The earth calls.
Youth stretches out her wings to soar, and like Icarus we are called home.
Might Jatayu's eyes fluttered “It is finished--come home.”
Close your eyes, for mine are closed. We are about to walk on holy ground. Shut them quick least you be tempted by lesser metals.
We are on a voyage of self-discovery. Most open their eyes in amazement, but the lover smiles, for s/he has already beheld the beloved.
Flames lick the embers of the sacrifice. The sweet smell of jasmine fills the air. Nothing beside remains.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Sunday, December 6, 2009
An Apology
“Apology” is an interesting word. Most use it as in “I’m sorry” but it has an older meaning namely a defense of ones words or actions, as in Plato’s Apology in which Socrates defends his actions to the state. Thinking about the entomology of the word "apology," somewhere along the line “self-justification” became “explanation” which became “explanation with regret.” Looking hard at this transformation I see a kind of spiritual journey evolving here: from all devouring pure ego to ego relinquishing itself to the world, to the moral negation of self to other; or something along those lines.
Do you know how I tremble and shake at the thought of the Christian fundamentalism? Not that Christianity has the exclusive on religious conservatives, but that I see in the Christian fundamentalism a kind of fanaticism that I can’t see anywhere else. Check that. Not that it doesn’t exist anywhere else in Christianity, but that I can’t see it because I am myopically set against this one little segment of an otherwise vast religion.
Listen in, if you want, on the bile that my mind spits out on a regular basis: Fundamentalists are judgmental. They think everyone that isn’t like them is evil. They view the world through a narrow vision that is blinded by xenophobic hatred. They hate people of different color, of different nationalities, of different religions. They claim a spiritual awakening through the love of Jesus to the exclusion of all else, and for this they cannot be trusted.
My mind spits out so many stereotypes. Some correct, some incorrect, most only hitting the mark in the most peripheral way. A sad way, yet oddly satisfying. I find that feeling both comfortable and distasteful. It’s a strange thing sitting in the seat of judgment hating someone for being judgmental. It is an ugly moment when you realize that you are a lot like the thing you hate.
One of my favorite lines from the movie trilogy “The Matrix” is a conversation in which Commander Lock says “Damn it Morpheus, Not everyone believes what you believe!” and Morpheus’ response is “My beliefs don’t require them to.” This is not a statement of compatibility, but of toleration. There are competing beliefs, different faiths, different churches, so it is nature to wonder which is right? The answer is clearly that power should go to the true church and not to the heretical church. Another Lock, John Locke attempted to tackle this question in his writings on religious toleration. He writes that every church believes itself to be the true church, and there is no judge but God who can determine which of these claims is correct. Thus, skepticism about the possibility of religious knowledge is central to Locke's argument for religious toleration.
The problem is that most adherents to a faith are not skeptical of their religious knowledge, and so have no reason to be tolerant. Locke notes this saying “that ecclesiastical authority had adapted itself to the “ ‘different whims or fancies of monarchs, changing their decrees, their form of worship, even their articles of faith to fit the current vogue’ ” Thus notions of tolerance will shift with the prevailing whims of culture.
Another problems is that Locke’s definition of tolerance and society’s definition of respect in no way prove to be identical. The English words ‘tolerate’, ‘toleration’, and ‘tolerance’ are derived from the Latin terms ‘tolerare’ and ‘tolerentia’ which imply enduring, suffering, bearing, and forbearance. Locke’s use of the word “tolerance” implied that there were some religions so inferior that they had to be “endured” or “suffered” with. One also cannot disregard the fact that toleration is directed toward something perceived as negative. The lives of the persecuted were made no better in that they were simply shunned secretly rather than persecuted publicly. Simple toleration, then, is not the answer.
I think that Locke’s attempts to rationalize religious tolerance are well meant, even though he did exclude certain groups, particularly those groups that he saw as dangerously bridging the separation of church and state. Tolerance may be a means to an end, but in my mind, it is not the end we seek.
In my own experience I may encounter beliefs that I do not agree with. I may even be righteously offended by these ideas and categorically reject them, along with the people who espouse such ideologies. In these cases, tolerance is not a vehicle that enables me to live peaceably with these people, as I still hold them at bay and distrust the ideologies. At best, tolerance is a way of defining boundaries between my ideas and those I dislike or even find abhorrent. For me the only true was to rid myself of the negative, even repulsive feelings I may sometime have is to stop holding them at bay through tolerance and to release them.
Locke points out that neither persuasion nor force can make someone adopt a moral value to which they do not agree. My feeling is that religion is not about what the other person believes, but about what I believe, or more specifically, about my relationship to God. Negative, sometimes pessimistic feelings do nothing to strengthen this relationship, and so by tolerating others I only separate myself from god.
I owe an apology to those that I have tolerated, I have done it with the best intention, but I has served neither them, nor myself. And so I pledge to be more understanding and to work harder on acceptance.
“And acceptance is the answer to all my problems today. When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing, or situation – some fact of my life unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing, or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment. Nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in God’s world by mistake. Until I could accept my alcoholism, I could not stay sober; unless I accept life completely on life’s terms, I could not be happy. I need to concentrate not so much on what needs to be changed in the world as on what needs to be changed in me and in my attitudes.” -Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous
Do you know how I tremble and shake at the thought of the Christian fundamentalism? Not that Christianity has the exclusive on religious conservatives, but that I see in the Christian fundamentalism a kind of fanaticism that I can’t see anywhere else. Check that. Not that it doesn’t exist anywhere else in Christianity, but that I can’t see it because I am myopically set against this one little segment of an otherwise vast religion.
Listen in, if you want, on the bile that my mind spits out on a regular basis: Fundamentalists are judgmental. They think everyone that isn’t like them is evil. They view the world through a narrow vision that is blinded by xenophobic hatred. They hate people of different color, of different nationalities, of different religions. They claim a spiritual awakening through the love of Jesus to the exclusion of all else, and for this they cannot be trusted.
My mind spits out so many stereotypes. Some correct, some incorrect, most only hitting the mark in the most peripheral way. A sad way, yet oddly satisfying. I find that feeling both comfortable and distasteful. It’s a strange thing sitting in the seat of judgment hating someone for being judgmental. It is an ugly moment when you realize that you are a lot like the thing you hate.
One of my favorite lines from the movie trilogy “The Matrix” is a conversation in which Commander Lock says “Damn it Morpheus, Not everyone believes what you believe!” and Morpheus’ response is “My beliefs don’t require them to.” This is not a statement of compatibility, but of toleration. There are competing beliefs, different faiths, different churches, so it is nature to wonder which is right? The answer is clearly that power should go to the true church and not to the heretical church. Another Lock, John Locke attempted to tackle this question in his writings on religious toleration. He writes that every church believes itself to be the true church, and there is no judge but God who can determine which of these claims is correct. Thus, skepticism about the possibility of religious knowledge is central to Locke's argument for religious toleration.
The problem is that most adherents to a faith are not skeptical of their religious knowledge, and so have no reason to be tolerant. Locke notes this saying “that ecclesiastical authority had adapted itself to the “ ‘different whims or fancies of monarchs, changing their decrees, their form of worship, even their articles of faith to fit the current vogue’ ” Thus notions of tolerance will shift with the prevailing whims of culture.
Another problems is that Locke’s definition of tolerance and society’s definition of respect in no way prove to be identical. The English words ‘tolerate’, ‘toleration’, and ‘tolerance’ are derived from the Latin terms ‘tolerare’ and ‘tolerentia’ which imply enduring, suffering, bearing, and forbearance. Locke’s use of the word “tolerance” implied that there were some religions so inferior that they had to be “endured” or “suffered” with. One also cannot disregard the fact that toleration is directed toward something perceived as negative. The lives of the persecuted were made no better in that they were simply shunned secretly rather than persecuted publicly. Simple toleration, then, is not the answer.
I think that Locke’s attempts to rationalize religious tolerance are well meant, even though he did exclude certain groups, particularly those groups that he saw as dangerously bridging the separation of church and state. Tolerance may be a means to an end, but in my mind, it is not the end we seek.
In my own experience I may encounter beliefs that I do not agree with. I may even be righteously offended by these ideas and categorically reject them, along with the people who espouse such ideologies. In these cases, tolerance is not a vehicle that enables me to live peaceably with these people, as I still hold them at bay and distrust the ideologies. At best, tolerance is a way of defining boundaries between my ideas and those I dislike or even find abhorrent. For me the only true was to rid myself of the negative, even repulsive feelings I may sometime have is to stop holding them at bay through tolerance and to release them.
Locke points out that neither persuasion nor force can make someone adopt a moral value to which they do not agree. My feeling is that religion is not about what the other person believes, but about what I believe, or more specifically, about my relationship to God. Negative, sometimes pessimistic feelings do nothing to strengthen this relationship, and so by tolerating others I only separate myself from god.
I owe an apology to those that I have tolerated, I have done it with the best intention, but I has served neither them, nor myself. And so I pledge to be more understanding and to work harder on acceptance.
“And acceptance is the answer to all my problems today. When I am disturbed, it is because I find some person, place, thing, or situation – some fact of my life unacceptable to me, and I can find no serenity until I accept that person, place, thing, or situation as being exactly the way it is supposed to be at this moment. Nothing, absolutely nothing, happens in God’s world by mistake. Until I could accept my alcoholism, I could not stay sober; unless I accept life completely on life’s terms, I could not be happy. I need to concentrate not so much on what needs to be changed in the world as on what needs to be changed in me and in my attitudes.” -Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)