Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 06:39 PM CST

since i don\'t know anything about this tradition and don\'t trust mass-organized spirituality; but it is interesting that i was just talking to some friends about the lack of care-taking (or community stability) we feel in our circles - and one of the models that came up for groups that take good (better) care of each other is the church.

if nothing else, it\'s interesting to think about how we can take back the idea of care-taking that the church got from communities in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 07:34 PM CST

\"Damn Utitarians burnt a question mark on my front lawn\" - Anarchist folk singer Utah Phillips

Utah Phillips has a number of stories/songs where he debates politics/social change at the Unitarian Church, all with a light-hearted, warm attitude toward the UU church. In fact, he often performs at UU churches.

Actually, I just discovered thisquote from Utah Phillips, \"I\'m a lay preacher for the Unitarian Universalists, and I do anarchist weddings.\"
http://ani-difranco.net/articles/04-22-01(2).html

Utah Phillips\' albums are available from the AK Press at: akpress.org

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 07:41 PM CST

I think the chosen symbols can be a barrier. A religious group tends to divide people; both areligious anarchists and religious anarchists who may not agree with the narrower senses of \'unitarian\' and \'universalist\'.

I also think this could be helpful. We need to bring communities together, not only of action but of people, with an awareness of each other and our needs and our concerns. And of our spirits. People will turn to anything to end the overpowering spiritual isolation: drugs, money, Chick Tracts, anything. Could this be a helpful alternative?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 08:34 PM CST

I personally can\'t believe any religion that preaches that there is a God above me, or that believes in the bible which is such a load of crap... So I guess this prevents me from being a UU, but hey I liked the idea of the oversoul and such

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 08:59 PM CST

From the comments it seems like people are sort of missing the intent of the essay, which is to demonstrate a group that anarchists could enter into a meaningful coalition with. I don\'t think that requires those on either side to become or take on the label of the other. So I don\'t really see UUism as creating a barrier between religious and areligious people. I mean, some religious anarchists may not even dig the church to begin with.
Also, pannekoek- just to clarify, you don\'t have to believe in a God above you to be a UU. Unitarianism and Universalism were both originally Christian in nature, but have evolved since then. Basically if you\'re down with the 7 principles you can be UU. There\'s actually a pretty strong humanist and atheist strain through the faith.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 11:30 PM CST

How in the hell is mariage a patriarchical construct? Sure, of course, their is patriarchical marriage, but how in the hell is an expression of love a patriarchical construct? How is a union of people patriarchical? That is absurd. Marriage is institutionalized rape? What the fuck are you talking about?

I suggest you step outside of your ideoligical lense.

As for your distrust of \"spiritual needs\", that is a personal problem.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 09:27 PM CST

I don\'t really consider UUism a religion. I went with my parents when I was younger, but, as you mentioned in the article, it didn\'t appeal too much to me. It seemed to be mostly feel-good reformists, mellowed out hippies. They never really preached anything when I was there, and there wasn\'t a minister, but people who wanted to talk would get scheduled in and do so. The youth classes were boring because we didn\'t do too much besides study other religions. We celebrated Christmas, and Christian holidays, but also those of a lot of other religions. A lot of the people there didn\'t believe in God. For me, it just seemed too much like a random group of people who talked a bunch and never did anything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 26 2004 @ 10:38 PM CST

While I\'m not opposed to the idea of offering critical support to UUs, and in turn, accepting it, I see the matter as similar to any other advent of Anarchists cooperating with non-anarchist groups. Sure, I\'ll march with Trots, but when it comes done to it . . .
Yes, perhaps \"Anarchist UUs\" are one-up on your average authoritarian leftist, but, honestly, I don\'t trust any group that talks about \"spiritual needs,\" because it seems to me as though the \"spirit\" is another one of those lovely little abstractions like gender, race, etc. that anarchism rather demands the destruction of.
Honestly, there are enough silly ideas that seperate humans from the objective, physical, universe, without heaping spirituality on top. It\'s my feeling until we\'ve learned to deal with the fact that we are actually 100% natural products of real material conditions, the more interesting (In my opinion) cousins of minerals and gasses, rocks and trees, etc. we;re not going to be able with other real-life situations.

On an unrelated note, what the fuck is an \"anarchist wedding\"? The anarchists\' own institutionalized rape? Because moronic patriarchal constructs are a-ok when prefaced with \"Anarchist\"? Because even anarchists need their status as lovers to have a rediculous label applied to it? Need a fucking ceremony? Seriously, my respect for Utah Phillips just plumeted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 12:05 AM CST

I don\'t think that\'s really what UU is all about. I\'ve known UUs who were Buddhists, Baha\'is, atheists, Wiccans, etc. From what I gather, I think it\'s mostly about people wanting to follow their own unique spiritual pathways but doing so with a knowledge that human spirituality includes social dimensions, and people wanting not to be isolated but instead to enjoy a supportive sense of community while they explore their own personal spirituality.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 01:04 AM CST

Distrust of spiritual needs is hardly a personal problem when fringe groups of buddist\'s, pagans, and UU\'s,etc are circling anarchism with a view to glomming onto us.I am with you Brad.At present two nutty bunchs of metaphysical right wing nuts are dominating the world. The Shrub Xians Vs the Islamonazi\'s and you want us to get religion!
Fuck that shit. It IS religion whatever bs you spout about about it.
If we need to ally with any of these loony tunes lets make it one that has a mescaline or psilocybin sacrament and federal funding, right Reverend?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 02:17 AM CST

I suggest you read Emma Goldman\'s writings on this topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 05:26 AM CST

Hah! Brad Religion, not everyone sees spirituality as a problem. Institutions will use tenets and dogmas to enslave people\'s minds and lives. But it doesn\'t matter whether it is religion or politics. Not all spirituality is enslaved. Sometimes it is born out of the desires of people who create it. If you have a problem with that, than too bad.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 05:33 AM CST

\"Fringe groups of buddhists, pagans, and UUs\"? Yeah get real. What the feck do you care if someone has a particular spriritual practice so long as they don\'t bother you? \"Metaphysical Nuts\": While I agree that Bush and the Ladens of this world are fundy nuts, their issue isn\'t metaphysics, baby. Their issue is power. The fact that you would suggest an equation between Bush, Laden, and other fundies with all other people from diverse traditions such as Buddhism or Paganism betrays your ignorance. Take a walk around the block...or better yet...build a bridge and get the fuck over it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 05:48 AM CST

uh, yeah ... like maybe how in \"Living My Life\" she goes from a vehement diatribe against marriage on one page, then not long thereafter later mentions, without any explanation whatsoever, that she decided to marry a Welsh anarchist miner: \"In June I had married the old rebel James Colton.\" (Living My Life, Vol. II p. 981). [Look, E.G. was hella cool, but rational and consistent she was not. And no problem: as Emerson so memorably said, \"foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.\" My point is that doctrinaire, pat answers to the question are ... well, doctrinaire and pat.]

Anarchists are supposed to support free association: so if two free people want to solemnize and ritualize their voluntary association with each other, what business is it of ours to object? I\'m not talking about forced marriages, which for a long time in many places were (and in some places still are) essentially business deals with woman-as-commodity -- I\'m talking about the fact that a lot of free people actually want to solemnize their relationships by means of the rituals that so many people find so important on a psychoogical level -- not to mention the legal advantages that come along with marriage (ask your geriatric queer friends, young parents seeking family-coverage from health insurers, etc. about that one).

WTF?! If people want to get hitched, at least in the US and western Europe it\'s not like they can\'t change their minds about it. Instead of criticizing marriage, why not focus your energies on fighting against, say, orthodox Jewish law that prevents a wife from divorcing a husband without his permission for a \"get,\" or the Indian practice of \"suttee,\" or something else that actually impinges upon people\'s freedoms?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 08:21 AM CST

I wrote \"spiritual\" because I did not mean \"religious\" or anything of that nature. I meant the needs, apart from food and water and air but just as real, for trust and friendship and for wonder and curiosity...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 08:35 AM CST

\"..Distrust of spiritual needs is hardly a personal problem when fringe groups of buddist\'s, pagans, and UU\'s,etc are circling anarchism with a view to glomming onto us.\"

Mainstream anarchism threatened by \"fringe groups.\" I love it!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 08:42 AM CST

I like this article

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 09:17 AM CST

people are forgetting (or not knowing) that there is a loong history of religious anarchism. not just are many of the \"original,\" medieval anarchists Christains (the Diggers, the Brethern of the Free Spirit - look at \'Lipstick Traces\' and other books), even at the height of \"classical\" anarchism, there were many, many religious anarchists - Tolstoy come quickly to mind (although he rejected the label, he was close to Kropotkin and Woodcock gives him a whole chapter in his standard history \'Anarchism.\') The Catholic Worker-sect has always had strong and close ties, especially to the Wobblies, and continue to to this day in NYC.

There have, in the US since the 60s, also been strong links between Buddhism and Taoism and anarchism (Ken Knabb, who edited the \'SI Anthology,\' is a practicing zen buddhist, and ordained rinzai zen monk and Beat poet Gary Snyder has an essay on Buddhism, Ecology & Anarchism, which you can find online) - as well as the pagans -- many eco-feminists were coming to anarchism in the 80s and 90s (think Starhawk). Hakim Bey now likes to spend his time thinking & writing about the connections between gnosticism & the hermetic tradition & anarchism.

In fact, the whole consensus-based organizational structure that is found in almost all anarchist groups these days comes from structures developed by the .. Quakers i believe, one of the \'peace churches\' (the seven main pacifist christian sects)

my point, anyway, is that, whether you like UUs or not (they\'re not to my taste, but they\'re fine), these connections between socially-conscious religious groups and anarchism and already there, already deep in the anarchist heritage, and i think as anarchists, we are not here to \"tell people what to do\" (leave that to the marxists), but rather to ask people to form non-hierarchical, decentralized organizations, to express their own desires and needs, and to form their own demands and look for their own solutions to the problems that they/we all face. if they choose to do it as a \"church,\" i think that\'s fine.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 09:36 AM CST

Clayton, and others who believe that the UU organization is a serious coalition-building force would do well to hear two points of view: 1) The reality of seeking coalitions with ideological Leftists in Spain (which, when anarchists were no longer needed, betrayed them) and 2) my own experience of betrayal.

In one way you might say that this ultra \"liberal\" UU group in Michigan radicalized me, but the way in which the leadership went about it is typical of when they put their ideals to any real test (the Quakers on the other hand, in that same city, lived up to their ideals, basically, even tho hype pushed from many sides).

To make this story short and to the point, I basically came into the open with non-fascist/non-authoritarian ideas that are not accepted in this society at this time. The minister (or one of his staff) called the cops and sicked them on me even though I had done absolutely nothing wrong. But had DARED voice a truth I knew in my heart that is not easily allowed or understood today, with the climate of continual ideologically-challenged hysteria (Luckily, by then I knew my \'rights\' and stood up for them, and was somehow able to avoid the worst of the cops attack).

Want to know the details? (Rest assured that they are probably not printable in any ideological text whatsoever, since the ideas do not \"fit in\" with the needs of the propaganda game that almost everyone plays)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 12:00 PM CST

You forgot in the sixites that it was in the black churches that the civil rights networks begin to form and bus rides marches and nonviolent direct actions were planned

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 12:32 PM CST

>>\"The fact that you would suggest an equation between Bush, Laden, and other fundies with all other people from diverse traditions such as Buddhism or Paganism betrays your ignorance...\"

What do they have in common? Irrationality. The \'power\' question is an interesting one though. The \'Starhawkes\' and the Hakim Beys seem pretty good at getting their little cult followings. (I, for one am glad that Hakim Bey DOESN\'T have acces to nukes.)

OTOH the Unitarian sounds like it\'s based mostly on REASON and Unity and has a healthy dose of atheism - well, seeing as we can\'t avoid religion I\'d rather work with the less nutty and the least hierarchical. But people who claim some \'special\' insight or revelation and use it to manipulate others should be ignored.

- Claud Saint-Simon (anarcho-captechnotheocracy) UTOPIAN 1760-1825
- Enfantin - Saint-Simonian offshoot- 1796- 1864 (known as \'The Industrial Pope\') industrial/mystical/theocratic. (source: Theodore Zeldin- Politics and Anger. france 1848-1945)

\"Imagination, deserted by reason, begets impossible monsters. United with reason, she is the mother of all arts, and the source of their wonders.\" Francisco Goya

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 01:08 PM CST

As an anarchist who is also part of a UU congregation (as well as regularly sitting at a Zen center and attending local pagan workings) and as someone who has been a part of the black bloc and the pagan bloc (twas nice to see a bit of solidarity and sharing down there in Miami) I was really really happy to see this article.

I have often thought that the source of my anarchism (and activism in general) comes out of a deep place of connection with all other beings which can only be described as spiritual. As mentioned above, buddhism, UU, and a lot of neo-pagan groups have nothing in them to counter an anti-authoritarian, anti-Statist, cooperative, LOVING, view of the world.

Why are the anti-religious arguments so strongly reactionary and harsh rather than being offered in a spirit of a mutual exchange of ideas and an openness to understanding how each other feel?

At a particularly nice workshop at NCOR over the weekend we talked a bit about how any strong consensus process must function around deeply respecting and listening to each other, I find this much more evident in the UU youth groups that I attend than most meetings of anarchists I get together with......

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 02:35 PM CST

Fundamentalist atheism annoys me as much as fundamentalist theism.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 03:06 PM CST

>anti-Statist, cooperative, LOVING, view of the world.
2. Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
6. The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.
---------------------
...noble ideals indeed, which are often conflicting in themselves. Don\'t expect all anarchists to agree as to how to achieve these ideals or expect us to all be loving and \'nice\' people. Co-operative and LOVING I have a few problems with. Should I be co-operative and loving with capitalists, tyrants and power-hungry politicians? Do THEY care to show those they exploit and dominate the same courtesy? Perhaps I should give a fascist a hug today?

>>Why are the anti-religious arguments so strongly reactionary and harsh...

Sorry if you see it that way. I am not anti-religion as such and have no problem with religious people in general or against\'feelings\'.
But I am always wary of people who claim to have a \'higher\' revelation as it can be used to manipulate others. This is the danger with any religion or even with \'spirituality\'. People who just want to \'dabble\' in spirituality, witchcraft etc. are IMO deluding themselves - and should be prepared for the pitfalls and the ultimate outcome of taking their \'quest\'to its logical conclusion. I only write from my own experience of 15 wasted years in the new-age/mysticist/buddhist/theosophist/christian/ religious quagmire. I guess ex-religionists are like ex-smokers! - the most vocal critics. (btw, I listen to the \'Unitarian Half-Hour\' on the radio and find it quite useful - usually topical and critical of power) I won\'t be rolling up for church any time soon though. Peace.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 01:19 PM CST

You mentioned the Catholic Workers which is an odd ordeal because they do good things. However, they cling to the patriarchical church which continues to exploit people around the world.

Their is a difference between an anarchist rooted spirituality and \"anarchists\" that cling to a patriarchical church.

Of course, the Catholic Workers are our allies. However, all of our critiques of leftism apply fully here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 03:21 PM CST

Why do you assume that those who support anarchist marriages haven\'t read the criticisms of it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 03:33 PM CST

Firstly, to radicalized- What happened to you angers and frustrates me. These are the components I certainly am not proud of when it comes to my connection with UUism. I\'d like to hear more about it, if you feel comfortable just email me.
Secondly, it seems like of the posters didn\'t really read the article. It\'s a bit on the long side, but I\'d really encourage you to at least read the bit about what UUism is. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding. UUism is not purporting to be the end all be all for spiritual needs and no one is claiming a \"higher way\" in order to manipulate others. It\'s non-creedal, which makes such problems a bit diffuclt.
Also, in response to Svidrigali\'s comments on the 7 principles- esp. the \"respect for the inherent worth and dignity\" is typically interpretted as respecting the person but not their actions or oppressive attitudes. I don\'t really want to repeat my essay, so I\'ll leave it at that.
Also, I want to address prolecat\'s perception that I underplay UU\'s reformist and liberal characteristics. I think when looking at the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) as a whole that\'s probably true. I guess I unconsciously underplayed it because I\'ve avoided a lot of that! :) Most of my experiences has been with the youth and young adult community, which is definitely much more radical (although there are some really rad adults). I think bonds with anarchists are much more feasible in those areas, but still I think that if we as anarchists would get off our high horses and work and talk with people we don\'t completely agree with on every single thing we could bring some great things to the UU faith. I\'ve already seen this happen with the youth and young adult movements. It was youth and young adult activity that has helped push more anti-racist work within the faith as well as adopting globalization as the working issue for the UUA. These are things that are now in the whole relgion, not just YRUU or YA. So I think that radicals understanding UUism and entering into a respectful relationship with them can bring more of this about. And like I mentioned in the essay, there are even explicitly radical UU groups emerging (UU Ignite and UU Prophets) that i see as pushing the faith to be more radical and in my opinion more in sinc with the 7 principles.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 03:34 PM CST

However, they cling to the patriarchical church which continues to exploit people around the world.

Some (many?) of them probably do. Many of the Catholic Workers I know aren\'t even Catholic (or Christian) at all (and the Catholic Worker movement exists throughout the US and perhaps other countries, NYC isn\'t the only place it\'s \'left\'). Others relationship with Catholicism and/or Christianity is more complex, but that sentence definitely doesn\'t apply to them---few of them have much good to say or offer much support of any kind to the Roman Catholic Church as an institution.

And then, of course, not all Catholic Workers identify as anarchists either. (And those that do may or may not be christians).

Anyway, the Catholic Worker movement is an interesting thing, is my main point, and more diverse and complex than Camendur\'s comment might lead some to believe. There\'s really no formal organization or structure or centralization to the movement, so every Catholic Worker community (not to mention the individuals in it) can be quite different than others. They are worth checking out, if there\'s on in your area, I suggest.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 03:49 PM CST

I as well am an anarchist and a UU. I was very glad to see this article and the conversation that followed it appear. I think we need to be conscious as a community of secular fundamentalism- it can only isolate us. The most important thing to know about UUs in general in regards to our form of activism is that they have a lot of resources and options that aren\'t always open to generally overtaxed anarchist projects. I\'m not suggesting coopting UUs for anarchist use but as the article says points out there area lot of us UUs who are down in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 03:49 PM CST

I as well am an anarchist and a UU. I was very glad to see this article and the conversation that followed it appear. I think we need to be conscious as a community of secular fundamentalism- it can only isolate us. The most important thing to know about UUs in general in regards to our form of activism is that they have a lot of resources and options that aren\'t always open to generally overtaxed anarchist projects. I\'m not suggesting coopting UUs for anarchist use but as the article says points out there area lot of us UUs who are down in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 04:30 PM CST

Sometimes it\'s necessary to have the tax break, common health insurance and to be able to visit your partner in the hospital. I know a lot of folks who take on legal marriage for these reasons. Becoming legally married is not always a matter of needing the state to give sanction to love. Don\'t simplify things.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 04:41 PM CST

I believe your statements elaborates my criticism as well as my feelings of solidarity with CWers. I could not agree more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 04:48 PM CST

I\'m also an anarchist UU. At NCOR, I ran into a friend I used to go to YRUU conferences with back in my late teens and early twenties. We talked about the similarities of the two and they were hard to ignore. I feel like I developed a lot of skills and perspectives from the YRUU that have heavily influenced my anarchism. The YRUU is oftentimes much more radical than the church in general. The conferences I went to were pretty damned eye opening. Lots of strong empowered women, youth organized, open acceptance and celebration of queer/trans folks, anyone could set up workshops on anything, and conversation constantly (and lots of play and kissing). Also, a lot of the work at cons really is done on the basis of spontaneous self-management.
The general church is depressingly liberal in most areas but some are very open to events. Recently, we held public teach-ins and report backs to the community after Miami and the church will be opening up its kitchens for the local activist community when some of the local Catholic Workers have their big trial.
I feel its important to have as good a relationship with them as possible without hoding any illusions about it. As always, keep dialogue open. I\'ve had some pretty good conversations with liberals that have brought them to deeper levels of understanding and opened newer perspectives to them.
The YRUU conferences are an incredible resource and anarchists should think strongly about teaching workshops at these events. I attended them for about six years. One every month and a half. Like a weekend long TAZ.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 04:57 PM CST

Of course I have, Emma Goldman is one of my favorite anarchist philosophers and activists.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 05:03 PM CST

to Svidrigali:

Co-operative and LOVING I have a few problems with. Should I be co-operative and loving with capitalists, tyrants and power-hungry politicians? Do THEY care to show those they exploit and dominate the same courtesy? Perhaps I should give a fascist a hug today?

hmmm, well I can\'t really answer this :) maybe if more of us hugged fascists they would feel less alienated....don\'t get me wrong, I\'m not a fuzzyheaded peace and love hippie (though you might find me barefoot and wearing a skirt at a phish show) that thinks the world will be changed through holding hands and hugging (though it would be nice for US to do more holding hands and hugging), but I don\'t think that capitalism is going to disappear until we replace it with anything either, and as of right now, I\'d rather have my social interactions structured on more open respect/love/joy/listening than I tend to find in anarchist circles but often find at say, a rainbow gathering, or UU meeting

But I am always wary of people who claim to have a \'higher\' revelation as it can be used to manipulate others. This is the danger with any religion or even with \'spirituality\'. People who just want to \'dabble\' in spirituality, witchcraft etc. are IMO deluding themselves - and should be prepared for the pitfalls and the ultimate outcome of taking their \'quest\'to its logical conclusion. I only write from my own experience of 15 wasted years in the new-age/mysticist/buddhist/theosophist/christian/ religious quagmire. I guess ex-religionists are like ex-smokers! - the most vocal critics.

scratch a cynic and you\'ll find a disappointed/wounded idealist......

Sorry you view the years you spent exploring various forms of spirituality as \"wasted\" -- and while all religions are prone to various degrees of guruism and charismatic leader syndrome, UU is specifically anti-hierarchical in terms of \"truth\" and of course if you\'ve explored Buddhism you know that there\'s a wide range of attitudes and (in)compatibilities with an anti-authoritarian philosophy - I find american zen practice to be fine and dandy

Since UU is non-creedal I see it more as a community to gather with in a spirit of mutual aid, fellowship, and seeking after a multiplicity of truths. In our hyper-alienated competitive society, I\'ll take whatever respectful, tolerant, welcoming, intelligent, active communities I can find

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 05:30 PM CST

wow, sorry for that last post without the paragraphs and with the typos.

To all these other UU anarchists posting- there\'s been the idea kicked around of putting out a radical uu zine. are any of you interested? you can email me or talk about it on the uuignite listserve if you are. you can find that at riseup.net, just search for uuignite.

also, i totally agree with the above poster about developing skills through YRUU. I mean really, radical activism is the most logical use for what people learn in the YRUU movement: consensus, leading workshops, organizing conferences, etc. What I always loved about YRUU was also how youth-centered it is. Even the adult advisor trainings are run jointly by youth and adults. It\'s when youth are in charge that conferences were always the best. I think it\'s really YRUU where i saw the amazing effects non-hierarchical means of organizing can have.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 05:51 PM CST

I have considered anarchy to be my religion. To me, an anarchist religion is redundant. As the writer stated, the ideas are very similar.

I often have wondered about the anarchist rejection of religion. I think it\'s just an attitude that Karl Marx and punks screaming \"FUCK RELIGION\" have instilled in the movement/philosophy. I have found spirituality in the form of self-exploration. I am a \"spelunker of the subconscious,\" and I even do it without hallucinogens. To me, anarchy is something that applies to EVERYTHING - politics, economics, religion, and even the structuring of my mind. (ie the \"ruling party\" or ego and the \"lower class\" or subconscious) To Brad Religion, if humans are only physical beings, then why even have anarchy? Why do we need equality and peace and happiness? Because we are also emotional beings, and emotions have not yet been classified by scientists as a form of matter or energy yet. I think spirituality is just the way in which a person explores itself and his/her emotions, which is vital to a political philosophy that calls for one to be individualistic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 06:07 PM CST

I agree with everything said in these last few comments. I came to anarchism through Unitarian Universalism. YRUU was the most liberating, empowering experience of my life, especially powerful in its orientation toward (and operation by) people who are in a particularly vulnerable, confusing time in their lives. For anarchists with kids I don\'t think I could recommend it enough.

Like anything else, there is a great deal of diversity within UUism. Of course there are spineless liberals and even reactionaries, but I don\'t think I need to repeat in detail Clayton\'s point that the basic 7 principles are entirely compatible (and even complimentary of) anarchist thought and practice.

One of the basic values of UUism (and I believe of anarchism as well) is a rejection of all fundamentalisms. This I think includes atheist fundamentalism as well, something which I don\'t think there is a big enough critique of in our movements.

I think that one of the most degrading cultural effects that capitalism has wrought has been a mechanistic reductionism to which we are all subordinated. \"Rationality\" as such is nothing more than the framework within which we can be compartmentalised and then subdued. We are not rational creatures - our motivations and experiences are much more complex, including emotional and spiritual dimensions. THis is not a rejection of our rational dimensions but a realization that we need to honor all aspects of our being if we are going to have healthy communities and a healthy society, if we\'re going to stop this horribly violent industrial juggernaut that daily assaults our lives and the earth.

That said, when I first saw this article I expected alot of negativity in the comments below, but I\'m actually heartened by the generally constructive nature of the feedback. I don\'t know how much I want to see a \"coalition\" between anarchists and UUs - I think both are much more powerful within their own histories and traditions. But I think that recognizing a commonality between the two is important, as mutual aid and understanding can evolve from that. Also, on a personal level, if you are looking for an anti-authoritarian form of spirituality UUism may have alot to offer. Just as none of us is purely rational, none of us are purely anarchists, and need other communities and dimensions in our lives that are compatible with our values.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 07:28 PM CST

One thing the author doesn\'t make clear enough is that UUism no longer follow the \"narrow senses\" of Unitarian and Universalist. There are UUs today who identify as atheists, buddhists, humanists, agnostics, pagans or just generally spiritual people.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 08:37 PM CST

interesting that folks mention Gary Snyder..

I\'m an anti-authoritarian AND a practitioner of Zen Buddhism, which, it should be noted, is also non-theistic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 09:27 PM CST

As another UU anti-authoritarian, I couldn\'t agree more with the general sentiments of the other UU anarchists: the \"depressingly liberal\" politics of most UUs, the radicalizing influence of YRUU in my life, the learning of basic non-hierarchical organizing skills and principles, the truer sense of community experienced in UU youth groups than in the many radical groups I\'ve been involved in.

I dare say 1) UUism has the highest percentage of anarchists of any religion 2) search the anarchist community of any major city and you\'ll probably find at least one UU at its heart. I recently led a discussion on \"social action\" at a UU youth conference and those young folks were dieing to hear and discuss ideas of the failures of reformism, direct action, direct democracy, grass-roots dual power.

I disagree slightly with the thesis that UU principles are completely compatible with anarchist principles. Many ideologies are compatible with anarchism on the most generic level. I would say that UUism is the ideal incubator for creating anti-authoritarian radicals and an ideal \"sanctuary\" and/or \"launch pad\" for those anarchists who wish to engage religion for political and/or personal reasons.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 10:11 PM CST

I might be a data point in your \"incubator\" idea, having been raised a UU and having very positive experiences in YRUU...

but, I really can\'t stand UU culture, and have avoided it since radicalization. The worst of liberalism is ingrained in its core... and don\'t get me started on the class composition of the organization... blech.

Interesting to hear people weighing in though...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 10:24 PM CST

Gary Snyder is a fucking anarchist, along with the rest of the Beats! Ken Knabb is SFZC, so was anarchist-poet Diane di Prima. Kerry Thornley wrote a book called \'zenarchy.\' Crass quote Lao Tse and and admire Buddhism. it\'s all there.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 27 2004 @ 10:30 PM CST

this is great. it makes me feel ( ie all these people realizing, suddenly, that they came to anarchism in the same way) that anarchism is just something that people naturally DO, not a historically-situated \"movement.\" People just ... have the ability to act this way and conceive of the world this way, and so anarchism will always rise in all times and all places... because it is just one of the ways (we think the best) that humans can do things.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 01:44 AM CST

That\'s how I see anarchism...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 02:57 AM CST

To be honest I haven\'t finished reading the hole artical yet I would just like to say I don\'t think the concept of chaos is necessarily a bad thing and the popular use of it alines it with a nagative meaning, much like anarchy. Usualy when I think of chaos I just think of the ability of ramdom happenings witch is present and can be adapted to in a healthy natural system. I feel too much order, which discourages flexabibly and adaption(to new ideas and ways of doing things), can be as distructive as to much chaos. I usualy try to use the word entropy because of the meaning offten enterprated from the word chaos. Now back to the artical.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 09:25 AM CST

No matter how pious the religion, I still have to shrug it off. There\'s a difference between generosity and revolution.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 10:49 AM CST

You know, to zenanarchist, maybe that\'s why I considered anarchy to be a religion. Because it\'s me, and everyone. What\'s at humanity\'s heart.

Oh, by the way, when I said an anarchist religion was redundant, by no means did I intend to say that we should not cooperate with the UUists. I\'m fine with working side-by-side with anyone, even people with really messed up ideals, if it means making the world a little better (but it stops there).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 12:38 PM CST

Throughout the posts there\'s been hints of where we stand with the UU church. I\'d like to talk more about this. It seems the spectrum goes from those who out and out want nothing to do with it and take the \"religion is religion is religion\" stance to the \"i won\'t bother you if you don\'t bother me\" approach and then others who are more towards working with those elements of UUism that are already quite radical (YRUU and YA) all the way to trying to influence the main liberal facets of the faith.
I think those just dismising it all together are making a mistake because revolution involves community aspects, something religion is definitely tied to. I know a lot of anarchists who were involved in UUism have abandoned it altogether. I haven\'t done much different honestly. But is there a place for radicals in the faith? I think there should be if there isn\'t. Is this institution one worth trying to change from the inside? or should we create our own spaces like UU Ignite from outside the mainstream liberal strain? As radical UUs and UU sympathizers, what do we do with things like General Assembly, the elections and whatnot? I know I\'ve always liked the idea of putting up some kind of squatters camp at GA to protest the ridiculous costs.
To answer my own questions I\'d say I\'m much more comfortable working with movements like YRUU and YA, especially since in my own district I\'ve learned through my younger brother that adults are really taking on very dominating, patronizing roles. Also, a sexual assault happened at a conference and it\'s being dealt with in a very fucked-up disempowering way. I think it\'s very important that the anti-authoritarian strains in YRUU stay strong so these sorts of things are avoided.
I also think that strong solidarity amongst UU radicals would help push the UUA in a more radical direction, like what I saw at GA in Cleveland. This begins to dabble in electoral politics, which maybe is not something that should be brought up here... I\'d like to hear what others think about this though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 02:45 PM CST

I think that we need to build autonomous space for radical UUs outside the formal uua / church structure, which doesn\'t preclude membership / participation in those structures, if so desired. But while I still see my faith and values grounded in UUism I no longer feel these nurtured within formal UU channels (I haven\'t gotten involved in YA, and left YRUU a while ago). The mind-numbing liberal, middle-class retiree nature of UU congregations to me is to blame. Yet, I think alot of us (judging from these comments) still feel connected to UUism and ought to have a space within it to support one another and practice the radical values that are at its core. In turn, strengthening radical currents / movements within UUism might have the effect of radicalizing the rest of the faith. But I think on a basic level we need to develop an
(a)theology that is youth-centred and liberatory, grounded in anti-authoritarian values and practice. UUignite has alot of potential I think but there\'s not much activity there. Maybe its time to really push forward with it. I think there are alot of former / potential UUs that are still looking for that element that YRUU once offered that would really respond to something like this

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 03:55 PM CST

Nice ideas.

I wonder if we should not try to seperate religion (practice, ritual), spirituality (making wonder real), and theology; trying too tie them too closely has caused a great deal of trouble.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 05:48 PM CST

uh, yeah ... like maybe how in \"Living My Life\" she goes from a vehement diatribe against marriage on one page, then not long thereafter later mentions, without any explanation whatsoever, that she decided to marry a Welsh anarchist miner

Uh, how about because she needed to marry someone to gain citizenship.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 28 2004 @ 08:54 PM CST

There were places other than the UK where she could have gone, and she never said that she married him for citizenship purposes. In fact, not too long before she married him, she consciously considered and then rejected the idea of marrying for citizenship purposes. See Living My Life, Vol. 2, pp. 957-958.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 01:54 PM CST

Blaming the actions of one on an entire group is counterrevolutionary.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 02:44 PM CST

I ALSO am a lifetime UU and an anarchist. I came to anarchism through UUism. The first place I heard the word \'anarchy\' was at a YRUU con. I would go so far to say that the VAST majority of youth and young adults that are involved on the continental level are anti-authoritarian and left (because really its a double axis spectrum). But you can\'t put everyone in a box. And yes, some UUs are assholes. The general liberalness of most adults in the church frustrates the hell out of me. So I say this only after reading all the other comments and making sure no one else said it:
UU CHURCHES NEED SECULAR ANARCHISTS TO SHOW UP AND GUIDE THEM INTO A MORE ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN PLACE. We the youth have been trying for a long time now and make small inroads but get frustrated. I\'m not saying it is going to be easy. But you aren\'t going to find another source potential allies with this much resources and energy. It would be foolish for \'anti-religionists\' to pass this up without seriously considering it. and by the way, the UU principles are only suggestions, in case anyone is still hung up on that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 02:03 PM CST

Whether you want to admit it or not, people have emotional/spiritual needs. Sure they are constructs that ultimately need to go. But you are never going to get anywhere by ignoring them. Coalition building is important. Closemindedness is inherently Authoritarian. Are you an anarchist or not?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 29 2004 @ 02:07 PM CST

word.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 30 2004 @ 12:52 PM CST

i just meant to say that in NYC Catholic Worker people actively work with self-identified left anarchists, and this is the first place i have witnessed (or heard of) this - not that NYC is the only place CW is \"left.\"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 08:49 AM CST

i\'m a uu activist, anti-capitalist womyn of color dabbling in anarchist thought and communities. although many of my closest friends are anarchists and uus, i can\'t envision myself ever calling myself an anarchist because most of those that i meet give off a cold and elitist vibe. i don\'t understand this aspect of anarchist groups, which i struggle to see as idea communities--communities are warm, and i rarely feel that from anarchist \"communities.\" but maybe i\'m just not an anarchist.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 26 2004 @ 07:33 PM CDT

I personally view the principals of anarchism to not differ all that much from those humanistic aspects of very early Christianity before it was co-opted by the state.

The primary difference in principal is that anarchism as a rational secular belief takes human destiny out of the hands of unprovable supernatural forces and places it squarely into the hands (and minds) of living humans were it properly belongs.

Personally I am an agnostic. I simply believe that it is impossible to prove or disprove divinty. I do tend towards an athistic outlook however when it comes to the probability of a god as proposed by the theistic beliefs.

There are so few anarchists or anarchist organizations (there is a Food Not Bombs chapter about 40 miles away)out in my area that I\'m thinking of looking into the Unitarian Universalist Church for the potential it might give to me to become an active memeber of my community and not just remain isolated in my own thoughts and actions.

Owen


The anarchist Herbert Read on religion:

\"It is natural in relation to the morphology of society; supernatural in relation to the morphology of the physical universe. But in either aspect it is in opposition to the artificial authority of the \'State. The State only acquires its supreme authority when religion begins to decline, and the great struggle between Church and State, when, as in modern Europe, it ends so decisively in favour of the State, is from the point of view of the organic life of a society, eventually fatal.\"

From the essay; The Philosophy of Anarchism, 1940

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bright/read/philsofanar.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 07:36 PM CST

The CW folks I know in my town don\'t really seem cling to the patriarchal church - they are at the head of movements to open Catholicism to GLBTQ\'s, allow women priests, etc. A number of them perform the rituals of catholicism themselves, at home, in small groups with rotating roles and are catholics primarily in the sense that they make use of the archetypes and symbols of catholicism (think the \"virgin of guadalupe\" symbolic appropriation of many latino/indigenous folks). Symbols have a lot of power and it doesn\'t have to be power over. There\'s plenty of history of radicals appropriating them for their own use as a number of other posters have given props to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 28 2004 @ 07:52 PM CST

There is nothing inherently wrong with the irrational. Dreams, emotions, passion, non-linear thought, music, dance, art, singing, humour. Certainly some types of irrationality can lead to awful things but the same can be said of rationality. All those little white men in white coats cooking up the latest GMO, nano-weapons, psychiatric pharmaceuticals. Very rational people carried out the Holocaust - step by carefully planned methodical step. Factory farms are extremely rational. Shit, capitalism is pretty rational. I mean, justice and equality and what have you are abstract, qualitative, subjective, right? They are irrational and they are beautiful worthy goals and ways of life. When I break down crying in the middle of great lovemaking, it\'s not \"rational,\" it\'s gorgeously, beautifully irrational. Nothing rational I can see about getting up early and watching the sunrise, but hey, it feels really good and I feel my connection with the world around me and that\'s spiritual to me. The connection and interaction between me and the cosmos. Balance is the key to just about everything as near as I can tell. Ugh. I\'d hate to live in a world that was just \"rational.\" Boring, boring, boring.

[ Reply to This | # ]