Religion is an ideological tool used to enslave people to their rulers - I mean, solace for the oppressed. Criticize religion and someone mentions liberation theology. Call it a means to reconcile the oppressed to their oppression, and the response is "It helps billions of people get through the day, and who are you to take that away?" It always ends with calling religion 'dialectical' and talking about something else.


And not the only one

But I'm not satisfied. Being an atheist is central to being a Marxist. If you admit religion, then you admit extra-human forces act upon the world. Class conflict is no longer the motor force of history. Materialism itself - the understanding that there's an objective world beyond our consciousness, which we can reach but never fully grasp - is gone. A critique of religion isn't an optional extra: when we say human agency makes the world, there's no room for a god.

A comrade directed me to an interview with Alexander Saxton. He sums up the argument well and adds an evolutionary biology perspective. Religion is an adaptation to consciousness; when we have "to confront death as a permanent intruder", and we have no scientific tools to understand the world around us, it helps to have something to believe in.



But Saxton feels religion has outlived its usefulness. From a liberatory force, it's become an institutional block to social change. The religious hierarchies line up behind the capitalist political blocs, providing a helpful cover:

Religious belief, on the other hand, assigns priority to believing over knowing, to faith over science. Thus believers believe the Invisible Hand of Providence will save us (or some of us at least), in much the same way that some of our world political leaders believe the invisible hand of the Global Market can exempt (some of us) from the rigors of ecological meltdown. Religion moves in to provide ideological armor for a politics of denial.

Socialists have never pressed their anti-religious politics; after all, why insult someone's deeply-held beliefs if they can be allies in social change? Saxton agrees, but he says we've paid a price: when the post-WW2 religious revival began, we were unable to combat it, having never been very clear about our criticism in the first place.


Actually, it is.

The religious answer to all this is: "Fine, you can have your critique of history. You can even have your politics. But religion is personal. It's a direct spiritual connection with god/the cosmos/whatever. People can still be revolutionaries, whatever they believe." And that's OK - in theory. Religion is supposed to provide an ethical basis for healthier living, and I'm all for people drinking less, sleeping more and coping better. But I have yet to encounter this ethic without a nasty ideological twist. For example, the most inoffensive Buddhist doctrine of letting go of destructive patterns in your life. The problem is that, as the feminists figured out first, the personal is always political. Your personal problems are connected to broader political and economic structures. Religions ignores this - for example:

Choosing peace... does not mean protesting all defense spending - a legitimate function of the federal government. Nor does not mean to be a pacifist. Sometimes an action of another demands a forceful response. It means to be at peace inside yourself even if you are in a fight. This attitude will influence your government and everyone else to the ends of the earth.

I can accept it, I can accept it, I can accept it...

How about the people at the receiving end of this "legitimate function" - are they supposed to be peaceful? Will their "attitude" "influence" anyone's government while they're being bombed? Or, since it's OK not to be a pacifist, should they take up arms? It's either reactionary or contradictory.

He goes on: "It is possible to be at peace even in the midst of chaos and war. There are stories of people who achieve this." In the name of healing trauma, should the victims of imperialist aggression be counselled for peace? Or should they be fighting back?


Accept this

And another thing - how come most adherents of this doctrine, at least in the west, are women? Haven't women been told to 'accept' and 'let go' for far too long? Isn't this just another way to get women to accept their own oppression? All that time spent learning to accept - religion is nothing if not tremendously time-consuming - could be spent organizing.

It's not the job of Marxists to dictate personal beliefs. Like John Lennon said, "Whatever gets you through the night." But it is our job to be absolutely clear about ours, which is that nothing changes by acceptance. I'd suggest that people getting angry enough to take action, is the only thing that changes the world. When they see pictures of dead Iraqis and US soldiers, when their social services are cut, they scare the government into listening. If they organize, sometimes they overthrow the government. That's when we'll have real peace. It's not private peace vs. public action: I think the desire for private peace is a sublimated desire for outward change turned inwards. It's our job to promote that change.

Music for non-believers

Finally, here's the only atheist African-American artist I've ever encountered who actually promotes his atheism. I'm a huge fan of the Reverend Al Green, and I recognize the role the Baptist church played in the civil rights struggle. But as I've been arguing, that's no reason for us to shut up - and Todd Terry doesn't. A hip-hop producer, Terry released a drum n bass album in the late 90s. Known as "God" to his fans, he came back with "i'm god", a brilliant retort to organized religion and spirituality:

"I'm hurtin the feelings of those who say this jam's a sin
But you trapped in a world you ain't even know you was in"

Todd Terry - i'm god

Click the link and check it out for yourself.