...is actually taken out of context and misunderstood.

What he actually said was this:
"Religious distress is at the same the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of an unspiritual situation. It is the opium of the people."

When he says "opium," he is referring to the drug's ability to dull the pain and nothing else.
This is quote different from our usual perceptions of Karl Marx, isn't it?

Your thoughts?

I feel though, that by dulling pain Marx was refering to a larger problem, that is the whole being able to turn off your feelings in the name of relgion, a huge problem when we view Marx as he should be veiwed, in his time. With captialism pure and is such an oppresive form, being able to dull your feelings is what kept the top on top and the bottom on bottom.

I agree about that. Marx believed that those on top (the "masters") used religion to keep everyone else (the "slaves") in check. It's basically an excuse for us to be slaves. In ancient Egypt, it was the belief that the Pharoah was the son of God. In the Feudal era, it was Christianity. And in the US, it is the American Dream.

However, in that same quote, Marx calls religion the heart of a heartless world, so he cannot believe that the sole purpose of religion is to keep us as slaves.

No, Marx was saying that relgion isn't the sole problem, or even the root problem itself. He was saying that relgion was a symptom of the illness, not really the illness itself. Marx is saying that relgion is somthing that tries to bring meaning, or "heart," into the heartless world. But just like a drug, it doesn't actually fix anything, it just dumbs the nerves (in this case, the nerve being the brain) enough that it can cope with the pain. What is being said is that relgion gets rid of the pain but doesn't solve the root of the pain, it allows us to forget the pain and be, in essence, sheep to the people in control for we look forward to a made up happy land at the end of life.

I think when people over simplfy or over-debate Marx and relgion they forget that Marx was an economist, first and foremost. Commies of the 20th and 21st centuries have incorrectly made relgion a battleground.

Stupid pinkos.

Speaking as a Communist, I agree.

I have to admit it's pretty stupid of them to do so, they'd have a lot of allies who take their faiths seriously if they weren't so damn ostracizing of religion.

I'm thinking back to a rally in Chicago I went to where I met up with some socialists there and was having a nice conversation with them and one of them noticed the fact I wore a cross. I'd been asking where they met and mentioned I'd be interested in joining them for one of their meetings in the near future, when they asked if I was religious pointing to the cross I said yes. They made it clear they weren't and that would be an issue...

Its true, and that goes not only for liberal groups, but some moderate ones as well. Its when you take an issue as polarizing as religion and take a very controversial stance (in this case against it) you are automatically not only going to lose a great deal of people on the other side, but also moderates that will be forced to take a position against you.