![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIn her recently published memoir, Condoleezza Rice describes a harrowing moment when the President's flight into Baghdad airport executed evasive maneuvers to land unscathed for a surprise Thanksgiving visit to the troops. She described recruiting a team of staffers to form a prayer vigil with Bush, saying it is what religious people do in such events. A superstitious person might credit divine agency with their safe landing and may even go so far as to chalk up the outcome to the act of prayer. Had they failed to make supplications to their deity, would they have been shot down by a liberated Iraqi?
A Muslim observer might castigate his own coreligionists for failure to appeal to Allah or for the impiety of Muslims who succumb to the addictions of Western culture. To such an observer, Jesus is powerless to stay the hand of the holy warrior, but Allah turns away from apostate Muslims who worship at the altar of Lady Gaga. History is littered with the bones of the pious and the ashes of the impious.
My biggest beef with story of Bush and his team of superstitious supplicants is the remark that this is what religious people do. Such a comment implies that the group of people who refrain from such activity do not deserve the appellation of "religious." It hearkens back to an era when people were persecuted for failing to perform superstitious supplications. Those who pursued a more difficult path toward the divine were not considered worthy of consideration as religious people. They were a threat to the imperial status quo for their lack of superstitious groveling.
I do not debit Rice for her astute maneuver in pandering to the religious sentiments of her boss. Her detractors might see her tactics as manipulative and flattering. (That is what "religious" people are programmed to do, after all.) Despite her overt support for Bush, there is an undercurrent of derision in her memoir that critics of the administration can appreciate.
What are your thoughts on the role of superstition in global politics?
A Muslim observer might castigate his own coreligionists for failure to appeal to Allah or for the impiety of Muslims who succumb to the addictions of Western culture. To such an observer, Jesus is powerless to stay the hand of the holy warrior, but Allah turns away from apostate Muslims who worship at the altar of Lady Gaga. History is littered with the bones of the pious and the ashes of the impious.
My biggest beef with story of Bush and his team of superstitious supplicants is the remark that this is what religious people do. Such a comment implies that the group of people who refrain from such activity do not deserve the appellation of "religious." It hearkens back to an era when people were persecuted for failing to perform superstitious supplications. Those who pursued a more difficult path toward the divine were not considered worthy of consideration as religious people. They were a threat to the imperial status quo for their lack of superstitious groveling.
I do not debit Rice for her astute maneuver in pandering to the religious sentiments of her boss. Her detractors might see her tactics as manipulative and flattering. (That is what "religious" people are programmed to do, after all.) Despite her overt support for Bush, there is an undercurrent of derision in her memoir that critics of the administration can appreciate.
What are your thoughts on the role of superstition in global politics?
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/11 23:10 (UTC)People also do specific things (or refuse to) because they believe it causes a change in their afterlife. That's the central idea of, um, every religion I can think of right now. But right now I'm a little smashed.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/11 23:13 (UTC)Yes, and that is superstitious.
People also do specific things (or refuse to) because they believe it causes a change in their afterlife. That's the central idea of, um, every religion I can think of right now. But right now I'm a little smashed.
Well it isn't the central idea of every religion. Even then, having beliefs about non-scientific issues is not, in itself, superstitious.
What we are dealing with is vague and dumbed-down language where people just sloppily synonimize terms into equally applicable terms and wave their hands at it all, so that they may more intellectually reject something without actually thinking about it.
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/11 23:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 30/11/11 04:02 (UTC)1a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
1b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/11 04:39 (UTC)but in light of all this discussion the title of this post is funnier now and it's been making me giggle all day.
also, I am so tired even i think i talk too much. night.
(no subject)
Date: 30/11/11 04:40 (UTC)