Strictly speaking -
What's that to you?
If tradition is good unto itself, which seems to me is part of the conservative stance, I am raising the issue of whether there is a contradiction in that they tend to worship - either literally in religion or metaphorically in things like politics - dead radicals.
Also, I think it is meaningful to wonder what would happen if Jesus arrive in the Bible Belt today, for example, and started speaking about God in ways that these people were not quite familiar with, not quite in the ways their preachers and pastors do, and also claimed to be THE route to God.
Not because I need some condemnation of the Bible Belt, but rather this issue of the normal reaction to innovation and change seems to be not quite what it is, and this affects me in many ways, not just via religions.
Essentially I have the same problem with rationalists.
How much of this interest in religiousness is driven by one's own insecurity, jealousy and victim mentality?
I don't know. It feels like I am trying to get clear on some things, not all of them conscious. I think it is fair to see if there is a contradiction between premises in this context.
EDIT: in this specific context, this thread came out of discussions with you where I encountered the judgment, it seemed, that one should, generally stay within a tradition and that those who break off are wrong per se to do so, along perhaps with the related issue of sycretism. I reacted to what I thought was a universal rule or set or rules that I do not think are right for all people. Frankly, it seems to me conversion is also often going against religious authority. It is deciding, within a tradition, that the leaders and likely the texts, are incorrect that this religion is for everyone and that problems with the religion relate to sin, resistence, ignorance, etc. I think this is also problematic. So this thread was me giving a home to the issue that came up between us and my resisting this universalizing, in this case by focusing on the fact that traditions are started by schisms.
I don't think arguing against a universalized idea is a sign of victim mentality, even if that idea has caused problems for the person arguing against that idea.
The specific quote about Conservatives comes from political contexts, though I thought it relevent here. It is a Mark Twain quote apparantly. I think it points out the kind of irony I see as a problem with universalizing traditions as right for people -unless another Jesus comes along, to add in LG's proviso.
I am resisting this universalizing of the rightness of traditions - which is even odder given that they contradict and often revile each other - and frankly I find it very odd here to have my motives questioned since you have yourself decided to go against religious authorities, without, I assume thinking that you were of a caliber of Jesus. IOW you also decided that the universalized correctness of these traditions did not apply in your case, despite what religious authorities would say.
This is not a move to starting your own religion, but the fundamantal act is of the same category. You decided that the universalizing was not correct, in at least one case. If it is not an act of fully rejecting the other religion as a whole, it is accepting schisms in the world and plurality of religions in general, movement between different religions by individuals and given this the ability and right of individuals in traditions to go against traditions.
