It surely would be nice if attitudes returned to the tolerant and respectful state of my youth about this subject. Yes, I know that the attitude of entitlement and the ‘normalcy’ of Christian rituals permeating our culture has always been close to the surface and in some instances, directly ‘in your face’. However, as a kid, in the 1940s and into the 1950s, I remember being taught to not impose any particular religious rite upon anyone else. We could feel safe and do as we wished in church but that was where such things took place and not in the public commons. Even though I did grow up in the ‘North’, few would call Indiana a bastion of progressive thinking. Somehow, even in this conservative culture, there was a wide acceptance and respect for others when it came to things like religion, politics and life in general. Of course, I remember, in grade school, perhaps 2nd grade or so, when ‘under god’ was added to the pledge. I found it curious and still have to force myself to remember that aspect of the pledge.
Somehow, my idealistic attitude hopes for and projects an attitude of the ‘normalcy’ of a respective secular society. When I am able to hold this view, life is better. The conscious polarization of people over the last few decades in many areas has produced an ongoing dialectic that would make Karl and Frederick proud! Since the successful move to pit person against person, similar to the civil war era, by politicians and now the corporate media and others through all sorts of propaganda, the notion of ‘in order to form a more perfect union’ is seldom heard nor addressed. Since there remains a strong sense of nationalism, albeit a confused one, I suggest that going forth using such attitudes of inclusion, similar to Barack’s words and apparent persona, might hasten the return to more egalitarian times. I find the notion of removing theological rituals and beliefs from any society to be foolhardy, at lest for the near future. What I suggest is helping to reinstitute more of an inclusionary approach, forging forth with at least the feigned persona of not imposing our will upon others as being the normal state of affairs. And, by extension, is expected of all. This is for daily interaction. When necessary, then the ‘war’ must be forged. Similar to the days of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the will of the people, ALL of the people must be heard and this includes those of us who do not appreciate being ‘evangelized’. The truth is that many of those who may not have thought about this before would agree when and IF they had been hustled to join some group and/or religion not to their liking. Such hypotheticals presented at the appropriate moment can do wonders. No, I am not so naïve as to think there will be no opposition. It is clear that there have always been and will always be fanatics. People who have attached to their beliefs about what is right and wrong to such a degree as to feel the need to impose this upon others exhibit an illness of the psyche and must be treated and talked about as such. A simple polarization like calling ‘them’ terrorists does a grave injustice to the reality of the situation let alone rational thinking. Although, I do understand how attractive such further polarization can be. In the end, am I proposing anything radical? Not really, just a further examination of my own and other people’s perceived attitudes. So, thank you for having the forum where I could openly express and explore my own thinking on this subject! ornamentalmind --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
