For a long time I didn’t know the difference between left liberals, right wing conservatives and so on and so forth – they seem like such daunting words. I now know but don’t entirely understand. I have always been a bit wary of leaning to one side of this balance or the other. Well not always ..but maybe always 😛
I am still sitting on the fence. Well, not really on the fence; I am not a right wing conservative – I can assure you that! But hey I am not a hard core left liberal either! (Ok, so I am a pseudo conservative – you’ve said that!).
I am not a left liberal because I don’t understand what being a left liberal means. Well, all I am trying to say is this. At times left liberalism seems the same as right conservatism – just that it is the other side of the spectrum (or balance) 🙂
Ok, so now that I have visibly upset all you left liberals (alright, the one left liberal) who are (is) either muttering about my pesudo conservatism, idiocy and other such things or openly calling me names or thinking why the hell should I be upset about some idiot who doesn’t understand what left liberalism is all about but is farting about it or may be just plain exasperated – I can peacefully move on.
I wonder if one is a left liberal then shouldn’t one be more tolerant? Religion is the root of all problems, you say? I beg to differ ..it is the religious fundamentalists who are. And by vehemently opposing religion, left liberals are only taking (giving more fodder to chew) on the senseless heedless fundamentalists without really tackling the deep rooted issues that they initally sought out to tackle.
At the end of the day it doesn’t matter which religion these fundamentalists believe in, it doesn’t even matter if these fundamentalists believe in any religion or not! Just being fundamentalists is enough! And hence I am saying, its not religion that is at fault, it is us with our extremes one way or the other that is at fault. And in that sense aren’t left liberals fundamentalists as well (now now, isn’t that a dangerous (you’d say stupid) remark to make).
Freedom of expression gives you the right to express your ideas, views on religion and any thing else you feel like; it certainly does. But the question to ask is does the way we express this right help solve the problems or not? More often that not it ends up creating more menace which I am sure was not the original intent. But what about the idea of painting Jesus in a purdah or say some Hindu God on a cross. It could even be argued that it propogates unity! I most certainly have a problem with right wing fundamentalists who create a ruckus about this for nothing. But left liberals supporting this in the name of freedom of expression is a bit much, I would say. Now personally I couldn’t care less, (even if this is not exactly my idea of creativity), but I certainly am cynical of the intentions and talents even of the painter in question. Well, that’s just me I think, a confused cynic, who is now bored!
Rant over!
And if you are going to tell me that my ranting above only shows my ignorance and misunderstanding (or is it non understanding in this case!) of left liberalism..then pray enlighten me!
P.S – I have been trying to write one post without the use of brackets and without the excessive use of but, now, so, well etc.,. But if you cared to notice, I surpassed my own levels by using brackets within brackets 😛 ..ok so you don’t care..whatever!
November 17, 2007 at 7:45 am
phew! quite a lot of tots out there! didnt u get tired? most of ur blogs seem to be written entirely for my benefit — u know ur audience well is all I can say 😛
random thots in no particular order:
1. abt rlgn, i once wrote a paper on whether rlgn can be used to create a more equal soc. my contention was use rlgn where u think it help ur cause, but dont cling to it if its expressed intent is to muzzle equality. egs i gave — Iran situation, customary laws in various parts of india (no need to mention that i topped in this course, is there? :P)
2. having said that, i will ask if u know the definition of rlgn? organised form of faith is necessarily hegemonic (oops, big words) and hence, makes whatever u r trying change in the world almost imposs. ur form of belief is more abstract and hence not insiduos like rlgn.
3. abt freedom of expression, i would love a painter as naughty as that. i mean unlike mf hussain, this one seems to be quirky. i wish he/she was for real. and his/her bread n butter to provoke ur suspicion.
4. left-liberal is not a extreme, far from it. thats why they are liberals, which mean they have liberty to subscribe to any n everything but still claim to be left 😛
November 17, 2007 at 2:06 pm
uh..ok well not all my posts are written for your benefit, in fact i don’t believe it is for any one’s benefit 😛
1) I don’t disagree with ur point wholly..but Iran situation, customary laws etc., are egs. more of fundamentalists who cling on outdated relgious priniciples, practises..and those are the problems ..not religion per se..
2) I don’t know the actual definition of the word religion and many times I am even confused with what people think it to be..you are right again and am all fr change that moves us forward..I am not even saying one shdn’t oppose religion..by all means ..but should we denigrate it altogether? does that or has that achieved our final purpose?
3)Well, for all you know I could well be the painter in question 😛
4) They? really? r u a pseudo liberal..?
November 18, 2007 at 2:42 pm
i am a nobody 😛
November 19, 2007 at 6:11 am
hey i was thinking the criterion we apply for rlgn should be applied for laws and judiciary too. if we think something is right n just but our govt n judiciary refuses to acknowledge it, then we become anti-establishment. being an atheist is like being anti-establishment in some senses. if i am fanatic coz i want to erase rlgn then i am some kind of fanatic coz i want to go agst laws that i dont blve in
(and i dont blve in opposing rlgn. i would like to, as u put it, denigrate rlgn — coz it derserves to be)