Tell me if this makes sense to you, theologically, constitutionally or otherwise:

[sohndrsmith]

I have edited this passage (my changes are italicized - though no changes were made to the fundamental meaning - just the specificity) to make a point. The unedited passage/source will follow:

What you might call my religion is not essentially different from most other forms of
religion. It is not unique in its essence. It may, however, be unique in its practice.

Basically, my religion/faith is simply a reverence for life, a respect for the divine spark in all
life, in all beings. In that way it is pure, as contrasted with the dogma, theology, and laws which often
drag other religions/forms of spirituality away from their roots, if you will.

The intent and essential nature of most forms of religious faith and practices are good. And if more
humans were more practiced in simply allowing all to follow their faith individually ,
then none of the religious turmoil that pervades your human society could exist. Everyone would be
following whatever path he or she felt was right. And not caring what paths others were following.

But you do care what paths others follow, even though it's none of your business. And that is exactly
what's given rise to all the senseless dogma, laws, shoulds and should−nots humans often impose on
one another.

We are not saying our faith/religion is superior to any other. We are saying if you all get back to
your spiritual roots, you would find only minor, meaningless differences among your many spiritual paths.
And you would not feel the need to impose your own beliefs and values on another individual or another people.

Spirituality and faith, as we see it, is simply an awareness you are all more than the humans you know
yourselves as. And the awareness all of creation is more than the simply physical. All beings, all that is, are
infused with the spiritual essence of the divine.

Many in my faith practiced this pure form of spirituality in the past, and some still do. Many
of different faiths practiced it in the past, and many still do. It's obvious, however, many people,
... have strayed from their spiritual roots.

(I'm guessing most of you can guess who I'm quoting - regardless of specific editing - without using the Google machine... ).

[Tangerine LaBamba]

1. I have no idea who you're quoting,

but it's a simple rant against organized religion.

The penultimate paragraph is impossible to understand. It's awkward and trips over itself. I think I know what you're trying to say, which is that together, we are all one, and we as a group - humanity - are greater than any individual.

Personally, I don't agree with any of it, but it's a fairly traditional piece. Nothing offensive in it, as near as I can tell.

Who's its audience? Or to whom is it a response?

[sohndrsmith]

3. really? I didn't see it that way. It speaks of acceptance and respect to me (?)...n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

5. That's not what it said to me -

I saw a plea for people to come together with their own religious beliefs, to step away from the hierarchies, the bureaucracies, and just to get together to compare their core faiths, to find out how very similar they are, and to rejoice in that similarities.

And, yes, it does speak of acceptance and respect, but it does call for action away from the establishments.............

[sohndrsmith]

7. That doesn't scream 1st Amendment to you? That's cool - I'm frequently wrong, and maybe I

need to re-evaluate.

What is a "call for action away from the establishments"? I saw that as nothing more than a simple recognition of the need to separate church and state, and religious freedom - protected from prejudice in and of itself...

Okay - I guess I'm way over my head, here... you guys are making that quite clear. : ) I didn't present my question very well. Sorry about that.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

8. I didn't see anything

remotely referencing the First Amendment.

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion (or two), I'd urge you to sit down and write our what you want to say as if it were a letter to a good friend. That's very often a cleansing kind of exercise to get a look at what you're thinking.

Then, you can, perhaps, cut and paste and put your thoughts in order.

But, another suggestion is that if your objective in writing a piece is to define the First Amendment in terms of religious beliefs and how they are expressed, you have to say that straight. As in "The First Amendment says ................."

I don't know if any of that is helpful, but I hope it is.

And good luck .......

[sohndrsmith]

9. I figured the 1st Amendment correlation was a given. Guess not.

So I'm wrong in seeing a strong agreement here?

"And if more humans were more practiced in simply allowing their brothers and sisters to follow their
own paths, then none of the religious turmoil that pervades your human society could exist. Everyone
would be following whatever path he or she felt was right. And not caring what paths others were following.
But you do care what paths others follow, even though it's none of your business. And that is exactly
what's given rise to all the senseless dogma, laws, shoulds and should−nots humans often impose on
one another."

The "1st Amendment not only prevents the establishment of a national religion, but it also prohibits government aid to any religion, even on an non-preferential basis, as well as protecting the right of the individual to choose to worship, or not, as he or she sees fit."
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
www.usconstitution.net

I'm hoping your apparent dismissiveness is unintentional. If not, so be it. I thought the theory/question/comparison presented an opportunity for an interesting debate or discussion and exchange of ideas. It seems safe to assume you disagree. : )

Okay - I guess the main thing I've learned through creating this post is that it's run it's course. I'll delete, I guess (if that's still possible)... sigh...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

12. My "... apparent dismissiveness..."?

I went out of my way to try to give you a hand. I'm a professional writer, and an attorney, and I wanted to try to help you with whatever you were trying to achieve.

And you interpreted that as "... your apparent dismissiveness"?

Well, that's a terribly sad surprise.

Then you say "It seems safe to assume you disagree" when, in fact, I neither agree nor disagree.

I simply have no idea what you're talking about.

But, given your remarkable misreading of my attempt to lend you a hand, I'm very comfortable in bowing out now............

[enlightenment]

2. Without entering into your point too much -

for many (including myself) faith and religion are not interchangeable, which is how you are using them.

Faith is something you have (or don't).

Religion is something you get/enter into/participate in/join.

Faith is an internal, personal thing.

Religion is a set of rules that codify belief/behaviour. It is an external creation designed to give a single voice to people who profess to a like faith (in other words, something like a club you join after you read the code of conduct and statement of belief and agree to abide by those tenets).

Just my .02, since you asked. For me, it doesn't make sense because you are conflating two different things.

edited to correct 'to' to 'too'

[sohndrsmith]

6. Great response (apologies and thanks for noting the typo)...

So - does a formal code of conduct that have specific, required tenets - define what is or is not religion? What if these tenets are considered equally formal, just maybe not from a "western/European" standpoint... Maybe I am comparing apples and oranges, but what I have read and learned (admittedly not thorough as of yet) of my ancestors and their spiritual practices are extremely formal, ritual, codified (though not in writing) - and make sense in many ways that confuse me regarding other beliefs - or religions. That said, I find huge similarities between Native American spirituality and more mainstream (Christian, I guess) tenets in a general sense. Not unilaterally, but I was startled more by the similarities rather than the lack of them.

I don't mean to conflate, and I apologize for my ignorance. I'm trying to figure things out...

[JerseygirlCT]

11. I'd say that religion can often be the vehicle by

which faith travels, though not the only one.

Religion is created of humans, for humans - ways in which to practice or enhance the faith they have, often with others of like mind.

[sohndrsmith]

4. Still hoping for a more interesting debate/discussion, but here's the exact text:

"What you might call Native American spirituality is not essentially different from most other forms of
human spirituality. It is not unique in its essence. It may, however, be unique in its practice.

Basically, Native American spirituality is simply a reverence for life, a respect for the divine spark in all
life, in all beings. In that way it is pure, as contrasted with the dogma, theology, and laws which often
drag other forms of spirituality away from their roots, if you will.

The intent and essential nature of most forms of human spiritual practices are good. And if more
humans were more practiced in simply allowing their brothers and sisters to follow their own paths,
then none of the religious turmoil that pervades your human society could exist. Everyone would be
following whatever path he or she felt was right. And not caring what paths others were following.

But you do care what paths others follow, even though it's none of your business. And that is exactly
what's given rise to all the senseless dogma, laws, shoulds and should−nots humans often impose on
one another.

We are not saying Native American spirituality is superior to any other form of spirituality. We are
saying if you all get back to your spiritual roots, you would find only minor, meaningless differences
among your many spiritual paths. And you would not feel the need to impose your own beliefs and
values on another individual or another people.

Spirituality, as we see it, is simply an awareness you are all more than the humans you know
yourselves as. And the awareness all of creation, whether you consider it animate or inanimate, is
more than the simply physical. All beings, all that is, are infused with the spiritual essence of the divine.
Many Native Americans practiced this pure form of spirituality in the past, and some still do. Many
non−Native Americans practiced it in the past, and many still do. It's obvious, however, many people,
Native American or not, have strayed from their spiritual roots."

-- Chief Joseph

[grantcart]

13. The similarity to Buddhist sensibilities is striking

The final paragraph however didn't mesh. YOu had me stumped.

[sohndrsmith]

14. thanks for the respectful response. I really got pummeled on this one. n/t

[LiberalFighter]

10. I disagree. Religion had only one original purpose.

For an individual or small group or people to control everyone else thru fear.

[greentwiga]

15. Purpose of Religion

The Germans chose the Jews as the boogie man. If people saw important people repeating the idea that it was all the jews' fault, they began uncritically believing it. Now I see many variations on the theme of It is the religious peoples' fault. It can be "religion is the source of all wars." or "religion controls people through fear." without critically examining the concepts. For example, which is the more accurate statement, "religion is the source of all wars" or "Power hungry people take control of power bases such as religious groups and it is those men who cause all wars?" Cases can be made for both ideas. If you uncritically repeat slogans you hear, how are you different from Christians who uncritically repeat interpretations they hear?

[greentwiga]

16. Chief Joseph Religious Statement

I am a Christian who has read Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and other scriptures, I have studied the religions and talked to the people. Cheif Joseph sounds much more like the Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Jain group of beliefs. In Christianity, it is believed that God created man to be like Him, but the divine spark is dead. One can't find it internally to activate it. Nevertheless, We are taught to love all people. We are also taught to respect other people's beliefs, even if we disagree. We are taught that anyone can receive the divine spark as a free gift. One of the differences that I have seen is that Hindu's greatly honor the Sadhu that rejects the world and seeks to attain nirvana/ union with God by activating/enhancing the spark through an inward search. The Christian is told that since it is already done, go and love other men (platonically.) Thus Christians greatly honor those who go out. Therefore, I would say no, Chief Joseph's view does not represent my religion at all.