Xiouding, on this blog, makes a good point – in one’s exasperation with the religiosity (genuine or otherwise)of the candidates in the US election campaign, he has reminded me that Epicureanism means tolerance and that millions of decent, kind, humane Americans obtain solace and inspiration from their religion.
That should be the end of it. Everyone to his own. If it makes you feel good and gives you another being to talk to it’s perfectly fine. What is disagreeable is when religion impinges on politics (the treatment of homosexuals and the attempt to shove "intellgent design " down the throats of school-children), that exasperation turns to militancy.
Centuries ago women covered themselves up to avoid the sun in the deserts of Arabia, a light skin being desirable. That was turned into a religious requirement by the extremists and literalists. This is a simple example of religion going daft.
But I agree with Xiaoding that one should acknowledge the good things that religion can offer as well as the bad. Pity the religious cannot see the good things that Epicureanism has to offer, but their intolerance should not be met by ours in equal measure!
The current front-runner in the Republican party believes in “intelligent design”. Were he elected he would have control over the huge, world-beating scientific research conducted by the United States, research that has given us, one way or another, the high living standards enjoyed in the Western world. Does this not concern rational people?
Epiphanies for Epiphany: I am intolerant of ALL intolerant religions and I am intolerant of people who tolerate violence and ignorance. Where does that leave me?
Greetings, just thought I’d say hello. I’m running a blog in which I’ve been writing about Epicureanism lately (see link). I like that philosophy.
d’aollonia: I am intolerant of ALL intolerant religions and I am intolerant of people who tolerate violence and ignorance. Where does that leave me?
Good point. It leaves you battling with the aid of words and ideas, but never with threats, violence, proscriptions, or excommunications.
Don’t you think?
By the way, and quite off the subject, is it not exciting that a swelling number of voters are choosing a fresh start, a refusal to accept special interest control over issues, a determination to heal the self-inflicted wounds of the United States, are rejecting dreary old business as usual and the Rush Limbaugh school of political invective, and are voting for someone WITHOUT ANY EXPERIENCE! Look where “experience” as led us!!!
The president does not control scientific research, at worst he can be an annoyance.
Anyone who thinks Obama is “new”, is in for a rude awakening! 🙂
“What is disagreeable is when religion impinges on politics (the treatment of homosexuals and the attempt to shove “intellgent design ” down the throats of school-children), that exasperation turns to militancy.”
Absolutely! Can’t wait till the subject comes up again with some religious person…the expression on their face, when I tell them, that in rejecting reason and science, and thus, the evidence that the Lord has given us through our God given eyes, and, that therefore, they reject God, and so worship a false God, of their own creation, should be something to see! 🙂
Quote: The president does not control scientific research, at worst he can be an annoyance.
Not quite true. Most medical and warfare research is done with Federal funding, over which the President has quite a say. This current fella has played around with such matters as research on stem cells and climate change , to give just 2 examples. The drug companies, who moan all the time about the cost of research wouldn’t be where they are today without basic government research. If you seriously think it is all done with private money, you have to be kidding yourself.
About Obama, I guess I won’t like quite a lot of what he does if he gets to be President, but he has a brain and common sense (for a change) and if in four years he de-fangs some of the more unpleasant extremists and actually initiates a dialogue between parties and interests, he will have done the nation a service. He needs to sideline the Rush Limbaughs of the world and make them old hat, 20th Century, unfashionable. We need one nation, not two. This is common sense, but there are many out there who have a vested interest in the schoolyard world of “yah-boo, you’re a liberal ” way of running a country. Maybe we grow up?
Centuries ago women covered themselves up to avoid the sun in the deserts of Arabia, a light skin being desirable. That was turned into a religious requirement by the extremists and literalists. This is a simple example of religion going daft.
I would take issue with this remark. For centuries men have used many different forms of claustration in order to keep rigid control over thier women’s sexuality. Foot binding, castration, veiling are examples.From a Darwinian point of view, the subconscious reason was to make sure any children born were theirs (and therefore the replication of their own genes). From a psychological point of view, it is to maintain control over 51% of the species of which most men are deeply afraid. It is this that extemists have turned into a religious requirement.
What would Epicurus say about this form of intolerance??
Marin Dean says:
“STAMP OUT INTOLERANCE”
Epicurus welcomed women as equals into his Garden. Good for him. It is hard to judge people’s outlook two and a half millenia ago, but it would be safe to say that he would be appalled at foot binding, castration, veiling, and all the other ways men have mis-treated women. To turn them part and parcel into religious requirements would leave him speechless.
On the other hand i am not aware of any men who are deeply afraid of women.
Maybe you have weird family? Can you name some?
I think you would find, if you were a psychoanalist, that men are afraid of women for many and varied reasons. Their first experience of a woman is a mother who could withdraw her approval, which to a small child can be devastating. This is a seminal experience which is extrapolated to other sigfnificant women in his life. Sub consciously, of course.
Secondly, a woman has the power to disempower a man, sexually, psychologically and emotionally, He knows this (again sub consciously, and of course often in reality) and this is a fearful situation.
This deep down fear of women is the reason for claustration, occupational restrictions, and other abuse, physical, and emotional, which is demonstrated by less than mature men.
Then there is the research that has found that although there are more male geniuses, and each gender has its strengths, women are, on average more intelligent than men…. I could go on… and on…
(BOOO!!!!!!!!)
“I think you would find, if you were a psychoanalyst, that men are afraid of women for many and varied reasons. ”
You make the same argument the homosexuals do, that they are treated differently because people are “afraid” of them. Both they and you wish.
Women are treated the ways you describe, because they are seen as property, very valuable property, in those societies. Women have always been property in most societies, especially the Greek one. It is not fear, but branding. It says “I own you”. It tells the other men hands off.
“Secondly, a woman has the power to disempower a man, sexually, psychologically and emotionally, He knows this (again sub consciously, and of course often in reality) and this is a fearful situation.”
Very true, although I would state, it only works in an honor society, such as the Arab one. In a society where a man can trade in his 48 year old harpie for a 24 year old skank…not so much. 🙂
I can only imagine what a ‘skank’ is! but of course you are right about women being the property of men to keep them from other men. Darwin would suggest that knowing without question that their children were their own, would mean that the time and resources invested in them is worth it.
I still believe there is evidence for a primitive fear of women – men, of course, will be in denial !!!