A word about socio-political-religious organizations in general. (Trying to avoid the worst errors of over-generalization, while still making a point). The impetus for this post is John Peestock's last sentence. It is a dilema we face daily posting here, as we meet people whose views and 'identity' raise issues.

People need to 'belong' to things. Groups form in order for generally like-minded folks to pursue goals, whether it be political, religious, ethnic,labor...etc., etc. The problem is, there are lot more variations in opinion and attitude than there are organizations. But--an organization needs to have an identity, and this identity tends to be mostly formalized in bylaws, charters, constitutions, rituals, songs..etc. There are also many non-'formal', but still distinctive, practices and patterns that set it apart.

The larger a group is, the more difficult it is to define itself in ways that will totally satisfy everyone; but people still need the structure, so they either struggle to change from within, or they ignore (or pretend to ignore) those aspects of their group which are not totally comfortable for them.

Another tendency, in MY opinion, is that the formal definitions of groups tend toward the more conservative, limiting, narrow range of the group's interests and concerns, (even in more liberal organizations!)

Thus, you get a Republican party that is the BEST choice for a person, but is still, at every moment, doing things he wishes it wouldn't; and we watch the campaign as various Republicans do this funny dance trying to defend their party without subscribing to the parts they are uncomfortable with.

Religions are in an even more awkward position. There are, at least, for politicans, some ways to be mavericks in their party without TOO much onus ... and membership, if not leadership, is open. But religions, at least superfically, tend to specify what the rules and beliefs are, and defend their choices with appeal to **Higher** authority. Not every detail of what an adherent is supposed to believe and practice is spelled out by most religions, (though some try hard!), but there are always implicit and implied rules and attitudes which seem to follow from the explicit ones, and any religious group is a complex mix of these combined with the historical record which brought them to where thay are now.

So, we have a Catholic Church which has the Inquisition as part of its history, but doesn't do such things anymore. They still DO, however, have clear mandates about abortion, celibacy for priests, supermacy of the Pope, relationships to other religions etc., which are not totally comfortable for all adherents.

We have many religions which officially believe that anyone (such as me) who is NOT a member will experience some sort of eternal torment, and some openly pound bibles and TELL me so, while others prefer to focus on the positive aspects of their beliefs and leave it to me to see the implications.

Now, I know some people, both in everyday life and through this newish medium of cyber-life who are members of churches and political parties whose views diverge from my own, but whom I basically like and respect. The thing is, in real life, we meet, sing songs, share hobbies, talk about kids, etc., and mostly avoid our differences, but in this online world, with contact being mostly typed messages, those differences are often brought out and magnified, and let's face it ...we don't all visualize the source of those messages the same way! Some people see ALL screen personas as VERY real and react to them in emotional ways, while others de-personalize those they 'meet' here and react to them in ways they would probably NOT do if the person were standing in the same room.

It ain't easy folks. We have a wide variety of members and 'guests' here, tenuously drawn together by the purported interest in blues and 'folk' music, (which we ALSO argue about). I, personally, try to thread my way thru the minefields here without undue conflict; others seem to relish a toe to toe arguement - and some cannot resist personal attacks and character assassination.

I used to think that discussions of religious differences, alien encounters, psychic phenomena, political agendas, and 'personal' crises in marriage and health were beyond the reasonable scope of a place like this, but I simply don't know any longer. We have become a 'community', though not exactly a classic one, and the issues WILL keep arising. I suppose it may even help in some ways, though it *DOES** drive away some who wanted just the music.....

...ah well, I have rambled ..... I could easily expand all this to a PHD thesis, but who would read it? I have not said it all as clearly as I wanted, but maybe I cleard up some of my own thougts........

onward .............