Marx perceived religion as an oppressive

force. Discuss.
Marx had a very negative perception of religion. He labeled it as
the opium of the people.
According to Marx there have been very close associations
between rulers and religion throughout history. He explained that
religions sometimes promote and encourage sacrifices and fasting,
while promising rewards in the afterlife. This false hope hinders the
peoples urge to revolt. When Marx predicted that countries would be
ruled by communism, he also predicted that people would cease to
practice religion of their own free will. This was because he thought
that in communist countries, people would not need illusions. In
reality it was the rulers that suppressed religion. Marx was criticized
because his prediction was Utopian and believed that humans could
live without being selfish and egocentric.
Marx also believed that religion hinders social change. Most
religions are conservative and tend to try and maintain the status
quo. An example is the system of castes in Hindu societies. This
hinders social mobility, as the Hindus believe that a person is
reincarnated into a better or worse caste, depending on their actions
in their previous life. This means that they believe that once you are
born in a caste, you are destined to die in the same caste.
On the other hand there were Marxists and Neo Marxists such
as Fredrick Engels and Maduro that considered religion as an agent
of change in some cases. A clear example is the liberation theology
promoted by the catholic priests in Latin America. This encourages
social change. Another example at a higher level is Pope John Paul IIs
fight against communism.
Functionalists that studied religion focused on whether
religion is functional for society, individuals in a society and other
institutions within society. There are certain aspects where Marx and
functionalists agree but the main difference is in their perceptions.
Marx was very critical while functionalists see it in a positive light. In
fact some have criticized the functionalists for overlooking the
dysfunctional part of religion. For example when religions cause
violent conflicts between different religions.
In Webers THE PROTESTANT ETHIC AND THE SPIRIT OF
CAPITALISM he showed that in certain circumstances, religion can
bring about change. He explained that capitalism originated in
Calvinist societies, who because of their religious beliefs were
hardworking and successful in their work. He continued to explain
that at the same time, India and China had the resources to start
capitalism but because their religion was not compatible with the
work ethics needed to start capitalism, capitalism din not occur at
that time.
In recent times, the rise of secularization in Western Countries
has led to a rise in fundamentalism. Fundamental religion is
conservative. To consider fundamentalism as an agent of social
change depends on the perspective. In countries were the Charia law
has been adopted it is used to oppress the people, especially the
women which have no rights.
Throughout history we have seen several instances where the
religion has sided with the state to oppress the people. It is however
up to the people to choose what religion they want. How can we say
that religion oppresses the people when in some countries it is the
people themselves who want this?