was "in fact, the opposite" of a "blanket condemnation of religion." AkulaAlfa 22:11, Jul 04, 2005 (UTC)

Move to wikiquote. If there's something to be said about Marx and religion, it belongs at Karl Marx. Rd232 22:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Since this is a discussion of the quote, rather than a simple statement of it, it seems to belong in wikipedia (wikiquote doesn't usually discuss meaning). As for the interpretation given, it is, as I understand it,...

Similar Essays