Questioning AF Aims and Principles

we don't exclude people with "spiritual beliefs".

We've argued in the AF about what we mean by "spiritual beliefs" - it's amazing that people can argue for ages only to realise they mean the same thing. It seems to some extent to be generational thing - us old farts are hard-line about our terms. We agree that whatever we call it, we don't go for the whole god thing (or goddess).

What we do is exclude people who have imaginary invisible friends who can put the world to rights and put voices in their heads telling them what to do.

No, that stuff is mostly just common sense. But I think whether or not religious or spiritual beliefs is necessarily incompatible with a materialist analysis of human society, basically comes down to metaphysics.

Ruling out magic or miracles as tactical options for anarchist communists does indeed seem quite sensible. The question is if barring all religious people from membership is necessary to achieve this.

I have been thinking about joining the AF for ages. Maybe some AF members could help me decide whether it is for me. I am a materialist. I believe in science and rationality. I don't really feel comfortable with religion, organised or otherwise. At best I think it can be a comfort to some people and may propel them to personal achievement. At worst I think it can be a stifling influence on society, retrograde and elitist. I understand the aims of the AF in distancing itself from religion. However as social anthropology graduate I would like to add that religion can be interesting from a scientific point of view. There are concepts and practices in religion that can be usefully analysed and understood. I would also add that there are some ideas and practices from religion that can be usefully applied to other settings such as psychology. I have recently been treated for depression by an NHS psychologist. He introduced me to the works of the psychologist Paul Gilbert. I am not sure if Gilbert actually is a Buddhist but he used concepts from Buddhism in his work. All his research is evidence based and peer reviewed and he uses Buddhist terminology to illuminate scientific research. As I said I am not that comfortable with religion but Gilbert convincingly argues that the 3000 year old Buddhist tradition does have 'something' useful to say on psychology even if you don't buy into all the supernatural stuff. All I am saying is 'dont throw the baby out with the bath water'. There may be some aspects to religion which are valuable. The American sci fi writer (who some have termed anarchist) Ursula K Le Guin tries to link anarchist thought with early Taoist thought. She conceives of Taoism as more of a philosophy than a religion although she refers to the supposed author Lao Tzu as a mystic. The anthropologist in me would say that mysticism and religion have long been part of human society and whilst they should rightly be treated with suspicion their role in human society shouldn't be dismissed. That is sort of my position on religion. I am agnostic. I have been practising some elements of meditation since my psychology treatment finished.I know some people might scoff at meditation but I think it can be useful. The poet Benjamin Zephaniah meditates and he is a pretty right on guy. In Mao's China the 3000 year old Taoist tradition was destroyed by Mao Tse Tung. Le Guin calls this an act of cultural vandalism. Am I beyond the pale in AF terms?

Perfect.

Also, re: Quakers- I think is pretty shaky anyway, as possibly the majority of Quakers I know (or if not, an incredible sizable minority) are strongly atheist. A thread of contemporary Quaker thought, which I subscribe to, is a rejection of this notion of 'being a spiritual kinda guy'. For Quakers all humans possess a quality as individuals, originally verbalised as 'that of God in everyone', now more commonly expressed today as 'that of the light'- a basic belief that all humans have an intrinsic worth that must be respected under all conditions. Even coppers.

To claim that you are a 'spiritual kind of guy' denigrates the humanity of people for whom metaphysical navel-gazing isn't a daily hobby. What does 'spiritual' mean in this context? Unless it takes an actual metaphysical structure of thought or belief, then it's implying that others don't have those parts of their brain which recognise shared human needs, or are somehow lacking empathy with others. But, as an anarchist, you've kinda got to trust that everyone has that part of the brain. I'm not sure if I've made that clear, but I'm not great with jargon (not being a spiritual dude).

In this form atheistic quakerism looks more like a political philosophy which is heavy on the individualism whilst recognising that social change can only come through co-operation. It's a strange case of a strongly-social religious sect turning atheistic and using that as the motor to drive it's social ideas, maybe like atheistic kibbutzism (kibbutzimism?).

So maybe you should let quakers into AF, because I can't really see any contradiction. Also their decision-making processes are extremely interesting, a sort of bureaucracy-by-unanimity. The internal bureaucracy of BYM (British Yearly Meeting, the main organisation for british quakers) is both labyrinthine yet totally transparent.

Yeah so.... if you want me I'll be in my meeting for worship.

Ahh, this is true. I stand corrected. Although I don't about not being remotely compatible.

I'll take your word for this.