The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi Mike, I was under the impression that you had withdrawn your membership application. When the matter came before the E.C the membership application committee had already recommended that the E.C. accept your application. I suggested that we defer the decision on accepting your application as you had expressed doubts about whether you had made the right decision in this very thread just days previously. Rather than rushing a decision where you may have changed your mind it was agreed to give you a bit more time to make sure that you were sure. I was told that you would discuss this further with the members of North London Branch. The next month when your application did not come up on the agenda I was informed that it had been withdrawn. If this is not the case perhaps there has been an error in communication? On evolution vs creation.If there was a creation. Does that not mean that there must be a creator? An intelligent being somewhere who did it. If we were indeed intentionally created does this not necessitate a god of some kind, probably of the all powerful persuasion?I can't explain all the ins and outs of evolution in great scientific detail because I have not taken the time to study it. I accept the unanimous consensus scientific view of people who have studied it that it is the case. From what I have read/seen/heard it is completely irrefutable.In ancient times people believed that the sun and the moon were god/s as they did not have the tools or knowledge to prove otherwise. Astronomy and later space travel has irrefutably proven that this is not the case. I can't tell you all the in's and out's in great scientific detail about the sun and the moon. But I'm sure you'd agree that they are not gods.My advice is to take the time to study the scientific theory behind evolution if you have serious doubts. Just as you should study astronomy and physics if you doubt that the sun and the moon are not sentient beings. If you need help getting the resources to study the subject then I'm sure the party would be happy to help.I hope you'll be able to make it to summer school. I think it will help to talk it through face to face with fellow socialists. And I hope in time you come to a conclusion about your beliefs and feel able to reapply. p.s.I'm certainly open to the idea of getting rid of the religion question.
Ed,1) I am pretty sure that I have not withdrawn my application. I was under the impression that the form had been rejected and that I needed to re-apply;2) Excerpt from email received from branch 13MAR14: "At the branch meeting on Tuesday, I read and summarised the significant parts of the correspondence between you and the Applications Committee and that between you and me. The Branch then spent some time discussing the issues involved. The Branch was pleased that you were going to stay in touch while you work on your position with regard to agnosticism versus atheism. You are welcome to attend our future meetings. However, the prevailing view was that we couldn't take your application any further in your absence and that, should you wish to join the Party, we will need to set aside some time to interview you during a branch meeting."
) Excerpt from meeting minutes received 14MAR14: "1.2 Mike McDade's membership application was discussed as well as the reasons for it being deferred by the EC (i.e. the way he answered the attitude to religion question). In an email exchange with Chris, Mike had stated that, at present, he was an agnostic rather than an atheist but that he was examining the issue and that, in the meantime he would stay in touch with the Party. It was decided to tell Mike he was welcome to attend our meetings. Should he wish to talk through his membership application, we would be happy to do so when he is ready to re-apply.";4) Regretfully, I have not been able to attend April's or May's meetings. I do, however, intend to be there in June if I arrive back from America in time. I have no intention of withdrawing an application which I have made to become a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. I am anti-capitalist, pro-socilaist and see no other organisation which reflects the cause for true socialism. There is, in my mind, nowehere else to turn. I could do nothing, I suppose, but I have never been able to do nothing!Thanks for your other comments, which I shall reply to when I have given them the attention they deserve.Mike McDade wrote:4) Regretfully, I have not been able to attend April's or May's meetings. I do, however, intend to be there in June if I arrive back from America in time.Mike,North London Branch, as I'm sure you'll know, now meets on the third Tuesday of the month, (so the next meeting will be on June 17th).http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/north-london-branch-kentish-town-800pmAnd, as Ed says. please try to make it to Summer School which is only three days later…http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/summer-school-2014-birmingham
Ed wrote:p.s.I'm certainly open to the idea of getting rid of the religion question.A very sensible idea.Can anyone seriously imagine a socialist society dictating personal spiritual belief or belief in anything for that matter? So why on earth does the SPGB/World Socialist Movement place an atheist prerequisite upon joining the struggle for socialism? It gives off a two faced image of socialism.
I think Paddy Shannon had the best take on why the party doesn't accept people with religious views when the subject was discussed on the WSM forum just over a year ago.
Paddy wrote:Once we accept in principle that members can believe things that are not based on evidence, we open the door to every non-rational belief. You can make a distinction between 'nice' religious people who mean well, and 'nasty' mad religious people who want to barbecue infidel babies, but unfortunately our open democratic structure would not recognise any difference. We would be forced then to debate every nuance, every variation, every flavour of every religion endlessly within our ranks in order to distinguish, according to a labyrinthine and abstruse set of vague moral and ethical codes eternally open to challenge, who the genuinely socialist religious people were from the potentially dangerous ones. It would take up our entire time simply to work out which of the infinite shades of religion we could live with, without even beginning to address the real issues that face workers. We would be plunged into a nightmare maelstrom of theological and theosophical debate instead of being free to press the real, gritty, materialist case that workers have to deal with daily. So, perhaps regrettably and somewhat ruthlessly, we stick to what I believe is the only practical solution, we have a blanket ban, even though it may seem unfair on some people. If religion can change the world to socialism, let it, and I will not object, but I see no sign of any religion doing so, or even of having any interest in doing so. They are not clamouring to our banner. They are not fighting for a world of common ownership. They are fighting for ownership of your 'soul', that mythical thing which obsesses them. They are not interested in our plight as workers, and therefore we are not interested in them.Well if the religious are not hammering down Clapham HQ seeking to join the atheist heathens in the quest to improve the lot of human kind, in the hear and now, then where did the issue about not allowing those with a socialist understanding in the party because they happen to hold a spiritual belief of one kind or another?The view expressed by Paddy (#441) and prob' held onto by most party members is a mix of scientific snobbery and fear. Quite disturbing in my opinion, as it says to those socialists, "Even though you understand and want to work towards socialism, unfortunately we don't trust you to keep your personal views out of the picture." As if the SPGB membership works in total harmony without any squabbles or personal differences of opinion.Farcical, hypocritical and at it's worst quite worrying.
Whenever this issue crops up, two issues tend to get merged and confused. The first is our specific philosophical, political, historical understanding of life, the universe and everything – and the second is the less grandiose but still important matter of the religion question on our Membership Application Questionnaire. (b.t.w. I’m not suggesting that these two issues are completely unrelated).When changes are proposed, as per Robbo’s excellent posts on this question, some of us seem to assume that somehow we are being asked to abandon historical materialism, and proclaim a belief in the almighty! (As if …) But it’s perfectly possible to amend or scrap the religion item in the Questionnaire without in any way calling into question the Party’s political/philosophical basis. (I might be wrong but I think that for many years the Questionnaire did not have a question about religion).Anyway, if someone agrees with and accepts the Party’s Object and D.o.P., and agrees to abide by the Party rulebook and our democratic procedures, and answers all other Membership Questions satisfactorily, then why does it matter if s/he is unsure whether there’s a god in the sky? Yes, it may be a contradiction in their thinking, but so what?And certainly no one is suggesting that religious fundamentalists be allowed in – why on earth would such people ever consider joining?! What’s important is our attitude towards *socialists* who wish to join. People like Mike McDade. And our de facto position – which we seem reluctant to spell out in full – is that we define socialists as necessarily being atheists.
steve colborn wrote:"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?This doesnt quite square with you what you said earlier, though, Steve.You said: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"? The clear implication of this is that Christians are not bothered about corporeal existence – that is they are essentially other worldly. You now say they merely want to use the corporeal existence, to ensure an eternity of "spiritual existence". Or do you deny this.. Yes I do deny this Steve!. I seriously think you have a totally unrealistic perception of religious individuals if you think they go about thinking of nothing else but what lies ahead of them in the afterlife . Christ, Ive just done a landscaping job for two born again Christians – nice couple though – and all they go on about is the price of this or the price of that and how they could with a nice break from the stress of running a business. Much like anyone else frankly…
steve colborn wrote: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.I don t think what you say is correct but suppose you are correct in saying that atheism is not a requirement for membership and that all that is required is that we should not believe our destiny is in the hands of some god. Suppose then that someone came along and said they did not believe in a theistic god but did believe in Deism – the idea of a non intervening god. What would the Party say to this person? Also, what if that person simply said I believe there is an afterlife of some sort but I do not believe that our destiny lies in the hands of a theistic god. And what if someone came along advocating pantheism – the idea that god is everywhere and in anything. What would the Party say to such a person?Unless I am seriously mistaken I think the Party at the moment would not allow them to join. In de facto terms that makes the Party an atheistic organisation.
steve colborn wrote: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!!!No, its not the crux of the debate at all, Steve , becuase you are making a quite false assumption. You are confusing metaphysical materialism with historical materialism. It is totally possible to be a metaphysical spiritualist and a historical materialist ( though I agree it is not possible to be a metaphysical materialist and a metaphysical spritualist). This is what the Party cannot get its head around and this frankly is the root of the whole problem. It needs to understand that metaphysical materialism, however sound it may be as a worldview, . has no relevance to the question of whether one is, or can be, a socialist or not which is a question that relates strictly to this world and not sone otherworldly existence. And despite what you say , Steve , the vast majority of religious folk do live in this world in every sense of the word – just like us!
pfbcarlisle wrote:And certainly no one is suggesting that religious fundamentalists be allowed in – why on earth would such people ever consider joining?!How do you suggest we distinguish between those with differing religious outlooks?No, once we abandon the principle of evidence-based thinking, we abandon the basis on which to expel anyone who departs from it. It's simply not worth the risk for the sake of one or two extra 'socialists' who just also happen to believe in God.
Those who oppose any religious membership of the Party must formulate how the party implements such rules within the context of a mass movement for social change that will involve many with individual idiosycratic views or adherence to various forms of organised religion. I think our position to exclude non-materialists holds only if we accept that the Party will not (and cannot) be the vehicle for the socialist revolution but merely a component and just an ideological one, at that.I know some already accept this position but it is not fully acknowledged within our principles albeit often expressed in some of our propaganda.Our present position is determined by the acceptance of our current status. A few hundred that never in its history exceeded a few thousand. I will also suggest that when (if) our numbers grow our approach to reforms will become more practical and pragmatic (don't try and tie me down to a debate over its form now because i gladly leave the determination to future members to be considered under their circumstances and situation, not the ones i face today) which will make those such as StuartW part of the WSM, activists who believe words are not sufficient to defend the working class and as a one-time trade union activist, i concur that class struggle does mean engagement for whatever we can grab.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I will also suggest that when (if) our numbers grow our approach to reforms will become more practical and pragmatic (don't try and tie me down to a debate over its form now because i gladly leave the determination to future members to be considered under their circumstances and situation, not the ones i face today) which will make those such as StuartW part of the WSM, activists who believe words are not sufficient to defend the working class and as a one-time trade union activist, i concur that class struggle does mean engagement for whatever we can grab.I would sincerely hope that if the party turned to reformism that all genuine socialists would immediately resign and denounce the party's opportunistic behavior as a betrayal of working class interests.Surely if you want to endorse reforms you should advocate doing so now. Otherwise you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
gnome wrote:How do you suggest we distinguish between those with differing religious outlooks?I think the emphasis should be on the socialism, not the religion, so we judge applicants by their socialism and not by their 'religious thinking'.
gnome wrote:No, once we abandon the principle of evidence-based thinking, we abandon the basis on which to expel anyone who departs from it. It's simply not worth the risk for the sake of one or two extra 'socialists' who just also happen to believe in God.No need whatsoever to abandon 'evidence-based thinking'! (Robbo has already mentioned that religious people can and do adopt evidence-based thinking; e.g whenever they cross the road).Like I said, I think we have a tendency to confuse and conflate different issues. Anyone who departs from the case for socialism can be dealt with accordingly, as is the situation at present.
""I would sincerely hope that if the party turned to reformism that all genuine socialists would immediately resign and denounce the party's opportunistic behavior as a betrayal of working class interests."Yet again reforms and reformism are being used as synomyns. They are not. The Party does not advocate a policy of reforms as stepping stones towards socialism but we have recognised particular reforms as beneficial to the working class and also to ourselves as a socialist political party. The bigger the movement for socialism, the more demands we will be making on capitalism. That is what i was referring to. i cannot envisage day-to-day problems being ignored by an increasingly class conscious working class. We aren't begging, we aren't pleading, we are demanding. A socialist trade unionist, for example, will support the reform of the law to permit secondary picketing and solidarity sympathetic strikes. He will campaign for such through his unions. The party will report such actions and endorse it as an improved strategy in conducting the class struggle…We won't be condemning it as a futile reform or be charging the member for reformism. Hospital old folks homes schools and fire station closures are resisted by communities. We sympathise with their cause, encourage their self-activity for that are the foundations that sociailist organisation will be built upon. A previous SPGB candidates response to local issueshttp://realsocialism.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html"So, good luck to the organisers of last nights hustings, the Fire Reform Action Group of Livingston. …. a genuine grassroots community group.I wont be signing your petition: not because I don’t think the issue is important, but rather because I simply don’t think that petitions work. " That party sympathy will be ten-fold when members are involved both as public and also as fire-fighters. In local branches these issues will be tackled on their merits and whatever assistance will be decided.But to repeat…this will not be an issue for those who believe the Socialist Party will NOT transform into a mass class party. What was that Trot group who also decided that it was not going to be THE socialist party of the working class and became a think-tank instead. And of course i forgot the Fabian Society.
gnome wrote:pfbcarlisle wrote:And certainly no one is suggesting that religious fundamentalists be allowed in – why on earth would such people ever consider joining?!How do you suggest we distinguish between those with differing religious outlooks?No, once we abandon the principle of evidence-based thinking, we abandon the basis on which to expel anyone who departs from it. It's simply not worth the risk for the sake of one or two extra 'socialists' who just also happen to believe in God.
I think the point is, Dave, that the need for evidence based thinking should really apply to those in the Party who think that, just because one holds a particular religious view, this makes one liable to depart from socialist principles. I have always maintained that the Party's policy on religious applicants is completely redundant or surplus to requirements. If someone is going to depart from socialist principles this would manifest itself in a variety of ways that would be no different than if an atheist were to depart from socialist principles – such as the advocacy of reformism or leadership-based politics or whatever.That is the evidence you ought to be focusing on – do individuals subscribe to the fundamental principles of the Party – and not whether of not they happen to hold religious views which really does not matter. The argument that Paddy raised – about it not being worth the effort to distinguish between different religions and therefore the Party should maintain its existing policy – is weak and unconvincing and ironically shifts the onus of evidence based thinking onto those who want to change the present policy while absolving those who want to maintain that policy from the need for such thinking. Really, it should be the other way round. Where is the evidence that religious minded socialists will stray from socialist principles anymore than a socialist who holds no religious views? If you refuse to provide such evidence than that in itself is a renunciation of evidence based thinking.Correct me if I am wrong, Dave , but does not your branch have a regular supporter who holds religious views. Apart from the fact that she holds religious views, is there anything about what she says that contradicts the basics of the Party's outlook?On the question of scrapping the Party's policy on not admitting socialists with religious convictions there are several alternatives. I mention the two most obvious ones: 1) Complete removal of the bar on religious-minded members. Providing they subscribe to the basics of the socialist case this should present no problem. It is most unlikely that individuals who belong to official religions that have a notably socially reactionary outlook would want to join the Party anyway but they might very well be prompted to leave such a religion on contact with the Party case2) Partial removal of bar on religious-minded members by admitting to the Party only individuals who did not belong to any organised religion but hold only private or personal religious beliefs. This too would aid the shift away from organised religion which in my view is the real problem – not religion per se I favour the second approach at lkeast for the time being while the Party is still a fairly small organisation. To reassure members who might be worried by one or other of these suggestions, It could be made absolutely explicit that the active promotion of religious ideas within the Party would not be tolerated and would be deemed grounds for expulsion. There should be no proselytising, in other words, which would not only be divisive but distracting- religious beliefs should be strictly a private matter in much the same way as sexual orientation or whatever, would be I really cannot see how members could possibly object to this . It covers all the bases and addresses all the concerns that lie at the heart of their objection to allowing religious socialists into the Party
alanjjohnstone wrote:""I would sincerely hope that if the party turned to reformism that all genuine socialists would immediately resign and denounce the party's opportunistic behavior as a betrayal of working class interests."Yet again reforms and reformism are being used as synomyns. They are not. The Party does not advocate a policy of reforms as stepping stones towards socialism but we have recognised particular reforms as beneficial to the working class and also to ourselves as a socialist political party. The bigger the movement for socialism, the more demands we will be making on capitalism. That is what i was referring to. i cannot envisage day-to-day problems being ignored by an increasingly class conscious working class. We aren't begging, we aren't pleading, we are demanding. A socialist trade unionist, for example, will support the reform of the law to permit secondary picketing and solidarity sympathetic strikes. He will campaign for such through his unions. The party will report such actions and endorse it as an improved strategy in conducting the class struggle…We won't be condemning it as a futile reform or be charging the member for reformism. Hospital old folks homes schools and fire station closures are resisted by communities. We sympathise with their cause, encourage their self-activity for that are the foundations that sociailist organisation will be built upon. A previous SPGB candidates response to local issueshttp://realsocialism.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html"So, good luck to the organisers of last nights hustings, the Fire Reform Action Group of Livingston. …. a genuine grassroots community group.I wont be signing your petition: not because I don’t think the issue is important, but rather because I simply don’t think that petitions work. " That party sympathy will be ten-fold when members are involved both as public and also as fire-fighters. In local branches these issues will be tackled on their merits and whatever assistance will be decided.But to repeat…this will not be an issue for those who believe the Socialist Party will NOT transform into a mass class party. What was that Trot group who also decided that it was not going to be THE socialist party of the working class and became a think-tank instead. And of course i forgot the Fabian Society.In your previous comment that I replied to it seemed to me that you were talking about the party's attitude to reforms changing. Now it seems you're talking about individual members or the working class as a whole taking part in trade unions. Two very different issues. Or are you suggesting that a symbiotic relationship should be formed between the party and trade unions? Like the relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions.Anyway God God Godgod'da make sure we stay on topic
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.