Thought I would like this guy more?

On the Jewish Question is an essay in response to another philosopher, Bruno Bauer, who had argued that the state's separation from the church is what leads to the achievement of true freedom. Marx basically disagrees and provides an outline for a truer freedom called: human emancipation. This is framed by Marx as the ultimate end of human development, and is reached through man's discarding of religion and civil society which are simultaneously working to subject man to an oppression that stops him from recognizing the greatness of his unalienated labor, or species-being.

For Marx, religion (enemy #1) is a human construct that was necessary to humanity's development, but now nothing more than a point of contention that causes struggles for (false) liberation. He writes that "as soon as Jew and Christian come to see in their respective religions nothing more than stages in the development of the human mind... they will no longer find themselves in religious opposition" (28). He goes on to write about how religious thought on liberty has come to promote an egoism that exalts individual freedom at the expense of community life. This egoism works in conjunction with political society which seeks to protect these liberties for its citizenry. Marx writes "thus man was not liberated from religion; he received religious liberty. He was not liberated from property; he received liberty to own property. He was not liberated from the egoism of business; he received the liberty to engage in business" (45). This centering of the individual, which guaranteed by political society (as we currently know it) prevents us from achieving the human emancipation that Marx thinks we are destined for (making political society enemy #2).

In the second chapter, he discusses how the supposed perversion of Judaism has, in his view, led Jewish people to become more egoistic than others, alluding that the Jewish path to emancipation is more difficult. He writes that "the god of the Jews has been secularized" (50) which is strange to me because what is supposed to be left of the religion that kills off God? Can you even call it religion anymore? In that case can he stop hating on it for second? I don't know? 

Other thoughts: 

If we look at the form of globalized capitalism that we have today, the extractive bourgeoisie is the increasingly atheistic and individualistic West, while the exploited proletariat is the global south which is significantly more religious and community-centered. I am sure there is some sort of infinitely regressive argument you could make within his theory/framework but maybe he was just wrong? Also, he writes that "Man emancipates himself politically from religion by expelling it from the sphere of public law to that of private law." If, from an anthropological view, religion has provided the moral frameworks that have informed our legal systems, what is left of any private or public law when you completely expel its influence? How does this not devolve into a Nietzschean catastrophe where the power to subjugate becomes the ultimate dictate of human progress?

Question on the species-being: I am probably reading this wrong but something feels really off about intrinsic human value being placed on our ability to produce nice things. How is this any different than capitalism's reduction of humans to economic units?