Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMG: Welcome to Jordan!

Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Welcome to Jordan!
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 13:13:43 -0800
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/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz