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

Sunday, 23 May 2010

Ton - Elena and moderator




e: “Thanks Ton, the mirror works both ways and I’m wonderfully busy with other work that you have no interest in, so allow me to continue my research.”
re: the mirror:
i don’t suppose you actually tried the suggested exercise… i know you are so bizzy with much more important things and all…. really elena, the next time, and every time you are conjuring up another link in your vicious circle with “ton” in mind, you should do the mirror exercise i suggested before you post what you’ve written. reflect your words and ideas back on yourself elena, you’ll find that it’ll do you and others a world of good. what are you afraid of ? there is nothing to fear in this exercise, are you afraid of seeing yourself for who you truly are? what do you have to lose? it will only take a few minutes from your “precious work.” you seem to have such a fondness for words; i can think of a couple of words that perfectly describe your post above here and your general attitude… and since these words describe you so well, you should become more familiar:
glibly dismissive
meaning: marked by lack of depth; “glib generalizations”; “a glib response to a complex question, nonchalant, showing little forethought or preparation: offhand : lacking depth and substance : superficial archaic : smooth, slippery : marked by ease and fluency in speaking or writing often to the point of being insincere or deceitful 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/glib
showing indifference or disregard; “a dismissive shrug”; “the firm is dismissive of the competitor’s product”; haughty, disdainful, or supercilious: an arrogant and cavalier attitude toward others…. stopping to associate with; “they took dismissive action after the third violation” wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Showing disregard, indicating rejection, serving to dismiss
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dismissive
dismissiveness – a form of denial, characterized by either passively showing indifference or disregard, or actively dismissing or rejecting ideas or evidence en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dismissiveness
dismissively – In a dismissive manner en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dismissively



My Dear Ton, As moderator of this blog, I remind you that Elena is not the subject of this blog no matter how interesting you might find her. I think you've expressed your unique point of view to her so many times and she has responded to it acknowledging what you are saying but not agreeing with what you are saying. Can you take the fact that neither of you agree and you can still both participate here? The spirit of this blog is not that you come to an agreement but that you each offer what you believe to be true. Your truth about Elena is welcome, it has been heard. What Elena is inviting you to consider is offering a wider spectrum of your self than the limited subject of Elena's persona or what you consider her illness or sickness, etc. In expressing her boredom what she meant was that there are marvelous subjects out there on which to dialogue and if you can't dialogue about anything else, your repetitions are unnecessary. Something that would be of enormous help to the discussion would be if you were able to move from the personality sphere into the public sphere. This is a Public Forum and the aim is not to attack people personally but to have a dialogue in which the participants can reference themselves in. In allowing their points of view to communicate with others, the participants can then draw understanding on themselves. That is a much healthier process than labeling each other with negative adjectives. Elena's aim in these blogs has been the separation of state and religion and every post that she picks from other authors is connected to understanding that problem and how it has lived itself out in our world today. What is your aim Ton?
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)