Brownwood & Religious Zealots: " A Bad Thing" !

“ Being a religious zealot is apparently a bad thing.”

Brownwood Bulletin Reporter and Columinist Steve Nash
http://www.brownwoodbulletin.com/articles/2005/03/25/op_ed/columnist/opinion05.txt

Note: I do not believe that the majority of those who want Terri's feeding tube reinserted are Religious Zealots but I do believe the RZ's have hijacked the debate and are using Terri to further their other motives (see Randall Terry as example and many Politicians !) I believe this is a very difficult issue and offer prayers for all involved.

Religious Zealot Examples:

Salem Witch Trials
Justified Slavery using God’s Word (see Southern Baptist Convention apology- a little late ! )
Refusal to allow women right to vote using God’s word
Refusal of recognizing interracial marriages using God’s word
Refusal of recognizing & supporting of 1964 Civil Rights Act using God’s Word
Refusal of treating every American equally, justly and fairly using God’s Word.

Religious Zealots have always used God’s word (via Laws) to impose their belief onto others. Abusing God’s words to abuse God’s people has a rich history in our country and our community.
-----------------------
The quality of zealotry: Those who believe they hold all the answers make the most mischief
Saturday, December 13, 2003

The mind of a religious zealot is essentially the mind of a voluntary slave. Whether it be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or a generic zealot, the definition still holds. This is a mind absolutely frozen in its own rectitude, consistently incapable of self criticism, invariably unwilling or unable to believe it could possibly be wrong, and eventually driven to translate its creeds into the kind of action that cannot tolerate disagreement. Indeed, by surrendering totally to the belief or ideology of its choice, it cannot even entertain the possible existence of doubt. Such unquestioning obedience is the very essence of spiritual and intellectual slavery.
Any serious student of history -- particularly the history of religions -- knows that zealotry has regrettably always co-existed with true religious belief. From Savonarola to Torquemada to Oliver Cromwell and his roundheads to Cotton Mather to John Brown to Billy Sunday to the hashashim to the Irgun Zwei to the current televangelicals and their political counterparts, zealots in their flaming righteousness have been there to pervert the true end of all religions. That common end is to reconcile man with God.
The zealot has no such goal. Using religion as his justification, the zealot believes that he is called to impose his beliefs upon others, which is another way of saying that he thinks he is called to impose his will on others (by force if necessary). From the point of view of the zealot, you are either with him or against him. Those who are with him are often blinded by their own trust in their leader to the consequences of their commitment, as were the followers of Jim Jones in Latin America, Charles Manson in California and David Koresh in Texas. Dissent is not an option, and those who are not glassy-eyed disciples (as was Manson's harem) are brought into line by any means available, i.e., threats, persecution, punishment, isolation, cajolery, torture, deceit or blackmail.
It should be clearly understood that religion and zealotry are never compatible. If religion is understood as the way in which believers profess their faith and if faith is the bridge between creature and creator, zealotry has no place in this relationship -- in theory or in fact. The zealot, however, often uses (or abuses) religion to justify (usually in advance and occasionally afterward) whatever agenda he chooses to pursue.
And because the zealot believes he is always right (or called or chosen), he frequently assumes he's been anointed to be one of mankind's protectors. One of his standard lines is to declare that God has commanded him to do what he does as if he and God are on intimate speaking terms whenever the zealot chooses to initiate the conversation.
The spirituality of the belief of the truly religious is not marked by such assurance. If one reads the writings or biographies of the most renowned and devout people who have ever lived, one notes a definite hesitancy on their parts to profess or even acknowledge their own virtue. On the contrary, what is noteworthy is their sense of their own unworthiness.
History shows that the activities of zealots, when limited by time and geography, have not much of a reputation for longevity. The meek and not the brazen eventually do inherit the earth. It's only when religious fervor and political power mix that real social dangers emerge. Error is never admitted. Indeed, errors are often repeated with even greater emphasis, confirming Norman Mailer's observation that the first rule of dictators obliges them to reinforce their mistakes.
Having embraced unilateralism as a right conferred on it by the fact that the United States is the world's only superpower, the Bush administration exhibits many of the qualities of zealotry. Because of its belief in its inherent rightness, it has acted in disregard of international law, implying that it is above the law or, what is more dangerous, is the law.
It has unilaterally broken or abrogated treaties on trade, nuclear proliferation and the environment. It has spurned the United Nations, and, if the new majority of fundamentalist Republican officials in Texas is a harbinger, it is moving closer to getting the United States out of the United Nations and getting the United Nations out of the United States.
The current tactics of occupation in Iraq are a veritable facsimile of Israeli policy on the West Bank and Gaza as conceived by a man Bush astonishingly called a "man of peace," Ariel Sharon. Attorney General John Ashcroft's impingements on civil liberties in the name of "fighting terror" need no further corroboration, and his messianic remarks echo the recent declarations of Lt. Gen. William Boykin almost to the letter.
The damage to the body politic by having zealots in positions where foreign and domestic policy agendas are initiated is not minor. Debate on serious issues simply does not happen. Legitimate questions are treated as assaults. The motives and even the characters of the questioners are made to look suspicious. The debate, if it happens at all, is rarely conducted on the merits.
The result is that those in power simply make pronouncements, and the public is expected to assent to them. This is standard operating procedure in those realms where the people are considered simply as subjects. It is totally at odds with how elected or appointed representatives should speak to people considered as citizens -- or rather fellow citizens.
Where is the dispassionate voice of reason and human feeling in all this public disquisition? It was heard briefly in the poems of those poets who opposed the war and were considered unworthy to be hosted in the White House. They were probably regarded simply as another "focus group."
Ironically, they were, but it was the right focus. If the purpose of language is to witness to the truth, they were good witnesses. They were not engaged in "spin" or deception or self-serving exploitation of the suffering of others. And no soldiers, Marines or civilians paid for their words with their lives. Zealots cannot make a similar claim.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Samuel Hazo is director of the International Poetry Forum and McAnulty Distingushed Professor Emeritus at Duquesne University (hazo@stargate.net).)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03347/250711.stm