My Mom has always told me NEVER to argue about religion or politics and so naturally, I got the idea to discuss religion. While even she would admit I have a rebellious spirit I intend not to argue a single thing here and merely to empty my mind and toss around some ideas. Presently I have observed what seems like a global infestation of divisiveness. Many individuals are compartmentalizing and labeling themselves and others prolifically. Perhaps this is a result of our heritage of modernism, post-modernism and/or our history as similarly defined structuralists and post-structuralists etc. I believe the Industrial Revolution remains very much at the core of this entire philosophical debate. The Technological Revolution may have spread communication on a global scale but we are still all communicating using Industrial Revolution language. This is where spirituality conflicts. The unseen cannot be measured or universally defined. The truly divine is infinite and definitions are inadequate and finite.
I recently experienced the loss of my twenty-two-year-old son in an auto-accident. Such an experience shakes a person to question divinity. In my state of severe grief, I know I have had a choice to either curse the divine, be drawn to the divine or reject the very existence of any divine spiritual forces at all. In my life I have held various professional roles including, but not limited to, having been both a secular teacher and a Catholic Sunday school teacher. I no longer consider myself Catholic and throughout the years I have appreciated my exposure to various religions and spiritual beliefs originating in both Eastern and Western views. In my present state of being, I still believe in the existence of souls and spirits and spiritual guidance but even with these personal views I refuse to define my human existence in these terms or impose my beliefs upon anyone else. If I truly believe that the divine is infinite, then I cannot victimize other humans by labeling them in any limiting form whatsoever. Have you ever applied for a job and when they asked you to self-identify -you couldn’t quite figure yourself out?
We are always looking for the one right answer, but it’s not there. The only correct answer is “HUMAN” but somehow they always forget to add that option.
Back to Batman and Atheists. As someone who believes in spirits and souls which are infinite, I have found myself finding many atheists to be quite “holy” (however they may protest), and many others with religious affiliations to be likewise quite “unholy”. The same scenario could of course exist in reverse as well. Neither state of identification can necessarily be a guarantee for one thing or another. For me, love is infinite and it cannot be tripped up by the structured processes and definitions as required by the language of the Industrial Revolution. Modernism and post-modernism have no idea what to do about “Love”. It cannot be placed on a production line, there is no way to measure productivity or efficiency. Structuralists and Post-structuralists would love to analyze “why” we feel a lack of love or where in our lives we had been programmed to “love”, or how “unproductive” except with regard to sexual reproduction perhaps, “love” may be. The Technological Revolution as evident by all of the “hate” memes is also met by “love” and “self-awareness” memes which may from time to time also be subject to Industrial Revolution definitions, classifications and limiting labels as well.
The following is a textbook definition of “holy”, to be “dedicated or consecrated to God or a religious purpose; sacred.” If we take the limited term of “God” and replace it with the word “good” and we also take the word “religious” and replace it with the word “good” then both human definitions of “God” and “good” are synonyms. If there is a “good” human, then their purpose is sacred. If one’s actions are therefore “good”, then the labels on the job application are irrelevant. This person, in my opinion, is an extremely qualified HUMAN in the most sacred sense.