In a previous post I started commenting on the application of religion and spirituality and was working towards a contrast with government. More specifically: 1.) spirituality is the application of philosophy of association with the supernatural into everyday life.
2.) not all religions are equal
3.) those religions that have unrealistic philosophies provide “escape hatches” to allow reality a small bit of presence.
4.) There is a component of social participation in the realm of spirituality
Expanding on each of these would take longer than I would like to spend and also not alloy me to get to the contrast section which was my original intent.
Considering the tux dresses pianist at the metal concert, it is possible to be an individual in the spiritual setting personally apart from the surroundings. One’s relationship with God and spiritual matters can exist apart from the social setting, as well as with contrary social opinions. One can be a hermit, and have a rich spiritual life. One can be placed in prison in Iran for believing in God, and still have a wonderful spiritual life. Spirituality is from an inward commune with God, which expressed itself outwardly. The origin is inside.
Government can only be done in a group and is exclusively external negative pressure. Does government produce anything? Yes. They produce laws, but what is a law? It is permission they give themselves to remove something from the citizen under certain circumstances. The speed limit is the government giving itself permission to remove x amount of money from the citizen if the vehicle travels faster than whatever the number posted says. Income taxes are permission the government gives itself to remove the earnings from the person for earning whatever amount. Pick any law of which you can think and the only impetus is force to remove something from the individual. After all, what will happen if the citizen does not willingly follow the decree of those in power? Punishment will follow. That punishment is whatever the governmental critters decided was applicable to maintain compliance with their rules. Hence, my assertion that government can only be done in a group setting. The behaviors desired are determined by the few and forcibly applied to the mass.
Contrast that with spirituality where one is seeking relationship with God and orders behavior accordingly. I will admit that formal religion has messed up this relationship, but that is the basis. Let’s ponder formal religion for a moment.
I have been part of a couple different denominations over my lifetime providing the opportunity to attend various churches under the same banner. The privilege this affords is that one is able to travel to another part of the country and participate in a worship setting similar to the one normally attended. Those who maintain similar belief systems and preferences tend to group and this is prevalent in the formal religious systems. This allows fellowship between those of similar faith and comfort of familiarity.
There is a story I have told several times originating from my teen years somewhere. Hence, I can’t tell you the origin: two boys lived next to each other. One was a Catholic and the other a Methodist. They got to talking about their various services and decided to go to each other’s churches. They went to the Catholic service first and through the entire service the Methodist boy would nudge his friend and ask, “What does that mean?” The Catholic boy would quietly explain each portion to him. The next week they went to the Methodist church and this time the Catholic boy didn’t ask a question. Through most of the procedures, he did not ask a thing. The pastor got up and started preaching. He was bringing the house down. Illustrations, volume, anecdotes were flying. After some time of this, the preacher took out a pocket watch and placed it on the podium. The Catholic boy nudged the Methodist boy and asked, “What does that mean?” The Methodist boy replied, “Not a thing. Not a thing.”
Formal religions adopt rules of conduct in accord with their spiritual beliefs and use those beliefs and teaching of the same to apply for exemptions of tax in this country. Their application of spirituality to life is what accords them religious tax exemption in this country. Therefore, tenets of behavior seen in the social religious setting have accord not only in the belief system of the group, but in the legal sense in this country.
I don’t want to get off track too far from a central point here: there may be behaviors specified here, but they originate in the spiritual matter and are expressed in the social construct. Those from the governmental area are formulated by a few and expressed by force on the many.
I heard an interview on Sean Hannity (maybe?) where he had some apologist from the muslims whom he asked about music. He asked if music would be allowed in this country were the muslims to control it. This apologist batted the question as evasively as possible and when Sean would not relent referred to some imam across the water who was to decide the fate of the entire country’s music were they to control. When I describe islam as a political system with a whitewash of religion, which formula is this closer to? The religion which takes spirituality and applies it to behavior, or a system where the few rules the many? The inability of this individual to articulate any internal spiritual methodology that would elicit the outward behavior is illustrative of a philosophy of rule, not spirituality. Hence, my description of islam as a totalitarian tribal ideology. (Note, there are more examples, I just chose a single easy one for the point.)
How would you arrive at the term tribal for them, would be a reasonable next question. Simple, I look again at their behavior. There are two factions of islam which developed post the death of mohammad from an argument at which relative should be in control of the group. There is shia and sunni. Though they purport to both believe the same book, and behave in manners prescribed therein, the war between Iran and Iraq was between these secs. The present battles in Syria bear the same groups, granted, with several besides. They do have tenants of “religion” that they are to be kind and giving – but only to their own kind. Others are to be subjugated and enslaved. Our initial naval battles from 1805 were fought for the precise reason that we were not them and therefore subject to paying heavy fines. Looking at the behavior exhibited by these individuals is what leads me to call them “tribal” as that is how they behave.
Politically speaking, they have the most effective group riot ability I have ever seen. Some imam claims mohammud has been insulted and then people are killed, businesses are burned, lives ruined. How different is this from the unrest elicited by Zero when a “white hispanic” (there is none such)
defended himself killed a black boy and mayhem has resulted across this country from black youth attacking others who have the wrong amount of melanin in their skin. Is that tribal? Yes. The same behavior exhibited by muslims over mohammud is shown here fomented by our leader (who was a trained muslim), just using race, not religion, as the defining characteristic. That is how I get to the point of Zero applying the same principles of islam in this country similar to communism. Remember that Marx had a book describing the battle between the workers and the owners. There are tribes, and there is discord. In both areas there is the same application of violence and control, just with islam the application of “religion” and hence my description of it as a whitewash of the same philosophy as communism. More succinctly stated: totalitarian tribal ideology.