NationStates Jolt Archive

In Orwell’s classic “1984”, the government of Oceania monitored and controlled the civilian population through fear. Much like the major religions of today. Both are based on entities no one has ever seen or met. Both are very totalitarian in nature, and only care for power, and the survival of themselves. They have both created an aura of fear around themselves, cloaked in holiness, but filled with blackness, their followers do not worship out of love. No, it is either submission through fear of their respective “Hells.” Or strength through pure ignorance, and blind devotion to their blood thirsty deities. Often times they are ruthless in their quest for power, and in this paper I will expose religion, Christianity in particular, and prove to you God and Big Brother aren’t that different.

Both recruit members through guilt. A guilt that does not involve normal human morals, but rather a guilt that they have invented. Killing, stealing, and lying, can be justified by their organization. Big Brother was against violence, unless it was government approved. The morals laid down by their “master” are not as important as approval from the priest, or inner party member. The guilt behind “bad thoughts” appears very often in church. He begs the priest for forgiveness, for he has committed a thought-crime. The priest cleanses his mind much like O’Brien in the ministry of love. They want to be the central authority, the number one thought on everyone's mind.

They are opposed to luxuries, sex, and life without their deity. Their followers have a certain air of self righteousness, and even argue about who loves their idol more. Their close mindedness, and mindlessness, shows itself in their intolerance for other belief systems, usually almost identical to theirs. If you look into their ranks you will see shifty eyes, always suspicious of their comrades. If a single “impure,” “unclean,” word is uttered or thought Hell or the Ministry of Love awaits you. Paranoia, is the order of the day, one man accusing another of blasphemy is all too common. We have seen it in the inquisition, Stalinist Russia, and even in the tiny town of Salem. Trust and camaraderie, are their promises, but they only provide you with watchdogs. Men who will stab you in the back because they’re afraid you’ve strayed from the “true” path. In “1984” wisdom was thrown in a cell, regarded as a ticket to hell, and no one was able to pick up the mantle of human accomplishment. I’m afraid religion may do this to us.


Their falseness and lies are all to apparent to any thinking man. But a superstitious fear of punishment still lingers in the human psyche. Why can’t they break their chains? Why can they not deliver themselves from this wretched life style. Which denies them the right to existence, except through God or Big Brother. They have been promised a paradise after a life of work and toil. Heaven for Christians, and Big Brother’s approval for the citizens of Oceania. Their great Nazi-styled processions incite youth to follow a false doctrine enveloped in gold, and crusted with blood. Their flames are fueled with human sacrifice. Everyday they curse their enemies for killing their “comrade.” When dissected by a semi-intelligent individual they will find he was not killed, he was sacrificed. Yes aside from fear and ignorance, hate is another control method utilized by both parties.


Taken into perspective let’s say Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania represent the three major religions of the world. In “1984” they are in an eternal struggle with one another. This struggles objective is not victory, rather it is meant to unite their followers. To frighten them, and make them think they need “protection.” Much like a woman who has been abused by her husband for years, but believes she needs him for “protection.” Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all founded on the same basic tenants. Yet they fight, over what? Minor differences in their theology, ideological irreconcilability? No, they have been taught since the cradle they hate one another. They don’t ever question the input, and the output is always hatred. The child of fundamentalists is the devil in a guise of purity. He hates all those who are unlike him, even though they worship the same god. His thoughts revolve around his enigmatic “god,” which no one has ever seen or spoken to. His thoughts also concern themselves with killing or converting the “infidels.” Since he is so devout he must not only make his life miserable, but he must also force his crude militant life style onto others. He will kill, which the bible clearly is against. But he will also discriminate against non-Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. The bible speaks of wars in the name of god, it speaks of blood and death. Within the same book it speaks of peace and an eternal paradise. If only their followers could see how they are being manipulated. But they have had these ideals instilled into their heads since they were toddlers. Even at rather young ages, they are hapless. Forever will they walk amongst the ignorant.


Big Brother, God, Christianity, Ingsoc, Eurasia, Islam, Eastasia, Judaism, Ministry of Love, and Hell. They are identical in every way. If you are willing to accept it, then please do so. If you have eyes, you will see things you never knew existed. Similarities, hypocrisy, trends. Ultimately, the Christians, Muslims, and Jews, will eat their own. Leaving the earth barren, a giant heap of rock and human work. Work completed by real men, not fearful drones craving violence. Monuments, books, and beauty mean nothing to them. They are savage, inhuman, barbarians. They will burn civilization to the ground, in the name of their benevolent lord. Eternal ignorance, violence, and turmoil are exactly what they want. They want your fear, and that is exactly what your giving them.


This is a rough draft by the way.

You DO realize that 1984 is a satire on totalitarian government and that it has nothing to do with religion? While I am not much of a religious guy, I must also make the point that the people of Oceania HAVE seen Big Brother: He's got rugged features, a black mustache... Just read and you'll hear a description of him from the Party or a poster, and so on...

You didn't even read the whole paper. And people have seen "Jesus." All those stupid little crosses everywhere.

Relegion is very totilitarian.

I hope you understand the crosses have nothing to do with religion in the first place. The Romans made criminals drag them through the cities, and then they hang them up on them until they died.

They didn't drag the whole cross, nor did Jesus.

Okay, fine, screw Jesus. And I hope that no one here runs up and yells at me that I shouldn't say that.

I must admit this IS a very well written paper though. I'm just in a retarded/debatable mood tonight.

I don't want a theological debate with a bunch of Jesus-freaks. Read the paper and comment! It's simple. Oh wait I know you can't read anything except the bible, I'm sorry.

Okay, fine, screw Jesus. And I hope that no one here runs up and yells at me that I shouldn't say that.

I must admit this IS a very well written paper though. I'm just in a retarded/debatable mood tonight.

You see that's what I'm talking about. Comment on the paper. Fine Work!

What a bigoted point of view. I suppose it was the brilliant athiests who preserved knowledge after the fall of Rome? Oh, wait, that was the Eastern Orthodox Byzantines and the monasteries of Ireland. Perhaps it was Christians who killed 20 million Russians in purges? No, that was Stalin. Who was responsible for the first three to four thousand years of human learning, then? The athiests? Certainly not. The blind, barbaric religious folk were the ones. Every 'religion' (athiesm included) has perpetrated its share of iniquities, and I don't want the Crusades, the witch-hunts, or the Inquisition thrown at me, I am quite aware of them. I am also aware of the Huns, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot ('but, but, they dont represent all of athiesm', neither does Bin Laden or the the High Inquisitor represent Islam or Christianity).

Do not label me a 'Jesus-freak', for I will inform you now I am agnostic. What I will also inform you of is that this paper represents a bias as great as any fundamentalist Christian you may have encountered. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion. It's as biased and wrong as the opinions you despise.

What a bigoted point of view. I suppose it was the brilliant athiests who preserved knowledge after the fall of Rome? Oh, wait, that was the Eastern Orthodox Byzantines and the monasteries of Ireland. Perhaps it was Christians who killed 20 million Russians in purges? No, that was Stalin. Who was responsible for the first three to four thousand years of human learning, then? The athiests? Certainly not. The blind, barbaric religious folk were the ones. Every 'religion' (athiesm included) has perpetrated its share of iniquities, and I don't want the Crusades, the witch-hunts, or the Inquisition thrown at me, I am quite aware of them. I am also aware of the Huns, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot ('but, but, they dont represent all of athiesm', neither does Bin Laden or the the High Inquisitor represent Islam or Christianity).

Do not label me a 'Jesus-freak', for I will inform you now I am agnostic. What I will also inform you of is that this paper represents a bias as great as any fundamentalist Christian you may have encountered. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion. It's as biased and wrong as the opinions you despise.
Well said. A rigid and inflexible mind doesn't need religion to find a dangerous ideal. They can find one anywhere.

I am so sick of "agnostics." I may hate organized relegion but there isn't a single thought that doubts gods existence. I hate Repbulicans, Goths, and too many people to list.

But agnostic is just annoying. It's a stupid phrase, do you belive in God or Not? Plain and simple.

the crusades, the reformation, the inquistion, the Tsarist purges(haha Stalin wasn't the only Russian psycho), The counter-reformation, the thirty years war, 9/11, The westbank crisis, the Ku klux klan for christ sake!

Need I say anymore?

Need I say anymore?

No. Please say no more. Pretty please. :)

Your a lunatic! Just read the paper and provide critiscim.

I'm a Republican, dammit!! But not an EVIL Rebulican.

What does that have to do with anything?

Oh by the way:

"The good repbulicans are the ones who are to stupid or to poor to be evil like their capitalist overlords."
-just made it up

Your a lunatic! Just read the paper and provide critiscim.

I thought I made it clear what I thought: Your papers are the product of a rigid and inflexible mind.

My mind is very flexible. But not too flexible, yours is like a giant glob of gellow. The gelatin moves with every breeze, and their is no stabillity(IE mental stabillity)

And heres a quickie:

My papers are a product of an adoloscent, driven insane by the stupidity of his classmates, and his own mind.

My mind is very flexible. But not too flexible, yours is like a giant glob of gellow. The gelatin moves with every breeze, and their is no stabillity(IE mental stabillity)

:) Flattery will get you nowhere. :)

An agnostic is just someone who is smart enough to know there is no god, but too scared to accept it. Its sad.

An agnostic is man with no control over his own thought process. A schizophreniac is what we call them in modern soicety.

Nope, an agnostic is just a person smart enough to realize that they actually have no way of knowing how the universe works. The data they can observe is far too limited. I'm an athiest, but I make absolutely no claim of understanding the universe at large.
One thing that is interesting about agnostisism is that its adherents admit they don't know whether god(s) exists or not, which implies that they don't believe in god(s), but that's something they won't as readily admit to. Uncertainty is the antithesis of faith.

Just read the paper, that's all I want you people to do. And then comment on it.

An agnostic is a person who realizes that there is inherent stupidity on both sides, and that there is no way of knowing. I don't know if there is a god, I don't know if there isn't one. I try to get past the "Either you are with us or the Christians" aspect of things. There is stupidity, terror, and homicide on both sides.

Athiests who claim to have all the answers are just as bad as theists who do the same. Frankly, I grow tired of rabid athiest morons who engage in vicious, unfailing attacks on religion and then maintain they have a flexible, open mind. Hypocritical to the extreme.

I'm sort of confused here, are you advocating atheism? Against organized religion period? If so, you did a pretty good job.

I'd also like to point out something. Big Brother most likely a collective representation of the people. Why would I say so? Because of Orwell's description of Big Brother. I forget what 1984 said exactly, but Big Brother supposedly had dark hair, a prominent mustache, strong features, and eyes that pierced your soul. Of course, I'm paraphrasing, but look at this:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/img-orwell-george.jpg

If you couldn't tell from the image tags, thats George Orwell. Therefore, Big Brother is yourself, and atheism promotes the idea that you, and everyone else, is if anything, God. Of course, Big Brother being an integral part of the Party, I think that this shows how important atheism is to a totalitarian state.

Of course I'd never advocate a totalitarian government, and I have nothing against atheists, I'm just highlighting one of Orwell's points.

I don't care this is about my paper! Not about you stupid Jesus-freaks, undecided assholes, and nonbeliving paganstic morons. So read the god damn paper!

I'm sort of confused here, are you advocating atheism? Against organized religion period? If so, you did a pretty good job.

I'd also like to point out something. Big Brother most likely a collective representation of the people. Why would I say so? Because of Orwell's description of Big Brother. I forget what 1984 said exactly, but Big Brother supposedly had dark hair, a prominent mustache, strong features, and eyes that pierced your soul. Of course, I'm paraphrasing, but look at this:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/img-orwell-george.jpg

If you couldn't tell from the image tags, thats George Orwell. Therefore, Big Brother is yourself, and atheism promotes the idea that you, and everyone else, is if anything, God. Of course, Big Brother being an integral part of the Party, I think that this shows how important atheism is to a totalitarian state.

Of course I'd never advocate a totalitarian government, and I have nothing against atheists, I'm just highlighting one of Orwell's points.

No just against organized relegion and Jesus Freaks.

I'm sort of confused here, are you advocating atheism? Against organized religion period? If so, you did a pretty good job.

I'd also like to point out something. Big Brother most likely a collective representation of the people. Why would I say so? Because of Orwell's description of Big Brother. I forget what 1984 said exactly, but Big Brother supposedly had dark hair, a prominent mustache, strong features, and eyes that pierced your soul. Of course, I'm paraphrasing, but look at this:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/img-orwell-george.jpg

If you couldn't tell from the image tags, thats George Orwell. Therefore, Big Brother is yourself, and atheism promotes the idea that you, and everyone else, is if anything, God. Of course, Big Brother being an integral part of the Party, I think that this shows how important atheism is to a totalitarian state.

Of course I'd never advocate a totalitarian government, and I have nothing against atheists, I'm just highlighting one of Orwell's points.

That's a crappy picture of Orwell. You know I never realized it, but I look like Big Brother. Hmmm, I am honored.

It's riddled with grammatical errors, though I'm guessing your teachers will let those slide since you're 13.

Also, what's with spelling republican as repbulican?

If you read the title it's a rough draft!

That's a crappy picture of Orwell. You know I never realized it, but I look like Big Brother. Hmmm, I am honored.
Well, the point is that you ARE Big Brother. You just look like Orwell.

If you read the title it's a rough draft!

So editors aren't supposed to catch grammatical errors in the rough draft?

I think you should know that just because you started this thread doesn't mean you get to dictate exactly what is said. The ideas presented in your paper are being discussed and debated, so you can't claim that the thread is being hijacked.

As to the paper itself, you might want to build in a little flexibility. Religion by nature isn't necessarily totalitarian. Often times it is authoritarian, and religion has been used as a tool of totalitarian rule, but in those cases it was the tool, not the cause. A power hungry wannabe ruler can always find some way to justify his rise to power.
Many residents of the USSR were fanatically devoted to "the communist ideal" and that country was avowedly athiest. I understand that you are probably directly associating religion and fanaticism, but they aren't the same thing.
Also, if you are planning to turn it in, you should take out that "if you can't see that I'm right then you are blind and/or stupid" clause at the end. Hell, you should take it out anyway. Your paper was obviously written for an audience, and when you are contemptuous of your audience they will often return the favor.

is this the same person that wrote at http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362893&page=1&pp=15?

this much better written, your other piece was ,well, angry, and the last time that had a good effect was with martin Luther, quite a while ago.

An agnostic is just someone who is smart enough to know there is no god, but too scared to accept it. Its sad.

an agnostic is simply an atheist who is too big a pussy to accept he is.

I don't care this is about my paper! Not about you stupid Jesus-freaks, undecided assholes, and nonbeliving paganstic morons. So read the god damn paper!


tsk tsk...anger will get you nowhere.

I find the comparison of the three states, (ociana, eurasia, and east asia) with the three major western religions to be a unique and intrigueing comparison. If this is a rough draft i would suggest you burn it--immediatly. although your thesis (that these comparisons can be made) would make a totally bitching paper... i find the personal views in the body of the text to be completely unsupported. you haven't really made the case that religion is the cause a problematic world. would we still have conflicts in the world without religion? if you could somehow show us a picture of the world completely devoid of religious followers and that world is better than the one we have now... i will vote you for a nobel prize. but the world is more complicated than that. there are people to feed and territories and offspring to defend. add in the human desire for power and your back to square one my man. it is a good start... but leave out the hate!

All good comments! Thankyou for your input.

Well, the point is that you ARE Big Brother. You just look like Orwell.

Big Brother was better looking than Orwell. Orwell kind of looks gay in a few of his pictures, well sickly lets say.

I find the comparison of the three states, (ociana, eurasia, and east asia) with the three major western religions to be a unique and intrigueing comparison. If this is a rough draft i would suggest you burn it--immediatly. although your thesis (that these comparisons can be made) would make a totally bitching paper... i find the personal views in the body of the text to be completely unsupported. you haven't really made the case that religion is the cause a problematic world. would we still have conflicts in the world without religion? if you could somehow show us a picture of the world completely devoid of religious followers and that world is better than the one we have now... i will vote you for a nobel prize. but the world is more complicated than that. there are people to feed and territories and offspring to defend. add in the human desire for power and your back to square one my man. it is a good start... but leave out the hate!

Yes they're many variables to the world. I'm just dissecting one of them. Not taking all of them into perspective.

I'd also like to point out something. Big Brother most likely a collective representation of the people. Why would I say so? Because of Orwell's description of Big Brother. I forget what 1984 said exactly, but Big Brother supposedly had dark hair, a prominent mustache, strong features, and eyes that pierced your soul. Of course, I'm paraphrasing, but look at this:

http://www.perfecteconomy.com/img-orwell-george.jpg

If you couldn't tell from the image tags, thats George Orwell. Therefore, Big Brother is yourself, and atheism promotes the idea that you, and everyone else, is if anything, God. Of course, Big Brother being an integral part of the Party, I think that this shows how important atheism is to a totalitarian state.


See pics of Josef Stalin as well.

I don't care this is about my paper! Not about you stupid Jesus-freaks, undecided assholes, and nonbeliving paganstic morons. So read the god damn paper!

STOP FLAMING POSTERS. This is not the first time you have been warned for being abusive.

Big Brother was better looking than Orwell. Orwell kind of looks ... sickly lets say.

Tuberculosis will do that.

In Orwell’s classic “1984”,
Papers are less interesting when they begin with a preposition. Also, we traditionally italicize or underline the title of a novel.
the government of Oceania monitored and controlled the civilian population through fear.
Why use past tense? When describing the action taking place within a work of literature, we usually use present tense. (There are exceptions, but this is not one of them.) Also, "through fear" seems like a weak way to say what you want to be a more powerful statement.
Much like the major religions of today.
Sentence fragment!
Both are based on entities no one has ever seen or met.
Which religions are you talking about? As I understand it, Buddha was a real person. So was Jesus. And Mohammed, right? Certainly you cannot claim that no one has ever seen or met them! (Of course, what would I know... I am just a lowly atheist.)
Both are very totalitarian in nature,
That is simply false. Few Christian churches today seem to require totalitarian obedience from their followers -- most of them seem downright thrilled if people show up for worship once a week!!
and only care for power,
Are you sure this is the only concern of the various religions, or at least many of their clergy? Speaking as an atheist, mind you, that seems extreme even to me. Care to back it up?
and the survival of themselves.
Well, one can hardly criticize an organization for valuing its own survival. I suppose your criticism is that certain organizations come to value survival in their given form so highly that they undermine their own deeply held goals. Marx, of course, correctly makes this claim about bureaucracies of any sort. However, given that you think religion's only concern is power, one could only hope it fails.
They have both created an aura of fear around themselves,
Umm... okay? Care to back that up? I may be atheist now, but I was raised Lutheran... and I have to tell you, there was very little fear involved. Actually, one of the things I find distasteful about modern Christians is that they are all so certain they are saved, they hardly fear anything! "Faith" has become coequal with "belief."
cloaked in holiness, but filled with blackness, their followers do not worship out of love.
Really? Because most of the religious people I know practice their faith, seemingly, with a lot more love than anything else. Now, it is certainly true that there are angry, threatening wackos out there ready to shove religion down a person's throat... and, I'd be willing to bet these people are really the most frightened, too. (Although if this is the case, they should learn the connection between fear and reverence.) The point is, you make a bold empirical claim... and it can therefore be tested. Now, if I put together the research, and accurately surveyed the motivations of the actively religious, would you really like to bet that more of them are motivated out of fear than the more noble emotions? I would take that bet.
No, it is either submission through fear of their respective “Hells.”
First of all, your pronoun does not refer to anything -- at least, not anything in your paper. What is "it"? Of course, I know... but in the name of good writing, please make it clear! Secondly, why did you end the sentence without telling us what the other possibility is... You know, "either" should have "or" in the same sentence!
Or strength through pure ignorance, and blind devotion to their blood thirsty deities.
Sentence fragment! Moreover, your context fails to make it clear what "strength through pure ignorance" might mean. What kind of "strength" are you talking about? Finally, "blood-thirsty deities" is rather inflammatory... and adds nothing to your critique. Perhaps if deities still routinely required blood sacrifice, you might have something... but, they do not. At least, enough of them do not that you cannot make the claim against "all" organized religion.
Often times
What a horrible expression. Do you really want to use this in an academic paper?
Often times they are ruthless in their quest for power,
Yes... So is anyone, or any group, that includes power as a goal. Why specify religion?
and in this paper I will expose religion, Christianity in particular, and prove to you God and Big Brother aren’t that different.
No need for a contraction. Ever. Why is this sentence attached to the clause before it? They are not directly related. "To you" is unnecessary. "Not that different" ?? Really? You seem like someone who would want to make a bolder claim, stressing a strong similarity instead of claiming the two are "not that different." And you know what? It sounds better too... Confidence in your writing is a good thing, so long as it does not turn into arrogance.
Both recruit members through guilt.
No, both recruit members through child-birth. They may retain them through guilt... but then again, is guilt such a bad thing?
A guilt that does not involve normal human morals, but rather a guilt that they have invented.
Sentence fragment! So, what is this guilt, anyway? Will we ever find out?
Killing, stealing, and lying, can be justified by their organization.
Killing, stealing, and lying can be justified by most any organization. Moreover, most people can think of situations in which killing, stealing, and lying can be justified, and without the help of any organization. For instance, killing in self-defence, stealing a gun from a maniac, or lying to Nazi soldiers to hide a Jew. .... By the way, when are we going to find out about this special guilt, which "does not involve normal human morals," that you assert lies at the heart of religious belief?
Big Brother was against violence, unless it was government approved.
To translate, "Big Brother did not approve of violence, unless the violence was Big Brother approved." Your sentence tells us nothing! Moreover, this is true of every government.
The morals laid down by their “master” are not as important as approval from the priest, or inner party member.
Whose master? Big Brother's? What connection does this have to the previous sentence? What the hell are you talking about? Assuming I have pieced it together correctly, does your generalization imply that religious people would prefer the approval to their priest to achieving a correct application of the teaching? Then how do you explain the recent outcry from many Catholics (e.g. Mel Gibson) to the effect that the clergy has lost touch with the true Church? Do not such individuals alienate themselves from the established hierarchy in the name of "good" religion?
The guilt behind “bad thoughts” appears very often in church. He begs the priest for forgiveness, for he has committed a thought-crime.
Not a bad idea, before we had therapy to help out. By the way, who is "he"? They want to be the central authority, the number one thought on everyone's mind.
We live in a competitive world. I am sure every television station wants the same thing. So does any other organization you can think up.

They are opposed to luxuries, sex, and life without their deity.
Who is?! Religion? Either you are wrong, and religion does not inherently oppose luxuries and sex, or else religion must not have such a strangle-hold on people in the first place... because there are plenty of luxuries, and quite a bit of sex in the world. Perhaps you are thinking of the Puritans, and their infamous sterility? Well, I guess I will have to be the one to explain this to you... They were NOT opposed to sex, nor to luxury -- although they were a bit more ambivalent about it. Sex, they thought, was natural; God must have intended it. However, it seemed unnatural to them that one's life should be ruled by it, and impractical that people should be having sex out of wed-lock -- more of a problem in small societies where you will certainly have to deal with people on a daily basis, and you are better off not screwing relationships up with sex unless you have a contract that makes you stay with each other. They were very rational about it. Almost sickeningly rational.
Their followers have a certain air of self righteousness,
Pot? Pot, is that you?! What do you mean, [I] am black?!
and even argue about who loves their idol more.
"Most" would probably work better, since "more" usually requires a "than"... which would at least be implied, if you had two people or groups in that sentence, but all you give us is "followers." More to the point, who cares? People argue about who loves the Rolling Stones more than whom, and no one gets bent out of shape about it. Why does this make you so angry?
Their close mindedness, and mindlessness, shows itself in their intolerance for other belief systems,
Pot! You sure do get around!!
usually almost identical to theirs.
According to Freud (whom you purport to know), we necessarily take the greatest pains to differentiate ourselves, through angry reactions, to those most similar to us. Hmm... I wonder how we should interpret your stance on religion, then? I think this entire argument is a defense against your deeply held suspicion that you are going to Hell. How sad.

This has become tiring. If your intention is a reasoned critique of organized religion, then it has not only been done... but is, by this point, entirely cliché. I protest, as an atheist. Enough is enough!

If, on the other hand, your intention has been to impress someone with your insultingly closed-minded intellect (as I suspect it has)... then you have failed utterly. You prove only your own ignorance.

My ignorance of what? I am comparing both orginizations, using what I see as my reference. And ideas as my map.

Criticism on paper:

Great paper, infallable logic ... but derived from erroneous base principles.
The fundamental tenant of Christiantity (in any form, and you do specifically target it) is loving forvgiveness, not punishment. Redemption is offered to all, and given to all who accept the offer, derived from the ultimate sacrifice made by the deity, whereby he accepts the punishment due to the believers IN THEIR PLACE... whereas in 1984, people were punished for not conforming to "Big Brother's" standards and brainwashed into doing so.

Fundamental difference:
Christianity: Some strive, all fail, failures forgiven
1984: Some strive, some/all fail, failures removed (be that physical removal or removal of personality)

Interesting concept though!

That's a good point....

It rings true NOW. But during the inquistion Christanity and Ingsoc were indistinguishable.

That's a good point....

It rings true NOW. But during the inquistion Christanity and Ingsoc were indistinguishable.
You implied that your paper was referring to modern forms of religions (at least, I think you did).
Generally, I thought you had some valid criticisms of the historical (and present) abuses that organized religions have carried out, though as Anarchyel pointed out, tightening up your grammar and spelling will gain you more respect, and some of your points are either unsubstantiated or hypocritical.
However, your paper bears little relation to my personal experience of God through Jesus Christ. Have you met some really horrible religious people personally, or do you base your opinions on media images, or on historical works?

You implied that your paper was referring to modern forms of religions (at least, I think you did).
Generally, I thought you had some valid criticisms of the historical (and present) abuses that organized religions have carried out, though as Anarchyel pointed out, tightening up your grammar and spelling will gain you more respect, and some of your points are either unsubstantiated or hypocritical.
However, your paper bears little relation to my personal experience of God through Jesus Christ. Have you met some really horrible religious people personally, or do you base your opinions on media images, or on historical works?

I've met some really messed up jesus freaks in my life. Even on this forum, they lurk. Jehova's witnesses have knocked on our door many times(their annoying little basterds) Baptists, Catholics, are both very ignorant groups of people.

It is my personal experinces and historical texts.

That's a good point....

It rings true NOW. But during the inquistion Christanity and Ingsoc were indistinguishable.

Not really, Ingsoc, as part of Oceania, was interested primarily in maintianing the status quo between the three powers. It had no expansionist aims in reality, the war was simply a pretext to comsume industrial surplus which prevented the proles from attaining political conciousness - amongst other things.

Oceania in reality co-existed with the three other powers and intended to indefinitely. Or at least it realized that the global balance was a permanent feature of life.

The inquisition definitely intended to eradicate judasim and islam and believed it could do so.

The Spanish Inquisition was an example of the Church corrupting, yes, but more fundamentally it was an example of people in positions of authority corrupting. It is indeed true that All power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The church can only truly operate successfully when it has no powers & is seperated completely from the state, as evidenced historically.
What it seems you really ought to be attacking isnt so much Organised Religion so much as just rank, privilage & positions of authority in general.
<Off on a tangent>
The Catholic church, for some reason that I really cant fathom, grants its Priests the right to forgive sin, which is a direct violation of scripture. They may say they do it 'in the name of God,' but then why cant God do it directly himself & let you know that He's done it? Isnt that the whole point in the Crucifiction/Resurrection?!!?
Note the number of news articles over the last few years about Catholic priests molesting children.
<hopefully tying back to the original topic now>
Yet how many have you heard about presbyterian or baptist ministers (who most definately do NOT have the right/authority/power to forgive sin) molesting children? I really dont think I've heard any, and while there may well be some out there, theres certainly a helluva lot less. All power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
People suck - dont trust them!


End of rant - start of personal attack.

Why do you hate Jehova's Witnesses?!!? They may have some unusual (nay, misguided) ideas, but they come to your door through a concern for YOUR wellbeing - why hate people for wanting you to be ok!??!

Signs of classic Freudian ego defense mechanisms at work.
Definate underlying psychosis. ;)

I've met some really messed up jesus freaks in my life. Even on this forum, they lurk. Jehova's witnesses have knocked on our door many times(their annoying little basterds) Baptists, Catholics, are both very ignorant groups of people.

It is my personal experinces and historical texts.

I too have had experience of forum posters who say they are Christian, but use language in a hateful and derogatory way. Then again, maybe some people think that about my posts.
I know you're not interested in someone trying to convert you, so I won't try.
I have known many Christians from many different denominations. Some have appeared ignorant, some have appeared kind, some have appeared arrogant, some have appeared holy. Some have appeared to combine several of these. None have been perfect.

Both recruit members through guilt. A guilt that does not involve normal human morals, but rather a guilt that they have invented.Some sects of Christianity do this, and I find it deeply icky. But as a discription of Christianity in general it's just not so. Much of the rest of the essay is gross and inaccurate stereotypes too.

Big Brother, God, Christianity, Ingsoc, Eurasia, Islam, Eastasia, Judaism, Ministry of Love, and Hell. They are identical in every way. If you are willing to accept it, then please do so. If you have eyes, you will see things you never knew existed. Similarities, hypocrisy, trends. Ultimately, the Christians, Muslims, and Jews, will eat their own. Leaving the earth barren, a giant heap of rock and human work. Work completed by real men, not fearful drones craving violence. Monuments, books, and beauty mean nothing to them. They are savage, inhuman, barbarians. They will burn civilization to the ground, in the name of their benevolent lord. Eternal ignorance, violence, and turmoil are exactly what they want. They want your fear, and that is exactly what your giving them.Du-ude. You would deny the humanity of the members of Abrahamic religions? That's just not cool. I am an atheist as I assume you are. And one of the harder things I have come to terms with is that people every bit as intelligent and reasonable as I am find it as self-evident that God exists that I find it self-evident that He/She doesn't. But it is so. And I know both through personal experience and my knowledge of the world that your description of Jews, Christians and Muslems is wildly inaccurate.

And heres a quickie:

My papers are a product of an adoloscent, driven insane by the stupidity of his classmates and his own mind.

Yes,I can see how the stupidity of your own mind would drive you insane,

<first post>

That's a good essay, though the last paragraph lets it down. Most of the essay shows some bias, but in the last paragraph you cease to show restraint, and turn it into a piece of propaganda.

Some sects of Christianity do this, and I find it deeply icky. But as a discription of Christianity in general it's just not so. Much of the rest of the essay is gross and inaccurate stereotypes too.

Du-ude. You would deny the humanity of the members of Abrahamic religions? That's just not cool. I am an atheist as I assume you are. And one of the harder things I have come to terms with is that people every bit as intelligent and reasonable as I am find it as self-evident that God exists that I find it self-evident that He/She doesn't. But it is so. And I know both through personal experience and my knowledge of the world that your description of Jews, Christians and Muslems is wildly inaccurate.

I am not an athesit. I belive in God one hundred percent, I don't even question his existence. I just hate organized relegion.

an agnostic is simply an atheist who is too big a pussy to accept he is.Big Brother was better looking than Orwell. Orwell kind of looks gay in a few of his pictures, well sickly lets say.Youse say that like being a pussy, or looking gay is a bad thing.

I am not an athesit. I belive in God one hundred percent, I don't even question his existence. I just hate organized relegion.Sorry, my bad for jumping to conclusions. Yeah, I'm no fan of organized religion either. But you might have made that clearer. And even at that, I feel that your criticism of organized religion is unfair. Take the United Church of Canada, Canada's largest protestant denomination. In The Basis of Union (http://www.united-church.ca/ucc/basisofunion/home.shtm), the church does affirm original sin. But in my (admittedly quite limited experience), this concept isn't emphasized in the current church. And they do not teach hate. From Mending the World [ Whole World Ecumenism ] (http://www.united-church.ca/mtw/02.shtm):

"Whereas traditional ecumenical activity has been church centred, placing emphasis on the churches as the relate to one another both in matters of faith and service, the broader ecumenism is world-centred, placing emphasis on churches relating to the world beyond themselves, to persons involved in other religious traditions, ideologies, and secular agencies. In this understanding of "whole world ecumenism," the churches are called to make common cause with individuals and institutions of good will who are committed to compassion, peace and justice in the world."

Sorry? You believe in God, yet you hate the *Bible's rulings* and any kind of Ecclesiarchy? That is somewhat… odd.

According to you, believers are going to destroy each other. Since "believers" (the "witch hunter" ones) and atheists both commit atrocities, aren't you basically saying that everything's hopeless? Are you basing every single ignorant evil small-minded (sarcasm) believer on the nasty ones? Maybe we should base all world leaders on Stalin then.

Yeah that's what they all promise. And then you get the grand inquistor knocking at your door, with a gun to your head.

Sorry? You believe in God, yet you hate the *Bible's rulings* and any kind of Ecclesiarchy? That is somewhat… odd.

According to you, believers are going to destroy each other. Since "believers" (the "witch hunter" ones) and atheists both commit atrocities, aren't you basically saying that everything's hopeless? Are you basing every single ignorant evil small-minded (sarcasm) believer on the nasty ones? Maybe we should base all world leaders on Stalin then.

I live in the deep south. And these people are rampant with ignorance and hatred. And they are witch hunters ALL OF THEM.

I live in the deep south. And these people are rampant with ignorance and hatred. And they are witch hunters ALL OF THEM.

I've never come across such generalisation and daemonisation as that. So you live in the deep south (with, admittedly, quite a few Jerry Falwells). So every Christian you have met is a witch hunter. I'm intrigued. Please tell me the last time the pope sent his personal storm trooper squad out, or about all the evil Christians that you know. In the UK they seem to be fairly normal.

I've never come across such generalisation and daemonisation as that. So you live in the deep south (with, admittedly, quite a few Jerry Falwells). So every Christian you have met is a witch hunter. I'm intrigued. Please tell me the last time the pope sent his personal storm trooper squad out, or about all the evil Christians that you know. In the UK they seem to be fairly normal.

Not the pope, Jerry Falwell and his legions of baptist ministers. They hate blacks, jews, catholics, and any non-WASP. They are sick people, they actually blame 9/11 on the gays.

That's why I hate them. How could any one group of people be so stupid? And believe such outright lies with no evidence.

So your attack on religion comes solely from Deep South Baptists. Please explain, or correct me. Unlike the Christians you have met, I am quite open to correction.

Catholics too. We have a large hispanic population. If you lived with them it would drive you crazy.(

Baptists=KKK/NRA/Bush supporters

Catholics=millitant prolife idiots, that can't speak a lick of english, and try to justify their priests perverted actions. And if they do speak english, you'd wish they couldn't becuase all they do is try to guilt you into believing their homophobic nazi lies.

IF you don't have to put up with a group you have no write to preach "tolerance" or "intolerance," becuase you don't know what it's like to live with them.

I am a Catholic, I live with Catholics, so I know what it's like. Can't say it's too bad… priests' "perverted actions"? Sorry, but it's a tiny minority, about the same % of teachers do and you don't hate teachers do you? I know many priests and I have never had any trouble with ANY of them.

So… it's Baptists and Catholics. Deep south Christians who are annoying, therefore the whole world of Christians = bad.

My ignorance of what? I am comparing both orginizations, using what I see as my reference. And ideas as my map.

Well, you have since admitted that your experience ("what you see") is quite limited -- to the particular people around you. Has it ever occurred to you that it might be something in the water? One might theorize that if you took away religion, as if it had never existed, people in your area would still find something to latch onto as an excuse for prejudice. Does religion really cause prejudice and hatred, or merely justify it?

More importantly, it seems like you have latched onto a very old and, as I mentioned before, by now rather cliché "critique" of religion. The worst part about this is not its falsehoods -- and there are plenty -- but its complete lack of understanding for politics.

If you have but the faintest grasp of how politics works and how to speak politically, you would know that you will not convince anyone with a rant like that. People who already agree with you may applaud, because you have reinforced their own dogma... but do you really think you will change anyone's mind? Are you not merely preaching a gospel (or anti-gospel) of your own?

If you really want to convince people to give up religion, or to better themselves according to some program that you think is best, you need to get a feel for what their existing doubts and uncertainties are... and talk about those. Almost as importantly, you need to let them know you are willing to listen, to hear their side; even if you really have no interest, letting this be known is just good politics.

Always remember who your audience is. (If Kerry could manage to do that, and stop talking over the head of the average American, he might still have a shot at winning this election.)

I am a Catholic, I live with Catholics, so I know what it's like. Can't say it's too bad… priests' "perverted actions"? Sorry, but it's a tiny minority, about the same % of teachers do and you don't hate teachers do you? I know many priests and I have never had any trouble with ANY of them.

So… it's Baptists and Catholics. Deep south Christians who are annoying, therefore the whole world of Christians = bad.

Right now those idiots are singing(they're two churches near my house ones actually right behind it).

Teachers are whiny bitches that should get real jobs. "Oh I'm not getting paid enough" "Gasp, I might actually have to work a holiday!"

My mother has had to work the last two christmas's, but you don't see her whining. And she puts in a FULL DAYS WORK, TWELVE HOURS. And she doesn't make a whole lot more than those bitchy teachers.

Well, you have since admitted that your experience ("what you see") is quite limited -- to the particular people around you. Has it ever occurred to you that it might be something in the water? One might theorize that if you took away religion, as if it had never existed, people in your area would still find something to latch onto as an excuse for prejudice. Does religion really cause prejudice and hatred, or merely justify it?

More importantly, it seems like you have latched onto a very old and, as I mentioned before, by now rather cliché "critique" of religion. The worst part about this is not its falsehoods -- and there are plenty -- but its complete lack of understanding for politics.

If you have but the faintest grasp of how politics works and how to speak politically, you would know that you will not convince anyone with a rant like that. People who already agree with you may applaud, because you have reinforced their own dogma... but do you really think you will change anyone's mind? Are you not merely preaching a gospel (or anti-gospel) of your own?

If you really want to convince people to give up religion, or to better themselves according to some program that you think is best, you need to get a feel for what their existing doubts and uncertainties are... and talk about those. Almost as importantly, you need to let them know you are willing to listen, to hear their side; even if you really have no interest, letting this be known is just good politics.

Always remember who your audience is. (If Kerry could manage to do that, and stop talking over the heads of the average American, he might still have a shot at winning this election.)

My converts are people without direction. I reniforce their love of the party, and their belief in my writtings. I don't want to convert, It would be nice. But mind control is much more effecient(soma anyone?)

I give my followers direction and purpose.

Right now those idiots are singing(they're two churches near my house ones actually right behind it).

Teachers are whiny bitches that should get real jobs. "Oh I'm not getting paid enough" "Gasp, I might actually have to work a holiday!"

My mother has had to work the last two christmas's, but you don't see her whining. And she puts in a FULL DAYS WORK, TWELVE HOURS. And she doesn't make a whole lot more than those bitchy teachers.

You're evading the point. The priest thing has been blown up out of proportion (yes it was awful, but don't get absolutely frothy about it). You are still basing your thoughts on world religion on whoever is singing behind you. The teachers' thing was an analogy. You are acting like a politician.

Please answer all of my questions. I'm sure that you will be able to, as you have such a logical argument.

My converts are people without direction. I reniforce their love of the party, and their belief in my writtings. I don't want to convert, It would be nice. But mind control is much more effecient(soma anyone?)

I give my followers direction and purpose.

Has your campaign begun to have your picture in the dictionary?

Right next to "hypocrite"?

You're evading the point. The priest thing has been blown up out of proportion (yes it was awful, but don't get absolutely frothy about it). You are still basing your thoughts on world religion on whoever is singing behind you. The teachers' thing was an analogy. You are acting like a politician.

Please answer all of my questions. I'm sure that you will be able to, as you have such a logical argument.


The priest thing was blown out of proportion, I'll admit that. But the heirarchy of the church is corrupt and fat.

I've been walking twenty miles of bad road, if the bible is right the world will explode. So who cares?

Has your campaign begun to have your picture in the dictionary?

Right next to "hypocrite"?

But they retain their indiviguality to an extent. I don't discriminate against race, ethnicity, or relegious beliefs. Just political ideology.

But they retain their indiviguality to an extent. I don't discriminate against race, ethnicity, or relegious beliefs. Just political ideology.

Like me then. Me, the evil, militant Catholic. Look's like I'm in the wrong religion…

You see I don't discriminate against relegion. Just all organized relegion.

But they retain their indiviguality to an extent. I don't discriminate against race, ethnicity, or relegious beliefs. Just political ideology.

That is not the point. The point is that you criticize the bulk of humankind for their ignorance, gullibility, and willingness to ascribe to an ideology without rational thought.

Then you admit that you do not attempt to change minds by rational thought; you would rather control them.

Moreover, you are encouraging just the sort of "individualistic" mindset you attack in your first essay. You soothingly reassure your "followers" that they "retain their individuality" (to an extent). "You are unique... you are an individual... but believe every word I say."

If you believed all of the things you say, your paper might not be very good, but at least it would not be genuine bullshit. What makes it bullshit is that you never even entertain the thought that your audience will have to think about it. The thinkers, you do not want. You only want to impress the very people you make out to criticize.

But that is evidence of just what I said before... perhaps this entire drama of yours is merely an out-of-control psychological defense against the pain you feel that these "ignorant" fools have rejected you. You want their love and admiration; you cannot live without it. As a result, in the end they rule you, not the other way around, because you are forced to say whatever you think will make them love you.

You never get to speak the truth of your own soul. You probably do not know what it is.

(Interestingly, Plato makes just this point about demagogues in Book I of the Republic, and a similar point in one of his most excellent dialogues, the Gorgias. Good reads.)

Neither do I. BUT, according to you, I should be, because I belong to an organised religion (don't say that you didn't imply that. You did. I'm a militant pro-life idiot). But I don't. So where does that leave your argument standing?

I'll be leaving now.

A person who truly loves reason will surround her or himself with only the most reasonable of people.

I read excerpts of the repbulic. Too symbolic, but still a pretty good read.

A person who truly loves reason will surround her or himself with only the most reasonable of people.

I always surrond myself with stable, reasonalbe, people. They agree with what I say, so therefore they are stable.

That is not the point. The point is that you criticize the bulk of humankind for their ignorance, gullibility, and willingness to ascribe to an ideology without rational thought.

Then you admit that you do not attempt to change minds by rational thought; you would rather control them.

Moreover, you are encouraging just the sort of "individualistic" mindset you attack in your first essay. You soothingly reassure your "followers" that they "retain their individuality" (to an extent). "You are unique... you are an individual... but believe every word I say."

If you believed all of the things you say, your paper might not be very good, but at least it would not be genuine bullshit. What makes it bullshit is that you never even entertain the thought that your audience will have to think about it. The thinkers, you do not want. You only want to impress the very people you make out to criticize.

But that is evidence of just what I said before... perhaps this entire drama of yours is merely an out-of-control psychological defense against the pain you feel that these "ignorant" fools have rejected you. You want their love and admiration; you cannot live without it. As a result, in the end they rule you, not the other way around, because you are forced to say whatever you think will make them love you.

You never get to speak the truth of your own soul. You probably do not know what it is.

(Interestingly, Plato makes just this point about demagogues in Book I of the Republic, and a similar point in one of his most excellent dialogues, the Gorgias. Good reads.)

And you don't want admiration and appluase? I could hardly be called a demagouge, I'd say I'm a little young.

At least I have admiration and appaluse! And a following....

Poorly written and poorly thought out, I'm afraid. Religious groups garner support by threatening Hell and promising Heaven and immortality to believers while Orwell's Big Brother unified the population by convincing the people that they were going to be attacked by one of the other two national powers. The idea is the same, scare people then tell them you can fix it, but the method is different enough to make the comparison weak.

Firstly, nice paper indeed.

I must say I myself am an aethist, also a fascist (With the except im neither racist or anti-gay). I believe that religion, while purely farcical, is a neccesary thing in order to keep population under control. There are many people; the uneducated, the depressed (Or people who hope for something better in death), the fearful etc. who are controlled, by and large, through religion.

Back to your views on religion being totalitarian you are right, catholicism being the best example of all. For example, catholocism requires ignorance of the people to survive. Ignorance, which requires things to be explained through faith of miracles and what not. You can compare the rule of Stalin to the catholic church; granted Stalin likely had more people killed but the catholic church has been around a while. The witch hunts of old were instigated by the catholic church, the priests who explained mysterious goings on as magical practices, which of course (Seeing as how they were bad things) were crimes against God. Who is against God? Satan, thus anyone who is deemed unusual is a satan worshipping magical being and is burned at the stake. The church turned the people against each other in order to combat a non-existant enemy within. Stalin did the same.

I'm too tired to actually formulate any stronger argument than that so meh. But you get my view. In my opinion all religion should be abolished with the exception of the Church of England.

-Phil.

I always surrond myself with stable, reasonalbe, people. They agree with what I say, so therefore they are stable.


Homogenous groups, particularly small ones, are often victims of what psychologist Irving Janis called "groupthink." After a detailed study of a series of American foreign-policy fiascoes, including the Bay of Pigs invasion and the failure to anticipate Pearl Harbor, Janis argued that when decision makers are too much alike--in worldview and mind-set--they easily fall prey to groupthink. Homogeneous groups become cohesive more easily than diverse groups, and as they become more cohesive they also become more dependent on the group, more insulated from outside opinions, and therefore more convinced that the group's judgment on important issues must be right. These kinds of groups, Janis suggested, share an illusion of invulnerability, a willingness to rationalize away possible conterarguments to the group's position, and a conviction that dissent is not useful.

From James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds

I teach high school english. I have a master's degree in English and a bachelor's in secondary education. I think it's a decent paper with well supported assertions. I do think it might help your angle to present "Big Brother" as "Jesus" specifically and to mention the parallel between totalitarian politics (English Socialism as the book is conventionally known to criticize) and totalitarian religion.

As is, I'd give you a B-. After a reflective rewrite, you'd get an A (depending on what you did with it. If you want to send me a telegram, I can give you more specific hints/criticisms. I think, overall, that the topic works for you.

Also, consider this regarding agnostics... they're all in a period of discovery. They don't know yet what to believe, but they do know that they need to examine the things around them and find out what they want to believe. Some look at the world, see scientific patterns, and decide on athiesm, Science as God... some look at the world, see natural patterns, and decide on nature-based religion, Nature as God... some look at the world, see biblical parallels, and decide on Christianity, Jesus as God. *shrugs* It's all very individual and I caution you not to dictate someone else's mode of discovery as inferior.

I teach high school english. I have a master's degree in English and a bachelor's in secondary education. I think it's a decent paper with well supported assertions. I do think it might help your angle to present "Big Brother" as "Jesus" specifically and to mention the parallel between totalitarian politics (English Socialism as the book is conventionally known to criticize) and totalitarian religion.

As is, I'd give you a B-. After a reflective rewrite, you'd get an A (depending on what you did with it. If you want to send me a telegram, I can give you more specific hints/criticisms. I think, overall, that the topic works for you.

Also, consider this regarding agnostics... they're all in a period of discovery. They don't know yet what to believe, but they do know that they need to examine the things around them and find out what they want to believe. Some look at the world, see scientific patterns, and decide on athiesm, Science as God... some look at the world, see natural patterns, and decide on nature-based religion, Nature as God... some look at the world, see biblical parallels, and decide on Christianity, Jesus as God. *shrugs* It's all very individual and I caution you not to dictate someone else's mode of discovery as inferior.

I'm 13.....Der. I believe in god, but I disagree with organized relegion. Does that qualify me as an agnostic? No.

Agnostics are cynics without spines, who can't admit they're actually atheists.

I'm 13.....Der. I believe in god, but I disagree with organized relegion. Does that qualify me as an agnostic? No.

Agnostics are cynics without spines, who can't admit they're actually atheists.

Erm, no.
Agnostic: believes that god may or may not exist. No evidence for either way, so no way to be sure.
Theist: God exists.
Atheists: God does not exist.

There is a strong difference between the three. Nuanced to a degree, but still very different.

Firstly, nice paper indeed.

I must say I myself am an aethist, also a fascist (With the except im neither racist or anti-gay). I believe that religion, while purely farcical, is a neccesary thing in order to keep population under control. There are many people; the uneducated, the depressed (Or people who hope for something better in death), the fearful etc. who are controlled, by and large, through religion.

Back to your views on religion being totalitarian you are right, catholicism being the best example of all. For example, catholocism requires ignorance of the people to survive. Ignorance, which requires things to be explained through faith of miracles and what not. You can compare the rule of Stalin to the catholic church; granted Stalin likely had more people killed but the catholic church has been around a while. The witch hunts of old were instigated by the catholic church, the priests who explained mysterious goings on as magical practices, which of course (Seeing as how they were bad things) were crimes against God. Who is against God? Satan, thus anyone who is deemed unusual is a satan worshipping magical being and is burned at the stake. The church turned the people against each other in order to combat a non-existant enemy within. Stalin did the same.

I'm too tired to actually formulate any stronger argument than that so meh. But you get my view. In my opinion all religion should be abolished with the exception of the Church of England.

-Phil.

I'm a liberial Fasicsit. I don't know anything about the church of england so I can't comment. It's good to see so many people that agree with Alansyism.
By the way, I have a whole book full of writtings, that make up a larger manifesto.

@All you anarchists out there

You see, my ideas and writttings are supported becuase I HAVE ideas. Anarchy promises nothing except "freedom." And your orators always suck, your rallies are always disorganized and well, anarchisitc.

Last week I put on a puppet show at my school, I poked fun at the pope, Bush and the pro-lifers. Roaring applause, one boy came up to me and told me he'd be willing to give his life for me.

Glorious! You anarchists are losing, badly. We fascists are more charismatic, better educated, and more psychologically in-tune with the people.

One of these days I'm going to invite all of the party members to a rally, video tape it, and post it on the internet.

I'm a liberial Fasicsit. I don't know anything about the church of england so I can't comment. It's good to see so many people that agree with Alansyism.
By the way, I have a whole book full of writtings, that make up a larger manifesto.

@All you anarchists out there

You see, my ideas and writttings are supported becuase I HAVE ideas. Anarchy promises nothing except "freedom." And your orators always suck, your rallies are always disorganized and well, anarchisitc.

Last week I put on a puppet show at my school, I poked fun at the pope, Bush and the pro-lifers. Roaring applause, one boy came up to me and told me he'd be willing to give his life for me.

Glorious! You anarchists are losing, badly. We fascists are more charismatic, better educated, and more psychologically in-tune with the people.

One of these days I'm going to invite all of the party members to a rally, video tape it, and post it on the internet.

You're a scary one, that's for sure. Ignorant too, how often they go together. Your steriotyping, prejudices, and general lack of understanding of both Fascism and Anarchism amuse and frighten me. I suppose I can only take comfort in the fact that as a 13 year old you have much time to learn how truly out of touch with reality you are.

Anarchism, maybe. Fascism no, I have read very widely on Fascsim as a form of government and Fascist leaders.

Anarchism, maybe. Fascism no, I have read very widely on Fascsim as a form of government and Fascist leaders.

Sadly, and fortunately, that's not enough to have a true understanding of the practical nature of a complicated sociopolitical ideology. What's more, a decision about the correct path a society should take can not be made after reading supporting arguments for only one position. I believe you will find that there are passionate and persuasive writers and speakers in support of every major political cause and if you read some outside of your current paradigm you will find that the words of a few men cannot be used as the basis of an individual's ideology without significant conflicts of reason and pragmatism.

I have read many liberial texts too. And communist ideology, soicialism, etc.

I'm 13.....Der. I believe in god, but I disagree with organized relegion. Does that qualify me as an agnostic? No.

Agnostics are cynics without spines, who can't admit they're actually atheists.

First off, I'd like to point out that I never called you an agnostic, I simply suggested various reasons for other people to be agnostic.

Second, my father is an athiest, so I think I know a little about that mode of though. I know several agnostics who are NOT athiests... they just haven't decided what to believe yet. That shows wisdom, not spinelessness.

Third, I know former agnostics who now subscribe to a system of belief (pagan or Christian).

Fourth, I'd like you to consider what I wrote about possibly strengthening your paper. You're a pretty skilled writer despite your combative nature.

I have taken it into consideration, and I'm going to apply the changes in my next and final drafts.

I have taken it into consideration, and I'm going to apply the changes in my next and final drafts.

Cool... then I'm sure you'll get an excellent grade. Of course, I'd be willing to bet that you generally do get pretty good grades on essays. Hang in there.

Bumperama,

Oh and anarchists suck

Okay, enough flaming. I, too, find it a well-written piece, although I may not agree with some of it. Certainly religion HAS given mankind rather a LOT of needless wars over the centuries, but so has politics. Do I believe God exists? No, and if he does he hasn't been doing a very good job of it. Yes, I know we're supposed to be good and all that, but does that give God the right to do whatever he pleases? After all, religions (many of them, if not most) posit a God who is in complete control of all events---so that means terrible famines, storms, wars are part of his "plan". Not a very good reason to TRUST him now, is it. Much less worship him, I think. Leaders have historically used religion to keep the masses in line, and it works quite well. Religious leaders, for their part, have historically been only too happy to oblige, unfortunately. Witness the current palsy-walsy (an American slang term. Sorry, but it describes their hand-in-glove affair perfectly) collaboration between Fundamentalist Christians and Republicans. Actually, RELIGION is corrupted and debased by the arrangement, rather than the other way around, but BOTH ultimately are warped beyond all recognition. I'm voting for Kerry. Bush believes he has a "private line" to God, which is dangerous. Of course, even ATHEISTS have a "god"---they just call it "Socialism" or "Communism", etc. We all believe in something, and that's what usually gets us into trouble, I'm afraid.

Okay, enough flaming. I, too, find it a well-written piece, although I may not agree with some of it. Certainly religion HAS given mankind rather a LOT of needless wars over the centuries, but so has politics. Do I believe God exists? No, and if he does he hasn't been doing a very good job of it. Yes, I know we're supposed to be good and all that, but does that give God the right to do whatever he pleases? After all, religions (many of them, if not most) posit a God who is in complete control of all events---so that means terrible famines, storms, wars are part of his "plan". Not a very good reason to TRUST him now, is it. Much less worship him, I think. Leaders have historically used religion to keep the masses in line, and it works quite well. Religious leaders, for their part, have historically been only too happy to oblige, unfortunately. Witness the current palsy-walsy (an American slang term. Sorry, but it describes their hand-in-glove affair perfectly) collaboration between Fundamentalist Christians and Republicans. Actually, RELIGION is corrupted and debased by the arrangement, rather than the other way around, but BOTH ultimately are warped beyond all recognition. I'm voting for Kerry. Bush believes he has a "private line" to God, which is dangerous. Of course, even ATHEISTS have a "god"---they just call it "Socialism" or "Communism", etc. We all believe in something, and that's what usually gets us into trouble, I'm afraid.

I'm fine with commies and socialists. I just hate anarchists.

Bump up one Bump up two.

You're obviously a talented writer so please don't waste it on this "oh im so spiritually enlightened and yet depressed despite being a middle class teenager" shit.
I found the essay funny, though. An entertaining read

You're obviously a talented writer so please don't waste it on this "oh im so spiritually enlightened and yet depressed despite being a middle class teenager" shit.
I found the essay funny, though. An entertaining read

I'd agree with that. But I've never said I'm "spirtually enlightned", just politically.

I forgot to ask... do you want me to comment on your grammar? I figured that was on you, but I spotted some minor issues (fragments, clarity, flow etc.).

Naw, I don't want to bother you. My teacher at school is going to look over the grammar and spelling.

Naw, I don't want to bother you. My teacher at school is going to look over the grammar and spelling.

*smile* Cool. You know, MS Word has a grammar check feature. It became my best friend when I was in high school. It's time consuming, but at least it assures that everything is correct (and that the spell-checker hasn't screwed you on syntax).

The first post was written nicely but based on assumptions and misrepresenations both on the part of the author and the people being used to base the religions.
Since none of it applies to me or my religion of christianity I dont have too much to say. It does do well in showing just how powerful hypocrisy is, though, and how hypocrisy can infiltrate a concept or group in order to ultimately change what the world considers that concept to be.

*smile* Cool. You know, MS Word has a grammar check feature. It became my best friend when I was in high school. It's time consuming, but at least it assures that everything is correct (and that the spell-checker hasn't screwed you on syntax).

I program in assembly, I know a little about annoying Syntax :)

I program in assembly, I know a little about annoying Syntax :)

*laughs* I hear ya. I just wanted to extend the hint since a large majority of the grammatical errors in my kids' papers are due to spell-check abuse. "Two, too, to, that, then, than, which, witch, affect, effect" etcetera.

x86 assembly is supposefully the easiest, thats what I use(intel computers). Python has one of the easiest syntaxes, well the most elegant let's say.

x86 assembly is supposefully the easiest, thats what I use(intel computers). Python has one of the easiest syntaxes, well the most elegant let's say.

You do know that I mean linguistic syntax, right? English teacher... all that. ;)

Yeah, but when I here syntax I always think of programing.

Yeah, but when I here syntax I always think of programing.

See, that's a flawless example... "when I here syntax" is syntactically incorrect... the spelling is right, but grammar check (on MS Word) would catch it and tell you to change it to "when I hear syntax."

:)

Doesn't anyother stupid anarchist want to comment?

This is probably the only semi-intelligent post on the forum right now.....

It must be revived!

Wow, Alansyists, you are just as bigotted and fond of stereotypes as the people you hate. Congratulations on losing any case you might have made through making unfounded assumptions.

This is probably the only semi-intelligent post on the forum right now.....

...quite possibly the most semi-intelligent post on the forum right now.

...quite possibly the most semi-intelligent post on the forum right now.

Semi-intelligent implies that one is not doing exactly what one is condemning. Thus, it does not apply to this thread in the least.

Semi-intelligent implies that one is not doing exactly what one is condemning. Thus, it does not apply to this thread in the least.

No, you just infer that, it doesn't imply it - the ability to do that which is simultaneously being condemned requires a modicum of intelligence, the ability to recognise the inherent contradiction requires a greater amount. Thus...

No, you just infer that, it doesn't imply it - the ability to do that which is simultaneously being condemned requires a modicum of intelligence, the ability to recognise the inherent contradiction requires a greater amount. Thus...

Actually, I would argue that no intelligence whatsoever is required if I jump off a bridge while condemning people who jump off bridges.

No matter though, I suppose I just place a higher bar on the term "semi-intelligent".

Actually, I would argue that no intelligence whatsoever is required if I jump off a bridge while condemning people who jump off bridges.

As I said before, the condemnation itself requires intelligence.

No matter though, I suppose I just place a higher bar on the term "semi-intelligent".

Possibly I just view it as a case of damning with faint praise.

Bump up, so I can expose Christanity for what it is.

Read the first page's essay.

Does anyone have any INTELLIGENT comments.

Somebody post!

Does anyone have any INTELLIGENT comments.

It doesn't appear so, there is hardly a single intelligent post in this entire thread. There is hardly a single intelligent post on the entire forum now-a-days. I just wonder if you think that your posts are intelligent, it's that wonderful childhood hubris that leads us to believe that we're intelligent. Even five years from now you'll look back on the things you wrote now and wonder how you ever thought yourself intelligent.

It doesn't appear so, there is hardly a single intelligent post in this entire thread. There is hardly a single intelligent post on the entire forum now-a-days. I just wonder if you think that your posts are intelligent, it's that wonderful childhood hubris that leads us to believe that we're intelligent. Even five years from now you'll look back on the things you wrote now and wonder how you ever thought yourself intelligent.

Most likely, but that's part of human maturation. It's natural.

Stop bumping.

You hate anyone who comments that ISN'T giving you fellatio. You call people stupid and tell them to shut up if they disagree with you. You constantly flame and troll about. And you linked this thread to death.

Nobody likes you, or your thread, so just make like a tree and get the fuck outta here.

(bonus points to whoever nabs that last sentance ;))

I hope you understand the crosses have nothing to do with religion in the first place. The Romans made criminals drag them through the cities, and then they hang them up on them until they died.

the romans created most of christianity as we know it.

Stop bumping.

You hate anyone who comments that ISN'T giving you fellatio. You call people stupid and tell them to shut up if they disagree with you. You constantly flame and troll about. And you linked this thread to death.

Nobody likes you, or your thread, so just make like a tree and get the fuck outta here.

(bonus points to whoever nabs that last sentance ;))

"linked to death" What the hell are you talking about?

"linked to death" What the hell are you talking about?
As in, you link to this thread in your posts in other threads. URL.

the romans created most of christianity as we know it.

Well, the Romans and Paul.

Stop bumping.

You hate anyone who comments that ISN'T giving you fellatio. You call people stupid and tell them to shut up if they disagree with you. You constantly flame and troll about. And you linked this thread to death.

Nobody likes you, or your thread, so just make like a tree and get the fuck outta here.

(bonus points to whoever nabs that last sentance ;))

Maybe it's just you that don't like me. And in this particular thread I recieved 80% positive feedback. So you're wrong again, puppet boy.

Maybe it's just you that don't like me. And in this particular thread I recieved 80% positive feedback. So you're wrong again, puppet boy.

Or maybe you got 80% positive feedback becuse most of us already know what you do to negative feedback.

Or maybe you got 80% positive feedback becuse most of us already know what you do to negative feedback.


I don't think so.

Does anyone have any INTELLIGENT comments.

Yeah, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when all you do is stereotype and generalize.

I don't think so.

Your response to someones criticism that your paper linked government and religion in a way that Orwell had not intend, after the person said "Okay, fine, screw Jesus." and while no one said anything in any particular way supporting Christianity:

I don't want a theological debate with a bunch of Jesus-freaks. Read the paper and comment! It's simple. Oh wait I know you can't read anything except the bible, I'm sorry.

Your response to an avowed Agnostic's critical response to your essay, which, along with being almost entirely nonsensical, contains a number of non-topical condemnations and incorrectly limitting questions:

I am so sick of "agnostics." I may hate organized relegion but there isn't a single thought that doubts gods existence. I hate Repbulicans, Goths, and too many people to list.

But agnostic is just annoying. It's a stupid phrase, do you belive in God or Not? Plain and simple.

the crusades, the reformation, the inquistion, the Tsarist purges(haha Stalin wasn't the only Russian psycho), The counter-reformation, the thirty years war, 9/11, The westbank crisis, the Ku klux klan for christ sake!

Need I say anymore?

In response to a person stating that they are a Republican and defending themself against your thoughtless and off-topic attack against Republicans in the previous post:

What does that have to do with anything?

Oh by the way:

"The good repbulicans are the ones who are to stupid or to poor to be evil like their capitalist overlords."
-just made it up

-- End of Page One --

Your response to Lunatic Goofballs after he said that he felt he had made himself clear on his opinion of your paper, to which you replied "Your a lunatic! Just read the paper and provide critiscim:"

My mind is very flexible. But not too flexible, yours is like a giant glob of gellow. The gelatin moves with every breeze, and their is no stabillity(IE mental stabillity)

To further attempts to both clarify the nature of, and defend the virtue of, Agnostisism, despite your repeated flame/flame-bait against Agnostics:

Just read the paper, that's all I want you people to do. And then comment on it.

To a criticism of your grammar and spelling:

If you read the title it's a rough draft!

-- End of Page Two --

I don't really think I need to go on, but it just gets worse from here.

Your response to someones criticism that your paper linked government and religion in a way that Orwell had not intend, after the person said "Okay, fine, screw Jesus." and while no one said anything in any particular way supporting Christianity:



Your response to an avowed Agnostic's critical response to your essay, which, along with being almost entirely nonsensical, contains a number of non-topical condemnations and incorrectly limitting questions:



In response to a person stating that they are a Republican and defending themself against your thoughtless and off-topic attack against Republicans in the previous post:



-- End of Page One --

Your response to Lunatic Goofballs after he said that he felt he had made himself clear on his opinion of your paper, to which you replied "Your a lunatic! Just read the paper and provide critiscim:"



To further attempts to both clarify the nature of, and defend the virtue of, Agnostisism, despite your repeated flame/flame-bait against Agnostics:



To a criticism of your grammar and spelling:



-- End of Page Two --

I don't really think I need to go on, but it just gets worse from here.

We know you just babble. But some of us do something called DEBATE. Yes now sound it out....

We know you just babble. But some of us do something called DEBATE. Yes now sound it out....

Really, I didn't babble, and there's nothing left to debate here. All the people with a half ounce of sanity left have run in fear for what little remains of their minds and those of us left are so far gone that nothing will save us. The rampant ignorance and idiocy of threads like this one have destroyed this forum's once sparkling reputation in the minds of the intelligent posters, and former posters here.

Really, I didn't babble, and there's nothing left to debate here. All the people with a half ounce of sanity left have run in fear for what little remains of their minds and those of us left are so far gone that nothing will save us. The rampant ignorance and idiocy of threads like this one have destroyed this forum's once sparkling reputation in the minds of the intelligent posters, and former posters here.


I think that's a little dramatic. The paper wasn't bad, and the concept is intresting to say the least.

Personally I like Alansyists, he's reminds me of Cartman, you can imagine him, red face & jumping up and down: 'Somebody post dammit, I need attention' .

However, when someone like Alansyists who won't listen to intelligent comments and continues to spout his tired, soft rhetoric, people stop treating him like an adult and would rather just pacify him and move on.

Alansysits, have a cupcake.

Personally I like Alansyists, he's reminds me of Cartman, you can imagine him, red face & jumping up and down: 'Somebody post dammit, I need attention' .

However, when someone like Alansyists who won't listen to intelligent comments and continues to spout his tired, soft rhetoric, people stop treating him like an adult and would rather just pacify him and move on.

Alansysits, have a cupcake.

Excellent!!

Anyway. I reckon Alansysists should go down to the church that's pissing him off so much and put his views (a bit more calmly) to them, challenge them over their alleged hate for black people etc. If they start shouting hellfire and brimstone at him or telling him why their hate views are right he should calmly say "oh, so you're not Christians then? Ok bye" and leave (I'd recommend a little haste in that departure. And body armour).

HOWEVER... if they tell him they don't hate anyone, they hate sin, yadda yadda, he should have to listen and change his attitude.

How's that?

I hope you understand the crosses have nothing to do with religion in the first place. The Romans made criminals drag them through the cities, and then they hang them up on them until they died.

It's an icon similar to the pictures and posters of Big Brother in 1984...
An icon, a figure that stands for something else than just the figure it portrays, the "party"/church.

Personally I like Alansyists, he's reminds me of Cartman, you can imagine him, red face & jumping up and down: 'Somebody post dammit, I need attention' .

However, when someone like Alansyists who won't listen to intelligent comments and continues to spout his tired, soft rhetoric, people stop treating him like an adult and would rather just pacify him and move on.

Alansysits, have a cupcake.

Yum..... mmmm Yummy cupcake/

We know you just babble. But some of us do something called DEBATE. Yes now sound it out....It looked to me that Our Earth was providing examples of what Alansyists does to negative feedback, as Alansyists appeared to be disputing that he "[calls] people stupid and [tells] them to shut up if they disagree with [him]". See, that's what people do in a debate; they provide citations to support their position, something Alansyists utterly failed to do in his screed. When I was in grade 9, I was expected to provide citations and examples in my essays to back up my analysis.

Alansyist's essay didn't deserve debate, as Dempublicents observed it was stereotyping and generalization. As a result it was trivial to provide counterexamples to his statements. Nevertheless, some of us did engage in debate for what little good it did.

You DO realize that 1984 is a satire on totalitarian government and that it has nothing to do with religion? While I am not much of a religious guy, I must also make the point that the people of Oceania HAVE seen Big Brother: He's got rugged features, a black mustache... Just read and you'll hear a description of him from the Party or a poster, and so on...

People have seen christ. lon hair, sad face, white, etc.... don't mean he was any more real.

We know you just babble. But some of us do something called DEBATE. Yes now sound it out....

actually what he did is debating. s/he came up with arguments and bakced it up with quotes and sources.

When you use the term debate, I get the impression you are refering to arguing.

It looked to me that Our Earth was providing examples of what Alansyists does to negative feedback, as Alansyists appeared to be disputing that he "[calls] people stupid and [tells] them to shut up if they disagree with [him]". See, that's what people do in a debate; they provide citations to support their position, something Alansyists utterly failed to do in his screed. When I was in grade 9, I was expected to provide citations and examples in my essays to back up my analysis.

Alansyist's essay didn't deserve debate, as Dempublicents observed it was stereotyping and generalization. As a result it was trivial to provide counterexamples to his statements. Nevertheless, some of us did engage in debate for what little good it did.


They're certain studies, like philosphiy, where a man doesn't need a "source." Sources actually take orginality from a paper.

If you're writting a science paper sure, a bibiliography is good. But this paper is not political in nature. Rather it is theological and philisphoical.

Up with Alansyism, down with relegion.

In Orwell’s classic “1984”, the government of Oceania monitored and controlled the civilian population through fear. Much like the major religions of today. Both are based on entities no one has ever seen or met. Both are very totalitarian in nature, and only care for power, and the survival of themselves. They have both created an aura of fear around themselves, cloaked in holiness, but filled with blackness, their followers do not worship out of love. No, it is either submission through fear of their respective “Hells.” Or strength through pure ignorance, and blind devotion to their blood thirsty deities. Often times they are ruthless in their quest for power, and in this paper I will expose religion, Christianity in particular, and prove to you God and Big Brother aren’t that different.

Both recruit members through guilt. A guilt that does not involve normal human morals, but rather a guilt that they have invented. Killing, stealing, and lying, can be justified by their organization. Big Brother was against violence, unless it was government approved. The morals laid down by their “master” are not as important as approval from the priest, or inner party member. The guilt behind “bad thoughts” appears very often in church. He begs the priest for forgiveness, for he has committed a thought-crime. The priest cleanses his mind much like O’Brien in the ministry of love. They want to be the central authority, the number one thought on everyone's mind.

They are opposed to luxuries, sex, and life without their deity. Their followers have a certain air of self righteousness, and even argue about who loves their idol more. Their close mindedness, and mindlessness, shows itself in their intolerance for other belief systems, usually almost identical to theirs. If you look into their ranks you will see shifty eyes, always suspicious of their comrades. If a single “impure,” “unclean,” word is uttered or thought Hell or the Ministry of Love awaits you. Paranoia, is the order of the day, one man accusing another of blasphemy is all too common. We have seen it in the inquisition, Stalinist Russia, and even in the tiny town of Salem. Trust and camaraderie, are their promises, but they only provide you with watchdogs. Men who will stab you in the back because they’re afraid you’ve strayed from the “true” path. In “1984” wisdom was thrown in a cell, regarded as a ticket to hell, and no one was able to pick up the mantle of human accomplishment. I’m afraid religion may do this to us.


Their falseness and lies are all to apparent to any thinking man. But a superstitious fear of punishment still lingers in the human psyche. Why can’t they break their chains? Why can they not deliver themselves from this wretched life style. Which denies them the right to existence, except through God or Big Brother. They have been promised a paradise after a life of work and toil. Heaven for Christians, and Big Brother’s approval for the citizens of Oceania. Their great Nazi-styled processions incite youth to follow a false doctrine enveloped in gold, and crusted with blood. Their flames are fueled with human sacrifice. Everyday they curse their enemies for killing their “comrade.” When dissected by a semi-intelligent individual they will find he was not killed, he was sacrificed. Yes aside from fear and ignorance, hate is another control method utilized by both parties.


Taken into perspective let’s say Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania represent the three major religions of the world. In “1984” they are in an eternal struggle with one another. This struggles objective is not victory, rather it is meant to unite their followers. To frighten them, and make them think they need “protection.” Much like a woman who has been abused by her husband for years, but believes she needs him for “protection.” Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all founded on the same basic tenants. Yet they fight, over what? Minor differences in their theology, ideological irreconcilability? No, they have been taught since the cradle they hate one another. They don’t ever question the input, and the output is always hatred. The child of fundamentalists is the devil in a guise of purity. He hates all those who are unlike him, even though they worship the same god. His thoughts revolve around his enigmatic “god,” which no one has ever seen or spoken to. His thoughts also concern themselves with killing or converting the “infidels.” Since he is so devout he must not only make his life miserable, but he must also force his crude militant life style onto others. He will kill, which the bible clearly is against. But he will also discriminate against non-Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. The bible speaks of wars in the name of god, it speaks of blood and death. Within the same book it speaks of peace and an eternal paradise. If only their followers could see how they are being manipulated. But they have had these ideals instilled into their heads since they were toddlers. Even at rather young ages, they are hapless. Forever will they walk amongst the ignorant.


Big Brother, God, Christianity, Ingsoc, Eurasia, Islam, Eastasia, Judaism, Ministry of Love, and Hell. They are identical in every way. If you are willing to accept it, then please do so. If you have eyes, you will see things you never knew existed. Similarities, hypocrisy, trends. Ultimately, the Christians, Muslims, and Jews, will eat their own. Leaving the earth barren, a giant heap of rock and human work. Work completed by real men, not fearful drones craving violence. Monuments, books, and beauty mean nothing to them. They are savage, inhuman, barbarians. They will burn civilization to the ground, in the name of their benevolent lord. Eternal ignorance, violence, and turmoil are exactly what they want. They want your fear, and that is exactly what your giving them.


This is a rough draft by the way.

Someone here: 1)Needs to learn the basic conventions of English.
2)Needs to take "1984" less seriously.
3)Needs some PMS pills. QUICKLY!

You DO realize that 1984 is a satire on totalitarian government and that it has nothing to do with religion? While I am not much of a religious guy, I must also make the point that the people of Oceania HAVE seen Big Brother: He's got rugged features, a black mustache... Just read and you'll hear a description of him from the Party or a poster, and so on...

They didn't even know if Big Brother existed, or if he was made up by the inner party.

In Orwell’s classic “1984”, the government of Oceania monitored and controlled the civilian population through fear. Much like the major religions of today. Both are based on entities no one has ever seen or met. Both are very totalitarian in nature, and only care for power, and the survival of themselves. They have both created an aura of fear around themselves, cloaked in holiness, but filled with blackness, their followers do not worship out of love. No, it is either submission through fear of their respective “Hells.” Or strength through pure ignorance, and blind devotion to their blood thirsty deities. Often times they are ruthless in their quest for power, and in this paper I will expose religion, Christianity in particular, and prove to you God and Big Brother aren’t that different.

Both recruit members through guilt. A guilt that does not involve normal human morals, but rather a guilt that they have invented. Killing, stealing, and lying, can be justified by their organization. Big Brother was against violence, unless it was government approved. The morals laid down by their “master” are not as important as approval from the priest, or inner party member. The guilt behind “bad thoughts” appears very often in church. He begs the priest for forgiveness, for he has committed a thought-crime. The priest cleanses his mind much like O’Brien in the ministry of love. They want to be the central authority, the number one thought on everyone's mind.

They are opposed to luxuries, sex, and life without their deity. Their followers have a certain air of self righteousness, and even argue about who loves their idol more. Their close mindedness, and mindlessness, shows itself in their intolerance for other belief systems, usually almost identical to theirs. If you look into their ranks you will see shifty eyes, always suspicious of their comrades. If a single “impure,” “unclean,” word is uttered or thought Hell or the Ministry of Love awaits you. Paranoia, is the order of the day, one man accusing another of blasphemy is all too common. We have seen it in the inquisition, Stalinist Russia, and even in the tiny town of Salem. Trust and camaraderie, are their promises, but they only provide you with watchdogs. Men who will stab you in the back because they’re afraid you’ve strayed from the “true” path. In “1984” wisdom was thrown in a cell, regarded as a ticket to hell, and no one was able to pick up the mantle of human accomplishment. I’m afraid religion may do this to us.


Their falseness and lies are all to apparent to any thinking man. But a superstitious fear of punishment still lingers in the human psyche. Why can’t they break their chains? Why can they not deliver themselves from this wretched life style. Which denies them the right to existence, except through God or Big Brother. They have been promised a paradise after a life of work and toil. Heaven for Christians, and Big Brother’s approval for the citizens of Oceania. Their great Nazi-styled processions incite youth to follow a false doctrine enveloped in gold, and crusted with blood. Their flames are fueled with human sacrifice. Everyday they curse their enemies for killing their “comrade.” When dissected by a semi-intelligent individual they will find he was not killed, he was sacrificed. Yes aside from fear and ignorance, hate is another control method utilized by both parties.


Taken into perspective let’s say Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania represent the three major religions of the world. In “1984” they are in an eternal struggle with one another. This struggles objective is not victory, rather it is meant to unite their followers. To frighten them, and make them think they need “protection.” Much like a woman who has been abused by her husband for years, but believes she needs him for “protection.” Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all founded on the same basic tenants. Yet they fight, over what? Minor differences in their theology, ideological irreconcilability? No, they have been taught since the cradle they hate one another. They don’t ever question the input, and the output is always hatred. The child of fundamentalists is the devil in a guise of purity. He hates all those who are unlike him, even though they worship the same god. His thoughts revolve around his enigmatic “god,” which no one has ever seen or spoken to. His thoughts also concern themselves with killing or converting the “infidels.” Since he is so devout he must not only make his life miserable, but he must also force his crude militant life style onto others. He will kill, which the bible clearly is against. But he will also discriminate against non-Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. The bible speaks of wars in the name of god, it speaks of blood and death. Within the same book it speaks of peace and an eternal paradise. If only their followers could see how they are being manipulated. But they have had these ideals instilled into their heads since they were toddlers. Even at rather young ages, they are hapless. Forever will they walk amongst the ignorant.


Big Brother, God, Christianity, Ingsoc, Eurasia, Islam, Eastasia, Judaism, Ministry of Love, and Hell. They are identical in every way. If you are willing to accept it, then please do so. If you have eyes, you will see things you never knew existed. Similarities, hypocrisy, trends. Ultimately, the Christians, Muslims, and Jews, will eat their own. Leaving the earth barren, a giant heap of rock and human work. Work completed by real men, not fearful drones craving violence. Monuments, books, and beauty mean nothing to them. They are savage, inhuman, barbarians. They will burn civilization to the ground, in the name of their benevolent lord. Eternal ignorance, violence, and turmoil are exactly what they want. They want your fear, and that is exactly what your giving them.


This is a rough draft by the way.

Excellent persuasive opinion piece.

Critique? Okay.. One word: research.

Interesting ideas, could make for a very good essay.

Provide more evidence though. You make lots of assertions that you don't support -

"controlled the civilian population through fear. Much like the major religions of today."
"only care for power, and the survival of themselves"
And so on. Most other assertions are more supported, but some could use a bit more evidence.

Go through and for each idea, ask yourself "how do I know this is true" and provide factual support... it'll make it more convincing.

...and please, take out the bits that basically say "if you don't see this then you're stupid," such as your phrase "their falseness and lies are all to apparent to any thinking man. " It adds nothing to your argument, and insults the readers - it merely convinces them that you're biased and not open-minded and gives the impression that you're just ranting.

Overall, interesting comparison though. I like it, could make a very good essay if it was less condescending and had more evidence.

1. Define plagiarism.
2. Try developing your own ideas.
3. One book does not a "New World Vision" make.

Critique? Okay.. One word: research.

The jesus freaks in my school are my source.

In Orwell’s classic “1984”, the government of Oceania monitored and controlled the civilian population through fear. Much like the major religions of today. Both are based on entities no one has ever seen or met. Both are very totalitarian in nature, and only care for power, and the survival of themselves. They have both created an aura of fear around themselves, cloaked in holiness, but filled with blackness, their followers do not worship out of love. No, it is either submission through fear of their respective “Hells.” Or strength through pure ignorance, and blind devotion to their blood thirsty deities. Often times they are ruthless in their quest for power, and in this paper I will expose religion, Christianity in particular, and prove to you God and Big Brother aren’t that different.

Both recruit members through guilt. A guilt that does not involve normal human morals, but rather a guilt that they have invented. Killing, stealing, and lying, can be justified by their organization. Big Brother was against violence, unless it was government approved. The morals laid down by their “master” are not as important as approval from the priest, or inner party member. The guilt behind “bad thoughts” appears very often in church. He begs the priest for forgiveness, for he has committed a thought-crime. The priest cleanses his mind much like O’Brien in the ministry of love. They want to be the central authority, the number one thought on everyone's mind.

They are opposed to luxuries, sex, and life without their deity. Their followers have a certain air of self righteousness, and even argue about who loves their idol more. Their close mindedness, and mindlessness, shows itself in their intolerance for other belief systems, usually almost identical to theirs. If you look into their ranks you will see shifty eyes, always suspicious of their comrades. If a single “impure,” “unclean,” word is uttered or thought Hell or the Ministry of Love awaits you. Paranoia, is the order of the day, one man accusing another of blasphemy is all too common. We have seen it in the inquisition, Stalinist Russia, and even in the tiny town of Salem. Trust and camaraderie, are their promises, but they only provide you with watchdogs. Men who will stab you in the back because they’re afraid you’ve strayed from the “true” path. In “1984” wisdom was thrown in a cell, regarded as a ticket to hell, and no one was able to pick up the mantle of human accomplishment. I’m afraid religion may do this to us.


Their falseness and lies are all to apparent to any thinking man. But a superstitious fear of punishment still lingers in the human psyche. Why can’t they break their chains? Why can they not deliver themselves from this wretched life style. Which denies them the right to existence, except through God or Big Brother. They have been promised a paradise after a life of work and toil. Heaven for Christians, and Big Brother’s approval for the citizens of Oceania. Their great Nazi-styled processions incite youth to follow a false doctrine enveloped in gold, and crusted with blood. Their flames are fueled with human sacrifice. Everyday they curse their enemies for killing their “comrade.” When dissected by a semi-intelligent individual they will find he was not killed, he was sacrificed. Yes aside from fear and ignorance, hate is another control method utilized by both parties.


Taken into perspective let’s say Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania represent the three major religions of the world. In “1984” they are in an eternal struggle with one another. This struggles objective is not victory, rather it is meant to unite their followers. To frighten them, and make them think they need “protection.” Much like a woman who has been abused by her husband for years, but believes she needs him for “protection.” Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all founded on the same basic tenants. Yet they fight, over what? Minor differences in their theology, ideological irreconcilability? No, they have been taught since the cradle they hate one another. They don’t ever question the input, and the output is always hatred. The child of fundamentalists is the devil in a guise of purity. He hates all those who are unlike him, even though they worship the same god. His thoughts revolve around his enigmatic “god,” which no one has ever seen or spoken to. His thoughts also concern themselves with killing or converting the “infidels.” Since he is so devout he must not only make his life miserable, but he must also force his crude militant life style onto others. He will kill, which the bible clearly is against. But he will also discriminate against non-Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. The bible speaks of wars in the name of god, it speaks of blood and death. Within the same book it speaks of peace and an eternal paradise. If only their followers could see how they are being manipulated. But they have had these ideals instilled into their heads since they were toddlers. Even at rather young ages, they are hapless. Forever will they walk amongst the ignorant.


Big Brother, God, Christianity, Ingsoc, Eurasia, Islam, Eastasia, Judaism, Ministry of Love, and Hell. They are identical in every way. If you are willing to accept it, then please do so. If you have eyes, you will see things you never knew existed. Similarities, hypocrisy, trends. Ultimately, the Christians, Muslims, and Jews, will eat their own. Leaving the earth barren, a giant heap of rock and human work. Work completed by real men, not fearful drones craving violence. Monuments, books, and beauty mean nothing to them. They are savage, inhuman, barbarians. They will burn civilization to the ground, in the name of their benevolent lord. Eternal ignorance, violence, and turmoil are exactly what they want. They want your fear, and that is exactly what your giving them.


This is a rough draft by the way.
So you are saying religion is evil? Well, have you ever tried actually learning about a religion instead of constantly being bitter about people who worship? You speak about that we(for I am a Catholic) want your fear, when you are trying to use fear throughout this paper. We are not barbarians. All the religions of the world have made great contributions to civilization. And correct me if I'm wrong in assuming you are an atheist, but I have not heard yet of an atheist who has made a positive contribution to mankind. If you want people to start actually thinking about these papers, you shouldn't be so negative towards them.

So you are saying religion is evil? Well, have you ever tried actually learning about a religion instead of constantly being bitter about people who worship? You speak about that we(for I am a Catholic) want your fear, when you are trying to use fear throughout this paper. We are not barbarians. All the religions of the world have made great contributions to civilization. And correct me if I'm wrong in assuming you are an atheist, but I have not heard yet of an atheist who has made a positive contribution to mankind. If you want people to start actually thinking about these papers, you shouldn't be so negative towards them.

I believe in God, anyone who doesn't is an idiot. I disagree with organized relegion on the grounds of morality.

Juluis Caesar, Alexander the Great, too many writters to list, scientists..etc

I believe in God, anyone who doesn't is an idiot. I disagree with organized relegion on the grounds of morality.

Juluis Caesar, Alexander the Great, too many writters to list, scientists..etc
I see your point, but only to an extent. Morality is religion really. Morals are what formed religion, and religion is what formed morals. They always have co-existed ever since the first religion. And morals are what keep things under control around the world. A place without morals would be absolute chaos. Also what you are talking about is just a movie. Movies have to be kept interesting, so they made some stuff up for this one. In the real world, religions usually have more good then bad to them(unless they're ones that practice human sacrifices and such.)