When I find myself in a situation where any fundamentalist rhetoric is being regurgitated, I often come to the defense of the converse of the argument--whether or not I believe in it.
I truly believe that any/everyone has the right to perceive the world in a way that helps them best cope with what it means to be 'human.'
The catch-22 there is that, often, people abuse that right. When someone's perception of any one thing is used in a proselytizing manner, without consent, it is a direct violation of sovereignty! To share one's beliefs as a perspective is 'one thing,' as is said, but to maintain and advertise that all other beliefs are defunct, or at the very least irrelevant, is a crime; to cheat ones self of any truths is condemning--to even attempt to cheat others of that freedom is blasphemous to what we've been gifted: our humanity.
With all of that being said, there is a certain personality to be wary of, and that is the jockier. The jockier is the predecessor to the dictator. The jockier is a man on a mission; "convert and conquer" is his motto. Why his personality is such is not something I'll endeavor to uncover in great depth; I will simply say that such a person has likely been the unfortunate recipient of a gross amount of oppression (in whatever areas that were significantly important to their ego), so much so that being heard and revered is of the upmost importance to them over all other gifts in life. The jockier may sometimes, though not always, unveil a character filled with anger, resentment, absoluteness, and, to my misfortune, intolerance. With little-to-no room for opposition, except when assured of their 'competence,' the jockier leads his band of merry-misfits into the promise land of ignorance; ostracism is almost guaranteed, except in their manufactured sub-culture, and those that follow are sustained only by the approved nourishment of the jockier.
Sure, not all jockiers are such extremists--they can be somewhat democratic, allowing, within reasonable confines, the collective to make minimal decisions; but, in reality, whatever dogma has dominated is the one that will prevail.
I have compassion for the jockier; what I do not have is tolerance. This incessant need of theirs, which is impressed upon others in the form of condescending communications/behavior, done so to aid in the stroking and encouraging of their own boisterous and arrogant pseudo-intelligence--based on affirmations obtained through biased 'research'--and self-righteous, judgmental and dogmatic speeches, is an infringement upon the personal rights of each person subjected to such behavior.
In short, I suppose, my newest mission is to be tolerant with boundaries. I am a relativist; I will hold few things as absolutes; with my consent I will listen freely; without my consent I will exert my belief that we are all equals, and with that in mind I get to CHOOSE how and when I am spoken to.
It is no matter to me what a jockier is preaching--be they Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Naturalists, or Care Bear-ists, lobbying for their cause--if I am shown respect for my autonomy previous to the unloading of principles, I will listen and take all things into consideration with respect and reverence to those beliefs.
One cannot expect to jockey a cause successfully through domination; we must be free to decide, or not be free at all.
xx
B
