happysunshine

Joined

• started 104 topics
• posted 361 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by happysunshine

• 
  16

  What did you get called?

  by Fe2O3Girl in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  tr's expression 'hovah.

  which he picked up from a friend that used to call him that set me thinking about the things that i got called when i was a jw kid.

  one term of abuse was "jew" which is weird and creepy.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  happysunshine

  -Jo-Ho

  -Jumping Jehovahs

  -Jahobi Witness

  -Jehovah

  -Jehovah-Man

  -Fuckin' Jehovah
• 
  8

  Witness personality traits?

  by happysunshine in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  .

  does being raised as a witness encourage the development of certain personality traits, good or bad?

  -jedited by - happysunshine on 14 december 2002 5:7:5.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  happysunshine

  Well said DizzyCat-

  -Little empathy.

  -Inability to function in employment world.

  -depression/self-consumption

  There's probably a list of traits specific to fundamentalist Christians and high control group members. Ex-cult members also go through certain issues. I'd like to try and make a list, and if anybody wants to add to it, it could generate discussion.

  -Duplicity.

  -require strong, central authority.

  -unforgiving.

  -frustrated.

  -crushed.

  -paranoid.

  Any others?
• 
  17

  XMas illuminations on your house

  by Simon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i guess this is more of a usa thing, but in the spirit of international friendship we have decided to put some effort into things this year.

  he he ... this house is round the corner from angharad's parents and he raises money for charity.

  the picture doesn't really do justice to just how bright it is (you can see the glow before you get there).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  happysunshine

  wow.

  There's a place near here that is done completely in white lights, even on the yard trees. I know what you mean about the glow from blocks away. -j
• 
  8

  Witness personality traits?

  by happysunshine in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  .

  does being raised as a witness encourage the development of certain personality traits, good or bad?

  -jedited by - happysunshine on 14 december 2002 5:7:5.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  happysunshine

  Does being raised as a Witness encourage the development of certain personality traits, good or bad? How about X-Witnesses? -J

  Edited by - happysunshine on 14 December 2002 5:7:5
• 
  26

  You've just won the lotto...Now what?

  by nakedmvistar in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  you have just won 100,000,000 in the lottery!

  what would you do next?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  happysunshine

  Canada?!?!? I must be missing something here!

  I'd convert it all to gold, put it in my attic, and hide out there with a gun and a pack of sandwiches. -J
• 

  Religion = Progress?

  by happysunshine in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=42080&site=3

  edited by - happysunshine on 13 december 2002 20:51:22.

• 

  happysunshine

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=42080&site=3

  Edited by - happysunshine on 13 December 2002 20:51:22
• 
  1

  Is religion hampering the progress of humanity?(2)

  by happysunshine in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i took so long to reply to the original thread that it got buried!

  here's the original thread:.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=41970&site=3&page=1.

  1. 
• 

  happysunshine

  I took so long to reply to the original thread that it got buried! Here's the original thread:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=41970&site=3&page=1

  First rate posts all! Forgive me if I dont address all the posts, but I really have to get back to work! One request- lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum. There may be some other stuff going on I dont know about, but in this thread I felt like Yarusalem was getting unfairly personally attacked. Rip into ideas all you want, but not people.
  Anyway, MYOHNSEPH wrote something that leads to a most interesting question:

  One of the biggest problems I see with religion, especially in the twenty-first century, is that it takes a system of beliefs and elevates it to a station of absolute truth and infallibility, to be reverenced and without question. Once an individual embraces any system of beliefs as such, they will all too often sacrifice logic and common sense upon it's altar. They no longer seek truth, they seek support for and validation of their religion. In that pursuit, real truths are distorted and information is manipulated to support and conform to their religion. I believe that, indeed, does hamper the progress of humanity. Any philosophy which restrains clear and free thought and objectivity is certainly outdated, in my opinion.

  I agree with this. However, this leads to some other questions: What really is "logic" and "common sense" "clear and free thought" "objectivity"? These terms sound solid, but I dont think they are. They shift. If I understand correctly, philosophers have been arguing for hundreds of years and will probably continue for hundreds more about what exactly "logic" and "common sense" are. And "clear and free thought" and "objectivity"? Who decides what is clear thought? What is the system of measurement for these terms? Who is truly objective, and what exactly is it? And "seeking support and validation"- that seems to be a necessity of existence, something that gives us personal identity and cohesiveness of mind and society.
  JT said:
  

  i fully agree with you because by DEFAULT a belief system must demand acceptance THAT IT IS THE ONY TRUTH

  for if not-- then it is no more better than the rest sorta like a Ford dealer telling you that Chevys are just as good Duhhhhhhh

  Maybe. I remember some hippy telling me that the different beliefs were like a patchwork, and when you step back, you see the face of god. Even the black parts are part of the picture. One example came to mind about exclusivity (or lack of). Shinto is the native religion of Japan, roots beyond recorded history. Buddhism was introduced 1500 years ago from China. The two religions generaly melded without much hassle, one reason often cited being that neither belief has a one jealous God idea. Buddhism viewed Shinto as a manifestation of Buddha-hood, and they tried to complement each other. They also specialized in different areas, Buddhism dealing with death-like matters (funerals, etc) and Shinto with life stuff (weddings, etc). To this day, they coexist without conflict, while still maintain distinct identities. I realize that many religions cant do this, but Im trying to show that belief in something does not have to mean you think its better than others. Even many converted Christians from like 450 years ago were able to worship both Christianity and Buddhism and Shinto.
  Yarusalem said:
  

  Logical,
  You said,
  get rid of religion and get rid of a vast majority of evil.
  You mean the evil of Godless men like Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Men, Hitler? These men are prime examples of what we face with the absence of Religion.

  Yarusalem has a point here (except with Hitler). I remember looking at Maos little red book when I was in China, and even after his death it was still looked at by many with the reverence of a Chinese Bible. I think people do worship political systems like religions. I later found out about the Red Guard stuff that happened in the 70s, where even loyal Maoists that just happened not to have a copy of the book on them at the wrong time were often beaten to death by mobs.
  BA2002 said:
  

  Even today religion is the centerpiece of propaganda used to wage wars and maintain control over billions of people and their lives. For example, just yesterday, when apologizing to the Kuwaiti people for his invasion of their country in 1990, Saddam Hussein attempted to use religion to incite other Arab people to his cause.
  ...
  Or you could sit and discuss the religious differences of Jews and Muslims as the Palestinians and Israelis continue to slaughter one another over "holy land."
  or you could go back in history and discuss the Holy Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, even enslavery of the Africans (who were deemed savages who needed saving and conversion to Christianity) etc.

  Excellent points BA. I do have a lingering doubt though about religion being the cause. I wonder if its more of a lightning rod effect. If religion were removed, would something else take its place?
  Again I think of the Communists ideology. Im not well read on the subject, but I do know that the Chinese routinely 'liberate' ethnic groups from their culture by incorporating them, by force if necessary, into the Chinese provinces. This can mean crushing their belief system and delegating them to a subservient position to Han Chinese.

  Also, Japan ruthlessly stamped out Cristianity shortly after it came. It is often said that this was because it challenged Emporor Worship in Shinto. The reality is that the Jesuits and Franciscans were competeing for Christian converts and one group told the Empororer that the other group was using Christianity as a tool to gain public support and eventualy topple the Japanese government and gain a colony, as they had done in other contries. The emporor freeked out and executed everybody Christian and foreign, banning all normal contact with the outside world for centuries. So it wasn't really a 'religious' conflict, its just easier to say that. What about other 'holy wars', including today?
  Another challenge is that history can be selective. Documented accounts like the Inquisition are often cited, but what of unrecorded history? Archeological digs occasional find mass graves, but no one knows why. Or current atrocities get unreported for some reason. Dantheman, I also hope the voice of history is not cheating us.
  Donkey said:
  

  Religion is a collective insanity.
   Mikhail Bakunin

  Good quote! I also think that when an individual acts weird, its called mental illness. But when a group acts weird, its called a social problem.
  Dantheman said:
  

  I don't know if religion is the problem as much as the "True Believer" mentality is. Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were fanatics as much as Osama is, but their fanaticism was centered around utopian political/social ideologies. The utopia that Hitler & Stalin dreamed of is the same sort of utopianism at the heart of religious extremism.
  Though they seem at opposite poles, fanatics of all kinds are actually crowded together at one end. It is the fanatic and the moderate who are poles apart and never meet. - Eric Hoffer
  The avowed aim of all utopian movements is to put an end to history and to establish a final and permanent calm. - Ludwig von Mises

  These are fine quotes. I wonder, though, how we can tell when we are being moderate or just wishywashy, unproductive, and useless? It reminds me of a quote by Helen Keller:
  "Life is either a great adventure or nothing."
  And again I loop back to the original issue raised, namely: How do we define terms like objective, clear thinking, free thought, and common sense? These will be different to a child starving in Africa, a major political leader, some guy standing in the middle of Afghanistan right now, you, or me. Also, who judges what? For example, today, here, child sexual abuse is one of the most dispicable crimes. However, in some cultures sex with children was an acceptable cornerstone of a moral society, as it is now in some cultures. And again, if religion was eliminated would something completely different, but equally good/bad take its place? Any comments?
• 
  44

  Is religion hampering the progress of humanity?

  by happysunshine in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is religion hampering the progress of humanity?

  is it an outdated 'caveman' notion that just keeps getting redressed in new clothes?

  comments?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  happysunshine

  First rate posts all! Forgive me if I dont address all the posts, but I really have to get back to work! One request- lets keep the personal attacks to a minimum. There may be some other stuff going on I dont know about, but in this thread I felt like Yarusalem was getting unfairly personally attacked. Rip into ideas all you want, but not people.
  Anyway, MYOHNSEPH wrote something that leads to a most interesting question:

  One of the biggest problems I see with religion, especially in the twenty-first century, is that it takes a system of beliefs and elevates it to a station of absolute truth and infallibility, to be reverenced and without question. Once an individual embraces any system of beliefs as such, they will all too often sacrifice logic and common sense upon it's altar. They no longer seek truth, they seek support for and validation of their religion. In that pursuit, real truths are distorted and information is manipulated to support and conform to their religion. I believe that, indeed, does hamper the progress of humanity. Any philosophy which restrains clear and free thought and objectivity is certainly outdated, in my opinion.

  I agree with this. However, this leads to some other questions: What really is "logic" and "common sense" "clear and free thought" "objectivity"? These terms sound solid, but I dont think they are. They shift. If I understand correctly, philosophers have been arguing for hundreds of years and will probably continue for hundreds more about what exactly "logic" and "common sense" are. And "clear and free thought" and "objectivity"? Who decides what is clear thought? What is the system of measurement for these terms? Who is truly objective, and what exactly is it? And "seeking support and validation"- that seems to be a necessity of existence, something that gives us personal identity and cohesiveness of mind and society.
  JT said:
  

  i fully agree with you because by DEFAULT a belief system must demand acceptance THAT IT IS THE ONY TRUTH

  for if not-- then it is no more better than the rest sorta like a Ford dealer telling you that Chevys are just as good Duhhhhhhh

  Maybe. I remember some hippy telling me that the different beliefs were like a patchwork, and when you step back, you see the face of god. Even the black parts are part of the picture. One example came to mind about exclusivity (or lack of). Shinto is the native religion of Japan, roots beyond recorded history. Buddhism was introduced 1500 years ago from China. The two religions generaly melded without much hassle, one reason often cited being that neither belief has a one jealous God idea. Buddhism viewed Shinto as a manifestation of Buddha-hood, and they tried to complement each other. They also specialized in different areas, Buddhism dealing with death-like matters (funerals, etc) and Shinto with life stuff (weddings, etc). To this day, they coexist without conflict, while still maintain distinct identities. I realize that many religions cant do this, but Im trying to show that belief in something does not have to mean you think its better than others. Even many converted Christians from like 450 years ago were able to worship both Christianity and Buddhism and Shinto.
  Yarusalem said:
  

  Logical,
  You said,
  get rid of religion and get rid of a vast majority of evil.
  You mean the evil of Godless men like Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Men, Hitler? These men are prime examples of what we face with the absence of Religion.

  Yarusalem has a point here (except with Hitler). I remember looking at Maos little red book when I was in China, and even after his death it was still looked at by many with the reverence of a Chinese Bible. I think people do worship political systems like religions. I later found out about the Red Guard stuff that happened in the 70s, where even loyal Maoists that just happened not to have a copy of the book on them at the wrong time were often beaten to death by mobs.
  BA2002 said:
  

  Even today religion is the centerpiece of propaganda used to wage wars and maintain control over billions of people and their lives. For example, just yesterday, when apologizing to the Kuwaiti people for his invasion of their country in 1990, Saddam Hussein attempted to use religion to incite other Arab people to his cause.
  ...
  Or you could sit and discuss the religious differences of Jews and Muslims as the Palestinians and Israelis continue to slaughter one another over "holy land."
  or you could go back in history and discuss the Holy Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, even enslavery of the Africans (who were deemed savages who needed saving and conversion to Christianity) etc.

  Excellent points BA. I do have a lingering doubt though about religion being the cause. I wonder if its more of a lightning rod effect. If religion were removed, would something else take its place?
  Again I think of the Communists ideology. Im not well read on the subject, but I do know that the Chinese routinely 'liberate' ethnic groups from their culture by incorporating them, by force if necessary, into the Chinese provinces. This can mean crushing their belief system and delegating them to a subservient position to Han Chinese.

  Also, Japan ruthlessly stamped out Cristianity shortly after it came. It is often said that this was because it challenged Emporor Worship in Shinto. The reality is that the Jesuits and Franciscans were competeing for Christian converts and one group told the Empororer that the other group was using Christianity as a tool to gain public support and eventualy topple the Japanese government and gain a colony, as they had done in other contries. The emporor freeked out and executed everybody Christian and foreign, banning all normal contact with the outside world for centuries. So it wasn't really a 'religious' conflict, its just easier to say that. What about other 'holy wars', including today?
  Another challenge is that history can be selective. Documented accounts like the Inquisition are often cited, but what of unrecorded history? Archeological digs occasional find mass graves, but no one knows why. Or current atrocities get unreported for some reason. Dantheman, I also hope the voice of history is not cheating us.
  Donkey said:
  

  Religion is a collective insanity.
   Mikhail Bakunin

  Good quote! I also think that when an individual acts weird, its called mental illness. But when a group acts weird, its called a social problem.
  Dantheman said:
  

  I don't know if religion is the problem as much as the "True Believer" mentality is. Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot were fanatics as much as Osama is, but their fanaticism was centered around utopian political/social ideologies. The utopia that Hitler & Stalin dreamed of is the same sort of utopianism at the heart of religious extremism.
  Though they seem at opposite poles, fanatics of all kinds are actually crowded together at one end. It is the fanatic and the moderate who are poles apart and never meet. - Eric Hoffer
  The avowed aim of all utopian movements is to put an end to history and to establish a final and permanent calm. - Ludwig von Mises

  These are fine quotes. I wonder, though, how we can tell when we are being moderate or just wishywashy, unproductive, and useless? It reminds me of a quote by Helen Keller:
  "Life is either a great adventure or nothing."
  And again I loop back to the original issue raised, namely: How do we define terms like objective, clear thinking, free thought, and common sense? These will be different to a child starving in Africa, a major political leader, some guy standing in the middle of Afghanistan right now, you, or me. Also, who judges what? For example, today, here, child sexual abuse is one of the most dispicable crimes. However, in some cultures sex with children was an acceptable cornerstone of a moral society, as it is now in some cultures. And again, if religion was eliminated would something completely different, but equally good/bad take its place? Any comments?

  Edited by - happysunshine on 9 December 2002 19:33:8
• 
  1

  How to teach.

  by happysunshine in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  during this time, i have workedin public schools, universities, extracurricular programs for k-12, adult basic literacy, and adult enrichment classes.

  my youngest student was a 6 year-old budding actress in a town-sponsored arts enrichment program for elementary students; my oldest, a jamaican immigrant, a grandmother beginning at the age of 63 to learn how to read.

  i've taught honors students in a college humanities program, and severely handicapped youth in a public high school.. .

  1. 
• 

  happysunshine

  I have been teaching for a few years now. During this time, I have workedin public schools, universities, extracurricular programs for K-12, adult basic literacy, and adult enrichment classes. My youngest student was a 6 year-old budding actress in a town-sponsored arts enrichment program for elementary students; my oldest, a Jamaican immigrant, a grandmother beginning at the age of 63 to learn how to read. I've taught honors students in a college humanities program, and severely handicapped youth in a public high school.
  
  The breadth of my experience has enriched my teaching life, but left me without a luxury some of my colleagues enjoy-the sense, as I walk into a new class, for a new term, that I know what my students will need, and how best to share it with them. This is not to say that I've been tossed blind into the classroom. In most cases, I've had enough prep time to gather what seem like appropriate materials, and find out something about the students I'll be working with. What I have not had is the critical mass of sameness that accrues to the teacher who stays in the same setting, at the same level, for many years in a row. I cannot assume that what worked last semester will work this time.
  
  As a result of my ever-changing context, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the craft and practice of teaching, as separate from course content, age of students, size of class, or institutional setting. Everywhere I go, I meet exemplary teachers, and I've been interested in figuring out what makes them so good. What I've discovered is the inherent sameness of good teachers, regardless of the substantial differences between them in terms of style, personality, goals, and pattern of interaction with students. I would go so far as to say that good teachers, in all settings and at all levels, have more in common with each other than any of them may have with their colleagues in comparable positions.
  
  In order to understand the bold statement above, try the following exercise. Sit back, close your eyes, and bring to mind the three best teachers you ever had. Try to remember what they were like-how they looked, talked and acted, what their classrooms and/or offices were like, how they made you feel as their student. When you're satisfied that you've gotten a good picture of who these people were, open your eyes, and consider the words of educator and philosopher Parker Palmer:
  
  Good teaching isn't about technique. I've asked students around the country to describe their good teachers to me. Some of them describe people who lecture all the time, some of them describe people who do little other than facilitate group process, and others describe everything in between. But all of them describe people who have some sort of connective capacity, who connect themselves to their students, their students to each other, and everyone to the subject being studied. (1999, p. 27)
  
  Do you recognize your best teachers in this description? When we talk about the quality of someone's teaching, we address issues of technique, content, and presentation. But we all know people who have tremendous knowledge but fail to communicate it: people who have, on paper, a great lesson, but whose students are bored or frustrated. When we're being honest, we admit that good teaching often has less to do with our knowledge and skills than with our attitude towards our students, our subject, and our work.
  
  The rest of this article will address some of the characteristics that good teachers exhibit. It is not meant to be all encompassing or definitive; many excellent teachers may possess only some of these traits, and consider others not mentioned to be just as valuable. The characteristics detailed here may be viewed simply as a selection of tools that allow teachers to create and sustain connectivity in their classrooms.
  
  Good teachers:
  have a sense of purpose;
  have expectations of success for all students;
  tolerate ambiguity;
  demonstrate a willingness to adapt and change to meet student needs;
  are comfortable with not knowing;
  reflect on their work;
  learn from a variety of models;
  enjoy their work and their students.
  
  
  
  
  You can't be good in a generic sense; you have to be good for something. As a teacher, this means that you know what your students expect, and you make plans to meet those expectations. You, too, have expectations about what happens in your classroom, based on the goals you're trying to achieve. If you want to prepare your students for employment, you expect punctuality and good attendance. If you teach a GED class, you spend time explaining the format of the test and helping students to improve their test-taking skills. And if you want your students to become better, more involved readers, you allow time for reading and provide access to books.
  
  Good teachers have expectations of success for all students.
  This is the great paradox of teaching. If we base our self-evaluation purely on the success of our students, we'll be disappointed. At all levels, but especially in adult education, there are simply too many factors in students'lives for a teacher to be able to guarantee success to all. At the same time, if we give up on our students, adopting a fatalistic, "it's out of my hands" attitude, students will sense our lack of commitment and tune out. The happy medium can be achieved with a simple question: Did I do everything that I could in this class, this time, to meet the needs of all my students, assuming that complete success was possible? As long as you can answer in the affirmative, you're creating a climate for success.
  
  Good teachers know how to live with ambiguity.
  One of the greatest challenges of teaching stems from the lack of immediate, accurate feedback. The student who walks out of your classroom tonight shaking his head and muttering under his breath about algebra may burst into class tomorrow proclaiming his triumph over math, and thanking you for the previous lesson. There is no way to predict precisely what the long-term results of our work will be. But if we have a sense of purpose informing our choice of strategies and materials, and we try to cultivate expectations of success for all our students, we will be less likely to dwell on that unpredictability, choosing instead to focus on what we can control, and trusting that thoughtful preparation makes good outcomes more likely than bad ones.
  
  
  
  
  Can we really claim to have taught a class in geography if no one learned any of the concepts in the lesson from our presentation? If none of our students ever pick up a book outside of the classroom, have we really taught them to be better readers? We don't always think about these issues, but they are at the heart of effective teaching. A great lesson plan and a great lesson are two entirely different things; it's nice when one follows the other, but we all know that it doesn't always work out that way. We teach so that students will learn, and when learning doesn't happen, we need to be willing to devise new strategies, think in new ways, and generally do anything possible to revive the learning process. It's wonderful to have a good methodology, but it's better to have students engaged in good learning.
  
  Good teachers are reflective.
  This may be the only infallible, absolute characteristic of all good teachers, because without it, none of the other traits we've discussed can fully mature. Good teachers routinely think about and reflect on their classes, their students, their methods, and their materials. They compare and contrast, draw parallels and distinctions, review, remove and restore. Failing to observe what happens in our classes on a daily basis disconnects us from the teaching and learning process, because it's impossible to create connectivity if you've disconnected yourself.
  
  Good teachers are comfortable with not knowing.
  If we reflect honestly and thoughtfully on what happens in our classes, we will often find dilemmas we cannot immediately resolve, questions we cannot answer. In his Letters to a Young Poet, Rainer Maria Rilke suggests that his correspondent, "try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer" (1986, pp. 34-35). In the same way, our teaching benefits if we can live for a little while with a question, think and observe, and let an answer develop in response to the specific situation we face.
  
  Good teachers had good role models.
  Think back again to your three best teachers. How has your own teaching been shaped by their practices, consciously or unconsciously? Think also of the worst teacher you ever had. Are there things you absolutely will not do because you remember how devastating they were to you or your classmates? We learn to teach gradually, and absorb ideas and practices from a variety of sources. How many movies have you seen that include a teacher as a character, and how might those films have contributed to your practice? We are not always aware of the influences on our teaching, good and bad; reflecting on the different models of teaching we've acquired, and looking at how we acquired them, makes us better able to adapt and change to suit new challenges.
  
  Good teachers enjoy their work and their students.
  This may seem obvious, but it's easy to lose sight of its importance. Teachers who enjoy their work and their students are motivated, energized, and creative. The opposite of enjoyment is burnout-the state where no one and nothing can spark any interest. Notice, too, that enjoying your work and enjoying your students may be two different things. Focusing too much on content may make students feel extraneous, misunderstood, or left out. Focusing exclusively on students, without an eye to content, may make students feel understood and appreciated, but may not help them to achieve their educational goals as quickly as they'd like. Achieving a balance between the two extremes takes time and attention; it demands that we observe closely, evaluate carefully, and act on our findings.
  I would like to conclude with a poem by Lao-Tzu, the Chinese scholar to whom the Tao Te Ching is attributed. I have carried a copy of this poem with me for many years, and I find its message both helpful and challenging. It reminds us that good teaching is not a static state, but a constant process. We have new opportunities to become better teachers every day; good teachers are the ones who seize more opportunities than they miss.
  
  Some say that my teaching is nonsense.
  Others call it lofty but impractical.
  But to those who have looked inside themselves,
  this nonsense makes perfect sense.
  And to those who put it into practice,
  this loftiness has roots that go deep.
  
  I have just three things to teach:
  simplicity, patience, compassion.
  Simple in actions and thoughts,
  you return to the source of being.
  Patient with both friends and enemies,
  you accord with the way things are.
  Compassionate toward yourself,
  You reconcile all being in the world. (1989, 17)
  
  
  
  
  
  Mitchell, Stephen, ed. (1989). The Enlightened Heart. NY: Harper & Row.
  _____, trans. (1986). Letters to a Young Poet, by Rainer Maria Rilke. NY: Vintage Books.
  Palmer, Parker. (1999). "The Grace of Great Things: Reclaiming the Sacred in Knowing, Teaching, and Learning." In The Heart of Knowing: Spirituality in Education. Ed. Stephen Glazer. NY: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam.
• 
  44

  Is religion hampering the progress of humanity?

  by happysunshine in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  is religion hampering the progress of humanity?

  is it an outdated 'caveman' notion that just keeps getting redressed in new clothes?

  comments?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  happysunshine

  Is religion hampering the progress of humanity? Is it an outdated 'caveman' notion that just keeps getting redressed in new clothes? Comments? -J