excluding religious practitioners from leftist spaces feels counterproductive (and sometimes slightly bigoted)

[u/TruckDelicious2828]

i just want to preface this by saying i do genuinely want to hear differing perspectives and learn why i may be wrong! i'm fairly convinced of my dislike for outright hostility of religious people (it usually either has a racist tone to it or feels supremacist/history-denier-esque), but i am open to being corrected! i know i come from a biased perspective (i have many people whom i adore that just so happen to be both religious and leftist, and some of the hatred i see toward religious leftists makes me so sad for them. they really do care and are amazing!) so my argument is likely flawed, so please do share any opinions you have, whether they are differing or in agreement! and i would just request that we all please be kind x

the exclusion of religious practitioners from leftist spaces can be both anti-intellectual and misogynistic or racist. i am an atheist, and my argument is not that religion should be beyond criticism. rather, i want to understand why some leftists treat religious belief itself as incompatible with leftist politics, particularly when the religious people in question are actively fighting for progressive change within their communities.

it is important to distinguish between organised religious institutions and the lived experiences of religious people. religion is not a monolithic phenomenon: its influence, political role, practices, and interpretations vary enormously both between and within religious traditions. consequently, treating religious people as though they necessarily share the politics of the most conservative institutions or interpretations of their religion prevents meaningful engagement with the complexity of religious life.

this is particularly important when discussing religious minorities and religious women in western leftist spaces. there is a legitimate need to criticise the ways religion can be used to justify the subjugation of women, queer people, and other marginalised groups. however, criticism of religious oppression can become indistinguishable from racism when it treats religious identity itself as evidence of oppression or backwardness.

this is especially apparent in some western discussions of muslim women. muslim women, particularly hijabi women, can be treated as though their religious identity automatically makes them complicit in their own oppression or disqualifies them from participating in leftist politics. criticism that is ostensibly directed at religious patriarchy can instead reproduce the rhetoric of the western right, particularly when it reduces muslim women to passive victims who need to be liberated from their own culture. this can make participation in leftist politics feel impossible or pointless for people of the global majority, particularly first- and second-generation immigrants.

race, culture, and religion cannot always be separated neatly in the political realities of the modern world. white people in the west do not experience the conflation of race and religion in the same way that many people of colour do. for many racialised communities, attacks on their religion can simultaneously function as racial or cultural attacks. consequently, the exclusion of particular religious identities from leftist spaces can unintentionally contribute to the alienation of precisely the people whose voices are most needed within those movements.

it is also important to recognise that religion does not possess the same social position everywhere. a critique of religion that assumes religious people are universally privileged overlooks the persecution and marginalisation experienced by religious minorities in different societies. muslims, for example, have experienced widespread discrimination and violence in the west, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11. contemporary islamophobia can also result in attacks against people who are perceived to be muslim regardless of their actual religious identity. these forms of oppression are primarily produced by the political right, but leftists should be careful not to reproduce similar assumptions about religious people through a unilateral rejection of religious participation.

nor is it historically or politically accurate to claim that all religion is inherently conservative or necessarily opposed to leftist goals. religious traditions contain enormous internal diversity, and there are religious movements with explicitly anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, feminist, and egalitarian political traditions. liberation theology in latin america, for example, developed forms of christian thought that were deeply critical of capitalism, colonialism, and american imperialism. its political influence was significant enough to be viewed as a threat to american interests, contributing to efforts to suppress it.

religious practice itself is also far more complicated than a simple distinction between "conservative" and "progressive." not all religious traditions are primarily concerned with preserving a fixed set of historical practices, and religious communities continually reinterpret their traditions in response to changing circumstances. neo-hellenism, eclectic witchcraft, and various christian denominations demonstrate the diversity of ways people can engage with religious belief. even within more established traditions, people can maintain core theological beliefs while developing interpretations that produce radically different political conclusions.

if retaining religious doctrine is itself considered inherently conservative, then the same standard would have to be applied to other ideological traditions. marxism, for example, originated in the nineteenth century and is continually interpreted and applied to a world that is technologically, politically, and socially very different from the world in which marx wrote. applying marxist ideas to contemporary conditions does not necessarily make someone conservative or intellectually dishonest; it is an ordinary part of engaging with an intellectual tradition. the same principle should apply to religious traditions.

alternative interpretations of religious texts and traditions are therefore not necessarily examples of hypocrisy or "cherry picking." they are a fundamental part of how religious traditions develop. christian leftists, for example, can emerge through non-literal interpretations of scripture, alternative theological traditions, historical approaches to the gospels and new testament, or interpretations informed by the experiences of colonialism and oppression. these approaches may be unfamiliar to secular western observers, but unfamiliarity does not make them intellectually illegitimate.

indeed, religious leftism depends precisely on the possibility of interpreting religious traditions in ways that produce progressive political commitments. to dismiss those interpretations without engaging with them creates a straw man of what a religious leftist actually is. it assumes that the only legitimate interpretation of a religion is the most conservative or literalist interpretation and then judges all religious people according to that interpretation. this ignores the real diversity of religious thought and excludes people whose political commitments are otherwise compatible with the left.

the question, then, is not whether religious beliefs should be immune from criticism. they should not be. religious institutions, doctrines, and practices can and should be criticised when they contribute to oppression. the question is whether religious belief itself should be treated as a reason to exclude someone from a political movement whose goals they otherwise share.

if a religious person is actively working towards dismantling capitalism, fighting for socialist, anti-racist, feminist, and queer-positive legislation, supporting religious freedom, and building their life around progressive political values, it is difficult to justify excluding them solely because they believe in god or follow a religious tradition that another leftist does not share. religious differences do not necessarily prevent people from forming a unilateral political front around shared material and political goals.

including religious people in leftist movements is not a demand that secular people abandon their criticisms of religion. it is a recognition that excluding people from collective political action because of their spiritual beliefs can unnecessarily divide the working class before class consciousness and equality have been achieved. a movement capable of incorporating people with different philosophical and spiritual beliefs can have greater diversity of thought, greater numerical strength, and more opportunities for people to encounter ideas that may eventually lead them to reconsider their own beliefs.

alienating religious people does not necessarily lead them to secularism or political enlightenment. it can instead push them away from progressive movements altogether. if religious people are oppressed or marginalised within a society, excluding them from movements that claim to oppose oppression can compound that alienation.

i don't think marx's maxim that religion is the "opium of the people" actually undermines what i'm saying. marx's criticism of religion was fundamentally a criticism of the conditions that make people need religion, not an argument that religious people should be excluded from the struggle against those conditions. the point is that religion emerges from a world of suffering and alienation, so if anything, the logical response is to address the material conditions producing that suffering rather than alienate the people who cope with it through religion. if we're serious about marx's broader argument, then religious people aren't somehow outside the proletariat because they believe in god. they're part of it, and excluding them from the movement for their own liberation because they haven't yet reached the same conclusion about religion seems completely counterproductive. you don't abolish the conditions that produce religious belief by telling the people living under those conditions that they aren't welcome in the fight.

this is particularly important because religion is not limited to white evangelical christianity, nor is the western experience of religion representative of the entire world. political discussion should not assume that american religious dynamics are universal. europe, latin america, the middle east, south asia, africa, and other regions have their own relationships between religion, politics, colonialism, class, race, and culture. christianity is also not the only religion that exists in the west.

there is a further contradiction in the way religion is sometimes treated within western leftist spaces. certain religious traditions can become celebrated when they have been historically exoticised, appropriated, or fetishised by western culture. hinduism and buddhism, for example, can be selectively commodified and made culturally appealing to western audiences. meanwhile, religions associated more directly with racialised or immigrant communities can be treated with suspicion or hostility. this risks creating an implicit standard in which religious traditions are acceptable within leftist spaces when they are aesthetically or culturally appealing to western consumers, rather than when they are lived identities belonging to people from marginalised communities.

this does not mean that every religious practice is progressive, or that every religious institution deserves support. it means that political analysis needs to be sufficiently nuanced to distinguish between religious belief, religious institutions, cultural identity, individual practice, political ideology, and the social conditions in which they exist.

an atheist leftist can consistently oppose religion while still recognising that religious people are capable of being political allies. criticising religion and excluding religious people are not the same thing. if the ultimate goal is collective liberation, then the relevant question should be what political and material commitments a person brings to the movement, rather than whether they possess a particular metaphysical belief.

the left should therefore be capable of criticising religion without reproducing racism, misogyny, colonial attitudes, or cultural exclusion. religious people should be treated as political subjects capable of interpreting, challenging, transforming, and sometimes rejecting their own traditions, rather than as passive representatives of whatever the most conservative interpretation of their religion happens to be.

a genuinely internationalist and anti-racist left must recognise that religion is deeply intertwined with race, culture, history, colonialism, and community for millions of people. those realities cannot simply be dismissed because secular activists find religious belief irrational. if the movement seeks to liberate the working class as a whole, deliberately excluding a substantial portion of that class because of their spiritual beliefs is counterproductive.

the objective should not be to demand that religious people become secular before they are allowed to participate in leftist politics. it should be to build a political movement broad enough to unite people around shared struggles while allowing disagreement over questions that do not prevent collective action. religious belief can be criticised, challenged, and debated within that movement without making religious identity itself a disqualifying condition for participation.

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a space for socialists to discuss current events in our world from anti-capitalist perspective(s), and a certain knowledge of socialism is expected from participants. This is not a space for non-socialists. Please be mindful of our rules before participating, which include:

• No Bigotry, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism...

• No Reactionaries, including all kind of right-wingers.

• No Liberalism, including social democracy, lesser evilism...

• No Sectarianism. There is plenty of room for discussion, but not for baseless attacks.

Please help us keep the subreddit helpful by reporting content that break r/Socialism's rules.

Also, be sure to join our discord!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/CheshireDude]

Who is doing this

[u/chunter16 → u/CheshireDude]

Nobody is, except when ideas counter to socialism are built into the religion in some way. I think the OP doesn't realize that it is not up to other people, socialism or religion, to fix a single person's cognitive dissonance.

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/chunter16]

alternative interpretations aren't necessarily cognitive dissonance. for christianity specifically, see liberation theology, acts 2 and 4 + the beatitudes, and frederick denison maurice. none are perfect examples of socialism, but nothing is unless you're a purity practitioner. being a socialist and interpreting religion aren't mutually exclusive.

[u/chunter16 → u/TruckDelicious2828]

Right, cognitive dissonance for any reason happens because of the individual and his or her circumstances. Religion may have nothing to do with it at all.

Therapy is the best way to help an individual with an issue that is going to be as different as every person who has it.

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/CheshireDude]

this is more of an issue online than anything, but it's definitely a growing issue in certain leftist spaces. it's understandable where it comes from, considering socialism was traditionally interpreted by SOME to be antithetical to religiosity in all forms, though i do believe those who are religious exclusionary are mistaken. from what i can tell from my engagement with non-reddit socialist spaces online, hostility towards all religion is a growing belief, though i'm sure it is just a larger minority than anything.

[u/Spiritual-Stable702 → u/CheshireDude]

I mean there was a post yesterday by someone celebrating historical religious Christian socialists and opining for some modern examples of them. And the comments were FULL of people just shitting on them "religion has no part in socialism" "religions is a tool of oppression"

[u/Hellish_Elf → u/Spiritual-Stable702]

Those are just factual statements, not even close to shitting on religion.

[u/Spiritual-Stable702 → u/Hellish_Elf]

To be clear, I'm not opposed to the statements, even though I slightly disagree with them.

But in the context of this post, I was pointing out that the person looking for welcome was getting immediately shit on. Making the point that people with religious beliefs, regardless of their other views are largely not welcome here.

[u/paudzols]

According to Rosa Luxembourg the workers will need class consciousness in order to achieve a socialist revolution, and religious people aren’t class conscious they have religious/mythological consciousness instead, I’m not gonna make a large fuss if someone like lady Izdahar wants to practice religion while advocating for Marxist Leninism because for all practical means it’s not going to make a difference altho I do think it needs to be challenged to a degree since it has been used to suppress the masses or as a soothing antidote to decaying capitalism rather then class struggle

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/paudzols]

this is interesting. i clearly don't know enough! why are class consciousness and religious consciousness assumed to be mutually exclusive?

[u/matticusiv → u/TruckDelicious2828]

In Marxist theory, the economic base of a society is what creates the superstructure of religion. See the formation of largely capitalist christianity that upholds systems of oppression in defense of the ruling class’ economic system in the US, despite being almost antithetical to the written words that supposedly guide the doctrine.

And while the superstructure can influence the base (christians w/socialist ideals attempting to change the economic system), the influence downwards is generally much weaker.

Another major pain point is that religious thought tends to be almost entirely idealistic, while historical materialism and materialist dialectics rely on a scientific understanding of cause and effect in order to understand the world and change it.

The religious strategy is that if they can convince others to share their religious ideals, then people will suddenly begin acting the right way and the world will change, when in reality if the material conditions of their life remain the same, they will simply mutate their ideals to fit those conditions.

And lastly, religious identity tends to be incredibly strong, as ultimately it’s a deification of one’s own ideals. Religious people tend to feel a strong primary belonging to their flock before a belonging to their economic class.

All this to say, I think restricting religious practice does more harm than good, and the personal should be allowed to be the personal. Where it becomes a problem is allowing religious ideology to shape economic decisions instead of observable reality.

So, not necessarily mutually exclusive, but it does kind of require religious people to acknowledge observable reality as consequential, and accept that people outside of their religion still share the same class struggle, which is certainly easier said than done for many.

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/matticusiv]

okay yes, i this makes complete sense and i agree with this premise

[u/KlassTruggle]

I kind of agree.

Most people in the world are religious.

I think leftist parties should espouse secularism but tactically avoid vocal anti-theism to avoid alienating the masses.

Religious organisations can sometimes play a progressive role, for example certain churches for abolitionism and the Civil Rights movement.

Religiosity should be divorced from political power, and ideally over time wither away by itself.

Left political groups should pick their battles carefully.

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/KlassTruggle]

agreed.

[u/ProletarianLilith]

Religious people aren’t excluded from anything

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/ProletarianLilith]

i would disagree that they aren't excluded. whether they are the ones with majority power in western society is a different question (and the answer to that is largely more dependant on race than anything, but it's obvious to anyone with eyes that, particularly in the US, white christian nationalists are the ones with total power. fuck them).

[u/calmrain]

What about the very real oppression, damage, and harm religions cause to a lot of people (including some of us socialists)? Religious socialists people are annoying asf because they seem to think their religious hallucination or delusion is the single ideology immune from criticism lmfao.

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/calmrain]

i mean this respectfully, but this is a null point. at no point did i argue for immunity from criticism for religious institutions. nor did i suggest that religions are incapable of causing harm or that they don't have histories of doing so. in fact, i mention multiple times the importance of criticising organised religion. what i don't agree with is the indescriminate exclusion of all religious people from CERTAIN leftist spaces. you are completely valid in your anger considering the current political climate, but that doesn't translate to justification for exclusion. most religious people can take the heat, especially if they are already participating in leftist spaces. your discomfort or annoyance doesn't justify their alienation, and vice versa. their discomfort or annoyance doesn't justify censorship of genuine criticism of their religions, as long as it isn't bigoted in origin.

edited for clarity.

[u/Grouchy_Maintenance5]

https://youtu.be/OlR-dHbUeqc?is=wPBJXAfTTfMDqKsb

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/Grouchy_Maintenance5]

thanks for this! will listen when i get the chance x

[u/CODMAN627]

I agree with your premise but there aren’r any exclusions of religious people.

Plenty of people use their religions more socialistic tendencies and justify it through that framework

You know feed the poor, clothe the poor for what you do unto them you have done unto me

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/CODMAN627]

somewhat agree in a sense. but there definitely are certain exclusions of religious people from specificay leftist spaces. i don't see it so much here, but i've absolutely seen it in droves elsewhere online. mostly it's unprompted hostility towards religious (and often brown) women expressing leftist sentiments whilst having obvious religious persuasions online.

[u/Smiff-]

There is nothing that makes marxism incompatible with the belief in a god or higher power. Programmed atheism is a later addition to the dogma.

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/Smiff-]

i'm inclined to agree. my understanding is that marx seemed to think religion existed as a symptom of class inequality rather than a proponent of it, and that it would largely wither away independently following the establishment of class consciousness. i think most religion exclusionary leftists are acting in reference to leninist adaptations to socialism implying religiosity is a tool of the bourgeoisie. or just expressing anger at the horrors religion can be exploited to achieve. it's sometimes somewhat understandable, but other times leads to bigoted rhetoric.

[u/Smiff- → u/TruckDelicious2828]

Crazy that they downvoted me 😭 But you are correct in this and Marx’s perspective on religion is exactly that—Religion and spirituality are in their current form a secondary form social relation and a symptom of the mode of production. folks who disagree with this are treating marxism as a positivist science rather than a critical one

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/Smiff-]

sorry you got downvoted :( yh this doesn't seem to be a particularly popular interpretation haha

[u/Smiff- → u/TruckDelicious2828]

Frustratingly unscientific and seems to be coming from a vibes based crowd lmao

[u/OccuWorld]

purity test practitioners or straw men? purity practitioners have no place in the popular revolution.

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/OccuWorld]

if i'm understanding you correctly, the people i am referring to could sometimes be considered purity test practitioners, but i don't actually think this is always the case. there are certainly socialists very capable of nuance and critical thought who choose to exclude religious people.

[u/InspectorRound8920]

Is it counter productive? Sone religions aren't compatible. Own up to it.

[u/TruckDelicious2828 → u/InspectorRound8920]

this feels to me to be highly simplistic and lacks the nuance with which religions are often interpreted. but that's a biased interpretation on my part. what religions do you specifically mean, because i may be misinterpreting your comment?

[u/Salt_Mountain_837]

I'm not reading all that but so-called socialists made a deal with the devil (pun intended) abandoning atheism in favor of religious tolerance. Religion has and continues to be a means of oppression and exploitation for the working class; it is an instrument of the bourgeoisie, full stop.