Dear Yuyutsu,

Whilst not wishing to create offense, I am forced to question the logic, and even the rational validity, of some of your comments.
(And in this evaluation I am drawing in part on my recollection of some of your past posts, and if I err in this I offer my apology in advance.)

>What hierarchy is needed when there is nothing but God?!<

I would offer that we live in a material world, that no man is an island, and that the only way anyone can legitimately and honestly divorce themselves from 'society' would be to go off alone to live in the bush/jungle/'nature' as a hermit living off the fruits of nature and with absolutely no reliance on anything produced or left by others, past or present (including language/art/music/skills).
Once you even introduce a partner/spouse/mate (let alone children) then the 'nothing but God' is blown. (And, trying to wriggle out of this reality by saying that such 'company' is also God - because everything, after all, is God - could only be judged as 'sleight of hand' and fundamentally dishonest.)

All cultures and societies, including our own, have at some stage determined to act as a collective (purportedly for 'the common good'), whether to hunt, gather or grow food, build dwellings or a 'long house' for common gatherings or meetings of elders, or a church, school, etc, or to wage war against 'insurgents' or to gain territory/resources/wealth, or to develop knowledge/science/culture/medicine/laws/rules, or even just to 'buy' a truck or tractor.

To counter by saying that all are God, and therefore society is also God, would be to suggest that everyone thinks and acts alike in all things, and this would be demonstrably false.

(continued)

Dear Yuyutsu,

You live within 'society', and benefit from some of the past and present 'provisions' by society (even if you may wish that you didn't have to rely on many or any of these 'facets' of our current environment), and therefore you are, at least to some extent, reliant on the activities of the 'state', past and present.

We operate as individuals within a collective - by nature, by choice, and in 'fact' - and as a 'democratic society' our accepted method of expressing policy preferences is via electoral ballot, and any detractors or deviants from the 'rules' determined by the popularly elected 'heads of state' (ie government and judiciary) may be sanctioned, restrained or incarcerated to limit their potential disruption of 'the common good'.
(Government and judiciary, the 'state', operates - or should operate - so as to promote the common good and general compliance with the intentions of 'the Golden Rule'. Which is therefore commendable, when pursued responsibly and ethically.)

>Neither 'Leftist' Westerners nor 'Rightist' Westerners really care or want to know about non-Western cultures/traditions: they just use them as convenient ammunition in their internal wars - one blindly favours them in their propaganda, while the other blindly opposes.<

This statement is a gross and demonstrably false generalization; though I would have to admit that some practices/ideas of 'other' cultures defy justification.
And, many of us do eat and relish the cuisine of many and varied 'cultures', after all, don't we? But we don't blindly accept the 'efficacy' of different or 'alien' cultural beliefs or practices - like child-marriage or FMG.
Certainly there is disagreement regarding the appropriate categorization and treatment of 'refugees', but to use this to infer a general bias against 'non-Western' cultures/traditions lacks foundation. Some questioning and lack of understanding (or even of interest), certainly, and some attendant fear of the unknown or the 'different', but an inference of general 'rejection' is false - as evidenced by school curriculum inclusion of several non-Western languages/culture/history programs and courses.

Dear Saltpetre,

You should read my words within context:

The question of hierarchy was first raised by 'Individual', insultingly asking: "Why does God need religious hierarchy?".

Initially I started typing: "For the same reason you stopped beating your wife", but then I sublimated my response and wrote instead "He doesn't. What hierarchy is needed when there is nothing but God?!".

In other words, it is people who desire and create hierarchy, not God.

To the extent your life is about serving God, you need no hierarchy, but to the extent you serve your body's genes, you become subject to pecking order.

Following this, your raising of the issue of society, while well-aware of my views in that area, seems out of this context. Briefly, I do not oppose society as such, but only the non-voluntary inclusion of individuals in mega-societies without their consent. It's good that you mentioned the Golden-Rule: would you not hate it if say some bikie-gang, whom one of your neighbours happened to belong to, considered you as one-of-them, invited you to their functions (including to vote for their leader) and 'reminded' you that you must wear their insignia at all times? Then what justifies you doing the similar unto others?

Yes, it was a generalisation, but MOST Westerners are interested in other cultures only when it benefits them. It could be for political ammunition, it could be for their taste-buds or it could be for financial-profit by gaining skills to operate commercial-enterprises in other countries.