"On Easter morning, they five were well-nigh alone. Apart from a pagan man who rode watchful about the acres, everyone else had gone into town for the post-baptismal services and the festivities that would follow." (p. 166)
There is social pressure to accept what is becoming the dominant religion. In my opinion, it is wrong to convert for that reason. Tera and Maeloch stay with the old ways as they should if that is how they see things. Meanwhile, it should be possible to share cultures and celebrations while maintaining the integrity of liturgies that are open only to initiates. Our Muslim neighbours give us food at Eid although we have not fasted with them. I know that I should accept food in a Sikh or Krishna Temple but should not receive communion in a Christian Church.
There can be mutual recognition and acceptance instead of social exclusion.
23 comments:
Conformity is a tribal instinct. In a pre-modern context, it's one of the lubricants that make society function -- that make people feel committed to their neighbors. "Us" vs. "them".
Kaor, Paul!
You are overlooking an important point: the kind of tolerance you desire is only possible if the State enforces the peace and prevents fanatical adherents of rival faiths from killing each other. To cite one example, from time to time Muslims and Hindus massacre each other in mutual pogroms in India. I can easily multiply examples!
Ad astra! Sean
Yes. So we need a culture of tolerance.
Paul: it's easy to be tolerant about things that don't get your knickers in a twist... but when they do, tolerance beats a hasy retreat unless it's -enforced-.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! You beat me to making very similar remarks. You can bet many Muslims think like this: "What loathsome, vile idol worshipers those Hindus are. Even the Jews are better than them!" And many Hindus will think: "What abominable creatures those cow eating Muslims are. How I want to kill them!" Only the police and the army keeps them flying at each other's throats, most of the time, in India.
Ad astra! Sean
Caricatures. A lot of the time, civil society functions without needing enforcement by the police, let alone the army.
We have a different tradition in Britain. When small groups have encouraged violence against minorities and immigrants, we have not relied on the police but have mobilized larger numbers on the streets. This has worked but unfortunately it remains necessary to repeat it from time to time. For example, avowed Nazi sympathizers propose to meet openly in Preston, Lancashire, later this year.
Kaor, Paul!
No, not caricatures. I've come across Muslims who think and talk like that. And I have no doubt there are Hindus who do the same. And you can bet there are others, of both faiths, who are more discreet but agree with such views.
And I disagree with the rest of what you wrote. Always, in the background, the forces of the State, police and army, exists and will and should be used if the need arises.
I have zero use for Utopianism. All humans, of all kinds, should be regarded with prudent wariness.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I speak from experience. When Nazis march, police protect them. When anti-Nazis counter-demonstrate, police regard the counter-demonstrators as the problem. Only if we are there in big enough numbers will the police also turn out in big enough numbers to prevent random violence by the racists who then, in frustration, fight among themselves. They are demoralized when outnumbered and their numbers dwindle but they always return because the government encourages xenophobia. (Trump saw "fine people" on both sides when Nazis and anti-Nazis confronted each other in the US.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
IMO, you are changing the subject, touching on matters of free speech where we may not agree. Much as I despise thugs like the Communists and Nazis, they too have a right to free speech and demonstrations--as long as they behave lawfully and peacefully. So I disagree with the provocative tactics of the anti-Nazis.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the Nazis don't behave lawfully and peacefully. They encourage, incite and commit violence. And this makes them very different from the Communists.
Paul.
IIRC, one anti-Nazi died on that demo where Trump saw "fine people."
Rely on the police?
I have seen:
National Front members throwing empty beer glasses at us with the police making no attempt to intervene;
police with truncheons attacking innocent people in the front of a crowd because idiots at the back threw missiles;
police pushing and shouting unnecessarily and arresting a lot of us, then letting us go because there was no evidence that we had done anything wrong;
being very friendly, helpful and cooperative.
Obviously, they follow orders from the top and the orders change.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't like or trust either Communists or Nazis. Both are bad!
I'll explain more fully what I meant. Have your anti-NF demonstration, but a mile or so away from those idiots. Give them no excuse for being violent. That way the blame will be all on them if violence breaks out. And on the police if they don't keep the NF properly contained.
And on the anti-NF demonstrators if they start the violence first!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am talking about what has happened in my experience since the 1970s. Nazi-inspired groups have incited and committed violence whereas members of Communist Parties have marched and demonstrated peacefully. Of course, many of us criticized their support for the Soviet Union.
I was going to comment: "Nazis should march unopposed? The provocation is not Nazism but active anti-Nazism? No way!" However, you have now offered advice as to how anti-Nazi demonstrations should be conducted.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I despise and distrust all Communists. They are forever discredited by their servile adoration of monsters like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, et al. No matter how many horrors were perpetrated by them: the purges, gulags, killing fields, etc.
For Communists it's always about tactics, the most opportune means of gaining power. Those demonstrations of theirs you mentioned were just means to an end, power. Two steps backwards and one step forward as Lenin would say!
Yes, let the idiot neo-Nazis march, and hold counter demonstrations a reasonable distance from them. Aggressively getting in their faces simply encourages them to do what they want to do, start rioting and brawling.
People with your views should also stop ignoring the anger driving some of that support for the neo-Nazis. If you persist in rejecting the most reasonable protests against unrestricted immigration, for example, you will drive moderate adherents of such views to the extremists.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: the -threat- of force is often more effective than the -application- of force.
That's how the State's monopoly of violence works.
It usually doesn't mean the direct application of violence, just the knowledge that it -can- be done and on a scale no individual or group can resist.
That being so, people seek other means of getting what they want.
So, eg., civil war, represent a -breakdown- of the State's monopoly of violence.
In a well-run country, this can lead to people assuming that the threat of force isn't necessary. But it is.
Sean,
I knew British Communist Party members. They really did have an unrealistic idea that there could be a peaceful Parliamentary transition to some kind of fairer society under the auspices of a left Labour government with their support. They somehow thought that the Soviet Union was a regime to be supported, not condemned. Their organization has disappeared and it is a relief that it has gone.
While the CP did exist, I sometimes marched with Communists against racists, never the other way round!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: No, the Communists you knew were either deluded "useful idiots" or cynical opportunists. People I would never march with. I don't care if they were "anti-racist," anyone who supported totalitarianism puts himself beyond the pale.
Mr. Stirling: Absolutely! Esp. how, too often, people fortunate enough to live in peaceful, stable times forgets how that peace depends on that threat of force by the State, any State, to exist.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
They were certainly deluded. We can agree with someone on one issue but not on another. I march with Jewish people against anti-semitism but not for Zionism. But I am not sure who was supposed to be manipulating these "useful idiots." Certainly not the old men in the Kremlin who were losing the Cold War at the time.
Paul.
They were not cynical opportunists. Trust me to judge people that I have known.
Kaor, Paul!
But before the death of Brezhnev, the last strong General Secretary, they were being manipulated by the USSR. I agree Brezhnev's successors were ineffectual and losing their grip.
If not the Communists you knew, others were very likely opportunists. Esp. those working for the USSR.
Ad astra! Sean
In any case, many of us strongly disagreed with their support for the USSR and they are now gone.
Post a Comment