Joanna Sheldon wrote:
> Carrol,
>
> What does it mean, to relate to religious people?
>
Work with them politically without either concealing one's own position *or* attacking their beliefs. When clashes occur look for common ground. Don't introduce merely extraneous issues to debate. (When I and the President of the local NAACP attended a black church to register people to vote during the Jackson campaign we both winced and grimaced at each other during parts of the sermon, but that didn't affect our registering quite a few new voters. And Jackson's giving at least verbal assent to "pro-choice" politics didn't hurt him with the ministers who hated abortion.) Most political activity is coalition activity and there are (explicitly or implicitly) principles of unity sufficient for the purposes of the coalition.
Similarly, my wife was president for a number of years of her APWU local, in which a number of the other activists were also actively religious; they knew she was a communist and an atheist and didn't hassle her, she didn't hassle them over their religion.
I'm really serious that in actual political work religion seldom becomes an issue. I can give you some rough and ready instructions on how to knead bread (which is all any cookbooks I've ever seen do), but there is no way either of us can know for sure that what gets transformed into your fingers is what I had in my head. There simply has not been a sufficient separation of mental and manual labor in the case of bread-making. On the other hand, there are a large number of casseroles which you can make perfectly the first time just by following cookbook instructions carefully. That is the criterion for the separation of thought and action in a given activity: Can you produce a handbook which will guarantee something is "foolthat everyone performs the task in the same way? (That's essentially what we mean when we say something is "foolproof": that there is a perfect match between -- i.e. a total separation of -- theory and practice. One of the remarkable things in post-ww2 track and field events was the way (with the help of various high speed equipment) running, throwing, etc. got theorized in ways that that theory could be applied. The fields of cooking and athletics are the best fields I know of for illustrating various degrees of unity and separation of thought and action.
One simply can't theorize (in any useful way) a good deal of daily practice (political or non-political). Say you are doing house-to-house canvassing of some sort -- perhaps carrying a solidarity statement or petition around. If someone is really hostile, how do you disengate quickly? If someone is really friendly, how do you know when you are imposing on their time by lingering, or blowing away their excitement by leaving too soon? Big deal theory: Don't linger too long and don't leave too quickly. When you knead bread add just enough but not too much flour. (Actually, I used to bake bread fairly frequently but haven't for quite awhile and can't remember some things off the top of my head. But if you live away from the largest metropolises and like good bread, baking it yourself is the only way to get it.)
Now if go to speak to a group and it has Cal Thomas as a member -- just go away. And then there are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Some years ago my wife got a union organizing committee going among clerical workers at ISU. One of the best people on it came to her one day and said, I'm sorry, but I'll have to quit. I just joined the Jehovah's Witnesses! Nothing to do but nod politely.
Carrol