Your assessment of fundamentalism is as flawed as your pal the ghetto shaman’s Barely Legal Kundalini Cruise (never again, by the way). You insist that there are elements of traditionalism that are fundamental to our continued evolvement as a species. Whereas this is inherently true, few, if any of these societal guidelines needs be legislated by our marred and battered legal system. What our laws need to focus on in the twenty-first century is mutual respect and mutual respect alone…you know, Ron Paul country. If the spirit of mutual respect can be infused through our laws and our legal system (sorry, that’s too funny) then and only then will we retain this foundation of which you speak. By respecting each stage and each level, and by allowing each individual to remain precisely where they are in the spectrum, is all that is necessary. All the way from our Crank Manifesto’s orange/blue rants to our Ghetto Shaman’s…ahh, you know, I can’t actually figure that guy out. By the way, the Ghetto Shaman has moved to Florida and is sending us his ‘column’ each week on badly stained bar coasters.
Most of the traditions you insist on schlepping along, Mr. McDooris, have little to do with enlightenment. Didn’t the Buddha himself abandon his family to become a carnie and then randomly killed young women for fun? OK, maybe not… You win that round, McDooris. As for your other rebuttal: my personal ire for the Proposition 8 vote stemmed from the fact that so many people were motivated to overturn an existing law. This is particularly disturbing when one views this vote from a historical context. Yes dear, our retirement plan has collapsed and, oh, the American way of life seems to be crumbling all around us, unemployment is up, and our neighbors are now homeless and hungry, but let’s take this opportunity to raise money to mess with the gays. Our Crank’s argument, let them (Christians) have it, can easily be argued the other way. Let them (gays) have it. If you don’t believe in gay marriage Father Flannigan, stop frequenting those websites. The retraction of that court decision would be a slap in the face for any group. When I mess with gays it’s at a place called Peaches and Court and usually involves a very bad karaoke rendition of Mack the Knife (as God intended).
Pokey does have one very good point (besides the one at the top of his head).
You are very right about abortion. The rules surrounding abortion are too important. Defining everything, in this particular instance, is crucial. Unfortunately, here’s the part where progressives tend to don their regressive caps. The fact is, you can be a proponent of abortion rights and still realize that Roe vs. Wade was a ridiculous ruling. Huh? Yes, yes, black-and-white thinkers, I know—does not compute. Study the decision and then get back to me. I’m going to leave it at that. I’m not in the mood. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, it was the singularly strangest decision in American history—except maybe that time Dave Atsals was found not guilty of lewd and lascivious drunkenness.
The rest of traditionalism need not be legislated in any way. These lifestyle choices will be decided individual by individual. Granted, our collective trends may or may not destroy our culture, but our legal system can not, nor should not, be the champion here. Mutual respect will allow the best chance of every person to achieve his or her best level of consciousness. Nothing else is necessary for our species to optimally embrace an integral worldview. In other words, a hands off approach on the part of our legal system does not mean we will lose our ability to springboard your ‘project consciousness.’ In fact, it is a necessary ingredient for this consciousness soup you are brewing. Speaking of brewing, why did that judge acquit Dave of lewd and lascivious drunkenness? I mean, if you had been there…what else could one call that?