Christians and Maoist's kick ass in Nepal

[spiltteeth]

Here's some extracts from
http://egregores.blogspot.com/2009/09/christian-maoist-nexus-in-nepal.html


Christians are welcoming Nepal's former communist rebel leader as the country's new prime minister and expressing hope that the new government will introduce "positive changes."

Kalai Bahadur Rokaya, general secretary of the National Council of Churches of Nepal, an umbrella body of Protestant Churches, told UCA News on Aug. 20: "Prachanda's election is good not only for the Christian community but all sections of society since the Maoists have led a class struggle and committed themselves to fighting injustice, discrimination, suppression and oppression."

Ganesh Parajuli, a member of Nepal Catholic Samaj (society), the legal entity that represents the local Catholic Church, told UCA News on Aug 19: "I have faith in the Maoists. Christians will be a free and secure lot under the Maoists." He drew this conclusion, he said, because both Christians and Maoists "have been considered the champions of equality and justice."


And from another article Bishop applauds abolishment of Nepal's 239-year-old monarchy here:
http://uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13726&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_


Catholics, ‘as citizens of the country, deserve to be proud, and we rejoice with the nation and our brothers and sisters. We thank God for his blessings,’ Bishop Anthony Sharma of Nepal told the Asian church news agency UCA News May 29.

Plus check out :
Majority of Maoist supporters in Orissa are Christians
http://tootiefairy.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/10/christian-terrorism-straight-from-the-horses-mouth.htm
and
Maoist Christians behind the brutal murder of Swami Laxamanand Saraswati
http://christianwatchindia.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/maoist-christians-behind-the-brutal-murder-of-swami-laxamanand-saraswati/

Plus it's rumored that Prachanda, like his wife, may be a Christian Maoist!
Christian Maoist leads revolution! Maybe that will solidify relationships between the Left and Christians a bit. I hope.

[red cat]

Here's some extracts from
http://egregores.blogspot.com/2009/09/christian-maoist-nexus-in-nepal.html



And from another article Bishop applauds abolishment of Nepal's 239-year-old monarchy here:
http://uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13726&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=usc_



Maoists everywhere generally oppose the dominant religion in the state, as it serves as the cultural structure for class oppression.

But believe me, in case the revolution in Nepal, or any other country progresses enough towards socialism, they will lead the masses to challenge and question the concept of religion itself.




Plus check out :
Majority of Maoist supporters in Orissa are Christians
http://tootiefairy.sulekha.com/blog/post/2008/10/christian-terrorism-straight-from-the-horses-mouth.htm
and
Maoist Christians behind the brutal murder of Swami Laxamanand Saraswati
http://christianwatchindia.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/maoist-christians-behind-the-brutal-murder-of-swami-laxamanand-saraswati/
The CPI(Maoist) has its strongest mass base aong Dalits, many of whom have converted to Buddhism and Christianity due to extreme discrimination by Hindu fundamentalists. But, as for the annihilation of local saffron-tyrants, class-politics rather than religion, is involved. Both of your links are highly biased pro-Hindu-fundamentalist propaganda.




Plus it's rumored that Prachanda, like his wife, may be a Christian Maoist!
Christian Maoist leads revolution! Maybe that will solidify relationships between the Left and Christians a bit. I hope.Highly unlikely. A pre-condition for joining the modern communist parties is that one has to be an atheist.

[Demogorgon]

This is rather out of date, Prachanda has since resigned as Prime Minister over conflicts with the President when the President exceeded his powers and the head of another, more moderate, Communist Party became Prime Minister.

[red cat]

Do you even know what you are talking about?

Please find out Ambedkar's stand on communism, his contributions in designing the Indian Constitution(which heavily borrows from the one before 1947 and thus acts as a backbone for legalizing colonial exploitation) and his reasoning in favour of a direct British colonial rule in place of what India has today.

None of the people mentioned in your post, other than Prachanda ever dreamed of leading the masses to an insurrection. Please note that their idea of social change was "go on passing legislation" in the pig-sty of a parliament.

Even if Prachanda succumbs to revisionism, what he did upto 2006 will play a decisive factor in continuing the peoples' war.

Next time before you slander communists, please do some minimum research on the reactionaries you intend to uphold.

[Bud Struggle]

Highly unlikely. A pre-condition for joining the modern communist parties is that one has to be an atheist.

Has that been shown to be the case in Nepal? I know in the old days it was something or a prerequsite to be an athiest but I don't believe it's the case anywhere in Europe or America at least. And for that matter the roots of the EZLN in Mexico are IN the Catholic Church.

[spiltteeth]

It's true that

Both of your links are highly biased pro-Hindu-fundamentalist in that they paint the Maoists and Christians as terrorists, which obviously I disagree with, however the facts remain. The Hindu fundamentalist's are oppressive reactionaries and the Maoist's and Christian's are taking care of business.

Plus, the church and bishop is very adamant that Nepal be ruled secularly.

Prachanda is a Christian by birth but does not officially have any religious affiliation, however is a fact that Prachanda's wife is a Christian Maoist, and his family is openly Christian.

I just think its important for the Left to offer a hand to the religious where thee interests meet, as Lenin did with trying to get Orthodox priests to join the Bolsheviks. It's an important strategy that I believe the Left is shooting itself in the foot by letting the church be coopted by the Right by being so hostile to them.

For instance, from an old article:
http://www.peoplesreview.com.np/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3Acommentary&id=155%3Aprachanda-vs-prabhakaran&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=55


INGOs like DFID, ICRC, Lutheran and United Mission are directly or indirectly nurturing
Nepalese Maoists.
Inspired with the Prabhakaran ideology of garnering support of Christians in the world,
Nepalese Maoists also applied the same theory to sustain their survival in Nepal. A Website,
"Union of Catholic Asian", has revealed that by disillusioning others in religious issues the
Nepalese Maoists' Central or Politburo members are supporter of Christian religion in one way
or other. Selection of National Council of Churches of Nepal's Pastor KB Rokaya, as the
member of Human Right Commission in Nepal further proves Maoists religious intents.

[red cat]

It's true that
in that they paint the Maoists and Christians as terrorists, which obviously I disagree with, however the facts remain. The Hindu fundamentalist's are oppressive reactionaries and the Maoist's and Christian's are taking care of business.



This is true because Hinduism is the dominant religion in both India and Nepal, and all other communities are oppressed. However, in countries where Christianity is the dominant religion, it will generally take part in class oppression and hence it is unlikely that revolutionaries and the church(mind it, not the common Christians) will have any common interests.

[red cat]

You did not read that article which talks about a particular incident, did you?

I was referring to Ambedkar.



I appreciate the efforts of Maoists in fighting Brahmanism like here. However I do not think they can achieve miracles of erasing centuries old caste practices overnight. Also, I agree that neither Nehru nor Ambedkar were communist (they were liberal democrats) and Tilak was a despicable reactionary. Still the caste system is something that will be a major obstacle to communism in Nepal and India.

Not necessarily overnight. But the caste-system has to be ended before the completion of the new-democratic revolution.

[Raúl Duke]

To the OP...What are you trying to prove? That religion can be progressive?
Perhaps, but that isn't the sole factor.

The main religion of power in Nepal is Hinduism, which with its caste system oppressed certain group(s) of people due to being born into a specific caste. Thus, the institutional religion is a reactionary force in this case while other religions will happily side with those who want to usurp the status quo; especially if it would put a dent to the institutional religion and/or allow them to grow.

However, that's in the case of Nepal. For these things one should take a case-to-case analysis. In the U.S. to say that christianity is a progressive force as the christians of Nepal or the liberation theologists of Latin-Ameica is obviously false.

There's also the issue that religion has little evidence/proof...

[spiltteeth]

To the OP...What are you trying to prove? That religion can be progressive?
Perhaps, but that isn't the sole factor.

The main religion of power in Nepal is Hinduism, which with its caste system oppressed certain group(s) of people due to being born into a specific caste. Thus, the institutional religion is a reactionary force in this case while other religions will happily side with those who want to usurp the status quo; especially if it would put a dent to the institutional religion and/or allow them to grow.

However, that's in the case of Nepal. For these things one should take a case-to-case analysis. In the U.S. to say that christianity is a progressive force as the christians of Nepal or the liberation theologists of Latin-Ameica is obviously false.

There's also the issue that religion has little evidence/proof...


The evidence/proof of religion is a non-issue, to the rational.

As I said elsewhere,
I know so many progressive liberal religious folk who I can never introduce to socialism because of its reputation of being intrinsically anti-theist. And a lot of religious feel patronized and disrespected by the Left.
It's too bad. As Marxist geographer David Harvey points out, there is less and less physical space for people to get together for protests or social causes.
But most of the social change in America comes from the church, simply because they have a perfect meeting place to gather conveniently.Since most churches are to the right or even out right fascist, thats the social causes they fight for.
If only the left would extend a warm hand to Christians, we could make such a big difference. Hell, even Lenin tried to collaborate with an Orthodox priest, it's about real strategy, which is why he's one of the few people to ever pull off AND KEEP a revolutionary government.

The Maoists are utilizing Christians where their interests coincide, even if they disagree philosophically, its about strategy.
The vast majority of Christians I know have felt deeply disrespected by the arrogance of liberals, the Left has all but put the Christians already in the 'enemy category,' so they will never even be introduced to socialist idea's.
Inquiring about various socialist/rev groups and letting them know I'm Christian is like telling them I'm a child molester, from their responses. As soon as they know I'm Christian, they no longer seem so enthusiastic about me joining.

[red cat]

The Maoists are utilizing Christians where their interests coincide, even if they disagree philosophically, its about strategy.
The vast majority of Christians I know have felt deeply disrespected by the arrogance of liberals, the Left has all but put the Christians already in the 'enemy category,' so they will never even be introduced to socialist idea's.
Inquiring about various socialist/rev groups and letting them know I'm Christian is like telling them I'm a child molester, from their responses. As soon as they know I'm Christian, they no longer seem so enthusiastic about me joining.

Every religion contains mostly reactionary material which glorify and justify classs oppression. Maoists strictly oppose these. However, Maoists believe that as the masses make revolution, the revolution also moulds the masses, and that a communist emerges through a worker's participation in the revolution and learning from the same. That is why people are encouraged to join the revolution regardless of their conscience.

I wonder how many of the groups you referred to are really revolutionary.

[spiltteeth]

Well, the groups I've inquired about really are non-reformist, not Maoist per se, its just when I mention I'm Christian I get that look, 'Oh, yr not really one of us.' I've even on this forum been asked to check out a group, then before we meet up they pm or email me, 'by the way, are you really Christian?'

I hope Pranchada's family being openly Christian will add some tolerence to the Left for the religious.

When a Christian gets involved with the left he constantly has to defend his beleif, even here look at the above :


There's also the issue that religion has little evidence/proof..

It's not like I ask anyone to justify every belief they have ie Why do you believe in love? Why do you believe in morals with no trancedental justification? Burtrand Russell said his quest in life was for mathematical certainty, to prove 1+1=2 so why do you believe in that? etc etc

Plus I disagree with this :

Every religion contains mostly reactionary material which glorify and justify classs oppression

As I wrote somewhere else :
I do not feel history justifies your reading of religion though. Look at Christianity, it started as some non-hierarchal washing of feet small sect, opposed the state, opposed the military, and then when it got popular the ruling class took it, set up a specific structure and used it as a means of oppression and called it catholic.

Look at Catholic Christianity, the ruling class used it to oppress people and set things up to protect their own interests then a guy called Luther came along...

Look at America some small weird sect -fundamentalist Christians- have grown and is now used by the ruling class to exploit so now Sojourners and other progressive, pro-gay, socialist, sects have sprung up. If THEY get popular presumably in a capitalist society then they will be used by the ruling class to control...

Look at the Brahmins. The ruling class set up the brahmin class to oppress others and then a guy named buddha came along another sect was formed which opposed the repressive Brahmins ...

Look at Buddhism. In India buddhists begged for food. In China begging was a no-no, so they set up little communities independent of the sate. Then in some parts of the world the ruling class set up Buddhist religious institutions for their own benefit (Amida and Tibetan) etc...

Look at communism...

I'm just saying how these institutions function in society changes within the specific historical circumstances. There is a process that I think can be called dialectical in the sense of historical materialism.

I mean, in Nicaragua the church played a completely revolutionary role. In Latin America this is common. Someone just told me Brazil's revolutionary communist party, made up of many Maoists, is mostly Christian.

I really feel instead of alienating the religious, lets find a point where our interests intersect, and join forces!

[spiltteeth]

Also, just saying in America Christianity is a reactionary force, while true, isn't helpful.
Why? Well, most social change comes out of churches here and the Right have embraced the religious while the Left has been hostile to it.
There are MILLIONS of progressive Christians, but they are not welcomed by the left because of prejudice. Most of the Left get their idea of Christianity from Fox, Pat Robinson, or the Bourgeois media; and usually the first question a Lefty asks isn't, "how can we work together?, it's "how do you justify yr beliefs?"
The Left concentrates on the differences, and points of disagreement with Christians, instead of seeking out and embracing commonalities.

Hence most Christians have a cartoonish idea of what socialism is about, and socialists have a cartoonish idea of what Christianity is about!
Whenever I get into a conversation here, people assume I'm a fundamentalist Christian, like what they see on the news. While there are A LOT of them, thats not nearly all.

Besides, just as many Christians paint the Left ridiculously, the Left usually paints the religious as delusional superstitious fools, would you want to hang out with people who thought that about YOUR beliefs?

[Raúl Duke]

Why? Well, most social change comes out of churches here and the Right have embraced the religious while the Left has been hostile to it.
There are MILLIONS of progressive Christians, but they are not welcomed by the left because of prejudice. Most of the Left get their idea of Christianity from Fox, Pat Robinson, or the Bourgeois media; and usually the first question a Lefty asks isn't, "how can we work together?, it's "how do you justify yr beliefs?"
The Left concentrates on the differences, and points of disagreement with Christians, instead of seeking out and embracing commonalities.This marriage between right and religion in the U.S. didn't just come out of thin air...
The Right just took up the demands of the religious, not the other way around, and those demands are down-right reactionary (No abortion rights, no LBTQ rights).

The "progressive christians" on the other hand are either those who are into charity/community organizing yet are perhaps still reactionary in terms of women and homosexual rights or those, sometimes (I've usually meet them in Puerto Rico and on this site), those who are actually progressive in some sense that they desire social justice and, while personally they might have qualms about homosexuals and abortion, do not believe that laws should be put in place to limit their rights. These however rarely support the right so I'm not really worried about "losing these people to the right" nor do I feel a need to convince the other previously-mentioned type to become a leftist.

One person said that "revolution isn't a dinner party" and I agree...I'm, and I hope (and know some of) the left, are not here to cater or tail their reactionary demands just to get them "on our side" but personally I'm fine (not that I'm thrilled about it) with working seperately (yet with the possibility of working alongside) whenever our interest coincide and whenever it's feasible and strategically a good idea (i.e. such as the Maoists in Nepal are doing I hope).


and usually the first question a Lefty asks isn't, "how can we work together?, it's "how do you justify yr beliefs?" I wonder if you are basing this on this site or in reality. I worked with the SFA (Student Farmworker Alliance; which is the student group that helps the CIW) and the CIW/SFA work alongside faith groups. The SFA has a large amount of "leftists" (some are genuine though, like anarchists and socialists) and they seem fine that the organization is working with faith groups and, during their big meeting, had no qualms that a catholic church in Immokalee provided the meeting areas. There's probably other examples. I've heard of anarchists in England doing types of community organizing like creating community gardens for some neighborhood (the community itself also partakes in building this garden and I doubt that they stopped anyone in the community from joining in the effort due to religion; although joining the anarchist group might be different. I know AFED is explicitly anti-theist, last time I checked, according to their aims and principles.)


Hence most Christians have a cartoonish idea of what socialism is about, and socialists have a cartoonish idea of what Christianity is about!
Whenever I get into a conversation here, people assume I'm a fundamentalist Christian, like what they see on the news. While there are A LOT of them, thats not nearly all.I doubt anyone assumes that of you; some probably think you are dumb or delusional but not a fundamentalist because if that was the case you would have been restricted. Perhaps you should stop being paranoid about what people here think about you.

Also, most posters here (the anti-theists and even the moderate ones) do not have a "cartoonish idea of religion" if you see the way they debate, discuss, and talk about the matter. Usually, those who do are new (usually anarchists sometimes leninists) posters.


then a guy called Luther came along...

He was a virulent anti-semite and helped put down or calm down (don't remember exactly) a peasant revolution in Northern Germany.

[spiltteeth]

Well, I'm no fan of Luther, I only used those examples to show the dialectical nature of how religions play out.
You may have a point.
I have found many people here to have gotten their idea of Christianity from the Bourgeois media though - Bill Mahr 'Religulous' etc In fact, every conversation I've had people here, and in general, ascribe fundie views to me (how can u believe in a talking snake! thats what christians believe!etc)
There are plenty of progressive and Liberal Christians, but they are mainly reformist, and will not likely be introduced to rev theory.
Personally, I have a Marxist view of how religion has played out in America, and do disagree with you on that. Look at how many Wobblies were priests, or supported by the church. Being against gay marriage and abortion has little to do with universal health care, union rights, or many other socialist tendencies.
I recall reading the priests who were going over to germany to fight fascism, and their saying the next big fascist group, would come from America, from the fundamentalists. Well, at the time the fundies were a small loony sect, and no one paid attention to the warnings.
The Right gave them a place, gave them a voice, and appropriated there 'Christian values' with republicanism.
I have no wish to alter my views to let homophobes or sexists in a movement either.
But look at the jesus radicals, they are a large very active anarchist group, with literature, speakers, conventions, and are largely cut off from the other anarchy groups, despite both sharing many core causes. But I can't blame them, who wants to be with people who think yr delusional. There are respectful ways to disagree and fight for whats right.
But, having said that, you do make some good points and perhaps I overstated my case. I do appreciate the thoughtful response.