Religion
- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I agree with you, Meel, that religion is obviously more than Protestantism. I also agree with you that if someone wants to worship an invisible man in the sky then that's their business. I do have a problem when they bring their ludicrous fairy tales into the public domain and try to shape society using their twisted religious values.Puritanism seems to have been partly shaped by capitalism and also to have been part of the social ethos that shaped capitalism. The 17th-century Puritans placed great emphasis on hard work (there's nothing wrong with that except their version of hard work meant unremitting hard work), profit to prove that "God" is rewarding your hard work, and an acceptance that poverty is proof of a moral/religious deficiency. These values are still very much alive even if fewer and fewer people go to church. Capitalism has become the secular version of the Puritan religion; the two have morphed into modern capitalism with its obsession with profit, time, and more and more work (work for the bottom 90%, that is).Religion as a means of social control goes far beyond a particular work ethic. Religion can and has been used to control the private lives of individuals even in something as intensely personal as sexual relations.I don't know much about Hindu beliefs but I do know that they have a practice called sati in which the widow is "encouraged" to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre. This still happens today even though it's illegal (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-406471/Brothers-arrested-throwing-95-year-old-mother-funeral-pyre.html). Sati may have started off as more of a cultural thing than a religious requirement but it's interesting that it seems to be only the Hindus who practice it. Why do religions always seem misogynistic? I don't know enough about Celtic or Norse religions to say whether they were used for social control but I wouldn't be surprised if they did fulfill that function.I don't care if someone believes that their pet three-toed sloth created the Universe and they want to worship said three-toed sloth as a deity. Kinda silly, but none of my business. The problem with religion is that it stops people from thinking critically (all you need is belief!) and they knock on my door asking me to worship their three-toed sloth too. Then they want me to behave as they claim their three-toed sloth has told them to behave. Get enough people following the Church of the Sacred Three-Toed Sloth and you have a religious mob and that's always dangerous.Sorry if this is rambling on a bit and thanks if you read to the end! LOL
robbo203 wrote:What, for example, is the extent of socialist consciousness in formally secular or atheistic states?robbo, could you please give me an example of a secular or atheistic state, past or present? The USSR? The Bolsheviks repressed Christianity and replaced it with "socialism". Work hard, comrades, and your children will live in a communist heaven! Comrade Stalin has spoken! Sounds like the same old story with new characters. Nazi Germany? The Nazis created their own religion based on racial purity, Christianity was seen as "incorrect" in National Socialist circles. Hitler wrote some nasty things about Christianity in "Mein Kampf" (which was kinda like a Nazi bible when you think about it). The Khmer Rouge? They tried to wipe out established religions in their attempt to return Cambodia to "Year Zero". I suspect Pol Pot saw Buddhism and Islam as dangerous competitors in his bid for social control of the people. North Korea? They have the state ideology of Juche and the people worship the Kim family (of course in the West we worship the Kardashian family, but that's another matter). There has never been a secular or atheistic state. You need to widen your definition of "religion".
Richard wrote:robbo203 wrote:What, for example, is the extent of socialist consciousness in formally secular or atheistic states?robbo, could you please give me an example of a secular or atheistic state, past or present? The USSR? The Bolsheviks repressed Christianity and replaced it with "socialism". Work hard, comrades, and your children will live in a communist heaven! Comrade Stalin has spoken! Sounds like the same old story with new characters. Nazi Germany? The Nazis created their own religion based on racial purity, Christianity was seen as "incorrect" in National Socialist circles. Hitler wrote some nasty things about Christianity in "Mein Kampf" (which was kinda like a Nazi bible when you think about it). The Khmer Rouge? They tried to wipe out established religions in their attempt to return Cambodia to "Year Zero". I suspect Pol Pot saw Buddhism and Islam as dangerous competitors in his bid for social control of the people. North Korea? They have the state ideology of Juche and the people worship the Kim family (of course in the West we worship the Kardashian family, but that's another matter). There has never been a secular or atheistic state. You need to widen your definition of "religion".
Hi Richard.I am not quite sure where your argument is leading to – unless it is to suggest that the concept of religion should be widened sufficiently to embrace atheism as well. If so, I would be inclined to agree. Etymologically speaking, the word “religion” itself derives from the Latin word "re-ligare" meaning to re-bind or re-connect (like the “ligament” which joins the muscle to the bone). This original meaning of the term perhaps helps to explain the occasional characterisation one comes across of the state-sanctioned atheism of some countries, like North Korea, as constituting the "official religion" of the country in question. I merely qualified my argument by suggesting that in formal terms such regimes were nominally hostile to "religion"; in the wider sense of the term you advocate, insofar as it is congruent with the original meaning of the word religion, you could well say that regimes are themselves religiously based Of course, this raises all sorts of interesting questions. If we go along with your wider definition of religion for a moment then we might well ask whether any kind of human society can do without "religion" in that sense? I suspect not. In that sense the term, "religion "is stripped of any supernatural connotations, such as belief in a God or an afterlife, and is rendered virtually synonymous with the concept of "social solidarity". No society is conceivable without the concept of social solidarity. In his influential work, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912) the famous French sociologist, Emile Durkheim analysed the religious rituals of the Australian aborigines which, he argued, were based on a simple kind of religion called “totemism”. Durkheim attempted to show that the real purpose of such rituals was to revitalise and reinforce the "collective consciousness" of the participants. In short, to dramatise and strengthen the moral bonds between them in order to create a more cohesive social unity and counteract the effects of dispersal and isolation arising from a hunter-gatherer way of life. In short , what was really being worshipped behind this display of religiosity was society itself But as I say, I am using the term religion in its formal or usual sense as denoting some form of supernatural belief. Unfortunately, the decline in such belief has not at all translated into greater receptivity to socialist ideas – if anything the opposite is true and the extent of socialist consciousness now is lower than when religion was more widely upheld and practiced. More fatal to the argument that socialists must implacably opposed religion in all its myriad forms is the simple and demonstrable fact that some people who hold religious ideas in this sense are much more understanding of socialism and sympathetic to the cause than the vast majority of atheists who obediently go along and support capitalism and some capitalist political party come elections. This is why I agree with Meel that a trenchant and undiscriminating opposition to religion by a socialist political party may be very largely a waste of time and only serve to alienate those who would be our natural supporters but happen to hold some religious beliefs. There are more than enough safeguards built into the admissions process to ensure that such individuals do not stray politically from the sole objective of a socialist party: socialism
robbo, my point is that the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and North Korea all based their systems of state beliefs on the template provided by the Abrahamic religions.- a core set of beliefs and rituals as well as public rallies to reinforce compliance- an omnipotent leader (possibly even omniscient in North Korea's case), this leader is also the source of law and morality; the Leader may even be seen to have divine insight or characteristics- a written source of undisputed knowledge (the complete works of Marx or Lenin, Mein Kampf, etc)- a better world to come through sacrifice in the here and nowI'm not saying that socialists should oppose religion, it's an individual choice. I'm aware that many socialists have been religious (from Gerrard Winstanley to Tommy Douglas). I'm simply stating my opinion on religion, my own individual opposition to religion. I believe that religion has done more harm than good and I'm very suspicious of it since it has often been used as a means of social control. The earliest capitalists were Christians or at any rate used Christianity to support the promotion of private property, the enclosure of common land, etc.I find the definition of religion and the role played by traditional religion in the development of capitalism an interesting topic, but let's leave it for another time. The goal is, as you say, socialism.
Meel, when a religion has only minority support it tends to emphasise its liberal and holistic side, the modern pagans are all earth mother Giaia power peace love and cuddles now, but put them in charge for ten minutes and it will be all golden sickles and your entrails wrapped round a sacred oak. The same goes for the churches in the UK and Western Europe, knowing that they have lost the faith of the majority, and the trust of even their own believers, the priests now would have us forget the witch burnings and inquisitions and blessings of fascist butchers, and instead seek to rebuild their influence through food banks and "speaking out" about poverty, so long as the churches wealth remains untouched ("The Church of England would give up 38 of its 39 articles rather than one-thirty-ninth of its income")but knowing that they have forfeited their place does not mean that they have accepted it, nor have become either an irrelevance or ceased to be an agent of social control. The CoE and Catholic Churches both actively campaigned for the extension of the blasphemy laws and are enthusiastic partners with big business in the creation of faith based 'free' schools. The response of church leaders to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo was greeted with formalistic denounciation which sought to put as much guilt upon the cartoonists as those who killed (and that was before the ("left wing") pope made his infamous intervention).
Hi RichardI think you’re in Canada, is that right? If so, you are more centre stage when it comes to watching the creationists and the proponents of “intelligent design”. I sympathise, and I think it’s bad that these people are trying to make creationism equal to evolution as a “theory” of human origins.Here in Europe, and especially in the UK, people are much more secular. If someone mentions “god” in a serious way, or start talking about praying, or saying “bless you” (seriously, not in reply to a sneeze), most of us tend to get embarrassed, start looking away or shuffling our feet. No politician would talk about religion in an overt way. I gather that in the US it is not uncommon to hear a politician saying he or she “prayed to god” on some account or other. Unthinkable here – mostly, anyway.Having said that, although people in power can use religion as a means to control the population, I don't think this is always the case, and I don't think this is the origin of religion. I agree with robbo on the likely origins of religion. Also, as has been mentioned before, atheistic states are capable of just as much torture and murder as those with an allegiance to a religion.From what I see around me in the community, if people are overtly religious, it's more about community, about mutual self-help. A couple of example will show what I mean. A colleague at work was worried about his elderly mother who lives quite a distance away. When I enquired how she was, and if she was ever lonely, he said not at all, that "her church took good care of her"; i.e., they would pop in and offer friendly support and take her on outings, etc. Another time a colleague had just moved to the UK from South Africa, recently separated and with two young teenage girls. I asked her if the girls had difficulty finding new friends and if she was ever worried about them being on their own while she was at work, and she said no, that was no problem – she had just connected with a branch of her church here, and immediately there was a support structure in place for them all.I think the origin of religion was about the adherence to a community, mutual aid, and about rituals reinforcing those ties – and we still see examples of that remaining as described in my examples – but this is dwindling fast. There are a whole lot of lonely elderly people about these days, which there would not have been in the past. I am not suggestion we should all turn religious for our old age – I am just observing what I can see. Funnily, a friend of mine (an avowed atheist) was suggesting just that, when a relative was confined to a wheel chair and unable to speak (that the relative should have a sudden conversion), having observed that people belonging to a church got excellent help in similar circumstances.I don’t think religion is used to control the population in the UK. Far more efficient in this regard is having certain toxic tabloids that pick on ridiculous example of families with umpteen kids and the adults all on the dole – and pretend this is the norm. These papers fabricate opinions in people’s heads, as after a while you can hear people mouth the views that are printed over and over again.Anyway, I am in the minority on these pages with my views on, so we'll just have to agree to differ, I guess.Meel
Hi Darren redstar"The CoE and Catholic Churches both actively campaigned for the extension of the blasphemy laws and are enthusiastic partners with big business in the creation of faith based 'free' schools. The response of church leaders to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo was greeted with formalistic denounciation which sought to put as much guilt upon the cartoonists as those who killed (and that was before the ("left wing") pope made his infamous intervention)."Yes, the people in power at the top do dreadful things, no doubt, but the ordinary foot soldiers at the bottom of the pile still behave more like I have described in my reply to Richard. (In the main, not always obviously, humans being humans. Agnostics or atheists aren't always paragons of virtue either.)Meel
Meel,Yes, I am Canadian. Canadians tend to be very quiet about religion while our cousins down south tend to wear their religion on their sleeve. I spent two years (2000-2002) living and working in North Carolina which is in the Bible belt and it was…interesting! LOL I bought a car while I was down there and one time I pulled into a gas station. After filling up I went in to pay and there was a line of about six people at the cash, so I just joined the line. The guy in front of me turned to me and we had a conversation that went roughly as follows:Other guy: "Is that your car out there?"Me: "Yes, it is."Other guy: "Well that's a mighty fine thing to have. You should thank Jesus Christ for that!"Me: "Why? Is Jesus making the monthly payments?"I didn't make a friend that day.It is expected that the US president will end every speech with the words "God bless America". Unfortunately our current PM ends his speeches with "God bless Canada", but then Stephen Harper is more American than Canadian. God bless the federal election coming up this October! I think it's fair to state that industrialized societies in North America and Europe have been shaped by Protestant values. So perhaps we don't need to be overtly religious because we've internalized those religious values over the last 350 or so years. Are our societes becoming less religious? If so, maybe it's because organized religion has served its purpose. Just some food for thought.I have no right to tell anyone that they cannot be religious nor can they tell me that I have to be religious. On that point I think you and I agree. We are individuals and some people are religious for whatever reason and some aren't. As I stated above, I think that religion has done more harm than good. This does not mean that religion is a completely negative thing. Your example of your coworker's elderly mother getting assistance from her church is an example of something positive coming from religion.But I tend to look at the long term effects of religion and I think that the role of the Puritan work ethic in the rise of capitalism is a good example of a ruling class using religion to shape the socio-economic environment to their benefit.I disagree with you on the origins of religion. Religion had its origins in magic; religion is a type of magic. People in early civilizations didn't understand thunderstorms, disease or crop failures. They felt helpless and so they developed a security blanket in the form of gods and goddesses. The more science advanced the more vague religion became and the less tangible the gods became; this process continues. That's just how I see it.The bottom line for me is that the world is not black and white and I realise that within those shades of grey there is room for compromise and understanding. So, yes, you and I might as well just agree to disagree.P.S. If there were such a place as hell Rupert Murdoch would definitely end up there!
LOL, Richard!We have some agreements and some differences on this subject, and yes, the world is definitely not black and white.Maybe I'll come back to the topic at some point, but for now I'd like to take a break to read some of the stuff on non-killing societies and hunter-gatherers (I think you've followed that discussion, too?).Take care.
SocialistPunk wrote:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/socialism-and-religionThis is one of the best approach and analysis made about religion. What George Carlin is saying about religion it did not happen all the time on the history of mankind, Man created religion based on a materialistic need, and in some way in that particular they are progressive, and also Engels made a good analysis about the history and the emerge of Christianity, which was like a working class movement within the Roman empire
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.