Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00460)

Alexis:

>You say we should respect the rights of others to what we see as
>"funny beliefs". Well now, I personally see regarding the
>"Secret doctrine" as revealed religion is pretty funny and while
>I will argue against it (as we all argue against things we find
>misguided) I do respect the rights of those who feel that way to
>feel that way.

That's fine. And perhaps we can have places and times where we
argue the merits of "The Secret Doctrine", giving ideas pro and
con. At other times, I'd hope there would be a truce long enough
for people to study the contents of the book without being
distracted by various disagreements with what it says.

>But now we must come to the thoughts beliefs and actions of what
>is loosely called "The Religious Right" here in America. Their
>beliefs aren't at all "funny", their beliefs are about as
>acceptable in any decent society as the beliefs of the
>White supremacists. The American Fundamentalist is a religious
>totalitarian. And that is, and must be, totally unacceptable to
>all people with a decent respect for the rights of others.

The particular beliefs that they hold could be tolerated, as
long as they don't lead to objectionable actions by the
fundamentalists. What they need is a tolerance for the views and
lifestyles of others; their particular beliefs aren't in themselves
any more harmful than those in other religions groups.

I've seen people of genuine spirituality and inner depth, people
holding a wide spectrum of beliefs. Part of their spirituality
is in how they treat others; the tolerance and compassion in their
lives make them quite easy to get along with.

>You will note that I said "religious totalitarian" because there
>is nothing at all "spiritual" about American Fundamentalism.

Many of the followers are not spiritual. The ideas themselves
are substandard from a metaphysical standpoint. But there may
be quite spiritual people that still hold to those ideas, and
may not be ready to move on to broader ways of thinking just yet.
I wouldn't take their ideas away from them, but would allow them
the right to use the ill-formed ideas as a source of comfort and
inspiration until they felt the need for a broader intellectual
understanding.

>The only possible way to deal with people like these is not to
>respect either them or their notions of the Christian religious
>paradigm. People like Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Lou Sheldon,
>James Dobson and Jerry Fallwell are all opportunists, they are
>all totally disrespectful of everyone, especially their own dupes,
>and they all preach a totalitarianism that it is the duty
>of all free peoples to combat.

The difficult but important insight that many fundamentalists
fail to make is this: one can be sincere and 100 percent
dedicated to a spiritual approach and at the same time respect
different and contrary ways. What usually happens is that
people see one or the other half of this truth, and either are
sincere but rigid-minded, or open-minded but lacking in
dedication. Realizing both truths at the same time is extremely
difficult but greatly rewarding!

>As I said to Liesel, Blasphemy in and of itself, as it relates
>to "God" is an impossible act.

While a fundamentalist would consider a contrary belief as
blasphemy, that's not really what it is. I'd consider blasphemy,
having consulted the dictionary and arrived at my own understanding
of the term, as meaning active disrespect for the spiritual yearnings
of others. This is when one has an open disregard for the sacred,
and the living appreciation of it in the hearts of others. Regardless
of the confused ideas that the others may hold, if their hearts are
filled with a living, real, vibrant sense of the sacred, and we were
to dishonor and degrade it, we would be doing blasphemy. It is the
opposite type of act from inspiring, ennobling, uplifting, and
spiritualizing others.

-- Eldon