furthermore there are a whole load of daily activities, traditions and quintessential parts of our culture that
originated in religious discourse. they have become fully disconnected and decontextualised now, though. perhaps you overlook just how much of our national identity and how many of our institutions have completely religious backgrounds, but are now still flourishing in our secular age. marriage is just on the liminal threshold of that category. are all the people singing the english national anthem at football matches being hypocrits, because it is steeped in the age-old principles of divine right? because it implies the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent god? or... maybe it's just a national anthem, nowadays?
@previous post: im talking about baptism as a
ceremony. as an
act. a
group act. a
social rite of passage. are you following me? you're being so absurdly reductionist in your logic now that you're saying "the individual has no 'intent', therefore it is not hypocritical". well, many couples get married with absolutely no conscious consideration of the religious setting of their ceremony... guess they're let-off too, then, in your little world? my point is that these 'traditions' now have a new, secular context. their meaning (which, as i pointed out in my semantic theory of 'meaning') is an entirely HUMAN CONSTRUCT. so, these events are defined by our own CURRENT contempoary definitions of them. if marriage has little religious meaning in the 21st century ceremony, then by that very social virtue alone, it is NOT religious. do you not understand that? how we philosophically look at, categorise and consider everything in the exterior world is subject to our ever changing definitions. semantics. epistemology. here's an old line: "go read a fucking book". stop talking such utter shite to yourself. im surprised anyone still listens to you.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-09-09 11:25:23)
