In the fable titled: The Sky is Falling, what made Chicken Little’s story believable to the other animals?

Question

There are many versions of the story, but the basic premise is that a chicken called Chicken Licken (or Chicken Little) eats lunch one day, and believes the sky is falling down because an acorn falls on her head. She decides to tell the King, and on her journey meets other animals who join her in the quest. In most retelling. Finally, they come across Foxy Loxy, a fox who offers Chicken Licken and her friends his help.

Depending on the version, the moral changes. In the "happy ending" version, the moral is not to be a "Chicken Licken" and have courage. In other versions the moral is usually interpreted to mean "do not believe everything you are told". In the latter case, it could well be a cautionary political tale: Chicken Licken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit.

It seems to me that believers in Religions are like the animals in this story, what do you think?

Answer 1

I'm wondering about the fox. Is it a coincidence that the main right wing propaganda outlet in the U.S. is called Fox News? LOL.

As to your question, certainly the big Sky-god/One Book religions are based on a psychology of fear leading to submission to someone or something that Knows Better.

Answer 2

the problem with technological understanding is you won't be in a position to %. and choose which aspects to have faith. there became the guy from Southern Baptist going for his PhD in evolutionary biology jointly as on an identical time refusing to resign his theory in smart layout. the two ideals are actually incompatible and the guy truthfully the two had an schedule or a screw loose. Who might have faith this guy or woman? you won't be in a position to be a conservationist and protector of the earth jointly as on an identical time ignoring the technological understanding that proclaims CO2 is one in each and every of our greatest issues. This finally ends up in limitless inner conflicts and rationalizations which finally ends up in inconsistent and irrational strikes. i does not have faith this guy or woman. i'm sorry, yet to me that proclaims that this guy or woman the two has an schedule or some style of psychological problem. i do no longer propose a psychological illness like the evolutionary creationist guy; it rather is a miles greater subtle problem all of us have. It has to do with the scope, the size of the problem. maximum folk merely won't be in a position to truly conceive that issues are that undesirable. they're. they only don't have sufficient wisdom and journey to technique all of it, so as that they make rationalizations like - we've set it up so it is impossible for me to function interior the u . s . in 2008 with no motor vehicle, so how ought to we've screwed up so undesirable? Naw, we could no longer have, AGW must be a rip-off. nicely, i assume some thing is greater effective than no longer something; so in case you're common, thank you on your efforts.

Answer 3

It seems to me you watch too much TV and get your mteaphors in a knot