On Thu, 23 Feb 1995, Dancing Hummingbird /aka Joy Williams wrote:
> And let us not oppress religion or spirituality either.
>
> I want to point out that it is neither the religion (which is NOT the same
> as spirituality) nor the spirituality which is in those religions which is
> responsible for the atrocities you have mentioned. It is the institutions
> in charge of the religions which did those things, usually motivated by
> greed and a desire to possess things. It is the attachment involved in
> wishing to control things, including thought.
>
> Society has for a few thousand year been suffering under the pathology
> of a power-over paradigm which seeks to diminish diversity, to
> desacralize (and that means to take away the sacredness of something by
> how we treat it, whether that be nature or woman or race or culture)
> people and nature so that they are no longer beings in their own right,
> with their own inherent Divinity, but rather objects to be owned or
> resources to be exploited.
>
> This can all be laid at the feet of the Patriarchal paradigm, because by
> separating the Divine from the world, you then can have an excuse to
> exploit it. As soon as the Earth became "objectified" as something to
> have "dominion over" then every thing started sliding downhill. I have a
> wonderful essay about this in Truth or Dare by Starhawk, which if I have
> time, will scan and download.
>
I think this is a very important point.
Religion has, over the course of human history, been one of the most
powerful and pervasive forces at work in society.It should not surprise
us therefore that there is an intimate and interdependent relationship
between religion and power in most societies.
The central religious experience (spirituality) is very personal and
private. If one were being cynical, one could say that it gives no-one
any opportunity to have power over others, nor to accumulate wealth,
nor to achieve status. And yet it is clear that religion is a very
powerful force for motivating human beings. They will do things for the
sake of religion that they would not do for any other cause. Therefore
it is not surprising that many have sought to channel the power of
religion towards more immediate worldly goals. Only by producing social
expressions of the central religious experience can these worldly aims
be achieved (eg the paths of monasticism, ritualism, legalism, etc.).
Once social expressions of religion have been created, they can be used
by individuals to 1) achieve status; 2) acheive and legitimate power
and 3) accumulate wealth
Every religion has an internal power structure. This is inevitable if
there is going to be some form of organisation of the religion. And
organisation is needed if the religion is going to grow to anything
beyond a small local grouping.
Unfortunately, the founders of the world religions gave very little
guidance to their followers about the social structure of their
religion after their death (for example Christ gave almost no guidance
about the structure of the Christian Church). Thus the structures
that were established by the suceeding generations of the followers of
the founders of the world religions tended to reflect the
patriarchal societies which were their social milieu. The men who
created these religious institutions found it natural to replicate
within these institutions what they took to be the natural order of
things -- i.e. a patriarchal society.
In summary it can be said that religion has not been very successful
in coming to terms with power. There have been a few periods when
exceptional individuals have been able to balance the two and this has
result in a brief golden age. The rule of Emperor Ashoka in India and
of the first four caliphs of Islam are two examples of this. But in
general, the relationship between the two has oscillated between
various extremes: at one extreme, religion becomes overbearing and
tyrannical thus stifling creativity and progress; at the other
extreme, religion is ignored and the society loses its morality and
cohesiveness.
But this analysis only points to the failures of human beings when they
try to canalize the potency of religion into social forms. It does not
detract from the importance of the religious experience itself. The
fact that there have been failures in the past does not mean to say
that the position is hopeless, only that it is difficult to acheive.
At present my own personal conviction is that the balance that is
struck in the Baha'i community is the best. In the Baha'i Faith, there is no
priesthood. The religion is organised on the basis of councils which
are elected at the local, national and international level. Nominations,
electioneering and party politics are forbidden in the election process.
Power and authority are vested in the councils themselves and not
in the individuals voted onto these bodies (these individuals hold no
status or individual authority). Decisions are made on the basis of
consultation, and then consensus or majority vote on these councils.
The system is decentralized with the decision-making done at the lowest
level at which it is practical to do it.
Moojan Momen
--
Moojan Momen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: (44) 1767 627626
