I wish to step into this and call a time out on this topic. Not a
"shut up" or "no talk." Just a time out. I'm seeing some unconscious
judgmentalism come out that personally makes me very uncomfortable.
Anita Graf wrote:
>Kate Smith recently tried to stir up a conversation about
>sprituality, spiritual values and agriculture, and I didn't see much
>response. I'm curious as to why and how Bargyla's narrow minded
>Bible spoutings have evoked this most recent discussion. I believe
>it was Gwyneth and Beth who publically protested Bargyla's
>patronizing Bible-thumping, but I don't think that either one of them
>were in any way discouraging a discussion of spirituality and
>agriculture.
I would suggest that the reason there wasn't much response is that,
when there was--when Bargyla offered her views--she soon was attacked.
She's got more courage than I do. From the response she got,
apparently there's not a lot of tolerance for diverse beliefs here.
And we apparently feel deeply threatened quite readily.
Bargyla's words can be reduced as "narrow minded" "spoutings" or
"patronizing Bible-thumping." Who among us would assign these
categories to some of the equally strongly phrased, equally
opinionated writings valued by people on this list. Does the name
"Wendell Berry" ring any bells in this context? Wes Jackson? Jim
Hightower?
>Quite the opposite. I think they were both reacting to
>big chunks of raw dogma hurled into this forum. Dogma is
>unprocessed, finger-wagging, ultimatum-laden "recipes" for life.
>It's also pretty hard to swallow, if you insist on digesting what you
>swallow. Raw dogma is what I hear when Bargyla gives her version
>of TRUTH. Spritual truth, the result of one's own internal
>processing and digesting, is real nutrition, and what I see as
>appropriate to the discussions here. It's more than just recognizing
>that there are other sacred texts (a la Alex's response; it's even
>deeper than that. There are also other ways of understanding the
>SAME sacred text.
Anita, although I agree with you on the last sentence there--based on
25 years of study of comparative religion and comparative mythology,
as well as walking my own spiritual paths--your words here come
across as no less dogmatic, to my eye. There are indeed many ways of
understanding the same thing, but no one is required to believe
anything other than what they do. And even those of us who believe
that we have broad, diverse minds have our own dogmatic spaces.
Bargyla appears to be aware of her own biases, and admits to them. I
understand that in some faiths, "Know thyself" is the first and only
commandment.
People are entitled to be dogmatic--being human may in fact ensure
it. Whether they choose to listen to others and modify their beliefs
is up to them. But writing them off, or alienating them, is likely
only to harden dogma with a sense of persecution. There is no
communication possible except between equals. And while answering
dogma with dogma can send us all to the kennels, I'd suggest that we
get farther when people actually say what they believe. Even when
that includes an unwillingness to change what they believe.
As for things being hard to swallow, as Miss Piggy once said, "My
diet secret? Never eat anything you can't lift."
>There is not one utterance or piece of writing
>which does not deserve your own reflection, questioning, and
>processing to make it your own if you are going to take it at all. I
>also don't think that anyone's temporal age on this planet has
>anything to do with it. A person who at even an advanced age still
>does not allow sacred words to penetrate her and integrate inside of
>her but rather continues to spout the raw dogma she was fed as a
>child, is, in my opinion, not wise according to her years. She may
>be brilliant when it comes to organic ag practices, but her
>understanding of religion and spirituality is still raw and
>undeveloped.
This is uncalled for, in my view. I'm asking for a time-out. It is
not up to anyone on this list to judge anyone's "advancement" or
"understanding" or "brilliance." None of us has any way of knowing
what another's experience of the sacred has been. That is intimate
territory, between them and their divine. And anyone who knows their
*own* experience of the sacred so well that they have the latitude to
judge others' should be running for public office or taking the reins
of multinational corporations, because that clarity of vision is
sorely needed in high places.
I'm deeply uncomfortable with this. If we can listen to the dogmas of
Chief Seattle (an often-referred-to wise elder), and other people we
will never know except through their writings, or other people's
written reports of their spoken works, how can we possibly judge
someone who bases their knowledge on Biblical writings? I'm also
confused as to why it is an elder woman who is bearing the brunt of
all this anger and projection, suddenly, and why it is women who are
the most vocal.
On the days that I see fools everywhere, or another person as unwise,
I remember that I tend to see in others what I fear or dislike in
myself.
Bargyla is, in my estimation, entitled to "thump" her Bible as hard
and as loudly as she wishes, if indeed that's what she's doing. My
deities are different than hers, and I do not feel threatened by the
fact that she sees hers as strongly as I see mine. Nor do I feel
uncomfortable that she would view me as a primitive animist, full of
superstitions. She would, I believe, dig in the dirt with me anyway.
We'd both, I believe, rescue worms from the sidewalk after a hard
rain. I do not believe that she'd ever intentionally cause me harm,
and if she caused me any unintentional harm, I sense that she'd
listen when I told her that, and try to make amends.
She has not forced any of us to believe what she believes; she has
simply spoken her beliefs strongly. In her belief system, truth is
revealed, and is contained in a sacred book. The divine has not
spoken to me as it speaks to her. I talk to birds and the moon and
the sea and the stars, and quietly, smugly, pity those who don't, who
get their revelations from "lesser" sources.
All that does, in my mind, is bear witness to the enormity of the
divine, and the complexity of its manifestations. All that does is
strengthen my sense that if I truly wish to know the divine, I'd best
start with knowing myself, and others, and be aware of my own
patterns of judgment. There is a place for *everyone* at the table,
and I don't think the deities will seat Bible-readers apart--at a
better table nor a worse one.
> And I'm not saying this in a purposefully disrespectful
>way or just because I don't agree with something she might say, I say
>it because it just simply sounds like the same old rhetoric you can
>find on any intervenous-religion show on Sunday morning tv. There is
>a difference between something which comes from *inside* you (whether
>or not I agree with it) and something that is passed on, unprocessed,
>from the outside.
Anita, it looks like you feel strongly about the relationship of an
individual's spirit to the revealed or internal or inherited truths,
but judging another's religion strikes me as inappropriate here. One
could argue that sustainable ag is the same old rhetoric you can find
in any 19th century Jeffersonian hemp-smoke-and- breakfast-brandy
vision of landedness, or in any 20th century heartland
sentimentalism. In fact, folks have dismissed sustainable ag in just
that way. It ain't science, it has to be foo foo.
The only way out of that conundrum, it seems to me, is to step away
from judgment altogether. Which isn't possible. The next best thing,
then, is to be aware of one's patterns of judgment.
I want to tell a story. In 1981, I was through-hiking the Appalachian
Trail. I got very ill while in the Smoky Mountains. After my
recuperation, my hiking partner and I were making our way back to the
AT--or trying to--by trying to hitch a ride in Asheville, NC, back
into the mountains. We were discouraged by many signs prohibiting
hitch-hiking. We were walking along a frontage road, night was
falling, we were exhausted and not sure how we'd get back to the
mountains. We didn't have a lot of money.
Suddenly a big old car appeared, and the driver rolled down his
window. He said, "Looks like you folks could use a lift, can I help
you?"
In brief, this man took us to his house, in a valley in Marshall, TN.
He and his wife fed us supper, did our laundry, did not ask who we
were or what our religion was. After supper they took us out, and we
walked their land in the valley. The man was especially proud of the
red-tailed hawk's nest in one of his big old trees. He protected it
with a shotgun against some of the less aware neighbors, who
apparently tried to use the birds for target practice. My hiking
partner was my boyfriend, and at this time, he had a big, bushy beard
and long hair and a dark dark tan. (On more than one occasion in
Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, he was called a nigra. Just
as on more than one occasion, I was told that I was asking for rape,
wearing hiking shorts and a sleeveless shirt.) This man and his wife
must have noticed that we did not wear wedding rings, but they put us
up for the night in a shared room. They didn't ask questions. They
didn't judge us. The man said that he and his wife were sitting in a
restaurant, and saw us walk by, and said to each other, "Looks like
those folks could use a lift."
The next morning, the man drove us to an AT trailhead. In the course
of 18 hours together I'd learned many things.
I learned about the history of the area--Civil War history, more recent events.
I learned about the natural history of the area--what was in bloom,
what animals were living where, where to find the best streams for
fresh, safe water, or for crayfish, or for fishing. Where some secret
trails were, with especially beautiful views. Where some of the
less-safe places for hikers were, in the upcoming stretch of trail.
This man was a Baptist preacher. He was the equivalent of a bishop,
though he laughed and said that, with eighty-odd sects (at that time)
of Baptists, it didn't take much (and he winked) to become a bishop.
He was a narrow-minded, dogmatic, fire n brimstone Bible thumper. He
described himself that way. He had personally seen and talked to god,
and to Jesus Christ.
Mike (my hiking partner/boyfriend) and I talked about this for a long
time. This man challenged our beliefs, and did so in a way that I
never forgot. I didn't end up more like him in a particular
expression of faith...but I did end up understanding more about
diversity and tolerance.
While he didn't express his beliefs in words, he did in actions. And
while we could judge and condemn the theory, we had been nourished by
the practice.
About a week later, we were off the trail again, and needed a ride
back. This time, someone offered us a ride, an earnest young man with
a mess of gospel tracts, and a humungous amount of exposition of his
faith in Jesus Christ as his personal savior, as well as
autobiographical detail about his life journey from despair to
salvation.
We saw someone offering us a ride, and sharing the truth that had
transformed and sustained him, and even made it possible that he
would extend strangers such courtesies. He pressured us to accept
Jesus. We said no, thank you, we had our deities in place. He let us
know he was concerned for our immortal souls. We said (and meant it),
thank you, that's really thoughtful of you. He let us know that he
was suffering, that we weren't saved. We offered him compassion, that
he could feel that deeply. He sent us on our way with his prayers.
It is one thing if people are forced to believe something. That I
will speak out against, as strongly as I can. I have personal
experience with coercive faith. People of various faiths have, in my
lifetime, forced me, or tried to force me not to do things I've
needed to do, to walk with my deities as I experience them. People of
various faiths have prevented me from doing such things, as well.
These things happened at a time when I was not empowered to stand up
to them. And, yes, I know how it is, to have others be coercive in
this way--the personal costs of it.
Bargyla is, in my estimation, is not coercing, was not coercing, and
could not coerce any of us to do or believe anything. All she did was
comment, strongly, on how her knowing of the truth is at odds with
other versions of the truth expressed here. She is entitled--as any
of us is--to experience, witness to, and walk with the divine as she
sees fit. Particularly when invited to.
Many religious traditions suggest that judgment should be left to the
Judge. I don't know who that is. I know it's not me, and I suspect
that none of us on this list inherited that cosmic gavel, either.
peace
misha
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michele Gale-Sinex
Communications manager
Center for Integrated Ag Systems, UW-Madison
http://www.wisc.edu
UW voice mail: 608-262-8018
Home office: 415-504-6474 (504-MISH)
Home office fax: Same as above, phone first for enabling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Harold: Maude, do you pray?
Maude: Pray? No, I communicate.
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail