Socio-Political Rantings
Men are polygamous. Like it or not, you better fuckin' accept it. We are monogamous cos' society has imposed this rule on us. Given the choice, we'd endorse promiscuity.
What is it that drives us towards polygamy? Is it purely the fulfillment of sexual desires? Or could it be something more? Or are we driving ourselves away from a society based on values, to one that is fundamentally slutty? What if I told you to shove your decadent orgies up your orifice...? Is there no standard anymore?
Is virginity all that important in life? Is it supposed to be sacred? Or is it just bullshit?
Why the fuck should circumcision be endorsed in many parts of the world? Who the fuck says that getting your foreskin chopped off helps you have a better sex? What difference does it make to a small child starving to death or a mother with her 2 kids, all on the road, trying to survive temperatures of Minus 5 degrees celsius?
Who has given me or you the right to lamblast and persecute other religions and their sexual practices?
What is it that drives us towards polygamy? Is it purely the fulfillment of sexual desires? Or could it be something more? Or are we driving ourselves away from a society based on values, to one that is fundamentally slutty? What if I told you to shove your decadent orgies up your orifice...? Is there no standard anymore?
Is virginity all that important in life? Is it supposed to be sacred? Or is it just bullshit?
Why the fuck should circumcision be endorsed in many parts of the world? Who the fuck says that getting your foreskin chopped off helps you have a better sex? What difference does it make to a small child starving to death or a mother with her 2 kids, all on the road, trying to survive temperatures of Minus 5 degrees celsius?
Who has given me or you the right to lamblast and persecute other religions and their sexual practices?
Fundamentalism is always looked upon as evil. Now what if I said that fundamentalism is actually good for society?
Supposing there were no fundamentalists in Ayodhya, would it have become another Kashmir Valley? What if Kashmir Valley was full of Hindu Fundamentalists, would it have been an Ayodhya?
When I say that I am talking in terms of a trade-off...Which one is preferable? Unchecked Islamic fundamentalism? Or checked Islamic fundamentalism, held in rein by proactive Hindu fundamentalists? Similarly, I can argue that Christian fundamentalism too is held in check or 'balanced' by Islamic and Hindu fundamentalist forces in their particular geographical bases in most parts of India.
I guess this is what is called Fighting Fire With Fire... As long as there is some fundamentalist force to oppose the so called 'Enemy' fundamentalist force, there will be some kind of checking mechanism. The opposite side will keep your fundamentalism in check and you will keep the opposite side in check. This trade-off undoubtedly will lead to tensions. But if we can avoid mass massacring of people as exemplified in the Kashmir Valley, by employing fundamentalist forces there, I would be all for it.
So before you start cursing me for advocating fundamentalism, think for yourself. The sense of security you will have is probably because of fundamentalist activities. This is a multi-layered reality.
I personally feel that religious fundamentalism is fuckall, but if we have to hold society's reins, then this weapon must be used. Yes, these ARE dangerous thoughts. But then again, we live in dangerous times. I can only hope for my utopian world, where the only religion is peace...
Is it the images and words that make something look good, or is it the thing itself?
