What exactly is this?

One of the reasons I reject a language of “spirituality” is because it’s so devoid of meaning because it means too many things. If it means some supernatural “sprit” essence inside of us–the religious type of soul–then i’ve got no use for it and it’s just as ridiculous as the belief in a deity. If it’s intense emotional experience, why not talk about it as such?

What freedom does require is people with the personal courage and morality to examine their inner selves, their thoughts and their actions. People DO need to live in their own heads a bit and really think about how what they think or say or do may or may not be moral.

How is this different from a spiritual life (as opposed to religion, two terms which this discussion still doesn’t separate cleanly)? For myself, I think that what you’re describing is exactly that–no matter whether you put a/ several God/ gods/ spaghetti monsters in the middle, or you don’t.

Don’t let anyone get away with this wishy-washy “we all believe in Jesus” crap. As Emo Philips put it: “Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?”

Don’t forget the episode of Cheers where Woody and his fiancee Kelly had a fight because they thought each other was heretical because they belonged to different Synods of the Lutheran Church.

“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course.”

Translation: “You FundieVangelists agree with me, whether you’re smart enough to realize it or not. It’s time you got it into your heads that you have more in common with me than with our mutual enemies. Face it, who’d you rather see in the White House: a Baptist willing to march in line with sexual misfits and unwed mothers, or a Mormon who, sure enough, was willing to pander to people like that in order to obtain a gubernatorial position but who now is willing to give ‘em the go-by in order to take the next step up? So, folks, act in your best interests and don’t make difficulties, because you know what kind of political objectives we share as well as I do, even tho’ for convenience’ sake I am now calling those shared political objectives ‘a common creed of moral convictions’. Don’t play dumb now, you know perfectly well what I mean. Think hard. Jesus may not be humping for Huckabee as hard as Huckabee thinks He is, and in that case, Mormon Mitt may be the only chance you have to impose your political will on the nation at large. Think of that “common cause” you wish to chart, from which nobody will be permitted to deviate, then hold your nose if you must, and vote for the man with enough money, enough influence, enough consultants, and enough personal moral flexibility to make it all happen. Don’t you understand, people? You’re being given a second chance. Don’t you blow this opportunity the way you blew the last.”

The problem here seems to be more semantic than anything–”Freedom requires religion” should have been “freedom requires a spiritual life” (fine, I’m more or less quoting the Dalai Lama now).

While that would have been more inclusive, it still would have been crap. It’s just a couple of abstract ideas trying to define each other, and doing backflips in the ether in the meantime. Define “freedom.” Define “spirituality.” Now do it in a concrete way that a majority can agree on both definitions and see if the first requires the latter. It’s an impossible task, because we all have different definitions of freedom and spirituality, and for some of us, the two can both exist without ever coming in contact with each other.

The problem here seems to be more semantic than anything–”Freedom requires religion” should have been “freedom requires a spiritual life” (fine, I’m more or less quoting the Dalai Lama now). That would have been more inclusive without Romney having to appear as someone he’s not.

Not inclusive enough. It seems that a lot of people still don’t get it: you can be a complete, moral, passionate human being and not have anything remotely resembling a “spiritual life.” We don’t need spirituality, and some of us think that we’d be better off without the silly notion.

What freedom does require is people with the personal courage and morality to examine their inner selves, their thoughts and their actions. People DO need to live in their own heads a bit and really think about how what they think or say or do may or may not be moral. Religion can serve these purposes, but that’s not what most people use it for.

Freedom and morality require compassion and love for each other and for the earth. We aspiritual types are perfectly capable of these things. It makes me crazy that, even on the left, where religion and spirituality can often take on a more nebulous, universalist, inclusive, even somewhat hippie-dippie tone, that a lot of these people STILL think the atheist/aspiritualists are “missing” something. No, we’re not. We fucking get the picture, and we’re on your side. The problem is all that talk about love for the Earth-Mother-Spirit and how without that we cannot love the environment* is annoying and tends to alienate people who would otherwise happily work for the exact same goals as the people who say this kind of nonsense.

*The exact words or particular spiritual notions vary from person to person, but this sentiment is pervasive in the environmental sustainable/organic agriculture movement and it gets on my nerves big time. These people have lots of reason and science on their side, and there would probably be more rationalists and scientists working for them if we weren’t constantly being told how cold-hearted and uncaring we are.

After all, our first divorced president was Ronald Mr. Traditional Family Values Reagan.