The ideology of religion.
After a day of bashing religion and meeting some opposition, I feel that it is time to drag up a few important points that I would like to make about religion. First of all, I wrote this a year or so ago, and I think that it is still valid on what I believe about religious morality.
Then, to move on, I would like to make some claims about liberal democracy and tolerance: tolerance can never mean a lack of critique. While no-one should be persecuted for their beliefs (but they are, that is the very mechanism of ideology and the dictatorship of the burgeoise) it must be valid to ask questions and to criticise others, tact and so on plays a huge part still, certainly, but no-one can ever defend themselves with throwing up their hands and claiming "You can't say that I can't believe that! It's my right to believe whatever I want!" It is hardly tolerance or a care for other people that would ever nurture a belief such as that.
Now, moving on towards the class struggle (of course). Can there be progressive religion? Well, yes. But progressive in comparison to what? The Catholic Church? The Swedish Church? The problem with religion, as I have tried to outline in the post I linked to, are the strange and quaint premises that it smuggles in. These affect the outcomes of entire lines of reasoning. Religion maintains an unnecessary part of the Left. The dogmas of christianity are banal: love thy neighbour, etc, etc, yada, yada. Any two-cent moral philosopher could give you more learning in moral matters in two minutes than a lifetime of Christianity. A good author could probably give more than two lifetimes. To repeat: to try and distill the good parts of a religion is possible, but it is still pointless to try and have some sort of balance while you could, on the other hand, simply adopt atheism and put your two feet on the ground.
Also, as if it needs to be said once more, religion is an opiate of the masses. While religious beliefs can be respected, religion as an ideology for a whole should be combated by the Left. The murder of millions in the interests of capitalism under the banner of God, the reactionary waves on every painful step on female liberation, the bastion of reactionaries have always been and will always be the church. It's not nice, not pretty, not a good thing to be 'spiritual'.
Then, to move on, I would like to make some claims about liberal democracy and tolerance: tolerance can never mean a lack of critique. While no-one should be persecuted for their beliefs (but they are, that is the very mechanism of ideology and the dictatorship of the burgeoise) it must be valid to ask questions and to criticise others, tact and so on plays a huge part still, certainly, but no-one can ever defend themselves with throwing up their hands and claiming "You can't say that I can't believe that! It's my right to believe whatever I want!" It is hardly tolerance or a care for other people that would ever nurture a belief such as that.
Now, moving on towards the class struggle (of course). Can there be progressive religion? Well, yes. But progressive in comparison to what? The Catholic Church? The Swedish Church? The problem with religion, as I have tried to outline in the post I linked to, are the strange and quaint premises that it smuggles in. These affect the outcomes of entire lines of reasoning. Religion maintains an unnecessary part of the Left. The dogmas of christianity are banal: love thy neighbour, etc, etc, yada, yada. Any two-cent moral philosopher could give you more learning in moral matters in two minutes than a lifetime of Christianity. A good author could probably give more than two lifetimes. To repeat: to try and distill the good parts of a religion is possible, but it is still pointless to try and have some sort of balance while you could, on the other hand, simply adopt atheism and put your two feet on the ground.
Also, as if it needs to be said once more, religion is an opiate of the masses. While religious beliefs can be respected, religion as an ideology for a whole should be combated by the Left. The murder of millions in the interests of capitalism under the banner of God, the reactionary waves on every painful step on female liberation, the bastion of reactionaries have always been and will always be the church. It's not nice, not pretty, not a good thing to be 'spiritual'.
Labels: opiate of the masses, Religion
posted by Björn at 12:30 AM
2 Comments:
I dina analyser av religion och annan ideologi uppehåller du dig på utsagornas nivå, vad ideologin säger. Eftersom du någonstans nämner Althusser kan man gå till honom för att uppmärksamma ett annat sätt att närma sig ideologin. Där handlar det inte i första hand om vad som sägs inom en ideologi utan om att människor fysiskt tvingas bli mottagare av det ritualiserade flödet av detta tal inom den "ideologiska apparaten", t ex kyrkan. Genom fasthållandet i kommunikationsakten och olika psykologiska mekanismer placeras individen i en symbolisk position ("Guds barn", "den Fria Individen som har Marknaden vid sina fötter") som låter henne känna igen sig själv som subjekt i det hon gör under rådande samhällsförhållanden. De kategorier som här används är mer sättet att adressera den underkastade individen än att säga något (ev osant) om världen. Att det hela sedan framstår som att individen valt att följa vissa idéer, värden, uppenbarelser osv är en omkastning som ingår i bindnings- och reproduktionsmekanismerna. Jag har refererar och utvecklar i någon mån denna ideologiteori på sidan Ideologikritiskt forum: come.to/ideologikritiskt_forum
Tjena. Tack för kommentaren, tog mig lite tid att svara eftersom jag inte är helt van vid det.
Du har självklart rätt i det du säger, om du säger vad jag tror du säger. Det är väl därför man generellt bildar sig en sådan reflexiv skepsis till t.ex. religion: eftersom det finns någonting mer bakom den, någonting som förhindrar revolutionära strävanden och förändringar. Ska titta på det du skrev senare.
Post a Comment
<< Home