| Theory |
|
Christian Fascism: the Kingdom Comes? July 5, 2005 by RedStar2000 |
Like a mouse, paralyzed with fear before a hungry cat, the American "left" seems to be paralyzed in the face of Christian fascism. The organized resistance to those bastards is, thus far, trivial.
Either people really believe that fascism "can't happen here"...or they have simply lost the will to struggle against "the inevitable".
Whatever the causes, the spectacle of such cowardice in the face of the enemy is simply appalling!
And time is running out...soon those of us lucky enough to escape can sit around in Vancouver or Mexico City and talk at great length about our abysmal failure to recognize the Christian fascist threat in time to do anything about it.
Like the German exiles after 1933.
======================================
quote:
The ill-named Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 is a prime example of the Dominionist intent to remake the Constitution in the bible’s image.
If enacted, this provision would attempt to prevent judicial review by the Supreme Court of any decision by any government official or agent made based on his or her religious beliefs.
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/149919/index.php
This one is not likely to be adopted anytime soon...but it's another "straw-in-the-wind" of what Christian fascists have in store for us.
At the end of last month, there was a conference in New York City to discuss the threat of the Christian right and what to do about it.
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/149918/index.php
Unfortunately, the tone of the conference was not a good one. Here is my response...
A couple of interesting excerpts from this article...
quote:
Frederick Clarkson, an independent journalist, urged progressives to reclaim not only faith...
...several identified the perceived disdain for religion on the part of much of the left as a significant obstacle in organizing against the right’s march toward dominion.
As the struggle against Christian fascism begins, we're going to hear this a lot -- the suggestion that "God" is "a liberal Democrat".
It is as if moderate Germans in 1931 got together and said to themselves something along the lines of "we have to reclaim anti-semitism from the Nazis".
That would not have worked then; it's not going to work now.
You cannot effectively struggle against a reactionary movement by accepting its basic premise. The basic premise of Christian fascism is that there is a supernatural entity to which obedience is owed.
Looking back, I think it was a great error on the part of German anti-fascists in the early 1930s not to attack the premise of anti-semitism "head on". Even the otherwise intransigent German Communist Party carefully removed candidates with "Jewish-sounding names" from its parliamentary lists.
I agree that "disdain" for Christian superstition is now obsolete; the jokes about it are no longer funny.
It would be much better, in my opinion, to confront the Christian fascists directly.
We should say clearly: you will not impose your barbarous superstition on us!
This is not Iran!
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on May 11, 2005
------------------------------------------------------
Carl Davidson has written a careful and thoughtful analysis of the American "right" as a whole.
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/150847/index.php
Much more dubious is the strategic framework that he has chosen for fighting it.
Although he doesn't use the phrase "popular front"...that's what he's recommending.
quote (Davidson):
Our main adversary is the anti-democratic right, which includes the war-making hegemonists, the NeoCons and much of the conservative right, especially the religious right in power. While we expose their roots in the most reactionary sectors of big capital, we are not opposing corporations or capitalism in general. The idea is to isolate and divide the right, defeating its components step by step.
-- emphasis added.
Does that strategy work? Historically, I don't think it has...at best, it results in quasi-fascism (what bourgeois ideologues call "authoritarianism") rather than open and fully-developed fascism.
The reason that I think the "popular front" doesn't work is that it concedes too much to the enemy...it concedes the legitimacy of the existing order and attempts only to "save it" from something even worse.
Most of the forces proposed for inclusion in Davidson's "popular front" actually contain strong reactionary elements of their own. African-American preachers, for example, have rarely sided with black communities in open rebellion...preferring instead to "cool things down" and engage in deal-making with the white elite.
Likewise, that part of feminism with the resources to influence public discussion -- call it "corporate feminism" -- is essentially careerist in orientation. Their right to abortion on demand, for example, is not threatened by the Christian fascists...they'll buy a plane ticket to Europe.
Many of the existing trade unions are, more or less, openly pro-American imperialism. Imperialist war not only creates new high-paying jobs but shrinks the labor pool of young, lower-wage workers...exerting an upward pressure on wages. Smart union leaders know this.
In short, the "center" of American politics is pretty far towards the right...in and of itself. If the right were to "magically disappear", surprisingly little would actually change in what we see around us.
quote (Davidson):
Defeating war and the danger of fascism requires removing the warmongers and budding fascists from positions of political power. There is no way to do this without a protracted, bottom-up battle to build independent electoral organization and to reform the election system itself in favor of wider, multiparty democracy. The progressive and democratic forces in America need their own political party, and the time to start building it is now. But in the meantime, as a broad nonpartisan alliance, there is every reason to select appropriate lists of candidates from all parties for the progressive grassroots organizations to elect, to bypass or to defeat. Through the experience of these campaigns, positive and negative, the strength and knowledge will be grown to carry on and win the battle for democracy on a much higher level.
In other words, a "popular front" exists for the purpose of winning elections.
There was a time when popular fronts did win elections, most notably in France.
Is that still possible now? If you look at what it actually requires -- in resources, media exposure, etc. -- to mount a credible election campaign in the United States, I don't think there is any practical way for us to do that any longer.
The "battle of democracy" is over...and we lost. When? Probably in 1948...if not much earlier.
Since then, whatever progressive changes that have taken place in the U.S. (a short list) have resulted from large-scale action "in the streets" or the obvious threat of such action.
A "popular front" could do that...but it runs counter to the "instinct" of popular-frontism. It's not something that people in popular fronts "naturally" turn towards.
So, what's my plan? I think we need a strategy of confrontation with the right...particularly that portion of it that is clearly Christian fascist. Every time their leaders show their faces in public, they should be met with angry demonstrations. When they show up at schools and universities, we should attempt to drive them out...just as if they were military recruiters. At such time as we may find ourselves in public debate with them, we should not "respect their religious convictions" but should instead attack their barbarous extravagance.
They constantly whine in public about "the attack on faith"...let's give the bastards something to really whine about!
I am not so bold as to claim that we can win such a war...the left is woefully weak in the present period.
But I think we "teach a better lesson" by going down fighting...than we would by going down whimpering.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at NYC IndyMedia on May 23, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
One of the things that I've learned over the decades is that it's largely pointless to remonstrate with people over what I might perceive as their "wrong strategy".
In fact, I've done a 180-degree turn on this; after criticizing what I think to be a "wrong strategy", I now encourage people to go ahead and implement that strategy and even wish them well...communists should encourage any form of resistance to the prevailing social order...no matter how tenuous and limited it may appear.
One never knows what may emerge from the most unpromising origins.
Having said that, I hope that people will choose a confrontational strategy against the right in all its varieties. I think that's the "best chance" for victory...while admitting that the overall chances of victory for any strategy are...not very good.
Should things turn out very badly -- Christian fascism wins in a rout -- then it does matter "how we lose".
The Paris Commune lost. So did the French Popular Front. Which do we remember and honor today? And which is remembered with shame and embarrassment?
We have no control over the times in which we live...and if the "tide of history" is, for the moment, running heavily against us, well, those are the breaks.
What we do have control over is our own actions in the face of the enemy. To openly fight against reaction, as steadfastly and vigorously as we can, is one option. To attempt to cleverly out-maneuver the juggernaut and render it relatively harmless (or at least less harmful) by indirect methods is another.
No doubt both will take place...and may even, in a limited sense, reinforce each other (doubtful but possible).
But, speaking personally, I have to look at myself in the mirror every morning.
Therefore, I choose open and intransigent resistance.
And I urge you, the reader, to do the same.
-----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at NYC IndyMedia on May 24, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
Did anyone happen to notice the appearance of British politician George Galloway before that U.S. Senate subcommittee?
He is a representative of "old Labour" and by no means any sort of communist. (In fact, he's said flatly that religion is "not reactionary".)
And yet, he really "opened fire" on the U.S. Senators...I mean he just pounded their asses! Afterwards, Fox News, et.al., pissed and moaned all over the place about Galloway.
Can anyone think of even one American politician that's even remotely capable of Galloway's aggressive opposition?
In other words, I think Davidson is looking for people that, in this country, don't exist. The "establishment opposition" to Christian fascism here are a bunch of fucking wimps!
(Note that Senate Democrats caved again on Bush's nominations to the federal judiciary. That must have come as a great shock...to every four-year-old kid in the country!)
It is suggested by many that there is a great deal of anger among ordinary people about the way things are going here. I don't know if that's true or not...because there's pretty much zero reflection of that in public life.
Does that anger exist? Where is it? When will it show itself in an unmistakable way?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 24, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The May 2005 issue of Harper's Magazine has two excellent articles on Christian fascism. One of them, "Feeling the Hate with the National Religious Broadcasters" by Chris Hedges, contains this early warning against Christian fascism.
quote (Chris Hedges):
I can't help but recall the words of my ethics professor at Harvard Divinity School, Dr. James Luther Adams, who told us that when we were his age, and he was then close to eighty, we would all be fighting the "Christian fascists".
He gave us that warning twenty-five years ago...
But more interesting than early warnings is the way Christian fascism organizes itself -- one might call it "Undemocratic Centralism". This and other aspects of Christian fascism are discussed at length in "Inside America's Most Powerful MegaChurch" by Jeff Sharlet.
quote (Jeff Sharlat):
The true architectural wonder of New Life, however, is the pyramid of authority into which it orders its 11,000 members. At the base are 1,300 cell groups, whose leaders answer to section leaders, who answer to zone, who answer to district, who answer to Pastor Ted Haggard, New Life’s founder....
No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted, and no church more than New Life....
Angels, ethnicities, hierarchy, employers and employees—each category must follow a natural order....
New Lifers, Pastor Ted writes with evident pride, “like the benefits, risks, and maybe above all, the excitement of a free-market society.”...
Which brings us back to “Order.” Key to the growth of evangelicalism during the last twenty years has been a social structure of “cell groups” that allows churches to grow endlessly while maintaining orthodoxy in their ranks. New Life, for instance, has 1,300 cell groups, or “small groups,” as Pastor Ted prefers to call them...
From [Thomas] Friedman, Pastor Ted says he learned that everything, including spirituality, can be understood as a commodity. And unregulated trade, he concluded, was the key to achieving worldly freedom....
And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile, worldly counterpart. “I teach a strong ideology of the use of power,” he says, “of military might, as a public service.” He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible’s exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for ferocious war, because “the Bible’s bloody. There’s a lot about blood.”...
His point was that arbitrary small groups would make less sense than self-selected groups organized around common interests. Hence New Life members can choose among small groups dedicated to motorcycles, or rock climbing, or homeschooling, or protesting outside abortion clinics.
But Pastor Ted’s true genius lies in his organizational hierarchy, which ensures ideological rigidity even as it allows for individual expression. Not just anyone can lead a small group, much less a section; a battery of personality and spiritual tests must be undergone first, as well as an official background check. Once chosen, group leaders meet regularly with their own leaders in the chain of command, and members are encouraged to jump the chain and speak to a higher level if they think their leader is straying into “false teachings”—moral relativism, ecumenism, or even “Satanism,” in the form of New Age notions such as crystal healing.
Whether the system is common sense or heresy itself—the Body of Christ atomized—is beside the point; New Lifers have found it powerfully persuasive. Pastor Ted has instituted a semester system, so that no one needs to be locked into a group he or she doesn’t like for too long. And since New Life’s cell groups don’t limit themselves to Bible study, they function as covert evangelizing engines. In return, what Pastor Ted has given his flock are lifestyle choices.
Soldiers of Christ
The present situation is not good.
------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on May 29, 2005
------------------------------------------------------
quote:
If last year's anti-Bush protesters had used Prospect Park or Flushing Meadows instead of Central Park, they could have attracted more supporters who do not live in Manhattan. Instead, they insisted that only Central Park will do.
What the left-wingers ignored, Billy Graham noticed. He preached in a large park surrounded by working-class residential immigrant communities.
I agree with you; that's a sensible criticism.
quote:
Social justice activists need to tap into religious people's genuine desire to help out humanity without turning them off with overtly derogatory stances towards religion.
I completely disagree. Christian fascism is the real face of Christianity itself.
It's Christianity without cosmetics.
I find it continually astonishing that the left does not recognize that all forms of superstition are our implacable enemies.
A famous old socialist newspaper was called Appeal to Reason -- reflecting what the appeal for a radical and conscious transformation of human society has always been based on.
Organized superstitions are and have always been an enemy of human reason. The "gods" have ordained a world of human pain and suffering...and to oppose that is to oppose the "gods" themselves.
Very well, let's do that!
The Christian fascists are firmly convinced that the rise of the American Empire is their last "big chance" for Christianity to "conquer the world".
Opposing the empire also means opposing its superstitious "justification".
Christianity, like the Empire, must be destroyed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at NYC IndyMedia on June 27, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Send in the trolls...
quote:
Where do you plan to spend eternity, smokin' or non-smokin'?
Smoking, please.
quote:
So Mr. Redstar would you agree that Islam too "must be destroyed"?
Of course. Note however at the present time that Islamic fascism is a minor threat outside of the Muslim world itself.
Most people in the "west" are not Muslims and will never convert to Islam...possibly because Islam is not as clever in disguising its reactionary nature as Christianity often is.
The Christians really believe that America is God's Chosen Master of the World.
That qualifies them for being "first on the list".
quote:
So Redstar, you keep using the term "Christian fascism," sounds like you're an admirer of Bob Avakian.
Quite the contrary. I find Avakian's thinking pedestrian, his writings almost unendurably prolix and occasionally incoherent, and the RCP's personality cult around him to be ludicrous.
But even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.
Christian fascism is an objective phenomenon that can be demonstrated from both its writings and its deeds...without regard to the disputed merits of Bob Avakian.
Try the Harper's Magazine site -- hardly a front for the RCP -- for several excellent articles on the reality of Christian fascism.
quote:
Isn't there a form of Christianity that isn't fascist? I'm sure there is.
There are "mainstream" Christian denominations that have not yet endorsed the clerical fascist option.
If and when it looks like the Christian fascists are about to win, I expect them to "defect to the side of the Lord".
quote:
When you label things fascist, it just shows that you're a hater.
Yes, I am a "hater"...of fascism, of the American Empire, and of everything it stands for.
Deal with it.
quote:
What kind of obtuse, narrowmindedness perspective do you have that you reflexively categorize Bill Graham as being an anti-liberal "Christian leader" while being obviously ignorant of Christian diversity in NYC?
Graham's "godly support" of U.S. imperialism in Vietnam is a matter of public record.
What else do you need?
quote:
Yet you must be responsible, and obedient to the King!
Wrong. In the circles I travel in, removal of the King's head is just the beginning.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at NYC IndyMedia on June 28, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Islam is the fastest growing religion while Christianity is shrinking...
That's obviously because Muslims have among the highest birth-rates in the world. As more Muslim women become educated, the birth-rate will decline...and so will the growth of Islam.
quote:
You don't know very much about Christianity, do you?
Quite a bit more than most Christians, actually.
Know your enemy, etc.
quote (Carl Davidson):
Don't you think this is a bit reductionist, Redstar?
More than a bit...it's "reductionist" as hell.
But you see I am not Marx or even a philosopher. I just "notice things" and "see patterns" and "draw conclusions".
We have roughly 17 centuries of experience with many varieties of the Christian religion. It's my contention that 99.999% of that experience has been pure shit!
Thus my proposition: the Christian religion reduces to pure shit.
Of course, people object. They'll pound away on behalf of that .001% of Christians that "did good". They'll even claim that "only" that tiny minority are "real Christians" and "all the rest" are "agents of the Devil".
That does not seem to me to be even remotely credible.
quote (Davidson):
Besides, 'Good Christian' is what we call an 'essentially contested concept,' i.e., it has no reduced common meaning even to all Christians.
Pretty close though. The New Testament is not an ambiguous document -- though it certainly contradicts itself on many of the minor details.
If someone adheres to Christianity, they know the sorts of things they are supposed to do -- if they're serious about it.
Most of those things are stupid, cruel, and fundamentally reactionary.
Of course that doesn't necessarily apply to "social Christians"...people indoctrinated from childhood with a few scraps and tatters of Christian mythology and who remain attached to it out of intellectual inertia. There are still many such "Christians"...they behave not that differently from atheists.
Real Christians are contemptuous of this...and seek diligently to "win them over" to real Christianity.
And not without success.
quote (Davidson):
Religion is not simply 'superstition.' It offers answers, guidelines or even just hopeful affirmations to questions about 'that which concerns us ultimately' (Paul Tillich) that science either can't answer, because of its nature, or has yet to answer.
It's my view that those "questions" about "things which concern us ultimately" are fake. They are raised by people who have a clear material interest in raising them and in getting people to pay attention to them.
It is all a con, a game of "spiritual" three-card-monte in which the believer always loses.
Beginning with your self-respect ("you worthless sinner!") but quickly moving on to the transfer of funds.
And, if frequent news reports are to be believed, kiddie-nookie if available.
quote (Davidson):
Some religions, such as Buddhism, even say if science has the better answer, then accept the scientific answer. (The Dalai Lama)
That old fraud! He is utterly shameless in his effrontery even by the very low standards set for "holy men".
He'll say anything for money!
I expect to see him in an American Express commercial any day now.
-----------------------------------
I would contend, in the light of 20th century experience, that Marx and most of his followers consistently underestimated the reactionary impact of religion on the consciousness of the working class...and how stubbornly and tenaciously the seriously religious would fight to preserve their racket.
In Marx's time, the most advanced of the rising bourgeoisie were quite hostile to religious dogma...and he probably expected that to continue until religion lost all intellectual credibility.
Well, it did lose all intellectual credibility...but who anticipated that religion would counter-attack and do so effectively by attacking the power of human reason across the board?
The Christian fascists are not simply interested in "reforming" our "decadent morality"...they say plainly that they expect us to renounce all of science that conflicts with "holy scripture" -- meaning pretty much all of science, period.
Moreover, who anticipated that the biggest of the bourgeoisie would decide that promoting religion among the masses was imperative if the rise of communism was to be halted and then reversed?
You would be astonished -- and appalled -- to learn of the really big bucks flowing into religion these days.
Here's an example from my site...
A Glimpse into the Godracket
The "choice" that is being offered to us begins to look like "a whole lot of wretched godbabble" or "a clerical fascist theocracy".
quote (Davidson):
Against this protracted process, we have an immediate task of defeating the relatively small number of the most dangerous enemies. To do so, we will have to build alliances with large numbers of believers, who are, after all, the large majority of Americans --left, center and right. You don't do so by insulting their faith for starters.
Well, that's just another version of our basic disagreement, isn't it? I'm in favor of attacking the proven enemy as sharply as possible. And you favor an entirely different strategy -- an alliance with "less dangerous enemies" in order to defeat the "most dangerous enemy".
If people think that sucking up to superstition "will work" to defeat Christian fascism, then there's probably not much I can say to stop you from doing that.
In my own view, such a strategy is equivalent to trying to defeat the Nazis by proposing a "kinder & gentler" anti-semitism. People who are serious about Christianity but are not yet Christian fascists are, in my opinion, already half-way there.
They may not yet be ready to burn a witch or stone a disobedient child, but...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at NYC IndyMedia on June 28, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Just explain to me how the heck we got here.
What difference would the answer to that question make to your life and the way you intend to live it?
You still have to decide to be a "good guy" or an asshole. To treat other people decently or to shit on everyone you can. To struggle to liberate yourself and others from despotism or to submit to it and praise those who dominate you.
Suppose the world "really was" created by some harsh and demanding deity with a sadistic taste for human pain and suffering, would you submit to and worship such an entity? Would that make it "ok" to be the biggest asshole you could make of yourself...in reverent imitation of the DIVINE ASSHOLE in the sky?
Or suppose the contrary -- the world "really was" created by a "kind and loving god" who just happens to be totally helpless in the face of human pain and suffering? Is there any point to worshiping such a "weak god"...since the decision to add to or subtract from human pain and suffering is still yours?
You see where these so-called "ultimate questions" lead...into endless and futile pseudo-discussions as to "the nature of god" or "what god really wants us to do" or "what rewards and punishments does god have in store for us".
Crap was, is, and ever shall be...crap!
quote (Davidson):
You are confusing Jesus, the Zen master with a twinkle in his eye, throwing out zingers like 'let he who is without sin throw the first stone' to those who would trash a woman, with the misogynist homophobe St. Paul, who never even met Jesus, but snuck all that neoPlatonism you quote in through the back door.
Sure, Saulos of Tarsus was the prince of bastards in the New Testament.
But before we conclude that Christianity was "his fault", let us note that "the twinkling Zen master" was the one who came up with the idea of eternal punishment for sin.
And in the celebrated incident to which you refer, a couple of points. "Jesus" had nothing to say about the mysterious absence of the woman's partner in "adultery". He didn't think it important to ask, "hey, where's the guy?".
And secondly, he said nothing explicitly against the Mosaic code itself...even when he was expressly invited to do so. Like he could have said, "if you stone that woman to death, she'll go to Heaven and you fuckers will burn in Hell".
Which is simply to point out that "Jesus" was a Jew and not a Christian. He accepted the basic outlook of first century Judaism...but wished to "reform" it in the celebrated tradition of Jewish prophesy.
He was something of a "theological reactionary"...although he did break new ground with his doctrine of "Hell".
quote (Davidson):
Yes, the church in Europe in the middle ages, the book-burning fanatics, tried to wipe out classical civilization. Luckily Patrick's monks in Ireland were far from Rome, preserved all the Greek & Roman 'satanic' classics, and built libraries everywhere they could. Old St Pat, himself a former slave, in the 4th Century, penned one of the first proclamations ever demanding the abolition of slavery.
Christianity's atrocities are not limited to the "Middle Ages". When they first emerge into recorded history (c.300CE), they demonstrate a marked hostility to "Greek and Roman classics" and an insatiable appetite for violence against each other. As their strength grew, persecution of non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc.) became their principle attribute...a trail of blood that today leads to Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Or do you dispute George W. Bush's claim that he's "doing God's will"?
quote (Davidson):
To make revolution, you're going to have to find ways to establish common ground with believers, separating the wheat from the chaff, to build a new society where the last now are first, and the first now are last.
In the case of serious Christians, it's all chaff.
quote (Davidson):
Most folks are upset about the fact of death, at least of themselves and those close to them.
Indeed...and a fairy-story about the "after-life" is no doubt comforting to the ignorant and the gullible.
That does not confer a license to steal...much less persecute.
quote (Davidson):
All people thrive better with three things in life -- meaning, structure and community.
No doubt...but are we to use the power of human reason to establish those things or submit our fate to a bunch of con-men and nutballs?
We've seen quite clearly where the latter choice leads.
quote (Davidson):
But you haven't spoken to the staying power...
Up until the last couple of centuries, it was practically impossible to throw off the chains of one superstition without immediately falling into another superstition...there were simply no reasonable alternatives available.
Now that we've begun to learn about the universe as it really is, the "staying power" of superstition is diminishing at a marked rate...even here in "god's country".
In a sense, the Christian fascists are quite right in their preoccupation with "last days"...these are the last days for superstition as a serious force in the world unless the Christian fascists can force us back into the Middle Ages at gunpoint.
To them, the battle against "secularism" (of all kinds) is literally a "life & death" struggle.
quote:
Islamic fascism is a threat outside the Muslim world. Remember 9-11?
Do you really believe that Muhammad's Armies will someday storm the beaches of Long Island and carry the victorious banners of Allah into the fleshpots of Manhattan?
Get real.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at NYC IndyMedia on June 28, 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For a brief period of time, the Revolutionary "Communist" Party experimented with a campaign explicitly against Christian fascism...
Protesting Christian Fascism
However, they seem to have dropped the idea fairly quickly -- or, they might say, incorporated it into their new "World Can't Wait" ("to Drive Out Bush") campaign.
So they might mention Christian fascism now and then...but it probably won't be a serious focus any longer.
At the present time, the only open opposition to Christian fascism comes from a handful of left-liberal secularists, a few atheist websites, and a few practicing scientists who the Christian fascists "can't get to" (yet).
I can tell you what I think ought to be happening. There ought to be vocal and demonstrative opposition to the Christian fascists...of the same character that exists towards the Nazis. Whenever a prominent Christian fascist makes a public appearance, there should be a noisy and tumultuous demonstration against the bastard. Whenever they openly seek to influence public policy, they should be denounced as medieval barbarians. Whenever they "sneak" into a school board election -- one of their favorite tactics in the U.S. -- they should be exposed and compelled to "fess up" their real views. When they appear before high school assemblies with their wretched chastity campaigns, they should be loudly heckled and booed off the stage.
What I can't tell you is how to get to even this minimal level of opposition.
The vast bulk of what passes for a "left" in this fucked-up country are still flopping on their bellies whenever someone invokes religious tolerance...as if the Christian fascists are ever going to "tolerate" any left at all. Too many people still believe that religion "deserves" some kind of "special respect" even when they personally don't believe in superstition themselves.
Imagine what things would be like if we took the same attitude towards racists...if we said, well, the racists are wrong but we still have to "respect" people who identify with "race".
So most of the "left" has stood around with their thumbs up their asses while the Christian fascists go marching on.
Here's a small way to begin: use the IndyMedia sites to attack Christian fascism. Whenever items are posted about religion on the NYC IndyMedia site, I try to make sure to make some "acid" posts about Christian fascism and why it is so dangerous to the left. If there's an Indymedia site near you, why not do the same?
When enough of the left gets up off its belly and is ready to vigorously stand up against Christian fascism...then maybe something can be done.
If it's not already too late.
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on July 1, 2005
----------------------------------------------------
I need to add to my list of people who openly oppose Christian fascism a very important element: the gay-lesbian community.
As one of the main targets of Christian fascism, they seem to be beginning to organize some small demonstrations at public appearances of Christian fascist speakers.
If this materializes in your area, go! Even if you're not gay.
This is a fundamental matter of solidarity!
----------------------------------------------------
First posted at RevLeft on July 2, 2005
----------------------------------------------------
====================================== |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| I’m convinced that wide-spread atheism is crucial for the success of the communist project.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 3 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
