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.

Blog Archive

Friday, 7 May 2010

Elena's questions

We need to discover what civil society means for social policy futures. Does it mean a new and more democratic welfare future based on citizen participation in the shaping and delivery of social services? Or does it envisage the liberalization of welfare in which the state is displaced by a resurgent market? Does this downsizing mean the end of the welfare state? Did it ever exist? Was it a metaphor for a virtuous society based on a welfare compromise? Is virtue being redefined in terms of individual agency in a world where welfare has become once again a matter of personal responsibility? Or can the Zeitgeist of the welfare state be reinvented by a Social Left on the basis of utopian socialist principles? Is Colas contention that the State is the opium of civil society correct?

F. Powell

It’s interesting that Mr. Powell raises this particular questions and not others such as:

Mr. Powell’s premise: We need to discover what civil society means for social policy futures.

Does it mean a new and more democratic future based on citizen participation in the shaping and delivery of social and political, economic, scientific and religious development?

Does it mean that the individual has acquired enough strength and sense of its own self and reach and is now able to act responsibly without the need for an external force to keep us from hurting others?

Does it mean that Right and Left wing individualism pro welfare state is the reflex of a middle class that has gradually become the holder of  authority through its activity in the realm of service and is supporting the status quo against its own realization as human beings for fear of losing the few privileges that they have come to acquire?

Does it mean that conforming to the welfare state in which people are given what they can have instead of having the right to get what they can give will strengthen the tendency we are seeing today towards an automatization of the individual rather than a free spirited society in which culture is not only not separated from science, politics and economy but is at the root of their development?

Does it mean that civil society must continue to be at the service of the economic status quo or that we become conscious of the fact that the economic status quo is acting against civil society in its totality? In other words, that not only are we talking about masses of workers being harmed by the conditions of bare survival as is common in third world nations, comfortable but lifeless survival amongst the workers in first word nations and over-leisure survival amongst the privileged of all nations for whom the status quo is no less decadent?

Does it not mean that what we need to approach is the question that the WORK in people’s lives, what they DO every day, what they do and what they do it for, why, when and where, for whom and at what cost, matters?

Does it not mean that we’ve come to the point where what we need to ask our selves is, where is the human purpose of the human being?



Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)