In view of all the paranoia, commotion and sensationalism surrounding a certain modern-day conspirational work-of-fiction, the tomes of retorts that have followed, and the movie that it spawned, I say let the people have what they want. I say lets wipe the slate clean, lets abolish all known religious ethos and holy tenets, and go back to a time when humanity ruled, when nature was the supreme educator, when the genders knew their rightful places and the infatuation with a God like entity was but a faint glimmer in a far away imagination.
Yet I cannot but ask a few Da Vincian type questions pertaining to the whole can of worms: If it is widely accepted that a God like entity exists, why the obsession on changing what is? If all holy writings are inspired of God, when did the message change? When did God become democratic? Is God real? The whole illogicality reminds me of a certain statement by Voltaire: "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." This was of course said before certain Eastern Religions became the headlined scourge of mankind.
The interesting issue at this juncture lies in the fact that, as much as people want to do away with prescriptive religion, as much as they need to worship something. Wendy Kaminer in her work Sleeping with Extra-Terrestrials wrote, “Ours is an evangelical culture. So many people convinced that they’ve been saved by Jesus, cured by homeopathy or the laying on of hands, abducted by aliens or protected by angels seek public acknowledgement that their convictions are true. Imbued with messianic fervour, or simply seeking ‘validation,’ they are not content to hoard the truth; they are compelled to share it and convert the unenlightened, relying on the force of their own intense emotions. Generally, the only proof offered for a fantastic belief is the passion it inspires.”
Given the above, I feel that something is amiss for Religion has never been about the rights of the people (It is not democratic.) Religion does not have the keys to salvation (God is the supreme Judge.) Religion also does not have the answers to mankind’s woes (It can only comfort and support - All are born sinners thus must suffer the woes of their actions): did not Karl Marx assert that Religion is the opiate of the people?
Personally, I find the whole obsession interesting and laughable, for here is a work-of-fiction being hailed as the best thing since sliced bread. The interesting portion stems from the fact that it is people with set believe-structures that are the ardent pursuers of said literary work - Is the disappointment in structured religion that evident, or are the religious followers easily sidetracked by plausible assertions and postulations? The fun thing is that Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists and Enlightened-thinkers are having a good giggle at the whole gum-shoot (not to mention the Author who is coining a pretty penny.)
What irks me no end, are the actions by religious leaders who will voice their opinions elatedly and arrogantly in the face of popular acceptance. Shouldn’t they rather be looking inwards and investigating why the people are so easily diverted from a supposedly path to salvation? Surely something is amiss with their teachings, dogmas and assertions? The down side the aforementioned conjecture is that, in life, human beings are generally known to be fickle, therefore in need of guidance and support when making decisions on matters of faith.
It is a well known fact that humans have a propensity towards conspiracies, cover-ups and obscure cults. Robert Anton Wilson in Everything is Under Control, asserts that “ We live in an age in which humans distrust other humans more than ever before.” He further states that “ Men and Women indeed become strange when seeking gods…they become even stranger when seeking devils.”
Thus, it is fair to state that people do not believe in conspiracies for logical or scientific reasons, but for emotional reasons; it’s the not knowing what comes next that drives the whole caboose. The one question that answers all questions must surely be: Do you trust your Government? The ensuing answer will undoubtedly provide a likewise rationale reason to the paranoia that surrounds The Da Vinci Code.
In asserting that Dan Brown did a brilliant job in researching the material for his Novel is stating the obvious. Its even more obvious that he was aware that conspiracies are gobbled up vigorously by the masses at large; especially where it concerns secular religion. For that he deserve an applause and a congratulations on a job well done.
In the meanwhile, I will find solace in a chalice of well-aged Cabernet Sauvignon and leave all Grail quests to the sacred feminine.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Power of the Written Word
I finally sat down to watch a ‘Ronge’ critiqued movie by the title of Freedom Writers. A frank story about a young idealistic teacher, played by Hilary Swank, who started off her teaching career at an experimental volunteer-integration high school situated in a much racially maligned area of America (Long Beach.)
The story is not new and it does end in true American tradition of happy-endings. But the refreshing part is that it highlights what the world is about and what can be achieved if people learn to accept responsibility for their own actions.
The story mostly tries to disentangle some of the intricacies of racial tensions, of abject bigotry by those who should know better and the awkwardness of the establishment in dealing with matters of race, quality of life and what is – Bureaucracy, veiled objections riding the skirts of good-intentions, divorce, self-worth and of doing what has been done before because it is comfortable to do so.
The story also attempts to unravel the age old paradox of ‘worshiping two gods,’ choice and the causality of both actions.
Personally I felt moved by the movie for its frankness of subject. It never tries to be what it is not. It rather focuses on the trials and tribulations of young teenage kids who, through no choice of their own, have to live in areas where open warfare is common, where racial wars are fought for no rhyme or reason other than skin colour, and where the consequences of living in a world where nationalism (family) is used as a tool of subterfuge.
The kick for me came at the conclusion where I realised that the movie was based on a true story of a teacher (Erin Gruwell) who pushed her students past their perceived abilities, never judged them for whom they were, and used her intellect to push past red-tape, negative experiences and personal hardships.
The slight negative was when the Holocaust was used as a simile to what was happening to the kids: the Anne Frank Diaries was one of the books that the kids had to read.
In the end, the movie was all about Democracy, its effects and perceived entitlements e.g. freedom without responsibility does not work. The movie also showed up that westernised Pollyanna euphemisms mean nothing to other national groups.
As a reminder to the insanity of life, the movie worked wonders. As a reminder to the power of the human spirit; frailties and all, the movie worked wonders. As a reminder to the fact that the paternalistic axiom of ‘for the good of all’ is a polished emblem of mumbo-jumbo, the movie worked wonders. And as a reminder that to overcome our present destructive situation we, the people, need to stand together, the movie worked wonders.
The high point of the movie was the big picture inference to the power of the written word, for it is a medium that remains as a testimony to existence long after the candle of life has been blown out.
*The ‘Freedom Writers Diaries’ was published in 1999*
The story is not new and it does end in true American tradition of happy-endings. But the refreshing part is that it highlights what the world is about and what can be achieved if people learn to accept responsibility for their own actions.
The story mostly tries to disentangle some of the intricacies of racial tensions, of abject bigotry by those who should know better and the awkwardness of the establishment in dealing with matters of race, quality of life and what is – Bureaucracy, veiled objections riding the skirts of good-intentions, divorce, self-worth and of doing what has been done before because it is comfortable to do so.
The story also attempts to unravel the age old paradox of ‘worshiping two gods,’ choice and the causality of both actions.
Personally I felt moved by the movie for its frankness of subject. It never tries to be what it is not. It rather focuses on the trials and tribulations of young teenage kids who, through no choice of their own, have to live in areas where open warfare is common, where racial wars are fought for no rhyme or reason other than skin colour, and where the consequences of living in a world where nationalism (family) is used as a tool of subterfuge.
The kick for me came at the conclusion where I realised that the movie was based on a true story of a teacher (Erin Gruwell) who pushed her students past their perceived abilities, never judged them for whom they were, and used her intellect to push past red-tape, negative experiences and personal hardships.
The slight negative was when the Holocaust was used as a simile to what was happening to the kids: the Anne Frank Diaries was one of the books that the kids had to read.
In the end, the movie was all about Democracy, its effects and perceived entitlements e.g. freedom without responsibility does not work. The movie also showed up that westernised Pollyanna euphemisms mean nothing to other national groups.
As a reminder to the insanity of life, the movie worked wonders. As a reminder to the power of the human spirit; frailties and all, the movie worked wonders. As a reminder to the fact that the paternalistic axiom of ‘for the good of all’ is a polished emblem of mumbo-jumbo, the movie worked wonders. And as a reminder that to overcome our present destructive situation we, the people, need to stand together, the movie worked wonders.
The high point of the movie was the big picture inference to the power of the written word, for it is a medium that remains as a testimony to existence long after the candle of life has been blown out.
*The ‘Freedom Writers Diaries’ was published in 1999*
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Atheism does not Negate Spiritual Belief
Is it not amusing how all debates, blogs and or discussions on religion (whether new age, esoteric or traditional) all revolve around circular reasonings!? And the more an explanation to a given position is proffered, the more extensively monologous the whole debacle becomes.
The one interesting supposition that struck a chord with me of late, is the use of the term atheism as meaning non-believer. I mean, in philosophical terms and by their very nature, they are two miles-apart ideologies.
The dictionary defines atheism as: disbelief in the existence of a god or gods (Oxford).
The word ‘disbelief,’ as used in the definition, does not imply non-belief but rather a choice not to believe in something due to some or other reason – inability or refusal to accept something is true or real (Oxford.) This precept is not to be confused with agnosticism: a person who believes that it is not possible to know whether or not God exists (Oxford.) One relates to choice, the other to lack of ‘empirical’ proof or substantiation.
Enter on stage, the non-believer. Here is a sentiate that does not believe in anything esoteric, new age, religious or even remotely spiritual. A being that accepts as true the power of the human animal, with all its imperfections, grand-narratives and mysteries. A being that understands and pursues secular cognitive reason as its primary source of wisdom and understanding.
The commonality to any non-believer lies in the deduction that everything humans do, they do out of their own volition and not because of some unexplainable pretext that requires faith (to believe without reason) to make it all plausible – why must unexplainable phenomena be attributed to something ethereal just because it is, given present understandings or knowledge, …unexplainable.
As can be deduced, atheism is a rather different approach to the world of the non-believer – even Richard Dawkins believes in something, just not in the concept of a god: “Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.”
Experience tells me that, irrespective of what anyone says or relates concerning religious tenets and dogmas, the debate will continue ad infinitum. To a non-believer, given all the trouble, toil and strife saturating planet earth, all ponderings on where-we-come-from, life-out-there, god and spirituality, is a senseless waste of time.
Maybe we just came to be, to create the one thing that nature could not: Plastic!
The one interesting supposition that struck a chord with me of late, is the use of the term atheism as meaning non-believer. I mean, in philosophical terms and by their very nature, they are two miles-apart ideologies.
The dictionary defines atheism as: disbelief in the existence of a god or gods (Oxford).
The word ‘disbelief,’ as used in the definition, does not imply non-belief but rather a choice not to believe in something due to some or other reason – inability or refusal to accept something is true or real (Oxford.) This precept is not to be confused with agnosticism: a person who believes that it is not possible to know whether or not God exists (Oxford.) One relates to choice, the other to lack of ‘empirical’ proof or substantiation.
Enter on stage, the non-believer. Here is a sentiate that does not believe in anything esoteric, new age, religious or even remotely spiritual. A being that accepts as true the power of the human animal, with all its imperfections, grand-narratives and mysteries. A being that understands and pursues secular cognitive reason as its primary source of wisdom and understanding.
The commonality to any non-believer lies in the deduction that everything humans do, they do out of their own volition and not because of some unexplainable pretext that requires faith (to believe without reason) to make it all plausible – why must unexplainable phenomena be attributed to something ethereal just because it is, given present understandings or knowledge, …unexplainable.
As can be deduced, atheism is a rather different approach to the world of the non-believer – even Richard Dawkins believes in something, just not in the concept of a god: “Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakeable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.”
Experience tells me that, irrespective of what anyone says or relates concerning religious tenets and dogmas, the debate will continue ad infinitum. To a non-believer, given all the trouble, toil and strife saturating planet earth, all ponderings on where-we-come-from, life-out-there, god and spirituality, is a senseless waste of time.
Maybe we just came to be, to create the one thing that nature could not: Plastic!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
