Quite often a religion takes on the prevailing manifestation of the society it inhabits – this explains the totalitarian nature of the Christian Church (and the monastery) which is premised upon a hierarchical feudal society administered by an absolute monarch. Zulu religion reflected the warrior culture that Shaka Zulu created (premised upon past tribal conventions with new innovations). Tribes in the Amazon possess religious beliefs that reflect the forest, etc. Religion is reactionary and can only orientate itself existentially – promising the adherent that some type of ethereal “escape” is possible (a claim that is never proven). It is fascinating that the religionists compound their illogicality by assuming that monotheism is an improvement upon polytheism. Really? At least if a tree is worshipped – the tree actually exists and is a material object existing in the physical world. Of course, religions can be studied and understood (as a type of history) – but such a researcher must not fall into the mire of religiosity. Such a researcher must not get high on his own supply – or get caught sipping his own bar supplies. What I find interesting about Iranian ideology is that it talks about opposing capitalism – whilst practicing capitalism within its society. Capitalism has not be over-thrown in Iran – only moulded to fit an Islamicist theism. Where, then, is the “Revolution”? It would seem that this refers to rejecting the Western imperialism projected into Iran (by the West) – and replacing it (or re-establishing) Islam (which is the right of the Iranian people). But consider this, Iran has a pre-history of thousands of years that was not Islamic – but polytheistic. Indeed, it was this astonishing culture that ruled a huge empire – the soldiers of which fought the Spartans at Thermopylae. Iran possessed a great culture prior to the rise of Islam – but this is denied or portrayed as an “error” by the theology extracted from the Holy Qur’an. How can this attitude be logical or true?
