[lbo-talk] RE: An Appeal to Ignorance

Marvin Gandall marvgandall at rogers.com
Tue Jun 14 16:52:42 PDT 2005


My apologies if this has already been canvassed on this long thread - I've dipped in and out of it - but isn't the more important distinction for our purposes not between athiesm and religion, but between liberals and conservatives within the religious communities? The former usually see religion as a private matter and promote tolerance, the latter often want to impose their morality on society through one form of holy war or another. This divide among believers affects our interests much more directly than the validity of their beliefs in themselves.

Seen in this light, I'm quite happy associating with religious liberals and pacifists who generally have progressive social views on most issues. I'm not inclined to discuss their beliefs with them unless invited to do so; I'd be concerned about appearing provocative in initiating such a discussion, especially since I don't see why such would be necessary. I certainly don't feel impelled to save them from an "opiate" in their fidelity to what they call "spirituality"; in many cases, their frequent activity in the antiwar and other social movements strongly suggests other than submission and passivity.

In the milieu I belong to, I don't have much personal contact with fundamentalists, but I have had some. In general, I think the fundamentalists need to be confronted politically insofar as they align themselves with the political right. But I think we should also be wary of writing them all off as irredeemably right-wing, which is contradicted by the historical record. Their religious views have to be taken into account as one of the elements influencing their political choices, but I think regional, ethnic, and class factors are equally important, and I would choose to engage them on this terrain rather than the supernatural one where they are unreachable given the strength of their convictions.

MG --------------------------------------- Joanna wrote:


> Religion = fundamentalism?
>
> joanna
>
> Carl Remick wrote:
>
>>> From: "Dennis Perrin" <dperrin at comcast.net>
>>>
>>> Personally, atheist disdain doesn't really bother me. I view it as a
>>> form of despair, esp when it's expressed through insults or, if one is
>>> feeling generous, condescension.
>>
>>
>> How interesting. IMO, it's *religion* that is a form of despair or at
>> least utter fatalism. I've thought about this often recently as the
>> nation's Hallejulah Chorus rejoices over the trashing of the welfare
>> state. Fundamentalists have no confidence at all in people's ability to
>> take hold of their destiny and shape it in a positive way through the
>> collective power of government. Basically they just want to sit
>> passively, roll their eyes up to heaven and hope that God will give 'em a
>> job or good health someday. Pathetic.
>>
>> Carl



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list