![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
Reading the earlier post about borrowing from other cultures and the issue about Native American religion ties into an event that I attended this weekend with my students. My class is made up of high school and junior high teachers that who came to learn more about how to teach specific subjects. One of these subjects was discussing how the forced imprisonment of the Navaho and Apache at the Bosque Redondo affected their culture. As part of the class we took a fieldtrip to the Bosque Redondo and attended a symposium there.
At the symposium Navaho and Apache elders presented their views of what happened and how they want the experience to be taught. One issue that came out was that they did not want anything about their religion to be taught. To them their religion is exclusive to their people and should not be taught or even discussed with people who are not of the tribe.
Some of my students were shocked and indignant about this. They felt that the Navaho and Apache were being elitist and that to understand the change in their cultures caused by the Bosque Redondo experience the teachers needed to discuss the religion of the Navaho and Apache.
The discussion turned to the topic of universal religions versus exclusive religions. Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are all universal religions that encourage converts to their beliefs because they feel that what they believe apply to all humans. Exclusive religions are religions that do not seek converts and do not believe that their religions are for everyone.
The main questions were: Are people who practice exclusive religions elitist? Does anyone have the right to refuse entry into a religion to another? Are our reactions to exclusive religions colored by the universality of Christianity?
I was wondering how people on this community would respond to these questions.
June 26 2007, 16:41:55 UTC 4 years ago
A religion belongs to those who believe and practice it. They make the rules. They can tell you what it means to them without telling you their beliefs and practices. That should explain their culture. A culture belongs to those who are within it. Others are observers.
Ours has become a "tell all" society. Many people have come to expect that degree of revelation and are offended if not everyone wants to be "tell all".
June 26 2007, 16:42:35 UTC 4 years ago
As to the questions of elitism and the "right to refuse", I've gotten in trouble for my comparisons before, but I'll take a chance here:
How is this any more elitist than Women's Mysteries or Men's Mysteries?
Answer: it's not.
The Navajo don't want their religion taught. I get that and I respect that and respected that before I even called myself a Pagan. It's one of the last things they have that they can truly call their own. It's not elitism, it's self preservation.
By the same token, I'm not going to jump up and down and call Z and the Dianics elitist because they won't let me into their circles. And I won't abide by someone calling me elitist if I deny a woman entry to a Mithraic rite. It's not about exclusion, it's about focus.
Few of the faiths practiced by the members of this community are universal religions. It has often been said in this forum: sometimes we choose the gods we work with and sometimes the gods choose their own. In the latter case, sometimes the choice is made a little earlier than in others.
June 26 2007, 16:51:04 UTC 4 years ago
Is it elitist that Christians require you follow certain strictures and rituals in order to be considered one of them and saved?
Every religion has a right to discern its boundaries. I don't think outsiders have a "right" to demand the boundaries be changed for them. On what grounds?
I think the "universalist" theory largely takes for granted that religion's purpose is entirely for the edification and elevation of humanity, and thus everyone should be entitled to each others' culture. It should be entirely democratic and open-source. I think part of it is because the big-name religions you list have been decoupled from cultural identity and ancestry.
If I was to believe that religion is as much about my culture, history, ancestors, and the land I live on, then it seems to me it's not so shocking to think that someone who doesn't share these things would be better served finding their own religion.
On the whole, I think there's room for both of these approaches. If someone wants a universal religion, there is not a lack.
June 26 2007, 16:51:07 UTC 4 years ago
cultural religions
Exclusive does not equal elitist. Some religions are revelational, spread the word, etc. Other religions are culture specific. First of all in culture specific religions, taking the religion outside of the culture takes away 90% of its relevancy and practice. Second, the people need their dieties or power bases to serve them, help their nation rise again and protect their culture not to serve the more wealthy nation's people. (Preface, I don't know if the cultures you are studying believe in finite or infinate powered gods, I am just expanding on a possible idea) If you believe in gods or energies that are not omnipotent, then you might worry that the power of your deities will be watered down or their attentions distracted if they are called on by other peoples with other goals. Respecting the requests of the leaders of a culture you are trying to sympathize or empathize with is the first step to helping them.June 26 2007, 16:55:26 UTC 4 years ago
I am somewhat different in my view than many people on this forum. For me, there exists no Sacred Cow. If I have a reason to use some model/metaphor/belief of (insert any belief system here) then I will use it and anyone who thinks its EVIL can go have a hot dog. However, I would not call myself (insert the above belief system again), because thats not what I am... I atend to see all belief systems as tools, nothing more, nothing less. If I determine that Kokopelli will work well for a ritual, then I'll use Kokopelli and if some Native American thinks is sacrilege, then they shouldn't come hang out during the ritual.
Nothing is True, Everything is permissible.
June 26 2007, 16:57:40 UTC 4 years ago
No.
Does anyone have the right to refuse entry into a religion to another?
Yes.
Are our reactions to exclusive religions colored by the universality of Christianity?
Probably.
\o/
June 26 2007, 17:10:35 UTC 4 years ago
Ultimately, though, I feel that this impulse to contain them is... excessive. Naieve, even. No society exists in a vacuum. No culture or religion is the pure invention of its people. The very nature of human culture is that it is fluid - we have been influencing one another and germinating ideas across social boundaries for eons.
June 26 2007, 17:14:39 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
June 26 2007, 17:14:07 UTC 4 years ago
No. But that doesn't mean some of them might not be rude about it.
Does anyone have the right to refuse entry into a religion to another?
It depends upon the religion. In many cases, the answer would be yes.
Are our reactions to exclusive religions colored by the universality of Christianity?
At the societal level, almost certainly. On an individual level, it varies.
June 26 2007, 17:27:21 UTC 4 years ago
*PSSSSSSSSSsssssssssssssst* Regardless of socioeconomic status, I'm thinking they were INDIGNANT.
I wouldn't call those religions exclusive. I would call them initiatory and tribal. The word exclusive has way too much baggage and association with white flight and country clubs and credit card marketing schemes.
Are people who practice exclusive religions elitist?
Not exactly. Think about it this way: You are given a bag of grain. Your task is to put the wheat in one pile, the maize in another, the barley in a third, and the oats in a fourth. It's a massive task. It involves minutiae. It requires a knowledge of the properties of each kind of grain, in its various forms, and a basic feel for what is grain and what is chaff in all those forms.
But, overall, the task does not involve placing VALUE on one grain over another. Who has the TIME? It's enough work just to get the types sorted, and to keep the chaff at a minimum. And, please. Let's not get into discussing why the chaff has the right to be treated like the grain, okay? Groats are perfectly good for what they're good for, but they won't ever grow up to be the oat kernel.
Does anyone have the right to refuse entry into a religion to another?
WTF kind of question is that? I can't even frame an answer to that. What would make people think they have a right to participate in any religion they want?
Are our reactions to exclusive religions colored by the universality of Christianity?
No. My reactions aren't colored by Paul's letters claiming that the entire gentile population was somehow entitled to participate in a religion in which they had not made the essential primary initiatory sacrifice. However, when I was younger, I was heavily influenced by philosophers and scholars who espoused a sort of Universalism -- Campbell, for instance -- and THEY may have been influenced by Paul's letters.
There's a big difference, though, between the principle that all religions have fundamental commonalities and entitlement of all people to practice all religions. One's a Truth in my world, the other's a load of hogwash.
June 26 2007, 18:51:52 UTC 4 years ago
In my perception, Campbell's work appears to recognize that the models may vary, but they all try to model similar basic psychological/spiritual truths for humans. In fact, it's Campbell's work that had a great influence on my own perception of belief systems. To me, when a group holds their knowledge secret, exclusive, etc., it seems likely that they are more focused on the model than on what's happening underneath. The Freemasons seem like a great example of this. Initial initiatory rituals were designed to evoke specific states in the psychology of the initiate (at least according to what little information we have)... there days, they're treated more as rote tradition. Many current and past members of the Masons that I've talked to about initiations etc (while they never speak about the actual practices) recoginize that whatever underlying truth the rituals were a metaphor for, has been (for the most part) lost. Perhaps, they were more focused on preserving their secrets, than teaching through ritual. Or, perhaps they simply didn't change with the rest of reality and those rituals no longer connect with the modern psychology of most individuals.
Or perhaps he and I are both seeing patterns where none exist ;-)
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
June 26 2007, 17:29:20 UTC 4 years ago
Look at it this way, you've got a religion that regards cakes, beer and sex as a GOOD THING, if not actively sacred. The benefits should be so obvious that evangelism risks attracting the wrong sort of people. ;-P
June 26 2007, 17:41:54 UTC 4 years ago
Well, it was a good monitor while it lasted.
Damn, that Pepsi burns through the nostrils.
June 26 2007, 17:56:12 UTC 4 years ago
It depends on the reasons for the exclusivity. If it is because the excluded are considered inferior then they are elitist. If the reason is because the religion is ancestrally based (for example), then it makes sense that some people will be excluded. Egalitarianism does not exclude the existence of exclusive individual roles and exclusive groups.
Does anyone have the right to refuse entry into a religion to another?
Absolutely! However, we should make a distinction between the concept of refusing to teach a religion to particular students and refusing "entry into" the religion in question. I've turned down many students for many reasons, including the very elitist reason of not feeling that they are ready. Who am I to make that judgement? The answer: I'm the one who must accept the responsibilities and consequences of what I choose to do. It may also be helpful to bear in mind that being taught a religion and being permitted to participate in the rites/practices of the religion are not one and the same. There is a Navajo Medicine Man who comes here regularly to hold ceremonies and non-Navajo people do participate, including non-Natives. He would not take a non-Navajo as a student, and I'm sure that he would not be comfortable with his spiritual practices being taught in a non-traditional setting, including a classroom, historic site tour, or symposium.
Are our reactions to exclusive religions colored by the universality of Christianity?
Perhaps, but I suspect that they are more coloured by the concepts of democracy and human rights, which are not inherent to Christian theology, in fact, some would argue that they contradict many of the teachings in the Old Testament.
June 26 2007, 18:01:32 UTC 4 years ago
1) Who can join.
2) Whether converts will be sought.
3) Transmission of information.
The first one just isn't a big deal for me -- I've never been particularly convinced that the path I'm one (the distinct individual path) is something anyone else could join, even if anyone wanted to. When these things become political tools used to create or preserve power imbalances, it might be a problem. Otherwise... if you think you have something that could be of value to your fellows, it would be nice to share, I guess, but hardly mandatory.
The second... well, we're back to that whole conversion thing, and membership. Obviously, these concepts are useful if you want to create self propagating social organizations, but in terms of better knowing and better living, I don't know that such social organizations are much better than neutral.
The third brings up some interesting ethical considerations. When information enters the public sphere, how shall it then be treated? Navajo would have no reason to tell people not to teach about their beliefs had a fair bit of that inforamtion not already been made public. Now that it is public, should we, out of respect, avoid learning it?
Wicca, for one example, is littered with examples of people who broke their initiatory oaths and published the inner secrets. Most of the Wiccans I've spent time with seem to see this as being more convient than a problem -- sure, they'll make clear that *they* wouldn't have done it, but it's often useful to be able to say "well, I can't show you my BoS, but you might find something eerily like the ritual in question in such-and-such's book". There are problem people who have stronger feelings, though.
June 26 2007, 18:58:36 UTC 4 years ago
First, a note for context: My default expectation is that pagan religions are, to some extent, 'exclusive'. Some of them are explicitly initiatory; the reconstructions are dealing with the religions of ancient cultures for whom the assumptions were that members of the tribe/nation/whatever would have shared gods/beliefs and that other peoples wouldn't. A lot have influences from various secret esoteric groups; others are specifically targetted to specific demographics. I find the rare universalist pagan religions as baffling as Christianity.
It is no more "elitist" to not share one's religion outside its group than it is "elitist" of me not to share a family recipe. You're not in my family? You don't get the fudge cake recipe. This isn't some sort of "better than you" thing, it's, look, you are not me, you don't meet the qualifications for this knowledge, so you don't get it.
The second question strikes me as utterly ack-basswards. For there to be a question of "right to refuse entry" under consideration in the first place, one must assume that people should be able to get access on the basis of they waaaanna. That they are entitled to having someone else's stuff, and that that someone else should be required to provide it to them. The real question is not whether it's legitimate to say "no"; the question is why is the matter of consent skipped.
This is obviously a touchy point for First Nations peoples, who are sick and tired of imperialists coming in and saying, "Your stuff is cool. Give it to me." And frequently the imperialists are going, "But I'm not special, my culture isn't ethnic enough, I need your stuff to be special, it's not fair that you get to keep the special and I don't get it." Because being of the culture that is dominating the damn area just isn't shiny enough.
And there's a shockingly offensive power differential there. I have never seen someone going whining around that nobody will let them be Jewish, but I've seen dozens of people who think they have a right to Amerind religion. The same "In order to properly practice the religion of our tribe, you have to be adopted into the family" rules apply to both. Somehow the Jewish hoops are more legit than the Navajo ones.
I think the assumption that religion is universalist is extremely coloured by Christianity. It's one of the things that I wish more people who had shed Christianity (whether towards atheism or towards something else religious or spiritual) would drop, too. This expectation that religions have the right answers for everyone, no matter what their experiences, and that someone who doesn't get what they want is being deprived of
salvationall that good stuff drives me bonkers.June 26 2007, 19:52:36 UTC 4 years ago
Oooh, but can we get the fudge cake itself? :P
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
June 26 2007, 19:18:54 UTC 4 years ago
The One Way vs My Way
I'm mainly gonna tackle the Christian-influence question, which might touch on the others. The short answer is yes.The big thing is that Christianity has sort of defined the Western concept of religion, for obvious reasons. Christianity holds that salvation for all human beings can only be attained through acceptance of Jesus Christ and his teachings. If you do not accept Christ, you do not pass go, do not get $200 and eternal blissful resonance with the One And Only True God in Heaven.
Because of this, Christians take it as a duty to spread Christ. If you imagine that your neighbor must either have a smoke alarm or die in a horrible painful conflagration, and you care about him (as Christians are also enjoined to do) you'll do your damnedest to give him a smoke alarm. You'll want him to have one whether he realizes he needs it or not. It's your duty as a conscientious person.
Take, on the other side, a theoretical pagan structure. Imagine there are gods who have revealed their mystery to your people. In fact, some of them are your direct ancestors. Your deity is also your great-grandpa.
Your gods are mighty aids to your people. They work on your behalf. They help, guide, and protect you. And your neighbor wants to steal them.
That's right, he wants to take your gods, the beings you have worshiped/worked with for years, who have devoted their considerable might to the protection of your father, your mother, yourself, your wife, your children... and they want those gods to work for them.
Maybe "instead." Maybe "too." But imagine if the next town over wanted you to split, say, your police force to cover them as well. Whether they take all, or only a fraction, you're not as protected. And now "Grandpa" might be off getting yelled at by an ignorant neighbor when you need his help and counsel.
Does that sound fair, or right? Of course not. If the folks from the next town over need protection, why don't they get their own police? If they need advice, why can't they ask their own grandfather? What "right" do they have to steal yours?
That's the thing that makes the difference. Christians believe in an omnipotent God who can be everywhere and help everyone, and furthermore wants to. They believe theirs is the only true way to live, and all who do otherwise are condemned to suffering.
This is the mold Western culture puts on religion, but it's a mindset that doesn't transfer to all religions. Many pagans don't feel that a connection to their own gods is the only way. If your ancestors made a deal with/intermarried with/became wards of certain spirits, those spirits are part of your people. They're not the Ultimate Answer. They're not the right solution for everyone, nor by any means is everyone entitled to them. Likewise, having promised to love and protect your line, they might feel abused if you start extending their promise to others without their consent. They might get angry. They might actually leave you. That's a damn scary thought.
So you don't let your neighbors abuse the promise your gods made your ancestors. It's only respectful. It's only pragmatic. It's only a different paradigm than most Westerners expect.
To put a whole 'nother face on it, it's also like any other relationship. Some folks are built for monogamy, some for polyamory. It's generally uncool to hit on someone's spouse if you know it's a monogamous relationship.
So maybe try thinking of it that way... the Navajo and their religion are in a committed monogamous relationship. Thus they don't look kindly on adultery. And they have the right to set their own boundaries on their relationship.
June 26 2007, 19:40:43 UTC 4 years ago
Re: The One Way vs My Way
Beautiful comment, I love the way you described the nuiance of sharing your gods' protection.4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
June 26 2007, 19:53:18 UTC 4 years ago
The Noachide example
Y'know, several Orthodox/Chassidic Jewish groups (most notably, Chabad) are organizing a sort of "Judaism-inspired and Judaism-compliant religion for Gentiles", in the form of the Noachide movement (Noachide = "descendant of Noah", and thus subject to the post-Deluge covenant, if not the more restrictive Judaism-specific ones that came later on, with Abraham and Moses).Why don't Native Americans do likewise, put their heads together, and promote a sort of "Native-inspired and Native-compliant spirituality for non-Natives?" (granted, "Native American" covers a vast amount of ground, roughly equivalent to "all pre-Roman, pre-Christian Europe").
June 26 2007, 20:20:03 UTC 4 years ago
Re: The Noachide example
Your comment implies that "Native American" is a single culture with a shared religion. With dozens of different nations and hundreds of different languages, they don't have any motivation to come up with some pan-native-american "religious guidelines for persons not of our tribe."The Algonquin who wants to learn Hopi ceremonies isn't given any more access than the Irish person who wants to learn them. Each different culture/nation/etc. grouping may have different standards for outsiders, for what info is considered "just for our tribe" and what is considered "just for wise mentors, of any tribe" and so on.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
June 26 2007, 21:45:30 UTC 4 years ago
Yes. And that's okay.
Does anyone have the right to refuse entry into a religion to another?
Yes, and that's okay.
Are our reactions to exclusive religions colored by the universality of Christianity?
Yes, and that's okay, but it doesn't change the fact of the first two statements. People will just have to get over it.
June 26 2007, 22:47:08 UTC 4 years ago
Playing advocate for the other side.
Let me preface my comments by saying that I used to live in the Southwest and what I know of Navajo and Apache religions comes from reading Boaz and such.In the Great Taos Bank Robbery, Tony Hillerman wrote about talking to a friend about the Dine-ta- His friend said that if you could understand why they chose this stony, bone dry section of desert over the Oklahoma bottom land they were offered after Bosque Redondo, then you were on your way to understanding the Navajo.
Why is this place more important than that place? Why does it matter if you live in Arizona and not someplace else? What makes Shiprock different from Fuji or Sinai or any other of a thousand mountains?
How would the Elders at the Symposium suggest you explain this to people, like most of your students, who's family motto might well be "Let's go see what's over there" without explaining the myths, and beliefs of the Navajo and Apache? To understand the trauma of the Long Walk you need to understand the culture and religion is an integral part of that understanding.
Note: I am not saying that they need admit other people to their religions, but to forbid any discussion and expect understanding smacks of having your cake and eating it too.
July 1 2007, 03:17:28 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Playing advocate for the other side.
Perhaps they're tired of trying to explain? How many times can you say "Because we felt drawn to it" before you start saying "It's none of your damn business."June 26 2007, 23:49:53 UTC 4 years ago
I think much of the issue for many of the First Nations Peoples, irregardless of what Nation they come from, is that their spiritual and religious practices are intimately tied to their culture. If you are not in the culture, you cannot possibly understand that cultural identity. You can read however many books or websites you want, but unless you are in it, you are a wannabe. And soemtimes that goes for those who live off reservation, depending. There is an erroneous notion that there is one "Native American Religion" and that covers every Nation and thier cultural and religious practices, and nothing could be further from the truth.
It is so frustrating for Indigenous communities to safegard against cultural misappropriation and dissipation because there are so many "plastic" Shamen and fake "medicine people" running around out there, teaching parts of a culture that they have no connection to and being paid huge amounts of money. I have seen those within various Pagan communities have the idea that they can just waltz in, drop a few Native American buzz words, drop some peyote and a sweat lodge or two and they are in. They have a "right to know, by damn!" It doen't work like that. If the elders of a culture are saying, "no, you aren't a part of our culture therefore we will not teach you," smacks of exclusivity, it is because so much of various aspects of Indigenous cultures are being erroded. Some simply don't WANT their practices to be bastardized and convoluted and bastardized, and who can blame them? Some Nations are much mroe open about their practices, however. Alot of kids of mixed heritage go back to their People and say, "hey, this is a part of me, and I really want to know." Sometimes the answer isn't yes the first few times that they ask. Sometimes that answer will never be yes. It depends on alot of things. That's the culture sometimes, and I think respecting that culture needs to come foremost. I wish people would keep that in mind before they start bitching, "Ooh..they are being so mean and exclusive!"
If a culture wants you to be a part of it, then you will be. I know of a man, JDK Chipps who was adopted by the Chipps family, who are very prominent within the Lakota Nation. JDK has white hair, white skin and not a drop of Indian blood. But you cannot tell him or his adoptive family that he is not a Lakota. He is, even though he was not born into that society. He got accepted for his tireless work in saving the buffalo and being present and accounted for for the issues surrounding the culture. He wasn't there to collect the spiritual poly pretties only. He was there for all the ugliness, too.
There are a few of us around that remember what it was like to have been born American Indian, or of mixed blood when it was definitely not cool. Some of us remember what it was like to have all of the major leaders of the movement actually serve time in federal prison for one thing or another. Some of us were actually around for the Robideau and Butler trial and for Leonard Peltier and had to listen to the jeers about "making those damned Indians stop drumming because it was 'disruptive'" .
June 27 2007, 00:38:20 UTC 4 years ago
It's particularly jarring when you stop to think that greedy white men have been capitalizing on claims of "Native American Wisdom/Mysticism" since the snake oil salesmen of the 1800s, and before. After hundreds of years of having everything taken away, corrupted, misrepresented, and always turned to somebody else's profit... yeah. I wouldn't want to give anything away, either. More or less a sacred trust.
4 years ago
4 years ago
June 27 2007, 00:49:54 UTC 4 years ago
The wrinkle comes in when the statement is made that traditions are not to be discussed. IMO discussion does not mean the same thing as teaching. An analogy would be that my partaking of a dish at a restaurant is a discussion. The cook can refuse to share the recipe, and hence deny a teaching. If the cook did not want his meal 'discussed' than he should not have a public place that people can come and eat at. A tradition that is truly secret will not share anything of itself with the outside world. More open traditions will share enough for a discussion while holding secret the core teachings.
The Native American people have shared enough for a good discussion. It is too late to close the barn door if all Native American folklore and history is now considered a teaching. The plate is on the table. I don't think this was the intention of the statements were that all non-Native Americans must now forget about and ignore the Native Americans and their rich heritage. Instead we are being asked to please respect the sacredness of the teachings and honor that they are the lifeblood of a people.
June 27 2007, 01:30:31 UTC 4 years ago
Universiality vs Exclusivity
I commented previously on this subject, noting that Native Americans are the ones saying "Hands off!" in regard to their religious practice and sacred sites. I also noted that there is a big difference in researching and emulating cultures that have ceased to exist as opposed to assuming the guise of an existing, viable culture. If you are a "Hatfield" you won't be welcome at the "McCoy" family re-union.The classification of "universal" is mis-applied to my mind; the monotheistic religions only welcome those who are willing to believe only what is in the accepted doctrine. Disagreement can lead to death. That's a raw statement, but you only have to turn to the news to see that carried out in truth. Funny enough, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity of all flavors look to the same set of histories for the basis of their belief system. Why that can't be a unifying force is subject for long, heated debates. In any case, inclusion in those frameworks is not an inclusion by choice on all sides; the individual must surrender any beliefs and habits that do not fit into the prescribed framework.
Exclusivity as it is used here sounds to me like an aspersion on the cultures that say "No" when asked by strangers, outsiders for inclusion. In the major monotheistic paths that can be found, there are internal disagreements that smack of the same type of censure. Shiites vs Sunni, Hasidic vs Reformed, Messianic vs Orthodox, Catholic vs Protestant, Mormons, Shakers, Quakers, Amish, Mennonite...etc.
All of the above groups claim to have the exclusive line on the TRUTH (all caps w/ Serifs). All of the paths I have named have at one time or another engaged in blood conflict to establish their "truth" as the one and only.
I think we need new adjectives.
June 27 2007, 02:37:53 UTC 4 years ago
From an anthropological stand point, that's fucking tragic, and I'd hate to see it happen to any existing belief systems.
June 27 2007, 09:26:24 UTC 4 years ago
And unfortunately, thanks to popular culture, such is happening. the dine youth would rather be black or hispanic, because they see it as "cool."
sometimes it isn't "not letting people in." Sometimes its more like, understanding that what you have is invaluable.
That is "fucking tragic."
June 27 2007, 09:46:11 UTC 4 years ago
And no, your reaction has nothing to do with universality of christianity- it sounds more like entitlement.
Granted, its a common problem with the judeo-xian ethic, but still- its entitlement. "I want it, so give it to me." That doesn't work everywhere anymore.
Funny, no one was fussing about being excluded from first american religions when I was a kid being told I wasn't welcome at my classmate's parties because I was part indian. You didn't want it then, no problem; now you want it, and whine at being excluded.
Sucks, doesn't it?
June 27 2007, 17:42:39 UTC 4 years ago
That doesn't mean I will then claim to be Native American or Hawaiian (I am European), but what I do about it is up to me. The rest is not spirituality, it is religion and culture used for political advantage.
June 28 2007, 19:38:20 UTC 4 years ago
What makes me wonder...
I wonder how people who believe that not living in harmony with the Earth is destroying the planet justify keeping secret the lifestyle and religion they view as being the solution to restoring order to the world.I would call concealing "right living" from the rest of the world out of jealous territorialism, when the planet is at stake pretty darn selfish.
July 1 2007, 03:51:57 UTC 4 years ago
Re: What makes me wonder...
I would think that you would completely misunderstand the reasons behind the beliefs if you believe that they think their way is the only way.4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago