What do we do with the evangelicals?

[Dr Mindbender]

The experience of Eastern Europe shows that history harshly judges those who try to stifle the theocrats, this is why china is only now allowing them their churches and mosques in albeit state sanctioned portions.
I say let them keep their institutionalised religions, even after the revolution. After all the motive for going to them will die like the roots of a weed so we have nothing to fear from them. Public forum buildings should neighbour the places of worship so that atheist and theocrat can debate in a civilised non-partisan environment.

[apathy maybe]

Religion will not be "managed". People are welcome to have whatever beliefs they want, but if they try and impose those beliefs or act on them ... People might react in self defence.

[Janus]

this is why china is only now allowing them their churches and mosques in albeit state sanctioned portions
It was more or less a growing trend following the anti-religious days of the Cultural Revolution.

But repression is definitely not the way to go. Rather in a post-capitalist society, there will be less and less of a need to engage in religious activities and therefore result in religious people becoming a very small minority.

[Sentinel]

The experience of Eastern Europe shows that history harshly judges those who try to stifle the theocrats

I assume you mean theists, not theocrats (people advocating a society ruled by a clergy in the name of 'god'/'gods')? Those will certainly not be tolerated to work for their goals post revolution.


this is why china is only now allowing them their churches and mosques in albeit state sanctioned portions.

China is also re-allowing capitalism since a while back in case you had not noticed. Why not superstition as well?


I say let them keep their institutionalised religions, even after the revolution. After all the motive for going to them will die like the roots of a weed so we have nothing to fear from them.

But organised religion wasn't entirely banned in the socialist bloc, kept a foothold and thus could cooperate relentlessly with other counter-revolutionaries to overthrow socialism (catholics being perhaps most active in that struggle). Finally they succeeded.

Why take the risk of that happening again? Of course no private beliefs can be banned, but giving religion legitimacy and even institutions is adventurous business.

Of course the former clergy will be 'pissed off' when their power over others is broken. Exactly like the capitalists are going to be. And call us names, conduct propaganda against us. These people won't forgive us, ever, no matter how 'nice' we are towards them. What we must do is expose their lies and prevent them from getting to strike back.

Moreover, do we want a society where people continue to live in ignorance? Shouldn't our main goal be to minimise the influence of conmen and liars over people, most importantly over the children? You know, in order to get an aware, self-confident and fearless working class able of governing itself?

Maximising the potential of human beings, encouraging people to live as fulfilled lives as possible, is one of the things communism stands for. That includes not bowing to any masters, imaginary or real.

The influence of religion should be actively worked against after the revolution.

[phoenixoftime]

Why not allow a level of religious institutions but ensure that there was no interference on a political level (i.e. religious political parties, schools, unions etc.)? So long as preaching remained on a personal level could it not remain integrated into a socialist society? I have often thought that socialism might be the perfect climate to *allow* personal religious freedom, since the prevailing hegemony would be free from religious influence.

(I am an idiot when it comes to such matters so feel free to phlame me ;) )

[Dr Mindbender]

I assume you mean theists, not theocrats (people advocating a society ruled by a clergy in the name of 'god'/'gods')? Those will certainly not be tolerated to work for their goals post revolution.
I possibly got my terminology wrong, so i stand corrected. Certainly, I believe that those who try to establish governments with a manifesto in one hand and a bible or a quar'an (or a torah for that matter) in the other should be treated with the same distain as the fascists. I dont however we believe we should burn down churches like the Hoxha's did, or for that matter the present day Chinese as they currently still do despite their relaxed laws.


China is also re-allowing capitalism since a while back in case you had not noticed. Why not superstition as well?.
Theres no need for flippancy. By superstition i take it you refer to the pre-renaissance way of thinking? If the revolution truly heralds the furtherance of human knowledge, development and civilisation then there would be even less point in adopting such backward thought than under capitalism. I should reveal at this point, that i personally am agnostic, not atheist. Despite the advancement of science, I dont believe that mankind will ever prove conclusively who or what caused the universe. Therefore, I and i think many others would believe it would be as ignorant of communists to ban instutionalised bodies of thought in the same way that the corporocrats stifle our propaganda with their monopolised stranglehold on the mainstream media.
You cant truly mantain a democratic society unless everyone with responsible intentions, theist agnostic, atheist alike are able to participate in it regardless of their personal belief, or interpretation of the 'ultimate question'.


But organised religion wasn't entirely banned in the socialist bloc, kept a foothold and thus could cooperate relentlessly with other counter-revolutionaries to overthrow socialism (catholics being perhaps most active in that struggle). Finally they succeeded.

Why take the risk of that happening again? Of course no private beliefs can be banned, but giving religion legitimacy and even institutions is adventurous business

Like i said, socialism is supposed to the end the desire for the same 'opium' which marx spoke of so the idea that religion would somehow survive after the revolution regardless of state interference is like saying that a fish can survive outside of water.

[Hegemonicretribution]

To allow for theistic takes on this also: moved to religion.

[Red October]

given the huge (and rapidly growing) population of evangelical christians in america, what would happen to them in a post-revolutionary situation? i doubt they would ever accept any sort of secular society and would probably work against it. so what would we do with them? i dont think it would be feasible to make them all atheists or anything like that.

[Dimentio]

It is better to let people have their religion as they please, as long as they are not repressing others directly. I mean, 70 years of state-sanctioned atheism in the USSR has not made the orthodox church collapse, and 75% of the Russian people are orthodox fundamentalists. In Sweden, about 30% of the population is religious, and the church even have some lesbian bishops.

BTW, here is a very interesting thread (http://spazz.mine.nu/cms/index.php?option=com_mamboboard&Itemid=103&func=view&id=1649&catid=29) which shows how debates about religion tend to degenerate.

[Dimentio]

Most likely, a revolutionary situation in America would devolve into a evangelical reaction and a theocracy installed at the end.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 01:19 pm
Most likely, a revolutionary situation in America would devolve into a evangelical reaction and a theocracy installed at the end.
Does that mean you're saying communism will never happen in America? What about Britain, where there aren't as many suffer from the God Delusion? I reckon France will be first for proletarian revolution. Dunno why.

[Red October]

you're lucky you dont have to deal with the evangelicals. they're everywhere in america, especially down south where i live.

[Dimentio]

Communist revolutions would not happen as envisioned in the 19th century, and most probably, they won't even call themselves communist revolutions. But in the USA, with the largest fundamentalist movement on the planet, progressive movements seems even more less inclined to succeed.

Most probably, there would be a liberal administration in the USA in 2008-2012 or 2008-2016, but it would not sit their on it's own merit, but on the collapse of "compassionate conservatism" and "the war on terror". The "left" in todays USA is as defeatist as the "left" in Germany in the 1920;s.

I guess that the USA would evolve into a four party system instead of a two party system, where we have a shrinked democratic party, an influential green-left party which would have eaten a lot of the DNC, a weakened republican party and a christian fascist party which would have eaten a lot of the GOP.

Eventually, the christian fascists would win the upper hand, due to the fact that they are the only one of these groups with the ability to mobilise millions. It is the only "popular movement" in the USA, and they are ready to fight for what they believe in. Sadly.

The Bush administration will be succeeded by "Weimar America" and "Weimar America" would be succeeded by American christian evangelical fascism.

The only way the radical left could succeed is to try to capitalise on a national collapse and for example winning power in one or several of the states. But on a national level, there is no left and haven't been since the 40;s.

[sav]

You can't neccessarily 'destroy' religion as it resides in faith, but it can be tamed and worked against, leading to it's eventual disintergration. Post-revolution, religion will not survive. When the people are alerted to it's hypocrisy, lies and spreading of ignorance, then nobody will chose to be decieved.

[Tatarin]

given the huge (and rapidly growing) population of evangelical christians in america, what would happen to them in a post-revolutionary situation? i doubt they would ever accept any sort of secular society and would probably work against it. so what would we do with them? i dont think it would be feasible to make them all atheists or anything like that.

I think our first "mission" in America is to show people that socialism works - that socialism as a physical system works, that is. There are people who are Christians, but at the same time leftists. Religion fades over time, when people work and live in a socialist or communist system, religion will eventually disappear. You can't force it to go away, because that will only generate more of it.

But then are the question of wheter you want communism through socialism, or a direct revolution to communism. The majority of Americans are bent on government, I think most of them can't imagine a government-free society.


Does that mean you're saying communism will never happen in America? What about Britain, where there aren't as many suffer from the God Delusion? I reckon France will be first for proletarian revolution. Dunno why.

I think communism in America, in these times, would be impossible if the revolution was aimed directly at a communist society, but it would not be if America turned into socialism first, and then developed communism.

[Dimentio]

Parts of America could very likely turn into some form of socialism [hint: Washington, Oregon, Detroit, other parts of the north-west, north and north-east], but if a communist revolution would occur, I guess that 70 million Americans would rise in revolt in no time, due to the strength of the evangelical movement.

The evangelical movement is not politically neutral but reactionary. It is actually more of a political movement than a religious one.

[Cheung Mo]

Oregon and Washington are very purple states and would never consider a socialist revolution.

[Dimentio]

It is not only about the majorty opinion but about concentration. Cities like Eugene and Seattle are more important than the countryside.

[Sentinel]

Despite the advancement of science, I dont believe that mankind will ever prove conclusively who or what caused the universe.

Perhaps, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's extremely dangerous to start assuming shit, to give up rationality. Once you do that , you open the gates to any lunacy! Just look at everything the supertitious have done in the past, and still do whereever they have political power. 'Burn the Heathens!' And by 'superstitious' I mean 'religious'. We must rely on what we can prove, for our safety.


Therefore, I and i think many others would believe it would be as ignorant of communists to ban instutionalised bodies of thought in the same way that the corporocrats stifle our propaganda with their monopolised stranglehold on the mainstream media.

If those bodies of thought teach bigoted bullshit, or simply lies, as the 'holy truth', like the organised religions of today do, they will indeed be banned. What would be ignorant, would be to watch them do it without interference.


You cant truly mantain a democratic society unless everyone with responsible intentions, theist agnostic, atheist alike are able to participate in it regardless of their personal belief, or interpretation of the 'ultimate question'.

Once again, I don't give a shit about anyones personal beliefs. But they better not start imposing the crap as the truth on others. That involves their children, btw.

And I don't believe in a state interference in these cases, if you thought so. See I'm not a statist. I'm convinced that in a communist society, citizens would step up to protect the children of the community from that kind of abuse.


It is better to let people have their religion as they please, as long as they are not repressing others directly. I mean, 70 years of state-sanctioned atheism in the USSR has not made the orthodox church collapse

Because of leniency.. ;)


75% of the Russian people are orthodox fundamentalists.

Fundamentalists? :lol: About 75% of the population belong to the fucking orthodox church.

All raving lunatics? :o

[Raúl Duke]

Serpent's scenario reminds me about the spanish civil war....but I could be wrong...

I think that if the "4 party in America"/"Weimer America" scenario were to happen and than the Christian Fascists were to win elections, there could be a chance (that is if some leftist organizations and/or parties, whichever you prefer, that takes the chance) that they can organize resistence in the city or even whole states where a majority opposition to these fascists exist. Than of course the fascists would use force, and the leftists respond with like, thus civil war (or what ever you would like to call it)

Now whether we are able to win is another matter....

[Red October]

It is not only about the majorty opinion but about concentration. Cities like Eugene and Seattle are more important than the countryside.

but the red areas control the agriculture for the most part. and evangelicals have more kids than liberals, so they will get grow at a faster rate.

[Dimentio]

Given the fact that there are 70 million evangelicals, whereas a majority of them are more or less reactionary, and that they have access to enormous firepower, resources and zeal, would make any attempt futile.

Remember that Spain had lots and lots of anarchists and communists, and actually, in Spain, anarchism was a popular and not an intellectual movement, whereas fascism was a movement attached with the conservative establishment.

In the US, it's the other way 'round. Most leftists are social liberals of the middle class, who will turn fascist confronted with a social crisis. The poors are fighting each-other, and the rural areas in the midwest and south is filled with Evangelical garbage.

Since the US is a diverse country, parts of the country could very well secede given a fascist government, but it won't be like in 1860-1865 when two fairly balanced factions stood against each-other.

[bcbm]

They would need to have their political influence neutralized before any real revolutionary situation could develop in the areas they dominate. If the under-class were able to dispense with the bosses and politicians in some areas prior to this, it would probably need to fend them off following this.

[Dimentio]

The evangelical movement is not a typical middle class movement, but rather a movement composed of a former small city middle class which joins the Evangelical banner due to the fear of losing their identity due to modernism and globalisation [unemployment, loss of social status, fear of losing sexual control over women, fear of changes in general]. They are not against injustices per se, but wants to keep their traditional privilegied role in the family.

It seems like it is losing strength right now, but we must remember that for each time evangelical fundamentalism has been defeated, it bides it's time, new preachers come, and they regain their strength.

They were quite strong around 1900-1925 as well, but then lost their case in the Scopes trial, which ushered them to create their counter-culture.

They were weakened due to the Faye Baker scandals in the early 90;s, but returned with a president into power. But we should not confuse Bush with the evangelical movement.

Their future leader will be more of a Fred Phelps-like type.

[Red October]

i cant see a fred phelps like personn being a majot national leader of middle class people. the evangelical movemet has lots of minorities and i doubt they could keep up their middle class base with an extemely racist person at the helm.

[Dimentio]

Fred Phelps does not hate blacks [he was a civil rights attourney in the 60;s and is a registered democrat] but he is a hateful homophobe. I do not mean a Fred Phelps copy, but maybe more of a mixture between Phelps, Ted Haggard, and Barry Goldwater.

[Red October]

maybe. but fred phelps hates america more than anyone on this board, and the evangelicals are far too patriotic for that.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 03:33 pm
Fred Phelps does not hate blacks [he was a civil rights attourney in the 60;s and is a registered democrat] but he is a hateful homophobe. I do not mean a Fred Phelps copy, but maybe more of a mixture between Phelps, Ted Haggard, and Barry Goldwater.
I wouldn't be so sure about him not hating blacks. Check out the Wikipedia page on Phelps and co.

[Dimentio]

Some of his supporters hate blacks, that is true, but Phelps is probably senile.

I did not say that someone who is behaving like Phelps would take over power, but that there is a risk that such values would have an increasing chance of succeeding given a social crisis.

[Dimentio]

By the way, the left must try to form a political alternative. There are a lot of small leftist political parties, ranging from quite authoritarian Forward guard [which is giving technocracy a bad name] to some rainbow hippie parties.

[Severian]

Do any of you people actually know any evangelicals? They're not all "fascists". People's beliefs don't simply or automatically determine their political opinions.

[Janus]

Merged.

[Phalanx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 09:56 pm
Do any of you people actually know any evangelicals? They're not all "fascists". People's beliefs don't simply or automatically determine their political opinions.
A good example is John Brown. He did more good than anyone on this board but he was (very) religious.

We have to work with people that have different beliefs than us. If we don't, we've got a long ways to go (at least in the U.S.) in achieving communism.