Recent comments in response to posts on Dangerous Intersection have led me to write this screed. Screed is to be the operative word for this, for it has been born out impatience and anger. The biggest danger we face in the long run is the basic ignorance people bring to…
I just found out about Conservapedia, an online service started to combat the educated, generally well-researched, illuminating, and therefore Left-wing, Liberal postings at Wikipedia. Read about what a Democrat really is, in a way that even Fox News wouldn't claim. Read about Evolution, which begins with the chapter "Lack of…
My country, India, claims to be a multi-cultural, multi-religious country. Though there is a sizeable Muslim and Christian population here, 80% of Indians are Hindu by faith. And unlike Christianity or Islam, the tenets of Hinduism are not put down in a book like the Bible or Q’oran. In fact, the Hindu religion has no specific tenets. Religious beliefs, customs, rites, and rituals, vary from region to region (and in some cases family to family). And unlike followers of other major religions of the world, Hindus do not worship any particular god. In India, it is very common for one Hindu to ask another, “Which God do you worship?” While Hinduism does have its mythology, there is no “official” version put down in Book X or Book Y. You simply believe that a certain god exists, and believe your community’s version of the life history of that particular god.
This mythic form of religion contrasts strongly to the rigid and institutionalized religions of the west. One could also say that Hindu beliefs are transmitted through a ‘mythic consciousness’, as opposed to western religions which rely on a consciousness that is linear in nature. While science requires tangible evidence to confirm an event or object to be true or ‘real’, western religions such as Christianity or Islam consider any mention of that event or object in their holy book to be evidence for truth or ‘existence’ of that event or object. Note that western religions still rely on the principle of …
Last week I attended a panel at The Tank in New York City, where Ari Melber of The Nation, Democratic strategist Scott Shields, and erstwhile John Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon were giving a talk on progressive politics, netroots political activism, and how to combat the right-wing noise machine.…
A sorority at De Pauw University booted out a bunch of its pledges and it made the news. Here is the link to the story.
Before I continue, I wish to make my own sentiments perfectly clear. I detest the notion of fraternities and sororities. They are, to me, childish things which people belong to out of some desire to be special without having to rely on their own abilities–special by association. Pass the initiation, become accepted as a member, and you then can “borrow” the prestige of the group.
Or be tainted by it, as with, say, the John Birch Society or the KKK.
This is not to say I see no reason for many of these associations to exist–unions are a very loose form of such things, and I would argue that they serve a positive purpose, although they share the same capacity for abuse of the individual as any large organization, corporate, religious, or social. They are, to put it in as simple terms as I can, a necessary evil.
My prejudice in this regard stems from one of the more persistent myths underlying American culture–that of the coherent and independent individual. I say myth because it is patently untrue–likely an impossibility–and yet we struggle collectively toward instantiating the model through our laws, our national ethos, and our image of ourselves as individuals.
Which makes joing a fraternity or a sorority a particularly perplexing contradiction.
One joins such organizations for numerous reasons all of which center or …