Is the anarchy symbol something a christian cant wear if the wearer believes in the political philosophy. Ive heard many interpretations of it as an occultic symbol. Others say it can stand for alpha and omega. Politics aside can a christian wear an anarchy symbol?
This is what I read when I googled 'anarchy symbol":
ANARCHY SYMBOL - Also known as the Circle-A. Many people do not give it much thought but the anarchy symbol is also of the occult. Enclosed in a circle is the letter A, which represents anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of all law and disobedience to any existing law. This is the nature of Satan our adversary who rebelled against our creator, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” is the one and law in the Satanic religion. When applied spiritually this doctrine is the doctrine of sin (I-John 3:4).
I do know the quote and it was by an occultist. But I can quote a catholic anarchist ammon hennacy that proves morally that one can be both:
“The dictionary definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ; kind, kindly, Christ-like. Anarchism is voluntary cooperation for good, with the right of secession. A Christian anarchist is therefore one who turns the other cheek, overturns the tables of the moneychangers, and does not need a cop to tell him how to behave. A Christian anarchist does not depend upon bullets or ballots to achieve his ideal; he achieves that ideal daily by the One-Man Revolution with which he faces a decadent, confused, and dying world”."
You mean one of these?
I see no reason why they should not. The vast majority of people who wear clothes like that do not even know the meaning of it. It is often just a cool clothing fad in some groups.
Intent and the person themselves really are what matters. It is similar to rock music (lots of threads in popular media on that). You can be a good catholic and listen to as hard of rock music as you want.
The same is with this symbol, who is the person wearing it? Is it just a cool fad or do they really believe it and what would the symbol do (or not do) when they wear it.
the icon of anarchism or for better describe it one “A” and one “O” means Ordem in the Anarchy were anarchy means not governament in the political way of that word so …ordem without governament is not a blasfemy ,but is dreaming all the man living in peace , love and equality without need a governament because they reach love and god is love …ok l don t wanna say that jesus christ was an anarchist because the word was invented a lot of years later but in his words there are a lot of parts ,of concept very close to the anarchist point of wiew…l hope you let me write this because l d like to share with my brothers and sister and read what l am wrong if i am wrong
Catholics should not wear such symbols or hold supportive views of anarchism.
I quote an extract from the Modern Catholic Dictionary:
“Anarchism has been more than once condemned by the Catholic Church, e.g. in the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX in 1864.”
The Church has condemned it so you should avoid it like the plague.
The quote you offer really doesn’t ‘prove’ anything: it’s just a self serving rationalization that re-defines anarchy in an appealing way.
IMO, anarchism isn’t a ‘voluntary co-operation for good’, it is a commitment to chaos, despite the human suffering it would entail. I do not believe it is compatible with a Catholic world view.
Anarchists of every political persuasion ban together in acts of violence, beliving that the system must be utterly destroyed before it can be re-built in thier new, utopian fashion. Whether this utopia will take the form of a Maoist state of the very hard left or a racially segregated dictatorship isn’t to be decided until civilzation is a smoking ruin.
While there may be a tiny handful of non-violent anarchists out there, the majority of people seeing your symbol would justifiably assume youare just another violent, dangerous person working towards the fall of civilization: you would be making a statement with your clothing that you claim you personally reject.
I was an anarchist for years and have many anarchist friends. The Circle A doesn’t mean anything occult and neither does anarchy. It’s condemned by the Church, but it doesn’t mean any harm; it’s a political error. It doesn’t have anything to do with what most people mean by “chaos”, but uses the term “chaos” to mean openness to change and spontaneous creativity, unpredictable organic growth. There are many kinds of anarchists. Some are nihilists, who feel the good society can be made only after all traces of the harmful society are gone, but these are only some anarchists. Some are only Libertarians and don’t know it. Some are gradualist anarchists, who favor a slow and gentle diminution of government power until it isn’t government anymore but mere at-will cooperation among individuals. Most are very pacifistic. The whole reason they choose to support a world without government is to reduce violence. They feel governments commit more total violence than they prevent and should be replaced by a consensus-based, voluntary-only decision-making process among people who voluntarily associate for however long they wish to.
They don’t believe in a world with no rules, but one with no rulers, where all who are bound by any rule are those who consented to be so bound in person and all who refuse to follow a tribe’s rule are simply banished and shunned until they go away.
It’s a vision of a free market of rules and communities and political bodies.
My objection to it is that such a world couldn’t defend the freest and most peaceful from those who don’t share that particular vision and would attack those who do share it. It would soon end up back in a state of competing barbarian peoples.
Dictionaries are not known for their political acumen.
Anarchism in the modern political sense did not exist in 1864, so if “anarchism” had been condemned by name, you needn’t let it bother you. The only problem would be if you promoted or adhered to ideas that were condemned under the name “anarchism”.
I just read through the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, available widely online, and found no references to the ideas of anarchism, with one exception. Many anarchists have been atheists, and have tried to tie the two tendencies into one overarching scheme, “No Gods and No Masters,” and those atheist anarchists were unsurprisingly hostile to clergy and the faithful in general. That is clearly unacceptable for a Catholic. The rest of anarchism is unobjectionable. I find much to laud in its proposals for respecting the dignity of every person.
Since anarchism desires to have no kind of government, and the Catholic Church has a very perceivable government, I can’t see how the two can be compatible.
From M-W Online:
an·ar·chism %between%Function: noun
Date: 1642 1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups 2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles.
I can see “free association” with the Church, but it would still be an oxymoron.
Anarchy is like communism: both would be wonderful, if it wasn’t for human failings.
God bless us all,
Hello My Name is Rod and since I am an Anarchist who was raised a Christian, I feel I may have some knowledge to share on the relation of the two topics in question.
First of all the origin of the Circle-a is thought by most Anarchists to refer to the the exclamation of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon that “Anarchy is Order”. This exclamation was meant to refer to the natural order based on a horizontal unity from below(A society without any human ruler, but instead based on free groupings of individuals on a voluntary basis). In all the time I spent in the Christian Church this is the kind of unity the they would personally strive to create. Anarchism has nothing at all to do with the occult or any other religious practice(believe me many of us regard the dogma of a religion to be far to confining and otherwise detrimental to our Liberty) whatsoever. However, there is such a thing as Christian Anarchism(angelfire.com/music/djintellect/anarchism.html)). The idea(As I understand it) sprung up around a book by Leo Tolstoy called “The Kingdom of God is within you”(kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html)). From my very very brief understanding of Christian Anarchism it simply states that the only legitimate source of authority to a person is god and that therefore n man has the right to rule you any more than you have the right to rule him. As far as my understanding goe pf the teachings and doings f Christ he was very much against the established order and did not believe in tyranny of any kind, therefore this principle of Christian Anarchism is completely reasonable.
The above poster has mentioned the rule f the Satanic church andsaid that this is the one and only rule, however they are speaking only from the perspective of Alister Crowley and not Anton Levey. Crowley was basically a hedonist and did not worship any kind of devil, while Levey was dressed up in his ridiculous red suit with pentagrams preaching from the satanic bible. I’m sure there are those who understand the teachings f these two far more than I do, but that is all I can leave you on the topic of those two men.
Now back to Anarchism. Your belief in god is your own and should not be dictated to you by anyone but god himself(the word “Him” being a rather presumptions term), if all the peoples mentioned in the bible where to follow established moral and spiritual guidelines then Jesus would never have done what he did when he questioned the church the many many times he did.
I will leave you, for now, with this link to Anarchopedia’s list f quotes by Christian Anarchists
I do hope you check out the source4s I have provided and chose to read the book so you can base your opinion off of a fair judgment of what you read. I am sorry I couldn’t find more sources for you immediately, but I’m sure you can if you try. I really hoped this helps with your question.
Your opinion of Anarchism is rather slanted and quite a bit off. All Anarchists embrace nonviolence and anyone who calls themselves an Anti-Authoritarian and then proceeds to commit such an Authoritative action as to violently harm someone is only lying to themselves and then showing society the obvious lie. Anarchism has nothing at all to do with Mao Zedong and most anarchists are very critical of him for multiple reasons that we need not go into. The overall object of the anarchist movement is to create a free society based on the free grouping of individuals whom associate on a voluntary basis(not to institute any one form of ruler, just a network of people). You can sit there at your computer and try to convince me that I’m wrong, but I know multiple members of the Anarchist movement(including myself) that would very quickly and swiftly disagree with you.
Being a Catholic and being an anarchist and a pacifist, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. Just because we anarchists don’t submit ourselves to false “secular” law doesn’t mean we don’t submit ourselves to Him.