Greetings Bruce

I have to go out shortly, but I will briefly reply to your reaction to my note suggesting we don't make 'religions' the basic underpinning spiritual focus, while we are trying to open 'new' portals of Awareness to the generality of Humankind while on their Spiritual Journeys.

As you say people of Interspirituality come from all walks of life, and certainly of various religious backgrounds, but their previous 'religious conditioning' does not have to be the main focus building block. In fact these beliefs can be put on the shelf (like old ABC books) while entering into the University of I AM Awareness.

Do you really want to keep the idea like the following still authoritatively alive through affirming all past Religions after thousands of years of pain and injustice as Abrahamic Religions promote, including Pope Francis standing on the same doctrine?:

I know many people and writers here come from the Catholic background, even I have had that, and as you can see, keeping the Religious constructs in place century after century has caused great injustice towards women in the world today. It is the same as the Ancient Freemasonry beginning a war on women. The Religious stream was meant to reconnect Humanity with Source, not dominate, control, and cause pain and injustice. I don't even think these verses come from the Supreme Source Creator, although masses attribute them to 'God'. Do we really want this kind of 'God' as central to our I AM Self?

I am simply suggesting to you that you have an opportunity to be INCLUSIVE (people from all walks and beliefs), while lovingly introducing ideas freed from past constraints if you don't choose to make 'Religions the underpinning focus and basis of InterSPIRIT, unless you clearly and openly state this is an Alliance geared specifically for InterFAITH activity.

I haven't abandoned Eternal Truths found in Religious doctrines - but the false conditioning hinders imo.

Gotta go - With Living Love, Starr*

--- On Wed, Dec 11, 2013, Bruce Schuman wrote ---

Good morning. Thank you, Starr*

This concern with the role of "religions" in the world keeps coming up between you and I, in ways I know are very sensitive. I want to comment cautiously on this point, because I do understand it is very important to you -- and, indeed, to many other people -- and very often, of course, with good reason.

For me, however, looking at the larger picture, this concern risks becoming unbalanced or too radical, because, as I see the situation, it is often only one point among many, all of which must be balanced, and many of which are controversial. And this project is essentially interfaith/interspiritual. It's about collaboration and relationships and working it out -- and not about attacking groups some of us may think are mistaken on some critical point.

If we allow ourselves as a group to begin advocating for some strong anti-religious position (or, indeed, almost any highly controversial position), this project, as an interfaith or interspiritual activity will no longer have any identity, and won't be about anything. There are many other groups out there advocating for some kind of "new age religion". Here, in this alliance, as I understand it, what we are about is common ground and the universal spirituality that interconnects not only the emerging new age visions but the ancient traditions as well.

But again, I realize this is a sensitive concern. Would you say, Starr*, that some spiritual person who takes a very strong stand on an issue like abortion -- one way or the other -- should be able to dominate this alliance framework, and insist that everyone in the alliance agree with them? This natural tendency in people towards fiercely divisive single-issue advocacy is a huge problem in the world today, and is probably the basic reason for convening this alliance framework in the first place. Everywhere we look around us in the religious and spiritual world, people are "demonizing" one another around single issue positions that they personally advocate. "You don't agree with me, therefore you are a servant of darkness". This way of thinking is tending to ravage the spiritual fabric of the planet. I doubt very much that we are to restore spiritual wholeness to the planet by denouncing millions or billions of people, insisting that they believe just like us, or else. Instead, I believe, we are called to identify and honor the common ground, and encourage enlightened debate and discussion on the points of difference.

To help address this concern, Starr*, this morning I sketched out a brief statement on this subject, that I invite you to consider. Maybe you and I (and anyone else interested) can work together to fine-tune this wording. The basic points: 1) we are about common ground among all the spiritual and religious groups, and 2) we do encourage balanced and enlightened advocacy by our participants, but the role of the alliance is to define and clarify common ground, wherever it may be found.

I put this statement on the "Interspirituality" page -- http://interspirit.net/alliance/interspirituality.cfm

Here in the USA, this morning it was announced that Pope Francis has been chosen Time Magazine's "Man of the Year". There are a billion Catholics in the world, and USA polling indicates that Pope Francis has a 55% approval rating in this country, and only 5% disapproval. At a beautiful Catholic church in Santa Monica on a cold Thanksgiving a few days ago, 500 homeless people were welcomed and fed a beautiful dinner, in the company of kind and wise priests who truly honor and care for them. In my opinion, it would be bizarre to expect those 500 homeless people to go sit in the park and contemplate their source, rather than eat that dinner. The billion Catholics in the world love the church. And Pope Francis is leading the way, many people feel, towards a more just and equitable world economy.

We can disagree about many points in the official Catholic teaching. Indeed, millions of American Catholics DO disagree, on all sorts of points, including the possibility of women priests. This disagreement is a valuable and illuminating discussion. But it doesn't mean that the Church should be rejected or destroyed. It may mean that it should be reformed.

Tell me what you think of the wording I suggested. Let's first of all establishing common ground everywhere -- without pre-judging the institution or framework -- and then, in the context of respect and sacred listening, let's figure out an enlightened way forward.

------