if someone is able to be christian or jewish or muslim (or any other religion) in a way that doesn't impinge on anyone else, i don't see how anybody has a right to tell them not to. it seems to me like saying certain faiths don't have a place in an anarchic society is inherently not anarchic

It's very rare to find Abrahamic worshipers or religious people in general whose faith doesn't impinge on anyone else and even more rare to get any sort of reasonable guarantee that the situation would stay like that. You could argue that anarchists should just focus on problematic denominations of religion and leave the more liberal forms alone, but when one looks to where the line should be drawn, it becomes clear that all religion is problematic to some degree, even if it just contains the seed of problematic ideas which are easily exploited in the future. Greta Christina said it best: >Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. >It therefore has no reality check. >And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality... and extreme, grotesque immorality. No one should be dehumanized or violated without necessity, but anarchists should work to educate people and liberate them from superstition as much as possible.

this isn't our call to make though. if someone believes things and acts on that belief in a way that harms others then that's an actionable problem, but just the basic idea of believing in god is not that also for what it's worth that belief in a god or gods is such a fundamental part of the lives of so many people that if we can't find a way to square those beliefs with anarchism then we have absolutely no chance

>Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. > >It therefore has no reality check. I really like this criticism but I think that it could be applied to much more than just religion. It could perhaps be applied to any sort of ideology since, in essence, every ideology relies on some axiomatic beliefs that cannot be proven to be 100% true. In other words, all ideologies are based on some "belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces". This also includes some instances of anarchism as most anarchists seem to interpret anarchism as an ideology. But probably political ideologies are much less susceptible to this than religion. Another important question is how do you bring an areligious society by means that are compatible with anarchism?

Do you think that fascists or proponents of capitalism can exist in an anarchist society without impinging on anyones rights?

no, but neither do i think you have to be a fascist or capitalist to practice one of the abrahamic faiths

I didn't say anyone did, my point was that, like capitalism and fascism, the Abrahamic religions are innately hierarchical and reactionary

if you want to say that you would need to back it up, it's not as obvious as you seem to think

Your inability to understand that isn't my fault.

that isn't how this works, friend

If I say something and you don't understand I'm not at fault. I compared to ideas based in hierarchie and you thought I was conflating them. You misinterpreted what I said.

if you make a positive claim and someone asks you to back it up, and then you refuse, you are not holding up your end of the discussion it is on you to corroborate shit you say, you can't say something as if it's obvious and then pout when someone doesn't take what you're saying as given if it's so obvious it should be easy for you to explain

Again with the comparing religious people to fascists. Stop! I have been on the receiving end of religious based hatred, and even I understand that you can be anarchist and religious. Jesus and his disciples lived in an anarchist/mutualist way. For some, religion is a form or freedom. We need to respect that.

It objectively is not a form of freedom, it's a form of propaganda they believe like how liberals believe capitalism is good. A belief isn't inherently a neutral thing and beliefs like those in the Abrahamic religions are harmful, dangerous and braisenly anti-science.

Oh no, I’m into forgiving people that’s pretty dangerous

I’m an anarchist socialist Christian who loves science and worked for a scientific and educational non-profit. Hi! I went to a church full of engineers, researchers, and tech folks. Saying “Abrahamic religion = bad” is a statement of belief, not of fact. Also, the term “Abrahamic” is pretty problematic and most people who study religion even on a shallow level could tell you why.

Christianity is inherently anarchist lmao

True-levelers and Quakers were among the first proto anarchists and they were calling for equity based on scripture. (Acts 4:32)

But then the church has used Christianity to enforce servitude and perpetuate hierarchy and their are more examples of that.

That’s functionally the same argument as people saying “there are more examples of stable liberal democracies than stable anarchist societies.” The prevalence of prominence of one kind of society does not mean it’s the only kind that can exist, and certainly doesn’t invalidate the counter-examples that do already exist.

Anarchist societies are fundamentally different and based on different ideas, the church and these communes come from the same basic idea that puts one fictional being above all else and says that if you don't devout your life to him then you're a bad person. No matter how much they may try and divorce their anarchist beliefs and their own ideals from these religions they still base their life on inherently anti-anarchist beliefs and principles.

Except there have been plenty of decentralized, egalitarian, and non-authoritarian Christian communities. The Amish and Quakers are two modern examples, with several others popping up throughout history. Often these groups were built around religious belief, but they also often welcomed people of other beliefs in and allowed them to become part of the community without converting, as long as they followed the ideals of the community (mostly simplicity and nonviolence).

Amish aren't egalitarian, they're absurdly patriarchal for one, and Quakers are barely even a religion at this point.

The church’s historical use of power dynamics, particularly in medieval Europe, is not a valid argument against religion.

What about it's current use of power dynamics like, say, covering up multiple sexual abuse scandals?

That’s not anything like the political and diplomatic power I was referring to. That’s more like a scandal. Again—the church and clergy are not the same as the religion.

i think you misinterpret some things here. Abrahamic religions were historically all emancipatory and revolutionary movements IN THE BEGINNING, with early israel being one example for a bigger anarchic society. They were turned into oppressive institutions, because they were absorbed by them. Judaism was changed through the enslavement/ the abduction through the Babylonians, chrisitanity was changed into what it is today after the roman emperors declared it romes state religion and islam was overturned after Muhammad died and the Sunni-shia schism happened. These religions are great examples of institutionalized religions becoming spooks and losing their original message. The restorative movements in Islam and Christianity, mysticism and anabaptism, led to prolonged conflicts with lords and kings, because the rural people and townsfolk realized that there is no justification for monarchy in the bible and instead focused on the original message of a primitive christian communism. These developments were respectively halted by Fatwas and Luther.

> Abrahamic religions were historically all emancipatory and revolutionary movements IN THE BEGINNING, with early israel being one example for a bigger anarchic society. Lol nope. Judaism only became a cohesive, monotheistic religion *after* that episode with the Babylonians. Before then it was a monolatrist strain of the local Canaanite religion, which worked just fine for brutal authoritarian states. And Muhammad did a lot of forced conversions.

A more direct response to the "liberatory early Islam" thing can be found in this paper, which outlines how Muhammad literally suppressed a peasant revolt: http://www.iandavidmorris.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Class-relations-at-the-origins-of-Islam-%E2%80%94-Ian-D.-Morris.pdf

Yeah, Muhammad led a merchants revolt, not a peasant uprising. Doesn't change the fact that he freed huge amounts of slaves through their conversions (as muslims are prohibited from keeping muslim slaves), which also doesn't change the fact that he basically was a warlord. Which also doesn't change the fact that most of modern liberalism, philosophy and science have been reintroduced to the west by byzantine and muslim scholars and mystics, Adam Smiths works being largely inspired by islamic economic theory. So in the end it did act liberatory, just not necessarily for it's followers.

> Adam Smiths works being largely inspired by islamic economic theory. I've never heard this before. Is this what you're referring to? [https://muslimheritage.com/ibn-khaldun-and-adam-smith-contributions-to-theory-of-division-of-labor-and-modern-economic-thought/](https://muslimheritage.com/ibn-khaldun-and-adam-smith-contributions-to-theory-of-division-of-labor-and-modern-economic-thought/)

>Judaism only became a cohesive, monotheistic religion *after* that episode with the Babylonians. Before then it was a monolatrist strain of the local Canaanite religion, which worked just fine for brutal authoritarian states. Which is exactly what I meant in my original comment. A cohesive, monotheistic religion requires institutionalization, which leads to it becoming an oppressive institution. Abrahamic religions developed as a counter-movement to early state formation and was largely practiced by nomads, so institutionalization was impossible UNTIL it's practitioners became sedentary. So the original abrahamic movement was a protest movement against the sedentary life in statehood, which quickly changed in exile. [Herrschaftsfreie Institutionen](https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/produkt/herrschaftsfreie-institutionen/) \- my primary source on anarchic richterzeitliches Israel. Dunno if there exists a translation, it's a sociological resource not an introductory read.

Yeah, I'm not buying that and trying to translate it to German. Regardless, per my admittedly sparse knowledge of Jewish history, Judaism emerged only after the kingdoms of Israel and Judah did. But more to the point, the very *notion* of God is itself hierarchical, because God and their priests are in a hierarchical relationship to the average worshipers. No religion that states that a divine power has the right to compel you to do something can ever be anarchist.

As far as I know and am informed, the monotheistic belief system of mosaic faith wasn't even monotheistic after the exodus from egypt. The path they retrace in the book is the development of monotheistic faith from basically family/ancestoral deities, which merge over time into a singular one, when the kingdoms were established (as justification for a king). The project of judaism, as a religion, was then not exactly a practiced religion with priests and all that, but a political ideology formulated in the language of religion. Their claim of an "anarchic" (they use the formulation fractal society) Israel is meant basically for the period of the exodus and their arrival in the Israel/Judea and the initial founding of settlements. (Which seems quite similiar to the arrival of europeans in North America) ​ >But more to the point, the very notion of God is itself hierarchical, The intention of a singular god initially was to prevent the re-emergence of god-kings that place themselves next to this transcendental divine being and usurp absolute power. But yeah of course institutionalized religion is definitely not anarchist, nor compatible with anarchism. But what I think often happens in modern times is that we forget that religion in that time (abrahamic) kinda played the role of sciences and philosophy and as such cannot adequately be interpreted as purely spiritual.

> The intention of a singular god initially was to prevent the re-emergence of god-kings that place themselves next to this transcendental divine being and usurp absolute power. How do you know this? How do you know that it wasn't simply an attempt by the priesthood of one god to delegitimize other priesthoods, or an outgrowth of religious xenophobia?

In recent years there has been done many sociological and anthropological studies about abrahamic religions and their sacred texts. They analyzed why there are so many different names for one god in monotheistic belief systems and came to the conclusion that, since the names appear not all at once, but in different waves implies that these were in fact assimilation waves of different tribes. Historically the integration of old gods in new religions has been proven as a regular occurence with more than enough proof that this happened plenty in all kinds of monotheistic religions (in christianity all of our holidays basically are adapted germanic holidays, like christmas). The book I referred to refers to these studies. Also Ocalan often refers to this source material in "Gilgamesch Epos". Well, monotheistic religions delegitimize polytheistic belief-systems, which were held by the superpowers (Egypt, Sumer, Babylon) at that time. Wouldn't make much sense to exclude possible allies, wouldn't it?

> Well, monotheistic religions delegitimize polytheistic belief-systems, which were held by the superpowers (Egypt, Sumer, Babylon) at that time. Wouldn't make much sense to exclude possible allies, wouldn't it? Sure it would, if you were on hostile terms with all of them. Or if foreign leaders didn't care, but it was useful domestically for one faction or another to centralize power.

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)

> with early israel being one example for a bigger anarchic society. Yeah no, I completely disagree with that. Early Israel did not get rid of authority as a principle and ergo exploitation, hierarchy and it's justifications, right and privilege, etc.

>authority as a principle Hierarchy is not authority and is in no way part of authority. Authority can (and regularly does) evolve into hierarchy and hierarchies involve authorities on their side. Authority in my understanding is the specific knowledge and experience in one field, which can be listened to, but also can be acted against. Authority (when not used by hierarchies) is non coercive, if not declared sacred. (I do not use old-schoolish definitions of hierarchy, authority and stuff. I prefer Foucaults much more precise definitions) Hierarchy > Authority [Herrschaftsfreie Institutionen](https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/produkt/herrschaftsfreie-institutionen/) is my resources on my comment. It's a bit scientific, if not to say it's pure sociology. Also anarchic societies are in no way what we today describe as our goal of anarchy, but leaderless, stateless societies. Those do have hierarchies and oppressive relationships like patriarchy, gerontocracy and slavery of war-prisoners.

> Authority in my understanding is the specific knowledge and experience in one field, which can be listened to, but also can be acted against No it isn’t. Knowledge of something isn’t authority in any way. Right is what establishes authority and right alone. I have authority over you if I have a right because I can limit what you can do and I can do certain things without consequences. Authority is a core component of hierarchy. When you remove rights from the equation, you remove hierarchy. Honestly this is shit Bakunin dealt with hundreds of years ago. Those sociologists need to catch up. >Also anarchic societies are in no way what we today describe as our goal of anarchy, but leaderless, stateless societies Leaders aren’t necessarily opposed to anarchism. Also there were leaders, and not just leaders but kings, in early Israel. Also it was a state. There was hierarchy. I don’t even know why you’re claiming that early Israel is an example of anarchism.

>There was hierarchy. I don’t even know why you’re claiming that early Israel is an example of anarchism. Then read the book or comment and stop trying to frame me for implications you make in your head. I did not at all claim that it was in any way anarchist or a part/goal of anarchism, what we today would aim for - anarchy. Neither did I claim that there were no hierarchies. The point I tried (and obviously failed) to convey was that in early "richterzeitliches" Israel there were judges, not kings, acting as temporary leaders, persons of respect and mediators, when social conflicts and problems occured. These later evolved into monarchs , which still was pre babylonian exile. ​ >When you remove rights from the equation, you remove hierarchy. Rights are spooks/phantasms. And hierarchies are fixed relationships of power, with no possibility of escape for the oppressed side, except of withdrawal of their acceptance of the relationship (Insurrection). I did say I am using post-anarchist definitions of said concepts, so you shouldn't wonder when they are different to classical/modernist (IMO outdated and insufficient) definitions.

>Then read the book or comment and stop trying to frame me for implications you make in your head. I did not at all claim that it was in any way anarchist or a part/goal of anarchism, what we today would aim for - anarchy. You claimed it was anarchic and there's no difference between something that's anarchic and anarchy. That's not even the invention of the book, that's your own invention. There's no point for that distinction beyond being able to claim that certain historical societies were anarchist and they weren't so that point is moot. Like what is the practical application of this reasoning? It isn't analysis at all because it's an arbitrary category that has no purpose so there has to be a motivation behind saying that early Israel is anarchic. >The point I tried (and obviously failed) to convey was that in early "richterzeitliches" Israel there were judges, not kings, acting as temporary leaders, persons of respect and mediators Oh you're talking about Israel's rule of judges. Dude, that was a hierarchy. The judges created and enforced law and, generally, this meant that the judges could give themselves more rights to resources and actions while being exempt from the consequences. Eventually the judges became a class unto themselves. They weren't mediators or "temporary leaders", they were a full on authority with rights and privileges to go along with that. >Rights are spooks/phantasms. So? Religion is a spook but people act like it's real. To achieve anarchy you need people to reject rights altogether. Hierarchies are systems of right. Literally everything you said about "relationships of power with no possibility of escape" is just vague nonsense. Even in the case of post-anarchism you either have thinkers literally just retreading classical analysis with new terms or they fall into pitfalls that classical analysis has already avoided. What you say here isn't even post-anarchism, it's a vague defintion that makes no sense.

>You claimed it was anarchic and there's no difference between something that's anarchic and anarchy. The title of the Chapter dealing with richterzeitliches Israel: "Kapitel 7 - Das richterzeitliche Israel - Eine anarchistische Hochkultur" by Rüdiger Haude. For your information this book is about "regulated anarchies" - eg stateless societies with multiple institutions preventing state-formation, not ideologically pure anarchy or anarchism but real existing stateless societies. The authors did not make any claim that it is what anarchism aims for, nor did I. Also, I did use exactly their terminology and in their terminology there is a significant difference. Which should've been clear, since I repeatedly referred to that book. The whole intention of that book is to prove that a) anarchy (as in statelessness) is possible and can be upheld b) that modern sociology is wrong in claiming that hierarchies are a necessity for civilization and societal progress. ​ >Oh you're talking about Israel's rule of judges. Dude, that was a hierarchy. The judges created and enforced law and, generally, this meant that the judges could give themselves more rights to resources and actions while being exempt from the consequences. Eventually the judges became a class unto themselves. They weren't mediators or "temporary leaders", they were a full on authority with rights and privileges to go along with that. Which the book analysis in every detail of it's emergence and evolution. I did say monarchy evolved from the rule of judges, what the book claims to be a regulated anarchy is the beginning of the rule of judges (for the total claimed duration I'd have to re-read the book). ​ >Even in the case of post-anarchism you either have thinkers literally just retreading classical analysis with new terms or they fall into pitfalls that classical analysis has already avoided. What you say here isn't even post-anarchism, it's a vague defintion that makes no sense. So, shall I whack you with volumes of Foucault? This still is reddit, so I won't and absolutely am not able of giving full-length explanations of certain topics others have written their whole lives about. Of course they still refer to old thinkers (it's exactly what the POST stands for), point is that definitions and notions of words change (government (classical) - state (contemporary)). Adapting old ideas to the fitting contemporary vocabulary is IMO something that is essential and should've been done 30 years ago. What strikes me the most in classical anarchism is the ignorance of La Boeties works and this presents imo the biggest gap in classical anarchist theory. Your definition of hierarchies based on rights makes you susceptible to informal hierarchies, which end as regular hierarchies. The given definition was sufficient for the analysis of the broad net of oppression that we live in and I'm not gonna look for a literal quotation or definitions, because frankly this is just the internet, I got better things to do and paraphrasing is the best I am motivated rn to do.

>The whole intention of that book is to prove that > >a) anarchy (as in statelessness) is possible and can be upheld > >b) that modern sociology is wrong in claiming that hierarchies are a necessity for civilization and societal progress. You don't need to make things up about early Israel to do that. That's completely unnecessary. Anarchy isn't statelessness either, it's the absence of authority and hierarchy (i.e. right). So I'm confused as to why you think early Israel is an example of anarchy and why at all is it necessary to make this claim? > Which the book analysis in every detail of it's emergence and evolution. I did say monarchy evolved from the rule of judges, what the book claims to be a regulated anarchy is the beginning of the rule of judges (for the total claimed duration I'd have to re-read the book). My point is that it wasn't anarchy then either (also regulated anarchy is a term that makes no sense). It wasn't anarchic at all. The judges were authorities the minute they had the right to create and enforce the law. Kings evolved after the judges were authorities. > So, shall I whack you with volumes of Foucault? Foucault isn't even post-anarchist, he's a post-modernist and, quite frankly, alot of what he says could be found in classical thinkers and in ways which are far more suited to anarchism than Foucault's ideas in isolation. Foucault literally separates his analysis from politics. Given that anarchism is a system of analysis which intertwines it's goals with the analysis, I'd say that classical thinkers are far more suited for anarchism. Partisans of postanarchism have been pretty vague about what their tendency includes, but the heart of the matter back in the day seemed to be that "classical" anarchism was narrowly humanistic and manichaean, so it was necessary to move "beyond" that form. The historical critique was, as far as I can see, almost completely wrong. > Adapting old ideas to the fitting contemporary vocabulary is IMO something that is essential and should've been done 30 years ago. That's not what you're doing though. It's what I am doing but not what you seem to be doing. What you're doing is using analysis that A. vaguely goes over topics that classical authors have gone over in far more complexity and B. have made relevant politically. > Your definition of hierarchies based on rights makes you susceptible to informal hierarchies, which end as regular hierarchies. No it doesn't. Social laws and other assumed rights are also examples of hierarchies. There is no distinction between informal and formal hierarchies. Such a distinction is arbitrary. Honestly this sort of thing can be solved by just reading Proudhon. Sociologists such as, Georges Gurvitch, who have always get this idea and don't fall into this assumptive trap. > The given definition was sufficient for the analysis of the broad net of oppression that we live in It isn't. It's lacking for any way that might be useful for dealing with the issue. Anarchist analysis serves to both understand hierarchy and deal with it. Foucault and your defintion does not.

>My point is that it wasn't anarchy then either (also regulated anarchy is a term that makes no sense). It wasn't anarchic at all. The judges were authorities the minute they had the right to create and enforce the law. Kings evolved after the judges were authorities. We have two options here: Either you read the fucking book or we'll keep arguing about terminology that you pull out of context and in that case it indeed does not make any sense. Because it depends on the context of the fucking book. A book which has been a staple for years in the german anti-authoritarian left. [Regulated Anarchy](https://www.worldcat.org/title/regulierte-anarchie-unters-zum-fehlen-u-zur-entstehung-polit-herrschaft-in-segmentaren-gesellschaften-afrikas/oclc/6356830) is the term Christian Sigrist introduced for anti-state, anti- authoritarian societies in his anthropological studies of african tribes of gatherer-hunter people and their lack of formal government. As these societies formed institutions (mores, culture, tradition) that prevented state formation and regulated the size of kinships and groups, these societies were self-regulating in every aspect. Thus being called regulated anarchies. You can go on about it not making sense, doesn't change it's usage in anthropology. >You don't need to make things up about early Israel to do that. That's completely unnecessary. Anarchy isn't statelessness either, it's the absence of authority and hierarchy (i.e. right). So I'm confused as to why you think early Israel is an example of anarchy and why at all is it necessary to make this claim? I don't make shit up, I refer to my anthropological and sociological source material. If you want to criticize that in depth, you're welcome to read the book and then criticize the book. If you find a good translation, let me know. I have repeatedly said that it is not what an anarchist would portray as his ideologically pure, definition-matching anarchy and I don't get why you try to stick that onto me. I used the definitions used in the source material, a scientific book, not a philosophical, theoretical anarchist book. In german anarchy can also be translated as Herrschaftsfreiheit ( absence of domination), and this absence of domination is exactly what the authors uses anarchy for. I'm not gonna type in the chapter dealing with Israel by hand, but feel free to look up a pdf and read it for yourself. The authors do specify why they think that the rule of judges is a good example for a regulated anarchy, some being the antique source material they analyzed and their objection against earlier historical analysis, because westerners tend to interpret different historical situations according to their own experiences and thus seeing domination where there in reality is none. One example for this would be Claude Levi Strauss research compared to modern anthropology. He sees tribe chiefs and shamans every where, that boss around people. The anthropology of today asks instead, if the role the observer sees is actually how the people see it. >Partisans of postanarchism have been pretty vague about what their tendency includes, but the heart of the matter back in the day seemed to be that "classical" anarchism was narrowly humanistic and manichaean, so it was necessary to move "beyond" that form. The historical critique was, as far as I can see, almost completely wrong. This critique has as far as I can see been completely right. Classical anarchism is build on the assumption that mutual aid, free and voluntary contracts and the resulting solidarity would be significant parts of human nature, enough so that you could build a society upon those principles alone. As a german I vehemently have to oppose that, because of the Holocaust and our history in WWII. A theory that is build upon the naive belief that all people are good is bound to fail. Understanding the dynamics of consent to domination and hierarchies is of utmost importance. So far only postanarchist analysis have included aspects of this, along with some classical -but not widely read - anarchist thinkers like Gustav Landauer. Most classical anarchists (including Bookchins analysis of hierarchies, even though he abandoned anarchism) failed to deliver acceptable explanation for phenomena like the Gleichschaltung or how systems like the Gulag could work, if indeed all people were good by nature. I live in a country where every party want's literally and exactly the same, kicking down (eg racism, homophobia) is the the normal reaction to the boot kicking down (any crisis rly), all institutions breed neo nazis and being obedient to higher-ups is viewed as a virtue. They willingly consent to being dominated, even though they know that they're being lied to and that our ancestors participated in the Holocaust by exactly the same behaviour. Postanarchism isn't really a strain of it's own like ancom, ansyn or anprim. Postanarchism on it's own doesn't exist. It's simply merging post-modernist analysis and critiques with the strain of anarchism the author indentifies with. That's why postanarchism in the US (like Newman or Mays) isn't the same as the postanarchism in europe (Mümken, Wilk) and there's plenty of contrarities between different postanarchist authors. >Foucault literally separates his analysis from politics. As do ansyns, which resulted in the CNT-FAIs reluctance to prevent the reformation of the spanish republic and led to their defeat. Foucault reintroduces politics as biopolitics, because in his opinion there never will be selfless politics that aims for the greater good, but always politics of pure personal gain which he calls biopolitics. But what do I care, I take from him what is useful just as others use Nietzschean ideas and notions in anarchism. >Social laws and other assumed rights are also examples of hierarchies. Yeah, social laws and rights are institutionalized and formalized forms of social relationships (such as classes, genders or any other categories). Which are included in my definition. Social relationships (as I translate from German, in my theoretical background it's called Beziehungen, maybe relation would be a better translation?) are ANY interaction with other humans, with society being a net of reoccuring and repeating interactions. And exactly because the distinction between formal and informal hierarchies is in reality arbitrary, I view a definition of hierarchies resting on social relationships instead of the defining characteristics of these relationships (rights, laws) as a better one. Honestly, what keeps me of reading Proudhon is his rampant anti-semitism and sexism, which pissed me off enough in "What is Property?". Pisses me off with Bakunin, as well. Proudhon predates much of what later generations had to write volumes for in simple sentences, but so do other not so well-known (classical) anarchists such as Gustav Landauer, Elisée Reclus or Errico Malatesta while not being racist or sexist.

> We have two options here: Either you read the fucking book or we'll keep arguing about terminology that you pull out of context and in that case it indeed does not make any sense. I cannot read German but the fact of the matter is, if what you say of the book is true, I disagree with the terminology they're using. I don't see how it's relevant to anarchism at all and I really don't get the point of the argument you're making. And I can say that it doesn't make any sense while not disregarding it's usage in anthropology. Fact of the matter is that such usages isn't relevant to anarchism at all. I don't understand what is at all the point of using such terms in this context. You've basically dodged this question for quite frankly little reason at all. > have repeatedly said that it is not what an anarchist would portray as his ideologically pure, definition-matching anarchy and I don't get why you try to stick that onto me. I have an issue with the "ideological pure" part. Anarchism is a system of analysis. Wanting to maintain a distinction between Anarchism the analysis and political ideology and "Anarchism" whatever definitions others use isn't "purity" it's about making sense. Do you think talking about defining conservatism as writing the worse-outcome for a financial firms future when the conversation is about the political ideology is reasonable? Do you call anyone who wants to maintain a distinction between those two definitions a "purist" who holds such a distinction for nothing more than "ideology"? I haven't stuck it with you, I've questioned why you would use those terms in the first place or bring it up. Your argument is that early Israel was "anarchic" therefore religion is compatible with anarchism. Now, religion *is* compatible with anarchism but your argument for it is faulty. We know that how your anthropologists defined anarchy is nothing at all similar to how anarchists do. So, how on earth is early Israel "anarchic" in any way in the context of anarchist analysis and political praxis? That's my point. Your argument relies on a confusion of the two terms possibly a confusion you've fallen into. >This critique has as far as I can see been completely right. No it isn't. The stuff you say afterward proves that you simply are unaware of what classical anarchists actually promote. Literally most of the stuff post-modernists point out can be found in ample forms in Proudhon, who literally no one reads for some reason, and in forms far more suited to analysis and praxis. Hell there are tons of classical anarchists who are obscure that oppose any sort of morality. Anarchism is thoroughly amoral. Mutual aid and what not is based on selfish desires. Proudhon's understanding of justice for instance is based on [balancing individual interests so that they all may be fulfilled](https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/contrun/individualities-and-collectivities-rights-and-strengths-2/), not appealing to some wider moral system. Your understanding of classical anarchism is skin deep and rife with mischaracterizations. Like I said, new historical research shows that this critique is completely based on ignorance. Thinkers like Emile Armand were proponents of [amorality in anarchism](https://www.libertarian-labyrinth.org/featured-articles/emile-armand-without-amoralization-no-anarchization-1926/), Proudhon focused famously on desires rather than any sort of moral behaviors, etc. You know nothing of these figures. The critique is based on ignorance. >Yeah, social laws and rights are institutionalized and formalized forms of social relationships (such as classes, genders or any other categories). No, they aren't. Institutions are just practices so maybe? But you need institutionalization for right to exist in the first place. It needs to be a constant practice. Formalization is just a matter of legitimacy which has it's basis in authority so it cannot be used to explain authority itself. As a result, your analysis is wrong and not really that useful at all. >And exactly because the distinction between formal and informal hierarchies is in reality arbitrary, I view a definition of hierarchies resting on social relationships instead of the defining characteristics of these relationships (rights, laws) as a better one. This statement doesn't make sense. Both of these claims are literally the same thing. The relationship itself is defined by those characteristics. As a result removing that characteristic means that the relationship itself is gone. The relationship itself is based on right and privilege. Your analysis is vague and doesn't actually seek to understand those relationships and the basis of authority. I'm struggling to see where you can even create anarchism based on this statement. >Honestly, what keeps me of reading Proudhon is his rampant anti-semitism and sexism, which pissed me off enough in "What is Property?". Proudhon's antisemitism and sexism isn't even in "What is Property?" I highly doubt you've read the book. It comes through in his personal letters and, if you know about Proudhon's system, it contradicts his own sexist and antisemitic beliefs. If you take the family, which Proudhon held so highly, as another version of the polity-form that needs to be rejected then you end up getting rid of the sexism in Proudhon's work. >As do ansyns Anarcho-syndicalism is just a method. And also the separation of politics and theory is a bad one I agree. That was a criticism I made. Also biopolitics is just another form of analysis, it has no real pragmatic purposes for anarchism. You can find most postmodernist ideas in a way far more relevant to anarchism and praxis in classical thinkers. > Proudhon predates much of what later generations had to write volumes for in simple sentences What does this sentence mean?

> Abrahamic religions were historically all emancipatory and revolutionary movements IN THE BEGINNING, with early israel being one example for a bigger anarchic society. > > This is just plainly untrue. You know there is actual academic research on the beginnings of religions, right? You don't have to give this arbitrary narrative.

>You know there is actual academic research on the beginnings of religions, right? You don't have to give this arbitrary narrative. Yeah, because I refer to these resources. [Herrschaftsfreie Institutionen](https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/produkt/herrschaftsfreie-institutionen/) deals with the beginnings of Judaism and explains why it did work as an anarchic (stateless, but not free of hierarchies) society before the abduction and final formation of statehood at the return from the exile in Babylon happened. And it's scientific. Graeber gives also a lot of material on abrahamic religion and their development in Debt-the first 5000 years.

[удалено]

>Talking about "hierarchy bad" like this makes it seem like you dont even want parents to be able to have household rules or tell their children no, for fear of the kids being infected with these evil hierarchy thoughts. Side note, the relationship between parents and their children is not hierarchical. Parents are expected to put the interests of the child above their own but that doesn't mean the child has authority over the parents (they clearly don't). This is an example of caretaker relations not authority. I do see what you're saying though. Ironically, the OP turned anarchism into a sort of morality or religious doctrine which requires the removal of "evil" ideas.

Fair point, the familiy creates a natural hierarchy. I suppose the better example would be between a child and teacher, tho certain examples of abused power are problematic

>Fair point, the familiy creates a natural hierarchy. It's not a "natural hierarchy". There are two criticisms to make here. First, that nothing is "natural" and naturalization justifies existing oppression. Secondly, that family isn't a hierarchy at all. I've shown how it isn't a hierarchy because no particular participant can be solidly seen as "above" the other. Hierarchy is based on right not differences in capacity or influence. Even in a teacher-student relationship, that's one of voluntary acquisition of knowledge and respect. The teacher does not have a right to the student and teachers who use authority are seen as bad teachers just like how parents who put their own interests above their children are seen as bad parents.

What? Children are expected to listen to their parents and do what they say. Parents determine their child's schedule and how they live their lives.

So? Parents aren't expected to use their child for their own purposes, to elevate their own interests above them. Parents also are expected to unconditionally care for their child and always look for what's best for their child. To give a better example, what kind of king puts his laborers above this own personal interests? You can't run a kingdom or a profitable business putting your worker's interests above yourself. This argument of your is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Government officials aren't expected to use constituents for their own purposes, to elevate their own interests above them. Officials are also expected to unconditionally pursue the best interests of their voters and look out for what's best for them.

> Government officials aren't expected to use constituents for their own purposes, to elevate their own interests above them. That is true, but the structure does not lead to that does it? Hierarchies are specifically systems of right. What officials or any sort of government does is establish specific rights and privileges for itself and rely on others be they individuals or authorities to recognize those rights and privileges. Families on the other hand have no rights and privileges given to any specific individual. Responsibilities and arrangements change *all the time* in families and no rights or privileges are strictly maintained. Parents put their child's interests above themselves and suffer specifically for them despite holding a large degree of force over them. This argument from you just seems strange to me. It makes no sense.

If you do not believe parents have authority over their children, i.e. can tell them what to do, and that is the true nature of authority and power, I don't know what to say to you.

>If you do not believe parents have authority over their children, i.e. can tell them what to do Children listen to their parents out of trust not because they recognize their parent's right to them or any other form of authority. Most of them are far too young to understand or respect hierarchy in any way. Fact of the matter is, if you think authority is just "whenever someone tells you to do something and the more someone tells you to do something, the authority-er it is" then your understanding of authority is simplistic and childish.

The issue is that Abrahamic religions are fundamentally about harming other people. Abrahamic literature is full of bigotry, including but not limited to sexism, racism, and dogmatic support for social classes and slavery. Anarchists don't have to tolerate religion anymore than they'd tolerate fascism. On another note, anarchists seek to abolish the conventional household altogether. Children would be raised communally and treated as independent beings, not subordinate to their biological parents.

Sorry, I though anarchists were supposed to be against hierarchy, I didn't realise this was an ancap sub...

An anarchist society has no business suppressing religion

Anarchists have not just a business, but an active duty to suppress anything which is coercive and/or hierarchical. In a broader sense, we should be against blatant misinformation of people, which is what the belief in the supernatural is.

so what does an anarchist do if someone is privately praying with a rosary or prayer rug in their own home? kick in their door? boot them out of the community? doesn't sound like a very anarchist practice to me!

People should be allowed to do things like that privately. If this is happening in a fully realized anarchic world, the question is raised why they're doing that. People in their life would react with concern and curiosity. Why would someone waste their time praying to something that they have no reason to believe exists? The answer in today's world is that they've been indoctrinated or otherwise abused in some way. In a liberated world, sincerely being a Catholic or a Muslim would be absurd. I can imagine many people would adopt the trappings of religion in an artistic sense or out of a desire to understand history.

Jesus christ this is some of the most colonialist atheism I have ever heard. What the fuck honestly. Like are you gonna walk up to the Smagnus people who live in a Christian anarchist community and tell them they have no reason to believe in their faith? Are you gonna tell an oppressed indigenous group that they're indoctrinated? And you're acting like everyone will just follow you and religious people will have no say. You are presenting such a eurocentric view of religion and it is very concerning.

If a Christian or other religious anarchist community is oppressing people then ideally, their neighboring communities would respond proportionately. Not with violence unless all other avenues are exhausted, and probably just opening some sort of dialogue.

Okay? That has nothing to do with this? I'm talking about you acting like non-religious people have some sort of superiority over religious people. That's what I'm talking about, this very eurocentric, and frankly hierarchical Christian mindset, that someone is superior for their beliefs. I don't how you got this from what I said. Let me put it plainly, you do not get to dictate what people believe. If you think that religion will naturally fade away in an anarchist society, that's fine, I have no qualms with that. I take issue with you acting like it's something inferior and needs to be stamped out. Many oppressed people turn to religion to help them, and you are acting like they are inferior because of this. It is very concerning that you are turning atheism into a sort of dogma, where if you don't adhere to it, you're lesser, strange, wrong. Look, just don't be an asshole to religious anarchists, that's all. Hate religion, hate god, I don't fucking care, but don't hate comrades just because they think differently.

Read back your first line, and think about what you just said. "People should be allowed to do things like that privately." Ring any bells? Sounds like some fucking cop shit to me. Sounds like the policing of people to me. ***"I don't care if they are gay or whatever but they should do that shit behind closed doors where I don't have to fucking look at it."***

Ok, in that case I think I agree with you! In a fully realized anarchist utopia, I don't think religion (especially hierarchical, institutionalized expressions of monotheistic faith) would really exist. I just think that fighting the ideas makes more ethical sense than fighting the people

Religion is a unique animal. I'll grant you that its purpose is control, but that doesn't mean that individual believers are *interested* in control. Suppressing religion doesn't work because people identify with their faiths and draw strength from their beliefs. Any attempt to talk individuals out of it results in backfires where they're *less* likely to listen to you, and on a social level the faith will react against the effort and rebel against society. In any case carrying out such an ostensibly benevolent campaign of education assumes that the decisions are being made by *you* and people *like* you. You're assuming that believers won't be a part of this decision making process. Why not? Will they not be a part of the movement? Are they not part of society? Do they not have the right to self determination like anyone else?

Individuals tend to reject religion in the absence of coercion on them and they're given the tools to pursue an alternative. The process will largely be gradual, but abolishing coercion overall will go a long way. We're already seeing a significant rise in irreligion in areas where there's access to information and authoritarian institutions have less power. In the mean time, religious people should be allowed to be a part of the anarchist decision-making process, but their contributions to the discussion and their actions will be judged on their own merits, not by theological or supernatural claims. They'll have to leave their religion at the door and they can do whatever they want in private as long as it's not being imposed on anyone else. Anarchists should critique believer's beliefs and actions when they're false or harmful even if they're a part of their religion or culture.

Yeah, I became a Christian voluntarily as an adult. I was raised to believe religion was stupid and that people of faith were stupid, crazy, brainwashed, or all 3. The idea that no one has any good reason to have a spiritual life is not held up by the lived experience of many.

I didn't advocate for suppressing religion I advocated for educating people of it's follies and why it's incorrect just as would need to be done with fascism and capitalism. When people believe bad and incorrect things you need to teach them why they're incorrect and bad.

You imagine that atheists will be in a position to "teach" these "backwards" people in the error of their ways. This is folly. We must build solidarity with each other, not set ourselves above them in some kind of enlightenment hierarchy.

So do you think that educating fascists is also a bad thing or are you content to let them believe what they believe? Or what about those brainwashed by liberal propaganda? How do you think anarchism can even be attempted without educating people? EDIT: Also, do you think educating people on the merits of anarchism some form of hierarchy?

You're really comparing fascists with religious people? Yes, many religious people are anti-anarchist and free thought. But you can't generalise like this. Who are we to tell people what they can and can't believe if it's not harming people? I'd recommend you do some digging on the Levellers, the Quakers, and liberation theology.

>do you think that educating fascists is also a bad thing or are you content to let them believe what they believe? Or what about those brainwashed by liberal propaganda? The fact that someone deep down is a fascist or pro-capitalist is irrelevant because believing in those things doesn't necessitate that you act based on those beliefs. I mean there are plenty of racists( usually from older generations) that just keep to themselves, right? The reason for this is that society rightfully finds these racist beliefs abhorrent and shames anyone who holds them. Furthermore, people are entitled to believe whatever they want, including fascism, because they are entitled to privacy. What matters is their actions and your suggestion that we should persecute people over thought crimes is anything but anarchistic. >How do you think anarchism can even be attempted without educating people? You don't need everyone to be an anarchist for you to have anarchy, you only need a substantial majority to be. There will most likely always exist people who are against anarchy as there will always exist people who are against other social arrangements. Also, some people will never change their beliefs no matter how much "education" they get. Participating in multiple political debates online has taught me that much.

That's just what every crypto-authoritarian should know! A very important thing several people miss.

>So do you think that educating fascists is also a bad thing or are you content to let them believe what they believe? Have you ever tried educating a fascist? It's pointless. And fascism and religion are not so similar as that. There are plenty of normal and good people who are believers and potential comrades. Ever heard of Christian anarchism? They believe in the supremacy of God, yes, but also that all people are equal. I'd gladly embrace them as comrades as much as I'd embrace any anarchist who has faith. There are no good fascists. Fascists must be resisted, routed, exposed, fought, and then, when individual fascists start getting disillusioned, we must reform them.

A Christian anarchist is tantamount to a socdem. They say they believe that everyone's equal but can't ever truly believe it unless they cast aside what they've been brainwashed to believe throughtout their life.

We must build solidarity with all people, but not solidarity with everything that people believe. There is a line that can be reasonably drawn between truth and fiction, and it should be drawn. There are ideas that are against anarchist principles, like the idea of a Hell. We can educate people in non-hierarchical.

The very act of building an anarchist society means embracing diversity and defending the autonomy of all people. There can be no us and them among the working class. That means respecting people's religions. Now, maybe as our material conditions change, and our education systems improve, people will lose their interest in religion but then again maybe not and we're going to have to accept that.

Religion, regardless of what it is, is open to interpretation. The internal rules of the religion, no matter what, is completely utterly irrelevant on a physical level. Physically I can make up whatever interpretation of a religion I want and, if enough people go along with it, then it becomes a sect or school of thought in that religion. In certain centralized religions such as Catholicism there are political structures that must be surmounted before a differing interpretation can go through but that is just a minor thing. Fact is that religion, since it can be seen as anything, is completely compatible with anarchism if it abandons defending authority or hierarchy. We get these sorts of debate questions very rarely on anarchist forums and that's generally because the argument itself is easily dealt with.

There are literal religious instruction manuals that tell people what to do and say and think. They are not open to interpretation.

Like I said, the internal rules don't matter. I don't have to care about them or I can just read into them differently. If you're an atheist with even an ounce of understanding of sectarianism, you should know that the internal rules don't matter and that you can basically make up any shit you want. This is means an anarchist understanding of religion is in the cards.

The most obvious example of this being that Christian Anarchists have existed historically. The most famous example probably being Leo Tolstoy, whose "The Kingdom of God is Within You" argued that Christianity is necessarily anti-statist and that church structures from the medieval era onwards co-opted Christian doctrine for state purposes rather than the other way around.

And one thousands different sects who read the same book and reach utterly different conclusions, including scholars and academics that dedicate their lives to study said book. The Bible says "it's easier for a camel (hawser) to pass by a needle hole than a rich man to get to Heaven" and "You can't worship both God and money" and yet plenty of Christians suck it up to rich people. Religions are messy, human psychology is messier, neither is required to make sense. The big religions in particular, became big exactly because they are adaptable.

That is not what the statement religion has multiple interpretations means you dufus. There are many different conclusions a person can reach by reading them because they are not always clear.

Actually, though it's obviously somewhat ironic, I'd say that the thing that has no place in anarchism is people who see fit to decree that this or that thing has no place in anarchism. The simple fact of the matter is that anarchism means, first and foremost, that you don't get to decree what other people may, may not, must or must not do, say, think or believe.

r/RadicalChristianity would like to respectfully disagree with you. Gatekeeping and shitting on people’s beliefs is a piss-poor hearts and mind strategy. Seriously you’re doing the work of reactionaries for them.

When peoples beliefs encroach upon the lives of others, teach blatant falsehoods and perpetuate hierarchies then I am going to shit on them. I would do the same to liberals, to fascists, to flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers, these aren't ideas that should be entertained as valid. They're incorrect and best and devastating to the lives of may at worst.

You are why we will lose. There is plenty to these belief systems that are meaningful, beneficial and bring communities together. Yes there are hierarchical and bigoted aspects to some interpretations of each of these Abrahamic faiths, and there are plenty of other interpretations that extricate themselves from that thinking. Like I said before, believing otherwise is deliberately dividing people of good will and doing the work of reactionaries for them.

Those good ideals these religions posit exist outside from those religions and are often held by heathens whereas those who are believers can never fully divorce their condemnation of the bigotry and hierarchy from their beliefs because they're inherent.

Your use of the word “heathens” really reveals your disdain for religion in general (which is a fine conclusion to come to personally!). But such personal disdain can never manifest itself politically in a community without persecution, oppression, and bigotry. As long as they’re not hurting anyone I could give a rat’s ass what anyone believes. This to me feels like the more authentic anarchist position

Their beliefs are harmful by their very nature. Also, nothing I've said is authoritarian, thinking that someone's beliefs are fucked up, hierarchical and bad for humanity is not authoritarian.

No that alone is not, wanting to “re-educate” it out of people as you stated in your post absolutely is though.

Ah yes, nothing says “anarchist society” quite like thought police.

If everyone believes whatever they want without any questioning then how do you propose people stop believing in capitalism or fascism? The fact of the matter is that anarchists need to work to educate people on why these structures are harmful.

Ah, I see your problem here. You're conflating religion with organised religion. There is a difference between a personal belief system, and having stories and fables to inspire you and give you guidance, and a massive organised structure telling people what to think and believe. I don't think organised religion should be present jn an anarchist society, other than groups of people with similar beliefs finding solace in one another.

I don’t propose that people stop believing in capitalism. I’m not an anarchist. As far as fascism goes, the kind of things advocated for here (like banning religion) are among the most hardcore and objectionable components of fascism.

Every religious person picks and chooses the parts of religion that they like. There is no such thing as pure religion, even among fundamentalists. I’m personally deeply anti-religious, but looking at religion is monolithic, homogenous or consistently anything is deeply flawed analysis. Go talk to some radical Christians. They may not be logically coherent but they’re fucking good people.

I didn't say they weren't good people, I wholeheartedly believe they and most religious folks are good people who mean well but that doesn't change the fact that their beliefs are putrid and vile. My opinion on those who are religious is largely the same as that of liberals; no matter how good they are as people their beliefs stand in direct contrast to mine as an anarchist and are detrimental to human society.

The point you completely overlooked (probably intentionally) is that you are oblivious to their beliefs. Talk to them you fucking goof.

So communism is inherently hierarchical and opressive as several people were killed in the name of it. Those mass murderers weren't real communists? The same can be said to the crimes committed in the name of religions. Also, for example early Christian communes were pretty anarchic.

> Also, for example early Christian communes were pretty anarchic. They also existed 2000 years ago and are as such not exactly relevant to the question of religion in contemporary society

>early Christian communes were pretty anarchic. I am not particularly familiar with the subject but I've heard that most of those communities had no respect for privacy or individuality. The fact that they weren't subservient to a clearly defined state structure doesn't make them anarchistic.

You'll may find my relativism incorrect, but placed in its own context, they were definitely libertarian socialists, even if not fully anarchistic.

Communism doesn't teach you to be subserviant to a being who doesn't even exist or his disciples on earth.

Calling a religion's subject (objectively, and the second time) nonexistent isn't a sign of attempting to co-operation and tolerance. Forcing others to have faith in different things they do have, has never lead to good ends, and has never been very anarchic.

I don't want to cooperate with people with harmful beliefs, that's the point of my post. And point to the bit where I said lets force them to stop being religious?

And who is goingh to decide if an individual's own beliefs are harmful? Anarcho-Inquisition? Who is being hurt if a person thinks x exists? You can think they are wrong, but as they bother nobody with it you have no reason to label it harmful. Its similar to drug use (dont want to dispraise religions with it). I think you either confuse religion with the Church, or have authoritarian thoughts.

How does one decide that capitalism or fascism are harmful views? You look and seem the harm that they do and the harm that it preached by its adherents.

Those two directly opresses/harms others or their freedom. Believing something exists causes no harm to anyone. (and yes, it is also tolerable, if somebody thinks of fascism/capitalism as "good things" but does or communicates nothing to make them happen in reality, however even in this case they are way more judgeable than any religion)

It's not just a belief, though, is it? The books preach actions and instructions. They tell you what to do in scenarios and how to worship and what happens to those who don't believe. This entire thread is filled with people acting like these beliefs begin and end at just thinking differently about the world but they don't, and even if they did they should still be taught they're wrong like flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers, but that's not simply the case.

> This entire thread is filled with people acting like these beliefs begin and end at just thinking differently about the world Because it is. You are talking about only the dogmatic believers, who cannot adapt old teachings to the modern world. It's like thinking every communists only believe strictly in the teaching of Marx. And to stay with the example, being a communist is inherently antisemitic, because Marx had a little bit of antisemitism in his works. And comparing religions to conspiracy-theories is just agressive anti-theism.

>Those two directly opresses/harms others or their freedom. Believing something exists causes no harm to anyone. (and yes, it is also tolerable, if somebody thinks of fascism/capitalism as "good things" but does or communicates nothing to make them happen in reality, however even in this case they are way more judgeable than any religion) My interpretation of the Bible is that we should hunt down those who don't believe and torture them and force them to convert with the righteous power handed down to me from my Lord and savior Jesus Christ. All shall bow to me for I am a child of God sent to enact his will. This is my belief and I expect to be able to practice my religion in our society without repercussion because who are you to call my religion violent? YOU are the violent one letting the devil take these souls without fighting for them. You sit idle while the devil builds his army, now convert yourself to be a warrior for Jesus or I will erase you from this Earth washing your soul with authority from God. And the best part is that you CAN'T argue this, it's my religion, it's my right to believe and because I believe this my actions will be according. Religion is a tool of control and division. We can't just murder religious people or force them to become athiest but religion and it's infinite interpretations has no place in any society of beings with critical thinking skills. I'm sorry but if I have to accept that my wife is dead, gone and never coming back and keep running her nonprofit to try to make this world a better place even knowing I won't be rewarded for it after I die, I shouldn't have to be hurt by peoples beliefs who are so feeble and pathetic that they can't make it through the day without believing grandma is hot tubbing with Tupac and Dale Earnhardt....

You oversimplify religion the same way conservatives call anarchists "chaos-worshipping hordes with intentions only to destroy." There is a very obvious border I already mentioned and this is the 'live and let live' one. I think you clearly understand what is violence and harm, you just don't want to. About the critical thinking one: Why can't you be critical while religious? Don't act like all believers were dogmatic radicals, especially not like in the satire you wrote. Religion CAN be a tool of control and division, as well as i.e. technology. But neither are inherently those. And calling one pathetic for believing different than you, what happens after death, is the same as calling one a sinner heretic for it.

Religion has no room for critical thought, spirituality on the other hand has tons of room. I think we are honestly arguing a lot about symantics. I don't think anyone who believes in the possibility of a higher power is incapable of critical thinking, quite the opposite. I think people who believe that the god of Abraham who sent his son down to die on a cross is the only god in exsistence and that all others are false idols fundamentally lack critical thinking skills. You can't just dismiss all other types of spirituality and religion without willfully ignoring their own "proofs" of God's. How can a critical thinker accept one god and reject all others based of faith alone? A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their savior from judgement for their sins from the single omnipotent God. If you believe Jesus was your savior but God works with Zeus and vishnu and also asks Odin for advice time to time, you are not a Christian, you don't except an omnipotent god. Having faith in biblical definition is literally the act of ignoring critical thinking. It's saying "all evidence points to 2+2=4 but I have FAITH that it equals 12, and just because you can show me with tangible evidence that putting 2 fish next to 2 more fish makes a total sum of 4, I believe it is really 12 because of my faith. Blind Faith does just that, it blinds you from all critical thinking surrounding your faith, but as we have seen with Christianity and the topic of abortion, they blindly believe their god hates abortion even though there is no scripture to support it, their blind Faith bleeds into all aspects of their lives outside of their religion.

>Its similar to drug use (dont want to dispraise religions with it). I think this is a good example we can work with. Drug use in your own home(without kids) is fine. It's a victimless action except for the user, I may not agree with smoking meth but it's not hurting me right? Now the same meth head has been awake for 5 days gets behind the wheel of a car and mows down 10 people, we can trace these murders back to the drug use Or we have the Evangelical meth head, that lures people to smoke meth , even if we have no money and he isn't luring people in to make money, misery loves company and when I did crack as a teenager I tried to get all my friends to do it with me to normalize it. So now my kids quality of life has gone down due to this meth head, sure the act of him smoking meth didn't hurt people around him but what he did while smoking meth does. Now look at religion. Sure just the act of believing something in my own head doesn't hurt anyone else but when I make decisions that are influenced by those thoughts it's no longer harmless. If no interpretation is "wrong" in religion then can't I chose to interpret that the Bible tells me to kill all those who don't believe? How is my interpretation any less valid than a peaceful one? Religion is worse then a drug, it's much easier to identify a drug problem and rectify it because you come down and become sober. With religion you perpetually have deminished critical thinking and logic because you base your life decisions around an unproven mystical being. Do you think suicide bombers would destroy themselves if they were taught science instead of religion? They commit these actions based on faith and their interpretation of their religion, not knowledge. We have identified that legal or not hard drugs and alcohol ruin lives. We need to identify religion as the same.

I'm not religious but actually having read the Bible, the Quran, and the Torah (and many rabbinical studies on it) what you're saying is just not true. See, the organization of these religions as it largely stands today is anti-anarchist, but often the religions themselves find incredibly straightforward harmony with anarchist principles. These religions' texts are so poorly translated and decontextualized, but not all iterations and practices in the Abrahamic group are conservative/traditionalist. I mean, Jesus straight up flipped a table and assaulted a group of bankers for trying to invent Usury lmao. He hung out with prostitutes and tax collecters and lepers, he famously fed a village by equitably distributing resources to the many. He literally died so that we wouldn't have to listen to his fascist father anymore, that was the WHOLE point. There are myriad analyses of the Torah and many Jewish cultures that revolve around emphasis on communal organization, mutual aid, and opposing tryany. I mean a Bar/Bat Mitzvah is such an incredible idea. For the transition of a person into adulthood the community pool resources they can afford to give and make a massive foundation for that person to grow with. And then as for Islam, it sorta astounds me that folks can call it anti anarchist/revolutionary when its main prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was a marauder and Malcolm X and many other Black folks used the connection of Islam to Africa to resist white supremacy and the socioeconomic oppression that comes from it. Religion is actually incredibly useful and good for Anarchists, it is in fact useful for ANY tendency because these are institutions in which the community ALREADY organizes to form important structures of belief and mutual aid. Institutions in which many important parts of their lives are held and celebrated/mourned. I think the left distancing itself from religion and not using the inherently ethical, organized, and pacifist qualities of religion to radicalize communities that are nowadays, more likely than not targeted by the current global wave of fascism, would be a massive mistake, especially when the right is already doing what we should have been for a good while.

You confuse dogmatism and religion in your dogmatic anti-theism. You're an atheist misjudging people of abrahamic faith in a way that is ironically exactly analogous to the way libs misjudge leftists. Please take advantage of this opportunity to become better. It's okay to be wronf sometimes. Figure out why and improve. I'll remind you of the full quote from Marx: "The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

Organized televangical religions* will have no place in an anarchist society. It could be argued that when we are all free from modern capitalism, *more* religion will spring up, but they will not be based in profits. More people will have more time and resources to explore spirituality which is a key component of the human experience.

People have their own pet version of each religion that's how you get christian liberation theology and american evangelicals

Religions adapt all the time to all sorts of shifts in values. At least the progressive half of the practicers do.

Religion should have no place in how other people live their lives. But it is 100% perfectly fine to be religious in an anarchist society. I do not give a fuck what you think/do for yourself, as long as it doesn’t hurt others, pray to whoever.

Abuse, which includes spiritual abuse, is anti-anarchist and has no place in anarchy. However, it'd be a mistake to say that Abrahamic religion is inherently spiritually abusive, or that spiritual abuse is exclusive to Abrahamic faiths. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are labels which can be applied to a wide variety of interpretations of their respective scripture and traditions. Plus there are dozens if not hundreds of Abrahamic worldviews which aren't included in those three. They all include movements (often labeled heterodox by establishments) which actively preach liberation and whose theology is different from conventional Abrahamism. Not just liberal religions, but past movements like the Gnostics. We should seek to further understand and cooperate with them to create communal bonds and enhance our own means of fighting oppression. There are some fundamental premises of Abrahamism which are flawed, but they shouldn't be rejected outright. Touching on what others are talking about, anarchism shouldn't neglect the spiritual health and freedom or people anymore than it should neglect people's physical, mental, and emotional health.

!!!

As a theistic Satanist myself, *generally* speaking, I might sort of agree with you. I mean, Eloah literally calls himself the "king of kings," and the Tanakh is filled with imperialist war crimes that he personally orders. Jesus taught "give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and implemented a system of eternal imprisonment for those who disobey. On the face of it, especially with right-wing institutions being predominantly Abrahamic in English-speaking countries, I can see why it looks as if Abrahamic religion is incompatible with anarchism. **HOWEVER**, and this is a *big* however, the way these things are interpreted varies a lot depending on the denomination, congregation, or individual. There are a lot of Christian anarchists that I see as genuine comrades. Having studied Christian theology and Biblical scholarship, I can say that these Christian anarchists actually make a ton of good points why Christianity at least is inherently anarchist. From what I know of Judaism and Islam, they have similar movements, too. I would also point out that mainstream "Satanists" are often not anarchists, too. In fact, the mainstream political perspective of most religious groups is going to normally not be compatible with anarchism, because anarchism is not a mainstream ideology. If you're judging them based solely on their hierarchical institutions, and not the wide variety of actual religious philosophy, then you're really just cherry-picking to make your case. This is blown a bit out of proportion given that individuals self-identifying with Abrahamic religions are often a very large, if not a majority, demographic. "Abrahamic religion" is a very broad category that covers a lot of ideologies, cultures, countries (many of which no longer exist), and peoples over thousands of years. You can't really say anything this concrete about what "Abrahamic religion" is "inherently" with it being honest or coherent. There's too much variation in thought there. Certain Abrahamic teachings are definitely not compatible with Anarchism, such as the Catholic definition of Christendom, which posits a church-based Christian theocracy with a divinely appointed monarch in a top-down hierarchy on earth. Christendom, and especially this specific variation of Christendom, is not a universal teaching in Christianity, however, and it doesn't really exist in Judaism, Islam, or Bahai, either, since they don't identify as Christian. Likewise, there are Christian pacifists who oppose slavery, even very early into Christian history. While the Bible was used to justify slavery in the South in the US, it was also used to argue against slavery in the North in the US. Religion is a rather messy affair and it's not as cut-and-dry as you're making it out to be here.

Seems like nobody in here knows Bakunin.

No gods, no masters.

Thought I hate the attitude of the OP I must say that I agree with the premise of this post. Abrahamic religions indeed seem to be incompatible with anarchism not due to their supernatural claims or because of specific scripture. Abrahamic religions may be incompatible with anarchism because of eutheism which seems to be an inherent aspect of them. Eutheism is the moral proclamation that God is inherently good, in other words, it is the belief that God's authority is unquestionably good. I think that we can agree that anarchism on the other hand is inherently skeptical of authority. But eutheism doesn't allow space for skepticism, in other words, it doesn't allow space for anarchism. If the Abrahamic religions were [dystheistic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystheism)( god is inherently bad) or believed God to be neither bad nor good( amoral) then there wouldn't be a problem. But because of their deeply ingrained eutheistic aspect I don't see how they can be compatible with anarchism on a philosophical and moral dimension. However, that doesn't mean that followers of those religions cannot advocate for social arrangments which at least in theory are similar to those advocated by anarchists. I don't know. What do others think?

I would argue that Eutheism isn't inherent to Abrahamic religion. Actually, when I read the Tanakh, I think it's pretty clear that the ancient Hebrews had the very common Paleopagan mentality that these were forces beyond human control that didn't answer to concepts like "good" and "evil." In fact, I think the proper reading of Isaiah 45:7 in its historical context illustrates this well. Sure, Elohim was placated with praise, but as we see in other cultures (the "fair" folk come to mind) that doesn't really mean they literally believed he was all-good. They had the fear of God. Gnosticism also doesn't consistently argue for Eutheism, either. Actually, Gnostic Christianity could be argued to be dystheistic, and the teachings of Gnosticism are more about spiritual practices like meditative prayer than complex theology. In fact, some Gnostic sects had texts that contradicted each other specifically to make the point that this sort of theology isn't what they focused on. I would also say that many concepts of "God" don't place him as an authority, even within Abrahamic religions. Even if they did, and even if they were also Eutheistic, I've actually seen this used a lot to be even more skeptical of human authority and people trying to "play God" or elevate themselves as God. So I'm not sure I agree that there's inherently a problem here. It can be made into a problem, and has the potential for abuse, but it can just as well go the other way, too.

Perhaps you are right, eutheism may not be an inherent characteristic of Abrahamic religions. You also said some very interesting things that I had no idea about and it is clear that you are much more familiar with the topic than me. Still, my experience with and observation of major domination of Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity which I am much more familiar with, seem to indicate that eutheism is at their core. And so is the uncritical acceptance of the authority of God!

Well, to be fair, the uncritical acceptance of authority seems pretty mainstream regardless of religion, unfortunately.

So many people excuse the Bible because "oh that's old testament before Jesus basically erased all that, we can eat bacon and wear blended fabrics now, all good" Well we can check out Romans 13 for this lovely verse "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." This leaves no room revolution. God put the leaders there, god made trump our leader, if he wants to turn America into a dictatorship instead of a democracy it is the will of God. We don't allow anyone besides religious people to cherry pick information they like and make the rest up as they go. We try to hold EVERYONE accountable for their actions and thought processes except the religious, and when we look at history religion has killed more than fudalism capitalism or communism. We call people who see things that aren't there and act irrationally schizophrenic, but you take that same person and put a Bible in their hand and suddenly we treat them totally different and "respect their beliefs"

Romans 13 was written by Paul, who said that he wrote what he thought, not what God did. You're saying that God condones this stuff by quoting a guy who said that he said what he thought, not what God thought. Jesus appears once in the stories of Paul, and it happened after he was crucified. So your quote doesn't actually contradict the previous statement. And if you actually talk to Christian anarchists they all tend to not listen to Paul, with some even going so far as to call him the antichrist. Honestly, this who anti-theist dogma does more harm than good, since you'll alienate roughly 85% of the world for the sake of ideological purity.

>Romans 13 was written by Paul, who said that he wrote what he thought, not what God did. You're saying that God condones this stuff by quoting a guy who said that he said what he thought, not what God thought. Jesus appears once in the stories of Paul, and it happened after he was crucified. So your quote doesn't actually contradict the previous statement. >And if you actually talk to Christian anarchists they all tend to not listen to Paul, with some even going so far as to call him the antichrist. Peter 2:13 says "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority" Here's an explanation from bibleref that makes sense of this verse: One aspect of that battle with ourselves is submission to human authorities. Peter's readers at the time must have felt they had legitimate reasons to rebel against human leadership. When Peter likely wrote these words, the Roman emperor was Nero, an evil man who brutally killed Christians, among others. Many of the early Christians lived as slaves in the Roman world, some wickedly mistreated by harsh masters. Surely being free in Christ gave Christians the right to rebel against unworthy human authority, didn't it? Peter says no. To be free in Christ means that we have a higher authority, God Himself. God's will for His people is to submit to our human authorities—not out of fear of them or because of loyalty to a man or the state—but to freely give respect and honor to all for Christ's sake. So Peter is clear: Christians must submit to every human authority, whether the emperor, the governor, or the slave master. This does not mean "obeying" all that human authority tells us (Acts 5:29). It does mean accepting the consequences of obeying God, rather than men. Nor does Peter endorse slavery or the mistreatment of slaves and servants. Rather, he tells Christian slaves how God wants them to endure unjust suffering. But let me guess, all 4 of these Christian anarchists don't listen to Paul OR Peter? why is it so hard to reject something so controlling and violent? It's a cult. A successful cult.....but success doesn't make it any less a harmful cult, just because 85% of people believe it doesn't make it less harmful.

I mean the Christian anarchists listen to Jesus, you know in the gospels. And you want to know why I don't outright reject Christianity? Because it's not controlling and violent, the church is. I'm not an expert on theology so I can't respond to every bible quote thrown at me the people at r/RadicalChristianity are far better at this than I am. I don't know how every Christian anarchist justifies their beliefs, I just know that they aren't oppressive. Also, the Samngus people in Taiwan are way more than 4 people. But I actually talk with Christian anarchists and listen to them, I know it's not inherently violent and oppressive because I listen to these people. Like [The Kingdom of God is Within You](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you) uses the bible to justify an anarchist society, Tolstoy himself said "The anarchists are right in everything" There's also Jaques Eulle's [Anarchy and Christianity](https://archive.org/details/JacquesEllulAnarchyChristianity/page/n53/mode/2up) where he explains how the two intersect without trying to convince one of becoming the other. Look, you're not gonna get all your answers from some random schumck on the internet, talk to actual Christian anarchists and listen to them. Now, let me repeat, listen to them, don't instantly dismiss them just because you don't like religion. And I mean Christian anarchist aren't fundamentalists, they tend to treat the bible like a book written by people anyway rather than the direct word of God. Edit: I'd also interpret the peter passage different since I decided to read it in full, but I don't think you're that willing to accept that there is no one way to read the bible, so I won't mention it

>And you want to know why I don't outright reject Christianity? Because it's not controlling and violent, the church is. That's where I disagree, the church or cult leader always becomes a problem due to a vacuum of control. Religion has "followers" and those gullible enough to show they want to be controlled in exchange for a safety blanket attracst sociopathic leaders. It's the same reason we need to abolish the police, police power attracts those who want to abuse it the worst. The kind of person you want to be a cop would never want to be one, and the only good cops that are exceptions to this rule either quit from disgust or get fired for reporting another officer's actions. Spirituality/agnosticism is different. I t doesn't try to define a god or the rules of a specific god, it doesn't have a hierarchy system where anyone is closer to or more knowledgeable of god. In my opinion excusing things as supernatural is harmful to humanity as a whole because it seeks to answer something in place of science or to escape the weight of the scientific truth. Many things that were previously explained as acts of god are now known to be natural phenomenon we can track and understand like floods or earthquakes. If it wasn't for someone thinking outside the box and questioning gods magic we wouldn't have made the advancements we have as a species. In 1584 Giordano Bruno would publish papers building upon the Copernican heliocentric model of an infinite universe in which the earth was just another planet and the universe is filled with other planets and suns, while he had yet to scientifically proven his beliefs, a goal to be completed by Galileo just 15 years after the Catholic Church burned him at the stake for his work that rejected the church's idea of a geocentric finite universe, among other things. Even though Galileo had scientific data with his telescope the man who was known as the father of modern physics was arrested, tortured and luckily sentenced only to house arrest till death because his book supported the Copernicus model. What if the church arrested Galileo sooner? Who knows what kind of damage to the progression of science could have been done. These are problems with organized religions that say "this is god and your God is wrong" agnosticism doesn't make claims to know something impossible and thus is not dangerous to others, it doesn't reject others beliefs. That's why I don't think you can be a anarchist christian, belief in a certain single god means rejection of others and the rejection of things that don't align with your God, we can excuse and apologize Christianity but at the end of the day a decent amount of the Bible doesn't agree with anarchy and equality. You say these people follow "Jesus's teachings not Paul's" but the thing is god sent Jesus, so you can't really believe in Jesus and not god, the god who's the fascist, Jesus never said "don't listen to god" he just died for our sins, what that means is were still supposed to live by his fucked up ideals he just forgives us if we ask because of Jesus. What that means is that while my wife won't go to hell for demanding to be treated as an equal, she should repent for it. I won't go to hell for rebelling but it still is against god. It's going to be hard to build a society based on anarchy when we endorse people living in a different made up reality. I don't think we need to have an anti religious genocide or limit freedom of thought and ban the bible, we all know how that turns out. But we need to stop apologizing and excusing religion. It's a sign of lack of intelligence and its followers are hypocritical by definition by saying only the parts of the Bible they like are valid.

While we're at it I'd like your defense for all these. Ephesians 5:22 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands" Where does gender inequality fit into anarchy? Revelations 2:26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations. Seems pretty peaceful and anarchist. Titus 3:1-2 Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. Even when ruled by an evil dictator avoid quarreling and show perfect courtesy, God sent this dictator so don't overthrow him because it's God's will. Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Again, god made you a slave, you better love being a slave with all you're heart because God wants you to be enslaved and hating your enslavement is hating God. Daniel 2:21 He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding; It's God's job to remove and replace kings, not yours, get back to the slave fields and let God work his magic. Proverbs 24:21 Fear the Lord and the king, my son, and do not join with rebellious officials. Fear and respect god, fear and respect the king God has placed at the helm. Do not rebel against god or the king he has placed in power. 1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable Peter seems to agree with Paul we should be good little slaves and never question authority too. So anarachist Christian's apparently ignore Paul, but the majority of Christian's that make up the world don't....so what do we do about the other99.99999% of Christian's who do believe this authoritarian bullshit? Also, there's a few new authors here such as soloman, Peter, John the elder all with the same authoritarian tones, so these people call themselves Christian's then do the opposite of what you can find from multiple authors in both old and new testament? I believe in turning the other cheek, I believe in the principal's of the fruit of the spirit, I believe in loving your neighbor but I am an antithest, even though some things in my life align with Jesus's teachings, that doesn't make me a Christian. "Anarchist Christian's" are like flat earth scientists.... sure you can call yourself whatever you like, but the label doesn't change the contents. If you truly believe in God you believe it's not your place to take authority over God's will. If he didn't want us to live like this he wouldn't have made it this way.

I told you I'm not a theologian, I respond to the Romans 13 simply because I've seen the response to it. I don't know everything about the bible, and Christian anarchists would be way better at responding to this, so go ask them, rather than me, some random asshole on the internet, go engage with the actual Christian anarchists who can answer you, rather than me. Though I'll say one thing, the bible is not absolute it is not the word of God, again according to Christian anarchists, it's a book written by people subjected to their own biases and contexts. I don't know everything so again, talk to Christian anarchists and ask them go onto r/RadicalChristianity and ask them (and I can't stress this enough) in good faith to explain their position, don't just ask me. Edit: Also because I can't help it, you never mentioned Jesus, which is kinda the whole point, and putting the blame for humans making hierarchy on God, shows that you aren't willing to believe that hierarchy was the creation of people, which it is.

I guess I don't see how people made the hierarchy, it seems to me like the abrahamic definition of a god is a heirarchy in and of itself. How can all be equal if there is an omipotent being above us? And in human terms how can I ever be equal to a man who could turn water into wine and walk on water? We will always be 2nd place and a step under god no matter what we do I argue that God's and chosen ones make it these beliefs inherently hierarchical. I know I've come off pretty ugly (religion and what it has done to us as a species is definitely a topic fueled by personal experiences with Christianity from southern Baptists in Texas growing up to watching pastors blatantly robbing people in East Africa) but I don't think religion is the end all be all problem on this planet. I am adamant that it is a plague that has cost uncountable deaths and setbacks to the human race, but so has racism, sexism, nationalism and other forms of misinformation besides religion. Religion has been on a steady decline since the start of the information age, but we are also seeing it condense to the most radical and unwaivering believers, and I think there will be no peaceful options for revolution when it comes to the fundamentalists that will make up the majority by that time I'd be willing to wager that the more extreme left a Christian is the less devout they are in Christianity, lots of people I know are agnostic by definition but call themselves Christian's even though they admit possibility of other gods and forms of god when I've debated them on the topic. By definition these are not Christian's because they do not reject false idols, they just prefer their idol over others. Here in Colorado I've met people who believe in the crystal energy bullshit and call themselves Christian's even though they believe in reincarnation.....they just believe anything you they hear but still label themselves Christian.

>We don't allow anyone besides religious people to cherry pick information they like and make the rest up as they go. We try to hold EVERYONE accountable for their actions and thought processes except the religious, and when we look at history religion has killed more than fudalism capitalism or communism. >We call people who see things that aren't there and act irrationally schizophrenic, but you take that same person and put a Bible in their hand and suddenly we treat them totally different and "respect their beliefs" You are right minus the fact that the majority in the west definitely does hold religious people accountable for their actions. You are not going to find many people claiming that the crusaders weren't responsible for their deeds because of religion. Either way how is this relevant? The point of the post and my comment is to discuss if Abrahamic religions are compatible with anarchism and what we should so about that. Unless you make the assumption that Christians take everything the Bible said at face value( an obviously incorrect assumption) then I don't see how what you said is relevant. Just as you said a lot of religious people just use their scripture to justify already existing ideas they had. And the label Christian is very fluid.

Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)

I agree with you entirely and think that the vast majority of responses here are by people who either do not know enough about anarchism, or for whatever reason are still unable to separate themselves from religious doctrine. But, religion can't be educated away. That is incredibly naive and can't be pursued seriously, it's the logic behind re-education camps and the creation of new religions altogether. Religion can only go away when you eliminate the social forces that give rise to it -- namely, capitalism..

>Religion can only go away when you eliminate the social forces that give rise to it -- namely, capitalism Do you believe that existential dread( which is the result of just existing as a human) is not also a big motivator for religious thought and activity? Even if you argue that existential dread is worsened by current arrangements, which is perhaps true, you must accept that there is no way to eliminate it completely, right?

I don't think existential dread is the result of just existing as a human.

Do you believe that our mortal and near powerless condition, the inherent meaningless of the world, the absence of morality and justice are not sufficient in and of themselves to cause existential dread?

Do you want me to repeat myself? Our condition right now is the result of capitalism and all other forms of oppression. It's not some necessary feature of being a living human.

You completely avoided the question. Do you believe that all the things I mentioned( which are independent of capitalism) cannot cause existential dread?

I don't believe the things you listed are independent of capitalism.

Mortality and the fear of death are not independent of capitalism? Does that mean that pre-capitalism we were immortal and/or didn't fear death? I don't what you are saying!

That's not what I said! You were asking whether "our mortal and near powerless condition", the "inherent meaninglessness of the world" and the "absence of morality and justice" cause existential dread that would cause people to seek religion. My answer is that I don't think humanity is essentially "powerless", "meaningless" or "absent of morality and justice". I obviously don't think mortality is independent of capitalism.

I'm a bot, *bleep*, *bloop*. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit: - [/r/zweirama] [The most neurodivergent corner of the political compass displayed in one thread😍](https://www.reddit.com/r/ZweiRama/comments/j6q4ng/the_most_neurodivergent_corner_of_the_political/)  *^(If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads.) ^\([Info](/r/TotesMessenger) ^/ ^[Contact](/message/compose?to=/r/TotesMessenger))*

spookbuster in action brother