|
(Note: Although this essay discusses some religious concepts, it does so within the context of the current controversy regarding Rick Warren and the inauguration. Hence, I humbly request that it not be moved to another forum. Thanks.)
{1} Introduction
There has been a great deal of discussion regarding Rick Warren’s participating in the inauguration, and the messages that this sends to the nation in general, and the progressive/liberal wing of the democratic party in particular. Warren is an influential religious activist, who attempts to define social policy in terms of his interpretation of his belief system. This essay will present an alternative interpretation of the materials that Warren uses to promote his agenda, which will explain why I oppose his being included as a speaker at the event. I will also include information on how I think the progressive/liberal democrats and their allies on the left should respond to situations such as this.
{2} Understanding History
Rick Warren promotes a social policy that he bases on his interpretation of the Bible. While I disagree with much his basic agenda, I do not reject the idea of people using the Bible, or other similar religious texts, as a resource for formulating their own religious-social-political belief systems. Likewise, I respect the fact that many people have equally valid world views that are not rooted in any religious beliefs.
The Bible is, of course, comprised of two collections of books. The first collection, known as the Old Testament. It contains a "creation story" that, like all tribal myths, is a poetic story that teaches the values of the group. These stories have meaning on several levels, and a person is defined, in a sense, by their level of understanding. This concept can be viewed as being similar to our legal system; for example, an 8-year old boy who shoots and kills two people will usually not be charged as an "adult," due to his level of understanding of the nature of his crime.
The texts include many stories that are intended to convey "truths," rather than "facts." An example of this is found in the story of the Tower of Babel: this story speaks to the nature of "civilization" to substitute man-made concepts as supreme to the "original instructions" found in most early human communities. To grasp the true meaning of the story, one must be familiar with the use of specific terms in esoteric writings, such as "the East" and "stone." This involves a higher level of understanding than is found in those who mistake everything in those texts in a literal manner.
The texts also include the history of relationships between a tribal people and empire. Two of the most important themes found in these texts include the error in thinking involved in putting trust in a "military" alone (see Hosea and Isaiah); and the issues of those who "judge" by a standard set by worldly leaders (see Psalm 82 by Asaph). These are among the most significant teachings that those who take a literal interpretation of these writings often overlook (see the Bush-Cheney administration).
{3} Evolutionary Psychology
Tribal people living under the authority of empires often use a teaching method known as "parables" to convey lessons that have meaning on more than one level. One of the most famous of these teachers was the slave known as Aesop, who lived in Greece. Aesop (implying he was from Egypt) taught by means of the parables (or "fables") which had been passed down for generations among his people. Attributing human emotions and behaviors to animals provided a degree of safety, by which a slave could speak to the short-comings of those in power.
The Jewish teacher Jesus’s teachings, which were delivered at the edge of the Roman empire, also take the form of parables. This allowed him, for a period of a few years, a degree of safety while he spoke about the emotions and behaviors of those who oppressed his people.
His teachings also provide a number of guidelines for those who sought to engage in a psychological evolution, during their lifetime here on earth. These guidelines are consistent with those of other enlightened teachers throughout human history. They posed a direct challenge, not only to the power of the empire, but also to those of his own people who sought the comforts and power they believed could be accessed by cooperation with the empire.
A couple of things stand out. First, he was viewed as a messiah to a portion of the population that the empire and its puppets did not believe was deserving of a messiah. Second, he challenged the established social order in ways that are perhaps best illustrated by his socializing in public with women, who were generally treated as fourth class citizens of the empire. And third, he challenged the authority of those who were in the seats of power.
Contrary to the rigid interpretation so often enforced in recent centuries in western society, the prophet Jesus did not focus much attention on individuals’ sexual identities or behaviors. One of the two most important episodes on this topic that is recorded in the gospels has to do with when a group of people were preparing to execute a woman accused of adultery. Jesus suggested that he who was without sin should cast the first stone. This was, of course, a clear message about the emotions and behaviors associated with those who stood in judgement on what were at most "victimless crimes."
The second teaching is found in Jesus’s saying that those who fantasized about adultery were as "guilty" as those who engaged in this behavior. This lesson, which has caused some confusion, is part of a group of teachings known as the harsh sayings of Jesus. Like many other teachings, it has a higher psychological implication. The harsh teachings, as a group, are intended specifically to confront the feelings of self-righteousness that are a feature that all people share. More, it is directed at those people who assume positions of religious "leadership" within society, who are so frequently the most self-righteous of hypocrites.
Thus, while I do not consider everything that Rick Warren stands for to be wrong, I do believe that his on-going attempts to dehumanize several groups of people to be more than enough reason to justify people’s being insulted by the decision to allow him a speaking role in the upcoming inauguration.
{4} The Grass Roots Confederacy
In his 1970 book "We Talk, You Listen (New Tribes, New Turf)," Vine Deloria, Jr., noted that the future of the US included two options: a return to the castle, or to the tipi. The current financial crisis suggests there may be more literal truth in that statement than the author realized at the time.
Deloria took the position that there were numerous groups within the US that could be viewed as "new tribes," and that faced difficulties in the empire/castle culture because of their shared group identity. These groups include a wide range of people, including some who were black, brown, red, yellow, or white; both male and female; a significant span in ages, though he focused in large part upon the nation’s youth; the middle class and the poor; people of different religions or of no religion; and a number of other attributes.
In order to survive within the castle/empire culture, those people in these "new tribes" can find a greater degree of protection of their rights, and access to power, by identifying what they have in common with other new and old tribes. This should seem especially clear, in that many individuals are members of two or more "new tribes."
The concept of a confederacy, which was found in several areas in North America, involves the cooperative relationship between several tribes. One way to illustrate this is to think of individual tribes as a finger, that can easily be broken by an opponent. But when a group of individual fingers join together, they can form a powerful fist that is fully capable of protecting everyone from the common enemy.
Of course, in our society, the confederacy as a fist is symbolism. We seek a civilized society, defined by justice and the rule of law. Deloria noted that the new tribes should use the concept of laws as defined in the US Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, to provide for an expansion of "equal protection." There should not be different standards of laws for the ruling elite, secure in their castles, than for any other group or individual.
Part of the concept of confederacy involves standing with another tribe when they are threatened. Hence, when someone like Rick Warren attempts to label the gay community as child molesters, and to deny them rights that should be enjoyed equally by all citizens, it would be an error for the other tribes to think it is not their concern. We should not be lulled into thinking that if one finger on our fist is broken, that all of our rights are still same.
Peace.
H2O Man
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
