seconded.
Sometimes I think people view atheists as having no
understanding/belief/appreiciation of symbols. Not true, at least with
me. I understand the power of symbolic acts and signs. I just don't
invest them with the same power, which is probably why I try seek
either to subvert their usage or ignore them, to give them no power.
OTOH, Robert Hughes defined "multiculturalism" as being able to read
each others signs and symbols. By "reading" I suspect he meant
treating them with respect; that means, to me, realising the
ramifications of ones remarks.
Roger
On 11/6/05, wild honey press <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> I'd prefer if you didn't call what some regard as sacred texts as a load of
> bollocks.
>
> best
>
> Randolph
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Bircumshaw" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 11:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [POETRYETC] Thought for the day
>
>
> > Dear Granpa
> >
> > now i dont listen to that thing daily, i just catch it now and again, BUT
> > you are wrong - they have had at least one atheist talking, i know because
> > i
> > heard that one, point two, the emphasis in recent times has not been
> > churchy, the star turns are a Sikh and a Jew, it does matter, in our
> > society, that bridges are offered, i'm thinking this time about the
> > terrible
> > inter-racial violence that has beset Brum, that between Anglo-Caribeaeans
> > ( can't spell that right this time of night) and Asians.
> >
> > These matters are scary, I had to occasion the other day to actually read
> > the Qu'ran - in translation - it reminded me nothing so much as the Book
> > of
> > Mormon - i.e. a load of bollocks - but unfortunately a load of b. that
> > justifies, exhorts in fact, violence. I thought parts of the Bible were
> > nuts
> > but this is in a class by its own.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Dave
--
http://www.badstep.net/
http://www.cb1poetry.org.uk/
|