Carl Remick wrote:
> Re: "I struggle against concluding that
> Marxism's role in the movement for justice and freedom and all the rest
> has
> been overall very negative and pathological. Marxists could indeed learn
> a
> lot from the Christian Left."
>
> The recent ad hominem attacks that have take place on this list have
> been unproductive, tiresome and foolish. However, I rankle at the
> suggestion that a religion-based approach to social problems is
> inherently better than a Marxist one. It is hard to believe that the
> Christian Left is more immune to sectarianism than has been any other
> branch of Christianity over 2,000 years of blood-soaked conflict among
> the devout . My efforts in recent years to take religion more seriously
> have been unrewarding. The more I ponder the Abrahamic faiths, at
> least, the more I conclude they are all hard-wired to breed mutual
> intolerance. I much admire T. H. Huxley for introducing the concept of
> agnosticism and suggesting that *any* religious doctrine is impertinent
> because it presumes to know the unknowable. Increasingly, freedom
> *from* religion strikes me as at least as important as freedom of
> speech.
>
> Carl Remick
Carl:
Marxists do not have a good track record with regard to tolerance, and I'm saying this as someone who has been very much a Marxist. And it is an "Abrahamic" religion in any case.
Moderate Christians with left politics do seem to have the most advanced levels of tolerance of any group however, at least in my experience. They are more respectful to those with whom they disagree, and are not prone to factionalism, with a few exceptions. When was the last time a secular left group stayed together for 5 years without a split or purge?
Yours,
Eric