|Re: CHRISTIAN COHOUSING III||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Gorwydd (Gorwyddaol.com)|
|Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 22:20:34 -0500|
Sorry, folks I need to rant some on this one. Al More writes: >It seems that I've ignited a small firestorm wrt the Christian cohousing >issue. Although I am new to the list, I have done some research and asked >the question on Christian cohousing only when I found no information on the >subject anywhere. There seems to be lots of information on Christian >intentional communities, but nothing on Christian cohousing, specifically. >The reason, it appears, is that Christian cohousing is nonexistent or >underground. You may be interested to know that there are many, many >Christian neighborhoods throughout the country. Informal cohousing if you >will. There is an ongoing misuse of context here, or a missed understanding of word choice. Religions are special interest groups. They hold to specific codified beleif systems usually accompanied by a degree of regulation or enforcement of behavior patterns. Cohousing is also a special interest group, but in the oposite way. the CO on cohousing is specifically intended to mean an openness, it literally means "together". The only enforcement is apon CO-habitating, and seeks "difference" to accomplish this. Religious communities, for all the wonderful things they may become, are still discriminatory if they actively restrict themselves to initiated "memberships" of the same or even related religions. Cohousing, evolving out of communal living experiments combined with far older notions about being a community, is about bringing different people together to prove that they can cohabitate in spite of... rether because of their differences... and overcome human shortcomings (at least in theory). Religion and Cohousing simply cannot exist side by side. They negate each other: inclusion + exclusion = 0. They two words just don't fit. No one questions the rights of religious groups to form their own planned communities, but they will never be cohousing communities as long as they say no to anyone based upon "who" that person is. They need to stop using the word "cohousing" simply because it is becomming trendy, and sounds cool, and will "buy" members...... something that even cohousers need to be wary of. Same goes for vegetarian cohousers. Same goes for specific economic levels based on the prices of units (if the poor can't live there side by side with the rich... and I happen to be a starving artist... it's discriminating). * * * This makes cohousing to me a very complicated issue. Are there REALLY any truly all-inclusive cohousing communities out there, or have all of them at one time or another said no to someone for some reason or other that might have sounded ligit... but was it really? How strong are we when it comes to getting what we wish for or practicing what we preach? I've only been to visit a few communities thus far, but most of them in some fashion or another couldn't help looking me up and down and making their own decisions about me, and were distrustful (even if just a wee bit) until they got to know me... it's just human nature. I imagine I could open up a can of worms with this one (free speech versus censorship, good acceptible behaviors versus unnacceptable ones, etc) How far does it go? How far will your community take it? I guess someone always has to play the Devil's advocate and ask the questions people are likely to ignore when they are too bussy spin-doctoring some heavy-on-the-idealist cause or another in order to "sell" it for profit of one form or another in our market economy/society. doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying... that is also human nature. phew -Allen Howell
- CHRISTIAN COHOUSING III Al Morel, September 8 1997
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.