Add new comment

"Religion" is ultimately an arbitrary moniker for a wide variety of practices, institutions, beliefs, and literary movements that never cohere with each other. To be "for" or "against" religion, on either side, is never to be really for or against "religion." It is more relevant (and ultimately meaningful) to discuss more clear concepts, like theology or prayer or metaphysis, or even magic. Not that any of those fields are "clear" per se but they are more clear than "religion."

Sure, it's easy to say that "religion" (whatever particular specter you pick out of the bag) is a form of control or authority, but this is such a naieve and ironically orthodox Christian point of view that it is comical. Cooping myself up in my closet, with my head between my knees, saying the Jesus prayer for hours to attain an altered state of consciousness is not the same as submitting to feudal church authority. Likewise for zazen or Sufi twirling. The most potent religious acts are always those that point inward, the esoteric, as opposed to the outside, the exoteric. Sure, one could argue that these are not 'religious' acts, but that would be shifting the goalposts unless one agrees that there is no true religious act in the first place.

Lastly I believe it is naieve to hold that anarchism is not, in itself, a sort of religion. keep in mind my critical attitude towards the term.) Political (or anti-political, what have you) notions are, as Carl Schmidt noted, theological. Hell, it's already deeply rooted in our vocabulary -- what is iconoclasm, pray tell? In its original form, a zealotous adherence to the commandment against idols. Modern philosophers love to speak of the Real, the Absolute, Substance, the Unique, et cetera. What they mean, and are too cowardly to admit, is God.