Originally posted by chinaman
Since you were neither refuting nor justifying anything or anyone, I'll not explain much except to say that religion is far more faith based than politics and that only religious icons, like prophates, seem to have this respect spread out generation after generatons (millions, as I mentioned earlier, would be a pathetic understatement). Pretty good idea between religion and politics might also shed some light in this regard. Cheers.
I guess you are aware of the difference between political ideology and politics, just that it didn't happen to you while you wrote the above piece. Anyway, you missed both of my points.
Firstly I wanted to indicate that, in spite of our apparently fervent attempts, we often fail to sense the same feelings that others may maintain towards their religion or political ideology or nationalism in general. From your statement one can easily sense that your priority is more intense on religion. There is a reason behind that.
Our emotional orientation depends on what effects the survival of our identity. Those fighting for their national identity, ascribes more importance on patriotism over religion and others. Examples would be palenstine, tamil, gurkha and even the pre-1947 India.
When nationalist crisis recedes, we go for other collective ideologies. More people are religiously sensitive now-a-days because, due to what has been happening now-a-days, religious identity is at stake, and no less in US.
When crisis for collective ideology is not prominent, people go after individual ideology. It is due to this fact that more people in western world tend to commit suicide for ideological reasons those remotely affects themselves, like burning themselves in front of the embassy of countries inflicting wars on other countries, or getting killed under a caterpillar demolishing houses of refugees.
If one thinks that whatever crisis he/she is attached to prominently for the time being, or even for his/her lifetime, bears the most importance, he/she should study history with more open a vision. And it is not only about a person. Some ideological paradigms, like religion, ascribes too much prominence to individuals or objects. Some other does that to something else, to something more abstract. It may not seem very prudent for someone to vouche varied level of sensitivity to the these different kind of people.
And don't get me wrong, I am not claiming that you have conspicuously dismissed others. Just that, we, in general, fail to consider other's feelings in an attempt to be too much circumspect about our own feelings.
My second point was about number of people involved. You have tried to estimate the number of people attached with such paradigms. I don't want to think that you really tend to attest the gravity of something by the number involved with it. As for me, if we are talking about hurting other people's feeling, an individual's feeling should count the same as some zillions of other people attached to some other paradigm.
And something passing through generations may not justify lots of things either. An individual justifies something completely on his own and that may not carry no sense at all to some other.
Finally, what I meant is that I was not refuting the idea of not hurting other's feeling. And conversely I was not justifying anyone's attempt to hurt other's feeling. I could have elaborated on that, but I think it will go beyond the scope of this forum.