Religious comrades good but many religious claims and beliefs must be challenged. Many are incompatible, antithetical to liberation, reinforcing patriarchical systems, gender normativity homophobia, classism, ethnic "purity", victim blaming, and a deprioritization of material struggle.
Which is not to say it's always the most important thing to highlight these things in every context, nor that you should withhold critical support for AES and revolution by inevitably imperfect movements. We must have solidarity.
many religious claims and beliefs must be challenged
Going to be hard to believe, but religious doctrine is a constantly evolving thing in pretty much every faith. Dogma is largely mythical and intersectional religious tolerance is routinely understated, particularly by hyper-partisan spectacle focused mass media.
Shouting "You idiots! Why don't you learn to think for yourselves!" at people who have been grappling with the finer points of their faith for their entire lives is wildly disrespectful and exactly the sort of shit organizers shouldn't be doing.
We must have solidarity.
Solidarity is a tricky thing as it demands a certain level of rigidity to build a foundation, but also a level of flexibility to grow and expand a movement.
It's helpful to define what you're building solidarity around. If "a strict commitment to atheism" isn't it, try not to turn that into a sticking point.
Solidarity is a tricky thing as it demands a certain level of rigidity to build a foundation, but also a level of flexibility to grow and expand a movement.
I think I said this elsewhere but the Bible was written in the early iron age for an early iron age audience and it simply isn't materialist (the belief that ideas come from your influences) to not factor in that the cultural and material reality of that context won't influence how they interact with God and religion.
The Bible was written and modified over a super long time that includes basically all of the three big historical ages, and of course for and by different cultural groups (and individuals).
But I'm not sure what understanding that context - and people who draw from that legacy, which you've mentioned - has to do with what I said.
You have to consider the context to determine the meaning of what it says, the part that would stand out as odd to the intended audience is generally the message, for example the sacrifice of Isaac human sacrifice was common and not unexpected but the refusal and command to not practice human sacrifice would have been the surprising twist
But I'm not talking about interpreting texts... just religious beliefs. We don't need to argue about someone's religious text to know that the transphobic belief that they support through, say, the Genesis narrative is both religious and part of oppression. It's the kind of thing that would come up when supporting bathroom bills or stripping funding that supports trans kids.
I have to wonder how some of the folks here reconcile, for example, these two things:
Trans rights are human rights, we love our trans comrades.
We shouldn't reject transphobic religious beliefs.
I know you aren't saying exactly the latter, but folks seem to think that it's something they need to argue about. Some religious beliefs and the need for liberation are incompatible and we must support liberation. And then, when this ideal cannot be reached due to factors outside of our control, we must consider compromises, as all socialists do. The socialist candidate in Peru has some regressive beliefs and I'm sure many would be considered religious. I think most of us can give critical support anyways, since we think that having a problematic comrade will help a lot of people and that new harms are likely to be small. Though there's plenty of healthy discussion to have around such topics.
Alternatively, just consider the other side of the implied dichotomy: "we should not reject any religious beliefs". I don't think people are usually explicitly subscribing to this, but it's the implication behind taking issue with the qualified statement of "we must reject some religious beliefs".
This would be completely untenable even in theory, because the gamut of religious beliefs are frequently mutually exclusive and have real material impacts, even on the class struggle. You will have a negative position on some religious beliefs if you are socialist. e.g., prosperity gospel. Add liberation movements to the struggle, as this community certainly does, and the number of rejections will only increase.
We shouldn’t reject transphobic religious beliefs.
I certainly didn't intend to send this message. Reactionary beliefs should 1000% be rejected.
The point of the meme is that religious comrades are being rejected, ie. people who actually believe in liberation for all and want to work towards building socialism. The evangelical chuds can fuck all the way off.
Oh absolutely OP! My first comment was 100% on board with your post and so are these. These replies down here are just to people who seem to think that opposing some religious positions (regressive/oppressive ones) is problematic.
Hell yeah comrade :sankara-salute: :heart-sickle: I just wanted to clarify because other posters itt seem to think I was implying "accept bigots cuz religion". Transphobes, homophobes and all variety of garbage reactionaries can eat my fat shits.
I don't think Christianity actually has anything to say about transgender people explicitly, I would not be surprised if there was a lot of "I'm uncomfortable with it so shall project that belief as religious doctrine". Prosperity gospel also has very little behind it and rather than being a mainstream belief has a very small group of looked down upon practitioners.
Religious comrades good but many religious claims and beliefs must be challenged. Many are incompatible, antithetical to liberation, reinforcing patriarchical systems, gender normativity homophobia, classism, ethnic "purity", victim blaming, and a deprioritization of material struggle.
Which is not to say it's always the most important thing to highlight these things in every context, nor that you should withhold critical support for AES and revolution by inevitably imperfect movements. We must have solidarity.
Going to be hard to believe, but religious doctrine is a constantly evolving thing in pretty much every faith. Dogma is largely mythical and intersectional religious tolerance is routinely understated, particularly by hyper-partisan spectacle focused mass media.
Shouting "You idiots! Why don't you learn to think for yourselves!" at people who have been grappling with the finer points of their faith for their entire lives is wildly disrespectful and exactly the sort of shit organizers shouldn't be doing.
Solidarity is a tricky thing as it demands a certain level of rigidity to build a foundation, but also a level of flexibility to grow and expand a movement.
It's helpful to define what you're building solidarity around. If "a strict commitment to atheism" isn't it, try not to turn that into a sticking point.
Removed by mod
Be. clap
Like. clap
Trees. clap
please elaborate
"certain level of rigidity to build a foundation" - trunks/roots
"level of flexibility to grow and expand" - branches and leaves and all that good stuff.
Ah I thought you meant stand outside doing nothing
Me, staring at a screen, cringe.
Trees, standing outside and doing nothing in the sun, based.
:meow-fiesta:
Yup, what PeludoPorFavor said.
I think I said this elsewhere but the Bible was written in the early iron age for an early iron age audience and it simply isn't materialist (the belief that ideas come from your influences) to not factor in that the cultural and material reality of that context won't influence how they interact with God and religion.
The Bible was written and modified over a super long time that includes basically all of the three big historical ages, and of course for and by different cultural groups (and individuals).
But I'm not sure what understanding that context - and people who draw from that legacy, which you've mentioned - has to do with what I said.
You have to consider the context to determine the meaning of what it says, the part that would stand out as odd to the intended audience is generally the message, for example the sacrifice of Isaac human sacrifice was common and not unexpected but the refusal and command to not practice human sacrifice would have been the surprising twist
But I'm not talking about interpreting texts... just religious beliefs. We don't need to argue about someone's religious text to know that the transphobic belief that they support through, say, the Genesis narrative is both religious and part of oppression. It's the kind of thing that would come up when supporting bathroom bills or stripping funding that supports trans kids.
I have to wonder how some of the folks here reconcile, for example, these two things:
Trans rights are human rights, we love our trans comrades.
We shouldn't reject transphobic religious beliefs.
I know you aren't saying exactly the latter, but folks seem to think that it's something they need to argue about. Some religious beliefs and the need for liberation are incompatible and we must support liberation. And then, when this ideal cannot be reached due to factors outside of our control, we must consider compromises, as all socialists do. The socialist candidate in Peru has some regressive beliefs and I'm sure many would be considered religious. I think most of us can give critical support anyways, since we think that having a problematic comrade will help a lot of people and that new harms are likely to be small. Though there's plenty of healthy discussion to have around such topics.
Alternatively, just consider the other side of the implied dichotomy: "we should not reject any religious beliefs". I don't think people are usually explicitly subscribing to this, but it's the implication behind taking issue with the qualified statement of "we must reject some religious beliefs".
This would be completely untenable even in theory, because the gamut of religious beliefs are frequently mutually exclusive and have real material impacts, even on the class struggle. You will have a negative position on some religious beliefs if you are socialist. e.g., prosperity gospel. Add liberation movements to the struggle, as this community certainly does, and the number of rejections will only increase.
I certainly didn't intend to send this message. Reactionary beliefs should 1000% be rejected.
The point of the meme is that religious comrades are being rejected, ie. people who actually believe in liberation for all and want to work towards building socialism. The evangelical chuds can fuck all the way off.
Oh absolutely OP! My first comment was 100% on board with your post and so are these. These replies down here are just to people who seem to think that opposing some religious positions (regressive/oppressive ones) is problematic.
Love my religious comrades.
Hell yeah comrade :sankara-salute: :heart-sickle: I just wanted to clarify because other posters itt seem to think I was implying "accept bigots cuz religion". Transphobes, homophobes and all variety of garbage reactionaries can eat my fat shits.
I don't think Christianity actually has anything to say about transgender people explicitly, I would not be surprised if there was a lot of "I'm uncomfortable with it so shall project that belief as religious doctrine". Prosperity gospel also has very little behind it and rather than being a mainstream belief has a very small group of looked down upon practitioners.
"God created two genders: man and woman. It's right in Genesis."
Have you ever argued with a Christian transphobe?
Don't transgender people transition from male to female or vice versa. That says nothing about that
Trans includes non-binary and these sorts of bigots consider gender to be a hard set-in-stone-from-birth dichotomy.
I don't really want to give more examples because then I'd need to add a CW.
Sorry I have just never heard a religious person bring up the issue