The (actual) public scenario presented:
Poor, much-maligned, ostracized world traveller/proselytizer of a despised and oppressed religious minority is sidelined by local civic leaders - for purely sordid political/economic/trade reasons; to not offend our new-found Chinese market (or more correctly, its political/bureaucratic superiors). Using obfuscation and flimsy excuses to pretend there were actually some genuine reasons such a meeting could not take place. But at least 'admitting' the DL only represented a small and insignificant collection of religious devotees anyhow.
My reaction/letter to the editor response:
Natural 'co-aggrievement' for a fellow-minority religious 'member', snubbed by political leadership - however relatively insignificant those selfsame leaders (and their fellow travellers) are in the overall scheme of things - purely to avoid ruffling the feathers of (perceived) economic/political interests and/or incurring (anticipated) economic pressure/ostracism if he had met up with them.
Unfortunately the impression given - from what the newspaper omitted - was that said Dalai Lama actually somehow deserved to be feted and dined by local officialdom as if such oughta be the fate of all such globe-trotting religious proselytizers simply by being the world-travelling standard-bearers for their particular brand of religious belief. Or even that calling such an esteemed individual as the Dalai Lama the leader of a minority religion was a gratuitous insult and flew in the face of his actual world renown. Or that by dint of the DL's well-known sublimity of character and disposition he automatically deserved special treatment not befitting the rest of us lesser mortals, plebs and citizenry of Planet Earth. Not one of which was intended.
No, the only 'beef' if such it could be termed I had with Mayor Cull was his use of the Dalai Lama's minority religious status as a justification for publicly sidelining and snubbing him, and moreover, kowtowing to the Chinese authorities (in a general sense) out of fear (of potential trade repercussions) and (unwillingness to lose any hoped for) favour with the same if he'd acted otherwise. When Mayor Cull's fellow New Zealand and Dunedin forefathers were willing to die if need be rather than compromise their moral principles
- and least of all with a regime which not only doesn't respect such values upon their own soil, but indeed infracts them with utter impunity daily, hourly and moment by moment; and with no international sanction.
Not that I gave or would give the proverbial rat's razoo about members of minority 'religions' - my own or anybody's - being snubbed, denigrated, defamed or misrepresented by the mainstream media or political elites; why, it happens all the time. It's called life, reality, the world we live in. Correction: sure, it tends to annoy me, naturally more so when it's my own faith system being devalued, demeaned, and downtrodden
(by the powers that be). And yes, I do indeed 'care' about it, and deeply, just as John Hanlon does about
this world and its natural environs as so sublimely expressed in his classic hit 'I Care' of yesteryear. But let's just say one comes to expect as much, no less, in this day and age...and indeed when the treatment is otherwise one naturally has fairly legitimate grounds to suspect an ulterior motive or several. Because in such scenarios there often are indeed ulterior (if surreptitious) motives actuating the various players concerned.
In summary, insults for - primarily Christian - 'sects' are only to be expected, 'par for the course' these days. No-one, religious leader or otherwise, has any God-given right to expect special treatment such as civic wining and dining by local officialdom (in any context) - and indeed, the 'greater' the leader, the less he or she will take such to heart anyhow. And mistaking one's real status by treating an individual (of evident great note) as just another lowly pleb like the rest of us will not incite that individual, if they're indeed not merely religious but truly spiritual, to react or respond in any petty, self-serving, aggrieved manner.
Quite unlike the infamous Pope Gregory VII centuries ago when given the cold shoulder by then German Emperor Henry IV. Gregory's pride was so offended by his apparent disregard for his supposed superior earthly authority that he required Henry to literally 'bow and scrape, curtsey and kowtow' to him, doing utter abeisance to Gregory in the dead of winter by coming to the pope's alpine residence and awaiting his pleasure for 3 days and nights scantily clothed in pitiful, freezing conditions till Gregory deigned to allow him forgiveness for the egregious sin of offending his pride. A contrast (if indirectly related) exquisitely captured by a couple of artists in ancient Bohemia who depicted said cognitive dissonance between these self-appointed religionists and their 'Master' in a couple of 'pavement sermons' which drew crowds in Prague to note and judge for themselves the difference between these respective 'representatives' of their heavenly Father. One already cited - in this instance decked up in full papal regalia upon one of his travelling forays into his realm - the other said pope's supposed Master and Lord 'who knew not where to lay his head', who lived and died an overlooked pauper and who breathed a prayer of forgiveness from His cruel cross for those who'd done the dastardly deed and/or urged the ungodly ordeal on. Who Himself entered Jerusalem as its Servant-King 'lowly, and seated on an ass, and even the coat of an ass'.
No comments:
Post a Comment