Politics is Spirituality Made Manifest. Kinda makes one wonder about the state of both about now.
One’s Spirituality, whether it takes the form of a religion, a moral code, a belief system, even atheism, must consist of absolutes. Something is true or it is untrue, it is right or it is wrong, something exists or it doesn’t exist, etc. The absolutes may change over time as a person learns and grows, but there has to be a foundation to work from, based on our best understanding at the moment, or there is no system of Spirituality present and the person drifts through life rudderless.
Politics, on the other hand, is based upon a process of negotiation rooted in the practice of compromise. There are no absolutes, only the “what do I have to give up to get what I think I want or need?”
In their pure form these two are polar opposites. The present fashion, purportedly derived from an interpretation of the First Amendment, of declaring that a person’s personal Spiritual belief system has no place in politics is a perversion of both what the First Amendment states, and of what was intended by the framers of the Constitution. The First Amendment starts out: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof:” (emphasis mine). The amendment was intended to ensure that we would have the ability to practice whatever form of Spirituality we choose, without interference from the government. It grants freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion, and nowhere is anyone granted the right to not be offended. For those who enthusiastically support the efforts of those in our culture today who have targeted several specific religions using all means at their disposal to block their free practice, it would behoove them to remember that restrictions imposed on others today, once put in place,can be used to restrict the practice of their own spiritual belief systems in the future.
The system laid out in the Constitution was designed with the understanding that when new laws were up for debate a person was expected to fight in congress for a final version of the law that would reflect their personal belief systems, or, if they disagreed with the law, to fight for not passing it at all. The compromise that was required of members of congress was not a compromise of their belief systems, their personal Spirituality, but an acceptance of the need to comply with the final version of any law that was passed by majority vote. Similarly, the population of each state agreed to abide by the majority vote that put a law into force. If a individual citizen did not like or agree with a law, they were required to comply with it regardless, but they also had the right to fight for the repeal or re-writing of any law they opposed, so long as it was done through the legislative process, working for change through persuasion, not through judicial coercion.
The actions of the court system over the last 60 years has changed our system of government from one of majority rule, to one of a tyranny of the minority. When judges, as in the recent case in Texas where a suit was filed by one student who is offended by expressions relating to religious belief, in the name of enforcing the First Amendment has forbidden the participants of an entire graduation class to make any reference to God or religion in their speeches at the graduation or else face arrest, the courts are doing precisely what the First Amendment forbids, i.e. “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
So, when a person is forced to be politic in how they practice their personal form of Spirituality, they are forced to compromise the basics of their belief system. As a result, if they acquiesce, their old form of Spirituality eventually morphs into a new politically correct version. In this case, you could say that Spirituality is Politics made manifest. But, since it is their new model of Spirituality Lite (their original Spirituality with some portions removed) that is now the driving force in their politics, it becomes “Politics is Spirituality made manifest” once again.
To demand that a person deny their personal belief system in order to run for office demands that they either must lie to get elected, or else abandon that personal belief system entirely in order to serve. Why then are we surprised, when once they have assumed the office, that they no longer display a well defined personal code of conduct, working from a sense of expediency rather than from any form of Spirituality?
For a couple of examples where politics seems to have overridden an individual’s previous fundamental form of Spirituality, resulting in a “new and improved version” you might want to check out the following links.
- When I read Deepak Chopra’s latest blog I was shocked and dismayed to see so much hatred and acrimony displayed from someone who has been positioned as a Spiritual Leader of the New Age Community for the last 30 years:
Compare the sentiments expressed in the blog above to those he expressed in a recent interview by the President of Institute Of Noetic Science in which Chopra, along with numerous other things relating to consciousness expansion, is promoting a transformation of self that “would automatically transform us into more loving and compassionate human beings”.
- “In speaking to a group of students in Minnesota last week, the Dalai Lama cleared up any uncertainty regarding his political views. “…As far as socio-political beliefs are concerned, I consider myself a Marxist,” he told the audience.”
It takes a lot of compromise to accept a belief system that has been the source of the destruction of the very people that the Dalai Lama is the Spiritual Leader of.