Bifucation of Life

I believe that for so long I lived my life in bifucation. I attempted to form and view things from separating the sacred from the secular. That is what fundamentalists do. They think that all of life's answers are found in the text. And it was a sickness for/to me. And i personally think it is also dangerous for others.

I would much rather face things as normal and everyday problems, with solutions or a seeking of a solution in the Academy. Humans are human and solutions are solutions. It doesn't matter if there are spiritual terms, (altho I find such language as disingenuous) or "holy water" sprinkled around, so the spiritually infected are appeased.

I  am a little "put off" by religion, and spirituality and for good reason. These terms are useful for manipulation, though it is not seen that way. And such terms are useful for creating a reality that might not exist. I know all the arguments for the "probabilities for God", but I would rather face my life knowing that I am responsible, not God, to fix it, to understand it, and/or to create it, whatever "it" happens to require.

I find that humans can hide behind thier relgiious terms, and groups. Don't get me wrong, I value friends as much as anyone, but religious clicks can be quite exclusive in how they define themselves. Such exclusion is not humane and I find arrogant. The ones that "reach out" might have a patronizing or paternalistic view of those that didn't have "the heritage". Such comtempt for me or others, breeds my own contempt. I am sorry, but I thought that Chrsitianity was about me and my life, as well as "humanity's life. I was finally valued as a person, not for some reformation of who I was to become, becasue I didn't measure up. I have had enough of that.

The vision of the Church is focused on surviving the culture of today that doesn't particularly value the Church. And as death approaches its doors, the Church is frantically using whatever means to remain afloat. Humans gravitate to what interests them and find their place in the chosen social group. And framing things in a supernaturalistic way appeals to the feelings of  "God", so it grows the Church. So, emergants, post-modernity, or any other philosophical, business, social, psychological "model" is used for the Church's benefit, unbeknown to those in the pew who think their reality is really "from God".

The Church must re-orient their vision to re-frame their purpose, which is not spreading a spiritualtized "gospel", but a message of hope for those that have lost it. and some have done this in reaching their communities. This is social work 101, but it benefits society.

Prejuidice Confirmed

Just recently, I saw on FaceBook that two biblical/theological scholars were to be visiting an area where I knew a "friend". I was amazed that these internationally known scholars would be visiting this small town. I decided to inform my "friend", so she might see them. I thought that the information that she would be exposed to might break the "wall" that hindered her from considering "real life".

This friend is a fundamentalist and she teaches numerous bible studies and holds authority over many minds in this town. I thought that being educated by those who have made their life's commitment to her value of "text" would be interesting for her and her "hobby".

When I told her about the event. She said she didn't want to consider it. Why, I asked? She stated that another friend had attended events supported by this particular lay group and she viewed these scholars as "liberals, besides the fact that those in this lay movement were the elite in this town"! When I tried to defend them, and suggest that maybe it would be of interest for her to just listen and consider what these people were saying, she refused!!!

I am not surprised since she had already been biased by her other friend. And this both friends do not value "open minded" discussion, education, intellectual challenges. In fact, in the past, when I have off-handedly offered "information" that I had learned, she would just state that she wasn't called to teach the "educated", or those that needed such information. (i.e., everyone was comfortable in their "imaginations" and their understandings of "truth". Why bother them?). Just as well, it confirmed to me that some people think that learning something that might challenge their assumptions, which would undermine their "self" or "ego". Their very identificaton is in how they understand the text.

Yes, why bother people with information that might make them uncomfortable? Would it change their life commmitments or decisions? I think so, as many of them have based their lives on what they deemed as "truth". And it might have limited them in thier choices and their understanding of values. But, will such as these change? I don't think so, not unless they themselves see value in learning, understanding or education, itself. But, then, I probably won't change my commitment to learn think,, challenge and provoke.

Jazz Correlates to American "Faith"

Jazz in its free expression, is also how Americans  and the Founders have viewed  "faith". We believe in liberty of conscience, and value diverse interests. We won't be defined by a "one size fits all" faith. Faith remains undefined according to the First Amendment. Government is not to define "faith", or interfere with "faith". Liberty of conscience defines "faith". And that is, "free association" of value, in individual choice.

America is basically a Protestant nation, so we aren't defined by Roman Catholicism, nor are we to be defined by fundmentalism, because Americans basically are independent from authoritarian understandings in regards to faith. But, the fundamentalists, or those that think "faith" has lost its value, have begun to try to re-define our liberty of conscience along their lines of  their particular understanding. This is nothing less than limiting another in their understanding and value, in regards to "faith" and its claims.Therefore, we have the "culture war" we have today, in regards to "faith" and American government. We must not define another's faith, unless we want to promote a militaristic "faith" that terrorizes others that might have different convictions.

Philosophy is Not Palatable to the Fundamentalist

Philosophy is how we understand or our ability to know what we know. Some think that one aspect of understanding is "all there is". But, there are many aspects of understanding and knowing about the world.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.

Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.

Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.

Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.

Cleaning Out the Old

We have been cleaning our house, sort of a "spring cleaning" done "late" and long needed. The twelve years of accumulation brought back many memories, fond and "not so fond".

My husband was going through our cabinets in his study and found a large box of cassette tapes. Since cassettes aren't in vogue anymore, we decided to get rid of them. But, we did save the ones that would be good for our grandchildren, such as "books on tape".

What we found were many tapes from a "church" that underwrote a "bible school" on "spritual warfare", and various aspects of one's consecration and "walk with God". I cringed to think that this was where I used to be. I really believed this stuff. And it brought back memories of how I behaved because of my staunch belief, as The Truth.

The founder of this particular "organization" used to be a missionary and so his focus was just that. His understanding was a very sectarian view of faith. There is "the world" and there is "the flesh and the devil" and never the twain shall meet. Those that attended there (and I had quite a few from my family) were indoctrinated by this type of "faith tradition".

The "dichotomy" between the "real world" and the transcendental world is very limiting, as it defines everything according to scripture. As scripture was never intended to be handled in this way, it breeds all kinds of presumptuous attitudes and actions. People become dogmatic, opinionated and hard to get along with in the "real world" unless you agree with them. Agreement means that you are on "the Lord's side", if not, then you are considered "the enemy".

My husband and I talked about whether to give these tapes to a local charity, but I didn't want to promote that type of "faith". I think it is not just limiting one's "worldview", but also limiting to the person who believes it. And I certainly don't want to be a part of limiting others to a confined understanding of a particular tradition.

It was good to throw these tapes in the garbage, as they represented my past, which though was a part of my history, does not have to confine my frames of reference in the present. I do believe that we learn and grow, as we are open and this is the primary reason why I resist fundamentalistic thinking. Fundamentalism is afraid of reason. Ane yet, fundamentalists use reason to determine their "absolute" fundamentals! How odd.

Problems for the West

The West has developed their own "selfhood", but some think that this is at the expense of society and the larger world, as we are individualists. So, in seeking for equality in a limited world, many have sought to develop policy on the environment, or natural resources or, become concerned over poverty around the world. While the envioronment and natural resources, as well as poverty are all "noble causes", they are limited in focus, policy driven by environmental issues or poverty alone will subvert other interests. All interests are of concern in the West, as we are a diverse people.

Science is innovative and therefore, the West has recourse to environmental limitations. And some have become involved in seeking to alleviate poverty by helping with sustenance relief. But, while the environment and poverty are some of the driving forces of public policy today, we, in the West, cannot deny, or ignore the political dangers that exist in the world. Dismissing danger to our sovereign right to exist and hold our own cultural values, will undermine all of the civility in the world. Radical faith is the driving force behind terrorism, and fundamentalism that undermind rational and reasonable government.

Government that determines it's foreign policy on "peace", when these ideological religions exist, is only living in "fantasy land". Peace is not what radicals seek. They seek the universalization of their understanding and their world at all costs. And it does not matter how they undermine or subvert another's "world". Their voice and understanding is The "lone voice".

While the radicalized religious zealot is one political danger, science can also be a dangerous terrain for public behavior. Genetic engineering, while giving much promise and hope to mankind, has not had any type of guidance as to any limitation upon its power to make change in society. Bio-ethics is an important issue to be addressed, as without these limitations to scientific discovery, we are headed into a Brave New World, where it will be the intellectual elite that determine public policy, limiting the average citizen their right of "voice".

How does the West live with those who do not believe in universal human rights? much less woman's rights? or individual rights apart from societial function? How do we, as "free people" allow a different culture that has different political implications. Who murder their "sinners"? Or determine the outcomes?

We cannot be blind, or naive'. Our security needs to be of first and upmost importance, so that we can maintain rationale for universal human rights and the free society that we have always enjoyed. Religion should not be politicized. The public sphere, though influenced by religion, as the religious are representative of a group, cannot be the only group to determine policy without a counter-balance of weighing difference.

And the scientific discoveries of the West with all of the possibilities, cannot drive policy without discretion and humility. Science is good, but should only be used in the right way and the discussion about what that "right way" is should involve all of us.

Science Is Religion's "Step-Child"?

Some believe that the world functions along separate lines of understanding, religion speaks for God, and science speaks to everything else. The problem of divorcing the two, is it leaves little room for religion and God. This is where the battle lines become fierce, as the exclusivist vent their fears by enforcing a "brittle" understanding of a text, or tradition. In Christian history, this is where fundamentalism was born. But, staunch stands do nothing to endear the Church in the public square.

Others would argue that "religion is science's step-child", because religion is just useful to serve other ends. Religion is to be a useful means to incorporate cooperation from the "feeble minded", who depend on religion. While dependence on religion may be true for identification, or cultural forms that help make the individual feel "at home", I think the attitude of "usefulness" is inappropriate and demeaning to others.

While I agree that tradition limits "free-thought", tradition is useful to serve the purposes of acculturation in a culture. Our American culture does not define itself on a primary religious tradition, as we believe that religion is a private matter. We affirm religious freedom and tolerance in our Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Just today, while talking with my hairdresser, who just became a deputy in the Episcopol Church, he informed me that the reason the Episcopol Church separated from the Anglican Church was because of the American Revolution. We were not be be subservient to a king, in our religion. This is a challenge today in the Anglican tradition, as well as other organized traditions. Where is authority and by what means are issues to be dicussed and decisions made?

Science has challenged our understanding of man and nature and we will never be finished with exploring all the avenues available in seeking undersanding of our physical world. The challenge for the religious, is to understand their faith within a scientific framework. Faith is not dependent on doctrine, or belief, or text, but on life itself. Therefore, science should not threaten the faithful, it should only challenge our minds in understanding any limitations on science. So, the call to the Church should be in ethics. Ethics brings pertinence to the Church and gives a voice in the public square.