Religion and the Left

[Sandino216]

I hear a lot of anti-religion rhetoric on this site, and I was wondering where the Latin American "liberation theology" movements fit in here, or if they do at all. Any thoughts?

[wet blanket]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 03:58 AM
I hear a lot of anti-religion rhetoric on this site, and I was wondering where the Latin American "liberation theology" movements fit in here, or if they do at all. Any thoughts?
They don't fit in here.

Religion is always reactionary, regardless of what its followers call it.

[Iepilei]

It's ironic considering the etemology of the word "religion" means "to come together."

I don't understand the objection to general practice by many people. Secularism works effectively; it's certainly dumbed-down the christians here in the States.

[Gaius]

I'm an agnostic but I do believe religion - all religion - can be a power of good in society.

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:33 AM
I'm an agnostic but I do believe religion - all religion - can be a power of good in society.
Perhaps, but what you are forgetting is that religion - all religion - is based on an arbitrary doctrine. No doubt, there may be religious leaders who may use this arbitrary doctrine for social good and there are historical figures who have done this, but the point is that because of its "arbitrariness" religion has the systemic weakness of being a neutral tool for anybody to use for any purpose, be it "good" or "bad". Furthermore, because religion is absolute in it's teachings and it's conclusions are not rationally arrived at which makes them undebatable, it is actually a favorable tool for tyrants. You cannot debate with tyrants so what better tool is there to control your "followers" than an undebatable doctrine?

[Severian]

The anti-religious crusaders on this site are rather unlike real-world revolutionaries.

A past thread like this one, where I posted some quotes from historic revolutionary leaders. (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=36&t=41117&st=0#entry1291946448)

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Libertarian movements that adopt religion are flawed. However, they can still be allied with in certain circumstances. Many revolutions have adopted religious belief to accomplish a goal. Religion makes revolution easier to accomplish, but it makes what you accomplish far from ideal. For instance, the civil rights movment made some progress with religion (or so it would seem), but the black population is extremely vocal in churches, which are known for contributing to black oppression.

It's a dangerous cycle. As long as religion is involved in a revolution, the bourgoisie has control of the revolutionaries.

[Free Left]

Religion (most of them anyway) promote good in soceity. They may spew out LOADS of crap a lot of the time but in general they do contribute to soceity.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Liberation theology is a joke thats over with. The ELN is giving up, and I dont even think any other's are active. You cant mix communist ideas with religion, if you are a communist you make decisions based on material conditions, if you are a theist you base them on faith.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Gaius+--> (Gaius)I'm an agnostic but I do believe religion - all religion - can be a power of good in society.[/b]


Free Left
Religion (most of them anyway) promote good in society. They may spew out LOADS of crap a lot of the time but in general they do contribute to society.

WHAT in the world are you guys talking about??? :o

What fucking "good" do these reactionary superstitions "do in society"?

Look at Iran! Look at Poland! Look at the fucking United States!!! :angry:

Where did you guys ever get such a fucked up idea?!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[cyu]

Personally, I'm a fan of liberation theology, though I'm not Christian. The reason I like it is because it is a way to introduce anti-capitalism to Christians. In countries where so many people are already Christians, you're not going to be able to turn them all into non-Christians overnight, but it would be much easier to convert them to anti-capitalism if it weren't so intertwined with atheism.

If I had a choice between working with a liberation theology Christian or an atheist anarcho-capitalist, I'd pick the Christian any day.

Another important part of liberation theology, despite being mainly Catholic, is its decentralization. Most of the thelogians involved work daily with the poor, instead of being off in some Catholic university somewhere, dreaming up theories. There's a lot of emphasis on listening to the struggles the poor have in their everyday lives, instead of dictating to them what the Pope expects of them (maybe that's one of the reasons the Pope felt threatened by it).

[Comrade-Z]

If I had a choice between working with a liberation theology Christian or an atheist anarcho-capitalist, I'd pick the Christian any day.

I'd pick the atheist anarcho-capitalist. At least the atheist anarcho-capitalist isn't of the mindset of debasing him/herself before a supernatural entity. At least the anarcho-capitalist wants a society without rulers or authority. At least the anarcho-capitalist has the self-confidence and sophistication to at least make it possible for him to be capable of creating stateless communist society.

True, the anarcho-capitalist is horribly misguided. There's also a likelihood that the anarcho-capitalist is a part of the ruling class, in which case that would be reason enough to oppose him/her. Although that is doubtful considering the fact that even the ruling class realizes that they need a State in order to uphold their exploitation. Although if he/she is a really clever member of the ruling class, he/she might might be trying to conceal capitalist authoritarianism and exploitation behind abstract concepts and verbal gymnastics.

At least the atheist anarcho-capitalist is operating from perceived material self-interest. Assuming that the atheist anarcho-capitalist is not of the ruling class and is genuinely against authority in general, it is possible for this anarcho-capitalist to naturally arrive at anarcho-communism given the right economic predicament (such as, finding him/herself out of a job indefinitely, with no hope in sight, while seeing the capitalist system become a fetter on future progress and fall apart around him). He/she will see that it is in his/her self-interest to adopt stateless communism.

On the other hand, there is no hope for the religious "communist." A "benevolent" despotism (that doesn't stay benevolent for long!) is the best this communist can ever help create, so long as this communist retains the mindset that there is a supernatural entity to which obedience is owed.

[cyu]

I see religion like a person's gender, race, or sexual orientation. If they have all the same political or economic beliefs that I do, then the religion part of his or her beliefs are just incidental. I think capitalists love dividing up their opposition on the basis of race as much as on the basis of religion. If the capitalist's opposition can't work together, then so much better for the capitalist.

I've been following some of the things the Landless Workers Movement of Brazil (and their liberation theology allies) have been doing. Occupation and use of unused farm land seems like a much more practical defiance of capitalism than fighting cops during protest marches. If I saw an anarcho-capitalist in this scenario, they'd probably more likely be in the paramilitary death-squads killing these farmers than fighting on the same side as them.