EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Politics of Religion in America
What in the name of God is going on in American politics? Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, riddled with mistaken assertions about religion, was itself a warning. But other presidential candidates, debate moderators, pundits, and religious leaders all share a dangerous confusion about questions of faith and citizenship. Here are only a few:
Is America's goodness grounded in God? When Romney and others assert that American virtues, generally summed up in the idea of "freedom," are based on faith, a cruel fact of history is being ignored. The politics of human rights, like the idea of individual freedom, were born not in religion but in the Enlightenment struggle against it. When Thomas Jefferson located "inalienable rights" in an endowment from the Creator, he was decidedly speaking from outside the mainstream of any denominational faith. Jefferson's point was not to affirm God, but to deny King George.
It is not an accident that "God" does not appear in the Constitution. Following the American lead, religions, too, learned from the nonreligious improvements of modernity, but it is dishonest to claim after the fact that religions somehow sponsored them.
Were "the Founders" religious? It is a convention of political speechmaking to ascribe faith to the Founders, but what kind of faith, and what Founders? The Pilgrims, for whom "freedom" and "rights" meant nothing, wanted a theocracy. One hundred fifty years later, the Deist revolutionaries assumed a distant God whose interest in creation, much less the young nation, was minimal. By Lincoln's time, traumas of war drove piety, and it was only then that present notions of public devotedness were born. (It was Lincoln who established the motto "In God We Trust.") In truth, the power of faith in American politics has waxed and waned. There is no consistent tradition to be upheld or to be betrayed.
Is "secularism" dehumanizing? When Mitt Romney praised vital American religion in contrast to Europe where churches are "so grand, so inspired, so empty," one could wonder what the collapse of institutional faith in Europe actually means. Romney condemned the "religion of secularism."
Yet such American smugness seems to miss the largest point of difference between the Old World and the New. In the very years that majorities of Europeans were walking away from organized religion, they were resolutely turning away from government-sanctioned killing, whether through war or through the death penalty; they were leaving behind narrow notions of nationalism, mitigating state sovereignty, and, above all, replacing ancient hatreds with partnerships. All of this stands in stark contrast to the United States, where the most overtly religious people in the country support the death penalty, the government's hair-trigger readiness for war, and the gospel of national sovereignty that has made the United States an impediment to the United Nations.
Does God send people to hell if they vote wrong? You would think so if you listened to the American Catholic bishops, who said in November that forbidden political choices "have an impact on the individual's salvation." The five Catholics running for president all hold positions that, in the bishops' view, might earn their supporters eternal damnation. Whenever preachers appeal to hellfire as a way of reinforcing injunctions, you can bet they have failed to make a persuasive moral argument.
What is discouraging here is that the bishops, aiming to reinforce their squandered moral authority, are resuscitating an image of a threatening, violent God that religious people generally, and Catholics in particular, have struggled to leave behind. Religion aims not to "save" from an unmerciful God, but to reveal that God's mercy is complete.
Is Mormonism a religion of myth? The answer, of course, is that every religion is a religion of myth. The symbols, rituals, and sacred texts of every faith grow out of contingent historical circumstances that seem at odds with the transcendent claims that religions make. Joseph Smith's origins in upstate New York might seem disqualifyingly banal, yet so did Jerusalem to those who lived in Rome, as did Galilee to those who lived in Jerusalem. Religions claim to be above such history, and that myths are revelations - but the glory of God is that God reveals through human invention. What Mormons believe is outlandish - which is the point.
Politics and religion, like art and music, aim to accomplish the same thing, which is to overcome absurdity with meaning. Religion does this by seeing God's hand in history. Politics does it by affirming that, if history is all there is, it is enough.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

81 Comments so far
Show Allseparation of church and state,was a good idea,is a good idea and will remain freedoms benchmark......democracy,will not survive-without the separation of church and state...it is the hallmark of freedom and democracy !
It wasn't so much that mitt was the gov of my state and that his job performance would get a failing "F" but he made me turned off and sick of him a 1000x more after knowing he gave a speech on mormonism and for sure I feel he lost a big batch of repug supporters as he tries just too hard to appear like he is some godsend for our country, he sucks period! religion or not he just was bad for massachusetts as he claims to hate all the "liberals" and as he goes around the country insulting all the mass residents, why did he reside in mass but to use it as a door mat to parade around saying see i was an important politician so i must now go to the next phase as a president. he set up podiums on the boston commons many a times preaching how he hates gays!!! how he thinks how disgusting massachusetts is for being so liberal
peaceman, here is the site for the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, CA. The IRS suit was dropped after 2 years. There is information on their site about the status of their case.
http://www.allsaints-pas.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_splash
BTW, God is real, but does not care if you believe, follow or ignore. As some have no doubt said here(I have not read all posts) it is more important how we treat each other and the earth on which we life than whether we believe in some Great Creator. There is an order in the universe and science is all about discovering that order. That does not rule out a Supreme Being; it just adds another factor into the equation. Ask the Dalai Lama about god and you will no doubt get a very acceptable answer, punctuated by laughter. As for Dawkins and Hitchens and their like, they are more concerned with the fine details of radical true believers than what I consider the Truth of our existence: We are all One and our purpose here is to recognize our relationship with each other. That is all sceince does, isn't it? Bringing into relationship all aspects of what is known about the universe and explaining the unknown in terms that can be demonstrated experimentally? Science is a process and Spirituality(not religion) is going direct. Both have relevance and meaning.
peace,
st john
Religion is not useful in the ambiguous way kivals puts it. Religions ought not to be funded in anyway for anything in this secular country of America. Religion is a private thing in this country. All religious and non-believers alike have the freedom of their thought guaranteed by the constitution. Atheists because they are atheists are not evil, individuals are evil and are found in every group, Christians as well. The evil ones are the ones calling atheists evil. It is a poor mentality that doesn't quite get that that is the way it is. Well we don't have to be concerned about the benevolent Jesus Christians, but we do have to be vigilant and defensive about the freaky zealot militant Christians, just as we do the freaky zealot militant Islamists, and freaky zealot militant Israelis. It is true that religion can be a symptom of serious mental illness. And power is power no matter where it finds itself, in politics, royalism, and religions and because it is built into the narrow mindset, it does become corrupt. Hazmat gets a medal for having found his critical analysis ability. Too bad all Americans can't learn to do that. Maybe if we had Golden Rule posters plastered everywhere as reminders, it might start to sink in? Naw, the power mongers would come by and rip them down, like Nazis.
Jefferson was a deist, forwhatitsworth. He served as president of the American Philosophical Society.
SiouxRose wrote:
"I believe in miracles and I know there IS a higher spiritual hierarchy. If a driver can humbly own that he or she is lost to ask for directions, they might find unexpected ways to arrive."
"...the other blasphemers who sing war in the name of the prince of peace are DARK souls indeed..."
How are these statements not fundamentalist? These positions still foster an Us-vs.-Them mentality, and a Superior-Inferior distinction. In which case, who is higher? – The fundamentalist religious person certain of their truth; or people like you, who strive to be open but fall into the same trap.
I understand your attempt to work towards a dynamic, interconnected society where compassion is a (if not the) driving force.
Every individual follows his or her own path at his or her own pace. It is important to understand that moral agents are neither evil nor good, only actions are so.
To foster a dynamic society based on mutual respect, one must realize that there is no one above, nor is there anyone below; and anyone is welcome to help. No hierarchies, no us-vs.-them, no superior-inferior distinctions, no DARK souls, or light ones - there are only agents acting at the expense, or for the benefit of other beings.
Thanks Shenonymous, Jefferson was a deist, and also someone who went to church not to pay homage to a higher power but to understand his people better.
The Agnostic and Atheist Student Group (AASG) at Texas A&M University (yes, there was one in the mid 90's) printed T-shirts with Jefferson's quote on them.
As a religious person (and a leftist) I find the assertion on these pages that religious belief is a mental disease very scarey indeed - a very scarey form of atheist fundamentalism, every bit as scarey as right-wing fundamentalism. The secularism debate goes round and round. Let's remember the basic idea - the whole p[oint of secularism is to divorce religious affiliation from citizenship. Remember that in England (and elsewhere) to hold divirgent religious views was synonymous with treason. Thus too in Islam where apostacy was (is!) synonymous with treason and so, like treason, is a high crime. Secularism was all about ending that situation and creating a nuetral state tolerant to diverse religious groups. But, from the start, secularism has two hazards. The first is that nuetrality can be confused with anti-religion and atheism. Thus in leftist politics too often "secularism" is assumed to mean atheism. And second - worse - the state itself can become a pseudo-religion. This is certainly what has happened in the modern USA. The cult of the state (quasi-religious patriotism) has replaced sincere and authetic spirituality. Most of what passes for Christianity in the USA is really the "Jesus loves America" cult in various disguises. Certainly, on the right of politics the confusion between religion and patriotism is pervasive. The challenge is to create a meaningful, healthy secularism - one that doesn't promote atheism as a norm and regards religious belief as a pathology, and one that doesn't allow the state cultus to subsume religion. Most of the secularism debate seems to miss these points.
st. john; Thank you for the information about the Pasadena church. And, I appreciate your beautifully written explanation about science and spirituality. Yes, we are all One, and as yet, fail to grasp that concept, and insist that our way is better than another's way. We create conditions by our thinking and our actions, whether for positive constructive purposes, or negative destructive purposes. It is the choice we make as individuals and collectively as a group or tribe. That energy, or spirituality, or God-power, or whatever words used to describe it is neutral. We can be uplifting and comforting like the Dalai Lama, or menancing and brutal like Adolph Hitler. The path taken on the journey is ours to choose from.
Peace and Harmony
As far as I can see religion has seen it's better day in this country. Where it used to command a lot of respect and devotion. It has become little more than a cheap w....for sale to the highest bidder in the political market. Anyone who will push their agenda (anti-abortion,anti-gays and anti-sex) they are willing to cozy up to. Be it the most corrupt and immoral President in the history of this country or all the wannabe Presidents who fall over themselves to spout their religiosity to get more votes from the 'Religious Reich'! It has grown to the point of being sickening to watch this bunch of animals. As far as I am concerned they have done Christianity untold damage in a lot of people's minds. The longer the Bush administration goes on the worse the corruption gets and the more crimes are exposed. But these sainted people (fundamentalist Christian's, Catholics and etc) don't seem to have enough moral's anymore to see what's wrong with the Republican party. As long as the Republican's are willing to push their agenda upon American's they will overlook the most vile of behavior. Christianity is going down the tubes from the greed, bigotry and hypocrisy that it represents. Christian Fundamentalist's have hit the religion the hardest. More and more American's are going sick of having religion shoved down their throats. I look for the pendulum to swing the other way one of these days. It did in the 60's with the sex revolution and it's headed that way again. People in this country can only take so much religion before they start to choke on it! The Christian Fundamentalist's don't have the good sense to known when to stop pushing.
tumbleweed___I agree wholeheartedly with your last posting. I think many sincere Christian people do not realize the damage that the right wing fundamentalist conservatives are doing to the religion they value. I also believe many of those fundamentalists do not care about the harm they are causing as long as they are running the show.
On the other hand, the secularists should also stop and realize that when they get too abusive when discussing the effects of religion, they are hurting their own cause the same way. People should learn to live and let live instead of doing their best to creat division and controversity as that gains nothing for anyone.
i dont think i have(personally) ever met a right wing fundalmentalist who adhered or resembled jesus christ in any way ! i still say,"no separation of church and state=no democracy-no freedom !!
Arianna Huffington says the economic conservatives in the Republican punditocracy are having shitfits about Huckabee's surge. Were he to receive the nomination, they seem to fear the death of the Republican Party would soon follow. Divine Retribution maybe? Praise God.
www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/huckabee-the-gops-cynic_b_77165.html
Siouxrose - true that.
Google In God's Name for a trailer on a documentary to be shown on Dec. 23 on CBS. "IN GOD'S NAME, a CBS primetime special produced in association with the acclaimed French filmmakers Jules and Gédéon Naudet, will explore the complex questions of our time through the intimate thoughts and beliefs of 12 of the world's most influential spiritual leaders. These diverse and powerful voices offer provocative, compelling and enlightening perspective on myriad issues in our post-9/11 world, including the rise of terrorism, fanaticism, intolerance and war." http://www.themiracletimes.com/Christmas/CBS-In-Gods-Name.htm
This is only one link to information on this Special. Please open your minds to the possibility of a unification of all hearts and minds in resolving the challenges of our time. All divisions which our minds create are only temporary and are there to lead us into new realizations of our Unity. Whether atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, fundamentalist whatever, liberal, progressive, spiritual, religious, conservative, etc., there is information/awakening for you if you are simply willing to open to other possibilities. We will not stop war and violence as long as we "hold onto" diverse views and create separation. The war outside is simply a reflection of the war within; and, the leaders we judge as "wrong" are simply the reflection of our own "wrong thinking".
This season which is celebrated in so many cultures in so many ways is a reminder of the family to which we all belong. We are born of a Single Parent, whether we acknowledge it or not, and our family includes all of us. May Peace Prevail On Earth.
peace,
st john
The Romans had their period, 700 years or so; the British had their rule 300 years or so, there have been others, and so the USA will have a shorter time period of empire, and as the Time speeds up we find that we live in and on the world and all preferences of religeon or culture began to look mighty puny as the sight of our oneness becomes inevitable. Me, I don't think God is religious at all but for those in need, please respect all orientation and preference, don't run over each other. Eventually, religion will be a grand feeling a genuine Uniting and not a dogma. Armageddon will have been realized as the destruction of Ignorance and certainly not Life and we shall enjoy it immensley. Government and money will disappear and only be remembered as abstract silliness. We'll get rid of the mechanical, polluting, killing and maiming contraptions with their roads of congestion. We'll be friends and compatriots to the animals and not predators and threats to them and we'll just take our time, walk in the gardens, talk of things far deeper and more beautiful and we'll levitate and float around and laugh easily. Our partial natures and becomings shall be reunited and there shall be fewer of us, no need for population worry. Why does the apple fall? Newton was wrong, the apple did not fall for gravity but rather to nourish the roots of the tree. The gravity is in our imagination and it is the gravity of our concepts which do feed our fears of decay and mortality which do put our bodies back into the earthy nature to be recycled once again, 'til we get it, as a Whole.
In a previous post on this subject, I stated that we are in movement of diverging out and diverging in. Meant to say diverging out and converging in. We diverge out and converge in simultaneously and our Beauty is Grand, is Divine. "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Clause." Just around the corner, in your heart. Keep your eye on the prize. Kisses.....
Dear eddievalgould,
Beautiful and well-spoken. The Reality of Oneness is all that we "need to know". All the rest is part of the journey of no distance and no time, back to The One.
peace,
st john
"Carlin is right. No matter what one believes about the ultimate nature of reality, the ultimate source of all the bursts of energy that become absorbed in one's brain through perceptions, a moment's reflection results in the unavoidable conclusion that there are an infinite number of such possible models of reality, and no one can prove that any one is definitely the best or the most true."
Fine. Tell so-called rationalists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins that.
My problem with them is that they don't acknowledge that science is just as much based on perceived norms as religion. The late great Robert Anton Wilson argued that one should be agnostic about everything, not just religion.
I find that a Zen Buddhist approach to Christianity fits me the best. I believe what I believe to be true, but admit that it is all based on probabilities rather than objective facts.
"
un-neocon December 17th, 2007 2:20 pm
Everyone should watch this conversation between 4 of our greatest living Thinkers….. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens… on the concept of god ….
"
YOu have got to be kidding. Hitchens? The man who has written that smoking cigarettes cures alzheimers, that massive amounts of alcohol are good for you, and,oh yeah, that the U.S. was "liberating" Iraq?
I'm not bringing up these things to be mean, but to show that my guess is that you call them "great thinkers" because their worldview corresponds to yours.
peacenow says: "My problem with them is that they don't acknowledge that science is just as much based on perceived norms as religion."
Hmmm, you are missing a very important distinction. Science specifically limits its domains to that which is observable and testable.
While, what is commonly known as the scientific method is applicable to multiple domains including religion, scientific endeavor does not allow for random hypotheses or models like religion.
It is true that societal norms influence science. Take for instance the silly concept of the "food chain" with its implied hierarchy of beings. Had a vegetarian formulated this concept, it would be along the lines of a food cycle.
EDDIE VALGOULD: I'd love to be part of THAT world!
THOUGHT SHAMAN: You raise an interesting point (or critique) of my comments. Here's how I see it: when we look at the formation of our solar system, in my view the planets--each corresponding with an aspect of human (modeled after Divine) nature--are placed into concentric spheres, and these extend outward. It's not a matter of one being better than another, but they have different vibrations, as do people. I do believe people vary in their LEVELS of evolution. Look at the human body. It appears as a singular entity, but it only functions due to the workings of various systems. We are not all alike. Like systems in the body/being of the Universe, we have specific functions, various levels of resonance.
I apologize if I add to strife by emphasizing the "us versus them" polarity, that was not my intention.
Thank you PEACE MAN, WAR = PEACE, N SPIRE for your kind comments.
REBEL FARMER: Wow! To be Ms. Hilary's mentor. Imagine her reaction when I'd have to pull up past lives that lent her the character of the (female) warrior this time 'round? I once attended an interesting workshop entitled, "The drum is the shaman's horse," and its facilitator said, "If you come here with your cup already full, I can offer you nothing." I think Hilary's pretty convinced her cup is full. I'd rather be close to Kucinich, but as I said in a post a few months ago, I believe he is a VERY enlightened soul and probably meditates, etc.
Happy holidays to all; and to Christians of HIGH consciousness like Kernel, I hope you recognize I am bringing to light the MISUSE of the religion and related rhetoric to incite the killing of outsiders. Remember, apart from a few wealthy citizens, the base of Bush's supporters do come from the megachurches.
Rebel Farmer,
I think that in terms of knowing if a person would enforce his/her religion onto the rest of the country, then knowing the religion of the candidate is important. Otherwise, it is a fixed cost that the news will report it.
Thought Shaman,
As I said before, the basic tenets of fundamentalism does not imply support for any exercise of injustice. This does not mean that fundamentalists have not practiced injustice. It is that they cannot base the justification for practicing injustice on the tenets of fundamentalism.
tumbleweed; Like Kernel, I agree wholeheartedly with your last statement, and I like your term, "Religious Reich" as it appropriately identifies the crackpots and the soothsayers from honest folks who are actually practicing Christians. "bye their works shall ye know them",.
We all see the different approaches in our comments on this one article, but ultimately, "all roads lead to Rome'.
eddievalgould; Half way Known, Half Way home. You other Dreamers...same thing. You're ALL on the RIGHT TRACK! I have no religion but the Golden Rule. That is why I agree with George Carlin.
Madam Blavatsky once wrote: "No religion is higher than Truth".
May the Almighty Bless You All With Wisdom and Understanding, Vibrant Health, and Good Cheer.
A keenly insightful bit of journalism. I was intrigued by Carroll's questioning of the nature of the Founders' faith. He's quite right in pointing out that Jefferson's notion of the Creator, for example, was "decidedly...outside the mainstream of any denominational faith." It's important to recognize that the Founders – more than half of them, at least – were Masons. And the Masonic tradition is famously ecumenical.
In fact, many of our nation's Founders enthusiastically welcomed pluralism within the context of free expression. Jefferson approved of worship inside the House of Representatives and even invited several ministries to his University of Virginia campus.
Ben Franklin helped build a new hall in Philadelphia "expressly for the use of any preacher of any religious persuasion who might desire to say something." So staunch was his defense of pluralism that he felt compelled to add: "Even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service."
I suspect that unlike most secular intellectuals today, the Founders perhaps shared a belief in what Time magazine has called "the social usefulness of religion." But it's hard to have a civil conversation about these things since believers and secularists alike have adopted a mulishly insular approach to the issue.
Leon D'Souza
http://leondsouza.blogspot.com/
War=Peace: "How do we acknowledge that someone's actions are detrimental to the whole (judge) without playing into (the appearance of) "Us/Them"."
The answer to your query lies within the the query itself. You moved from evaluating actions to classifying people. All one has to do is to stop after evaluating actions and shun the classification of the agents.
Understanding a position does not imply support for it. Just because one is aware that others use the "Us vs. Them" does not mean that one supports it.
The world would be a much better place if we stopped trying to be "good people," or "good [insert identity here]." Rather, we ought to focus on doing good/beneficial/neutral actions and give up the the detrimental ones. For the record, classifying moral agents as good/evil, dark/light, etc. is detremental.
Thought Shaman
Forgive me for not quite being satisfied with the response, but thanks for it…
I see not the distinction between people and their action. Therefore, I don't think I classified anybody, if I did how so?
good/beneficial/neutral actions (basically life), are being eaten by an unchecked "us/them" monster. Just because we know that there is only "us" does not prevent our water from being privatized, or our food from being poisoned, or our land taken away.
To be so centered as to engage in this battle and not be drawn into the polarities would be a true feat indeed.
War=Peace: "I see not the distinction between people and their action."
This is a strange position. As long as you hold it you will fall into the "us vs. them" trap. Further, notice that I did not refer to the concept of "there is only us" either - for that is still agent focused.
Yes, knowing will not prevent water from being privatized, or food from being poisoned, etc.. However, it will avoid any unnecessary categorization of people (like Bush 43 calling Iran evil), and let the focus be on actions where it should be. Disagreement over one course of action should not preclude working with the same agents on other actions wherein there is agreement.
Not being drawn into polarities is no feat at all. Classifying agents causes polarities. If one stops doing so, there are no polarities to worry about.
Let us hope you find your epiphany...
Thought Shaman
I'm not looking for an epiphany...and I wish you wouldn't have said that (reeks of us them, me you, student teacher).
But I don't mind massaging this out a little more either.
And since I am the one asking the questions and you operating from the position of having answers, I Query: Does not everything you desire create polarities? Such as wanting peace? Wanting peace implies we don't have it, correct?
So my curiosity is aroused by how other Peaceful, Zen-ninja, warrior, thought shamans, such as your self negotiate the discrepancies between the "all being one" that we know is the ultimate truth, and truth of matters pertaining to the sustainability of the earth and its inhabitants.
Not classifying agents is a handy rule of thumb.
It is surely not the end all be all of "us them" dynamics.
What good is "avoiding the unnecessary categorization of people" in the face of systematic, genocide and starvation and slavery.
peace
It's obscene how the religious right in this country has been allowed to take control of the political dialogue. They don't and never have believed in freedom religion. What they believe in is their perceived right to ram their fundamentalist brand of fire and brimstone down the throats of those who actually believe in freedom of and from religion. It's pathetic how they whine on and on and on about the perceived persecution they endure, while they engage in actually persecutiuon of a minority (gays) and use their religion as justification. You have to ask yourself, just how sane is any group that considers taking away a woman's right to choose and writing discrimination into our constitution the two defining issues of our time That if no other reason is proof enough why religion has to be left out of politics. If not, the insane zealots who speak so loudly in America would use thier religion to do anything they please and say they were doing it in the name of God. I'm sure they could produce some Bible verse to justify whatever action they were to take. It's past time the majority of Americans who aren't insane religious nuts...and I have no reservations in calling them nuts...speak out. How else do you describe an entire group of people who deny the FACTS on everything from evolution to global warming. And that begs the question, why is on one in the msm even questioning the role of religion in the 2008 presidential campaign. After all, it is the religious right that more than any other voting block that got us in the mess we're in now.
War=Peace:
"I'm not looking for an epiphany…and I wish you wouldn't have said that (reeks of us them, me you, student teacher)."
Relax. We are exploring the query you raised together, and my hope for an epiphany comes from that of a fellow explorer. Since it is your conflict, it is only you who can ultimately go "Ah," ergo, the epiphany usage. This is more about trying alternate paradigms to address the query, rather than any notion of teaching.
" Does not everything you desire create polarities?" Such as wanting peace? Wanting peace implies we don't have it, correct?"
We are talking about two different domains. One is the domain of agents, and the other the domain of agent actions/goals/values. Any classification can result in polarities, and my thesis is that such classification should remain in the domain of actions/goals/values. A good illustration of this distinction appears below.
"So my curiosity is aroused by how other Peaceful, Zen-ninja, warrior, thought shamans, such as your self negotiate the discrepancies between the "all being one" that we know is the ultimate truth, and truth of matters pertaining to the sustainability of the earth and its inhabitants. "
How did you conclude that I am "one of those" who espouses the "all being one as ultimate truth?" I have not posted any details that point in this direction. I have called for the discarding of the "us vs. them" paradigm. However, this does not automatically imply that I espouse the position "all being one…" For the record, I think such a position is unnecessary. The likely reason for this conclusion is that you classified me (an agent) into a group, and then proceeded to think that I exhibit the characteristics of the group, which as it turns out, is incorrect.
"What good is "avoiding the unnecessary categorization of people" in the face of systematic, genocide and starvation and slavery."
This is a very important point, and I periodically revisit the same. By avoiding the categorization of people, I bring fewer preconceived notions to a dialogue. It allows me to point out the distinction between "avoiding the wrong" and "doing right." Further, it eliminates the "identity" block that many people have (the "us vs. them" paradigm again) as questioning an action does not threaten them the same as questioning their identity. The important result I have found in practice is that it reawakens or highlights many ideas (typically progressive) people have submerged to conform to an identity. To quote a cliché - acknowledging a problem is the first part to solving it. For any progressive idea to succeed it must cease to be progressive and become mainstream and mainstream positions at the very least, influence systems.
After all this, I do share your fundamental concerns, i.e. will there be a change in the policy of systematic genocide, starvation, etc. (in my lifetime)? At least I can try, one mind, one thought at a time, and there are others such as you, who are also trying in their own way.
HAKORI: I see it the way you do. Those capable of tolerance of other points of view are becoming targets for those with no tolerance, those who will (if given the chance) LEGISLATE the "right" beliefs, stances, actions, and utterances that authoritarians believe is their 'divine right' to force upon the rest of us. And woe to those who do not oblige. As one who believes--to the point of soul memory/intuitive flashbacks--in past lives, this BEAST has lived inside the human psyche a long time, and it gets OFF on human sacrifice. These rituals are church-sanctioned, or otherwise couched in faux religious principle, as if the followers' fealty is proven by burning, torturing, or tying others to the proverbial stake. Look at Bush's lust for torture, while never causing his flock to blink at eye lash at the incongruities of quoting Jesus as his personal guide/savior and then doing the unthinkable, sanctioning the cruel and lawless... just because he HIDES behind Jesus' name!