Theos-Talk Archives (August 1996 Message tl00054)

Max writes:
"But, I believe, the hostility goes beyond that. When presidents of our
local branch of TSA contemplate inviting a Bayleyite to give a public
talk, they believe they need to think twice about it. Besides, some members
of our branch cherish an idea of what they call "solid" theosophical
stuff, A. Bailey material evidently not being solid enough."

This illustrates a big problem in the TS.  Why should officers of a local
branch, whose members including themselves have agreed to be in sympathy with
the 3 declared objects (and by the way that is all they have agreed to in
becoming members), have to think twice about having a speaker on any subject
within the purview  of those objects?  A talk or course or study group should be
permitted on anything within that purview.  It could be on Bailey or Steiner or
Krishnamurti or Gurdjieff or even Star Trek.  I call to your attention that even
Wheaton, at the recent annual convention, had a presentation on Star Trek.

It's up to you Max, and your fellow members, to insist on freedom of thought and
expression.  Your members who "cherish what they call solid theosophical stuff,"
need not attend any such talk or course or study group.  But why should they
deprive other members who are interested?  If you and your fellow members do not
stand up for the 3 declared objects, then who will?  And what is the real
meaning of your TS membership?  This is what the St. Louis meeting in October is
all about.

Sy Ginsburg