imageSaturday’s issue of The Guardian wasn’t exactly a souvenir edition for the pope’s imminent visit to England but it had several articles on Catholicism.

Under the headline “The Vatican is a nest of devils” Sinead O’Connor was given two pages to share her views on religion. Page 17 had a report on child abuse by clergy in Belgium. Ben Goldacre devoted his Bad Science feature to the recent discovery that the official Catholic position is against the use of condoms and page 11 was given over to a feature headlined “Atheists, activists and apathy await pope”.

There has been a gap in the market for a paper with scarifying stories about the Whore of Babylon since Ian Paisley was obliged to close down the Protestant Telegraph in 1982. It looks like “the world’s leading liberal voice” has decided to fill it. Channel 4 has spotted the niche too. Peter Tatchell is presenting a documentary on the general malignity of Catholicism and by the purest chance there’s a feature on the Belgian abuse cases on its news show tomorrow night.

Here’s my theory.

The secular, liberal left doesn’t like religion any more than it is partial to revolutionary Marxism. Making rude remarks about the less appealing parts of some Muslim or Orthodox Jewish practice might blur the distinction with people like the EDL. You don’t want to do that but you still have to let off steam about how cross religion makes you.

Who is it really easy to take a pop at? Christian fundamentalists in England are an insignificant minority. It’s pretty hard to get outraged by Anglicanism. The Catholics are the obvious targets. Much of their senior management have been compromised by involvement in the cover ups; their rituals and costumes are flamboyant and often ludicrous and they are generally perceived as  alien and marginal in English society.

“Foreign, dirty, poor and ignorant” aren’t just some of the usual epithets Mrs Mac uses when describing me.  The historian Eamon Duffy applied them to the view of Catholics in England since mass Irish migration to the country in the nineteenth century. He was backed up in this opinion by the Tory David Starkey in a radio interview they did together. Starkey used the example of his own mother to illustrate the depth of historic anti-Catholic prejudice in England and the endless flow of reports and articles which a lot of Catholics would be entitled to find offensive suggest that its got a few decades left in it.

81 responses to “Foreign, verminous, dirty, poor and ignorant”

  1. “The secular, liberal left doesn’t like religion any more than it is partial to revolutionary Marxism”

    Revolutionary marxists don’t like religion either.

    Like

  2. TinaP:

    ““The secular, liberal left doesn’t like religion any more than it is partial to revolutionary Marxism”

    Revolutionary marxists don’t like religion either.”

    I’m sure revolutionary socialists ‘don’t like religion’, but then they don’t mistake atheism or animosity towards religion with ‘progressive politics’ either.

    Like

  3. If that “animosity” towards religion flows from a defence of the rights of women, LGBT rights, the defence of children against predatory men in powerful posiitons, then I think its probably is quite progressive and not to be to be mistaken with reactionary anti-catholic bigotry.

    And some of those protesting against the pope are catholics for reform and survivors of abuse who are still Catholics. Do you think they should keep quiet so not as to offend their fellow Catholics?

    Like

  4. I think it’s uncontroversial that child abusers should be prosecuted and punished and that people have a right to protest. My point was that some of the liberal press has taken an editorial decision to give the Catholics a kicking and this may not be unconnected both with a specific English antipathy to Catholicism and their own dislike of all religion.

    Terry Eagleton’s more nuanced view of religion is more useful than liberalism’s slash and burn take on the subject.

    http://liammacuaid.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/kerpow-take-that-ditchkins/

    Like

  5. Papes eh!,what a bunch of redemtionists.Paisley when he and his biggotry was kicking,was a long line of fire and brimstone,used by a religious diety to opprese those of other redemtionalist mind.A cry of hatered has all religion, and a tear for the socialist to shed.

    Abuse by men and woman,is not secular,it is abuse.Woman and men, us homosapiens are all abused,some by sex others by creed and most by greed.Not all are anti varient sex haters,but are human.Divided by the creed of greed.

    Like

  6. ffs. Nothing in the Guardian was giving Catholics a kicking, it was giving the Pope and the Church a kicking if anything. The same paper is equally critical of mad leaders from all other religions.

    You single out Ben Goldacres column for criticism- this is total madness on your part. Goldacre merely highlights the scientific evidence that the Pope directly through his pronouncements makes AIDS more widespread.

    What sort of Marxist complains at scientific criticism of the Pope? You are a joke.

    Like

  7. […] article here by Liam Mac Uaid about the tedious outpourings of anti-Catholic prejudice that are accompanying the visit of His […]

    Like

  8. “specific English antipathy to Catholicism and their own dislike of all religion.”

    exactly

    Like

  9. Andy Newman said ‘ “specific English antipathy to Catholicism and their own dislike of all religion.” exactly’

    Rising higher on the list of idiocy comes former marxist Andy Newman.

    I’d like to think there genuinely is a specific english dislike of all religion -and for that matter all superstitious lies- it would be progressive. Sadly it’s not the case. Although I think there is a general dislike of peadophiles, liars, cheats, fraudsters, homophobes and mysoginists which make up the leadership of the Catholic Church.

    There’s an excellent Church bashing piece on comment is free today; but it is certainly not anti-catholic.

    Like

  10. Actually Ben Goldacre devoted his piece to showing how the science contradicts the Church’s position on condoms.

    Having grown up a Catholic in the South East of England I cannot recall a single instance of anti-Catholic prejudice or hearing any reported. What has in fact occurred is that as the shield of immunity from criticism has been lifted religious people have been outraged that their particular brand of nonsense has been subject to scrutiny. It is precisely the reluctance in society to criticise “men of faith” that has allowed the clerical child abuse to go on for so long.

    Like

  11. The anti-pope demo will have two effects: 1) it will help forment and legitimise bigotry against all Catholics working class and others, Catholaphobia if you will, and not specifically against the Pope; 2) it will have the effect of enabling the Catholic clergy to call for unity in the face of anti-Catholicism and effectively close down the internal debate which has all the potential of seriously weakening the conservative grip of the Church globally. That process should be allowed to continue and should receive encouragement from the outside but this only encourages the opposite. Two unintended consequences no doubt, or one hopes, but worth considering I think.

    If you are on this demo, and I would urge socialists to avoide it like the plague, don’t be surprised to find yourself in the company of some very unsavoury folk indeed, and I don’t just mean the Pope, but many of those alongside whom you will be marching.

    Like

  12. Child abuse in any society,no matter its righteous ideal ,is no way.

    Like

  13. “The Catholics are the obvious targets.” Utter nonsense – there is well-earned criticism of the reactionary, authoritarian, secretive, self-serving and corrupt hierarchy of the church. Invoking historical anti-catholic prejudice is a diversion from legitimate (and far from complete) criticism of this powerful and power-hungry institution.
    This post is a Jesuitical defence of the indefensible.

    Like

  14. Personally, I would have no problem abstractly with protesting against the Pope for the reactionary things he imposes on those loyal to his church.

    But many of those protesting against him are bigots themselves who are worse than he is. Secularists who thing the way to ‘secularise’ the world is to send a gunboat or a cruise missile. I’m fussy about the company I keep.

    “Rising higher on the list of idiocy comes former marxist Andy Newman. ”

    Well, I have to observe than while Andy Newman may indeed be a former Marxist and now self-described left social-democrat, he was more recently a revolutionary socialist than the source of this jibe.

    Like

  15. daveinstokenewington Avatar
    daveinstokenewington

    What aftertrotsky said.

    Ever consider the possibility that Catholic comes in for flak because it damn well deserves it?

    Like

  16. “Ever consider the possibility that Catholic comes in for flak because it damn well deserves it?”

    It that just the hierarchy, or Catholics in general?

    Like

  17. davestokenewington

    say hi to julie burchill on the march. Her Independent column last week was a corker of rabble rousing, cynical professional controversialism.

    The catholic hierarchy may well deserve flack but as I said the likely result of this march will be to generate general anti-catholic bigotry and a desire for unity in the face of that bigotry amongst Catholics themselves thereby removing any pressure for reform from within. Neither of those are outcomes you would like to see are they?

    Like

  18. Oh god, Julie Burchill!

    A case in point of someone who is a far worse reactionary than the Pope.

    She said (quite recently, I understand) that she would like to shoot sex workers for being traitors to her form of radical feminism.

    Twisted politics lead her to conclusions not that different to Peter Sutcliffe.

    Just grotesque. And these are the kind of people whose lead we are supposed to follow against reactionary Catholicism. What a sicko she is!

    Like

  19. Today’s Guardian tells us that the moment so many readers of this site had been hoping for finally happened. Robbie Williams performed again with Gary Barlow. It happened at the “Help For Heroes” benefit concert which was televised on the BBC. The “heroes” in question are British troops fighting in Afghanistan.

    The same issue of the paper has coverage of a number of killings of Iraqi civilians by British troops. The cover up includes the MOD, the regiments involved, the military investigators and the units whose members did the killing. None of this is exactly new for the British Army. In fact it’s standard procedure everywhere it goes.

    Contrast the press coverage and liberal outrage between that and Benny’s trip. Will Channel 4 and BBC1 be running simultaneous documentaries called “What’s wrong with the British Army”?

    There’s always a reason for blanket editiorial coverage of a subject.

    Like

  20. Presenting criticism of an institution as criticism of a group in general.
    Implying ongoing oppression but failing to provide evidence of same.
    Presenting historical oppression as if it proved the existence of an ongoing phenomenon.
    Pointing to reactionary examples of those who would also criticise the institution concerned to try and discredit all opposition.
    Failing to address the particular criticisms made.

    There seems to be a reasonable parallel to be drawn between the Curia elision of our host and the Netanyahoos over at Shiraz Socialist who claim that criticism directed at the nature of the Israeli state is “political anti-semitism”.

    Like

  21. In general I tend to agree with Skidmarx. It does strike me, though, that a lot of those vehemently protesting the Pope are the very same Netanyahoos from Shiraz and elsewhere.

    Which is grounds to worry about just whom one is associated with.

    Like

  22. I think you’ll find the bulk of the anti-Pope demonstrators will be AWLers ( along with EDLers and the Zionist federation: DELETED) so clearly they don’t see the parallell probably because there isn’t one. Zionism is a sectarian colonialist movement, it is not judaism, whilst the Pope is the head of the catholic church. The point is that this demo is a blunt instrument that will fail to differentiate itself, either in the eyes of those it is claiming to want to reach or in the eyes of those it is claiming it does not want to attract, from mere provocation and bigotry.

    Think of the inflamatory march in Luton by the sectarian political Islamists, multiply it by several factors and you’ll have some idea of the scale of the provocation planned by the self-promoting, self-serving sectarian atheist believers.

    Like

  23. In general I tend to agree with ID. It is always a good idea to be concerned about who one is associating with, and certianly when it comes to the major actual bigotry operative today against Muslims, Liam comes out a lot better out of any comparison.

    Like

  24. Liam, why would you think that the mainstream press wouldn’t be biased in all sorts of ways and no cover subjects how a revolutionary would like? It’s ABC for trotskyists.

    I do note though that the BBC has more live coverage of the visit of the peado-protecting ex-nazi Pope’s visit to britain than it does of TUC congress. We’re hardly living in a catholic hating country.

    Like

  25. Ohr writes, ‘Goldacre merely highlights the scientific evidence that the Pope directly through his pronouncements makes AIDS more widespread’

    Skidmarx, ‘Actually Ben Goldacre devoted his piece to showing how the science contradicts the Church’s position on condoms.’

    Er, no he doesn’t. Such evidence simply doesn’t exist.

    In 2003, Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen of the University of California conducted a condom effectiveness study for the United Nations’ AIDS program and found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. UNAIDS quietly disowned the study. (The authors eventually managed to publish their findings in the quarterly Studies in Family Planning.) Since then, major articles in other peer-reviewed journals such as the Lancet, Science and BMJ have confirmed that condoms have not worked as a primary intervention in the population-wide epidemics of Africa. In a 2008 article in Science called “Reassessing HIV Prevention” 10 AIDS experts concluded that “consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

    Like

  26. Once again a section of the would be “Marxist” left (the Pabloite wing, as usual) fails to distinguish between criticism of religion and attacks on individuals who may happen to be religious. On this basis, we would never argue for Marxism, or procliam it a superior ideology to anything else.

    A couple of questions for Liam:

    1/ Are you an atheist?

    1 (A) If so, do you argue for it and try to convince people?

    2/ are you a Marxist?

    2(A) If so, do you argue for it and try to convince peopel?

    If your answers to part one of these questions are the same, then your answers to the second (A) parts should also be the same. Were they? If not, why not?

    Marx was an atheist, and Marxism is fundamentally opposed to religion.

    Like

  27. I’m fucked if I understand what that link’s supposed to mean or where it’s supposed to get us. Suppose you answer my questions, eh?

    Like

  28. Oh yes: in case you want to check out Marx at source, try “The Communism of the Rheinischer Beobactier”, Sept 5, 1847:

    “The social principles of Christianity have now had eighteen hundred years to be developed, and need no further development by Prussian Consistorial Counsellors.

    “The social principles of Christianity justified the slavery of antiquity, glorifies the serfdom of the Middle Ages and are capable, in case of need, of defending the oppression of the proletariat, with somewhat doleful grimaces.

    “The social principles of Christianity preach the necessity of a ruling and an oppressed class, and for the latter all they have to offer is the pious wish that the former may be charitable.

    “The social principles of Christianity place the Consistorial Counsellor’s compensation for all infamies in heaven, and thereby justify the continuation of these infamies on earth.

    “The social principles of Christianity declare all the vile acts of the oppressors against the oppressed to be either a just punishment for original sin and other sins, or trials which the Lord, in his infinite wisdom, ordains for the redeemed.

    “The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submissiveness and humbleness, in short, all the qualities of the rabble, and the proletariat, which will not permit itself to be treated as rabble, needs its courage, its self-confidence, its pride and its sense of independence even more than its bread.

    “The social principles of Christianity are sneaking and hypocritical, and the proletariat is revolutionary.

    “So much for the social principles of Christianity.”

    Hopefully, that should be suffient to silence fucking idjits like Eagleton, John “G” and Mr “Sunrise”, who want to claim that religion is somehow compatible with Marxism…

    Like

  29. As we know, Marx was correct about everything.

    Like

  30. Would Denham also share Marx’s views on Ferdinand Lasalle?

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.htm

    ‘The Jewish nigger Lassalle who, I’m glad to say, is leaving at the end of this week, has happily lost another 5,000 talers in an ill-judged speculation. The chap would sooner throw money down the drain than lend it to a ‘friend’, even though his interest and capital were guaranteed. In this he bases himself on the view that he ought to live the life of a Jewish baron, or Jew created a baron (no doubt by the countess)’

    and

    ‘It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is also nigger-like.’

    Perhaps it’s better not to quote Marx when he was in a bad mood.

    Like

  31. […] am (Catholicism, Champagne Charlie, Christianity, africa, religion, stalinism) A lefty blogger, Liam, is angry about what follows: guess […]

    Like

  32. People with at least half a brain (ABUSE DELETED) understand that Marx was anti-religion, but also a child of his time. Agreeing with his method and his conclusions does not necessitate endorsing everything he said along the way. Understand now, dearie? It’s quite easy really…when you think about it, eh?

    Like

  33. “Marx was anti-religion, but also a child of his time”

    Cultural relativism, eh?

    Like

  34. Resistor – you’re wrong on condoms. As two HIV activists wrote last year:
    We’ve reprinted the abstract of a scientific meeting that analysed 138 peer-reviewed articles to determine the effectiveness of condoms at reducing the risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV. A key finding of the meeting was that the results of ‘longitudinal studies of the sexual partners of HIV-infected persons indicate that consistent condom use reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS transmission by approximately 85%.’
    I see you link to an EdwardC.Green article in the Washington Post, the only scientist ever quoted in support of the Pope’s position, as Catholics were doing again on the BBC on Sunday morning. By contrast Ben Goldacre quotes a review of many studies. On Tatchell’s programme one Filipino bishop was still claiming that many condoms have holes in them. I think I know which side is on that of the science. Even your final quote is meaningless to your argument, saying that condom use hasn’t reached a high enough level to noticeably reduce the rate of infection tends to imply that higher condom use would do so rather than the opposite.

    Like

  35. You may do well to read Terry Eagleton’s article ‘Papal Bull’ in the recent issue of Red Pepper, Liam.

    He’s not on your side on this one, old chap.

    Resistor: ” In a 2008 article in Science called “Reassessing HIV Prevention” 10 AIDS experts concluded that “consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.”

    That wouldn’t, of course, have anything at all to do with, ahem, certain institutions opposing their use and spreading misinformation about their efficacy and safety? (You’re also conflating two separate issues: the efficacy of condoms in preventing infection, and the efficacy of the promotion of condoms in encouraging people to use condoms).

    Like

  36. Liam, Mr “Sunrise”, Mr “resister”, et al: please feel free to defend religion; just don’t do so in the name of the militant atheist Karl Marx. Thank you.

    Like

  37. ‘You’re also conflating two separate issues: the efficacy of condoms in preventing infection, and the efficacy of the promotion of condoms in encouraging people to use condoms’

    How are these issues separate?

    ‘That wouldn’t, of course, have anything at all to do with, ahem, certain institutions opposing their use and spreading misinformation about their efficacy and safety?’

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Botswana
    ‘Botswana is experiencing one of the most severe HIV/AIDS epidemics in the world. The national HIV prevalence rate among adults ages 15 to 49 is 24.1 percent, which is among the highest in sub-Saharan Africa. ‘

    Botswana is less that 5% Catholic. Obviously either the Pope has influence over non-catholics or things are more complex than you think.

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003729

    “Condom use in Botswana is among the highest anywhere in the world. High coverage has been achieved for voluntary counseling and testing and AIDS education in the schools. But these programs have not been enough to make a significant difference. The proportion of adults with more than one sexual partner remains very high. A high level of partner concurrency contributes to rapid reproduction of new infections. New approaches are urgently needed. At the current rate of new infections prevalence will remain at very high levels and the burden to expand treatment programs in the future will continue to grow..”

    Like

  38. “please feel free to defend religion; just don’t do so in the name of the militant atheist Karl Marx”
    Really? The Marx who said in the 1844 Manuscripts that “Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any “meaning, and postulates the existence of man through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation.” ? But perhaps you can provide us with an instance of Marx defining himself as an any kind of atheist, let alone a militant one..

    Like

  39. ” But perhaps you can provide us with an instance of Marx defining himself as an any kind of atheist, let alone a militant one..”

    Geddaway, holy Joe! Previous apologist for religion who’ve come from a Marxist background, (Eagleton, John G, Liam, Newman,etc) have simply tried to argue (unsuccessfully, in my view) that Marx was quite nunderstanding towards religion and wouldn’t support militant atheism. This is nonsense: Marx the militant atheiswt and materialist would be with Dawkins and (C) Hitchens without *any* doubt…

    Now, for the first time, we encountern someone who tries to make out that Marx *wasn’t an atheist at all*!!!

    Bloody hell!!!

    Whatever next?

    Wherer do you start with such ignorance?

    Even the quote used by ‘holy joe”,

    “Atheism, as a negation of God, has no longer any meaning”, is Marx saying that atheism is no longer necessary, because its case is proved: Marx (unfortunately) was wrong about that, but he was nor wrong about atheism: and any suggestion that he, personally, was anything other than a militant atheist, is a filthy lie. Read his stuff, starting with the ‘Com munist Manifesto’, holy joe, before you dare traduce Marx again.

    Like

  40. I repeat, can you cite me anywhere in Marx’s voluminous writings where he characterises himself as an atheist, let alone a militant one? Or does anything other than reject the label of atheist? You really aren’t very good at this philosophy/theology stuff are you? You seem to be confusing Marx with Matgamna, and Marxism with the common sense of the fourth form smart aleck.

    Like

  41. Holy Joe: are you *seriously* claiming that Marx was *not* an atheist?

    Like

  42. Marx was not a *militant* atheist. This is just a lie. Yes he was an atheist but take notice of the marginal note by Marx criticising Bakunin’s Program and Rules of the Alliance:

    http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1868/iasd-comment.htm

    It is the note against point one, Marx clearly and unequivocally argues against the militant atheist position. It really is debate over as far as that dispute is concerned. Though Jim Denham will continue on anyway cos who cares about the truth hey?

    Like

  43. I’m with Liam on this, jim.

    Liam’s piece (he linked to) is not an apology for religion but makes the very relevant (and indeed Marxist) point that the sources of religion are social.

    Part of this is the network of support for marginalised social groups, the welfare services provided for immigrant communities, the sense of community.

    None of this takes away from the reactionary politics of many forms of religion or the need to oppose social conservatism whether on gay rights, women’s rights, children’s rights or others.

    Religion also provides fantasy answers to people’s earthly needs, is a source of solace in a heartless world.

    The workers’ movement needs to combat the reactionary influence of organised religion by fighting against oppression, by having alternative sources of support for the poor, the marginalised, the oppressed, challenging homophobia and oppression in the church (or mosque or other organised centres of religion) whilst also being absolutely for freedom of religious belief- and unbelief- in society, in the workers’ movement.

    The criticisms of Dawkins have their place but don’t get at the nub of the appeal of religion for many and don’t take account of the social genesis of religion’s power. By removing oppression we remove the need for imaginary solace.

    Finally, on the Pope’s visit: we should resolutely criticise public money being put to this (or any other) ‘state visit’ and indeed be very critical of the church’s complicit in covering child abuse, in restricting the rights of women to abortion, condoms, control of their own bodies and fertility and be against all the reactionary nonsense promulgated in the name of religion.

    But to simply blame Islam for 9-11 and not imperialism (as Dawkins does see http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/469/time-to-stand-up )
    “To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!” Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.”

    Or to exclusively blame Catholicism for the oppression of women is not enough- it is part and parcel of class society and capitalism.

    The oppression of people by class socieity on the basis of religious affiliation is also not irrelevant. Dawkins calling the Pope a representative of “the world’s second most evil religion” http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/2369/an-audience-with-the-pope
    should give us pause for thought- what’s the most evil?

    Racism, aided and abetted by imperialism, would answer Islam. I hope Richard wouldn’t- could he clarify?

    If he reads this website- perhaps he does, I’ve heard he’s a leftist and indeed there’s a fine pedigree of evolutionary biologists being Marxists (e.g. Robert Trivers was a member of the Black Panthers)

    Like

  44. Ah! So the disussion has now moved from the (mad) premise that Marx was not an atheist at all (ahhgh!), to tyhe (slightly) saner issue oif whether he was a “militant” atheist…or just an..atheist…

    OK: I can live with that.

    Like

  45. THE ATHEISM OF KARL MARX
    Rev. Gianbattista Mondin, S.X.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Marx was an atheist from his childhood and remained such for the whole of the rest of his life.

    His atheism was not only practical but also theoretical. His theoretical atheism is due primarily to philosophical reasons and only secondarily to historical, social and political reasons.

    Already in his thesis for the doctorate Marx proclaims in no uncertain terms that “in the country of reason” the existence of God cannot have any meaning. “Take paper money to a country in which this use of paper money is not known, and everyone will laugh at your subjective representation. Go with your gods to a country in which other gods are worshipped, and you will be shown that you are the victim of fancies and abstractions. And rightly. Anyone who had brought a migrant god to the ancient Greeks, would have found the proof of the non-existence of this god, because it did not exist for the Greeks. What is the case in a certain country for certain foreign gods, takes place for god in general in the country of reason: it is an area in which his existence ceases” (K. Marx, Frammento dell’appendice della dissertazione dottorale, in A. Sabetti, Sulla fondazione del materialismo storico, Florence 1962, p. 415).

    Marx’s theoretical atheism is the consequence of three postulates: 1) metaphysical or dialectical materialism which considers matter as the supreme and unique cause of everything;

    2) historical materialism, according to which the economic factor is the principal and decisive factor, and the economic structure is the carrying structure of all the other structures that compose society;

    3) absolute humanism, which sets man at the summit of the cosmos: man is the supreme being.

    In my opinion the decisive reason on which Marx bases his atheism is the third one. Marx is an atheist because of his passion for man. What he wishes to safeguard with atheism is the greatness of man. With atheism he intends to exclude that there is any superior being, greater than man. It is in view of man’s greatness that he considers it necessary to destroy religion, because in his judgment the latter is the opium, the drug, the substitute which prevents man from becoming aware of his dignity.

    I will bring forward some quotations in support of this thesis.

    In The Jewish Question we read: “For us religion does not constitute the foundation, but only the phenomenon of worldly limitation. For this reason, we explain the religious subjection of free citizens with their earthly subjection. We affirm that they will suppress their religious limitation as soon as they have suppressed their earthly limits. We do not transform earthly questions into theological questions. We transform theological questions into earthly ones” (K. Marx, La questione ebraica, Rome 1966, pp. 81-82).

    The initial sentence of this passage is very expressive. It says that religion is a phenomenon (in the Kantian sense of the term) and not a reality. Therefore religion does not justify, does not found, a real limitation, man’s actual status as a creature, but merely manifests a contingent historical condition, unjust and transitory. It expresses man’s failure to reach his own greatness. When he achieves it, the religious phenomenon will disappear.

    In the famous Introduction to the Critique of the Hegelian philosophy of public law, Marx gives an even more explicit and elaborate formulation of this outlook. “Religious misery”, he writes, “is at once the expression of real misery and a protest against it. Religion is the groan of the oppressed, the sentiment of a heartless world, and at the same time the spirit of a condition deprived of spirituality. It is the opium of the people. The suppression of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the premise of its real happiness. It is first and foremost the task of philosophy, operating in the service of history, to unmask self-alienation in its profane forms, after the sacred form of human self alienation has been discovered. Thus criticism of heaven is transformed into criticism of the earth, criticism of religion into criticism of law, criticism of theology into criticism of politics”. And just before: “Religion is the consciousness and awareness of man who has not yet acquired or who has again lost himself. But man is not an abstract being, isolated from the world. Man is the world of man, the State, society. This State and this society produce religion, an upside-down consciousness of the world, just because they are an upside-down world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic epitome, its logic in popular form, its spiritualistic point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn completion, its fundamental reason of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of human essence, since human essence does not possess a true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world of which religion is the spiritual aroma” (K. Marx, Per la critica della filosofia del diritto di Hegel, Introduzione, Rome 1966, pp. 57-58).

    Again in the same Introduction we read: “The criticism of religion leads to the doctrine according to which man is, for man, the supreme being; therefore it reaches the categorical imperative of overthrowing all relationships in which man is a degraded, enslaved, abandoned, contemptible being.

    There are also many passages in Marx’s works in which lie denounces the churches and their representatives as allies of governments, of the privileged classes, of the masters, and in which he reveals their faults and their abjection, invoking their suppression. But his works as a whole show that for Marx man’s enemies are not priests and churches, but religion as such. It. is just religion in its purest essence, and not in the deviations of its representatives, that is the main obstacle to human advancement, to the liberation of man, to his conquest of maturity.

    Christians who wish to dialogue with Marx and with his disciples must keep in mind this point of fundamental importance. And therefore they must not base the dialogue on metaphysical (dialectical) materialism or on historical materialism, or on the history of the Church (temporal power, crusades, inquisition, case of Galileo, etc.) but on humanism and religion, and on the humanistic value of religion and Christianity.

    The Catholics who are not ignorant of the reasons of their faith will not have any difficulty in finding valid arguments to show Marx and his disciples that religion and Christianity in particular, far from being enemies of man, are on the contrary the instruments (the sacraments) that confer on him the possibility of fulfilling himself completely, far beyond the highest levels of greatness which reason alone permits him to represent.

    In Christianity, man, raised to the dignity of God’s son, becomes greater and not smaller, freer and not more enslaved, nobler and not more petty, more serene and not more tormented. The Christian, in fact, is a man who, knowing that he is infinitely loved by God, knows that he has become infinitely great. And that causes his heart to burst into the Franciscan song of perfect joy.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Taken from:
    L’Osservatore Romano
    Weekly Edition in English
    20 April 1978, page 12
    L’Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.
    The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

    The Cathedral Foundation
    L’Osservatore Romano English Edition
    320 Cathedral St.
    Baltimore, MD 21201
    Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315
    Fax: (410) 332-1069
    lormail@catholicreview.org

    Like

  46. Yes but Denham, it is not a trivial matter becaue you are a *militant* atheist and a supporter of other *militant* atheists which is contrary to Marxism. Therefore you are taking a position in opposition to Marxism. When you start criticising *militant *atheism and understand why it needs criticising come back to us.

    In the meantime stop the ridiculous game of I am more Marxist than you, because you are clearly not!

    Like

  47. “But his works as a whole show that for Marx man’s enemies are not priests and churches, but religion as such. It. is just religion in its purest essence, and not in the deviations of its representatives, that is the main obstacle to human advancement, to the liberation of man, to his conquest of maturity.”

    This sounds like you think religion was handed down by god to me!

    Like

  48. Jim, I have no argument with atheism or whether Marx was an atheist.

    My points are 1) that the Marxist criticism of religion is sympathetic to the reasons people become religious
    2) therefore simply arguing against theism is not enough, we need to organise against the materail roots of religion- poverty, oppression.
    3) that Dawkin’s politics are inadequate on this much though I admire his work on promoting evolution.

    Merely cutting and pasting portions of Marx or articles on him does not really address this.

    Like

  49. Well I still await the quotes from Marx himself indicating his self-identification as an atheist, militant or otherwise. In fact you will find his few statements on the question go in the opposite direction: thus “I desired there to be less trifling with the label ‘atheism’ (which reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogey man), and that instead the content of philosophy should be brought to the people”. (Karl Marx, Letter to Ruge, November 24, 1842.)
    This doesn’t of course mean that Marx believed in God, but that he rejected the ultraleft and peremptory attitude to the masses he associated with the “atheists” of his period and that like Engels he had a fairly sophisticated understanding of and grounding in theological debates, rather than all the skyfairy and spaghetti monster stuff of today. Of course, Marx assumed the critique of religion had been completed with rationalism and the Enlightenment and contributed nothing further to it himself – there is no Marxist philosophy of religion. Those seeking to understand religion as a social practice in the spirit of what should be a socialist approach will find much more fruitful insights in Durkheim, Weber or Wittgenstein.

    Like

  50. to holy joe
    it’s a bit of an aside but I remember looking at the sea of faith on bbc some time ago and also more recently Karen Armstrong’s book ‘The Case for God’ both of which argue I think pace Wittgenstein that religion is more social practice than making objecgive truth claims about the universe.

    No doubt some religious practioners may symbolise religion as being an approach to life something akin to art but I think it misrepresents the actual social practice of religion to claim thi is the major way religion is practiced. Also it doesn’t address the way in which organised religion through institutions and practices cements oppression of women, of gay people, of thinking for oneself, of cahllenging social norms and authority.

    Spiritualty based on awe and wonder, based on respect for others, based on mental self discipline and mediation is one thing and entirely consisten with sciene, wth evolution, with a denial of any need for a creator or vengeful punisher. Religion as a social practice is- mainly at least- quite another.

    Like

  51. i probably meant meditation and other sort of practices rather than mediation

    Like

  52. From what I remember Marx differed with Engels over the priority given to the struggle against religion. Engels wanted more of it Marx wanted less of it.
    Split!

    Or in the words of Jim Denham @”!%$!!!

    Like

  53. Marx’s entire works andf personal history show him to be a militant atheist: to te degree that he didn’t need to spell it out. “Holy Joe”: let’s be clear – are you *seriously* trying to argue that Marx *wasn’t* an atheist?

    Are you: yes or no?

    Like

  54. Karl Marx (anticipating, one thinks, today’s relativists):

    To live an error uncorrected is to encourage intellectual immorality”.

    Like

  55. Marx was an atheist but Marxism itself grows out of a critique of bourgeois atheism seeking to replace the critique of religion with the critique of the conditions that produce it.

    Incidentally I recently came across this old piece by Kautsky which stresses the importance of separating Marxism from middle class anti-clericalism:

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/symposium/symposium.htm

    Jim Denham would probably also benefit from reading this debate on colonial policy:

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1907/colonial/index.htm

    Like

  56. Well I have provided two contexts in which Marx specifically rejects atheism, against a grand total of zero provided so far of him embracing it. The point is that for Marx atheism misses the point – it is itself a religious term and Marx saw little point in the denial of God, which is why he spends so little time on such denial. For the young Marx in particular the understanding of religion was the key to the understanding of social history, and religion embodies the true essence of man, but in illusory form. The idea that were he around today he would waste his time rebutting creationism or arguing about spaghetti monsters is risible – whatever else Marx was, he was never a British saloon bar philistine.

    Like

  57. well its hard to imagine someone who thinks religion is an illusory representation of the true essence of man being anything else but an atheist. But yes you are correct Marx moved on from discussions of the ‘god question’ to discussions of the what generates the illusory version of man, ie the social world. Its a mistake to confuse atheism with the idiocies of the ‘new atheists’ who are pint sized representatives of the errors Marx attacks.

    Like

  58. “The idea that were he around today he would waste his time rebutting creationism or arguing about spaghetti monsters is risible – whatever else Marx was, he was never a British saloon bar philistine.”

    This is true, and of course Holy Joe is on strong ground here. The adulation of Dawkins – the mechanical materialist, bourgeois pedant and fashionable ‘atheist’ savant is strange coming from ‘Marxists’. The adulation of Christopher Hitchens, a pro-imperialist, anti-socialist renegade who is now to the right of his brother on many things, is grotesque.

    I can’t help thinking that a good element of support for Dawkins and particularly Hitchens is not motivated by rationalism, freethinking, iconoclasm, or any thing else radical and progressive, but simply by racism and xenophobia.

    It has become fashionable for bar-room bigots to express their dislike of poor immigrants and their ‘backward’ religions, particularly but not exclusively Islam, by ridiculing religious belief in general. In that the xenophobes are safe knowing that in most of the advanced capitalist world. religious observance and belief is in a marked decline, so they don’t really step on too many toes with their hypocritical rhetoric.

    But it is misleading to imply that Marx was not an atheist. Atheism simply means the lack of belief in any god. It is perfectly obvious that Marx did not believe in any God, and regarded belief in God or gods as a false consciousness engendered by oppression and exploitation.

    He did not believe that the primary task was to lecture the religious about their illusions, but was rather to change the conditions of oppression and thereby remove the material basis for religious illusions. This is materialist atheism, not the hectoring ‘militant’ idealist atheism put forward by bourgeois ideologues like Dawkins and Hitchens, but it is still atheism.

    Like

  59. So Jim Denham is still peddling the *militant* atheist line as predicted by yours truely. Marx contributed directly to many workers programmes and I cannot find a single instance of *militant* atheism. Not one. How come when writing what amounts to blueprints for proletarian struggle he fails to include any points relating to *militant* atheism.

    As I said the fact Jim Denham cannot see the flaw in the positions of Dawkins and Hitchens and treats them uncritically says everything about his lack of any Marxism.

    Like

  60. Resistor – yes he does have influence over non-Catholics. For the whole time of the last Bush administration the Vatican worked hand-in-hand with the Americans to promote abstinence only programmes and block access to condoms.
    Not a position shared by Edward C.Green as I discover from the comments on Ben Goldacre’s article in the Guardian:
    Edward Green thinks condoms should be part of such a scheme:

    William Crawley: You accept that condoms do work in other parts of the world, like the Western World, for example?
    Edward Green: I do. And they should have a back-up role even in the generalised epidemics of Africa. I believe condoms should be made available to everyone. It should be, and as you say, the ABC strategy: Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom. Condoms may well have contributed to the prevalence decline in Uganda.

    ID – I can’t help thinking that a good element of support for Dawkins and particularly Hitchens is not motivated by rationalism, freethinking, iconoclasm, or any thing else radical and progressive, but simply by racism and xenophobia.
    Is that a scientific proposition or an article of faith? Mischievous question.

    Perhaps I might through in this quote from an 1854 article for the New York Tribune by Marx which seems appropriate:
    ‘We are still witnesses of this epoch, which may be characterized as the era of democratic revolt against ecclesiastical authority’
    I think he’s on the side of the revolting.

    Like

  61. “Abstain, Be faithful, use a Condom”

    Abstain, be faithful – some religious groups would love that kind of paternalism! But they are not exactly practiced in the West. Even the use of condems is not exactly religiously adhered to. We really need to see the aids problem in the context of global economic conditions, global inequality.

    After all shoot the Pope tommorrow if you like, the problems of the developed world will not go away. Just so we are clear.

    This site gives a more thorough critique than the lets all blame the Pope voices:

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/219/aids-around-the-world

    Like

  62. Steve – under the heading “Education for Prevention is Key” the Global Issues report says:
    In some countries, there are social taboos, denial and even old patriarchal beliefs that prevent open discussions.
    Let’s all blame the Pope for that. Not for all, but for some.

    Even the use of condems is not exactly religiously adhered to.
    Perhaps time for a joke about the UK government and its passion for cuts. Or maybe a reference to the strict aherence to Anglophobic atheist-bashing that emanates as much as ever from the Vatican. [If you follow the link you’ll see that even their spin-doctoring has multiculturalism equated with the Third World]

    Like

  63. Yes the cultural problems are explored and go beyond the undoubted reactionary influence of Catholicism. You have noticed how it highlights patriarchy as a negative influence. Something you were advocating in the Abstain and be faithful slogan. You might as well add conform to it. Why that shouldn’t be extended to the entire world maybe you would care to explain.

    But anyway you have to agree that this kind of analysis is better than simple Pope bashing.

    Like

  64. I like all this religious “the marx dialectic”ignoring the Engels input,such adulation for the god of socialism.

    Both Marx and Engels,not matter what dialectic you put on it, were anti anything religious or otherwise, who did not agree with their authoritarian germanic minds.

    Like

  65. Despite being quite long the kautsky piece I posted really is worth reading. He says somewhat defensively.

    Like

  66. “But anyway you have to agree that this kind of analysis is better than simple Pope bashing.”
    Are you serious, Steve? Do you think these people would give a damn about the health of sub-Saharan Africans if it wasn’t for the chance precisely to do a bit of Pope-bashing? It’s up there with Peter Tatchell’s sudden concern for those engaged in under-age sexual activity.

    Like

  67. I agree holy joe, the fact they just concentrate on the Pope speaks volumes. This is why I posted the link, to shame them!

    Like

  68. Having spent the day in rooms full of radical lefties and the evening in a pub with some of the most vociferous of them I felt a kebab and chips were in order. This required a tube ride home.

    Imagine my consternation! The carriage was full of Romanists who’d been to see Pope Benny. They were a cross section of working class London and the ones at the sharpest end of migrant life.

    One woman was talking to her friend about the “lovely Romanian Roma dancers” and seemed oblivious to the point the organisers were making by putting them on a London stage. The woman beside me said she felt “really proud to be a Catholic” and they all seemed damned happy. They also seemed like decent, compassionate people, at least the ones I spoke to.

    How is it possible to engage with individuals like that by ridiculing the thing that they value? If only Martin and Jim had been there to show how it should be done.

    Like

  69. Showing respect and sympathy towards people isn’t the same thing as endorsing their backwardness and false conscoiusness. I thought that’s something the left learned when talking to soft-racists on picket lines in the 70s and 80s.

    Obviously, atheism is only appropriate for educated, white lefties. Non-white people, migrants and other oppressed elements must, of course, be allowed the opiates that we would never dream of taking.

    Like

  70. Well Jim hence sometimes people bother talking to you.

    Like

  71. When exactly did “ruthless criticism of all existing things” start to imply “spineless acceptance of all non-existent things”?

    I was taking a tube ride home once and found myself in a carriage with a number of Neil Diamond fans. They seemed happy and proud with their idol,and I would be the last to suggest that socialist should only engage with them by ridiculing the thing they value. Though when one said that the only gig on his tour she’d missed was the one at Glastonbury, because of the weird people there, I was tempted to ask whether perhaps they would think the same of her. But I didn’t.

    I was just looking at the Lenin quote John Molyneux put at the end of his ISJ article on religion a couple of years ago. It does point both ways, saying both Does this mean that educational books against religion are harmful or unnecessary? No, nothing of the kind. and Atheist propaganda in such circumstances may be both unnecessary and harmful and it is somewhat lax of Molyneux note to point out that the advance of communications in the last 100 years has made such variation in position much harder to manage.He’s also quite weak on detailing the alleged reactionary conclusions to be drawn from Dawkins despite acknowledging Dawkins relative progressivism compared to say Hitchens, there are weaknesses in Dawkins treatment of religious ideas as a force independent of material existence,which might be a discussion for another day, but again has its parallels in the still unanswered question of where the evidence is for Catrholics being an oppressed group, and so their religious views being part of an articulation of resistance to capitalism, rather than an acceptance of part of the ideology that the ruling class uses to bind society together.

    Like

  72. I think it is possible to respect people and to engage with them without agreeing with everything they believe in.

    However, it is of course essential not to have contempt for people’s beliefs, to understand the yearning for justice, for transcendence, for peace, for beauty- yearnings often expressed through religion.

    I think Liam is right that socialists need to put more emphasis on the fight against the conditions that bring forth religion than criticising the religious beliefs in themselves. He is also right that where people e.g. Muslims are oppressed because of racism then it is essential that the left is clear in its opposition to discrimination and oppression and that there may be a vestigial anti Catholicism stemming from the continued imperialist domination of the north of Ireland (at least one place ‘where the evidence is for Catholics being an oppressed group’ to answer Skidmarx).

    However, I think his article underestimates the extent to which many people- including many Catholics or (especially) ex-Catholics- are repulsed by a hierarchy who have covered up systematic child abuse to protect its own privilege, a group who have declared campaigning for the ordination of women a mortal sin (equivalent to child rape) and deny the rights of hundreds of millions of women to control their own fertility. The fact that it is led by a onetime member of the Hitler Youth only adds to this.

    Religious beliefs may, often, be delusional attempts to secure some comfort in a cruel world but rather putting our energies into attacking the fantasy hopes of the poor we should prioritise creating hope and progress and meaning in the lives of working class people now.

    But where institutions and hierarchies systematically oppress and justify the oppression of social groups we should side with those criticising them.

    Like

  73. Impressions of the anti-pope demo from a (Catholic) friend was that it was bigger than he’d expected, not proddy (that’s what he said – is that an offensive term in any way? Sorry if so), generally making the point that the visit should not be a State visit, mostly concerned with women’s and gay rights and the child-sex scandals, included a good mix of Catholics, also included a woman from Iran and someone from Southall Black Sisters making the point that the oppression of women and minorities must not be excused as ‘cultural’ and that we ought to oppose the increasing imposition of religious law here and abroad .

    Like

  74. In other words not full of racists and bigots, at least not any more than other protests we go on – I’ve marched alongside some very dodgy types on anti-war demos in recent years.

    Like

  75. I’ve just noticed this from Father John G. Couglin:
    “johng, on September 15, 2010 at 8:14 am Said:
    well its hard to imagine someone who thinks religion is an illusory representation of the true essence of man being anything else but an atheist. But yes you are correct Marx moved on from discussions of the ‘god question’ to discussions of the what generates the illusory version of man, ie the social world. Its a mistake to confuse atheism with the idiocies of the ‘new atheists who are pint sized representatives of what Marx attacks.”

    BOLLOCKS!

    Marx’s diagreement with Dawkins, et al, would most certainly NOT be their militant atheism, as Mr “G” and other apologists try to make out in oder to excuse their own miserable grovelling before religion.

    His *only* disagreement would be their lack of social and economic context…although both Dawkins and Hitchens *do* give such context. So I have to conclude that Marx would agree with them rather than with renegade pro-religion grovellers like Father John G Coughlin.

    Like

  76. Jason says:
    “I think it is possible to respect people and to engage with them without agreeing with everything they believe in.

    However, it is of course essential not to have contempt for people’s beliefs, to understand the yearning for justice, for transcendence, for peace, for beauty- often expressed through religion.”

    Yes of course, Jason!

    I agree so much! Just like it’s essential not to have contempt for peoples’ beliefs expressed through the yearning for justice, transcendendence, peace and beauty expressed through nationalism and hatred of foreigners, eh?

    Like

  77. I think people who are oppressed or poor or exploited will attempt to seek comfort, that should not be met with contempt but with understanding.

    If socialists just reflect the mindset of the oppressors and the unproductive class of idle gossipers (Hitchens springs to mind here), then how are we to connect with the very people we are supposed to be fighting for? How are we to build a class struggle?

    Like

  78. “I agree so much! Just like it’s essential not to have contempt for peoples’ beliefs expressed through the yearning for justice, transcendendence, peace and beauty expressed through nationalism and hatred of foreigners, eh?”

    Hatred of nationalism and ‘hatred of foriegners’ as expressed by support for Israel’s openly racist immigration laws?

    The only people involved in this debate who express ‘hatred’ of any nationality are the ones throwing accusations of racism against those who oppose Islamophobia and anti-Catholic bigotry. The Orange Zionist contingent, in other words: don’t like Catholics, don’t like Arabs.

    Like

  79. Jim, as I already condemned both religious hierarchies and insitutions that bolster class society and social oppression and religious practices based on oppressing others it is bizarre in the extreme for you to equate my argument with supporting natioanlism, xenophobia or racism.

    My point is that to show contempt for people who chose to believe in life after death or some conception of God is misplaced.

    Of course when religious beleifs are used by hierarchies and instituions ot bolster oppression for example to subjugate women, to persecute gay people, to bulldoze houses in Palestine or bomb Iraq (Bush) or indeed bomb US or Israeli citizens of course we condemn that.

    But Jim’s blanket condemnation and contempt for all forms of religious thought shows a one dimensional approach that is the oppositie of socialist politics.

    Socialists are open about our views- which for many of us include being against irrationality and metaphysics.
    But propaganda and argument against religion – whilst important- is only a very small part of winning workers away fromt he influence of the church or the mosque.

    Much more critical is action against the oppressors, winning workers in practice to the ideas of socialists as the ideas that win out in the class struggle.

    That is why as socialists we should be for the complete freedom of religious belief or unbelief including the right of rleigious beleivers to join the revolutuonary party provided they support the fundamental principles of the program- e.g. complete seperation of religion and state, complete social and legal equality for women, gay people and other oppressed groups.

    Like

  80. Liam, there were two other articles in last Saturday’s edition of the Guardian that atacked aspects of Catholicism that you forgot to mention: the review of Geoffrey Robertson’s book on the Vatican and the article on the Pope’s call for emulation of a tyrannical C19 French priest called Jean Vianney.

    But I think that your diagnosis is incorrect on two counts: firstly, you need to prove that this kind of coverage stems from a “liberal anti-catholic” prejudice and I don’t think you have achieved that. All these articles are critical of the policies and actions of the Catholic church (and justifiably so – any socialist would agree with all the criticisms made in them) NOT of Catholics as such.

    Secondly, I’m not convinced that anti-catholic prejudice in “liberal” England is just re-directed anti-Irish prejudice. I think that it has two other, stronger, sources. One is just generalising from the reactionary nature of the institution to those who follow it and the second is the anti-catholic prejudice that comes from the reformation and the English revolution and that still resides in the establishment.

    Like

Leave a reply to resistor Cancel reply

Trending