Have I got you right here, Roger? Normative bullshit is OK when a large
number of holy rollers pronounce it to be sacred & ruthlessly attempt to
foist it on others, it's "symbolic" you see & must never be dissed;
whereas individuals' excentric habits & beliefs, which one might also
think "symbolic", are traditionally up for licensed mockery &
persecution by the (moral) majority. What exactly do you mean by "the
ramifications of one's remarks"? What have been the ramifications of the
remarks made in various "holy" scriptures dissing the members of all
other groups? Does anyone stand up for the rights of the Amalekites or
the Baalists? If someone says "Jezebel" as a term of revilement or
mockery, who says "Hey, she was the sacred representative of Asherah on
earth"? But a modern fundamentalist website can drool over & approve the
massacre of Baalists described in the Good Book and say "The experience
of Israel shows us how we must be diligent in our maintenance of the
purity of the faith." Oh Christ, oh sweet Jesus.
mj
Roger Day wrote:
>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/
>
>
>
--
M.J.Walker - no blog - no webpage - no idea
Nous ne faisons que nous entregloser. - Montaigne
|