>
>>Religious traditions don't adapt, they have to be rebuilt from
>>scratch. The Catholic dogma was created as the official religion of
>>European feudalism
>
>Beg pardon? It was created several centuries before feudalism appeared.
Its a question of interpretation. So as not to let historical facts get in the way of a good theory, I've interpreted "Catholic dogma" narrowly and "feudalism" broadly.
Catholics will be furious that I date the birth of the Catholic church somewhere in the 4th century, after it became the official religion of the Roman empire. The early Christians seem, even to one with limited knowledge like myself, be be an entirely different kettle of fish.
Of course feudalism proper doesn't really get off the ground until after the fall of the Roman empire in the West, but in its late stages the Romans did fiddle around with freeing slaves to become serfs, in some parts of the empire. Especially those parts where there were labour shortages due to war. Freeing the slaves may not have really caught on widely in the empire, but chattel slavery also seems to have evolved somewhat too, from pure chattel slavery to a form of bonded serfdom. Roman culture of patronage system might, arguably, also be regarded as a forerunner of feudalism.
A bit thin perhaps, but as I say, ignorance is my strong point. So feel free to dispute my premises. I might learn something.
>
>> and the emerging capitalist system met stiff resistance. They had
>>to create their own religion - Protestantism - to compete. This new
>>religion is well adapted to the early accumulative stages of
>>capitalism, but is quite unsuitable for modern economic conditions.
>
>Again, tell that to American Protestants. Nothing is more suitable
>to current economic conditions than what is taught in these
>10,000-member megachurches. Get thee out, earn lots of money, buy
>lots of stuff, and ye shall inherit the earth. What could be more
>suitable?
Quite so. But come the next depression and "buy lots of stuff" will start to look like an outmoded dogma.
>> New churches have to be created every time conditions change and
>>they are constantly changing. So that there are more protestant
>>"Christian" churches than you can throw a stick at in modern
>>capitalist societies. All of them as redundant as last year's
>>software releases.
>
>So what do you mean by capitalism "challenging" religion? It's
>certainly a challenge religion is successfully meeting, by your own
>submission.
In the US perhaps. Though the peculiar religious cults that thrive there seem to be very agitated about something. I explained what I meant, capitalism keeps changing the ground rules, forcing changes to social relations. Can't be bothered repeating myself for people who weren't paying attention.
>>I don't see how you can deny that a mortal struggle is taking place
>>between existing religious authorities and capitalism. The basic
>>problem is that they have no authority under capitalism, people are
>>free to think for themselves.
>
>Well, they may have that freedom, but they can certainly choose not
>to exercise it, and most people do (at least in the US). They are
>perfectly free to be atheist, but they are just as free not to be,
>and 95% or so aren't.
Religion has already lost the battle in the US and most western nations. I think you are mistaking reactionary fury for victory. They can't enforce their dogmas, so they have to jump up and down a lot and put on a big show to get attention.
>> Christianity today is hardly a religion, it is a multitude of
>>religions with irreconcilable dogmas.
>
>You seem to have a very restricted, idiosyncratic definition of religion.
Maybe. I just make it up as I go along. But I'm amenable to contrary argument.
> Religions have always sprouted multitudes of sects with
>irreconcilable tenets; the nature of religion is to be vague and
>squishy.
Aren't those two assertions somewhat at odds?
>>I don't really understand what fundamentalism is. It seems to be
>>mainly a racket to fleece the gullible.
>
>That assumes that it was organized from the top down, consciously,
>as a way to make money. If you looked at it more closely, you would
>see that it is in fact, I'm sorry to say, a genuine popular,
>bottom-up movement.
Now you are straining credibility. Are you claiming that the followers are in fact the leaders? That they are forcing their money on the fat cats at the top of the hierarchy, who don't make any effort to encourage this?
> Socialism, which you and I would like to see as the deep yearning
>of the people, just doesn't appeal to the actual people; stuff like
>fundamentalist Christianity is what does light their fire.
Not in this man's country, pardner. Touch wood. Socialism doesn't seem to be at the top of many people's Xmas lists either though.
>So what are we going to do about it?
What to do about it is relatively simple at this stage, build class consciousness. There'll be no move in the direction of socialism without that, for sure. It seems sensible to at least start examining what the obstacles are. A study of the tactical significance of religion is what we're involved in here, so we are doing something about it.
The question in my mind is this, what means this reactionary religious sentiment in the US? Is it an indication of a tactical weakness of the US working class, or a tactical strength? That is to say, is state of class consciousness in the US so hopeless, thus giving rise to this religious mania? Or on the contrary perhaps are the US working class on the brink of an awakening of class consciousness and the religious fervour a desperate attempt to stave off such a disaster?
Buggered if I know really. I'm just prodding the beast to try to work out which way it might jump.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell tas