Re: AUT: Priviledging economics over psychology....

["Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nate Holdren" <nateholdren@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 17. juli 2002 17.24
Subject: Re: AUT: Privileging economics over psychology....


Nate, to put it this way: Critique of religion is precondition for
freedom of religion. I can think of no exceptions to this. Liberation
theology has de facto been a partial critique of religion, often
more grounded in various secular social theories, in particular
Marxism, than the Bible and theology proper. There are reasons
to believe that for some of it advocates this has simply been
an opportunistic turn. It is hard to also avoid the thought that
part of its relative success, must been seen in the light their
extremely selective picking of Biblical verses, and the relative
ignorance of much of its congregation of the scriptures. None
the less, it is on authority of these texts they build their own authority,
and while doing so, they also run the risk of reinforcing the authority
of the BIble as a whole, also the parts that have played such
an oppressive role in the history of (wo)mankind: I am sure
that evangelical congregation, the fastest growing in Latin America,
will not loose any opportunity to point out these parts out for them.
To make them aware of their sinful ways, and the sadistic
revenge of a very bad-tempered God.
        Protestantism brough the Bible into vernacular language,
immensely increased literacy, and "democratised" religion, but
it also was an effective tool in internalising oppression and
became a solid rock upon which capitalist exploitation and
labour discipline could be built. According to some accounts,
this is repeating itself in Latin America.

As for religious uprising in general, to the degree that they
have not lead to a critique of religion as such, they are
pretty depressing stories, often with clear fascoid traits. The
story of Münster (the New Jerusalem) is telling. They do not
differ much in substance from what drove people to join
the Crusades.

Nothing of the above points to the conclusion that everybody
must become atheists to become participants in a social
struggle or a social revolution. But it is a critical difference between
a religious uprising and a social uprising including people
who are also religious. I cannot foretell what will happen to
religious beliefs after a socilal revolution, but if history is a
judge, much points to that social power of religion, and religious
belief in general, will be seriously weakened.
        I recently talked to Russian producer of animation films ,
who told me what his grandmother had told him, how the
whole family in 1917, from one day to the other, became
atheists. The non-existence of God  was accepted as just
as much a natural fact as his existence had been up to
then. It went like this, one family member asking another. "Is
it true that God does not exist?" -- "I don't know, you must
ask ...,"  and so on, until they got the answer confirmed, and
all accepted it. Somehow it did not at all feel strange that
what had been percieved as the natural order of things
yesterday, no longer was true today.
        That religious beliefs in general are much weaker in
for instance Scandinavia, where the labour movement  for
long held a strong position, than in the United States where
it was crushed in early stage, is, I think, neither a
coincidence. Neithter that the neo-liberalistic policies of
the last decade or two has brought a certain upsurge in
religious beliefs.

Apart from that, the more liberal and "progressive" expressions
of religion you can see in various places today is a a more
or less direct consequence of a critique of religion as such. It
has been a long and hard battle. Without this, no "liberation
theology" would have been possible. The position of women
in Ireland has for long lagged behind many other countries in
Europe due to that "national question" became just about
the only question, and hardly noone dared critisize religion
as such.
        The way Bush uses God, and Christian concepts of
Evil and Good in the "war against terror," simply would not be
possible in Norway, and I think the same applies to most
European countries, even if the prime minister in the present
coalition government here comes from a Christian party.

Harald



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---