Two much

Survived the yesterday. Avoided any of the demonstrations/festivities. Not that I think there were any in Greater Metropolitan Arab. Neither birthday boy is considered publicly positive by the city government of real estate agents. It does bring up the consideration of the idea of race, which is a specious one perpetrated by a grasping government and those who would profit from the false differentiation.

On which azimuth it is easy to shift over to the one of religionist fascism, of which there was much on the planet lately, mostly centering itself among Mohammedans and their hatred of free speech and other liberties. I suppose that view is natural in a religion that excuses itself by proclaiming all humans to be the slaves of the deity. I realize that is insulting. I certainly feel insulted typing it.

Back when I was a graduate student at the campus of the Boneyard, I studied the local Amish folk. Not academically but from personal interest. They are very inspirational although I have to admit I lack the strength to live as they do. They have a tenet that the worst sin is to speak for the deity. I strongly agree with that. It is also, I suspect, the worst tyranny.

It seems obvious to me that any evangelism comes under this tenet. I exclude here requested explanations of beliefs and doctrine and such. But unasked for expositions of a religionist nature definite constitute instances of the worst sin. The question I have been mulling is whether any preaching comes under it? And since this weekend, whether demonstrations conducted on religionist grounds do? My current leaning is positive. Protesting that someone else is wrong on religious grounds would seem to be speaking for deity.

Of course, I have found over the years that most religionists, especially the ones here in Greater Metropolitan Arab, reject the idea that their speaking for deity is wrong. In fact, my typing it here may be a violation of the ban.

Isn’t religion wonderful?