Loudmouth <"So it is with the Earth Mother/Mother Earth superstition: a nice, sweet, seemingly harmless and pro-Indigenous and pro-woman superstition. Test it ? It's bullsh!t. Move on. Re-join the world."

Oh I don't know Loudmouth. Am I the only one here considering an age-old concept like Mother Earth?
No, you are joining in with the age-old manly concept of rejecting a subject because it is 'too feminine'!

Ever read Dan Brown's book 'The Da Vinci Code'?
I do think there is a lot to the 'Sacred Feminine' history :)

St Augustine thought that the idea of the "Great Mother" was "the" most formidable enemy of Christianity

In her book "Sexual Personae", Camille Paglia makes this observation:

"Human life began in flight and fear. Religion rose from the rituals of propitiation, spells to lull the punishing elements....Civilised man conceals from himself the extent of his subordination to nature. The Grandeur of culture, the consolation of religion absorb his attention and win his faith. But let nature shrug, and all is in ruin.....
Civilised life requires a state of illusion. The idea of the ultimate benevolence of nature and God is the most potent of man's survival instincts. Without it, culture would revert to fear and despair."

Western man is not particularly adept at self-regulation, despite his so-called educated status, and the U.N. appears to be attempting to advocate a legal framework to oversee and regulate human exploitation of the planet...however dubious are the motives of the powers that be.

The adoption of earth mother symbolism seems a deliberate ploy to romantise the notion in people's minds....although, there's nothing particularly religious about it - except that it threatens an alternative to the worship of a sky-God.
Religion is a device employed by man to transcend his earth-bound reality - in this instance an attempt is being made to bind him more tightly to his environmental responsibilities by the use of law.

Indeed, Poirot, much that passed as "religion" in the course of history had nothing to do with religion. Often all it is is merely culture.

Anything, be it primitive or sophisticated, that is fear-based or done with the intent of improving our worldly situation, is less than religion. It would be exaggerated to describe such normal human behaviour as an "enemy" (of religion) - it may better be described as a distraction.

However, one formidable enemy of religion is coercion, as it prevents us from expressing the goodness of our hearts. Spiritual progress is only made when one freely chooses to surrender to God, to serve God - and thereby others (since everyone and everything is an aspect of God, including the environment). When one is subject to coercion, then although one may outwardly perform exactly the same actions as they would anyway, if those actions are made out of fear of punishment rather than out of love for God (and therefore for His creation), then no spiritual merit accrues.

Whether God is referred to and adored as the "sky-God" or as "Mother-Earth" is just a cultural difference. Both are valid ways to focus man's limited attention on their own essential and inherent Godliness, on Love rather than fear.

The U.N. in this case cares not for the spirit, nor even for reminding people of their environmental responsibilities - it simply wishes to create certain results, and is mindless of using even coercion if that should bring about the desired results. In doing so, it renders itself as an enemy of God - as well as an enemy of Mother Earth.

Yuyutsu,

I'm inclined to agree that the U.N. is exploiting the idea of mother earth as a tool to further its influence and authority.

However, you said: "....one formidable enemy of religion is coercion."

I would disagree on an aspect of that assertion. And this is where "religion" - or more pointedly "institutionalised religion" parts company from pure spirituality.

Institutionalised religion is psychologically extremely coercive - as, indeed, are all social and cultural paradigms.

Legal coercion in a secular sense is also a persuasive and punitive system of coercion which provides societies with various methods of punishment delivered sharply and opportunely on a material level.

It seems that man always fashions for himself a system of coercion, either in his temporal and spiritual realms, or sometimes a blending of both.

The fact remains, however, that while we focus on our need for transcendent spirituality in our sky-Gods, we are simultaneously over-exploiting and debasing the planet that sustains us.

Perhaps if we understand that the earth is the realm from which we derive our spirituality - as Squeers said, "nature developed us"....that without it we cease to exist....then it doesn't really matter how you perceive it - as long as you care for it.

Poirot,

Well of course, being instituionalised does not guarantee any relation to the spirit. I was not even referring in my post to instituionalised so-called "religions". Yes, man is weak, and is likely to abuse his spirit under various pretexts.

I see no problem with the fact that we "debase the planet that sustains us" in itself, if not for the fact that in doing so we fail to respect God's gifts. From a secular point-of-view, that believes that we are just bodies, we might indeed die as a result, but then what's the big deal? Physical death, even of whole species and planets, has occurred in the past and will continue to occur in the future for each of us, for our species and for our planet: we must be careful not to elevate the tyranny of our genes, in their mechanical wish to replicate themselves forever, to a position of sanctity.

Nature did not develop us - it only developed and evolved our bodies (including our brains). Whence is this idea as if "the earth is the realm from which we derive our spirituality"? Indeed, taking the time to stay outdoors away from our busy urban lifestyle and just silently watch the natural elements, is a good meditative technique - that is probably where this notion has stemmed from, but all it means is that we develop our spirituality ON earth, rather than derive it FROM it.

Hi Pelican,

You put your finger right on it:

"The thought of a nurturing loving Mother Earth does sound comforting ...."

Indeed. But that doesn't make it 'true', any more than any other religious or superstitious belief. Maybe what we need are more 'discomforting' notions :)

I think Poirot might be onto something when she suggests that the notion of an Earth Mother/Mother Earth is being exploited and my worry is that it is being used in that way to con Indigenous people into excluding themselves from the rest of the world.

People can easily encapsulate themselves and deny the vast body of knowledge that has accrued over the past few thousand years across the rest of the world - from the Egyptians, the Chinese and Vietnamese, the Austronesians, the Greeks, the Indians, the Aztecs, the Middle East, Africa, the 'West' - everybody has been learning and sharing knowledge, perhaps unintentionally.

Whatever genuine, testable and tested knowledge Indigenous people have developed over fifty thousand years is also part of that body of world knowledge. They don't need religion or superstition any more than anybody else. They are part of the world, our world, their world. Anything which persuades them otherwise is doing them a tragic disservice.

Joe