The Pageless Book

Photo Above by J. Samuel B. Photo Below by Srsly Guys. Final Photo by Patrick David.

There are a wide range of moral and ethical issues that challenge Western Society today - so many that our attention is strained between those issues we most care about, and the issues that are the most sensational. Issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and terrorism so aptly distract us from the serious moral and ethical issues of poverty, corporate/political corruption, and human-rights violations simply because they are more controversial. However, there is one moral issue that is pushed so far into the background that it seldom is even considered a moral issue.

Despite being so often ignored, education is a serious moral issue. At first blush, it seems like a stretch to claim that education is just as important as the eradication of poverty or crime, but please hear me out. Education is the key to resolving many of the challenges we face as a society; it’s the key to unlocking the greatness of which our human family is capable.

Why do I believe that education is so important to the future of our society? There is the obvious answer… Future economic prosperity and scientific advancement both hinge on the intellectual prowess of the children we raise. Sometimes that is all we see when it comes to education. We must be willing to pass on more than technical knowledge because that is nothing more than the bare minimum. Companies and politicians have pushed this paradigm of education that best fits the agenda of economic progress while ignoring other aspects of education.

The reason I think that education is of the utmost importance is due to the freedom and individuality that an education can provide. A proper curriculum teaches a child how to think critically, make decisions for themselves, understand views that may not be their own, encourage them to question authority in a constructive manner, and express themselves both in a practical manner as well as artistically. This is the type of education that makes for a strong society and gives us the back-bone to confront the other moral issues in a serious manner. However, this type of education makes the job of politicians that much harder and seemingly provides no profit on an economic level.

How can this different education lead to the resolution of other issues such as poverty, crime, and war? When the majority of individuals in our society are no longer willing to simply follow without question, more presumptions that we have held as a society will come into question. People will demand that politicians and corporations be held accountable for their misdeeds. We will no longer be bound by what is best for our economic development, because the paradigm that supported that way of thinking will have been dismantled. Without being dominated by the question of cost and financial benefit, we will finally be able to have an honest conversation about problems that plague humanity.

Ironically enough, the reason why we are so divided in our goals is because we are so easily led. If each individual was educated to think for themselves and question leadership, I strongly believe we could confront the moral and ethical issues in a mature and productive manner. Because there are so many people vying for power, and so few people willing to seriously question those in control, what we end up with is childish name calling at best and needless violence at the very worse.

However, all of this is easier said than done. In order to administer such an education program, the political-corporate complex would have to be convinced that a new education program is in their best interests. We would also have to convince them to pay to bring together the brightest child psychologists and education specialists to create an education program geared toward social, emotional, and intellectual development. Finally, the political-corporate complex would have to be persuaded to fully fund that education program without having had the chance to change or censor any part of that education program. While all politicians say that they are for better education standards, very few of them are truly willing to give up that much control. That, my friends, is the great dilemma of education.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Education, Freedom, Humanity, Individuality, Politics

Above Photo by Jack Dorsey. Photo Below by Miguel B.

There is a lot to be said in regards to the power and meaning behind one person’s name. When we utter the names of great men and women, we evoke something of what they stood for. These names can be as ancient as Alexander the Great or as modern as Benazir Bhutto and stir a range of intense emotions, negative and positive. In myths and fairytales, names have a supernatural effect on reality whether it is breaking a curse by guessing the name of a devilish imp, or defending the king’s name to restore his kingdom. In tribal cultures, naming calls for an elaborate ceremony in which the person to be named undergoes various trials and tests to prove readiness for adulthood. It is little wonder actors, actresses, musicians, and other entertainers choose to change their names or take stage names; they want to be hard to forget.

Alternatively, there are those who wish to forget. I haven’t seen or talked to my blood father since I was five or six, and wouldn’t recognized him if I passed him by on the street. After long and hard thought, I decided that I no longer wanted to carry his name. There was too much pain and weakness in his name for me. The name I chose to have instead needed to represent all my strengths and uniqueness; I wanted to be the first in a new family line. So when I did finally settle on a name, I made sure that it wasn’t a name that I would have to share with anyone else. I doubt I am alone in changing my name to distance myself from blood relatives, as there are a lot of broken families in this world.

Perhaps rooted in the superstitions regarding names and naming, there is an important truth concerning human nature. I can’t quite discern what truth that would be, though. What I do know is that even if I’m not the person being called, I can’t help but react to the sound of my name on an emotional level. My name seems to be apart of me, integral to my personality, beliefs, and thoughts.

Currently, I write under the pseudonym, John Pageless. I am becoming more dissatisfied with writing under this pseudonym. While I fear the consequences of blogging under my real name, I am also ashamed that I have been hiding behind this pseudonym. Here is the painful truth about blogging - everyone can read what you write. Employers and future employers, aunts, uncles and grandparents, brothers, sisters, friends and complete strangers - everyone can read this blog.

I chose to write under this pseudonym to protect myself from the harsh judgement of the off-line world. But is it worth my integrity? What I say here means a great deal to me. When I talk about religious tolerance and spiritual growth, I hope you understand that these are not just hollow words - I put my whole self out on this blog. Except my name, that is…

Well, I think what I say here is worthy of my name, so I don’t feel I should hide it any longer. My real name is John Michael Crovis. For those playing the home game, you are correct in guessing that my wife is Cathy Crovis of Ripples of Improvement. We both started blogging about the same time, although Cathy began her blog using her real name, where as I wasn’t so sure that was a wise idea. I am not sure what to expect now that I’m officially blogging under my real name, but my hope is that little, if anything, will change.

We shall see…

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Blogging, Family, Individuality, Name

Above Photo by Señor Codo. Photo Below by Gabriel Agu.

I’ve noticed a tendency among members of liberal religions and other spiritual seekers to discount anger as an emotion that might accompany spiritual experiences. For those who believe that the Divine is perfect love, the idea of spiritual anger, also called righteousness, as being a valid spiritual expression seems misguided at best. However, it is our aversion to anger that is misguided; anger can be spiritual.

The first example that most individuals think of when asked about righteousness is the stereotypical fundamentalist preacher condemning one group of people or another for some minor infraction of biblical law. I would argue that this isn’t righteousness - it is hatred. Unlike legitimate anger which is open to listening to rational arguments, hatred is an extreme form of anger that no longer is bound by reason or conscience. As it is capable of horrible acts of violence and cruelty, rage is rightfully disdained.

Not all anger is hatred, nor can all anger be called righteousness. Anger over a small matter, such as being cut-off in traffic or being given bad service at a restaurant couldn’t be called righteousness with a straight face. So if mundane anger does not qualify was righteousness, what does qualify?

That question goes to the heart of what spirituality is about. Spirituality is nothing less than universal love. Whether we call the subject of that universal love God or something else, that love is the stuff of which spirituality is made. Righteousness, by extension, would be anger tempered by such a love.

What does righteousness look like? It looks like Dr. Martin Luther King speaking on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. It looks like rainbow banners held by men and women marching for GLBT rights. And it looks like a gathering of young people wearing Guy Fawks masks outside of Scientology headquarters. This is righteousness in its most honest form - anger tempered by a love greater than any one individual.

Last week, I added my voice to that of other democrats in my state and voted for Barack Obama for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. While I could name and number the faults I find with Hillary Clinton, I voted the way I did not because I was voting against Senator Clinton. I voted for Obama because I saw in him something that I did not see in her; righteousness. He is angry over what has become of this country in this last decade, and yet his love for what this country has been - and can be again - guides his hand. We should all be so brave as to embody righteousness as he does.

There are dangers in righteousness; if you lose the humility that honest love demands, it becomes self righteousness - pretense to that deep spiritual anger. Yet I do not think that we, as a community, are at any risk to losing our humility. I think we can and should risk more of ourselves by expressing our righteousness more than we do currently. It is a part of our spiritual truth and our responsibility to each other.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Anger, Current Events, God, Individuality, Reason, Religion, Social Activism, Spirituality

Would a holy text written in the twenty first century need a creation story? Science has already provided us with the ultimate in creation stories - the verifiable facts. Although there exists gaps in our knowledge, there is enough information for us as human beings to gain a fairly good grasp of the events as they really occurred. No further myth or allegory necessary. Yet The Gated Emptiness provides us with a short creation story within the first third of the text. Why?

I think the answer is to give us context and to show us the relationship between humanity and the rest of the universe. The creation story of any religion is kind of like the directory in a mall, showing where you are in relation to where you want to go. You are here; you are the little blue dot on this map. You are human, a being that is both divine and earthly in origin, both perfect and flawed. Where you go from here is your choice, but this is your starting point.

The Gated Emptiness reads:

“In the void was chaos, and in chaos was all things possible, but not probable. Then was created limits and perception, and so all things that were, were probable, but not all things possible. Within everything probable, there lies a small piece of the impossible; God leaves nothing to chance.

And in this matrix of possibility, there emerged many things; all being perfect as all being flawed. The future shall be the past forever.”

Did you catch that? I have to admit the first time I wrote those lines, I had trouble understanding exactly what was meant. Let me see if I can break it down by using a metaphor. Reality before creation was like a blank canvas in a dark room, awaiting paint. There is raw possibility, but without the first brush stroke, the canvas is destined to remain blank. Before we can start painting, we need to turn on the lights to see what we are doing. We need to perceive the truth of the void, and then create one limit.

That first brush stroke across the canvas changes everything. It puts a limit on what we can create. By perceiving those limits we now know that is probable. Is this going to be a painting of rolling hills and happy trees, or are we going to make paint a nude portrait? Either way, it would have to incorporate that single brush stroke. Is there still a lot that is possible? Yes, but we’ve created a limit on that possibility, creating probability. However, just because there is probability, doesn’t mean we cannot attempt to stretch the limits of that probability.

God leaves nothing to chance; those limits are there to be challenged and as a challenge. This probability is due to our perception, and we can change how we choose to look at any given situation to create new possibilities. Perfection and flaw are matters of how we choose to perceive the world, Even though our past has put limits on what is possible, that doesn’t mean we cannot choose to be more radical and push those limits. Even when faced with the painting of Mona Lisa, we can choose to see the empty canvas underneath the painting and create something entirely new.

The Gated Emptiness continues:

“There were created moments, and in between moments angels unfurled as scrolls of continuity. Writ on those scrolls were lives that were to be lived, words to be said, and all things that are to come to past. God did let every thing touched by its divine hand choose its angel.

So was created man, grown from the garden of the world and made complex yet not complicated. And so was created woman as well, the fruitful and delicious strength to which man served. And so was created child, by union of the sharp and soft within woman by man. Each chose their angels.”

Here we are given a more definite idea of how humans relate to this matrix of possibility. Philosophers, behaviorists, and theologians have long argued whether human kind has free will. Some have argued that our attitudes and behaviors are predetermined by our external stimuli, while others have argued that choices we make are free of outside influence - we have free will. Both arguments have valid points. The Gated Emptiness, however, suggests that there is a certain amount of predestination and free will.

Our choices and the outcome of those choices are symbolized as angels. It is not just humanity which chooses; all parts of creation has some influence over its own fate, whether these parts are conscious of that influence or not. Man was “grown from the garden of th world,” suggesting that there was some amount of predestination in our evolution. Also notice that man serves woman, recognizing that the possibility of birth that women represent should be treated with reverence.

Ultimately, the creation story as depicted in The Gated Emptiness sets humanity up to be responsible for itself. Man, woman, and child alike is given the ability to choose their own angel or their own place within the matrix of possibilities. We are given hope, in that we are able to push the boundaries of the reality we live in, however there is a consequence for each action of which we must be mindful. This is where we stand in relation to the rest of the universe. Where shall we go from here?

Garden Photo by John Weiss. Dice Photo by M.P. Dehaan. Globe Image by Charles Dawley.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: God, Holy Text, Humanity, Individuality, Myth, Religion

“Nail in my hand from my creator,
You gave me life - now show me how to live”
- Audioslave, Show Me How To Live (2002)

Photo above by Tom Rolfe. Photo below by Pixsellr.

Recently, I responded to an article on Internet Monk.com about the movie Cloverfield (which I highly recommend, by the way) and the impact that world-spanning natural disasters would have on the meaning behind the Book of Revelations. I was clear that I wasn’t a Christian and was just putting my two cents in for discussion purposes. One of the other readers of that article noticed my comment and moseyed on over to my About Me page to read about my journey towards becoming a minister. Under the pseudonym “Texan,” he then directed a comment to me under the same article that read:

“I just read your blog & your ‘about me’ section. I hope you find what you are searching for, and I pray it is Christ. “Unitarian Universalism” is not the answer I’m afraid.”

Now, I can appreciate that he was hoping the best for me, or at least what he considers to be the best, but there are several things that bother me about this comment. First of all, he didn’t have enough common decency to say this on my blog instead of hiding it on someone else’s. Not only was it an off-topic comment and thus disrespectful to Mr. Spencer, but it was also very telling as to this person’s true perception of non-Christians. Did he think I wouldn’t let the comment stand if it was posted on my blog? I’d like to think I’m pretty welcoming of criticism and debate as long as it’s constructive and respectful.

And, of course, there is the casual dismissal of my denomination and the patronizing tone; meh - I could let that slide to be honest. No, what bothered me most of all was the implication that because I am still searching, that I had not “found Christ.” I don’t think this gentleman quite understands what religion and spirituality is really about. He’s missing a vital piece of the puzzle and doesn’t even realize it. If he had, he would know that finding Christ has nothing to do with being Christian.

Simply put, religion is about learning how to live with meaning. That is the sum of all religious experience boiled down to six words: “Learning How to Live with Meaning.” If you are a Christian, it means you follow the teachings of Jesus on how to live. Buddhists, on the other hand, follow the suggestions of Buddha on how to live a good life. I call myself neither simply because I don’t think it is necessary to follow one teacher in exclusion to all others. You wouldn’t go to school to just learn math to the exclusion of all other subjects. Why learn how to live from only one spiritual teacher?

I think the biggest mistake, however, is the assumption that searching can only be for those who have not found Truth. Quite to the contrary, searching is Truth. If you’ve stopped asking questions and settled on one particular list of beliefs, you haven’t found the Truth, you’ve given up on it. Revelation is on-going, Genesis is still in process, and there is always something new to learn. Perhaps I should pray that Texan comes to this realization, although I doubt he would see this as a blessing. It is more appropriate to let him find his own way, as we all should.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Blogging, Christian, Individuality, Religion, Spirituality, Unitarian Universalism

Above Photo by FreaksAnon. Photo below by Monkey123.

One of the major things that I strive to do with this website is offer a different point of view. Sometimes, that means pushing buttons and envelopes - a dangerous game of seeing how far down the rabbit hole you’re willing to follow me. Quite honestly, I’m surprised that I haven’t been admonished yet for going too far. Sure, readers have disagreed with me, but I don’t feel that any disagreements have resulted in a loss of respect. However, I also know that being controversial for the sake of controversy is an easy trap to fall into. Have I crossed that line this week?

My views are genuine, but that doesn’t mean a thing if I’m losing credibility with you, my audience. Sometimes I’m afraid that I am doing just that. I really care about the message I’m putting out there, and I don’t want my own words to get in the way of what needs to be said. Although I do this as a hobby, I also see it as a stepping stone that brings me closer to
my true goal of making this world a better place. Should I be myself, even if that means being viewed as an eccentric?

This is probably one of the more difficult aspects of trying to get people to think differently; you never know if they are actually thinking or if your words are just falling out of their ear, unheard. I wonder if other would-be ministers have ever felt this way. Of course this could all be part of the learning process - or perhaps an indication of the extent of my bovine manure collection. Either way, I shouldn’t beat myself up about it, should I?

It is all a part of the journey. Even if I wasn’t interested in becoming a minister, I would need to have these thoughts and these experiences. My development as a human being depends on making meaningful mistakes. Sometimes that means rubbing people the wrong way. I have this tendency to try to please everyone in my offline life; I need to get away from being so concerned about what other people think of me. Seth Pickens recently wrote about needing to be unmoved by criticism and praise as an important trait of ministry. I can’t agree with him more - I just need to apply that lesson more consistently.

I also need to hear back from you, my readers on a few things. I haven’t received enough responses to my short questionnaire. So far, only two people have taken the time to tell me a little about themselves. Don’t be shy - I really want to hear from you. If you don’t remember the questions I asked, they are:

• Which religion or spiritual path do you identify with?
• Which of my articles is your favorite and why?
• Which of my articles is your least favorite and why?
• What would you like to see more of or less of?
• Are you an RSS Subscriber?

Thank you for listening and Namaste.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Individuality, Ministry, Questions, Readers, Religion

The first sixty words of The Gated Emptiness reads:

“In the beginning, there was emptiness. And the emptiness was consciousness and consciousness was inconceivable, amen. And in that maelstrom of consciousness, three beings emerged, these being Metatron, Sandalphon, and Apollion. They were likened unto serpents and wove throughout the continuity of consciousness. Through Metatron is God’s omnipotence, through Sandalphon is God’s omnipresence, and through Apollion is God’s omniscience. Amen.”

Who or what exactly are these three entities first introduced in this book, and why do they come before the introduction of God? I like to think of The Gated Emptiness as being something of an iconoclast’s holy book, yet the first thing the book does is set up three idols to represent the qualities of God. Why do we need to start this text off in this way?

Metatron, Sandalphon and Apollion are all angels found in Jewish and Christian folk lore. Metatron, who’s name is thought to mean ‘behind the throne,’ is said to be the angel who took Enoch away into the Kingdom of Heaven and is sometimes also identified as the angel who lead the people of Israel through the wilderness. Sandalphon, who’s name means ‘brother,’ is thought to be the prophet Elijah’s angelic form. Finally Apollion, also called Abaddon which means destroyer, appears in Revelations as the angel who opens the gates of the abyss. These three entities are something like a trinity, each representing an aspect of God. They are, however, merely symbolic.

If you believe as I do that God is both the sum of reality and beyond reality, there really isn’t any way to discuss God without creating idols of one kind or another. Even the idea of “God” is an idol - an assumption on our part as to the nature of reality. Breaking God (or reality) down into easily understandable chunks is the only way we can hope to communicate about its nature. Even though we understand that these “chunks” of God are not by themselves the definition of God, we get one step closer to grasping the unaccessible nature of the Divine. This also the purpose behind Qabalah, or Jewish Mysticism, which I will talk about more in later articles.

In all actuality, God is the first character to be introduced in The Gated Emptiness. God is the emptiness, which is inconceivable consciousness. The act of creation or realization that is called “a maelstrom of consciousness” relates not only to the creation of reality, but also making the inconceivable more understandable. The emergence of Metatron, Sandalphon, and Apollion is symbolic of this. Reality is like a huge piece of marble which remains meaningless until we cut away the excess and create a form; the portion that we cut away is no less apart of reality, but with out excluding something there is nothing to include.

In order to make itself more understandable, The Gated Emptiness is also divided into three distinct section, each named after one of the three before mentioned angels. It is absolutely necessary to break down the message into digestible parts, each with it’s own voice and theme. Of Metatron is something of a Genesis and Apocalypse story, that covers not only creation but also forewarns of destruction in symbolic terms that are easy to understand. This part shows us where we’ve been and asks us where we are going. Of Sandalphon takes the first person perspective, speaking to the reader as the identity of what I can only presume is God. In this voice, we are told why we suffer and asked to attempt to understand. Of Apollion are something like commandments, psalms, or allegories; it gives us advice. The final chapter mirrors its namesake in that it encourages us to break free and destroy our own idols and misconceptions.

These three parts come together to give us a more complete picture of the message behind The Gated Emptiness. This is similar in the way in which all holy books, when considered in the context of each other, gives us a better understanding of religion and spirituality as a whole. When approaching any literature, religious or not, it is important to look at the writing not only in a linear manner, but also view it in a non-linear fashion to gain a more panoramic view of the text. Perhaps that is the reason why most people cannot read the Christian Bible or Quran straight through; in order for the text to be meaningful, you need to know what happens in the end from the very beginning.

Angel image by Toni Lozano. Serpent Photo by Mike Wagner. Wall Photo by ‘Fotologic’.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: God, Holy Text, Individuality, Reason, Religion, Spirituality

Photo above by Sarah Cartwright. Pentagram Photo by Epimetheus. Witch Photo by Helena.

Back when Christianity was first forming, most cultures had their own religions or Gods, and no single religion was considered “universal.” Although the Romans attempted to equate the Gods of other cultures with their religion and enforced a state sponsored religion, these efforts were far from being uniform in application or success. For the most part, folks worshiped the Gods their parents worshiped, and gave the religions of conquering cultures as little attention as they could get away with. The alternative was to join a mystery religion - cults whose membership remained secret and whose worship was not always acceptable by the rest of society.

Christianity was lumped together with the mystery religions, as an off-shoot of Judaism. However, this religion, was different than the other mystery religions. The fledgling religion was forced into secrecy instead of choosing it, did not allow their adherents to worship other Gods as most mystery religions did, and appealed to all people, regardless of race or culture. With it’s message of salvation regardless of heritage, Christianity represented the first truly universal religion. As the religion grew and became more centralized, the spiritual leaders emphasized the universal appeal of Christianity by calling their church “Catholic” - which means “universal” in Latin.

Two thousand years after the birth of Jesus Christ, one could hardly call the Catholic Church universal anymore. Not only have the several schisms with Christendom given rise to the Protestant religions, but Christianity as a whole is shrinking as a result of religious freedom in Western culture. While it is still the most popular religion in the world, Islam is quickly closing the gap between itself and Christianity. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but does tend to give rise to the question of whether Christianity was as universal as it purported to be in the first place.

The loss of the universal appeal of Christianity could only be attributed to one important truth of the modern world: the desire for creativity. Modern conveniences and ample leisure time has given rise to a greater focus on individual creativity. Traditional forms of worship and social structure within Christianity seems stifling in comparison to the new egalitarian social structure and mutual artistic evolution of the internet. The only religion that I know of which shares these egalitarian and creative elements in Wicca.

Only having emerged in the last fifty years, Wicca is the newest of the world religions. It is a particular blend of European folk lore which focuses on the rhythms of nature and cycles of life instead of theology. Drawing heavily from the ancient Pagan beliefs, Wicca takes the Roman attempt to consolidate deities of different cultures to a new extreme by reducing all Gods into one God with two aspects (God of Darkness and of Light), and all Goddesses into one Goddess with three aspects (Maiden, Mother, and Crone). They also practice ritual, which they call witchcraft, with the intent of influencing reality in a manner that mirrors modern occultism.

Wicca’s greatest strength; however, is in its structure and liturgy. Wiccans usually worship in small groups of 3-13 individuals, called a coven. Even though one man or woman serves as the head priest, all of the individuals in a coven are considered priests in their own right. This puts each individual on equal footing - there are no “followers,” only leaders who allow someone else to lead for a time. The social structure is more akin to family than in Christianity; no one person is more important than another.

This is reflected in the way in which Wiccans worship. Although one member of a coven serves as the lead, the actual rituals, prayers, and practices need the input of each member. Even those rites which are considered “tradition” are up for reinterpretation by an individual coven. Theology, preaching, and passive participation are absent from Wiccan worship. For those looking for worship to be a creative outlet, this religion seems custom made.

These qualities, found in Wicca, make this religion potentially more “Catholic” than Catholicism. Everyone can identify with family, with nature, and with the cycles of life. Any individual can look at the God or Goddess and see a deity that looks like themselves and represents humanity as a whole. More importantly, there is no authority to appease or to declare you heretical simply because you choose to do things a different way. Is it truly any wonder this is the fastest growing religion in the world?

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Catholic, Christian, God, Humanity, Individuality, Occult, Occultism, Religion, Ritual, Tradition, Wicca

Image above by “reedbiotch”. Photo below by “gutter”.

In case you haven’t heard about the current internet war against Scientology, let me bring you up to speed. Since the days of the usernet in the 1980’s, The Church of Scientology has actively attempted to quiet all criticism of its actives by citing copyright laws, harassing website owners, and allegedly abusing any means possible to silence detractors. Individuals have had their computers confiscated, been sued, and slandered in opposition of Scientology. On January 16th, a four year old video of Tom Cruise ranting about Scientology surfaced on YouTube and went viral. This brought negative media attention to the Church of Scientology, which prompted them to contact YouTube and demand that they take the video down or face legal proceedings.

I guess this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. On the 21st of the month, several groups of hackers joined together and, calling themselves “Anonymous,” declared war against Scientology in a YouTube video. You can see the original video here, as well as a second video addressing the followers of Scientology in particular here, and a video listing the alleged crimes of Scientology here. So far, the war has resulted in numerous denial of server attacks against the Chuch’s websites, the various videos I link to above, and most likely several acts that I am not yet privy.

So why is this important to me? It brings up an important question about religious tolerance, or the lack there of. Is this just bigotry practiced on a large scale by the hackers of the internet or is Scientology truly a sinister organization as Anonymous would have us believe? Where do I stand as a blogger, a citizen of the internet, and a champion of religious tolerance? What should I do, if anything? These are not easy questions for me to answer, but if I am to be honest with myself, they need to be asked.

Let’s assume for a moment that the accusations of illegal activities made against Scientology are all false and consider only the verifiable facts of how this organization has conducted itself in the past. The organization is heavily reliant on litigation as its means of defending itself and is not interested in open dialogue. They charge an incredible amount of money for access to their teachings and openly prevents the sharing of those teachings by others. Scientology rejects the importance of psychological and psychiatric medicine and offer their own scientifically unproved methods as means of overcoming mental illness… Even without mentioning the rumored illegal activities, I have to question the motives of this organization.

I have come to the conclusion that if even a quarter of what Anonymous has said is true, than Scientology is a detriment to society. The thing is, we don’t have to rely on the word of Anonymous to come to this decision; Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Luxembourg, Mexico, and the United Kingdom refuse to recognize Scientology as a religion. Germany has even considered a ban on Scientology, and the government of Belgium is currently in the process of prosecuting the Church. You could even read the opinions of the judges who have ruled against the Church in the past, including this ruling from the California Supreme Court in the case of Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology:

“Substantial evidence supports the conclusion Scientology leaders made the deliberate decision to ruin Wollersheim economically and possible psychologically….We do not mean to suggest Scientology’s retributive program… represented a full scale modern day ‘inquisition.’ Nevertheless there are some parallels in purpose and effect. ‘Fair game,’ like the ‘inquisition,’ targeted heretics.

“Other testimony established Scientology is a hierarchal organization which exhibits near paranoid attitudes toward certain institutions and individuals — in particular the government, mental health professionals, disaffected members, and others who criticize the organization or its leadership… During trial, Wollersheim’s experts testified Scientology’s ‘auditing’ and ‘disconnect’ practices constituted ‘brainwashing’ and ‘thought reform’ akin to what the Chinese and North Koreans practiced on American prisoners of war…

“Using its position as religious leader, the church and its agents coerced Wollersheim into continuing auditing even though his sanity was repeatedly threatened by this practice… Thus there is adequate proof the religious practice in this instance caused real harm to the individual and the appellant’s outrageous conduct caused that harm… Church practices conducted in a coercive environment are not qualified to be voluntary religious practices entitled to first amendment religious freedom guarantees…

“We hold that the state has a compelling interest in allowing its citizens to recover for serious emotional injuries they suffer through religious practices they are coerced into accepting. Such conduct is too outrageous to be protected under the constitution and too unworthy to be privileged under the law of torts.”

-California appellate court, 2nd district, 7th division, Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, Civ. No. B023193 Cal. Super. (1986)

So are the actions of Anonymous religious intolerance? Regardless of whether I believe the Church of Scientology to be a religion or not, no person or organization should be allowed to abuse the rights of others. No, Anonymous acts not out of religious intolerance, but instead of outrage at injustice. They seek only to work against a corrupt organization, not against the beliefs of others. Despite the fact that I do not agree with their methods, I have a great deal of respect for their purpose and will support them in the one way I can - by adding my voice to their choir.

ARTICLE 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
~The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, in Paris.

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Individuality, Information, Mental Health, Religious Tolerance, Scientology, Websites

Photo above by Ibrahim Iujaz. Image below by “bdesignbe”.

During my middle school years, I was active in my school choir. When I say I was active, I don’t mean that I was the snot-nosed kid that missed half of the events and nodded off to sleep in music class. Actually, I was somewhat of a star student; I was the only baritone. More than that, I was chosen from all of my classmates to represent our school in a regional choir competition. I bet you didn’t even know there was such an animal!

Now, I don’t want you to get the impression that I can actually sing. It took a lot of voice training and effort on my part to sing on key and in harmony. If you asked me to try to sing now, I’m sure I’d shatter glass and make dogs howl. I point this aspect of my past out because it is one of the major reasons why I hate Christmas music and show tunes and yet never seem to get them out of my head. Singing in the Rain? Yes, it stuck in my head right now. Silver Bells? God Bless Ye Merry Gentlemen? Oh, Christmas time was our big season! The King and I? The moment I wrote the title of this post, I began compulsively singing…

Yet, this is still apart of who I am. I wouldn’t be who I am today if it wasn’t for the experiences I have had in my past. Every day I post a new article, I’m revealing apart of who I am, what I believe, and where I am going in life. I’m sharing some of the most intimate details of myself. I think a bit of turn-around is only fair.

One of your number nominated my blog for the UU Blog Awards. While this is an honor, I think it is more important that you are showing me that I am doing something right. I want to know what that is so I can do more of it! As such I’ve written a list of questions below that I’d like you to answer as honestly as you can in my comments. This is to help me understand you, my readers, so I can make this blog a more welcoming place for all of you. I especially want to hear from my RSS subscribers! Please answer the following:

• Which religion or spiritual path do you identify with?
• Which of my articles is your favorite and why?
• Which of my articles is your least favorite and why?
• What would you like to see more of or less of?
• Are you an RSS Subscriber?

Click on one link below.

written by John \\ tags: Art, Blogging, Individuality, Music, Questions, Readers