My sense is, it’s a slippery slope to ask others to clean up their language in order not to trigger sensitivities we (whoever is asking) may have regarding controversial, historically fraught topics, such as religious faith. Eventually, they either begin censoring themselves (if only subtly at first, eventually more severely), or they leave to find more open venues where they feel they can express themselves more freely.
On the other hand, when we are triggered, the same dynamic applies. If we become used to being triggered and saying nothing, eventually we will begin censoring ourselves, too—either way, authentic communication shuts down. How to keep our hearts open, and our minds focused on the questions that matter, while speaking our truths? I welcome the inquiry!
We are walking a bit of a tightrope on this site, which I hope is welcoming to (indeed, embracing of) individuals of all spiritual faiths, at the same time it (or rather we, the site’s stewards) would insist on tolerance and sensitivity between participants whether or not they express a particular faith.
It may also be worth pointing out the double standard that can exist regarding Christianity (or Christian-associated ideas), compared with other world religions, in the postmodern West. For example, in our Aurobindo sessions, no one has expressed any concern with performing chants from the Vedas and Upanishads in conjunction with our meditations. Would we feel the same about a Christian prayer—or reading from the Psalms—in the context of reading a Christian mystic such as Teilhard de Chardin? (I would hope it would be OK.) It’s notable that some of our Life Divine participants are pretty hardcore Aurobindo devotees, and we’ve allowed them to express their enthusiasm for his teachings, without interference. On the whole, I feel this has enriched the group reading experience—however, I can say this only because we have also allowed members (including myself at times, e.g., on the problem of evil, and Johnny on the heteronormativity of the ashram) to express constructive and comparative criticisms of Aurobindo’s legacy.
There have been moments, it’s true, when I’ve felt that the “faithful” (aka “kool-aid drinkers”—even our Holochain discussion involved this difficulty) have not really heard the critiques, replying that if we only really understood Aurobindo, or read his other texts, our critical attitudes would disappear. Yet if all we did here was intellectual critique, and we could only speak in properly sanitized, secular, safe, non-potentially offensive terms, it would get boring really fast.
Of course, none of this applies to truly violent (or violating) or hurtful communication, which I don’t see happening here.
I hope we’re still on topic with Weird Studies! I suppose the Jesus experience belongs in the canon of the Weird—so perhaps this still relates. Speaking for myself, I enjoy it when people express their personal faiths (this entire project is an expression of my faith)—WHEN they also allow others to express their own faith, or lack thereof. Thus interesting contrasts, connections, and collaborations can occur. Regarding such speech, I would only ask:
-
When does it cross over into evangelizing?
-
When does it cease to listen…become dogmatic?
-
And when does it reflect such a deeply living personal truth that it can not, and should not, be watered down?
That said, if we’re having real conversations here, then I’d hope we’re all open to re-thinking our language, if not our beliefs, in response to feedback from others and the field. If not, then it’s not really a dialogue, but only egos bouncing off each other. Thank you, G and K, for your passionate, eloquent honesty. I believe we are here to influence each other in creative, energizing, life-affirming ways. May it be so!