Anti-Theist Action

[The Feral Underclass]

Is it justified to perpetrate direct action against religious institutions?

[Faux Real]

I'm sure no one will mind you taking out the pope. Seriously. Be my guest! :)

Also if you want to alienate a large support base of workers.

[Dean]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 09:45 pm
Is it justified to perpetrate direct action against religious institutions?
Only when those institutions are directly attacking us... Some very powerful organizations which are also very destructive, like the Ayatollah and Catholic church, may be "legitimate targets," but I think there are much more important forces to fight.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:47 pm
Also if you want to alienate a large support base of workers.
Do you accept direct action is a legitimate form of protest?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Dean+September 11, 2007 10:52 pm--> (Dean @ September 11, 2007 10:52 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 09:45 pm
Is it justified to perpetrate direct action against religious institutions?
Only when those institutions are directly attacking us... Some very powerful organizations which are also very destructive, like the Ayatollah and Catholic church, may be "legitimate targets," but I think there are much more important forces to fight. [/b]
Surely it could be argued that we are under attack by religious institutions by their attempts to exact their theology and political authority over individuals and society? Something which is essentially a lie and detrimental to our liberation as workers and indeed humans.

[ack]

I would say that it is only justified in the case that a religious institution is directly assaulting a community/group/whatever with their message, and not allowing the affected any other legitimate options.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+September 11, 2007 02:55 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ September 11, 2007 02:55 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 10:47 pm
Also if you want to alienate a large support base of workers.
Do you accept direct action as a legitimate form of protest? [/b]
Of course.

Attacking the institutions however, is quite useless. If say, the Pope commands all Catholics to turn away from the 'evils' of communism', let him, he will discredit himself. It's comparable to a Czar or King asking the population to stop a revolution while he himself has not provided for them, and thusly gets sent to the guillotine.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 11:05 pm
I would say that it is only justified in the case that a religious institution is directly assaulting a community/group/whatever with their message, and not allowing the affected any other legitimate options.
Why? Would you say that same opinion was true towards multinational corporations, government agencies, fascists and their property or the armed services?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by rev0lt+September 11, 2007 11:06 pm--> (rev0lt @ September 11, 2007 11:06 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 02:55 pm

[email protected] 11, 2007 10:47 pm
Also if you want to alienate a large support base of workers.
Do you accept direct action as a legitimate form of protest?
Of course.

Attacking the institutions however, is quite useless. [/b]
But direct action is always (usually) directed towards institutions whether it is symbolic or for some immediate gain.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 03:08 pm
But direct action is always (usually) directed towards institutions whether it is symbolic or for some immediate gain.
I guess there's no real negative long-term impact then. I wouldn't mind seeing such actions happen actually.

[Dean]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 09:58 pm
Surely it could be argued that we are under attack by religious institutions by their attempts to exact their theology and political authority over individuals and society? Something which is essentially a lie and detrimental to our liberation as workers and indeed humans.
Sometimes, not always. Their messages can be actually revolutionary, or at least liberating.

I don't think an organization which simply spreads mistruths should be targetted; I think those mistruths must be particularly malignant and interested in control and power for those running the organization, for people to justifiably attack them. It's clearly a fine line, but I think the benefits of attackign them versus the potential alienation of the religious people it would piss off must be the deciding factor.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Dean+September 11, 2007 11:16 pm--> (Dean @ September 11, 2007 11:16 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 11, 2007 09:58 pm
Surely it could be argued that we are under attack by religious institutions by their attempts to exact their theology and political authority over individuals and society? Something which is essentially a lie and detrimental to our liberation as workers and indeed humans.
Sometimes, not always. Their messages can be actually revolutionary, or at least liberating. [/b]
So can capitalism or fascism.



I don't think an organization which simply spreads mistruths should be targetted;

I think you're right.


think those mistruths must be particularly malignant and interested in control and power for those running the organization, for people to justifiably attack them.

I.e. religious institutions.


It's clearly a fine line, but I think the benefits of attackign them versus the potential alienation of the religious people it would piss off must be the deciding factor.

Firstly, those who attend church are usually the ones who will never be convinced otherwise and secondly, I am confused at why, in regards to those pseduo-religious workers you are seemingly referring to, would they be more inclined to be affected by such an action than if it were against a capitalist or governmental institution?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Revolt+--> (Revolt)I'm sure no one will mind you taking out the pope. Seriously. Be my guest![/b]

Talk about smashing Christianity and this kid wants to whack out the pope (by suicide bombing I would suspect).

Talk about smashing Islam and this kid burns a raf effigy while chanting "racist".

Why are you so "racist" against popes anyway? :lol:


TAT
Is it justified to perpetrate direct action against religious institutions?

Not only is it justified but it's completely necessary. This of course does not mean sending a suicide truck bomber careening into Sunday's mass in Podunk Iowa.

Or into the temple, the mosque or any other house of superstition.

All it means is to publicly make some noise against these relics; whether that be through protesting, picketing or any other form of "marketing".

So take off your dynamite vest Revolt; you won't be needing it today.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+September 11, 2007 03:35 pm--> (Vinny Rafarino @ September 11, 2007 03:35 pm)
Revolt
I'm sure no one will mind you taking out the pope. Seriously. Be my guest!

Talk about smashing Christianity and this kid wants to whack out the pope (by suicide bombing I would suspect).

Talk about smashing Islam and this kid burns a raf effigy while chanting "racist".

Why are you so "racist" against popes anyway? :lol: [/b]
I've never called you a racist, moron.

I couldn't find a Muslim figurehead as there isn't a Caliph anymore. That's why I couldn't use that example.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 03:41 pm

I've never called you a racist, moron.


It's hard to tell you fundie-kiddies apart; you all sound exactly the same.

Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!!


I couldn't find a Muslim figurehead as there isn't a Caliph anymore. That's why I couldn't use that example.


Something leads me to believe that the last person you would "poke fun at" is a Muslim.

You would be way too afraid of incurring "Allah's wrath" in the afterlife. :lol:

[Faux Real]

If I was an actual Muslim most of what you said would have been true.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by rev0lt+September 11, 2007 04:14 pm--> (rev0lt @ September 11, 2007 04:14 pm) If I was an actual Muslim most of what you said would have been true. [/b]

The Rafarinos of the world for some reason (perhaps) do not want the workers in this position. Go figure.

Shhhh!

Don't let Allah hear you say that! :lol:


dean
I don't think an organization which simply spreads mistruths should be targetted;

Religion is directly related to capitalism and the ruling class. It's hardly a simple institution spreading harmless "little white lies"; it's an institution that spreads big-assed fucking whoppers that costs people their lives!

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 11, 2007 04:25 pm
Don't let Allah hear you say that! :lol:
To clarify, I am not a Muslim Apostate either. :)

[al8]

O what kind of dialectical sorcery did you perform to achieve that? You must just be briming with internal contraditions.:D

You should very well know that the Koran makes a clear destinction between believer and an unbeliever. There seems to be no room for fence-sitting. And besides, the imaginary despot does not take kindly to luke-warm belief. As is seen in 2:85 (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm#85) of the Koran. It says (in so many words) that if you "believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next".

So when you have already taken that treacherous step, 'deserving of death' - why not just give it a certain finger and stroll as you please, as a proud Apostate?

[Faux Real]

/sigh

I am not nor have ever followed the religion&#33;&#33; I am just taking a cultural studies at school on it, not to mention have a few Moslem friends on the &#39;net and at college who help me understand it better. If you wish to know my &#39;beliefs&#39; look at the thread in the Religion subforum. <_<

Anyway, carry on with the original thread please.

[al8]

I&#39;m sorry for having misstaken you for af fence-siting agnostic and former muslim with illusions of not being an Apostate. I must have either misread or misremembered what you wrote in the religion sub-forum thread.

[apathy maybe]

I see nothing wrong with targeting (for example) the Catholic Church, any more then I can see anything wrong with targeting corporations of other kinds.

So, take the head of a big corporation (BHP or BP for example), they are a legitimate target, just like the head of the Catholic Church.

Not all religions are as hierarchical as the Catholic Church, most are smaller as well. Yet, most religions are dangerous, and are legitimate targets.

The tactics used vary of course, window smashing, effigy burning or similar action is all acceptable against religious institutions, just like it is against government ones. So, are schools targets? Well that depends on whether you target schools or not. But churches or synagogues or temples? Be my guest, and take out the bank next to it as well.

Only caveat , don&#39;t be racist now. Don&#39;t be spreading hate against Arabs or Jews or Indians or white folk. Attack the religion, not the people who follow it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13, 2007 05:31 am
I see nothing wrong with targeting (for example) the Catholic Church, any more then I can see anything wrong with targeting corporations of other kinds.

So, take the head of a big corporation (BHP or BP for example), they are a legitimate target, just like the head of the Catholic Church.

Not all religions are as hierarchical as the Catholic Church, most are smaller as well. Yet, most religions are dangerous, and are legitimate targets.

The tactics used vary of course, window smashing, effigy burning or similar action is all acceptable against religious institutions, just like it is against government ones. So, are schools targets? Well that depends on whether you target schools or not. But churches or synagogues or temples? Be my guest, and take out the bank next to it as well.

Only caveat , don&#39;t be racist now. Don&#39;t be spreading hate against Arabs or Jews or Indians or white folk. Attack the religion, not the people who follow it.
All institutionalised religions are legitimate targets, whether it&#39;s Catholicism, Judaism or indeed Islam.

[apathy maybe]

Indeed, all institutionalised religions are legitimate targets. However, not all religions are institutionalised. Are the Quaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker)s a legitimate target?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 13, 2007 04:46 am
Indeed, all institutionalised religions are legitimate targets. However, not all religions are institutionalised. Are the Quaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker)s a legitimate target?
Let&#39;s make it easy and just say that all religions are legitimate targets regardless of if they are perceived of as "institutionalised" or not.

As far as the quakers are concerned (the ones that are still around that is) I would put that cult right to the front of the line just for wearing those shitty clothes and making that crappy oatmeal that I was forced to stomach as a child.

[ack]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+September 11, 2007 06:06 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ September 11, 2007 06:06 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 11:05 pm
I would say that it is only justified in the case that a religious institution is directly assaulting a community/group/whatever with their message, and not allowing the affected any other legitimate options.
Why? Would you say that same opinion was true towards multinational corporations, government agencies, fascists and their property or the armed services? [/b]
Anytime when people are being denied their right to say "no", whatever organization responsible has gone too far, and action against them, be it violent or not, is proper and reasonable.

[apathy maybe]

(Regarding Vinny Rafarino&#39;s latest comment): Now that is irrational.

Anyway, care to explain why all religions are legitimate targets, what the difference between a religion and a cult is, and whether spiritualism is a religion?