Did religion ever bring anything to mankind?

[thucythucy]

185. True, but liberation movements were also

often religious, and not Marxist.

When, for instance, Marxists all over the world adapted the official party line in 1939 that the German-Soviet Pact was a great thing, and that opposition to Hitler was simply another aspect of "imperialism," religious opponents of the regime were not swayed.

And to say liberation theology is "just blending in religion" is rather superficial. In fact, it might be more accurate to say it's "just blending" Marxist analysis into Christian theology.

Either way, it was definitely a contribution, as it helped in the overthrow of Somoza, undermined the Pinochet junta, and was considered such a threat by the Salvadoran death squads that they felt compelled to assassinate Bishop Romero in public, while he was delivering Mass.

Consider also that the struggle against British imperialism in India, and racist segregation in the US, were led in large part by religious leaders and organizations--Mahatma Gandhi ("Mahatma" is a religious appellation meaning "Great Soul&quot and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the US. The first major organized effort against racial oppression in South Africa was the Satyagraha campaign, also organized by Gandhi and his associates. "Satyagraha" roughly means "soul power"--one can hardly have "soul power" without some concept of a "soul."

The current resistance to Chinese imperialism in Tibet is hardly Marxist, since it is Marxists doing the oppressing. The resistance is centered around the person of the Dalai Lama, who is, of course, primarily a spiritual leader. The opposition to the oppressive oligarchy in the former German Democratic Republic, where again the oppression was instigated and perpetuated by Marxists, was centered in the Lutheran churches--I visited one of the centers of the resistance in Leipzig, where the Stasi made efforts to infiltrate religious groups and would routinely monitor church meetings and worship.

You didn't address the cultural/artistic contributions, which I take it you accept without question. Have you ever read the opening of "Paradise Lost"? Among the most beautiful lines of poetry in the English language. Bach's music is almost entirely religious. Raphael's paintings likewise. Even an artist as secular as George Groscz used religious imagery to make his point--his famous sketch of the crucified Christ wearing a gas mask, as one of his many attacks on German militarism in World War I, and war in general.

You asked "what has religion contributed" and I answered. To dismiss all religion, or more to my point all people whose actions, art, and progressive politics have been rooted in spirituality is to dismiss an enormous part of human history and experience. I can be as critical of religion as almost anyone, but I don't shut my mind to all that it has contributed and all that it means to very many progressive and good people I know. To condemn all religion is to surrender the spiritual realm to the reactionaries. It's analogous to allowing conservatives to claim that they're "the real Americans" and the rest of us not. It alienates progressive groups such as the United Church of Christ, the American Friends, the Glide congregation, the Catholic Workers, and the MCC. The MCC--just as one example-were fighting for LGBT rights decades ago, when Marxists all over the world were condemning gay people and gay life as "capitalist perversions." It was Marxists, BTW, who arrested Allen Ginsberg in Prague.

It doesn't make sense factually, or politically, to lump all spirituality and all spiritual people in with the bigoted reactionaries. Don't you agree?

Best wishes.