(en) Coordination des Groupes Anarchistes - On the religious
question (fr, it, pt) [machine translation]
To explain in more detail the broader approach in which our latest press fits " No to
fascism, whether nationalist or religious " http://cgalyon.ouvaton.org/spip.php?article88
We publish the text that develops our positioning and analysis of the religious question.
---- On the religious question ---- Within the social struggles in which we participate,
and more broadly in the dynamics of our fight against all forms of oppression and
domination, we encounter religion as ideology, but also as social and cultural fact. ----
Firstly, a majority of the operated-es says religious sentiment, whether membership of a
particular organized religion (or one of its currents), or the belief that there an
external force to matter, a transcendence that, as appropriate, is presented as creator
(of the world, historical events, human behavior, natural phenomena ....) as normative
(source of behavioral norm, d a body design based on "good" and "evil" or "lawful" and
"unlawful) as top ...
Secondly, because religion as ideology (of whatever form) is mobilized in the political
and social conflicts by the protagonists to justify their position and, in most cases, by
the dominant to justify their domination.
What is the basis of our criticism of religion?
What conception of the world?
All religions have in common the idea that they are not human beings, which individually
or collectively, must determine their behavior, ethical values (what is considered just,
fair, acceptable, unacceptable, undesirable or undesirable otherwise), how to organize
life in society, but one (or more) external entities to individuals and human beings,
"transcendent" that would set standards of behavior, a concept of "good" and evil, what to
do or not to do.
In the case of the deists religion, he is a god or gods, and their "revealed word." In the
case of religion "scientistic" This is science not seen as a critical method of knowledge,
but as a great authority. In the case of religions "naturalistic" or animist, it is of
nature, or spirits, etc ...
This aspect of religious ideology (like minds system) has the effect of protecting the
critical social norms, behaviors, social organizations, when they are presented as the
expression of the transcendent (willingness divine, scientific inevitability inevitability
of nature). The result is that religious ideology is a power tool particularly efficient,
since it away-when used by dominants- social relations, norms, hierarchy, domination,
rational criticism, the possibility of questioning.
It is obvious that all religions have the deal in history with the rational approach, that
of for individuals to exercise their own critical reflection and the "methodical doubt" to
form their views, as well as stating affirmations so much we can prove that they are true
demonstrate that they are false, which is not the case of religious thought is
"unfalsifiable" (1).
This which explains that in the vast majority of believers coexist in religious
representations rational and irrational core kernel. That is why, with the contradictions
of reality, no religion (as a social fact and historical) has escaped rational discussion,
related to differences of interpretation of religious standard, the nature of design and
in the form of transcendence, between exegesis religious currents, literal and symbolic
interpretations of the speech and religious texts.
No "religion", whether monotheistic or polytheistic religions, naturalists or scientists
religions, escapes to the development of religious movements, which are the historical
expression in religious matters, the conflict between human rationality and irrationality
that is the heart of religious ideology.
Theological controversies philosophical-religious debate, the itjihad to the Kabbalah, no
religion completely escapes the rational approach and individual critical thinking,
expressed either in the form of doubt or in that of the challenge of a particular
interpretation of dogma, based on the issues that are expressed in society (conflicts of
interest, relations of domination ...).
But these rational elements in religions (such as production of human history) are not
specific expression, but the resistance of the social world, tangible and concrete human
beings of flesh and blood, to a system whose core idea is based on the waiver user
-l'abdication- (at least part of the real) the critical individual thinking. Obviously,
this part of the real, on which religious ideology imposes on the human mind to renounce
reflect and interpret (whether the origin of the world, the meaning of life, etc ... ) can
be very small in an individual believer when rational thought pushed religious thought to
its limits. But this "core" that escapes criticism possibility is a foundation on which
the political, religious, the dominant-es, can use to reinforce, justify or establish
domination.
Domination of the reports we retort that may exist under brutal forms, in companies or
rationality has taken an important place, or can be embodied, implemented as a rational
and secular discourse, by individuals themselves / define themselves as rational and secular.
This is obvious. It remains that this is usually speeches that have the appearance of
rational, not the content because religious thought is not just the established religions.
Scientistic religious speech applies to science classes in the "secularist". The statist
ideology is itself "religion of modern times" as shown by Rudolph Rocker in his book
"Nationalism and Culture" .The "secularism" of some pseudo-secular has nothing to do with
critical rationality but all with the dogmatism that can feed sometimes very concrete or
justify domination, on individuals belonging to religious minorities.
Camillo Berneri, among others, in his text "the proletariat does not feed priests" had
there been almost a hundred years highlighted the dangers of such a dogmatism that, posing
as an anti-religious criticism, resumes methods and content, and at the same not only
misses its target but supplies arms to religious reactionaries.
Our criticism attack is therefore not only the outer form that the religious thought, but
his nature and his background, found in many other approaches that established religions.
When we formulate a critique of domination and hierarchy between human beings, we
inevitably encounter at one time using the religious argument to justify the domination of
the report in question "divine order", "natural order" or "Law of Science" are mobilized
to defend the existing order.
At that moment, two attitudes are possible:
One who is to oppose a "different view of religion" used by the dominant. It is the
various avatars of "liberation theology." In the case of "revealed religions", the debate
will move to the texts and their interpretation (literal or symbolic) and will be resolved
based on the balance of power. This one is on the side of the one who enacts the norm, and
human history shows that this discussion is necessarily the field of statistics, which can
define the terms. In all cases, it is impossible to escape the basic terms of the
discussion that are imposed, because they are religious common ground for all stakeholders.
The problem will then arise between two competing religious discourse of one who is able
to impose by force and not by conviction.
The other of moving the discussion on the material field, historical, rational, and
contrast to the real justification of speech using religion, ie the irreducible opposition
between prospect of liberation, emancipation and oppression, by addressing all forms of
ideological justification in the form of a theistic religious discourse, naturalist and
scientist.
Such an approach not only to tackle the ideological justifications of domination and
oppression, but also to identify the issuer (religious powers of various kinds: clergy,
religious reactionary ideologues dominant ideological apparatus ...) .
Critique of political uses of religion
Religion as ideology is a power tool, since it is not a personal belief system, built
individually, but a set of ideas that system and that are "performative", that ie they act
on reality, creating moral standards, and therefore standards of conduct, operation, and
social organization.
All religious speech (scientists, theists, naturalists ...) have in common is that they
allow people to carry out the power of influence, while hiding in the beneficiary: it can
be done "the name of God," "the name of nature" or "in the name of science" of individuals
or groups of individuals without this mediation refuse to act, since they would identify
the mobile and beneficiaries of the action.
The people acting under the influence of such an ideology or a system as standard, does
not necessarily would do so (sometimes a manner contrary to their interests) if they were
aware that the injunction benefits to humans concrete goods, under the pretext of "do the
will of God," "to obey the laws of science or nature."
The clergy as a hierarchical institution in structured religions clerical base is readily
recognizable as one of the political beneficiaries of this ideological discourse
whatsoever when exercising the power directly, as in theocracies (Vatican Iran today ...),
or when justified domination structure to which it is linked, what is feudal state or ...
But the role of religion as a tool to not only appears in a frame or it is structured
clerical way. Religious discourse lends itself to such use even if it is not worn by the
clergy, but as common ideology of believers. The role of religion as a power tool appears
in the story, whenever the social hierarchy of any kind whatsoever is justified by a
religious discourse as an expression of divine will, natural or a scientific law. That
religious discourse is required by a religious authority established or informal religious
authority, it remains one of the cores, one of the ideological foundations on which the
rule is based.
It is for this reason that emancipation policy necessarily will face at one time or
another, religious discourse, understood here as the denial of the rationale of a social,
a normative injunction ( moral ...) for behavior ...
It is essential to identify the political dimension of religious discourse, to break the
ideological constructs that dominant stand to maintain the relations of domination and
oppression. The rationalist critique thus increases for individuals struggling capacity to
dissipate smoke screens that maintain or support oppression.
Majority and religious minorities.
In all countries, majorities exist or religious minorities. Persons belonging to religious
minorities are often victims of persecution, oppression, linked to this fact. Freedom of
conscience we stand for, and the refusal of oppression, implies that we oppose such
persecution or domination of the reports in question faced by individuals belonging to
religious minorities.
This does not mean that Our responsibility is to defend the religious convictions of these
individuals, or that they should escape our critical when mobilized, in turn, to justify
oppression or domination relations situations. We do not talk well "oppressed religions,"
as do religious ideologues of religious minorities in question, but the oppression of
persons belonging to religious minorities. These are people who are oppressed, not ideology.
However, it is essential to combat the instrumentalization that can be done, by the
dominant religious ideology, targeted critical of a particular religious minority. Our
critique of religious discourse is not to a religion over another, but what in religious
discourse is used to justify domination. It is this general approach that distinguishes us
from opportunistic criticism of this or that religion, which can mask the veiled defense
of the dominant religion, or racist when they are coupled with critical racialization of
members assigned -or despite them- religious minorities, such as in the case of
anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
We are fighting religious ideology because it claims to determine or justify behavior,
social norms, the dominant social organization and supports or contributes therefore to
the domination and oppression of individuals who are direct victims of these standards
imposed (women, gay, lesbians, bi and trans ...) or social organization and justified (the
exploited of all classes and oppressed are mentioned above).
But this fight can not stray into religious or racist instrumentalisations.
As such, it is important to fight in each country essentialist amalgams who deny the
ideological contradictions that minority religions, and fantasized visions of a particular
religion, based on ignorance, because they provide the intellectual justifications a real
oppression.
Our comprehensive critique of religion does not prevent distinguish political currents who
claim and to distinguish the religious left, right and extreme religious right, without
giving up the specific criticism of religious discourse, even "Left". This distinction is
often made in Europe with regard to Christianity, where the currents of left or extreme
left, are distinctly considered currents right (religious conservatives) or right
(fundamentalist Christians). This has not stopped the criticism of the Christian left, and
its contradictions and limits (and its oppressive appearance in the case of gender
relations) related to its religious ideological base.
By cons, when it comes to political and religious currents that claim of Judaism or Islam,
this distinction concerns most often gives the place, in Western countries, in a speech
made amalgam, which mix a speech at the rear racist background.
Muslims or Jews (or individuals atheistic Jewish and Muslim culture, which are assigned by
the dominant ideology of these identities, be they anarchists or they), including those
who argue progressive left or the extreme left are often immediately suspected, some to be
"Islamists" (understood here as equivalent to the religious right), the other being "
Zionists "(understood here as extreme religious right, nationalist and colonial).
Their stances against amalgams or fantasized vision of the religion to which we assign the
outset are often interpreted as a defense of religious ideology (or national-religious) to
which assigned.
Policy analysis grid applied in the case of the dominant religion (religious
distinguishing extreme left, religious left, religious right and religious right) gives
way to generalize, facilitated by the widespread ignorance of current political and
ideological contradictions opposites who share the same religious referent (although in
the case of Zionism, it is only the pretext for a nationalist discourse-not
religious-secular-dimension).
Religious minority, national minority
As part of the construction of the ideology of the "Nation", we see from the late
nineteenth to a dynamic that aims to transform religious minorities in national
minorities, designated as " internal enemies " as external to the body " national
community "living in the territory defined by references (cultural and theological) to a
majority religion.
So people from religious minorities, even if they convert to the dominant religion or
become atheists are considered outside the community National by the dominant ideology,
the same national community is defined by reference to the majority religion.
This is the origin of modern anti-Semitism, and is found in the current forms of
Islamophobia that target individuals assigned to Muslim identity because of racist amalgam
(while they themselves are atheists or share other religious belief). These national
minorities (which include all those defined as external to the national community because
of their assignment to a religious identity considered by the nationalist discourse as
"external to the nation") are thus formed from a de facto convergence between a
nationalist discourse (including secular mask) and the dominant religion as ideology, even
if it could be fought also by the former.
One can find this treatment of religious minorities considered exogenous (or relay
"outside" interests at national body) in all the states where they exist: French Muslims
considered "agents of international Islamism" (sic) Christians in Iraq and Egypt
considered "agents of American imperialism," Jews of the Maghreb and Mashreq considered
"Zionist agents".
This results in an amalgam religious minority / national minority forged by nationalist
rhetoric and taken up by the nationalists belonging to national minorities. (2)
In all cases, these amalgams contribute to the oppression of persons so summoned to a
religious identity, and exclusion, a national identity (or excluded, in all cases,
belonging to the "national community" of the country in which they live by the nationalist
discourse.
When atheist activists, from these religious minorities (or national minorities) raise the
simplistic nature against-productive and potentially reactionary of these fillings
(amalgams because they cover made by racialist nationalism as by the extreme right
politico-religious Christian, Jewish or Muslim that are expressions as the "real"
manifestation of religion, or as the true defenders of the interests of national or
religious minority), those are often faced with such suspicion regime.
However, criticism of religious ideology, a revolutionary point of view, can not mingle
with the opportunist criticism of religious minorities by the dominant religious currents,
or in support of a racist remakes.
For if an anarchist-communist perspective, we are opposed to outright religious ideology
as a carrier of oppression, and operating systems, we can not leave taken in our speech
and in our practice the opportunistic criticism of religions to justify the oppression of
people assigned to national or religious minorities.
It is this condition that we will build the union of operated-es face the exploiters, and
that we effectively fight the religious ideology and its use by the dominant.
Otherwise, we would play the dominant nationalist and religious oppression, the most
reactionary religious currents within religious minorities, and nationalist currents
within national minorities.
Our criticism will be effective if it does not let go or shortcuts or amalgam, let alone
to the exploitation by the dominant religious ideology (she Fusse up like secular) or
nationalist ideology.
In this sense, our criticism is rational, that is, it respects the freedom of conscience
of individuals, integrity, without underestimating the political influence of religious
ideology and therefore without giving up the ideological struggle against this tool of
domination and influence. Lyon Group for the Coordination of Anarchist Groups
(1) See the work of Popper. Any "belief" religious (whether theist, scientist, naturalist,
idealistic) is based on assertions made so that it can never be invalidated by experience.
Conversely, a rational and scientific statement carries within it the possibility of its
negation, its invalidation by experience or logical reasoning.
(2) In the case of the extreme right or the Muslim religious right is the concept of Ummah
which replaces the idea of nation as mobilizing myth. The pan-Arab currents, in turn, are
divided on the reference to Islam as the national religion of the "Arab nation".
http://cgalyon.ouvaton.org/spip.php?article92
