"Liberation Theology": friend, foe, or oxymoron?

[wallflower]

This may belong in "Religion" - if it does, I expect an admin to toss it there - yet so many who subscribe to this theological current (especially in Latin America) are avowed Marxists, so I figured I'd put my question in "Learning":

Is an alliance with religious leaders/churches advisable if their professed faith contains an appeal to socio-economic justice? Such theology is not limited to Latin American Catholics; consider also the Black church in the States. Membership in a theological community, in these instances, precludes a commitment to socio-economic justice, and thus, without the Church, such a commitment might vanish completely from these communities, rendering their liberation impossible.

I am torn on this issue. On one hand, I feel it imperative for the political Left to befriend as many potential allies as possible, and not alienate potential allies just because the impetus for their desire for socio-economic justice comes from a church. On the other, I remain skeptical about mixing organized religion and revolution. And further, I wonder whether the phrase "liberation theology" is really just an oxymoron. Can a theology really offer the path to liberation/revolution?!

For the record, I currently err on the side of acceptance of liberation theology as a crucial part of the struggle; I think such a theology is sincere in its commitment to justice. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Any opinions?

[Demogorgon]

Liberation Theology is an unequivocable ally. Any other position is just a knee-jerk reaction to anything religious.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

We know how significant it is, by the reaction to it from the bourgeoisie and the orthodox religions. in Nicaragua, the bourgeoisie all converted to protestant Christianity because the catholic's allied with the Marxists. the Vatican then ostracised the Nicaraguan pro revolution catholic priests and the bourgeoisie tried to bring in protestantism by funding new churches to divide the mass of people.

these people, despite having some poor views of abortion for example, though are amenable to argument, are on our side in the they side with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and imperialists.

[chicanorojo]

Would I prefer a Marxist Catholic nun who wants to bring about a revolution to end Capitalist rule as long as she is able to pray as an ally rather not? Ally. In end is about Christians trying to make sense of "this" world now through a Marxist prism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ At the very least, liberation-theology folks are genuine reformists, not economistic "social-democrats."

The question is: how willing are "liberation-theologists" willing to pick up a gun and fight for the workers' revolution?

[Kitskits]

Allies yes, materialists/communists no.

[jake williams]

Allies, even friends. I happen to think it's a pretty poor reading of the Bible, though I can't say it's significantly more so than most. And I think everyone here is going to disagree with them on a lot of points. That's fine.

If you're actually interested in and dedicate to your political beliefs, the best way to go about implementing them isn't to isolate and yell at everyone you disagree with a bit. You should certainly maintain any disagreements you think legitimate, but that doesn't preclude cooperation.

[Luís Henrique]

"National-socialism" is an oxymoron, which doesn't stop them from being also enemies. "Liberation theology", yes I think is an oxymoron. They are, generally speaking, allies, though at times we have to part ways with them.

Luís Henrique

[Prairie Fire]

Certainly an oxymoron, but possibly a useful tool to help to knaw at the clout of the christian-conservative right. By seperating the christians from conservatism, you at least create a populace that is more receptive to socialism, and the more receptive they become, the more one of their ideologies (social-justice marxism or faith,) has to give.

[Dros]

All three.

1.) Oxymoron. Religion is inherently reactionary for several reasons. Firstly, the unscientific methodology. Secondly, the notion of heaven justifies reaction or at least passivity in many areas. And for lots and lots and lots of other reasons. Thus, any theology can't be liberating.

2.) Enemies. See above. Religion is BAD.

3.) Allies. These are people we have to work with and engage with especially about their religion while working towards common goals. Unity struggle unity.

[RHIZOMES]

As drosera99 said, ALL THREE. You can't be religious and a communist, it is not compatible. How can there be a classless society with the concept of God or of churches? But, we can't turn away allies who want communism (Something the Socialist Wahabbi Party don't realize). But we must correct their position on religion, not stop them from helping overthrow capitalism just because they believe in an invisible sky fairy.

[el_chavista]

father Camilo Torres, who was a predecessor of the Liberation Theology and a member of the Colombian ELN guerrilla group until 1966 said: "If Jesus were alive today, He would be a guerrillero."

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

It's a useful friend up to a point.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Coexist, not Cooperate.
They are hardly enemies and so we should not fight them or impede in any way.
However, cooperating too closely with them may cause unnecessary problems once religion comes into play.

I feel that our similarities (liberation) outweigh our differences (religion) to the point where we can certainly be civil.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why has liberation theology, out of curiosity, only developed in Catholicism and not, say, in the much more decentralized Islam?

[jake williams]

Why has liberation theology, out of curiosity, only developed in Catholicism and not, say, in the much more decentralized Islam?
Ideological-historical-cultural reasons. It's complicated. Arab socialism is sort of analogous - it's officially "secular" but if you look at it it's actually largely Islamic.

Probably partly for the reason you hilight - if the religion starts of decentralized, paradoxically, you get less of a motion towards theological opposition to authority. To some extent that's just so fundamental to Islam it gets ignored.

Also there's a whole complex colonial system that goes along with liberation theology. There was something like it in Europe during the reformation, but mostly it developed in Latin America, and in some parts of Africa (South Africa at least), unless I'm mistaken. There are historical and sociological reasons in these regions that don't have much to do with Christ telling them to.

There may also be particulars in the Bible that lend themselves to the development of L.T.

[MarxSchmarx]

Why has liberation theology, out of curiosity, only developed in Catholicism and not, say, in the much more decentralized Islam?



Something not too far from leftist Islam developed in response to the Russian revolution. See, e.g., Soltangaliev's biography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirs%C3%A4yet_Soltan%C4%9F%C3%A4liev

Also, unsurprisingly there is a long tradition of (IMHO rather unsuccessful) attempts to reconcile Buddhism (http://www.suanmokkh.org/ds/dhamsoc.htm) and Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_left) with socialist values.

[RHIZOMES]

Why has liberation theology, out of curiosity, only developed in Catholicism and not, say, in the much more decentralized Islam?

Islam talks about private property as a human right.

[MarxSchmarx]

Islam talks about private property as a human right.

So does his self-proclaimed holiness, Leo the 13th in his Rerum Novarum:


The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races.

blah blah blah.

And it goes on like this, too
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13RERUM.HTM
:thumbdown:

[RHIZOMES]

So does his self-proclaimed holiness, Leo the 13th in his Rerum Novarum:



blah blah blah.

And it goes on like this, too
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13RERUM.HTM
:thumbdown:

Yes but in Islam it's the religion's teachings in the Qur'an and hadiths itself, not a religious leader 1800 years after the religion was founded.

[Faux Real]

Why has liberation theology, out of curiosity, only developed in Catholicism and not, say, in the much more decentralized Islam?It has had its moments, most notably in the Algerian revolution as well as Iranian revolution, although Khomeini wanted a monopoly of power rather than risk losing it at the hands of the less theologic Communist Party of Iran. The National Liberation Front (Algeria) drew plenty aspects of socialism into its manifesto albeit modified it to fit Islam and the jihad behind the anti-colonial movement.
Islam talks about private property as a human right.
Forbidding stealing of other peolpe's personal property =/= stealing private property.

[Mask of Winters]

Quick question. Would the Abrahamic religions be the only ones incompatible with communism, or would this include any and all religions?

[Awful Reality]

Liberation Theology is an unequivocable ally. Any other position is just a knee-jerk reaction to anything religious.

Agreed. But like the state, under socialism religion should be phased out.

Religion is, as Marx said, is the opiate of the masses. It historically and inevitably leads to exploitation. We should try to not ban it, but remove it.