| |
|
This could be viewed as semi-troll, so should the moderators prefer to delete it, that's entirely understandable.
However, I recently posted this opinion piece (no link- easy enough to find if you want, eg google me), and it occurs to me that the barbeloid perspectives could be illuminating.
(I can't guarantee any formatting here matches that intended)
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Fundamentalism rears its ugly head yet again
See, people who say religions are somehow a special magical aspect of human behaviour which must be honoured above all other considerations, are, to my mind, literally insane.
I can't remember who said it first, but "Arguing about religion is like arguing about who's got the biggest invisible friend."
We've seen it recently with extremists in one religion seeking to kill completely-unrelated third parties for previously being obnoxiously more successful (9/11), then latterly for not complying with the extremists' personal lifestyle choices and demands (Danish cartoons).
We've seen it again recently, where a group dominated by one religion specifically requested someone to think up and publicly present challenging and thought-provoking topics for research, then hounded him out of office for mentioning a topic which conflicted with their religion. (Larry Summers, late the president of Harvard University).
You'll note here I use the word "religion" in its real sense, rather than its nominal sense.
Now, we see another brutal upwelling of mindless fundamentalism. Again, there are religious protests in the UK, and the fundamentalists of one religion are seeking to enforce their peculiar fantasies over the reality of other people's lifestyle choices.
This time, they're Christians.
From the same culture which not so long ago executed a boy for joking, as he walked poorly clad through winter's snow and bitter winds, that he was so cold he'd welcome the chance to stand in hell for a while, we bring you:
A decision to run a Sunday ferry between parts of the Western Isles has triggered a major row.
Ferry operator Caledonian MacBrayne has been accused of "wrecking a way of life" by running [a] Sunday service between North Uist and South Harris.
Simple reality contradicts them, as is the usual way of such matters:
However, it is now four years since a Sunday air service to [the island] began.
So far, no one's been killed. But that's just an accident of history, of current cultural behaviours -- not any measure of the underlying hysteria.*
See, religion is not about other people. Religion is about your relationship with your god. CHURCH is about your relationship with other people, and about your ability to affect their lives.
Your relationship with other people stems primarily from culture, not religion. Religion is an influence, not the driver.
It used to be Christian to kill Christians who said that Jesus was both god and man, rather than being god AND man. Met any Nestorians lately? Used to be the biggest Christian sect. Bit rough for them, I know. But they WERE wrong. Obviously. They died first.
Hitched their wagon to the wrong cultural horse.
Prophets create religions; Priests create churches.
And churches usually contradict the original religion even as they declare they propagate it. Jesus attacked faux-religious power-hunger and commercialism --and after he was gone, his church's priests later sold redemptions and dominated European real-politic; Mohammed demanded his followers not worship him or his pictures --and after he was gone, his church's priests later sought to kill people for drawing him; the first Buddha insisted his followers have no holy books but follow simple reality --and after he was gone, his church's priests later created and carried "his" scriptures all over Asia.
Social neediness drives churches, and social-power/status neediness drives churches' priests.
And extreme social-power/status neediness drives churches' extremists.
These particular fundamentalists come from a country which claims as its national motto the same sentiment screamed by every group that has historically reacted violently to unprovoked retaliation: "Nemo me impune lacessit":
No man aggravates me and goes unpunished.
I offer you as an alternative --as a thought experiment with specific regard to which cultures (NOT races-- superficial human behaviour is driven more by culture than by genes) have tended to be the most economically successful and the most respectful of human and gender rights-- the last predominantly Sarmatian**-culture country's motto: "Suum cuique":
To each his own.
I keep hearing "Religious Fundamentalism".
But all I can see is "(Sub)Cultural Fundamentalism".
'CalMac spokesman Hugh Dan MacLennan said the operator was "damned if it did and damned if it didn't" over the Sunday service.'
Ooohh... he'll BURN for THAT!
* nor its active-disregard-of-other-people/anti-empathy (which latter is, interestingly, common to most Very Social environments).
(If you think that's overstated, research the execution method called "the angel", and which subsets of "The British Isles" used it. A hint: in a deliberate irony, "Braveheart" was killed with it.)
** Greek & Roman name for that east-Iranian group which had re-settled in the Ukraine by 3rd Century BC. Noted and criticised for women being accorded equal status with men, dressing like men, and sometimes fighting alongside men. Leaders subject to law, rather than vice versa. Driven north and west by Goth and then Hun invasions. Previously, one of the many "Celtic" groups (Celtic is a type of pottery, not a race; and even if you focus on the racial groups latterly calling themselves Celts: ignoring the late-Victorian hysterics/fad, England and Spain are more Celtic than are Ireland or Scotland. Galicia speaks better Gaelic than Wales.). Closest apparent modern equivalent: "Anglo-Saxon".
-------------------------------------------------- END
An Argumentation Caution: There is a very obvious semantic arc in one key aspect of the syntax: initially opened as and within the normal definition of "religion", then once opened: more specifically re-defined then stretched.
This is deliberate and tied to the narrative.
Particular barbeloids may see an analogy: this is not the focus, but the analogy's implications are not misleading: start gentle with something recognisable, THEN on that basis move on to more specific applications.
Should you the reader choose to harp on iterations of superficial interpretations, that will indicate you haven't actually read the article; rather merely looked at the words. Logical deductions can be drawn from your choice.
By the way: there's a very obvious attack on this post. That "you say English is the best way" or variations thereof. I'm Australian. Core Australian, not from the south-east. I regard England as one particular subculture/grouping, and only a loose and clumsy grouping around the multitude of subcultures overlaying its theoretical boundaries. And I regard each subculture on its particular merits in the context of particular purposes. I personally find the UK seriously dysfunctional relative to most of its stated objectives. As regards the usual eventual recourse of the UK-supremacist's reaction to that statement: if the purpose is resisting military attack, I do in fact regard English and Scottish cultures as in the top 5 globally. You may not agree with me; you may not like the possibility of that final recourse being raised. Not relevant to this post.
This post is from the perspective of the multi-cultural observer.
And from the perspective of someone more interested in enjoying life than attacking someone. |
|
|
