Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebe
Ask yourself what would it be like if there was no religion in the Middle East.
No wall needed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Surface observation often leads to shallow, incomplete, faulty diagnosis. The surface can reveal faults, but may not show root causes.
On the surface, in the Middle East, there appears to be war between religions or between various sects of a religion. It would appear then, that if these religions were removed from the picture, no conflict would exist there. No wall would be needed. If that were true, would we have to assume that the people of the Middle East are different than those in the rest of the world? Are Middle Easterners free of wars between families, or races, or political persuasions? Or of the seemingly eternal war between freedom and slavery--the war between various ruling classes and those who serve them?
Or are we to assume that religion is the root cause, below the surface, of all those, and of all types of war? In a sense, that is true. It is true if we view all doctrinaire patterns of behavior as being forms of religion. ScottW and I, for instance, refer to progressivism as a religion. Ergo any group of humans who insist on a WAY of living with rules or laws to follow (the little book you disparagingly speak of) are, by such reasoning, "religions." And, by such reasoning, even you who makes light of religion seem to desire a more universal kumbaya secular religion that has only two little laws to follow--be cool and don't be a jerk.
But, beyond the persistent wars between various collectives, there is the even more fundamental war between the individual and the collective. And it would be a stretch beyond linguistic elasticity to refer to an individual as a "religion." Though, that can be done, but would dissolve any coherent or usable meaning for the word.
But, I am guessing, religion as you speak of it, is some ritualistic association which follows the dictates of a supernatural God. The wall that The Donald and Jim refer to, however, is not one that is at war with, or keeps out a certain form of religion in the manner which you use the word. But one that tries to stop a war between more abstract and secular religions which consist of material laws and economic ways of life.
And "walls" is also an elastic word, even as how you've used the word "slavery," meant to separate conflicting elements or "religions." As in the example of the "wall" of separation between church and state--church being a God led religion and State being a secular one.
So to say that no walls would be necessary in the Middle East if there were no "religion" would imply that those people are all unaffiliated individuals, which, on the surface, doesn't at all appear to be the case. On the contrary, the people there appear to be far more so regimented into collective WAYS of living which seem to have roots in God religions, but also seem to be dictated by ruling classes, families or otherwise, who build psychological or rather phony "religious" walls of separation for their benefit and continuation of their power. Unfortunately for those ruling classes, their use of "religion" to control their masses has given rise in those people a desire to return to the foundational principles of the very religion used to control them. Or, rather than merely rising in the people, they have been inspired by zealots of either Allah religion or the religion of personal power over the masses. In any case, they don't seem to have the desire, or knowledge, to dilute their religions with a healthy amount of individualism.
Pity, we once had that healthy amount here in America. But more and more of us seem to aspire to more potent forms of the religion of socialism. More willing to bow to the god of State.