On 3/5/2014 1:53 AM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> Don't remember quite doing that - in fact I seem to remember trying to avoid
> it and I can't find the bucket of tar anyway - must have left it in the
> bottom shed so the geese get to keep their feathers.
It pops up from time to time in your comments about the US, as it just did in
the atheist comment. It's not just the
single line, but the implication that US attitudes toward and treatment of
atheists is somehow on a par with the
requirement to wear burqas and the other ways that women are very extensively
oppressed, and apparently, all too often
physically abused, in some other places.
> But the comment about atheists was inspired by recent coverage of attitudes
> in the US (and I'm reading Dawkins at present too)
So, you, the great skeptic and philosopher, read and believe the reports of
endlessly sensational media as
representative of 300 million people?
Reading Dawkins is an excuse? (As an Oxonian, I'm not sure how he is relevant
to a discussion of US religiosity.)
> that suggests that they're the only remaining acceptable target of
> discrimination.
> The religiosity of the US is both obvious and a little puzzling at times from
> out here.
The mass participation in ancient religious ritual and observance by otherwise
apparently quite secular peoples in
Europe is puzzling from here. Are all those people Nathan shows doing thing
like spending the day carrying religious
effigies around, then spending hours in Catholic Mass doing it strictly as
observance of the past? Only for fun? This is
not to put them down, but an honest question from one observing from a distance.
There are many aspects of religion and secularism in Europe that are unclear
and often apparently contradictory from
across the Narrow Ocean. I suspect apparent internal inconsistencies are
inevitable in large, complex societies.
> As I've been known to comment, even The Simpsons go to church. But then, of
> course, we're all decadent Europeans, hey?
Your brush, not mine. It would appear from out here that you are physically
very far removed from Europe and culturally
as far removed as we are, just in different details. Personally, I wouldn't tar
Europe as a whole or any part of it I
know of with some brush of decadence.
But of course, you meant that backwards, a backhanded smear of tar about our
attitudes toward others.
> So consider - you've just elected a black president and came close to
> electing a woman - but what is the chance of someone who is openly
> non-religious being elected any time soon? Not holding my breath down here.
> Perhaps you should try passing as an atheist or agnostic for a while and
> seeing what you experience in that cloak?
I did that for many years. I was raised in a Mormon family and community. My
recent forbears were largely Europeans who
were converted by missionaries, abandoned their homes and families, crossed the
Atlantic, then much of North America, in
the mid 19th century to settle in wilderness then outside the boundaries of the
US or any other country.
As a little girl, my great grandmother Ogden walked from St. Louis to Salt Lake
in a hand cart company. In addition to
merely walking 1,300 miles (as the crow flies) across the Great Plains and
Rocky Mountains, her duty while walking was
to collect wool from the sheep that caught on vegetation. My mother's parents
were founders of the ward (= parish) of
Mormons in Berkeley and built the church. During the Great Depression, my
grandfather traded dental work for those who
couldn't afford it for their work on that building. I know about odd US
religious sects and highly conservative
religious political positions first hand.
Although Mormon in name, as I had no choice but the impractical one of running
away, I never drank their kool-aid. The
major reason I left home at 18 and worked my way through university was because
of the religious strings attached to
support from my parents. For the next 20-30 years, I was philosophically
agnostic, a practicing atheist and not shy
about so identifying myself.
So yes, I've "worn that cloak", not just as a facade, either. And what I said
before holds. I never felt being an
atheist had any employment, social or political negative effect on my life
during that time, more likely the reverse, if
anything. As a matter of fact, although I would not do so, I would have been
welcome in the churches of a few
denominations even then.
Now, it appears that even the evangelicals have stopped growing. The Catholic
Church and all the Protestant
denominations are in long term decline here, some to a point of desperation.
The only church large enough to notice
that's been growing in recent years is the Unitarian Universalists, many of
whom are allergic to the "G" word and all of
whom welcome atheists with open arms.
> As to the monolith of fools (nice term!) - I'm well aware of the internally
> rich diversity of culture, attitude, behaviour, etc. but from out here again,
> the experience IS of a monolith with an approach reminiscent of the Borg and
> a mindset to match.
I would replace "experience" with impression, most of it, I suppose, not from
actual experience. Most OZians have never
been here. You, like most who have, have been only briefly, and that not at any
recent time.
I don't know about small towns in the deep South. I have spent time in cities
there. We spent some time last year
traveling in conservative western farm and ranch country (You can tell from the
occasional "Impeach Obama" signs.*) In
that time, I have never once been asked if I go to church or what my religious
beliefs might be. I have found the
denizens of these terrible places to be almost to a person friendly, helpful
and polite.
Believe what the news media, whom you well know live on sensation, pumps out,
real stories about behavior in minority
backwaters and the rantings of religious and political demagogs as
representative, and you will be badly misinformed
about the actual experience of the majority of Americans (as we so pompously
style ourselves).
> To get some idea why read this - it is my local community -
> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/28/world/asia/irpt-australia-mcdonalds-protest/
The very same thing has been happening in communities across the US for
decades, resisting not only McD's, but many
sorts of chain stores. They are local battles you don't hear about so far away.
Some win, some lose. Berkeley lost, and
has one right downtown. But then, the King of Burgers a block away failed and
there is now an independent Indian
restaurant in the space. Progress.
> Of course the one thing they get wrong is that they call it a restaurant - no
> it isn't.
Demagoguery! It sells food to the public and provides a place to eat it. It is,
by simple definition, a restaurant. A
crap restaurant, I must assume, as I have never eaten at one. (And no, I've not
been Shunned for that, either. (Being
driven by a local in a Southern City once, I declined to get coffee at one. The
response was to ask if I minded if he
got some there. Nope.))
I abjure them and all such restaurant chains. They are crap restaurants, but
restaurants nonetheless. Your practice of
claiming that things are not, or not 'proper' versions, of what they clearly
are, is tiresome, and far below the high
quality of curmudgeonliness of which you are demonstrably capable. Cheap, lazy
tricks.
For another example, I have, and have had, electric chain saws. On my small
lots, they have always cut what I wanted
them to cut, at less cost and with less trouble, mess and noise than gas ones.
The one 'on a stick' has been
particularly useful at jobs for which other tools are not well suited. No, they
aren't suitable for a rural lifestyle
like Mike's and perhaps yours, of cutting down trees and making them into
firewood. Yes, I have used gas ones, rented
when I had a bloody great eucalyptus fall into a prior yard.
Nevertheless, your put down that implies that only less than manly wimps would
choose to use such pussy tools is
unnecessary, uncalled for and makes you look like a silly Yahoo. (Go ahead and
claim, if you wish, that it wasn't 'mine
is bigger than yours' posturing. Shall we have a vote?) I think 'the proper
tool for the job' may still apply among the
practical who do their work capably and efficiently.
You apply it to your quite lovely photography, why not allow others to choose
tools they find useful for their tasks
without putting them down?
> But I chose the CNN report for the additional irony.
The irony that a right wing tool would try to bolster their position by making
a big deal of foreigners doing what many,
many USians have been doing? Of course they like to be jingoistic. They are not
primarily a news medium, but a
propaganda outlet.
But then, I wouldn't know irony if it laid me out cold; genetic weakness. :-)
> There are better hits on a Google search.
Not a story of any import or significance to the US. (Although this 'Murkin
wishes them well.) If you believe it to be
so, you are letting yourself be mislead.
Moose
* Yes, a misunderstanding of US Constitutional Law or of the facts of his
behavior from perspective of the law, but a
presumably heartfelt expression of dislike.
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|