Charade You Parade

'Identity' isn't a 'free pass' or a 'blank check' or a 'rubber stamp'. Which is to say, who you are doesn't give you permission to be a version of you that is your worst. It doesn't authorize, nor does it bless, the visions and beliefs that marinate and inflame every heart and any mind. Whether the 'identity' you claim follows from 'religion' or 'race' or 'nation', the charade you parade is

identity 

releases you from any and every mortal and immortal injunction.

Charade You Parade

I

'Identity' is not a recent scourge, but it is persistent. I suspect because it boils down to -

I am therefore I can.

* 

For example:

I am 'religious', therefore I can hate people who believe differently from me. I am 'deeply religious', therefore I can harm people who believe differently from me.

Why?

Because the exercise of 'religious practice' is - not (a) solely a belief in inhuman power(s), is it? - for it is also (b) a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' - for (c) any belief derived from (a) - and (d) every practice derived from (a) - regardless of whether or not (e) such beliefs or such practices are 'good' or 'just' by

mortal judgment.

*

Case in point:

People who testify to 'being devout' exercise a 'pious practice' of hierarchy as though hierarchy cannot be a 'practice' separate and apart from (a). Despite the 'moral rightness' of such hierarchy not following from being part and parcel to (a) - but rather from being (c) and (d).

Hierarchy, therefore unsurprisingly, is neither a belief nor a practice subject to mortal opinions by exercisers of a 'religious practice' of hierarchy. For arguments that question the 'goodness' or 'justness' of hierarchy, on the basis of other systems of belief, are reflexively dismissed and reviled. 

Because people who testify to 'being devout' exercise a 'pious practice' of habitually dismissing and reviling other systems of belief. Including scientific systems of belief, secular and humanistic systems of belief, atheistic systems of belief, etc., no?

*

II

Which is to say, when 'identity' boils down to - I am therefore I can -

'identity' 

is too often a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' for any idea and every agenda derived from I am therefore I can, 

regardless of ethical systems of belief.

* 

For example:

I am 'racial', therefore I can hate people who are 'racially' differently from me. I am 'deeply racial', therefore I can harm people who are 'racially' differently from me.

Why?

Because 'being free' is - not (f) solely a human right to self-determination, is it? - for it is also (g) a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' - for (h) any idea or feeling or sense originating from (f) - and (i) every agenda or act or conduct arising from (f) - regardless of whether or not (j) such ideas or such agendas are 'right' or 'wrong' by mortal reason.

*

Case in point:

People who publicly defend an expansive and inclusive 'idea' of 'freedom' while unapologetically defending a suffocating and brittle 'agenda' that restricts and excludes as though (f) is not everybody's right to 'be free'. 

Because the denial of some liberties of some people is 'right'. Because the advancement of everybody's liberty is 'wrong'.

For I am 'free' to deny anybody's liberty if I am so autonomously-determined. Never mind that 'freedom' that issues forth from both sides of a people's mouth, defends nobody's 'freedom' from

illiberalism's repudiation of ethicism.

*

III.

Which is to say, when 'identity' boils down to - I am therefore I can -

'identity' 

is too often

authorization that blesses the erasure of mortal guardrails. 

*

For example:

I am a 'patriot' of my 'nation', therefore I can hate people who stand with a 'nation' different than mine. I am 'deeply patriotic', therefore I can harm people who stand with a 'nation' different than mine.

Why?

Because an 'oath of allegiance' is - not (k) solely a vow of fidelity and loyalty, is it? - for it is also (l) a 'free pass' and a 'blank check' and a 'rubber stamp' - (m) to wrong (n) in the name of (a) and (f) and (k) - regardless of whether or not (o) such wrong is 'lawful' or 'honorable' by

mortal authority.

*

Case in point:

People who sanction hostility against and towards political entities, including people and states and nations, as though (k) halos acts of aggression as 'patriotism'.

Because (l) and (m) and (n) and (o).

Because violence that serves the glory of one's own political entity, one's own people and one's own state and one's own nation, is a kind of 'respect' or 'duty' or 'love'. Not for a mortal 'fatherland'. Nor for an immortal 'father'. But for a release from any and every mortal and immortal injunction

to be a version of you 

free from the charade that 'identity' is a right, instead of a wrong.

 

 

More

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're talking about an 'idea' that has become a 'justification' that has become an 'agenda' -

to 'enforce' obedience and submission

to enforcers and enforcement -

*

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're talking about a kind of power and a kind of control -

to rob and strip and dispossess people of their rights and freedoms and liberties,

because they're 'non-conforming' or 'different' or 'not one's own' -

*

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're not talking about 'believing in an inhuman power' part and parcel to 'the exercise of religious practice' or 'a human right to self-determination' part and parcel to 'being free' or 'a vow of fidelity and loyalty' part and parcel to 'an oath of allegiance' - 

*

Too often when we talk about 'identity' - we're talking about the make-believe, the fiction, the lie that 'identity' is a right

to wield 'religion' and 'race' and 'nation' as the full armor of God

to wrong

with an inexplicable impunity that I suspect boils down to - the charade that parades: I am therefore I can.

M

*

Note

"the full armor of God" is a reference to Ephesians 6:11

M