You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
August 20, 2004
"Their reputation precedes them."
From AOL News:
Self-described anarchists were blamed for inciting the violence in Seattle at a 1999 meeting of the World Trade Organization in which 500 people were arrested and several businesses damaged. They have been accused by the police of throwing rocks or threatening officers with liquid substances at demonstrations against the Republican convention in Philadelphia in 2000 and at an economic summit meeting in Miami last year.Read the rest here.
Now, as the Republican National Convention is about to begin in New York City, the police are bracing for the actions of this loosely aligned and often shadowy group of protesters, and consider them the great unknown factor in whether the demonstrations remain under control or veer toward violence and disorder.
I have always had a soft-spot for anarchists. I mean, I grew up listening to punk rock. Many of my friends considered themselves anarchists at some time or another. I listen to anarchist music, I have read anarchists books… In fact, if someone raided my home, they’d probably think I was a closet-anarchist.
I’m not an anarchist, though (even if I am subscribed to Noam Chomsky’s Weblog). I don’t particularly subscribe to their political agendas or social antics… Well, maybe some of their social antics. But, I believe that the government serves a purpose, even if the government isn’t exactly how I would like to see it.
I think what I like most about anarchists is their passion — their gumption for taking action and getting things done. Anarchists don’t sit around on their butts complaining all day (well, some of them don’t anyway).
Taking action is one of the things I like about liberals too. What is it about most conservatives that makes them like to whine and complain about everything and never get up and do anything about it? (If you don’t like what Michael Moore is doing, don’t just him-and-haw about it, make your own movie!)
I know I’m generalizing here… But, that’s what the media does (on both sides). What I’d like to see is a society that was so passionate that anytime anything happened that went against our morals and our views, we did something about it.
That’s why I applaud anarchists. They’re a motivated bunch.
Posted at 2:32 pm
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (22):
Are you serious, or are you just trying to drive up your traffic?
Rev. Mike () (URL) - August 20, 2004 at 4:16 pm
I have two questions: 1) Why do we need anarchy when people have a sin nature? (I would premise that people need a “rules of engagement” or moral framework” to operate within the democratic-republic or you have chaos) and 2)What was the Christian Coalition all about or Newt Gingrich’s grassroots campaign which both in turn took 40 years of Democratic dominant controled Congress to what it is today? Aren’t you impressed about this action even though you don’t adhere to the phiosophy? I think that Conservatives are the ones that have action rather than the Liberals. I think Liberals are unable to move the majority of society. That is why we have a Republican controlled Congress, President and Supreme Court!!
Doug Hensley () - August 20, 2004 at 4:55 pm
I wonder if I wasn’t clear… I wrote this in a hurry. But, nevertheless, I am serious about what I say — and I don’t think I would ever post anything to drive up my traffic. 
Doug, did you not read that I was generalizing? Sure, there are conservatives who act on their beliefs. And that is great. For the most part, though, social activism is fronted by liberals, communists, and anarchists.
And, I don’t think that I lauded anything that anarchists stand for, but rather their “action.” This is why I admire them (and anyone who fights for what they believe).
Yes, there are many Christian missionaries who are acting on their beliefs — and being persecuted for their actions. This is how we all should live… We should all act on our beliefs. This is the society that I desire.
Doug, did you not read that I was generalizing? Sure, there are conservatives who act on their beliefs. And that is great. For the most part, though, social activism is fronted by liberals, communists, and anarchists.
And, I don’t think that I lauded anything that anarchists stand for, but rather their “action.” This is why I admire them (and anyone who fights for what they believe).
Yes, there are many Christian missionaries who are acting on their beliefs — and being persecuted for their actions. This is how we all should live… We should all act on our beliefs. This is the society that I desire.
timsamoff () (URL) - August 20, 2004 at 5:25 pm
Just so you know, there is a movie and a book about michael moore being made. conservatives are more interested in talking about the issues and debate rather than making movies, cartoons and ranting songs.. I actually admire that. On the other hand, i have my conservative songs. i still dont know how Christians can be liberal.. has anyone ever attended a DNC? it wouldn’t take a genius to figure out they hate our God. but thats another blog. but since we are talking about active passion for a cause (for me, towards conservativism) then i’ll direct you towards some great examples. http://www.conservativepunk.com/ and http://rightpunk.blogspot.com/.. We’re out there.
Dennisthemenace () - August 21, 2004 at 12:01 pm
I understand. I do think that activism is equal among both conservatives and democrats. Also, Conservatives are more efficient than their counterparts in their activism and that is why they control the Congress, President and Supreme Court!
Doug Hensley () - August 21, 2004 at 1:29 pm
I think I’ll put in a good word for the liberals, although I’m not really much of one. I agree with Tim—they just have so much passion. I think there is certainly a lot of action on both sides, but I think that the tendency of liberals is to always be in motion. A lot of conservative policy is based on keeping things the same — which is not necessarily a bad thing. I totally disagree with the idea that Democrats can’t be Christians. It’s really hard to read that and not squirm. It’s just crazy to me — why in the world would you say that Democrats hate Jesus? Not that I’m calling anyone crazy, I just don’t get it. I don’t agree with everything that liberals do and the same goes for conservatives.
Also, conservative punks do have quite a momentum of their own, as dennisthemenace points out. My sister was straight edge for a while.
eml
Also, conservative punks do have quite a momentum of their own, as dennisthemenace points out. My sister was straight edge for a while.
eml
Erica Lam () (URL) - August 22, 2004 at 12:58 am
Ok, I need to make a few admissions here… I loathe the words “consevative” and “liberal” (as I don’t consider myself either). I distrust the U.S. political party system (as it has created a society who votes blindly without looking more deeply into issues). I generally dislike politics to begin with (but take part in them because they are part of the society I belong to). This is why I rarely write about politics in this Weblog… In fact, during elections, I will vote in whichever party it seems like I will make the biggest difference. That is what I am trying to do — make a difference. Not perpetuate a political party. Not fight for a group of people in which only ±50% of their causes I believe in. I just don’t think that is right.
This being said, I will direct our view towards Jesus Christ. Jesus never chose sides in political arguments — in fact he said give to the government what is theirs and give to God what is His. To me, this means that we can safely live under any governmental regime as long as we are obeying them and serving God.
I don’t think Jesus would appreciate being placed under any label whatsoever. He was neither conservative nor liberal nor moderate — He acted when he felt He needed to act and He held back when He needed to hold back.
Jesus is not Rebublican. Jesus is not American. Jesus is not a punk, a blue-collar worker, a homeless person, a politician, middle-upper class, or Bourgeoise.
Jesus is our creator, our God, our Savior…
Jesus resides in a realm where the only agenda is to love Him… Not to stop abortion or save trees or legalize drugs or anything. Do you really think He cares about any of this stuff? I don’t. I think He cares about us loving Him. And, you know what? If we all loved Him, these other issues wouldn’t even be…issues.
Now I’m ranting again.
What I feel… Deep in my soul… Is that overall, Jesus wants us to make a difference in this world that He created. If you think that you can make this difference in whatever political party you align yourself with, more power to you. My point is only that we need to make a difference. Period.
This being said, I will direct our view towards Jesus Christ. Jesus never chose sides in political arguments — in fact he said give to the government what is theirs and give to God what is His. To me, this means that we can safely live under any governmental regime as long as we are obeying them and serving God.
I don’t think Jesus would appreciate being placed under any label whatsoever. He was neither conservative nor liberal nor moderate — He acted when he felt He needed to act and He held back when He needed to hold back.
Jesus is not Rebublican. Jesus is not American. Jesus is not a punk, a blue-collar worker, a homeless person, a politician, middle-upper class, or Bourgeoise.
Jesus is our creator, our God, our Savior…
Jesus resides in a realm where the only agenda is to love Him… Not to stop abortion or save trees or legalize drugs or anything. Do you really think He cares about any of this stuff? I don’t. I think He cares about us loving Him. And, you know what? If we all loved Him, these other issues wouldn’t even be…issues.
Now I’m ranting again.
What I feel… Deep in my soul… Is that overall, Jesus wants us to make a difference in this world that He created. If you think that you can make this difference in whatever political party you align yourself with, more power to you. My point is only that we need to make a difference. Period.
timsamoff () (URL) - August 22, 2004 at 09:48 am
Leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush.
I believe that claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion. I also believe that sincere Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry – for reasons deeply rooted in their faith. All candidates should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete range of Christian ethics and values.
We should measure the candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance the common good rather than only individual, national, and special interests.
One thing that enrages me more than anything is that Christians ARE NOT single-issue voters (abortion, etc . . . ). Actually, Christendom shares many “liberal” ideals, none of which are traditionally supported by “conservatives”. (I hate those labels by the way). Christ spoke more about reaching out to homeless, motherless, fatherless, sick, and broken than about tax breaks for the wealthy, exporting jobs, and attacking countries with self-interested motives.
See how these Biblical issues add up in the face of our two party system and then vote accordingly :
We believe that poverty – caring for the poor and vulnerable – is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)
We believe that the environment – caring for God’s earth – is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)
We believe that war – and our call to be peacemakers – is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies pursue “wars of choice” or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)
We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)
We believe that human rights – respecting the image of God in every person – is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)
We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )
We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)
I believe that claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion. I also believe that sincere Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry – for reasons deeply rooted in their faith. All candidates should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete range of Christian ethics and values.
We should measure the candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance the common good rather than only individual, national, and special interests.
One thing that enrages me more than anything is that Christians ARE NOT single-issue voters (abortion, etc . . . ). Actually, Christendom shares many “liberal” ideals, none of which are traditionally supported by “conservatives”. (I hate those labels by the way). Christ spoke more about reaching out to homeless, motherless, fatherless, sick, and broken than about tax breaks for the wealthy, exporting jobs, and attacking countries with self-interested motives.
See how these Biblical issues add up in the face of our two party system and then vote accordingly :
We believe that poverty – caring for the poor and vulnerable – is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2)
We believe that the environment – caring for God’s earth – is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1)
We believe that war – and our call to be peacemakers – is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies pursue “wars of choice” or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9)
We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32)
We believe that human rights – respecting the image of God in every person – is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27)
We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 )
We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19)
doug () - August 22, 2004 at 4:32 pm
I do agree that Jesus is neither party and I do think you can be a Democrat and be a Christian (Blue-Dog Democrat). Even though I think Dennis was a little harsh, I think Dennis is probably looking at a few issues (which I will not discuss) that seem contrary to what Jesus stands for and contrary to God’s word. Coservatives don’t like to “waste energy”. Many people get turned off by public activism. I think there are ways to make a difference without doing it so dramatically. I do think that Jesus wants us to consentrate on loving Him but part of that is living and walking blameless as much as we can for Him and doing what Jesus and His Word (the Bible)say. That includes caring for the trees, stopping abortion and eliminating drug use. He also would not condone anything, including what is in society or government, that is contrary to His Word. I think all Christians would agree with these things.
Doug Hensley () - August 22, 2004 at 4:43 pm
Wow! Don’t you just love it when you do a post and it gets such an overwhelming and exhausting response!
by the way, I understood what you were saying
by the way, I understood what you were saying
harmless () (URL) - August 23, 2004 at 06:21 am
To “doug” I will say that I wish Christians were not single-issue voters, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot are. How many times have you seen the bumper sticker “I Vote Pro-Life”?
Politicians know there are plenty of people who vote solely based on this issue. I got numerous mailings before our recent primaries showing me who the pro-life candidates were. I even got a phone call from a Sheriff candidate telling me that he was the only pro-life candidate. (Are Sheriff’s shaping policy in this country now?) Phone calls like that scare me because of what it says about the voting public and their capacity (or willingness) to understand the big picture.
I think that here in the “Bible Belt” there is an overwhelming attitude that Jesus would be a Republican, but I think in other parts of the country there would be just as strong a sentiment that he would be a Democrat.
I’m pretty sure there are things about both parties that are abhorrent to God, but I think that almost everything about anarchy is abhorrent to God (and to society).
And to Tim, I would encourage you to engage a person the next time you hear them complaining about how bad things are. There are a lot of people on both sides of an issue that sit around, but there are plenty of activists on both sides as well. Do we only hear about certain activism because of a media bias?
Politicians know there are plenty of people who vote solely based on this issue. I got numerous mailings before our recent primaries showing me who the pro-life candidates were. I even got a phone call from a Sheriff candidate telling me that he was the only pro-life candidate. (Are Sheriff’s shaping policy in this country now?) Phone calls like that scare me because of what it says about the voting public and their capacity (or willingness) to understand the big picture.
I think that here in the “Bible Belt” there is an overwhelming attitude that Jesus would be a Republican, but I think in other parts of the country there would be just as strong a sentiment that he would be a Democrat.
I’m pretty sure there are things about both parties that are abhorrent to God, but I think that almost everything about anarchy is abhorrent to God (and to society).
And to Tim, I would encourage you to engage a person the next time you hear them complaining about how bad things are. There are a lot of people on both sides of an issue that sit around, but there are plenty of activists on both sides as well. Do we only hear about certain activism because of a media bias?
Todd Messenger () - August 23, 2004 at 09:35 am
“And to Tim, I would encourage you to engage a person the next time you hear them complaining about how bad things are.”
I guess that’s what I was trying to do here, Todd!
I guess that’s what I was trying to do here, Todd!
timsamoff () (URL) - August 23, 2004 at 10:19 am
Man! I missed this whole conversation! I read it and thought it was just Tim reminscing about the Sex Pistols and the Dead Milkmen. I also think it’s kind of funny that this turned into liberal vs. conservative. Like anarchists are a faction of the Democratic party in the same way the NRA is a faction of the Republican party. There’s no mohawk/safety pin faction or a political action comittee run by Johnny Rotten. It’s funny! Anarchists by their very definition don’t believe in a political structure, people!! I think people are wound just a little too tight with the whole election and all.
Paul () - August 23, 2004 at 4:42 pm
In its purest form, your post was very good. There was a lot left unsaid that got ‘brought up’ for some reason, assuming more than you implied, but for the most part I saw what you were getting at and appreciated it.
Some would say that being a Christian in this day and age is anarchy on its own, eh?
Some would say that being a Christian in this day and age is anarchy on its own, eh?
RM () (URL) - August 24, 2004 at 2:33 pm
“Some would say that being a Christian in this day and age is anarchy on its own, eh?”
No kidding! (Though, I guess there always will be a prevelant ruling power.)
No kidding!
(Though, I guess there always will be a prevelant ruling power.)
timsamoff () (URL) - August 24, 2004 at 3:11 pm
I was reading up on anarchism at the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist) and found the introduction very interesting (mind you I’m still not stating anything other than what I’ve written, assumed or otherwise):
“Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary co-operation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not intend to advocate chaos or anomie — it intends “anarchy” to refer to a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained.
While individual freedom and opposition to the state are primary tenets of anarchism, most anarchists insist that anarchism is much more than that. There is also considerable variation between the anarchist political philosophies, to the point that groups with radically different views may consider themselves anarchist, at the same time denying that other points of view should be called anarchist. Two areas where opinions vary widely are the role of violence in society, and the role of property and/or economics. Egalitarianism is a present, but lesser subject of debate.
As Benjamin Tucker put it, anarchism is the philosophy that “all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the state should be abolished”.”
It’s interesting that basic philosophies, in and of themselves, are relatively safe. I wonder if some of this debate formed because of our general lack of knowledge of issues such as these (whether created by political biases, moral biases, media biases, etc.)... I’m as much to blame as anyone. But, based on this description, I don’t know if the basic premise of anarchy is necessarily abhorent to anything we believe in.
And here I go myself: swaying away from the original theme of my Blog post.
“Anarchism is a generic term describing various political philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of the state. These philosophies use anarchy to mean a society based on voluntary co-operation of free individuals. Philosophical anarchist thought does not intend to advocate chaos or anomie — it intends “anarchy” to refer to a manner of human relations that is intentionally established and maintained.
While individual freedom and opposition to the state are primary tenets of anarchism, most anarchists insist that anarchism is much more than that. There is also considerable variation between the anarchist political philosophies, to the point that groups with radically different views may consider themselves anarchist, at the same time denying that other points of view should be called anarchist. Two areas where opinions vary widely are the role of violence in society, and the role of property and/or economics. Egalitarianism is a present, but lesser subject of debate.
As Benjamin Tucker put it, anarchism is the philosophy that “all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the state should be abolished”.”
It’s interesting that basic philosophies, in and of themselves, are relatively safe. I wonder if some of this debate formed because of our general lack of knowledge of issues such as these (whether created by political biases, moral biases, media biases, etc.)... I’m as much to blame as anyone. But, based on this description, I don’t know if the basic premise of anarchy is necessarily abhorent to anything we believe in.
And here I go myself: swaying away from the original theme of my Blog post.
timsamoff () (URL) - August 24, 2004 at 4:13 pm
i dont think so bud, it really sounds like a bunch of double speak. “the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations…” well, it SOUNDS good on paper but thats assuming everyone is nice like you and me… well, like you. i wouldn’t want a state run by a bunch of me’s. i think its been politely stated to sound nice but the ultimate premise is this: every man for himself. self government in itself tends towards the lack thereof, don’t you think? I dont see anything relatively safe about this thinking unless you presuppose that no one will ever steal, cheat, lie, murder, etc. ya know?
Dennisthemenace () - August 24, 2004 at 5:30 pm
Yeah, I was purposely being a bit idealistic there. 
timsamoff () (URL) - August 24, 2004 at 10:02 pm
well then screw you, man!!! just kidding.
Dennisthemenace () - August 25, 2004 at 09:49 am
> 1) Why do we need anarchy when people have
> a sin nature?
Why do we assume people have a “sin nature” and is that the same thing as a “sinful nature” or do you just like slapping nouns together?
I used to consider myself an anarchist, so Tim’s post had some resonance. My take on anarchism, in a nutshell, that it is a humanist philosophy: people, left to their own devices, can be trusted to govern themselves. As such, it is a (hopelessly) idealistic philosophy that considers the state oppressive and evil. Doing away with the state lets people manage themselves and that (it is assumed) would be better. But there’s no reason to assume things would be better. And, now that I’m sadder and wiser, I assume things would be a lot worse. The powerful, unrestrained by anything at all, would grab even more power and we’d quickly move toward fascism.
> a sin nature?
Why do we assume people have a “sin nature” and is that the same thing as a “sinful nature” or do you just like slapping nouns together?
I used to consider myself an anarchist, so Tim’s post had some resonance. My take on anarchism, in a nutshell, that it is a humanist philosophy: people, left to their own devices, can be trusted to govern themselves. As such, it is a (hopelessly) idealistic philosophy that considers the state oppressive and evil. Doing away with the state lets people manage themselves and that (it is assumed) would be better. But there’s no reason to assume things would be better. And, now that I’m sadder and wiser, I assume things would be a lot worse. The powerful, unrestrained by anything at all, would grab even more power and we’d quickly move toward fascism.
wheat () (URL) - August 28, 2004 at 5:31 pm
Wheat: I agree with everything you said. Lets not get off on the semantics, brother. Sinful nature it is. I appologize, a pastor I heard happened to use the term “sin nature” and I guess it just stuck. :)
Doug Hensley () - August 29, 2004 at 2:05 pm
Sorry for being catty. I agree with the bulk of your comment, actually: I tend to see the conservatives as more organized and effective at the political game. Liberals get too cynical about the state of affairs and want to opt out as a form of protest, which helps nothing. I understand the desire to avoid politics. I also understand that it is political suicide to do so.
wheat () (URL) - September 10, 2004 at 2:06 pm
