The critique and sometimes criticism of religion, like every subject, is essential in fostering a better understanding of it. The critical engagement of religion helps to broaden and shape perspectives about it; as a practice of a community, critique helps in assessing its impact on its practitioners, and its role in the other aspects of their lives and community at large; as an academic field, it helps scholars in their [approach in the] study of the subject. To achieve these, however, critique and/or criticism must be structural and constructive, with the aim to address a particular aspect or the whole of the subject. Several scholars in different fields including philosophy, history, political science, international studies, and life sciences, have critiqued religion, on several bases, and from various perspectives. These critiques have over time impacted the development of religion as a practice and an academic discipline. One of the greatest critiques of religion in history is Karl Marx, whose approach was radical and disruptive.
Marx was a 19th century philosopher who developed the materialist approach to philosophy. He was assertive and confrontational in his criticism, questioning religion and its functions in society, and making various claims as to the negative impact of religion. In his “Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” adapted from the Works of Karl Marx[1], he argues both for and against religion; among other things, Marx opines that religion is man-made and a tool for oppressing the masses, but it is also “the opium of the people”[2]; that “Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering”[3]; and that “the abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness”[4]. For Marx, criticism is a weapon of which object is religion, “its enemy, which it wants not to refute but to destroy”[5]. He believes that philosophy is the best solution to the problem religion has caused in society, with particular reference to German philosophy[6]. Marx alludes to the Reformation championed by Martin Luther, but concludes that it was not the best solution to the problem. His philosophy, therefore, different from Luther’s, is the answer [7]. One essential element of Marx’s argument is the call for the separation of religion from the state in Germany as was the case in France[8].
There is no doubt that Marx’s criticism made a great impact on the subject of religion; its practice, and its relationship with the state. Marx was one of the greatest influencers of secularism in the West. He remains one of the most referenced philosophers in most discourses on religion and politics, among other subjects. It must be noted that Marx’s radical criticism also had other implications that prejudiced the practice of religion. This shows the impact of such criticism. While criticism may lead to a positive reform, it also has a potential negative impact. Marx’s criticism against religion generally and even particularly in Germany, was outrageous; he emphasized religion as an oppressive tool and paid less attention to its liberatory functionality. What then should be the approach to religious criticism?
Criticism/Critique is good, and it can also be done without condemnation or rejection. Despite the state’s use of religion as a tool of oppression, which Marx criticized, it nevertheless continues to serve significant functions in society, such as in the aspects of ethics, moral obligation, and liberation. The criticism of religion because of its abuse by state and nonstate actors alike, does not help in addressing the problem. An example in the modern context is terrorism, which is now seen as synonymous with Islam. Since 9/11, there has been a rise of Islamophobia, especially in the West. This approach, however, has not addressed the problem. Critique and criticism should inspire reform and not stop at condemnation of the subject of discourse.
[1] Raines, John. Marx On Religion. 1 ed. Temple University Press, 2011. Project MUSE. muse.jhu.edu/book/17666. pp. 167-182.
[2] Raines, 2011. p. 171.
[3] Raines, 2011. p. 171.
[4] Raines, 2011. p. 171.
[5] Raines, 2011. p. 172-73.
[6] Raines, 2011. p. 175.
[7] Raines, 2011. p. 177.
[8] Raines, 2011. p. 181-82.
