The Forum: A secularist side-tracks.
Mr. Rennolls replies as follows to the rejoinder of our comrade Le Cart in the October SOCIALIST STANDARD :
Sir, Mr. Le Cart writes that “Secularism is this-worldism in opposition to the belief in the existence of another world.” On top of this he tries to argue that Socialism is versus Secularism. If he is correct, then Socialism is next-worldism. In order to make things clearer he further argues that Secularism is a “religious” aspect of society and that “Socialism is anti-religious.”
Taking the two arguments together, Socialism is both this-worldism and next-worldism at the same time, Secularism is next-worldism only, and Socialism is versus itself.
As if this is not enough we get his state of mind in two further comparisons : “Secularism is this-worldism,” and “Secularism is essentially nothing but a futile negation.” Our dinners, and wages, and bosses, etc., are nothing but “futile negations.”
We further learn that “Secularism is itself guilty of inaccurate mental vision.” Then this-worldism is the product of inaccurate mental vision. If the vision was correct, Secularism would probably not see this world at all. It would “see” the “next.” It would then cease to be itself.
The following quotation indicates Mr. Le Cart’s genius for logical argument: “If it (Secularism) leaves room for misunderstanding and ill-usage, it stands condemned as a proper means of education and enlightenment.” I commend this to the notice of the Anti-Socialist Union, which will now be able to argue that as, according to the S.P.G.B., Socialism is misunderstood and ill-used, it stands condemned as a proper means of education and enlightenment.
Mr. Le Cart does not know the difference between the meaning of “shaped and determined by” and “based on,” for look at this sentence : “Religious ideas, however, being shaped and determined by social conditions, only exist as a product of the particular social system in which they are manifested, and as such are not based at all on the existence of another world.”
The italics are mine. Religious ideas are based upon next-worldism. Religious ideas are shaped by social conditions. They are both based and shaped, but Mr. Le Cart actually argues that “shape” is “base,” the building is the foundation.
One more illustration to show how much Mr. Le Cart understands anything at all. He argues that this-worldiism (Secularism) is a narrowing down to one single aspect of society, viz., the religious one. Religion being of the next world, we arrive right here : This-worldism is a next-world aspect of this world, that is, it is not itself ! Yours sincerely,
THOMAS RENNOLLS
Mr. Rennolls, whose criticism of my article “Socialism v. Secularism” appeared in the Oct. “S.S.,” loses his temper [Have removed all that sort of thing.—SCRUB ED.] without improving his case. On the contrary, it is worse than ever, for he gives way to misrepresentation, and once an opponent adopts such tactics all debate becomes impossible and useless.
He, for instance, ascribes the following sentence to me : “Secularism is a religious aspect of society.” I, of course, never said anything of the kind. A little further he tears a phrase from its context, as witness: “If Secularism leaves room for misunderstanding and ill-usage it stands condemned as a proper means of education and enlightenment.” He leaves out the previous sentence, which gives this one its proper meaning, and in which I use the words “by its adherents.” I quite understand that these words are troublesome to Mr. Reunolls, because they make the phrase apply to that master-class party that styles itself the I.L.P., and under the auspices of which he gives to the world a proper understanding of—Secularism !
Apart from this, Mr. Rennolls cannot understand that, since I myself point out that Secularism stands for this-worldism, Socialism can be versus Secularism. Well, perhaps he can understand that capitalism is very much this-worldism—does it therefore follow that Socialism cannot be versus capitalism ?
The only other point in this letter consists in the writer taking me to task over the following statement : “Religious ideas, however, being shaped and determined by social conditions, only exist as a product of the particular social system in which they are manifested, and as such are not based at all on the existence of another world.” He says that I do not know the difference between “to be determined by,” and “to be based on,” and kindly proceeds to explain it. Note how he does it : “Religious ideas are shaped by social conditions. Religious ideas are based upon next-worldism.”
Ye gods, what a revelation ! Religious ideas and next-world ism two different things ! Take away religious ideas and you still have next-worldism ! Such is the gospel of Mr. Rennolls ! I humbly thought they were one and the same thing. Perhaps he meant to affirm that religious ideas are based on the next world—but again this can’t be, for, to him, the next world is non¬existent, and no-thing can be based upon that which is not.
M. J. LE CART