Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gem
Religion is necessarily sectarian because it is a named thing, and unless people identify with that name, they remain just people like everyone else.
No doubt people have a spiritual dimension regardless of what they believe or do not believe, and perhaps it is fair to describe what is a really religious mind, which has nothing to do with religious belief at all. But lest we become convoluted, we shouldn't say there is a true religion and a false one, and be very clear that religion is one narrative or another that props up a system of symbols, rituals, costumes etc and an identified entity maintained by those who internalise the entity as what they are.
If we are to speak in a way that addresses the issue, we can't be nice, and the conditioning about how we need to respect religions is problematic as well. For example, this 'respectful' regard enables the Church to continue even when their institutional abuses are clearly exposed. The same applies other self appointed and presumed spiritual teachers, and considering the degeneracy perpetrated under this guise of spiritual leadership, let our critique be such that the fundamental rot is found so that no one eats the tainted fruit.
...
People see the degeneracy of their own institutions and remain identified with them anyway. This makes them party to if not complicit with the horrors I allude to, and you may wonder why I fear one adorned with the crucifix even though I am not a vampire. It is not the particular individual that concerns me. it's the superego; the collective identity as the life-blood of an inherently violent entity.
|
Sectarian is only an issue when there is some authortarian power dynamic in play. Where a few are allowed to control the beliefs of others. It usually occurs by way of some fear or charismatic enchantment, or a nice combination of those.
I would say that having diversity of ideas is healthy. And all religions I have studied eventually lead to a mystical component that encourages the individuals to self-explore and share their stories.
Names are just an agreement for communication. It does not matter what things have names or how they are named or that names are agreed upon. Look up "null-subject language" and it will make you wonder how much banter about self and non-self is really just an exagerated communications issue.
<< Wikipedia >> In linguistic typology, a null-subject language is a language whose grammar permits an independent clause to lack an explicit subject; such a clause is then said to have a null subject.
So then someone with great charisma shares ideas that are poorly translated from a null-subject language. The identity gets dropped and everyone goes "ooh, that missing name must mean something important". They get sidetracked and miss the point of the teaching. Which most likely involves maturation and transcending self rather then elimination of self.
Spiders spin webs and birds sing songs and humans share stories. It is in our nature to do this. So a little group self-organizing is to be expected and natural.
The idea that all sharing of ideas and symbols should be stopped comes across as a form of control that appears to me to support authoritarian control and be in contradiction to your intent. Instead of control with avoidance maybe there is some way to embrace these types of relationships in a healthy way.
People, as in human beings with a body with a human brain, must identify with things. It is how our brains function at a very base level. In the end it is not the religion that demands respect, it is the people who carry those beliefs. And their need to share them.