Not so much a common thread, but as you say, an evolved position from activism that included the possibility of violence to serve just causes, to being a supporting player for a group that is violently anti-status quo in its music, to embodying “Fuck it” to the straight world in his daily life. I see that as evolution.

If there is a common thread in all this, it is in just saying no to the straight-laced culture and all its fucked up beliefs; the prograssion from one indentity to the next seems classic to an individual evolving: gaining wisdom and acting accordingly.

- NZDude

I think a good article for discussion would be on how The Dude went (evolved?) from SDS-style activism to roadie for Metallica to where he is in 1990 LA. What common thread (if any) is there linking these aspects of his life together?

I’d personally rather see it less as a religious thing, due to my fundamental opposition to the notion of religion. Although the actual definition of religion seems to be a bit ambiguous. Generally, I think it implies worship and the occasional subordination to unfounded, dogmatic principles. Which goes against everything I stand for. Although to be fair, maybe it’s not the definition of religion, but rather the connotation that bugs me.

I think Dudeist politics would make a good article. I mean, a lot of issues or entire fields (like economy) would remain completely unaccounted for, presumably. But I think it’d be interesting to assess how it blurs lines all over the place. Also, concerning the libertarianism thing: Dudeism isn’t just freedom of speech and minimal subordination.. but also freedom from work! Super libertarianism if you ask me. But I’d be very happy to read a sermon from the sofa on the matter.

Btw.. it was Jeff Bridges’ birthday on Thursday. No Birthday article for the Dude?

ideally i’d like to see dudeism steer clear of delving too much into politics, and in fact if we want to be considered a proper religious organization, we’re bound by law to not get involved in things political.

then again, the dudespaper is a separate entity from the church so it might be kosher in this here arena.

a curious thing, though is that apparently conservatives seem to dig the dude as much as liberals do – at least those of the younger generation . which is interesting because as you point out, a lot of his vibe is diametrically opposed to much of the conservative platform.

my feeling is that much of what the dude (and the movie’s philosophy) stands for appeals to segments of both conservative and liberal camps – perhaps the members of those parties with some affection for libertarianism? your thoughts?

this would be a good subject for an sermon from the sofa.

and just for the record, i think on a deep, personal level, we’re all not very big fans of fox news here. stinks to high heaven.

While Dudeism isn’t anti-conservative, a lot of the core virtues of Dudeism are in a stark contrast toward the ideals of conservatism. And like the Dude said: “Walter, you’re an asshole”. To my understanding, Walter is very, very far from dude. The dude coexists peacefully with Walter because a dude adapts to his/her natural environment. It’s in a dude’s nature. So while Dudeism isn’t a political group I think it does overlap with politics in the sense that.. personal agendas are carried over to political agendas.

FOX News talking about killer marijuana
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj8SlNnZ2Eo

Rupert Murdoch. Bill O’Reilly. Extreme volume. Nationalism. To me – I don’t know if this is general consensus – undude is the word I’d immediately associate here. Harold and Kumar and ‘Duuuude’ are something else, I guess. But totally superficial in my head, when considering the underlying nature of Murdoch’s empire.

And let’s not forget – let’s NOT forget – Walter was a neo-con. Like the Dude, we can try to love ‘em even if they are a bunch of assholes.

I should point out here though that Dudeism is not anti-conservative. We’re not a political organization.

Of course, the problem with Fox news isn’t that it espouses reactionary views; The problem, and Patrick3675 probably agrees, is that it’s willfully inaccurate, pandering, and shamelessly sensational. But at least they make funny dope references in their articles.