Aotearoa Anarchism and Christianity Conference

I think the Anglican social justice people are just trying to get at that anarchism isn't all about chaos, disorder and smashing stuff up without providing a positive alternative to a hierarchical capitalist society, as the corporate media would have us believe.

Banish god from the skies and capitalism from the Earth!

That's the spirit.

What a shame Mary didn't have an abortion.

Isn't the church one of the most hierachical institutions on the planet?

The more we depend on God the more dependable we find He is.

Did the Indy editors notice that NZ sent 100+ troops to East Timor? I'm sure a Christian Anarchist conference is an interesting feature, but please get your priorities straight.

Fuck, Indy is sucking lately...

Organised religion, like the nationalist state and corporate power, are the main enemies of anarchists and all others who would be free. The hierarchies and lies created by this unholy trinity, pun intended, are the very real and painful chains that hold us where the rich and powerful would keep us -- as mere slaves to be exploited and expended where and when it benefits our masters, the rich and powerful. We are, to them, pawns for use in their own games, to be used for their own ends as they see fit. It is very helpful to those who attempt to control us to have us believing such lies as life, and justice, after death and return of christ, armageddon, etc., The idea of a creator or superior being or god, like sin and guilt, are lies that only serve to hurt us and keep us from our real goal. Unity, co-operation, justice and peace. No gods, no masters. Fuck religion, fuck your god, fuck jesus, and fuck what anyone else tries to tell me is real. I know what is real and it is freedom, direct democracy, direct action, equality, mutual association, co-operation, and education. It is resistance to what is wrongful and not least of all it is resistance against your corrupt lies based on the patholigies of control and domination. All of what anarchism is to me stands tall against the monstrous lies of organised religion. Having said that there have been christian anarchists (Tolstoy was one) so I might be tarring too much of religion with my critical brush but I really think you christian anarchists do actually need to spell out your opposition to organised religion clearly and blatantly otherwise the same church which sells BS to kiwis like blame, guilt, sin and intolerance, to name a few of the oppressive toys they wield against us from the pulpit and TV screen, could be seen to be the same faith that may drive your passion for freedom. If you don't stand up against oppression within your faith how can you call yourself christian anarchists? It's a little like a contradiction in terms (like military intelligence :P). Personally I see no evidence of any so-called god or a creator but hey believe whatever you want just be sure to define yourselves as opposed to the unquestionable oppressiveness of organised religion or else your efforts to spread the word of anarchism may become defeatist in practice. For example: It would be a giant joke if a CEO went out into the street preaching social justice so why not separate yourselves from the churches which, intentionally or not, spread hate, fear, and division amongst all of us? Just thoughts. No offence intended. Live like you are free, even if you are not yet free, and don't let the bastards get ya down. Cya!

Hey why don't we have a Marxist-Christian conference?

Oh, that's right, because christianity ceased to have any revolutionary potentials after it helped establish capitalist social relations. Back to the drawing boards for the stuffy old Marxists.

to all of you secular doomsayers out there. christianity and anarchism are not totally at odds. like anarchism[s] there are a number of ways of living as a christian. as an anarchist i reject the institutionalised Christian Church but not God - two different things, one is about control and one is about faith. Nothing the matter with faith.

i agree 'indy god' im working on a feature about east timor right now. i also have exams to study for and an essay to write. you know you diont have to be an indy editor to write a feature though...

heh he..naughty! I have to say - that does seem a little more festive than the nice clean, predictable 'consensus'/'vegan' 'Lord's Prayer' rendition of the instant anarchist variety...well done whoever you are! Come to the conference!!

As I've said before anyone who wants to write feature for Indymedia is welcome to. Just post it on the newswire and email imc-aotearoa-ed@list.indymedia.org to ask for it be a feature. If the editors agree its worth featuring they'll put it up.

There is a simple process for becoming an editor (can't just give anyone passwords in case they start deleting everything they don't agree with instead of following the editorial policy) and anyone can do that too. We are all volunteers here and each of us prioritises what we think is important.

There are a lot of symetries between the nz anarchist movement and the church...

- both can be purist fuckhead retards at times
- both get their ideas about their movements from overseas versions of themselves
- christians go to church on sunday and sin the other 6 days of the week, anarchists live in squats and go back to middle class mum and dad when they have had enough of that little charade.

Seann: "I didn't say blind faith. I said faith. What I am speaking of is basically something personal - in this instance, rationality or 'proving' the existence of whatever doesn't come into it. I can believe in something, anything, Your opinion "weird, bizarre, strange and stupid" can never be backed up by fact - its just your opinion."

Yeah you didn't say blind faith, just faith. Your concept of faith I find mystifying. I think if you believe in God then surely you need to prove it exists. (well, that would help a lot anyway). To base your entire life, your entire beliefs on something you cannot prove actually exists in reality is extremely odd to me. I can understand pagan religions because they base their religion on something that I can see (and sometimes something I can feel, touch and hear) -- the sun, the moon, the rhythms of the earth. That seems realistic and down to earth to me. But to base a religion on something that by definition is (supposedly) unknowable, unseeable, untouchable, unfathomable is just strange to me. (I'm an agnostic, not an atheist).

Me earlier: "Anarchism is not submission -- it doesn't recognise any authority higher than yourself, including God. God is the highest authority of them all (supposedly), and anarchism recognises no authority, and it bases itself on continually questioning and opposing authority wherever it exists (whether that authority is spiritual, physical, economic, social, gender based, ethnic, sexual, cultural etc etc), therefore i think you can't believe in God if you're an anarchist"

Seann: "Well, that's interesting, because I see anarchist ideals - and that's what they are because humans are not perfect [including those who feel anarchist testimony is absolute] as sort of a politcal representation of what God might be like - or what a good society would be like...."

weird. an anarchist society what God might be like? doubt it. there is a logical contradiction here. God is by definition the highest authority of any being that has ever live or will ever live. Anarchism recognises no authority, including the authority of God, even if God is supposedly all-good. That's why Bakunin said "if God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him". The two are incompatible. But I can't appeal to logic because it appears you are into reason, only faith, goddammit!

Another difference to me is that anarchism recognises no absolutes, and no dogmas, including itself. It's up to each individual or each community to decide its own path, even if that path is anti-Christian and anti-God. To me, there is no universal truth for all places and times. In contrast, God is (supposedly) by definition an absolute being, an absolute for all places and times, and Christians seem to be believe in an absolute morality for all places and times (which gives a lot of Christians their self-righteousness to enforce it on others, esp. those heathens like me).

"Check your history -- there are many anarchistic thinkers and activists who have also lived as Christians...We perhaps need to distinguish ideological anarchist ideas [which is actually one element of anarchism in my view] from those of us who have another interpretation. Anarchism has a range of influences - and a range of ways of living life are influenced by anarchisms..."

I'm no political novice. I know there are a lot of people who call or called themselves Christian anarchists. Catholic Worker for one, but i cant see how on earth they reconcile the horrors of the Catholic church with anarchism.

I know there have been a lot of historical Christian movements and groups that are close to anarchism, such as the Taborites, Diggers, Levellers and Anabaptists.

If people are interested in this stuff, and a radical take on it, i suggest they read Q by Luther Blisset, it's a widely-available novel about Christian revolutionaries in the middle ages who revolted (in a violent way) against the Church, the landlords and the monarchy -- they went around hanging landlords, burning down their mansions and castles, killed priests, burnt churches down, had orgies, declared all property common land, and so they instead proposed a sort of communism and a sort of anarchism -- except they still believed in God, they recognised no human authority on earth. If that is Christian anarchism, yay, it's far better than today's rigid Catholic Worker self-denying and self-martyrdom stuff. The Christian radicals of the middle ages got a bit zealous and apocalyptic at times though (seems to be a feature of Christianity when taken to an extreme).

The big problem with pulling figures out of history that were anarchistic, but not anarchist, is that it overlooks that anarchism arose in specific historical context. It arose in Europe in about the 1860s as a reaction by workers and peasants against their triple oppression by capitalism, the state and the church. Specifically, it was a product of the clash within the first Workingmen's International against the authoritarian, manipulative, centralising and hierarchical ideas and practices of Karl Marx and his followers. To me anarchism is not some a-historical ideal floating in the ether. It is a modern-day *movement* of the oppressed against authority, capital, the state and the church. And since capital has only been around for a short while, anarchism has too, although there are many historical precedents (or antecedents, I can't remember the meaning of the terms!).

My view is that it's fine with me if you call yourselves Christian anarchists and take inspiration from anarchism, and I hope you read Q and take some inspiration from it, I just don't see how the two are logically compatible. It's also fine with me to believe in whatever faith you want to believe in, I'm for complete religious and spiritual freedom, but just don't impose your faith on others (which Christians are rather good at doing -- they've killed literally hundreds of millions in their crusades against heathens, even the godamn puritans who were fleeing the organised church ending up exterminating millions upon millions of native americans).

hmm, what a waste of energy really. So what if someone believes in Christianity and anarchism surely thats there choice. Seems such a shame that people waste so much time slagging people off for their ideals. I'm not a christian but I admire certain christian radical groups such as the catholic worker movement which as far as I can see do far better and more radical work than most so-called "revolutionaries" who seem to have hours of time just to rant at people on the net.

dan rae

According to the Bible, Christ was a hierachical git who imodestly claimed :
"without me ye can do nothing"
John xv.5

There's an amount of comment regarding rejection of God and christianity as though this were a single act. My experience is that this is in fact two completely seperate acts. This realisation made it possible for me to lose my religeon and gain my spirituality. One other effect was to give me a greater sense of connectivity with the world around me and the people within it. The divisions I witness along the lines of politics, religeon, race, sexual conduct, etc all have people far more intellectual than myself willing to stand up and deliver convincing arguement supporting the correctness of their view. Each of them can no more be completely right as they can be completely wrong. I have much to lose by simply accepting all that they say. On the other hand, I have a lot to gain by understanding their perspective. I am the only person responsible for my actions, all my actions are a result of my own choices, as my understanding is enhanced my choices and actions tend to become more beneficial to myself, those that I contact, and the environment I live in. I guess we would all prefer to possess great wisdom and the key to great wisdom is to know what you don't know.

Well, as usual most of this debate is rubbish.

However, I'm intrigued by the atheist anarchists who deny the existence of God, yet are absolutely certain what the characteristics (negative) of the thing they profess not to believe in are.

But mostly I'm just sick of arrogant "anarchists" telling other people what do, what to believe, how to live their lives etc. and immediately treating with suspicion anyone who doesn't exactly fit with their own opinions. Here's a suprise for you people: Anarchism is about people making their OWN choices! Sorry if that scares you.

There seems to be an anarchist tendency to insist that our movement is too big and lots of people need to be told they aren't proper anarchists and to stop being interested in anarchist ideas or considering anarchism as a useful solution. Could somebody please send me the anarchist rulebook so I can check if I qualify as one, or is there a committee somewhere I need to report to?

A couple of quick replies:

"its highly controversial to hold a Christian anarchist conference"

Naturally anarchists wouldn't want anything controversial in their midst!

"Seems entirely plausible to me. christian anarchist punks co-opted from their would-be revolutionary activities into nice safe little anarchist bible study groups"

Possible. What about Christians being co-opted from their would-be revolutionary activities into nice safe little anarchist study groups?

Seeing as many 'anarchists' push others forward to be arrested by the police at protests, surely that means that anarchy is about games playing.

"Could somebody please send me the anarchist rulebook so I can check if I qualify as one"

here you go Sam...

Anarchist Rulebook

aka the Ten Commandments Of Anarchy

Anarchists must know the anarchists of the past and study their teachings: Proudhon, Bakunin, Goldman, Chomsky, Chuang Tzu, and Kropotkin, for starts.
Anarchists must despise the philosophers of the past (or present!), and the sheep that give their dusty asses the time of day.
Anarchists must learn important key words like bourgeois, anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian-socialism, Situationists, eco-anarchism, etc.
Anarchists must laugh directly in the face of effete snobs that use philosophical jargon.
Anarchists must avoid violence that is not out of self-defense. Hurting the innocent makes an anarchist as bad as the military-industrial complex.
Anarchists must wear studded leather, big boots, and lots of red and black. The more intimidating and militant the better.
Anarchists must convince the people through logical debate that capitalism and the state are inherently repressive and unnecessary.
Anarchists must realize that those that are unwilling or unable to open their eyes, logic and wisdom having failed on them, must be forcibly enlightened.
Anarchists must naturally despise religion, since it keeps the masses submissive, ignorant, and unwilling to face reality.
Anarchists must always remember that what they are doing is inherently good, and that in the end, good always overcomes evil.

John, why do you think one of the positive sides of anarchism is it is not firmly embedded in materialist thought like Marxism?

"Sam steps in and the level of debate goes downhill. Thou must never criticise the holy anarchist milieu."

How odd. I make very negative remarks about some anarchists and get told I object to criticisms of the anarchist "milieu"! Please explain.

"Thou must accept everybody who calls themselves an anarchist, even if you think what they are into is incompatible with anarchism."

I don't recall ever insisting that we must accept anyone who calls themselves an a anarchist.

"its good to have open debate over what one thinks is anarchist and is not anarchist."

Yes it is. But comments along the lines of "Fuck religion, fuck your god, fuck jesus" or "What a shame Mary didn't have an abortion" aren't attempts to debate something, just people wanting to show off how offensive they can be.

"If that is a reference to me, doesn't apply,"

No, it wasn't a reference to you, whoever you are.

Sorry, I forgot... "anarchism and a belief in God are incompatible because anarchism is against all authority, including the authority of God."

I guess if you believe in God, you'd see that authority as very different from human authority, and see anarchism as limited to opposition to human authority. It would be odd to reject the authority of a concept such as the Christian God. A bit like a humanist feeling the need to reject the guidance of moral priciples.

Personally, if somebody rejects human authority, that would seem like a pretty good reason for anarchists to work together with them. Whether they fit our dictionary definition of "anarchist" doesn't seem worth arguing about.

Any anarchist would demand first, that the church returns all of its stolen property to its original Maori owners. Second, retract all of its false teachings used to convert Maori to the capitalist system. After that there wouldnt be much left to have a conference about would there.

"as I've had Marxist materialist thought presented to me it tends to focus only on economic imperatives and ignores other motivators"

I don't know what accountants masquerading as marxists have been down your ear John, but theres more to our shit than that.
A readable synopsis is Engels "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific". Or the dreaded Lenin's brief but edifying "Three component parts of Marxism"

Or you can have a beer with me sometime and get a less elegant verbal outline.

Hi godless anarchist, sorry you are right there is nothing wrong with debate, however most of the stuff posted has been crap,

sweet anyway, putting B52s out of action is not just symbolic, also I'm not a lifestyle anarchist whatever you might mean by that, I believe in class struggle but not class reductionism, hope that makes sense.

i like food, and bombs, and gods, i eat meat, and live in a wooden house made from cut down trees, so can i still be an anarchist?

Yup, seems to me like Oxymoron is just looking for a stick to beat people with. There's a lot of anger in this room people. So my questions is why?

(puts on Freud beard and glasses) I put it down to the fact that many activists (not just anarchists either) were brought up by christian parents, forced to go to church on Sunday and live by constricting rules that they were told would make them 'good christians'. Their formative experience of 'christianity' is of a repressive, conformist and usually sex-negative social structure in which their individuality and their own emerging belief structure was constantly criticised and rejected as 'sinful'. Sometime in their teens or early 20s they broke with 'christianity', 'church' and their parent's social mileau but carried many of the same attitudes and perceptions into their new beliefs and communities.

Of course human beings need a belief structure and a community structure so they set about replacing their 'christian' values with atheist ones and 'the church' with drug culture, subculture and/ or activist culture. They continue to carry enormous anger against their parents and 'christianity' which they sublimate into their critique of society and the authority embodied in external institutions (corporation, state, church etc) and ideas (capitalism, leninism, religion).

However because they see abuse of power as inherent to external instituions and ideas and not social relations and individual behaviour they feel they have no way to prevent the abuse of power except by participation in political groups or movements. They can only understand that power can be abused by parents abusing children, men dominating women, pakeha dominating Maori etc can through adding abstractions like 'patriarchy' and 'racism' to their list of institutional and ideological enemies. Although it can be redirected against cops at protests their anger cannot be resolved because they havn't evicted the parent/cop in their head.

The saddest thing is the way they unconsciously replicate both positives and negatives of 'christianity' (as it was modeled for them by their parents and their church) in the way they think, act and organise in activism and their lives in general. The sectarian abuse, the absolute black/white, good/evil positions (with the accompanying guilt-by-association used on those who don't take the 'right' position), the clique of 'true believers' running many different front groups. This was especially observable in both anarchism and marxism in the 80s and early 90s although many marxists seem to be moving beyond this, influenced by or perhaps in reaction to the autonomist strands of marxism.

The angry anarchists in this thread might benefit from breaking free of the 'christianity' of their parents and seeing both the positives and negative of comptemporary christian groups without the hate-tinted spectacle.

Oh and assuming all christians embody the worst caricature of christianity (hypocritical, bible-thumping moral authoritarians) is like assuming all anarchists embody the worst caricature of anarchism (insane, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-social bomb-chuckers).

It says in the book of Samuel that Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, so don't get too carried away there all you anarcho god botherers.

Yes, Lefty, but Strypey is quite correct about the dictatorship of the proletariat. Which I am fully supportive of. Most people see the word dictatorship, think ooh yuk and swtich off, or they think of the atrocities and abuses of the Stalin era.
That is not how its meant to go. Dictatorship of the proletariat means the absolute authority of workers interests over those of the profiteers.
As very small example of that is the sucessful maintainance of a workers picket line against the combined forces of scabs, bosses and police. The triumph of a workers picket line in such a struggle is a foretaste of the dictatorship of the proletariat. A postive development for human civilisation.

Te Ua Haumene - Story of a Religion

Te Ua Haumene: Had a vision of the archangel Gabriel. Image: Permission of the Alexander Turnbull Library, National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, must be obtained before any re-use of this picture

By Virginia Winder

The reverberating rhythm of unified voices rumbles from virgin bush.

"Koterani, teihana!
Karaiti titi Kai.
Kopere, teihana!
Rire, rire, hau!"

In a clearing, Māori warriors are chanting around a niu or prayer stick. They raise their right hands above their heads and the earth-thumping beat of their feet causes nearby ferns to quiver. A cone-shaped mountain watches.

"Koterani, teihana!
Karaiti titi Kai.
Kopere, teihana!
Rire, rire, hau!"

This is the sound made by followers of the Pai Marire, also known as the Hauhau movement. The guttural chant used to send shivers down the spines of settlers and soldiers in Taranaki during the mid-1800s.

"Koterani, teihana!
Karaiti titi Kai.
Kopere, teihana!
Rire, rire, hau!"

Taranaki historian Vanessa Sturmey says the Pakeha were scathing of the chant. "The people heard them and said they sounded like a lot of dogs barking."

The British military and the white settlers believed the Hauhau warriors were warmongers, but this was never the vision of Pai Marire founder Te Ua Haumene.

Some historians, but not all, see Te Ua as the forefather of Taranaki's pacifism movement, made famous by Parihaka prophets Te Whiti O Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi.

Te Ua was the leader of the first organised expression of an independent Māori Christianity, a religion born from a vision and mistrust of missionaries. "They preached one thing and did another," says Ms Sturmey, who has researched Taranaki's history for Waitangi Tribunal hearings.

"Most of the early Christian evangelists appear to have fondly imagined that their teachings could quickly transform the heathen Māori into God-fearing, industrious, native workers," she wrote.

"The hypocrisy and double standards, which were displayed by these 'men of cloth', however, caused a number of Māori to turn away from the church and instead, develop their own uniquely Māori approach to religion and spiritual salvation."

One of the most influential was Te Ua's faith.

Of Taranaki and Te Atiawa descent, Te Ua was born in Waiaua, South Taranaki, during the early 1820s. His father, called Tutawake, died shortly after his son was born.

In 1826, the young boy and his mother, Paihaka, were captured in a Waikato raid. They were taken about 200km north to the west coast harbour of Kawhia, where Te Ua spent most of his childhood.

There, his captors taught him to read and write in Māori, and Te Ua also became familiar with the Bible.

"He began an extensive study of the Bible and Christian philosophy under the Reverend John Whiteley, and was eventually baptised by him, taking the name Horopapera to symbolise his conversion to the new faith," writes Ms Sturmey.

During the 1830s, when the musket wars and inter-tribal conflicts came to an end, many chiefs freed slaves and captives taken during the fighting, including Te Ua.

He returned to Taranaki, where he worked with the Wesleyan missionaries in a newly established mission station at Waimate. The young man continued his studies and became a kind of lay-preacher, spreading the word of gospel throughout the district.

But the social climate was changing, with more and more settlers arriving and putting pressure on Māori for land. "In an effort to stem to the tide, an anti-land selling movement developed in South Taranaki, and Te Ua began to associate closely with many of its leaders," Ms Sturmey writes.

He was also a supporter of the Māori King movement, and in 1860 he fought against the Government. He also acted as chaplain to the Māori soldiers.

On 1 September 1862, Te Au faced an inner battle between his Christian beliefs and the Kingite law. That was the day, the Lord Worsley smashed into the Opunake coast with 66 European passengers onboard.

The Kingite law said enemy trespassers should be punishable by death, but that was against the Christian belief in love. Te Ua spoke in favour of showing compassion to the castaways and, in the end, the passengers and crew were hosted by Māori and delivered safely to New Plymouth.

About the same time, Te Ua made peace with himself.

On 5 September, he had a vision in which the archangel Gabriel announced that the last days described in the Revelation of St John were at hand. Te Ua was also told that he was chosen by God as his prophet and commanded him to cast off the yoke of the Pakeha. Gabriel said God also promised to restore the birthright of the Māori people in New Zealand and this would come about after a great day of deliverance in which the unrighteous would perish.

Te Ua then went out to preach the word of God.

In the beginning, many people saw Te Ua as a madman, but after time they began to see the sense of his preaching and, in just three months, he had established the church of Pai Marire.

Instead of a building, Te Ua chose a niu as the physical focus of the religion. The first one was made from the mast of the Lord Worsley shipwreck.

The guiding principles of Pai Marire were Christianity, but without the double-dealing and errors Māori could see in the missionaries' preaching.

Te Ua's goal was to create a peaceful and righteous society in New Zealand, and most of his gospel was modeled on the parables of Jesus.

He called his church Hauhau because Te Hau, the spirit of God in the image of wind, carried the niu (news), or prophecy, to the faithful. In line with the religion, Te Ua changed his name from Horopapera to Haumene, which means "wind man".

His faith spread swiftly within Māoridom, and even beyond Taranaki.

Just how powerful Te Ua and his beliefs became, is described in James Cowan's book, The Adventures of Kimble Bent. "Te Ua had succeeded in imbuing his fanatic disciples with an unquestioning Moslem-like faith in the potency of the Hauhau cult and its accompanying charms and magic formulae," Cowan originally wrote in 1906.

Te Ua assured his followers that when they faced bullets of the white soldiers, they would be turned aside in flight, "if they but raised their right hands as if warding the ball off, at the same time repeating the words 'Hapa! Pai marire!' (Pass over me! Righteousness and peace!)"

As would be expected, many Hauhau fell to the rifles of British foes.

Cowan says Te Ua had an explanation for this.

"...if the Pakeha bullet refused to be waved aside and insisted on entering the body of a 'righteous and peaceful' son of the faith, it was because the stricken man had lost faith in the karakia - the ritual - and, very properly, suffered for his unbelief", wrote the historian.

While Te Ua continued his call to lay down arms in the face of foes, the Hauhau began to be seen as a warring religion.

There were two major reasons for this misconception. The first relates to a violent ambush of a Taranaki military patrol on 6 April 1864. The heads of the soldiers killed in the Ahuahu attack were taken and preserved in the traditional Māori manner. Te Ua was made custodian of the heads, which he believed were a symbol of the conquest of evil by righteousness.

This was widely misrepresented as a call to war, and Pai Marire gained a reputation as a warlike cult.

"Apparently, Te Ua was bitterly disappointed that his teachings were being distorted to embrace violent means," Ms Sturmey says.

The second reason for the belief in the Hauhau faith's aggressive tactics can be blamed on one of Te Ua's "disciples" - Kereopa Te Rau, from Te Arawa near Rotorua.

"He was supportive of the passive resistance until his wife and daughter were burnt to death in Rangiaowhio," Ms Sturmey says of Kereopa.

Rangiaowhio was meant to be neutral ground and a sanctuary for Māori women and children during the Waikato wars. Kereopa's family had gone to a tangi there, and on a Sunday, the British troops had attacked. They torched the safe haven and even burned down the church, where many women and children, including Kereopa's loved ones, had taken refuge.

Kereopa became vengeful after this. When he and fellow disciple Patara Raukatauri took the Hauhau faith to Opotiki and the East Coast, it is believed Kereopa instigated the ritual killing of missionary Carl Sylvius Volkner on 2 March 1865.

Although Volkner was hung from a willow tree near his church by members of his congregation, it was Kereopa's atrocious acts that outraged Europeans.

After the hanging, Volkner's body was decapitated and Kereopa swallowed the eyes, calling one Parliament and the other Queen and the British law.

"Te Ua's new religion was condemned as a fanatical, cruel and bloodthirsty cult and the term 'Hau Hau' was adopted as a term to describe any Māori who opposed the Government," Sturmey says.

In the face of this misconception, Te Ua continued to preach peace. He was so convinced of the futility of further military resistance, that he and some of his Ngati Ruanui followers began peace talks with Government official Robert Parris.

These talks failed, but Te Ua continued to push for peace and Māori sovereignty over land that had not been sold.

He also began planning for the future, by strengthening the Hauhau organisation.

On 24 and 25 December 1865, a meeting was held to consecrate 12 new workers and three new prophets. The latter, Te Whiti o Rongomai III, Tohu Kakahi and Taikomako, all emerged as future leaders.

Published 27 May 2003

For my three nails worth. Putting the best possible spin on the Jesus myth for a few hundred years the xtian cult might claim some validity as a sort of early civil disobedience school for morons.
Then an emperor became an xtian - the maiming and murdering began and never stopped one day since.
Xtianity = murder cult.
Btw, Marxists might claim to be a sort of early movement of bossy bourgeois bores up until April 12 -1918. Thats when they began murdering people and THEY never stopped one day since either.
There was a ' libertarian theology' movement about 25 years ago - that made perfect sense to me.
If todays anarchs are really just warmed over Marxists then maybe this also makes some sense.
Other than that the expression ' shit to the spirit' mean anything to youse?

' If there was a god ...or a Marxist theory that made sense ...it would be necessary to destroy them both.'

I have enjoyed this humour of this stream if not the vitrol.

This morning we accompany (christian anarchist pacifist) Catholic Worker Jim Dowling to the courts in Brisbane for a ruling on trumped up charges after he was assaulted by cops at a forum on "Are Civil Liberties Disappearing?"

See link for the answer
to the question and background on the case
http://www.crikey.com.au/articles/2005/09/06-1241-7743.html

Just some quick responses before heading off fo the streets

Moimoi...we ain't wating the waits over. Radical Christians believe the kingdom (anarcho-utopia) has come, our mandate is to realise it rather than wait for it. You're confusing us with the Essenes! Anarachoes who wait for the revoltion to come before stopping to exploit others are a sad lot. Jesus move to confront power in Jerusalem leads us to confrontation with the powers of our day.

John authority...the truth has authority. Sometimes people speak with authority because they are speaking the truth that resonates with the universal in all of us. Sometimes they don't. It's issues of management and self management that concerns us as anarchists.

Golens...to radical christians God is not an "idea". God is Yahweh the name that cannot be spoken or defined....."God created hu/man in his/her image and hu/man's return the favour!"

Oxmoron...a radical christian idea of property relations is one of stewardship not possession. Private property cpomes with constantine followed by the Just War theory to defend it.

I suggest some reading on anarchism...try Marshall's "Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism" Good chapters on thiet anarchy including one on christianity.

It's good to have this debate. Good to realise how much time and energy anarchists and the left have wasted on this issue. I don't care if people are radical Buddhists, Jews or believe in the pixies at the end of the garden as long as they come up with ethics/commitments to nonviolence and direct democracy, I'll work with them.

There's heaps more I'd like to engage with on the weekend, but I'd first want to say yes a beer would be nice Don send us an email. :)

"As for socialism, wasn't socialism a 'dictatorship [of the proletarian]' that would take care power from capitalism and somehow lead to the 'withering away' of the state and communism?"

Secondly, socialism and communism are not tied to the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but to the idea that we should socially organise around common ownership of resources. The debate from there is how this is done, and to what degree.

Whether this is done by the state, or decentralised collectives, or some other form of social relationships is similarly matter of debate and principle.

In my opinion social democracy, anarchism, marxist leninism and so on all sit on the line which is socialist. Of course you can have people who say they are social democrats while pursuing neo-liberal economics which is fundamentally opposed to social ownership.

The left and right spectrum is only really useful in terms of looking at economics and social organisation. If you want to more fully examine the distribution of power in society I think it is best to use another axis which goes from authoritarianism to libertarianism. See this site www.politicalcompass.org.

ps: For what it's worth, I'd just like to add that I think the conference is a great idea and I'm glad it's happening.

well, 60+ comments in less than 24 hours might be a record here!
As usual the quality of debate is rather low, but I did enjoy Dons first comment about riots, the lords prayer (the first version not the rude version) and a few others.

I think christian anarchism is fine. If the only authority one beleives in is an imaginary being with no power then in practise its the same as being opposed to all authority. I have quite different politics from the catholic worker movement but I fully support and admire their commitment to peace and justice. Hundreds of them have served long prison sentences for disarming war machines in the last 30 years or so, and several are in prison now, not to mention the irish ploughshares group (incl Ciaron who posted above) who are facing a decade in prison. And theres the radical christians in palestine and iraq right now (Hameed Soodens group etc) You cannot compare them with the 1930s catholic church is spain (which someone did above) which was an authoritarian fascist nutcase organisation. As far as I know the catholic worker movement are opposing the popes proposed canonisation of Dorothy day (founder of the CWs) on the grounds that they dont want to be respectable in the eyes of the church heirarchy.

they might be crazy but they are on our side . .

Strypey said:
"I think the word you are looking for is not 'socialism' but 'communism'. If you familiarise yourself with Marxist theory I think you will find that socialism is a period of total state control with the justification that cops, armies and prisons need the 'freedom' to supress capitalist counter-revolution."

That may be one definition of socialism, but its obviously not the one that's relevant here (we are after all discussin anarchism, not Marxism). If you think my definition is wrong, try looking in a dictionary.

"Any anarchist who thinks they are a socialist is much more confused about history, philosophy and political theory than christian anarchists."

I think you'll find most anarchists throughout history will have disagreed with you on this.

John, apologies for coming across as patronising. It was a knee-jerk reaction to Lefty's patronising comment and I should know better but I'm not perfect.

To some degree I am playing the devil's advocate, inverting the arguments used by some anarchists against individualism. I am familiar with you second quote by Bakunin and I think it's even more interesting when you paraphrase it thusly:
'individualism without communism is privilege, injustice; communism without individualism is slavery and brutality.

I understand the usage of 'socialism' as a pragmatic umbrella for uniting a range of otherwise disparate factions (anarchists, marxists, unionists, liberal christians etc). But I think it glosses over a number of fundamental differences between the desire to smash concentrations of power (anarchism) and the desire
to take over (or form new) concentrations of power for 'good'. Both Lord of the Rings and the Star Wars prequals are insightful parables about the dangers of the desire for power to do good.

These differences are important in practice because while some of us in the 'left' are trying to act out new models of shared power, other are aping the old models of concentrated power waiting for the day when they hold the reigns currently held by the capitalist elite.

One can always turn to the Ancient Greek gods who were known, at that time, as the ever lasting gods. The thing about these gods is that they no-longer exist.

Sam: "I guess if you believe in God, you'd see that authority as very different from human authority, and see anarchism as limited to opposition to human authority."

Yes, that is what they believe, that no human is fit to rule another because we are all equal under the eyes of God. But to me sums up what is wrong with Christian anarchism. That is, they are taking a top-down approach to things. By postulating the idea (and i'm afraid God is just an idea, just a human construct, until it can be proven with hard evidence that it exists outside the minds of theists) of a superior all-knowing all-seeing being, they then *look down* upon us from that perspective. It is like they only reject human authority because the authority of God is so great and awe inspiring. To me, that is just plain silly, and is to me a product of hierarchy and authoritarianism in human cultures (ie. a small elite minority of ancient humans in authoritarian tribes posited the existence of a superior, all-powerful being with the highest authority in the land in order to control and oppress the rest of the population. Non-hierarchical tribes didn't need to postulate the existence of one superior being because they didn't need one. They instead were pagans who believed in a multiplicity of earth spirits. I'm no pagan, but I think paganism is far more noble than this strange belief in ONE god, who is PURE and supposedly all GOOD. (if God is just an idea, then this is the worst absolutist, dualistic, good and evil, purist thinking there can ever be).

But i take your point that they see God as not some dictator in the sky or some big bad boss man but instead as being benevolent and all that (tho some theists believe that God can be spiteful and nasty interestingly enough). But if God is unknowable how can we then know it is good? What is good anyway? How can we know God when it acts is actually doing Good? (the world is so complex that one act can produce numerous responses, what is good for one speicies or group is not for another) Is there really a universal truth for all places and times, and its written in the stars by God? Prove it. Faith isn't enough for me.

"It would be odd to reject the authority of a concept such as the Christian God."

No it isn't odd. I take it you haven't read much philosophy. Bakunin in one of his clearer moments said if humans were to be truly free, then we would have to abolish God. Nietzsche said much of the same thing: God is dead, therefore we ought to create ourselves.

Sam: "Personally, if somebody rejects human authority, that would seem like a pretty good reason for anarchists to work together with them."

That is not an issue for me. I don't like viewing the world through some sort of ideological anarchist prism/prison and judging others on the grounds of whether they are anarchist enough for me to be able to work with them. You can work with all sorts of people with all sorts of ideas. I'm not disputing this.

Mr G: "If the only authority one beleives in is an imaginary being with no power then in practise its the same as being opposed to all authority."

Yes i agree, but with reservations. A whole lot of Christian baggage comes with it, like the belief in purity, the self-matryrdom, the renunciation of pleasure, the masochism, the repression, cleansing one's "sins", the belief that you are somehow doing good, the belief in sacrificing oneself to do one's duty, the good/evil dichotomy, the belief in universal truth, and so on. I disagree with pretty much all of this baggage. That is what i am getting at when i criticise Catholic Worker. That doesn't mean Catholic Worker do and say some useful and inspiring things, but their politics are rooted in the Christian personalism i outline above.

Yay. I think i might have achieved one of the most subversive acts on Indymedia. That is, debate metaphysics on Indymedia. Boring philosophical obfuscator!! Down with philosophy, I want action! Middle class philosophical wankfest! Action Action Action Action Activism and please don't think too much about things OK?

I don't base my understanding solely on slogans from a particular time and place.

If you're going to look at christianity as a reactionary force (which it mostly is in my opinion), also look at attempts to make it liberatory. For example the following:

"Liberation theology is that form of reflection that attempts to discern the religious significance of the sociopolitical struggles in which the poor are engaged as they free themselves of their present state of political domination and economic exploitation. It is the practical theology that has accompanied the emergence, clarification, and consolidation of a new sociopolitical and historical project that has been slowly but steadily captivating the minds and hearts not only of Latin Americans but of the Christian community as a whole. The reality of mass poverty and political powerlessness to which the people of Latin America have been subjected and their struggles to overcome the burden are seen as religiously significant events, events that raise once more the question of what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be a church in today’s world” (Garcia, 1987, p.7).

...or if you want closer to home the 'Hikoi of Hope' in 1998.

I did say 'attempt' Don :) I don't know a huge amount about it though. May be we can deal with it on the first jug. See you next week.

I did say 'attempt' Don :) I don't know a huge amount about it though. May be we can deal with it on the first jug. See you next week.

"As Marx (the one in this thread) pointed out this baggage often comes with activists whether or not they are christians or anarchists."

Yeah, sad but true. Just quietly I think that is why some anarchist activists might have a soft spot for Christianity and Catholic Worker (whoopsie). I suspect some only have a problem with Catholic Worker's pacifism and their belief in God but little else. But then again I might be wrong. I hope so anyway. But it's just not anarchist activists that behave like Christian fundies as you say. I think many Leninists are far worse. They've got prophets, obsessions with correct interpretation of the scriptures and correct party lines, righteousness, bitter sectarianism, regular expulsions, regular claims that their sect are the true Marxists and what not.

As for "Marx's" claims, he or she is making some unproven assumptions. Very few activists I know are from religious families. How many people reading this are from religious backgrounds who are rebelling against their parents? I would suggest its a small minority. I myself was brought up in a completely non-religious environment. And to reduce activism or even rebellion to a psychological youthful rebellion against your parents is pretty simplistic (and non-Marxist too, I might add). But overall, I think he or she is wrote very perceptive points.

"So does that mean electrons and genes were just ideas until they were proven with hard evidence to exist?"

No, they were unproven theories.

"This is a fascinating spin on materialism! It endows empirical evidence *itself* with the powers of a God to create the universe."

That is a pretty far fetched claim to make! I don't think just because I think you need empirical evidence to prove God exists that I give empirical evidence itself the powers of a God to create the universe. Strange logic there. btw, i'm not into hard-line materialism (it might come across like that), I was just trying to bring out any Christians who might be reading this into offering some proof God exists. Then some fun could begin!

"The idea of scientific method is to accumulate evidence for and against a given hypothesis. No such hypothesis can ever conclusively proven or disproven by 'science' just shown to be more or less plausible relative to a given paradigm (theory or model of how things work). When enough evidence accumulates that clashes with the dominant theory there is a 'paradigm shift' to a new model that reconciles both old and new evidence."

Well, that is one theory in the philosophy of science. Kuhn's paradigm theory is now out of fashion, it has been replaced by other paradigms ;) Your making some big assumptions about philosophy of science. I won't go into these except to say you seem to reduce science to positivism/empiricism/inductivism, when I think a more constructive take on science is to try and break free of the rigid dichotomy between empiricism and idealism, and objectivism and relativism. Anyway, I kind of agree with your sentiments, science is no God, no one theory has been shown to be absolutely true, all we can say it is just a tendency or plausible for a given amount of time or a particular place. But that doesn't mean any theory is as good as another.

"How would you construct a controlled experiment that eliminates experimenter bias to test for a divine intelligence or initial creator of the universe?"

You can't, all experiments are partially shaped by the subjective perceptions of the observer. There is no such thing as an objective experiment.

Of course, God may exist. I have never disputed that. But i'm arguing something else, namely:
(1) if God existed, and we were anarchists who wanted everybody to be truly free, then we would need to rebel against God (sometimes). We might even need to abolish or banish it (it meaning god). (Or failing that we might just think God is irrelevant and carry on as normal.)
(2) the idea of one superior being who is higher than all other beings might just be the product of an absolutist and authoritarian mindset ie. "you silly pagans you worship all these different gods and goddesses, but we're so much better than you, we believe in the ultimate God, the number one God who is so high and mighty and perfect and all-powerful that in fact there are no other Gods, it's the one and only God." Of course, this one superior being might actually exist, but then I go back to (1).

Stalin began as a christian student in a seminary.
Before he became general secretary of the cccp Stalin did some good stuff as a young bolshevik organiser. Enver Hoxha made substantial contributions to the international workers struggle in his earlier days.

Both of them became huge obstacles to human liberation.

Stuff changes. I was brought up christian and stil have lingering associations. After all, there was a lot of postive human development in that culture along with all the shit. As my mate says to me sometimes, they used to expend talent and energy building wonderful cathedrals and what do we get now - another Countdown,to make more money.
I think a fair assesment of christianity would admit to a philosophy with an indispensable message is that you love your emenies. That was a central repeated message from the carpenter of nazareth.

That to me is a problem bigger than all the various arguments about the existance of god.

Under capitalism I thing we need to hate our enemies and organise to rub them out. That's why, although I work with and respect a lot of christain activists, there is a parting of the ways at crucial times.

have a nice weekend.

From Wikipedia:

"The term "socialism" was first used in the context of early-19th century Western European social critics. In this period, socialism emerged from a diverse array of doctrines and social experiments associated primarily with British and French thinkers—especially Robert Owen, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Louis Blanc, and Saint-Simon. These social critics saw themselves as reacting to the excesses of poverty and inequality in the period, and advocated reforms such as the egalitarian distribution of wealth and the transformation of society into small communities in which private property was to be abolished. Outlining principles for the reorganization of society along collectivist lines, Saint-Simon or Owen sought to build socialism on the foundations of planned, utopian communities."

And a few pararaphs later:

"For Marxists, socialism is viewed as a transitional stage characterized by state ownership of the means of production."

And still later;

"[A]narchists and proponents of other alternative visions of socialism—emphasizing, for example, the potential of small-scale communities and agrarianism—coexisted with the more influential currents of Marxism and social democracy."

Well I concede the point on the origin of the term 'socialism' but I still think it makes sense to contrast it with 'communism' in the way Marx does since the vast majority of socialists have some sort of pro-state aspect to their ideology (whether leninist, liberal, social-democrat or otherwise). But it's a fairly academic point. As long as we take the time to define what we mean when we use such jargon it doesn't really matter

Christ was an anarchist and therefore not a Xtian but a revolutionary like Lenin or Trotsky. The first thing he did was smash the temple and removed any need to go back there by telling every1 that the Temple was within their bodies. The first thing the Church did when he died was rename all the temples as churches so they could get their parishoners( suckers) back in the fold.
So how could anarchy even relate to Christianity? The idea is absurd unless maybe you're an Xtian that doesnt believe in the gospel and have your own views as to what the truth is. However if thats the case, then youre still an Xtian and even though jesus loves you everybody thinks youre a Cunt.So good luck with the anti-conference.Enjoy the white sugar worship and the meat and 3 veg. mentality that goes with such stupidity.

"So good luck with the anti-conference.Enjoy the white sugar worship and the meat and 3 veg. mentality that goes with such stupidity."

What the hell are you talking about? What relevance does someone's dietary habits have to do with their politics? Furthermore, I assume you mean that the above diet is the diet of people in the mainstream (for want of a better world).

And we wouldn't want to identify with those people would we.

Yes, fundamental social change will come from diet nannies who never realised that there were people outside of themselves which actually matter.

For fucks sakes we're supposed to be libertarians - how about a bit more liberty and lot less finger waving.

Hello folks,

The following report comes from England about the conference this
past weekend on anarchism and Christianity (June 3-4, 2006):

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_06064anarchy....

*UK gathering explores Christianity and anarchism* -04/06/06

For people who think of Christianity as an establishment religion and anarchism as a nihilist creed, a gathering this weekend organised by the group Jesus Radicals may come as
a shock. It suggested that the two traditions can have a fruitful exchange.

The conference at All Hallows Church centre in Leeds brought together a range of thinkers and activists formed in their justice and peace work by their Christian faith, but also appreciative of the non-statist, autonomous progressive viewpoint associated with non-violent anarchism and syndicalism.

There have been parallel events taking place simultaneously in New Zealand and the United States.

They are influenced by Christian theologians such as Jacques Ellul, Walter Wink and Vernard Eller – who stress that the coming of
the kingdom (or kin-dom) of God in Jesus; teaching and action is about the transformation of social and personal relationships and the abolition of hierarchies.

Leo Tolstoy, best-known for his classic War and Peace, is another thinker regularly name-checked. Many would also cite poet, artist and
spiritual dissident William Blake, as well as historical movements like the Levellers and Diggers.

The evangelical writer Dave Andrews introduced some of these people and concepts to a wider audience some fifteen years ago with a book
called Christianarchy, which stressed the biblical roots of rebellion against oppression.

And Jonathan Bartley, co-director of the UK Christian think-tank Ekklesia, has provocatively chosen to sub-title his forthcoming book
on Faith and Politics After Christendom ;the church as a movement for anarchy; – as a way of emphasising the role of small-scale communities and initiatives in helping to reshape the agenda once Christianity has ceased to collude with power and seek domination.

Jesus Radicals; spokesperson Keith Hebden told Ekklesia on Friday that the popular perception of anarchism as a matter of lawlessness, beards and bombs is way out of date.

As well as pointing to a surprising strand of Christian thought on the matter, he says that ;like the democratic tradition,
anarchism is not one thing but a spectrum of ideas;, of which some are amenable to followers of Jesus and others are definitely not.

The meeting involved brainstorming sessions, opportunities to reflect, shared meal times, creative worship, and opportunities for
dialogue with secular anarchists.

Perhaps the best-known political and academic figure to talk positively of anarchism these days is Noam Chomsky, described by Time magazine as maybe the most influential intellectual alive today.

Besides his pioneering work on linguistics at MIT in the USA, Chomsky (who has no religious affiliation) is a long-standing critic of American foreign policy and the political and religious right-wing. In a stream of books, interviews and broadcasts he has attacked the;military-industrial complex; and the
statemanufacture of consent;.

The Christians and anarchism gathering, entertainingly entitled God Save the Queen (the title of the Sex Pistols hit) stressed that discerning and critical faith is the heart of the matter, but also translating ideas into practical discipleship.

Some of the discussions and workshops were down-to-earth, said participants, and others more academic. The aim was an inclusive event to move forward radical Christian thinking and action.

Jesus Radicals, also a website(http://uk.jesusradicals.com/), has
supporters in the USA too, including two Mennonites from the Anabaptist peace church tradition.

Being anti-war, communitarian and opposed to state religion, some modern Mennonites are seen as having an affinity with the peaceful
wing of anarchism though they can be deeply conservative, too, in places like Lancaster County.

In an age of state violence and asymmetric terrorism, terms like radical and anarchist can be off-putting and readily associated with unpleasant and coercive extremism, one commentator told Ekklesia.

But subversive, people-oriented ideas are at the heart of the Jesus movement, and were instrumental in Christ's death at the
hands of a political and religious elite,

Those involved in the Christians and anarchism conference point positively to the new, levelling energy created out of the
resurrection community and to the song by Mary mother of Jesus (The Magnificat) which talks of God “bringing the mighty from their
thrones, and exalting the humble and week.

--