Should we forbid religious groups to cooperate with Dissent?

Yes
24% (5 votes)
No
76% (16 votes)
Total votes: 21

Posted By

Wendal
Mar 14 2005 12:29

Share

Attached files

Comments

Wendal
Mar 14 2005 12:29

Some people has(not that much to my surprise) become upset over that christian groups and individuals want to cooperate with Dissent.

I can understand that since many of the basic concepts of most religions are counterrevolutionary(for example: conservatism, looking forward to a happy life after death, nonviolence and other ideas that makes it wrong to hurt the capitalist minority in favor of the majority).

I dont think that religion itself is the problem tough. As long as a group or an individual agrees with the rules for PGA that person can be a good ally.

I can understand that some points does not relate to most religious groups, for example:

2. We reject all forms and systems of domination and

discrimination including, but not limited to,

patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all

creeds.

We embrace the full dignity of all human beings.

3. A confrontational attitude, since we do not think

that lobbying can have a major impact in such biased

and undemocratic organisations, in which transnational

capital is the only real policy-maker...

But if an individual or a group can agree with the agenda then i cant see why it would mater if they worship a pancakeloving elephant or Karl Marx?

Just look what the Human rights movement was able to do with a mixture of religious and atheist people.

The first form of classwar in Sweden was a group of peasants who started to preach(it was only the priest-class that had permission to preach). They also said that the nobles and the pope where lovers to the whore of babylon(Genesis) and would burn in hell. They were thrown into prison but started up a process by being the first group in Sweden to question the legitimity of the class-system and the privliges of the higher classes.

Leo Tolstoj was an anarchist and a Christian.

When Karl Marx said that religion is opium for the people he used the word in the meaning that it had in those days. Translated to todays language it would be Religion is psychotropic drugs for the people, beacuse that was how people viewed opium back then.

In other words he meant that Religion is bad beacuse it help people to cope with horrible opression which would mean that it will take longer time for the worker to reach the point where she will rise up against the opressors.

That makes the qoute less extreme although it still points out a trouble with religion, but any traditional Marxist must understand Marxs statement out of the correct linquistic.

If someone can think of any trouble that working with religous groups that share the ideas of PGA would mean then i would love to hear about them.

As i understand it now people like that will be as good to work with as atheist allies.

Dominic
Mar 18 2005 19:58

I say use 'em ! Great publicity , imagine the PR if they showed a skinny baldheaded , orange-wrapped Krishna being truncheoned by the police . Screw it , go over the edge ( have no fear , there's a ledge ) : put a few hundred nuns & stuff in the first ranks , they wouldn't dare hit/teargas them !

grin

Wendal
Mar 19 2005 01:00

Or better yet dress the whole black block as nuns(they just need the hats anyway)

Blacklisted
Mar 22 2005 22:53

Hi,

Im not sure if this is what your talking about, but if your referring to the recent emails on the resistg82005 list about the Dissent! Christians group, then I think maybe youve misunderstood?

I took the original persons complaint to be that Dissent! Christians is not and should not be a 'working group' and this I agree with. I dont think the person was saying that they dont want Dissent to cooperate with religious groups at all.

To me a working group is a group dealing with one logistical aspect of the mobilisation as a whole, such as publicity or convergence space or transport etc

The Christian group is not relevent to the whole mobilisation, only some people within that mobilisation. As such they are an affinity group or perhaps they will call actions and be an action group etc but they arent a working group, and this was the disagreement.

Other points are that at the beginning of Dissent! it was agreed that local/affinity groups shouldnt really use the name 'dissent!' within their name as it leads to confusion like this, so this is a bit of an issue maybe.

Lastly, Dissent! is a political initiative and as such it is peoples politics that really needs to come first within the mobilisation. This doesnt mean excluding religious groups/individuals, it just means that they should be working within Dissent! based on their politics and not based on their religion as the overriding factor.

So no, religious groups shouldnt be excluded, so long as they can work within the PGA hallmarks they are as welcome as anybody else. BUT they arent working groups.

Wendal
Mar 23 2005 12:15

Well i hope that all can agree with that or this movement will drown in a flood of stupidity.

Still some posts that followed seemed to be quite hostile to even working with the group witch didnt surprised me since it is most likely at least a few dogmatic marxists in the Dissent network.

Look at the votes at this topic by the way. They might not give use an owerall idea of the toughts of agents conected to dissent but at least it shows a tendency. So therefore it might be good to bring this discussion up and i personaly hope that people who agre with PGA will not be excluded (only) beacuse they belive in some God.

To forbid religion is in no way more liberterian than to forbid atheism.