Religion

79 posts / 0 new
Last post
Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 1 2007 20:58
Religion

Greetings from Sweden, this is my first time posting here and I am obviously not a member.

I have a question concerning your platform. Why do you oppose religion.

I would say that there are cults that need to be opposed, but that there are also certain religions that are in no way, as I see it, neccessary to oppose.

The state doesn't rely upon religion as a means towards oppression anymore, the official dogma of the state is almost always, at least for multi-cultural societies (with the possible exception of the USA), atheist or pluralistic, allying with no religion in particular. In my country, the state Church was abolished in the year 2000.

The role of religion is different in today's capitalist society than it was 150 years ago. People do not longer go to Church because they are forced to do so, but because they desire to do so, they find support in the Church or are attracted to it's message of social justice and aiding those in need. At least that's why I go to Church, I see Jesus Christ as an anarchist.

This is not only true for Christianity, though, I think Islam is doing well for the oppressed people of Palestine and Lebanon and there are probably more examples.

Peace!

Blacknred Ned
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 1 2007 21:17

Hi Swede,
when I first went to the Anarchist Bookfair in London, erm many years ago now, there always used to be a Christian Anarchist group there. It comes as no surprise that there are Christians in this world who are anarchists, in fact I directed a Christian friend of mine to a website run by such types just recently.

I would see a person's attitude to matters spiritual as highly personal and would certainly not have a problem with working with someone who believes in a god or gods. The problem is that there are few religionists who are happy to keep it to themselves and not proselytise. Believing that you know how to get hold of the keys to the kingdom of heaven is heady stuff and often seems to lead people to a rather intolerant standpoint.

On a scientific point, I would say that belief in a creator is highly problematic for me. Not only do I think that it is a fairytale but I think that it is a pernicious one at that. You see the idea of a Universe of emergent complexity without a creator lends itself, for me, much more to an anarchist philosophy than the idea of Creation. Self organisation as a principle has fundamentally natural origins but then I have read too much Bookchin perhaps.

Religion is, of course, not the same as spirituality. Organised churches tend predominantly towards dogma and discipline, oppressive social codes and intolerance. The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth may well be full of egalitarian and even liberatory potential but much of his work and that of his followers has been more or less expunged from the orthodox canon by the church set up inhis name. Now I love the idea of a utopian communist teacher from Galilee but all of the Son of God, Trinity and, perhaps above all sin stuff is just so many more links in the chain.

And it's those links in the chain that have drawn the criticism, condemnation and direct action of anarchists over the years. It's not a rejection of Jesus as such, it's a rejection of the hypocrisy, venality and exploitation perpetrated in his name. The state is far from being the only source of hierarchical oppression and one of the wellsprings of oppression in our culture is the idea of sin.

So, here's what I think: if your god is a god of love beyond all understanding (and if he is then why did he demand a blood sacrifice to cleanse us of sin?) then he/she/it probably has no concept of sin and demands neither worship nor guilt-ridden confession or penitence. Those who die will be "saved" from death regardless because that is what I would do for my children and I don't even claim to have love beyond all understanding. That being the case, religion is a complete blind alley and a distraction from living according to our own ethical lights using the reason that we are born with.

Oh & Peace & liberty to you too my friend.

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 4 2007 12:04

Hi guys

Pesonally, I really don't see why any anarchist should object to, say, the bible. However this hierachy within the church gets up my nerves- it seems to me that the bible aims to discourage that along with all the doctrine and blind faith. Judging by my muslim friends beliefs i would say islam can also be used in a non-organised manner.

What worries me is the idea of the extremists who take a really authoriatarian attitude by telling people what to believe, i refer to both religious people and atheists. We've seen quite a few of them from both sides recently with all the intelegent design.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 4 2007 12:21

Swede, swing by Saudi Arabia some time and tell the political dissidents that religion is never used as a tool of state oppression. Or if that's a bit of a mish for you, tell it to women in Ireland who are denied the right to choose to have an abortion.

Don't get me wrong, these things have deeper, material roots, and generally that should be our focus, but I don't see why that means we should give religion any easier a time than bourgeois concepts of citizenship or rights, which are also used to prop up oppressive institutions*.

The bit of the Aims and Principles you're referring to is about organised religion, not religion per se, anyway, we do have members who are in some way religious or (urgh) "spiritual".

*Millitant atheism is shite, mind you.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 4 2007 13:03
_Arwen_ wrote:
Hi guys

Pesonally, I really don't see why any anarchist should object to, say, the bible.

You mean aside from the support and legislation of slavery, the insistence on female subjugation and the positive presentation of rape, plunder, war and genocide? Sure, nothing wrong with it from an anarchist perspective. roll eyes

_Arwen_ wrote:
What worries me is the idea of the extremists who take a really authoriatarian attitude by telling people what to believe, i refer to both religious people and atheists. We've seen quite a few of them from both sides recently with all the intelegent design.

The real problem is this whole notion of "supernatural", which makes no sense on either side. Angels aren't any less unworldly than quarks; that's not what makes contemporary physics better than Medieval science.

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 5 2007 11:03

It's true to say that both religion and atheism have been used for some pretty terrible things throughout the past- but whether its religion being used to justify crusades or 'athiest science' to justify slavery and persecution, it's alway the government or at least some other authority which is to blame. Personally, i would conclude what we we all know all ready- relious people, agnostics and atheists or all capable of copeing without someone telling them what to do - down with the pope! :biggrin:

Blacknred Ned
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 5 2007 11:25

Oh yeah Revol "You're thick!" is a great way to get people on side. Lucky for everyone you're an anarchist and not a diplomat!

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 5 2007 11:38
St Paul wrote:
1: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

End of.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 5 2007 11:44
_Arwen_ wrote:
It's true to say that both religion and atheism have been used for some pretty terrible things throughout the past- but whether its religion being used to justify crusades or 'athiest science' to justify slavery and persecution, it's alway the government or at least some other authority which is to blame. Personally, i would conclude what we we all know all ready- relious people, agnostics and atheists or all capable of copeing without someone telling them what to do - down with the pope! :biggrin:

There isn't any one "atheism" any more than there's a singular "theism", ideologies that include atheism as one of their central tenants can be used against the working class, obviously, but rationality (as opposed to rationalism) has to be the basis for our politics, otherwise, we have no grounds for saying that, say, we're right and fascists are wrong.

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 5 2007 12:02
_Arwen_ wrote:
It's true to say that both religion and atheism have been used for some pretty terrible things throughout the past- but whether its religion being used to justify crusades or 'athiest science' to justify slavery and persecution, it's alway the government or at least some other authority which is to blame. Personally, i would conclude what we we all know all ready- relious people, agnostics and atheists or all capable of copeing without someone telling them what to do - down with the pope! :biggrin:

If this is supposed to be a reply to me, then you're addressing a strawman: I was referring to the Bible specifically, not to "religion" or anything as abstract as that.

I don't know if I've made it clear before, but I find the distinction theist/atheist spurious and intellectually vapid. "Religion" and "atheism" are mostly used to feed people's feelings of superiority over others; they're useless when it comes to analyzing reality, and talking about what is to be done in practice.

Blacknred Ned
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 5 2007 12:36

I take your point Revol, and I'm sorry to say that I haven't managed top forget the Lord's Prayer yet myself. The people who don't want to discuss religion or politics are annoying but not all religious people are like that.

There are plenty of basically good people around who have faith of some sort and who will be needed if we are going to try to change things for the better. My position is that we should not want a window on people's souls & that we should practice tolerance ourselves. This is not to say that we should pander to practices we abhor but that we should at least be open to living with other people's beliefs, however apparently strange.

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 5 2007 14:26

Well, i respect you for saying that personally you find it hard to respect the opinions of those who have religious beliefs. But i would encourage everyone rethink their own views of those around them. If not because of the 'pc' reasons that they are humans too etc, then because without them we'd all miss out.

I went to the Ukraine a couple of years ago and met a guy called Misha, he was what you might call a preacher except that his sermons were very spontaneous and anyone was free to lead. He had been sent to a gulag in siberia during the soviet era (for meeting with other christians), but after his release had made waves amoungst the persecuted gypsy population. This is of course a very hard job, many of his 'fellow churchmen' acted like arseholes 'why help these saviges' and many non-religious groups responded similarly. His explaination was that he was given his strenght to do his job by god. Now i don't know if god did anything for him or wether his ordeal in the gulag hardened him and made him more open minded. But i have never, in my life met such an open minded, excepting person. He did not view anyone as being of less value then anyone else and said the inspiration came from the bible, which when he showed me the texts i saw was true. Everyone struggles to empathise with people who view the world in a way that is radically different to the way they see it, but i think it's quite important to try.

Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 5 2007 18:06

Don't quite know how to quote, but I would like to start off by replying to Blacknred Ned. Not Ned Flanders, I hope, ho-hum!

To me, the idea that the universe hyas not got a creator seems very much unlikely. Sure, I believe in dinosaurs, evolution and the big bang theory, I'm not a fundamentalist, I belive the Bible is full of metaphors. What I do believe in is that there was someone who started the big bang process.

The Bible teaches us that God is love and that there is nothing left from the law of the Old Testament, but faith, hope and love and of these things, love is the greatest. To me, obeying the law of love over the law of capitalists, makes me anarchist. The only law I will obey is that of love for my fellow man. The Bible is also full of stories of men of God who revolt against kings and priests and there is a passage somewhere which says that at sometimes, it is better to obey God than to obey men.

I don't know either why you make sin out to be such a big thing. Christians are forbidden to pass judgement on their neighbour, that is up to God alone. We cannot say that someone is a sinner and will burn in hell. I know some Christians do, but if they do so, then they don't follow Scripture. The concept of sin is very much a concept that Christians follow on a personal level in the sense that we try to avoid sinning (which is impossible, Jesus Christ and his mother alone were free from sin), very much like vegans miss out on vitamins by not eating meat. I don't think many people raise eyebrows over anarchist vegans despite of that fact, but their way of life, despite missing out on vitamins, is a personal choice and respected by most. I can't see why the same couldn't be true for Christian anarchists. AT least not, since history is full of them, Leo Tolstoy, Aamon Hennacy, Jaques Ellul, Peter Maurin to name a few.

Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 5 2007 18:13

Madashell said=

Quote:
Swede, swing by Saudi Arabia some time and tell the political dissidents that religion is never used as a tool of state oppression. Or if that's a bit of a mish for you, tell it to women in Ireland who are denied the right to choose to have an abortion.

Don't get me wrong, these things have deeper, material roots, and generally that should be our focus, but I don't see why that means we should give religion any easier a time than bourgeois concepts of citizenship or rights, which are also used to prop up oppressive institutions*.

The bit of the Aims and Principles you're referring to is about organised religion, not religion per se, anyway, we do have members who are in some way religious or (urgh) "spiritual".

Let me start off by saying that I didn't say that religion isn't part of oppression everywhere. I even said that Christianity is a tool of oppression in the USA, although not all Christianity, but the right-wing version that Mr Bush holds onto.

As for Irealnd, I am against abortion. I think first of all that doctors should save lives and not take them. Should we also allow mercy-killings of elderly, newborn babies and handicapped people? Secondly, I see life as holy and I am against any taking of lives, no matter whom does it (which makes the state a larger serial killer than an abortionist). Thirdly, I am for a society where force and taking of lives don't take place, I can't see how you can have abortion in an anarchist society.

But I am not for a ban on abortions. I am for a society where they are undesired. I am an anarchist, I don't try to make the world better by calling for new laws.

The desire for abortions is very much a capitalist phenomenon, I think. Abortions take place within extreme conditions such as rape and I want a society where rapists are looked after by the mental institutions and taken care of in a manner as humane as possible.

Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 5 2007 18:15

Treeofjudas said=

Quote:
You mean aside from the support and legislation of slavery, the insistence on female subjugation and the positive presentation of rape, plunder, war and genocide? Sure, nothing wrong with it from an anarchist perspective.

Yes, apart from that, as that is not part of the Christian faith, but of the Jewish Law, which Christians have been set free from by the death of Jesus Christ.

Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 5 2007 18:19

The Button wrote=

Quote:
St Paul wrote:
1: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

End of.

There are different ways of interpreting these passages. An authority as big as Saint Augustine, as for an example, commented that a state not committed to justice is nothing but a gang of robbers and we have no obligation to be subjected to it.

I would agree with Saint Augustine and would add that in a society of rampant capitalism, a just society is impossible, as big business holds such a chokehold on society through economics, as well as politics. We need to abolish this unjust state entirely and redistribute the property among the producers, much like Michail Bakunin argued for.

Blacknred Ned
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 5 2007 18:28

Swede, I think Ned Flanders is a Christian! wink

I don't think that you've addressed my points terribly thoroughly tbh. If your god of love exists it is irrelevant. Either a deity of love beyond all understanding condemns some of his children to death for sin or for not worshipping in the right way, in which case I don't call that love beyond all understanding, or every soul is saved because that is the path of true love, in which case religion is a waste of time and we are thrown back on the reason that we are born with, which is an emergent property in our species as evolution has brought it into being.

The simplest solution to the mystery of the Big Bang may well be that it was the end of one Universe and the start of ours; certainly that is simpler than the proposition that some intelligence out-of-time-and-space pressed the cosmic button. God is what physicists say when they need to stop the steam pouring out of their ears; doesn't mean it's real. In any event why would this creator press the button? Is it lonely? Does it take pleasure from the travails of life that others go through? Does it like jazz?

In any event I would like to suggest another path: accept the buddhist idea that these questions are imponderables. If taking some guidance from a Nazarene teacher is your cup of tea then go for it, whatever I am happy to have you as a fellow anarchist and to trust that if we were neighbours in a free world we would bet along just fine....... we could contemplate imponderables over a glass of wine. Nevertheless, you have to accept that for very many people mention of sin and creators is nothing short of incendiary; I'm not asking you to censor yourself only to try to come to understand the position that people have come to having reflected on a long and painful history of religion in society.

It is not fair to throw St Paul in someone's face unless they are of a particularly intolerant bent. Paul was obviously a tosser and a dogmatist. Tbh we have to discuss the Bible as a distinct part but not the sum of the history of Jesus & Christianity, in the same way that religion and spirituality are quite separate.

Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 5 2007 18:56

Thanks for the reply, comrade.

I think you are right concerning somethings being unanswerable. My logic tells me though that there need to be some starting point that is impossoible to logically explain, as the birth of the universe (or the original universe that migh have collapsed and lead to the big bang) is impossible to explain, as is the size of the universe and what might exist beyond it. All of that points towards a Creator to me and I would also argue that he is a God of love, as love is the emotion we feel when we take part of his creation by re-creating new human beings.

I think God is both and still nothing of what you say. He is a God of love and commands us to love our neighbours and to love him. If we accept and love him and our neighbours, then we get a ticket to heaven, hopefully, as we have chosen unity with God by our free wills. If we choose not to love God or our neighbours, then we choose not to unite with God and go to hell. We haven't been condemned by God, we have chosen our way by our own free will.

I didn't throw St. Paul (and no, I don't agree he's a tosser), I answered to a post which had quoted St. Paul in the first plkace. I accept everyone's right not be a Christian, it's not just a human right, but also a divine right, as we are created in God's image and no authority is allowed to tell you what to think. You have to understand, I am an anarchopunk who listen to Crass and hang out with other punks. If I had had any prejuidices or problem with other people believing differently or, for that matter, tried to persuade all my mates to become Christians, I'd be socially isolated very quickly.

I am looking forward to discussing these matters with you ina free society over a glass of anything but alcohol for my part, as I am a recovering alcoholic.

Blacknred Ned
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Mar 5 2007 23:51

smile A cup of nettle tea it is then!

It was someone else bringing up Paul that concerned me.

For my part I am uncertain about the theological support for the existence of hell. Inasmuch as I am an atheist out of a protestant tradition I believe in hell less (if that's possible) than all the rest of the Christian story. So I guess if I were a Christian I'd see the choice as betwen life and death. As it is I see that as unjust and quite unloving.

The freewill argument is weak I think, because it is freewill based on incomplete evidence which brings us back to the even weaker position of faith. If your god wants me to live then he needs to give me evidence, unless he is either capricious or really does exhibit love beyond all understanding and will give me life anyway because I am one of his (albeit slightly wayward) children.

I am glad to hear that you are comfortable amongst non-Christians, although if you do not believe that your friends will be saved that must be difficult. I say again: only universal salvation for the sake of love makes any sense at all to me for a god of love. If that were not the case as a believer I might die and realise that half of the people I loved would not be joining me... how dreadful!

Tojiah's picture
Tojiah
Offline
Joined: 2-10-06
Mar 6 2007 07:54
Swede wrote:
Yes, apart from that, as that is not part of the Christian faith, but of the Jewish Law, which Christians have been set free from by the death of Jesus Christ.

You should blame Arwen for saying that anarchists should have nothing to object to in the Bible. The same Bible which hundreds of millions of fundamentalist Christians cite as a reason to subjugate women and to kill homosexuals. Tell them that it isn't a part of the Christian faith.

_Arwen_
Offline
Joined: 4-03-07
Mar 6 2007 11:41

I read anything you like into the bible, in the same way that when i studied dracula for english literature my teacher found a surprisingly large amount of gay sex in it and i got a B for an essay i wrote about how the author secretly wanted to be a woman.

As for women and homosexuals- yes the homosexual act is portrayed as unnatural, so if you really want to go out for gay rights i guess you can complain a little, but jesus says 'let he who is without guilt throw the first stone', meaning no-ones perfect don't judge- thus condemning any sort of death penalty and ill treatment. And jesus says that women are equal to men before god. And unlike other religous texts, such as the koran, the bible is clearly writen to be read by both genders.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 6 2007 11:50

Oh my Bible! oh my bible, bollocks!!

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 6 2007 12:12
Swede wrote:
I am against abortion. I think first of all that doctors should save lives and not take them.

of course it's completely uncontroversial that the moment of conception = an autonomous life with equal 'rights' of its own

Swede wrote:
Abortions take place within extreme conditions such as rape

i think the majority aren't in such extreme situations actually, but i don't know the figures.

Swede wrote:
I am not for a ban on abortions. I am for a society where they are undesired. I am an anarchist, I don't try to make the world better by calling for new laws.

if you don't want to ban it, that kinda works out pro-choice by default, even though your preference is anti-abortion, so i suppose i have no quibble.

Swede wrote:
I see life as holy and I am against any taking of lives, no matter whom does it

this kind of transcendental absolutism is the aspect of religion that disquiets me most - that which leads that 'great man of peace' Gandhi to suggest jews should have committed mass suicide to avoid the violence of the holocaust. when there is some transcendental absolute conveying meaning into the world, our own being-in-the-world is inevitably subordinate to this metaphysical beyond, resulting in absurdities like self-genocide in the name of non-violence. i mean, if you take such an absolute position on violence, am i wrong to defend myself against a gunman, even if that means killing him? not believing in a beyond and thus situating meaning in-the-world means i'm not prepared to die to satisfy the whims of a transcendental non-entity. i would say such a contingent worldly materialism actually values life more than an absolutist transcendental idealism, as the gandhi example suggests.

all that said, i obviously don't think personal beliefs should be suppressed or anything, but it is a bit frustrating when otherwise critical people embrace absolutism in lieu of dealing with the radical uncertainty of being-in-the-world.

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 6 2007 12:19
Quote:
jesus says that women are equal to men before god

Where? He certainly seemed to have treated women quite well by the standards of the time, but what about the incident where he calls the syro-phonecian woman a dog? (Even more insulting in the context of first century Judaism.)

Thing is, for every Galatians quote (you know the one, "in Christ, there is no male or female," look it up), there's an Ephesians ("Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.") You can do as much hermeneutic gymnastics as you like (and I'm quite familiar with St Augustine, thanks), but why bother?

Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 6 2007 16:20

Blacknred Ned wrote=

Quote:
A cup of nettle tea it is then!

It was someone else bringing up Paul that concerned me.

For my part I am uncertain about the theological support for the existence of hell. Inasmuch as I am an atheist out of a protestant tradition I believe in hell less (if that's possible) than all the rest of the Christian story. So I guess if I were a Christian I'd see the choice as betwen life and death. As it is I see that as unjust and quite unloving.

The freewill argument is weak I think, because it is freewill based on incomplete evidence which brings us back to the even weaker position of faith. If your god wants me to live then he needs to give me evidence, unless he is either capricious or really does exhibit love beyond all understanding and will give me life anyway because I am one of his (albeit slightly wayward) children.

I am glad to hear that you are comfortable amongst non-Christians, although if you do not believe that your friends will be saved that must be difficult. I say again: only universal salvation for the sake of love makes any sense at all to me for a god of love. If that were not the case as a believer I might die and realise that half of the people I loved would not be joining me... how dreadful!

Mon, 05/03/2007 - 23:51
reply Write to author Quote

Hell, of course, is not litterally a lake of fire, but merely the abscense of God, which causes suffering for the soul, as the soul is made in the image of God and meant to be united with Him.

God has given us evidence for his existence in the form of revelation to the faithful through the League with Israel and the coming of Christ in the Bible and through the saints in the time following the Bible. All we have to do is to believe. Of course, we can all disbelieve in it on the grounds that it's historical data and we cannot decide whether or not the historical data tells the truth on the grounds that it happened way before we were born, but on those premises we can reject anything historical from the invention of the wheel to the holocaust.

As I said, I am forbidden by the Bible to pass judgement on others. I cannot say that my mates are going to hell because of their way of life and disbelief in Christ. More than so, plenty of Christians, and I am one of those, believe the Holy Spirit to be working within all religions of mankind and logically, this means that he is working within atheism too. On those premises, all that it takes for salvation is loving one's neighbour and being consequent in one's beliefs. So, I would believe there is a pretty good chance for my mates going to heaven too.

Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 6 2007 16:22

revol68 wrote=

Quote:
LOL does it get any better, Crass and Christ? They do have alot in common having created bands of mindless disciples following their pathetic ineffectual slave morality.

Well, as a Christian anarchopunk, I am neither the typical Crass fan nor the typical Christian. I was in many ways a typical leftist punk before I found my way to Christianity, but believe me, I have made my mind up all by myself.

Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 6 2007 16:27

Treeofjudas wrote=

Quote:
You should blame Arwen for saying that anarchists should have nothing to object to in the Bible. The same Bible which hundreds of millions of fundamentalist Christians cite as a reason to subjugate women and to kill homosexuals. Tell them that it isn't a part of the Christian faith.

I agree that fundamentalists are a very worrying phenomenon.

There is absolutely nothing in the New Testament which calls for hatred towards, or killing of, homosexuals. I believe in gay liberation like any other anarchist and I believe God has a specifically high amount of love for homosexuals or he wouldn't have created them "different from the norm", I think he is testing the faith of everyone who meet opposition on the grounds of who they are, be they gay, women, poor, asylumseekers or whatever.

Swede
Offline
Joined: 1-03-07
Mar 6 2007 16:32

Joseph K. said=

Quote:
this kind of transcendental absolutism is the aspect of religion that disquiets me most - that which leads that 'great man of peace' Gandhi to suggest jews should have committed mass suicide to avoid the violence of the holocaust. when there is some transcendental absolute conveying meaning into the world, our own being-in-the-world is inevitably subordinate to this metaphysical beyond, resulting in absurdities like self-genocide in the name of non-violence. i mean, if you take such an absolute position on violence, am i wrong to defend myself against a gunman, even if that means killing him? not believing in a beyond and thus situating meaning in-the-world means i'm not prepared to die to satisfy the whims of a transcendental non-entity. i would say such a contingent worldly materialism actually values life more than an absolutist transcendental idealism, as the gandhi example suggests.

all that said, i obviously don't think personal beliefs should be suppressed or anything, but it is a bit frustrating when otherwise critical people embrace absolutism in lieu of dealing with the radical uncertainty of being-in-the-world.

Yes, the holocaust and world war two is a tricky question. Of course I don't believe in mass suicide as the solution, I would rather argue for the inmates of the death camps trying to unite with the lower rank soldiers of the SS against the officers and stop the holocaust from happening by setting up a new, freer, society where everyone are equal, german and jew alike.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Mar 6 2007 16:38

which may involve some, even lethal, violence?

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 6 2007 17:04

The lower ranks of the SS? The ones who administered the brutality and death on the ground? Recruited from the most degenerate and criminal and brutal elements? Don't make me laugh!

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Mar 6 2007 17:08

Now, now, Battlescarred, I'm sure the Lord Jesus would have forgiven them, and God loves them just the same. roll eyes