Inspired by some of the discussion in this thread. I don't think it's appropriate place for that discussion there, but hey why not have a separate thread for it

If I think religion is not good in general, am I Reddit and cringe and basically Richard Dawkins?

  • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Personally I take issue with fedoralords who were raised Christian constantly spewing hate about Muslims while having suspiciously Christian reactionary takes on everything.

    I think we can agree that those folks fall under the "Reddit Atheist" moniker

    Hmm...a Christian country and a Jewish ethnostate are committing Genocide against a Muslim populace, but yeah Islam is a good example of cultural domination and oppression.

    Did you read the linked thread? They were specifically discussing Islam. Christianity and Judaism are also awful and I've caught some mild flak for suggesting that Christian communists need to deeply examine their own religion and then bin it. I'm no defender of Dawkins and his weird notions of "cultural Christianity."

    Have there ever been any Muslim societies that weren't super oppressive as a result? What happened to them?

    I'm assuming this is rhetorical but they probably got rubbed out by ones that were, same with the most others. Religion in and of itself doesn't create oppressive institutions, it just provides a convenient set of tools to enable existing ones. The peaceful communities tend to be an exception and even supposed good examples like the Amish are super patriarchal and oppressive to women despite their relative lack of power.

    • boboblaw [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      2 months ago

      Did you read the linked thread?

      Yeah lol, I'm in the replies there too.

      My point is that it seems hypocritical for westerners to single out Islam, or otherwise imply that Islam is particularly bad, considering that the west (America) is the cause of so much of it. America has wiped out so many progressive or revolutionary Muslim states and installed repressive regimes in their place.

      So if religion is to blame, then these are ultimately the crimes of Christianity.

      But I don't think it's fair to blame religions. It seems imperialists could weaponize any belief system at all. Even the most innocuous religion, only preaching peace and love, could be co-opted and used as a smokescreen for endless bloodshed. That's kinda what happened with Christianity -- a pacifistic anti-imperialistic religion got co-opted by the empire it was resisting, and used to further imperial endeavors for centuries.

      Or like in Dune, when the liberatory religion of the Fremen gets co-opted and used to launch the galactic jihad.

      Practically speaking, I think being completely anti-religion is counterproductive, since the vast majority of people (especially in the global south) have some kind of religion. You have to meet people where they're at. Also, it's kind of a bad look when it's mostly militant atheists in the global north condemning the opiate of the masses.

      Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

      • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        My point is that it seems hypocritical for westerners to single out Islam, or otherwise imply that Islam is particularly bad, considering that the west (America) is the cause of so much of it. America has wiped out so many progressive or revolutionary Muslim states and installed repressive regimes in their place.

        It wasn't my intention to single out Islam or imply that it was somehow worse than any other religion, just note that we shouldn't be giving it a pass just because it's currently widely held among countries and peoples that are currently engaged in anti-imperialist struggle. It's also worth noting that these areas had secular socialist groups as well; Palestine had such groups until Israel decided to prop up Hamas as its preferred enemy. The Iranian revolution also had a mix of factions, not all of which were Islamist.

        But I don't think it's fair to blame religions. It seems imperialists could weaponize any belief system at all. Even the most innocuous religion, only preaching peace and love, could be co-opted and used as a smokescreen for endless bloodshed. That's kinda what happened with Christianity -- a pacifistic anti-imperialistic religion got co-opted by the empire it was resisting, and used to further imperial endeavors for centuries.

        It's not like Christianity was the innocent victim here; the early Church was happy to go along with the Roman Empire so long as it got a favored position. The modern notion of Jesus as a peace-and-love proto-hippie is contradicted in many places in the Bible (generally the parts that get glossed over nowadays), and there's probably a reason why the current flavors of Christianity rose to dominance while the harder-to-corral gnostics were stamped out. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that all religions are equal here - there's a reason we're not complaining about Zoroastrianism and Jainism right now - but it is my contention that religions tend to have common features that make them useful to imperialists, including a mandate to spread, the promise to followers of an afterlife that justifies the suffering incurred in this one, and a way to reinforce in-group/out-group divisions and paint the out-group as deserving of extermination and that the ones that are culturally dominant now have achieved that by successfully leveraging these ideas.

        Practically speaking, I think being completely anti-religion is counterproductive, since the vast majority of people (especially in the global south) have some kind of religion. You have to meet people where they're at. Also, it's kind of a bad look when it's mostly militant atheists in the global north condemning the opiate of the masses.

        The idea that religion is too entrenched in the Global South to be deposed has a whiff of paternalism and glosses over the secular and indigenous religious movements that have had to struggle against the dominant, colonially-imposed religion. The construction "militant atheists" is also pretty rich given the explicitly religious coding of the recent major conflicts (Bush described the Iraq invasion as a "crusade") and that similar terminology was wielded against the "godless" USSR.

        And then:

        The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

        • boboblaw [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think we largely agree.

          My issue with the "militant atheism" (not meant pejoratively) is just when it's directed towards the marginalized or countries of the global south. I have no problem with implenting state atheism in the wake of the revolution. Even on reddit, it was fine when it was directed at Christian fundamentalists in America, who wield substantial power. There was a sinister rhetorical shift with the reddit crowd and now it's just Nazi shit.

          and there's probably a reason why the current flavors of Christianity rose to dominance while the harder-to-corral gnostics were stamped out

          I suspect the "gnostics" were much closer to the original ideas than the Nicaeans were. Also Jesus gives me some real apocalyptic cult vibes.

          The idea that religion is too entrenched in the Global South to be deposed has a whiff of paternalism and glosses over the secular and indigenous religious movements that have had to struggle against the dominant, colonially-imposed religion.

          I kinda assumed things like indigenous religions would be included in the category of religion but I guess it's a good idea to make a distinction between organized religion centered on a strict institution like the Roman Catholic Church and disorganized (?) religion. I am mainly just acquainted with one form of European "paganism" and I don't really know much about pre-christian religion in general.

          The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness

          Agreed. I apologize if I've been overly combative. I've been seeing some surprisingly islamaphobic takes lately and may have overreacted.

          I'm not even at all religious, and was myself one of those fedoralords. I just can't help but side with the underdog lol (it's why I side with the gnostics).

          • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]
            ·
            2 months ago

            I agree that we agree. I also started out as a fedoralord so you have my sympathies, haha. I've observed a small but persistent tendency to fedorajacket on here so it's made me a little defensive on the topic, so I also apologize if I've been combative. I've been slowly drifting away from online atheist spaces so I might have missed some of the shift (although I was around for Elevatorgate and the conservative/progressive schism, so it's not like I've been totally unaware. Unfortunately it seems like the progressive voices in the movement are getting somewhat problematic, but that might just be my own leftward shift). I think there's still a major need for cultural projects and gathering spaces that don't rely on religion as a scaffolding but it seems like they've been difficult to make material outside of a few conferences and I'm not much of a conference-goer.

            I suspect the "gnostics" were much closer to the original ideas than the Nicaeans were. Also Jesus gives me some real apocalyptic cult vibes.
            Gnostic Christianity had some interesting ideas for sure. I think they were probably oddballs from the beginning, but I won't claim any particularly strong knowledge on the subject.

            I kinda assumed things like indigenous religions would be included in the category of religion but I guess it's a good idea to make a distinction between organized religion centered on a strict institution like the Roman Catholic Church and disorganized (?) religion. I am mainly just acquainted with one form of European "paganism" and I don't really know much about pre-christian religion in general.

            I have a bit of an underdog bias here, too. I don't think there's anything particularly special about indigenous belief systems but their persistence does illustrate that the Global South isn't monolithic in its belief systems and there have been strong movements to preserve cultures and belief systems in the face of persecution that I think (or at least hope) has resulted in more benign manifestations of belief than their culturally dominant counterparts. I was a major archaeology nerd when I was a kid so I knew about all the Egyptian deities and read a bunch of folklore. They all have their skeletons, but I think we can appreciate their contributions to cultural richness when we've reached the point where we can view them as fictions and lenses through which the world was shaped and understood.