Flag-Waving has Never Appealed
Flag-Waving has Never Appealed
By Tony DeLorger ©2011
How diverse are our beliefs in life, gleaned from experience and the slow evolution of our conditioning; first from parents and then from all external influences. What we accept in belief is an individual conglomeration that in essence is far apart from anyone else. We are islands, segregated by shallow and sometimes deep waters. We may, in search of solidarity and acceptance adhere to ideologies, but our take can only ever be individual and never the same as another human being. Why we then contend and create conflict with others of dissimilar belief is ludicrous considering the walls we create are based on lies, imperfect realities.
I think difference has always created suspicion and a fundamental mistrust with people. But we are all the same in many ways, want the same things in live and, apart from cultural and physical differences, we are more alike than not. That’s why I don’t understand why we as humanity are so reluctant to accept one another for what we are. Rather, we accept what we have been fed as lies and fear by men, governments and organisations that have ulterior motives.
Human beings on the whole want to live peaceful lives, and bring up their children into a world of opportunity and safety. It is when ideologies, religious, political or physiological become dogmas with distinct boundaries and laws of adherence that conflict arises. The blatant flag-waving of undeniable support and commitment is a statement of closed mindedness that in no way helps the cause of peace. It is this contention that creates conflict, wars and death.
Belief should be a personal aspect of life, viewed individually and shared with like-minded people; it should never be a point of dispute, a reason for disharmony. Any belief that suggest this is not a positive belief or ideology and does not warrant following. There is strength in numbers and the feeling of belonging is a powerful need in human beings, but when that ideology is guided toward the negative, adherence then becomes a matter of individual morality, not blind following.
To me the flag-wavers of the world are blind to the true nature of themselves and the ideals they follow. The need to stand for causes is often not about the causes at all, and more about personal inadequacy, need. When you say you are a ‘whatever’, you then limit anything else of truth that may deliver further understanding. Truth is in flux because our perception of it changes continually. Therefore creating walls around your belief is limiting and counterproductive.
Belief is a personal choice and therefore individual. We can agree to use the fundamental aspects of ideologies to give form to our belief, but to adhere blindly and completely creates disharmony through the judgements that follow such thinking. Open-mindedness, I believe, is an imperative, considering each new experience and understanding an addition to our viewpoint. Understanding ourselves and others becomes a result of that pathway.