Facing a backlash from within the BK community, Kathleen A. Shea, PhD uses the BK public relations website 'About Brahmakumaris' to accuse other Brahma Kumari adherents of hate propaganda or hate speech across the social media, ridiculing and attacking that ever expanding acronym ... the "LGBTQ" community.
LGBTQ standing for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer".
In short, people who define themselves by liking to have sex, especially with people of the same gender, including people who have had their original genitals mutilated in order to enable them doing so.
(And, just for the record, what is the difference between "gay" and "queer"? For example, is "gay" man a nice homo who likes to just have sex with one other man in a steady relationship, and "queer" man is a homo who like to have weird sex with 5 strangers in a public toilet dressed in rubber?)
Now, please tell me why on earth the Brahma Kumaris - who have been stopping people from having sex for 80 years and portraying it as impure and spiritually damaging (literally "the sword of lust" and "worse than murder" - getting involved in the business of a community of people who have been fighting for the rights to have sex as their raison d'etre for just as so long?
Indeed, lots of sex.
Lots of really dirty, kinky sex too ...
Perhaps, just like Queen Victoria who allegedly refused to pass legislation against women who enjoyed sex with other women because she did not believe it existed, the Brahma Kumaris cannot bring themselves to imagine what it homosexuality is really all about.
In defence of the BKWSU latest public relationships programme, Seeing is Believing, Ms. Shea proclaims that some of the statements being circulated and shared via social media by BK "violate the spiritual principles of the organization" ... whatever they might be.
Personally, I do not think the organization has any anyway, and certain no ethics, so what's the problem?
Indeed, I don't think the BKs even make it to "organization" status. It's just a loose cult of lost souls, the damaged, and weirdos herded together by control freaks.
One of which Ms Shea would appear to be exposing herself as.
So what is all this about?
For once, I am not at the cutting edge of BK criticism! I must be becoming soft in my old age. Ha ha.
My guess is the "Liberal Wing" of the BKWSU in somewhere like the West Coast of USA, where homosexuality is big business and big politics, has started an service programme to appeal to Pink Dollar and wants to pose the cult as being far more liberal, right on and politically correct than it really is ... and has then been pulled up by the more conservative, reactionary and - dare I say - strictly spiritual elements of the movement.
As in, those who embrace the virtues of celibacy, rather than each other.
The other big poop poop she drops is that it
Since when were the BKs or the BK philosophy based on "spirituality equality"!?!
It's system is one of the most rigidly hierarchical and eternally fixed inequalities caste systems of all religions.
I read BK Kathleen's missive, more of a desperate appeal to other BKs not to screw up the latest Public Relations campaign. I must go root out some of the comments. If anyone knows anything about this, please let me know.
Now the interesting thing is, as usual, the BKs actually avoid any serious discussions about the spiritual effects and relative position of homosexuality to heterosexuality. In the rush of a few Western BKs to appear more "politically correct", to evangelise to the queer nation, sell them some books and DVDs and perhaps convert a few to BKism, are they not deeply contradicting their own true values?
As is it all not just about a few over privileged Westerners? I mean, are BK India doing anything about the status of gay or transgender Indians? Are they officially going to stand up for the rights of lesbians?
Or are they only going to stand up for the right of Indian lesbians to become celibate slaves to their femdom leadership!?!
Strictly speaking, in the hierarchy of "spiritually uplifting" and "spiritually degrading" activities ... where exactly does homosexuality stand or lie?
For example, is it more or less degrading than heterosexuality, and if it is more degrading than heterosexuality (which is the classic position), by a factor of how much?
Shouldn't the BK message to Gay Times simple be how bad all sex is, and how they should all stop it immediately and become celibate? From a BK point of view, is it right to help people who base their identity on their sexual activity feel better about that? Wouldn't that be helping to hurt themselves spirituality?
Therefore, aren't those BKs who are criticising her Public Relationship campaign quite right to do so ... she being a corrupting of their religion?
I tend not to agree with Kathleen when she says that, "when one person or group of people is attacked, it hurts everyone and amplifies the downward spiral of fear, anger and hate". Whereas I am not really concerned with what sexual activity someone else has in the privacy of their own homes, one thing I dislike about gay politics is the manipulativeness that any questioning, criticism or obstruction to it is portrayed as "fearful" or hateful, as in "homophobia" and her she, as a BK, is playing the same game.
Why not have a real discussion about homosexuality from a spiritual point of view and say it how it is, instead of publicly contort yourself and pandering to a consumer market, and attempting to manipulate others to this weeks politically correct facade?
They can even invoke their great god spirit BapDada to definitively pronounce upon the subject ... will there be gay deities in Heaven?
Or is the BK world view really still not just one of,
* FYI, "No Poofters" refers to a classic satirical sketch performed by the Monty Python team making fun of hyper-masculine heterosexual societies and not poofters themselves. One of the Python team being a poofter himself.
LGBTQ standing for "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer".
In short, people who define themselves by liking to have sex, especially with people of the same gender, including people who have had their original genitals mutilated in order to enable them doing so.
(And, just for the record, what is the difference between "gay" and "queer"? For example, is "gay" man a nice homo who likes to just have sex with one other man in a steady relationship, and "queer" man is a homo who like to have weird sex with 5 strangers in a public toilet dressed in rubber?)
Now, please tell me why on earth the Brahma Kumaris - who have been stopping people from having sex for 80 years and portraying it as impure and spiritually damaging (literally "the sword of lust" and "worse than murder" - getting involved in the business of a community of people who have been fighting for the rights to have sex as their raison d'etre for just as so long?
Indeed, lots of sex.
Lots of really dirty, kinky sex too ...
Perhaps, just like Queen Victoria who allegedly refused to pass legislation against women who enjoyed sex with other women because she did not believe it existed, the Brahma Kumaris cannot bring themselves to imagine what it homosexuality is really all about.
In defence of the BKWSU latest public relationships programme, Seeing is Believing, Ms. Shea proclaims that some of the statements being circulated and shared via social media by BK "violate the spiritual principles of the organization" ... whatever they might be.
Personally, I do not think the organization has any anyway, and certain no ethics, so what's the problem?
Indeed, I don't think the BKs even make it to "organization" status. It's just a loose cult of lost souls, the damaged, and weirdos herded together by control freaks.
One of which Ms Shea would appear to be exposing herself as.
So what is all this about?
For once, I am not at the cutting edge of BK criticism! I must be becoming soft in my old age. Ha ha.
My guess is the "Liberal Wing" of the BKWSU in somewhere like the West Coast of USA, where homosexuality is big business and big politics, has started an service programme to appeal to Pink Dollar and wants to pose the cult as being far more liberal, right on and politically correct than it really is ... and has then been pulled up by the more conservative, reactionary and - dare I say - strictly spiritual elements of the movement.
As in, those who embrace the virtues of celibacy, rather than each other.
The other big poop poop she drops is that it
violates the principle of spirituality equality which is the foundation of all we do.
Since when were the BKs or the BK philosophy based on "spirituality equality"!?!
It's system is one of the most rigidly hierarchical and eternally fixed inequalities caste systems of all religions.
I read BK Kathleen's missive, more of a desperate appeal to other BKs not to screw up the latest Public Relations campaign. I must go root out some of the comments. If anyone knows anything about this, please let me know.
Now the interesting thing is, as usual, the BKs actually avoid any serious discussions about the spiritual effects and relative position of homosexuality to heterosexuality. In the rush of a few Western BKs to appear more "politically correct", to evangelise to the queer nation, sell them some books and DVDs and perhaps convert a few to BKism, are they not deeply contradicting their own true values?
As is it all not just about a few over privileged Westerners? I mean, are BK India doing anything about the status of gay or transgender Indians? Are they officially going to stand up for the rights of lesbians?
Or are they only going to stand up for the right of Indian lesbians to become celibate slaves to their femdom leadership!?!
Strictly speaking, in the hierarchy of "spiritually uplifting" and "spiritually degrading" activities ... where exactly does homosexuality stand or lie?
For example, is it more or less degrading than heterosexuality, and if it is more degrading than heterosexuality (which is the classic position), by a factor of how much?
Shouldn't the BK message to Gay Times simple be how bad all sex is, and how they should all stop it immediately and become celibate? From a BK point of view, is it right to help people who base their identity on their sexual activity feel better about that? Wouldn't that be helping to hurt themselves spirituality?
Therefore, aren't those BKs who are criticising her Public Relationship campaign quite right to do so ... she being a corrupting of their religion?
I tend not to agree with Kathleen when she says that, "when one person or group of people is attacked, it hurts everyone and amplifies the downward spiral of fear, anger and hate". Whereas I am not really concerned with what sexual activity someone else has in the privacy of their own homes, one thing I dislike about gay politics is the manipulativeness that any questioning, criticism or obstruction to it is portrayed as "fearful" or hateful, as in "homophobia" and her she, as a BK, is playing the same game.
Why not have a real discussion about homosexuality from a spiritual point of view and say it how it is, instead of publicly contort yourself and pandering to a consumer market, and attempting to manipulate others to this weeks politically correct facade?
They can even invoke their great god spirit BapDada to definitively pronounce upon the subject ... will there be gay deities in Heaven?
Or is the BK world view really still not just one of,
- "Sat Yuga ... no Poofters*".
BK Kathleen A. Shea wrote:From the Inside Out
BK Sustenance Initiative “SEEING INTO BEING” Kathleen A. Shea, Ph.D.
September 15, 2016
Over the past several years, the Brahma Kumaris sustenance team launched a number of special initiatives intended to support BKs in their spiritual understanding, personal growth, and daily practice. The most recent initiative “Seeing into Being” that began on September 1, 2016 is both the most well received – and the most criticized – of these initiatives.
Why was this initiative created? Current world affairs demonstrate the need for a clear, strong vision for the future. Even though much of the post-modern world indulges in an internal dialogue of cynicism, Brahma Kumaris believe that most people really do crave a beautiful new world. All individuals and groups are conditioned by their internal dialogue. So, the questions posed by this initiative are: “What kind of internal perceptions and dialogues maximize human potential? Can our image of the future be self-fulfilling?”
“Seeing into Being” features professionally-conducted interviews with senior BK teachers from around the globe who offer their personal reflections and insights on a “Golden Age” of peace and harmony. Interviewees are providing rich descriptions of their personal experiences in meditation or particular encounters over many years of practicing Raja Yoga.
Both the interviewer and interviewees have stated that these reflections are personal experiences and should be taken as such. The statements made by the interviewer or interviewees are intended to encourage and inspire BKs to engage in personal reflections on this topic, and are not official statements by the Brahma Kumaris organization.
While many positive comments have been received about this initiative, there has been a concerted effort by some BKs to use this initiative for contrary purposes. Comments on websites and social media have crossed the line by engaging in personal attacks against the interviewer, some interviewees, and the LGBTQ community in general. These comments do not reflect the respectful relationships we seek to share with all people. When one person or group of people is attacked, it hurts everyone and amplifies the downward spiral of fear, anger and hate.
This is a huge mistake and violates the spiritual principles of the organization.
Some of the statements being circulated and shared via social media may rise to the level of hate propaganda or hate speech by ridiculing and attacking an identifiable group of individuals. In many countries, including the UK, USA and Canada, this is illegal and would be the basis for criminal prosecution.
“Seeing into Being” is exactly what BK students have given their lives to: creating an upward spiral, a dynamic, creative approach to envisioning a radically different world from the one in which we are living today. As this initiative unfolds, the Brahma Kumaris invites public participation to individually and collectively activate those aspects of a new world that everyone desires: a world with peace, purity, happiness, love, and harmony.
BK students have clear rights to comment and criticize actions taken by the organization; many have made their voices heard over the years. However, to use this initiative as a platform to humiliate any individual or ridicule any particular group, violates the principle of spirituality equality which is the foundation of all we do. We urge everyone to use social media in a positive and productive way.
* FYI, "No Poofters" refers to a classic satirical sketch performed by the Monty Python team making fun of hyper-masculine heterosexual societies and not poofters themselves. One of the Python team being a poofter himself.