The Religion word

[Ed]

I don’t have strong feelings about this one way or the other, which is why I supported removing the ban. However after speaking to one of our religous supporters I changed my mind. I asked why they supported the party and the answer was “I believe that the party is doing God’s work”. Now that’s a very nice thing to say, but when it comes to voting on important party matters (like whether or not to buy comfy chairs or a new party sign) will they be voting on the merits of the evidence or what they perceive to be the will of God?Clearly that’s not the case in regards to the OP but where would you draw the line?

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

I don’t have strong feelings about this one way or the other, which is why I supported removing the ban. However after speaking to one of our religious supporters I changed my mind. I asked why they supported the party and the answer was “I believe that the party is doing God’s work”. Now that’s a very nice thing to say, but when it comes to voting on important party matters (like whether or not to buy comfy chairs or a new party sign) will they be voting on the merits of the evidence or what they perceive to be the will of God?Clearly that’s not the case in regards to the OP but where would you draw the line?

 Ed Lets get real here.  How likely is that religious believers would say they support the Party because they “believe that the party is doing God’s work”.  Most unlikely, I would suggest.  Most religious people keep their religious views to themselves and don’t let them intrude on the different roles they perform in public life.   Many scientists are religious but that doesn’t mean they let their  religious beliefs dictate their scientific work.  Millions of people  belong to political parties  and a  good many of these people are religious., In practice they don’t generally talk about the will of God but rather of what is good for the country and such like.  Your religious supporter seems to be an extreme exception or may be he or she is just taking the piss and you have overlooked that possibility In any case, what exactly does it mean to say “I believe that the party is doing God’s work”.  I would suggest it is little more than pretty harmless and  meaningless verbal formula to mean the Party is doing work that is good rather than literally, Gods work.  I presume  you don’t believe there is actually such a thing as the “will of God”.  So how exactly is this supposed will of God  going to manifest itself in relation to such  important party matters – LOL –  like whether or not to buy comfy chairs or a new party sign . Presumably,  even  religious people will take their cue not from the voice of God whispering in their earholes or even from the conference chairperson – whichever one happens to be the omnipotent one is this case  – but from such mundane  considerations as how long their bum can endure  the experience of an unforgivingly  hard chair Besides, as I say, there is a simple solution to all these hypothetical situations  which is to simply ensure that the Party remains strictly secular.  Ban the expression of religious views in Party propaganda but don’t ban religious socialists from joining the Party.  End of problem

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

EdLets get real here.  How likely is that religious believers would say they support the Party because they “believe that the party is doing God’s work”.  Most unlikely, I would suggest.

It was pretty much a direct quote I wasn’t making it up.

robbo203 wrote:

Most religious people keep their religious views to themselves and don’t let them intrude on the different roles they perform in public life.   Many scientists are religious but that doesn’t mean they let their  religious beliefs dictate their scientific work.  Millions of people  belong to political parties  and a  good many of these people are religious., In practice they don’t generally talk about the will of God but rather of what is good for the country and such like.  Your religious supporter seems to be an extreme exception or may be he or she is just taking the piss and you have overlooked that possibility

It may not fit in with your argument but please don’t try to dismiss it out of hand it’s a cheap tactic and is beneath you. I know it is only anecdotal and cannot be verified, probably,  but it was a part of a long discussion where the supporter explained and justified their views. You’ll just have to take me at my word.

robbo203 wrote:

In any case, what exactly does it mean to say “I believe that the party is doing God’s work”.  I would suggest it is little more than pretty harmless and  meaningless verbal formula to mean the Party is doing work that is good rather than literally, Gods work.  I presume  you don’t believe there is actually such a thing as the “will of God”.  So how exactly is this supposed will of God  going to manifest itself in relation to such  important party matters – LOL –  like whether or not to buy comfy chairs or a new party sign . Presumably,  even  religious people will take their cue not from the voice of God whispering in their earholes or even from the conference chairperson – whichever one happens to be the omnipotent one is this case  – but from such mundane  considerations as how long their bum can endure  the experience of an unforgivingly  hard chairBesides, as I say, there is a simple solution to all these hypothetical situations  which is to simply ensure that the Party remains strictly secular.  Ban the expression of religious views in Party propaganda but don’t ban religious socialists from joining the Party.  End of problem

Fucked if I know how it works. Presumably they make their decision based on what they think God would want.. Maybe it’s a moral or ethical decision or maybe it’s a sense of fate and destiny. Maybe they’d use their vote based on what their horoscope said. I asked questions and listened I didn’t conduct a psychoanalysis. Obviously some of the decisions which are hotly debated within the party are of no relevance to the class struggle but what happens when and if they are? What if we had an MP elected to parliament and the decision was to be made on how to instruct them to act? Would it be safe to rely on the opinion of a person making their decisions through those methods?I would think not.So if it’s not ok for someone with those opinions to vote but it is for the OP where is the line? What beliefs are too much. Of course we could consider every prospective member with religious views on their own merits, a case by case basis. But that would be open to abuse and lead to inconsistency. The committee could reject one person and then the next year a committee made up of newly elected people could accept them. Conversely a committee could admit someone only for a new committee to expel the member. All of this leads to instability.I’m not closed to the idea of relaxing the rules and based on what I’ve read in this thread I hope the OP could be accepted. But I’m yet to hear anything like a decent proposal for where the line could be drawn. So I have to conclude that the safest place for the line to be is where it is at the moment. That is to say a complete ban.

[robbo203]

Ed wrote:

 I’m not closed to the idea of relaxing the rules and based on what I’ve read in this thread I hope the OP could be accepted. But I’m yet to hear anything like a decent proposal for where the line could be drawn. So I have to conclude that the safest place for the line to be is where it is at the moment. That is to say a complete ban.

Well, what about the compromise idea discussed earlier of allowing socialists in who hold personal religious beliefs  but not those who belong to organised religions?  This has several advantages, as I see it: 1) it allows a clear dividing line to be drawn2) it highlights the fact that its is the reactionary social policies of organised religions that is at the core of the problem not the metaphysical premises of religious belief per se which is no barrier in practice to individuals thinking in historical materialist terms3)  it aids the movement away from organised religion by giving religious socialists a clear  incentive, as it were,   to do so – namely to be able to join the SPGB.  This “carrot and stick” approach is far more effective in combating the pernicious effect of organised  religion than just slamming all religious beliefs regardless. I repeat also that any supposed hypothetical problems that might arise, once religious socialists are allowed  to join, can be easily prevented by simply insisting on the fact that the Party is a strictly secular organisation and that religious ideas shall not figure anywhere in party propaganda. Furthermore,  I would add that I consider that religious socialists – like the OP  – who hold strictly personal religious beliefs  are most unlikely to want to proselytize on the basis of their religious beliefs.  Someone  belonging to an organised religion, on the other hand,  might in theory  have more reason to want to do this though, even in this case, I consider this unlikely and as I say, easily preventable anyway, by deeming this “action detrimental” ….

[robbo203]

Hud955 wrote:

Hi Robin and everyoneHistorical materialism is just as antithetical to the concept of god as metaphysical materialism.  If all human ideas emerge from material conditions, then that is where the idea of god originated too. But aren’t there two prior questions? 1. Should we assume that all party members believe in socialism for rational reasons, and 2. does someone have to subscribe to the materialist conception of history to be a socialist?  Frankly, I think the answer is no on both counts.    I’ve known people within the party say, for example, oh I can’t be bothered with all that intellectual stuff, I’m just a gut socialist.  We are perfectly willing to accept gut socialists into the party so long as they give give the right answers to the basic questions.  And so we damn well should!  But heaven knows (!) gut socialism is no more rational than a belief in the creator.   Then, I have a strong suspicion that a lot of members come to hold certain beliefs because when they enter the party, that’s what the party orthodoxy says.  They take them on trust and assert them but if asked to defend them, wouldn’t be able to.  I know that to be true of some ideas for some people, including, if I’m honest, me (though I’m gradually working on that.  LOL).  How many people within the party who say they subscribe to the Labour Theory of Value would be able to defend it rationally, for instance, against its many objectors? It’s a complicated argument.  How many members would even know what it was?  It is open to a multitide of interpretations. How many members who cheefully claim that currency crank theories of money are nonsense and talk demeaningly about those who defend them would be able to give a detailed and rational analysis to support their view? There are loads of areas where members clearly take certain views on trust or have only a hazy understanding of them. And how many irrational beliefs do many of us hold in our daily life anyway.  Probably far more than we would be prepared to acknowledge. I think we kid ourselves a lot of the time that we are these perfectly rational beings.  Why would we be?.  We don’t, after all, have a god’s eye view of reality and we have to deal with a complicated world.  We don’t have time to have detailed, reasoned, empirically supported views on everything we need to make decisions on.  Life is too short and far too occupied with wage-slavery.  I would object to giving membership to anyone who was a member of a religious organisation or subscribed to the beliefs of a religious organisation.  That’s simple, there would be a direct or potential conflict of values there.   But I’m not sufficiently purist to believe that someone who simply has a belief in a creator could never be a conscious socialist.  That’s because I don’t believe that a carefully reasoned belief system is what defines a conscious socialist.  A conscious socialist, in my book, is someone who identifies with working-class class interests and works for the introduction of a common ownership, post-capitalist society.   If anyone believes that religion and belief in a creator are going to disappear at all soon among the working class, then, personally, I think they are going to be disappointed.  If a socialist movement ever does get off the ground then we are going to have to work with socialists who believe in a creator or even have religious views. That’s something we will have to face. We constantly side-step this issue.  How rational is that? Whether we should accept people as members who believe in god but don’t subscribe to any religion – well, I struggle with that.  On balance I think I’m against it – very reluctantly. I’m really quite sympathetic to many of Robin’s arguments on this.  He makes some very good points.  Yet, still I think it would cause us big problems.  But one thing I feel certain about.  I don’t think we should be denying them membership for purely philosophical reasons.  That really would turn us into something of an elitist cult.  But to admit people with a belief in a creator, all kinds of practical questions and problems would arise.  If we did, then there would be no question of this being ‘a private matter’.  Being a socialist is above all a social act and that would have to take precedence over everything else.  Would we demand to know what conclusions they drew from their belief or what were their associated idea?  Would we be able to preserve a purely atheistical stance in our propaganda? Would we want to?   If so, would we, then, have to ask members who believed in god not to promote that idea when speaking on behalf of the party?  How many would want to join under those circumstances.   I think it could get very, very complicated.We have someone on the forum here who is a committed socialist but also believes in a creator.  Can we not ask him to engage open-mindedly and honestly in this debate without defensively attacking his views?  I think it is an important one for us all.   

 Sorry but I overlooked this thought-provoking post in my haste to deal with certain other posts.  It makes a such a refreshing contrast in both tone and substance to the latter posts. Certain members of the SPGB would do well to take heed should they want to brush up on the PR skills. The salient thing to note about this post is the open acknowledgement of that  which many members of the SPGB  are seemingly in  complete denial over – namely the socialists are just us prone to irrational impulses as anyone else.  This should NOT be taken to be some regrettable defect – it is part of what makes human beings, human beings and not automatons.  Inevitably, we are all an admixtrue of rational and irrational impluses.  What is regrettable, perhaps,  is when  one gets out of balance in relation to the other The inference to be drawn from this is that rationale for excluding religious socialist from membership of the SPGB on the grounds that “religion is irrational”  is wholly inadmissible.  Irrationality is not something that risks being imported into the SPGB in Trojan horse fashion were the Party to relax it anti–religious policy on membership entry.  I think we have already seen more than enough evidence that it is already deeply embedded -. and flourishing – within the outlook of the SPGB itself and not just for the reasons Richard cites.  That apart,  there is no reason to suppose that  such a  relaxation in the entry requirements would in any way induce the membership to move away from the socialist objective and orientation of the SPGB ,.  Afterall, there is a whole battery of other  policy positions with which a potential applicant must  agree before being allowed membership  and these would still remain in force  should the party decide to relax or revoke its entry requirement on the subject of religionRichard does however say this:  Whether we should accept people as members who believe in god but don’t subscribe to any religion – well, I struggle with that.  On balance I think I’m against it – very reluctantly.  I’m not quite sure of the grounds upon which he arrives at this reluctant conclusion. It seems to me that he is worried that religious socialists might perhaps take advantage of this relaxation to propagate religious ideas in the name of the Party and in the context of party activity.  I consider that to be most unlikely but,  in any case,  easily preventable by  clearly stipulating that the Party should remain a strictly secular organisation and that the propagation of religious ideas within it should be deemed action detrimental.  This wold allow religious socialists to enter the Party and ensure that religion would become no part of the Party’s case I would also add that I think there is a case to be made for discriminating between different kinds of religion and I get the feeling that this is the position some members are moving towards. For example a distinction be made between personal religious beliefs and organized religions. A compromise arrangement might thus be to ban membership of organised religion but to permit personal religious beliefs – thus encouraging a movement from the former to the latter. In effect you would be applying  a kind of carrot stick approach here which would do much more  than the current practice  or banning religious outright,  to reduce the power of organised religions and their reactionary social policies which, I consider,  is the real problem with religion , not the metaphysical assumptions upon which religions are based.  For many people,  asking them to forsake their cherished metaphysical beliefs may  be asking just too much of them and it is far more likely they  will forsake the socialist cause if that is a requirement they have to undertake to join.  Asking  them to forsake a particular organised religion, on the other hand,  is much more easily done and will much more likely be done in the case of potential party applicants if it means that they don’t have to give up their religious views to join the party

[ALB]

I’ve just realised that because, for some here, the link I gave to Robbo’s “paranormal experience” wasn’t highlighted they won’t have understood what this was. So here it is:

Quote:

About three years ago I was involved in relationship with woman who lived in a cottage near the centre of a largish town in West Cornwall. The woman had 3 daughters between 11 and 14 and the cottage itself was, I would guess, probably 18th or early 19th century. Two of the daughters reported several times seeing poltergeist-type events (crockery apparently being thrown across the room) and also an elderly somewhat agitated woman on the landing upstairs in the late evening when going to the loo – which I naturally dismissed, being a good materialist, as a figment of their imagination. What happened on one particular saturday morning, however, was not a figment of my imagination or anyone else’s We had gone out shopping and the house was locked with a cat inside. When we came back it was immediately apparant that something had happened. Two china dolls that had been wedged up at the very top of a welsh dresser in the lounge – perhaps 7 feet up – had apparantly fallen to the floor but strangely had not been smashed. More weird still was what we found when we entered the main bedroom. A a tall tapering blue vase had been placed in the middle of the bed and a bowl of por-pourri had been scattered beside the bed. That vase had been in the very centre of a cluster of vases and bowls on a side cabinet by the bed. The bedroom door had been firmly closed and remained firmly closed when we arrived back from the shopping. The cottage had not in any way been broken into and in any case was too exposed to public view for anyone to consider breaking into it. Nothing was stolen from the house; nor was there any other distubance we could discover. It is just about conceivable that the cat had a spell of craziness and took it into it head to jump a height of 7ft onto the top of the welsh dresser but this would not explain the blue vaze or the pot pourri. Even if the cat had managed to get in the bedroom, opening the door and closing it after it had left, it is totally inconceivable that it could have managed to relocate a tall blue vase from the middle of a cluster or ornamants and place it on the middle or the bed without disturbing all the other ornaments around it which had been left totally undisturbed (barring the bowl of pot pourri) I have often wondered about this incident. There is no rational explanation for it I can think of. This was not like some ghostly apparation such as the two girls had reported. There has been an actual physical relocation of objects which all of us had apprehended. There is no way I can “prove” what I saw but I know for sure that this incident happened and the objects had not been where we subsequently found them, before we left. (groups.yahoo.com/group/spopen/message/753 )

Comrades offered rational explanations, but Robbo dismissed them all as the explanations of “shit-hot metaphysical materialists”.Anyone who has read about “poltergeists” will recognise this as a classic case. Harry Edwards writes in his A Skeptic’s Guide to the New Age:

Quote:

Poltergeists, or noisy spirits, are another phenomenon which, when investigated, usually turn out to have a more prosaic explanation.Invariably they take place in a household with a teenage member, a typical case being that of a fourteen year old girl by the name of Tina Resch, of Columbus, Ohio. Shortly after seeing the film Poltergeist, objects started to fly about in the Resch’s household. The “poltergeist” phenomenon was given wide coverage both on TV and in the press, and parapsychologist William Roll was called in to investigate.He concluded that “when he had Tina under close observation she demonstrated genuine recurrent spontaneous psychokinesis”, Roll’s term for the poltergeist phenomenon.Although nothing ever moved while Tina was being watched, as soon as the photographer looked away an object would fly across the room. One of the photographs taken and distributed by Associated Press as proof of the phenomenon when examined in detail strongly suggested that Tina was faking the occurrences. Examination and careful analysis of other photographs confirmed this and she was subsequently caught red-handed on video tape throwing objects. The records also show that Tina was hyperactive and emotionally disturbed. ( http://ed5015.tripod.com/SupernatGhostsApparitions97.htm )

Even in the 18th century teenage girls were caught faking this. See this account of “the Cock Lane ghost” in which Samuel Johnson and the writer and poet Oliver Goldsmith were involved in exposing: http://www.articledashboard.com/Article/The-Cock-Lane-Ghost-Dr-Samuel-Johnson/345789So, the most likely explanation in the case Robbo brought up is that one of the girls did it, probably before they all left to go shopping. But in his crusade against “metaphysical materialism” he refused to accept this saying he wanted to keep an “open mind” on the matter, i.e. he wasn’t going to decide between this explanation and others such as “spontaneous psychokinesis” or that a ghost did it. That those who take a scientific materialist approach to the so-called paranormal have a “closed mind” is of course the standard criticism of those who believe in all sorts of irrational things.I don’t know why Robbo thinks that people who believe in the paranormal or who have New Age spiritual views are more likely to be receptive to the socialist case than humanists and secularists. But he seems to, obsessively so.

[Young Master Smeet]

Quote:

Well, what about the compromise idea discussed earlier of allowing socialists in who hold personal religious beliefs  but not those who belong to organised religions?

That approach would admit William Blake, or a Southern Baptist who doesn’t go to church. The problem isn’t just organised religion, disorganised religion is a problem as well.I think a far simpler dividing line is we accept conscious materialists, who don’t think the party is doing Bob’s work, nor that socialism is divinely ordained or part of Bob’s plan.I would, though, give a possible pass to worshipers of Glycon, especially those who make their own sock puppet.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyconhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9669000/9669590.stm

[Anonymous]

 No one has mentioned Marx in this thread unless I have missed something, which would be unusual. It has been pointed out to me that quoting something from the 19th century is irrelevant and out of date But I stll think Marx has a lot to say 

[robbo203]

You are making yourself look ridiculous ALB and also attempting to derail this thread into a discussion of paranormal experiences. Presumably  that is because your have no answer to the questions that have been asked so your next best bet  is to try  to make the questioner appear foolish.  There is more than a hint of desperation about this rather pathetic and transperant  ploy I’ve stated my position clearly: I don’t have any rational  naturalistic explanation for the events for that occurred but I do not say there is not one.  I was not even suggesting that the events in question were “paranormal” You contend:”Comrades offered rational explanations, but Robbo dismissed them all as the explanations of “shit-hot metaphysical materialists”. This is deceitful. I did not  dismiss them because they were rational explanations. Precisely those self same explanation occurred to me as well, after all.  I dismissed them – I had no option but to dismiss – because they did not accord with the material facts.  There  is was no possibility for example of the girls coming in and causing havoc because they were outside waiting  and  we (my ex-partner and I ) were the last to leave the cottage and firmly looked the door behind us. No one else had  a  key and there was no sign of a break in . And  I can assure you that whatever happened , happened after we left for the supermarket and not before so you tell me why you think what happened, happened , Mr Clever Clogs.   Personally I haven’t a clue  and that is all I  can say Though you seem to lack the wit to grasp the point.  the purpose of my  reporting this little experience of mine, Mr Buick    – though  I should have known better than to do so before an audience of skeptical bigots – was NOT to plead a case for paranormal explanation- but rather  to demonstrate just how unscientific and irrational people can be when they try to arrogantly wish away the events in question from a completely prejudiced perspective.  That means you ALB.    Rather than keep an open mind and simply say “I don’t know”. they insist on saying they DO know ands that  that it is all perfectly explicable in terms if material facts even if they cannot show what these material facts are.  So  ALB insists that the most likely explanation is that the girls did it .  But that is NOT a satisfactory  explanation  at all because it was materially not possible for the girls to do that  –  unless, of course,  ALB  believes in  some wacky  paranormal theory that you can instantly relocate from a carpark to inside of a cottage  in a jiffy , do what you need to,  and relocate back to the carpack  all in the few seconds between me locking the door and arriving at the car.  In fact if anything it is ALB who perhaps ought to be accused of belief in the paranormal and suitably disciplined before the Spanish inquisition – oops Membership Committee! What is most ironic of all is this little gem from our “shit-hot  metaphysical materialist”That those who take a scientific materialist approach to the so-called paranormal have a “closed mind” is of course the standard criticism of those who believe in all sorts of irrational things.Automatically it is assumed  by ALB1) that he is the one who is  taking a “scientific materialist  approach” when the whole point is that is NOT taking  such an approach . His approach is actually unscientific and unmaterialist    because he is simply ignoring the material facts in this case simply because they don’t sit comfortably with his completely prejudiced view on the matter.  T S Kuhn in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” has much to say about the way in which scientists,  despite professing to be scientific, will often attempt to twist the facts to fit their preconceived ideas and shore up their own models of reality against the threat of a paradigm shift.  In that respects scientists are just as prone to irrational impulses as the rest of us including ALB  even if he imagines he is somehow  above the rest of us in being able to disentangle  himself from such fragile and all too human impulses2) that by criticising ALB   – who presumably considers himself to  be the standard bearer of a “scientific materialistic approach ” – of being closed-minded .  I  must ipso facto  ” believe in  in all sorts of irrational thing”.  This demonstrates a basic confusion.  Rationality has to do with explanation. I  repeat once more for the benefit of ALB who obviously seems to be a bit slow on the uptake:  I DONT HAVE AN EXPLANATION FOR WHAT HAPPENED,  LET ALONE A “PARANORMAL” EXPLANATION .  How many times do I have to repeat myself  before the penny drops?   The purposes of my mentioning my little expereience was not to prove the existence of the paranormal but to highlight the inadequancy of an approach that simply assumes away the material facts from a preconceived model of reality.  Im saying that we need to be a little more humble  and circumspect about acknowleging the limits of our knowlege but none of this seems to have sunk into the tunnel vision consciousness that seems to emanate from ALB . It  is not me who is presenting an ” explanation” of what happened  but him  – and this despite the fact that his explanation is one that simply does not accord with the material facts and must therefore, by his own standard,  be judged ” irrational.  There may very well be a perfectly  natural explanation for what happened  but that has yet to be presented him and his fellow bigots But enough of this. This is really pissing me off, big time.   It is absolutely clear that what ALB is doing here is pathetically engaging in a diversionary tactic to trying to derail this thread by delving into the murky world of the paranormal – fascinating though it is – when the real issue to be discussed  here is the question of the SPGB policy on barring individuals who hold religious beliefs.  Can  ALB come up with something constructive that could contribute to this debate? So far it appears not.  And that in itself speaks volumes I would have thought

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zIjLA8NGLYKeep taking the benzodiazepine !    

[Anonymous]

Does that really contribute to the debate?

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

Well, what about the compromise idea discussed earlier of allowing socialists in who hold personal religious beliefs  but not those who belong to organised religions?  This has several advantages, as I see it: 1) it allows a clear dividing line to be drawn2) it highlights the fact that its is the reactionary social policies of organised religions that is at the core of the problem not the metaphysical premises of religious belief per se which is no barrier in practice to individuals thinking in historical materialist terms3)  it aids the movement away from organised religion by giving religious socialists a clear  incentive, as it were,   to do so – namely to be able to join the SPGB.  This “carrot and stick” approach is far more effective in combating the pernicious effect of organised  religion than just slamming all religious beliefs regardless. I repeat also that any supposed hypothetical problems that might arise, once religious socialists are allowed  to join, can be easily prevented by simply insisting on the fact that the Party is a strictly secular organisation and that religious ideas shall not figure anywhere in party propaganda. Furthermore,  I would add that I consider that religious socialists – like the OP  – who hold strictly personal religious beliefs  are most unlikely to want to proselytize on the basis of their religious beliefs.  Someone  belonging to an organised religion, on the other hand,  might in theory  have more reason to want to do this though, even in this case, I consider this unlikely and as I say, easily preventable anyway, by deeming this “action detrimental” ….

I’m never closed to debate and in this case I think there is room for some compromise. But there must be a clear objective line of what is and isn’t acceptable. As young master smeet has stated organized religion is not it. I don’t have any answers to the problem and to be honest I’m skeptical of finding a solution which ensures the party remains materialist while not turning away potentially good members. But if I hear or think of one I’ll let you know.Oh by the way this thread reminds me of the story of the Two PhilosophersMaybe that’s the answer, “square go ootside!”

[HollyHead]

robbo203 wrote:

Besides, as I say, there is a simple solution to all these hypothetical situations  which is to simply ensure that the Party remains strictly secular.  Ban the expression of religious views in Party propaganda but don’t ban religious socialists from joining the Party.  End of problem

 How? Are you suggesting that we add a censorship clause to the D of P perhaps? Would we really remain a revolutionary organisation were we to allow reformists to join providing they agreed not to advocate reforms? Some people with religious views may well understand the case for socialism but cannot be said, in my opinion, to have socialist understanding.

[northern light]

HollyHead wrote:

Some people with religious views may well understand the case for socialism but cannot be said, in my opinion, to have socialist understanding.

 I do not know what you mean. Can you please put some meat on the bones

[Ed]

OK hows about this. Bear in mind this could be a terrible idea but it is just an idea.If we have enough supporters who are religous or cannot join the party due to whatever beliefs they have but who still advocate the party case. Then it seems silly not to have them organized and have some sort representation as eventually they will find an organization who will have them and join them and we’ll have lost out on good people. So how about a faction or an affiliate group. They could organize a bit like central branch will be doing, using the internet or whatever. Let them make proposals and stuff to ADM and conference the same way a branch would do. But limit them to a single vote for the entire branch which would be reached via a vote within the group. This would allow them to be represented and to be a part of the party, paying dues, writing articles, maybe even sitting on committees but would safe guard against the fears of a non-materialist majority forming and disrupting party votes while still allowing for  their voices to be heard.Of course this would be somewhat compromising our democratic principles. But it’s more democratic than keeping them as outsiders.Any ideas for names?WSM-Lite? .’-)

[Author]

Posts