Last weekend, my husband and I were searching for something to rent from Blockbuster and discovered that every single plot has been done. There are no new plots. Then my husband saw “Bobby,” so even though I knew it wouldn’t be uplifting, we decided to rent it. My husband didn’t know what to expect, just like I, embarassing as it is to admit, know even less about British politics and history. (Except the part where we threw away their tea in the start of the “War of American Rebellion” as someone close to me has been known to call it.)

The movie was okay. It was a story about fictional characters who are shot in the Ambassador hotel (demolished in 2006) the night Robert Kennedy was shot. Only the ending of the movie had anything to do with Bobby, as the soundtrack from his speech, “Of Mindless Menace and Violence” plays over the remaining scenes. To me, the speech is heart-breaking and I can never hear it without getting upset and wondering what would our country, and our world be like today if he, as well as King, hadn’t been killed?

Here’s a portion of Kennedy’s speech, “Of Mindless Menace and Violence,” so much of it relevant today.

Too often we honor swagger and bluster and wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others. Some Americans who preach non-violence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of inciting riots have by their own conduct invited them.

Some look for scapegoats, others look for conspiracies, but this much is clear: violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and only a cleansing of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.

For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is the slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.

This is the breaking of a man’s spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts us all.

I have not come here to propose a set of specific remedies nor is there a single set. For a broad and adequate outline we know what must be done. When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies, to be met not with cooperation but with conquest; to be subjugated and mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community; men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear, only a common desire to retreat from each other, only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this, there are no final answers.

Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of others. We must admit in ourselves that our own children’s future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge.

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanquish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember, if only for a time, that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short moment of life; that they seek, as do we, nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely, this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely, we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our own hearts brothers and countrymen once again.

Dare we have the audacity to hope? Can we return to a nation with higher ideals and integrity?

We desire something greater than large sums in corporate bank accounts. We crave a return to harmony, a national dialogue that brings us toward each other instead of the constant barage of divisiveness that drives wedges between us, a national dialogue that reminds us to find our commonality and remember our collective responsibility to one another. We need a president who elevates us to something greater than a constant search to fulfill our own individual selfish wants, but to find our deeper purpose and helps us to exercise our capacity for more noble motives, which include concern for the well-being of the majority instead of an interest in the grand profits of a select few.

Mostly we crave a return to a respect for diversity, where we have respect for the ideals of our founding fathers who designed our political system so that private matters, such as religion, remain in private spheres where they belong. Instead of trying to force everyone to adopt the same religion, all the while claiming that we’re not, wouldn’t it be great if we could return to a time when we’re proud that people with different cultures, ethnicities, and religions can live in harmony, not secretly hoping that we were all the same, but loving the fact that we’re not, learning as much as we can from each other, about each other, and about ourselves. Instead of hiding in corners where we never have to think about our own beliefs and values, what if we sought to have a circle of diversity so that we might gain complete inner clarity, come to the best solution when confronted with a decision, and become skilled and careful thinkers? Wouldn’t it be nice if we and our neighbors were less easily seduced by rhetoric, but were more interested in facts and truth? Wouldn’t that be a great country to live in?

You can find the audio of Kennedy’s speech here, and more speeches here. Won’t it be refreshing when our next president has a command of his native language and has greater ideals than making his wealthy cronies even wealthier.

Incidentally, if you ever have a chance to watch any of the American Experience Series, The Presidents, they are phenomenal!

However, as part of my agenda to solve world peace, I am obliged to say what I have to say. I know it’s unlikely that it will change anything, but maybe, just maybe it will plant a seed, and as a result, I have to try. Because we’d all be a lot happier and get along a lot better if we would acknowledge those parts of our belief system that are beliefs, not truths, and therefore, not being truths, things that we should be willing to accept that while we hold them tightly, we are not necessarily right.

Here are a few examples. Last week, Nova aired a documentary on the fight in Dover, Delaware about “Intelligent Design.” Essentially, someone in the community didn’t believe in evolution and decided that the public schools should teach both evolution and ID, because, in his opinion, students should be exposed to both viewpoints.

Here is a belief that I hold sacred. Parents are the ones who are responsible for bestowing their beliefs onto their children. Public schools are meant to be secular, to serve the needs of all the taxpayers. I’ll never understand the Religious Right. Their agenda and self-righteousness to institute Christian religious education in schools is dividing society and making them a much hated group. There are so many avenues for them to give their children a religious education: Sunday school, private parochial schools, church on the weekends, or even, crazy as this may be, teaching their children their values themselves. Why try to take over the public schools too? Public schools are not the place to teach religion.

Back to the Intelligent Design debate. The debate centered around whether ID is a viable, testable scientific theory, or creationism. After researching the history of the “textbook” on ID, it turned out, surprise, surprise, that ID was in fact creationism, deliberately renamed, with the specific agenda to provide a Christian alternative theory to evolution. The proponents of ID knew that the theory was nothing more than creationism, but singularly focused on accomplishing their agenda, regardless of the cost to the community. These good Christians lied. That’s not all they did. They issued death threats to teachers and members of the school board. Death threats. What a religion they have! What principled people! Now, that’s the way to convert me.

Can I remind everyone that it’s 2007? Where’s Galileo? Let’s kill him too, while we’re at it! Pity our DNA is evolving without us, while our intellect is stuck in the Middle Ages.

I wonder how do people, knowing that what they believe isn’t provable, and is based purely on faith, so narrow-mindedly dismiss, not just science, but all other belief systems. It seems to be our human nature, “I believe this, so everyone else must be wrong.” Why instead don’t we say, “I believe this, I have no proof, maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. Maybe the people who worship the moon are right.” Those who believe in traditional religions dismiss new age beliefs, and likewise, those who have adopted new age beliefs think traditionalists are narrow-minded and wrong. No one has any proof, yet all are steadfastly convinced that there is one truth and they have found it, without need for any evidence whatsoever.

Here’s another example of what I’m talking about. I’ve been listening to a podcast called “Sacred Contracts.” It’s a new age call-in radio show with host Caroline Myss (pronouned “Mace”). There’s an expression about not being able to turn away from a train wreck. I don’t understand it, because if there was a train wreck, I would definitely turn away, but that’s my general feeling about this podcast. In my opinion, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, it’s completely ridiculous, but I can’t stop listening because it’s so fascinating.

Here’s a summary of the average call:

Caller: “I can’t lose weight. When I was six years old my mom started weighing me and I’ve always been obsessed about my weight. I’m a vegetarian, and in the last year I’ve gained twenty pounds, but I haven’t changed my diet or my exercise patterns. What can I do?”
Myss: “[blah…blah] When I’m in your energy, I feel like I’m trapped in an apartment. Your creativity is trapped.”
Caller: “Well, I’ve been that way for a while, but the last couple of weeks I’ve been writing eight hours a day.”
Myss: “There you go. You can’t lose twenty pounds in two weeks. The target is not your weight. The target is your creative overload.”

In another show, a caller had recently enrolled in graduate school and wanted to know if it was the right decision. People call in asking for a diagnosis for medical problems. Mind you, Myss is not a doctor. Callers want help deciding whether to leave their husbands so that they can be with their soul mate, who they just met. They want to know why they have to work for someone else and can’t work for themselves, what career they should enter into…and so on.

Sometimes Myss gives good advice and I don’t mean to sound condemning about the callers or Myss. I’m not. I think it’s great that people who are so lost feel like they have somewhere to turn for answers. It’s just that I wouldn’t call a mystic to ask about help with weight loss and I don’t think bottled up creativity causes weight gain. I think there’s a scientific reason for weight gain, such as hormonal levels (leptin for example), calorie consumption, and metabolism.

Not that science has everything figured out, but they’ve figured out enough that governs my daily life, so I trust the methods used. Science has created pharmaceuticals, electron microscopes, the space shuttle, wireless Internet and airplanes that fly, for the most part, safely. I mean, I think they’re onto something. Science doesn’t know everything yet though.

Therefore I allow that while I trust science first, maybe Myss really is a mystic. Maybe I should worship the moon. Maybe everyone’s spiritual beliefs are right and maybe no one’s are. Because I don’t have proof, while it seems far-fetched to me that someone can “feel energy” over a telephone, how do I know?

I mean no disrespect to anyone, in fact my point is just the opposite, but I think other belief systems are equally far-fetched. Christians believe that Jesus was borne by a virgin. A human being was the spirit of God, incarnate because, all-powerful God needed to become human in order to reach our lost species. Jesus died to save humans from their sins, as part of God’s plan that Jesus royally tick-off the Romans and then get crucified. Why did Jesus have to die to save humans from sins? I don’t see the connection. Hindus believe in Kali, a deity with four arms, all without any sort of mention of radiation toxicity. Ganesh is an elephant God. The Romans had all sorts, as did the Vikings. Why would a God, who is supposed to be all-powerful and better than we could ever be, have so many character flaws like egotism and regrettable rage? I know we’re supposedly created in God’s image, but if all-powerful God can’t lick his bad habits, what hope do I have?

Is any one of these beliefs more far-fetched than another? Is religion meant to divide or to refine us? Is it meant to bring out the worst in our human nature or to help us become as good and loving as we can possibly be? Why can’t we live and let live? Reinforcing our beliefs in our religious house, living in a way that is morally appropriate in our daily lives and accepting that we don’t have a monopoly on the truth, without attempting to force the rest of society to adhere to our belief systems?

To quote a dear friend of mine, I don’t care if someone worships and howls at the moon, as long as he/she respects my boundaries and doesn’t tell me what to believe. I joke about the Jehovah Witnesses trying to convert me, but it’s just because they’re an easy target. Honestly, I’ve had more new-agers try to convince me of the truth they’ve discovered. There’s no shortage of the facts: all medical conditions are rooted in a psychological cause (finally a cure for MS!), thinking hard enough about something can change the outcome (still haven’t seen anyone win the Lotto though!), anything bad that happens to you is because of something you did in a past life. Sadly, though they’ve come to their beliefs after rejecting a traditional upbringing, they can be just as stubborn, arrogant, pushy, and righteous.

Maybe they’re right. I don’t know. That’s the point. I don’t know and neither does anyone else. We want comfort. We want logic and fairness and a way to impose order on a chaotic world. We crave meaning. However, we each have to find our own “truths.”

In my ideal world, we would all be able to acknowledge that beliefs are based purely in faith and be open to the possibility that we are no more “right” than anyone else. We would return to a society where we can keep ID, renamed in whatever form, in our religious house, understanding the logical division between belief and truth. Our country was founded on the principles of religious freedom. Is it possible for us to return to a society of peace, where there isn’t fighting and bitterness over religious values, expressly created to engender a divide among Americans that makes some people more or less electable in our eyes? Is it possible for us to see through politicians who are the only ones benefiting from magnifying our differences, for us to no longer get sucked into their game?

It took a lot of courage to publish this, and my hope is that instead of being offended, if you are religious-minded, you seek peace, seek to find our commonalities, seek to acknowledge how our divisions are not only arbitrary, but actually deliberately fabricated. We create the divides. We can’t say that we have absolute truth when we say that there is an absolute law that murder is a sin, except when it suits our needs, say in war. Abortion is murder, but how often does the church take a stand on war with the same vigor? Where are those protesters? Murder in war is not an equal sin to the sin of abortion?

If it’s possible that the church changes it’s position through the centuries, all the while using the same guidebook, perhaps that’s a clue that we should allow that we don’t have “the truth,” we have an understanding that continues, hopefully, to evolve. That same understanding should make us peace-seekers, acknowledging our own hypocritical and contradictory beliefs, and peace-makers.

This particular episode is entitled, “Are You a Spiritual Pioneer.” The introduction was about those who like to explore personal growth and spirituality. Cheryl opined that it’s okay to seek, but we all must seek our own path. It’s not up to us to decide what is right for others or try to convert them.

I wish a lot of people I’ve known would hear this message.

Over the years, I have known so many people who have sought a new religion or “spiritual pursuit.” I too have explored many ideas and philosophies. I’m a curious person and I love to learn new things. I enjoy watching others try out something new and get invigorated by it. When a friend enthusiastically shares about a new pursuit, I get excited with her. I love hearing the joy in someone’s voice when they light up about feeling like something long sought or hidden has suddenly been discovered. I love to hear about other people’s victories, their journey and what works for them. Woohoo!!

On the other hand, nothing turns me off more than when they cross the boundary from sharing to preaching. I’m sure you’ve been there. It’s the know-it-all expert and not only do they know what’s right for themselves, but they know what’s right for you too. Now that the universe has granted them this great knowledge and the answer to everything, they feel obligated to convert you and exhibit no restraint in telling you how you need to change, to follow their newfound path. They just cannot suppress the urge to preach. They have it all figured out and they’re going to tell you what you should believe, and what you will believe one day, when you, too, become enlightened.

As a long-time recipient of such messages from friends who turned to the dark-side, as I call it, it’s difficult for me to find the balance between letting a friend know I’m interested in him, but content where I am, and I don’t mean to diminsh his belief system, but it’s not right for me. You see, I don’t want to hurt someone’s feelings. I know their underlying intentions are good, but their self-centered worldview is an obstacle to them acknowledging that each of us finds our own path to truth. So I struggle to be polite and say in the gentlest way possible, “I’m good where I am, thanks” so that it isn’t heard as “I think your belief system is inferior.” Unfortunately, blinded by their enthusiasm, sometimes they don’t let go and in their relentless pushing end up sullying the very ideas they love by making you hate them and the idea all at once.

I’ve been the victim of the self-proclaimed “Spiritual Pioneer” many times, sitting through many lectures about the proper belief system and my own dysfunctions exhibiting themselves because I don’t agree. I had one coworker, I’ll call Agatha, who became enchanted with a new idea every other month. She’s not what I would call “devoted to self-improvement or personal growth,” as much as “LOST” and “deeply troubled.” That may sound mean, but you would say the same thing if you had had to endure as many lectures as I had. It’s really a wonder I didn’t stab her with a fork.

Somehow, with people like that, I must learn how to set a boundary that makes it clear that I am open-minded, kind and interested in hearing about their life and experiences, that I love hearing about the ways other people find joy, but that my interest is not an open invitation to be converted and lectured. While one person may find deep meaning howling at and worshipping the moon, I have no judgment. If it’s what turns someone on and makes him happy, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, I’m happy for him. I’ll even drop him off at his howling meetings if needed. But if he makes a repeated habit of telling me how I should howl at the moon too, and what’s more, that there’s something wrong with me because I can’t open myself up to howling, that’s where the boundary is crossed.

In my experience, the people who least recognize the boundary are those who think that there is meaning in every speck of dust in the universe, so that when something happens, they’re troubled to find the deeper subconscious meaning and what it symbolizes about their inner psychological turmoil. Or equally, what God meant for them to understand by sending that speck of dust to settle next to them. I would love to broadcast a message to these people to tell them that it’s possible to take life too seriously.

We’re not all troubled, we don’t all need to explore the deeper hidden meaning in everything that happens to us, everything isn’t a sign from the universe, everything isn’t an indication of our deeper denial and unawareness of the state of our being that requires profound, deep investigation. Sometimes a glass breaks because you dropped it. It doesn’t always mean that there was a deeper reason why you dropped the glass and that the dropping of the glass is indicative of a greater picture of glass dropping in your life. Sometimes, we do need to look deeper within ourselves, but sometimes, we just dropped the glass because we lost our grip. It doesn’t mean we were attention-seeking or that we subconsciously dropped the glass as a symbol of our seething, suppressed, inner resentment and wanted the glass to shatter as a physical representation of our fragile psyche. My point is, in other words, “Lighten up, for God’s sake.”

So back to the Cheryl Richardson episode, one caller wanted advice about how to dump a friend who wasn’t on the “same path” with her. She didn’t say that her friend was unsupportive of her journey or trying to prevent or sabotage her explorations, only that they couldn’t be friends anymore because they were on different paths. Of course, I don’t know the details, but the impression the caller gave was that she was too enlightened to continue being friends with someone who didn’t share her exact set of beliefs. How enlightened can we be if we can’t tolerate difference and respect other people and hear the truths that resonate with them? I suspect based on my own past history of dealing with the “spiritually enlightened,” that the caller was trying to convert her friend, who just wasn’t interested, and the caller couldn’t handle the rejection of not being idolized in the glory of her new great brilliance. I know that probably sounds pretty harsh and perhaps unfair. It stems from my own baggage of having had so many friends turn to the dark side.

What is it that makes people so arrogant that they think they have all the answers?

It may sound like I’m one who hasn’t been personally subjected to the existential journeys in life annd that’s far from the truth. I spent most of my twenties researching religions, feeling abandoned by God, abandoned by friends, looking inward at my own flaws and reading more self-help books than I can count. I know I have recommended books to friends and offered my own unsolicited advice. Early in my twenties when I first became a vegetarian, I did the preaching, but I learned quickly that my choices were right for me, and it wasn’t my place or within my ability to decide for other people how to live. Of course I have opinions, and I think it would be great if more people were environmentalists and devoted parents, but I walk in my own shoes. Within the context of someone else’s life who am I to say that with the same experiences and circumstances that their belief system wouldn’t be fitting for me? I’ve never told anyone else they should become a Jew, but I’ve heard plenty about how I should believe everything happens for a reason, Jesus is the way, and you’re not supposed to be attached to outcomes according to an interpretation of Buddism that misunderstands the original philosophy. If your purpose is to do more than live within your conscience and you wish to convert others, the only way to do this effectively is to live as an example of what you believe. If you are a role model and live with integrity, people respect that. When you live what you believe, you are much more likely to stir a natural curiosity in others than if you tell them how they should live. Being a loving, accepting, non-judgmental representation allows you to become an avenue for others to explore new ideas.

Ideas can only be shared effectively in a safe environment, where people feel like they can be themselves without being on guard. Where someone feels loved, even for embracing different beliefs, has faith that he can share space and coexist without judgment and condescension, only then will he feel comfortable exploring more. In a judgmental environment, even a silently judgmental one, we naturally react with defensiveness and close ourselves off from hearing what others have to say. Only when there isn’t an expectation that someone change, can ideas be questioned and explored and shared openly, light-heartedly, and lovingly.

My former coworker Agatha, will likely never get the idea about boundaries. One of her lectures to me was about my cat, Maggie, who had a urinary tract infection. Agatha had relied many times on a pet pyschic, just a $60 (will that be Mastercard or Visa?) phone call away. Every time I made the mistake of mentioning Maggie, I was told that I should give the psychic a try to find out what was “really” wrong with Maggie, what she was really upset about. Agatha was subsequently failed by the pet pyschic, though she never said as much. A couple of years later, despite trying the mind melding technique with her cat (I swear I am not making that up), Agatha finally had her cat put down. The cat never waivered in her desire to not use the litter box and in fact, escalated her carpet assaults.

Perhaps calling the vet and reading some books on cat behavior might have been more helpful? Then one would have had to expend energy in training, behavior modification, and consistency. Easier to call the pyschic to feel like something was done.

Agatha once also spent $3,000 to attend a spiritual seminar of sorts in California. When she came home, she was all full of the “energy” and “crystals” and went on and on about what a peaceful person she had become. Her pictures had light spots in them that all her seminar friends interpreted as “energy halos.” She insisted there were no lights that could have caused the glare. Soon after her return home, she began to frequently inform me that I should attend a seminar myself, letting me know what needed fixing in me and how the seminar could help.

Another idea that gets preached to me with relative frequency is, “Everything happens for a reason?” I’m often told that I’ll believe the truth of this when, one day, I’m smarter and more enlightened. I wish I could believe everything happens for a reason. It would be nice to know that there is something deliberate and meaningful in the misery and suffering of the entire continent of Africa, to name only one example. What is the universe’s reason? No one ever tells me. Why do millions live in disease and poverty and war? What is the spiritual reason that people are born with genetic diseases that cause them a lifetime of suffering? I don’t have a problem if people want to believe that everything happens for a reason, and I’m sure it’s a really peaceful, carefree way to go through life, but I wish that if they felt so compelled to lecture me, that they would at least have the courtesy to tell me what the reasons are. Isn’t that fair?

The last caller on the Cheryl Richardson show during the “Spiritual Pioneer” episode made me unsubscribe from the podcast. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be a force of positive change in the world. I want to do that. Don’t most of us? This woman was too much though, and I bet is a nightmare to be around.

She started by “acknowledging the divinity in others” and wanted advice about being a “conduit.” She always “been a seeker.” Then there was this, which I transcribed word for word (really, I’m not making this up), “I have been diligent to and committed to unfolding my divinity and stepping into the realization of who I truly am. I feel so alive when I am basking in the realm of possibility and the realm of transformation. I really want to make a difference…[blah blah]…align ourselves to the divine…[blah blah]…I want to be a conduit through which God uses me to facilitate transformation on the planet.”

Um…here’s my advice, to her and everyone like her, “Please, for the love of God, get over yourself!”

Posted in Soap Box | Print | No Comments »