Pathless
Fiercely Interdependent
There seems to be quite a bit of feedback and controversy recently about posts deemed as hostile to other faiths, and about what is appropriate for this board. It's my observation that many "Christian" posters seem to be able to come across as quite hostile to others without much repercussions; yet if one makes a comment that is intrepreted by one of these "Christians" as a slight to their faith, they be all up in arms.
This post is my response to a dark cloud that I sense hanging over this site. I'm sure it will offend some, but it's how I feel.
Problems Inherent in Comparative Religion
"We gaze up at the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe encompasses us. What does it matter what practical system we adopt in our search for the truth? Not by one avenue alone can we arrive at so tremendous a secret."
--Symmachus, 384 CE
I've traversed several different spiritual paths in my life, sometimes walking none, sometimes a couple at a time. Like now, I would consider myself Pagan and Buddhist--primarily. Yet, my roots lie, like so many Westerners, in the Christian churches. Christianity has played an essential role in my spiritual life, but I don't believe in the Jesus that many do. I squirmed in my seat at church and eventually stood up and left: depressed, discouraged, and disgusted as what people passed off as their religious life seemed more like a Sunday social to me. I am partly inclined to write up an indictment of Christianity and other monotheistic religions that tend towards fundementalism, but I imagine I would be banned from this site for attacking others' faith. Why is that?
This site seems to have the potential to be a vibrant, multi-faceted meshing of many different faiths, a great expression of polytheistic community. Instead, we tend to present our arguments and cling to them, while bickering back and forth. We post about sensitive subjects and get defensive about them. Some of us seem to anticipate this and exhibit bizzare, defensive, paranoid behaviors, and we get into bitter disputes about whose ideas are better. I am as guilty of this as anyone.
I suggest that we examine our motives for being here. Are we here for "comparative analysis, religious study, and spiritual reading," as the front page of the site maintains, or are we here to battle our differences out in a detached, faceless forum? How would we like to be treated, and are we treating each other with the same respect with which we would like to be treated? Do we feel that we, or our faith group, has some unique claim to the truth? If so, does that color our posts, causing us to be disrespectful to others of differing faiths, ideas, opinions, social or sexual orientations?
Speaking directly to the monotheists now, I ask, can you maintain an unbiased attitude when corresponding to atheists, pantheists, agnostics? Or is there inherent in your faith a belief that you must proselytize to and readeem others, or defend and analyze your faith?
As a pantheist, my answer for myself is no. The reality is that my personal beliefs are so entirely different from those who believe that their way is the right and only way that I cannot remain unbiased in my responses to people who are required by their faith to believe that they are the only chosen people of an externalized God of judgment. I do try to be respectful, but I have my biases that are inherent in my beliefs.
So how do we, as people of differing faiths, yet interested in open discussion about religion and spirituality, proceed? Do we mandy-pandy around and smile
through our posts, trying our damndest to not get called out by the other camp? The other option is a free-for-all, but that's out of the question thanks to the code of conduct. Thank God for the code of conduct.
Can we attempt to be real, yet respectful? Is it possible to communicate our deep feelings about our differing faiths, without hurting each other too much?
I believe dialouge is important. I also believe that we, as individuals, have differing beliefs and agendas. No one here is a clone of anyone else. The Christians vary widely as do the Buddhists, Hindus (the few that there are), Muslims, Pagans (few again), and Rastas (oh wait, I think there is only one Rasta here... ). Sometimes I feel the fundamentalist Buddhists have more in common with the fundamentalist Christians than they do with other, eclectic Buddhists... sometimes.
"Most fundamentalists, whatever the name of their religion or country, are at war with the diversity of life and ideas."
--Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon, Revised Edition (Preface)
This quote reached out and slapped me in a coffee shop the other day. Fundamentalists cling desperately to the dogmatic concepts of their religions. Because their religious principles are so essential to their ego, their concept of self, they feel threatened when other people or institutions contradict those beliefs in word or deed. This threatened feeling, however, is not the true problem, and I would argue that most of us feel threatened when confronted with opposing forces. It is how we choose to respond to these threats, however, that defines our reality, and also to some extent, the reality of others we interact with.
I will use what it sure to be an unpopular example. Mere days after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, America reacted on the impulse of fear. Rather than taking a measured look at the situation and going through a period of mourning, the leaders, media, and a large portion of the population reacted with violence to the attack. What would have happened if America would have nursed its wounds, held its breath, let the impulse for retribution and violence pass over like a wave? Where would the world be right now if, instead of being reactionary, America would have been introspective, looking inside its own foreign polices, habitual patterns, addictions, and systems? What if, like Jesus suggested, America had turned the other cheek? Assumed that perhaps the fault was at home, not abroad; if in humility, America looked at herself and her position among her neighbors, cousins, and distant relatives in the world--what a different world this would be.
And this example will surely be picked over, criticized, and attacked by those whose religious beliefs are rooted in the concept of an external, vengeful, judgmental God--a God which is in much opposition to the teachings of Jesus and other spiritual masters. Precisely because such people have a consciousness steeped in fear, domination, subjugation, authoritarianism, and conformity, their responses are likely to be fashioned in the same mold.
What other responses, besides defensive lashing out, can we exhibit as individuals when we feel threatened? Introspection, mentioned above, is one. We are not always inclined to introspection, however; another viable alternative is dialouge. What would have happened in the days and months that followed 9/11 if America would have opened up in true dialouge and conversation with other nations as well as within her own nation? Dialouge with those who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon would have certainly been marked by failure--unless both parties were willing to release some long-held, fundamental, and dogmatic beliefs. Yet dialouge with other nations and organizations in the world may have been more healing.
All in all, I suppose this post is a dramatic appeal for all of us to be less reactionary in our posts and replies here, as well as in our own personal lives outside of CR. Along the way to making my point, that indictment of Christianity and other monotheistic religions that tend towards fundementalism unfortunately expressed itself. I guess I just couldn't get away from it. How will you respond?
This post is my response to a dark cloud that I sense hanging over this site. I'm sure it will offend some, but it's how I feel.
Problems Inherent in Comparative Religion
"We gaze up at the same stars, the sky covers us all, the same universe encompasses us. What does it matter what practical system we adopt in our search for the truth? Not by one avenue alone can we arrive at so tremendous a secret."
--Symmachus, 384 CE
I've traversed several different spiritual paths in my life, sometimes walking none, sometimes a couple at a time. Like now, I would consider myself Pagan and Buddhist--primarily. Yet, my roots lie, like so many Westerners, in the Christian churches. Christianity has played an essential role in my spiritual life, but I don't believe in the Jesus that many do. I squirmed in my seat at church and eventually stood up and left: depressed, discouraged, and disgusted as what people passed off as their religious life seemed more like a Sunday social to me. I am partly inclined to write up an indictment of Christianity and other monotheistic religions that tend towards fundementalism, but I imagine I would be banned from this site for attacking others' faith. Why is that?
This site seems to have the potential to be a vibrant, multi-faceted meshing of many different faiths, a great expression of polytheistic community. Instead, we tend to present our arguments and cling to them, while bickering back and forth. We post about sensitive subjects and get defensive about them. Some of us seem to anticipate this and exhibit bizzare, defensive, paranoid behaviors, and we get into bitter disputes about whose ideas are better. I am as guilty of this as anyone.
I suggest that we examine our motives for being here. Are we here for "comparative analysis, religious study, and spiritual reading," as the front page of the site maintains, or are we here to battle our differences out in a detached, faceless forum? How would we like to be treated, and are we treating each other with the same respect with which we would like to be treated? Do we feel that we, or our faith group, has some unique claim to the truth? If so, does that color our posts, causing us to be disrespectful to others of differing faiths, ideas, opinions, social or sexual orientations?
Speaking directly to the monotheists now, I ask, can you maintain an unbiased attitude when corresponding to atheists, pantheists, agnostics? Or is there inherent in your faith a belief that you must proselytize to and readeem others, or defend and analyze your faith?
As a pantheist, my answer for myself is no. The reality is that my personal beliefs are so entirely different from those who believe that their way is the right and only way that I cannot remain unbiased in my responses to people who are required by their faith to believe that they are the only chosen people of an externalized God of judgment. I do try to be respectful, but I have my biases that are inherent in my beliefs.
So how do we, as people of differing faiths, yet interested in open discussion about religion and spirituality, proceed? Do we mandy-pandy around and smile
through our posts, trying our damndest to not get called out by the other camp? The other option is a free-for-all, but that's out of the question thanks to the code of conduct. Thank God for the code of conduct.Can we attempt to be real, yet respectful? Is it possible to communicate our deep feelings about our differing faiths, without hurting each other too much?
I believe dialouge is important. I also believe that we, as individuals, have differing beliefs and agendas. No one here is a clone of anyone else. The Christians vary widely as do the Buddhists, Hindus (the few that there are), Muslims, Pagans (few again), and Rastas (oh wait, I think there is only one Rasta here...
). Sometimes I feel the fundamentalist Buddhists have more in common with the fundamentalist Christians than they do with other, eclectic Buddhists... sometimes. "Most fundamentalists, whatever the name of their religion or country, are at war with the diversity of life and ideas."
--Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon, Revised Edition (Preface)
This quote reached out and slapped me in a coffee shop the other day. Fundamentalists cling desperately to the dogmatic concepts of their religions. Because their religious principles are so essential to their ego, their concept of self, they feel threatened when other people or institutions contradict those beliefs in word or deed. This threatened feeling, however, is not the true problem, and I would argue that most of us feel threatened when confronted with opposing forces. It is how we choose to respond to these threats, however, that defines our reality, and also to some extent, the reality of others we interact with.
I will use what it sure to be an unpopular example. Mere days after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, America reacted on the impulse of fear. Rather than taking a measured look at the situation and going through a period of mourning, the leaders, media, and a large portion of the population reacted with violence to the attack. What would have happened if America would have nursed its wounds, held its breath, let the impulse for retribution and violence pass over like a wave? Where would the world be right now if, instead of being reactionary, America would have been introspective, looking inside its own foreign polices, habitual patterns, addictions, and systems? What if, like Jesus suggested, America had turned the other cheek? Assumed that perhaps the fault was at home, not abroad; if in humility, America looked at herself and her position among her neighbors, cousins, and distant relatives in the world--what a different world this would be.
And this example will surely be picked over, criticized, and attacked by those whose religious beliefs are rooted in the concept of an external, vengeful, judgmental God--a God which is in much opposition to the teachings of Jesus and other spiritual masters. Precisely because such people have a consciousness steeped in fear, domination, subjugation, authoritarianism, and conformity, their responses are likely to be fashioned in the same mold.
What other responses, besides defensive lashing out, can we exhibit as individuals when we feel threatened? Introspection, mentioned above, is one. We are not always inclined to introspection, however; another viable alternative is dialouge. What would have happened in the days and months that followed 9/11 if America would have opened up in true dialouge and conversation with other nations as well as within her own nation? Dialouge with those who attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon would have certainly been marked by failure--unless both parties were willing to release some long-held, fundamental, and dogmatic beliefs. Yet dialouge with other nations and organizations in the world may have been more healing.
All in all, I suppose this post is a dramatic appeal for all of us to be less reactionary in our posts and replies here, as well as in our own personal lives outside of CR. Along the way to making my point, that indictment of Christianity and other monotheistic religions that tend towards fundementalism unfortunately expressed itself. I guess I just couldn't get away from it. How will you respond?
