How did the right monopolise christianity?

[Dr Mindbender]

the homophobia part aside, there are parts of the bible which almost seem to endorse socialism (the bits about loving your fellow man, relinquishing your wealth etc) so how the hell did the cappies and neocons manage to get their claws over it?
Also if there is a credible 'christian left' should they be welcomed to the domain of marxism?
Id also like to hear any theories from OI'ers on this one too.

[apathy maybe]

There are left-wing Christians, Liberation theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation+theology) (specifically within the Catholic Church) is a good example of this.

Quakers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers) are a good example of people in a "religion" that while maybe not directly promoting an end to capitalism, wouldn't see anything wrong with it disappearing...

Leo Tolstoy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo+Tolstoy) claimed to be a Christian (and while rejecting the label himself) and is considered an anarchist by many people (or at least some of his ideas...). A quote from the Wikipedia article says thus,
The Anarchists are right in everything; in the negation of the existing order, and in the assertion that, without Authority, there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions. They are mistaken only in thinking that Anarchy can be instituted by a revolution. But it will be instituted only by there being more and more people who do not require the protection of governmental power ... There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man.

As to whether religious folk can be Marxists... The general consensus around here is that they cannot be. Marxism is supposed to be materialist, and religion, by definition, is not. That doesn't mean that they can't be communists or anarchists though.

[Dr Mindbender]

I had some inkling that there may be a christian left, but going back to my question how did the right take mainstream christianity? Also to an equal or greater extent the less prominent denominations, particularly the baptists and mormons?
Christianity is full of progressive statements yet this always gets overlooked by the preachers in their gusto for zionism, homophobia etc. The annoying thing is, this increases the neo-con support base and alienates working class solidarity with nations at the brunt end of judeao-christian imperialism.

[Demogorgon]

There is. Sometimes when you hand out fliers against the Iraq war or in favour of the Palestinians, nuns make you sandwiches :lol:

There has always been an interesting relationship here in Scotland. The Catholic Church, not the leadership of course, but a lot of the Priests ahve supported the Socialist Movement in the past. And today a lot of them hold obviously left wing views, at least economically. They are obviously in the wrong field when it comes to things like abortion.

Also those from other denominations also suport us sometimes. There are some Church Of Scotland ministers who do a great deal to help the leftist movement. Free transport to protests, food, temporary accomodation etc. I have ven known them to raise money to send people (leftist activists, not missionaries) to places like Palestine to help there.

Obviously I don't like religion, but you can't paint it all with a b;ack brush

[Tower of Bebel]

It's because the clergy always has been part of the ruling class. Several exceptions don't make the rule.

[RedCommieBear]

That's an excellent question... and a difficult one.

There are Christian leftists as has been demonstrated. In Latin America, Liberation Theology still has influence despite the Vatican's condemnation. Scotland has its left-friendly minister. While in the United States, Christian leftists tend to be of your regular, progressive folk; I believe there's a Lutheran minister down in Iowa who is a member of the Communist Party. Paul Nelson (http://www.pww.org/article/author/view/939) is his name.

Now, on the question of why the Right seems to have taken over Christianity. I hate to sound like a broken record, but part of it is that they are more vocal. Kinda like how the broad right-wing owns all the media to present it's view, think of it as kinda like that.

Hopefully Edric O. will get in here and say something...

[freakazoid]

There is a great website, http://www.jesusradicals.com that is devoted to Christian anarchy. I used to have that linked in my sig... And apathy_maybe mentioned Leo Tolstoy, there is also Jacques Ellul, but I haven't read anything by him yet. Also there are the Anabaptists. But on how the right monopolized Christianity, I think it is based on what RedCommieBear said, hate. And people can use hate to get into power.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, first of all the right did not ever monopolize Christianity - it's just that the Christian Right is far more vocal (and far richer, of course) than the Christian Left. There are several reasons for this.

Early Christianity was progressive and revolutionary for its time. It eventually grew to be a serious problem for the Roman Empire and its ruling class. After some unsuccessful attempts to repress this new faith, the Emperors decided to co-opt it and manipulate it instead; and so Christianity was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire in the late 4th century. The political establishment (first the Roman one, then the emerging feudal establishment) made efforts to absorb the leadership of Christian organizations into the ruling class. It was a mutually beneficial agreement - the Church leadership got to enjoy the power and wealth of the ruling classes, and the ruling classes got to use Christianity as an ideological justification for their continued domination of society. The lower clergy and most of the rank-and-file believers, however, got nothing out of this. The higher Church hierarchy became reactionary because it was part of the ruling class and had a vested interest in preserving the feudal order; meanwhile, among the lower clergy and the rank-and-file believers, progressive ideas remained.

Simply put, feudalism exploited Christianity for its own purposes. This did not go unnoticed - the medieval Catholic Church eventually had to face serious challenges from Christian groups who wanted to either reform it or break away from it - but it did leave a permanent scar on Christian institutions.

After feudalism was defeated, some elements of the new capitalist ruling class - the bourgeoisie - thought that if Christianity had been used successfully to justify the existing social order in the past, then perhaps it could be used for the same purpose again, to justify the new capitalist social order. Their efforts never met with too much success. Classical liberalism, not Christianity, forms the basic ideological justification for capitalism. Capitalists were not able to exploit Christianity to the same degree that feudalists have done in the past, but they were still able to use it to some extent, in certain parts of the world.

The point of that short history is that Christianity has a long and sad history of being used by various ruling classes in their own interests, and the leadership of Christian institutions has often collaborated with those ruling classes against the interests of rank-and-file believers. That is the origin of the Christian Right and the source of its power. The Right never monopolized Christianity, but it did monopolize Christian leaders in the past and it is trying to do so again. The Right also has more wealth at its disposal, and it controls the media.

* * *

As for the Christian Left, it also has a long and distinguished history, but, unfortunately, it has been a very disorganized one. The reason why you don't hear about the Christian Left is because, although there are many Christian Leftists, there are rather few Christian Leftist organizations.

So, while the Christian Right has powerful institutions, the Christian Left mostly has a bunch of unconnected individuals and small groups.

Historically speaking, the Christian Left played a crucial role in the creation of the early socialist movement. Most of the utopian socialists were Christians; the Christian theologian Alexandre Vinet was the person who invented the term "socialism" in 1831; and a Christian socialist organization called the League of the Just - later renamed the Communist League - was responsible for asking Marx to write a paper that eventually became the Communist Manifesto.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 09, 2007 03:51 pm
As to whether religious folk can be Marxists... The general consensus around here is that they cannot be. Marxism is supposed to be materialist, and religion, by definition, is not. That doesn't mean that they can't be communists or anarchists though.
I beg to differ; I am a Christian Marxist, and a historical materialist.

The adjective historical in the above sentence is very important. Yes, of course it is true that religion, by definition, requires one to believe in the existence of things that are not observable through the senses and are outside the material universe. However, as long as those things do not play a significant part in influencing the course of human history or the shape of human society - and I believe they do not - then one may believe in their existence while remaining a historical materialist and a Marxist in all ways except perhaps one (metaphysics).

Basically, what I'm saying is that I believe in God but I also believe that God stays out of human history and large-scale social and economic developments. Therefore, my views on history, society and economics may be indistinguishable from the views of someone who doesn't believe in God at all.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Edric O+August 10, 2007 02:23 am--> (Edric O @ August 10, 2007 02:23 am)
apathy [email protected] 09, 2007 03:51 pm
As to whether religious folk can be Marxists... The general consensus around here is that they cannot be. Marxism is supposed to be materialist, and religion, by definition, is not. That doesn't mean that they can't be communists or anarchists though.
I beg to differ; I am a Christian Marxist, and a historical materialist. [/b]
Christian "Marxists" like all of the so-called Christian 'left' are neither.

[synthesis]

Progressive movements generally seek to break down social constructs for the betterment of the people that live under them; the problem here is that Christianity is a major source for many of these constructs in Western society today, and Christians, like most humans, are generally resistant to change.

edit: I also want to add that although I agree there could be no such thing as a Christian Marxist, I haven't seen any justification at all here as to why there could never be someone who rejects Sola Scriptura and is active in both progressivism and Christian circles.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 07, 2007 03:42 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 07, 2007 03:42 pm)
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 10, 2007 02:23 am

apathy [email protected] 09, 2007 03:51 pm
As to whether religious folk can be Marxists... The general consensus around here is that they cannot be. Marxism is supposed to be materialist, and religion, by definition, is not. That doesn't mean that they can't be communists or anarchists though.
I beg to differ; I am a Christian Marxist, and a historical materialist.
Christian "Marxists" like all of the so-called Christian 'left' are neither. [/b]
You're just like an orthodox neo-nazi who is worrying about whether or not the Irish can be a part of your white nationalism. All the sympathies are the same.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Dean+September 26, 2007 10:33 am--> (Dean @ September 26, 2007 10:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:42 pm

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 10, 2007 02:23 am

apathy [email protected] 09, 2007 03:51 pm
As to whether religious folk can be Marxists... The general consensus around here is that they cannot be. Marxism is supposed to be materialist, and religion, by definition, is not. That doesn't mean that they can't be communists or anarchists though.
I beg to differ; I am a Christian Marxist, and a historical materialist.
Christian "Marxists" like all of the so-called Christian 'left' are neither.
You're just like an orthodox neo-nazi who is worrying about whether or not the Irish can be a part of your white nationalism. All the sympathies are the same. [/b]
Another inspired slur from our addled friend Dean. I do wonder, though, whether or not you know what you're talking about.

Stop spamming.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 26, 2007 10:01 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 26, 2007 10:01 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 10:33 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 03:42 pm

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 10, 2007 02:23 am

apathy [email protected] 09, 2007 03:51 pm
As to whether religious folk can be Marxists... The general consensus around here is that they cannot be. Marxism is supposed to be materialist, and religion, by definition, is not. That doesn't mean that they can't be communists or anarchists though.
I beg to differ; I am a Christian Marxist, and a historical materialist.
Christian "Marxists" like all of the so-called Christian 'left' are neither.
You're just like an orthodox neo-nazi who is worrying about whether or not the Irish can be a part of your white nationalism. All the sympathies are the same.
Another inspired slur from our addled friend Dean. I do wonder, though, whether or not you know what you're talking about.

Stop spamming. [/b]
Spamming? That's all you do, rat. I'm anot at all concerned about how insulting I may be to such insipid trolls as yourself; and if my posts are spam to you, I'll gladly increase them twofold.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:28 pm
Spamming? That's all you do, rat. I'm anot at all concerned about how insulting I may be to such insipid trolls as yourself; and if my posts are spam to you, I'll gladly increase them twofold.
All right mouthbreather, why don't you back up your stupid fucking post? I'm sure it's a little difficult for you, especially if you've forgotten your medication but I'm sure you can spit out at least one rational argument, so here is your big chance:

Logically what connects me (a Marxian anarcho-syndicalist with strong anti-racist and feminist viewpoints) to neo-nazis (A group of Fascists with strong racist, homophobic, anti-feminist and pro-religion (either Catholicism or Paganism) views)?

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:03 am
All right mouthbreather, why don't you back up your stupid fucking post? I'm sure it's a little difficult for you, especially if you've forgotten your medication but I'm sure you can spit out at least one rational argument, so here is your big chance:

Logically what connects me (a Marxian anarcho-syndicalist with strong anti-racist and feminist viewpoints) to neo-nazis (A group of Fascists with strong racist, homophobic, anti-feminist and pro-religion (either Catholicism or Paganism) views)?
-xenophobia
-purism
-hateful ideology

&c.

Still, that wasn't the primary point of the post. Pointing out your hateful trolling was.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Dean+September 28, 2007 10:38 am--> (Dean @ September 28, 2007 10:38 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 01:03 am
All right mouthbreather, why don't you back up your stupid fucking post? I'm sure it's a little difficult for you, especially if you've forgotten your medication but I'm sure you can spit out at least one rational argument, so here is your big chance:

Logically what connects me (a Marxian anarcho-syndicalist with strong anti-racist and feminist viewpoints) to neo-nazis (A group of Fascists with strong racist, homophobic, anti-feminist and pro-religion (either Catholicism or Paganism) views)?
-xenophobia [/b]
That's fucking rich. Are you just going to throw around unsubstantiated claims about my views or are you going to back that up with specific reference to things I've actually said as opposed to your weird interpretations.



-purism

I think people who hold stupid beliefs are stupid, that hardly makes me a purist.


-hateful ideology

All the hate of anarcho-syndicalism. Oh wait, that makes no fucking sense.


&c.

Were you posting whilst whacked out on meth or something?


Still, that wasn't the primary point of the post. Pointing out your hateful trolling was.

:lol: "Hateful trolling".

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 07, 2007 05:42 pm--> (Jazzratt @ September 07, 2007 05:42 pm)
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 10, 2007 02:23 am

apathy [email protected] 09, 2007 03:51 pm
As to whether religious folk can be Marxists... The general consensus around here is that they cannot be. Marxism is supposed to be materialist, and religion, by definition, is not. That doesn't mean that they can't be communists or anarchists though.
I beg to differ; I am a Christian Marxist, and a historical materialist.
Christian "Marxists" like all of the so-called Christian 'left' are neither. [/b]
Perhaps you'd care to explain why.

Again, I must point out that a materialist, for all practical purposes, is a person who believes that material forces alone guide history and shape human society. The fact that I also happen to believe in the existence of immaterial forces is irrelevant as long as those immaterial forces do not guide history or shape human society.

Indeed, I would argue that all Christians (except for Calvinists and other advocates of predestination) should logically be historical materialists. The standard Christian answer to the problem of evil is that God does not intervene in human affairs on any large scale. This means that God stays out of history and lets social forces operate unhindered; hence historical materialism. Even in the Old Testament, when God was much more active, he only ever interfered in affairs relating to the Jewish people, which were not of any particular importance to the world at large.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Edric O+September 28, 2007 03:37 pm--> (Edric O @ September 28, 2007 03:37 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 05:42 pm

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 10, 2007 02:23 am

apathy [email protected] 09, 2007 03:51 pm
As to whether religious folk can be Marxists... The general consensus around here is that they cannot be. Marxism is supposed to be materialist, and religion, by definition, is not. That doesn't mean that they can't be communists or anarchists though.
I beg to differ; I am a Christian Marxist, and a historical materialist.
Christian "Marxists" like all of the so-called Christian 'left' are neither.
Perhaps you'd care to explain why.

Again, I must point out that a materialist, for all practical purposes, is a person who believes that material forces alone guide history and shape human society. The fact that I also happen to believe in the existence of immaterial forces is irrelevant as long as those immaterial forces do not guide history or shape human society. [/b]

If these immaterial forces do not intersect with material ones, then to all intents and purposes they do not exist. It is impossible to prove or disprove their existence and renders them an unnnecessary hypothesis.

The invisible, intangible pink unicorn comes to mind.


Indeed, I would argue that all Christians (except for Calvinists and other advocates of predestination) should logically be historical materialists. The standard Christian answer to the problem of evil is that God does not intervene in human affairs on any large scale. This means that God stays out of history and lets social forces operate unhindered; hence historical materialism. Even in the Old Testament, when God was much more active, he only ever interfered in affairs relating to the Jewish people, which were not of any particular importance to the world at large.

Interfering with the affairs of a small group of humans is still interfering with the affairs of humans, simply on a smaller scale. Their is no evidence for either large or small scale interference.

And besides, if god really is only interfering on behalf of the Jewish people, why doesn't it show? Surely God's chosen people would lead happier, healthier lives? Now, I don't have any hard data available, but my suspicion is that Jews don't have a better or worse quality of life compared to other people, on average.

[La Comédie Noire]

Class society is a cancer that affects all aspects of human life, including religion. Do away with Class society, due away with the opressive nature of religion. Without private property behind it, religion will become a more personnel and voulintary thing, as it should be.

However, I do think religion will seriously impair your ability to conduct class war, for obvious reasons.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by NoXion+September 28, 2007 09:16 pm--> (NoXion @ September 28, 2007 09:16 pm)
Originally posted by Edric O+September 28, 2007 03:37 pm--> (Edric O @ September 28, 2007 03:37 pm)Again, I must point out that a materialist, for all practical purposes, is a person who believes that material forces alone guide history and shape human society. The fact that I also happen to believe in the existence of immaterial forces is irrelevant as long as those immaterial forces do not guide history or shape human society.[/b]
If these immaterial forces do not intersect with material ones, then to all intents and purposes they do not exist. It is impossible to prove or disprove their existence and renders them an unnnecessary hypothesis. [/b]
I did not say these immaterial forces do not intersect with material ones; I said they have no significant effect on history or society. This, by the way, should not be a particularly controversial statement for a Christian to make - I don't know of any Christians, except perhaps the most rabid fundamentalists, who would argue that the course of history or the shape of society was divinely ordained by God.

In other words, God may intervene every now and then, but his interventions are limited and do not push society in any particular direction. His existence is relevant and important for an individual, but, as you pointed out, irrelevant for history and large-scale social structures.


Originally posted by NoXion
The invisible, intangible pink unicorn comes to mind.
Not that it matters, but I'd like to point out that an invisible being is by definition not pink and an intangible being is by definition not a unicorn.


[email protected]
Interfering with the affairs of a small group of humans is still interfering with the affairs of humans, simply on a smaller scale.
Yes. My belief is simply that the scale is small enough that such interventions do not have any noticable effect on the course of human history or the form of society. Thus, on a large scale, materialism applies.


NoXion
Their is no evidence for either large or small scale interference.
Indeed. I never claimed that there was conclusive evidence for the existence of God. There isn't. But that wasn't the issue under discussion - the issue is whether a Christian can be a Marxist. Whether or not a Christian is actually correct in believing in God is besides the point. Surely you will not claim that all Marxists know the truth about all things; even if there is no God and Christian Marxists are wrong in matters of religion, that does not make them any less Marxist, or any less correct in matters of politics.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Edric O+September 29, 2007 01:54 am--> (Edric O @ September 29, 2007 01:54 am)
NoXion
The invisible, intangible pink unicorn comes to mind.
Not that it matters, but I'd like to point out that an invisible being is by definition not pink and an intangible being is by definition not a unicorn. [/b]
The point of that statement flew right over your head didn't it? The "invisible pink unicorn" idea was invented precisely because it was self contradictory by definition.

I'll let NoXion savage the rest of your drivel because, to be honest, I don't find discussions with you remotely interesting.