Author: Diane Drummond

I have been hearing from those around me – more frequently than I would like – that religion is the cause of most of the troubles of the world, and that if a new and more just society is to evolve, religion must be eliminated (or, more gently, that it must disintegrate and crash by itself). I wonder when I hear this; it seems a skewed position, leaning heavily to one side of a spectrum. It seems like another try at the simplistic solution of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It is not a secret that religions have their dark sides. The Crusades, for example, or the conquest of Canaan, the enmity between the grandsons of the Prophet, the ferociousness of Zen among the Samurai, are examples from the past.   Currently, there are examples from the fundamentalists of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, in particular the anti-Islamic persecutors, the continuing occupation of and unrest in Palestine, and, of course, ISIS. And, in the farther East, the religious frictions among Hindus in India or the persecution of Tibetan Buddhists is perhaps less vocal, but equally present. Plainly, religion is not free of conflict, even violent conflict. This raises two questions. Does its dark side primarily define what a given religion is about?   Is any individual among us free of such a dark side, thus able to “cast the first stone’?

I am not a religious scholar, nor have I spent many years studying religions. However, from what I have read, heard, learned, the basic precepts of ANY of the religions of which I am aware seem pretty consistent, and pretty much the same. Different words may be enunciated, different expressions may be enacted, but the central IDEAS are strikingly similar. And none of them seem to say, “Go out and harm and kill those who are different from you.” Conversely, there seems to be agreement that God (or Energy, the Force, Primal Origin, or the like) is essentially Love, a love which humans may not fully understand; Those who have grown in the understanding of their religion are equally aware that the “prime directive”, so to speak, is to love God as God is understood by that religion, and to love one another. Human beings are fallible, but those who are truly religious can be recognized by their unfailing efforts to learn and live up to that prime directive.

Another objection that people make to religion is that it has too many rules, that its major purpose is to control them. This view tends to be prevalent among those who perceive regulation as being punitively imposed from without, and among those who have not yet arrived at individuation, growing into a knowledge of themselves and their inner strengths as well as their limitations. They have a point. There are rules, and often those rules interfere with the desired action of the moment. They seem to limit one’s freedom. The problem is not the rules. The problem is that often people have not managed to think about them long enough to understand the reasons behind the rules; not the political reasons, but the deeper reasons over time, timeless or eternal reasons. For one thing, if there were no guidance or structure to human behavior, there would be the chaos of anarchy as each struggled to get as much of his or her own way as possible and avoid any responsibility towards anyone else. We are experiencing some of that energy in the world now. The paradox is that when one has arrived at a deeper understanding of the rules, one freely chooses them, knowing that they are in design an expression of love, ways that keep oneself and others safe and free to grow and experience the abundance of the universe. In its essence, religion does not deny one the freedom of choice; it actually enforces it. A choice to not choose is still a choice. As humans, the necessity to choose is built into us, and the responsibility for those choices is irrevocably attached to them. There is no need of punishments or fear. There is only choice and responsibility.   Religion recognizes this, even though that seems restrictive to those who touch the surface of religion.

It would seem, then, that the desire to eradicate religion is premature. Yes, there is a dark side, as people have also dark sides. Throwing out religion or throwing out people does not solve much. Encouraging people to grow in depth and understanding of their own religious traditions, and sometimes of others’ also, seems a more constructive path. Perhaps we need more religion in our lives rather than less. After all, religion is part of our fabric.

Peace, Diane

There is a great cry nowadays for the equality of people, a needed focus on the ways in which many are exploited and marginalized. It is a needed step in the growth away from greed and violence and judgmental attitudes which purportedly justify the greed and violence. Yet, in spite of the (at least theoretical) embrace of human Equality, we have failed to recognize a simple yet obvious fact. Even though we may all be equal in value, and proceeding to making that goal a reality, we are decidedly not all the same. Women are not the same as men, black is not the same as white or brown, European is not the same as Native American or Japanese, homosexual is not the same as heterosexual, bricklayer is not the same as accountant, even identical twins are not the same. They have differing personalities and sometimes small differences in body, too. In our rush to be equal, we risk losing precious differences in the hurry to be same. Equality is not sameness; it is the equality of value of each of the billions of different people on the Earth. Extended, it is also the equality of value of each life form Earth contains. It is this equality, this non-judgmental stance, which we have veered from, and which needs to be re-established.

Differences are the stuff of which Creation is made. They define each creation, distinguishing it from the undifferentiated eternal energy from which it is created. Without differences we would all be an amorphous mass indistinguishable from that from which we sprang.   All would be simply one great conglomeration. There would be no creation. Yes, we are all linked to each other in an underlying oneness. We all spring from the same Source.   Yes, within this Creation, we are all joined in categories: all humans, all mammals, all fish, and the like. Yet each of us, within our categories, within our oneness, is distinct. It is the miracle of Creation. We do wrong, in the efforts at justice, to deny our differences. We are each a spark of the Divine (or of Original Energy, if one prefers that wording), and our happiness, growth and well being depend upon our embracing who we are and the differences which describe us. And it depends on allowing others to embrace their differences as well.

It is sad to see the categories we humans seem impelled to set up, categories which value some people over other people, which deny even basic needs to some, which cause groups to demand the same recognition given to others instead of demanding celebration of their own differences. For example, forbidding all public expression of recognized religion (atheism is also a kind of religion, a deny-the-existence- of-a-God kind of religion), ending in public recognition for only those groups which deny formal religion. Such action results in a generic sameness.   Instead, why not be inclusive, allowing non-violent public expression of whichever religion desires to make such expression, including perhaps an atheistic display declaring that there is no God? It is possible to embrace the truth of our own beliefs without attacking the beliefs of others. In this way, we celebrate and respect our differences.

There is a kindergarten lesson that many of us learn. In order to be “good”, it is not necessary to make someone else “bad”. That does not mean that we all eat the same lunch, wear the same clothes, speak the same words, color the same way, or are all equally good at math. It does not mean that we want to be the way someone else is. It is recognizing that we all can be “good” just the way we are. In this new year, let us all recognize that we are not in fact same, that we can all be good. Let us release any envy to be what someone else is, or do what someone else does, and instead celebrate our differences.

Peace,   Diane

From all sides, the media has been bombarding us with large and small, seemingly never-ending, incidents of violence. Terrorism, police brutality, random bombings, muggings, rapes, and acts of war – the list seems endless. Then come the responses. Let’s go bomb the perpetrators, shoot the cops, fortify ourselves in hideouts, give up our privacies and civil liberties, huddle in fear, vociferously judge each other, kick out innocents because they are “other” – the responses are hardly less violent. Mankind seems to be intent on labeling others less valuable, less human. What happens then, when the last human stands? Will he or she be any more valuable than the ones who fell?

It seems to me that what is missing is a sense of gratitude for life. That is rather broad, perhaps, so let’s simply call it a lack of appreciation for each other.   If the knee jerk reaction is “How can I possibly appreciate ____________” (fill in the blank), then the observation hits home. In every person, however opprobrious he or she may appear, there is a grain of good. In every person, even those who appear as saints, there is a grain of evil. I use those terms loosely, because what is good to one may appear evil to another. But in everyone, there are both. We need to learn to focus on what can be appreciated.

No, we do not need to lie down and let people beat us up or destroy us. We have both the right and duty of self-defense. On the other hand, we need to question how it is self-defense to take the aggression and destruction forward to the other, to meet hate with hate and violence with violence, physical or verbal. In so doing, we perpetuate a world culture of fear and death, and it is destroying us; the fear is at the root of the destruction, not the other.

If we could each take a few moments daily to appreciate at least one quality in the human and non-human beings with whom we share life on this planet, and with the planet herself, who is ill and suffering, we will have made a huge step in healing ourselves and our world. Many traditions teach those who learn from them to pray for their enemies. Appreciation is a form of prayer. It is powerful.

In this holiday season, where we celebrate in various ways the return of light, it is appropriate to reflect on and practice what illuminates the dark, the dark of fear and hate that causes us to diminish the humanity of others and hence begin to lose our own. Whatever tradition is yours, please pray the prayer of appreciation.

Peace, Diane

It seems that news of the recent horrific attacks in Paris have permeated every corner of the media, touching us all with the grief and distress of the victims and the instability in the world.  It is not only in Paris that such things happen; the violence is worldwide.  It is that Paris has occupied most of the media.

Although there is a large contingent of people in Europe and North America who are advocating for a sympathetic response to the plight of Syrian refugees, the majority of official response seems to be one of drawing inward and raising the defenses, as well as an eagerness to fight back, to commit troops to what is hoped will be an extinguishing of the men and women who commit these violent atrocities.  There is not only a hatred of ISIS, but a distrust of and resentment of any Muslim – and perhaps of any stranger.

The reaction is quite understandable.  When one is under attack, the inbred, ancient response is to fight or to run away.  In our shrinking, interconnected world, it is not really possible to run away.  In addition, one wishes to protect one’s own family, one’s own tribe, one’s own culture. The right of self-defense exists.  The only problem is that these responses are usually born of fear.

Fear is present not only among the victims of terrorist guerrilla attacks, in the form of, for example, suspending civil rights in the name of collecting intelligence, refusing shelter to refugees in the name of protecting the people from terrorists who might be hiding among them, in the calls to arms and the aggressive political rhetoric that surrounds the issue.  It is also present among the attackers.  People, with the exception of a few mental deviants such as sociopaths, do not generally desire to murder others for no reason.  Most humans, in order to do that, need to first think of their victims as subhuman, as less and unworthy of life.  However, people will kill when they are afraid.  The more afraid they are, the more violent the aggressive defenses they enact.  The more afraid they are, the more they try to hide their fear or project it onto others.

What could these criminally murderous terrorists possibly be afraid of?  They do not appear to be afraid of being caught or of retaliation.  They even seem to invite that, to wish to escalate the conflict and atrocity.  Even more, they seem to be intent on attracting others, particularly young others, to adopt their viewpoint and join their efforts.  They are willing to die for that.  Their movement is not a resistance to any one government, or designed to eradicate human sufferings, such as poverty, or inequality of some people compared to others.  Their announced goal is to defeat, to eradicate, Western civilization.  Logically, that goal, as horrific as Hitler’s goals of the last century, is a clue to what they fear.  It would seem they fear Western civilization itself, perhaps fear that their own culture will be eradicated by the economic and cultural strength of the West.

The fear reaction is no longer a viable reaction.  This is increasingly apparent as distances in the world diminish and the pace of time increases.  The result of fear, multiplied many times over, is simply mutual destruction.  It is the voice of death.  And yet, it seems remarkably difficult to disengage from it. What if the other guy does not disengage when we do?  Yes, we must remain aware, ready to react promptly and responsibly to imminent threat.  We are also aware of fire, and protect ourselves against it.  No, we don’t need to simply bare our throats to a predator.  What we do need to do is understand, and to tailor our responses from that understanding.  It is the first step to response without fear.  Perhaps we need to double think responses which give an impression that we are trying to convert the world to Western secular culture, to eliminate others’ ways of life unbidden.  Perhaps we need to avoid those actions which would lead to our becoming less than who we are – such as suspending civil rights or closing our doors to innocents who suffer.  Perhaps we need to employ our creativity in creating defensive stances that do not involve bombing our attackers out.  Perhaps, even, we need to figure out ways to prosper on our planet without destroying it.  At the very least, devoting some energy to publicly thinking about these things would be a step in the direction of continued existence on our Earth.

Peace,  Diane