The Religion word

[SocialistPunk]

Hi Vin,I think you are allowing capitalist morality of the religious kind to dominate your thinking when it comes to the idea of morality.Don't be afraid of the word just because it has baggage. Socialism and communism both have baggage yet we as socialists do not shy away from the words.Gotta go now, but I'll be back later to share what I can about animals and morality etc.By the way, Matt gets where I'm coming from.Thanks Matt.

[twc]

SocialistPunk, #403, wrote:

What I was looking for, and it may not be available, was some sort of actual historical, anthropology based explanation or addition.

From a founder of anthropology [along with Bachofen and Morgan].Engels “Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf.Related is Kautsky’s “Foundations of Christianity” http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/.Interesting article on (1) by Chris Knight, “Early human kinship was matrilineal” http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/ww930/supplement-early-human-kinship-was-matrilineal

[ALB]

We've just received an application to join from someone who saw Danny Lambert on the BBC2 Daily Politics Show last Monday. Here's their answer to the last question:

Quote:

What are your views on religion and its relation to the Party’s case for socialism?:Religion is the greatest enemy of reason, peace, and brotherhood. It takes children and teaches them hate. It teaches them superstition. It divides them. It pays lip-service to contentment but sanctions selfishness. It talks about peace, but ends in war. It promises enlightenment but offers only wanton ignorance.

[Anonymous]

"The Form A be accepted" 

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

We've just received an application to join from someone who saw Danny Lambert on the BBC2 Daily Politics Show last Monday. Here's their answer to the last question:

Quote:

What are your views on religion and its relation to the Party’s case for socialism?:Religion is the greatest enemy of reason, peace, and brotherhood. It takes children and teaches them hate. It teaches them superstition. It divides them. It pays lip-service to contentment but sanctions selfishness. It talks about peace, but ends in war. It promises enlightenment but offers only wanton ignorance.

 Bit of a sweeping statement statement that.  Would someone like Gerrard Winstanley (1649) of the Levellers – a devout and militant protestant who argued passionately for common ownership of the earth be really considered an enemy of reason, peace and brotherhood etc etc?.    Would religious sympathisers of the SPGB be considered likewise?  I mean c'mon – this is getting a little ridiculous, isnt it?Conversely are we to believe that atheism is necessarily the path to enlightment, peace. brotherhood  and an ethic of selflessness?  Tell that to the subjects-cum-victims  of such despicable regimes as North Korea with its officially sanctioned state atheism.  Most atheists in my view are pretty much pro capitalistThe fact of the matter is that  holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not.  Far more relevant is the particular type or form of religion and especially the social policies associated with it.  For instance, I cannot believe someone who really goes along with all the teachings of the Catholic  Church could truly be a socialist. But then as I say most atheists support some pretty reactionary social views as well

[steve colborn]

What is getting ridiculous, are those who believe in a life hereafter, that they would even give a toss about this ephemeral, tiny lifespan, compared with "eternity" in "Heaven". People, workers, need to understand that our lifespan, here on good old planet earth, is all we've got. Get over yourselves. Don't wait for pie in the sky when you die!For Robbo to say, "The fact of the matter is that  holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not", is to miss the crux of the matter, that just as the Jihadist Islamists believe that dying for "the cause", will get them into paradise, why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence, when the "promised land" of heaven, lasting as the religious tell us, forever, will be the reward for beliving in "Christ"? Give your head a serious shake! A religious belief is, a serious impediment to being a "Socialist". Moreover, if one understands the arguments, an insurmountable one.By the same token no, we cannot believe that "atheism is necessarily the path to enlightment, peace. brotherhood  and an ethic of selflessness"! Without an understanding of the world, based on a class perspective, of our interests as individuals and as a "collection" of human beings, with a shared interest in getting a society run in the interests of "all" humanity, atheism is as big an irrelevance as religion and will be as redundant, in a sane society. It is "class consciousness" that is the deciding factor.For at least 99% of the worlds population, this is the only thing that matters. Having "our" interests as human beings as paramount. Not as "human units", seen as nothing more than suppliers of "rent, interest and profit, for a few! This is our focus and our goal!!!Steve Colborn.

[alanjjohnstone]

I doubt anybody goes along with all the teachings of any religion regardless of pronouncement of faithfulness to it. It's a pix and mix as well we know and throughout history the preferences have changed as society changed.Referring to the Levellers or back to the Church rules in Jerusalem or St Ambrose  (340-397 AD) who said: “Nature furnishes its wealth to all men in common. God beneficiently has created all things that their enjoyment be common to all living beings, and that the earth become the common possession of all. It is nature itself that has given birth to the right of the community, while it is only unjust usurpation that has created the right of private property.”(i am sure many other members can selectively quote scripture or saints expressing socialistic ideas.)Connolly did his best to make catholicism compatable by exposing how the church itself is never consistent in its teaching and adapts to survives.To admit a heresy, i am now more an agnostic in believing those with religious beliefs should or should not be a member. I rather go along with the American military's previous position on sexuality…don't ask, don't tell, don't care. It nevertheless presents us with a very probable future position…we would be subject to anti-discrimination laws if we took action against a future member who did begin to apply his/her particular religion's canon within the party. We would require sound legal advice on rule-books if one religious member is allowed to remain by being silent on his/her belief and another because he/she is vocal is penalised. By treating all adherents to religions the exact same, we, to use another contested area, maintain the moral high ground.But it will also be his answers to the other questions that  his form A will be considered which made me regret Mike McDade's earlier rejection. 

[Ed]

I just hope that the new comrade in question was asked their consent before their membership application questions were posted here and on facebook.

[robbo203]

steve colborn wrote:

What is getting ridiculous, are those who believe in a life hereafter, that they would even give a toss about this ephemeral, tiny lifespan, compared with "eternity" in "Heaven". People, workers, need to understand that our lifespan, here on good old planet earth, is all we've got. Get over yourselves. Don't wait for pie in the sky when you die!

 Sorry, Steve, but that is absurd. Step back a bit and look at what you have just written.  Are you seriously trying to say here that religious people "don't give a toss" about life on this earth? That's nonsense. If only it were true because, if it were, you wouldn't have certain organised religions sanctioning and upholding the status quo. Why bother upholding the status quo which after all pertains precisely to  this "ephemeral, tiny lifespan". That is what the real problem is with religion – or rather with certain organised religions – and it is only to that extent that the religious question is relevant to the socialist case, surely? Belief in some metaphysical abstraction which may very well be ridiculous in itself is not relevant at all.  Besides, if you want to be a "scientific socialist" about this , Steve , you should examine the evidence scientifically and systematically. Can religious people be sympathetic to socialism and even actively work for socialism? Of course they can!.  The evidence is right under your nose. The SPGB itself has religious sympathisers, has it not? They are clearly not waiting for pie in the sky when they die. They are doing something now about getting socialism. So why in god's name – to coin a phrase – is the Party not  welcoming them in  with open arms? That is what is  truly ridiculous.  If perchance such individuals departed from the Party position on some other matter then by all means expel them.  But the dogma that just because they are religious they are somehow not socialists or will veer away from socialism is itself unscientific and religious

steve colborn wrote:

For Robbo to say, "The fact of the matter is that  holding religious beliefs per se has precious little bearing on whether one might be a socialist or not", is to miss the crux of the matter, that just as the Jihadist Islamists believe that dying for "the cause", will get them into paradise, why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence, when the "promised land" of heaven, lasting as the religious tell us, forever, will be the reward for believing in "Christ"? Give your head a serious shake! A religious belief is, a serious impediment to being a "Socialist". Moreover, if one understands the arguments, an insurmountable one.

 How so? You don't explain. You only assert. And how would you reconcile this claim of yours with the FACT that there are religious people who support the Party, some of whom, I understand, do more work for the SPGB than many of its members? I think the Party – or should I say some in it –  has a very poor grasp of the sociology of religion altogether and this shows up again and again. I saw that in the Youtube video of the Party meeting which I mentioned above. Although Howard Moss himself gave what I thought was a very considered and nuanced account of  the subject , some of the comments from some in the audience were embarrassingly naive, frankly.   I mean, jesus christ ., Steve, what are you saying here  – "why should Christians be bothered about corporeal existence.  But Christians are bothered about corporeal existence, are they not?   There is a whole damn elaborate theory formulated by Max Weber on the subject of the "protestant work ethic" which tries to account for the rise of capitalism in terms of an ascetic mode of thinking encouraged  by certain forms of Protestantism – particularly, Calvinism.  Its a questionable theory  but nevertheless it is an undeniable fact that some  religions today do seem to want to justify the wealth of the wealthy in religious terms – visit the Bible Belt of the USA  – whereas others equally clearly attack it.  Sheesh, Steve you really should widen your reading list, mate.

steve colborn wrote:

By the same token no, we cannot believe that "atheism is necessarily the path to enlightment, peace. brotherhood  and an ethic of selflessness"! Without an understanding of the world, based on a class perspective, of our interests as individuals and as a "collection" of human beings, with a shared interest in getting a society run in the interests of "all" humanity, atheism is as big an irrelevance as religion and will be as redundant, in a sane society. It is "class consciousness" that is the deciding factor

Exactly! So why then insist on atheism as  a requirement for membership???    And lets not be mealy mouthed  here  – that's exactly what the Party does.  The idea is that religious belief in itself leads one to somehow stray from the socialist path – irrespective of the form of that belief.  It is simply not sustainable as an idea and conflicts with the empirical evidence in the form of religious socialists themselves.  What the Party has is this rather old fashioned and very narrow model of religion in mind  which it attacks.  What it is actually attacking – quite rightly in my opinion –  is the socially reactionary nature of the religions in question.  But then it generalises and widens  its attack to include in its target any form of religious belief whatsoever  and to move away from the realm of sociological reasoning into pure metaphysics.  Now there may very well be sound metaphysical reasons for rejecting all religion but it is not the business of a socialist political organisation to engage  in such arguments . That only distract from the socialist cause and hinders the growth of the socialist movement itself  Marx himself though hostile to religion did not recommend the exclusion of religious minded workers from the International Workingmans Association and it is a great pity that the SPGB did not heed his advice from the word go I hope one day that the SPGB will soften its approach on the religious question which it certainly can do without in any way jeopardising its socialist integrity.  Some sort of compromise on the subject is possible which focuses exclusively on the socially reactionary nature of forms of religion rather than on the metaphysics of religious belief.  A change of heart of some sort cannot come too soon in my opinion as in every other respect the SPGB stands head and shoulders above every other organisation claiming to be socialist…

[rodshaw]

I must say I don't understand why this particular person's views on religion have been posted, it's not usual. Unless, of course, it was exactly to spark this debate. But their views clearly don't impede membership.The people who think we should soften our approach should propose exactly how we are supposed to do that without being mealy-mouthed or contradictory about it.Do we admit members of some religions but not others? Do we just admit members who think there 'must be something out there', rather than having a firm belief? Do we say they can be members as long as they don't bring the subject up? Or do we just drop the question on the form and not ask at all?What then would be the party view on religion itself – that it's a personal matter after all? And what if religious members wanted to write articles for us introducing the G-word or notions of a creator (such as in Alan's scripture example above), contradicting the materialist approach?

[J Surman]

I read this, below, minutes before checking what's new on the forum. It has some relevance to what's being discussed currently on this thread:

Quote:

Modern biblical scholarship has enabled critically thinking Christians to understand what the historical Jesus actually said and what was tacked on later to serve the interests of Rome and early church leaders, but those original messages remain politically inconvenient today.We now have the best biblical scholars ever, academics who have developed research tools that amaze me and offer a very good handle on what Jesus said and what he did not say as well as the cultural, historical, religious and social context in which he lived and taught.With what I now know, I find it impossible ever again to see Jesus with a sword in his hand or in possession of a protective shield. The Jesus that I meet in the Gospels is a man of peace, who gently nudges me toward non-violence. Love and kindness are the ways of Jesus.Jesus taught his disciples (and us) to pray that the kingdom of God might come to earth. Yet, people of Christian faith can pray without ceasing but until we collectively abandon the ways of violence and war, peace on earth and the reign of God will never fully come.The first great challenge to Christian faith in the future is the abandonment of the ways of violence and war. Love, peace and kindness must become synonymous with Christian faith.The second challenge involves the ownership of property. This is a key to understanding the teachings of Jesus, who lived in a time and place of economic disparity. Jesus advocated a new celebration of the Year of Jubilee, which, according to the Bible, is the time when property and possessions were to be returned to the Temple priests for redistribution among the tribes of Israel. This massive redistribution was to take place every 50 years (though it never actually did).Yet, there is no way we can avoid the clear Bible standard of limitation of private ownership — of land in particular and wealth in general. That was also the view of Jesus.By Bible standards, today’s wealth gap between the rich and the poor is so enormous that it is a complete affront to the professed beliefs of those who are wealthy and claim to be followers of Jesus. The standard is clear: We are to be stewards of wealth, not owners.Jesus advised one wealthy man to sell all that he had and give his wealth to the poor, then to follow him. Jesus ridiculed the man who kept building bigger and bigger barns to hold his wealth. These two examples are not incidental to the teachings of Jesus, but are at the very core of what it means to be a follower of Jesus.Some people who call themselves Christians will cry out against these clear tenets from the Bible and Jesus’s teachings as the imposition of socialism. But the issue with Jesus and Bible standards is not socialism but stewardship. Christians are called upon to practice radical stewardship and to encourage others to do likewise.The challenge of stewardship has a modern application to world environment as well. Stewardship cannot be understood only on the level of individuals. Stewardship is a major part of Christ’s challenge to churches, nations and the whole world.The greatest challenges to Christians of the future are two in number: peace and stewardship. All other concerns pale in their presence.

from here: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/23934-jesus-mandate-peace-and-stewardship  

[steve colborn]

"But Christians are bothered about corporeal existence, are they not?" Indeed they are Robbo but the question is why? The answer! they, as do followers of other reigions use the corporeal existence, to ensure an eternity of "spiritual existence". Or do you deny this. This being the case, why would they enthuse over the short term when, in the end, this, as far as they are concerned, is merely transcient? "But Christians are bothered about corporeal existence, are they not?   There is a whole damn elaborate theory formulated by Max Weber on the subject of the "protestant work ethic" which tries to account for the rise of capitalism in terms of an ascetic mode of thinking encouraged  by certain forms of Protestantism – particularly, Calvinism.  Its a questionable theory  but nevertheless it is an undeniable fact that some  religions today do seem to want to justify the wealth of the wealthy in religious terms – visit the Bible Belt of the USA  – whereas others equally clearly attack it.  Sheesh, Steve you really should widen your reading list, mate."Last first, I studied Weber and his writings on a "protestant work ethic" at Uni and precisely, religion uses these kind of arguments to "justify" Capitalism and the inequality engendered within it. Reminded me a bit, of "The Divine Right of Kings" arguments. I put no store in the writings of Ole Max then, nor do I now.Secondly, religions in the USA bible belt, do try to justify the wealth of the wealthy in religious terms. Seeing as how this "Christian Fundamentalism" holds sway, in large swathes of the US, I do not think our US comrades would be happy to allow these people into the movement, just as I would not be happy if this were to occur here.As for atheism being a requirement for membership, no it's not. There is merely a requirement that prospective members believe that "our" destiny, as humans, is in our own hands and does not succeed or fail at the behest of a God figure. That a non belief in a GOD figure is the accepted criteria, is fine by me.Finally, the incongruity of pushing a "materialist" objective, whilst continuing to believe in the "spiritual", should not be lost on anyone. They are antithetical, one to the other. That, my friend, is the crux of the debate!!!The discussion so far, has seemed to ignore other religions and focused on Christianity and to my mind, this is a mistake.

[Mike McDade]

I also (still) regret that my membership form was rejected.Whether we walk this earth as a result of evolution or creation, the world and its resources should not be owned – or "ringefenced" as I like to call it – by a minority and manipulated largely for its own profit. The world is for everybody and its means of production and inherent wealth should be employed to satisfy the needs of everyone, by everyone. From each according to their need to each according to their ability.Did we evolve, or were we created? I believe a significant amount of people are still pondering that – myself included – simply because, for whatever reason, they have not devoted enought time and energy to reach an informed decision. Also, at either side of this argument, there are those who stand firm, many because they have arrived at an informed decision after much deliberation, many because they are completely blinkered and have taken their stand "off the peg", as it were.I believe that the classic monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – are all based on lies, and have been designed to subjugate the masses in order to facilitate their control by a megalomanical minority, by exploiting their ignorance and their perceived "spiritual need." Other religions, I know very little about.I do not believe that there is an all powerful god/set of gods who are capable of intervening on behalf of man, to alleviate suffering. If there is/are, evidence to support this idea is non-existent. Humankind is capable of intervening collectively to take control of how things are done and how the earth's wealth is distributed.Everybody needs to be afforded the opportunity to arrive at a conclusion regarding the above themselves, practicing whatever religion they wish whilst doing so; it is a private matter. It is not the business of anyone to enforce OR prohibit this.At this stage, I am still of the opinion that atheism should not be a pre-requisite for membership. I suspect that this stumbling block may be holding a significant amount of people back from becoming members. I may be wrong but I reckon that, in the less educated minds of many, this stance may "tag" true socialism to the hardline stance that the former Soviet Union took against religious freedom. That would be a tragedy.This is the only matter which I and the SPGB have a disagreement.

[Mike McDade]

In my second paragraph I did, of course, mean:From each according to their ability to each according to their need.

[rodshaw]

Mike McDade wrote:

"At this stage, I am still of the opinion that atheism should not be a pre-requisite for membership. I suspect that this stumbling block may be holding a significant amount of people back from becoming members."

It would be interesting if the party had any statistics on how many applications to join, or refusals to apply, say in the last five years, have been because of disagreement on religion alone. It's interesting to me that the people who want us to relax the rules on religion always seem to say "I'm not religious but…"

[Author]

Posts