The religious side.

I am Christian, but in a very broad sense. To me, it is obvious from the dogma that "God created the world", that God is quite a open minded sort of being. After all the dogma isn't "God created the white religious right and something nasty did the rest". Let's face it folks, God created the whole world, and everybody and everything on it.

Next, "God loves you" implies he loves me, you, the Hindu's, the Buddhists, etc. Therefore he didn't abandon them, therefore all religions hold an element of God's truth. And I am certain that the converse, "none hold all of God's truth" is equally true.

So in this somewhat broad and relatively anchorless religious view, how do I keep on track? To me, all dogma, no matter from what source, be it from the Pope, the Bible, the Swami or the Pastor, must be compatible with my central dogma. "God is good, God is love, God is mercy, God is kindness, God is holy." ANYTHING that fails to match this dogma must be rejected.

Equally important is not to put limitations on the central dogma. God is not just a little bit good. God IS good. Infinitely good. Also all that is good, is but a part of God.

Note the omission in the central dogma. I don't have "God is the creator". I believe that God is the creator, but that is not important. Without the other, far more important elements of the central dogma, I would fear and hate the creator, but not love him.

Particularly "on-track" non biblical texts I have found have been on Zen, Yoga and the Tao te Ching.

The religion influences my politics

God says some fairly definite things, repeated many times over across the religious groups. Clearly then these repeat patterns are central to what God wants us to know. Amongst them are "Thou shalt not kill". In none of the groupings is this qualified by, "Except when dressed in a uniform." The only qualifications are in the line of, "God is my strength and shield". These attitudes are found in practically every holy text.

I choose to take God at his word. Therefore I'm called a Pacifist. (See this for a much better but very black exposition of my reasons.) During the time of South Africa's great madness, I chose to be a religious objector in the category, wear uniform but not carry weapons. I had the misguided notion that if I did not remove myself entirely from the forces, I may at least act as a moderating influence.

Anarchy

Anarchy means "no hierarchy". An "anarchist" believes that one should govern oneself, and govern and be governed by no other.

In the popular press "Anarchy" has come to mean "violent disorder". Twits. If they actually bothered to read the writings of the Anarchists, they would find that most of them are pacifists.

They would also find on closer inspection that where there is violent disorder, the heavy hand of the State has been most active in forcing and forbidding. ie. The presence of the State induces violence, directed at the State, but not at the call of the Anarchists.

It is also notable that those most engaged in the most violent action against the state are usually calling for more government rather than less.

For more links into the wonderful world on Anarchy, read the FAQ.

Now my Anarchist views show up in all kinds of small ways...

• If I, AND all my colleagues were fired, (ie. the whole uncivil service) I would called it A Good Thing.
• I have developed a strong distaste for large corporations and where possible do no business with them.
• I like small enterprise, and most of my personal budget goes to "flea-market" level enterprise. (Get damn good service too!)
• Yes, I voted for the Keep It Simple Stupid party in the last elections. So you voted for proven murderers, are you proud?
• I mistrust large committees, and find myself walking out of them when dumped in one.
• I'm strongly in favour of freedom of information, and pushing hard to create 'net access to uncivil service databases.
• I'm developing a strong revulsion for any software that isn't GPL'ed. Non GPL software must have bad karma or something because its always limiting and tacky.

To an anarchist "democracy" and the "rule-of-law" is slightly amusing.

The only reason why democracy works so well is that democratic processes are so slow, and the majorities so close, that the democratic governments mostly run around in circles and do nothing.

Any Nazi will tell you, nobody ever did as much in so little time for his people as Hitler. A historically verifiable fact. But we don't want Hitler's do we now? Real nasty buggers they are.

The real advantage of a democracy is that its the closest thing on this planet to an anarchy.

The sole point about the "rule-of-law" is that courts and lawyers and the whole ta-hoo-ha take so much money and so much time to get nowhere, that most people say, "Ag what the hell, it simply isn't worth the bother to actually fight."

Which is as close as you get to universal pacifism.

I mean, seriously now, how many people do you know who have actually got their rights through court action? Umm. None? One? Minus ten? Now you tell me, what really is the effect of the rule of law?

Comments, queries and conversation.

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page