the place of religion

[Generalissimo]

I am relatively knew to communism, and i have a question that seems somewhat misty. Does organized religion have a place in modern socialism/communism/anarchism?

i've gotten many answers, with little consistancy.

[Gold Against The Soul]

I am relatively knew to communism, and i have a question that seems somewhat misty. Does organized religion have a place in modern socialism/communism/anarchism?

i've gotten many answers, with little consistancy.

And I doubt you will get a consistent answer.

Broadly speaking, I think something like a consensus would be that religion and the religious get no privileged role. It is a private matter. Some Anarchist groups proscribe membership to those who believe in an organised religion (so at best, Deists might get a look in but not many others?), going further right the tendency is for this to be less strict.

This is somewhat more complicated in Latin America with Liberation theology etc.

I think it should be added that most people on the left are not majorly concerned with the rise of militant Atheism. This seeks to blame a lot of the conflicts in the world, and world history, on religion. Richard Dawkins, for example, seems to think the historical troubles in Northern Ireland are down to religion. This is an almost child like reading of history. Lots of conflicts are actually secular and just cloaked in religion.

[Nakidana]

I am relatively knew to communism, and i have a question that seems somewhat misty. Does organized religion have a place in modern socialism/communism/anarchism?

i've gotten many answers, with little consistancy.

What exactly do you mean when you ask if it has a place in communism?

Listening to militant atheists you would quickly come to the conclusion that religion (especially Islam) is the biggest evil today, on the rise everywhere and should be confronted verbally and physically in our private lives, workplace and globally. I personally think this is BS and that there are much worse problems, mainly capitalism and imperialism, both of which these atheists have nothing but unrelenting religious faith in.

Historically it's clear that people are becoming less religious, if you look at the wealthiest countries in this world a large part of the population is non-religious, and even the ones who declare themselves religious don't really practice any rituals, e.g. going to church. It used to be that people would be burned at the stakes for anything that remotely resembled heresy, obviously that's not the case anymore. Of course there are still many examples in the world of organized religion oppressing people, and you have localized spikes of religious activity (e.g. Islamism following 9/11), but imo this is nothing more than irregularity on the ever descending graph of global religiosity.

So, if we survive capitalism, I think by the time we have communism religion will be reduced to historical reenactments and hobbies taken up by individuals or groups of people. Much like people nowadays do medieval reenactment for fun.

References:


Worldwide poll (http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf) by Gallup shows how people have become less religious from 2005-2011
ARIS (http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/) (American Religious Identification Survey) shows the percentage of religious people falls every year/percentage of non-religious people rises every year.
Study in Holland (http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/vrije-tijd-cultuur/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2009/2009-2853-wm.htm) showed that Muslims were not becoming more religious, 35% went to the mosque from 2004-2008, compared to 47% in 1998 and 1999.

[Evo2]

Treated as a private matter, without the irrational dogmas of religion not being allowed to influence public policy.

The eradication of religion will only come about when the cause of it has gone. So when the material basis has changed, the thinking will change. That being said, criticism of religion can be healthy, and can lead to

" The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo"

[Marshal of the People]

I think religion is fascist and authoritarian in nature and that it should not be promoted in society (e.g. no scripture classes in schools) and that atheism should instead be promoted because it is fosters logic, science and creativity however if someone chooses to be part of a religion they should always be allowed to practice it in any way they choose (as long as they don't break laws in the process) however cults like Scientology and others should not be allowed.

[Slavic]

I think religion is fascist and authoritarian in nature and that it should not be promoted in society (e.g. no scripture classes in schools) and that atheism should instead be promoted because it is fosters logic, science and creativity however if someone chooses to be part of a religion they should always be allowed to practice it in any way they choose (as long as they don't break laws in the process) however cults like Scientology and others should not be allowed.

Religion is far from fascist or authoritarian. You are confusing religion with religious organizations whose organization can vary widely from authoritarian to communal. Religion is at its core an attempt by man to understand his surroundings and his relationship within them.

Also, I don't understand how you can say that people should be able to practice their own religion in any way they choose, bearing that they don't break laws, yet you deem it acceptable to persecute the minority religions, or cults. Where do you draw this justification?

[Skyhilist]

Religion belongs in history's rear view mirror.

That isn't to say we should make it illegal or something. You can't shake someone's faith just by criminalizing it. That's just the lazy way of doing things that also turns religious people into extreme counterrevolutionaries. We much was a battle against ideology in the classroom, and in the mind instead.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Not in schools.

[argeiphontes]

The eradication of religion will only come about when the cause of it has gone.

When science explains the origins of the universe and technology allows individual humans to live forever?

(But even that is a superficial understanding.)

[Magic Carpets Corp.]

No.

[argeiphontes]

Well, then what's the "cause" of religion if not existential problems and the origins of the cosmos? That's part of it, (and why aren't these material causes?) but also, I agree with Jung that religion is a projection of the human psyche. We made god(s) in our image. There will never be a time when projection ends, so religion won't end either. If something else took the place of this project object, *cough* leftism *cough* then it would take on the characteristics of religion. So it's best to leave religious behavior to religion.

But on a practical level, it doesn't make sense to mix religion and politics. Yeah, it makes sense to mix religious institutions and politics, sometimes, but just the beliefs themselves aren't important. I think it just alienates people. Other people's beliefs aren't a concern of mine as long as they don't interfere with my own.

[Evo2]

Well what is religion? It is a hope and striving for something better, or hope for protection and shelter from a harsh world and a set of dogmatic practices that are said to lead to this result.

Why do we feel need for something better and for protection? Because the world is harsh. Make the world less harsh (communism) and religion dies.

The only "religion" I see surviving in a communist world is Theravada Buddhism (although this is more philosophy). This would be due to its focus on freedom from mental suffering, such as lovers jealousy or physical pain, which exist in any economic system.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I think religion is fascist and authoritarian in nature and that it should not be promoted in society (e.g. no scripture classes in schools)

Either you don't know what "fascism" means or you don't know what "religion" means.


and that atheism should instead be promoted because it is fosters logic, science and creativity

Religion can be perfectly logical, and atheism can be completely illogical. People who think religion is necessarily illogical probably don't know what logic is.


Religion belongs in history's rear view mirror.


I think that is for religious people to decide.



That isn't to say we should make it illegal or something. You can't shake someone's faith just by criminalizing it. That's just the lazy way of doing things that also turns religious people into extreme counterrevolutionaries. We much was a battle against ideology in the classroom, and in the mind instead.

I don't think "religion" per se is something to be battled, so much as ignorance in general. I don't think a religious person who does not accept patriarchy, believes in evolution and so on is really someone to worry about. Attempts to battle religion fall on their face - look at the return of religion in Albania, Russia, Serbia etc. Alternatively, look at the constantly diminishing religiosity in places like Japan, France, Britain etc where there has not been any explicit state campaign against religion.


The only "religion" I see surviving in a communist world is Theravada Buddhism (although this is more philosophy). This would be due to its focus on freedom from mental suffering, such as lovers jealousy or physical pain, which exist in any economic system.

What's wrong with Mahayana Buddhism and philosophical Taoism?

[argeiphontes]

Well what is religion? It is a hope and striving for something better, or hope for protection and shelter from a harsh world and a set of dogmatic practices that are said to lead to this result.


Well, "hope for something better" means heaven. But that's not really the essence of religion because some don't have a heaven, or even a deity at all (like Buddhism, which is more a philosophy anyway).

By a "projection" I mean that people project qualities of themselves onto something else, like their god(s). I've heard it described as an ontic (ontos = "being" in ancient Greek) "scam" because through worship you only get part of your own being back. You can never be as good and knowing as your god(s), for example, according to some religions, but in reality it's people's own ethics that they're projecting onto the god(s) in the first place. If that makes sense :)



Why do we feel need for something better and for protection? Because the world is harsh. Make the world less harsh (communism) and religion dies.
Yes, there are some people who do treat religion this way, or are religious for that reason, but that's not really its essence. As I see it, it's mostly Christianity that does this, by postulating some kind of afterlife and either eternal reward or punishment. But religion has other functions that are related to psychology and not just material conditions. Instead of the Catholic Church or whatever, take a look at Gnostic Christianity, which is completely different.

Even in the absence of an afterlife, there are aspects of the human condition that communism isn't going to alleviate. Death is the best example.

Obviously, people who were just religious for superficial reasons, like their material problems, wouldn't have as much reason to be religious in a communist society, but I don't think that the other functions of religion would suddenly disappear.

For example, why would animism disappear? (Though maybe it has mostly already.)

edit: so yeah, I would expect a lot less going to church or temple or mosque, and a lot more gnosticism. Why have a religious hierarchy stand in your way when you can just know god(s) directly?

[Evo2]

Yes, there are some people who do treat religion this way, or are religious for that reason, but that's not really its essence. As I see it, it's mostly Christianity that does this, by postulating some kind of afterlife and either eternal reward or punishment. But religion has other functions that are related to psychology and not just material conditions. Instead of the Catholic Church or whatever, take a look at Gnostic Christianity, which is completely different.

But what influences the mind? The material world does. Matter makes mind, mind doesn't make matter.

Therefore man makes religion, religion doesn't make man.


When the material basis changes, the mind changes. Therefore when communism comes to be, the religion dies.

[Evo2]

Yes, there are some people who do treat religion this way, or are religious for that reason, but that's not really its essence. As I see it, it's mostly Christianity that does this, by postulating some kind of afterlife and either eternal reward or punishment. But religion has other functions that are related to psychology and not just material conditions. Instead of the Catholic Church or whatever, take a look at Gnostic Christianity, which is completely different.

Matter makes mind, mind doesn't make matter. Therefore the material world shapes out consciousness.

From this it follows that man makes religion, religion doesn't make man.

Man makes religion because of the harsh material conditions of life.

Therefore when communism is established, the material basis for religion dies. Buddhism may survive, unless science finds a way to overcome want of things to be different (I don't want x to die "boo"). However if it does, once again a change in the material world changes the mind.

[Evo2]

Sorry for the double post, I'm using and iPhone and thought my first one was deleted

[argeiphontes]

Sorry for the double post, I'm using and iPhone and thought my first one was deleted

No problem. I guess I would respond by saying that it doesn't require any belief in anything besides matter. We evolved the way we did, our mind can have purely material influences and still "generate" religion as an "emergent property." So, even though god(s) aren't material, the reason we create them can be purely material. The function of religion can have totally material roots, but still result in ideas that aren't material. (Evolution and the structure/function of the brain are also material causes, not just, say, social problems that lead people to religion, which I wouldn't deny.)

That's just how I think about it, YMMV. :)

[Remus Bleys]

The place for religion belongs in people's homes, and perhaps in Churches and PSRs.
Religion is a private matter, meaning the clergy, as a class (not necessarily as an entity) is to be abolished, and stripped of all economic and political power.

The place of Religion is in the homes of the religious, and I feel that they may take their child to religion classes (outside of the public sphere of course; unless all religions are taught in a school, in addition to atheism), but if the child protests, the parents need to stop taking them to these places.

That Religion should be overall a private entity is not an absolutist thing however. It is the job of the Proletarian Dictatorship to purge all of the reactionary aspects out of religion (this being sexism, anti-lgbt sentiment, nationalism, ethnicism, classism, etc).

Other than that, though, religion should be left alone. At the very least to say 1. At that point Church isn't hurting nobody 2. See if Marx was right.

[argeiphontes]

the clergy, as a class (not necessarily as an entity) is to be abolished, and stripped of all economic and political power.

....

but if the child protests, the parents need to stop taking them to these places.

....

purge all of the reactionary aspects out of religion (this being sexism, anti-lgbt sentiment, nationalism, ethnicism, classism, etc).

Other than that, though, religion should be left alone. At the very least to say 1. At that point Church isn't hurting nobody 2. See if Marx was right.

Yeah, exactly.

[Evo2]

I think a few arguments have appeared here.

One is what religion is/where it comes from

Two is how it can be overcome

Three is its current place in society

[Evo2]

That's just how I think about it, YMMV.

About my post or religion in general?

[Evo2]

That Religion should be overall a private entity is not an absolutist thing however. It is the job of the Proletarian Dictatorship to purge all of the reactionary aspects out of religion (this being sexism, anti-lgbt sentiment, nationalism, ethnicism, classism, etc).


The problem is that "purge" mean "force", therefore by "forcing" people to give up religion, you create oppression and so create the material basis for it. As far as I understand Marx, this is his argument.

Take the example of the Roman Empire and it's operation of Christianity. This just lead to its growth.

[Evo2]

[quote]No problem. I guess I would respond by saying that it doesn't require any belief in anything besides matter.[quote]

Do you mean my post or religion in general?

[Remus Bleys]

The problem is that "purge" mean "force", therefore by "forcing" people to give up religion, you create oppression and so create the material basis for it. As far as I understand Marx, this is his argument.

Take the example of the Roman Empire and it's operation of Christianity. This just lead to its growth.
Removing aspects of a faith =/= Taking away that faith

Your talking to a Catholic about this. I know what I'm talking about when I say that.

[Evo2]

Gets to a point where you have removed so much of it, it's not that faith anymore

Take atheistic Christianity

[Remus Bleys]

Gets to a point where you have removed so much of it, it's not that faith anymore

Take atheistic Christianity
I do not think you understand what I am saying.

The essence of Christianity (and specifically Catholicism) is not classism, homophobia, racism etc, contrary to what some posters want you to believe.

Now, you may think religion baseless, ridiculous, and moronic, but purging religion of, nay freeing religion from, homophobia, sexism, nationalism, not only would help the religious more fully focus on the religion itself, but it also purges the reactionary tendencies associated with religion.


To destroy the reactionary aspects of religion is not to dwindle it done to a form of humanism.

Also, someone earlier in this thread said that philosophy would survive while religion would not. How dare that person claim to use a marxist method on religion, whilst not on philosophy. Show me how religion and philosophy differ so. Show me how philosophy does not have the same cause and implication of religion.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Gets to a point where you have removed so much of it, it's not that faith anymore

Take atheistic Christianity

Young earth creationism was a part of Catholic doctrine that went away. Women as priests was introduced by protestants at some point, yet they remained Christian. Many Hindus have abandoned the caste system as a meaningful economic and social order (albeit in favor of capitalism). Religious law cannot be changed on a whim, but it's not static either.

[Remus Bleys]

Young earth creationism and papal infallibility were parts of Catholic doctrine that went away. Women as priests was introduced by protestants at some point, yet they remained Christian. Many Hindus have abandoned the caste system as a meaningful economic and social order (albeit in favor of capitalism). Religious law cannot be changed on a whim, but it's not static either.
Actually papal infallibility is still a thing. However, it doesn't mean Everything a Pope says = True. It means when a pope is being infallible, then that teaching is thereby infallible. In order to be speaking infallibly, the process that allows this basically ensures that like 99% of practicing Catholics already believe it.


Other than that, in agreement.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Actually papal infallibility is still a thing. However, it doesn't mean Everything a Pope says = True. It means when a pope is being infallible, then that teaching is thereby infallible. In order to be speaking infallibly, the process that allows this basically ensures that like 99% of practicing Catholics already believe it.


Yeah I remembered that after I posted it. I edited out the part on papal infallibility as a result :P

[argeiphontes]

About my post or religion in general?

Oh, I just meant my own opinions.

[argeiphontes]

[quote]No problem. I guess I would respond by saying that it doesn't require any belief in anything besides matter.[quote]

Do you mean my post or religion in general?

I meant explaining religion. Even though it doesn't deal with material reality, it's still something that can be explained that way, but not necessarily in a clear "social oppression" -> religion way, because I don't think that's the only reason people are religious.