[Ed]

No it’s an explanation

[Ed]

When two people have a conversation without even thinking about it they enter into an agreement. That agreement is, that whoever is speaking must express themselves in a way which gives the other party the best chance of reaching a clear understanding of what is being said. While the other party agrees to try to interpret what is being said as best they can with the information they receive. As the conversation goes back and forth the positions switch. This is the essence of all human communication in any language. Now you are accusing me of not living up to my side of our unspoken agreement. But what did I have to work with?I askedBut I would ask Northern Light why he feels this is a religious issue and not a scientific one?You replyHi Ed,I thought this had been put to bed by ALB. I was a naughty, attention seeking girl, who made the whole thing up. ( sorry ALB, just couldn’t resist it. ) Anyway, I reckon my story is of no importance, the debate has reached it’s climax.What can I conclude from this other than that you don’t have an answer because you were, in your own words making it up.You then go on to sayWhen I opened this discussion, I had an agenda, ( nothing sinister, I assure you ), and I think all of my questions have been answered, quite eloquently, by the percipients.So you had an agenda, how should I interpret that in the context of the last thing you’ve said?Now here’s where I was at fault.One might say it is of little importance. I would say the membership issue is more relevant now, than any other time in the Party’s existence, not just for people who have a religious slant, but per se. Global Warming…………. is it, or isn’t it ?The war crimes of Bush and Blair, and their croniesThe world-widw recessionThe corruption of elected politiciansCorporate greedThe errosion of care for the agedThe sabotage of the N.H.S.The meddling with children’s educationThe savage repugnant attacks on the sick and vunerableThe deliberate attacks on the Muslem societyThe attempts to fragment the Public sector, by restructuring payMoving capital and jobs to the Far East, then calling our workers, lazy spongers on the State, for not finding jobsRestricting Internet freedom. These are a sample of issues in the public domain, and the Working Class, is looking for answers, and not finding them in main-stream politics.I came to the wrong conclusion here. For two reasons. A) You’ve just said you were making it up as you had an agenda It seemed that you were saying that we should campaign on single issues.Now you accuse me of intentionally breaking the unspoken agreement in order to set you up as you imagine I have some grievance or grudge against you. I had in fact said two or three times earlier that in my opinion your views should not prohibit you joining the party. So I ask you what do you imagine is my motivation for wanting to “set traps”?  Is it not more likely that it is you who is at fault for not explaining yourself in a way where neither Gnome or I could understand your intended meaning? Now I appreciate humor is incredibly difficult in conversation over the internet. So much of being able to tell when someone is joking or not is down to facial expression, tone of voice and body language. That’s why in this medium I always find it better to answer a straight question with a straight answer. Otherwise you end up with a breakdown in communication and misunderstanding like the one we have now.But saying that, I think I got this jokeIf you are going to play games with me, at least try dealing with a straight deck.Irony, right?

[Ed]

I think you should answer my last point. If your interpretation is correct then in what context does it fit with my question.

[Ed]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

 I think it is absolutely appalling and an embarrassment to our party, how both Gnome and Ed have attacked Northern Light, calling her a reformist and a liar without any foundation. And you wonder why the party is small! It is not the religious question that is important here. 

I suggest that if you feel that strongly about it you should make a complaint through the official channels rather than whining like a baby all over the forum.

[Ed]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

Ed wrote:

northern light wrote:

Hi Ed,I thought this had been put to bed by ALB. I was a naughty, attention seeking girl, who made the whole thing up. ( sorry ALB, just couldn’t resist it. ) Anyway, I reckon my story is of no importance, the debate has reached it’s climax.  

 Are you serious, Ed? Northern Light  is referring to ALB’s reference to the people who lied about ghosts . Sarcasm??As for the list of capitalisms problems! Don’t you have a list? I think Northern Light missed a lot out

Which in no way relates to the context of the question I asked.

[Ed]

northern light wrote:

Hi Ed,I thought this had been put to bed by ALB. I was a naughty, attention seeking girl, who made the whole thing up. ( sorry ALB, just couldn’t resist it. ) Anyway, I reckon my story is of no importance, the debate has reached it’s climax.  

[Ed]

TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:

The reason the Party is so small is evident on it’s own forum. This thread was started by someone who wants to join the Party and I send him fraternal greetings and hope we can both work to end this horrible, vile system.Instead of using the intellectual power of the party to derail his thread, can we address the question ‘Does Northern Light’s position constitute a religious position? Is he socialist enought for us to accept his Form A?’ Other workers who have contacted the SPGB asking us to strike for a socialist world have been ridiculed and humiliated on another thread. The reason the party is so small is blatently obvious and perhaps members who have had time out may see this more clearly

Northern Light has admitted that she has no intention of joining the party and lied about her views in order to test our reaction. She then goes on to criticise us for not campaigning for reforms. I think that closes the case on whether a form A is required.

[Ed]

northern light wrote:

Global Warming…………. is it, or isn’t it ?The war crimes of Bush and Blair, and their croniesThe world-widw recessionThe corruption of elected politiciansCorporate greedThe errosion of care for the agedThe sabotage of the N.H.S.The meddling with children’s educationThe savage repugnant attacks on the sick and vunerableThe deliberate attacks on the Muslem societyThe attempts to fragment the Public sector, by restructuring payMoving capital and jobs to the Far East, then calling our workers, lazy spongers on the State, for not finding jobsRestricting Internet freedom.

There is one solution to all of these problems. As Rolf used to say “can you tell what it is yet?”

[Ed]

The end part was not specifically aimed at anyone in particular but more towards humanity as a whole. By primitive I mean the same logic used since pre-history to explain unknown phenomena.As I said before I hope Northern Light can join and having re-read his explanation I am even more sure. I think the problem with what he is saying is identifying his thoughts with religion at all. I mean just the word Creator implies to most people (at least to me) a conscious god somewhat like the Abrahmic one. But he then goes on to say that he doesn’t know if IT has conscious thought, can interact with us or is aware of us. By removing the context of religion and the word Creator and maybe dressing it up in more scientific language he could be talking about string theory. The problem, like most problems, seems to lie in semantics. But I would ask Northern Light why he feels this is a religious issue and not a scientific one?If he hasn’t lost patience with us yet

[Ed]

steve colborn wrote:

If looked into, these experiences, may, or may not have a RATIONAL explanation.

Except there must be a rational explanation based in science. The issue is whether the event can be explained within the context of our current level of scientific understanding or not.  It would be arrogant of us to think we have reached the pinnacle of scientific discovery it’s also clearly not the case. However, this does not mean that we should resort to primitive reasoning declaring that unknown science is magic or the work of God or spirits.

[Ed]

jondwhite wrote:

There is already an organised group of supporters of the SPGB who admit religious people, its called World in Common and I think it is smaller than the SPGB.

No I’m talking about a group that would be within the party but without the all the rights which membership entails, i.e. voting rights. But would still be allowed to table motions and resolutions. They would also be allowed to do things like, I don’t know, use the party library for instance. I think only full members can do that. Or even (and this would have to be debated) join committees.

[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? .’-)

[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!”

[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.

[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?

[Author]

Posts