Theism as Counterrevolutionary

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Does anyone else have an argument that theism, belief in god, is counterrevolutionary. More specifically, that all people who believe in god cannot be true revolutionaries. I will try and formulate my argument later, but I am a little shaky on the details of it. So perhaps others can help give me some ideas.

Here are some things to think about:

1. Does the idea of a higher power create justification for class hierarchy. Does it always neccessarily do this?

2. Does believing in god signify a psychological problem that needs to be treated before a person can be a successful revolutionary?

3. Is belief in god inherently counterrevolutionary or just a flaw. Rather, can someone be a revolutionary while believing in god but not be the best revolutionary possible because of that?

[Johnny Anarcho]

One can be both a theist and a revolutionary. Look at Castro, he's both a Catholic and one of the worlds leading Marxist-Leninists.

[Severian]

No, Castro is not in fact a Catholic, and I don't know where people get that idea.

But yes, you can be a revolutionary and a theist. Whether someone is a revolutionary is defined by their actions.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 04:59 am
Whether someone is a revolutionary is defined by their actions.
I think Mao said that.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
Does anyone else have an argument that theism, belief in god, is counterrevolutionary. More specifically, that all people who believe in god cannot be true revolutionaries. I will try and formulate my argument later, but I am a little shaky on the details of it. So perhaps others can help give me some ideas.

Here are some things to think about:

1. Does the idea of a higher power create justification for class hierarchy. Does it always neccessarily do this?

2. Does believing in god signify a psychological problem that needs to be treated before a person can be a successful revolutionary?

3. Is belief in god inherently counterrevolutionary or just a flaw. Rather, can someone be a revolutionary while believing in god but not be the best revolutionary possible because of that?
I don't believe that belief in a god or gods is counterrevolutionary. To be a counterrevolutionary, you actually have to be against the revolution. Which involves action. More specifically belief in god does not a non-true revolutionary make. A true revolutionary simple needs to actively support the revolution, belief in god or fairies or dialectical materialism, while irrational, does not affect that support.

1) Often the idea of a higher power creates justification for class hierarchy, more often, class hierarchy creates justification for the idea of a higher power. Having a higher power "bless you" means a lot to those who believe.

However, it is perfectly possible for there to exist people who do believe in a non-human "higher power", but who do not support hierarchy at all.

2) No more so then believing in any other irrational thing mean that you have a psychological problem.

3) Belief in god is imply an irrational belief. There are plenty around, and most people manage to live their lives without their irrational beliefs getting in the way.

An Anarchist FAQ has a good section on this area as well. http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secA3.html#seca37

[Solitary Mind]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 04:59 am
No, Castro is not in fact a Catholic, and I don't know where people get that idea.

But yes, you can be a revolutionary and a theist. Whether someone is a revolutionary is defined by their actions.
Actually Castro is an Atheist, i heard reports that he was Santero, but from his lips he's said he believes in nothing but death

[sav]

1. Does the idea of a higher power create justification for class hierarchy. Does it always neccessarily do this?

It depends how you define it. Some thiests argue Jesus was the original socialist, whereas in England Christianity brought about the Divine Right of Kings. The original hymn of 'All things bright and beautiful' contained this cracker of a verse:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

Of course, this is ommited from most modern versions :rolleyes:

So whilst it has been used to justify class heirarchy in the past, I don't see it as a neccessity.


2. Does believing in god signify a psychological problem that needs to be treated before a person can be a successful revolutionary?

No. Theism doesn't signify a psychological problem (although with some people it appears so). To me, it signifies either ignorance or naivete.


3. Is belief in god inherently counterrevolutionary or just a flaw. Rather, can someone be a revolutionary while believing in god but not be the best revolutionary possible because of that?

Whilst it goes against the spirit of leftist thought, it's not counter-revolutionary. Like the other posters have mentioned, to be a counter-revolutionary you must be fighting against the revolution. I'd have no problem fighting side by side with a theist, as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves.

[Black Dagger]

1. Does the idea of a higher power create justification for class hierarchy? Does it always neccessarily do this?

No, and logically following my previous answer - No.



2. Does believing in god signify a psychological problem that needs to be treated before a person can be a successful revolutionary?

Of course not, don't be silly. Theism is an ancient part of human culture that grew organically from humankinds ignorance of the natural world, of science, it made sense for a long time. Now days it's perpetuated mainly by culture, with people being 'raised' into religion by their family and further conditioned in this way by a nominally religious society. Despite these two factors, young people today are nevertheless the most seculuar generation in human history, theism is losing its grip with every decade as modern education, and scientific advancement further de-legitimise religious rhetoric.

Theism itself will probably be irrelvant (though not dead) by the time a major revolution occurs in the 'first-world', as even now where the young generation claims some kind of religious belief it is usually weakly held, and the majority seem to reject organised religion and religious institutions. As such, although it is good to engage in debate with religious people and certainly to oppose the reactionary ideas espoused by religious leaders and institutions and the influence of these on society, attacking individual believers or labelling their belief a 'psychological problem' will only alienate them, and does absolutely nothing to spread revolutionary ideas, nor indeed secular ones.


3. Is belief in god inherently counterrevolutionary or just a flaw? Rather, can someone be a revolutionary while believing in god but not be the best revolutionary possible because of that?

Flaw (like dogmatism), yes.



More specifically, that all people who believe in god cannot be true revolutionaries.

There's no such thing as a 'true' revolutionary, the very idea sounds religious.

I really wish you would spend more time trying to turn working class religious folk onto revolutionary ideas instead of trying to formulate 'theories' as to why its justified for you to alienate something like 90% of the worlds (working class) population with an extremely dogmatic, hostile and ultimately unproductive approach to revolutionary struggle.

Honestly, i have no idea how you manage to function in the real world, with real communities with the patronising/disdainful attitude you take on this matter.

[LSD]

I don't think the issue here is that "faith" is incompatible with revolutioanry leftism because absolutes like that just don't exist in politics, especially not on a matter so gray as religion.

Religion means different things to different people; for some it defines every aspect of their lives; for others it's just a check on a census form. After all, even though most of the west claims religious affiliation of some sort, the vast majority live their lives as practical atheists.

It's not "God's law" that's stopping them from embracing communism, it's politics and its economics and its psychology.

Attacking religion won't help lead them away from reaction, because religion isn't the problem. For all intents and purposes religion's not even an issue and focusing in on it only helps to solidify our image as intolerant mypolic fanatics.

What needs to be discouraged is reactionary behaviour, any reactionary behaviour, regardless of its "justification". If that means "disrespecting" religion, so be it, but we shouldn't go out of our way to alienat religious people "just for the hell of it".

Our job isn't to promote ideological purity, it's to spread revolutionary ideas.

So whlile there's no point in trying to convince a practically deistic "Christian" that "God" doesn't exist, there's a great deal of point in trying to convince his intolerant brother that homosexuaity is not "imoral" or "criminal".

And if there's on thing that the recent "culture wars" of the United States have taught us it's that while social progress is often hampered by religion, it's rarely stopped by it. Lltimately interested in survival, religion will update itself to meet the times.

So fight the bigots, fight the sexism and racism and primativism, and have absolutely no compunction about calling out the bullshit that is organized religion.

That may offend some people, but it''s a nescessary part of advancing our society. Alienating the 75%+ of the population that still thinks of itself as religious, however, serves no one but the bourgeoisie.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+November 06, 2006 12:03 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho @ November 06, 2006 12:03 pm)
[email protected] 06, 2006 04:59 am
Whether someone is a revolutionary is defined by their actions.
I think Mao said that. [/b]
I'm pretty sure the idea is a lot older.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Does anyone know a lot about Dawkins? It seems that he sees religion an inherent rather than instrumental evil. I should really pick up some of his work.