Violence is a Disease

(Crossposted on Street Prophets)

I haven't written anything to this blog in a while now, for some good reasons. Not excuses, but reasons, I tell you!

For one thing, at the writing of my last blog I had been mulling over things, trying to get a handle on where we are, and where I stand. I had been wondering whether or not we Christians should work for political change, and I asked the question of why our humanitarian efforts couldn't be just as effective for God under any form of government, whether it be democracy, communism, or fascism.

I have solidified my beliefs on this. I do believe that the form of our government is not our primary mission, and that we very well may be the salt of the Earth regardless. So I, personally, choose not to be involved in politics. I am leaving that up to God.

What I will work for is to promote peace and harmony. I will preach peace to any who will listen. Peace is a big topic, however, and will probably take me to places I might not anticipate, like economics, ecology, and even the proper care of animals. Peace is not only an external concept, but also is to be sought on several internal, personal, and spiritual levels. Before we can get to the practicality of peace, however, we must examine the disease (or dis-ease) that seeks to squelch peace.

These are my thoughts on the disease of violence.

VIOLENCE

Violence is never constructive, and is always destructive. I use the term 'violence' instead of 'fighting' because there are many types of 'fighting' - even to including negotiations, which is inherently good and peaceful. Violence breaks out when negotiations break down. Violence never meets needs, it instead makes it harder to meet your needs, because there is always 'payback'.

OF WAR

In my conversations with others on the matter, the example of our revolutionary war has come up as a possible example of how violence could be good. I disagree, for the following reason. The example of our revolutionary war being instrumental in the creation of the United States is because the violence of war created a void, in which we were able to install our fledgling government. If England had not eventually chosen to stand down we would still be at war with them. I am sure that the British decided it was in their best interests to retreat and let us have our country. War always is destructive, and is always when diplomacy breaks down or is not employed.

A peacekeeper must convince those who would resort to war or violence that nothing is ever built or constructed by destructive means. It is only when people decide to stand down from the violence that they can then turn to constructive efforts. When people tire of violence they turn to diplomacy anyways in the formation of treaties and the like. So why not just cut out the violence and go straight to the treaties?

OF TERRORISM

Violence in the form of terrorism never produces the effect that the terrorist desires; it always produces the exact opposite. The suicide bomber that blows up a bus or a nightclub never succeeds in winning people's sympathy, but does succeed in alienating people from his cause. The only time that violence can even come close to being used as a tool is if you can blame some other entity for the violence, so they get the backlash. Remember the movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" when they trashed the jock's car and blamed it on the rival
school?

Illegally imprison and torture people using (abusing) a loophole in the Geneva convention, and you do not gain good intelligence, you alienate any who hear of it, or any who see the pictures of it on the internet like I have. What is accomplished, but loathing of those who do such deeds? Was that the real purpose, to pour more fuel on the fire?

I like the movie V For Vendetta, but terrorist activities like the bombing of buildings in the movie would never win people's sympathy for whatever cause the terrorist is trying to promote. Here's how it would go in the real world- The terrorist detonates a bomb, and instead of making people understand him and sympathize with his cause, the violence turns it around backwards and there is alienation rather than sympathy. So although I like that movie I -completely- disagree with its premise.

The movie I do recommended is Changing Lanes, with Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson. It's a great movie and I highly recommend it. It illustrates that the only way to stop the downward spiral of destruction from a violent feud is for at least one of the parties to CHOOSE not to fight, even if it means they give up. Violence is always destructive, no matter how much the characters involved think it could be constructive to their purposes. This is amply demonstrated in this must-see movie.

DIPLOMACY AND NEGOTIATION OF CONFLICT

When a nation has a neighbor that it is having problems with, it is similar to a failed marriage in many ways. In a messy divorce, who benefits from all the fighting and ill-will? The lawyers. But who bears the burden of grief? The families. In a war, who benefits from all the fighting and ill-will? The corporations. And who bears the burden of grief? The families. As an amicable divorce saves everyones dignity and there are no casualties of grief, diplomacy and negotiation save everyones dignity and do not result in casualties and grief.

WHEN NEGOTIATION BREAKS DOWN

What happens if someone tries to punch you and their fist meets yours? You will both be hurt! We need to find alternatives to terrorism or war, because our needs will not be met by those
methods. Jesus said to turn the other cheek. I would amplify this by saying that compassion is not an emotion. Exercise compassion on your opponent.

Morihei Ueshiba, founder of the martial art of Aikido, said the following: "To injure an opponent is to injure yourself. To control agression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace."

He also said, "In the Art of Peace we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control. Never run away from any kind of challenge, but do not try to suppress or control an opponent unnaturally. Let attackers come any way they like and then blend with them. Never chase after opponents. Redirect each attack and get firmly behind it."

Is persuing peace for the cowardly? No. Taking unfair advantage of your opponent by violence is cowardly. Apologizing, tearing down the defensive walls, and resisting the inner protective instinct to erect those defensive walls is only for the very brave. I won't lie to you, this path is dangerous because peaceful overtures may not be returned by the other party. It takes great courage to agree to talk, or even to ask your opponent for a talk.

The brave path of peace is a path of sharp stones, but it leads to the brook.

LET'S PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE

Isn't there -any- situation where violence might work for good?

What about removing a diseased appendix, or amputating a gangrenous leg? I would have to answer that the disease or infection was the real source of the violence, the essence of the conflict. Removing the offender does not result in the loss of life, but the exact opposite, the saving of life. And surgery of this nature is not done from a motivation of agression.

If the above is true, what about executing criminals? I don't believe that capitol punishment is civilized, although I do believe that the Bible says we should expect this from governments. But what is accomplished? What is built? For instance, how did killing Stanley 'Tookie' Williams help anybody at all? Are victims ever returned to a state of pre-victim-hood? No. What is destroyed is any chance of the convict turning around, and making right with God.

What about the military use of a 'surgical strike' in a foreign country? This is another one of those 'live by the sword, die by the sword' scenarios that the Bible says we should expect from governments. This is a situation that requires great wisdom, and a grave obligation to do right, and underscores our need for leaders of great moral stature. And this is one of those situations that should weigh on their minds for years afterwards, requiring them to examine their motives.

What of freedom fighter guerrilla warfare, to overthrow a disfunctional and unhealthy government? Is violence then justified? No. I don't believe that is Biblical. Jesus said we are to take up our cross and follow him. He did not try to overthrow the Roman government, and we are NOT called to overthrow ours. He was executed for speaking the truth, promoting love, and caring for the needy. Should we expect anything less, for ourselves?

Was the violence against Jesus (or another martyr) constructive? Yes and no. It sure didn't have the effect that the perpetrators intended! (which is what we're talking about)

SUMMARY -- VIOLENCE 'IN A NUT SHELL'

To bring this to a conclusion, once more I will state that the disease of violence is always destructive, and never acheives the goals that the perpetrators of violence intend. Violence breaks out when negotiations break down. And when violence has run its virulent and meaningless course and exhausts itself, negotiations will again begin where they left off before the violence broke out, making the violence worse than meaningless. If meaningless violence is not a trait of pure evil, I don't know what is.

Lessons Learned

Since the last time I left an entry I have learned some valuable lessons about myself and our world around us.

First of all, I wrote what I thought was a masterpiece of writing, a critique of the church and Christianity today. I laid it all out beautifully, and then when I tried to post it here, my computer locked up, and all my efforts were gone. Then I wrote somewhat the same piece, discussing the same things about my grudges with the church, and again my computer froze up solid like before. So I thought, well maybe, just maybe, it's not meant to be. Maybe I'm supposed to take some time off to read, meditate and pray about these things before I write about them. Whether the lockups were from a computer virus or from providence, I am glad that I waited.

I started thinking about the time Jesus said to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. In placing this in context with all other scripture I am becoming convinced that the things of this world, including politics, are not really for us Christians. I am toying with the idea that it does not matter to a follower of Jesus if the nation he or she lives in is ruled by a dictator or monarch or a president. It should not matter what the ruling party is, or even if there is complete anarchy, or even if Christianity itself is outlawed.

I am thinking that it is quite possible for a follower of Jesus to be effective in our community regardless of anything else, if we just get back to basics. What is our mission? What have we been told we are to do? When Jesus said that the two greatest commandments were to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself, what does that entail? When Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me?" and then told Peter, "Feed my sheep." I believe Jesus was laying out exactly what love really is as plain as could possibly be told. Love is not 'liking' someone, as in liking an ice cream cone. Love is caring about or caring for someone, enough to make a difference in their life. So we should be caring for others as we care for ourselves. And how do we care for God, if God by definition doesn't really 'need' us? We respect God, and we care for those 'little ones' whom God cares about.

Our society seems to be governed by fear more and more each day. We are afraid of the terrorists, afraid of the government, afraid of economic hardship, afraid our spouse will cheat on us, afraid our neighbors will sue us. Those fears lead us to withdraw and avoid conflict, and then those fears convince us to hate. We may not even be completely conscious of these processes within us, and the reasons for why we feel the way we do and why we persue self-destructive behaviours. We may not realize that we use these buried emotions as a justification for lashing out at those around us, our family and friends, when we should be doing just the opposite.
Well, the Bible says that "perfect love casts out fear." So if we strive for perfect love, which is truly caring for, or taking care of, someone, we no longer have any reason to fear. If I live magnanimously, sensitive and responsive to people's needs, then I have no reason to fear anything from them. If we try to see our enemy's needs and solve them, they just might decide not to be our enemy any longer.

But do you take care of someone in order to get something back from them? No, that isn't perfect love, it's manipulation. We need to look for needs that we can meet, then meet them with no strings attached.

I recently started the book, "The Irresistible Revolution - Living as an Ordinary Radical" by Shane Claiborne. What a terrific book this is! This book really puts rubber to the road as far as how we should be living as Christians, and he does it in a positive and exciting manner. It is exciting because interacting with the needy is exciting and seeing God at work is renewing.

The church is not a building any more than a labor union is a building. The church are the people. Is money placed in the church's offering plate out of love, or from a feeling of obligation? Maybe we shouldn't be so concerned with real estate and put the money where it really is needed, with the needy.

Which Conspiracy Theory?

I used to have trouble believing what I saw in the news, probably partly because I assumed the news media to be liberal. So I figured that a lot of things were staged. I remember seeing footage of a Palestinian man and his young son who were taking shelter as they were being fired upon. If I remember right, his son was shot. Please forgive me if I'm wrong on the exact details, but my point is concerning my reaction. My reaction was disbelief, that possibly those pesky Palestinians had staged the whole thing to make the Iraelis look bad. I thought I was being clinically skeptical, but I was actually believing in a conspiracy theory, wasn't I?

Nowadays, after my conservative to liberal conversion, I realize that when I saw things like that in the news that I should've taken them more at face value. Why? Because the preponderance of evidence says that the event is true. That's all I have to go on, after all.

And now I'm looking at things that, back when I was conservative, I would have considered to be conspiracy theories! I'm talking about things like 9-11 and the buildup to the war on Iraq. See, now we have several situations in which we have either A)- a lot of information that is in contradiction to what we are being told, or B)- conspicuous absence of evidence where that evidence would substantiate what we are being told by our government. Or we have a combination of those two. So, if I'm trying to discern what is going on, I should go on the preponderance of evidence, not on bias or gut feelings, right? If there is a preponderance of evidence contradicting the government's cover story, and/or a dearth of the evidence that they say they have, that would support their story, I cannot think of it as a conspiracy theory, can I?

It is true, that we are not privy to everything that our government leaders are. Some things they have to keep secret, for whatever reason we do not know. But in the case of the 9-11 hit on the Pentagon, for instance, there are several cameras that footage could have been taken from to substantiate their story that it was an airplane and not a missile. Wouldn't it make the critics 'shut up' if they just released the footage, from several camera viewpoints? Why grab up all the tapes from the surrounding hotels and gas stations, etc. and not let us see for ourselves what happened? It would be very dramatic, wouldn't it?

In the case of evidence contrary to the cover story, like the Downing Street Memos, and video tape of various changing answers made by our administration for reasons for going to war, etc. what are we to believe? Are we to believe the cover story, or our lying eyes?

In judging whether or not to believe the various individuals that make up our government, a common sense approach should also be used. Have we found that we can trust them in the past, or have we found that they have betrayed our trust, or been plainly incompetent? Where is all the money flowing? Who is grossly benefitting by these admittedly bad decisions? Who is being indicted, or convicted? Can we get a 'feel' for who to trust?

Finally, do we have to have all the answers ourselves, in order to have the right to demand that questions be asked? No, I don't believe so. I think we citizens have the right, and the obligation, to demand that someone impartial find us the answers!

Until then, the only conclusion I can logically come to is this-- that to believe that our administration is outright lying to us, or at least heavily bending the truth, can not be a conspiracy theory. To deny all the damning evidence that is out there, and to deny the implausibility of the holding back of corroborating evidence, and to instead think that what they are telling us is the truth, this is actually the conspiracy theory.


http://www.911busters.com/
http://www.911blogger.com/
http://www.911truth.org/portal.php?what=link&item=20051205112658960
http://www.st911.org/ (Scholars for 9/11 Truth)

Why I am Me

In my previous post, Former Dittohead Voted Today! I tried to show a little of the process I went through in my change from conservative Republican dittohead to proud liberal. And I must add right here that it feels great to loosen up. It feels great to care about others. Having life more abundantly (something Jesus wanted for us) comes from giving and living, interacting with others, and does not come from selfishly trying to grab more stuff. We always say it but rarely mean it, that it is better by far to be rich with friends than money. I am here to tell you that it really is true. It gets down to happiness. If you are the richest of all, but have to eat dinner alone, well, that's pretty sad.

So, if you're interested, here is some more of the process that deposited me right here in this seat.

I wasn't really a very good little kid. I got caught with a Playboy in kindergarten. So, I was sent to a different school for 1st grade, where I got into fights daily. At yet another school in 2nd grade I stabbed a kid with a dinner fork. So is it any surprise to anyone that I was sent to a private school for 3rd grade? And to complicate things, it was a Baptist school, and we went to a Church of Christ.

Even though these two protestant branches both call themselves 'Christian' they don't really mix very well, because of some narrow viewpoints in each. And my grandparents were staunch Church of Christ non instrumental, which is even narrower.

We went to church activities for two services Sunday morning and also the Sunday evening service, the Wednesday night and sometimes the Saturday night service as well. We also were involved in Vacation Bible School and youth group activities like skating and summer camp. I don't know how many hours that would be, that I was indoctrinated from that side.

That indoctrination did conflict with the 35-40 hours I spent in Baptist school during the week. I constantly got sad looks and mournful shakings of the head when I'd relate what I'd learned in school that day to my parents. And if I spoke at school about what the Church of Christ doctrine was all about, I'd get either those sad looks and shaking heads or I'd be told by a fellow student or two (or eight) that I was going to hell. I was told at my church and at home that we had to take communion every Sunday morning, and that if we didn't that we just couldn't be very good Christians. The Baptists didn't have communion every Sunday. My church believed that if you died without being immersion baptized that there was no way you could go to heaven. The Baptists believed that you must be immersion baptized, but it wasn't as critical as in the Church of Christ's view. And I remember from both sides varying critical views on everything from what soap you used (if you were supporting Satan, or alternatively communism) to what music you could listen to, to how you ended prayers (whether, in praying to God, you could say, "in your son's name" or if you actually had to say the name 'Jesus' for it to work). Another thing was getting the tracts and photocopied outlines of directions on how to witness to people of other faiths, like Catholics and Jews, both of whom were, sadly, going straight to hell.

You'd think that would mess with a kids' head? Well, I guess it wasn't enough, because I found myself going to Bible college.

Bible college was great, but now I saw that there were many more positions and points of view, on literally everything. And everyone was calling themselves Christians! Even the different professors had different views on things, not that they would openly criticize each other.

I won't go into how I learned this (after college), but I finally learned that we should be looking for the similarities and not the differences between us and others. And when you try to appreciate others you can finally get to the place where you stop beating on yourself, thank God.

I guess for most of my life I took others criticism of me and what I said or did, to heart.
Whether it was private Bible school, or church, or Bible college, I was never left wanting for people to criticize my faith and how I worshipped. And I have come to the conclusion that this spirit of criticism, this negativity, is not Christian! It never was!

It took me a long time learning lessons in that other school, the School of Hard Knocks, before I discovered that it is harmful to be constantly thinking that God is over your shoulder ready and strangely happy to hit you with a big stick. Do you fondly think of your father as always wanting to punish you? Of course not. I hope not!

Jewish religious leaders criticized Jesus for eating and drinking with sinners and common men, but do you think Jesus was in there lecturing the outcasts of his society? Maybe even pounding on the table and pacing back and forth, for effect? We don't know, but I don't think so!

What most conservatives, the right wing, republicans, and neo-cons (and maybe many Christians too) lack is empathy, compassion. When your heart is hard, it does not bleed. God calls us to soften our heart. Good Christians should not have a hard heart to the poor people of the world, like immigrants or Iraqis. So if anyone wants to call me a 'bleeding-heart liberal' go right ahead! I think Jesus Christ was a 'bleeding-heart liberal' as well, so I'm in good company!

Where someone else is, you could be, if history had gone differently. The great thing is to appreciate every bump and skinned knee that got you to where you're at, because those experiences, no matter how hard, have given you substance, stability, and power. Do not hate or fear people who are different, because no matter what they do they cannot ever take away your stability, your substance.

You are like a person on top of a cliff, who looks down and sees someone clinging to the cliff wall. Don't be afraid, but reach down and lift them up and you will both be on top.

On Not Being Silent

I come from a Christian (and Republican) family that strongly believe that the United States of America was created as a Christian nation, by Christians. Therefore they believe that it is only right to return this country to its roots, Christianity. I do empathize with that faulty point of view because up until just a couple of years ago I believed that way too. I did not understand why there was such a furor over allowing prayer groups or Bible studies at a school, and I didn't understand why it is so wrong to prominently place the Biblical 10 commandments in courthouses. I, like my family, considered this not only part of our American heritage but also to be the foundation for our country.
So, from that point of view, my sister's email to me a few days ago was right and good and correct. Here is my response to her email, and following that is her original email.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, but I sincerely hope you don't seriously think this way. I think rather than this being "totally awesome" that it is a total abomination. I'm not talking about the altered Pledge of Allegiance, per se, but about the idea that the United States of America was created as a Christian nation, fell away, and that now we need to return it to being a Christian nation. This is not factual. Go to the sources, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights and read it for yourself. Please, please, please visit this link (don't be put off by the title, and scroll down) for excerpts and quotes of our founding fathers that you can read for yourself, of their intent.
It is very true that many of our founding fathers were church-going Christians. But not all of them were, and very few were espousing any sort of Dominionism or Christian Nationalism. As much as we Christians would like to be able to say that this was started as an explicitly Christian nation, it is not factual.
Congress passed the legislation adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance on June 14, 1954. From what I have read, and from my examination of the original founding documents and not seeing any support of a particular religion or specific deity, I would have to surmise that the founding fathers would have been completely against this phrase being added to the pledge. And what is it you are saying was the result of adding it to the pledge, that now it is not said in classrooms because of its declaration that we are all under God? Maybe that phrase should not have been added, because that is our personal faith, not politics.
My kids tell me that they still say the pledge in school every morning, and as a matter of fact at the graduation ceremony a couple days ago all of us, students and parents alike, stood and said the pledge of allegiance. So, saying that the pledge of allegiance has been banned from the classroom is not factual either.
Maybe this disinformation is designed as another wedge issue to get us all fighting each other again? Why? Because if we are fighting each other we are distracted and ineffectual in politically opposing our real enemies, those who only care about one thing, money. Our entire nation, all of us and our jobs, are being sold out to the interests of megacorporations who care not a whit for the United States of America. Money is their God, their idol, their lover, their sustenance and their language. Money is their king, and we are merely subjects. These megacorporations have bought out the administration, the news media, and they are replacing the courts too.
But the megacorporations cannot buy us all, with money. Those of us of sincere Christian faith do not put money first, right? We put our faith in God first. So in order to buy us, they first try to sell us on a prosperity gospel, that God wants us to be rich. Bible scripture is taken out of context to support these claims. But not discussed is the biblical (Luke 12:48) idea of noblesse oblige, that if we are successful we are to support those who are less successful (this idea is too liberal for their selfish tastes). So if you don't fall for the prosperity gospel they hit you with the ideas of theocracy, but warped with extreme nationalism. This is not the Old Testament Hebrew theocracy, this is modern day fascist dominionism, and its sole purpose in life is to support corporations.
Not only was this not the intent of the founding fathers, it is not the intent of God. Jesus is our messiah, our leader, correct? He showed us the way, correct? (Many times people forget this. Yes, I believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he always remained humble, telling people to follow him in worshipping God, praying to God. He was showing us the way, not just God on display.) So when did Jesus ever say that we need to rule politically? What about, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"? Although two of the Apostles were 'zealots' did Jesus ever encourage them to act on their zealotry? Not that I can see.
Another way we Christians are manipulated nowadays is by a faulty interpretation of scripture regarding the end times, and an even more faulty actualization of that interpretation. Everyone nowadays seems to hold to the idea of the 'rapture' -- that all Christians will be caught up to the sky to go back to heaven for a time, while what is left on Earth festers and boils with turmoil and dissention. I'm not saying this is wrong, but check this out. Jesus said in Matthew 24:39-42:

"and they knew nothing until the flood came and swept them all away, so too will be the coming of the Son of Man.
40 Then two will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
41 Two women will be grinding meal together; one will be taken and one will be left.
42 Keep awake therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming."

What really happened in the time of Noah? Weren't the bad guys the ones that were taken away, not God's chosen? Be very careful that what you hear, even from your own, trusted, pastor, is correct biblically and not an assumption or an interpretation of their view of the Bible. We are to be like the Bereans, who examined everything they heard and squared it with scripture.
I previously talked of a "faulty actualization of that interpretation" (of the rapture of Christians into to the sky), and here's what I meant. Believe it or not, there are some believers that think it's perfectly OK for all of the war and inhumanity that is going on right now because "it's the 'End Times.'" They don't feel an obligation to fight this, because they want Jesus to come now, to rapture them up so they don't have to care about any of the atrocities or worry about the future. This suicidal pattern of thought is nothing more than trying to twist God's arm to suit their selfish wants. But what if it's not the time that God wants? And what if their interpretation of the 'rapture' is incorrect and all of us actually go through the 'tribulation?'
I don't believe God wants us to re-create America into His Chosen Nation on Earth. And I can't find any scripture to back up that crazy idea either. What I can find are lots of passages that say we are to feed the poor and needy, and take care of widows and orphans. And we are to speak confidently of the message, the way, that God offers us through our messiah Jesus.
To say that if we are ashamed of this faulty pledge of allegiance that we are ashamed of God is abhorrent, and utter rubbish. Hypothetically, if we say that to be ashamed of the real pledge of allegiance is to be ashamed of God, that is equally as bad!
Please, I love you, but do not spread this piece of dung to anyone else. If we are not ashamed of the gospel of Christ then we need to loudly speak out whenever we hear nonsense like this, otherwise if we don't speak out then we implicitly accept what is being promulgated as the truth. If we care about God's 'little one's' we will not stand for these falsities to be thrown around without a healthy dose of facts.
I still love you! And I'm still your brother! Take care,

And here is her original email I was responding to:

New Pledge of Allegiance (TOTALLY AWESOME).


New Pledge of Allegiance!




Since the Pledge of Allegiance

and

The Lord's Prayer

are not allowed in most
public schools anymore

Because the word "God" is mentioned....

A kid in Arizona wrote the attached
NEW School prayer.


I liked it.





Now I sit me down in school

Where praying is against the rule

For this great nation under God

Finds mention of Him very odd.






If Scripture now the class recites,

It violates the Bill of Rights.

And anytime my head I bow

Becomes a Federal matter now.




Our hair can be purple, orange or green,

That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.

The law is specific, the law is precise.

Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.




For praying in a public hall

Might offend someone with no faith at all.

In silence alone we must meditate,

God's name is prohibited by the state.






We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,

And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.

They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.

To quote the Good Book makes me liable.




We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,

And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.

It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,

We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.






We can get our condoms and birth controls,

Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.

But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,

No word of God must reach this crowd.

!




It's scary here I must confess,

When chaos reigns the school's a mess.

So, Lord, this silent plea I make:

Should I be shot; My soul please take!

Amen



If you aren't ashamed to do this,

please pass this on.


Jesus said,

"If you are ashamed of me,

I will be ashamed of you before my Father."





Not ashamed. Pass this on.

What makes it difficult is that I know her heart is in the right place and that she's a good person, it's just faulty philosophy. Why does a person's particular philosophy matter? That's a big topic for another post, but here's a brief example. Some people may think it's OK to run a red light, as long as there are no cops or cameras around, and as long as the coast is clear. Is this a dangerous philosophy, and to whom is it dangerous? Shouldn't we talk to them? I'll let you think about it. Take care.

Tough Love, and The Comfort Zone

In my former post, Semper Fidelis, I never used the term 'tough love' but spoke about how it is an integral part of being a good friend, good parent, or a patriot. In my former post, Two Types of Control, I talked about how complacency and living in the comfort zone leads leads away from service and openness. Now I'd like to tie those two concepts together.

My definition of 'tough love' would be to make someone you care about uncomfortable, so that they see the need for a change that would benefit them. So how far would you take 'tough love?' Far enough to lead them out of the comfort zone!

I believe this concept should translate to many different circumstances. If an employee is consistently not complying with company policy or unproductive, a manager's 'tough love' would be to gradually decrease their comfort level while being clear about the desired behavior. In foreign policy, if a country is acting up they should gradually have sanctions increased on them while making the target behavior clear, until they come around.

Clear communication of needs is important, otherwise 'tough love' could be misinterpreted as aggression or antipathy. Trying to communicate empathy rather than antipathy when applying sanctions can be difficult and frustrating at times, and will take extra effort.

Let me switch tracks at this point and talk about 'insulation.' If you want someone to keep doing what they are doing, to not change their behavior you would 'insulate' them from their need to change.

"An increasingly prosperous, self-confident state felt truly united in August 1914, perhaps for the first time. Four years of war-- not only the bitter, pointless trench warfare, but also the long queues and hunger at home-- set Germans at each other's throats. Hitler's analysis-- as a former soldier in the trenches-- was that the World War I had been lost on the homefront. In order to be successful, the Nazi movement had to woo the German consumer in a way that he (and, in particular, she) wasn't during the First World War." (p. 27 of Seduced by Hitler, by Adam LeBor & Roger Boyes)

How did Hitler insulate his populace, to keep them compliant? One way was that he blamed any problems that Germany had on others, mainly the Jews. The German people were relieved of responsibility. Jewish possessions were confiscated and auctioned off at discount prices so that Germans were made more comfortable. Hitler actively promoted things to help the German people, like the Autobahn and the Volkswagen. To the German populace he was very upbeat in promoting personal excellence and acheivement. And he actively engaged in propaganda to further insulate the German people from the truth, and keep them in their comfort zone.

So the person like myself, that seeks the truth, has to ask himself some important questions. Are we being kept compliant, in a comfort zone? If we are, how? Here are some directions of thought to discover the answer to those questions:
1.) Are we making any sacrifices (rationing, for example) for the war effort, like we did in WWII? Or are we engaging in war profiteering instead? Link Link Link Link Link Link Link
2.) Are we blaming other people (many, but illegal aliens are a good example) for the problems we have? Link Link Link
3.) Are we experiencing propaganda in the news media? Link Link Link Link

By all means, don't make the mistake of thinking too much, if you want to be comfortable.

Former Dittohead Voted Today!

I just finished the book Confessions of a Former Dittohead by Jim Derych. I didn't know there were people like me out there! You see, I'm also a former dittohead. A dittohead is someone who is a complete and unabashed fan of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, or Bill O'Reilly. I used to listen to those guys, admired their non-PC approach, and thought they were telling me the truth. So how did a lifelong Christian Republican like myself go over to the 'other' side? Mr. Derych describes his conversion as like the death of a thousand cuts, and for me it was that way too.

It's hard to precisely define just what was the first cut. Perhaps it was the months of chatting with a beautiful dying woman named Noelle. She had been a nurse, and had contracted Hepatitis C from her contact with the blood of a patient. Frequently she had problems keeping any food down, and the only thing that relieved her condition and allowed her to eat and allowed her to continue to live, was medicinal marijuana. Later I was to find out that my staunchly religious grandmother who was dying from colon cancer had to have something similar slipped to her without her knowlege in her last days. So I no longer come to the judgement that anyone who uses medicinal marijuana is just a 'pot-head.' Some people need it, and I know that is true.

Then, in the late 90's I had a coworker with whom I would engage from time to time in philosophical discussions. After a great deal of night shifts, over several hours each shift, he finally convinced me that the death penalty, something I firmly believed in up to that point, was uncivilized, inhumane, and was subject to incompetence or outright abuse of the justice system. I began to ask myself how people (Republicans) could fight for abolishing abortion and yet feel the need for the death penalty, for vengeance.

For some reason, although I never listened to my union's advice before, in the year 2000 I decided to vote for the person that would benefit the working man (me) the most, regardless of party. I had faithfully voted Republican up until this point, but now I grudgingly voted for Al Gore. I was ashamed of myself for voting for a Democrat, and told no one. I was a bit relieved when George W. Bush was elected instead, and for the longest time I never admitted to anyone that I voted for Gore. I thought Bush was an embarassment that would give the world the impression that we are a nation of idiots, but at least he was Republican and not a lying, wacko
liberal.

Then came 9-11. I was off of work, and spent that entire week in front of the TV. I was in shock, as were many others. Picking my kids up from school I saw a couple of men in turbans. I realize now that they were probably East Indian or something similar, but at the time I hated them to my core. God help me, I really hated them. And yet, they were there to get their kids, just like I was.

One night my wife and I were watching a documentary on the beef industry. I'm sure the makers of the documentary didn't intend to turn people into vegetarians, but after seeing the sorry state of our system, from the raising of the cattle to the butchering, inspection, and handling of the meat, I realized that our system is outdated and ineffective. I began to read, to discover for myself about our food. By chance I discovered John Robbins, who in a fit of conscience (actually deep inner conviction) gave up his inheritance, the entire Baskin Robbins empire. I highly recommend any and all of his books, as they are heavily annotated and footnoted with all the references for every fact he presents. He is very heavy on presenting the facts, and it overwhelmed me that our food industry and corporations have bought their politicians and along with a few other corporations are running and ruining our country.

The war raged in Afganistan, and I agreed it was necessary to eradicate the Taliban. Then Bush decided to take the war to Iraq. I watched C-span, and saw the presentations that Colin Powell and the rest gave. I saw when we pulled the inspectors out of Iraq, a couple of days before the first attack. I thought the evidence and reasons were flimsy, but I still trusted my Republican government, that they knew something I didn't. It annoyed me that they wouldn't just come right out and say why they wanted to invade Iraq, instead of trying to make up theories about what WMD the Iraqis might theoretically have.

Then in 2004 I proudly voted for John Kerry, although I was and still am registered Republican. I was impressed by how presidential he acted. I thought it was great that he didn't stoop to the level of the Bush team with the swiftboat slander. Kerry is a dignified, principled, and civilized man of honor. I could not, and I still can't, believe that we hear so much talk about honoring our veterans and yet when we are presented with a bona fide war hero that people, especially veterans, would tolerate him being 'swiftboated.' Even if they wanted to eliminate him from consideration for the presidency, if they themselves had any honor as veterans they should never trash a fellow veteran like that.

From hearing about all the action from celebrities and political groups to get the vote out for Kerry, I thought it was certain that he would be elected. But it didn't go down as expected. But wait a minute. How many reported problems were there with the voting? More than 350,000 people were denied the vote in Ohio, yet Bush took Ohio by something like 150,000? There weren't enough machines in areas that vote mostly Democrat, causing people to have to wait for hours to vote? Many people in Florida were denied their vote because they'd been mistakenly put on a felon's list. Wait a minute, what's going on here? How come the exit polls differ so much from the actual votes, when it has been established in elections around the world that one of the primary ways to discern whether or not the election has been rigged is to look at the exit polls? And yet now the story is that the exit polls are notoriously incorrect? What?

But absolutely the very last straw was something I could not explain away. When it came out that many of our ports operations were being sold to the United Arab Emirates, the light finally went on in my head, because there are only two possible conclusions a logical person could come to. It is a fact that several (OK, actually two) of the 9-11 terrorists came from the UAE. It is a fact that the (financing of the) training for the 9-11 terrorists came from the UAE. It is a fact that the UAE was paying for the 9-11 terrorists housing and food. So, if Bush and his puppeteers are so intent on selling off the operations of our ports to these known terrorists, at the very least one of the following must be true. Either A) our administration is completely and totally incompetent to not know this and seek business, or B) our administration is not worried that the UAE will do any mischeif. Why? The only explanation for 'B' is that our government was somehow directly involved in the setup and enactment of 9-11. Can anyone come up with another scenario?

Then we have the various and sundry ever-changing reasons for going to Iraq, and another conundrum. Rumsfeld has come out and said that we had bad intelligence, aw shucks, oh well, he's not in the intelligence business after all. What? Isn't he in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency? He's secretary of Defense, and he knows nothing about intelligence? What? OK, so what if we give them the benefit of the doubt, that they were taken in by bad intelligence. Then why are we still fighting? The government of Iraq is GONE, and we are left fighting and killing the people of Iraq, but it's OK that we are doing all this carnage because of bad intel? If we acted purely on bad intel, shouldn't we apologize? Shouldn't we make reparations? Shouldn't we rebuild and restore as much as we can, and back out giving them their country back? And if incompetence is the reason, shouldn't those responsible, be responsible? Shouldn't they lose their job and maybe go to jail?

At a recent speech at West Point, Mister Bush compared himself to former president Harry S. Truman. Truman was famous for the saying, "The Buck Stops Here." But where does the buck stop for Mister Bush? Bush says he now realizes that he shouldn't have said, "Bring 'em on." That's not an apology, and does nothing to fix the mess that happened on his watch, that he should be taking responsibility for.

This is blindingly, horrendously, and stupendously a nightmare, is it not? If there ever was such a thing as the Republican party it must be dead, and these guys in charge are most definitely not Republican. The party of Lincoln was for limited government, not increased government. The party of Lincoln was for fiscal responsibility, not spending more in one presidents watch than all previous presidents spent, combined.

So that's how I went from being a weak conservative to being a strong and proud liberal.

Citizens of Where?

For so long in my life I have been proud to be an American. I hold dearly the image of the John Wayne movies, the baseball and apple pie, the fighting spirit that says we know we're right, and then plays philanthropist to people of other nations. We were so good, at least that was what we thought. We didn't really see the back-room deals that politicians and corporate hit men did on our behalf, to ensure that we could continue in our opulent standard of living. We would not have accepted any truth that showed up that contradicted this glorious ideal, and every time that the light dawns on one of us, and we try to pass on this epiphany? Every 'prophet' is smeared, denegrated, rejected. We haven't wanted to see the truth.

What is left of our American ideal? If lying, cheating, stealing, bribery, rendition and incarceration without due legal process, torture, and even murder and executions are now considered 'OK' then what do we have left? There is nothing left but our memories and, our flag.

I love our US flag. I love the stars and stripes, and what it used to mean. But everything changes.
You see, I was born in San Antonio, Texas. Same town as the Alamo. I'm very proud of my southern heritage, the bravery of our men, and even Dixie. To me, although we lost the civil war, we bravely fought for our independence from the North. I can't help but be proud of this, our southern spirit, our identity.

But what does 'Dixie' (the Confederate flag) mean to most people nowadays? African Americans and most progressive folks look at that flag and, rightly so, see hate. That flag didn't represent hate years ago, I'd swear to it. But it does now, which saddens me. Because I reject racism and hate, and because I desperately want to bring peace, I dare not fly that flag. That flag no longer represents the good things that it used to, for us of the South.

There used to be a people of a very strong industrial nation, who valued all the same good values that we say we do. And they loved their country. Their flag, to them, did not represent hate, or genocide, as the Nazi flag now represents. When they looked at their flag they saw patriotism, positivity, connection, faith. Now for the whole world, the Nazi flag represents nothing admirable, only hate and destruction.

How long will it be before our dear Stars and Stripes become a symbol of hatred? You think accidentally letting the flag touch the ground dirties it? What about when the meaning of the whole thing becomes despicable? Where will we be then? Who will we be then? How long will the whole world put up with us, before we are 'taken out?' How long will God just let us trample and stomp and grab and use and digest and pollute and kill, before stepping in? How much can we eat? How much gas can we burn today? How many trees can we cut down? Can we buy another house, another all terrain sport recreational utility vantrucksportscar? Hmm, should I get the 22" wheels or go with 25"? What if I could get 40", or 80"? Hey homies, check my shoes! Some kid got 20 cents for making them, and I bought them for $200!

Our dear flag is already muddied. Our dear flag is already acting on those of other countries as a red flag to a bull. By allowing corporations to rule us in their worship of money, and by our worship of convenience and comfort, and money, we have become hypocrites to the nth power.

When I looked around for information on the Statue of Liberty, I found this:

"By the time the Union France-Americaine got around to delivering the statue, Napoleon III was gone. And again, the statue served the purpose of French liberals, in emphasizing that France was now "a Republic, not an Empire"…as the saying goes.

Some Americans sardonically wondered why France, which had a shortage of Liberty, should be exporting it to the U.S., which had plenty.

"I will try to glorify the Republic and Liberty over there, in the hope that someday I will find it again here."

-- Frederick Bartholdi to Édouard Laboulaye, 1871

I submit to you that the entire Statue of Liberty has changed meaning. We were to light a beacon of hope for all the world. But we no longer have liberty to offer. Our country as we knew it, is gone.

I am so ANGRY at the rest of you people who call yourselves American. Where are the people that regret the demolition of Native American peoples? Where are the people who sincerely regret enslaving Africans? Where are the people who are so desperately sorry for internment of Japanese Americans during the 2nd World War? Can't any of you see that we are now committing ALL NEW CRIMES, things that we can NEVER atone for?

When a theif steals, he is caught, the stolen items recovered, and he is punished. We, or our representatives, have stolen on our behalf. What do you think will happen, in the natural order of things? HOW MERCIFUL DO YOU EXPECT OTHERS TO TREAT US?

I believe we can yell and scream and plead until we're blue in the face, and it won't change a thing. What will? I think there will be many more troops that will give their lives for their country that started this unprovoked war. Halliburton, Kellogg Brown and Root, and a few other companies will make billions more. There will be less and less outcry as our freedoms disappear, until the tipping point, where people have had enough. Then there will be many protestors shot by riot police. Entire cities will be locked down with martial law. Some will disappear in the middle of the night, spirited away to detention facilities built or renovated by Kellogg Brown & Root. Then, because there is no other way of protesting, many will go on hunger strikes, and many will starve. Eventually the thing that brings change may come down to a business decision, because all this can't go on without these greedy corporations losing profits.

Is it too late? Are we caught in a trap of our own making?

Ultimately, for those of faith in God, we have to keep reminding ourselves that we are just passing through, that we are really citizens of a heavenly nation. The greatest commands say nothing of political reform, but instead say to love God and your fellow man. If all we can do is act out our love, supporting each other, that is enough.

Two Types of Control

I was thinking about a few things today, and I had some insights.

When people say, "Might makes right" they are implying that strength wins out over truth, over standards. But where does skill come into play?

In just about any sport positive control takes a higher priority than strength. By positive control I mean words like discipline, focus, training, skill, accuracy. Positive control is an intelligent mental outgrowth, unlike strength. Strength always follows skill for a successful athlete.

But what happens when skill is not present? With the absence of skill, continued control becomes oppressive. Continued attempt to control may resort to lying, cheating, or stealing.

Have you noticed that when a company starts out small and humble, they are usually very popular with customers because they are so ready to serve. Service is #1 at this stage. The customer is always right. Then, their success tells them that they don't have to try so hard for your business, so they don't. They become complacent and comfortable. Then as their competition starts to take some of their business away they realize that they need to get on the ball, so they institute controls, which over time become dictatorial and oppressive. Some in management may decide to cut back on the work force, but the company continues it's downward spiral. That's because the workers are the ones doing the service work that originally gave the company it's initial positive reviews and purpose in life, and cutting them puts the company just that much further in the hole. The company has forgotten its roots, and maybe just doesn't care that much about it.

Negative control is dictatorship, and is directly opposed to service, even though it came from service originally. But it is said, "Pride goeth before the fall."

So how can we change that entity's course from a negative controlling dictatorial style, back to a service based and customer centered style? The complacency and comfortability need to be strongly attacked. The comfort zone needs to shrink. Get rid of the callouses and become sensitive again to others needs.

Where are the callouses? Where is the comfort zone?

My Wittenberg Door List, Item #1

Okay, before I lose you all-- I know it seems that I keep coming back to religious themes, and some of you readers may not be religious people at all. I empathize with you, and I do not want to repel you! Stick around, as I believe in trying to figure out how messed up things are nowadays there are insights to be discovered in the study of the culture of the players involved.

For those of you that don't know, let me give you some background before I dive in.

In 1517 Martin Luther nailed a list of 95 items to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany. What he listed were the areas where he thought the church had strayed from the practice of true Christianity. This was the beginning of a tremendous splitting of the church, and was the birth of the protestant reformation.

So, as the title of this post states, here is one of the stumbling blocks I believe is hurting the church nowadays.

SOLA SCRIPTURA
Here is how the current Wikipedia entry states it:

"Sola Scriptura (Latin: By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Although there is no agreed-upon technical definition among Protestants, it generally meant that Scripture, as interpreted by the individual believer, is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals."

Here are the problems I think are raised by this focused approach:

1. Sola Scriptura separates faith and morals (and spirituality) from the rest of human experience. Were we made by God to live such a splintered existence? E.G. -- should we live one way on Sunday, and live another way the rest of the week? Does our faith not apply at our place of business?
2. I don't believe it is strictly Biblical. Look at the teachings of Jesus, the parables. Did Jesus only stick to scripture for teaching materials? Did the apostles? No. And I don't think the first century church did either, from the archeological evidence of the Essenes.
3. Many Old Testament people did not have the scripture that we have nowadays, and their instruction by God came in many ways at many times. It is speculated by people like Joseph A. Seiss in his book The Gospel in the Stars, and E.W. Bullinger in The Witness of the Stars, that before there was the written scripture that we have, God used the stars as scripture. I think ancient people had an openmindedness that us modern worshippers lack.
4. I think Sola Scriptura, while appearing to be the safest approach, is actually a dangerous approach to modern Christian living because it leads to misuse. It leads people to the very thing that Martin Luther objected to, which was making the church exclusionary, like a country club. It leads to people misusing the scripture to exclude the people they don't want. Jesus was hated and criticised by the religious leaders of his day for including common sinners into his circle when he ate and drank with them.
   
5. Essentially, by only only accepting God via Sola Scriptura, we are saying that no other communication can ever come from God! Is that where we want to be?

So what is the alternative? Prima Scriptura, where scripture has prominence and leads understanding and teaching. Isn't that more reasonable?

Everything that is outside the Bible can not be rejected as sources of study and learning when you are talking about the whole of our existence. This would be ridiculous. I sure hope the airplane pilot has studied more than the Bible, to be certified as a pilot. If someone takes me to court I would first get a lawyer that is well versed in the laws of this land. The Bible is not anti-scientific, but it is not a scientific journal either. Do you have to reject Christianity if you are a pilot, a scientist, or a lawyer (leave it...leave it...)? No! I completely reject this faulty direction of thought-- that you can separate and compartmentalize God and faith from the rest of your life.

There is most definitely truth that is not expressed in the Bible. As an example, did every married couple in the Bible have a marriage ceremony? Does it state that for each couple? It doesn't? Then, if you believe 'sola scriptura' then they weren't married because the Bible doesn't explicitly say they had a marriage ceremony! Either that, or you'd have to say that marriage is purely having someone as mate. And if you do need the ceremony, then which culture's ceremony is acceptable and which is not?

For every person mentioned in the Bible, does it say that each of them had to eat, drink, sleep? Sola Scriptura! If it's not mentioned then they didn't have to! You see, this is utterly ridiculous.

If you are a person of faith, your faith permeates your entire being, every nook and cranny. Whether you are an athiest, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Buddist, you can't deny that whatever gave you life gave you a brain to use. For persons of faith, if your faith is worth more than a tin whistle, you must believe that the creator wants you to use your brain, and that the creator is not offended, challenged, or threatened by you asking questions and discovering what is laid in front of you. Seek, and ye shall find.

Semper Fidelis

Semper Fidelis, and being a good friend, parent, and patriot

What do these words mean to you?

Let's start with what it means to be a good friend. Friends don't let friends drive drunk. Right? If your friend starts getting into a relationship with an insane person, wouldn't you let them know? If your friend is happily married and then begins to 'play around' wouldn't you call them to task? Wouldn't you, being the good friend that you are, slap them around if you needed to, for their own good? Of course you would, if you were a good friend.

What does it mean to be a good parent? Does it mean that you stand by them and defend them regardless of whatever your child gets involved in? If you catch them shoplifting, would you take them back to the store, knowing that the lesson learned would help shape your child's moral fiber and better ensure their successful future? Or would a good parent just say, "Don't do it again"? I'm not asking if you would love them, regardless of their deeds. Of course you would still love them. You love them, and that's why you call them on the carpet, if you were a good parent.

What would a true patriot do, if he thought his country was wrong? Wouldn't you fight to get things changed, so that your country could be it's best? When someone says, "America, love it or leave it!" what are they saying, that if I love America I must accept tagging, inner city poverty, pollution, baseball players on steroids, or whatever? Wouldn't you fight the changing of tax laws, or the construction of a toxic waste dump site behind your house? Of course! But if you do not accept America, warts and all, does that mean that you hate America?

Unfortunately, I've never been a part of the U.S. Marine Corps. I do hold them in very high esteem however. I had a friend years ago, who had been in the Marines. Actually, he would correct me that, "Once a Marine, always a Marine!" The motto of the Marines is 'Semper Fidelis' which means 'always faithful' or 'forever true.' Maybe someone can clarify this for me, because I'm just a civilian. If you are faithful and true to your country, wouldn't you absolutely give your life to protect it from enemies, foreign or domestic? I know, you do this, and I am grateful. And a marine will never leave his buddy behind, right? I'm not trying to question the value or standards or worthiness of the US Marine Corps. What I am questioning is some of the civilian public who, seems like to me, have the impression 'Semper Fi' means we shouldn't question our leaders, who are supposed to work for us. If 'Semper Fi' means unquestioning loyalty, this is loyalist thinking, and therefore not something our founding fathers would have tolerated. It is certainly not how we civilians should be thinking.

What if members of the crew or the passengers on the Titanic could have sounded the alarm and turned the ship from disaster, kept it from hitting the iceberg? Would they have been asked, "What! You don't like this ship? You're always free to jump off!"

My mom used to tell me, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything!" So it pains me to no end when media corporate shills try desperately to defend the misdeeds and incompetence of this administration by saying that those who have a problem with it are unpatriotic. Radio talk show host Randi Rhodes clarifies, "It is not 'America, right or wrong,' it's 'America, when it's right it's right, and when it's wrong I right it!'

I think a forever faithful and forever true patriot would be a good friend to the constitution and the commonwealth, and would not stand for harm to come to it, even from within, even from ourselves. A faithful and true patriot is also like a good parent that would seek to guide their children always to excellence. Do you think I'm stretching it too far with the 'parent' analogy? Isn't our efforts at government, and hence this country's future, completely and totally linked to the future of our children?

Alcoholics and drug addicts depend on enabling people to continue in their addiction, because enablers never take them to task over what they are doing. Let us NEVER be enablers hiding behind a pseudo-patriotic (and false) 'Semper Fi' that says, "I don't care," and ALWAYS equate 'Semper Fi' with actually giving a damn. Then we can all say, "Semper Fi!"

Racism

I don't think it's just me who sees more and more racism in the news lately. But I think that if an intelligent person just takes the time to think through some basic truths, he or she would have to discard racism on an intellectual basis.
Unfortunately, there are the things that a person knows intellectually, and then there is the ingrained emotional patterns of thinking, programmed in us from childhood, that taint our view of others. This latter emotional programming can only get turned around by personal experiences, meditation, and time. This is hard work, and your formerly walled-off and protected inner self may feel in danger! Deciding to open the lines of communication between yourself and those of other races and actually doing so, for me at least, has felt like a march to the gallows. In contrast, the smashing of the intellectual reasons for racism is fairly easy, though not entirely painless.
Let me say something controversial, and then persuade you of the truth of it. Creationists and evolutionists both believe the same thing.

"WHAT? OMG, HOW CAN HE SAY THAT?"

Well, because it is true. There was a Time magazine a few years back (sorry, don't have the reference) that, in the context of evolution, talked about our decendance from an original 'Eve.' You see, if we are solely the product of evolution, we had to have come from a common genetic strain, a single family. The odds that two or more separate genetic strains would produce offspring that could interbreed is impossibly, stupendously huge. So Evolutionists believe we came from a single family.
Surprise-- Creationists believe the same! Whether Adam and Eve, or Noah and his family are referenced as our parent family, creationists must come to the same conclusion as evolutionists, that we come from a single family.
So, I am related to everyone else on this planet! There is no one else who has ever been born or who will ever be born who is not related to everyone else. We are all cousins! No matter how white you are, you are related to those of every other shade! (and vice versa, of course)
And this also means that Mohammed and Jesus are related (gasp!).
Here's another way of thinking about it. An individual has two parents. Each of those two parents has two parents, and each of those four grandparents has two parents, and each of those eight great-grandparents have two parents, etc. Draw this out on a piece of paper. You will see an inverted pyramid. Now if you map back a few centuries you will find you have thousands upon thousands of ancestors. Trace your lineage and you will be amazed at what you find.
Think of the wealth of knowlege we have gained by the inclusion into our culture and knowlege base individuals like Albert Einstein, William Shakespeare, Carl Jung, John Lennon, and yes, Martin Luther King Jr. You are related to all of these people, and you have inner genius and insight in you, like they did! Now think of all the individuals who, because of war or because of racism, their wealth of knowlege and insigt has been denied to you. Tragic, isn't it?

Urgent, Change Needed!

My nerves are on edge, my heart is racing. I feel a tremendous urgency to read everything, learn everything, and to show people what I'm learning, and convince them. Of what? The urgent need to change.
My kids and I took in a movie tonight. It was X-Men 3. I have given much thought to this in the past, and this movie tonight sure fit my theory. It is really more of an observation than a theory.
We Americans are obsessed with magical powers. Many people are upset about the Harry Potter books and movies because of the witchcraft in them. This is only part of the problem, however. There are so many books and movies that stimulate our imaginations and entice us to fantasize about having psychokinetic or other powers. X-Men 3 is a very good example of what I'm talking about. Other examples of the same obsession with powers are the many vampire and/or werewolf movies. I admit, these are very entertaining to me as well. So, what's the problem?
The question is, in our thirst for this activity or distraction, what are we really telling ourselves about ourselves and the world we live in? Are we secretly thinking that if we had those powers we could brandish those powers to intimidate others, like a common thug that brandishes a gun, to get what he wants? Admit it, you'd feel almighty powerful, if you just had those powers!
Power is a heady, intoxicating drink. None of us could handle it, I'm sure. Remember what Winston Churchill said, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." I played a computer sim game a few years ago. I'd get everything built up and working great, and then I'd get bored and I'd trigger a tornado or other disaster.
You see, that's why we cannot be God. We'd be too much like Jim Carrey in Bruce Almighty, trying to take shortcuts to get to our selfish wants, not considering anyone else's wants or needs.
I've been watching the political power-grab free for all that currently seems to be intent on wiping out this formerly great country, the USA. It's heartbreaking to me, to see my beloved country circling the drain, faster and faster. What is at the heart of it? What is driving this death wish of Uncle Sam's? The lust for more power. Can't anyone else see how it will end?
There is no shortage of people that are proud to call themselves a 'red-neck.' I think our country's wholehearted acceptance of The Simpsons, Married With Children, Jeff Foxworthy and Larry ('git 'er done) the Cable Guy, is because they tell us that we're OK, even if our educational system is ranked 52nd in the world or whatever it is. So, because dimwittedness is now the acceptable norm, these people really don't want to think about stuff too much. It's too much work. In regards to patriotism, striving to excellence in this country, they'd rather engage in nationalism, or just assuming that we are inherently superior to other nations. Instead of the work of investing emotionally and compassionately in the welfare of people in other countries, 99% percent of which are good down-home folks who'd charitably take us in if we were down on our luck, this misguided and lazy section of middle America would rather say, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!"
And then there are the defeatist Christians, who say, "Well you know, these are the end times. What're you going to do?" These people are misguided too, in my book, because they don't really want to do things to preserve our environment. They don't really want to see what they can do to prevent war, or human injustice. They don't really care about what happens to the USA. If we all had to be implanted with GPS enabled identification chips next week, they'd just shrug, "End times."
You know what? If you have one of these attitudes you are doing what I think of as 'twisting God's arm.' What if God doesn't think the time is right, just now? I would speculate that some Christian Germans thought they were in the 'End Times' during the reign of the Nazis. Do not try to twist God's arm. He will not be manipulated by the likes of you!
Does the following passage of the Bible apply to us?

(Matthew 12:38, 39) Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet...

If it was a physical sign it would say to turn back. Stop being so overwhelmingly enamored by James Bond gadgetry, cameras, cell phones, ipods, computers. Stop the fantasizing about psychic powers, or what you would do if you won the lotto. Stop trying to grab more power, to use more, consume more, and to have more than your next door neighbor. Stop being so selfish, wanting others to be your servants, beneath you.
Start appreciating your family, your neighbors, your fellow countrymen and the rest of our great big family here on this planet. This is where true riches are hidden.

Working for the Win-Win

I was discussing this topic with my kids, trying to get them to coexist peacefully, when it occured to me that this is the problem in my country and in the world.
A coworker once told me that for anyone to make money on the stock market, that meant someone else had to lose. I disagree.
This idea is unhealthy competition, that is, thinking that you must lose in order for me to win. This is a Win-Lose scenario. Why can't we live in a Win-Win scenario instead? Which is more Christian? If you are a Christian, can you really believe in a Win-Lose scenario? Wasn't this ultimately the basis for Jesus' saying to love your neighbor, as yourself?
If you do win in a Win-Lose scenario, how do you feel?
Are there any Lose-Win scenarios, where someone would lose in order for others to win? Jesus gave it up, so that we could win.