Correspondence: Christianity
Dear Sir.
As a practising Christian who is also a confirmed Semi-Marxian Social Democrat, I was very interested to read H.B’s article “Religion—God Speaks for Capitalism” in last month’s Socialist Standard. One of the article’s solemnest statements mentions that “Christians have even stooped to putting a mock debate on television, with one Christian posing as Marx in order to make it easier for his colleague to knock his argument down.” From what I saw of the debate I believe the ‘writer refers to the “Christian posing as Marx” certainly gave as good as he got, and at one point came close to breaking through the somewhat artificial religious “barrier” of his opponent.
Concerning the statement that “Modern science has made God . . . intangible and unintelligible,” one has only to consider the fact that there are no fewer practising Christians among eminent scientists than other walks of life to question this postulate. As the great Christian physicist Lord Rayleigh, (discoverer of the rare gases helium, argon, radon etc. in air), once said, “True science and true religion neither are nor could be opposed.”
“To talk of loving thy neighbour . . and defend mass murder” is certainly humbug. But in my own experience I have found few true Christians, recognising sociology as they must for more than another piece of verbal lumber, who really justify for instance the dropping of the H Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the unctuous hypothesis that it saved more (Allied) lives than it destroyed. I myself cannot see how these tragedies can be logically justified (if the Bombs were even alternatively dropped in comparatively underpopulated parts of Japan, the war maniacs of Tokyo must surely have been shocked to their senses).
I have known Christian comrades refer to the droppings as “the greatest of the war rimes”. This is probably exaggerated when one considers the Nazi record, bill I certainly shows that “the Christian conscience is not as one sided and Nationalist as sometimes made out. Some clerics may, by opposing the CND illogically sanction “the ultimate weapon”—(although it must be remembered that CND is no more the “sole custodian of moral principles and eternal truth” than Christianity!)—but to say that the God of the Christians “sanctions wage slavery” is an unjust over-simplification. After all, it is the Christian Socialists and Anglican Worker Priests that give the lie to this statement. The latter especially are doing excellent work in many North Country factories, sharing the lot of the shop floor worker, striving loyally for the Union he belongs to, and giving him down-to-earth advice on his day to day problems free of the more unctuous sermonising of their brother priests. Some of these, admittedly–possibly through no fault of their own—are out of touch with the proletariat. In conclusion, I am bound as a Socialist to agree that “the production of things for use with a full and satisfying life for everybody” is an essential aim for “mature mankind”. Dare I, however, repeat that great saying of Christ which can never become just another stale political cliché—”Man does not live by bread alone “.
R. BURNETT FIERCE. Chippenham, Wilts.
REPLY
We have come across many strange self-descriptions in our time but none of them have been stranger than Mr. Pierce’s. We cannot understand how anybody can claim to be even a “semi” Marxist when he opposes the materialist conceptions which are at the heart of Karl Marx’s work.
The article God Speaks for Capitalism did not offer any opinions upon who came off best in the television “debate” on Christianity. It did point out how ludicrous it is for the Christians to impersonate their own opponents and it commented, “We would prefer to see a real debate on Marxism, but they will, of course, prefer their cut-and-dried questions, asked and answered by themselves.”
It is true that many scientists are religious; man is capable of amazing and intricate mental acrobatics. This does not alter the fact that science—that is, factual knowledge and its systematic application—has made religion “intangible and unintelligible”. The God-fearing scientist is a believer only outside his laboratory. He does not expect to solve his scientific problems with prayer. He does not experiment in supernatural religion but in material fact and upon that he bases his work and his conclusions.
Our correspondent protests that few “true” Christians justify the use of nuclear weapons. But who are the “true” Christians? Those who support nuclear armament say that they are as sincere in their religion as anybody else and it is not for Socialists to doubt their word.
The point is that religion, if only for its basic belief that our existence on earth is a preparation for a glorious, if improvable, life-after-death, must divert the attention of the working class from the real issue of their lives—whether a minority is to continue to own the world’s wealth or whether it is to be the property of the whole of mankind. This is only one reason for our saying that religion upholds capitalism.
Most religious sects support the wars which capitalism throws up. In these wars, religious principles are forgotten. Catholics fight against catholics, protestants against protestants, moslems against moslems and so on. Only one principle, in fact, is left to them and that is their support for property society.
Thus there is every reason for a Christian to condone the use of nuclear weapons. If he supports capitalism’s wars, why should he not also want his side to fight with the most powerful weapons at their disposal? Indeed, the illogical ones are not the clerics who oppose CND but those who only wish they could call a halt to capitalism when it has produced what they think is the ultimate weapon, or something else that is frightful.
The worker priests and the so-called Christian socialists cannot escape the charge, of sanctioning wage-slavery. After all, many workers are keen and militant trade unionists without also being opposed to capitalism. In this they are only trying to get the highest wages they can and commendable as this is it can do nothing to disturb the basis of capitalist society. It would be a different matter if the worker priests advised their workmates to become socialists and to work for the end of the wages system. But that is impossible because it would mean that they would also advise them to become hostile to religious ideas. We should not forget that the worker priests are in the factory not only to try to ease the workers’ burdens; they are there to also encourage people to be more faithful Christians.
We agree with Mr. Pierce that man needs to satisfy more than his immediate physical requirements if he is to live his life to the full, which is what a socialist wants.
But there is no hope of indulging out other tastes and fancies unless we first of all have a secure existence. Starving refugees are in no shape to appreciate great literature and doubtless would rather have full stomachs than lend an ear to the finest music. We do not need to expand this argument very much to realise that Socialism, by securing a full and secure material existence for mankind, will give us a world in which we can also enjoy our cultural achievements to the utmost.
EDITORIAL COMMITTEE