The profane existence of error is compromised as soon as its heavenly oratio pro aris et focis [“speech for the altars and hearths,” i.e., for God and country] has been refuted. Man, who has found only the reflection of himself in the fantastic reality of heaven, where he sought a superman, will no longer feel disposed to find the mere appearance of himself, the non-man [Unmensch], where he seeks and must seek his true reality. The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck
the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself. It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of
philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics. Religion is nothing but the hope of the hopeless world, sigh of the oppressed creature, soul of the souless condition, an epileptic illusion, man's alienation of himself in fewerbach expressive words 'the projection of man's best qualities into the cosmos only to be overcomed by the realization that God those not exist outside of his tiny mind, the opium of the people. The begining, middle and end of religion is man. God did not create man rather God is a creation of human conciousness.

SHALOM!

I recognized, from the first line, that thus was the work of some pompous Oyinbo windbag, because Nigerians do not write like that.

What I did not expect was that you just blindly copied this mess from A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CRITIQUE OF HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT, by Karl Marx- whose Teachings are responsible for the death of hundreds of millions of East Europeans, Russians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, and others.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

A you really so brainless and rude, that you could not only not give your SOURCE, you could not even be bothered to FORMAT this BLOCK-OF-TEXT neatly?

That's RUDE!

I never claim to write it, you only assumed i did, moreover, i am a marxist and i just feel obliged to share that for those that did not know the genius Marx and his revolutionary social thoughts...

oaroloye:
SHALOM!

I recognized, from the first line, that thus was the work of some pompous Oyinbo windbag, because Nigerians do not write like that.

What I did not expect was that you just blindly copied this mess from A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CRITIQUE OF HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT, by Karl Marx- whose Teachings are responsible for the death of hundreds of millions of East Europeans, Russians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, and others.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

A you really so brainless and rude, that you could not only not give your SOURCE, you could not even be bothered to FORMAT this BLOCK-OF-TEXT neatly?

That's RUDE!

I see you know nothing about marxism reading the last sentence of your reply

SHALOM!

eyidaythedon:
I see you know nothing about marxism reading the last sentence of your reply

Whereas, if you had read everything I wrote, you would have seen that I identified the source of your plagiarism.

What I did not expect was that you just blindly copied this mess from A CONTRIBUTION TO THE CRITIQUE OF HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT, by Karl Marx- whose Teachings are responsible for the death of hundreds of millions of East Europeans, Russians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, and others.

I was born in the middle of the Cold War, and know quite enough about Marxism, and the desperate attempts the Communists made to shove it down our throats, in each ear, and up other places we don't talk about.

When you quote someone else's work, the polite thing to do is to cite the author, otherwise you are trying to make people think that you wrote it.

No one who is not educated in Political Science is supposed to know what this abomination's works look like, therefore you were deliberately deceiving people that you had an interesting Religious viewpoint, whereas you were just representing a philosophical theory that has failed.