[Marxism] Discussion with David Quarter about "More than a wank: Passion and the Church"

["Jurriaan Bendien" <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > >  In a nutschell (few sentences), what are you getting at?
> > > Subject:        [Marxism] More than a wank: Passion and the Church

I think Jim Devine put it quite well - religious people are not necessarily
any better human beings than anybody else, maybe worse, and that gives
ground for a rejection of religious fundamentalism.

I aim to describe (1) what more intelligent catholics are actually saying
themselves about the movie, and I allude to the implications for church
politics, (2) convey the stupidity and ambiguity of religious rhetoric
which, while claiming universality, is in reality interpreted quite
differently by different groups and social classes (3) that while we are
being fixated on the mystifications of Jesus and sex, the reality of moral
fallibility on the part of the faithful at the most basic level is being
overlooked precisely in this area (4) in their militant atheism, Marxists
may
be as "religious" as the religion they criticise. It's a "get real" post
which aims to distinguish between personal beliefs and what people actually
do in the name of those beliefs or with those beliefs. Maybe I was being too
allusive, but in that case, in future I will make the argument more
explicit.

Regards

Jurriaan

>  Thanks for the explanation. I agree 99% (I don't know if one should
> be speaking in term of "intelligent" (vs "unintelligent?) catholics. At
> least, I would think that there are more intelligent ways of saying:
> you're wrong about your beliefs). Otherwise, I agree. Great insight
> on your part.
>
> best,
>
> David

Well thank you. But  I am far from perfect and cannot claim to have all of
the truth, nor can I have answers to everything, and many ideas I have, I do
not have the time for to work out completely. If you disagree, or think that
I'm too limited, I expect you to say so. It takes many people to get a
better picture of political realities, that is why political organisation
and discussion is necessary. I don't aim to discuss for the sake of
discussing, but for the purpose of learning more, understanding more,
experiencing more in my area of interest, I am inspired by what other people
say and respond to it, they respond, and I learn more. According to one
ideology, religious belief is simply the product of a malformed sexual
development. I believe this is not the case, in my neighbourhood you have
muslims who are sexual experts even at a young age, and therefore, if
somebody implies this, I feel that they are trivialising the subject. Trivia
is interesting, because it implies a diversion aimed at relativising a topic
or plight, i.e. don't take something too seriously. But if serious stuff is
trivialised, and if people think trivia are profound, then we are dealing
either with malabstractions or with a deliberate attempt to downplay
something vitally important or emphasise something that is really not
important for the aim of distracting attention. Then you need a corrective.
If your aim is to strengthen workingclass forces and the socialist movement
as a political force, then you ought to be looking at religion from that
point of view, and not from the point of view that ideas themselves are
intrinsically reactionary. You have to look at the relationship between
belief and practice, the context. But if in so doing we become totally
obsessed with exposing people or demonstrating hypocrisy, then I think we
ought to ask ourselves what discontent leads to this stance. Another way of
looking at trivialisation is to say that it involves somewhere along the
line an imblance, and ultimately that imbalance is rooted in the existence
of social inequality and the competition it engenders. The question then is
how you can break through trivialisation without losing nuance or a healthy
capacity for relativising things; maybe you have to trivialise trivia. Often
I have got disgusted in my life with banality, and one punk response is to
say: well if you banalise my feelings, I show you how well I can express
that. But of course that sort of response has its limits. Trivialisation
plays an enormously important role in political discussion, in which
transference (projection) also plays an important role. The reason of course
in that we all live in the same society, the same community, but our class
position and class background distorts our perspective and makes objectivity
more difficult. If you analyse tabloid newspapers, you will see that in
sensationalising they often also trivialise, maybe not in a good way. It is
just that we become so moulded by mass media that we become inured and numb
to things which are vitally important, and then people might trivialise or
exaggerate things to draw attention. But just how healthy that is, is a moot
point. I for one am still experimenting with what the best style is, the
style that is natural for me. I personally had the experience of my
character being assassinated, and then you think about these things.
Trivialisation may be humourous and well-intended, but only within limits.
Beyond those limits, it becomes a nuisance. I suppose the title "More than a
wank: Passion and the Church" is somewhat weird, but I am to shock people
just a little into thinking in a different way about the topic. And I think
of course that religion is more than a wank.






_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism