The Jungle and Christianity

[The_Student]

Upton Sinclair was an advocate of Socialism, and he wrote the Jungle in order to provide vivid imagery to support his ideology that was growing in popularity in the early 1900s, and the Jungle wasn't written in retrospect either -- the Jungle was actually written in 1906 or 1907 from what I can recall. However, in the end, Upton Sinclair offered two perspectives on Christianity, if a person was to become a Socialist. The first was that Christianity, and religion in general, was against the Socialist movement. One of the characters did say, after all:

"And then the subject became Religion, which was the Archfiend's deadliest weapon. Government oppressed the body of the wage-slave, but Religion oppressed his mind, and poisoned the stream of progress at its source. The working-man was to fix his hopes upon a future life, while his pockets were picked in this one; he was brought up to frugality, humility, obedience – in short to all the pseudo-virtues of capitalism. The destiny of civilization would be decided in one final death struggle between the Red International and the Black, between Socialism and the Roman Catholic Church; while here at home, 'the stygian midnight of American evangelicalism –'"

However, afterwords, a minister entered into the discussion, generally proclaiming that every Christian, if he or she truly believed in Jesus Christ, should be a Socialist, because Jesus Christ was the first and greatest Socialist in history. The minister said, as a part of his speech:

""Well, then," cried Lucas, "and why should Jesus have nothing to do with his church – why should his words and his life be of no authority among those who profess to adore him? Here is a man who was the world's first revolutionist, the true founder of the Socialist movement; a man whose whole being was one flame of hatred for wealth, and all that wealth stands for, – for the pride of wealth, and the luxury of wealth, and the tyranny of wealth; who was himself a beggar and a tramp, a man of the people, an associate of saloon-keepers and women of the town; who again and again, in the most explicit language, denounced wealth and the holding of wealth: 'Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth!' – 'Sell that ye have and give alms!' – 'Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of Heaven!' – 'Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation!' – 'Verily, I say unto you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of Heaven!' Who denounced in unmeasured terms the exploiters of his own time: 'Woe unto you, scribes and pharisees, hypocrites!' – 'Woe unto you also, you lawyers!' – 'Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?' Who drove out the businessmen and brokers from the temple with a whip! Who was crucified – think of it – for an incendiary and a disturber of the social order! And this man they have made into the high priest of property and smug respectability, a divine sanction of all the horrors and abominations of modern commercial civilization! Jeweled images are made of him, sensual priests burn incense to him, and modern pirates of industry bring their dollars, wrung from the toil of helpless women and children, and build temples to him, and sit in cushioned seats and listen to his teachings expounded by doctors of dusty divinity – ""

If anyone wanted to read directly from the text that dealt with Christianity, then merely go here. Since the book was written over a hundred years ago, I'm sure copyright issues won't be a problem, but inform me or edit the link out if so. The Jungle just seemed to be the epitome of the Capitalist v. Socialist and the Atheist v. Christian drama for me, and a multitude of people may feel the same way as well. Therefore, your response to these questions would be fantastic.

(1) If you had read the Jungle, what did you feel about the Jungle? Was the Jungle a masterpiece, was the Jungle manipulative, was the Jungle realistic, and did the Jungle retain your interest?
(2) If you read the Jungle, had your views of Capitalism or Socialism changed at all? Did you become a Socialist after reading the Jungle, or vice-versa?
(3) Had your views of Christianity or Atheism changed at all? Did you become an Atheist after reading the Jungle or the passage provided, or vice-versa?
(4) Was Jesus a Socialist? Can a Christian truly believe in Christianity without being a Socialist, if the first proposition is true?

 

[SDJonathan]

I've never read the jungle, but I believe I heard at some point that the socialist regimes of the cold war era tried to claim jesus was a socialist.

Not sure if that's exactly what I heard though.


...Honestly I'm not sure what to think of this, but as for the idea that the socialist and communist regimes were driven by their atheism (in case that notion is brought up), I'd just like to provide a quote from sam harris regarding North Korea:

"Is too much skeptical inquiry really what's wrong with North Korea? Is that REALLY the problem over there?"

I'm not saying that's your view, I just thought I'd put in my two cents to prevent the discussion from derailing into "Stalinism was because of Atheism", which I assume you wouldn't want to happen to this thread.

 

[The_Student]

I've never read the jungle, but I believe I heard at some point that the socialist regimes of the cold war era tried to claim jesus was a socialist.

Not sure if that's exactly what I heard though.


...Honestly I'm not sure what to think of this, but as for the idea that the socialist and communist regimes were driven by their atheism (in case that notion is brought up), I'd just like to provide a quote from sam harris regarding North Korea:

"Is too much skeptical inquiry really what's wrong with North Korea? Is that REALLY the problem over there?"

I'm not saying that's your view, I just thought I'd put in my two cents to prevent the discussion from derailing into "Stalinism was because of Atheism", which I assume you wouldn't want to happen to this thread.

Well, I don't agree with people who state that all Communists are atheists, and all Capitalists are religious. The story itself proves that, in Upton Sinclair's time, a number of Socialists was religious. Historically, though, I do see a trend that Communists were typically atheists and Capitalists were religious. Karl Marx, after all, attacked religion as a personal devotion that should not take precedence over one's support of his or her countrymen, whether those countrymen be Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc. Therefore, he supported a Church of the State, where the public religion was that of worshiping the people or the humanity in that particular State. Joseph Stalin, I believe, tore down many churches in order to erect museums of science or whatever. In general, however, Communism asserted the supremacy of the community, and therefore a devotion to a Deity would not be preferred.

Capitalism, on the other hand, did not believe in the supremacy of the community but the supremacy of the individual. Therefore, the common man should not be compelled to any public ideology but his or her own ideology, whether it be Christianity or Taoism. To clarify, I don't believe that every Communist is an atheist, nor every Capitalist a Theist, but I do think that some patterns can be seen, depending on the political theory thereof. Atheism doesn't cause the problems of Communism, but atheism is an effect of the Communism of Karl Marx, because such a belief was supposedly necessary for all the working men to unite. Christianity doesn't cause the problems of Capitalism, but, because Capitalism asserts an individual's ability to decide things for himself or herself, notwithstanding the community, people generally like choosing personal devotions to a Deity of hope and charity to make themselves feel more secure. (Although, of course, there are intellectual reasons as well) The people who enjoy the individuality of Capitalism and the personal devotion to nothing do exist in Objectivism, but that makes me the exception -- not the rule.

In general, the issue of religion in the text was not whether Socialism is atheistic or whether Socialism is Theistic. Rather, the text wanted to investigate that, if a person was a Socialist, should that person also be against religion? The other side was that, if a person was Christian, wouldn't that person also be a Socialist? It's a question of what is in line and an effect of the, in origin, Socialist or Christian belief, and whether someone's political position should in general affect personal religion as well intellectually.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Student!

Pre. Script. (Pr.S.?) I tried sending this back to you in a PM but you are blocking any PMs from being sent to you for some reason. This is in regards to our existing discussion in the PMs.

---------------------------------------------------------

I apologize, I was still at work until 7:30pm today and I didn't finish eating dinner until just now! I may have to read that another day, hopefully tomorrow. As for studying history and the Enlightenment that certainly is an interesting period in History. I also have an interest in the pre-Reformation, High-Middle Ages study of Church history and precursors to the reformation like John Wycliffe and the Lollards in England, and Jan Hus and the Hussites in Bohemia. They both had major influence on later Protestants and Wycliffe and Hus were both educated men and theologians, and exceptionally able teachers. Wycliffe followed in the philosophical line of fellow Oxford graduates who had preceded him like Roger Bacon and William of Ockham. He also was an exceptional and brave theologian. The High Middle Ages are not as bad as many people thought, and starting around the 12th century AD the first universities started springing up throughout Europe.

Anyway, although my historical interest in European history goes back a bit past the Enlightenment I got some more exposure to Enlightenment ideas due to my study in the French Revolution. I however will not hide the fact that I do not have much taste for some of the "philosophes" (enlightenment thinker's) highly abstract and strange ideas (one French revolutionary, rhetoritician, nominal clergyman, and enlightenment thinker names Sieyes came up with a crazy idea to domesticate apes to use for slave labor in the field and have negro slaves act as the ape's taskmasters [??!?!?!?]). Sieyes is credited with a big contribution to the ideas and concepts of "division of labor" in sociological studies, and was a contemporary of Adam Smith (who himself was was very eccentric) who is officially credited with the founding of the idea of division of labor in his Wealth of Nations, and Sieyes even claimed that he personally had written out detailed thoughts about division of labor in his own journals long before Smith published teh Wealth of Nations. So while such enlightenment era thinkers did make important and innovative ideas, philosophical contributions, and literary works, some of them however were very abstracted from real life and were "weird" for lack of a better word.

Even during reading my five books on the French revolution, it was repeatedly pointed out by the scholars that the philosophes (as the thinkers are called) often were theoreticians and were not economists who operated at the actual implementation level in government policy, and they sometimes gave quite impractical advice which may have led (at least in France) to a growing rhetoric on society which reflected not actual reality but rather an ideal (which however turned into an ideal for equality, which inspired and rallied French people together, but unfortunately took a turn for violence in the end). Sometimes even the French economist/theoritician Physiocrats were more practical than the philosophes in creating real world solutions to economic problems which in turn affected social problems.

French Enlightenment atheism was also notorious, headed especially by Voltaire, and I can't say I have a taste for those Enlightenment ideas either. John Adams, who saw the Americans gain their own freedom in the American Revolution similar to the French people's Revolution, of which both however had drastically different outcomes, expressed his increduility at the level of French atheism. It exceeded the amount of atheism of any nation in the Western world at the time. In a letter addressed to Richard Price on April 19, 1790, Adams wrote of the French Revolution: “I know not what to make of a nation of thirty million atheists.” He added, “Too many Frenchmen, after the example of too many Americans, pant for equality of persons and property. The impracticability of this, God Almighty has decreed, and the advocates of liberty, who attempt it, will surely suffer for it” (source).

I say all that to say, that while some of the Enlightenment thinkers came up with truly Revolutionary and great ideas on equality, freedom, and to an extent on individualism I do not therefore unilaterally blindly praise them for all their ideas, because I find some of their other ideas (which actually are not all taught or mentioned in classes - only the philosophes' big ideas are mentioned, not their innumerable other little pet ideas & theories) to be quite terrible, irreverent, impractical (abstract philosophy), or sometimes just plain weird (as with Sieyes and his "ape labor working gang" idea). I'm just throwing that out on the table so you know where I stand on the matter currently.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

God Bless,

~Josh

----------------------------

As I said I would have sent this in a PM if I could, but feel free to respond to me via PM if you like (or here is fine).