The Childlike Conservative, Part I
It is my frequent observation that conservatives, be they political or religious (not that there is frequently much by way of distinction), embody many of the negative aspects of what is frequently regarded as "childlike behavior." From every observable angle, the conservative viewpoint embodies that readily identifiable short-sighted, narrow-minded might-makes-right stubbornness of the typical elementary school playground bully: he is wrong, he makes no sense, and he knows it. He may very well not even understand what you are talking about... but when he can sock you in the mouth, and the recess aide isn't going to do anything about it, none of that matters on a standpoint of immediate practicality.
Religious conservatives in America wage an unflagging war against the recognized American right to freedom of religion, as well as the separation of Church and State. "Majority rule," for example, is a concept being applied exclusively to matters of public governance, i.e. that which affects everybody and is, therefore, subjected to control by legislation. The expenditure of tax money is a matter to fall under majority rule, as is the deployment and ongoing activity of our military... two areas which, ironically enough, recent conservative administrations have done all in their power to govern independently of either the review or the informed consent of the citizens of the United States. By contrast, a person's choice of sexual partner is not subject to majority rule any more than my parents have a right to tell me who I may or may not sleep after I turned eighteen; sexual orientation is a classification that is legally protected against discrimination, and widely interpretable religious doctrine has no place in defying secular law... or in determining the direction of new legislation. No person ought to be required to follow the doctrine of any faith, path, or religion; such a choice is intensely personal, and must be made without coercion.
Those conservatives who push their religion upon those who do not share their faith are showing a childlike lacking of a solid, well-developed sense of self, of self-identity and the ability to recognize the existence of other, distinct individuals and their viewpoints. Religious belief is based on faith, which is defined as that which is adhered to due to personal feeling... regardless of any evidence either for or against its validity. Conservative Christians routinely fail to recognize the inherent paradox of their most treasured argument in favor of "evidence" for Christianity's validity: they present the Bible as evidence for the existence of otherworldly beings, spiritual truths, historical events, and personages of importance which we only know about from the pages of the Bible in the first place. Everything that Christianity is, is built upon this stance of flawed logic, because Christianity -- according to the Bible's own accounts of Jesus' intentions -- was not meant to be the controlling, dominating and oppressive force which the many centuries following the death of Jesus Christ would see it become. The existence of Christianity as a brick-and-mortal organization, with political and secular components, blatantly defies the word of Jesus Christ and exemplifies, more than anything else, the corrupt and un-sanctified Temple which Jesus is said to have torn down with his own two hands out of righteous fury.
Those of us who adhere to other spiritual paths have reasons for doing so: we feel the faith, the spiritual sense of awakening, the feeling of inherent truth, that many Christians place in the Bible. I have read the Bible; it does not speak to me as my own beliefs do. Oh, there is much within it that is wise, and true, and logical, and sensible, and there is a strong message of love and compassion: the Bible has a lot of really good things in it. It's a pity that so many people, in their picking-and-choosing of what to follow, choose to follow an interpretation of the scripture that allows for persecution, oppression, and a degree of arrogant, self-righteous assurance which ought to belong to the Christian God alone (by the Bible's own description, although from such a being it would of course not be "arrogance").
That anyone could claim that God is the one truly all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect Being in existence, and to say in the same breath that one has knowledge of the One True Path to God, is both self-contradictory and unabashedly arrogant. That the human mind can even make such a blatant logical fallacy may only be explained by said individual's mind being incapable of perceiving even the existence of other viewpoints -- let alone their possible validity. This individual Must Be Right, because they feel a certain way, so that is the only way that there is to feel. Other ways are not only "wrong," they aren't even validated as being "ways of thinking" which can be looked at as potentially right in the first place; in some fashion, the childlike mind perceives of these viewpoints as being not even truly real. Whether this is due to some psychotic tendency, or simply a closed and sheltered upbringing resulting in an ignorant and unaware adult, is likely a changing variable from one situation to the next.
The conservative is sublimely convinced of their own self-sufficiency and their lack of a need for anybody else. Those who provide such basic services as selling food or clothing to the conservative are regarded with disdain as being inferior beings; acknowledging them as human, aside from its basic violation of the conservative standpoint (that being that there is no other human outside of the conservative in question) would mean that the conservative had some level of dependency on people other than himself. Those who actually make the clothing, or prepare the food, are not even brought into the conservative's mind for consideration; they see the food, they see the clothing, and it is real, there, in front of them, Right Now. How it got there is not considered; such consideration would violate the childlike conservative world-view.
Anything positive which the conservative has achieved or been given, in their life, is entirely owed to them, with rationalization being contrived as necessary; often, this is something so simple as a generic declaration of "I worked hard for it." Again, the childlike lack of acknowledgment of the nature of other human beings as being, themselves, thinking or feeling, equivalent creatures: because the conservative feels they have earned something, nobody else may have any of it, as it is theirs. That they might share what they have with others is not simply refuted; it is almost as if the possibility of such a connection isn't comprehended. "Why would I give away some of what I have? I earned it." It doesn't matter if the "it" which has been earned is needed, or even wanted; it will be disposed of, wasted, before it is shared with someone who, by virtue of not being the person of the conservative in question themselves, could not possibly have earned it. The conservative is the only "real person," and they earned it, so nobody else could have, because there is nobody else in existence.
The conservative standpoint on the planet, and on our environment, is so simple and basic as to be laughable. By definition, every resource present on our world is finite; our world is not infinite in size. Fossil fuels are present in very limited amounts, which experts agree are dwindling, and which cannot possibly be reproduced quickly enough to continue to meet our needs. Much of the Earth's iron is trapped in its core, and therefore unavailable pending a massive (and as yet unforeseen) leap in mining technology, nor have technologies to mine Earth's Moon (Earth's Moon is technically named Luna, by the way) or the asteroid belt been sufficiently investigated. The theory that we are approaching the end of our fossil fuels is widespread and widely accepted among experts who are universally laughed at and dismissed as being lunatics; there was oil yesterday, and we have oil now, so of course we'll have oil tomorrow. It is there, so it will always be there, almost like a child's view of their mother... or of the food on their plate. Meanwhile, our environment is ravaged and polluted by unnecessary human waste from irresponsibly regulated human industrial activity, vehicles, and other wholly man-made sources; the hole in the ozone layer is growing larger, and many major cities are so smog-thick as to make breathing without a mask almost impossible. Obviously, the Earth is not cleaning up what we create as we go, or such areas of major world importance as the southwestern United States, Great Britain, and urban China would not be chocking in their own filth with every breath they take in. And yet, this is exactly what the conservative tells us: the world is fine. The world can take it. They point to such naturally produced "pollutants" as the results of volcanic eruptions and the impacts of small celestial bodies, completely ignoring the fact that anything we do is in addition to such events as these, which have occurred throughout the Earth's long geological history... and most certainly reached a balance before the advent of our industrial revolution. Pre-industrial history describes a sky devoid of the many pollution-inspired colors of the sunset, and filled with many more stars than we can see today, despite the fact that most of the Earth's volcanic eruptions occurred long before the dawn of mankind. We are clearly having an effect on our environment, one which is not supportive of continued human growth or of the Earth's suitability as a home for the only life we are certain exists in this universe.
T.B.C.
It is my frequent observation that conservatives, be they political or religious (not that there is frequently much by way of distinction), embody many of the negative aspects of what is frequently regarded as "childlike behavior." From every observable angle, the conservative viewpoint embodies that readily identifiable short-sighted, narrow-minded might-makes-right stubbornness of the typical elementary school playground bully: he is wrong, he makes no sense, and he knows it. He may very well not even understand what you are talking about... but when he can sock you in the mouth, and the recess aide isn't going to do anything about it, none of that matters on a standpoint of immediate practicality.
Religious conservatives in America wage an unflagging war against the recognized American right to freedom of religion, as well as the separation of Church and State. "Majority rule," for example, is a concept being applied exclusively to matters of public governance, i.e. that which affects everybody and is, therefore, subjected to control by legislation. The expenditure of tax money is a matter to fall under majority rule, as is the deployment and ongoing activity of our military... two areas which, ironically enough, recent conservative administrations have done all in their power to govern independently of either the review or the informed consent of the citizens of the United States. By contrast, a person's choice of sexual partner is not subject to majority rule any more than my parents have a right to tell me who I may or may not sleep after I turned eighteen; sexual orientation is a classification that is legally protected against discrimination, and widely interpretable religious doctrine has no place in defying secular law... or in determining the direction of new legislation. No person ought to be required to follow the doctrine of any faith, path, or religion; such a choice is intensely personal, and must be made without coercion.
Those conservatives who push their religion upon those who do not share their faith are showing a childlike lacking of a solid, well-developed sense of self, of self-identity and the ability to recognize the existence of other, distinct individuals and their viewpoints. Religious belief is based on faith, which is defined as that which is adhered to due to personal feeling... regardless of any evidence either for or against its validity. Conservative Christians routinely fail to recognize the inherent paradox of their most treasured argument in favor of "evidence" for Christianity's validity: they present the Bible as evidence for the existence of otherworldly beings, spiritual truths, historical events, and personages of importance which we only know about from the pages of the Bible in the first place. Everything that Christianity is, is built upon this stance of flawed logic, because Christianity -- according to the Bible's own accounts of Jesus' intentions -- was not meant to be the controlling, dominating and oppressive force which the many centuries following the death of Jesus Christ would see it become. The existence of Christianity as a brick-and-mortal organization, with political and secular components, blatantly defies the word of Jesus Christ and exemplifies, more than anything else, the corrupt and un-sanctified Temple which Jesus is said to have torn down with his own two hands out of righteous fury.
Those of us who adhere to other spiritual paths have reasons for doing so: we feel the faith, the spiritual sense of awakening, the feeling of inherent truth, that many Christians place in the Bible. I have read the Bible; it does not speak to me as my own beliefs do. Oh, there is much within it that is wise, and true, and logical, and sensible, and there is a strong message of love and compassion: the Bible has a lot of really good things in it. It's a pity that so many people, in their picking-and-choosing of what to follow, choose to follow an interpretation of the scripture that allows for persecution, oppression, and a degree of arrogant, self-righteous assurance which ought to belong to the Christian God alone (by the Bible's own description, although from such a being it would of course not be "arrogance").
That anyone could claim that God is the one truly all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect Being in existence, and to say in the same breath that one has knowledge of the One True Path to God, is both self-contradictory and unabashedly arrogant. That the human mind can even make such a blatant logical fallacy may only be explained by said individual's mind being incapable of perceiving even the existence of other viewpoints -- let alone their possible validity. This individual Must Be Right, because they feel a certain way, so that is the only way that there is to feel. Other ways are not only "wrong," they aren't even validated as being "ways of thinking" which can be looked at as potentially right in the first place; in some fashion, the childlike mind perceives of these viewpoints as being not even truly real. Whether this is due to some psychotic tendency, or simply a closed and sheltered upbringing resulting in an ignorant and unaware adult, is likely a changing variable from one situation to the next.
The conservative is sublimely convinced of their own self-sufficiency and their lack of a need for anybody else. Those who provide such basic services as selling food or clothing to the conservative are regarded with disdain as being inferior beings; acknowledging them as human, aside from its basic violation of the conservative standpoint (that being that there is no other human outside of the conservative in question) would mean that the conservative had some level of dependency on people other than himself. Those who actually make the clothing, or prepare the food, are not even brought into the conservative's mind for consideration; they see the food, they see the clothing, and it is real, there, in front of them, Right Now. How it got there is not considered; such consideration would violate the childlike conservative world-view.
Anything positive which the conservative has achieved or been given, in their life, is entirely owed to them, with rationalization being contrived as necessary; often, this is something so simple as a generic declaration of "I worked hard for it." Again, the childlike lack of acknowledgment of the nature of other human beings as being, themselves, thinking or feeling, equivalent creatures: because the conservative feels they have earned something, nobody else may have any of it, as it is theirs. That they might share what they have with others is not simply refuted; it is almost as if the possibility of such a connection isn't comprehended. "Why would I give away some of what I have? I earned it." It doesn't matter if the "it" which has been earned is needed, or even wanted; it will be disposed of, wasted, before it is shared with someone who, by virtue of not being the person of the conservative in question themselves, could not possibly have earned it. The conservative is the only "real person," and they earned it, so nobody else could have, because there is nobody else in existence.
The conservative standpoint on the planet, and on our environment, is so simple and basic as to be laughable. By definition, every resource present on our world is finite; our world is not infinite in size. Fossil fuels are present in very limited amounts, which experts agree are dwindling, and which cannot possibly be reproduced quickly enough to continue to meet our needs. Much of the Earth's iron is trapped in its core, and therefore unavailable pending a massive (and as yet unforeseen) leap in mining technology, nor have technologies to mine Earth's Moon (Earth's Moon is technically named Luna, by the way) or the asteroid belt been sufficiently investigated. The theory that we are approaching the end of our fossil fuels is widespread and widely accepted among experts who are universally laughed at and dismissed as being lunatics; there was oil yesterday, and we have oil now, so of course we'll have oil tomorrow. It is there, so it will always be there, almost like a child's view of their mother... or of the food on their plate. Meanwhile, our environment is ravaged and polluted by unnecessary human waste from irresponsibly regulated human industrial activity, vehicles, and other wholly man-made sources; the hole in the ozone layer is growing larger, and many major cities are so smog-thick as to make breathing without a mask almost impossible. Obviously, the Earth is not cleaning up what we create as we go, or such areas of major world importance as the southwestern United States, Great Britain, and urban China would not be chocking in their own filth with every breath they take in. And yet, this is exactly what the conservative tells us: the world is fine. The world can take it. They point to such naturally produced "pollutants" as the results of volcanic eruptions and the impacts of small celestial bodies, completely ignoring the fact that anything we do is in addition to such events as these, which have occurred throughout the Earth's long geological history... and most certainly reached a balance before the advent of our industrial revolution. Pre-industrial history describes a sky devoid of the many pollution-inspired colors of the sunset, and filled with many more stars than we can see today, despite the fact that most of the Earth's volcanic eruptions occurred long before the dawn of mankind. We are clearly having an effect on our environment, one which is not supportive of continued human growth or of the Earth's suitability as a home for the only life we are certain exists in this universe.
T.B.C.
