Marx made a number of famous statements including this one on the subject of religion:
‘Religion is the sigh of the oppressed, the feeling of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless circumstances. It is the opium of the people… The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusions about their condition is a demand to give up a condition that requires illusion. The criticism of religion is therefore the germ of the criticism of the valley of tears whose halo is religion’ (Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1844).
The A-Z of Marxism also notes "that this psychological critique of the social function of religion could have been put forward by an Enlightenment philosopher of the eighteenth century, and many modern anti-socialist atheists could concur."
Earlier this month in a Scientific American blog post titled God's in Mississippi, where the gettin' is good
Jesse Bering comments on the related and soon to be published work of two Harvard University psychologists, Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner, who "..created a state-by-state “suffering index” and found a positive correlation between a state’s relative misery (compared to the rest of the country) and its population’s belief in God. To create an objective measure of such relative misery, the investigators used data from the 2008 United Health Foundation’s comprehensive Health Index. Among other manifestations of human misery, this regularly compiled index includes rates of infant mortality, cancer deaths, infectious disease, violent crime and environmental pathogens. What Gray and Wegner discovered was that suffering and belief in God were highly correlated, even after controlling for income and education . In other words, belief in God is especially high in places like Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina--and so is misery, at least as it was operationalized in this particular study. And that, say the authors, is no coincidence."
Socialist Party membership is open to all who understand and desire to see the establishment of a world of free access, but anyone refusing to eschew the opium of the people cannot join. This reasoned position may well be challenged as a result of the UK equalities watchdog arguing in court that the British National Party is discriminatory! According to this report, BNP leader Nick Griffin has agreed to ask his party to amend its constitution so it does not discriminate on grounds of race or religion, a court heard.
Some Socialists are concerned that we might have to start accepting religious members for similar reasons. One contributor on the SPOPEN discussion forum
is not worried:
"We do not discriminate against peoples 'religious' views. What we do is
insist that applicants for membership agree with our materialist outlook,
which is a different thing altogether. A rejection of membership would not be discrimination against belief in gods, or fairies, or unicorns or whatever, it would simply be because the applicant disagreed with our political views."
Another member is concerned about the rise of a new dark age:
"The problem isn't what the act is meant to do, but what it does. It specifically
treats "not having a religion or belief" as *being* a "religion/belief" - the
effect of this must be to prevent the irreligious - us - from asserting our
position as privileged. It spells, in short, the end of the scientific method, and the rise of a new dark age. If you have no right to discriminate between ideas, point out which of them are not true, and consign them to the dustbin of history, then you wake up in the middle of the 14th century."
Socialists share in the Enlightenment inheritance of respect for reason and evidence against its traditional foe, religion. But at the same time we recognise that the main source of irrationality and exploitation in the modern world is to be found in the capitalist system of society. For socialists, therefore, the struggle against religion cannot be separated from the struggle for socialism. We fight religious superstition wherever it is an obstacle to socialism, but we are opposed to religion only insofar as it is an obstacle to socialism.
5 comments:
The real question for the Socialist Party is not so much about discrimination, rather it's to question whether fundamentally this exclusion has any validity in practice, not from an academic stand point but from a real world perspective. Do Socialists really believe that all people with religious views would be unable to operate and function in a Socialist society? Patently this is not the case as many different religions and therefore members thereof already operate in many different modes of society around the world. This outdated view of the power of religion over the everyday "believers" life will serve only to perpetuate the Socialist Party as a unknown minority organisation with little hope of expansion. Membership decisions need to be made from an individual suitability perspective rather than a blanket ban philosophy that denies the reality of the modern world. As a matter of clarity I am an atheist and I am absolutely confident that I operate in the exact same way as those people I know that "have religion". Is the Socialist Party serious about bringing about change or simply happy to continue preaching a doctrine that refuses to modernise itself or develop. You appear to have a god, you call him Marx and apparently you will not challenge his ideas - surely he is not all powerful, can you really function in a Socialist society?
"Do Socialists really believe that all people with religious views would be unable to operate and function in a Socialist society? "
I don't think religionists will disappear all at once but will simply fade away when the need for such a crutch lessens .
We are opposed to religion only insofar as it is an obstacle to socialism. The question of religion is not of it being false, or brutal or divisive but that it was and is a weapon of the ruling class in the way of the emancipation of the working class and a hurdle to be overcome in the progress to socialism . Thus, the socialist sees religion as an integral part of the class struggle . The first phase in the struggle to end the political and economic exploitation of our class is to learn to question the thoughts we inherit from well-intentioned parents and teachers; to challenge the strictures of the priests, parsons, rabbis and mullahs.
One important reason why religion continues to exist, and to be enthusiastically propagated, is that a religious outlook serves the interests of the minority ruling class. And this is also an important reason for socialists to oppose religion.
Socialists oppose religion for its anachronistic premises, for the barrier it presents to scientifically examining and controlling our own lives and destinies. Religion starts by placing humans outside the natural world . Belief in religion – any religion – warps and hampers the ability to think objectively about social and political issues.The disappearance of all religious beliefs should be seen as an essential part of our struggle for socialism and not just as a fringe irrelevance.
Just as a post script tho , there has been several aspects of Marx's ideas that has been rejected by the SPGB . He has never been viewed as infallible by the us and been seen from a materialist understanding as a man of his time . The anarchist Bakunin's slogan "Neither God Nor Master" can be as readily accepted as our motto
Unfortunately you have to include to persuade, exclusion only helps serve to keep you anonymous, no serious political movement can afford that. Still I think my point is missed, how many christians do you know who preach "God will provide" and are then willing to sit and starve when he doesn't? If you know someone then I'll concede that they may not be suitable to operate in a socialist society albeit they wouldn't be there long! In reality if you know and I know that there is no God, then we also know that there is no tangible power applied to people by their God. We understand that your everyday Chrisitan functions as well as everyone else in a capitalist society, and this is a society that by design; is far more divorced from the ideals of most religions than a Socialist society would be (I would hope). Is every religious person suitable? no of course not but look at individuals and the bigger picture don't ask people to denounce something that is not neccesarilly incompatible with your goals, your goal surely to introduce a Socialist society at the design of the majority not just the design of the old school Socialist party members. You presumably don't ask non religious people to give up the innapropriate trappings of their current lifestyles before admission.
"how many christians do you know who preach "God will provide" and are then willing to sit and starve when he doesn't?"
We have had the fire and brimstone evangelists of the bible belt who do distort social realities with a world view that the evils of capitalism , the failures of capitalism to provide , are the results of men and women leading a Sodom and Gomorrah lifestyle forsaking the "ways of the Lord" , and to eliminate human suffering it is necessary to return to religion , and not address the the economic conditions of the real world by political action .
By placing the blame for the present failures of this capitalist society on "Original Sin" or "The Great Satan" or whatever ,they are passively sitting back and doing nothing to change the world .
Should the SPGB on an individual basis interrogate each applicant on his or her theological position and decide if he or she is suitable for membership ?
"You presumably don't ask non religious people to give up the innapropriate trappings of their current lifestyles before admission."
Part of the declaration of principles states "the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex." therefore we do expect members to have effectively jettisoned racist or sexist ideas .
"Should the SPGB on an individual basis interrogate each applicant on his or her theological position and decide if he or she is suitable for membership ?"
Sure if you think that's neccesary but rather I'd suggest that if the individual has agreed to the declaration of principles despite being religious then they have already reconciled the compatabilities and you should respect their ability to do so after all they're not stupid just misinformed.
"We have had the fire and brimstone evangelists of the bible belt who do distort social realities with a world view that the evils of capitalism , the failures of capitalism to provide....."
Maybe these indivduals are not compatible but look at christendom and I'm sure you'll find they represent a small faction, a fanatical minority. However do these people want to join the Socialist party and if so the valid question still remains are the hypothetical "ways of the lord" actually in conflict with the ways of a Socialist, as no blueprint for Socialism exists and it's still to be defined by the majority we might not be able to say at this junction. On the road to a majority some might fall by the wayside, some might lose religion altogether and some might keep their beliefs and still integrate seamlessly into a Socialist world.
One thing is for certain though there will always be a fanatical minority that have to be catered for in any society, it's surely essential that they're with you rather than against you! this could never be more true than in my own invisualisation of what a Socialist world might look like; where, by definition, military control cannot exist. How quickly would society fail if the inevitable fanatical minority were opposed?
Post a Comment