“Whatsoever you do to the least of my people, that you do unto me.”

There will, as usual, be those among you who are non-Christians who will be offended by my quote, and an equal amount of Christians who will be offended that a non-Christian used scripture.  Weird.

Is wisdom not wisdom?  As I have written before, while I am not a Christian, I hold Christ in reverence as Divine. Yahweh is another matter...

Why use this quote?  What am I getting at?  Here is a relevant song, called "Cost of Crown" and it is a Mercedes Lackey piece.  The lyrics tell us how to do it, and if we pay attention, we can see that this is unfortunately NOT how it is being done in either religion or politics.

"Cost of Crown"

The stars are very beautiful-above the Palace walls,
They shine with equal splendor-still above far humbler halls.
I watch them from my window, but their bright entrancing glow,
Reminds me of the freedom I gave up so long ago.

The royal circlet of bright gold rests lightly on my brow,
I once thought only of the rights this circlet would endow.
But once I took the crown to which I had been schooled and bred,
I found it heavy on the heart; though light upon the head.

Although I am the head of state, in truth I am the least,
The true queen knows her people fed, before she sits to feast.
The good queen knows her people safe before she takes her rest,
Thinks twice and thrice and yet again before she makes request.

For they are all my children, all, that I swore to defend,
It is my duty to become both queen and trusted friend---
And of my children high and low, from beggar to above
The dearest are my Heralds who return my care with love.

The dearest are my Heralds, swift to spring to my command,
Who give me aid and fellowship, who always understand
That land and people first have needs that I may not deny---
So I must send my dearest friends to danger and to die.

A friend, a love, a child--- it matters not, I know indeed
That I must sacrifice them all if there should be the need
They know and they forgive me--- doing more than I require,
With willing minds and loving hearts go straight to grasp the fire.

These tears that burn my eyes are all the tears the queen can't shed,
The tears I weep in silence as I mourn my Heralds dead.
Oh gods that dwell beyond the stars, if you can hear my cry---
And if you have compassion---let me send no more to die!

It is an on going theme in my writings and meetings that I talk about what I consider one of the greatest failings in modern leadership and egalitarian democracy in general. That failing is the acknowledgment and balancing of rights and duties, privilege and obligation. 

Time and again in history, and now in our own era, we see privilege increase and the idea of obligation or duty cast aside for selfish reasons.  While this topic covers a lot of ground, I will spend my time today taking a brief look at this issue as applied to religious and political leadership.

Concerning organized religious leadership: I have no desire to cast dispersions on people's belief sets.  What I am going to discuss has to to with material and practical considerations, issues which at their heart differ to an extreme degree with how my people handle similar endeavors.

One of the major differences between my own and most of the major organized faiths is how the clergy are compensated and interface with members of their group.  Among my people, the leader of a ceremony does not stand higher than the people, in front of them, commanding their obedience and attention.  Nor do we at any time do we pass a "collection plate" or tithe in any other way.

For ceremony, my people sit or stand in a circle. If it is a large gathering, the people sit amphitheater style, higher than the "leader."  In our traditions, the leader of ceremonies is known as the Servant, to remind them that they are there to serve the people, not command them.  The Servant is expected to make their own way in life, in addition to the hours of work it takes to be in a position of guidance.

Does the Servant get special privileges?  Food, money, honors?  A different set of rules or a free pass from sin and crimes?

NO!  In fact, the rules are much more strict and the penalties much more severe for our Servants than for a person not in their position.  The Servant can, of course, wield significant power, but there are other checks in place that can displace them quickly should the need be felt by their people.  In fact, there is little motivation for a person to seek being named Servant and almost no chance for someone who wants the job for their own glory to get it.  The job is given by endorsement of the people in recognition of the ability to do it.

To be Servant means that you do all the work to set up a Ceremony, moderate and conduct it, clean up afterward, and, like a stage manager, fill in for any people missing.  Servants are the first to wake, last to sleep and by tradition, lead their people in battle by being first on the field and last to leave.  A Servant is expected to be and expert in as many disciplines relating to their job as possible and to be always the scholar, seeking greater ability and performance of self.

There are no gold trappings, no bows or kneeling of reverence, no hand-kissing, no vacation homes very little credit and fewer thanks for the Servants of my people.  If you are a Servant, you do the job, a job or duties and obligation, not one of privilege.

And that is how it should be, but so seldom is in other organizations.  I have never understood how a "man of the cloth" could afford a ski house in Vail, CO or drive a $65,000 custom automobile and not have a non-clergy job.  I have known many folks as I describe who live off the offerings, quite well at that, of their people.  It is not that way for us.

The family of each Rose (a high office in a Circle) pays for and provides facilities for the Ceremonies that fall under each of their seats.  None of that payment, however, goes to the Servant; their time, as always is freely given, as are their travel expenses to Circle and other costs.  All of the Servant's costs are covered by the Servant.  A Rose who sponsors a event would never, out of tradition and pride, ask people attending for money for that which should and ultimately must be given freely.  The sponsoring Rose also covers the food and drink costs or any other associated costs for the ceremony or event.

The Servant does not charge for ministerial services, such as marriage or funeral rituals.

Because each Circle is autonomous and there is no central ecclesiastical organization for my people, or desire for the domination of their fellow man, there is no need to collect funds for missionaries or to send up the church food chain.  Ordination, promotion and scholarship are all awarded on merit, not money.

How does this all survive?  Exactly as I have described it; by people working hard.  What sort of world do we live in that your church takes 10% right from your payroll check just to let their fat-cats get fatter?

For politicians, I feel the same way.  Why does a politician eat well and have material wealth given to them in exchange for doing what should simply be their duty?  Why do both types of "leaders" have so much when there are many putatively under their "care" that have almost nothing.

Am I advancing socialism? Heck no! I am all in favor of a merchant or tradesperson getting out there and doing the best to do the things we all need done, with limited regulation, to the best of their ability.  Free trade and a free market are some of the most basic freedoms human beings have.

I just wasn't aware that politics or religion should be a business. 

There are no comments to this entry.