> Charles; I think there is more of a problem of bigotry of
> believers against non-believers than vice versa. That is my
> empirical experience. The believers have the power over the
> atheists, and their prejudice is thereby more actualized.
Sure but I'm not in the business of ranking all the problems of the world, but specifically the problem of how the U.S. left regards religious folks.
> . . . We atheists are the
> victims in the censorship of public expression of belief,not the
> theists of all types.
True but see above.
> . . .
> Charles said Also, Christianity is a slaves' religion. The mode
> of production in the Bible is slavery, old and new testaments.
> Christianity was a religion that over threw the Roman Empire,
> which was based on the slave mode. African slaves in America
> could identify with this central feature of the Bible, perhaps
> more than the white yeomen and women.
Maybe, but so what?
> Charles says: Perhaps a bigger problem than contemplating the
> afterlife is unquestioning respect for authority first of God and
> then transferred to the state and much official authority. Not
True as far as it goes, but this cuts many different ways. For instance, if authority of the state derives from God, then so too can the illegitimacy of the state if God changes His mind.
Another for instance: as a practical political matter, respect for authority combined with criticism of policy can be more effective politically than "militance." That is why Gandhi-type religious movements in the right context can be very effective: they are not threatening to the public at large, they maintain a halo of moral uprightness, and thereby attention focuses more on the content of the critical message.
> only must workers question authority if we are to have socialism.
As is all too clear now, religion is driving people to question authority, albeit often from a conservative standpoint. In the past it has had contrary political connotations (e.g., draft resistance, abolitionism, populism, etc.).
> They must be ready to take authority and be confident in their
> self-authority. This is the key to real democracy too, which is
Very well-taken.
> . . .
> This is the downside of the American anti-statism, Levellism, as
> expressed in the colonial aphorism " the least government is the
> best government." The American individualist hates the state so
> much he (and she) doesn't take the responsibilty of
> self-governance and taking over the state. Take the state ! This
Indeed, what we have to fear most from the religious right is theocracy, not anti-statism.
These traditions are real but altogether different from religious ones in the U.S. The populist case is particularly interesting, in that Jefferson, the author of your quote above, was a populist icon, but the populist program called for an expanded public sector as a bulwark against corporate power. Government was seen as a vehicle for the interests of "the whole people," in contrast to the machinations of the moneyed few. That's why I say Jefferson was appropriated by the populists more for opportunistic political purposes than doctrinal ones.
> process starts again. The organized groups have
> resources, but the upstarts have mobilized, highly-
> motivated people. You can decide which you think
> is more important. I go for Door Number 2.
>
> Charles asks: Is door number 2 organize the religious neophytes
> left politically ?
No, though probably overstated, it simply means pay attention to the seat-of-the-pants, upstart religious groups, not just to the established ones.
Cheers,
MBS