Religion and socialism

[Dem_Soc]

Religion and socialism (some thoughts on religion in a socialist society)

Since Karl Marx declared ‘religion is the opiate of the masses’ socialism and religion have traditionally been seen as ideological enemies, two ‘big ideas’ directly set against one another. What I think is important with regard to religion and socialism, is to make sure that never the twain shall meet when it comes to matters of the state, as in many cases traditional conservative religion is an anti-revolutionary and reactionary force.

It is to be noted however that though religion as an organisation is often conservative and bourgeois in the worst of possible ways, many socialists have had religious beliefs, and this would lead me to my next point…

Religion as a traditionally bourgeois institution is in my view an ENEMY of the working classes , but spiritualism and individual belief is not. If there are Christians that support the socialist cause, that is better for the progression of the socialist movement and should not be repressed due to socialists wanting to over engineer society (I.E as in the USSR basically forcing everyone to be atheistic). This sort of over engineering can lead to the gulags, not a place the left ever want to be associated with again.

Anyway my main point is freedom of religious belief is essential to a socialist state which also claims to be democratic. We cannot hope to simply eradicate religion, such thinking is unrealistic and far too authoritarian, indeed it is the very antithesis of what being a socialist should be about.

Religion should essentially survive or die based on it’s own merits, if it lives on under a socialist state, so be it. Socialism would have to adapt and evolve , but in my view as long as some middle ground is found between religious freedom and collective prosperity then this is no issue. This is a very complex issue that could be addressed much further.

(Im an atheist btw)

[Marsella]

I agree with most of what you are saying; that we cannot attempt to eradicate religion by force. It usually fails.

But it certainly is possible: look at how ruthlessly the Roman Empire stamped out the worship of Zeus and other Greek gods. Its the reason why we don't worship Hades or Zeus but rather God.

As for religion in a communist society, I think that most here consider it an individual opinion. But that raises some problems.

Christians (and others) have a real bad habit of trying to convert and preach.

Should we tolerate that?

Should we tolerate public images of religion (e.g. churches) or should they be torn down?

Should we tolerate parents teaching such garbage to their children?

Its clearly not as easy as one's individual views...

[Dem_Soc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:12 am
I agree with most of what you are saying; that we cannot attempt to eradicate religion by force. It usually fails.

But it certainly is possible: look at how ruthlessly the Roman Empire stamped out the worship of Zeus and other Greek gods. Its the reason why we don't worship Hades or Zeus but rather God.

As for religion in a communist society, I think that most here consider it an individual opinion. But that raises some problems.

Christians (and others) have a real bad habit of trying to convert and preach.

Should we tolerate that?

Should we tolerate public images of religion (e.g. churches) or should they be torn down?

Should we tolerate parents teaching such garbage to their children?

Its clearly not as easy as one's individual views...
I think a moderate view should be taken , this is just my feeling at the moment

RE - Religious trying to convert and preach

This is true but should they be denied this right??? I mean in a way communists and socialists , anarchists etc are preaching to a degree when they try and make people see things their way, and if a democratic society imposed limits on our speech we wouldn't be very happy would we??? Im just trying to see things from the other side of the fench here, and I know relgious 'preaching' and debate on politics are different things all together but it's the only analogy I could think of.

RE - tearing down images of religion and so forth, in a early post revolutionary society that would probably make the ruling party that did it very unpopular with the religious (many members of the Proletariat are religious as well as bourgeois), so it would effectivly I think destroy grassroots support.

RE - parents teaching children religious ideas - I think in a socialist society perhaps it should be discouraged and I definilty stand by the idea that evoloution and 'proper' science should be taught at school, however I don't think that society should attempt to control thought as this nearly always ends up badly and creates discontent/disharmony among the masses.

I just think taking too authoritarian a stance on issues like this is what alienates many people from socialism. There must be some way 'moderate' relgion (totally discounting the fundamentalists and ultra conservatives) and socialism can co-exsist. I think in the UK at least the church of England is generally becoming more progessive.

[freakazoid]

Christians (and others) have a real bad habit of trying to convert and preach.

Let the people that they are trying to convert make up there own mind.


Should we tolerate parents teaching such garbage to their children?

Don't see why not.


and I definilty stand by the idea that evoloution and 'proper' science should be taught at school,

Me too, I have no problem with it being taught in school.

[Killer Enigma]

I read this article (http://theredmantis.blogspot.com/2007/09/revolution-at-cross.html) sometime back on Christianity and Socialism. It's done from a Marxist perspective so some of you might find it interesting.

From The Revolution at the Cross:

"The Christian conception of sin is analogous to the Marxist conception of class struggle, in terms of both variables acting as a historical catalyst. Christian doctrine states that although God did not intend for sin to enter the world, he remains the supreme ruler amidst allowing it to run its course. It is part of a larger plan which culminates with the destruction of sin and the salvation of those who accept Christ as their savior. In the same way, class struggle is part of a larger picture which culminates with the proletariat, the majority, finally coming to power and eliminating classes, thereby ending the long sequence of class struggle."

--

"Though it is important to realize the Bible was not written as a document outlining the finer points of class struggle, several chapters support a dialectical, class-based analysis of society similar to that made by Marx. Ecclesiastes 5: 8-9 says: "(8) If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still. (9) The increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields." Solomon's observations infer a continuous sequence of exploitation based on hierarchal division. At the time Ecclesiastes was written, slavery was the commonly utilized mode of production under which great, unrefined class division existed."

--

"Christ makes it very clear that his followers are to strive to refine society "on earth as it is in Heaven." Because Christ has already called his followers to care for the poor and oppressed, striving for an end to the abuse under capitalism and replace it with the freedom and equity found under socialism is well-within the boundaries of his teachings.

--

Let us not forget that Christ himself relied on direct action. Though a week later he would suffer death on the cross without a struggle, Matthew 21:12-13 describes Christ at Herod's Temple on Passover:

(12)Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. (13)"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 03:01 am
"The chancellor, the late chancellor, was only partly correct. He was obsolete, but so is the State, the entity he worshipped. Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man, that state is obsolete. A case to be filed under "M" for mankind—in the Twilight Zone."
I love that episode; its one of my favorites.

[Labor Shall Rule]

To “illegalize” religion would be the most retarded decision ever. I was at a talk the other day, and a priest was talking to a homosexual couple, and sitting next to them the entire discussion. There are religious progressives, and to deny them would mean that we have adopted a strange form of militant anti-theism, rather than Marxism.


"Urged on by unrestrainable forces, today's world asks for a revolution. The revolution must succeed, but it can succeed only if the Church enters the fray, bringing the Gospel. After being liberated from Nazi dictatorship, we want to liberate the working class from capitalist slavery."

This was from a priest that was in the French resistance movement. Just recently, Robert Mahony, the Bishop of the Los Angeles parish, was fired from the pulpit after he called on his archdiocese to participate in the demonstration against anti-immigrant legislation, which brought over one hundred thousand white and latino workers to the street. How can we turn our back on them? How can we say, "you are stupid idealists, you can't do anything revolutionary" and close the door on their asses?

It is juvenile to press on with anti-religious sentiment. We need to stop masturbating to our intellectual macho-ness, and realize that "everything that exists comes from matter" isn't a fact. It's a metaphysical assertion that one can either accept or reject. A cult of science or of a deity is based on personal faith, rather than some sort of objective “truth” that we must obediently follow.

Questions of public morality will still not be answered even after the worker is unified with his tools of production. There will still be moral qualms over our daily lives; there will be a theatre of debate over what is 'correct' or 'incorrect', and that is where religious teachings come in.

[La Comédie Noire]

Religion will become a more personal thing after private property is removed from behind it, as it should be.

[Eleftherios]

I'm an atheist, but I think that religion should always be a matter of personal choice. We shouldn't try to eradicate by force. Rather, a future Socialist government should teach people to think in a scientific way.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:56 am
I'm an atheist, but I think that religion should always be a matter of personal choice. We shouldn't try to eradicate by force. Rather, a future Socialist government should teach people to think in a scientific way.
I agree, but not in a 'atheistic' way.

[Marsella]

To “illegalize” religion would be the most retarded decision ever. I was at a talk the other day, and a priest was talking to a homosexual couple, and sitting next to them the entire discussion. There are religious progressives, and to deny them would mean that we have adopted a strange form of militant anti-theism, rather than Marxism.

There are certainly religious progressives, but what about religious Marxists; is that not an oxymoron?

And what is your point about a priest talking to a homosexual couple?

No-one here has argued that religious people should be ostracised because of their beliefs or that they should be forced to believe otherwise.


This was from a priest that was in the French resistance movement. Just recently, Robert Mahony, the Bishop of the Los Angeles parish, was fired from the pulpit after he called on his archdiocese to participate in the demonstration against anti-immigrant legislation, which brought over one hundred thousand white and latino workers to the street. How can we turn our back on them? How can we say, "you are stupid idealists, you can't do anything revolutionary" and close the door on their asses?

That certainly is an admirable stance, but exceptions do not prove the rule.

I have never come across a religious Marxist and I engage with Christians on a weekly basis. As a matter of fact, most are quite anti-communist. This is a personal experience, however. Much like your observations.


It is juvenile to press on with anti-religious sentiment. We need to stop masturbating to our intellectual macho-ness, and realize that "everything that exists comes from matter" isn't a fact. It's a metaphysical assertion that one can either accept or reject. A cult of science or of a deity is based on personal faith, rather than some sort of objective “truth” that we must obediently follow.

That is quite a bold statement.

Is it not juvenile to continue to assert such beliefs in unprovable Gods and all the baggage that follows?

I don't think anyone here has engaged in 'intellectual macho-ness.' But there is certainly nothing 'macho' about stating that God does not exist. Fact is fact.

Whilst I am not a physicist I would think that it is true that all things come from matter, and not indeed a metaphysical argument. At the very least, I have heard no substantial proof that it was created by a divine being via a magical wand.

And science is never a cult, nor have I seen anyone here treat it as such.

And objective truth should never be denied, regardless of how one feels.

Liberals use that argument 'fine that's your opinion, but I have mine' to avoid questioning the basis of their arguments. It really throws debate out the window.

We should constantly be criticising religion. I would imagine that most leftists here became attracted to anarchism or communism by that very dissent.


Questions of public morality will still not be answered even after the worker is unified with his tools of production. There will still be moral qualms over our daily lives; there will be a theatre of debate over what is 'correct' or 'incorrect', and that is where religious teachings come in.

I certainly hope not.

Firstly, there are no 'answers' to questions of public morality. There is not an objective truth to the morality of adultery. There is no questions and answer guide to decide what is 'correct' or 'incorrect.'

Communist society will form its own opinions, and hopefully those opinions will be based on fact and not falling back on religious blithering.


I agree, but not in a 'atheistic' way.

I don't mean to offend you by asking you (or by any of my comments above - I tried to be moderate) but are you not an atheist?

[Dr Mindbender]

maybe this is one of the few areas where the chinese have got it right. Churches there are allowed to exist, as long as they register with the state. What do people here think of that model?

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 07:28 am
maybe this is one of the few areas where the chinese have got it right. Churches there are allowed to exist, as long as they register with the state. What do people here think of that model?
I don't think too many people have a problem with that, as long as the churches meet certain requirements.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well, first off, thank you for being respectful over this debate.

I wouldn't call it a oxymoron — Marx's evaluation of history, economics, and thought was correct. You can be religious, and still uphold that “divine intervention” does not explain how wage labor puts humans in a necessary place in the current prevailing mode of production and the practical consequences that comes out of their position. Even if we were to go down to the tiniest subatomic particles, there is nothing 'infinite,' and believe it or not, something always 'exists' whether we like it or not. We consider ourselves Marxists precisely because of morality. You could say that we follow the dialectical method, and as so, it is in our class interests to abolish the wage system, but that would mean that if we were born into a family of small shop-owners, or of stoke brokers, we would have to endorse fascism precisely because of the dialectical implications of our class position.

I do not reject science, but I reject the proposition that atheism can explain existence. No one can answer why existence exists, why things exist. The answer "they just do" isn't an explanation. I am a “practical agnostic” for the most part. The “objective truth” should be pursued, but until we truly know what that even is, we shouldn't make any judgments.

As for the later part of your post, the proposition that “communist society will form its own opinions” strips human life of all meaning, and reduces it to a material void of nothingness. The fact is that the physical world precedes a world of human ideas (which are what “opinions” are based on), which negates the monist notion that ideas are only a reflection of humans explaining their physical surroundings. For example, one plus one equals two will always be a human idea that is devoid of “objective truth.” Therefore, there is no “fact,” that is something that can only be determined by the ideas that the humans cling on to. Whether a communist society embraces it with atheistic polemics and materialist handbooks, or philosophical treatise and religious writings, they still will not be breaking from the conception that there are millions of unanswered questions, and that some sort of human idea will be ingrained in our daily processes.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Alcaeos+November 18, 2007 11:06 pm--> (Alcaeos @ November 18, 2007 11:06 pm)
Ulster [email protected] 18, 2007 07:28 am
maybe this is one of the few areas where the chinese have got it right. Churches there are allowed to exist, as long as they register with the state. What do people here think of that model?
I don't think too many people have a problem with that, as long as the churches meet certain requirements. [/b]
If the state serves the purpose of breaking the will of the ruling class, then there would be no need to regulate the intimate fields of personal life, love, family, sex relations that is defined by personal moral decisions. The Russian Orthodox Church played a vital role in the economic life of Tsarist Russia — holding land titles and putting special taxes on peasants with property of their own. In this case, their privileges would cease to be, and they would be appropriately appropriated, but their places of worship will not be evaluated by the state.