I feel like "religion" is an extremely vague term. As a first order approximation, I generally distinguish between good and bad religion. I usually call good religion "spirituality" and I call bad religion "religion" or "cults". It's not a strict dichotomy but a scale of measure. I'm more/less likely to support a "religion" depending on how good/bad it is. As far as how I measure "good" and "bad", that's where the anarchism comes in. Religion should be liberating, not oppressive. Etc.
I'd say no. Religion breeds hierarchy, as it is inherently an authoritarian structure designed to consolidate and maintain power by exploiting others.
If people prefer a spirituality, or practice their spirituality in a group setting without an organizer or central authority figure (priest/preacher/imam/rabbi/pirate captain), that's their beeswax.
I feel like this question strongly depends on the religion -- I could see an anarchist believing in Buddhism or something of that nature quite easily, but I'd have a hard time trying to figure out a so-called anarchist that devoutly followed one of the Abrahamic religions. That would seem more than a bit peculiar, to me.
Buddhism is not especially peaceful. The Sihalese Buddhist monk caste in Sri Lanka is known for encouraging violence in service of ethnically cleansing the Tamil minority in the north. In Myanmar the Theravda Buddhist clerics largely aligned themselves with the military dictatorship. The Buddhist theocracy in Tibet violently enforced serfdom. The conception of Buddhism as a harmless and peaceful meditation-religion exists only in the west.
Any religion is, ultimately, a tool of social control.
Consent, if you consent to live by certain rules and restrictions. That's your bag, and it's fine. The moment you decide that you must force others to participate is the moment it becomes an issue.
Anarchists should fight against all oppression, including religious oppression. But any religion, spiritual community, or other related sort of thing, if they aren't oppressing anyone (and I figure "not oppressing anyone" is basically what you meant when you stuck "voluntary" in your post body), why TF would you go and make it your business what they do?
Beyond that, one could argue that without being able to oppress people, religions would die out over time as people wake up to what they really are. To the extent that that happens, great. But I do think there's something deep in humans that has spiritual sort of leanings. Whether what remains once oppressive religions are gone will qualify as a "religion" or be more of a set of secular spiritual practices or some such really depends more on your definition of "religion" than anything else.
A religious group killing others is the exact same as any other affinity group killing others. It gets no special treatment. hierarchical organizations within religion on the other hand are what that usually makes religious groups problematic in the long term.
My suggestion is that it would be easier for you to reject religion and any other beliefs without evidence to back it up, but I support religious freedom and diversity of thought in general. And if you reject my suggestion, that's the end of the discussion, no big deal, won't bring it up again.
As long as there's no oppression and it's being done in a way that does not create hierarchies, I got no beef with people doing religious stuff (or any other stuff).
I feel like "religion" is an extremely vague term. As a first order approximation, I generally distinguish between good and bad religion. I usually call good religion "spirituality" and I call bad religion "religion" or "cults". It's not a strict dichotomy but a scale of measure. I'm more/less likely to support a "religion" depending on how good/bad it is. As far as how I measure "good" and "bad", that's where the anarchism comes in. Religion should be liberating, not oppressive. Etc.
I'd say no. Religion breeds hierarchy, as it is inherently an authoritarian structure designed to consolidate and maintain power by exploiting others.
If people prefer a spirituality, or practice their spirituality in a group setting without an organizer or central authority figure (priest/preacher/imam/rabbi/pirate captain), that's their beeswax.
Isn’t the point of anarchism to not be controlled? Genuine question.
I feel like this question strongly depends on the religion -- I could see an anarchist believing in Buddhism or something of that nature quite easily, but I'd have a hard time trying to figure out a so-called anarchist that devoutly followed one of the Abrahamic religions. That would seem more than a bit peculiar, to me.
Buddhism is not especially peaceful. The Sihalese Buddhist monk caste in Sri Lanka is known for encouraging violence in service of ethnically cleansing the Tamil minority in the north. In Myanmar the Theravda Buddhist clerics largely aligned themselves with the military dictatorship. The Buddhist theocracy in Tibet violently enforced serfdom. The conception of Buddhism as a harmless and peaceful meditation-religion exists only in the west.
Any religion is, ultimately, a tool of social control.
Consent, if you consent to live by certain rules and restrictions. That's your bag, and it's fine. The moment you decide that you must force others to participate is the moment it becomes an issue.
Folk religions aren't necessarily controlling, for example, so I don't see why religions as a general concept need to be excluded.
We can get down to the details about certain varieties that promote power structures and prop up systemic inequalities, but religion ≠ authoritarian
Who's gonna ban it? The government?
Anarchists should fight against all oppression, including religious oppression. But any religion, spiritual community, or other related sort of thing, if they aren't oppressing anyone (and I figure "not oppressing anyone" is basically what you meant when you stuck "voluntary" in your post body), why TF would you go and make it your business what they do?
Beyond that, one could argue that without being able to oppress people, religions would die out over time as people wake up to what they really are. To the extent that that happens, great. But I do think there's something deep in humans that has spiritual sort of leanings. Whether what remains once oppressive religions are gone will qualify as a "religion" or be more of a set of secular spiritual practices or some such really depends more on your definition of "religion" than anything else.
Religions can be a good thing and inspire people to help others and the environment.
Ye! uwu
It is fine as a voluntary choice. The problem is only really with Death cults.
Obviously if one means volountary for joining a religion, one also thinks the same for those people killing others unjusticely
A religious group killing others is the exact same as any other affinity group killing others. It gets no special treatment. hierarchical organizations within religion on the other hand are what that usually makes religious groups problematic in the long term.
As long as they remain non-hierarchical why not?
Yes.
My suggestion is that it would be easier for you to reject religion and any other beliefs without evidence to back it up, but I support religious freedom and diversity of thought in general. And if you reject my suggestion, that's the end of the discussion, no big deal, won't bring it up again.
As long as there's no oppression and it's being done in a way that does not create hierarchies, I got no beef with people doing religious stuff (or any other stuff).
Ideally, it would be phased out as better education and critical thinking (and lack of enforced childhood indoctrination) make it unpopular.