The ban on religion

[robbo203]

OK, well, since I’ve been accused of “derailing” another thread to discuss this matter, I thought it prudent to start a thread on specifically this matter so as not to render myself vulnerable to that particular charge again

 

Why discuss this matter? Some comrades will groan at the very thought of it . “Not bloody religion again”,you can almost  hear them thinking (an unwitting admission of the irrelevance of the religious ban itself, I like to think).  Over on the SPGB Facebook page we have been having a prolonged and interesting discussion on the topic,  Dave ventured the opinion there that I have a “bee in the bonnet” about. it.  Thats true, Dave.  I have and for good reason. I have spelt this out many times before. I honestly and genuinely  believe that this policy of barring applicants for membership  who hold religious views is unquestionably the biggest single internal factor impeding the growth of the SPGB.  And actually that does matter to me.  Very much as a matter of fact.  For despite the fact that I am no longer a member and resigned on precisely this issue some years ago there is no other political party that attracts my interest and commands my support.  Members may question my judgment but not, I hope, my sincerity in this regard.  If I didn’t care I wouldn’t bother to be quite frank.

 

This is why I wish to tackle the battle into the heartland of the SPGB itself , so to speak – this forum.  Its successful outcome –  from my point of view – will result in me and, no doubt, a few other ex-members I can think of, rejoining.  Failure will ensure the continuation of my self imposed exile as a matter of principle .  Make of that whatever you want but I am simply stating a plain fact

 

 

The weight of tradition, to paraphrase Marx, weighs like an Alp on the minds of Party comrades and no more so than in the case of the religious ban.  For some it is inconceivable that the Party could even exist without such a ban.  One imagines it evokes in some members a sense of horror at the very thought of provocative Papists doing battle with manipulative Muslims at Party conferences on which faction has divine blessing in the pursuit of socialist goal.  To state it in these somewhat  colourful terms is to expose in a perhaps rather melodramatic over-the-top fashion the utter ludicrousness – the sheer unrealism – of the argument for maintaining the religious ban..

 

 

At the heart of the argument is the claim that one cannot be a rational Socialist and subscribe to irrational religious ideas.  I would contest this claim completely.  Firstly because I contend that individuals who make this claim don’t seem to have much of well grounded grasp of what is meant by “rationality”.  It is entirely possible for a given way of looking at the world to be highly rational and yet fundamentally false or unsound.  I gave the example on the Facebook of the Argument-from-Design to justify the existence of god. This was actually a highly rational attempt to explain the existence of such an entity and, indeed,  prior to appearance of evolutionary theory, would no doubt have seemed far more persuasive and logical than the attempt to deny the existence of god.  Similarly, I referred to Evans Pritchard’s classic anthropological work Witchcraft  Oracles and Magic among the Azande.  What EP set out to do in this book was to debunk the orthodox view, going back to 19th century anthropology and earlier, expressed by  people like Sir James Frazer in his book The Golden Bough,  that there were basically two  quite distinct and different ways of  looking at the world.  You has the “primitive mentality” on the one hand which was governed  by superstitious and irrational modes of thinking.  Then you had the modern scientific rational mentality epitimised by Western civilisation.   EP demonstrated that the Azande were every bit as rational and scientific in their dealings with the world around them and in fact employed eminently scientific  procedures such as double blind testing in dealing with the question of witchcraft, however absurd that may seem to us.

 

So that is the first  point to to consider – that religion itself is not necessarily irrational or even unscientific/anti-scientific in that sense – and in case people  begin to think that I’ve lost the plot and am trying to make a case for religion,  I’m not .  I’m not religious myself and nor am recommending that others be.  But I do think that the arguments that the SPGB tends to bring up to oppose religion and justify its support of religious are often crude and grossly simplistic and based on a caricature of religion which is actually a much more complex and diverse phenonemon that it is made out to be.  The claim for example that religion per se supports the status quo and the powerful against the weak is transparent twaddle.  It can do but sometimes it does the opposite and we have only to consider example such as the levellers and the Diggers to see this

 

Similarly the idea that religion is “against science”. Of course it is very easy to produce examples that support this claim – like  Copernicus and Da Vinci. But there are counter examples too – like the eaerly influence of Islamic culture  (particularly here in Andalucia  where I live where Islam was a force tfor tolerance and enlightenment unlike its reputation today and where the Christians with their Spanish inquisition were the bigoted barbarians). Islamic scholars were enormously influential in many branches of human knowlege including  the sciences and mathematics.  This is simply to drive home the point that it all depends on context and you cannot generalise about religion as a whole.

 

Some historians would argue the very opposite view – that religion has been a stimulus to the development of scientific thought.  Natural theology as science was then called back in the Middle Ages was an attempt to expose the inner workings of the natural world precisely in order to discover a divine purpose behind it all.  It eventually led to the realisation – cuiminationg in Darwinian evolutionary theory – that one could dispense with the hypothesis of divine intervention.  Though we take Darwinian theory for more or less granted that doesn’t stop individuals accepting that theory and still holding certain religious ideas all the same.

 

So this is the thing, then – you cannot just categorises people as irrational and scientific or not  – depending on whether they are religious or not.  Everyone without exception is a bit of both.  Religious people are quite capable of rationally considering the case for socialism, accepting it on its own terms and working enthsiastically to establish it.  Engels, as I said elsewhere, pointed to existence of communistic religious communities as proof that communism was possible and was not against human nature.  Conversely, I would argue that the SPGB despite being extremely rational in so man y respects is highly  irrational and unscientific in others.  I think this ban on a religion is a case in point

 

There is no way in which it can be rationally justified.  It does clearly and obviously impede the growth of the Party when the purpose of the Party is surely to grow and expand.  The rationalisations offered by Party members further illustrate the irrationality of their own position.  Darren, for instance,  says  that there is no queue of religious sympathisers just waiting to join and that it is all in my “imagination”.  Is it?   Actually there are 3 different groups of people with religious learnings that are relevant here.  There are those who actually apply to join but are refused because of their religious views. Then there are those who don’t apply because they know it would be futile but stick around as religious sympathisers of the SPGB . Then there is by far the biggest group of all – those who learn about the Party’s ban on religion and as a result lose interest altogether and just  drift away completely.

 

I have had contact with people in all 3 of these different groups or categories.  If Darren and others are skeptical about the numbers of people who might be interested in the Party but have religious view then I invite them to contact the Membership department to  get actual hard data – not imaginary figures dreamt by me – relating to the numbers of people turned down for membership becuase of their religious leanings. Frankly I  would be interested to know myself.  I invite them also to look around among the branches to assess the number of active supporters who hold religious views.  In my time in the Party I recall there was one guy – I forget his name – who would worked religiously (no pun intended) up at HO putting in more work than most members did,  As for the third and largest group we can only speculate but based on my own anecdotal evdience e I would say in Party terms it is pretty significant.  Perhaps the Socialist Standard could conduct a readers survey  – or maybe the Publicity department sending out information packs could also send out a questionnaire to get some idea of the numbers involved. 

 

All in all,  I’m absolutely convinced that the numbers involved over the years are pretty substantial. I would maintain that had the religious ban not been in force the SPGB would be today a vastly bigger organisation than it is.   Apart from the religious ban there is another, even more significant, factor that keeps it small and that is the the small party syndrome – the self perpetuating tendency for small parties to be shunned on the irrational grounds that what they have to say must somehow be irrational, defective or unsound simply  because they do not attract much support. Without the religious ban the SPGB would have been able to much more easily and rapidly reach the critical threshold level of support at which it would  have been better able to mitigate the effects of this “small party syndrome”

 

Then, finally, there is the claim that allowing religious people into the party would have a corrupting influence on the party’s socialist integrity.  This is one of thew weakest arguments of all in favour of the religious ban.  One has to bear in mind that these same individuals would have correctly answered every single question on the current Membership application form –  barring the one on religion – and so from that point of  view, would essentially no different in oputlook and inclination from the existing membership.  Why would it be supposed that they would join the party than for any other purpose than to promote socialism? What would be the point?  And if they did try to subvert the party and divert it from its socialist goal there are more than adequate mechanisms already  in place to ensure that they would be expelled from the Party forthwith without bringing religion into the picture.  From this point of view the religious ban is completely superfluous and redundant

 

There are in any case a number of  half way house arrangements that might appease the “traditionalists” who want want to retain the religious ban at all costs . Such as

 

1. Ban the promotion or advocacy of religious ideas within the Party rather than religious-minded members as such

2. Ban only applicants belonging to organised religions – particularly  wthose with reactionary social policies since this would help to weaken the power of organised religion in a way a complete ban would not – because it discriminates and applies both a carrot and stick approach

3. Ban adherents to particular kinds of religious beliefs e.g. theists but not deists or pantheists

 

You could even have a combinsation of these sorts of conditions to tighten things up further if needs be

 

I urge comrades to give seriously consideration to the arguments being put forward here. Lifting or modifying the religious ban could mark a significant change in the fortunes of the SPGB and in ways that we can only guess at

[robbo203]

Quick question of a technical nature.  Just noticed after I posted the above that  I had forgetten to finish editing  for spelliing mistakes  etc etc.  For  future reference, how does one edit something that has already been posted? This forum does not seem to have such a facility unlike, say, Revleft…. Cheers Robin 

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Quick question of a technical nature.  Just noticed after I posted the above that  I had forgetten to finish editing  for spelliing mistakes  etc etc.  For  future reference, how does one edit something that has already been posted? This forum does not seem to have such a facility unlike, say, Revleft….

 Click on edit at the bottom of your post, would you believe, which you can still do 

[robbo203]

Sorry to sound dumb but there is no edit facility at the bottom of my post!  I have had repeated problems registering and made use of the temporary registration facility.  Could that be the reason?

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry to sound dumb but there is no edit facility at the bottom of my post!  I have had repeated problems registering and made use of the temporary registration facility.  Could that be the reason?

 Correction.  There is an edit facility below this post but not below the previous post I posted and not the opening post either

[jondwhite]

There was an episode of The Big Questions on the BBC this morning. The topic was “Is religion good for children?”http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01hhh3yIts well worth a watch and addresses some of the issues raised here.Personally I don’t think it impedes the growth of the party, since the British Humanist Association has over 28,000 members and supporters.Couldn’t we leaflet their conference in Cardiff National Museum from 8 – 10 June – detailed below?http://www.humanism.org.uk/meet-up/events/view/172?page=1

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

Couldn’t we leaflet their conference in Cardiff National Museum from 8 – 10 June – detailed below?http://www.humanism.org.uk/meet-up/events/view/172?page=1

Good idea. Maybe Robin could pester them too to admit people with religious hang-ups.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

Sorry to sound dumb but there is no edit facility at the bottom of my post!  I have had repeated problems registering and made use of the temporary registration facility.  Could that be the reason?

Quite possibly; I’ll contact Admin about it.

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Couldn’t we leaflet their conference in Cardiff National Museum from 8 – 10 June – detailed below?http://www.humanism.org.uk/meet-up/events/view/172?page=1

Good idea. Maybe Robin could pester them too to admit people with religious hang-ups.

 There is a difference , as I am sure you realise, between an organisation whose purpose is specifically to combat religious ideas and a political party whose purpose is to help  transform society . If you are expecting the latter to depend on a majority becoming convinced atheists you will be waiting forever

[Anonymous]

Here is an interesting article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/the-god-hypothesis_b_1355321.html

[Anonymous]

The folly of faith. “When faith rules over facts, magical thinking becomes deeply ingrained and warps all areas of life. It produces a frame of mind in which concepts are formulated with deep passion but without the slightest attention paid to the evidence. ……………. Blind faith is no way to run a world.”V. Stenger

[DJP]

 

robbo203 wrote:

There is a difference , as I am sure you realise, between an organisation whose purpose is specifically to combat religious ideas and a political party whose purpose is to help  transform society . If you are expecting the latter to depend on a majority becoming convinced atheists you will be waiting forever

The thing is our current policy does not stop people with a religious persuasion carrying on socialist activity outside the party, after all we have always claimed that it is not the SPGB itself that will bring about socialism but the working class as a whole.If any members have strong enough feelings about changing from the present set up they are free to raise the issue, but as I have not seen anything about religion on the last few years conference agendas it appears that there isn’t much enthusiasm to do so.So that’s pretty much end of story. I could go on, but really I’d be wasting time.

[jondwhite]

robbo203 wrote:

ALB wrote:

jondwhite wrote:

Couldn’t we leaflet their conference in Cardiff National Museum from 8 – 10 June – detailed below?http://www.humanism.org.uk/meet-up/events/view/172?page=1

Good idea. Maybe Robin could pester them too to admit people with religious hang-ups.

 There is a difference , as I am sure you realise, between an organisation whose purpose is specifically to combat religious ideas and a political party whose purpose is to help  transform society . If you are expecting the latter to depend on a majority becoming convinced atheists you will be waiting forever

The BHA describes itself as more than combatting religious ideas. Its committed to secularism, human rights, democracy, egalitarianism and mutual respect. It works for an open and inclusive society with freedom of belief and speech. There is even a Humanist political party.Humanist Party – United Kingdom

[ALB]

jondwhite wrote:

There is even a Humanist political party.Humanist Party – United Kingdom

There is a certain irony here (a lot in fact). This “party” has nothing to do with  the main Humanist movement but is/was the front for a cult based on the spiritual teachings of someone who called himself “Silo” which tried to pass itself off as bona fide Humanists. I remember meeting some one of them in Ealing in the 1990s when they contested a local election. At that time they were trying to pass themselves off as the Greens. I must still have their leaflets somewhere.

[Hud955]

Hi RobinI don’t want to get into a big debate right now so I’ll just pick up on one or two of your points which really go to the heart of this matter.You claim that if the SPGB opened up its membership to people with religious beliefs, the size of the party would swell to the point where take-off would be possible.  That suggests that by far the largest number of members would, under those circumstances, have some religious beliefs.  As a democratic organisation, that would render your suggestion about placing various ‘bans’ on the membership to stabilise materialist opinion fanciful or at least highly precarious, since a religiously inclined majority could simply outvote such a ban, and might well have a strong motive to do so. If, on the other hand, you are wrong and the membership increase resulting from a relaxation of the ban on religious beliefs would only be small, then such a ban would be feasible (though it would raise a number of tricky issues).  The problem in this instance though, is that the limited affect on membership would remove the practical reason for abolishing the religious ban in the first place.For me, the big problem is the power that a democratic majority committed to non-materalist views has to fundamentally alter the character and direction of the party.  You say that people would have no reason to do this, but that is speculation.  I don’t know about you, but in real life, people constantly surprise me with the things they do and the reasons they give for doing them.  Whether their actions are rational or irrational, other people rarely  think in accordance with my own paradigms, making it impossible for me to anticipate their views and actions. In this particular case we are, by definition, talking a group of people who take a qualitiative view of the world which can accommodate both religious and materialist ideas.  That renders their reasons for doing things even more unpredictable and the anxieties of members on this matter are likely to be well founded.One other point, just very briefly: I think the question of whether religion has, in the past, been able to accommodate some aspects of scientific enquiry into its world view is a red herring.  The question is whether religious organisations in all or any of their many social forms would oppose a socialist revolution, and use their power over adherents to prevent its occurence.  I think, since any religion of any size invariably becomes a social, hierarchical and economic organism with interests rooted in capitalism, the likelihood is that they would.On the other hand, I have some sympathy with your view that we should look at what constitutes religious belief and make specific recommendations about membership.  I also think religious ideas are not so easy to eradicate, and it is likely that a socialist majority will contain a significant percentage of religious believers.  In those circumstances I think the working class might just bypass the party (assuming it continues to hold this line) and form an alternative political body to introduce socialism.  At which point, if it were genuinely socialist,  I would probably join them.I see the religious ban as a pragmatic decision, one that is capable of changing in changed circumstances.  At present I suspect it is the right way to go.

[Author]

Posts