Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Rhiannon on November 11, 2015, 01:21:57 PM
-
Is it possible to hold something or somewhere as sacred if you don't attach any religious meaning to it?
-
I could be wrong but I thought the idea of sacred and religion were interlinked?
-
Yes, as a linguistic extension of the word, sure. I don't see it as in any way different to saying that somebody supports a football team 'religiously.'
People will always have things that they regard as being of supreme worth and value; the language that they use to refer to such things will evolve over time, that's all.
-
I could be wrong but I thought the idea of sacred and religion were interlinked?
Historically, in terms of the past, yes. But equally, in everyday speech we use the word to mean something merely very important: "You can contact Brian up to midday on Fridays but don't ring him on his Friday afternoons off - they're sacred," that sort of thing.
-
I think it very much to do with the worth we attach to things. As we detach from conventional religion we will still have things that we hold as sacred - maybe family, relationships, places. To lose that doesn't seem wise. So maybe the meaning of the word will just change to mean valuing things of worth?
-
Absolutely agree - and things of ultimate, non-negotiable worth at that, which people will always have.
-
Words such as 'sacred' and 'holy' - and come to think of it the latter is being used less and less I think - particularly the former are likely to be around for a long time to come, but I am optimistic that their link to religious beliefs will almost disappear in the not too distant future.
-
Is it possible to hold something or somewhere as sacred if you don't attach any religious meaning to it?
I think you can, in that you don't have to conform to a particular religion - an organised set of tenets and creeds about a particular belief or belief-system - just because you believe.
You could, for instance, think that there was some sort of deity, not claim to know anything about them very much, not conform to a particular prayer format or congregation but think that certain symbols, places or acts were 'holy'.
Sacred is related to the idea of 'gods', I suppose, but religion isn't necessary for faith.
O.
-
It seems to me that 'holy' retains a link to religion specifically which 'sacred' is well on the way to losing. I don't hear anybody using the word 'holy' outside of a religious context, whereas people use 'sacred' in a secular context all the time.
-
It seems to me that 'holy' retains a link to religion specifically which 'sacred' is well on the way to losing. I don't hear anybody using the word 'holy' outside of a religious context, whereas people use 'sacred' in a secular context all the time.
Holy cow, I think you're right. :)
-
It seems to me that 'holy' retains a link to religion specifically which 'sacred' is well on the way to losing. I don't hear anybody using the word 'holy' outside of a religious context, whereas people use 'sacred' in a secular context all the time.
Agreed; just goes to show how non-belief is becoming the replacement for, e.g. a CofE background culture, although far too slowly of course!
-
I completely agree that 'holy' has connotations to it that you don't get with 'sacred'. I almost feel that 'sacred' could become a kind of secular 'holy'. I wonder if fostering an idea of sacredness around nature and each other is actually essential.
-
Essential if we're to stand any chance at all of getting ourselves of the mire we're digging ourselves ever deeper into by the day.
-
Yes, that's my thinking too. :-\
-
I could be wrong but I thought the idea of sacred and religion were interlinked?
Historically, in terms of the past, yes. But equally, in everyday speech we use the word to mean something merely very important: "You can contact Brian up to midday on Fridays but don't ring him on his Friday afternoons off - they're sacred," that sort of thing.
I get your point.
-
Hey BA,
Let's check on Sriram's thoughts about the "Holy Cow" thingy? There's a lot of holy cows in India and lots of holy cow poo.
Holy cow poo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g85c70Qun2U
-
Hey BA,
Let's check on Sriram's thoughts about the "Holy Cow" thingy? There's a lot of holy cows in India and lots of holy cow poo.
Holy cow poo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g85c70Qun2U
That is an amazing video - not sure if it is a wind-up or not. If not, then I've certainly learned something today! I reckon the atheists here might be interested; not that they are into making pies from it, but they sure as heck talk it! ;)
-
Holy cow poop can tell time as well.
Here's stompin Tom singing about the cowsie dungsie clock
http://www.wtv-zone.com/phyrst/audio/nfld/04/margo.htm
-
Holy cow poop can tell time as well.
Her's stompin Tom singing about the cowsie dungsie clock
http://www.wtv-zone.com/phyrst/audio/nfld/04/margo.htm
:D Shaky might like that one: though I reckon he'll look for the Vaughan Williams version.
-
Glad to see that the concept of the sacred is something you take seriously, BA.
Oh no, wait a minute, I've got that wrong.
-
Glad to see that the concept of the sacred is something you take seriously, BA.
Oh no, wait a minute, I've got that wrong.
It's just a word. You ought to spend a little more time on your sense of humour - well, a lot of time, since you don't actually have one!
-
more personal abuse BA? ... well done
-
to me the persistence of these sorts of words - sacred, spiritual, soul etc - actually indicates that they express something much broader and deeper than the ideas of the religious structures within which they have traditionally been promoted. I think they articulate something of the human experience that it is difficult to convey otherwise. That is why in an arguable post-religious secular society they still have relevance. There doesn't even need to be a hint of the supernatural for these terms to convey meaning.
As it happens I have been working on a bit of heritage interpretation for a nearby beach owned by the national trust. Identifying the aspects of the site that make it important to people is key to making any historical or natural stories about the place relevant. This particular site is characterised not by one specific attribute, but because people go there to spend quality time. That is a tough one to articulate in a useful way. Here is what came up with this as the theme (name of site left out) to underpin how the content and stories are presented.
"------- is sanctified by the countless hours people have spent there, in the company of nature and of loved ones"
This is entirely in the absence of any religious component whatsoever, but as I reflected on how to articulate the ineffable significance we had identified it was absolutely the best option... or at least the best I could do.
-
That's certainly how I would understand/interpret/use the concept of sacredness, personally.
-
Yes, it seems to be widely accepted like that. But I feel the same way about terms like spiritual and soul, and its is to my personal frustration that religion and the supernatural apparently still 'own' them.
-
It's unfortunate :( The situation is changing, albeit slowly, and eventually will change so much as to be unremarkable in the long run, as has happened with other 'religious' terms. Still, despite the best efforts of people like Andre Comte-Sponville, a word such as 'spirituality' (soul less so, I suspect) is still widely thought of as being the rightful preserve and property of supernatural religion, both by those inside (especially) and sometimes outside.
-
I agree.
Many pagans hold the hearth sacred -and by extension the kitchen stove these days - it's here that we make soup for a sick child, cook up celebratory meals, and gather with our loved ones in the evenings. (There are some lovely hearth blessings in the Carmina Gadelica).
We lose sight of the sacred at our peril, but while religion owns it, it makes sense why people choose not to engage with it.
-
I can't think of anything I actually regard as 'sacred' in the secular sense of that word.
-
I can't think of anything I actually regard as 'sacred' in the secular sense of that word.
then I feel sad for you
-
I can't think of anything I actually regard as 'sacred' in the secular sense of that word.
then I feel sad for you
Why?
-
I can't think of anything I actually regard as 'sacred' in the secular sense of that word.
then I feel sad for you
I am sort of with Floo here. I have a sense of wonder, of awe, of gap from the noumenal but I'm not sure that is sacred.
-
Sacredness, to me, represents the value we place on things, whether that is a mountain or a kiss.
-
I can't think of anything I actually regard as 'sacred' in the secular sense of that word.
then I feel sad for you
I am sort of with Floo here. I have a sense of wonder, of awe, of gap from the noumenal but I'm not sure that is sacred.
That sense that something's personally important I can get, but there's a sense with the word 'sacred' that something is somehow unquestionable or unchallengable. No matter how important I think something is, I can't think of any idea or concept I hold that is not open to enquiry, and certainly no place or object that is somehow 'reserved' or not open for replacement or improvement.
Maybe that's an element of 'sacred' that isn't generally held, I don't know, but that's one of the reasons I'm typically reluctant to use it - the other, probably more significant, is its association with religious sentiments that I don't hold.
O.
-
There are things which are very important to me like my own space, but I wouldn't describe it as sacred. A rainbow, sunset and wonderful view can be magnificent, but there again I wouldn't describe them as sacred.
-
That sense that something's personally important I can get, but there's a sense with the word 'sacred' that something is somehow unquestionable or unchallengable. No matter how important I think something is, I can't think of any idea or concept I hold that is not open to enquiry, and certainly no place or object that is somehow 'reserved' or not open for replacement or improvement.
Marriage? Family? Intellectual freedom?
-
Sacredness, to me, represents the value we place on things, whether that is a mountain or a kiss.
I kind of get that. Something like Camus' rather anomalous statement "I have a sense of the sacred, but I don't believe in God, that's all".
-
Sacredness, to me, represents the value we place on things, whether that is a mountain or a kiss.
I kind of get that. Something like Camus' rather anomalous statement "I have a sense of the sacred, but I don't believe in God, that's all".
Yes.
-
That sense that something's personally important I can get, but there's a sense with the word 'sacred' that something is somehow unquestionable or unchallengable. No matter how important I think something is, I can't think of any idea or concept I hold that is not open to enquiry, and certainly no place or object that is somehow 'reserved' or not open for replacement or improvement.
Marriage? Family? Intellectual freedom?
Marriage - any marriage is open to question, certainly enough of them are dissolved every year to suggest that just because it's a marriage doesn't mean it's unquestionable. There are arranged marriages, marriages of convenience, marriages to bypass immigration regulations and the like. Any given marriage - if it weren't open to question at least by the people in it, then it wouldn't be as significant as it is. If my wife couldn't, at any moment, decide that our marriage wasn't giving her what she wanted from it, then there wouldn't be significance to it that there is: I need to keep working at it to ensure that it's still what she would want it to be, it's constantly under question.
Family - I'm not sure the idea of 'questioning' or 'challenging' family actually makes any sense. I have the blood relatives that I have, neither I nor they can change that. What family means to any given individual is entirely up to them - for some people family is the core of their existence, for others it's something they can't change no matter how much they'd want to. The idea of family is open to question because no two people's definition will mean quite the same to them.
Intellectual freedom... that's a tricky one, it's something I think is important. The right to it? I think everyone deserves that, but I'd always be willing to hear an argument for why they shouldn't be. I can't imagine an argument I'd accept, but I'd always be willing to listen.
O.
-
I'm the last person to argue for the sacredness of marriage. But that's because the values I hold sacred in regard to relationship to others have nothing to do with it.
-
Where I walk there's a small stream lined with willows. One came down in the late spring and the farmer cut off the branches but left the stump lying across like a bridge. The willow put out a lot of new growth along its trunk, and a different tree was beginning to form.
When he harvested the farmer savaged it with his hedgecutter. Where the new branches had grown there is now just jagged wood and torn bark. And it feels to me like a desecration.
-
Hm. I have that every day >:(
-
:(
-
Got it in one :(
-
Where I walk there's a small stream lined with willows. One came down in the late spring and the farmer cut off the branches but left the stump lying across like a bridge. The willow put out a lot of new growth along its trunk, and a different tree was beginning to form.
When he harvested the farmer savaged it with his hedgecutter. Where the new branches had grown there is now just jagged wood and torn bark. And it feels to me like a desecration.
Ah well - very often, as I'm sure you're aware, nature often fights back. Down an old lane in the village of my birth, they installed a small sewerage works, and fenced it in with posts made of willow. Willow has a remarkable propensity to take root, and it wasn't long before the very insanitary feature became extremely picturesque with weeping willow trees.
-
If all sacred means is very important to someone, then I suggest we are effectively draining it of any real meaning. My local us very important to me but I would never regard it as sacred. That in any secular sense we seem to be either unable to define it, or to define it so wide as to be meaningless illustrates the problem for me.
-
I know, DU. But the farmer is a custodian of our countryside and he couldn't see it. And no doubt he'll do the same when it grows again.
I don't understand this not being able to see it, not to be able to feel why these things matter.
-
If all sacred means is very important to someone, then I suggest we are effectively draining it of any real meaning. My local us very important to me but I would never regard it as sacred. That in any secular sense we seem to be either unable to define it, or to define it so wide as to be meaningless illustrates the problem for me.
It's notably more than that, though; traditionally sacred has meant more than just 'very important' - there's not only the element of supreme, non-negotiable importance but also the element of something sufficiently special that it's set aside from and stands apart from the humdrum, mundane minutiae of everyday life. Hence the distinction between sacred and profane (pro fano - before, that is to say outside of, the temple).
-
If all sacred means is very important to someone, then I suggest we are effectively draining it of any real meaning. My local us very important to me but I would never regard it as sacred. That in any secular sense we seem to be either unable to define it, or to define it so wide as to be meaningless illustrates the problem for me.
No, my car is important, it isn't sacred.
'I carry the thought of you so gently in my two hands'. That's the best way I can think to describe it, whether in relation to a child or a value or a forest.
-
I think what we've witnessed here is an example of the gap between language and ideas / feelings. And that gap isn't the same for all people.
Shaker, Rhiannon and I all feel some need to reach for the term sacred, Floo and Nearly Sane do not. I don't think that means anyone feels certain things are more or less important if particular words are used instead of others, only that, as individuals, we feel the need to express our relationship with the world using different terms.
-
I agree, Sam. But...if the farmer can't see that the tree is sacred and the politician can't see that the person is sacred, what hope have we collectively?
-
The hope that despite our differences, if we keep talking, we'll find common ground, and greater understanding
-
I think what we've witnessed here is an example of the gap between language and ideas / feelings. And that gap isn't the same for all people.
Shaker, Rhiannon and I all feel some need to reach for the term sacred, Floo and Nearly Sane do not. I don't think that means anyone feels certain things are more or less important if particular words are used instead of others, only that, as individuals, we feel the need to express our relationship with the world using different terms.
Another issue that springs to mind is that modern non-religious people generally don't have a vocabulary to describe these things. The religious of all faiths always do; it's usually very old and comes as standard - ready made and off the peg, so to speak. Non-religious people don't have that and that's regrettable. Creating new words from scratch doesn't often work - Coleridge tried that with esemplastic and nobody knows that nowadays - which is why, so often, words have to be borrowed from religious traditions and translated, which (a) can invite misunderstanding and (b) trigger the proprietorial reflex. But there's no alternative.
-
Words such as 'sacred' and 'holy' - and come to think of it the latter is being used less and less I think - particularly the former are likely to be around for a long time to come, but I am optimistic that their link to religious beliefs will almost disappear in the not too distant future.
I'm surprised you detest religion that much, that you can't even seem to bear the connection with religion, of certain phrases and words.
Was it such a terrible influence on your life?
You come across as very negative, not even Floo comes across that negative about it.
I can safely say that I do not, and would go so far as to say I never have, detested or hated anything. I see and accept things as they are. Some parts of my life have been very difficult to cope with, but none has left me an old misery-guts. That's wasted emotion every time.
As for detesting religion, well, for a start, it is an entirely human idea, and it was a part of my early life with choir singing, acting, meeting friends ... ... but finally, realising that of course there wasnt, let alone ever had been, any God, ever, it was time to move away and do the best I could to help all those who also realise this.
One of the things people say about me is that I'm always so positive about things. :)
-
If all sacred means is very important to someone, then I suggest we are effectively draining it of any real meaning. My local us very important to me but I would never regard it as sacred. That in any secular sense we seem to be either unable to define it, or to define it so wide as to be meaningless illustrates the problem for me.
No, my car is important, it isn't sacred.
'I carry the thought of you so gently in my two hands'. That's the best way I can think to describe it, whether in relation to a child or a value or a forest.
I was merely picking up on Rose's post where she suggested that anything very important was sacred. I agree that you are not using it in that sense.
-
If all sacred means is very important to someone, then I suggest we are effectively draining it of any real meaning. My local us very important to me but I would never regard it as sacred. That in any secular sense we seem to be either unable to define it, or to define it so wide as to be meaningless illustrates the problem for me.
No, my car is important, it isn't sacred.
'I carry the thought of you so gently in my two hands'. That's the best way I can think to describe it, whether in relation to a child or a value or a forest.
I was merely picking up on Rose's post where she suggested that anything very important was sacred. I agree that you are not using it in that sense.
Rose also said that anything sacred needs to be 'handled with care', which is what prompted me to quote as I did.
-
For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?
-
I personally don't link a need for reverence with sacredness. Actually reverence worries me, because it is largely uncritical.
-
I personally don't link a need for reverence with sacredness. Actually reverence worries me, because it is largely uncritical.
I don't think reverence is a good attribute.
-
For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?
I been thinking about this and I don't think that I personally use 'sacred' in a meaningful sense at all. Sure I may flippantly use the term 'is nothing sacred' and erroneously describe my Friday night as 'sacred' - but those are merely turns of phrase, not really meaning it.
So to my secular view what would something sacred be. Well I guess firstly it needs to be something that is exceptionally important, secondly something that is irreplaceable and therefore needs to be treated with great care to protect and nurture it. So perhaps some very special relationships fall into that category, but those are personal and 'internal' (well between two people, whereas sacred tends to be used in an externalised manner - telling the world about something that is sacred.
And the discussion on reverence and lack of criticism really hit a cord with me. To my mind the current use of sacred is inextricably linked with a view that the sacred thing, whatever that may be, must be revered and is beyond criticism or challenge. And I just don't like that - everything must be open to challenge.
And this isn't merely in the religious world. It isn't uncommon for people to describe the NHS as sacred, really meaning beyond challenge on fundamental principles. Now I am a huge supporter of the NHS and agree wholeheartedly with its fundamental principles, but that doesn't mean it should be beyond challenge, and I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about describing it as sacred.
-
Using the word 'sacred' in the secular sense has no more credence than using the term 'holier than thou' to describe someone who is very up themselves, imo.
-
For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?
I been thinking about this and I don't think that I personally use 'sacred' in a meaningful sense at all. Sure I may flippantly use the term 'is nothing sacred' and erroneously describe my Friday night as 'sacred' - but those are merely turns of phrase, not really meaning it.
So to my secular view what would something sacred be. Well I guess firstly it needs to be something that is exceptionally important, secondly something that is irreplaceable and therefore needs to be treated with great care to protect and nurture it. So perhaps some very special relationships fall into that category, but those are personal and 'internal' (well between two people, whereas sacred tends to be used in an externalised manner - telling the world about something that is sacred.
And the discussion on reverence and lack of criticism really hit a cord with me. To my mind the current use of sacred is inextricably linked with a view that the sacred thing, whatever that may be, must be revered and is beyond criticism or challenge. And I just don't like that - everything must be open to challenge.
And this isn't merely in the religious world. It isn't uncommon for people to describe the NHS as sacred, really meaning beyond challenge on fundamental principles. Now I am a huge supporter of the NHS and agree wholeheartedly with its fundamental principles, but that doesn't mean it should be beyond challenge, and I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about describing it as sacred.
Yes, which is why I don't like the idea of reverence as I said. For me it is more about approaching things with sensitivity.
-
For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?
I been thinking about this and I don't think that I personally use 'sacred' in a meaningful sense at all. Sure I may flippantly use the term 'is nothing sacred' and erroneously describe my Friday night as 'sacred' - but those are merely turns of phrase, not really meaning it.
So to my secular view what would something sacred be. Well I guess firstly it needs to be something that is exceptionally important, secondly something that is irreplaceable and therefore needs to be treated with great care to protect and nurture it. So perhaps some very special relationships fall into that category, but those are personal and 'internal' (well between two people, whereas sacred tends to be used in an externalised manner - telling the world about something that is sacred.
And the discussion on reverence and lack of criticism really hit a cord with me. To my mind the current use of sacred is inextricably linked with a view that the sacred thing, whatever that may be, must be revered and is beyond criticism or challenge. And I just don't like that - everything must be open to challenge.
And this isn't merely in the religious world. It isn't uncommon for people to describe the NHS as sacred, really meaning beyond challenge on fundamental principles. Now I am a huge supporter of the NHS and agree wholeheartedly with its fundamental principles, but that doesn't mean it should be beyond challenge, and I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about describing it as sacred.
I think that's a good point but perhaps that feeling of innapropriateness arrives because the NHS, no matter how good it's principles, is still an institution with embedded hierarchy and power. Describing it as sacred may imply that the power structure there should not be challenged, which of course is totally objectionable.
So perhaps the va,use of the word sacred in a secular sense is when it is applied to the powerless and vulnerable, like Rhiannon's tree.
-
For us in the non sacred camp, we understand that there are some things that people might get very upset about a lack of reverence being shown (though that doesn't seem to be the same meaning I am getting from all those in the sacred camp). But that isn't the issue, it is why that should be?
I been thinking about this and I don't think that I personally use 'sacred' in a meaningful sense at all. Sure I may flippantly use the term 'is nothing sacred' and erroneously describe my Friday night as 'sacred' - but those are merely turns of phrase, not really meaning it.
So to my secular view what would something sacred be. Well I guess firstly it needs to be something that is exceptionally important, secondly something that is irreplaceable and therefore needs to be treated with great care to protect and nurture it. So perhaps some very special relationships fall into that category, but those are personal and 'internal' (well between two people, whereas sacred tends to be used in an externalised manner - telling the world about something that is sacred.
And the discussion on reverence and lack of criticism really hit a cord with me. To my mind the current use of sacred is inextricably linked with a view that the sacred thing, whatever that may be, must be revered and is beyond criticism or challenge. And I just don't like that - everything must be open to challenge.
And this isn't merely in the religious world. It isn't uncommon for people to describe the NHS as sacred, really meaning beyond challenge on fundamental principles. Now I am a huge supporter of the NHS and agree wholeheartedly with its fundamental principles, but that doesn't mean it should be beyond challenge, and I'd certainly feel uncomfortable about describing it as sacred.
I think that's a good point but perhaps that feeling of innapropriateness arrives because the NHS, no matter how good it's principles, is still an institution with embedded hierarchy and power. Describing it as sacred may imply that the power structure there should not be challenged, which of course is totally objectionable.
So perhaps the va,use of the word sacred in a secular sense is when it is applied to the powerless and vulnerable, like Rhiannon's tree.
Just looking at the dictionary definitions three of the four examples used in the Oxford dictionary are clearly religious the fourth:
'regarded as too valuable to be interfered with; sacrosanct'
Is secular. But interestingly there is nothing really in that definition to suggest that it refers to powerless or vulnerable necessarily.
Perhaps by that definition our global climate is 'sacred' - i.e. too valuable to be interfered with. Not sure I feel comfortable with using the term still.
-
No, I think as soon as we talk about things simply as weak or vulnerable, we make them passive victims. Our climate certainly won't be passive in response to our actions.
-
No, I think as soon as we talk about things simply as weak or vulnerable, we make them passive victims. Our climate certainly won't be passive in response to our actions.
Sorry I meant our climate perhaps fitted the secular definition:
'regarded as too valuable to be interfered with; sacrosanct'
Not that it was weak and vulnerable. Vulnerable perhaps but not weak.
-
Yes, I was taking what you said and referring back to what Sam had posted.
-
Without trying to muddle two entirely different subjects on two different threads on two different sub-forums too much, last night's events in Paris made me reflect that the right of people to walk out and about safely in their place of residence, to pursue their leisure activities and enjoy themselves in peace and safety without the fear of random mayhem and myrder even having to cross their minds, is very close to the sort of sacred (supremely important, non-negotiable) value I've been trying (and I suspect failing) to express on this thread. Rhiannon's example likewise (one I could also have chosen).
-
Dear Prof,
A thread that gets the old grey cells turning.
The NHS, sacred, maybe not, but is the name Bevan sacred, or free at the point of access, is the concept sacred.
Just thinking out loud, good thread.
Gonnagle.
PS: this post might feel a bit disjointed, posting on my phone as EE can't get their bloody finger out.
I am not a number. >:(
-
The NHS, sacred, maybe not, but is the name Bevan sacred, or free at the point of access, is the concept sacred.
I wouldn't use the term to describe the NHS, or even the underpinning principle, and certainly not to describe Bevan.
That doesn't mean I don't passionately believe in the NHS and the underpinning principle - I do.
-
Without trying to muddle two entirely different subjects on two different threads on two different sub-forums too much, last night's events in Paris made me reflect that the right of people to walk out and about safely in their place of residence, to pursue their leisure activities and enjoy themselves in peace and safety without the fear of random mayhem and myrder even having to cross their minds, is very close to the sort of sacred (supremely important, non-negotiable) value I've been trying (and I suspect failing) to express on this thread. Rhiannon's example likewise (one I could also have chosen).
Very much so.
And not just as a result of terrorism either.
-
Without trying to muddle two entirely different subjects on two different threads on two different sub-forums too much, last night's events in Paris made me reflect that the right of people to walk out and about safely in their place of residence, to pursue their leisure activities and enjoy themselves in peace and safety without the fear of random mayhem and myrder even having to cross their minds, is very close to the sort of sacred (supremely important, non-negotiable) value I've been trying (and I suspect failing) to express on this thread. Rhiannon's example likewise (one I could also have chosen).
Completely agree.
Going back to what I said earlier I think the vulnerability of what you have just described is an essential part of its sacredness. I get the feeling that for something to be sacred it must be subject to potential change of a kind that could fundamentally change the thing, or destroy it altogether. So, it would make no sense at all to say that the speed of light is sacred.
As for powerlessness... I don't think I quite meant that. This thread really does demand careful thought about how you articulate things! I think it was more to do with sacred not being applicable to human institutions that involve sanctioned power or authority over other people. Not in a sinister way or anything... I just feel it matters somehow. That it is a factor.
p.s.Part of me wants to say "fuck this, it's too hard"
-
Just re-reading this thread and bumping it so it doesn't disappear.
-
Just posting here because I've enjoyed rereading this thread again, prompted by NS's mountain thread elsewhere.
It's easy to say that the rise of Trump shows how vital it is to have a sense of sacredness. Something about him and those like him makes the planet feel dirty.
-
It's easy to say that the rise of Trump shows how vital it is to have a sense of sacredness. Something about him and those like him makes the planet feel dirty.
The problem comes when your idea of sacred threatens mine. My reaction to Trump is similar to yours but for an awful lot of people in the US Trump actually stands for something - for want of a better word - sacred. Plenty on the religious right certainly identify with his values. After all, what is sacredness if not that which aligns with ones deepest values and sense of identity? In which case, might one not define the sacred as that which represents an extension of me? Doesn't sound quite right like that though, does it!
Trump wants to remove protection from public monuments and national parks so that the land can be exploited for short term gains. Although this directly threatens what some feel is sacred, including many native Americans whose spirituality is bound up with the land, for others it is jobs now that matters - indeed, there remains a strong sense among many that the land is given to humans by God precisely so that it can be domesticated and exploited, as in the commandment in Genesis to subdue the earth.
Over here we have Brexit, which for some would seem to have reached an almost sacred importance - enough to warrant violence in the streets apparently. An issue that not so long ago was, so polls suggest, of only minor significance for most folk, is now the line that divides the nation in half. How did this happen? Facts seem to matter relatively little in the debate and changing circumstances are not significantly reflected in changing opinions, presumably because people have responded to the issue by making it a proxy for some kind of identity war which obviously predates the referendum but has found a new and vigorous expression in its outcome.
Looked at like this, perhaps sacredness is something of a double-edged sword. I certainly have some sympathy with the author of the old Zen poem who wrote, 'hold no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind.' Trouble is I have strong opinions about Trump, and Brexit, and so much more. These opinions won't go away and, to be honest, they do feel very much like a dis-ease. Never mind - death will cure it all in due course!