On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, Singh Virendra wrote: > > Jim Devine writes: > > Marx thought that religion was the p opiate of the people, > > If I remember right what Marx said was that in times of trouble religion is > the > opium of the people. > > Viren And what times aren't troubled? In the Contribution to the Critique of Hegels' _Philosophy of Right_: Introduction, written in 1843 (before he was a Marxist), Marx wrote: _Religious_ suffering is at the same time an _expression_ of real suffering and a _protest_ against real suffering. religion is the sigh ofc the oppressed create, the sentiment of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the _opium_ of the people." Emphasis in the original. The whole discussion is illuminating and suggestive, but one must bear in mind it is Young-Hegelian and not historical materialist--HM didn't yet exist. My favorite story about Marx and religion (from David McLellan's _Karl Marx: His Life and Thought_--a nice piece of work, by the way) concerns a time when Marx entered arbitration to settle a commercial dispute--he was fighting with his partner concerning their attempt to market a copying machine. the issue was the ownership of the patent! Marx's lawyer recalls in his memoirs: Before they gave evidence I required them in due form to be sworn on the Bible, as the law then required for legal testimony. This filled both of them with horror. Karl Marx protested that he would never so degrade himself. Le Moussu said that no man should ever accuse him of such an act of meanness. For half an hour they argued and protested, each refusing to be sworn first in the presence of the other. At last I obtained a compromise, taht the witnesses should simultaneously 'touch the book,' without uttering a word. Both seemed to me to shrink from the pollution of handling the sacred volume. much as Mephistopheles in the Opera shrinks from the Cross (McLellan, 414). Marx lost the dispute. Incidentally I note that the US Constitution does not require swearing on the Bible for its specificied oaths of office-holders. It allows the language to be varied for Quakers, Deists, and the irreligious, who might object to swearing; they "affirm" their responsibilities. As is appropriate for a republic which eschews religious tests for office. (An item for debate with those who assert the US is a "Christian" republic.) --Justin Schwartz, atheistic Jew
