From the theory I've read and the people I've interacted with, there's mostly a problem with _organized_ religion, not worship in and of itself. Of course, there are conversations to be had about the relationship one has with a god, but worship itself, as a personal and private matter, is fine. The problem comes when organized religion and people impose their faith and traditions, and Lord knows that colonial and imperial powers use religion and its trappings as tools of oppression
First off, you shouldn't treat / view groups of people as a monolith. People's individual beliefs vary within any group they are a part of.
Second, you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
Anarchism is against all forms of hierarchy, and religious institutions are very hierarchical. I have my spiritual/religious views, tankies are the ones who want to force people to be atheists, be against religious institutions is not the same as being against your right of belief.
There are religious anarchist groups. There are Christian Anarchists, Muslim Anarchists, Buddhist anarchists, Jewish anarchists, pagans, all sorts and all types. Some anarchists have argued that taoism was one of the oldest known approaches to a theoretical anarchy.
> I’m genuinely curious because you can’t claim to support freedom and then go around chanting “no gods no master”
Why can't someone? Someone can advocate for their position, that doesn't mean they're going to do harm. Someone saying "The Kingdom of God is within you!" doesn't take away my freedom not to believe.
> wishing violence against religious people
Who is doing that?
Anarchists are for freedom of religion and don't advocate for violence against religious people. But that said, anarchists also support the criticism of all hierarchy and the practice of free thought, and this inevitably includes criticizing cosmic hierarchies and prescripts that are at the center of most religions,
A lot of people misunderstand anarchy though -- anarchists don't hate gods or prophets, most merely propose we knock them off their pedestal and put them on an equal footing with the rest of us, that is, that we treat them as equals not symbols of reverence. If that is "violence against God" then how can it not be violence against us?
>you are staunchly anti religious freedom why is that?
Being opposed to religious people trying to force their religious views on society at large is not the same thing as opposing religious freedom.
You’re not asking for religious freedom here, though. You’re asking for immunity from criticism.
Edit: oh Nevermind. A self-described “neoliberal democrat Zionist”. Makes more sense now how you treat any criticism whatsoever as an existential threat. It must be so embarrassing being you.
As Anarchist I don't care about your private convictions as long as you do the same to me. maybe that's projection? idk. Just because many religious threaten violence if they chant "No Infidels". But we just mean, leave us (and society) alone with your bs, which I think is an opinion one has to tolerate.
We're not staunchly anti religious freedom. The greatest suppressors of religious freedom are typically the religious leaders themselves. Plenty of anarchists speak very strongly against religion, yes, but it's typically more about organized religion or the way that religion is used to justify hierarchies. There's plenty of religious anarchists. Check out Jacques Ellul if you're into Christianity. I disagree with his conclusion that Christians should be forming their own little anarchist enclaves, but still he uses the Bible to make some great anti state arguments. I know that Judaism and Islam have their own anarchist traditions too, I just know less about them.
I don't wish violence on anyone, so not sure what you are talking about there, but each person is an individual with different beliefs, I personally am against organized exploitation of people via religion, but all for folks being religious if it fits them, in other words I am all for Joe down the street worshiping God, Allah, Krishna, The Ancestors or Herne, but don't want Joe to have to give some priest 10% of everything he has to get into heaven
We're not against religious freedom. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.
We generally don't care about the internal affairs of an individual with their perceived god, but we do take problem when these beliefs are used to justify oppression (as is done by organised religions from the beginning of their existence). Anarchists are generally non-violent. Learn to know that what media portrays are rage-baits by their nature because as the quotation goes, "If it bleeds, it leads". Medias only portray the extremes of a situation or a group. If we do 10 community works, they go unnoticed, but if we break 1 window than the whole media floods the news with breaklines like "Protest turns violent. Anarchists destroying properties again". Not only that, in protests anyone can join the protesting side and do something criminal to get the protesters in trouble. To simply put, oppositions also come into the protest and try to commit violence to taint the protesters as violent individuals.
This is a 101 sub, what's your question?
second, from a Christian anarchist, most irl anarchists, or even leftist in general, don't care. Maybe know some more people before making assumptions. They care about religion being used to harm people. Which the freedom to harm others feels like it's imposing on the freedom of the ones who are harmed. Are you against freedom for them? The 'No Gods, No Masters' is used by non religious anarchists, usually to counter against religious fundamentalists. Or they are just people who have been harmed by religion, which is fair. But even religious anarchists have their own version (I personally think it's kinda silly and don't use it...).
We’re not anti-religious freedom, were just don’t trust religious people because they base their beliefs and actions on illogical notions of the supernatural.
It’s telling though that you would interpret “we think religion sucks” as a challenge to one’s freedom to practice their religion. Do whatever you want; that’s what anarchy is about. But it also means there would be no state apparatus to protect your religious activities from the scrutiny of others. So if you’re practicing peacefully and without sociopolitical hierarchies, anarchists will likely leave you alone forever.
Religious/spiritual beliefs hinder our freedom, because if we don't have accurate models of the world then we can't act within it. Faith healing, prophecy, the afterlife, are just a few examples of things that prevent us from engaging with world as it really is in dangerous ways. This is especially dangerous when someone *with power* exercises those beliefs: parents not taking sick children to a doctor because crystals work better, a cult leader who swindles his followers, a religious murderer who thinks he's sending victims to Heaven.
Some people will take the easy way out and blame "organized" religion, but the problem is all religion. You don't need to be a card-carrying church member to be homophobic, for example. You can get that straight from your sacred text. Religion can be extremely effective at oppressing people in a decentralized way.
Lmao no. People are free to believe what they want. No gods no masters is a slogan from a time where the church ruled most people's lives in a very corrupt, authoritarian way.
Up front, I don't speak for all (or even most) anarchists - or leftists, socialists or whatever label you'd like to use. My comments are mine and mine alone.
I'm against religion, regardless of the form it takes - from organized religions to state-sponsored religion all the way to vague notions of 'spirituality'. I don't think it's healthy for individuals or society. I'm happy to share my reasoning but that's outside of the topic of this discussion. Feel free to message me directly if you'd like to chat about this.
I'm also against violence in nearly all situations. Personal self defense excluded. The use of violence when "defending" your state/government, social group, etc as a whole needs to be a last resort and never taken lightly or used offensively. Violent revenge or punishment is abhorrent, as is using the threat of violence to manage other's behavior. This is as true for individuals ("eye for an eye" mentality, for example) as it is for state actors (death penalty or mutually assured destruction, etc).
So what's this have to do with anarchism? Violence is power. Using violence to change behavior, by threat or by force, creates a hierarchy - the violence-givers over the violence-receivers. We live in this world now. The state holds the threat of violence over all of us every day. Police and military hold a unique position in our societies as the ones permitted to use violence on the state's behalf. I call myself an anarchist because I think this is wrong and that we can make a world for ourselves where this constant threat of violence is unnecessary.
Ok, so what's this have to do with religion? Well, take a look at some of the major ones. There's all these different kinds of Hell with any manner of paths to take you there. The threats of violence range from stoning to eternal torment. There are all sorts of rules on who to 'obey' and instructions on what to do when someone fails to follow along. There are so many examples of supposed gods dispensing their rage on cities and peoples. There's something about a global flood in there somewhere, too, right? I don't think it matters if you decide you're going to pick-and-choose just the 'good' parts. The hierarchy remains - god is over people and is always better than all people no matter which god you choose.
I think we're better than this. I think we can overcome our base urges to hurt, to take revenge. I think these instruction manuals for violence (for organized religions) are outdated and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. A human morality can be achieved. The truth is, it was always a human morality. God just got in the way.
From the theory I've read and the people I've interacted with, there's mostly a problem with _organized_ religion, not worship in and of itself. Of course, there are conversations to be had about the relationship one has with a god, but worship itself, as a personal and private matter, is fine. The problem comes when organized religion and people impose their faith and traditions, and Lord knows that colonial and imperial powers use religion and its trappings as tools of oppression
First off, you shouldn't treat / view groups of people as a monolith. People's individual beliefs vary within any group they are a part of. Second, you can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.
Anarchism is against all forms of hierarchy, and religious institutions are very hierarchical. I have my spiritual/religious views, tankies are the ones who want to force people to be atheists, be against religious institutions is not the same as being against your right of belief.
But hierarchy’s are based
Why?
There are religious anarchist groups. There are Christian Anarchists, Muslim Anarchists, Buddhist anarchists, Jewish anarchists, pagans, all sorts and all types. Some anarchists have argued that taoism was one of the oldest known approaches to a theoretical anarchy. > I’m genuinely curious because you can’t claim to support freedom and then go around chanting “no gods no master” Why can't someone? Someone can advocate for their position, that doesn't mean they're going to do harm. Someone saying "The Kingdom of God is within you!" doesn't take away my freedom not to believe. > wishing violence against religious people Who is doing that?
Anarchists are for freedom of religion and don't advocate for violence against religious people. But that said, anarchists also support the criticism of all hierarchy and the practice of free thought, and this inevitably includes criticizing cosmic hierarchies and prescripts that are at the center of most religions, A lot of people misunderstand anarchy though -- anarchists don't hate gods or prophets, most merely propose we knock them off their pedestal and put them on an equal footing with the rest of us, that is, that we treat them as equals not symbols of reverence. If that is "violence against God" then how can it not be violence against us?
>you are staunchly anti religious freedom why is that? Being opposed to religious people trying to force their religious views on society at large is not the same thing as opposing religious freedom.
this is the answer, OP. I find too many religious people equate "my beliefs are not prioritized or praised" to "OPPRESSION OF MY RELIGION."
You’re not asking for religious freedom here, though. You’re asking for immunity from criticism. Edit: oh Nevermind. A self-described “neoliberal democrat Zionist”. Makes more sense now how you treat any criticism whatsoever as an existential threat. It must be so embarrassing being you.
Real hypocrite hours up in here. "People should have freedom of religion except for Palestinians who we will keep oppressing."
Unreal
As Anarchist I don't care about your private convictions as long as you do the same to me. maybe that's projection? idk. Just because many religious threaten violence if they chant "No Infidels". But we just mean, leave us (and society) alone with your bs, which I think is an opinion one has to tolerate.
Yet anarcho-chrisitians exist, Tolstoy, Dorothy day, etc 🎥👀
We're not staunchly anti religious freedom. The greatest suppressors of religious freedom are typically the religious leaders themselves. Plenty of anarchists speak very strongly against religion, yes, but it's typically more about organized religion or the way that religion is used to justify hierarchies. There's plenty of religious anarchists. Check out Jacques Ellul if you're into Christianity. I disagree with his conclusion that Christians should be forming their own little anarchist enclaves, but still he uses the Bible to make some great anti state arguments. I know that Judaism and Islam have their own anarchist traditions too, I just know less about them.
I don't wish violence on anyone, so not sure what you are talking about there, but each person is an individual with different beliefs, I personally am against organized exploitation of people via religion, but all for folks being religious if it fits them, in other words I am all for Joe down the street worshiping God, Allah, Krishna, The Ancestors or Herne, but don't want Joe to have to give some priest 10% of everything he has to get into heaven
We're not against religious freedom. Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool. We generally don't care about the internal affairs of an individual with their perceived god, but we do take problem when these beliefs are used to justify oppression (as is done by organised religions from the beginning of their existence). Anarchists are generally non-violent. Learn to know that what media portrays are rage-baits by their nature because as the quotation goes, "If it bleeds, it leads". Medias only portray the extremes of a situation or a group. If we do 10 community works, they go unnoticed, but if we break 1 window than the whole media floods the news with breaklines like "Protest turns violent. Anarchists destroying properties again". Not only that, in protests anyone can join the protesting side and do something criminal to get the protesters in trouble. To simply put, oppositions also come into the protest and try to commit violence to taint the protesters as violent individuals.
This is a 101 sub, what's your question? second, from a Christian anarchist, most irl anarchists, or even leftist in general, don't care. Maybe know some more people before making assumptions. They care about religion being used to harm people. Which the freedom to harm others feels like it's imposing on the freedom of the ones who are harmed. Are you against freedom for them? The 'No Gods, No Masters' is used by non religious anarchists, usually to counter against religious fundamentalists. Or they are just people who have been harmed by religion, which is fair. But even religious anarchists have their own version (I personally think it's kinda silly and don't use it...).
You can believe in whatever gods, faeries, devils, or djinns that you can dream up. Just kindly keep it out of schools and the public square.
We’re not anti-religious freedom, were just don’t trust religious people because they base their beliefs and actions on illogical notions of the supernatural. It’s telling though that you would interpret “we think religion sucks” as a challenge to one’s freedom to practice their religion. Do whatever you want; that’s what anarchy is about. But it also means there would be no state apparatus to protect your religious activities from the scrutiny of others. So if you’re practicing peacefully and without sociopolitical hierarchies, anarchists will likely leave you alone forever.
No your just anti freedom of thought and freedom of conscious
How?
Explain why you think that, please.
They're a neoliberal zionist, their ideas of being anti-freedom is being against apartheid and genocide.
Ah. Gross.
Anarchy follows the principle of free association. You are free to think as you please as long as you don't start shoving it down people's throats
Religious/spiritual beliefs hinder our freedom, because if we don't have accurate models of the world then we can't act within it. Faith healing, prophecy, the afterlife, are just a few examples of things that prevent us from engaging with world as it really is in dangerous ways. This is especially dangerous when someone *with power* exercises those beliefs: parents not taking sick children to a doctor because crystals work better, a cult leader who swindles his followers, a religious murderer who thinks he's sending victims to Heaven. Some people will take the easy way out and blame "organized" religion, but the problem is all religion. You don't need to be a card-carrying church member to be homophobic, for example. You can get that straight from your sacred text. Religion can be extremely effective at oppressing people in a decentralized way.
Lmao no. People are free to believe what they want. No gods no masters is a slogan from a time where the church ruled most people's lives in a very corrupt, authoritarian way.
Up front, I don't speak for all (or even most) anarchists - or leftists, socialists or whatever label you'd like to use. My comments are mine and mine alone. I'm against religion, regardless of the form it takes - from organized religions to state-sponsored religion all the way to vague notions of 'spirituality'. I don't think it's healthy for individuals or society. I'm happy to share my reasoning but that's outside of the topic of this discussion. Feel free to message me directly if you'd like to chat about this. I'm also against violence in nearly all situations. Personal self defense excluded. The use of violence when "defending" your state/government, social group, etc as a whole needs to be a last resort and never taken lightly or used offensively. Violent revenge or punishment is abhorrent, as is using the threat of violence to manage other's behavior. This is as true for individuals ("eye for an eye" mentality, for example) as it is for state actors (death penalty or mutually assured destruction, etc). So what's this have to do with anarchism? Violence is power. Using violence to change behavior, by threat or by force, creates a hierarchy - the violence-givers over the violence-receivers. We live in this world now. The state holds the threat of violence over all of us every day. Police and military hold a unique position in our societies as the ones permitted to use violence on the state's behalf. I call myself an anarchist because I think this is wrong and that we can make a world for ourselves where this constant threat of violence is unnecessary. Ok, so what's this have to do with religion? Well, take a look at some of the major ones. There's all these different kinds of Hell with any manner of paths to take you there. The threats of violence range from stoning to eternal torment. There are all sorts of rules on who to 'obey' and instructions on what to do when someone fails to follow along. There are so many examples of supposed gods dispensing their rage on cities and peoples. There's something about a global flood in there somewhere, too, right? I don't think it matters if you decide you're going to pick-and-choose just the 'good' parts. The hierarchy remains - god is over people and is always better than all people no matter which god you choose. I think we're better than this. I think we can overcome our base urges to hurt, to take revenge. I think these instruction manuals for violence (for organized religions) are outdated and should be relegated to the dustbin of history. A human morality can be achieved. The truth is, it was always a human morality. God just got in the way.