What should we think of other people’s religions, if our biggest concern is equality?
This question is answered by a western “reality as objective” anarchist mindset, and by radically inclusive anarcho-antirealism.
Mirror: https://scribe.rip/@viridiangrail/real-anarchists-vs-unreal-anarchists-on-religion-2d9685faf741
Your freedom extends as far as your own life. The practice does not concern me but the community must remain the forefront, and to accomodate others your religion cannot be put forth or on a pedastel. Also, I’d be careful about the term “real”. Anarchism is not something you are it is something you practice, in part or whole. Growing a garden and feeding yourself and your neighbors, no matter how little the yield, is anarchism. You don’t have to immediately renounce your citizenship to your state, especially if that would harm you and your family. Its not a zero sum game. Its practices and habits you work into your life and your community.
I’m actually an unreal anarchist. This article is contrasting the views of unreal anarchists like Myself, and the realist anarchists we disagree with.
No idea what that means. I thought you meant the sort of real that usually starts a no true scot arguement.
Grail suffers from Dissociative Identity Disorder or some similar mental health condition.
Part of this is believing that there are multiple universes or “realities” inhabited by well anything you can imagine. This often manifests into their different alt accounts and having conversations with them, and other beings who inhabit their body or something.
They’ve previously spoken about no longer getting mental help, which is sad because during their more lucid moments they’re not too bad a person.
Hence being anti realist to them is rejection of well reality itself. This is somehow an Anarchist perspective in their mind.
Thats kind of wild. I always give users the benefit of the doubt and interact with them myself. I kinda get the “I reject your reality and supplant my own” ideal but as a form of ultimate rebellion and not an actual achievable goal.
Did you read the article this post is a link to?
Speaking only for myself, I would be more likely to read the article if you included what you meant by “real” and “unreal” anarchists in the post.
Duly noted, thanks for the advice!
I think your approach (believe everything except exclusionary stuff) is quite interesting and good.
I don’t really agree with the rest of the post as it’s based on a kinda false dichtomy, separating people in those camps when there’s a lot of room for other beliefs. I’m an atheist but not an antitheist in the way you wrote it and can’t find myself in there - I’m really not sure if your two groups capture so many people.
The title is pretty clickbaity of course but after reading the article it makes sense (on your definitions).
This begs the question: “what is religion?” For me the linked article is far too narrow in scope. For example, they don’t talk about stuff like civil religion that can be a mixture of theism, nontheism, etc.
Personally I keep things real loose with a vague scale between “spiritualism” and “religion”. Spiritualism would be things that are more meta-physical but not necessarily bad. For example, feeling awe at a sunset or believing in a different plane/power. On the other end religion would be meta-physical stuff that’s bad, authoritarian, repressive, etc.
A major point is to distinguish/contrast between people, ideologies, etc. that are “spiritual” versus “religious”. What are the good aspects (eg. community)? What are the bad elements? How do these work together. Can we have the good without the bad?
For me this provides more nuance than just like: “There are a number of distinct religions. There are people who follow these religions and people who don’t. What is to be done?!?” I feel like many of these frameworks are tired and mostly used by “new atheists” which I would consider a mostly bad form of religion. No offense to this author though.
Apologies, I did not read the whole piece.
I stopped part way through, when a vision of blind men and an elephant sprang to mind, making the article seem redundant (and verbosely so).
