Religion and Anarchism

[The Catholic Worker]

This is a discussion I'd like to have, in response to a good question a co-tACA member posed in our regional forum on nation states. The question is how religion, in this specific case Catholicism, can be resolved in terms of fitting anarchist principles, especially with regards to the position of 'God' as a level of authority.

First, let me address the issue of authority in anarchism. As I understand it, and as I interpret anarchism, there is still authority present, the difference is its justification and from where it's 'power', for lack of a better word, is derived. Authority in anarchism is derived totally from concensus, with the assumption that people will act upon and give permission for action upon works that are of benefit to themselves and the community in general. Anarchists are not, I doubt I have to convince anyone here of this, simply doing what they feel, when they feel. Each person is a member of the community; helping and improving the community is helping and providing for one another. Community in anarchism is a verb, not a noun. Actions are required in order to construct the community, and those are based on support and providing for every member.

This is, of course, a very broad representation of anarchism.

Now, authority exists in many forms, not all of which are reduceable to the actions of the state. I like the example of a parent walking with their child with the threat of a truck headed towards their child; at that moment the parent will undoubtedly grab the child and pull them away from the truck's path. That is an instance of authority, but it is immediately justified. I don't think anyone will argue that the child's freedom and liberty were impeded upon.

It's late and I'm assuming everyone will just fill in the blanks with regards to my examples so I'll just move on to the question of God and anarchism.

If one's conception of God is that of a white, European male with a beard who just happens to be dead living far above the earth, then yes, I think anarchism and God are irreconciliable. But with any theology you will ultimately come to conclude that the form of God is not knowable, and in fact is irrelevant. Whether God is a giant dandelion or a floating mass of... mass... the outcome is no different.

As a Catholic, my understanding and interpretation of God in the most immediate sense is in the good impulses of people; when we share, love and include. God only exists in any tangible sense in these interactions; when we engage in acts of mercy and social justice. Those moments are when God is present in the world, for myself.

So in that sense, anarchism and God are not only compatible, but anarchism is in fact necessary for any real understanding and medium through which God can be experienced.

The New Testament as someone mentioned is potentially rife with revolutionary ideas. A good reading of it comes with the Scholars version of the text rather than the International or King James versions where ratehr explicit language was tamed; an example of which is the passivity in the 'turn the cheek' phrase, which in it's original Greek form was actual an explosive indictment of Roman imperial practices and an example of an overt act of resistance - non-violently, of course.

Anyway, this isn't as eloquent as I would have liked and I apologize to anyone who may have felt it too God-y or the like, I don't mean to make it seem as though I believe in fairy tales. My belief in God is fundamentally rooted in human beings and their actions, not on divine examples or anything like. Although I suppose the act of faith is necessary as well, but that is a question for another day.

In solidarity.

[workerscommunes]

A good topic for discussion Catholic Worker, and no I don't think your post came off too 'God-y' at all and answered a number of questions I had often wanted to ask. I can definately see how Christianity has anarchist and revolutionary potential, after all it started life as a radical anti-establishment movement did it not? If you choose to read the bible as you have then sure, anarchism and christianity are compatable. In fact religion and anarchism have to be compatable as it is every person's right to believe what they want as long as they don't enforce that on anyone else.

Regarding your observation that the New Testament is potentialy rife with revolutionary ideas, I agree but also think one must be very careful when approaching religious texts and I don't think they should be read as anything but heavily biased, prejudiced and largely fictionalised (or 'metaphorical', if you like) accounts of events which may not even have happened. I'm sure you will agree that they are ultimately the works of men, not gods. The bible was written centuries after the events it describes and by men who had their own political agendas. That doesn't neccessarily make the content any less valid as moral teachings but it's just worth bearing in mind when looking to the bible for guidance. Similarily as readers we are bringing to the text our own biases and prejudices and are cherry-picking the bits we like and ignoring those we don't, or justifying them by deliberately interpreting them a certain way. This however is not a problem if we assume the bible is the work of imperfect beings and not the literal word of god. I suppose I'm trying to say that I think religious texts, as with all biased second hand historiacal accounts, should not be studied word-for-word assuming that this will ultimately reveal a deeper truth as it is likely that this will only reveal the motives of the writers and translators. Of course I know that Christianity doesn't begin and end with the bible but I struggle to see where else a Christian could look for guidance.

I happen to be an athiest but that doesn't stop me believing that Jesus of Nazareth was probably an historical figure (albeit no messiah) who may have said and done some of the things he's reported to have done in the bible. I happen to agree with much of what he's supposed to have said but I also strongly disagree with a lot too. For me this isn't a problem as I am assuming he (or whoever said those words) was a human being just like me. My problem with assuming that he was any more than a human being though is that then his words take on a kind of unquestionable authority and that's where I think lies the potential conflict with anarchism as it encourages people to act in in accordance with the teachings of the bible rather than using their own intuition and judgement. (eg. I know it's from the Old Testament but you really can't deny that the ten commandments are a kind of authoritarian). We can explain away the parts we don't like but that's also a dangerous route to take as evidenced by Bush, Blair and Bin Laden's careful ignoring of certain key aspects of their religion's teachings, notably 'Thou shalt not kill'. Fundamentalism is obviously a bad road to take but selective reading somehow undermines the entire idea of having a religion as it is based mainly upon one's own feelings and not the teachings themselves, this I think begs the question 'why bother?'

It just seems to me that having a religious faith is an unneccessary burden. We can make up our minds on how best we should live without looking to the words of religious figures and don't need to justify anyone else's words or actions. Yes we can look to them for inspiration in the way we can look to philosophers, poets and others but we should base our ideas primarily on our uniquely human qualities: empathy, intelligence, rationality, imagination.

Most of what I've said was not really about your post (which I actually agreed with for the most part), just some problems I have with religion in general as opposed to religions. I'm sure you probably agree with much of what I've said too. I haven't really expressed it as well as I'd have liked to but you get the general idea. Anyway I'd be intrigued to hear anyone else's views on the subject.

In solidarity, WC.

[Anarchic Tribes]

As a Catholic, my understanding and interpretation of God in the most immediate sense is in the good impulses of people; when we share, love and include. God only exists in any tangible sense in these interactions; when we engage in acts of mercy and social justice. Those moments are when God is present in the world, for myself.

So in that sense, anarchism and God are not only compatible, but anarchism is in fact necessary for any real understanding and medium through which God can be experienced.

Hi CW,
if you changed the above words 'God' with the word Good then I'd agree. I think religions take us away from that point, not closer to it.
Could the word Good aptly replace the word God, universally? I think it could, and therefore why not? What harm would it do? What good would it do? Would there be any point? I'm sure many people could still see fit to kill in the name of Good, but, without God to fall back on as the one ultimately responsible for our actions, it's more likely that people will look to themselves to answer what is Good or not, rather than to some guy who said God told him that's the way.

The New Testament as someone mentioned is potentially rife with revolutionary ideas.

Does it not also contain oppressive and dehumanizing ideas?
You know, the green party manifesto is also potentially rife with revolutionary ideas. But it is no more divine than any other book written by humans.
Do you not see religions as a massive control tool?

[Anarchic Tribes]

Hi WC, good to see you.

This however is not a problem if we assume the bible is the work of imperfect beings and not the literal word of god. I suppose I'm trying to say that I think religious texts, as with all biased second hand historical accounts, should not be studied word-for-word assuming that this will ultimately reveal a deeper truth as it is likely that this will only reveal the motives of the writers and translators.

But this is not assumed, is it? In fact quite the opposite is taught.

Of course I know that Christianity doesn't begin and end with the bible but I struggle to see where else a Christian could look for guidance.

As an atheist, where do you look for guidance?

[The Catholic Worker]

I get nervous about what the criteria are regarding 'forcing' any one religion upon anyone; I'm sure you would agree that individual tastes differ in this regard, and that for one open worship would be offensive, while for others implicit evangelicizing would be.

I agree with you, concerning your observations on religious texts. It is difficult to discern what is being conveyed in terms of what the author wanted to say and what subject he was trying to represent. The New Testament, as an example, contains some offensively anti-semantic passages as well as wholly forgiving ones of the Roman authority - these, however, are pretty obvious and can be understood (not forgiven necessarily) when understanding the social context within which theyu were being written. As you said, centuries after the events, which would present a climate hostile to say the least to Christianity. That the works would reflect a few seeds of popular sentiment is expected then I think.

Even with the Christmas story, you find two very different representations in the gospels of Mark and Luke - one appealing to Jewish traditions, and by extension, Jewish readers of the time. And the other drawing significantly upon pagan traditions of the time.

The writings in the bible have to be understood in a multi-faceted approach; one with critical attention to the social and political contexts and the other to the admission of faith.

Wherever the author may stray, a central message is still constituted, and it's a matter of usurping the intended message. I think of it somewhat like baking a nailfile into a pie being brought to someone in jail.

I would never advocate a literal interpretation of the bible. In fact I would vigorously resist that. I am in complete concert with you over this issue.

I too disagree with things in the bible, some which are obviously not to be taken literally and others with which there is difficulty in navigating a more appealing meaning. For instance, I don't believe the universe was created in six literal days. I don't believe in creationism as a science. I don't believe the earth is 6000 years old. I don't believe it's okay to own slaves if they're not the same ethnicity as me. I wouldn't kill even if God supposedly asked me to, as I'd assume I was getting a bad transmission.

I myself have an ongoing debate over Jesus' divinity, with myself. I always have, and probably always will. "on of God, as we all are children of God, or, 'shares chromosonal material with THE God?' - Son of God?" I'm not particularly vexed over this, since I think I'm in good company as most of the Christian world has itself been concerned over this question, and it even led to the first major break in the Catholic Church between Catholic's and the Orthodox. The idea of the trinity is not biblical, it's theological, and it is a difficult one to understand let alone consistently believe in.

I know that the only (somewhat) explicit mention of Jesus as one in the same as God comes in the Gospel of John, which is itself an interesting piece of work. It was written primarily as a way of refuting gnostic Christianity (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc) in that central to its proclamations are ideas that are openly hostile to gnostic ideas, but at the same time it adopts many of them, making references to 'sparks' and spirits and other mystical things.

On the issue of being an unquestionable authority, I don't necessarily think that drawing the conclusion that Jesus was more than human necessarily endows him with that kind of power. Remarking that Jesus was 'more than' human does not mean he was exclusively not-human. An element was still human, and very human at that; something I personally find comfort in with regards to my own questioning of faith is with the example of Jesus second guessing his whole purpose leading up to his execution. I think the non-human elements of Jesus, the aspects that reflect God would have to be (drawing from what I stated in the original post) the capacity for love and forgiveness, the unlimited empathy and the company he had on earth; that is, those on the fringe of society. That would be the 'divine' aspects of Jesus, if you want to call it that, since to me, that is how God manifests in our world. Of course, "Then what makes Jesus special? I do all those things too," is a fair question, but my assertion would be the capacity and propensity towards those things that Jesus had.

Of course, this is all my own internal theological formulations!

With regards to the ten commandments, I think that is somewhat resolved in the New Testament, where the two ultimate commandments are given, I guess, that supercede the ten, that of loving God and loving one another. The ten commandments are again very much drenched in the social and political context within which they were written. They seem to exude authoritarian and regimented thought structures, which is very much typical of nascent ideologies I think, which Judaism was at that time; it's kind of like over-preparing, since much of it seems like common sense (not killing, anyway). Though, I don't think it's necessary to dismiss them outright. I think the commandments represent a fundamental shift in human thought, religiously and philosophically, with regards to dealing with the unknowable. The contention over icons, for example, fundamentally shifts transcendent ideas from the realm of imagery to that of thought and discourse; you're to engage in writing and speaking to know the world and God and the like, not simply rely on others look to a small statue. And there are other examples of this, like where Isaiah looks for God in all the stereotypical places; a storm, a fire, etc but eventually finds him when he wants to give up and sits at the side of a calm stream within a quiet clearing in a forest. This is of course dulling the edges of the reality of the Old Testament world, but again, it's all about context; Judaism was, and is, very much a religion centered on discourse, and represented well by Galileo's assertion that he will never believe in a God which asks him to forfeit the gifts of intelligence he was endowed with. And of course these traits of Judaism are patterns existing in other parts of the world and culminations of other religious traditions... but you get the idea.

I think 'selective reading' is an unaccurate term for it. Take for instance, any other piece of writing, like a textbook or a novel; you need to have some background knowledge of things or chlorine could be a ball of yarn for all you know and when Tolstoy writes of a marsh, that could be a bookshelf in your mind. Literal reading almost denotes reading something in a vacuum away from, well, its meaning. And selective reading sounds deceptive. I read the Bible with an arsenal of intellectual tools at my disposal - a fish is not always a fish and when it isn't I won't simply ignore it.

Marx: "I'm not a Marxist."
Christ: "I'm not a Christian."

Ultimately, I like to entertain Kierkegaard's idea that those who have faith - who believe in something in spite of what their empirical observations conclude may ultimately be the most free as they are not even dependant upon reason, necessarily; that faith in it's ultimate conclusion, is freedom from everything.

And this, I think, we all share. Our faith in a better world, a world based upon anarchist principles, where as you said, the uniquely human qualities of intelligence, empathy, imagination, compassion and reason can be cultivated and realized in every human being. Including capitalists.

I don't think we disagree, except for the difference in atheism vs. catholicism, but, that's not a matter of division, I don't think, since, I'm in no way trying to convince you of otherwise (I am very paranoid people will grow weary of my comments and feel them to be evangelicizing).

[The Catholic Worker]

Anarchic said:

Hi CW,
if you changed the above words 'God' with the word Good then I'd agree. I think religions take us away from that point, not closer to it.
Could the word Good aptly replace the word God, universally? I think it could, and therefore why not? What harm would it do? What good would it do? Would there be any point? I'm sure many people could still see fit to kill in the name of Good, but, without God to fall back on as the one ultimately responsible for our actions, it's more likely that people will look to themselves to answer what is Good or not, rather than to some guy who said God told him that's the way.

I don't think it would make sense from a semantic standpoint, heh. However, I do not believe God is responsible for mine or anyone else's actions. I do look to myself; my actions are my own and will always be, as I wrote on our regional board, "militant, non-violent resistance is what i strive for. i turn my right cheek to my oppressor, not in a moment of passivity, but instead demanding he strike me with a fist, as an equal, not with an open hand as he did to my left cheek.

choice is always ours. with all our actions. and that no one can ever take from me.

my actions will always be my own."

If both you and I believe in the same principles of humanity, and we see the same goals for humanity, what difference is it that what I see in the acts of mercy of individual people is God, and you see the Good impulses of people? There is none, I don't think. It's a matter of interpretation, I suppose.

And I think it's important to understand that God, as I understand God, is not a corporeal entity; it is not some humanoid entity which 'acts' through people in the literal sense.

Does it not also contain oppressive and dehumanizing ideas?
You know, the green party manifesto is also potentially rife with revolutionary ideas. But it is no more divine than any other book written by humans.
Do you not see religions as a massive control tool?

Yeah, the Green Party of Canada is an affront to capitalist ideals whilst placing a tax burden on the poor. And the Christian Coalition in the United States is an affront to some of the more dehumanizing ideas present today. But neither makes me dismiss either the Green Party of Christianity outright. Christianity has many forms, many traditions, whether Mannicheanism or Gnosticism or Catholicism or Quakerism or Orthodoxy. There can exist a wholly egalitarian Christian community as there can a non-Christian community.

That the Green Party manifesto is ride with revolutionary ideas is very much of a concern to Green Party members - if they are members and do not act in accordance with those ideals then something is amiss. The same with Christianity. The central component is the dependence on human actions to facilitate those ends.

A control tool for what, specifically?

Religion and my local archdiosese are not the same thing. The vatican can issue whatever edict it wants or establish however many encyclicals, but my faith is my own and will remain so.

On the issue of dehumanzing ideas, I touched on that in my later reply.

Also, I think it's important to keep perspective that any ideology can be manipulated. As some of our fellow members in tACA have advocated for a form of anarchist imperialism, others may advocate for a singularly repressive form of Christianity. An example that remains harshly relevant in our world is that of eugenics where everyone from fascists to socialists favoured its application in varying forms. The Catholic Church remained one of the strongest opponents of its ideas in North America. This does not grant it moral ascendancy over any other ideology, but it does speak to the fact that ideology - ideas alone are worthless, how they translate into your daily actions is the measure.

[The Catholic Worker]

Anarchic said:

Hi WC, good to see you.

But this is not assumed, is it? In fact quite the opposite is taught.

And how do I fit in, then? Even if this were necessarily true of ALL religions, where does that leave me? An abberation? And if so, what implications does that have?

[BlacknRedJuntas]

This topic seems to be appearing whever I go. All very messy, tempers flaring etc.

I've worked with a number of activists over the years that are faith based. I respect them greatly. However, religion is superstition and even liberation theologies have an element of recuperation in them. Religion is necessarily counter-revolutionary.

This doesn't mean that there isn't room in the world for religion though. Just that anarchist theory and praxis should remain, as it always has been, irreligious. People of faith have done some of the most amazing things for humanity in the world. They've also rampaged across the globe sword in hand.

[The Catholic Worker]

BlacknRedJuntas said:

This topic seems to be appearing whever I go. All very messy, tempers flaring etc.

I've worked with a number of activists over the years that are faith based. I respect them greatly. However, religion is superstition and even liberation theologies have an element of recuperation in them. Religion is necessarily counter-revolutionary.

This doesn't mean that there isn't room in the world for religion though. Just that anarchist theory and praxis should remain, as it always has been, irreligious. People of faith have done some of the most amazing things for humanity in the world. They've also rampaged across the globe sword in hand.

I don't think anyone's tempers are flaring here, though.

I don't think religion is necessarily counter-revolutionary for people like myself, religious impulses are a private affair in that, I may express religious concepts in my words but they in no way hinder the ultimate aims of anarchism. It is a personal thing. I do not believe any needs to share in my religious conviction in order for a more just world, whereas I do regarding my political convictions.

People of faith have ravaged as well as sheltered, but that stands for any human being whose actions are reflective of their choices, right or wrong. The Catholic Worker movement is one that is ultimately inclusive to all people, religious or atheist. The paper even remained neutral during the Spanish Civil War!! Out of protest for any purposeful killing of any human being - ultimately causing their anarchist and communist allies to rebuff them as fascists by their inaction and their Catholic contemporaries to proclaim them evil secular subversives.

It ultimately comes down to personal beliefs, and my belief in Catholicism serves as a type of paradign to see and experience the world, while still being only one facet of it. I don't think an anarchist society is a godless one, rather, one in which that question is of no relevance but to individuals.

It can become a matter of intellectual snobbery, where religious beliefs are explained away as fairy tales, though I am in no way accusing anyone of this. It is important to remember that the working class is one that has in many societies been a religious one, which cannot simply be explained away in terms of power relations and being manipulated. I like the story of Our Lady of Guadalupe,

"The image of Guadalupe had dark skin and indiginous features. The style and colours of her clothing, her blue mantle covered in stars, her depiction as standing on a crescent moon held aloft by an angel, all these features had deep symbolic reference to the indiginous religion and culture. She spoke to Juan Diego in his own Nathuatl language - not in Spanish - and presented herself not in terms of power and domination but in terms of compassion and solidarity with the poor... The message was clear; the Church must not serve as the religious arm of colonial oppression. Instead it must be rooted in the experience of the poor and become a vehicle for their cultural and spiritual survival."
- Robert Ellsberg, All Saints

[BlacknRedJuntas]

CW,

I think we agree on the role of religion and anarchism. It is a lense that some have to view the world, but is ultimately unimportant beyond the individual in relation to anarchism.

As an avowed athiest, I see little reason to impose my views on anyone else as long as others feel similarly. To each their own as long as it is a free choice that stays away from affecting others.

Of course that doesn't change my personal view that there is no higher power or mt olympus pantheon or whatever.

No gods no masters!

This is actually the first religion and anarchism discussion I've come across thats civil and pleasant.

[The Catholic Worker]

BlacknRedJuntas said:

CW,

I think we agree on the role of religion and anarchism. It is a lense that some have to view the world, but is ultimately unimportant beyond the individual in relation to anarchism.

As an avowed athiest, I see little reason to impose my views on anyone else as long as others feel similarly. To each their own as long as it is a free choice that stays away from affecting others.

Of course that doesn't change my personal view that there is no higher power or mt olympus pantheon or whatever.

No gods no masters!

This is actually the first religion and anarchism discussion I've come across thats civil and pleasant.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses. The heart in a heartless world." Or something to that effect. It's always cut off after 'masses' though.

I think it's a reflection of our region, that is, our ability to approach this rationally and respectfully.

And you have my overwhelming support for what you said; that it remains a free choice, without interference on others.

I don't mean to imply that I am steadfast in my beliefs, either. That is, I'm not waivering precariously each day, or a 'flip-flopper'. I have my periods, where I vascillate between belief and non-belief, and much of it I believe to be a result of being brought up Catholic more than any intrinsic truth I am constantly attempting to attain. But I've grown accustomed to it at this point. What seems to be a residual effect of it is my hyper-sensitivity to disparaging comments against atheists, agnostics or people of faith; it's not always a simple choice to make and often times it is a matter of being in transition between the ideas. Personal tragedies and the like also add to the conundrum. I'm not sure where I'm going with this tangent, except maybe that; I need to include my religious beliefs with my political ones, having them act in concert, because they are two very important aspects of my life and I'd prefer they not be at odds since I am unable to really purge one or the other, even if I could.

Who knows. Perhaps in a month I will be redefining my ideals and repudiating my religious convictions. Until then, I have Dostoevsky to regail me.

[BlacknRedJuntas]

However any of us get there as individuals seems right to me. I'll stick with the materialsts for my personal inspiration though.

I strongly disagree tactically with the general pacifism of liberatory theology however, even as I wholeheartedly respect the viewpoint.

The world is a complicated place I suppose. *shrug*

"We are not in the least afraid of ruins. We are going to inherit the earth. There is not the slightest doubt about that. The bourgeoisie might blast and ruin its own world before it leaves that stage of history, but we carry a new world in our hearts. That world is growing in this minute."
----Buenaventura Durruti

[theyellowspot]

BlacknRedJuntas said:

Religion is necessarily counter-revolutionary.

while i've rejected my own apocalyptic Christian upbringing, i can't believe that this statement is true. yes, a huge majority of the Christians that i know and observe hold UNrevolutionary views, i don't see why different people's interpretations of their faiths can't be kept in line with revolution (however you define revolution). this is the first time that i've seen an (online) discussion of religion and anarchism that has stayed civil, bravo to all! i've never understood the hostility from anarchists towards other anarchists that are also religious. i think that a lot of people either get caught up in definitions, or just forget, that just like with most things, we need to separate between Religion, and religion. To me, the capital R is all the difference. i could never find anything positive in the organized church (whichever sect it may be), but would fight (if they would fight) side by side with someone calling themselves Catholic, if they were fighting for the same goals.

on the other hand, like Michelaccio, i don't really understand identifying with a terribly hierarchical and oppressive institution like the Catholic Church while holding anarchist views. it seems to be similar to an anarchist associating with the (american) Democratic Party. but again, to each their own.

[workerscommunes]

Anarchic said:

Hi WC, good to see you.



But this is not assumed, is it? In fact quite the opposite is taught.

It is usually assumed because it is taught. That was my intended meaning although I know people are perfectly capable of rejecting religions they have been taught and embracing those they haven't.

quote author=The Catholic Worker link=board=comments&thread=1104043427&start=6#0 date=1104072330]

And how do I fit in, then? Even if this were necessarily true of ALL religions, where does that leave me? An abberation? And if so, what implications does that have?[/quote]

Well I don't really know how you came to be a Catholic so I can't comment. You must have been taught it in some way if you say you were raised a Catholic. However phrasing it like that makes me sound like I'm accusing you of being indoctrinated but you'll just have to take my word for it that that isn't the case. You're clearly eager to question everything you've presumably been 'taught'. Again it depends what we mean by 'religions' anyway (personal faiths vs. social institutions).

Anarchic said:

As an atheist, where do you look for guidance?

My stating that I think the bible may not neccessarily be a great place for christians to seek 'guidance' was not intended to imply that there are good places to seek it and bad ones. I was trying to say that we should not not look to any holy books, or philosophers or revolutionaries for guidance, only inspiration. The word guidance implies to me a kind of official authority we turn to when we need answers and I don't think this idea rubs up very well against the principles of anarchism.

(Note, I wasn't accusing CW or any other people with religious faiths of neccessarily doing this. It's quite clear from their posts that CW sees the the bible as a source of inspiration and not a rulebook like others have done).

Therefore as an athiest (although I don't particularily like the word as it suggests I am 'lacking' something wheras I personally feel I posess something more important than a god) I, like most people, only look to the needs of others etc. etc. for 'guidance'.

Michelaccio said:

I guess what I wonder about, and would be curious to hear you comment on, CW, is why the “Catholic” angle to a non-hierarchic, Jesus-informed anarchistic approach? As you say, Jesus himself was not Christian/Catholic. Is there something informing your anarchism, outside of Jesus' teachings, coming from Catholicism, that causes you to identify with the church in your group's name, as opposed to simply identifying with Jesus? I respect what you guys do and are about, but that's one aspect that I confess to never having been able to understand.

Yes I was wondering this also. Why do you personally associate yourself with Catholicism as opposed to just the teachings of Jesus?

[Anarchic Tribes]

The question is how religion, in this specific case Catholicism, can be resolved in terms of fitting anarchist principles, especially with regards to the position of 'God' as a level of authority.

Then do please answer that question. Because it seems to AT,
that religion, in this specific case Catholicism[/b should be spelt 'Religion'. But you then go on to 'spell' out 'religion'.
I see this happening many times, especially with those that have been 'brought up with religous teachings' and have since denounced the 'fairytale' stuff/literal 'virgin' births etc. (although I have nothing against those that believe in fairies).
(And I by no way am referring to anyone personally here.)
But when the debate of religion comes up, yes I agree that it usually gets bitter and from what I have seen, on the most 'liberal' of boards I have seen people go from taking a serious debate on the problem of 'Religion', to 'but it's all about spiritually' fluffy crap within seconds, never again getting back to the point/topic. This usually happens on the 'nicest' of boards.

I'm sure we've been through the topic of 'niceness' but, seems to me like discussing GOD is like walking on eggshells (especially round here where everyone's so nice).
I apologise if I come across as an atheist but it's because I think the notion of GOD is Bollox! and Religion is a massive control tool.