Re: ACT vs. ES
Apr 09, 1998 03:54 PM
by M K Ramadoss
More we know about the candidate better of we are. For example if someone is
a member of LCC, I would not be inclined to support that person because LCC
is discriminatory of women. Not a single women is an ordained priest as far
as I know. On the other hand how could one support the First Object and at
the same time discriminate based on gender.
During the time of Annie Besant she boldly stated one time that every one of
the member of the GC except one was an ES member. Perhaps it was fashionable
in those days to be an ES member.
I would wait and see reaction from others on the list.
At 05:37 PM 4/9/98 -0400, you wrote:
>>I think every current official as well as any future
>>candidates for any office should be asked if they are
>>a member of ES. They should freely and boldly and
>>courageously disclose it for the benefit of the voting members.
>I'm not an E.S. member, but would have mixed feelings about
>your request if I were one and the request were made. Why?
>Because the request has the same feel to it as the similar
>requests made during the anti-communist era in America.
>Someone would be asked: "Are you, or were you ever a member
>of the Communist Party? Do you know anyone who is a member?"
>It seems an intrusion into one's personal life, an invasion
>It may be true that we need to know something about the
>background and qualifications of candidates for office.
>In the past, candidates write a description of their
>backgrounds, putting in whatever they want to say about
>themselves. The assumption is that they are qualified and
>sincere, and that we don't need a detailed background
>investigation and list of public disclosures required.
>There are many things that could be disclosed:
>( ) E.S. member
>( ) Co-Masonic member
>( ) LCC faith
>( ) Arcane School member (or believer in Alice Bailey)
>( ) vegetarian
>( ) member of ACT party
>( ) member of 'rival' T.S. group (ULT and/or Pasadena)
>( ) years of membership
>( ) age
>( ) male/female
>( ) white, African-American, Tibetan-American, etc.
>( ) financially secure (not in need of salary/reimbursements)
>( ) celibate, married/faithful, or 'living in sin'
>( ) claims to be an Initiate
>( ) claims to have master, spirit guide
>( ) believes in God and the Bible
>( ) 'believes' in Theosophy (Besant/CWL version, HPB version, ...)
>( ) established track record of good deeds in the world
>( ) endorsement by major theosophical figures
>( ) accepts Blavatsky's writings as final word on Theosophy
>( ) proven experience in writing about or teaching Theosophy
>( ) communist / socialist / anarchist / capitalist
>( ) student or full-time-employed vs unemployed, not-working
>( ) healthy or impaired by health problems
>( ) handicapped
>.. There are many, many more "qualifications". Some of the
>above I've put in to show how extreme things could go, and
>not to seriously suggest them as guidelines. But what, if
>anything, *should* we require candidates to disclose?
>Besides the question "are you an E.S. member?" there are
>other awkward questions that could be asked. Say we were
>to require all candidates to answer the question "do you
>believe in Theosophy?" If someone was doubtful, uncertain,
>or gave a "no", and they lost votes and therefore the election,
>would that be fair? (This is similar to the Christians
>putting the question "do you believe in God?" to candidates
>they might endorse.)
>Or say people were required to express a belief or non-belief
>in Alice Bailey's writings. Should this be required, and
>should someone lose the election if they say "yes"?
>Then, what if, as an additional step towards full disclosure,
>individual members -- not those running for office, but the
>general membership -- were required to adhere to certain
>standards of disclosure. Say everyone was required to say if
>they belonged to the ACT political party or not. Could this
>be used against them? Just as a National Section could be
>expelled en masse, without hearing the cases of individual
>members, could such a membership fall victim to the same
>treatment, with everyone on such a list being summarily dismissed
>from the T.S.?
>I would think that the only requirement for T.S. membership
>would be accepting the three objects of the T.S., and the
>same for elected office. Anything believed in by a candidate
>and how they might present themselves for election would be
>their own individual decision, and not based upon anyone's
>checklist. A candidate should not, I think, have to provide
>information to satisfy the various possible litmus tests
>that various members and groups within the membership might
>want to apply.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application