On Apr 26, 2009, at 2:51 AM, TurquoiseB wrote:
Is it possible that you turned down someone's
application because the unidentified voice on
the other end of the phone said to out of spite,
or because he thought that they might have once
seen another spiritual teacher or done some-
thing Off The Program?

If so, and someone was discriminated against
and kept away from a course that even YOU would
have to believe would be beneficial for them,
does this present a case for YOUR "unfounded
beliefs" being a tad harmful to someone else?
Or is their experience of YOU turning them down
all "their experience, not yours?"

I'm looking forward to this answer too,
as this happened fairly often, from
what I recall.  It was especially evil
when one spouse would be accepted,
but not the other.  That's basically
breaking up families, forcing people
to choose, triangulating them.

And it's interesting, isn't it,
that that kind of behavior was
not only tolerated, it was usually
exalted as "keeping the knowledge
pure" or whatever other BS phrase
they used, while attempting to save
marriages or relationships by seeking
counseling was condemned, as far
as I know, always--no exceptions.
Quite a system of ethics there, eh?

So I too am wondering about Raunch's
answer, and whether or not the dismay/
anxiety of others being "turned away"
for reasons the TMO never even had the
decency to own up to (undoubtedly because
they didn't actually *have* any reasons, or they
were too lame for anyone to own up to) had any
effect on her other than, "Well, it's not
*my* problem, why should I worry?"

Good question, Barry.  I'm not holding
my breath waiting for the answer, though.

I'm SURE you can make a case for "I was just
doing my job, and following orders." But you
don't even know WHOSE orders you were follow-
ing. Do you not see something vaguely remin-
iscent of Germany during WWII about this,
where good Germans sent Jews somewhere (they
didn't care where) because some unidentified
male voice told them to?

I believe even the Nazis identified themselves.

Sal

Reply via email to