My parents are followers of that polytheistic religion called Hinduism, so I'm often tagged a Hindu by people who don't know me well enough to know that I think religion is, to put it very unoriginally, the (insert drug of choice) of the masses.
So I've had to put up with loads of people telling me that polytheism is stupid. It's inferior to monotheism. And I've never really bothered trying to refute the claim, partly because I probably bought into it myself, given the historical progression from a mainly polytheistic world to one where monotheistic ideas became dominant.
Because it's easy to make the naive assumption that the further back you go in time, the stupider people were. To counter this, consider the heliocentric model of the solar system. The ancient indians, arabs, and certain greek scientists knew that the earth revolved around the sun. Go here for details. But the theory of heliocentrism was lost in obscurity, later on, in medieval Europe. When the debate was rekindled, the church stepped in and pushed the Ptolemaic idea that the sun revolved around the earth. Random waves of stupidity are quite common, even in eras where scientific thought generally progresses. Like the creationist wave. Because despite the existence of creationists, no one would argue that we're not making technological leaps.
So what are the other reasons that monotheism is regarded as being superior? Does monotheism provide a simpler power structure? Surely the idea of all the power in the universe residing in just ONE god is a far more primitive idea than a dynamical, extremely complex power structure! But you might disagree with me. And we could spend hours arguing about it, and sound as intelligent as two kindergartners (or fashion designers) arguing over the relative merits of the colors red and green. Red may be in this season, but that doesn't mean that green won't make a comeback eventually. (Who decides what colors are in, anyway? Do all the desingers have a secret conference in Milan or somewhere where they take a vote on what colors are in?)
The polytheism vs. monotheism argument is a pointless one in the first place. It's like two people arguing about how to misspell the word 'house'.
The misspelling of house is h-o-w-s-e.
No! It's h-o-w-s!
No, it's h-o-w-s-e! Because that's how Paris Hilton is misspelling it these days!
You get the idea.
Polytheist apologists annoy me. Why should you accept the idea that polytheism is a second rate belief system? All SANE countries allow you to practise any religion of your choosing. Nobody should have to put up with monotheistic arrogance. And stop making excuses for your polytheism. You can cry yourself hoarse about how all the gazillion gods are merely incarnations of one god. But why would you bother? STOP apologizing!
BECAUSE MONOTHEISM IS NOT BETTER THAN POLYTHEISM!
I once found myself in a debate with a friend over idol worship. Unaware of the fact that I'm one of those evil godless types, she says to me, you know, you polytheistic folk, you tend to worship idols a lot.
Like idol worship is a bad thing!
If I want to worship an idol, I will. If I want to worship my Barbie doll, I'll do that too! I'm well within my rights to do so, as long as I don't go blowing up planes and buildings in the process. (And by the way, people, blowing up stuff is just SO passe, so early 2000s! This is 2006, so try to get with the times?)
I'll worship a phallic stone in the mountains, a man on a cross, a stone in the desert, a cute puppy like this one, or a plastic bottle like this one if I want to.
And I won't apologize for picking one over the others, either. They're all equally cool. Or uncool.
A big pre-emptive FUCK YOU to anyone who disagrees with me.
A big pre-emptive FUCK YOU to anyone who's about to tell me I'm going to go to hell. I don't want to go to your stupid heaven anyway!
A big pre-emptive FUCK YOU to anyone who says that Indians are morally and culturally superior to, say, Americans.
A big pre-emptive FUCK YOU to anyone who says that Indians are morally and culturally inferior to, say, Americans.
A big pre-emptive FUCK YOU to anyone who tries to convince me of how some religions are inherently superior to others.
And finally, a big FUCK YOU to that bitch who lost my pink toy keys when I was two years old. That was my favourite toy! You ruined my life, and I will NEVER forgive you!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Fairly pre-emptive young woman you are I see. :)
Phew, somehow dodged all the 'FUCK's. By the way, that was haat (by P. Hilton), swearing girls are haat.
I always raise my finger to each and every religion, but wouldn't mind worshipping the helpful bottle.
And no, blowing up planes is not passe. You're soon gonna see the 'news' of how human blood could be used as an explosive, and therefore all the blood from passengers' bodies will be sucked out before they board the planes.
(Not that it matters much, but your theme is not highlighting links in the posts. So, when you say 'here' and 'this', I'm like 'where' and 'what'. Another problem with colo(u)r?)
Wishful, I wanted the 'Monotheism is superior' folks to shut up, hence all the swearing. :)
Dodo. Well, it shows up on my template. It's probably a broswer issue that I'll have to look into. And yeah, it could be a color issue. :)
And lol @ the human blood thing. But some airlines already do it, but maybe not in such a literal sense.
This was one of those rare posts where I preached that all religions were equal. I wasn't raising fingers, oddly enough for me.
see this is why i laugh people go around saying one religeon is better (or worse) than the other...who made that person ruler of the universe?
no one has the right to tell you to do didley (or worship didley in this case)
why can't everyone just GET THAT?
Mahima, absolutely! The world would be a better place if people didn't keep imposing their will on us.
Raindrop,
If I want to worship an idol, I will. If I want to worship my Barbie doll, I'll do that too! I'm well within my rights to do so, as long as I don't go blowing up planes and buildings in the process.
It looks like there's an implication about non-idol-worshippers, monotheism and fundamentalism. I don't quite see how these inferences may be binding enough universally (assuming there are Martian non-idol-worshipping monotheists).
Does monotheism provide a simpler power structure? Surely the idea of all the power in the universe residing in just ONE god is a far more primitive idea than a dynamical, extremely complex power structure!
Not necessarily. All traditions of mysticism have been essentially monotheist. And the power structures between worshippers and their gods have been as fluid and dynamic (in conception, of course) as human relationships. I am talking about the Bhakti and Sufi movements, as well as the Ein Sof of Kabbalah. The mystics were in union with their gods in the Bhakti and Sufi traditions, while the medieval kabbalists considered them to be intimate to their gods (but not in union). Either way, it was a fluid power structure. And bear in mind that most of these mystics came not from the priestly classes, as the mysticism was also a means of wordly transcendence.
The power structures between the gods themselves (conceptual, again) are not representative as they have been interpreted mostly by the priestly classes. (Think Rudra in the early Vedic Age, and the later ascendancy of Vishnu in the later Vedic Age.)
PS: I have absolutely no problems sounding as intelligent as kindergartners, but I do have a problem with sounding as intelligent as a fashion designer. :-)
angry fix, there was no implication, other than the fact that buildings and planes are usually blown up for reasons stemming from religion, and anyone, be they peace loving idol worshippers or peace loving non idol worshippers, should try to avoid bombs.
I'm aware that the present political climate is one where the mere mention of bombs, buildings and planes leads one to automatically assume that I must be talking about a certain non idol worshipping monotheistic religion. Most Boogs may be Goobs, but it's just bad logic for me or anyone to assume the reverse is true.
Interesting views on mysticism. I have no preferred take on divine power structures, unfortunately, so I won't be giving you much of an argument with that. :)
Ah, the good old my-imaginary-friends-are-better-than-your-imaginary-friends-so-there debate.
I agree that the terms 'polytheism' and 'monotheism' are too broad to call either one generally better than the other. However, I do not believe that all belief systems are necessarily equal. People should be free to believe whatever they want, however illogical, as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights in the process -- and I should be just as free to mock them (depending on how illogical their beliefs might be).
As Dick Masterson says, there are a thousand ways to skin a cat, and all but one are wrong.
Yes, and the right to mock should be an inviolable one. I might start a religion whose basic tenets are to mock other religions, or just generally proclaim other religions to be untrue. But oh, that's already been done.
Raindrop,
That's not what I meant at all: even as broad ideas, without naming "a certain non idol worshipping monotheistic religion", I have problems with the simplistic reduction of monotheism => fundamentalism, polytheism => nuanced understanding.
That was the point I was trying to make, and that was the implication I saw, and still tend to see in what you said. (Hence the example of the mystical traditions which had extremely complex power relationships between the god and the devotee.)
While I would enthusiatically in agreement with Nath when he says he should have the right to mock, I do believe there are issues of sensitivity involved. For instance, in the Danish cartoon controversy, the whole issue was cultural, not even particularly 'religious', because they were attributing extremist terrorist values to an entire community (community in the broadest sense, not in the sense of religion alone). I completely support the outrage of certain Muslim groups, particularly because they countered discourse with discourse. If an affected group had resorted to violence (I believe one or two did, although I don't remember too clearly), then that would've been condemnnable.
Yes, the right to mock is inherent in democracy. But then so is taking exception and protesting peacefully.
"a certain non idol worshipping monotheistic religion"
I was wondering how long it would be before the word 'Muslim' became politically incorrect (excuse me, diversitistically insensitive). I guess we could start using the phrase 'Middle-Eastern American'.
angry fix:
While I would enthusiatically in agreement with Nath when he says he should have the right to mock, I do believe there are issues of sensitivity involved.
Agreed -- it is for this reason that I rarely exercise my right to mock. And yes, there was indeed some violence.
Completely agree, Nath.
Angry Fix:)
No, NEVER made that implication.
(Note the sarcastic overtones in the following lines.)
'Surely the idea of all the power in the universe residing in just ONE god is a far more primitive idea than a dynamical, extremely complex power structure!'
'And we could spend hours arguing about it, and sound as intelligent as two fashion designers.'
The only thing I ever really implied was that I am an atheist, so the polytheism vs. monotheism argument is really a moot one for me.
I support the right to offend. Whether it's a CD cover or slippers with Hindu deities, or MF Hussein's paintings, or the Danish cartoons. The Danish cartoons were clearly meant to provoke, but the sense of outrage felt by some groups was a little excessive, in my opinion. You're right, there was violence. About 20 lives were lost.
Nath, interesting observation about political correctness.
We tend to discard words that take on negative connotations, only to replace them with new words that take on the same connotations, eventually. Like the dance that's gone on with Colored->Negro->Black->African American->Black.
I qualify for the first pre-emptive. That IS a promise, right? :|
Think I may qualify on the last one too. :|
The first one, that's a promise. I'd go with the second one rather than the last one, just to be safe. :)
Post a Comment