💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › wayne-price-religion-and-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:49:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Religion and Revolution Author: Wayne Price Date: 2009 Language: en Topics: atheist, religion Source: Retrieved on May 7th, 2009 from http://www.anarkismo.net/article/12320 Notes: Written for www.Anarkismo.net
Author’s Note: While I personally do not belive in God, I am against any
“militant atheist” anti-religious campaigns. It is our practical
political opinions which are important on whether anarchists can work
together (abortion, GLBT liberation, sex, pacifism), not our views on
God.
So long as there are states, we raise the old bourgeois-democratic
demand of “separation of church and state.” The church is free to say
anything it wishes about abortion rights and to try to persuade its
followers. But it must not be able to impose its views by the power of
the police and the courts. Separation of church and state also means
that there must be no government-imposed atheism as under the so-called
Communist states.
“My country is the world. My religion is to do good.”
— Tom Paine, U.S. revolutionary democrat and deist.
There has been a rise in the number of recent books criticizing
religion. Sometimes called “the new atheism,” they have attracted an
audience partially due to a revulsion against the religious right.
Christian fundamentalists entered politics as pawns of the far right,
supporting big business, military intervention, and the repression of
women and GLBT people. This provoked a backlash among many people.
Meanwhile, the current enemy of the U.S. empire is no longer the
“godless Communists,” as it was during the Cold War. Instead it is a
fanatical, authoritarian, wing of Islam, which uses God to justify mass
murder. While this leads some people to say that this proves
Christianity or Judiaism to be superior to Islam, others conclude that
all religious fanaticism and authoritarianism are bad. (Note: by
“religion” I do not mean a search for meaning or a cultural
identification, but a belief in a supernatural being, a god.)
The traditions of the revolutionary far-left are generally
anti-religious, for good reasons. Down through the ages, almost all
religions, at least the established, organized, ones with sacred
writings, have supported the existing states and ruling classes (as well
as oppression of women and general sexual repression). Even those which
have implied criticisms of the establishment have counseled passivity
and withdrawal. Naturally we who have been committed to the overthrow of
all rulers have opposed these views. The very concept of “obeying” a
Supreme Authority is abhorrent to many freedom-loving people.
By definition, religions look to another world and internal, spiritual,
transformations of individuals to relieve suffering. But radicals think
that the solution for suffering lies in this-worldly practical
activities by masses of people to change the actual social system (or
other material methods of ending suffering, such as scientific medicine
to cure diseases). This is basically a different orientation from the
religious approach.
Not surprisingly, modern schools of revolutionary socialism, both
anarchism and Marxism, were founded by people committed to atheism. This
includes Michael Bakunin as well as Karl Marx, and their comrades and
co-thinkers. Bakunin hated religion and the churches, calling for them
to be “abolished,” along with the state and capitalism. Marx developed a
“materialist” conception of the world which had no place for a god.
Unlike Bakunin, Marx did not advocate a focus on religion while opposing
capitalism, regarding it as a private matter. But later, Lenin and his
followers insisted on fighting religion, calling this “militant
atheism.”
Yet there has also been a minority tradition of religious
rebelliousness. It has used the slogans, “No master but God” and
“Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.” During the
bourgeois-democratic revolutions (which laid the basis for industrial
capitalism), several revolutionary movements expressed themselves in
religious terms. Some, such as the Anabaptists in central Europe, or the
Levellers in Britain, forshadowed modern socialism.
A materialist point of view would say that religion is not a crude
matter of ignorance but a response of human beings to their material
existence, their real activity. This included the reality that there was
great suffering and injustice in most people’s lives. Yet, for most of
human existence, it was not objectively possible to end class society,
given the low level of production (up until past the beginning of the
Industrial Revolution). Yet the desire existed for freedom, cooperation,
and an end to toil. Such human values were expressed in the only way
they could be, through religion. So along with its expression of the
acceptance of oppression, religion also expressed people’s hope for an
end to oppression, for a world of peace and plenty, of freedom and
mutual aid. Religion preserved such ideals for the time when they could
become real in practice — and still they are often expressed in
religious terms.
When Marx referred to religion as the “opiate” of the people, it is
usually misinterpreted as though he was saying that religion was
addictive. But in his day, opium was widely used as a painkiller, and he
was saying that religion served to dull the pain of people’s suffering
under capitalism — but that now it was possible to end suffering caused
by social conditions.
In the history of socialism, there has been a minority of religious
socialists, such as recent Latin American, Catholic, advocates of
“liberaion theology” or some of the African-American, Protestant,
advocates of “Black liberation theology.” Among anarchists, the most
famous Christian was Leo Tolstoy, although Jacques Ellul, better known
for his critique of technology, was also one. Probably the most
wide-spread anarchist ppublication in North America is the Catholic
Worker, founded by Dorothy Day. The Jewish theologican Martin Buber was
influenced by anarchist-communism. The Hindu Gandhi was not an anarchist
(he founded the Indian state!) but he was a decentralist, and exchanged
letters with Tolstoy.
Also, in modern times we have learned that it is possible for atheists
to take power, with their own brand of “naterialism.” And these
atheists, these Marxist-Leninists, created as much oppression,
injustice, and suffering as all the ages of God-sanctioned rule.
Atheism, in itself, is not the solution.
While I reject “militant atheisim,” in either Bakunin or Lenin’s
conception, I personally do not believe in God. I prefer to call this
“humanism,” since “atheism” is only negative (what I do not believe in)
rather than positive (what I am for), a human-centered and naturalistic
approach to values and ways of living. A humanistic approach leaves me
open to working with religious people. But first, why don’t I believe in
God?
Aside from the point that we no longer need God to explain the world’s
workings, is the fact that the world we live in just does not fit with
the concept of God. God is supposed to be all-powerful, the creator of
everything. At the same time, He is supposed to be all-good, the
fountainhead of all goodness, kindness, and justice: “God is Love,” they
say. Plainly we do not live in a world run by such a god. Without
denying the existence of love and joy, there is too much misery and
injustice in this world for it to be possibly run by an all-good,
all-powerful, being. It doesn’t compute.
Theologicans call this “the problem of evil.” They account for it by
referring to “free will.” Since God gives people free will, they say,
people must be able to chose evil instead of good. This may explain why
God “allowed” the Hutu militias in Ruanda to commit genocidal murder
against the Tutsi (although it seems rather hard on, say, the Tutsi
children, whose free will was not given room to develop). But it does
not explain suffering caused by natural events, such as the tsunami in
the Indean Ocean or epidemics. Free will has nothing to do with it.
Granted that human action may make natural disasters worse or better,
but that is the point, that only human action (advances in science,
technology, and social organization) can decrease suffering, not
reliance on God.
However, this does not altogether end the discussion. Regardless of God,
humans will continue to look-for-and-make meanings. We
seek-and-commit-to values and purposes for ourselves and our
communities. Whether these are graven in the fabric of the universe or
not (and I think not), we develop these out of the stuff of the world
and our human relationships. Science contributes to this (science itself
is based on the values of truth and knowledge) but science as such does
not provide the answers.
Humans think not only in left-brain, logical, analytical, linear
fashion, but also in a right-brain, wholistic, simultaneous fashion. We
express our views of the world and community in analogies, metaphors,
images, and ceremonies, with individual and group art, music, and
poetry. Compared to science, this way of thinking is neither right nor
wrong, just different. A free future society will create its own art,
its own philosophical metaphors, and its own public ceremonies, whether
they resemble today’s religions or not.
Today, however, we live under capitalism, along with racism, sexism,
sexual repression, and an alienated way of life. Of course many people
look to religion to relieve their pain and give their lives meaning.
Many feel they need a powerful but loving father-figure to protect them,
whatever the reality. If we were to wait for most people to become
atheists before having a revolution, we will wait forever. From a
materialist analysis, capitalism creates popular religion, and religion
will not die out until capitalism itself will be ended and a new social
reality is created.
What really is the problem with religion? It is not that workers believe
in a supernatural god. It is what goes along with it. Thinking that they
know the thoughts of the Almighty, so many believers claim the right to
impose their views on everyone else. Knowing the Absolute Truth, or so
they think (lacking the virtue of humility), they feel that they can
deny women the right to abortions, prevent youth from having sex,
discriminate againt Gays (or kill them), whip up war fever, and denounce
anyone who rejects capitalism. It must be said that this is no worse (or
better) than the Marxist-Leninist atheists who also think they know the
Absolute Truth, as revealed by Karl Marx, as carried out by the
Historical Process — and that this permits them to set up dictatorships
and murder millions of people.
So long as there are states, we raise the old bourgeois-democratic
demand of “separation of church and state.” The church is free to say
anything it wishes about abortion rights and to try to persuade its
followers. But it must not be able to impose its views by the power of
the police and the courts. Separation of church and state also means
that there must be no government-imposed atheism as under the so-called
Communist states.
Ultimately, the only complete separation of church and state will occur
with the abolition of the state. In a socialist-anarchist society,
people will be free to associate with each other in religious, cultural,
or philosophical societies, if they wish. If the churches are right,
then under freedom there will be a flowering of religion. In my opinion,
however, the present day religions are likely to die out and new,
nontheistic, worldviews will develop.
Right now, humanistic antiauthoritarians should be willing to work
together with people who have all sorts of views on religion and
philosophy. There should be no barriers set up in our revolutionary
organizations. But there should be discussions of real political issues.
Many anarchists who are religious are pacifists. While I respect their
views and am willing to work with them, I think this is a political
error. I do not think we should be in the same revolutionary
organization. Dealing with religious radicals, it is important to know
their views on women’s reproductive rights and on Gay liberation. These
issues may or may not be important areas of disagreement. In any case,
it is such immediate issues which most need to be discussed, not how we
think the universe is ultimately organized.