Re: If it religion it ain't cohousing, NOT! | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Dspreitzer (Dspreitzereworld.com) | |
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 14:17:08 -0500 |
Gary, the original author of this thread writes: "I meant that if a group builds a community based on one belief and does not promote diversity, it is my opinion that it is no longer cohousing. It's intensional community, yes." While I, for one, would not be an advocate of a cohousing group excluding folks on the basis of religion, in my book this alone does not deny them the option of calling themselves cohousing if they have a common house, and all the other "base model" components of cohousing. Nowhere in my research and understanding of cohousing have I found it to be synonymous with diversity. Having been a resident of N Street Cohousing for over 6 years, I can say that the diversity word has been popular. We even had a diversity committee for some time. I also know that when it came down to it, most of us were comfortable living and cohousing with people who shared similar philosophical beliefs (note, I did not say spiritual beliefs). I fully believe that it is far easier to build and live in a cohousing community if people have things in common. I'm not saying that it won't work if they don't, but it's a hell of a lot easier to achieve a genuine sense of community if they do. Gary further writes: "I feel to have true cohousing there must an openness and tolorence to anyone who wishes to be in community." In my liberal heart, I wish this were the case, but I know that it takes a whole lot more than a willingness to "be in community" to make cohousing work. Not everyone would find a comfortable niche in every cohousing community, nor do I think they should. I think it's too idealistic to say that "everyone is welcome to live here." I'm sorry, but I do not have to feel neighborly to say, a child pornography photographer, or some other person that says they want to live in cohousing but really doesn't belong. Gary concludes by stating, "if religious lables start attaching themselves to cohousing we're in deep shit." I agree, but I don't think the inclusion of one Mennonite community would cause the downfall of the movement, just like I don't think talk or inclusion of Eco-villages on this list does us any harm. If one out of say 25 cohousing communities is religious based (especially if many different kinds of religions are represented), there are still a great majority that are mainstream and secular and outsiders will see this. Actually, including groups that have a particular focus under the cohousing umbrella seems to do more for the diversity of the movement than just promoting diversity "within" groups. I agree with lots of what's been posted lately about "base model" cohousing. I think it is important for the movement to build a reputation that is acceptable to the mainstream. But this certainly doesn't mean that individuals or groups who want to start a cohousing community with a certain focus (say religious based, or retirement-age based) should stand back and wait until cohousing is available to the mainstream masses. Like anything, there will always be examples that vary from the norm. Down the road, I see the cohousing movement resembling a bell shaped curve: Most of the communities housing "mainstreamers," while off to both the left and right are communties that are more more selective in their goals and philosophies. Missing cohousing and searching for community in Toronto, Donna Spreitzer
- (no other messages in thread)
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.