Religious Workers Union

[Fawkes]

I remember a thread a while ago regarding the IWW had a debate in it regarding the unionization of priests and other employees of the church. I'm curious as to what people here feel would be the position in society where religious workers would be placed. Their relationships to their employers is the same as that of proletarians, but their role in society is questionable due to what they preach. This question could be applied to anyone that is not dictating the actions of the church that they are employed by.

I personally think that religious leaders, though appearing as proletarians in the manner of police officers, are enemies of the working-class and should be treated as such. Anyway, though I think most people here will agree with me, I'm curious as to whether any others feel differently on this matter.

This may be in the wrong forum and if it is, feel free to move it.

[Labor Shall Rule]

There is no "class" built into religion, even if some religions originate in a particular class in a particular historical period. Many materialists used eugenics to justify the Holocaust, and George Fitzhugh even used anti-capitalist critiques against the "free market" in the north to give slavery a degree of legitimacy. They are no more “enemies” than many atheists are.

As for religion being “anti-working class” — good luck trying to prove that.


"Now Cardinal Roger Mahony, he leads the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It is the largest Roman Catholic diocese in the country, and Mahony has recently placed himself and the church in the middle of the heated national debate on immigration.

On March 1, during Ash Wednesday Mass, the Hollywood-born clergyman attacked a House bill that would turn most people and institutions that aid illegal immigrants into felons. Calling it "blameful, vicious" legislation, Mahony vowed a campaign of civil disobedience in the archdiocese's 288 parishes if it becomes law.

Protest organizers and participants credited Mahony's fire from the pulpit -- and the educational campaign he initiated in January throughout his archdiocese -- with playing a critical role in organizing opposition. They say his efforts helped prompt half a million people, including many illegal immigrants, to feel safe enough participate in one of the biggest demonstrations ever in downtown Los Angeles on March 25, calling for a more liberal immigration bill."

John Brown, motivated by Christian teachings, wished to destroy of all the miseries that slavery had caused, and he died for it. Henry Thoreau once wrote, "Christ was once crucified. This morning, Captain Brown was hung. He is not Old Brown any longer; he is an angel of light." The anti-war and civil rights movement received a great deal of support from the religious, and many founding socialist thinkers received inspiration from the teachings of the Gospel.

Not only that, but religious workers produce value by offering their service (no matter how "stupid" you might think that sounds). It also takes socially necessary time to train them for their profession. If we are waging a class war, rather than an
atheist war, I think we should know who our true enemies are.

[Rawthentic]

I generally agree with LSR's post.

The role of communists is not to try to make atheists out of everyone, but to struggle to end the conditions which create the need for some mystical being. One the other hand, communists need to struggle with the masses over which worldview is the correct and scientific one; we can't tail them and not struggle over this issue simply because they will be alienated. If that were the case, then we have nothing to fight for because simply the mentioning of 'communism' brings shudders to them.

While creating the conditions that can make revolution (and by making revolution we create the seed that can put an end to idealist thinking) we need to expose the inherent reactionary material in the Bible, the Koran, and all those texts.

It might appeal to workers when a 'communist' talks about how Jesus was some sort of 'socialist', but this is not the way to lead them or struggle with them. It's mere opportunism and tailism. You can't claim to fight for a whole other world while holding idealist beliefs.

[YSR]

The IWW has traditionally been very divided on the idea of whether we should be actively anti-religion or just generally not pro-religion.

I think that, in the U.S., there's no real need to be anti-religion nowadays. The reason why we were so anti-religion was because religious officials were so reactionary. In other areas of the world, that's true. But in the "developed" West, religion plays less of an active anti-labor stance.

That said, I'm still personally very anti-religion. But for strategic purposes, I don't think it's that important.

As to the topic: John Brown wasn't a religious "worker". He was an admirable, brave petit-bourgeois. He never worked for the church. As for religious workers? I doubt they'll ever come to the IWW for assistance, so I don't see what the point is in arguing about it.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 20, 2007 05:17 am
It might appeal to workers when a 'communist' talks about how Jesus was some sort of 'socialist', but this is not the way to lead them or struggle with them. It's mere opportunism and tailism. You can't claim to fight for a whole other world while holding idealist beliefs.
I agree.