Sunday October 28 - Classes and Religion

Sunday October 28 - Classes and Religion


There are two ideas that are going through my mind, or should I say "My mind keeps returning too". First, the idea of "class struggles", by this I do not mean economic classes, or social as in the concept of nobility and peasantry or even political, which may be tied to either. But rather the classes as may be distinguished by attitude and developed mature character. The second is the notion that religion's purpose was first as the teacher or framework to explain the realities we experience, based on the known sciences. These sciences being astrology and natural knowledge of the world we inhabit. Religion being post shamanic and only narrowly retaining some minute evidence of this predecessor, progressively losing most or all shamanic vision as doctrine and creed became more authoritative and established. Eventually religion ceased to convey the knowledge garnered through the insights into the "real" world and became a tool of control, relying on misinterpreted and manipulated myths, at the whim and will of those sufficiently in power and seeking ways and means to maintain that position and power.

The "homeless" give little thought to anything that does not profit for survival. By the "homeless" I, for the greater degree, do not include those who indiscriminately abuse social services intended for the less fortunate, without homes or shelter, although this is a very grey area and I cannot be absolute in my own judgment. There are the "homeless" who violate virtually any and every code of normal social conduct. Generally I would find these to be younger whites and blacks with attitudes, wishing to strike back at institutions and families that do not measure up in their eyes. These more often than not indulge in the use of drugs and alcohol and be damned what tomorrow brings. Among the black community ages run higher, into old age. I leave it to others to parse out the reasons for this as I am not an expert on racial issues or the experience of blacks as individuals or as a race. I only observe what is the obvious. Yet, as regards the homeless as such, drugs and rebellious behavior is not the primary concern or desire, only getting enough to eat, a place to sleep and make it to the next day and hopefully a little progress out of what seems dire conditions.

In the overall homeless community I find classes of people. I know the idea of "classes" offends many, from different political ideologies, but for sake of my explanation and argument I will refer to "classes". On average, most would qualify as normal, decent, average "Joes". They do not over demand or expect such as cannot be logically expected. They do not raise a lot of "guff" when things do not work as expected, but rather work their way through difficult situations, doing what they "gotta do" to make it to the other side. Then there are those who do whatever is necessary, pushing their way to the front and past showing no respect for any but themselves. These begin the descent from common courtesy and into the abyss of anti-social behavior. Then there are the manipulators, the opportunists. These feign friendship and desire to barter favors, and for a while seemingly altruistic actions begin to draw the unsuspecting in, only to be caught in another web of deceit and possibly becoming a snare too difficult to escape. Then we have the preachers. These come in two flavors, the ones who are truly "brainwashed" and have to do everything in their power to convert you and then those who find religious verbiage and dogma a convenient harbor and escape from their own responsibility for the consequences of their own reckless and unthinking actions in their own lives. This includes virtually all loud mouth drunks and drug users preaching to any and all and nobody. Then there are those with legitimate mental and psychological deficiencies. All too often using their infirmity as a convenient excuse to ignore usual common courtesy. Beyond these those who find any excuse to justify rude, self-centered behaviors to the disrespect of any. And of course those who simply don't give a damn, no excuse is necessary. Unfortunately it is all of these who are the recipients of the services offered and all too often, the more offensive and obnoxious one may become, the more one is treated with "kid gloves", the more civil and courteous suffering impunity, the result of placating the unruly and hoping to keep them in line.

But there is a turn in attitude I am observing. Hither to I have observed and acted myself without asserting my rights or the rights of others as they are infringed upon. Others, of a more decent character, as well as myself, are speaking up and putting ourselves at risk as the less noble characters attempt to pull their "tricks", get in another's face, butt in line and such. Too be sure there is risk, a fight could ensue, but more often than not, the offending party will get the message, they are being watched, and not by security, but by us, the ones they have to sit with and eat with, and we aren't putting up with your crap anymore. Too be sure, one person cannot stand alone, but when two or three begin seeing the same thing and have the "balls" to speak up, maybe not at first, not immediately, but progressively, the offenders back down. They eventually get the message. And yes, there is the risk of things backfiring, or reprisals, wherever. Such is the nature of some characters.

But as I look at these classes of characters I can't help but wonder and ask, "What differences are there in these 'homeless' that is not the same in the overall gamut of society?" And I cannot see anything different overall. The only difference is that in the homeless community the guise of civilization is breaking down. In the overall "civilized" world the same character faults exist only hidden, disguised by the illusion of being civilized.

I once had lived with an idyllic concept of how humans were to relate to one another. I had egalitarian notions that all are equal, and one man's truth and value were as important as another's. And, to be sure, if democracy is our ultimate ideal then egalitarianism may be justified. But that is not the real world. The real world is full of multitudes of "me first and damn the rest". And this makes for no real civilization or dynamic human relations which lend support to human advancement. But I could not see this as long as the trappings of civilization were sufficiently in place. It is not a "housed" or "unhorsed" homeless problem. It is a human character problem. It is not a lack of religion problem; it is a need for a relevant religion problem, a religion that takes into account all the new and advancing concepts, theories and facts upon which the whole of our technological world is built upon.

I have no problem with "myth" as such. But myth needs to be relevant and understood as a "picture", a "framework", metaphor, and not as a literal testimony of reality. Our religious myth needs to teach us of our connection to ourselves, each other, our world and the universe.

Concepts of the past, based on the limited knowledge and understanding of the times have had their multi-millennial reign. We have moved into a new millennium, our "faith" in our "gods" has needs to keep pace and communicate in the language and knowledge of the present.

I believe should our "faiths" not evolve we face the disintegration of our world cultures. Possibly to be replaced by totalitarian states willing to establish themselves as the ultimate reality to which we all bow down.

My sister once told me something my father told her as she was embarking on a new life in the west. "There are the fuckers you don't know, and there are the fuckers you know." … the implication being trust no one even those you think you know. I wish I had such a conversation with my father but our relations were always strained through my teen years and virtually non-existent later in my teens and early twenties.

Experience, in what may be considered the most trusted of social settings has confirmed this cynical attitude. Religious settings ( churches and other institutions) have proved to be the most unreliable when it comes to trusting their integrity. Now I do not wish to condemn unequivocally all the out workings of these institutions, but merely point to the fact that they are managed and run by finite, imperfect human beings whose primary concern is ultimately their own well-being, and there is no such thing as an objective decision as such. Decisions will always reflect one’s personal well-being, or the well-being of those one is closest too.

This being the case, whether it is a religious or secular institution makes little difference. They are both managed and manned by imperfect human beings. The only advantage, or probably more to the fact, disadvantage the religious institution has on the secular is there is a presumed altruistic motive that supposedly surpasses the secular. But if the actions and attitudes of the religious adherents does not compliment the official doctrine and dogma, the religious suffers the reality and embarrassment as being caste as hypocrites. Unfortunately many, if not all religious groups rely on past reputation to carry them through potentially embarrassing situations. It all comes down to "image". If you can make the public believe anything they will be reluctant to admit that anything different is the reality. That is precisely the strength that current religious institutions enjoy, two thousand years of acceptance. And we are all, to some degree, educated and taught to think in terms of this religious framework.

But times are changing, progress continues and science advances ever so slowly, often in spite of some of our most noted scientists. And religion, of needs to survive, will adapt accordingly. The alternative is too dire to consider.

Amidst all this confusion of attitudes, classes and adaptation there are "wild cards". In the situation here in Austin the homeless have a support system in place. The politics surrounding the existence of this is too complicated to know at present what will be the future. Yet, for the present, such support exists and as has evolved there is individuals who lend themselves to the functioning of this system. These persons do not necessarily make up a class of their own, but rather manifest out of and in the midst of all classes. There are men who have made their home in relation to the support system and not out of religious necessity, but rather innate human concern, volunteer their time and energies to aid others, either as part of the system or independently. These are not perfect "saints" as may be thought of in religious terms, they are faulted as any, but find it in themselves to extend themselves beyond themselves. These have my respect, and though I know none personally their presence and effect to the functioning and benefit of others cannot go unobserved. It is in "their spirit" that I find hope for the future, nit necessarily of the system, but of the human species. These, regardless of the system can and will adapt and make things function for the rest.