Those within a group (let’s take a very weird cult, for argument’s sake) tend to exaggerate the similarities between group members, and exaggerate their differences to out-group individuals. And then there’s group-think, which we all know and love. There was a lovely book called the March of Folly, but I quite forget the author. I know exactly which shelf it’s on, in the local public library, but that doesn’t help ^^ People tend to get caught up in how wonderful the group is, and how terrible the out-group is.

Look at Phillip II of Spain: he was completely of the opinion that his Catholicism was the only “true” Christianity, and full of righteous piety while burning Reformists at the stake. Of course, I’m suspicious of the excessively pious. The ones that can’t possibly admit they’re wrong. Monomania is the least of their worries. The obsession with sex, or the repression of females, all that weird stuff – I’m reminded of Norman Bates. Or some kinds of serial killer. Not that all fanatics fall into this mould, of course. Some are just trigger-happy. And any “born again” Christian who ignores something as fundamental as Thou shalt not kill, or Do not judge others, and God will not judge you, is highly suspect, in my mind. As a tree is known by its fruit, so a man is known by his deeds…

What interested me re ideology, of course, is it was defined as any doctine that is strictly adhered to, for the sake of the economic superiority of those holding it. Strange, but it does ring true. Most …what were they called?… autos de fe were given to those whose crime was being exceedingly rich, because anyone condemned by the Inquisition (and “relaxed” to the secular government for execution) had their estates forfeit to the Church. Very convenient. A lot of the Jews in the Medieaval period in Europe suffered extremely, simply because, with all other work forbidden to them, they became money-lenders and usurers. Anyone that rich in a time when usury was frowned on and a middle class did not exist was fair prey for most unscrupulous rulers; King John I of England was said to keep Jews in his dungeons, “at his pleasure”, in order to secure loans. But of course, the poor people concerned had no ability to secure any return payment, and would rather not give him anything. Of course, the basal ideology was that they, like Muslims, were heretics. And so fair game.

In fact, there grew a strange obsession with “heresy” in Medieaval Spain, post-reconquista. It came to be viewed as a blood taint. Guilt by ancestral association, as it were. Even if you had only the tiniest drop of Jewish or Moorish blood, you were fair game. Those who were the foremost proponents of said persecution became very, very rich by hiding their own history very, very well. Torquemada, for example, was part Jewish. Hitler’s grandmother was Jewish. As is Ahmadinejad. (Oh dear, I can’t think why it looks like I’ve misspelt him, but I fear I have.) But their extreme, excessive fanaticism probably hid/hides a tiny smidgeon of deep self-disgust, and the best way to cleanse yourself from perceived sin is to shift the focus to others and wipe them out thoroughly, to prove your own devotion to purity. Which leads me to believe that McCarthy and Nixon, to name but a few, were only accusing others in order to smell of roses themselves.

Think about it, though: if, through racism, you can reserve the best and most high-paying jobs for your own ethnicity, why be egalitarian? Why promote women when the male sex profits so deeply from the glass ceiling? Except that having half your population so disempowered has devastating effects on your GDP as a whole. And you’re forced to promote the inadequate instead of hiring on merit. Women who don’t have the option of high-paying jobs are far less likely to have well-educated children, and cannot provide for their families when the male breadwinner is lacking. In the long term view of things, then, all ideology is irrational. Collectively, rather than individually, for what Southern plantation owner would benefit from freeing his slaves? What high-powered CEO would open himself to being outclassed by a highly intelligent, driven businesswoman?

Spain after the Reconquista was economically enriched in the short term, but entirely lost the long-term flowering of culture and learning that developed under Moorish rule, which would have enabled her to prosper far more throughout history.

Then again, one can argue that most of Morocco was built on the blood, sweat and tears of Christians of all nations, taken captive and sold into slavery by the Sallee rovers, among others. Jihad was extremely profitable. And everyone seems to forget that the Crusades came about to thwart Turkish attacks on the Golden Horn. And Phillip was engaged on defeating the Turks himself – the Caliph was intent on building himself a marvelous western palace in Paris, to more easily subdue Europe in the summer. But history is oft forgotten.

Nevertheless, I would love to read your “hidden” posts, if you would let me

And one day I hope to purchase one of your Arabs in the Alhambra, if can ever afford it.

I agree with the ”polar opposites” in effect nothing changes…

I remember when I first met my wife she worried that I was one of the nut case Salafi reverts who become an extremist to make up for their past.

These types seems to forget that it is a well known teaching that when you convert to Islam that your previous sins are forgiven and that they only thing they need to do is to concentrate on the future.

Instead these folks just become polar opposites of what they once were, and in a different way, just as bad.

Still: resistance is not futile!!!!!!!!!
(not until they are really Borg)

intlxpatr, The most remarcable thing is, that even the atheïsts who want you to convert to atheïsm, àlso use the same vocabulary to ”convert” you.

Yeah, are men so dim that they can only see ”protection of women” as in their ”Own Advantage, to the Detriment of Women”???
Why can’t they take it literally? take real care for us, and really protect us?

Rhysz, eeehm, you are right about everything.

Usually, I tend to stay away from this subject but the Law Library seesm particularly dreery this day. Non-beleivers (I’m not religious=), can be easily devided into two groups, which can not and must not be confused.

Most non-believers are secularists who seek to keep the wall between religion and the state intact and as strong as possible. I’ll lump myself in with this group, we’re not particularly well organized because we tend to have very different views. Luckilly, we tend to celebrate our differences instead of mourning them. Ou differing views tend to lead to fun arguments and dialogue, something which I’m a bit addicted to.

Virulent non-beleivers are NOT secular, we tend to view them as foreign as the muttawa themselves. These guys are either utterly uninformed (which seems to be a fad over here, they’re arguments hold no more water than ‘religion is stupid’, clearly not the kind of people one can have an intelligent discussion with. The other group, IMhO a much more dangerous group, has already been exposed many times in history. They seek to exchange religion for endless worship of the state (communism, national-socialism). For instance, in North-Korea (one of the most heinous states the world has witnessed) all that is good flows from the state (or the ‘dear leader’, his dead father is the ‘great leader’ which makes the country a Necrocracy. The old communist countries (Albania takes the cherry) and some of the more right wing dictatorships lock in to the exact same ‘witch-hunting’ thinking proces (or lack there off) as the extreme religious types. Their methods differ only in the slightest details, they’ll prosecute, tortures and violate you as much as possible. (why am I suddenly thinking of McCarthy and the recent ‘un-American arguments?)

Anyway, people on my side of the fence, although I wish they weren’t, seem to think that everything associated with religion is somehow tainted. I like to call these people morons, they seem to know everything yet have experienced nothing. Some people thought I was batshit insane when I told them I adore Bach, Passion of Matthew or that my friend showed me some muslem song that I thought were quite beutifull. This mindset is exactly as culpable of ignorance and stupidity as the ‘witch- hunters’. Oh well, this is turning into a rant…….

@ Aafke
Hey sis, please save this post for me even if you block it from the site^^ One of my friends may be giving me a domain for my birthday and I want to use this for my first post.

Own domain > own blog ;P

Regards,
Rhysz

I often tell my friends back in the US that I am often more comfortable here in Kuwait with Moslem women, rather than non-believers (I am religious). I loved it that you make the point that virulent non-believers can be as witch-hunty as virulent believers. We can believe, or not believe, and not be nuts.

And I think you are totally right, the focus always seems to be on making life tougher for women, and pumping up men to be our “protectors.” God save us from such protection!

NOT!

Plus, the drive to shave the corners off the square pegs isn’t limited to religion, either. Adding to the tension is our psychological need as humans to fit into “the tribe.”