Spiritual Revolutions: Revolutionary Spirit

[irishrosem]

Quote:irishrose: Why can't the second be enough (love of neighbor)? Why can't it be enough to love your neighbor as yourself without it having any religious ties and therefore inherent doctrinal differences?Even if we decide to eliminate elements from King's thinking and methods that he would never agree upon, we would still face doctrinal differences regarding what we mean by love of neighbor. Even on Booktalk, you will discover some freethinking atheists who are politically progressive and those who are politically conservative; global captialists and democratic socialists...and there are very few anarchists in the world who are not atheists, who would be in big disagreement with both.I used the term doctrinal differences here very intentionally. The difference between religious doctrine and political (government) doctrine is immense. Religious doctrine exists, period. There is no discussion of whether it is inherently false. There is no discussion of whether it holds true today. There can be no debate between the Koran over the Bible, the new testament over the old testament. These are texts that define and describe differences among the indoctrinated, differences that can never be resolved. Government doctrine, in contrast, allows people to question the text. This questioning of the text does not purely rest on interpretation, but on recognizing actual concrete fallacies in the text. I take, for example, the doctrine that governs the U.S., the Constitution. This document did not originally give equal rights to blacks or women. After intense scrutiny of the document, the error was recognized and the document altered. Even after the document was altered, the actual social changes took many years, and some could argue still go on today. I do not argue that there are great political and social differences among...well everyone. I do, however, argue that these differences are workable, and ideally resolvable, if they remain free from the constraints of religion. The discussions will be long, they will be difficult and there will be immense compromise. But that is the very difference between religious and political/social discussions, that there can be discussion and there can be compromise which is impossible within a religious doctrinal framework. Are you willing to compromise with Christian fundamentalists on their reading of scripture? Are you willing to compromise with Muslims on their reliance on the Koran over the Bible? I'm pretty sure their answers to the same questions would be no.Quote:I don't think you can escape the vertical dimension (as described by Paul Tillich) in the love of God/love of humanity nexus. It is never simply horizontal: meaning clearly rational, purely scientific, or obviously secular. There is a reference to some framework of meaning and purpose that defines what love will look like and what sacrifices are worthy of its costs.I haven't read Paul Tillich and do not know what is meant by "vertical dimension." I assume when you speak of the love of God/love of humanity as a nexus, you mean they are tied up together. If that is so, I absolutely, 100% disagree. They may be linked for you, but they certainly are not for me. I give you this explanation. I was raised in an absolutely loving, Catholic home with wonderful experiences in the church and the church community. I witnessed everyday my mother's unwavering relationship with God (most especially Christ) and my father's more quiet relationship. I went to five years of Catholic school, continued my education up through confirmation, and even taught sixth grade CCD while I was in college (sixth is my favorite because they learn the old testament stories from Genesis to Exodus). I had a very good relationship with the church community; but, I had no relationship with God, himself (the himself was part of the problem there). Despite all the strong examples of faith-filled people in my life, despite the wonderful experiences I had with the church, I had no faith of my own. I recognized it early, but it took a few years to admit it to myself. I have no belief in a deity. And though it was extremely difficult to walk away from the church, I had no difficulty giving up God. When I did so, things became so much clearer for me. That is, despite having absolutely no love of God, I have a profound love for humanity. And my ability to recognize this love in myself came when I gave up God. It put my love on a wholly human scale, no longer was there a divine intercessory to define or explain my love for neighbor. That love exists because of my capacity for empathy, not because of a God.I am sorry this turned out to be so long, you just give me so much food for thought, Dissident.

[irishrosem]

Quote:I had enough time today to present these different communities to the discussion: all of which are entirely pertinent, appropriate to the theme of the thread and I think well worth the time to explore and learn from. Really I think that post was to support an agenda as opposed to progressing a discussion. To be honest, I also feel you often step around or ignore questions I pose to you, and obfuscate issues I address, in an effort to further propel your agenda.Quote:irishrose: The secular community is doing its fair share of struggling against oppression and tyranny. I don't think I've stated otherwise. DH in response to my claim that struggles against injustice can be addressed without religion: "Perhaps you're right. You haven't shown where it has happened yet." You certainly implied otherwise. And you asked me to provide examples, so I did so.Quote:Are you willing to say some elements of the secular community are not doing their fair share, and are even working against your stated values of liberation and freedom? I think you are intentionally misinterpreting me. I have never said that religion is the only cause of all that is bad with the world; in fact, I have repeatedly asserted otherwise. And yet you keep insisting that I write in absolutes. Quote:Are you also willing to say that there are plenty in the Agapic/Liberation Faith community who are doing important work in that direction?Am I willing to say that religious based service organizations provide many needed services to people? Yes, I've said it before. Am I willing to say they do so without the negative side-effect of proselytizing (often referred to as teaching, instructing, spiritually guiding)? Nope, I've never seen it. Do I think that any such services that mention Christ, Christianity, God, or the Bible will be wholly useful on the world stage? Absolutely not. Does that hold for people who are personally religious but do not feel the need to preach/instruct others with regard to their faith, Christ, Christianity, God or the Bible? Nope.Quote:No doubt religious patriarchy has caused tremendous mischief and spread malice across the globe. I think the term mischief when referring to religious prejudice is a bit misleading. Religious prejudice isn't merely an annoyance to homosexuals, women, pro-choice people, and just about anyone who lives in the social margins. Religion teaches condemnation, it encourages disgust of such people, exclusion and an overall atmosphere of hatred. Do all religions? No. Do a lot of them? Yes. Do parts of the Bible? Yes.Quote:I know there is and has been very important work done towards healing the wounds of patriarchy, misogyny and homophobia by many religious folk...often the strongest critics of the religious traditions from which they arise. Rosemary Radford Ruether is a key scholar, teacher and leader in the Feminist Theology movement. I've read Rosemary Ruether (BTW, we share the same given name). I don't agree with the necessity of seeking feminist ideology in religion, specifically in Christianity. It is a misogynistic faith. This is not surprising given the timeline during which it was invented. You can choose to interpret Paul's message that man is the head of woman as god is the head of man as not being misogynistic. I do not. Many women do not. I imagine many men do not. Again, another reason why Christian-based services will not be effective worldwide.Quote:As for religion and homophobia, the abuse by religion is and has been atrocious. Are you familiar with the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry Lots of important work, with mountains to go, going on there.Even more offensive than religious communities working to heal the wounds they predominantly caused with their own bigotry with regard to women's issues, are religious communities trying to address the wounds of homosexuals caused by religious-inspired homophobia. I think that's a case of removing the plank of wood from your own eye before you can remove the splinter from your brothers. Quote:True, a great deal of those who have put their lives, careers, family safety and reputation on the line for these movements were religious folk. And, true, many of their opponents were religious folk too. I don't know how you know what role their religious faith played in their courage, hope and vision for a better future. Again, another obfuscation of my original statement. I have no idea what role religion played in these peoples' lives, nor did I claim to know so. I highlighted movements that had no ties to religion; not people who had no ties to religion. I even claimed that it was likely the people involved in these movements were religious. The reason I have no idea what their religious beliefs were, nor what roles their beliefs played in their efforts, is because they kept their religion private. Proselytizing and religious agenda was not their focus, social justice was their focus. So, thankfully, religion was left out of the discussion/movement/efforts. Quote:I think these positions are far more ammenable to diversity of perspective and humility towards alternative worldviews, frankly, than you have been toward them.Right, because me saying don't shove your religion in my face makes me not "amenable to diversity of perspective and humility towards alternative worldviews." In fact, my worldview is what makes me argue that you have to leave religion out of it. I've never argued that people aren't entitled to believe whatever religions, myths or fairytales they choose. Just not in government or government subsidized/assisted service organizations. And I've taken my argument further by saying if religious organizations choose to preach in addition to serving, their service will not be acceptable on the world stage. But again, you never truly answered my original question there. Just skirted the issue and, again, aligned my assertion that religion shouldn't be forced on people with your own false interpretation.Quote:I think King would be willing to sacrifice his personal theology and religious perspective if it meant less misery and oppression in the world; in other words, he wouldn't allow his limited theological understanding and partial religious tradition impede upon genuine human and civil rights. Really that's all I've been saying. Not that he needs to sacrifice his religion on the personal level. Merely, that his example will be most effective on the world stage without the religious preaching.

[Chris OConnor]

irishrosem That has to be one of the most impressive posts I've ever seen on the BookTalk forums. You're an extremely skilled communicator and debator. Wow.

[Chris OConnor]

I'm in a hurry so I'm not typing much, but I want it understood that I'm not just impressed with the tools of delivery. Your reasoning skills are the real star in that post.Ok, now off to the gym.

[Dissident Heart]

irishrose: Really I think that post was to support an agenda as opposed to progressing a discussion. To be honest, I also feel you often step around or ignore questions I pose to you, and obfuscate issues I address, in an effort to further propel your agenda.Well, I've created this thread in order to explore the beauty, truth and worth of agapic radicalism and liberation faith traditions, using Dr. King as the launching pad. That is my agenda. What is yours? As for obfuscation, I suppose we both have to suffer through my limitations. What are yours?irishrose: DH in response to my claim that struggles against injustice can be addressed without religion: "Perhaps you're right. You haven't shown where it has happened yet." You certainly implied otherwise. And you asked me to provide examples, so I did soActually, I stated you might be right and asked you to show how. But your examples did not support your claim. Actually, you even admitted:Quote:I'm not saying that none of the participants of these movements were theists. I'd assume a majority of these people were theists, as the world's majority are theists. All I'm saying is that religion was not influential in their efforts, nor does it need to be in continued efforts Thus, according to you, there are no simply or purely secular examples of communion and solidarity through struggles against injustice, and that the majority of freedom seekers are actually theists. Not all theists pursue the justice you seek, but most of the people who are seeking your kind of justice are a certain kind of theist. But what is unfounded, or simply asserted on your part, is that religion was not influential in their efforts, nor was it necessary in future efforts. How did you arrive at this conclusion?irishrose: I think you are intentionally misinterpreting me.I'm not trying to. How about we keep our disagreements at simply the cognitive level, and try to see where we differ as the result of genuine alternatives, or at least poor communication? I'll work harder at this. irishrose: I have never said that religion is the only cause of all that is bad with the world; in fact, I have repeatedly asserted otherwise. My point, which I mistakingly did not flesh out near enough, was to show how the secular world has its share of violence and tyranny...and that this fact damages the credibility of all secular efforts. In the same way that Religion has its share of malice and hatred, so too does the Secular world. If this is true, then why should someone claiming a strictly Secular worldview be exempt of the credibility deficit caused by their more violent and destructive bretheren? There are more than a few strictly Secular folk who think civil rights and liberation of the oppressed is a fantasy drawn straight from religion...and to be rejected for the law of the jungle where might equals right and the powerful take what they want and weak get what they deserve. They don't see compassion as key, but instead they endorse the will to power and the ability to destroy whatever impedes or gets in the way. They do not seek universal peace or brotherly love or liberation of the oppressed or global justice...they want power and see your, our, vision of human society a weak escape from life's violent necessities. And they don't need any God or gods to support their vision of domination and control.irishrose: yet you keep insisting that I write in absolutes.Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you do.Quote:...Do I think that any such services that mention Christ, Christianity, God, or the Bible will be wholly useful on the world stage? Absolutely not....All I'm saying is that religion was not influential in their efforts, nor does it need to be in continued efforts....Although some religions have started to utilize the efforts of feminism among their congregation, it is a movement built and instituted without religious involvement...if you try to use Christianity on a world stage for peace, you're going to fail....Christianity automatically excludes people, it excludes people of different faiths, it excludes people of no faith....Religious doctrine exists, period. There is no discussion of whether it is inherently false. There is no discussion of whether it holds true today. There can be no debate between the Koran over the Bible, the new testament over the old testament. These are texts that define and describe differences among the indoctrinated, differences that can never be resolved....But there is no distinction required if you use Christian doctrine as an explanation/inspiration for your arguments. I think each of these statements reflects a fairly intractable absolutist stance, one that is unwilling to make the kinds of distinctions I am arguing for. irishrose: I don't agree with the necessity of seeking feminist ideology in religion, specifically in Christianity. It is a misogynistic faith.Again, this reflects the kind of absolutist thinking you say I accuse you of. Ruether, and many other feminist Christians and Jews provide a much different reading of the text and their conclusions are far more nunaced and complex than your black and white, blanket rejections. There is undoubtedly patriarchical nonsense thruout the text; and, there is challenge and confrontation to that same nonsense within the text as well. The text is alive with conflict, and with proper reading, this provides a much more dynamic challenge to the reader than your one-sided approach.irishrose: Even more offensive than religious communities working to heal the wounds they predominantly caused with their own bigotry with regard to women's issues, are religious communities trying to address the wounds of homosexuals caused by religious-inspired homophobia.Why is it offensive for a community to take responsibility for the mistakes it has made and work to remedy them? I think it reflects serious maturity and accountability, something any social justice movement can use. Again, the text is more complex than both you or the homophobes make it out to be; as are the traditions that carry it forward. It seems you agree quite a bit with the more literalist and fundamentalist elements of Christianity: thinking their way of approaching the text and carrying forward the traditions are the only way.

[Frank 013]

Quote:DH Thus, according to you, there are no simply or purely secular examples of communion and solidarity through struggles against injustice, and that the majority of freedom seekers are actually theists. Not all theists pursue the justice you seek, but most of the people who are seeking your kind of justice are a certain kind of theist.Only one of your four examples includes people of other faiths as members, and they will still probably exclude atheist members. Do you not see this as bigoted? And as Irishrosem pointed out they all seek to "enlighten" or "transform" the people they are helping. These attitudes are in themselves bigoted those people believe they know better than the people they are helping, they believe that they have some special knowledge that the rest of us somehow missed, and that they are giving out a special gift. Well many of us do not care for that gift.You must not be reading our arguments very closely because you have missed the entire point of what we are saying.No one is saying that the volunteers and other members of a movement must shed their own personal beliefs. What we have been trying to say for several pages now is simply this. Do not announce your religion within the movement, and do not push your religion on the members of your movement and don't try to convert the people you are there to help.If the guilt of religion is what is required for some people to do the right thing that's fine those people can help without preaching. Prayer meetings are not necessary to pass out food water and blankets. Singing hymns are not needed before negotiation of a cease fire. Just do the job and leave religion out of it. If religion is what inspires a person to help that's fine, but there is no reason to announce it. Later

[irishrosem]

First, Chris, I'm blushing. Thank you for the kind words. Now to work.Quote:Well, I've created this thread in order to explore the beauty, truth and worth of agapic radicalism and liberation faith traditions, using Dr. King as the launching pad. That is my agenda. But the discussion came from Fred asking: "What you do not see are the limitations of his philosophy, what about when you are dealing with non Christians. "What about when you are dealing with people who hate Christianity and will not hear a good argument simply because it comes from a person that claims his motives are Christian."You responded with a torrent of Christian rhetoric, to which I responded. I thought a discussion was then entered. But if all you choose to do is blindly insist that Christian-based services will be accepted internationally, without actually addressing my statements or answering my questions, then that's an agenda and not a discussion.Quote:What is yours? I don't really have an agenda here. I approached this as a discussion. Personally, my agenda would be too intricate to get into at this moment, and I don't think the forum as a whole would be that interested.Quote:As for obfuscation, I suppose we both have to suffer through my limitations. Obfuscation is not a limitation, it is intentional. It is the act of concealing or confusing communication, usually with the intent to bewilder the conversation rather than shed light.Quote:What are yours?My limitations are many. But this is again an attempt at obfuscation. Quote:Actually, I stated you might be right and asked you to show how. But your examples did not support your claim. My examples absolutely support my claim. I'm going to assume you are not intentionally misinterpreting what I have been saying throughout this thread and spell it out in very plain language. I hold that MLK's example of peaceful civil disobedience is useful to protest and struggle against injustice. I hold that religion-based social services will not be wholly successful on the world stage (for all the reasons given on the previous pages). I define religion-based social services as services provided with the inclusion of spirituality, God, religion, faith, Christianity, Christ, Muhammad, Gaia, Zeus, Hecate, and on and on. I hold that many people, be they theist or atheist, struggle against injustice and provide social services without invoking God or religion.I hold that these people, be they theist or atheist, who do not invoke God or religion in the public aspect of their social service will be most effective on the world stage. (I define world stage as international inclusion

[irishrosem]

Quote:...Do I think that any such services that mention Christ, Christianity, God, or the Bible will be wholly useful on the world stage? Absolutely not....All I'm saying is that religion was not influential in their efforts, nor does it need to be in continued efforts....Although some religions have started to utilize the efforts of feminism among their congregation, it is a movement built and instituted without religious involvementThis is fact...if you try to use Christianity on a world stage for peace, you're going to fail.This is only half of a sentence. But as a whole I think I have pretty much offered this up as my argument. Thus it is my opinion, not an absolute statement....Christianity automatically excludes people, it excludes people of different faiths, it excludes people of no faith.This is fact...Religious doctrine exists, period. There is no discussion of whether it is inherently false. There is no discussion of whether it holds true today. There can be no debate between the Koran over the Bible, the new testament over the old testament. These are texts that define and describe differences among the indoctrinated, differences that can never be resolved.I assumed this was fact; is the religious community willing to reexamine and rewrite their religious doctrine (e.g. the Bible)? All I see them willing to do is interpret it to fit their own needs

[irishrosem]

Quote:Ruether, and many other feminist Christians and Jews provide a much different reading of the text and their conclusions are far more nunaced and complex than your black and white, blanket rejections. In Ruether's "Virginal Feminism" she concludes that new "traditions of feminine spiritual imagery," such as feminine characteristics of the soul (which are not defined with Biblical citations, but with random interpretations), are gathered into a "Mariology." Here Mary is crowned as queen of heaven and earth. But Ruether, herself, admits:"Virginal woman was thus bound for heaven, and her male ascetic devotees would stop at nothing short of this prize for her. But they paid the price of despising all real physical women, sex and fecundity, and wholly etherealizing women into incorporeal phantasms in order to provide love objects for the sublimated libido and guard against turning back to any physical expression of love with the dangerous daughters of Eve."Still not an ideology I want to be a part of.In Ruether's "Motherearth and the Megamachine" her path to the "liberation of women" doesn't mention religion. She claims it "must be the total abolition of the social pattern of domination and subjugation and the erection of a new communal social ethic." That "we need to build a new cooperative social order out beyond the principles of hierarchy, rule and competitiveness." She also says that "we must create a living pattern of mutuality between men and women, between parents and children, among people in their social, economic, and political relationships and, finally, between mankind and the organic harmonies of nature." She does not invoke religion as a tool for this. She does claim that religious reverence of the earth will help to bring about a liberation of technological reliance and the subsequent desecration of the earth. Her arguments are far different than the ones you make here.I've read a lot of religious feminist literature. I've read Rosemary Ruether, Phyllis Bird and Mary Daly's attempt to reinterpret the text in a more positive light. I've read Patricia Doyle, Rita Gross and Judith Plaskow, among others, attempt to use Judeo/Christian religion in a current context for the new female generation. I've read Carol Christ, Starhawk, Z. Budapest and Penelope Washbourn develop a new female, goddess-based spirituality. For me it doesn't hold. Either the women must reconstruct and misconstrue the text in such a way it is unrecognizable, though as you claim very nuanced. Or they disregard the text and invent their own spirituality

[Frank 013]

YYYEEEEEAAA!!!!! Team Logic!