English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

is it true that religon is the opite of the masses

2007-06-21 08:53:36 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities Books & Authors

4 answers

Marx said, "religion is the opiate of the masses". The meaning is that he believed that religion was used to sedate the common people, keep them content despite their constant oppression at the hands of the rulers and bosses. Opium was used as a "recreational" sedative in the time of Marx, and opiates are to this day used as sedatives.

2007-06-21 08:58:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

According to Karl Marx, religion is like other social institutions in that it is dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no independent history; instead it is the creature of productive forces. As Marx wrote, “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.”

According to Marx, religion can only be understood in relation to other social systems and the economic structures of society. In fact, religion is only dependent upon economics, nothing else — so much so that the actual religious doctrines are almost irrelevant. This is a functionalist interpretation of religion: understanding religion is dependent upon what social purpose religion itself serves, not the content of its beliefs.

Read more at the link below.

2007-06-21 09:03:24 · answer #2 · answered by God_Lives_Underwater 5 · 1 0

It depends on ones perspective. I suppose. It is either the opiate of the people, or else it is the only potential salvation of the people. One must question Karl Marx however, because his ideas on economics may have sounded good, but they were awful when put into reality. His economic ideas are probably responsible for the death of more people, through starvation and oppression, than every capitalistic war and economy combined. That's not a good legacy, so it makes on wonder about everything else he said, like his ideas on religion.

2007-06-21 09:01:44 · answer #3 · answered by John B 7 · 0 1

I don't think it is by definition, but it can be USED in such a way. But religion, in itself, is nothing bad at all. The truth is that if the rich did not use religion to control the masses, then they would just use something else.

2007-06-21 08:56:51 · answer #4 · answered by Mr. Taco 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers