Secularism can also include religious tolerance - an equal place for all beliefs including non-belief.

The irony of the heresy thing dating from the first century seems to be that the Christian doctrine that has persisted to be current seems to have over-ridden previous Gnostic and mystical stories and beliefs - history being written by the victors, of course.

There is some interesting commentary here too, about the Protestant Reformation rising out of humanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation#Humanism_to_Protestantism

The author needs to go back centuries in order to draw away the massive amounts of deaths caused by secularism and atheists. Mao and Stalin are just a couple of examples of the millions killed by secular dogma. The number of unborn babies murdered by secularist actually make the middle ages look mild. Yea the religous zealots look very bad until you have an honest look at the secular zealots. The more our secular religion becomes part of the State the more suicide, murder, divorce, pornography, perversion, child molestation etc etc. Looking at the deeds of some wicked religous people certainly seems to give the humanist a blinded sense of their self righteousness.

Dear runner,

You need to read the article. Stalin and Mao were no more secularist than you are. They were against separation of religion and state. In their opposition to secularism they were on the same side as you.

runner,

I was about to make the same comment as david f.

After Constantine the Pagans were treated savagely by the Christians as heretics.

Besides your comments of contemnation can be readily mirrored:

LAW BANNING ALL RELIGIONS OTHER THAN CHRISTIANITY

"It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. ... The rest, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative." -- Codex Theodosianus, XVI.1.2 - Encyclopaedia Roma.

Else put, the Pagans were percuted by the Christains. As mentioned in early threads, many died in internment camps. In some ways, the early Christian zeal was not unlike the Taliban of today, bent on destroying alternative religious cultures.

Who is a heretic and who is an atheist depedends on who is in power and who is asking the question.

Examination of Secularism and Theism requires a helicopter view. David is good at that.

Let's get back on topic.

Regards.

Dear David,
Though you’ve already said elsewhere on the Forum that you don’t want to talk to me, I’ve read your piece.

Thanks for the food for thought. It’s worth a further look.

Below is what comes up when you type Calvin’s name into the Wiki. (So it is not necessarily my opinion. It’s written by someone else).

“Separation of church and state -
Calvin believed that the church not subject to the state, or vice versa. While both church and state are subject to God's law, they both have their own God-ordained spheres of influence. For example, the church does not have the authority to impose penalties for civil offenses, although it can call on the civil authorities to punish them. Conversely, the state is not to intrude on the operations of the church. However, it has a duty to protect the church and its ability to function as the church.
As a magisterial reformer, Calvin thought of the State as a Christian nation rather than a secular government. He did not advocate religious freedom in the same sense as the Baptists later would, for example. However, his ecclesiology sowed the seeds of the modern secular democracy.”

Poor Runner, you never seem to realise that you are the Fundamentalist. What do you suggest that we do then. Bring back the inquisition? Perhaps we could burn all the heretics.
I didn't realise that secularism was a religion. Some of the most important corner stones of christianity are compassion, tolerance and understanding. Pity there is none of these existing in the church no matter the faith. These religions fundamentalists spend so much time hating each other and devising ways to take revenge on one another that it is all the rest of us can do to try and stop you destroying the place.

[aside] .. runner, projections about the fate of individuals born from 'pregnancies-not-terminated-as-they-have-been' suggest crime rates and statistics from those "individuals-not-wanted-by-their-mothers-or-born-into-significant-disadvantage" to be astronomical: millions more murders, prisoners etc over the last 35 years, if not tens of millions [/aside]

"The Marxist governments opposed secularism as they wished to wipe out or control religion".

I would only demur here that these were not "Marxist governments", not in their conception, their development or their infamy; not if by "Marxist" we refer to his philosophy, which did not aspire "to wipe out or control religion" or commit any of the other evils perpetrated in his name. There has never yet been any government that remotely resembles anything Marx would have approved of. I do not defend the putative Marxist governments the author mentions, I revile them with him, but I do defend Marx, and hope to at length when I may.
But back on topic.
Your comments, Dan, nicely illuminate the points I've been making elsewhere about "primitive" belief systems that should be historicised. Calvin was of his time and the fact that he advocated such a secularism in that murderous religious climate is testament to his being the "Renaissance man" the author says he was. The fact that he was able to think on and foment for such drastic reforms, in that context, should not be criticised for not attaining to modern concepts of secularism that we still haven't achieved in these "enlightened (lol)" days! Calvin and Bruno et al managed to think critically and aspire to better things (in this world) despite all that dreadful oppression. What excuse do we have for our cloistered minds today?

I'm with Squeers on this one - as a Marxist from birth (however that may be defined these days), I certainly would not support any genocidal regime which calls itself 'Marxist': surely the task is to win over people's hearts and minds and you can't do that by exterminating people. Yes, I know of 'Marxists' who can contemplate doing just that, and building the perfect society with the remnants, their class brothers (and some sisters), but to me, that is very close to fascism and Nazism (cf. Jewish people, Gypsies, homosexuals), the notion of exterminating some section of society in order to purify it for the greater good. In fact, I suspect that Lenin's resort to Red Terror was a perfect rationale for other regimes to apply the same principle to their own out-groups, including the Nazi extermination of Jews.

Runner, you commit a fallacy: if a and b, then b because of a. Regimes of all sorts have committed atrocities, including non-religious, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, animist and probably Callathumpian regimes, Aztec, Babylonian, Roman, Chin, Shinto and Buddhist. Nobody is exempt just by virtue of their religion. So put that aside and try to get on with your fellow-Australians. If we are here now, then we all have more or less an equal right to be here, and equal obligations to contribute to an open and tolerant society, with its vast range of personal values and beliefs.

Joe Lane

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

I am quite happy to talk to you. You might be a delightful person to know. However, I saw no point in continuing to discuss the subject of evolution and Creationism with you. That is a different matter.

As long as Calvin thought of the state as a Christian nation he was against secularism. His ecclesiology did NOT sow the seeds of the modern secular democracy. That is rewriting history. His ecclesiology sowed the seeds of tyranny with its controlling the private lives of citizens. Calvin was a tyrant and a dictator. Religious freedom is religious freedom. Where the state supports or opposes any religious belief or lack of belief you do not have religious freedom.

Devout Christians may oppose religious persecution. Castellio who protested the execution of Servetus was a devout Christian who did not agree with the views of Servetus.

Roger Williams was a devout Christian and supported secularism in colonial North America

Great stuff. Such indisputable facts are of course always conveniently ignored, or justified by Calvinists.

Dismissed as some kind of aberration.

But such was an inevitable part of Calvins ideology. Or more accurately his fear and loathing saturated, emotional-sexual patterning.

Calvinism, and its "catholic" form Jansenism is of course very much alive and well and celebrated in puritan USA (and Ireland too)
Hugely big in fact.
Where there was so much shock-horror outrage when Janet Jackson's lovely breast was flashed on TV in prime time and in front of children--shock horror.

How many murders, both "fictional" and real, occurred on USA TV on the same day?
What was the body count in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It is the driving force behind right-wing religiosity--the "moral majority", the christian coalition, Pat Robertson, the Manhattan Declaration etc etc.

Oh dear,
I read the article through carefully and still managed to mix up Calvin with Michael Servetus.
I then in my mortification posted this embarrassed confession on the wrong thread.
Self-flaggelation ion for me!

The problem with this article is that I fell asleep four times while reading it.

That humans in 2010 are discussing religion demonstrates our slow evolution as a species. Theobabble should've disappeared long ago given that we have some intelligence but, sadly, not enough.

Anyway, this article will provide useful relief for insomniacs!

And of course our very own Australian christian lobby is essentially Calvinist through and through.

That is why they had wet dreams over Mel Gibson's splatter/snuff film The Passion. And celebrated it as a great missionary tool.

As did Opus Dei supporters. It was an Opus Dei production.

A very well known Sydney Cardinal is very sympathetic to Opus Dei, as indeed was the previous pope.

Anyone for the applied politics of suffering and pain?

http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner.htm

Dan,

Of Calvin: "...the church does not have the authority to impose penalties for civil offenses...."

Pope Benedict is very unhappy with Belgium government authotities seizing Church records in Belgium for alledged civil offences, saying Canon Law also applies. Calvin did come into that Faith's picture

Dear Squeers and Loudmouth,

Marx was a horrible bigot (Read “On the Jewish Question” for an expression of his bigotry) and an advocate of tyranny.

In the Manifesto Marx advocated ten policies to apply to most advanced countries. The following five are instruments of tyranny:

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Why shouldn’t I leave some of what I have worked for to my children?

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

I left the US to come to Australia but still get my US social security payments. Marx would deny them to me.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

The above eliminates freedom of expression. The Marxist countries followed Marx rigorously in that area.

8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

You can’t have industrial and agricultural armies without coercion.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

People should be able to live where they want to live – not where government decides.

Also from the Manifesto:

“By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to "True" Socialism of confronting the political movement with the socialistic demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement.”

Marx advocated getting rid of the bourgeois mechanisms which protect us from state tyranny. In his perceived Utopia they would not be needed.

Lenin and the other Marxist scum did precisely that.

Read the Manifesto carefully. It’s a recipe for tyranny, and the Marxist dictators were good at following the recipe.

I am delighted to say that I cannot contribute anything to a discussion on Calvinism or any other religion. However, to join in the spirit of the discussion and the article which mist go down as one of the longest ever, I must say that I am a secularist and I do agree with religious tolerance.

But to satisfy Ho Hum, in a field in which I am better qualified, I certainly can tell him the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan to this day but cannot forecast the future in an Iran war if the Zionazis in Israel have their way and America follows on like a little puppy assuming the people in the US don't wake from their apathetic sleep.

Here goes

Iraq

Iraqis 1,566, 350
US soldiers 4, 730

Afghanistan
Civilians and Taliban, unknown
US soldiers 1947
Australians and other NATO forces, unknown

Cost of both skirmishes to date is US $ 1,018,748,808,645

Some of those costs could be recoverable (but probably won't be) as the US military is assisting in the collection, transport and distribution of the output from the largest poppy plantation in the history of the world, needed, as if you didn't know already, to maintain the Afghanistan economy which would collapse without it.

Somehow makes a discussion on religion pale into insignificance.

"Marx was a horrible bigot (Read “On the Jewish Question” for an expression of his bigotry) and an advocate of tyranny." So sayeth Davidf.

Given that the meaning of a bigot is: 'A person who is intolerant especially regarding religion, race and politics,' surely it then follows that all Jews are bigots. Why?

Because they see themselves as the Children of God and believe that all other believers (Gentiles) are inferior to them.

Of course some Jews think that Muslims are subhuman (Palestinians) which takes bigotry to a whole new level!

When a subject as this raises it's head; secularism and religious tolerance, it always ends up being a discussion and about religion/good people and atheists/bad people and communism.

This whole discussion is quite irrelevant in this day and age in this country. Most people who say they are of religion aren't, they say they believe in god but cannot put into any logical sense what they mean as a god, they (very few) attend a regular religious service.

So my question is why is secularism being discussed anyway? No one that is an atheist,as I am, is going to be converted to a religion and no one who is of religion is going to become more religious or drop out and become an atheist. However, I believe a lot of people are agnostics or atheists but for some unknown reason will not openly say they are. Perhaps they don't know what they are.

Saying more children have been killed in the name of atheism than religion is absurd, the statement cannot be made in any historical vein of facts. Children have died in the name of being freed from religion and fanaticism.

Someone help he out here. What's the point? It always goes around the same circle.

Dear RaeBee,

Secularism does not concern itself with atheists becoming believers or vice versa or whether religion or atheism is good or bad. It is the idea that religious beliefs or lack of same should be no business of government. I am bothered by the number of governments including the Australian government that don't follow that idea. I am also bothered that many people really don't know what secularism is. That is why I wrote the article.

Dear david f,
you are wrong, in large part if not in toto, and your condemnations above lack the relief of historical and rhetorical context they ought to concede. Marx did not have the benefit of hindsight you enjoy, only precedent, and "of course" Marx was a bigot (though I shall look at your link), so was everybody else in his day! Or can you name a few who were not? I will challenge you more fulsomely asap (I have many commitments but this is important).
Given your age and nationality and "structure of feeling", do you really think, even given your breadth of learning and analytical mind, you are unprejudiced in this, that you're fit to be Marx's judge and executioner based on the evils perpetrated in his name? What deeds, or incitement to deeds, do you attribute to him? Have you taken the time to ponder the evils perpetrated in word and deed, overtly and covertly by the system you implicitly defend? And have you read beyond the Manifesto for context, or read it deeply? Can you even think straight when you read anything by Marx? Can you have escaped the indoctrination your generation was steeped in? You are passionate about this, and as has been said elsewhere today, this is a sure sign of insecurity.
I have the advantage of you in this; I am not passionate at all. I see this question as an opportunity to learn. I have no interest in or possibility of defending Marx the man (though I'll be surprised if you can substantiate your innuendos); I'm more interested in his ideas, and whether they have any merit in the context of the manifest evil that runs our lives right now. And whether those ideas are "pure evil" as we have been hyperbolically tutored to believe. I have no idea what you've seen or experienced in the 20th century and I own to my comparative naivity. Yet the challenge is to think dispassionately. If you can make some cogent criticism based on evidence I shall be glad to recant. We shall see.

A very good article it is too, david f, finishing with reference to the constitution of the USA which was fortunate enough to have been forged after the USA had become a refuge for many religious groups that had been persecuted in Europe by other religious groups (eg the Quakers; see below).

""In Europe Christians were killing each other, and the few Jews sequestered in ghettoes were subject to massacre and expulsion. ... The Catholic French king ordered targeted assassinations against the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants), during the French Wars of Religion.

"The Thirty Years' War, (1618-1648)... was fought largely as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire. ...

"Christianity demonised its enemies*, ... Catholics considered it obvious that Luther had been inspired by the devil. Huguenot ministers called the Catholic Church "Satan's synagogue". According to another Lutheran official, the Calvinists "pretend to be bright, white angels of light, even though they are actually ugly black disciples of the prince of darkness". Oliver Cromwell, who ruled England as Lord Protector from 1653 to 1658, called Quakers and the other new sects of his day "diabolical", "the height of Satan's wickedness". ..""

* We saw some demonising this weekend, didn't we ??

A person's religious beliefs can no longer be no business of the government especially if and when it is under threat of subversion. In the interest of Australians protection is the business of the government even should it mean intervening in religious affairs that are proving subversive by fundamentalist isms of all description.

socratease

Here is a link to Marx's "on the Jewish Question" for anyone interested in a fascinating read: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/
And here is a wiki article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question
Whether indeed Marx was being a "horrible bigot" is highly debatable and different views are put forward under "interpretations" in the wiki link. I haven't read the whole essay yet, but judging by what I've read so far and by my overall conception of Marx in his methods---in researching, distinguishing materials, synthesising new thought and articulating it---I would suggest the whole is in fact a heuristic exercise designed to throw the so-called Jewish question against a relief of "overall" religious, political and economic entrapment. Indeed, "On the Jewish Question" is highly pertinent to this thread, and to the concepts of secularism and humanism.
To the extent that the essay can be categorised as anti-Semitic or bigoted (which is extremely dubious to say the least), I would say it is more in the historical/literary "given" that Jews were the money lenders, and so served for Marx as personification and trope (indeed cliche) for capitalism; and also in our modern, hypersensitive, post-Holocaust PC and sensitivity that prevents even phrasing such as "the Jewish Question", let alone critical analysis, without incurring charges of racism. Yet the essay is also concerned with Jewish emancipation, and certainly there is no underlying incitement of violence against Jews. Marx was a deep thinker and devout humanist at heart, and the essay is a complex signature text that deserves a close reading.

The secularism of Thomas Jefferson can be contrasted with the Defender of the Faith under Georgian England. Yet, turn the clock forward to today and we find the US is much more religous on the ground than than the British, I suspect. Although, I think, I am correct in saying that in the US, there exists strong lobbying in some quarters, against religious symbols in public buildings. On the other hand, Elizabeth II, as a Constitutional Monarch AND Defender of the Faith, sits as a very unsecular Head of State and Parliament.

Yet;

Curiously, there appears to be more religiuos tolerance under a non-selcular constitution (Britian) than a secular constitution (the US).

p.s. On reflection, it could be added that the religious among the framers of the US Constitution might have been trying to protect religion from government (Armstrong). Going bacl to seventeenth century America the founding fathers would have not had goverment interference in religion, yet would have accepted goverment being directed by gods laws, akin to fundamentalist Islam. In US, in the late 1900s we saw a counter-secularism with the 1,001 Billy Grahams. In Oz, we have not seen 1,001 Fred Niles.

LOudmouth

'So put that aside and try to get on with your fellow-Australians. If we are here now, then we all have more or less an equal right to be here, and equal obligations to contribute to an open and tolerant society, with its vast range of personal values and beliefs.'

By all means disagree with me but don't give me the leftist crap that demonizes anyone disagreeing with their views. You are normally above that.I have lived in this country for over 50 years and have always got along with, worked with and have friends with people of very diverse views. The fact that I express mine does not make me intolerant except in the eyes of those who hate my views.

Hi Runner,

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you were intolerant, simply that we all live amidst people with different views, people who have as much right to their views as you and I do. Of course, when we express those views in a public forum such as OLO, then they (not us personally) are fair game: you don't have to tolerate my views, and I don't have to tolerate yours, we can legitimately argue about them, although of course we 'tolerate' and respect each other as fellow human beings. That's what I meant by an open and tolerant society :)

Dear Squeers,

The First International broke up because Bakhunin could see what Marxism
would lead to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Workingmen's_Association

"After the Paris Commune (1871), Bakunin characterised Marx's ideas as
authoritarian, and predicted that if a Marxist party came to power its
leaders would end up as bad as the ruling class they had fought against
(notably in his Statism and Anarchy). "

My Uncle Bill (I don't know his Russian name.) was a Bolshevik arrested by
the czarist police. In 1921 after four years of Lenin he came to the United
States cured of Bolshevism.

Some still preserve illusions with the stench of 100,000,000 corpses.

My innuendos? I quoted from the Manifesto which is a basic Marxist document.
My evidence? What better evidence than Marx's own words. The evils done in
Marx's name were quite consistent with various recommendations of his in the
Manifesto. I mentioned several. You challenged none.

Some did not share the prejudices of Marx's time. One of them was George
Eliot. I have read all her novels. The first of them, "Scenes of Clerical
Life" had several expressions of bigotry. She grew progressively more
unprejudiced which resulted in alienation from her family.

Herman Melville in "Moby Dick" had his protagonist, Ishmael, share a room
with Queequeg, the harpooner.

"And what is the will of God?--to do to my fellow man what I would
have my fellow man to do to me--THAT is the will of God. Now, Queequeg is
my fellow man. And what do I wish that this Queequeg would do to me? Why,
unite with me in my particular Presbyterian form of worship. Consequently, I
must then unite with him in his; ergo, I must turn idolator. So I kindled
the shavings; helped prop up the innocent little idol; ..."

Melville was condemned by the clergy of his day for that passage where
Ishmael worshipped idols with a heathen.

Mark Twain wrote "Huckleberry Finn" which opposed the racism of his day.
Twain was a southerner who had served in the Confederate Army.

Some rose above the prejudices of their backgrounds. Marx did not.

David Fisher

I like the way you make your stories. It is the way my kindergarten teacher did.

Your picture also is suggestive of a childish desire to be noted.

Among the comments to your script, though, the one who mentioned Constantine got nearest to the mark.

This Emperor gifted the Popes of Rome with dominance over a large region of Italy and since, the Catholic Church has struggled between the message of Christ and the defense of the acquired ‘Temporal Power’ or, more cogently, it has cared more for the Temporal Power than for Christ’s message.

Any historian would know this fact but few, very few indeed, if any, have paused to consider its significance to ‘Social Man’ or, more comprehensively, to Humanity and its relation to planet Earth.

Besides, if one attempted to dwell on this relation, he/she would not be given any space in any form of publication to expose the resultant findings.

And church attachment to power continues due to the material (Temporal) wealth it has amassed all over the world and need to protect toot-and-nail.

In Australia Christian churches own unaccountable properties and businesses which produce profits of tens of billions These profits, of which, by far the greatest part belong to the Catholics’, are free of tax and only God, their God, knows in whose pockets they finish.

skeptic seems upset that people who have already paid taxes are willing to give to churches out of their own pocket. Secular organisations constantly feed on the public purse because most are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is. The cost would be much greater to society when secular people demand payment for what a huge number of Christians have done for free.

david f,

"Marx advocated getting rid of the bourgeois mechanisms which protect us from state tyranny. In his perceived Utopia they would not be needed."

If memory serves, only after a bourgeois had been created in accordance with the serial dialectic histories (extending Hegel) They had to be built-up to be put down. Next, Marx would have claimed the Revolution was necessary to supress opposition of the Capitalists to allow Socialism, thence Communism. The theory was alleged to be embedded in Utopianism and humanitarianism.

Yet, in 1917, did Russsia need Marxism? "No". Neither, Marx and nor Czar were of no service to the masses. A full constitutional monarchy (not desolvable on royal whim) and a the gradual development of a market economy would have been a better choice. Too rapid industrial development (and nationalism) would have risk the same militarist
outcome as occurred in Japan and Germany, I suspect. I think, Thorstein Veblen would have agreed on the last point.

Margarine Marxim as notionally implemented failed. The actual theories of Marx have not been confirmed in history. (I do see these separately)

Regards.

Dear david f,
All the authors you mention are also heroes of mine and I know their works very well (what do you make of Ladislaw in Middlemarch? An outcast Jew to mirror and outcast a proto-feminist in Dorothea, I suspect). It is heartening that some few can rise above the prejudices of their day, yet there are of course prejudices that aren’t deemed so and are circulated undetected in the loftiest discourses. Anti-Semitism is the classic and still enduring example; you would be hard pressed finding people in Marx’s day who were not infected, consciously or unconsciously. In any event you have not established that Marx carried the infection in more than the benign form I’ve already conceded as likely. Marx worshipped Shakespeare, the consummate everyman whose myriad virtues and vices cancel each other out. An extraordinary polymath, I would suggest Marx was made of similar stuff.
Anyway, for Marx, all representation under capitalism is essentially caricature, ultimately reflecting the socio-economic base, and this is key to understanding him. The Jew, as archetypal money-lender, was a “product” of the system rather than some self-conscious opportunist; he was, like the capitalist, as much a caricature of human potential as those who worked abjectly underground (just as Morlock culture reflects its material conditions). Marx does not revile types, he reviles “what produced them,” just as he would revile our system that has made us the grotesque distortions of what we might have been. Marx’s whole philosophy is above indulging in “symptomatic” hatreds of the day. If Marx did indulge the Jewish stereotype, he also held him as a “minion” of the system, more to be pitied than despised. You cannot condemn Marx unless you understand his philosophy, and I doubt you would if you did. I began to defend your comments on the Manifesto but abandoned the effort because you clearly lack an understanding of the context and the philosophy that underwrites it. You are not alone in that; I doubt one in one hundred thousand does, in the West, where Marx has been systematically and enforceably demonised.

Skeptic,

You put your finger on it ! Yes, whether it's the Catholic church or al-Qaida or the Taliban, the belief that the word of God or the Book must be put into practice on Earth, that temporal and mundane affairs must be subordinate to the Word, that all humans should be submitted to that Word, by conversion or by the sword - this is the extreme example of the evil power of religion.

The question, Squeers, that I have been asking myself is: has Marxism been applied in a similar way, either in pure or garbled form, to subordinate whole populations to yet another Word ? Have people been sacrificed - classes, ethnic groups, whole nations - and, yes, exterminated in huge numbers, to fulfil the demands of yet another religious creed, to honour the Word in yet another grotesque way ? Can some of the evils committed in Marx's name (in Russia, China, Cambodia, various tin-pot dictatorships in Africa) be attributed to the principles that he laid down ? Especially the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' - has this been abused by cliques as a short-cut on the path to socialism, by exterminating whole categories of people who didn't 'fit in' with one's notion of Utopia ? Do all Utopias inevitably turn fascist ?

I suspect, I hope, that Marx did not envisage such short-cuts and that, after the failure of the Paris Commune (perhaps earlier) he was prepared to modify downwards his aspirations: he certainly seems less hopeful of relatively blood-free revolutions in his very late writings. And I would suggest that the already-slim chances of a socialist revolution, led by some Holy Proletariat, have slipped away since then.

So the question for all extreme believers stands: is it permissible to exterminate whole categories of non-believers, for the Word of Christian, Muslim, or Hindu gods, OR Marx, to be fulfilled on Earth ?

Joe Lane

.

Dear David,

.

Your indictment of Karl Marx on the basis of the facts cited is perfectly admissible. I understand that the personal experience of your uncle Bill has weighed in the balance in formulating your opinion which also happens to be politically correct.

However, if that is what Oliver describes as your “helicopter view”, I believe we need to reach up to a satellite camera in order to obtain a still broader perspective.

Unfortunately, an historical judgment is not possible. Neither helicopters nor satellites can help us there. What we would need is a time machine that could project us forward a few millennia.

Karl Marx came from a Jewish family and I doubt that he was genuinely anti-Semite. The point is debateable. There is no general consensus among scholars.

His truly anti-Semite comrade and, nonetheless, rival, Mikhail Bakunin, actually accused Marxian communism of being part of the Jewish system of global exploitation:

“The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found”.

Karl Marx devoted the major part of his life to the emancipation of the modest masses of society of which he was not, personally, issue. He lived in poverty. One of his sons died of hunger. Unlike his two notable comrades, Engels and Bakunin, he never took an active part in any uprising or revolution. He died stateless, his Prussian nationality having been withdrawn in 1849.

Very few thinkers have ever had such an important impact on the social order of mankind as Karl Marx in the 20th century. His ideas affected half the world’s population.

Communism is as much a religion as capitalism, Christianism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. As such, it is open to interpretation. Unfortunately, a certain number of fundamentalists and other converts made the tragic mistake of applying it to the letter.

Continued ...

.

.

Continued ... Dear David, ...

.

Naturally, I agree with your point by point criticism of the communist manifesto of Marx and Engels. However, there is a lot in there which many consider to be a brilliant analysis of the social (dis)order at the time and which, regrettably, continues to prevail today.

However, if I may hike a lift in your helicopter for a moment, I should add that, from a broader perspective, the authors’ global analysis of the social (dis)order is, unrealistically, far too Manichean. It totally ignores the existence of the middle class which was there for all to see and which has never ceased to grow in importance.

Needless to say, putting my feet on the ground once more, that whilst one may well admire the force and originality of the analysis and diagnosis of the authors, the cure they prescribe has so far proven to be a total disaster, at least in most, if not all, countries where it has been implemented to date.

.

Dear Joe,
these are important questions of course, that I would need much time to research and space to decant, if I were to attempt to answer them. As I've said, I don't defend what's happened in Marx's name, and certainly I'd say that no text should be taken as doctrine. I do think that Marxism, as it's been enacted, has failed partly because of the global conditions in which it had to find its way; and also, clearly, because every model has proved itself prone to one form of vicious dictatorship or another.
Marx of course deemed eventual communism as dialectically inevitable, and I think he got that wrong. He also got capitalism right, however; but rather than it ending in a transition to communism (and he admitted that revolution always proceeds "by its bad side"), I think it will end in devastation, a perfect storm of economic, ecological and organic (human and other life-forms) collapse. Whether the survivors choose another system after that, who knows? I think, logically, that once capitalism implodes, there's nothing to stop the whole thing starting off again.

As noted by several OLO friends, the historical dialectic was very important to Marx. As a result, he said (1872) that in England and Americia, the workers revolution might not be necessary. THose countries had worked past political autocracies and established democracies. Recall, Marx wanted a workers' democracy. A key moral issue, for Marx, was the Surplus Value was not equally shared. The people higher upper in society tended have a bigger share of the pie, based on the efforts of the working class. Religion/Theism was essentially irrelevant to Marx, except that the Faiths distracted people from recognising, they were puppets (organic capital) to our peoples' agenda.

Dear Banjo,
I'm glad you and I appear to be in agreement.

I think just about anyone who's tolerably well read and over a certain age must have come across one of Erich Fromm's classic texts, such as "The Art of Loving" and "To Have or to Be". I strongly recommend another book of his called "Marx's Concept of Man", which also contains the first English translation of Marx's "Philosophical Manuscripts" to be published in the US (which give a condensed insight into his thought). How brave was Fromm to publish such a thing in the US in 1961! The book can probably be obtained for nicks online.
The book also contains several glowing contemporary accounts of Marx the man, whose thought came directly from the Enlightenment philosophical tradition. He was an extraordinary polymath, humanist, loving father and husband. When his wife got sick and eventually died, the only consolation he could find was in mathematics.
You might also want to have a look at Marx's short "confession":
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/04/01.htm

Unnnnfortunately, while we have done this argument to death privately (David and I)

It needs to be re-stated regularly. (our memories are like Random Access Memory..needs constant refreshing :)

David Says
"Secularism holds that a person’s religious belief or lack of same is no business of the government."

But David, being Jewish, and knowing many who suffered at the hands of the perpetuators of certain "ideas" also knows full well that you cannot tolerate that which would extinguish you as a race, or impose a set of laws on you which are anathema to your conscience.

If any religion held that "Jews must be fought and killed" or.. if any political philosophy held the same idea.. then we cannot tolerate it.

So.. secularism must also ensure that it does not tolerate anything which would hunt down people for no other reason than their race or religion. What must especially not be tolerated of course, on the religious side, is any set of ideas with values which are genocidal, racist and includes doctrinally justified sexual exploitation of children or women

Dear All who are discussing Marx,

I wrote the article we are commenting on because I would like to see a secular society with separation of religion and state. Whether like me you consider Marx a brilliant system maker whose system inspired the Marxist tyrannies according to his prescription or you consider them inconsistent with his original vision the fact is they interfered with religious belief, and therefore were not secular. I would like to continue discussion of Marx on another string.

My father lived in an anarchist commune in northern Manchuria, and I am an admirer of Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin and others of that ilk. I have been active in anarchist groups in Brisbane so I assume that makes me a leftist. I think Marx has been an evil influence on the left in that the Marxist statist tyrannies are quite consistent with his vision which saw the bourgeois protections against state tyranny as unnecessary since he apparently thought they would not be needed in a collective society. To make a decent society we have have to consider both social justice and individual rights. We are both members of society and individuals.

I am quite aware of Bakhunin's antisemitic propensities. He even supported the South in the US Civil War as he saw the slaveholders in the light of an agrarian romanticism. However, I think he got it completely right when he broke with Marx. I would like to continue this discussion on another string as it is a diversion from the discussion of secularism.

Dear David f and all,
I intended to start that new thread myself, but responded here as seemed necessary. I still will start another thread myself down the track a little (whether or not anyone else does in the meantime). Unfortunately, I have no more time to devote to OLO for a little while (except perhaps superficially); so shall thank you for your indulgence, wish you happy debating, and look forward to more interaction in the not too distant.

Dear ALGOREisRICH,

In our discussions as I remember we did have some agreement. We both opposed antivilification legislation although I am not sure we opposed it for the same reason. I opposed it because it puts government in the position of deciding what is and is not permitted speech. I trust nobody to decide what I should express, and I do not wish to decide what anyone should express. Therefore we must allow ideas which some find loathsome to be expressed even the Nazi ideas.

Freedom is a risky business. If we allow people to express ideas which would take away our freedoms or even our lives there is the danger that they will gather followers. If we suppress their ideas we have established a precedent which may allow our ideas to be suppressed. To allow free speech puts us at risk of losing freedom. To suppress free speech makes certain the loss of freedom.

However, speech which puts one in immediate danger such as inciting a lynch mob is an offense under common law as incitement. We need no special legislation for that. We just need police properly trained to take action in such circumstances.

However, the mere statement , “Jews must be fought and killed.”, while loathsome puts nobody in immediate danger and must be allowed. We must differentiate between mere advocacy of actions and actual planning and carrying out of actions.

The expression of any set of ideas such as you mentioned with values which are genocidal, racist and includes doctrinally justified sexual exploitation of children or women must be allowed. Values are a tricky business. Who decides what is and what is not exploitation? Having engaged in lengthy discussions with you I would not trust your judgement to decide which values are allowable.

Secularism is intended to prevent the imposition of the beliefs of one religion (be it catholicism, islam or atheism etc) onto other groups within the community. This is an obvious requisite for true democracy, as it allows representation from ALL groups in the government.

I can't understand why religious types such as runner see it as a threat to their religious beliefs, and instantly jump on the offensive...

It allows for government to operate without prejudice. Isn't that what Jesus would have wanted?

david f,

Would you agree from the time of the seventeen century the founding fathers until the first self governments of th US that the separation of church and state was as much to do with protecting the Church from Government, as ridding Government of the Church? Render unto God and don't interfere. Herein, secularism can quantine, even protect religion, rather than opposite it.

Dear Oliver,

I am writing another article on the subject, and the following is part of it.

"The General Baptists in England had advocated separation as early as 1611, and the first two pastors of the first Baptist church in England died in prison for these beliefs. Williams declared that the state could legitimately concern itself only with matters of civil order, but not religious belief."

Roger Williams was concerned with protecting church from government.

Dear David,

Very interesting, as always. Good topic.

I could be offline for a few days with my own writing.

Thanks for your contributions.

Dear David,

You quote extensively from the Stefan Zweig book, so perhaps this will interest you.

In 1970, after the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 (and my arrival in Australia) a Slovak translation of Zweig’s book was published there, apparently because the censors oversaw that it was about much more than just history. They realised their error, and withdrew it immediately, only after the word got out and large numbers queued up to get it on its first day (like the iPhone these days?). My father managed to get a copy, sent it to me, and I still cherish the book. I even went to get the English version from the library, and copied parts of it.

The German original appeared in 1936 and a verbatim translation of its title would be “Conscience against Violence”. This is also how the Slovaks translated it. Many quotes from it can be applied not only to the Calvin/Castellio situation but also to the situation in Austria and Germany that Zweig foresaw in 1936, or to the situation in Eastern Europe, especially the Czechoslovak hopelessness after 1968, and in a certain sense (as you know, mathematicians are prone to abstractions :-)) also to our times.

Here are two quotes :

“Though vanquished, those who lived before the time was ripe have found significance in the fulfillment of a timeless ideal; for an idea is only quickened to life in the real world through the endeavours of those who conceived it where non could witness the conception … Spiritually considered, the words “victory” and “defeat” acquire new meanings. Hence we must never cease to remind a world which has eyes only for monuments to conquerors, that the true heroes of our race are not those who who reach their transitory realms across hecatombs of corpses, but those who lacking power to resist, succumb to superior force.” (ctd)

(ctd)
“Always and everywhere there will crop up independents who sturdily resist any such restrictions of human liberty, “conscientious objectors” of one sort and another; nor has any age been so barbaric or any tyranny so systematic, but that individuals have been found willing and able to evade the coercion which subjugates the majority, and to defend their right to set up their personal convictions, their own truth, against the alleged “one and only truth” of the monomaniacs of power”.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Thank you for your reading suggestions. I'll look them up with intertest.

.

Dear David,

.

I too would like to see full emancipation of Australia from the British Crown, as well as from the Church it heads, our State church, as well as from all other religions.

Perhaps you may be interested in reading the article I published in "Rethink Australia" entitled "An Australian & New Zealand Republic":

http://www.rethinkaustralia.org/submissions.htm

Your socio-political, or should I say, cultural, heritage seems quite interesting, David. You certainly have some rich ressources to draw from.

My gut feeling is that we shall arrive at the end of the road of human social evolution if and when the emergence of the individual will finally have been completed 100%.

If, indeed, that were to occur, it seems to me that the ultimate organisation of human society would probably take on some form of what we call anarchy today.

Though this appears to me to be the most logical outcome, I have not the slightest desire nor intention of doing anything whatsoever in order to anticipate or speed up the process. I am quite happy to allow the evolutionary process take its natural course, in its own good time, slowly but surely.

.

.

We might ask.. "where will secularism take us?" and for this, we can find ample evidence of it being "The Highway to Hell"... as with most things, it's not in the written policy so much, though there's plenty to look at, it's how people handle non them once they have power.

For some insights on this, and how secularism is just code for 'Theocracy with man as the Deity' have a peek at this little beaudy.

http://www.telladf.org/userdocs/KeetonComplaint.pdf

Interesting case, Boaz. Thanks for the link.

>>For some insights on this, and how secularism is just code for 'Theocracy with man as the Deity' have a peek at this little beaudy.<<

Of course, to an outsider, the whole exercise reeks of special pleading, but no doubt you would readily accept that.

But do tell - has the case come to court yet? If so, is there a reference to the actual evidence presented?

It would be fascinating, for example, to actually hear the actual words in the...

"...statements that she had made in class regarding matters of sexual orientation, and from the fact that Miss Keeton had conversations with people in which she sought to convince them of her point of view."

Out here in the real world, we accept homosexuality for what it is. I can well understand, from this distance, that the lady's approach...

"She has stated that she believes sexual behavior is the result of accountable personal choice rather than an inevitability deriving from deterministic forces. She also has affirmed binary male-female gender, with one or the other being fixed in each person at their creation, and not a social construct or individual choice subject to alteration by the person so created. Further, she has expressed her view that homosexuality is a 'lifestyle,' not a 'state of being.'”

...might not be considered entirely appropriate in one taking part in a graduate Counselor Education program.

But then, I'm an atheist, and cannot understand the fuss you Christians make about homosexuality.

It's almost an obsession with you folk, isn't it?

Dear AGIR,

I looked up the reference you gave. It showed to me the need for secularism. Apparently you feel you should have the right to promote your fundamentalist Christian homophobe bigotry in the schools. If you have the right to push that garbage, fanatical Muslims should have the right to promote violent jihad. Secularism keeps all of that kind of thing out of public schools. It confines it to mosques, synagogues, temples and churches where fundies of different kinds are free to spread their nonsense.

Dear davidf,
while I agree whole-heartedly with the serve you give to AGIR above, does it not transgress against civility in precisely the same manner that you resented coming from me? Good to see you can be piqued too!

If you don't mind I'll cut and paste from the other thread while I'm here.
davidf:
<We generally have to decide things on the basis of limited knowledge and prejudice. If we wait to make the decision until we have better knowledge the optimum time for making the decision will usually have passed. I assume in such a case most of us would not marry.

In OLO we can scatter our opinions and prejudices without having to make any decisions.>
This is very true. We live in an age of relativity, of intellectual laissez faire, and one is conscious of a desperate need to take a direction in the world's affairs. Yet history cautions us about being rash, and meanwhile the various exigencies heap up. Perhaps Foucault is right in theorising us as helpless within a now global politico-economic leviathan. Orwell advocated getting "outside the whale", but there is no outside any more. The way things are going, I'm afraid secularism is failing us as comprehensively as religion has. It's just shifting the deck-chairs. I s'pose, at least it isn't offering a fatuous escape route like religion does.

The essentials of a secular democracy are respect for all people and their right to fgreedom of expession and travel. So even if seculars dont like religious views in public remember that we are talkingabout a secular democratic society.
socratease

How can we transgress against civility? Let us count the ways.

Yes, Squeers, I transgressed against civility.

There are many stimuli which can rouse one. In the particular case of homophobia taught in schools I thought of what I read about teenage suicides in Australia. Although I think people should have the right to end their lives at a time of their own choosing I hope it won't be necessary.

I have read that one of the major causes of teenage suicides is the despair of a teenager with uncertain sexuality confronting that issue in a condemnatory atmosphere. Fundamentalist Christian attitudes toward homosexuality exacerbate that despair. The court case AGIR cited keeps it out of US schools. It is literally a case of life or death. AGIR was upset by the court case. I see it as a victory for reason and compassion.

Dear Socratease,

In a secular society people are free to practice and even try to spread their religion or opposition to religion. However, they are not permitted to peddle sectarian ideas in the public schools under the guise of education.

Dear David,
Either you haven’t visited our public schools recently or you are talking about an *ideal*secular society.

But let me update you: there are a lot of authority figures in our educational institutions who are very much *permitted* to peddling their prejudices under the guise of education –and many of them don’t belong to any of the recognised religions.

To those who enjoyed the 'serve' David gave me :) you might wish to examine this issue more closely when a new discussion thread come out if approved. I titled it

"The Deification of Man and the emerging Secular Theocracy"

See if it get's past big brother Graham :)

But this amazes me from David (a Jew)

However, the mere statement , “Jews must be fought and killed.”, while loathsome puts nobody in immediate danger and must be allowed. We must differentiate between mere advocacy of actions and actual planning and carrying out of actions.

I completely disagree with this, as it is absolutely 'waiting it's time' rather than the relatively benign statement David regards it as.

I must say I often question Davids rationality in these situations, but I assign it to his desire to 'whack a Christian fundy' :) more than see reality. No offense intended David.

One only need look at this video to see that it is much more than simply a benign statement which must be allowed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fSvyv0urTE

Horiwitz "Do you agree with it?"
Muslim Woman "Yes! ! !"

"That" is the rubber meets the road, hard core real world where such values intersect with peoples lives.

Dear AGIR,
I look forward to the new thread, but it might be 24hrs before I get a chance to respond. I can't imagine GY having a problem with it.
On the other point; I believe in freedom of speech--if only we had freedom of thought to go with it!

Dear AGIR,

I really have no interest in whacking Christians. Some of them are quite decent people. I know it is hard for you to understand, but I really support free speech. I am against antivilification legislation even if Jews are vilified. Yes, loathsome sentiments may be acted on somewhere down the road, but if there is no immediate danger the speech must be allowed. 'Maybe somewhere down the road' is not a good reason to ban speech.

Horus wrote: "But let me update you: there are a lot of authority figures in our educational institutions who are very much *permitted* to peddling their prejudices under the guise of education –and many of them don’t belong to any of the recognised religions."

Dear Horus,

You haven't updated me to anything. Please name and give examples to substantiate your assertion.

Horus is correct,

My children attend a public school. I am agnostic and my ex-wife is atheist, and she is also a teacher at the school. We both agree in having religious education in school. That is, the children being taught about different relgions and beliefs, as well as the cultures and histories (good or bad) of those religions.

However, the reality is my children are being taught about Jesus, Jesus and Jesus. It is no different than the Catholic education I received as a child, except without the ceremonies.

So, it is up to me to help my children critically analyse the information they are being taught, without me undermining the authority of the school.

However, this does not mean secularism is failing, nor is it a poor system. Just like any system, there are loopholes which people will exploit for their own selfish reasons. Unfortunately, many who have religious beliefs believe that their god's 'way' is much more important than any man-made system or set of rules.

Unfortunately, there are also too many Christians in parliament who are not necessarily willing to practice secularism in it's true form. Once again, I think we will see the blurring of the lines between church and state should the Coalition return to power.

Dear TrashcanMan,

You wrote: “I think we will see the blurring of the lines between church and state should the Coalition return to power.”

The blurring of the lines is happening under Labor. Government assistance to church activities including education ended in South Australia in 1851, in Queensland in 1860, in New South Wales in 1862, in Tasmania in 1869, Victoria in 1870 and Western Australia in 1890. Since then it has been restored. Labor uses taxpayer money to subsidise religious schools.

In 1910 responding to pressure from Protestant clergy the Queensland government removed the word ‘secular’ from the Education Act which prescribed for secular education. No Labor government has been willing to restore the original act. The present Queensland Labor government has been approached about the abuses of Religious Instruction (RI) and has refused to take any action. It is unlikely that Gillard will terminate either NSCP or government subsidies to religious schools.

http://www.hsq.org.au/Campaigns/Get-Secular-Back-in-the-Act/ is the website for a campaign to get secular back in the Education Act.

http://www.hsq.org.au/Campaigns/Counsellors-not-Chaplains/ is the website for a campaign to get rid of the NSCP and replace the chaplain missionaries with trained counsellors.

Neither Labor nor Liberal is concerned with this issue.

http://greens.org.au/ is the website of the Greens who are concerned about this issue.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution reads: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

I believe NSCP and RI violate the above.

Horus mentioned “authority figures in our educational institutions who are very much *permitted* to peddling their prejudices under the guise of education –and many of them don’t belong to any of the recognised religions.” You referred to religious figures so Horus referred to something other than what you referred to.

Dear davidf

clearly these schols are in breach of the basic tenets of a free and secular democracy and should be brought into line by whatever means.

socratease

"It's just shifting the deck-chairs. I s'pose, at least it isn't offering a fatuous escape route like religion does". Squeers.

As fanatical as Fundamentalists, you seem to be an Atheist of fanatical tendencies Squeers; not all religions or the religious require or use religion as escape routes from life or of life itself.

Many people use religion as a vehicle to meet other people for the primary reason to assist other Australians through charitable voluntary work [as you would know]? If your postings elsewhere are any indication, you seem to have some common sense.

Have you or your family ever received assistance apart from Government assistance? There would be someone somewhere in your family tree that a 'religious person' has assisted Squeers. Geez Louise, you people who generalise via sweeping statements regarding religion and the religious.

we are unique:
<As fanatical as Fundamentalists, you seem to be an Atheist of fanatical tendencies Squeers; not all religions or the religious require or use religion as escape routes from life or of life itself.>
Dear we are unique,
if you're on a crusade it might suit your purposes to line me up as "an Atheist of fanatical tendencies", but if you read my posts, or took the trouble to try to understand them, you'd realise that's nonsense.
Can you tell me please; if it isn't the promise of eternal life what does motivate religious people?
<Many people use religion as a vehicle to meet other people for the primary reason to assist other Australians through charitable voluntary work [as you would know]>
So their motive is pure existential altruism?
You're quite right, I "would know". I've known many very well intentioned Christians in my time who were eager to offer assistance, but in my view they were not disinterested--I wish I could say otherwise. The vilest motivation is to manipulate and recruit; the crudest is to win "browny points"; the naivest is in buying the soporific jargon about love; and the commonest is the promise of eternal life.
As it happens I'm more an agnostic, but my problem with religios is the same problem I have with most secularists; both are pillars of our current hegemony. Secularists congratulate themselves on their enlightened sensibilities, which they show-off by shooting sitting ducks (Christians); yet they fail to put their own ideology to the same sword, which in turn prevents them from embracing genuine, liberating apostasy--the kind the world needs!

Davidf ,
My angle--and I gather it may well be a similar proposition to that which AGIR will air in a new thread -- is there are (for all intents and purposes) theocracies within secularism.They exhibit the same dogmatism and bigotry as anything found in official religion . And they often have their sacred persons/groups and narratives who/which if you value your career or good name or, if you are a student, your grades, you dare not challenge.

Listen closely to some of the threads on OLO, you will hear posters who are avowedly secularly speaking with all the venom of a Judge Hathorne.

And teachers who adhere to such secular belief systems, being only human, will seek to imprint them on their pupils.

I would have thought there wouldnt have been any need to substantiate it–observation and common sense should have been enough.

Dear Horus,

You still didn't substantiate your assertion. You merely repeated it.