"In contrast to this idealism, the class-based versions of anarchism (in theory anyway) ought to constantly evolve their praxis in accordance with the struggles of the workers and other oppressed people. (of course, many class based anarchist groups are and have been pretty dogmatic...)"

Anarchists? Dogmatic? Never! ;)

The main point anti-christian anarchist seem to miss in their reference to class analysis is that christians are not a class, the class heirarchy of the wider society interpenetrates christianity itself. The majority of christians, like the majority of the general public, are working class. Therefore their self-activity is part of the praxis that is supposed to be synthesized into anarchist theory.

It is not (non-Christian but relatively undogmatic) anarchists like Sam who separate anarchist theory from the practice of working class people. It is those who fetishize European anarchists like Bakunin, and try to freeze the shape of contemporary anarchism according to philisophical writings of a certain historical place and time.

If Bakunin was alive today, having seen the separation of church and state, and the merging of market and state, he may well define his priorities of resistance very differently. Even if he dogmatically pursued his absolute rejection of spirituality, as Bakuninists do today, one could disagree with him and still be an anarchist (christian or non-christian).

Strypey