Swedish political right extremist party Sverigedemokraterna (Sweden Democrats) have managed to give rise to more controversy more than gaining power among the voters. Their leader, Jimmie Åkesson, published a very controversial debate article yesterday in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet (The Evening Paper) where he makes various claims about Muslims being the new threat to the Swedish welfare system.
You can read the article on this site both as a Swedish extract and with a Google translation.
It is clear that Åkesson use sweeping statements and hyperboles, such as claiming that Europe will have the highest rape statistics in the world, and that Muslim men will be overrepresented. This is nothing new and basically just fear-mongering, the truth remains that most rapes today are done by white middle-class men no one would expect to be rapists, and neither do they, hence the as usual complete denial. A lot of men who are white and belong to the middle-class are never convicted simply because the judges believed them more, only for the pure reasons that they were white middle-class men. We do not perceive them of being capable of raping, even when there is overwhelming evidence presented. The reason why is simply of what Åkesson just expressed; we rather believe in the dark ambusher coming from an Arab country, spying on lone women at night hiding in a bush near a parkway, just ready to attack.
I live in a pretty Muslim-dense part of my town, and there is a local store that sell Halal meat. I can’t really say it bothered me more than I think it is unethical to drain an animal of blood while it is still alive, as I consider it a form of animal cruelty. Neither have I never felt unsafe when walking alone at night in my area. A lot of children’s families live here, the worst thing I usually experience are teenagers who drive around with their vespas in the middle of the night. I have also yet to meet a person who was clearly mean to me. All of the people I’ve spoken to are nice, such as the guy who sits at the counter in the previously mentioned store that sell Halal meat.
Instead of actually explaining how he would like to proceed to solve the issues with identitiy crisis among second- and third generation immigrants, Åkesson retorts to fear-mongering tactics. What’s worse is the huge support SD have started to gain among the general population, so obviously it is working. I wish people were less blind and could actually see that Åkesson offers NOTHING to solve the problem, he just makes statement after statement of what is wrong. That is not a solution, just empty promises. So what is Åkesson going to do once he get to power? Kick out all immigrants from Sweden? That is obviously not going to work, no matter how you look at it. One reason is that the Swedish birthrate is too low.
I should add that sually any identity to the grandparents’ country is lost at the third generation as they become completely immersed within their “host” country, so I am not sure what kind of statistics Åkesson took part of, but it’s very contradictory to what I’ve learnt as an anthropology student. So I don’t see why Åkesson is quite worried. Yes, angsty teenagers in the surburbs are a problem, but they aren’t angsty because they are Muslims, they are angsty because the politicians do nothing to improve their situation and ultimately the become marginalized from society! One would expect our politicians to learn that it doesn’t work to dump immigrants on one dense place. Philipe Burgois’ book In Search of Respect is a perfect example of what will happen in Sweden in the future if we don’t try to spend money to improve the situation.
Lastly, there are a lot of claims made about what is Swedish, but Åkesson nor anyone from SD never offer any form of explanation of what they mean what being Swedish is. Am I Swedish for having a Swedish name and a Swedish personal number and for considering myself part Swedish? Or am I too, an evil immigrant here to poison the country and the so called Swedish culture because of my Korean heritage? I do not deny my Korean heritage and I consider myself just as much Korean as I consider myself Swedish. I just so happened to have a Swedish name that people mention me as and to speak Swedish fluently. It should be said that my Korean name is actually a part of my whole name, only the surname is left out for reasons I don’t know, but I think it was inconvenient for my parents to name me Fridh Kim or any variant of it, since they were married and it would be troublesome legally I suppose.
If there is anything that worries me right now when it comes to Swedish politics it’s if SD would get into the parliament. I am very worried over what will happen with the current Swedish democracy and freedom of speech. I do not deny Åkesson’s right to voice his opinions, but I do deny him the right to get into the Swedish parliament and I will actively do so by refusing to vote for him and his party. Any person who only argues for the right for his own freedom of speech and his own social rights only fool himself if he claims to support a democratic society where everybody is equal.
I do agree with Åkesson that our current immigration is a huge issue and that we have yet to learn how to manage to deal with all the angsty teenagers living in the suburbs. Clearly what our politicans are currently doing isn’t working, but this also includes Åkesson and his SD! I admit that one of the reasons why I want to become a scientist within the anthropological field is so I can go out in the field and actually gather FACTS so maybe they’ll start doing something USEFUL and TANGIBLE. I do want to be able to influence our politicians on a greater scale than what I am currently able of just being a normal citizen with an opinion.
It should also be noted that SD got strong Christian roots (hahahahahahaha!), as if I’d ever cast my vote for such a retarded party that make claims of how dangerous Islam is and that the Koran is so dogmatic and then come running making such weak claims that “but at least we got the NT who make claims about turning the other cheek!”. Yeah, right, like that’s exactly what you are doing Åkesson? Like referring to the NT ever stopped Christianity from still oppressing our society and still does here in the West. Cherrypicking, cherrypicking. Of course, Åkesson wouldn’t define his homophobia as much as oppressing, just that the Bible says so and therefore it is right. Now, maybe Åkesson should start looking at himself first and the claims he and his party make regarding domatism, then maybe they got the right to critize Islam properly.
Such fucking idiocy. I wish people could actually see that Åkesson is just a big fucking hypocrite and if I could, I would smother him where he stands with my soceress’ fire ball. In fact, I wish we could tear down our whole current political system and abdicate all our active politicians. They are very good at talking and avoiding questions, very bad at actually making the changes they always claim they are aiming for.
An acquaintance of mine showed me this site, which I initially thought would be atheist propaganda, and I had no idea it was launched by the Humanist movement. When you enter the site, you are prompted to do a test to see how religious you are, so I did. Unfortunately the whole site is in Swedish, for those non-Swedes, but anyway. The test didn’t take long, somewhere between 5-10 minutes, depending on the effort and thinking you put into each answer. I suppose the test itself wasn’t all that bad, although some questions were extreme polarized, where even I, who don’t believe in god at all, found it hard to sometimes answer. For example, one question was formulated such as it asked whether you believed that free will exists, or whether your actions are controlled by something else, god or otherwise. While I do believe in free will as I believe that absolute determinism is flawed, what if you believe free will is an illusion but don’t believe in god? At the start of the test, you also get to fill out what rituals, holidays and other religious celebrations you celebrate with religious origin. Of course, I filled out that I celebrate Easter and Christmas, just like many other people do. But I don’t celebrate out of my belief in Jesus Christ, I celebrate it so I can gather with my family and have some good time together.
Anyway, at the end of the test I received the answer that I was not religious at all, and that religion did not control any part of my everyday life. How the test turned out if you say, believed in god and believed that homosexuals are not allowed to marry I don’t know, but the answer was obvious: either you were religious or you weren’t. And this is where I reacted as well. How can the humanists attack the religious people, and stereotype them to such a degree that they all sound like they were extreme fundamentalists? This was my very first contact with the humanist movement, and it certainly wasn’t all that pleasant, and I got sorely disappointed with their approach.
So, what about the humanist movement? The humanist movement is pro secularism, that is, seperation of church and state, and aggressively work for it to remain so. So far so good, I don’t really see this a bad thing in itself. Humanists also believe in the empowerment of the human being, and that is one of the reasons why I disagree with humanism. It focuses too much on human life, and it puts the human into the center of the universe. While I agree that human empowerment is much better than believing in a skydaddy to rely onto, I can’t quite agree with something that almost sounds derivated from Nietzsche’s idea of the übermensch either, I care too much about the other lifeforms we must co-exist with to say that my human life is more important any other lifeform. Being a humanist implies you believe in the strength of a human being, and while I am sure many people would hate me for using the word faith here, it is irrational faith that make people believe humans are more important than what they are. Nihilistic as I am, I cannot understand how a group of people can forget how little their lives matter to the vast universe, or the earth itself. Another problem I got with the humanist movement is that it’s an organizaton, it’s a group. And it’s becoming almost as bad as the religions they seem to love attacking. Why?
First of all, I will outline the basic definitions of what religion is in an anthropological definition, and even more so fundamentalism, which does not necessarily encompass the belief in a supreme being at all:
- Shared belief system (the belief that the human being is stronger without the belief in god)
- Strict rules or values/dogma (Seperation of church and state, adopted liberalistic ethics. Anyone deviating from these ideas would most likely become ostracized from the group)
- It is an organization with a leader to unite the group members
In addition, to officially be counted as a humanist, you need to pay a fee, just like Christians here in Sweden pay a fee to the Church of Sweden if they are members. Of course, one can be a member without paying a fee, but not officially. Thus far, including propaganda sites like the one I provided at the start of this post and very aggressive methods where they rather seem to be attacking the religious than the religious organizations, it’s as if the humanist movement is becoming a religion itself, and a fundamental one to add. I completely respect their wishes to seperate the church and state in countries where they are not, or to let the church and state remain seperated in countries where they already have been, but when they attack the religious people instead of the religious movements? That’s like shooting themselves in the foot and furthermore, they give atheists bad names! They reinforce the idea that atheists hate religion, and that’s the least rational atheists want.
No, there are many ways you can criticize religion and seperate it from church and state without attacking its believers. Such as stop addressing people personally and address the name of the religious organizations, like the Church of Sweden, or the Pentacostals. It’s really sad, all in all, that they are becoming the thing they so strongly oppose.
My anthropology teacher gave me a very interesting angle to look at Christianity today. First of all, let me outline what my new course is about, and I will roughly translate the title of the course into English: “Worldviews, power and support”. From the title alone, I think it is pretty evident what this course is about, it will mostly deal with political and economical anthropology and how one can study these two things in a society as an anthropologist.
Then, let me outline a quote from Max Weber, a famous German who formed one of the first and well-known definitions of power:
“[P]ower is the possibility for one or for many to realize their own will in communial action, even against the resistance of others.”
Christianity then, is a huge institution both politically, economically and socially, so it is very much possible to look into the system of Christianity and come up with a conclusion about what is power, how it is used and who is using it. My teacher further eplains that the use of power is often internalized by those who who do not actually benefit from the actual practices of the one in power and he gave an example when he was doing field research in an African country whose name is probably not Zimbabwe but very close to it. His field was mostly compromized by studying an African tribe called Alyamba, but for some reason he also visited other parts of the country and thus also a school where he witnessed quite a cruel treatment of the children, not too different to how we treated our own children in school just fifty or so years ago (and in Sweden the corporal punishment of children was not banned from the Swedish national law book until as late as the 1970s, where it says that corporal punishment was allowed during certain circumstances).
He went on to explain that upon his arrival, he saw all the children of that school kneeing with bare knees (in this country all children were wearing typical uniforms, so skirs for girls and shorts for boys) on the rough pebble that constituted a majority of the campus (I understood it as some sort of pebble, I may be wrong, but it doesn’t matter much here in the terms of serving as an analogy). He was lucky being able to ask one boy what was going on and the boy replied with something such as: “We are being punished for our own sake.” This rings a bell in me, and I think many of you understand why. It sounded an awful lot like Christianity, being punished for your own sake. This boy further explained that this punishment happened every day so all the students would shape up and not behave as badly as they would without it, and in a very twisted way, he somehow had managed to see it as positive thing, hence it has become internalized.
My teacher then went on explaining that this is common when power is used or abused; internalizing the structure helps to maintain the current system and is often justified in this sort of manner, it is actually for our own sake we are being punished, even though from the outsider’s point of view, it is quite rediculous. A poor boy being forced to knee on sharp pebbles for gods know how long under the steaking African sun is not a very nice treatment of kids no matter how you see it and certainly does not serve any actual meaning to the boy in question. We can factually prove that this sort of treatment will not improve this boy’s or any other boys’ or girls’ behavior, and there is most likely nothing wrong with it in the first place.
It is further explained that a truly good leader will be able to mask these sort of things justifying it with reasons given above; no matter how rediculous it may seem (the Genocide, the Dark Ages anyone?). Now, what really made me start to think is to whom and why are Christians maintaining this sort of power system? Why do Christians keep insisting that they are sinners and therefore must pray or do whatever pointless ritual to cleanse themselves when God obviously is not nearby and can keep an eye on them, enforcing their behavior is so need be?
I don’t quite feel expressing that Christianity is a meme, a scheme (not to be confused with meme) or even an expression of a bunch of symbols can properly explain this. This is obviously overcourse to me right now, I simply lack the current knowledge of this sort of field to properly even theorize of what could be a cause or a reason.
Max Weber also outlines a few defintions of different types of authority, I am sure they can be meaningful in this sort of discourse but my teacher has yet to explain to us what they all mean so I will leave it for now. Maybe someone else has any ideas?
Yes, I do understand that Christians may be considered disillusional and therefore no more explanation is needed, hence, their leader (God, any priest or other religious leader?) exists but only in their minds, their punishment is primarily delivered all by themselves, but this doesn’t hold up as an explanation from an anthropological point of view. So while I definitely consider it an unserious option as an answer it’s not really what I am looking for here.
It’s interesting and I wish I could dig in it further. Maybe I can do a more proper analysis after the end of this course.
When we talk about religion, we always see it as something cultural, even as a cultural phonomenon perhaps. Religion is however quite far from it, especially when we actually talk about religion and not so much about its practices (although we will get there too). Religion is first of all a political tool. Religion is used as a banner to divide or unite people, and it has been excused as a justification in warfare many times. Religion is also secondly a socio-political identity.
However, to understand what this means, we must first understand that religion in a political context is not always as much as believing or having faith in god(s), but merely faith in something, whether it be a divine being or not. The definition of religion is:
1. A belief or faith in something
2. Rituals
3. Rules
Suddenly the word religion gains a very broad meaning, and can span more than the world religions which be invoked in our thinking when the word religion is mentioned. As such, many of our current cultural phenomena can be seen as a religion. One of those can be the animal right activist groups. To be an animal rights activist, you should first of all share a belief that animals are equal to or better than humans, rituals might involve to not eat meat or consume any product taken from dead/living animals and lastly, rules that forbid you to say, eat meat. This is all put into an overarching system and also gives the animal right activist an identity with other animal right activists by following this agenda. Thus, to truly be an animal right activist means that you actually follow a religion of sorts, in a purely political context. The only reason why you or anyone else would declare yourself an animal right activist is only to politically prove you share the idea of these typical ethics and morals mentioned (animals are of equal or above equal worth compared to humans, you follow a vegetarian diet, you do not consider any form of research conducted on animals ethically correct etc), thus, declaring yourself an animal rights activist outside a political context is useless. Obviously, the idea also unites other animal rights activists under certain organizations such as WWF but also creates a we vs them mentality, let’s say, the evil factories that pollute the rivers and seas so fish will die.
It is also very evident that religion is also more strongly envoked upon when a political identity is needed. I saw a short three-part documentary called We Are All Neighbours today, conducted by anthropologist Tone Bringa in a small village in Bosnia. 1/3 of the population was Catholic, the remaining 2/3 Muslim. It is recorded during the early 90s, (1993) and the conflict between Croatians and Muslims over Bosnia has just begun. At first, the conflict can be heard because of gunshots and shelling, but it is only in a distance and remains so for quite a while. While the villagers are worried the war will break out and soldiers will invade their village, they still don’t understand much of the basic idea of the conflict, that different ethnical groups (Croats, Serbs, Muslims) struggle to gain politcal control over a country (Bosnia). Croats, Serbs and Muslims have lived peacefully in this village for quite some time, and they don’t understand why the fuss. Sure, some of them have different faiths (Catholics vs Muslims) but they still believe in the same god. They also openly declares they don’t understand how you can attack your own neighbour for belonging to a different ethnical group. However, as the violence draws closer it eventually escalates in a bloodbath, where neighbour stands against neighbour, and eventually the Catholics kill their Muslim neighbours when the Croatian soldiers arrive (Croatia is more strongly associated with Catholicism). We can clearly see as the violence draws closer the villagers also keep more and more to themselves; Muslims to Muslims and Catholics to Catholics, despite many of them being good friends before the war begun. They often excused their own newly gained animosity with that “they might consider me a spy” or equally farfetched reasonings. In a world of paranoia however, it doesn’t seem as impossible as it would have before the war.
Here, we can clearly see how one’s religious identity becomes more important to strengthen one’s national identity (Catholics associate themselves with Croatia and support the Croatian army, Muslims the Bosnians and Serbs). Thus, religion is merely a political construct, and when you openly declare you are this or that, you also openly declare a political stance. It might not sound very rational to claim, especially if we look at something such as Atheism.
However, Atheism maybe more than anything is a political construct and many ideas in Atheism support this. First of all, there is a “belief” in science, that at least science is more superior to any other way to view the world. Science is associated with a secular society, and in turn associated with freedom of thought. Here, we can slowly see how Atheism is taking upon more and more political leanings, since freedom of thought often reconciles with freedom of speech. Atheism also often stands for many other common ideas in secular societies, such as a more social welfare model as well as Liberalism (which has partly been mentioned with freedom of speech). Religion on the other hand, is often associated with Conservatism (in a political sense but also culturally) and then that religion’s internal structure (ie rules and rituals) will decide how a Conservative society will look like.
Of course, I am not going so far as saying it is always this way, this is merely shown to point out an example how many Atheists might actually consider themselves, and that at least in a political context, their lack of belief in a god will actually create such as strong socio-political identity that it can be considered a religion, and how the word religion in turn is merely there to express one’s raher ethical, moral and political views than actually your ideas of faith.
The Aristotelian causa efficiens for this article were two recent news articles about two epidemics. A mumps outbreak in Chilliwack, Canada was traced back to a single case in a religious group that was opposed to vaccination. This outbreak has lead to mengingitis, deafness and concerns about sterility in a number of people.[I]). The same infectious disease broke out in the Netherlands this year, which was the first in twenty years. Even though vaccination coverage for this and other diseases is 90-95% in the Netherlands overall, this outbreak took place in a geographic region with a high percentage of residents who are Christian reformed conservatives.[II]).
Most reformed conservatives in the Netherlands live in a geographic location aptly called the Bible belt. It has a grim history concerning infectious disease outbreaks and epidemics. In events since the 1957 Dutch vaccination program took off there have been multiple cases of outbreaks in the bible belt, owing to the refusal to vaccinate of these Christian reformed conservatives. Especially in the last 15 years this group of Christians has been drawing attention and deserved criticism to itself. In 1992-1993 there was an outbreak of Polio in this region. In 1999-2000 there was a measles epidemic, which caused the death of three children. In the 2300 cases (of which 20% lead to serious medical complications)[III]) almost all (97%) affected were not vaccinated because of their religious convictions – or in the case of children, because of their parents’ religious convictions. In 2004-2005, there was an outbreak of rubella. None of the affected were vaccinated, of which 90% because of religious reasons.
The religious reasons are rooted in the idea of “God’s providence” – The idea that every event is intended by God. In this line of reasoning, God will prevent you from getting infectious diseases if it fits his plan. If you do get affected, it must somehow be a necessary evil in God’s grand orchestration of ultimate benevolence. And so you have to ask yourself: Should parents have the freedom to put their child at risk when this is completely unnecessary? To me, this religious practice is no different than medical neglect. In the Netherlands, parents are free to choose not to vaccinate their children on the grounds of religious freedom. I always wonder what happened to the medical rights of the children. Should children’s rights make place for parents’ choices? I think not. It is not a matter of religious freedom because it’s possible harmful consequences are being imposed on others, on the weak and vulnerable – on exactly those who the government should protect.
And there is more to it. There are cases of medical neglect on much higher scales and in much higher political and religious spheres. I think the best known case is the Pope’s rejection of the use of condoms for Africa to stop the spread of HIV and Aids.[IV]). Think about it: the most influential spiritual leader is opposed to an easy, comparatively cheap and proven method to prevent the human immunodeficiency virus spread in favour of methods that are unrealistic and plainly ineffective (i.e. “abstinence and fidelity”). This is no less than a condemnation to a horrific disease through authoritarian, religious blackmail.
Leaving the global scale, there are other cases of medical neglect. One of which is not so much because of religious opposition, but because of religious substitution. Instead of going to see a doctor, people are being subjected to a cross-carrying quack to undergo “faith healing” (I will only go into the religious forms of this, and not those of homeopathy and its likes). The worst and most despicable forms occur with televangelists. (e.g. Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff). Not only do these people claim to be able to heal the sick, they often earn ridiculous amounts of money through their work as charlatans. Another bad case of medical neglect through religious substitution presents itself as institutionalised to “Christian Science“. Christian Science adherents (“Christian Scientists”, not to be confused with “Christian scientists”!) will rely on the healing power of prayer as a first remedy in the case of illness. Like the case with creationism, they reduce the issue of medical care to a choice in a false dichotomy of modern healthcare versus their spiritual “treatment”. In the Christian Science frequently asked questions section, they justify the endangerment of their children because parents should have the right to choose for the spiritual treatment they themselves have found to be effective.[V].
In the conclusion of this article I’d like to emphasize on the importance of this problem. Children are medically neglected (thus practically abused) by their religious parents because the law has allowed them to. do so under the moniker of religious freedom. We should not allow this to happen. Therefore, as a first step, I am in favour of mandatory (government-funded) vaccination programs for children, regardless of parents’ religious beliefs. I encourage people to comment with ways to counteract the religious substitution of healthcare for children.
Footnotes
The Province, “Mumps outbreak traced to anti-vaccination religious group”, August 27, 2008 (link [↩]
Dutch vaccination institution, “Increased mumps incidence in the Netherlands”, July 3, 2008 (link [↩]
National Health Services, MMR The Facts – The Netherlands, (link [↩]
BBC News, “Pope rejects condoms for Africa”, June 10, 2005 (link [↩]
Propaganda video from Christian Science (link) [↩]
This is in response to all of the chatter going on recently related to PZ Myers, that kid who took a Catholic cracker, and general hostility by the atheist community towards Christians. Here’s my opinion.
And it’s a difficult one to figure out. What good is being skeptical and intelligent if we stay silent because we don’t want to offend someone? But will our speaking out help anyone if it is hostile to the point that it drives religious people who are doubting their religion away?
As someone who recently wrote on how damaging hostility can be to someone who is new to a (especially outcast) idealogy or lifestyle, I can certainly attest who how a Christian would feel in a similar case.
Imagine a Christian in a similar position to mine, only worse! They’ve been lied to their entire lives, they are starting to realize, slowly but surely, what a scam religion is…they are seeing how hypocritical it all is and starting to venture, afraid, into the world of atheism. Poking around in blogs. Lurking around some forums. Reading about atheist activity and groups. All the while, looking over their shoulder and terrified, wondering if they might go to hell for doubting God, what their families will think, what their loved ones and friends will think, whether or not they are still moral, what’s wrong with them, do they need help…it can be terrifying.
And then they see some things that only reaffirm their fear: atheists committing acts that, to them, are atrocities, atheists being shockingly rude and cruel to them and other Christians, etc. It will do nothing but drive them back to the “safety” of their religion, unless they really have had their eyes opened and know that the actions of others do not change what is true and what is not true (like I did).
But then…on the other hand, being silent hasn’t exactly helped atheists throughout history. If anything, it has made us weak and easy to prosecute and weed out. Silence will kill us. If we do not speak out, if we are not active, if we do not loudly declare our defiance, we will be quickly forgotten. We must always be considered, by politicians and by the general populace. We must show ourselves as an example that we are Americans and we are not religious, and (not but) we are good people–we are the better people because we choose to act as good people through personal choice and not through fear and indoctrination.
And why do Christians deserve special rights not to be offended? Across the decades they have burned us alive, they have torn away our “God-given” rights, they have screamed for us to get out of “their” country, they have forced their religion down our throats and refused to respect us. Should we give them anything better than they gave us? Is our right to free speech worth any less than theirs? No. If anything, it is worth more because we aren’t insane, but that’s beside the point because regardless, everyone has the same rights to free speech.
So in the end, I think its very important to be loud and proud, and exercise our rights as humans to speak freely. We have every right to “desecrate” their symbols and criticize their leaders, just as they have every right to do the same to us.
The trick is to be respectful. Make fun of their words, their beliefs, their symbols, their leaders, but be careful if you make fun of them. Hold your arms open for doubters and show genuine kindness and honesty, not hatred. Was PZ Meyers justified in his desecration of a “sacred” little cracker? Yea, he was. It’s just a fucking cracker, and he was making a point, which is his right. He wasn’t personally attacking anyone, it was just as ridiculous that anyone got angry over him or the cracker incident as it was that Muslims got angry over the comics. People are deserving of respect, not beliefs. Maybe somewhere, somehow, a Christian is seeing that. And maybe there’s another who was starting to see the light of atheism, but is so easily swayed that such an incident changed their mind.
Either way, respect towards others is necessary. Respect towards symbols of an abusive, racist, sexist, hateful, insane idealogy is not.
Culture’s definition is loosely connected to real life and elusive at best. People who have been assigned to watch over what some people think is culture are being criticized by thousands. I’m part of a culture. You are part of a culture. This website is part of a culture. What culture? Cultures are being added to the big soup of multicultural madness faster than you can decide whether you want to be a part of them or not. Politicians speak out about “our” culture. Things like subcultures arise from the masses of people resisting the very concept of culture. Culture nowadays is a broad term used to define everything two people and their dog take part in. The attention we give to culture is a cultural phenomenon. To quote the mighty wisdom of Wikipedia here: “Cultures can be understood as systems of symbols and meanings that even their creators contest, that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another“. There, a definition. What good does this do? A definition can’t get much more tolerating than this.
But, some really interesting aspects of culture can be derived from the definition. Culture is progressive, liberal even, in nature. It’s never static, not for a second. Culture is constantly evolving into something new. Visit deviantART and watch culture evolve in real-time. Culture is not a static definable object, it’s an everlasting process of creation fueled by creativity and man’s hunger for something new to identify himself by. As long as people are communicating with each other, this cultural process will thrive. There’s no need for anything else, just communication between people. If a person stands out by doing something different, and is successful in his attempts, people will mimic the abnormality until it becomes normal. When the numbers grow you can start defining certain branches of cultural development, each of them going it’s own way evolving further into something completely new. Even if you take a closer look into one of these branches you’ll discover a finer grain of subcultures. The branches will collide and interweave over time, split up again or merge with other branches. They don’t know about physical borders, the influences between branches are only limited by the amount of communication between them. The process of cultural development is a complex and highly dynamic one. There’s no way of telling what will change tomorrow.
And now, all of a sudden, cultural preservation pops up. People start defining culture as something static, as an object, instead of the process it really is. They see the process as a threat to the object they’ve defined. This cultural snapshot is usually the culture these people are comfortable with, and most likely the culture that provides them with great power. They take an aggressive conservative stance against culture and provide people with their static, crippled substitute for culture. They’ll do anything to preserve their position in culture, even if it takes culture itself down in the process. Culturally different people are looked down upon and oppressed. The cultural placebo is force-fed into the mouths of the innocent at gunpoint. The non-conformists are beaten into obedient good citizen. Cultural developments are set aside as evil, it’s practitioners as terrorists. Even the last cultural strongholds are raped by abusing tentatively free media to spread the conformist’s message into the homes of millions.
Sounds familiar? It’s the Christian way of doing things. Hijacking culture to stop it from evolving, to stop it from being what it actually is – an everlasting process. They have been quite successful at it too. The American elections are the latest prime example of the immense success of the Christian anti-cultural influence. Many of the hot topics during these elections are Christian ones, topics that aren’t even that important in the grand scheme of things. I see the effects in my own country, the Netherlands, too. Politicians on the conservative right of the political spectrum are talking about conserving our identity and culture. Opposers, among whom our crown princess Maxima, are mocked because of their criticism. The reduction of tolerance comes at a price. Two anti-culturalists have been killed and terrorist threats have never been so real. Politicians can’t walk across the street without fully armed bodyguards at their sides to protect them from the very thing they preach – forceful preservation of culture.
You see, cultural preservation isn’t just about the five hundred year old church around the corner that has to make way for a new mall. It’s a tool used by the powerful for preserving their power in a virtual substitute culture. The cultural preservation most people are familiar with, that of property ownership, is actually basically the same thing. Churches, especially Christian churches, often don’t have to pay taxes. Christian initiatives are subsidized and tax money is spent on preserving their places of worship, just because it’s of cultural significance. I do wonder though, why every church is treated like it’s historical influence is great enough to save it from demolition. Even in these times of heavily reduced church attendance. It seems the Christian influence upon the western culture has made it’s dominance stick, which is worrying, to say the least.
So what about it? What can we, the youth, do to save culture? The answer is quite simple, we should keep on doing what we do best. Non-conformance is the only way to save culture, pubescent behavior keeps it from dying altogether. So if you’ve got kids, and they’re rebellious, be proud of them. They are the real preservers of culture.
There’s been some talk of atheist movements and how they might work or be organized. I think this is a great idea, and the more push there is for the atheist agenda, the more sane our world will be. I wanted to write a small essay of sorts on how an atheist movement might be accomplished as well as ask for feedback from other writers and readers here at Anti-Christian Phenomenon. Serious change should be the on the minds of every active atheist or anti-theist, because the religious institutions of the world will never stop until everyone else is under their control. Beware, it’s a long albeit badly written, and very much thought out, at least I hope it is. Again, I’m looking for feedback and serious discussion.
I debated whether or not to put this under the DC series but decided against it. This is less a “debunking” or awareness article and more of a ramble. As you may or may or not know, I work a part time customer service oriented job during the summer. This is something I discovered, much to my displeasure.
The Antichristian Phenomenon
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=b81b432d-5bae-4886-bcad-b76cbcf72807)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=a6f620db-c33f-492a-88e3-5711847e933d)
Loading ...