Abolish Anti-Semitism In On The Jewish Question By Karl Marx

Karl Marx believed that religion arose out of oppressive conditions and supported the status quo by justifying inequality, consoling the downtrodden, and dulling the pains of daily life. To Marx, religion was fundamentally conservative in that it confirms and reinforces existing social arrangements. It justifies laws that limit people’s freedoms, it validates the rule of the powerful and oppression of the weak and it makes sense of economic inequality and other forms of social disparity. In so doing, religion also suppresses people’s resistance to oppressive systems. To serve these purposes, religion need not take any specific form, posit a god or supernatural beings or embody particular practices.

Anarchism is the political theory that hierarchical order is unnecessary in society and that human beings can cooperate without such structures overseeing them. Anarchy as a political theory has potential but it fails to recognize that authority is a natural state. Reworking some terms of authority may be beneficial for a kinder, more humane government in the future, but eliminating all forms of authority is not realistic. In an ideal anarchist society, with cooperation between all humans, we could experience true freedom in the form of individual autonomy. We should look to anarchist ideals such as equality and freedom of expression for how we would like to see the future, but relying on the philosophy to govern our lives would not likely pan out well.

He does not think that it should have the power to collect taxes, duties, imports, or excises. He’s saying that congress is not accountable to the states. Suddenly, all of the power to tax and appoint people to collect those taxes would be in the hands of the general government, not the states.

Religion is a part of people’s culture. It is an identity that can be shared with in a culture, which makes it a common conflict in all cultures no matter which religion one may identify with. In the United States 83% are Christian, according to a survey conducted by ABC news, but the United States is a melting pot of cultures, this mean one culture or religion should not have leverage over the affairs of the government. This is why in the US there exists the separation of church and state but the extent of said separation is unclear, causing religion to be the bases of people arguments regarding politics. In the government these arguments should be seen as invalid because church and state are no longer completely separated causing one culture to be placed above the others.

After reading the articles I can say that I disagree with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau in that I do not believe that we consent to being governed. I agree with Kant, Hume, and Bentham more on this because I believe that consent is not the foundation of government, utility is. We are born wanting autonomy, to be in charge of ourselves, but we form government because it fills a need for societal control. We can not have an absolute democracy because we have class separation. I agree with Lenin on this subject, (go back to sociology book for Karl Marx and social conflict thorme).

In part two, Marsden bolsters his point about how democracy was also harmed by the opponents of fundamentalism by incorporating the book of Daniel into the text. He goes on to explain how the iron and clay feet of the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 2 signified the (soon to be) League of Nations in the eyes of dispensationalists (opponents of fundamentalism). This led them to conclude that democracy was weak. Such use of Scripture to back up a Biblically based way of life is both vital and powerful.

Though a Christian nation, American’s practices and believes are not consistent to Bible’s laws and commandment. Douglass argues that “the existence of slavery in this country brands republicanism as a sham, humanity as a base pretence, and Christianity as lie” (35), meaning that America is a nation of “inconsistencies.” Though they call themselves Christians, their religion is nothing but a lie as they do not follow God’s commandment of piety, they are full of pride, insolence and vices. He further argues that the “national inconsistencies… saps the foundation of religion” since it “shelters crimes” (35) against humanity. However, he does do that to ridicule Americans, rather he does it to emphasize the inconsistence amongst American believes and practices.

He wants the best for America. Some say having a socialist leader is the worst decision we can make. Bernie Sanders being a socialist means that he believes in having an equal form of government. So that not one has more power over the other and allows less conflict.

I do believe everyone has different moral views and their bases are religion. However I do not believe we eliminate the problem by looking at the human community as our first obligation. Yes justice depends on moral worth but that stems from your religion and the environment around you. The same sex marriage controversy is a good example of this. In the Christian religion you are told that same sex marriage is a sin; therefore many Christians do not support the state accepting same sex marriages.

However, if the magnitude of those flaws is less than the magnitude of the advantages provided by societies, then the arguments against societies fail. A major issue with societies is the potential for the abuse of power by those leading the society. Rousseau addresses the abuse of power, what he calls the “right of the strongest,” and claims that “ruling a society is different from subduing a multitude.” He asserts that when the goal of the public good becomes subservient to the goal of the leader, the society is, in effect, dissolved. Rather than a people and its ruler, the society has become a master and his or her slaves (The Social Contract, 6).

“That government is best which governs least” (Thoreau). Civil disobedience continues to be a controversial issue in America. Understanding the two viewpoints on the issue can give better insight into whether the act of breaking the law, when nonviolent, is correct or not. There are many examples of acts of civil disobedience throughout history that we can analyze to conclude whether or not their effects positively or negatively impact a free society.

Aryanization was used by the Nazis to either help gain supporters or reward their already faithful followers. Even though there were still a lot of non-Jews who were not a part of the Holocaust, one way in which many instantly became involved was through Aryanization. In order to “de-Jew” the economy, all of the property and money owned by the Jews had to be taken. There were some moments during the Holocaust where Aryanization increased dramatically. One event was Kristallnacht.

In my opinion, I believe people can treat people so horribly because they either do not believe what they believe and hate that group so much that they will go to an extent. In the Holocaust, Hitler strongly disliked the Jews and other groups that he did not tolerate. One reason was because the Nazi party believed the Jews were the reason that they lost World War I. Hitler did not tolerate any other group than his, and his hatefulness showed while he killed millions of Jews in concentration camps during World War II. Hitler humiliated the Jews by making them wear the Star of David. The only reason why the Jews were released from the concentration camps was that the US invaded Germany , so if the US hadn’t invaded Germany who knows how

The Holocaust is something many know about but the roots of it are something few people know about. When the roots of the Holocaust are understood the concept of the Holocaust and antisemitism might be easier to understand. With this said the roots of the holocaust are not easy to understand unless analyzed the correct way. There is many reasons that the holocaust occurred, the main one being antisemitism. Antisemitism is the hatred of Jewish people.

Civil disobedience is a key component to free society in and of itself. As a primary example, America herself was born from it; The American Revolution began with civil disobedience. If the colonists did not rebel, if they did not fight for their freedoms- albeit violently further on- where would we be today? Where would we be if the Boston Tea Party never happened, if the American people never disobeyed?