THE HIDDEN AGENDA OF THE MASTER SUSPICIONS
Andrew Collier in this chapter tries to make clear the Mark thoughts, especially some key concepts related to religion and state. Firstly, he explains that when Mark concedes that religion is opium of the people. The word “opium” usually understands in negative term. It is true that opium is drug, but according to (he quotes) Masignor Quixote point, it is respectable drug in Marx time. So, what Marx says can be update by using respectable things for the people, like valium for the poor, etc. Second, Collier says that religion is not bourgeois tools to console the poor, but the poor themselves who produce the hope. Religious is to speak the oppressed group. For Mark, religion is to back the poor from rebellion the religion to the rebellion in reality, in struggle of classes. Thus, religion become liberation instrument for the poor, if they aware what Mark means. Because, I think it likes sock therapy for religion adherent; maybe he says “no one will help you when you run from your responsibility”. In the other hand, we can say that actually Mark struggles for emancipation, not for money oriented. Thus, nobody permitted to exploit and oppressed another because he have strength and prosperity. In order to everybody can life with his personal authenticity.
Mark, Nitzhe, and Freud called as master of suspicion, because they have unique view of religion. If Collier statement above is true, in simple way their thoughts can be labeled as secularist thoughts, rather than atheist. Generally they see religion produced by social structure, true or false produced inside. In this way, knowledge can resemble with religion, if religion became the dominant ideology. But secularist is not neutral position, my be sometimes he claims that one need reason for believing something but that ones doesn’t need something for not believing something. Secularist character is dominating, if economy and politic dominate culture it also named as secularist.
For me, Mark, Nitzhe, and Freud thought are very interesting because their brave and veracity to critic dominant power in the social and cultural life. I know, not all what they think is appropriate with our cultures, but more or less his analyze can happens in our culture. Eastern cultures that more give attention to the ancient culture, like cannot go ahead front of the old age, in political culture it can hamper the regeneration of the leader. From oppressed perspective it can see as domination one class to another class. The most similar with their thesis also happens in Indonesia, there are many classes, and most of the Indonesian people are oppressed in economy, because they are poor. In the other hand, religion is important. Muslim is majority here, but religion is not being liberation instruments yet. Religion is still being an authority tolls for power holder to legitimate their political action. Citizen just follow religion and consistent to his believe, cannot take values from it for his life in the economical life. Hence, religion is still gives an advantage to some peoples, not for all. Secularism, atheist, and religion maybe close together, so sometimes we grasp it all. However, in social life we have to choose one, faith to one it means infidel to another.[]
