Yeah it felt a little weird typing it but I didn't have a better way to phrase it. I've been having trouble getting these thoughts into words - probably because I'm not religious - but I've been thinking a lot about how to take religion back, and I think that "God hates the bourgeoisie" is a more powerful and succinct message than "your entire belief system is basically a pyramid scheme, now let me explain why in detail."
I don't know, reading this back it seems like I'm trying to start an internet cult... all I really want is to get this conversation kicked off. I'm sure there are actually religious leftists who have better ideas on how to accomplish this.
Not a terrible idea on its face, but religion isn't the kind of thing you can pull on and throw off.
A lot of the power of religious institutions comes from the networking effect between members. The ceremony and morality play bind the group together and give them a common purpose.
But joining a religious institution means coming in at the bottom and conforming to the pre-established dictates. Leaders compete to appear the most righteous. You can't come in and simply make religious sounding noises to hijack the movement. You need to court leaders and lobby them into taking your side, often by parroting the devotions and proving yourself capable of bringing in more followers.
I think there's mileage in appealing to religious organizations with an adjoining secular message. And I think there's value in partnering with religious groups to pursue popular goals.
But I don't think you can just
take religion back
Not without immersing yourself within the faith in a manner that grants legitimacy. And that's hard for a secular person - particularly a sincere one - to achieve.
I'd actually typed up a little on that last point but I deleted it because my post was getting to be too long... That's the point that always trips me up, though. I'm trying to learn a little more about some of the early Christian atheists - I figure there might be something useful there? I've also been reading up on the history of major divisions in the church since those are always good opportunities to grab power.
I mean, I'm familiar with the gnostics somewhat. But I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian Atheists". Pretty much by definition, a Christian is someone who believes the Gospel stories and subsequent testimonies are accurate.
Specifically, I was thinking of the heresy of Jesuism, but I really meant atheist in a more classical sense. I guess agnostic or even skeptic would have been a better word choice, but still not quite right... I'm referring to the theologians who have denied the literal existence of God, or at least the concept of a personal god who might intervene on our behalf, without explicitly rejecting Christianity. You could also lump deists into this group.
And side note, there's an interesting figure from the Episcopal Church's history named William Montgomery Brown. He made his name as a bishop publishing his pro-segregation views, which angered some northerners but was generally seen as okay, and then he found Marxism and developed a more materialist view of God as a symbol, which led him to become the first bishop in America to be tried for heretical teachings. Luckily for him, he got bids from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Church, neither of which considered his teachings to be heresy I guess? And because the Episcopal Church considered these churches to be valid, they couldn't take away his role in the apostolic succession.
As a bishop, he renounced his views on segregation and took up the cause of anti-racism at the pulpit. He published a book called Communism and Christianity (which I haven't read), followed up by Teachings of Marx for Girls and Boys (which I also haven't read but goddamn that is a funny title).
I’m referring to the theologians who have denied the literal existence of God, or at least the concept of a personal god who might intervene on our behalf, without explicitly rejecting Christianity. You could also lump deists into this group.
I see what you mean. I just... don't see a lot of political mileage in Deism. The idea of the Clockwork Deity is interesting to theological academics, but not terribly inspiring for activists or revolutionaries.
And side note, there’s an interesting figure from the Episcopal Church’s history named William Montgomery Brown. He made his name as a bishop publishing his pro-segregation views, which angered some northerners but was generally seen as okay, and then he found Marxism and developed a more materialist view of God as a symbol, which led him to become the first bishop in America to be tried for heretical teachings. Luckily for him, he got bids from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Church, neither of which considered his teachings to be heresy I guess? And because the Episcopal Church considered these churches to be valid, they couldn’t take away his role in the apostolic succession.
As a bishop, he renounced his views on segregation and took up the cause of anti-racism at the pulpit. He published a book called Communism and Christianity (which I haven’t read), followed up by Teachings of Marx for Girls and Boys (which I also haven’t read but goddamn that is a funny title).
That's cool as hell. But I'd consider it more of an exception than a rule.
Most people alive today are driven by religious and spiritual beliefs, they aren't gonna become le epic reddit logic atheists overnight even after the revolution.
they aren’t gonna become le epic reddit logic atheists
Le epic :reddit-logo: logic atheists are driven by religious and spiritual beliefs with extra steps, especially regarding :my-hero: and "singularity" nerd rapture fantasies, not to mention "Effective Altruism" and its "longtermist" takes about how climate change and environmental collapse don't matter because trillions of cyber-angels dancing on the head of a pin a billion years from now is more important, and that the supposed priority for making that happen is predictably making the rich richer right now.
I've gotten into so many arguments about longtermism in the past week... I explained the concept using quotes from the founders of the ideology and they just responded with "Well how come the Wikipedia article doesn't mention that?"
Exactly. It's not a matter of whether people should or shouldn't become religious - they already are. We can either accept that and try to find a way to reach them or let them fall prey to the religious right.
there's no need to engage on that basis. helping your community is helping your community, bringing jesus into it is just extra steps.
like, we all understand why patsocs wrapping themselves in the flag is stupid and bad, why is it so hard to apply the same reasoning to carrying a cross? all it does is let child rapists and scam artists steal your valor.
I get that sentiment, but religion is a powerful weapon and right now the reactionaries are the ones who wield it. We can try to extinguish it when it's no longer useful, but I don't think we can really combat religion in the near-term without alienating a huge contingent of the working class. It's just more expedient to co-opt it than to wait for people's material conditions to devolve to the point where they lose their faith.
I don't think we need like, official party doctrine or something, but maybe some sort of parallel universalist ecclesiastic body with a focus on community building and liberation that can be adapted to fit different cultural narratives? I haven't really worked a lot of these thoughts out yet.
religion was never "ours" there's no "back" here. we could take it but organized religion has always been reactionary and people aren't going to do any better of a job following a commie bible than they do the real one.
I think the book is less important than the community of shared values. If you go to a Baptist sermon then you are going to get a very different view of what the Bible asks of you than if you were to attend a Catholic mass or an Episcopal service. If you go to that same church every single Sunday and engage with your community as part of the group, there's a good chance you'll internalize some of their beliefs.
But that's not really my point. What do we do in the short-term to combat religious extremism under the present conditions without alienating the largely religious working class? That's the question I'm trying to investigate. If co-opting religion isn't the answer then I'm perfectly fine with that, but we have to try something, right?
i genuinely think widening the gulf between actual serious believers and normal people would help
you say the "largely religious" working class, but it's like 60% and falling, and having been in moderate churches, those people could all take or leave the organized part. wouldn't miss the org if there was literally any community thing to replace the habit.
building the mutual aid we want to do anyway and doing community stuff that churches (don't) do (nearly as much of as they milk for the reputation) and without holding somebody's sandwich hostage until they listen to us yak about jesus and sin gets you all the benefit of trying to appropriate religion without any of the idealism, falsehoods, or magical thinking.
but... we need to actually do all that mutual aid stuff and in america that's kinda hit or miss.
Yeah it felt a little weird typing it but I didn't have a better way to phrase it. I've been having trouble getting these thoughts into words - probably because I'm not religious - but I've been thinking a lot about how to take religion back, and I think that "God hates the bourgeoisie" is a more powerful and succinct message than "your entire belief system is basically a pyramid scheme, now let me explain why in detail."
I don't know, reading this back it seems like I'm trying to start an internet cult... all I really want is to get this conversation kicked off. I'm sure there are actually religious leftists who have better ideas on how to accomplish this.
Not a terrible idea on its face, but religion isn't the kind of thing you can pull on and throw off.
A lot of the power of religious institutions comes from the networking effect between members. The ceremony and morality play bind the group together and give them a common purpose.
But joining a religious institution means coming in at the bottom and conforming to the pre-established dictates. Leaders compete to appear the most righteous. You can't come in and simply make religious sounding noises to hijack the movement. You need to court leaders and lobby them into taking your side, often by parroting the devotions and proving yourself capable of bringing in more followers.
I think there's mileage in appealing to religious organizations with an adjoining secular message. And I think there's value in partnering with religious groups to pursue popular goals.
But I don't think you can just
Not without immersing yourself within the faith in a manner that grants legitimacy. And that's hard for a secular person - particularly a sincere one - to achieve.
I'd actually typed up a little on that last point but I deleted it because my post was getting to be too long... That's the point that always trips me up, though. I'm trying to learn a little more about some of the early Christian atheists - I figure there might be something useful there? I've also been reading up on the history of major divisions in the church since those are always good opportunities to grab power.
I mean, I'm familiar with the gnostics somewhat. But I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian Atheists". Pretty much by definition, a Christian is someone who believes the Gospel stories and subsequent testimonies are accurate.
Specifically, I was thinking of the heresy of Jesuism, but I really meant atheist in a more classical sense. I guess agnostic or even skeptic would have been a better word choice, but still not quite right... I'm referring to the theologians who have denied the literal existence of God, or at least the concept of a personal god who might intervene on our behalf, without explicitly rejecting Christianity. You could also lump deists into this group.
And side note, there's an interesting figure from the Episcopal Church's history named William Montgomery Brown. He made his name as a bishop publishing his pro-segregation views, which angered some northerners but was generally seen as okay, and then he found Marxism and developed a more materialist view of God as a symbol, which led him to become the first bishop in America to be tried for heretical teachings. Luckily for him, he got bids from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Church, neither of which considered his teachings to be heresy I guess? And because the Episcopal Church considered these churches to be valid, they couldn't take away his role in the apostolic succession.
As a bishop, he renounced his views on segregation and took up the cause of anti-racism at the pulpit. He published a book called Communism and Christianity (which I haven't read), followed up by Teachings of Marx for Girls and Boys (which I also haven't read but goddamn that is a funny title).
I see what you mean. I just... don't see a lot of political mileage in Deism. The idea of the Clockwork Deity is interesting to theological academics, but not terribly inspiring for activists or revolutionaries.
That's cool as hell. But I'd consider it more of an exception than a rule.
eww no
Most people alive today are driven by religious and spiritual beliefs, they aren't gonna become le epic reddit logic atheists overnight even after the revolution.
Le epic :reddit-logo: logic atheists are driven by religious and spiritual beliefs with extra steps, especially regarding :my-hero: and "singularity" nerd rapture fantasies, not to mention "Effective Altruism" and its "longtermist" takes about how climate change and environmental collapse don't matter because trillions of cyber-angels dancing on the head of a pin a billion years from now is more important, and that the supposed priority for making that happen is predictably making the rich richer right now.
I've gotten into so many arguments about longtermism in the past week... I explained the concept using quotes from the founders of the ideology and they just responded with "Well how come the Wikipedia article doesn't mention that?"
A very good question asked in very bad faith! :sus-soviet:
you're giving the average person way too much credit on their ideological consistency or adherence.
The spiritual beliefs don't have to be ideologically consistent but the fact remains that most people overall hold some kind of spiritual worldview.
Exactly. It's not a matter of whether people should or shouldn't become religious - they already are. We can either accept that and try to find a way to reach them or let them fall prey to the religious right.
there's no need to engage on that basis. helping your community is helping your community, bringing jesus into it is just extra steps.
like, we all understand why patsocs wrapping themselves in the flag is stupid and bad, why is it so hard to apply the same reasoning to carrying a cross? all it does is let child rapists and scam artists steal your valor.
nah but we can still get rid of their churches
I get that sentiment, but religion is a powerful weapon and right now the reactionaries are the ones who wield it. We can try to extinguish it when it's no longer useful, but I don't think we can really combat religion in the near-term without alienating a huge contingent of the working class. It's just more expedient to co-opt it than to wait for people's material conditions to devolve to the point where they lose their faith.
I don't think we need like, official party doctrine or something, but maybe some sort of parallel universalist ecclesiastic body with a focus on community building and liberation that can be adapted to fit different cultural narratives? I haven't really worked a lot of these thoughts out yet.
religion was never "ours" there's no "back" here. we could take it but organized religion has always been reactionary and people aren't going to do any better of a job following a commie bible than they do the real one.
I think the book is less important than the community of shared values. If you go to a Baptist sermon then you are going to get a very different view of what the Bible asks of you than if you were to attend a Catholic mass or an Episcopal service. If you go to that same church every single Sunday and engage with your community as part of the group, there's a good chance you'll internalize some of their beliefs.
But that's not really my point. What do we do in the short-term to combat religious extremism under the present conditions without alienating the largely religious working class? That's the question I'm trying to investigate. If co-opting religion isn't the answer then I'm perfectly fine with that, but we have to try something, right?
i genuinely think widening the gulf between actual serious believers and normal people would help
you say the "largely religious" working class, but it's like 60% and falling, and having been in moderate churches, those people could all take or leave the organized part. wouldn't miss the org if there was literally any community thing to replace the habit.
building the mutual aid we want to do anyway and doing community stuff that churches (don't) do (nearly as much of as they milk for the reputation) and without holding somebody's sandwich hostage until they listen to us yak about jesus and sin gets you all the benefit of trying to appropriate religion without any of the idealism, falsehoods, or magical thinking.
but... we need to actually do all that mutual aid stuff and in america that's kinda hit or miss.