I have come to associate this word with religious crackpots and new age ninnys that are bent on forcing their view point, belief system and most especially their religion on to others.
I associate the word with the need to convert others, fundamentalism, and restriction / refutation of other peoples right to be different.
It is the main reason why I refuse to label myself as religious, or to ally myself to any one cause or doctrine. I do not feel a need to make anyone join “my” cause, nor to be validated by their beliefs either.
It is also a cautionary reminder that I do not fall into the same trap. I see too much pain inflicted in the name of “god”. We know it’s all really man creating the problems, but religion is used as the “reason”.
Is it time for a new approach to religion where zeal, and the “respectability” of established religions is replaced by something else?
Can a religion without dogma exist? And if so, does this weaken their position in our culture where they will never be truly respected / recognised, as is discussed in this post I read from Peter Beckley in the Pagan Blog Project last week? (The podcast of of same is also available there)
So if I am not a zealot, and also realise that complete non-interaction with the world is counter to my mission of facilitating the Netjeru remanifesting today, where does that leave me? In my SBNR (spiritual but not religious) stance, where does that set me I wonder?
|This post is my first "Z" for the PBP 2012|