42
Thoughts on this community post by Hakim?
(lemmygrad.ml)
The idea that the Palestinian people have only been able to persist because of their religion is ridiculous to me. They are resisting because colonialism, apartheid and genocide are very bad things to which nobody would want to be subjected, not because of Islam. If Palestinians were atheists, is he suggesting that they wouldn't have the strength or the will to resist? Would their lack of a belief in the supernatural turn them into doormats for Isn'treal?
I like Hakim's content, but his position on religion is quite frustrating. He is a Muslim first and a Marxist second. Also, Joram van Klaveren is still a right-winger.
this was already posted before but i don't think you can discount the role religion plays in giving people a source of hope and strength where there otherwise isn't any. Maybe you could do the same thing another way, but I'm at a loss as to how. We all know that religion plays a large part in the lives of a large portion of the world population.
It's obviously not the a ONLY reason they fight back but it doesn't hurt the cause at all imo.
But isn't religion a source of false consolation? The real consolation would of course be the improvement of material conditions.
It certainly helps people cope with day to day life under capitalism, but eventually it needs to go.
Isn’t hakim’s argument that religion helps people keep fighting for better material conditions because they can bare the struggle better?
That is still poor analysis. People can have religion, but to chalk up a people's survival to it is absurd and horrifically bad material analysis.
It's better analysis than dogmatically repeating "isn't religion opium of the people? It dumbs them down, makes them complacent," even when that's clearly not what's happening in this situation.
Where did I ever say it dumbs people down and makes them complacent. Especially not in this situation.
That’s what religion has historically been used for, making it a powder keg of a belief to rely on without any sort of critical analysis.
If you’re going to get hostile at least don’t shove words in my mouth.
I never said you said it, OP said it. You responded to my reply to OP.
No, you replied to me. As in directly to me.
I apologize if that’s an accident, but you did response directly to my comment.
It wasn't targeted at you, but I intended to reply to you. You said what I said was bad material analysis so I said Hakim's analysis was better than OP's. I'm sorry that my hostility appeared targeted at you.
I just got out of the shower and I realised that’s what you meant. I’m very sorry, I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say.
I will say though, I still feel that both Hakim and OP’s analysis are both very flawed but from opposite sides of the spectrum.
I think in cases where religious institutions are actively organizing and encouraging people to engage in struggle, political or armed, to change their circumstances, it doesn't make much sense to call it false consolation.
Even when religions assert a kind of cosmic justice outside the scope of individual earthly lives, it's not always true that religion serves mainly to console, even in matters of personal psychology and belief. Christianity certainly falls into that pattern, but John Brown was not as consoled by the prospect that justice would be achieved in the afterlife as he was convicted by his religious morality that the earthly evil he saw in slavery had to be combatted by all means available, immediately.
I do think that desperate situations drive people to religious belief as a way of upholding the just world hypothesis in the face of powerful cognitive dissonance. But that's just one factor among many in promoting religious belief, and as a general tendency, it doesn't necessarily address what religion inspires or motivates people to do in particular circumstances.