Dismissing religion in smug superiority is the opiate of the Marxist elite.
More or less. However, Marxist rhetoric is essentially irritating those content people under influence of certain religion/cultural structure to rebel against the structure. So essentially, Marxism is not opiate, it is irritating instead of soothing. Think about monks in Age of Empire 2.
Well, Marx's statements more or less imply that religion was a tool created to oppress the lower classes. Which religion isn't more than Marxism.
Do note that religion is a somewhat unlucky term, since only Islam and Christianity more or less fulfill religion's definition entirely.
No. Marx only states that the masses take the religion to reduce the pain they feel in their daily lives. It is not the same stating religion is developed in the first place for oppressing. Such that we can't claim god invented opium to drug humanity, or doctors discover opium to drug people into tranquility and maintain social order. It is the side effect for the original purpose.
Elevating suffering as godly & promising a pleasant afterlife for the meek & obedient does seem an excellent way to keep the masses sedated.
Christianity seems to have morphed into something else entirely nowadays. More of a dissociative than a sedative nowadays.
In the modern age, religion works as "rehabilitating" force for the unfortunate people, and a social link for the mainstream people, that's two distinctive operation modes of a church. Anyway, it is very different from classical age or middle age, where it is dominating force for the society and elite.
1. Who knows. Maybe some religions are nothing more than ways in which those in power legitimate their power. And so for example some early religions perhaps glorified the powerful as almost gods in themselves who were therefore above "ordinary mortals". I don't think all religions are necessarily that way. For example Christianity seems to have originated at the "grass roots" level with Jesus. As it has grown more and more entrenched in society it has maybe been used (or perhaps abused) by some to legitimate things which Jesus probably wouldn't have approved of. It's sort of funny that where Marx claims religion is a tool of the powerful to control the masses, Nietzsche, in some places, seems to say almost the exact opposite that religion is the tool of the weak to prevent the strong from fully expressing their strength.
2. Many of the large religions have evolved many different, even competing ideas from the influence of many different thinkers of many different personalities and dispositions. It would be hard to characterize Christianity for example as any single drug. It can have exhilarating characteristics as well as depressing ones. I believe Kierkegaard once likened Christianity to an anti-depressant.
It's probably telling that religions may often be created by a single "founder" such as Jesus, Mohammed or the Buddha, etc. but over time they begin to take on many different characteristics as different thinkers offer their own interpretations of what these founders "really meant". And so there are many sects with many different ideas about the world, constantly trying to make the major religions match their own ideas about how the world should be. Religions are constantly evolving to meet new challenges to them. For example, as science has evolved Christianity has done much to try to repair the pieces of the Bible that seem to contradict the findings of science. There are those who say that although Genesis may not match up with history that it isn't damaging to Christianity or Judaism, for whatever reason.
1. The religion simply to legitimize the powerful ruler is called "cult of personality", usually dies with the death of dear leader. Too many modern examples, and a classical one comes from Mughal Emperor Akbar's "royal faith".
Christianity was not developed for the purpose. It has been a grass-root resistance movement among Roman subjects for several centuries until Roman emperor finally bought it (before that, several kingdom already bought it). From pure pragmatic view, it shows Christianity is as useful in ruler's hand as in peasants' mind. And the effect, as Marx pointed out, it is soothing the pain and rationalize the suffering (sainthood, religious masochism and martyrdom). Marx called it opium, and Nietzsche thought it is a religion for the weak, which is in agreement with each other, but in different angles (Marx disapproved the drug effect, while Nietzsche disapproved the weakness, in other words, Marx: "Ruler should not dope people", Nietzsche: "People should not take the doping").
Because Marx lived his life in the environment in Western Europe, I would take his view of religion only as view on Christianity. Different religions have much different effects (different drugs for different symptom). For example, Marxism-Leninism as a state religion equivalent in Communist Single Party states give several canons radically different from Christianity.
2. Under an umbrella there must be several drugs from the same pharmaceutical company! To me, mainstream is opium, heretics are heroins, post-modernist is the cannabis, the Marxism and other left wing radicalism as amphetamine, militaristic surges are steroids.
But like opiate and crack, must be used with extreme caution or you over do it and become a jerk.
