The Separation between State and Religion

In time we will realize that Democracy is the entitlement of individuals to every right that was in its times alloted to kings. The right to speak and decide, to be treated with decency, to serve and be served by people in a State of “love” that is, to serve with one’s work for the development of ‘life’. To belong to the Kingdom of Human Beings without racial, national, social or academic separations. To love and be loved. To die at the service of the whole and be honored in one’s death, for one’s life and work was legitimately valued. To be graceful and grateful. To have the pride and the humility of being One with the Universe, One with every realm of Existence, One with every living and deceased soul. To treat with dignity and be treated with dignity for One is dignified together with All others and Life itself. To walk the path of compassion, not in the sorrow of guilt but in the pride of being. To take responsability for one’s mistakes and sufferings and stand up again and again like a hero and a heroine and face the struggle that is put at one’s feet and in one’s hands. Millions of people, millions and millions of people might take many generations to realize the consciousness of our humaneness but there is no other dignified path for the human being.

The “work” as I conceive it is psychological and political. Psychology is the connection between the different dimensions within one’s self and Politics is the actualization of that consciousness in our practical lives. Religion is the ceremony that binds the connectedness between the individual and the Universe. The separation between religion, politics and science, the arts and sports is, in the sphere of the social, the reflection of the schizophrenia within the individual and the masses. The dialogue between individuality and the "human" belongs to consciousness. The tendency to develop cults resides in the shortcomings we’are finding in life as it is structured today. “Life” has become the private property of a few priviledged who cannot profit from it because as soon as it is appropriated it stops to be “life” or “life-giving”.

We are all the victims of our own invention and each one is called upon to find solutions. The only problem is believing our selves incapable of finding them. We are now free to use all Systems of knowledge objectively, sharing them without imposing our will on each other. To become objective about our lives means to understand that the institutions that govern its experience are critically important. That we are one with the governments, one with the religious activities that mark its pace, that the arena’s in which we move our bodies and the laboratories in which we explore our possibilities are ALL part and parcel of our own personal responsibility. That WE ARE ONE WITH EACH OTHER AND EVERYTHING AROUND US and acknowledge for ourselves a bond of love in conscious responsibility. That we human beings know ourselves part of each other and are willing and able to act on our behalf for the benefit of each and every individual. That we no longer allow governments, industries, universities or any other institution to run along unchecked by the objective principles of humaneness. That we do not allow gurus to abuse their power or governors to steal the taxes and use them to their personal advantage in detriment of the whole. That we do not allow abuse from anyone anywhere because life is too beautiful to do so and that we are willing to stop the rampant crime with the necessary compassion Conscious knowledge is every individual's right. Conscious action is every individual's duty.

Friday 23 September 2011

The FOF Blog



It's good to hear that the people in the fofblog are at last considering the possibility of doing something besides talking about the Fellowship to make it accountable for its crimes. 


It takes time for the time to come but it's never too late. 


An office to counsel people would be good. Anything that helps, helps.


40. Nick Bishop - September 23, 2011

Ames.
I understand what you say about knowing your limits in relation to helping others.
However, much of what you say doesn’t make a lot of sense, and doesn’t even tally with your recent [helpful] actions. For example :
“Saving people from themselves and their foolish mistakes is not my mission. Saving people from understanding that their decisions have consequences, sometimes irreversible, is not my mission.”
Quite clearly that IS your mission. A few weeks ago you wrote an impassioned plea to ‘Meetup’ members of the faux-Eckhart Tolle group not to swallow the Fellowship bait they were being offered. Judging by the number of replies you say you received, you helped save 5 people from both making a foolish mistake, and suffering the potential consequences of their further involvement in that group. They were being ‘groomed’ psychologically, and you helped stop the process taking root. If that isn’t saving people from their foolish mistakes, I don’t know what is.
“Spending thousands of dollars which I can ill afford on office space and consultants to ‘help’ people who may or may not come along is to me a ridiculous proposition, so I won’t bite on that one, thanks.”
Why see yourself as the main ‘investor’ in all of this? I don’t think I suggested that you should be Santa Claus. $5 per month from 200 good souls on the GF would give a workable financial base. Office space is an option not a necessity, the operation could be run from an office at home. If 10 volunteers contributed 3 or 4 hours of their time per week, then you have a full working week. The point is, the idea would easily be workable on a shared charitable/volunteer basis, without huge expenditure.
I’ve no doubt that he benefits of even a one-hour interview with someone with your weight of experience in the Fellowship would be invaluable for say, a current member contemplating leaving. Face-to-face contact means far more than words on a page.

However, organised support implies a greater note of seriousness and sense of responsibility to those who now fill the shoes we once occupied. For whatever reason – and I don’t feel you’ve yet given the real reason – you don’t seem to want take that step despite your commitment to the Blog’s virtual world. That is your choice.


44. Ames Gilbert - September 23, 2011




Nick Bishop (#113-39 or thereabouts),
you got me, I’m such a fraud.
I thought a two-for-one wouldn’t stretch me too far. In the process of warning people about Burton’s sexual predation and psychological abuse, I thought I would throw in, gratis, my viewpoints that the spiritual part is bullshit and that seekers are likely to loose a lot of time and money as well.
Let me make it clear. I couldn’t give a damn if people want to float around the place with their noses in the air, thinking that they are the chosen; circumstances will usually reveal their self-deception in due course. I don’t give a damn that Burton exchanges large sums of money in return for folks feeling they are special or saved. I don’t care much that he got eighteen–hour days out of me and others for $90 a month plus food, with board the floor of the Lodge. I don’t care much that some people get a special thrill out of being a big fish in a small pond, and are disillusioned or hurt when their true worth is revealed. I especially don’t care if some people believe in some prediction and place heavy bets on it coming true, using this ‘inside information’ for their material gain––and then pouting when it doesn’t pan out.
If it was just the bullshit or the fleecing, I wouldn’t bother, even though I’m sorry that people lost money or didn’t save enough for retirement (both true for me). I mean, if every life lesson ended in restitution or status ante quo, then they wouldn’t be lessons, would they? But Burton’s abuse actually motivates me to act and warn seekers. It takes about the same amount of effort, so why not throw in the other warnings as well?
You are right, a few dollars a month from a large group would provide decent money (although I would think, or at least hope, that the GF audience would be a harder sell than most). You said (#113-17 or thereabouts), “Simply leasing an office space, with a few part-time counsellors, or researchers willing to use some of their time to interview members/ex-members and accumulate first-hand testimonies and contact appropriate authorities and media outlets.” When I said that IMO this was a poor return on investment (ROI), I meant that I don’t understand what value the product (interviews, first-hand testimonies) would have in terms of my goals. If there have been crimes committed that are actionable, why have the middleman? The legal route is clear; if you have knowledge of a crime, you must report that crime and let the law take its course (unless you are the lawyer for an exceptionalist organization like the Fellowship of Friends). Anything else is a collection of sob stories of one degree or another; is all this effort you propose worth that? IMHO, that is a poor ROI.
I’ve spoken to people face-to-face before, and I’m willing to do so when mutually convenient. Just in case, here is my e-mail again: nancyames (at) spiralemail (dot) com. I post here under my real name, and I’m in the Grass Valley, CA phonebook.
Back to simple things I can understand, like packaging my flower bulbs for customers.
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)