
From jbrotema@coin.org Wed Mar 21 11:26:18 2001
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 02:27:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff Brotemarkle <jbrotema@coin.org>
To: "David D. Eisenstein" <deisenst@coin.org>
Cc: "Cheryl L. Hill" <cheryllhill@yahoo.com>,
    Habadasher Soup -- David Ackerman <david_ackerman@yahoo.com>,
    Kelly Lasiter <kcl78@yahoo.com>,
    Lucrecia Culberson <lculbe6495@aol.com>,
    "Rev. Rhymes Moncure" <RevRhy@aol.com>, Val Hinshaw <vhinshaw@coin.org>
Subject: Re: A definition of religion

On Wed, 21 Mar 2001, David D. Eisenstein wrote:

> 
> 
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Jeff Brotemarkle wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, David D. Eisenstein wrote:
> > 
> > > Cheryl, (and Habadashers):
> > > 
> > > Earlier this evening we were speaking of the definition of the word
> > > "religion."  Here is a fascinating definition I found from Noah Webster's
> > > 1828 Dictionary, from website <http://www.christiantech.com/>:
> > > 
> > > It seems interesting that religion and ligament both come from some
> > > similar roots -- both from ligo, "to bind."
> > > 
> > > ------------
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 4. Any system of faith and worship.  In this sense, religion comprehends
> > > the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of
> > > christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or
> > > powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers. 
> > > Thus we speak of the religion of the Turks, of the Hindoos, of the
> > > Indians, &c.  as well as of the christian religion. We speak of false
> > > religion, as well as of true religion.
> > > 
> > > 
> >     Ah, yes!  Those 19th century old-timers knew the truth, but instead
> > of setting them free, it bound them to Christianity!
> 
> Please elucidate, Jeff.  What is the truth that sets one free?
> 
> Free, incidentally, from what?  For what?
> 
>                         -Dave

     Your point is a good one.  Certainly Christianity, when not used to
bludgeon other religions, is the truth that sets one free.  In my view,
any religion that makes it impossible to understand other religions has
bound its adherent to itself.  This does not destroy the truth of that
religion, but it makes it difficult to witness effectively to anyone of
any other faith.  I guess what ticked me off about the old definition was
the implication that Christianity is the one true religion and all the
others are somehow therefore false.  Why can't we simply refer to them as
other religions without labeling them false?  

> 
> ps:  Why do I keep sensing a whip in your written voice in recent notes
> when you write with regards to Christianity?  Are such violent and
> condescending tones (as I imagine sensing) in your messages really as
> violent and condescending to others on this list as they seem to me?  It
> feels like you are exercising resentment.  And scarcely sounds much like
> the gentle, kindly, eclectic Jeff Brotemarkle I have grown to know and
> love.
> 
> I hear you having said something profound or very interesting many times
> over the years in this Habadasher group, followed by, "... but of course,
> you cannot say (this or that) in a Christian church."  I keep sensing that
> you have felt put-down or stifled or ignored or unlistened-to (or even
> felt persecuted?) by some people or environments you have been in, perhaps
> even those that call themselves mainstream Christian.  It has indeed been
> my experience that you cannot say some certain things to certain people,
> and expect to receive admiration or respect in return.  This is
> particularly true with regards to people with strong religious beliefs,
> say, in conservative church environments.
> 
> Please bear in mind, Jeff, that you have a lot of people on this
> Habadasher Soup list who have deep and honorable commitments to their
> relationships with Jesus Christ and/or their God Yahweh.  At least they
> feel their commitments honorable.  Trashing their savior and master (or
> their particular name they have for their religion, which is reminescent
> of the name of their savior and master) may not serve you well here, if
> you are interested in peaceful and kindly and loving responses.  It's not,
> I think, that any Christians here are interested in being hypocrites by
> returning any eyes for eyes or teeth for teeth; it's just a fact that in
> doing the work of putting down (or at least *appearing* to put down) 
> others' spiritual beliefs, you may be hurting them and serving a purpose
> that is very hard for me to view as edifying, uplifting, or educating; but
> rather serving a purpose that exposes prejudices or supremist leanings. 
> 

     Your point is a good one.  My point did not come out the way it was
intended.  In future if I am going to say something controversial I ought
to at least look it over once before I send it along to see that it makes
sense.  My point did not make sense this time.  

> I really cannot find helpful or enlightening the practice of jeeringly
> deriding ideas or doctrines that one does not believe in when such
> derisions appear to exist primarily for puffing up one's own.  But I am
> beginning to become accustomed to hearing the tone of the jeer in your
> writing.  Is this really the tone you are intending to convey?
> 
> Bear in mind that it is my opinion that whenever I listen to Jay Lenno on
> the tonight show, the tone of humor I sense from him is also jeeringly
> derisive; and that is why I seldom watch that show, that kind of tone
> feels violent to me.
> 
> Even so, I think our group exists to hear these kinds of things.  In our
> group, as in life, none of us have to be "nicey-nice" all of the time.  We
> are here to be human and expose our humannesses to one-another.  And,
> perhaps from time-to-time, even piss each other off.  Because, as my
> Doctor tells me, the old Chinese saying goes, "No burn, no earn, which we
> optimistic Americans say as 'No pain, no gain.'"
> 
> (At first I thought he was saying, "No burn, no urn."  *shudder*).
> 
> Please let us know if you are truly doing ok, Jeff?  I am really concerned
> by the tone of some recent messages that all may not be well with you.  If
> so, is there anything I or we can do to be of help?

     Yes, there is, see below.  

> 
> 		With love,
> 		Your friend,
> 		David
> 
> 
     I must admit I have not yet overcome my childhood training to ignore
all emotional meaning of words.  Ours was a family of geniuses who were
too smart to have any emotions.  We were a family of Mr. Spocks, from Star
Trek, you see.  
     Except that my mom was raised by a mean man, so she was allowed one
emotion--anger, and we Spocks were trained to ignore, in particular, her
emotion of anger.  So I have lots of experience ignoring emotions in
general and her anger in particular.  It was a lot like being raised with
an alcoholic in the family.  We were all trained to ignore this seething
volcano sitting in the living room while we calmly read our books.  
     After I left home and became an adult I discovered that emotions are
really usually quite enjoyable if one knows how to honor them in a sacred
manner.  I guess I still resent the big gaping hole I now see in my
childhood emotional life and training where, with a little common sense,
there could so easily have been joy.  My mother's anger was so stupid, so
constant, she seemed to be mad at everything that happened, and so
unneccessary, or so it seems to me now, but I guess it was necessary in
reality, I guess my mother was right, it was made necessary by the
abominable manner in which she was raised.
     Raised by wolves I guess.  Thought, to be free to operate, must rest
on the pedestal of a secure emotional existence, even as the cerebral
cortex could not have evolved without millions of years of the emotions of
animals giving them the sort of brain that a cerebral cortex could be
added onto, creating humans.  Mammalian emotions in turn evolved only
after being given the firm foundation of reptilian physiology, which in
turn is grounded in the physical world.  
     So if any element of this chain is missing, a human being cannot be
grounded, and has an unstable mind.  In reality to train up a family of
little Mr. Spocks, suppressing the emotions so that the path to the ground
is lost, is a sure recipe for insanity, I think.  
     But you know, nothing lasts forever, not even insanity, and things
are getting clearer, the dawn approaches.  The very act of writing this
down, of being able to write it down, of being clear about it in this way,
helps to dispel its darkness, and to speed me on the way to light.  
     Thanks for listening, your listening helps the sun to rise.  

                                            Jeff Brotemarkle

     "The first step [in the monastic life] is the total acceptance of all
the parts of our being -- body and soul, mind and instinct, emotions and
will, in order to give all to God in the harmony of a balanced and
spiritualized personality."
     -- Thomas Merton


