Marxism sees religion as a feature which is only relevant in a society based on class division I.E the ruling classes and the working classes. They believe that with the beginning of true communism after the social revolution religion, in classless society will disappear. Marxists believe that religion and the institutions linked with it such as churches and the education system is controlled by the same ruling classes which control economic production. They argue that religion as a belief system distorts people’s perception of reality in such a way that benefits the ruling class. For
In comparison to this view Marxists see society as promoting the interests of the ruling class and legitimating suffering and therefore preventing social change. In Marx’s words religion is the “opiate of the people” which makes their working class life more bearable. Feminists also agree that religion serves the interest of the powerful, however they believe this supports the social structure of patriarchy and legitimates women’s subordinate position. For example this is seen through Hinduisms support of arranged marriages and the Catholic Church’s banishment of abortion. In contrast Weber’s views suggest that religion has acted as a powerful force of social change.
The poor were treated with contempt and marginalized. The religion was distorted to amass wealth endangering the society as a whole. Jesus saw it and was determined to redeem men from the clutches of this unfair system. Viewed against this background, it is fair enough to assert that He advocated a change of the existing order of things. Within the meaning of this interpretation, Jesus was a rebel, yet He did not campaign for the achievement of the aim through violence.
The Industrial Revolution was rejected by the conservatives because it brought more power to the bourgeoisie, who owned the means of production, while it weakened the nobles. Liberalism embraced the Industrial Revolution, as it was considered the “bourgeois liberalism”. Religiously, they were very different as well. Conversatism favored a well established, powerful church (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox), and believed the Enlightenment had brought violence upon the Catholic church. There wasn’t much separation between church and state.
By looking at the wedding celebration at the beginning of the novel, one may see how the immigrant identity invites exploitation through its reliance on an unspoken code of conduct. The American identity is shown to be similarly problematic, because it encourages self-interest that ultimately only serves to further disempower the poor. The novel presents the socialist identity as the only sustainable identity out of these three, because it is the only one with the ability to directly and explicitly confront the ways in which capitalism is inherently stacked against the interests of the
Radicals believe that capitalist profit from consumers, who are being exploited. In relation to the bill, radicals would say it’s the capitalist who are destroying the environment and disregarding human presence all in the name of profits. Radicals would approve of the bill as it would put an end to exploitation. But it does not completely comply with their views. A radical solution doe not exist in a capitalist society, but can only work if capitalism no longer existed.
Then the theory was applied to human development by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner thought that the economy was a natural event and that it did not need any guidance in its evolution. And based on Sumer’s views they greatly contrasted the beliefs of the Social Gospel. Under the theory of Social Darwinism a person’s “fitness” was determined by their wealth, social status, and their property. And similar to Darwin’s actual theory the poor people in this case were seen as “less fit to survive” because they were seen as being lazy and inferior to the wealthy. Also the theory of Social Darwinism appealed to the protestant work ethic because they believed that anyone could become successful and prosper with hard work intelligence and perseverance.
Puritans set out for the New World with a vision already created for how they would shape the civilization into a utopia rooted in religious values and ideals, so great that it would shame England. Economically, Puritans had the idea that religion and profit would “jump together' as in they would function together and religion would hold profiteering to a moral obligation to keep merchants from abusing shortages to obtain “excessive” profit. Socially, Puritans used Puritanism as the frame-work for a perfect, god-worshiping society. John Winthrop denounced the idea that social classes bred hate among people, he believed that the rich and the poor should depend on one another. Also, Puritans were held to moral standard at all times whether private or public and that marriage was to be regulated by the state rather then religious sacrament.
The Imperial secretary Sang Hongyang declares “abolition of these measures is not expedient.” This statement means that Legalists believe the policies are necessary to keep the empire running and that it is not practical to abolish them, for then the treasuries would be depleted and funding for defense for the soldiers would be obsolete. Then he goes on to explain how “equitable marketing” was established and how it contributes to their country. Before this system, the people would send respective products as tributes to support the country, but the Legalists think that people are untrustworthy and should be governed by laws to force them to do good. They came up with this set of laws, i.e. setting up transportation offices, forcing the people to send their goods to these places because the government did not trust the quality of the products sent from the people.
Anti- Herbert hoover had the opposite view of the New Deal; he thought that doing the New Deal was wasting money. In his viewpoint, he thought that nobody was starving and there shouldn’t be government intervention in the economy. There was a candidate president called Alfred Landon that opposed the New Deal because he thought that it was extravagance and impractical. In conclusion, I didn’t change my view for the New Deal; I think that the New Deal was the best choice for the Americans at the Depression time. There should be government intervention in the economy such as helping the poor and establishing the organizations that helped the unemployment