Whether or not I agree with Karl Marx that Religion was the Opium of the People - A.K.A. four pages of bullshyt

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

           When people typically hear this idea of Karl Marx, or read the -shortened- quote, it is simply that “Religion is the opium of the people”. On occasion, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature” is included also. Abridged as such, it is commonly taken to speak negatively of or against religion. When the quote is read in full, it is clear that a lot more is being dictated than simply “religion is the opium of the people” (which Marx never actually said).

      What Marx is conveying in the above quotation is that religion’s purpose is to give those who are not in positions of power or fortune (a.k.a. ‘oppressed creatures’) the ability to create an illusion, or fantasy, of happiness by following their religion and believing that while they may not be truly happy due to economic reasons in their current life, that their next life or place of existence is where they will be.

       He goes on to say that in order for people to truly be happy, they would need to give up the idea of religion, or that this world and life is just a trial period or audition for the next one. That instead of living by a certain text or outline, people would find happiness in their current lives by what really makes them happy and how they enjoy living. He is not 100% constituting that religion is a bad thing, or that it’s wrong for one to follow any given religion. As he states that people are in distress in a “heartless world” and that religion is their opiate which soothes their inner pain , can be directly compared to a person who is physically injured and given an opiate-based drug which in turn soothes their physical pain.

     As previously noted, Marx is not against religion or unsympathetic toward those who believe in one. To read that “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature” alone leaves out the fact Marx went on to state “the heart of a heartless world”. Anyone who refers to anything as being the heart of the world, or what essentially gives the world life and without which the world could not exist, could not also be saying that this thing or conception is unnecessary or a bad thing to have.

       By saying that “The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions” is stating that until society has fixed itself and its economic conditions thereby rebuilding its heart and no longer needing a coping mechanism, society will only need to continue administering this drug known as religion, without focusing on the actual problem.

      When broken down from it’s broader context, Marx is talking more about society, and how it essentially lost its original heart, therefore needing to fill the void with something, and not religion providing solace or being an opium of the people. Marx is saying that if it weren’t religion, it would be something else. Almost like in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet”; What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet. Or in Marx’ opinion on religion, would fail to fill this void society has carved out for itself same as any other form of ideas. Religion is a symptom of a disease, not the disease itself.

        An opiate does nothing more than relieve the pain of a physical injury and help you to forget the suffering which your body is going through. Once the opiate wears off, the injury is still there unless you are, at the same time, actively doing what you need to do to cause the injury to heal and the pain to reside. As with religion, the set of ideas of there being an after life or made up future does not take away the true nature of what is causing a person’s pain and suffering and distress, but it can help them get through their days, their years, their lives by helping them to forget what is the true nature of why they’re unhappy.

      When one studies Marx more in depth, they will find that he wrote more about economic and political structures than he ever did religion, namely because he found these were the more important issues and serious enemies. The very formation of Marxist Communism proves that many people entirely missed the point and focus of what Marx was even saying in his ideologies. After the Paris Commune (in 1871, being the first time in history that the working class seized state power, only to eventually be overthrown by the state army and many of the workers were slaughtered) Marx revised his theory and concluded that the oppressed needed to destroy the “state machine” instead of trying to revolutionize it or leave it intact.

       I wish I could say I don’t believe that the economy and political structures are as conducive to ones overall happiness in today's world as they were in Marx’ 20th century existence, and that John Lennon’s Imagine could be reality. Unfortunately, the truth comes down to it that love is not all you need. You need food, a roof, other basic (and nonbasic) material things to be happy in the society we’ve created for ourselves over the years, because yes, society is pretty damn spiritless and yes, the world has yet to show me its heart.

I'm In Love Alright, With My Crazy Beautiful Life.

Here's a little misuse of the word "Irony". Or maybe it will be proper use. I neither know nor care enough to look it up prior to getting on with this.

Anyone who's known me for a decent amount of time knows that I've always, ALWAYS kept a journal in some way shape or form. That I have a box of diaries from my childhood (hey, wait, where'd that go? Shoot, I'm 26. Oh yea. That happened) and then eventually a Dead Journal (ha) and then a Live Journal (double ha). Which then brings us to this. Although this isn't necessarily a daily log of my oh-so-interesting life (I'll get to the "How To Set Your Microwave on Fire...Twice" entry another time), it's a place I put down words. It's a sporadic record of my life. I've always felt the reason I do this is because (and I've even mentioned this here) sometimes it's hard to believe that the past actually happened, and I like to have proof that it did.

Which brings me to the irony part. Or potentially ironic if used correctly part. After my last entry, February 5th, 2010, where I was saying how content I was with life, I haven't written anything down anywhere. Probably because between then and somewhat recently, everything that was going on in my life involved having a drink in my hand. Kinda hard to type with a drink in your hand. Yea, you can go on vacations, take road trips, canoe, go bowling, watch movies, host parties, go to brunch, play scrabble, put together a puzzle, etc. etc. etc. All while having a drink in your hand. But typing, or at least actually writing, requires one to have both hands readily available. And a somewhat clear head on their shoulders.

I played kick ball in Astoria Park last Sunday. Four hours, with about 40 awesome strangers. Not a single person was drinking anything alcoholic. This is not something that would have happened in my life two months ago. Maybe the kick ball part, but not the sobriety part.

It's nice to not always have that drink in my hand. And to write again. This was short and sweet, but I'll be back. And not in a year and a half.