Sacred Landscapes

close
more_vert
pure joy P
pure joy Jul 30, 2003 22:14:56
Replying to wychburyman

The comic answer to the Santa Claus thing is 'yes, ban the old git'

But the serious answer is, hang on a minute, no-one has mentioned banning anything. No one has mentioned, or even hinted at anytime of action or discrimination against people's beliefs. merely some of us have said that our belief in the 'wrongness' of their belief (or on the wider level - our belief in no belief) is as equally valid as their belief in something.

The trouble is, that by arguing very seriously, strongly and passionately against something, your point of view often gets taken less seriously (as if you are merely spoiling their ideas for fun) especially when your belief is a lack of belief, which is never going to be as sexy as believe in an idol / a book of writings / a set of beliefs etc.

M morfe
morfe Jul 30, 2003 22:37:25
Replying to pure joy

I don't think that all sacred space is defined by 'belief', it can be an active, maybe ritualistic conservancy of more than just ideas. This is where conservationists (a fine example of a line blurred between 'realists' and 'the loony tree huggers') stand anywhere on this or that side of a line that maybe defined as 'having notions of sanctity'. It may be useless to save the Spotted Owl, as far as loggers are concerned, but the belief of conservationists is more far reaching than that. It all becomes subjective here, so I won't go on. Reductionists and nihilists, mathematicians and clerks all live in the same world as New Age guru's and conservationists. Some mathematicians are conservationists. It's what makes the world go round. Common sacred space may be a forest that is managed for both logging AND wildlife. I call that progress.