There will be good times and there will be bad times. As you know, life has its ups and downs. There will be births and there will be deaths, joys and sorrows. So, prepare yourself. You will experience both highs and lows this coming year. Still, you may have greater peace. How?
First, accept the reality of your human condition. We are finite, limited, and dependent creatures. Humbly accept this truth. Once you accept this, it is easier to welcome God’s oversight in your life.
Second, make peace with your Self. Perhaps by now you have realized that you are not this great, wonderful, and perfect human being that you thought you were. You have flaws, you’ve made more than your share of mistakes, and you have even hurt precious loved ones along the way. You have many regrets. Welcome to humanity. This is normal. The challenge is to dare to ask for forgiveness and to receive mercy along the way. Embrace God’s grace for your fumbling, wayward, and rebellious mistakes and let God nurture an inner peace within you.
Third, make peace with others. You too have been hurt, by others. He, she, they are stubborn, blind, ignorant, foolish, selfish, inconsiderate, and more. Remember the saying, “Be patient with me, God is not finished with me yet”? Apply this, not only to yourself but to those with whom it is difficult to accept, tolerate, and forgive. They too are a work in progress. For your own peace of mind and heart, hand them over to God, let-go of your grudge against them—more inner peace.
And finally, make peace with God. We’re used to blaming the person at the top for things that go wrong; we hold the boss, the manager, the owner, the president, the elected official responsible for everything that goes wrong. “Fix it! Correct it! Make it better!” We demand. And we carry this attitude over to God. “God,” we say in our hearts, “start doing your job and make this world a better place to live in!”
Turn this demanding attitude around. Let’s not blame God. God is not our enemy. Neither is God responsible for human error, greed, pride, hatred, anger, and evil choices. Rather, worship God as God. It is we who are answerable to God, not He to us. Make peace with God by embracing His love, letting His grace wash over you, cleansing you from all unrighteousness—even more inner peace.
Have a Blessed and Peaceful New Year!
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Don’t ask, Don’t Tell and the Christian
Paul the Apostle said in his letter to the church at Corinth: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons—not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world [my emphasis].” A few sentences later he explains, “God will judge those outside [the church].” See 1 Corinthians 5:9-10, 13.
In short, Paul is saying that Christians are not to assume or expect that people outside of Christ’s church will embrace the same high standards of morality as the church expected of its adherents. There is nothing new under the sun. The Roman Empire had its share of sinners, fornicators, idolaters, etc. It’s the way of the world. Followers of Christ however were expected to actually practice a higher moral standard and do so without demanding that those outside the church, Roman society as a whole, live by those same standards. Why? Paul made a distinction between the Christian community and the greater social/political community of Rome.
That being said however, anyone that did claim to be a Christian was to be held accountable to the Christian community to live by Christ’s standard of morality as in for example, “whosoever looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28), or as in “You shall Love the Lord your God with all your mind, heart, strength, and… love your neighbor as yourself.”
“My Kingdom is not of this world.” Said Jesus to Pilate, the Roman Governor who questioned him before having him crucified.
“But our citizenship is in heaven….” Said the Apostle Paul to the church in Philippi (3:20).
“We’re in the world but not of the world.” Ever hear that said? The idea comes from Jesus when he prayed for his disciples just before he was arrested and crucified, as recorded in the Gospel according to John (17:14-19).
Clearly a Christian’s ultimate allegiance is to a Rule and Ruler that is above and beyond that of any earthly one. That is, there is no present earthly Kingdom, Rule, Power, Authority or national entity that stands for, or represents the Rule of God here and now. We have no Theocracy on earth.
So, what should be the Christian response to the removal of the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy for the military? First, the Christian community should humbly recognize that many of the old creeds, dogmas, and tenants of the Christian Faith no longer hold sway over many American citizens. Indeed, Christians have to admit that there is even vehement division within the Faith Community itself let alone the greater population, over this issue.
Christians should therefore stop acting like bullies, pouncing on anyone who happens to disagree with preciously held Christian beliefs, values, and standards. That is, it is not our place as Christians to demand or coerce others into accepting or submitting to our own faith-held values, convictions, or rules of conduct. Paul himself was a Roman citizen but he never used his Roman citizenship as a vehicle to force other Roman citizens to submit to Christ’s rule over their lives. He did however use his citizenship as a means to gain greater access to an audience to hear his message so as to possibly persuade them to accept Christ’s rule in their hearts and lives. There is a big difference in motive, means, and outcome between these two approaches.
Secondly, we need to begin to live up to our own values and standards; I should say, we need to begin to live up to Christ’s standards as he both lived and taught them? For example, are we the people of grace and mercy, love and respect, humility and compassion that Jesus modeled for us, truly pursuing a righteousness that “surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law” (Matt. 5:20)? Or are Christians to act like and be viewed and experienced as nothing more than modern day Pharisees—holier than thou, quick to judge and condemn, and more eager to see the iniquitous burn in hell than to see a miscreant embraced, loved, and forgiven? Remember that Paul would say that we are all guilty of iniquities and in need of grace.
Finally, it seems to me that Christians ought therefore to be the first to pave the way in showing respect, kindness, and grace to all people(s) with whom they disagree—as to beliefs, behavior, and lifestyle—even while holding true to deeply held Christian faith-values and standards of righteousness, justice, and holiness. It can be done. Christians have done so for centuries throughout the world and under many different regimes, governments, and authorities. There is indeed nothing new under the sun.
In short, Paul is saying that Christians are not to assume or expect that people outside of Christ’s church will embrace the same high standards of morality as the church expected of its adherents. There is nothing new under the sun. The Roman Empire had its share of sinners, fornicators, idolaters, etc. It’s the way of the world. Followers of Christ however were expected to actually practice a higher moral standard and do so without demanding that those outside the church, Roman society as a whole, live by those same standards. Why? Paul made a distinction between the Christian community and the greater social/political community of Rome.
That being said however, anyone that did claim to be a Christian was to be held accountable to the Christian community to live by Christ’s standard of morality as in for example, “whosoever looks at a woman with lust has committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28), or as in “You shall Love the Lord your God with all your mind, heart, strength, and… love your neighbor as yourself.”
“My Kingdom is not of this world.” Said Jesus to Pilate, the Roman Governor who questioned him before having him crucified.
“But our citizenship is in heaven….” Said the Apostle Paul to the church in Philippi (3:20).
“We’re in the world but not of the world.” Ever hear that said? The idea comes from Jesus when he prayed for his disciples just before he was arrested and crucified, as recorded in the Gospel according to John (17:14-19).
Clearly a Christian’s ultimate allegiance is to a Rule and Ruler that is above and beyond that of any earthly one. That is, there is no present earthly Kingdom, Rule, Power, Authority or national entity that stands for, or represents the Rule of God here and now. We have no Theocracy on earth.
So, what should be the Christian response to the removal of the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy for the military? First, the Christian community should humbly recognize that many of the old creeds, dogmas, and tenants of the Christian Faith no longer hold sway over many American citizens. Indeed, Christians have to admit that there is even vehement division within the Faith Community itself let alone the greater population, over this issue.
Christians should therefore stop acting like bullies, pouncing on anyone who happens to disagree with preciously held Christian beliefs, values, and standards. That is, it is not our place as Christians to demand or coerce others into accepting or submitting to our own faith-held values, convictions, or rules of conduct. Paul himself was a Roman citizen but he never used his Roman citizenship as a vehicle to force other Roman citizens to submit to Christ’s rule over their lives. He did however use his citizenship as a means to gain greater access to an audience to hear his message so as to possibly persuade them to accept Christ’s rule in their hearts and lives. There is a big difference in motive, means, and outcome between these two approaches.
Secondly, we need to begin to live up to our own values and standards; I should say, we need to begin to live up to Christ’s standards as he both lived and taught them? For example, are we the people of grace and mercy, love and respect, humility and compassion that Jesus modeled for us, truly pursuing a righteousness that “surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law” (Matt. 5:20)? Or are Christians to act like and be viewed and experienced as nothing more than modern day Pharisees—holier than thou, quick to judge and condemn, and more eager to see the iniquitous burn in hell than to see a miscreant embraced, loved, and forgiven? Remember that Paul would say that we are all guilty of iniquities and in need of grace.
Finally, it seems to me that Christians ought therefore to be the first to pave the way in showing respect, kindness, and grace to all people(s) with whom they disagree—as to beliefs, behavior, and lifestyle—even while holding true to deeply held Christian faith-values and standards of righteousness, justice, and holiness. It can be done. Christians have done so for centuries throughout the world and under many different regimes, governments, and authorities. There is indeed nothing new under the sun.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
No Offense Intended and None Taken
Jesus, born of a virgin, Son of God, God becomes Human!
Get real! Impossible! Get your head out of the clouds and come back to reality.
But are such ideas, beliefs if you will, really all that ridiculous? I’d say no more than the idea that there could be life on another planet in some far off corner of the universe, a belief and hope that many very astute scientists hope to one day observe.
Take the concept of God becoming human or in-fleshed (incarnate). Is this impossible for God to do? Of course, some might argue that it would be unbecoming of God, something that would be beneath God’s “Godness” to do, but that’s a different question. The question is, is it impossible for God to become human as such? If we say that it is, how can we know? It’s not our place to say what God can or cannot do, or even should or should not do? Only God can tell us. And if God did just that through the person of Jesus, what then?
Same thing for the Virgin Birth. Is it impossible for God to cause a virgin woman to conceive and bare a child without the input of a man? Again, it is not a question of would God do such a thing or should God do such a thing but simply can God do so. It’s really not so farfetched to say, yes, this would be something that God could do easily enough, if God so desired it.
In other words, to believe that Jesus is “The Only Begotten One, Son of God,” in and of itself, is really not that ridiculous.
Of course, many choose not to believe these things about Jesus. They respect his person, His teaching, His life and impact upon the world, but as to Jesus being born of a virgin, being thereby the Son of God and Savior of the World; well, suffice it to say that it’s just too much for them to swallow. But, hey, that’s okay. Many believe and many don’t. That’s the way it is and always will be. Here’s the point: There is no need to take offense either way.
Dear non-believer, please allow those who do believe (these things about Jesus) to keep Christ in Christmas. For, it is the very person of Jesus, the Christ/Messiah, received and believed on as the Son of God, born of a virgin, lived, died, and rose again from the dead on the third day, that brings energy, joy, light and life to the celebration of Christmas. Without Jesus Christ there would be no Christmas in the first place (a thought I’m sure that many wish was the case).
So please allow Christians to say, “Merry Christmas!” not simply “Happy Holidays.” No offense is intended and no offense need be taken. Believers can respect non-believers and non-believers can respect believers by letting each have and own their preferred expression. If you say “Happy Holidays” to me and I say “Merry Christmas” to you, do we not both mean good will and good cheer toward each other?
It’s all good. Why become nitpicky and demand political correctness? I say “Merry Christmas” and you say, “Well, thank you, and Happy Hanukah to you!” Is there a problem? We both are blessing one another’s celebration and that’s as it should be. Is it not? If you say, “Thanks but I am an atheist; I don’t believe in Christmas.” I’ve caused you no harm, have I? I haven’t hit, hurt, or wounded you by wishing upon you something you don’t believe in, have I? The intent is still that of goodwill. Is it not?
So you don’t believe; may I not still wish you a blessing from God? So I believe and you don’t; may you not wish me a happy holiday anyway? In short may we not wish each other the best out of who we are and what we believe? To do so means that our good wishes for each other are truly sincere, for it comes out of what we really believe. And what we truly believe shapes who we really are.
So, when a Christian says “Merry Christmas” to you, remember that we say it simply out of our firm belief in Christ. Thus, we are saying it with sincere interest in showering you with a blessing of goodwill, wishing you the best as we’d hope you’d wish for us. So, don’t take offense if we exuberantly wish you our best wishes out of our belief. If you don’t believe, you don’t believe. No offense intended, and hopefully and graciously may none be taken.
Get real! Impossible! Get your head out of the clouds and come back to reality.
But are such ideas, beliefs if you will, really all that ridiculous? I’d say no more than the idea that there could be life on another planet in some far off corner of the universe, a belief and hope that many very astute scientists hope to one day observe.
Take the concept of God becoming human or in-fleshed (incarnate). Is this impossible for God to do? Of course, some might argue that it would be unbecoming of God, something that would be beneath God’s “Godness” to do, but that’s a different question. The question is, is it impossible for God to become human as such? If we say that it is, how can we know? It’s not our place to say what God can or cannot do, or even should or should not do? Only God can tell us. And if God did just that through the person of Jesus, what then?
Same thing for the Virgin Birth. Is it impossible for God to cause a virgin woman to conceive and bare a child without the input of a man? Again, it is not a question of would God do such a thing or should God do such a thing but simply can God do so. It’s really not so farfetched to say, yes, this would be something that God could do easily enough, if God so desired it.
In other words, to believe that Jesus is “The Only Begotten One, Son of God,” in and of itself, is really not that ridiculous.
Of course, many choose not to believe these things about Jesus. They respect his person, His teaching, His life and impact upon the world, but as to Jesus being born of a virgin, being thereby the Son of God and Savior of the World; well, suffice it to say that it’s just too much for them to swallow. But, hey, that’s okay. Many believe and many don’t. That’s the way it is and always will be. Here’s the point: There is no need to take offense either way.
Dear non-believer, please allow those who do believe (these things about Jesus) to keep Christ in Christmas. For, it is the very person of Jesus, the Christ/Messiah, received and believed on as the Son of God, born of a virgin, lived, died, and rose again from the dead on the third day, that brings energy, joy, light and life to the celebration of Christmas. Without Jesus Christ there would be no Christmas in the first place (a thought I’m sure that many wish was the case).
So please allow Christians to say, “Merry Christmas!” not simply “Happy Holidays.” No offense is intended and no offense need be taken. Believers can respect non-believers and non-believers can respect believers by letting each have and own their preferred expression. If you say “Happy Holidays” to me and I say “Merry Christmas” to you, do we not both mean good will and good cheer toward each other?
It’s all good. Why become nitpicky and demand political correctness? I say “Merry Christmas” and you say, “Well, thank you, and Happy Hanukah to you!” Is there a problem? We both are blessing one another’s celebration and that’s as it should be. Is it not? If you say, “Thanks but I am an atheist; I don’t believe in Christmas.” I’ve caused you no harm, have I? I haven’t hit, hurt, or wounded you by wishing upon you something you don’t believe in, have I? The intent is still that of goodwill. Is it not?
So you don’t believe; may I not still wish you a blessing from God? So I believe and you don’t; may you not wish me a happy holiday anyway? In short may we not wish each other the best out of who we are and what we believe? To do so means that our good wishes for each other are truly sincere, for it comes out of what we really believe. And what we truly believe shapes who we really are.
So, when a Christian says “Merry Christmas” to you, remember that we say it simply out of our firm belief in Christ. Thus, we are saying it with sincere interest in showering you with a blessing of goodwill, wishing you the best as we’d hope you’d wish for us. So, don’t take offense if we exuberantly wish you our best wishes out of our belief. If you don’t believe, you don’t believe. No offense intended, and hopefully and graciously may none be taken.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Bad Year for Christmas?
Lower wages, higher expenses, job insecurity, and your family has downsized from a two income to a one income household, and not by choice! Money is tight, anxiety is high, you’re barely making ends meet, and here comes Christmas! It looks like it’s not going to be “a good Christmas” this year. What to do?
Two simple but not very acceptable options come to mind: (1) reject Christmas altogether or (2) close your eyes, avoid reality, and spend, spend, spend—providing that your credit limit is not already maxed out!
Underemployment means little money; and “no job” means no money. That’s reality. But must that reality change the Christmas experience? Is it possible to celebrate and have a good Christmas even when you’re broke?
How about a third option? How about returning to the heart of the Christmas celebration with a devout celebration of faith, food, fellowship, and fun? You may not be able to do much about your empty pocket book. But a change of heart, soul, mind and spirit, costs you nothing and is far more enriching than anything you can buy at the mall.
Start by turning Christmas back into a Celebration of Faith. Take your family to any number of the various musical, dramatic, and liturgical Christmas Services that churches within your community present at this time of year.
If you’ve not been to church in years, go with an open mind and most especially an open heart; relax and enjoy the service, take it all in. And here’s the challenge, while doing so, seek God and ask for a spiritual awakening. What a priceless gift that would be to receive!
If you are a regular church goer, participate whole heartedly sing, read, pray, worship—celebrate the birth of Christ, the gift of salvation, and the Faith. Make it as meaningfully applicable to you and your family’s circumstance as possible. Seek a change of heart and attitude; re-connect with your spiritual riches—“blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit….”
Secondly, do not be ashamed to celebrate Christmas at whatever economic level you can afford, but do celebrate. Start with what you have and where you’re at. Consider what you do have and what you can afford, ignore what is beyond your means.
Food is festive! So then, while sticking to your budget, make or buy special treats and delectable dishes that you and your family will enjoy eating together. Get the kids involved in cooking, baking, or buying these treats. Let the food itself be celebrated as a family gift. Eating a celebratory treat with plastic fork on paper plates can be as delightfully tasty as eating off gilded china with silver spoons.
Thirdly, deliberately connect with others of a kindred spirit. In church language it is called “fellowship.” Seek the company of likeminded souls and invite that company over to celebrate with you (or accept their invitation to share with them), a simple, humble Christmas celebration that is truly honest in its gratitude and humble in its simplicity but is nevertheless sincerely celebrative. That is, share. Pass the spirit on. It cost nothing to be kind and polite, throw someone a smile, or offer a helping hand.
And finally have fun. Be inventive. Find a way to enjoy not only what you have, but also a way to enjoy it with others, having fun as you do so.
In short, when it comes to celebrating Christmas, attitude is everything. One’s spirit and mindset—the heart—makes all the difference in the world. Children pick up on this immediately. If you have a woe is me, poor us, self-pitying attitude entering into Christmas, so will your children. There is no place for self-pity in a Christmas celebration, for it ignores the greatest gift of all—“For unto you is born this day, a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” (See Luke 2:10-11.)
Your attitude, undergirded by your actions, will demonstrate to your children that Christmas can still be enjoyed and appreciated even when there is very little under the tree. (The animated story of The Grinch Who Stoled Christmas makes this point quite nicely; don’t you think?) Don’t focus on what you don’t have or can’t get. Rather, focus on what God may want of you and for you. Use these difficult times to ignite or reawaken a spiritual vitality, a renewed hope and faith, faith that can move mountains.
Jesus said of Himself, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (See Luke 4:18-19.) Perhaps this is the year in which God’s favor shall shine upon you.
p.s. Wellspring Church of Skippack’s Christmas program is December 18, Saturday, 6:00 p.m. All are welcome. Many other churches in the area also have excellent programs.
Two simple but not very acceptable options come to mind: (1) reject Christmas altogether or (2) close your eyes, avoid reality, and spend, spend, spend—providing that your credit limit is not already maxed out!
Underemployment means little money; and “no job” means no money. That’s reality. But must that reality change the Christmas experience? Is it possible to celebrate and have a good Christmas even when you’re broke?
How about a third option? How about returning to the heart of the Christmas celebration with a devout celebration of faith, food, fellowship, and fun? You may not be able to do much about your empty pocket book. But a change of heart, soul, mind and spirit, costs you nothing and is far more enriching than anything you can buy at the mall.
Start by turning Christmas back into a Celebration of Faith. Take your family to any number of the various musical, dramatic, and liturgical Christmas Services that churches within your community present at this time of year.
If you’ve not been to church in years, go with an open mind and most especially an open heart; relax and enjoy the service, take it all in. And here’s the challenge, while doing so, seek God and ask for a spiritual awakening. What a priceless gift that would be to receive!
If you are a regular church goer, participate whole heartedly sing, read, pray, worship—celebrate the birth of Christ, the gift of salvation, and the Faith. Make it as meaningfully applicable to you and your family’s circumstance as possible. Seek a change of heart and attitude; re-connect with your spiritual riches—“blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit….”
Secondly, do not be ashamed to celebrate Christmas at whatever economic level you can afford, but do celebrate. Start with what you have and where you’re at. Consider what you do have and what you can afford, ignore what is beyond your means.
Food is festive! So then, while sticking to your budget, make or buy special treats and delectable dishes that you and your family will enjoy eating together. Get the kids involved in cooking, baking, or buying these treats. Let the food itself be celebrated as a family gift. Eating a celebratory treat with plastic fork on paper plates can be as delightfully tasty as eating off gilded china with silver spoons.
Thirdly, deliberately connect with others of a kindred spirit. In church language it is called “fellowship.” Seek the company of likeminded souls and invite that company over to celebrate with you (or accept their invitation to share with them), a simple, humble Christmas celebration that is truly honest in its gratitude and humble in its simplicity but is nevertheless sincerely celebrative. That is, share. Pass the spirit on. It cost nothing to be kind and polite, throw someone a smile, or offer a helping hand.
And finally have fun. Be inventive. Find a way to enjoy not only what you have, but also a way to enjoy it with others, having fun as you do so.
In short, when it comes to celebrating Christmas, attitude is everything. One’s spirit and mindset—the heart—makes all the difference in the world. Children pick up on this immediately. If you have a woe is me, poor us, self-pitying attitude entering into Christmas, so will your children. There is no place for self-pity in a Christmas celebration, for it ignores the greatest gift of all—“For unto you is born this day, a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” (See Luke 2:10-11.)
Your attitude, undergirded by your actions, will demonstrate to your children that Christmas can still be enjoyed and appreciated even when there is very little under the tree. (The animated story of The Grinch Who Stoled Christmas makes this point quite nicely; don’t you think?) Don’t focus on what you don’t have or can’t get. Rather, focus on what God may want of you and for you. Use these difficult times to ignite or reawaken a spiritual vitality, a renewed hope and faith, faith that can move mountains.
Jesus said of Himself, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (See Luke 4:18-19.) Perhaps this is the year in which God’s favor shall shine upon you.
p.s. Wellspring Church of Skippack’s Christmas program is December 18, Saturday, 6:00 p.m. All are welcome. Many other churches in the area also have excellent programs.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wikileaks, Good or Bad for America?
Did Wikileaks do the right thing by exposing the content of private government documents? Does it hurt our foreign policy, weakening the ability for the U.S. to negotiate in good faith? Does it strengthen our democratic system, allowing for a more informed public to hold its officials more accountable? In short, was more harm done than good, or not? We can argue the wisdom of this decision until we’re blue in the face. Perhaps only future generations will truly know.
Nevertheless, I think I understand their intent, the spirit with which they did this. If we are to error, is it not better to error on the side of openness and transparency rather than on the side of secretiveness and/or actual deceit? The temptation for all governments, of whatever size, type, or persuasion, is to excuse itself from prying eyes, openness and accountability; it wants free reign to do according to its own whims and wishes, without needing to explain or justify itself, believing that the end will surely justify the means. (It’s just such an attitude in the previous administration, in my humble opinion, that so readily took us to war with Iraq; a war we started, falsely, wrongly, or naively justified, and now find so difficult to get out of!)
A healthy democracy requires a well-informed populace. A strong democracy will hold its leaders accountable for their actions and decisions. Thus, a thriving democracy is an open one. During an election season, for example, the people ought to know who’s who; who are the powerful companies and particular interest groups that spend huge amounts of money on special political ads. The people need to know who’s real interests are being promoted and why? Accountability!
By contrast, all totalitarian and oppressive governments are secretive. They manage and manipulate the flow of information. Propaganda is their favorite means of “informing” the public. Half-truths and outright lies are generally the substance of their content. The public is generally kept in the dark as to what is really the case regarding crucial events, critical decisions, and the circumstances surrounding them by its government and their leaders. Totalitarian governments are accountable to no one but themselves. As an example, I give you North Korea!
There is a fine line between confidentiality and subversive secrecy. It is true, governments and their bureaucratic machineries need some protection respecting confidentiality, privacy, if you will. Yes, it’s possible that Wikileaks may have gone too far. Yes, it may have caused much embarrassment to our political leaders. But perhaps that’s one of the strengths of our democracy. We’ll survive our embarrassment.
America prides itself in its strong values of freedom, justice, democracy and equality for all. This being the case, we are obliged to maintain a policy of openness, truth, honesty, and integrity. And so, with eyes wide open and with fresh clarity, newly informed as we are, we the people can review what our leaders have been really saying and doing. We can hold them accountable and ask ourselves: Do we approve? Are our leaders doing right by us? In short, now that we know what we know, we are in a better position to continue to demand that our leaders maintain—act and speak with—integrity, and not just for appearance sake.
Nevertheless, I think I understand their intent, the spirit with which they did this. If we are to error, is it not better to error on the side of openness and transparency rather than on the side of secretiveness and/or actual deceit? The temptation for all governments, of whatever size, type, or persuasion, is to excuse itself from prying eyes, openness and accountability; it wants free reign to do according to its own whims and wishes, without needing to explain or justify itself, believing that the end will surely justify the means. (It’s just such an attitude in the previous administration, in my humble opinion, that so readily took us to war with Iraq; a war we started, falsely, wrongly, or naively justified, and now find so difficult to get out of!)
A healthy democracy requires a well-informed populace. A strong democracy will hold its leaders accountable for their actions and decisions. Thus, a thriving democracy is an open one. During an election season, for example, the people ought to know who’s who; who are the powerful companies and particular interest groups that spend huge amounts of money on special political ads. The people need to know who’s real interests are being promoted and why? Accountability!
By contrast, all totalitarian and oppressive governments are secretive. They manage and manipulate the flow of information. Propaganda is their favorite means of “informing” the public. Half-truths and outright lies are generally the substance of their content. The public is generally kept in the dark as to what is really the case regarding crucial events, critical decisions, and the circumstances surrounding them by its government and their leaders. Totalitarian governments are accountable to no one but themselves. As an example, I give you North Korea!
There is a fine line between confidentiality and subversive secrecy. It is true, governments and their bureaucratic machineries need some protection respecting confidentiality, privacy, if you will. Yes, it’s possible that Wikileaks may have gone too far. Yes, it may have caused much embarrassment to our political leaders. But perhaps that’s one of the strengths of our democracy. We’ll survive our embarrassment.
America prides itself in its strong values of freedom, justice, democracy and equality for all. This being the case, we are obliged to maintain a policy of openness, truth, honesty, and integrity. And so, with eyes wide open and with fresh clarity, newly informed as we are, we the people can review what our leaders have been really saying and doing. We can hold them accountable and ask ourselves: Do we approve? Are our leaders doing right by us? In short, now that we know what we know, we are in a better position to continue to demand that our leaders maintain—act and speak with—integrity, and not just for appearance sake.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
That Time of Year Again
Thanksgiving then Christmas, it’s that time of year again!
The holidays are here.
Dreadful! Some would say.
Fancy wrappings, holiday trimmings, season’s greetings, family gatherings, gift shopping, mall hopping, food stuffing, choirs singing, ears ringing, kids clinging, families flying, siblings crying, mothers sighing. Overkill!
It’s just too much. Some would say.
Why bother, what’s the big deal? Some would ask.
Well, if the rains didn’t come, we’d have no drink; if crops didn’t grow, we’d have naught to eat?
Gods we are not. We have no control over the seasons. Rain, drought, earthquakes, hurricanes, snow, winter, summer, fall, or spring is beyond our doing. We plant and we wait. It is God who causes the growth. And so, we are Thankful.
We are dependent. And we are Thankful.
Oh God, do send us the rain. Grow our crops. Fill our baskets, feed us. Give us this day our daily bread. And we are Thankful.
Have we earned it? Do we deserve it? Are we entitled, is it our right, our privilege? No Lord, we have not. And so, we are Thankful.
What’s that? Innocent, pure, holy, righteous, us?! No, we must confess.
Pride, injustice, oppression, greed, selfishness, anger, hatred, spite, faithless and unfaithful; yes Lord, that’s us. Guilty as charged. We have wronged and have been wronged. We have lied, cheated and coveted. We have even murdered in our hearts. This we confess.
Can you, will you, do you, forgive us?
YES! And we are Thankful.
The angel said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called son of God.” (Luke 1:35) And the angels said to the shepherds, “Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord.” (Luke 2:10-11)
And when Jesus came to Nazareth he went to the synagogue and stood up to read: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:16-19)
And for this we are Thankful!
The holidays are here.
Dreadful! Some would say.
Fancy wrappings, holiday trimmings, season’s greetings, family gatherings, gift shopping, mall hopping, food stuffing, choirs singing, ears ringing, kids clinging, families flying, siblings crying, mothers sighing. Overkill!
It’s just too much. Some would say.
Why bother, what’s the big deal? Some would ask.
Well, if the rains didn’t come, we’d have no drink; if crops didn’t grow, we’d have naught to eat?
Gods we are not. We have no control over the seasons. Rain, drought, earthquakes, hurricanes, snow, winter, summer, fall, or spring is beyond our doing. We plant and we wait. It is God who causes the growth. And so, we are Thankful.
We are dependent. And we are Thankful.
Oh God, do send us the rain. Grow our crops. Fill our baskets, feed us. Give us this day our daily bread. And we are Thankful.
Have we earned it? Do we deserve it? Are we entitled, is it our right, our privilege? No Lord, we have not. And so, we are Thankful.
What’s that? Innocent, pure, holy, righteous, us?! No, we must confess.
Pride, injustice, oppression, greed, selfishness, anger, hatred, spite, faithless and unfaithful; yes Lord, that’s us. Guilty as charged. We have wronged and have been wronged. We have lied, cheated and coveted. We have even murdered in our hearts. This we confess.
Can you, will you, do you, forgive us?
YES! And we are Thankful.
The angel said to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called son of God.” (Luke 1:35) And the angels said to the shepherds, “Do not be afraid; for see—I am bringing you good news of great joy for all the people: to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is the Messiah, the Lord.” (Luke 2:10-11)
And when Jesus came to Nazareth he went to the synagogue and stood up to read: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4:16-19)
And for this we are Thankful!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Power Politics and Christian Power?!
BIG mistake! To think that the strength of the Christian message along with its principles, values, and practices are best promoted by government and politics. The more Christians seek to maintain social and political control over this nation, the less faithful it is to its true message and the more it relinquishes its real power of life changing spiritual vitality and renewal. Christianity did not spread like wildfire within the Roman Empire by strategically taking over the Roman Senate and putting a Christian on the Emperor’s thrown. (That came much, much later during the Empire’s decline.) The Roman Empire was in charge when Christianity was born. Where is Rome now?
The challenge is this: many studious observers of Christianity and Western Civilization are saying that Christianity is now on the waning side of what was once called Western “Christendom.” That is, there was a time in both Europe and in America that almost everybody identified with the Christian faith, at least nominally so. This is no longer the case, most especially in many parts of Europe. Here in the U. S., our diversity is growing at such a rapid rate that Christianity may soon no longer be viewed as the representative faith of most Americans.
Yes, Christianity is becoming more and more marginalized. Christianity is no longer our culture’s Norm setter, the provider of moral values and ethical standards for society. It is no longer the sole vision carrier for defining Truth and Reality, Belief and Values within society. Indeed, Christianity is fast becoming a minority voice rather than the majority voice it once was. Our seasonal year is no longer tied to the rhythm of the church and Christianity. Other religious celebrations (Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim), along with their own peculiar rites, rituals, and practices now mark our annual calendars. We can no longer speak of Christmas or Easter vacation; they are now spring and winter breaks.
Thus, many Christians sense Christianity’s loss of power and influence in the public arena and are reacting accordingly. The all too human, kneejerk-reaction to a loss of control and influence is to become hyper defensive and to vigorously fight back with the purpose of maintaining power and control at all cost, even if it means betraying one’s own heart and soul. I believe that this is what is happening to Christianity right now, here in America. Christians are upset because they are quickly losing their privileged position and no longer have the respect and influence that comes with privilege and status. As disconcerting and even frightening as it may be to Christians, responding to this loss of influence by adopting a fight back posture is self-defeating.
The problem is this: we are so busy fighting to have our way in the social, political, and governing arena that we are losing our heart and soul, our First Love. We are failing to invite people to know Christ and to enter His Kingdom. The last thing Christians should do, to reverse this trend, is attempt to enforce their own dogma upon an unbelieving populace by force of law. The Spiritual Power of Christianity is not helped along by equating Christianity with a political party or by equating the Gospel message with elitist economics and restrictive moral laws to which a general populace does not subscribe. The Gospel message has never been one of demanding and/or enforcing outward conformity to superimposed standards of morality upon a resistant and unbelieving public.
This loss of status and social influence can actually be good for The Faith. Why might this be good? Because the real power of the Christian faith does not arise from legislating morals. Its real power is in its Good News that one is set free, loved and mercifully forgiven by a kind and gracious God. Burdened and needy hearts experiencing renewed hope and spiritual healing through a Living Savior is how Christianity’s true power is revealed. Spiritual awakening!
Thus, rather than from a position of political power and control, Christians must more and more witness from a position of humility and love if their voice is to be truly heard and received. And this is exactly how Christianity first spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. Christians bore witness to a living resurrected Lord, testifying to what He was doing in the lives and hearts of His followers. There was the power! Awakened hearts! People told their stories, giving personal accounts filled with substance and content of how they experienced renewed hope and healing, living accounts of God’s actual work in repairing broken hearts made whole again. And then they began to live accordingly. That’s what brings moral vitality to a people and a society!
Real power is Spiritual Power. Heart pounding life-renewing power that awakens and enlightens, having a personal encounter with the Author of Life, the Light of the World! Christians, stop grasping after institutionalized control. Move away from outward, formal power structures and move toward inner spiritual power. Awaken the heart and soul of a people! Go back to a call for inner conviction. Reawaken a desire for holy and devout living that arises from a dynamic and living faith in a merciful, loving God. Christianity is dead without the Spirit of Christ, the source of inner vitality and inner light and life.
The challenge is this: many studious observers of Christianity and Western Civilization are saying that Christianity is now on the waning side of what was once called Western “Christendom.” That is, there was a time in both Europe and in America that almost everybody identified with the Christian faith, at least nominally so. This is no longer the case, most especially in many parts of Europe. Here in the U. S., our diversity is growing at such a rapid rate that Christianity may soon no longer be viewed as the representative faith of most Americans.
Yes, Christianity is becoming more and more marginalized. Christianity is no longer our culture’s Norm setter, the provider of moral values and ethical standards for society. It is no longer the sole vision carrier for defining Truth and Reality, Belief and Values within society. Indeed, Christianity is fast becoming a minority voice rather than the majority voice it once was. Our seasonal year is no longer tied to the rhythm of the church and Christianity. Other religious celebrations (Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim), along with their own peculiar rites, rituals, and practices now mark our annual calendars. We can no longer speak of Christmas or Easter vacation; they are now spring and winter breaks.
Thus, many Christians sense Christianity’s loss of power and influence in the public arena and are reacting accordingly. The all too human, kneejerk-reaction to a loss of control and influence is to become hyper defensive and to vigorously fight back with the purpose of maintaining power and control at all cost, even if it means betraying one’s own heart and soul. I believe that this is what is happening to Christianity right now, here in America. Christians are upset because they are quickly losing their privileged position and no longer have the respect and influence that comes with privilege and status. As disconcerting and even frightening as it may be to Christians, responding to this loss of influence by adopting a fight back posture is self-defeating.
The problem is this: we are so busy fighting to have our way in the social, political, and governing arena that we are losing our heart and soul, our First Love. We are failing to invite people to know Christ and to enter His Kingdom. The last thing Christians should do, to reverse this trend, is attempt to enforce their own dogma upon an unbelieving populace by force of law. The Spiritual Power of Christianity is not helped along by equating Christianity with a political party or by equating the Gospel message with elitist economics and restrictive moral laws to which a general populace does not subscribe. The Gospel message has never been one of demanding and/or enforcing outward conformity to superimposed standards of morality upon a resistant and unbelieving public.
This loss of status and social influence can actually be good for The Faith. Why might this be good? Because the real power of the Christian faith does not arise from legislating morals. Its real power is in its Good News that one is set free, loved and mercifully forgiven by a kind and gracious God. Burdened and needy hearts experiencing renewed hope and spiritual healing through a Living Savior is how Christianity’s true power is revealed. Spiritual awakening!
Thus, rather than from a position of political power and control, Christians must more and more witness from a position of humility and love if their voice is to be truly heard and received. And this is exactly how Christianity first spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire. Christians bore witness to a living resurrected Lord, testifying to what He was doing in the lives and hearts of His followers. There was the power! Awakened hearts! People told their stories, giving personal accounts filled with substance and content of how they experienced renewed hope and healing, living accounts of God’s actual work in repairing broken hearts made whole again. And then they began to live accordingly. That’s what brings moral vitality to a people and a society!
Real power is Spiritual Power. Heart pounding life-renewing power that awakens and enlightens, having a personal encounter with the Author of Life, the Light of the World! Christians, stop grasping after institutionalized control. Move away from outward, formal power structures and move toward inner spiritual power. Awaken the heart and soul of a people! Go back to a call for inner conviction. Reawaken a desire for holy and devout living that arises from a dynamic and living faith in a merciful, loving God. Christianity is dead without the Spirit of Christ, the source of inner vitality and inner light and life.
Monday, November 8, 2010
America belongs to ALL of US
What is an American? Who are true Americans?
And what right does any politician have, upon being newly elected or re-elected to office, to say that “we are taking back America? “Us against them!” divisive language; it assumes that they have no right to governing power as we do. It assumes an absolute power struggle—“winner takes all.” Crying out, “We’re taking back America!” presumes that “WE” are the only one’s who have the right to America, all that it is and has to offer; contrary opinions are unacceptable and will be allowed little or no influence in the decision making process, period!
What should be unacceptable here in America is “all or nothing” posturing. What should be intolerable here in American is lack of negotiation. Accepting no alternative opinion, being intolerant of others and refusing to accommodate in order to have broader inclusiveness is what is not right about America. Pushing polarities to their extreme is to play a dangerous game of tug-of-war. The last time we were faced with extreme recalcitrant polarities, demanding total all-or-nothing sides, we fought a terrible Civil War at a great price of life and limb. There is no place for an “I win, you lose; I dictate, you do; I command, you serve; I will, you won’t” presumptiveness in a democracy. Thus, any politician that has a “my way or the highway” presumptiveness is out of line, and is being quite un-American, Right, Left, or Independent.
We are the United States, One people? We are many, we are varied. We are multiple, plural, different. We are Chinese, Japanese, Asian-Americans; we are Latin, Hispanic, and Afro-Americans. We are European, white, and English-first Americans. Still, we are ONE nation. It is not your nation; it is not my nation, it is our nation. WE are the US in the U.S. We/us have no more right to take back America than they/them have the right to claim America is theirs without including us (whoever they and we may be). We are ONE.
So, enough talk about “Taking Back America!” Give and take, measured and respectful accommodation is what is required of us all. For example, though there are many who do not like the new Health Care laws, there are many who DO want it, or something akin to it. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have all the answers. Swinging right to left and back to right again is not going to solve our problems. Neither the right nor the left, neither Democrats nor Republicans have the backing of ALL Americans. Thus, neither side should be acting as if they speak for ALL citizens. They don’t. It’s just that plain and simple.
So, dear politician, whatever party you may represent, please understand this: you do NOT represent EVERYONE and your own particular leanings are not what everyone wants or would agree to. So, please, humble yourselves a little and do not presume total right, power, and authority to act as if you must have everything go your way. You must negotiate; you must work with the opposing side(s) not simply be against them. Your opponent is not an enemy of the American way. Your opponent shares the same values as all Americans do regarding life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So be not haughty. You and your particular party or movement is not the only American party or movement living in this land. Pride goes before a fall and before a great fall is great pride. Representatives, humble your selves and start working for all of America. Embrace the fact that America is diverse, pluralistic, and varied in its opinions and specific interests and desires. Give us something we can ALL be proud of!
And what right does any politician have, upon being newly elected or re-elected to office, to say that “we are taking back America? “Us against them!” divisive language; it assumes that they have no right to governing power as we do. It assumes an absolute power struggle—“winner takes all.” Crying out, “We’re taking back America!” presumes that “WE” are the only one’s who have the right to America, all that it is and has to offer; contrary opinions are unacceptable and will be allowed little or no influence in the decision making process, period!
What should be unacceptable here in America is “all or nothing” posturing. What should be intolerable here in American is lack of negotiation. Accepting no alternative opinion, being intolerant of others and refusing to accommodate in order to have broader inclusiveness is what is not right about America. Pushing polarities to their extreme is to play a dangerous game of tug-of-war. The last time we were faced with extreme recalcitrant polarities, demanding total all-or-nothing sides, we fought a terrible Civil War at a great price of life and limb. There is no place for an “I win, you lose; I dictate, you do; I command, you serve; I will, you won’t” presumptiveness in a democracy. Thus, any politician that has a “my way or the highway” presumptiveness is out of line, and is being quite un-American, Right, Left, or Independent.
We are the United States, One people? We are many, we are varied. We are multiple, plural, different. We are Chinese, Japanese, Asian-Americans; we are Latin, Hispanic, and Afro-Americans. We are European, white, and English-first Americans. Still, we are ONE nation. It is not your nation; it is not my nation, it is our nation. WE are the US in the U.S. We/us have no more right to take back America than they/them have the right to claim America is theirs without including us (whoever they and we may be). We are ONE.
So, enough talk about “Taking Back America!” Give and take, measured and respectful accommodation is what is required of us all. For example, though there are many who do not like the new Health Care laws, there are many who DO want it, or something akin to it. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have all the answers. Swinging right to left and back to right again is not going to solve our problems. Neither the right nor the left, neither Democrats nor Republicans have the backing of ALL Americans. Thus, neither side should be acting as if they speak for ALL citizens. They don’t. It’s just that plain and simple.
So, dear politician, whatever party you may represent, please understand this: you do NOT represent EVERYONE and your own particular leanings are not what everyone wants or would agree to. So, please, humble yourselves a little and do not presume total right, power, and authority to act as if you must have everything go your way. You must negotiate; you must work with the opposing side(s) not simply be against them. Your opponent is not an enemy of the American way. Your opponent shares the same values as all Americans do regarding life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So be not haughty. You and your particular party or movement is not the only American party or movement living in this land. Pride goes before a fall and before a great fall is great pride. Representatives, humble your selves and start working for all of America. Embrace the fact that America is diverse, pluralistic, and varied in its opinions and specific interests and desires. Give us something we can ALL be proud of!
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
The Vote!
Why is it that when it comes to politics we value ignorance? Okay, by the time anyone reads this blog, the 2010 elections will be done, so my question may seem irrelevant; bad timing. Still, let us consider the rhetoric.
“Elect me!” Why? “Because I am an average Joe Citizen; I am not a ‘professional.’ I have little or next to no political experience, I’m neither politically astute nor am I highly educated; I’m just a regular Joe Blow [or Jane Doe, as the case may be] with deep conviction and energetic passion.” Really? So, I have to ask, what’s wrong with an astute, highly educated and intelligent well informed candidate that has years of experience under his/her belt? “They’ve lost touch with the common people!” Oh, I see. Hmm, is it not possible that it’s really the other way around? Perhaps the common people have lost touch with the machinery and intricacies of government.
Are we really better off electing simple but passionate, inexperienced but starry eyed, uninformed but willful candidates to high office? Is that really what we want? We shall elect a person to Congress or to the United States Senate just because they talk like plain ole country folk, are agreeable, likeable, are laid back and easy-going and have no experience in government and no personal knowledge of the workings of our constitutional laws? And then, when in office, we expect them to make smart, intelligent, well-informed decisions and to wisely participate in the legislative process to make things move, as if they are experts at it? What’s wrong with this picture?
Why is ignorance and non-experience better than knowledge, education, and tried and true practiced experience in our ideal of a good candidate? Is running the government of the Unites States of American mere child’s play, such that we should assume that any Joe Blow or Jane Doe citizen can be put in office to do it?
Is it possible, just possible, that it is not the highly educated, well trained, and deeply complex thinker that is taking our nation down the wrong path? Rather, might it be that it is the naïve, the simple-minded, the un-informed, the provincial (those who are narrow and limited in outlook), or just the plain ole ignorant (lacking substantial knowledge in content) that may be doing this nation the most harm?
This is a valid question. It seems to me that we are distrustful of intelligent, highly educated, and well-informed politicians. Politicians who speak insightfully and wisely about complex issues seem to be distrusted, as if the fact that they are smart, well-informed, and are able to see more than one side to an issue automatically makes them shifty and unreliable and therefore untrustworthy in office. Why is that? A politician is caught admitting that certain national issues and concerns are complex and that there is no one easy solution to resolve them, suddenly they’re seen as slick and sly, underserving of our full confidence. How foolish we are. The problem is, we want immediate gratification, no matter what the long term consequence or outcome may be to the nation’s welfare as a whole—that is, we don’t care to think too deeply about the issues and we certainly don’t want our representatives to think too deeply about them either, we just want things to go our way and that’s that. This kind of attitude is a recipe for making very bad and very poor political decisions for long term solutions.
And so politicians are giving us what we want. We are drawn to the simple home spun politician who comes out with short, pithy, three word little slogans: I’m for you! I’ll fix it. I’ll fight it. I’ll change it. I’ll reduce it. I’ll correct it. I’ll put things right! We hear this ad nauseam. The thing is, they never say just exactly how they will fix, change, fight, or correct the problem, other than shout all the more loudly to say that they are against the opponent’s solution, whatever it is, good bad or indifferent, and are for us the voter.
In short, neither politicians nor voters want to really understand the complexities of an issue; nor do we have the patience to allow time for working out practical solutions. We simply choose sides and tear apart the opposing side. We don’t care to ask intelligent questions. We hear what we want to hear; my side and my side only! And, if a real intelligent answer is actually given in response to an intelligent question, we’ve already tuned out, short attention span that we have. Or, worse, we’ve shut out the answer because of a narrow-minded unwillingness to hear something that might correct our own half-baked thinking on the subject. We’re like the child that cups hands over ears and shouts, “I’m not listening! I’m not listening! Nah, nah, nah, nah, naaah!” Yes, as a nation we are becoming childish in our political antics.
Political campaigns that incite the passions—fear, anger, hatred, and contempt for the other side (“the enemy”), is politics based on ignorance; ignorance in that there is no desire to inform and to enlighten. Having no interest in bringing knowledge and understanding to an issue, politicians and special interest groups hide behind a wall of misinformation, innuendo, re-direction, and secrecy (if not outright lies). Why, because the real truth—actual facts, figures, and informed content—may hurt their election! And be bad for particular interests groups.
So, if we don’t want highly educated, knowledgeable, intelligent, and experienced, wise, insightful, and well-informed individuals working in the great halls of our legislative branches of government, so be it. If we don’t want to know the truth about the issues at hand (whether we like what we hear or not), and if we don’t care to understand their complexities, and if we’d rather pretend that every problem has easy simple solutions, and if we want to think and act as if the opposite side of the political spectrum is totally to blame for all of our nation’s ills while our own political side is as innocent as a choir of angels, let us enjoy our blissful ignorance.
But let us remember, as things go wrong and our nation continues to struggle with bitter divisiveness, it is we, the voters, who chose to remain in the dark—naïve, ignorant, and uninformed—by not demanding better of our politicians. It is we who are allowing our politicians to dupe us with quick easy and inane slogans rather than demanding of them some real content with actual factual and intelligent answers. Not even the media seem to be asking the crucial and important questions regarding the complex national and international challenges that our nation faces. All we get are jokes, bashing, demonizing, and castigating accusatory innuendos like, “he can take… and shove it!” And it seems that that is all we want of our politicians. How ignorant is that?!
“Elect me!” Why? “Because I am an average Joe Citizen; I am not a ‘professional.’ I have little or next to no political experience, I’m neither politically astute nor am I highly educated; I’m just a regular Joe Blow [or Jane Doe, as the case may be] with deep conviction and energetic passion.” Really? So, I have to ask, what’s wrong with an astute, highly educated and intelligent well informed candidate that has years of experience under his/her belt? “They’ve lost touch with the common people!” Oh, I see. Hmm, is it not possible that it’s really the other way around? Perhaps the common people have lost touch with the machinery and intricacies of government.
Are we really better off electing simple but passionate, inexperienced but starry eyed, uninformed but willful candidates to high office? Is that really what we want? We shall elect a person to Congress or to the United States Senate just because they talk like plain ole country folk, are agreeable, likeable, are laid back and easy-going and have no experience in government and no personal knowledge of the workings of our constitutional laws? And then, when in office, we expect them to make smart, intelligent, well-informed decisions and to wisely participate in the legislative process to make things move, as if they are experts at it? What’s wrong with this picture?
Why is ignorance and non-experience better than knowledge, education, and tried and true practiced experience in our ideal of a good candidate? Is running the government of the Unites States of American mere child’s play, such that we should assume that any Joe Blow or Jane Doe citizen can be put in office to do it?
Is it possible, just possible, that it is not the highly educated, well trained, and deeply complex thinker that is taking our nation down the wrong path? Rather, might it be that it is the naïve, the simple-minded, the un-informed, the provincial (those who are narrow and limited in outlook), or just the plain ole ignorant (lacking substantial knowledge in content) that may be doing this nation the most harm?
This is a valid question. It seems to me that we are distrustful of intelligent, highly educated, and well-informed politicians. Politicians who speak insightfully and wisely about complex issues seem to be distrusted, as if the fact that they are smart, well-informed, and are able to see more than one side to an issue automatically makes them shifty and unreliable and therefore untrustworthy in office. Why is that? A politician is caught admitting that certain national issues and concerns are complex and that there is no one easy solution to resolve them, suddenly they’re seen as slick and sly, underserving of our full confidence. How foolish we are. The problem is, we want immediate gratification, no matter what the long term consequence or outcome may be to the nation’s welfare as a whole—that is, we don’t care to think too deeply about the issues and we certainly don’t want our representatives to think too deeply about them either, we just want things to go our way and that’s that. This kind of attitude is a recipe for making very bad and very poor political decisions for long term solutions.
And so politicians are giving us what we want. We are drawn to the simple home spun politician who comes out with short, pithy, three word little slogans: I’m for you! I’ll fix it. I’ll fight it. I’ll change it. I’ll reduce it. I’ll correct it. I’ll put things right! We hear this ad nauseam. The thing is, they never say just exactly how they will fix, change, fight, or correct the problem, other than shout all the more loudly to say that they are against the opponent’s solution, whatever it is, good bad or indifferent, and are for us the voter.
In short, neither politicians nor voters want to really understand the complexities of an issue; nor do we have the patience to allow time for working out practical solutions. We simply choose sides and tear apart the opposing side. We don’t care to ask intelligent questions. We hear what we want to hear; my side and my side only! And, if a real intelligent answer is actually given in response to an intelligent question, we’ve already tuned out, short attention span that we have. Or, worse, we’ve shut out the answer because of a narrow-minded unwillingness to hear something that might correct our own half-baked thinking on the subject. We’re like the child that cups hands over ears and shouts, “I’m not listening! I’m not listening! Nah, nah, nah, nah, naaah!” Yes, as a nation we are becoming childish in our political antics.
Political campaigns that incite the passions—fear, anger, hatred, and contempt for the other side (“the enemy”), is politics based on ignorance; ignorance in that there is no desire to inform and to enlighten. Having no interest in bringing knowledge and understanding to an issue, politicians and special interest groups hide behind a wall of misinformation, innuendo, re-direction, and secrecy (if not outright lies). Why, because the real truth—actual facts, figures, and informed content—may hurt their election! And be bad for particular interests groups.
So, if we don’t want highly educated, knowledgeable, intelligent, and experienced, wise, insightful, and well-informed individuals working in the great halls of our legislative branches of government, so be it. If we don’t want to know the truth about the issues at hand (whether we like what we hear or not), and if we don’t care to understand their complexities, and if we’d rather pretend that every problem has easy simple solutions, and if we want to think and act as if the opposite side of the political spectrum is totally to blame for all of our nation’s ills while our own political side is as innocent as a choir of angels, let us enjoy our blissful ignorance.
But let us remember, as things go wrong and our nation continues to struggle with bitter divisiveness, it is we, the voters, who chose to remain in the dark—naïve, ignorant, and uninformed—by not demanding better of our politicians. It is we who are allowing our politicians to dupe us with quick easy and inane slogans rather than demanding of them some real content with actual factual and intelligent answers. Not even the media seem to be asking the crucial and important questions regarding the complex national and international challenges that our nation faces. All we get are jokes, bashing, demonizing, and castigating accusatory innuendos like, “he can take… and shove it!” And it seems that that is all we want of our politicians. How ignorant is that?!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Computer Terror!
I missed a week in blogging. My computer broke. Ugh!! Boy, did that send me into a tail spin, having to play catch up with my normal workload. Is getting a new computer, upgrading and downloading, acquiring new software, re-installing old programs, learning new ones, recovering backed-up files, etc., as frustrating and time costly for everyone, or is it just me?
I think I’m becoming paranoid. Okay, let’s just say, anxious and concerned. Our dependency on our computers, cloud computing, storing sensitive content all over the place, up there, somewhere in cyberspace, is scary. Truth is, all our content has got to be in some company’s earthbound computer system. What does it all mean in terms of State security, let alone Personal security?
It seems to me that the best way to terrorize a modern, high-tech society is to take out its computer grid. I am sure this is being thought of. Is it just a matter of time? Think of our “must have” dependency on electrical power, just to use our techno gadgets. Given our increased dependency on technological gadgetry, are we not more, rather than less vulnerable?
I don’t mean to be a pessimist here, nor do I want to sound like a grumpy old man complaining about these new fangled contraptions (perhaps I’m in denial). Nevertheless, have you noticed how computers are taking over everything? They’re in our cars, stoves, refrigerators, watches, phones, even in our clothes and shoes (measuring and monitoring our running and exercise efforts, for example). And not surprisingly, the older we get, the more difficult it is to keep up with it all.
The young have the time to fiddle around, play, search and inquire, test, try, and experiment with all these new desktop, laptop, handheld, roving, glowing, buzzing and flickering thingamabobs. That’s how they learn. So, of course they know more about getting around on a new computer than we older and wiser types do (I know I’m older, I certainly hope that I’m the wiser for it). We mature types just want to get our work done. We don’t have the time to play around (learn), make mistakes (discover), and try new methods (expand and grow). Why, I still remember when just replacing a black/red ribbon on a typewriter was a small but irritating interruption to the flow of typing out a paper for my next class. Now we have computer crashes to deal with!
Well, all I can say is that, despite our push and excitement for the latest and greatest, quickest, fastest, super-speed, all-in-one gizmos and do-dads, I think the age-old saying still applies: The less working parts, the less chance there is for breakdown. So, hey techies! Please, KISS me with your innovations: “Keep It Simple Stupid!” As for the rest of us, let me ask you. With all these new fangled contraptions that you now own and operate, how much simpler and easier is your life?
I think I’m becoming paranoid. Okay, let’s just say, anxious and concerned. Our dependency on our computers, cloud computing, storing sensitive content all over the place, up there, somewhere in cyberspace, is scary. Truth is, all our content has got to be in some company’s earthbound computer system. What does it all mean in terms of State security, let alone Personal security?
It seems to me that the best way to terrorize a modern, high-tech society is to take out its computer grid. I am sure this is being thought of. Is it just a matter of time? Think of our “must have” dependency on electrical power, just to use our techno gadgets. Given our increased dependency on technological gadgetry, are we not more, rather than less vulnerable?
I don’t mean to be a pessimist here, nor do I want to sound like a grumpy old man complaining about these new fangled contraptions (perhaps I’m in denial). Nevertheless, have you noticed how computers are taking over everything? They’re in our cars, stoves, refrigerators, watches, phones, even in our clothes and shoes (measuring and monitoring our running and exercise efforts, for example). And not surprisingly, the older we get, the more difficult it is to keep up with it all.
The young have the time to fiddle around, play, search and inquire, test, try, and experiment with all these new desktop, laptop, handheld, roving, glowing, buzzing and flickering thingamabobs. That’s how they learn. So, of course they know more about getting around on a new computer than we older and wiser types do (I know I’m older, I certainly hope that I’m the wiser for it). We mature types just want to get our work done. We don’t have the time to play around (learn), make mistakes (discover), and try new methods (expand and grow). Why, I still remember when just replacing a black/red ribbon on a typewriter was a small but irritating interruption to the flow of typing out a paper for my next class. Now we have computer crashes to deal with!
Well, all I can say is that, despite our push and excitement for the latest and greatest, quickest, fastest, super-speed, all-in-one gizmos and do-dads, I think the age-old saying still applies: The less working parts, the less chance there is for breakdown. So, hey techies! Please, KISS me with your innovations: “Keep It Simple Stupid!” As for the rest of us, let me ask you. With all these new fangled contraptions that you now own and operate, how much simpler and easier is your life?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
God Hates Who?
The Reverend Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas is on a crusade. Across the country he and his followers show up at funerals of fallen soldiers with picket signs that say things like, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers!” and “God hates fags,” and more. Hate speech. They showed up at Matthew Snyder’s funeral, a fallen Marine who died while on active duty in Iraq in 2006. Matthew’s father, Al Snyder, sued. Snyder won the suit along with a five million dollar judgment. It was appealed. The case has now gone to the Supreme Court. The court will consider the case from the legal, free speech point of view. But let us consider this case from a spiritual, theological, Christ centered perspective.
When I first heard about this case I reflected upon the spirit, attitude, and language of Reverend Phelps, and others like him, who self-righteously pronounce that “God hates fags” (or this group, that group, and any other group they deem worthy of condemnation by God). I asked myself, “Where in the Bible does it speak of God hating someone? The first verse that came to mind is Malachi 2:16; and I quote, “‘I hate divorce,’ says the Lord God of Israel, ‘and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,’ says the Lord Almighty.”[1] And even here we might note that it does not say that God hates the divorcee, that is, the person; rather that God hates the action, the deed of divorce. In other words, to use what has now become a rather trite cliché, “God hates the sin, not the sinner.”
There is no question that the historical Jesus, born two millennia ago, whom Christians accept as, and believe to be God’s Anointed One, the Messiah, Lord and Savior of humanity, continues to impact the hearts and lives of billions of people around the world even today, over 2000 years later. This is the same Jesus who said things like, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” in reference to the woman “caught in the act of adultery” (John 8:1-11). Jesus also said, “For God did not send his Son [speaking of Himself] into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:17).
Without condoning evil, sin, or wrongdoing of any kind, Jesus is invitational toward the wrongdoer. “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30). That is, Jesus’ way of dealing with people’s bad behavior, sinful lives, and evil tendencies is to invite them in, so as to find forgiveness and experience change and transformation, to be renewed and cleansed from any and all dark stains upon one’s soul.
In other words, Jesus’ message is a message of hope for the guilty. God is quite ready and willing to receive and accept the wrongdoer and is doing everything possible to avoid having to reject and destroy him or her. It is a message of hope for escape from the wrath of God, NOT a gleeful message of eager anticipation toward condemning and destroying the transgressor. The Apostle Peter, one who sat directly under Jesus’ teaching, put it this way, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). And let us not forget Jesus’ famous invitational words, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For, I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:12-13).
Jesus is the only person who has ever claimed the right to speak for God and is able to get away with it. (See John 8:42, 54-56.) Why, because Jesus demonstrated His right to speak for God by means of His Power, Purpose, and Purity of living. Thus, whenever some self-appointed prophet or spokesperson for God stands up and declares that God hates this or that person or hates this or that group of people, I suggest you compare his or her statements with the life and teachings of Jesus Himself and see if they match up. Do they match up with Jesus’ character, lifestyle, and teaching? Most importantly do they match up with Jesus’ self-sacrificial acceptance of death on the cross out of love for humanity? “But God demonstrates his love for us in this: While we were still sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus came, lived, taught, and died in order to save, ransom, and redeem offenders against God’s perfect righteousness, the so-called bad people of this world, which happens to include me and you. This is what God’s grace is all about. Jesus said of Himself: “I am the good shepherd; …and I lay down my life for the sheep. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:14-18). He died by choice in order that we might choose to live.
It was and is Jesus’ intent that we humans understand that God’s desire for us is to be received by Him in love and joy, to be saved and forgiven not to be rejected and condemned. God does NOT wish to destroy the evildoer; He wants to change and renew the wrongdoer by the power of His love and grace. No matter how bad, how evil, how despicable one’s life may be or has been, God INVITES the evil doer to be welcomed and embraced by His merciful grace; God is NOT therefore gleefully waiting to pounce on sinful offenders with bloodthirsty hate, eager to take condemnatory revenge on the fallen. On the other hand, the only group of people for whom Jesus had no kind words, were the self-righteous, holier-than-thou types.
1. All Bible quotes are from the NIV BACK TO POST
When I first heard about this case I reflected upon the spirit, attitude, and language of Reverend Phelps, and others like him, who self-righteously pronounce that “God hates fags” (or this group, that group, and any other group they deem worthy of condemnation by God). I asked myself, “Where in the Bible does it speak of God hating someone? The first verse that came to mind is Malachi 2:16; and I quote, “‘I hate divorce,’ says the Lord God of Israel, ‘and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,’ says the Lord Almighty.”[1] And even here we might note that it does not say that God hates the divorcee, that is, the person; rather that God hates the action, the deed of divorce. In other words, to use what has now become a rather trite cliché, “God hates the sin, not the sinner.”
There is no question that the historical Jesus, born two millennia ago, whom Christians accept as, and believe to be God’s Anointed One, the Messiah, Lord and Savior of humanity, continues to impact the hearts and lives of billions of people around the world even today, over 2000 years later. This is the same Jesus who said things like, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” in reference to the woman “caught in the act of adultery” (John 8:1-11). Jesus also said, “For God did not send his Son [speaking of Himself] into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him” (John 3:17).
Without condoning evil, sin, or wrongdoing of any kind, Jesus is invitational toward the wrongdoer. “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30). That is, Jesus’ way of dealing with people’s bad behavior, sinful lives, and evil tendencies is to invite them in, so as to find forgiveness and experience change and transformation, to be renewed and cleansed from any and all dark stains upon one’s soul.
In other words, Jesus’ message is a message of hope for the guilty. God is quite ready and willing to receive and accept the wrongdoer and is doing everything possible to avoid having to reject and destroy him or her. It is a message of hope for escape from the wrath of God, NOT a gleeful message of eager anticipation toward condemning and destroying the transgressor. The Apostle Peter, one who sat directly under Jesus’ teaching, put it this way, “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). And let us not forget Jesus’ famous invitational words, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For, I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Matthew 9:12-13).
Jesus is the only person who has ever claimed the right to speak for God and is able to get away with it. (See John 8:42, 54-56.) Why, because Jesus demonstrated His right to speak for God by means of His Power, Purpose, and Purity of living. Thus, whenever some self-appointed prophet or spokesperson for God stands up and declares that God hates this or that person or hates this or that group of people, I suggest you compare his or her statements with the life and teachings of Jesus Himself and see if they match up. Do they match up with Jesus’ character, lifestyle, and teaching? Most importantly do they match up with Jesus’ self-sacrificial acceptance of death on the cross out of love for humanity? “But God demonstrates his love for us in this: While we were still sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Jesus came, lived, taught, and died in order to save, ransom, and redeem offenders against God’s perfect righteousness, the so-called bad people of this world, which happens to include me and you. This is what God’s grace is all about. Jesus said of Himself: “I am the good shepherd; …and I lay down my life for the sheep. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again” (John 10:14-18). He died by choice in order that we might choose to live.
It was and is Jesus’ intent that we humans understand that God’s desire for us is to be received by Him in love and joy, to be saved and forgiven not to be rejected and condemned. God does NOT wish to destroy the evildoer; He wants to change and renew the wrongdoer by the power of His love and grace. No matter how bad, how evil, how despicable one’s life may be or has been, God INVITES the evil doer to be welcomed and embraced by His merciful grace; God is NOT therefore gleefully waiting to pounce on sinful offenders with bloodthirsty hate, eager to take condemnatory revenge on the fallen. On the other hand, the only group of people for whom Jesus had no kind words, were the self-righteous, holier-than-thou types.
1. All Bible quotes are from the NIV BACK TO POST
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Recipe for Success
Success! America loves success. We like to win. And it pays!
So, I have an idea. Why don’t we bring back the old recipe for success that our grandparents and great grandparents relied upon? What’s the recipe? I’m glad you asked.
First, make a good, dependable and reliable, quality product. We have way too much junk. Americans don’t need more junk: buy today, throw away tomorrow because it broke after its second, maybe third use. Consumers are tired of wasting time, money, space, effort, and sentiment in buying something that’ll end up in the trash the next day. So producers, please, make products that will last. Make it worth the pretty penny we consumers spend on it. America, let’s demand more quality and less quantity. We want our shopping trip to be worth the effort.
Secondly, bring back the “Service with a Smile” mentality. Businesses are there for the benefit of the customer, not the other way around. Be glad when a customer walks in the door. Don’t have this, “Oh NO, not another one!” attitude when a customer enters the shop. Embrace that man, woman, or even child that walks in the door; they’re there because they need or want something, and you are there to help fulfill that need or desire they came in with, looking to satisfy. So serve! Give them that special attention when asked for; bring back that personal touch, that relational aspect to the business transaction. Take no customer for granted.
Thirdly, bring back that old saying, “The Customer is Always Right!” Sure, I know, there are some pretty ornery, stubborn, and downright unreasonable customers out there. I know, because I’ve been one! (I’m ashamed to say.) Nevertheless, customers need respect. Don’t make a customer feel foolish, like she’s an idiot because you think she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Indeed, the customer may not know anything about the product, material, or item in question but she does know what she wants; or at least she believes she knows. Respect that. Try to grasp your customer’s point of view; it may just very well make sense, even if it is uninformed or misinformed. It’s your business to satisfy a need or want, which means possibly taking time to educate the customer a bit and/or perhaps even sending your potential client on to a competitor of yours. Yes, really! It’ll be good for your own business in the long run, when you do this.
Fourthly, follow through, be true, keep your word; let your word be as good as any signed contract. Many customers may have a lot of anxiety about their purchase, especially with big ticket items. Customers want to be satisfied that they’ve made the right decision and a good one, when purchasing a product. They don’t want to buy more insurance they want assurance. Are you behind them? Will you back them? Are you and your business trustworthy, reliable, and supportive? Customers are wary of the “Sorry Charlie, you get what you pay for” response, or the “Take the money and run” approach that many business people seem to have these days, whatever the service or product they seem to be pushing.
Fifthly, customers are fully aware that there is no perfect product out there. Mistakes will be made. Okay, so deal with it. Address the mistakes when they happen. First own it, and then take immediate and deliberate action to correct the mistakes to make it right. There’s no need to hide, run, or cover up. Most customers will allow for a mistake here and there along the way. When it is handled correctly, customers are reassured and will continue to buy your product knowing that you stand by your work, your product, and your service. And that’s just good business.
And finally, and most importantly, see your business as more than a money making, profiteering entity. Ultimately you are in the business of Life. Your real business is adding value to people’s lives, not only to your customers but to your employees and their families, not to mention your own family. You bring a service or product that people want or need in order to make their lives more fruitful, meaningful, delightful, or happy. It’s not just about making money. So take the greed motive out of the equation. If you are making enough money from your business to live a comfortable life, consider ways that you might help others less fortune than yourself. You might begin with your own employees. Are you serving them well? Or do you simply see them as cogs in a big money-making machine that you call your business? The real successful businessperson is one who understands the difference and is keen on bringing benefit to people’s lives as a whole, and not just looking out for one’s personal profit margin.
So, I have an idea. Why don’t we bring back the old recipe for success that our grandparents and great grandparents relied upon? What’s the recipe? I’m glad you asked.
First, make a good, dependable and reliable, quality product. We have way too much junk. Americans don’t need more junk: buy today, throw away tomorrow because it broke after its second, maybe third use. Consumers are tired of wasting time, money, space, effort, and sentiment in buying something that’ll end up in the trash the next day. So producers, please, make products that will last. Make it worth the pretty penny we consumers spend on it. America, let’s demand more quality and less quantity. We want our shopping trip to be worth the effort.
Secondly, bring back the “Service with a Smile” mentality. Businesses are there for the benefit of the customer, not the other way around. Be glad when a customer walks in the door. Don’t have this, “Oh NO, not another one!” attitude when a customer enters the shop. Embrace that man, woman, or even child that walks in the door; they’re there because they need or want something, and you are there to help fulfill that need or desire they came in with, looking to satisfy. So serve! Give them that special attention when asked for; bring back that personal touch, that relational aspect to the business transaction. Take no customer for granted.
Thirdly, bring back that old saying, “The Customer is Always Right!” Sure, I know, there are some pretty ornery, stubborn, and downright unreasonable customers out there. I know, because I’ve been one! (I’m ashamed to say.) Nevertheless, customers need respect. Don’t make a customer feel foolish, like she’s an idiot because you think she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Indeed, the customer may not know anything about the product, material, or item in question but she does know what she wants; or at least she believes she knows. Respect that. Try to grasp your customer’s point of view; it may just very well make sense, even if it is uninformed or misinformed. It’s your business to satisfy a need or want, which means possibly taking time to educate the customer a bit and/or perhaps even sending your potential client on to a competitor of yours. Yes, really! It’ll be good for your own business in the long run, when you do this.
Fourthly, follow through, be true, keep your word; let your word be as good as any signed contract. Many customers may have a lot of anxiety about their purchase, especially with big ticket items. Customers want to be satisfied that they’ve made the right decision and a good one, when purchasing a product. They don’t want to buy more insurance they want assurance. Are you behind them? Will you back them? Are you and your business trustworthy, reliable, and supportive? Customers are wary of the “Sorry Charlie, you get what you pay for” response, or the “Take the money and run” approach that many business people seem to have these days, whatever the service or product they seem to be pushing.
Fifthly, customers are fully aware that there is no perfect product out there. Mistakes will be made. Okay, so deal with it. Address the mistakes when they happen. First own it, and then take immediate and deliberate action to correct the mistakes to make it right. There’s no need to hide, run, or cover up. Most customers will allow for a mistake here and there along the way. When it is handled correctly, customers are reassured and will continue to buy your product knowing that you stand by your work, your product, and your service. And that’s just good business.
And finally, and most importantly, see your business as more than a money making, profiteering entity. Ultimately you are in the business of Life. Your real business is adding value to people’s lives, not only to your customers but to your employees and their families, not to mention your own family. You bring a service or product that people want or need in order to make their lives more fruitful, meaningful, delightful, or happy. It’s not just about making money. So take the greed motive out of the equation. If you are making enough money from your business to live a comfortable life, consider ways that you might help others less fortune than yourself. You might begin with your own employees. Are you serving them well? Or do you simply see them as cogs in a big money-making machine that you call your business? The real successful businessperson is one who understands the difference and is keen on bringing benefit to people’s lives as a whole, and not just looking out for one’s personal profit margin.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Master Your Money
Who does not have financial worries these days? And there is plenty of blame to go around. For starters, let’s blame Big Business, Wall Street, Government, the Global Economy, and International Corporations that deliberately avoid local hometown accountability.
But to be fair, let’s also blame ourselves? Are we not also responsible for our own money management, uh, that is, mismanagement? Were we not all too willing to buy into advertiser’s who told us things like “We deserve it,” “We owe it to ourselves,” so, “Buy now, pay later,” “Go ahead, splurge a little,” “Treat yourself to the best,” “Pamper yourself,” “Indulge!”? And we did.
Wasn’t it Benjamin Franklin, way back in the 1700’s that told us that “A penny saved is a penny earned”? And did not Charles Dickens, back in the 1800’s, essentially say, “Earn a dollar, spend ninety-nine cents, result? Happiness! However, earn ninety-nine cents and spend a dollar and one cent, result? Misery!” This last point by Dickens perhaps speaks directly to why many Americans today are in financial misery.
Thus, the first step we can take in mastering our money is to stop buying beyond our income, even if, or especially when, we get our jobs back and we start earning more money again. Putting it simply, if we don’t have the money to pay for it now, let’s not buy it. Let’s wait until we have the money.
We have become an “I want it now!” society. We are like terrible two-year olds crying out, “I want it NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! Give me, give me, give me; mine, mine, mine!” We have forgotten the wise old discipline of saving for a rainy day. We don’t know how to say “No” to something that is good in order to save and wait patiently for something that may even be better or best.
Perhaps too we have forgotten how to be gracious in giving. Yes, when we had a job and a good income we gave, but perhaps it wasn’t because first and foremost we were being kind and generous; perhaps it was more because we benefitted by getting a nice tax write-off on our income-tax returns on April 15th. That is, our motives, our hearts, may not have been in the right place. We thought we were being kind and generous when we were simply being financially calculating.
Thus, the second step we can take in mastering our money is to learn the patience of saving again as well as to learn how to become truly gracious, generous and kind with our money for the right reason—because it is a good thing in and of itself to be a kind, generous, and giving person.
A third step is to take charge of our own money again at the most basic level by keeping a simple but accurate budget, keeping track of where, when, and how we actually spend the money we have. Money management is not only for financial experts and special advisors.
In short, let’s go back to simple earthy wisdom: Debt is debt, let us avoid getting into debt if we don’t have to. Two plus two is four, if we can’t afford it, we can do without it. Let’s learn to be content living within our means. Needs and wants are not the same; let’s buy and pay for what we need first, before we consider what we may want. Most importantly, let us refuse to accept the lie that having more things means being happier.
Let’s also use the ole American know-how and can-do spirit to find new and positive means to make an honest income. The wisdom of our grandparents and great-grandparents has not changed: work hard and earn an honest day’s living, be frugal, pay your own way, spend wisely and don’t’ forget to save a little; and most significantly, learn to enjoy the simple things in life that come free—time with your children, a stroll through the park, watching a sunset, sharing stories around the dinner table or fire place—things that no money can ever buy.
But to be fair, let’s also blame ourselves? Are we not also responsible for our own money management, uh, that is, mismanagement? Were we not all too willing to buy into advertiser’s who told us things like “We deserve it,” “We owe it to ourselves,” so, “Buy now, pay later,” “Go ahead, splurge a little,” “Treat yourself to the best,” “Pamper yourself,” “Indulge!”? And we did.
Wasn’t it Benjamin Franklin, way back in the 1700’s that told us that “A penny saved is a penny earned”? And did not Charles Dickens, back in the 1800’s, essentially say, “Earn a dollar, spend ninety-nine cents, result? Happiness! However, earn ninety-nine cents and spend a dollar and one cent, result? Misery!” This last point by Dickens perhaps speaks directly to why many Americans today are in financial misery.
Thus, the first step we can take in mastering our money is to stop buying beyond our income, even if, or especially when, we get our jobs back and we start earning more money again. Putting it simply, if we don’t have the money to pay for it now, let’s not buy it. Let’s wait until we have the money.
We have become an “I want it now!” society. We are like terrible two-year olds crying out, “I want it NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW! Give me, give me, give me; mine, mine, mine!” We have forgotten the wise old discipline of saving for a rainy day. We don’t know how to say “No” to something that is good in order to save and wait patiently for something that may even be better or best.
Perhaps too we have forgotten how to be gracious in giving. Yes, when we had a job and a good income we gave, but perhaps it wasn’t because first and foremost we were being kind and generous; perhaps it was more because we benefitted by getting a nice tax write-off on our income-tax returns on April 15th. That is, our motives, our hearts, may not have been in the right place. We thought we were being kind and generous when we were simply being financially calculating.
Thus, the second step we can take in mastering our money is to learn the patience of saving again as well as to learn how to become truly gracious, generous and kind with our money for the right reason—because it is a good thing in and of itself to be a kind, generous, and giving person.
A third step is to take charge of our own money again at the most basic level by keeping a simple but accurate budget, keeping track of where, when, and how we actually spend the money we have. Money management is not only for financial experts and special advisors.
In short, let’s go back to simple earthy wisdom: Debt is debt, let us avoid getting into debt if we don’t have to. Two plus two is four, if we can’t afford it, we can do without it. Let’s learn to be content living within our means. Needs and wants are not the same; let’s buy and pay for what we need first, before we consider what we may want. Most importantly, let us refuse to accept the lie that having more things means being happier.
Let’s also use the ole American know-how and can-do spirit to find new and positive means to make an honest income. The wisdom of our grandparents and great-grandparents has not changed: work hard and earn an honest day’s living, be frugal, pay your own way, spend wisely and don’t’ forget to save a little; and most significantly, learn to enjoy the simple things in life that come free—time with your children, a stroll through the park, watching a sunset, sharing stories around the dinner table or fire place—things that no money can ever buy.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Tax-Cuts, Class War, and Wealthy Crybabies
“Greed is good!”
Really? Is that the new American way?
I have to wonder; why are the top wealthiest Americans so worried about losing their tax-cuts. “This is Class War!” they cry. I have to respond: are you serious? Is that what it comes down to? Do you really feel that threatened by it? With money comes power. And with power comes influence, and with influence more access to ways and means. I can’t help wondering, why are you (the top wealthiest Americans) so afraid of losing your precious tax-cuts? How much money, power, and control must you have? I can only imagine that your real answer is: as much as you can get and as much as you can keep! You won’t budge an inch, will you?
I’m not poor. Neither am I independently wealthy. I do not belong to that top niche of wealthiest Americans. So, I am biased. I have little sympathy for the very wealthy who are fearful, feeling threatened by the possibility of losing their tax-cuts. Why? Because when I think about the super wealthy and their lifestyle, coupled with their means and ability to make, manage, and manipulate their money interests, I can’t imagine that losing their precious tax-cuts will really hurt them. They’re not suffering now, nor will they suffer later, even if they do lose their tax-cuts.
As I see it, the very wealthy, never suffer; they don’t know how. And besides, they’re too insulated and protected, able to shield themselves from economic downturns. So it seems to me that the super rich have little idea and certainly no practical experience as to what real hardship means; they know very little as to what real economic sacrifice means. For example, if they were to lose their tax-cuts, would this mean real hardship, actual sacrifice, on their part? Will they suffer a loss of lifestyle, pleasures and comforts? I think not.
And so they (the super wealthy) get little sympathy from me, especially when they want to transfer their fears onto the average, middle class American, so as to make it seem as if we’re the ones that will truly be hurt by the loss of their tax-cuts. Although perhaps it’s true in this sense: the few powerful wealthy will always find a way to make up for their losses, usually by putting the expense right back on the shoulders of the average hard working middle class guy (class war?).
But here’s the thing: even with my own meager, non-wealthy, middleclass income and lifestyle, I know that I can survive well enough, with little change of lifestyle, if I were to lose the tax-cuts for my income bracket (which is not to be the case if the super wealthy would graciously release theirs). So why do the top wealthiest Americans become such crybabies over the possibility of losing their tax-cuts? They won’t suffer for it. It’s really no great sacrifice for them. (If it wouldn’t be for me, it can’t be for them.) Are they in pain? Are they hurting from this economy? If so, exactly where does it hurt? Are they eating less? Are they traveling less? Are they buying fewer luxury ticket items? Are they downsizing in any way, form, or manner? Is that what’s hurting our economy? I don’t think so.
Bill Gates has it right. He’s willing to pay his fair share of taxes, and he does. Not only that, he’s also willing to give away much of his wealth to charity. And he does. Would that all of our wealthy Americans thought, felt, and acted as Bill Gates does. There would be no question of allowing the Bush tax cuts to end for the wealthy few.
You Wealthiest of Americans, where is your American spirit and gratitude? Where is your willingness to give back? Where is your respect for, care of, and concern for those less fortunate than yourselves? You have enough, more than enough. Losing your tax cuts will NOT cause irreparable damage to your lifestyle, freedom, or fun. You already have plenty of access to wealth, power, and influence. You know this is true. Come on then! Stop the greed, and quit the fear mongering. Be gracious, be real Americans in spirit and in character, give the little guy a break and freely give up your tax-cuts and let the little guy keep his.
Really? Is that the new American way?
I have to wonder; why are the top wealthiest Americans so worried about losing their tax-cuts. “This is Class War!” they cry. I have to respond: are you serious? Is that what it comes down to? Do you really feel that threatened by it? With money comes power. And with power comes influence, and with influence more access to ways and means. I can’t help wondering, why are you (the top wealthiest Americans) so afraid of losing your precious tax-cuts? How much money, power, and control must you have? I can only imagine that your real answer is: as much as you can get and as much as you can keep! You won’t budge an inch, will you?
I’m not poor. Neither am I independently wealthy. I do not belong to that top niche of wealthiest Americans. So, I am biased. I have little sympathy for the very wealthy who are fearful, feeling threatened by the possibility of losing their tax-cuts. Why? Because when I think about the super wealthy and their lifestyle, coupled with their means and ability to make, manage, and manipulate their money interests, I can’t imagine that losing their precious tax-cuts will really hurt them. They’re not suffering now, nor will they suffer later, even if they do lose their tax-cuts.
As I see it, the very wealthy, never suffer; they don’t know how. And besides, they’re too insulated and protected, able to shield themselves from economic downturns. So it seems to me that the super rich have little idea and certainly no practical experience as to what real hardship means; they know very little as to what real economic sacrifice means. For example, if they were to lose their tax-cuts, would this mean real hardship, actual sacrifice, on their part? Will they suffer a loss of lifestyle, pleasures and comforts? I think not.
And so they (the super wealthy) get little sympathy from me, especially when they want to transfer their fears onto the average, middle class American, so as to make it seem as if we’re the ones that will truly be hurt by the loss of their tax-cuts. Although perhaps it’s true in this sense: the few powerful wealthy will always find a way to make up for their losses, usually by putting the expense right back on the shoulders of the average hard working middle class guy (class war?).
But here’s the thing: even with my own meager, non-wealthy, middleclass income and lifestyle, I know that I can survive well enough, with little change of lifestyle, if I were to lose the tax-cuts for my income bracket (which is not to be the case if the super wealthy would graciously release theirs). So why do the top wealthiest Americans become such crybabies over the possibility of losing their tax-cuts? They won’t suffer for it. It’s really no great sacrifice for them. (If it wouldn’t be for me, it can’t be for them.) Are they in pain? Are they hurting from this economy? If so, exactly where does it hurt? Are they eating less? Are they traveling less? Are they buying fewer luxury ticket items? Are they downsizing in any way, form, or manner? Is that what’s hurting our economy? I don’t think so.
Bill Gates has it right. He’s willing to pay his fair share of taxes, and he does. Not only that, he’s also willing to give away much of his wealth to charity. And he does. Would that all of our wealthy Americans thought, felt, and acted as Bill Gates does. There would be no question of allowing the Bush tax cuts to end for the wealthy few.
You Wealthiest of Americans, where is your American spirit and gratitude? Where is your willingness to give back? Where is your respect for, care of, and concern for those less fortunate than yourselves? You have enough, more than enough. Losing your tax cuts will NOT cause irreparable damage to your lifestyle, freedom, or fun. You already have plenty of access to wealth, power, and influence. You know this is true. Come on then! Stop the greed, and quit the fear mongering. Be gracious, be real Americans in spirit and in character, give the little guy a break and freely give up your tax-cuts and let the little guy keep his.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Whose Conscience, which Voice?
[…continued from last posting]
One would think that the conscience of a people, a nation, would be a people’s religious convictions, their faith. But if that is so, what do we say about the likes of the Floridian pastor (his name need not be mentioned) that threatened to burn the Koran (Qur’an) on the anniversary of September 11th? Yes, he finally backed out of this threaten action. Still, his voice was heard. What kind of voice was it, the voice of faith, conscience, wisdom? On all accounts NO! But he’s a pastor. He supposed to speak, teach, and preach faith values, principles, priorities, and truths.
We must be discerning. We must distinguish among voices. There is the voice of reason, faith, conscience, and wisdom. There is also the voice of fear, hatred, contempt, arrogance, anger, and pride. There are nervous voices, full of worry and concern, extremely anxious and therefore reactionary. And there are secure voices, calm, steady, and peaceful, with great insight.
Those who are most discerning are the highly self-aware with penetrating honesty toward one’s self; yet, one doesn’t need a Ph.D. in psychoanalysis to hear the difference between constructive and destructive voices. It’s in the tone, attitude, body-language, gestures, facial expression, and posturing. It’s most especially discovered in the outcome, the results or effects of what one says (and does).
Jesus warned his followers, beware of wolves coming in sheep’s clothing; though they appear to be sheep on the outside they are actually ravenous wolves on the inside. How can we tell? We shall know them by their fruits, by what they produce, their outcomes (Matthew 17:15-16). The fruit of the Spirit is peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, self-control (imagine that!), against these things there is no law, the Bible says (Galatians 5: 22-23).
Have you noticed that we no longer talk to each other anymore? What we do now is shout at each other. We get “in your face!” We frown, spit, shun, condemn, and scream obscenities and absurdities. When we do such things we are not listening to the voice of conscience. And we are most certainly not paying heed to our faith convictions. For example, when we Christians do such things, we are not listening to our avowed Lord, Jesus the Christ. Indeed we are outright disobeying his command (“But I say unto you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”), Matthew 5:44.
The most dangerous voice is the voice of self-righteousness. This is the voice that presumes to be unquestionably above reproach, admitting of no mistake or error. It is the voice that judges all others as tainted, inferior, and less-than, as compared to its own. The self-righteous voice not only asserts itself as the only voice worth hearing but as the only voice that must be obeyed. And when it is not, it presumes the right to inflict punishment on the disobedient as a consequence, when it has the means or power to do so.
Every religious denomination or sect, indeed every movement or cause, be it secular or religious, has its self-righteous adherents among them. These are the ones that become the terrorists, or the ones who burn Bibles or Korans, or those who calmly blow-up innocent men, women, and children in the name of their self-righteous cause, faith, or belief. All we need do is to look at their fruit to realize that they are indeed ravenous wolves, feeding on and devouring others to sustain their self-proclaimed superiority and authority. They are right and everyone, absolutely everyone who questions them or disagrees with them, are in the wrong and will pay dearly for it.
To whom are you listening? Who is your voice of conscience?
One would think that the conscience of a people, a nation, would be a people’s religious convictions, their faith. But if that is so, what do we say about the likes of the Floridian pastor (his name need not be mentioned) that threatened to burn the Koran (Qur’an) on the anniversary of September 11th? Yes, he finally backed out of this threaten action. Still, his voice was heard. What kind of voice was it, the voice of faith, conscience, wisdom? On all accounts NO! But he’s a pastor. He supposed to speak, teach, and preach faith values, principles, priorities, and truths.
We must be discerning. We must distinguish among voices. There is the voice of reason, faith, conscience, and wisdom. There is also the voice of fear, hatred, contempt, arrogance, anger, and pride. There are nervous voices, full of worry and concern, extremely anxious and therefore reactionary. And there are secure voices, calm, steady, and peaceful, with great insight.
Those who are most discerning are the highly self-aware with penetrating honesty toward one’s self; yet, one doesn’t need a Ph.D. in psychoanalysis to hear the difference between constructive and destructive voices. It’s in the tone, attitude, body-language, gestures, facial expression, and posturing. It’s most especially discovered in the outcome, the results or effects of what one says (and does).
Jesus warned his followers, beware of wolves coming in sheep’s clothing; though they appear to be sheep on the outside they are actually ravenous wolves on the inside. How can we tell? We shall know them by their fruits, by what they produce, their outcomes (Matthew 17:15-16). The fruit of the Spirit is peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, goodness, self-control (imagine that!), against these things there is no law, the Bible says (Galatians 5: 22-23).
Have you noticed that we no longer talk to each other anymore? What we do now is shout at each other. We get “in your face!” We frown, spit, shun, condemn, and scream obscenities and absurdities. When we do such things we are not listening to the voice of conscience. And we are most certainly not paying heed to our faith convictions. For example, when we Christians do such things, we are not listening to our avowed Lord, Jesus the Christ. Indeed we are outright disobeying his command (“But I say unto you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…”), Matthew 5:44.
The most dangerous voice is the voice of self-righteousness. This is the voice that presumes to be unquestionably above reproach, admitting of no mistake or error. It is the voice that judges all others as tainted, inferior, and less-than, as compared to its own. The self-righteous voice not only asserts itself as the only voice worth hearing but as the only voice that must be obeyed. And when it is not, it presumes the right to inflict punishment on the disobedient as a consequence, when it has the means or power to do so.
Every religious denomination or sect, indeed every movement or cause, be it secular or religious, has its self-righteous adherents among them. These are the ones that become the terrorists, or the ones who burn Bibles or Korans, or those who calmly blow-up innocent men, women, and children in the name of their self-righteous cause, faith, or belief. All we need do is to look at their fruit to realize that they are indeed ravenous wolves, feeding on and devouring others to sustain their self-proclaimed superiority and authority. They are right and everyone, absolutely everyone who questions them or disagrees with them, are in the wrong and will pay dearly for it.
To whom are you listening? Who is your voice of conscience?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
When Conscience Speaks, Everyone Listens. NOT!
Most of us agree that we have a conscience. Nevertheless, we’d also have to admit that we often ignore it when it suits us. Who will deny having had that nagging inner voice that goes something like this: This is not right, I shouldn’t be doing this. And who hasn’t said in reply, Well, I don’t care, I’m doing it anyway. Or, whose inner voice hasn’t said, “I should take care of that”—because it’s the right thing to do and therefore I ought to do it—and, in response, hasn’t said something like: Maybe later, another time, besides why should I be the only responsible one here, someone else can take care of it; I’m out of here! Indeed, we tend to view a nagging conscience as nothing but a nuisance.
But consider life without a conscience. We even have a name for it—sociopathic. When we think of sociopaths, we think of serial killers, psychopaths committing unspeakable atrocities against a line of individuals with no qualms. They feel no guilt, are never sorry for the harm they’ve caused others, and feel no remorse about any heinous acts they’ve committed. So which would you prefer, to have a nagging conscience, or to qualify for exclusive membership in a State Hospital’s psychopathic ward?
Thus, having a conscience is a good thing. It holds us in check, nudges us in the right direction, and inspires us to do right, to become better people. Yes, it can be annoying. And, yes, we tend to ignore it, even silence it at critical decision-making points in our lives. Nevertheless, it generally serves us well. Most of us learned at an early age that when we ignore our conscience we often regret it in the end. In short, we learn in principle that it pays to heed our conscience.
But when we say, “She has a strong conscience, but his is weak,” what do we mean? In one sense the conscience has little power. That is, the conscience is not the instrument that makes us do right, or has failed us when we do wrong. The conscience is merely a voice. It speaks to us, informs us, tells us what we ought or ought not to do, and perhaps even why, but nothing more: “That is right; this is wrong; I ought not, be doing this; I should be doing that.” The voice could be muffled, outshouted, even silenced. But, if and when it is given the opportunity to speak out, it does and will, and quite clearly too. Thus, someone with a strong conscience is someone that has trained his/her spirit to listen for its voice so that his/her conscience is free to speak boldly, clearly, and directly to the mind and heart. While someone with a weak conscience has developed a long standing habit of simply ignoring, muffling, or silencing its voice. To be cartoonish about it, the one with a weak conscience reacts like this: “This is your Conscience speaking….” “Say what!? Who are you? Get out of here! I don’t have to listen to you.”
This is true; we don’t have to listen to our conscience. So, if one’s conscience is simply a voice (I would add, a voice that is crying out in the wilderness, “Make way for the coming of the Lord”), where lies the actual decision-making power, the power that makes one do the good or the bad, the right or wrong? It lies in the Will. We are all free agents. We have a will. We choose. I choose to heed or to ignore my conscience. I choose to obey or rebel. I choose to engage or disengage. I will do this; I will not do that. I will to believe or I will to disbelieve. I will commit or I will not commit. It is our will that is responsible for our actions, not our conscience. Our conscience serves our will, and our will? Well, it will do what it will, respecting or disregarding conscience accordingly.
So, here’s a question: If we as individuals have a conscience, is it possible for communities, societies, or even nations as a whole, to have a conscience as well? If so, who or what serves as the voice-of-conscience for a nation? Know where I’m heading with this? [To be continued….]
But consider life without a conscience. We even have a name for it—sociopathic. When we think of sociopaths, we think of serial killers, psychopaths committing unspeakable atrocities against a line of individuals with no qualms. They feel no guilt, are never sorry for the harm they’ve caused others, and feel no remorse about any heinous acts they’ve committed. So which would you prefer, to have a nagging conscience, or to qualify for exclusive membership in a State Hospital’s psychopathic ward?
Thus, having a conscience is a good thing. It holds us in check, nudges us in the right direction, and inspires us to do right, to become better people. Yes, it can be annoying. And, yes, we tend to ignore it, even silence it at critical decision-making points in our lives. Nevertheless, it generally serves us well. Most of us learned at an early age that when we ignore our conscience we often regret it in the end. In short, we learn in principle that it pays to heed our conscience.
But when we say, “She has a strong conscience, but his is weak,” what do we mean? In one sense the conscience has little power. That is, the conscience is not the instrument that makes us do right, or has failed us when we do wrong. The conscience is merely a voice. It speaks to us, informs us, tells us what we ought or ought not to do, and perhaps even why, but nothing more: “That is right; this is wrong; I ought not, be doing this; I should be doing that.” The voice could be muffled, outshouted, even silenced. But, if and when it is given the opportunity to speak out, it does and will, and quite clearly too. Thus, someone with a strong conscience is someone that has trained his/her spirit to listen for its voice so that his/her conscience is free to speak boldly, clearly, and directly to the mind and heart. While someone with a weak conscience has developed a long standing habit of simply ignoring, muffling, or silencing its voice. To be cartoonish about it, the one with a weak conscience reacts like this: “This is your Conscience speaking….” “Say what!? Who are you? Get out of here! I don’t have to listen to you.”
This is true; we don’t have to listen to our conscience. So, if one’s conscience is simply a voice (I would add, a voice that is crying out in the wilderness, “Make way for the coming of the Lord”), where lies the actual decision-making power, the power that makes one do the good or the bad, the right or wrong? It lies in the Will. We are all free agents. We have a will. We choose. I choose to heed or to ignore my conscience. I choose to obey or rebel. I choose to engage or disengage. I will do this; I will not do that. I will to believe or I will to disbelieve. I will commit or I will not commit. It is our will that is responsible for our actions, not our conscience. Our conscience serves our will, and our will? Well, it will do what it will, respecting or disregarding conscience accordingly.
So, here’s a question: If we as individuals have a conscience, is it possible for communities, societies, or even nations as a whole, to have a conscience as well? If so, who or what serves as the voice-of-conscience for a nation? Know where I’m heading with this? [To be continued….]
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Christianity, Islam, and Ground Zero
Continued from previous blog entry…
Thus, there are now three significant groups of stakeholders reacting to the decision to build an Islamic Center & Mosque near Ground Zero: the Islamic community, the Christian community, and the Secular/Humanistic community (which declares no faith as an equal and viable option to any faith, preferring freedom from all faith).
Now here’s the irony. Christians who argue against the Islamic Center being built near Ground Zero are in danger of committing the very thing they feared that the Secular Humanists were doing against them. Remember the fears Christians have about the influence of Secular Humanism upon our society, that Christians would wake up one day and find that they are “unable to freely preach, teach, and promote the tenants and beliefs of the Christian faith without being censored or accused of being hate-mongers and bigots, and criminally prosecuted for delivering ‘hate speech’”? Replace the word “Islam” for “Christian” and the outcome is the same, only now it is Christians who are wanting to censor faith—i.e., the Muslim faith. This is a dangerous direction to take. For if we Christians think we could and should successfully censor the Muslim faith, down the road what’s to keep another group from censoring the Christian faith? That old saying, “What goes around comes around,” can turn around and bite us.
On the other hand, Secular Humanists supporting the building of the Islamic Center in the name of America’s Freedom of Religion are being inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical; for Secular Humanists have always stood strongly against any and all displays of Christian symbolism and content—anything that carries the Christian meaning, message, and movement—in the public arena, especially when it touches upon public grounds and/or social policies and programs. But here they are, okay with the Muslim community’s decision to build an Islamic Center near Ground Zero—the intent of which is to carry forth the Islamic meaning, message, and movement—a decision for its location greatly influenced by its proximity to Ground Zero. Given the nature of Ground Zero’s public, civic, symbolic, and even sacred status in the American psyche, they know that they stand to gain much visibility and influence under its shadow. Indeed, it is a smart public-relations move on their part, in the long run.
But what can be said about the Muslim community (that is not politically incorrect)? From one vantage point, there seems to be a great irony that so many Muslims emigrated to America from homelands where there is little or no religious freedom at all, where the very idea of conversion and proselytizing is not only socially unacceptable but actually illegal and, in some of the stricter countries, a crime punishable by death (Saudi Arabia being one of them). In this light, many Christians are left with a real uncomfortable feeling about the fact that many Muslims come to this country demanding the free exercise of their faith, while in Islamic countries like Yemen, e.g., the government not only does not allow the building of new non-Muslim places of worship but forbids any proselytizing by non-Muslims (while Muslims could proselytize all they want). Or, e.g., in Egypt all non-Muslim religious practices that conflict with Islamic law are prohibited because Islam is the official state religion. In Algeria the law prohibits the public assembly for purposes of practicing a faith other than Islam, and anyone convicted of urging a Muslim to change his faith can receive 2 to 5 years imprisonment plus stiff fines. While in Syria sharing the Christian faith carries a penalty of up to life in prison. We could go on mentioning countries like Jordan, Sudan, Pakistan, etc. This history, and its very present reality in many Muslim countries today, is what fuels the fire for many Christians here in American that have great angst at the thought of an Islamic Center being built near Ground Zero.
But this IS America, land of the free. We are free to speak out, free to hold public assembly, and free to worship as we please, and where we please. Everyone, even those with whom we disagree and have opposing views regarding the person and nature of God, has the same freedoms. Because of this, it is essential that we all play on a level playing field, so-to-speak. Furthermore, it is essential that all stakeholders play fairly, that is, e.g., that we are all open and transparent, even handed, mutually respectful, and promote the fair exchange of give and take, building neighborly communities of faith on a common ground of shared independence and interdependence. We are to respect our mutual freedoms, remembering that sometimes just because we have the right to do something does not mean that it is the right thing to do.
Furthermore, Muslims in this country must not be allowed to demand special privileges, leading to more rights and freedoms than Jews or Christians have, regarding the application and expression of their faith, just because they have stricter laws, rules, rites, or ritualistic forms and practices. This is something that many Christians worry about concerning Islamic religious norms and practices. Indeed, we have religious freedom in this country, but this does not mean that all religious practices are defacto acceptable and legal (the historic outlawing of Mormon polygamy would be one example or the banning of the use of hallucinogenic drugs in some Native American ceremonies would be another). In short, even freedom of religion has boundaries and limitations in this country. Nevertheless, as much as we may not like to admit this, Christians cannot claim to have more rights and privileges than their American Muslim or Judaic or even Hindu faith counterparts. That’s the way America works.
Thus, there are now three significant groups of stakeholders reacting to the decision to build an Islamic Center & Mosque near Ground Zero: the Islamic community, the Christian community, and the Secular/Humanistic community (which declares no faith as an equal and viable option to any faith, preferring freedom from all faith).
Now here’s the irony. Christians who argue against the Islamic Center being built near Ground Zero are in danger of committing the very thing they feared that the Secular Humanists were doing against them. Remember the fears Christians have about the influence of Secular Humanism upon our society, that Christians would wake up one day and find that they are “unable to freely preach, teach, and promote the tenants and beliefs of the Christian faith without being censored or accused of being hate-mongers and bigots, and criminally prosecuted for delivering ‘hate speech’”? Replace the word “Islam” for “Christian” and the outcome is the same, only now it is Christians who are wanting to censor faith—i.e., the Muslim faith. This is a dangerous direction to take. For if we Christians think we could and should successfully censor the Muslim faith, down the road what’s to keep another group from censoring the Christian faith? That old saying, “What goes around comes around,” can turn around and bite us.
On the other hand, Secular Humanists supporting the building of the Islamic Center in the name of America’s Freedom of Religion are being inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical; for Secular Humanists have always stood strongly against any and all displays of Christian symbolism and content—anything that carries the Christian meaning, message, and movement—in the public arena, especially when it touches upon public grounds and/or social policies and programs. But here they are, okay with the Muslim community’s decision to build an Islamic Center near Ground Zero—the intent of which is to carry forth the Islamic meaning, message, and movement—a decision for its location greatly influenced by its proximity to Ground Zero. Given the nature of Ground Zero’s public, civic, symbolic, and even sacred status in the American psyche, they know that they stand to gain much visibility and influence under its shadow. Indeed, it is a smart public-relations move on their part, in the long run.
But what can be said about the Muslim community (that is not politically incorrect)? From one vantage point, there seems to be a great irony that so many Muslims emigrated to America from homelands where there is little or no religious freedom at all, where the very idea of conversion and proselytizing is not only socially unacceptable but actually illegal and, in some of the stricter countries, a crime punishable by death (Saudi Arabia being one of them). In this light, many Christians are left with a real uncomfortable feeling about the fact that many Muslims come to this country demanding the free exercise of their faith, while in Islamic countries like Yemen, e.g., the government not only does not allow the building of new non-Muslim places of worship but forbids any proselytizing by non-Muslims (while Muslims could proselytize all they want). Or, e.g., in Egypt all non-Muslim religious practices that conflict with Islamic law are prohibited because Islam is the official state religion. In Algeria the law prohibits the public assembly for purposes of practicing a faith other than Islam, and anyone convicted of urging a Muslim to change his faith can receive 2 to 5 years imprisonment plus stiff fines. While in Syria sharing the Christian faith carries a penalty of up to life in prison. We could go on mentioning countries like Jordan, Sudan, Pakistan, etc. This history, and its very present reality in many Muslim countries today, is what fuels the fire for many Christians here in American that have great angst at the thought of an Islamic Center being built near Ground Zero.
But this IS America, land of the free. We are free to speak out, free to hold public assembly, and free to worship as we please, and where we please. Everyone, even those with whom we disagree and have opposing views regarding the person and nature of God, has the same freedoms. Because of this, it is essential that we all play on a level playing field, so-to-speak. Furthermore, it is essential that all stakeholders play fairly, that is, e.g., that we are all open and transparent, even handed, mutually respectful, and promote the fair exchange of give and take, building neighborly communities of faith on a common ground of shared independence and interdependence. We are to respect our mutual freedoms, remembering that sometimes just because we have the right to do something does not mean that it is the right thing to do.
Furthermore, Muslims in this country must not be allowed to demand special privileges, leading to more rights and freedoms than Jews or Christians have, regarding the application and expression of their faith, just because they have stricter laws, rules, rites, or ritualistic forms and practices. This is something that many Christians worry about concerning Islamic religious norms and practices. Indeed, we have religious freedom in this country, but this does not mean that all religious practices are defacto acceptable and legal (the historic outlawing of Mormon polygamy would be one example or the banning of the use of hallucinogenic drugs in some Native American ceremonies would be another). In short, even freedom of religion has boundaries and limitations in this country. Nevertheless, as much as we may not like to admit this, Christians cannot claim to have more rights and privileges than their American Muslim or Judaic or even Hindu faith counterparts. That’s the way America works.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Ground Zero and..., It's a Religious Thing
Some believe that people of faith are naïve simpletons and not real thinkers. Bill Maher chuckles, you could almost hear him thinking, “The poor devils, how foolish they are to believe in God and Creation in today’s day and age.” See his “documentary” movie, Religulous (2008).
This is a false dichotomy: People of Faith are simple-minded, naïve, non-rational “Believers”; while Atheists/Agnostics, i.e., anyone questioning faith, are smart, intelligent, well informed “Doubters.” The fact is, there are and have been many highly educated, critically-minded, and intelligent people of faith throughout the centuries. Faith and belief, or the lack thereof, is not a matter of education and intelligence, or the lack thereof.
But Bill Maher makes a statement in his documentary that I believe is more to the point. He says that he seriously believes that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity. Now that's his real point!
In actuality, both camps believe the other to be “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” The one side says, “This nation is going to hell in a hand basket and it’s because of irreligious liberals who have taken prayer out of our schools, are allowing the abortion of our children, are encouraging gay marriage,” and so on. And the other side says, “This nation is being hijacked by religious fanatics and we’re in danger of losing our freedoms to the control of ignorant, closed minded, intolerant bigots cramming religion down our throats.” So, which is it?
Notice that a common denominator is the fear undergirding these sentiments, including frustration, anger, and resentment. Neither side seems able to tolerate the other. Each side greatly fears the other side’s growing power and ability to influence this nation’s direction, especially when it comes to winning electoral seats in the House and/or Senate. Both camps fear the loss of their own particular idea of personal rights and freedoms because of “the other side.” And it would seem that each camp defines its principles of morality and justice differently.
Breaking it down a bit further, on the one side, conservative Christians seem to fear the following (I’m not necessarily saying that these fears are justified I’m just saying that this is what I think I see, hear, and observe from the right):
Many Christians seem to have a growing fear that they will somehow begin to lose the freedom to share and express their faith openly and safely. The worry is that preachers may someday wake up to find that they are unable to freely preach, teach, and promote the tenants and beliefs of the Christian faith without being censored or accused of being hate-mongers and bigots, and criminally prosecuted for delivering “hate speech.” Some would say that this is already the case.
Many Christians fear the loss of Christianity’s influence in our culture and society in general. The one time Nominal Christian cultural context no longer prevails. Christians can no longer assume that the average person on the street has a general knowledge of Biblical content, its worldview, moral themes, and its stories of God encounters and its redemptive message. They see Christian values, principles, and ethics losing ground, no longer appreciated, let alone respected.
Christians also seem to have a growing fear that this nation will go so far down the road in unbelief that they will eventually become marginalized and perhaps even persecuted because of their faith, finding it more difficult to simply live, practice, and expound their faith in God, Christ, and His cross.
And so, many Christians fear for this nation’s safety and security in light of God’s justice. The worry is that God will bring judgment upon this nation because of its ungodly ways.
However, on the other side, Secular Humanistic Liberal Progressives (a catch-all phrase) seem to fear the following:
They seem to fear an unfair and unjust, and therefore oppressive, imposition of religious (Christian) rule and norms upon all, dictating lifestyle, values, and behavior upon believers and nonbelievers alike. The ongoing debate over gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research are primary examples justifying this fear.
They seem to fear that Christians have an unfair advantage and will exercise their power and influence to control people of other faiths, beliefs, and convictions, including people with no faith at all.
And they fear the influence of Christianity within our schools, government offices, and other public institutions with respect to content, substance, and teaching that sways the practical outcomes of this nation’s policies and direction, which in their minds leads to Ignorant and outdated policies and practices based on religious faith rather than on scientific knowledge and rational input and know-how.
But now, let’s complicate matters even more. Enter in the debate over the decision to build an Islamic Cultural Center & Mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. Now we have a different set of anxiety and fears, even more intense. And what’s at the heart of it? Religion and religious faith is at the core, but from which side? Has anyone noticed that this particular debate over Ground Zero and the Islamic Cultural Center is NOT between Secular Unbelieving Liberal Agnostics on the one side and Conservative Christian People of Faith on the other? It seems to me that what’s really undergirding this debate and fueling its passion is the historical tension that has existed for centuries between two powerful world-dominating Faiths, Christianity and Islam….
To be continued.
This is a false dichotomy: People of Faith are simple-minded, naïve, non-rational “Believers”; while Atheists/Agnostics, i.e., anyone questioning faith, are smart, intelligent, well informed “Doubters.” The fact is, there are and have been many highly educated, critically-minded, and intelligent people of faith throughout the centuries. Faith and belief, or the lack thereof, is not a matter of education and intelligence, or the lack thereof.
But Bill Maher makes a statement in his documentary that I believe is more to the point. He says that he seriously believes that religion is detrimental to the progress of humanity. Now that's his real point!
In actuality, both camps believe the other to be “detrimental to the progress of humanity.” The one side says, “This nation is going to hell in a hand basket and it’s because of irreligious liberals who have taken prayer out of our schools, are allowing the abortion of our children, are encouraging gay marriage,” and so on. And the other side says, “This nation is being hijacked by religious fanatics and we’re in danger of losing our freedoms to the control of ignorant, closed minded, intolerant bigots cramming religion down our throats.” So, which is it?
Notice that a common denominator is the fear undergirding these sentiments, including frustration, anger, and resentment. Neither side seems able to tolerate the other. Each side greatly fears the other side’s growing power and ability to influence this nation’s direction, especially when it comes to winning electoral seats in the House and/or Senate. Both camps fear the loss of their own particular idea of personal rights and freedoms because of “the other side.” And it would seem that each camp defines its principles of morality and justice differently.
Breaking it down a bit further, on the one side, conservative Christians seem to fear the following (I’m not necessarily saying that these fears are justified I’m just saying that this is what I think I see, hear, and observe from the right):
Many Christians seem to have a growing fear that they will somehow begin to lose the freedom to share and express their faith openly and safely. The worry is that preachers may someday wake up to find that they are unable to freely preach, teach, and promote the tenants and beliefs of the Christian faith without being censored or accused of being hate-mongers and bigots, and criminally prosecuted for delivering “hate speech.” Some would say that this is already the case.
Many Christians fear the loss of Christianity’s influence in our culture and society in general. The one time Nominal Christian cultural context no longer prevails. Christians can no longer assume that the average person on the street has a general knowledge of Biblical content, its worldview, moral themes, and its stories of God encounters and its redemptive message. They see Christian values, principles, and ethics losing ground, no longer appreciated, let alone respected.
Christians also seem to have a growing fear that this nation will go so far down the road in unbelief that they will eventually become marginalized and perhaps even persecuted because of their faith, finding it more difficult to simply live, practice, and expound their faith in God, Christ, and His cross.
And so, many Christians fear for this nation’s safety and security in light of God’s justice. The worry is that God will bring judgment upon this nation because of its ungodly ways.
However, on the other side, Secular Humanistic Liberal Progressives (a catch-all phrase) seem to fear the following:
They seem to fear an unfair and unjust, and therefore oppressive, imposition of religious (Christian) rule and norms upon all, dictating lifestyle, values, and behavior upon believers and nonbelievers alike. The ongoing debate over gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research are primary examples justifying this fear.
They seem to fear that Christians have an unfair advantage and will exercise their power and influence to control people of other faiths, beliefs, and convictions, including people with no faith at all.
And they fear the influence of Christianity within our schools, government offices, and other public institutions with respect to content, substance, and teaching that sways the practical outcomes of this nation’s policies and direction, which in their minds leads to Ignorant and outdated policies and practices based on religious faith rather than on scientific knowledge and rational input and know-how.
But now, let’s complicate matters even more. Enter in the debate over the decision to build an Islamic Cultural Center & Mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. Now we have a different set of anxiety and fears, even more intense. And what’s at the heart of it? Religion and religious faith is at the core, but from which side? Has anyone noticed that this particular debate over Ground Zero and the Islamic Cultural Center is NOT between Secular Unbelieving Liberal Agnostics on the one side and Conservative Christian People of Faith on the other? It seems to me that what’s really undergirding this debate and fueling its passion is the historical tension that has existed for centuries between two powerful world-dominating Faiths, Christianity and Islam….
To be continued.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Are you on Vacation, Really?
I’m on vacation. That is, I was. It was a quick getaway, just a few days, short and sweet. But was it really a vacation? No, I’m not complaining. I’m reflecting. There was a time when one left the office, factory, or field, and one was totally free from work, with no strings attached, no expectation of “staying in touch.” But in today’s world of streaming data, smart phones, wi-fi, email, Facebook, Twitter, and Broad Band Internet connections, who’s really free? These aren’t strings lightly attached, they can be bonded chains.
I had no choice. I had to take my laptop computer along with me. As an adjunct professor at a local private university I am required to take a certain class on “Designing and Teaching a full Online Course.” Vacation or not, I had to “show up” for attendance, online of course, and do the assignments, respond to assigned questions, do the reading, etc. Not to mention the fact that I had other obligations and duties to work on while away, which I was able to do because of my trusty laptop. For example, take this blog; my goal is to write a new piece no less than once a week. Anyone notice that I skipped a few days and went beyond a full week since my last entry? Funny, I had actually planned on doing some writing for the blog while on vacation — hence, is it really a vacation or just a change of environment? In the end, however, I decided to be a little late and extend the blog’s weekly deadline.
Modern technology has made communication simpler and more immediate, so much data and info is now at our finger tips, just waiting to be searched and found. But what is it doing to our rhythm of life? How is it affecting our ability to have real and meaningful “downtime” or recovery time or even just personal and family time without being intruded upon? It’s not just a lifestyle question. It’s a real question of values, meaning, and relationships as to time and who owns and controls our time. How shall we find our own real time, personal “living” time, in the midst of such powerful technology? Do we serve time, or should time serve us? For some, it can even be a social-justice issue. How much right does a company, boss, owner/operator have, to demand of your time simply because you are high-speed and wirelessly connected? It’s interesting how, in a world of fast and varied connectivity, more and more individuals seem to feel the lack of actual “connection,” and have a greater need for real meaningful, appreciative and productive personal relationships within a viable community.
Nevertheless, that being said, my college age son and I did indeed have quality time together. We talked, reflected, ate together, took in a couple of movies and did some sightseeing in the state of Maine. We ended the short get-away trip pretty much feeling that we had a satisfactory time together. And that was true in spite of the fact that we both had our laptops with us and worked on them, whenever we had the opportunity to do so, even though we were on vacation.
I had no choice. I had to take my laptop computer along with me. As an adjunct professor at a local private university I am required to take a certain class on “Designing and Teaching a full Online Course.” Vacation or not, I had to “show up” for attendance, online of course, and do the assignments, respond to assigned questions, do the reading, etc. Not to mention the fact that I had other obligations and duties to work on while away, which I was able to do because of my trusty laptop. For example, take this blog; my goal is to write a new piece no less than once a week. Anyone notice that I skipped a few days and went beyond a full week since my last entry? Funny, I had actually planned on doing some writing for the blog while on vacation — hence, is it really a vacation or just a change of environment? In the end, however, I decided to be a little late and extend the blog’s weekly deadline.
Modern technology has made communication simpler and more immediate, so much data and info is now at our finger tips, just waiting to be searched and found. But what is it doing to our rhythm of life? How is it affecting our ability to have real and meaningful “downtime” or recovery time or even just personal and family time without being intruded upon? It’s not just a lifestyle question. It’s a real question of values, meaning, and relationships as to time and who owns and controls our time. How shall we find our own real time, personal “living” time, in the midst of such powerful technology? Do we serve time, or should time serve us? For some, it can even be a social-justice issue. How much right does a company, boss, owner/operator have, to demand of your time simply because you are high-speed and wirelessly connected? It’s interesting how, in a world of fast and varied connectivity, more and more individuals seem to feel the lack of actual “connection,” and have a greater need for real meaningful, appreciative and productive personal relationships within a viable community.
Nevertheless, that being said, my college age son and I did indeed have quality time together. We talked, reflected, ate together, took in a couple of movies and did some sightseeing in the state of Maine. We ended the short get-away trip pretty much feeling that we had a satisfactory time together. And that was true in spite of the fact that we both had our laptops with us and worked on them, whenever we had the opportunity to do so, even though we were on vacation.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Patriot, Beware!
Patriotism is good. It has power. But its power can be dangerous. Yes! People will die or kill for it. That’s dangerous. (Not much different from the power of religious fervor, wouldn’t you say?) Anything that powerful should be tempered. Thus, patriotism, as with Faith, ought to be handled with care, for it could be the cause of great harm as well as the source of much good.
It is ironic that the previous president most demonstrative of his patriotic zeal for our country is also the one that most persistently reached beyond any previous president in the application and exercise of his executive powers, running contrary to our constitution’s explicit demarking of “checks and balances.” He is the one that sweepingly enacted the “Patriot Act.” Many would say that this act actually reduced the traditional safeguards and protections of American rights and freedoms that our constitution and its legal traditions have historically protected—all in the name of PATRIOTISM!
But this was done for our own good, our safety and security, our protection, wasn’t it? Yes it was. But what act or movement or cause is not done in the name of the peoples’ good, safety, security and prosperity? And that’s my point: just because something is done in the name of patriotism doesn’t automatically mean that it is in fact a patriotic thing to do. It is not a question of patriotic sincerity, the heart may be in the right place, but the deed itself may be highly questionable as to patriotic consequences.
Blind, unreasoned, idealized, passionate patriotism, is dangerous. Is this surprising? Would you not say the same if it were a matter of blind, unreasoned, idealized, and passionate religious fervor? Any patriotic act imposed by patriotic zealots must be tempered with considered wisdom and cool insight. Otherwise, its spirited call to sacrifice one’s all “for the cause” will only intoxicate our passions, leading to a kind of political stupor as we semiconsciously stumble into seditious declarations and legislative acts resulting in the real loss of freedoms and a diminished national integrity, only to have the nation “wake up” the next morning, clueless, wondering “How did we come to this!”
Patriotism is not about shouting, “You’re either with us or against us!” Nor is it about demanding absolute conformity to the will and desire of self-declared patriots. As is true with religion, so it is with patriotism: Patriotic Zeal comes in a variety of sizes, colors, and forms. One size does not fit all. But all have alike the same desire: the peace, prosperity, and promotion of this country, our homeland. Thus, real patriotism is betrayed when “Passionate Patriots” accuse and denounce, shall we say, “Less Passionate Citizens” of treachery, simply for pausing long and hard enough to wonder, question, and ask, “Might our patriotic passions be leading us the wrong way; are we in danger of precipitous action, heading head-over-heels down a cliff; are there not better ways to secure our national interests than to simply boast, bully, and bluster our way through the challenge before us?”
Anyone or anything that demands our unquestioning obedience and absolute conformity to its dictates is itself questionable. Great ideals move us, impassioning our listless lives. We choose to believe. We want a cause, a purpose greater than ourselves. We need to believe that the ultimate sacrifice is worthy, that there is honor in dying for one’s country, for example, a good cause, a meaningful death. Patriotism does this for us. And so, patriotism is powerful and therefore dangerous. It can be misused, abused, manipulated, and “managed” inappropriately. Patriot, beware! Be wise. Be cautious of those who wield patriotism as a club so as to have you conform and do their bidding to what they define as right and good for this country, as if to disagree with them is an act of treason.
It is ironic that the previous president most demonstrative of his patriotic zeal for our country is also the one that most persistently reached beyond any previous president in the application and exercise of his executive powers, running contrary to our constitution’s explicit demarking of “checks and balances.” He is the one that sweepingly enacted the “Patriot Act.” Many would say that this act actually reduced the traditional safeguards and protections of American rights and freedoms that our constitution and its legal traditions have historically protected—all in the name of PATRIOTISM!
But this was done for our own good, our safety and security, our protection, wasn’t it? Yes it was. But what act or movement or cause is not done in the name of the peoples’ good, safety, security and prosperity? And that’s my point: just because something is done in the name of patriotism doesn’t automatically mean that it is in fact a patriotic thing to do. It is not a question of patriotic sincerity, the heart may be in the right place, but the deed itself may be highly questionable as to patriotic consequences.
Blind, unreasoned, idealized, passionate patriotism, is dangerous. Is this surprising? Would you not say the same if it were a matter of blind, unreasoned, idealized, and passionate religious fervor? Any patriotic act imposed by patriotic zealots must be tempered with considered wisdom and cool insight. Otherwise, its spirited call to sacrifice one’s all “for the cause” will only intoxicate our passions, leading to a kind of political stupor as we semiconsciously stumble into seditious declarations and legislative acts resulting in the real loss of freedoms and a diminished national integrity, only to have the nation “wake up” the next morning, clueless, wondering “How did we come to this!”
Patriotism is not about shouting, “You’re either with us or against us!” Nor is it about demanding absolute conformity to the will and desire of self-declared patriots. As is true with religion, so it is with patriotism: Patriotic Zeal comes in a variety of sizes, colors, and forms. One size does not fit all. But all have alike the same desire: the peace, prosperity, and promotion of this country, our homeland. Thus, real patriotism is betrayed when “Passionate Patriots” accuse and denounce, shall we say, “Less Passionate Citizens” of treachery, simply for pausing long and hard enough to wonder, question, and ask, “Might our patriotic passions be leading us the wrong way; are we in danger of precipitous action, heading head-over-heels down a cliff; are there not better ways to secure our national interests than to simply boast, bully, and bluster our way through the challenge before us?”
Anyone or anything that demands our unquestioning obedience and absolute conformity to its dictates is itself questionable. Great ideals move us, impassioning our listless lives. We choose to believe. We want a cause, a purpose greater than ourselves. We need to believe that the ultimate sacrifice is worthy, that there is honor in dying for one’s country, for example, a good cause, a meaningful death. Patriotism does this for us. And so, patriotism is powerful and therefore dangerous. It can be misused, abused, manipulated, and “managed” inappropriately. Patriot, beware! Be wise. Be cautious of those who wield patriotism as a club so as to have you conform and do their bidding to what they define as right and good for this country, as if to disagree with them is an act of treason.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Relationships We'd Rather NOT Have.
If “Location, location, location” is the mantra for the Real Estate business, then “Communicate, communicate, communicate” should be that of Relationships. Relationships are fundamental to our human existence. Therefore, so is our need to communicate. But is this also true for negative relationships, relationships that have harmed us?
We readily acknowledge our relationship with family, friends and loved ones. But how many of us are aware that we also have a relational connection with our rivals, offenders, and enemies? These are inverted, negative relationships, which we are usually unwilling to acknowledge for they are hurtful and may have done us serious harm. And yet, ironically, by failing to acknowledge them, we can actually prevent ourselves from moving beyond them.
For example, the minute an offense is made against an unsuspecting victim a direct and immediate relational connection is made between that victim and his/her offender. This is a painful and agonizing truth for the victim, but it’s real nonetheless. The irony is that as long as the victim refuses to see or acknowledge that such a “relationship” exists, the more difficult it is for the victim to find the ability to overcome the emotional and psychological damage done and move beyond its consequence toward real healing. The offender becomes a kind of haunting ghost-presence. Likewise, as long as the offender refuses to acknowledge that she/he has “connected” with the victim, by the fact of the crime perpetrated against her, and therefore owes that victim a personal obligation to “make things right,” the offender distances himself from being able to find ease, peace, or release and redemption from her guilt, like one unable to wash his hands of blood stains. (Note: I use “him” and “her” interchangeably to denote either/or: he or she, him or her.)
Seeing true remorse and repentance, including full ownership and acknowledgement of one’s culpability on the part of an offender, is a cornerstone in the ability to experiencing a real sense of justice for a victim; ideally the offender will own and admit guilt to the very person(s) that have been harmed by the offense, coupled with a willingness to do what one can to correct and make good for the damage done. Such a dynamic presumes the recognition that a kind of inverted relationship now exists between victim and offender. It also assumes open, purposeful and intentional communication between victim and offender with the purpose of transforming what was a harmful and negative relational dynamic into a neutral (if not positive) one. But of course, that’s ideally speaking, and, last I’ve looked, we do not live in an ideal world. So, how does this work in the real world?
Principles don’t change by the circumstance or context; they just need to be applied appropriately to fit the actual conditions. In the case of victim/offender dynamics, the principle of relational communication and the need for ownership and acknowledgement, as well as for remorse, and the willingness to makes things right on the part of the offender does not change, even in this less than ideal world. Thus, the Restorative Justice Process continues to invite the offender to do these things (regardless of whether or not the offender is actually able to do so directly to his/her victim).
In an actual and real appropriate manner, an offender should be able and willing to do the following:
Take responsibility by owning up (“manning up” as many male inmates would say) and communicate this as clearly as possible to any and all appropriate “stakeholders.”
Humanize their victim by visualizing them as actual people with real and similar desires, heartaches, wants, and needs.
Identify and name the consequences to their victim(s) of the harm that they have done. Consider the many possible needs that arise from the harm that has been done and find direct or indirect ways to address these needs as much as is possible within their own circle of influence.
Value the victim has having priority over the offender when considering needs and consequences.
Thus, Restorative Justice (RJ) is not “offender friendly” at the expense of the victim. Far from it! But it does recognize that there is a “relational dynamic” between victims and their offenders and seeks to at least neutralize the powerful negative impact of that inverted “relationship.” In that light, RJ would ask victims to avoid totally demonizing offenders, to see them as human with the potential for actual change and correction and not simply dismiss him/her as an “animal” or a “monster.” Proper, structured, and intentional communication can be part of the healing process for the victim and can lead to constructive and corrective responsiveness on the part of the offender so that he/she can begin to “make things right.”
We readily acknowledge our relationship with family, friends and loved ones. But how many of us are aware that we also have a relational connection with our rivals, offenders, and enemies? These are inverted, negative relationships, which we are usually unwilling to acknowledge for they are hurtful and may have done us serious harm. And yet, ironically, by failing to acknowledge them, we can actually prevent ourselves from moving beyond them.
For example, the minute an offense is made against an unsuspecting victim a direct and immediate relational connection is made between that victim and his/her offender. This is a painful and agonizing truth for the victim, but it’s real nonetheless. The irony is that as long as the victim refuses to see or acknowledge that such a “relationship” exists, the more difficult it is for the victim to find the ability to overcome the emotional and psychological damage done and move beyond its consequence toward real healing. The offender becomes a kind of haunting ghost-presence. Likewise, as long as the offender refuses to acknowledge that she/he has “connected” with the victim, by the fact of the crime perpetrated against her, and therefore owes that victim a personal obligation to “make things right,” the offender distances himself from being able to find ease, peace, or release and redemption from her guilt, like one unable to wash his hands of blood stains. (Note: I use “him” and “her” interchangeably to denote either/or: he or she, him or her.)
Seeing true remorse and repentance, including full ownership and acknowledgement of one’s culpability on the part of an offender, is a cornerstone in the ability to experiencing a real sense of justice for a victim; ideally the offender will own and admit guilt to the very person(s) that have been harmed by the offense, coupled with a willingness to do what one can to correct and make good for the damage done. Such a dynamic presumes the recognition that a kind of inverted relationship now exists between victim and offender. It also assumes open, purposeful and intentional communication between victim and offender with the purpose of transforming what was a harmful and negative relational dynamic into a neutral (if not positive) one. But of course, that’s ideally speaking, and, last I’ve looked, we do not live in an ideal world. So, how does this work in the real world?
Principles don’t change by the circumstance or context; they just need to be applied appropriately to fit the actual conditions. In the case of victim/offender dynamics, the principle of relational communication and the need for ownership and acknowledgement, as well as for remorse, and the willingness to makes things right on the part of the offender does not change, even in this less than ideal world. Thus, the Restorative Justice Process continues to invite the offender to do these things (regardless of whether or not the offender is actually able to do so directly to his/her victim).
In an actual and real appropriate manner, an offender should be able and willing to do the following:
Take responsibility by owning up (“manning up” as many male inmates would say) and communicate this as clearly as possible to any and all appropriate “stakeholders.”
Humanize their victim by visualizing them as actual people with real and similar desires, heartaches, wants, and needs.
Identify and name the consequences to their victim(s) of the harm that they have done. Consider the many possible needs that arise from the harm that has been done and find direct or indirect ways to address these needs as much as is possible within their own circle of influence.
Value the victim has having priority over the offender when considering needs and consequences.
Thus, Restorative Justice (RJ) is not “offender friendly” at the expense of the victim. Far from it! But it does recognize that there is a “relational dynamic” between victims and their offenders and seeks to at least neutralize the powerful negative impact of that inverted “relationship.” In that light, RJ would ask victims to avoid totally demonizing offenders, to see them as human with the potential for actual change and correction and not simply dismiss him/her as an “animal” or a “monster.” Proper, structured, and intentional communication can be part of the healing process for the victim and can lead to constructive and corrective responsiveness on the part of the offender so that he/she can begin to “make things right.”
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
What is Justice Exactly?
What is Justice? That is, what is the aim of justice? What needs and whose needs are being addressed by its application?
Is justice simply retribution, “getting what you deserve,” “payback time!”? If it is, shall we also assume that Retributive Justice includes the element of deterrence, “Let that be a warning to you and to others; next time you’ll think twice before doing that again!”? But is this sufficient? Does this fully satisfy what the victim needs when he/she demands justice, not to mention the needs of the community, or even the offender? In short, doesn’t the very concept of Justice run far deeper and extend much further than the simple idea of retribution: “You hurt me, now we’re going to hurt you, but even more so!”?
Yes, this is a topic that academicians, doctors of jurisprudence, sociologists, ethicists, and theologians discuss, write, and debate about daily. But the question is not merely an academic one. Nor is it one that only academics and professionals should be privileged to discuss. We, common citizens and members of our communities, are huge stakeholders in the practical workings of justice in our society. We pay dearly for the lack of it; indeed, systemic injustice can be quite subversive and oppressive and can wreak havoc in a society. And yet we pay quite handsomely for its implementation; the halls of justice may not be paved with gold but they are most certainly built with pillars of marble, which is not cheap. Thus, the average citizen should have much to understand and say about how justice should work in our communities.
We humans demand, nay, we need, justice. But what constitutes that need? It’s not just a matter of retribution. Retributive action does not fully satisfy one’s longing for justice, though it certainly helps. Most victims want something more from the justice process. Yet many come away from the process feeling unsatisfied, sometimes even re-victimized in our present system, as it is.
Going back to my initial question, what is justice, what if the basis of justice is first and foremost a relational issue and only secondarily an abstract, legal question? That is to say, what if justice primarily has to do with human relationships and is only latently related to the breaking of a law; the “Law” itself being a servant to the maintenance and cultivation of positive, healthy, and just relational dynamics between persons or groups of persons within a community? That is, what if the core of justice has to do with human relational dynamics? And what if our present judicial system tends to dehumanize people, victims and offenders, rather than respecting their humanity, by only addressing abstract, impersonal, legal issues, the law, while failing to address the fundamental relational question which the law is supposed to serve? If that’s the case, is it possible that the trajectory of our present judicial system is moving away from, rather than toward actual justice, in principle?
For example, what are some of the needs that victims have, after they have suffered a crime against their person and/or property? For one, victims would welcome information from the offender, “Why me? Why was I targeted? Did I do or say anything to make this happen, if so what was it? What was my offender thinking about, at the time?” Victims want to know: who, how, where, when and most especially, WHY? Likewise, victims want to be heard. They need to tell what happened, not once but perhaps many times over. They need listening ears. Victims would especially like the offender to “get it,” that is, to really know how the offender’s actions negatively affected them, the hurt, the cost, the pain, and the unrecoverable losses they’ve had to endure because of the offender’s crime. Furthermore, victims need re-empowerment. Being victimized often results in a loss of confidence that one is really safe. Fear and anxiety may now rule where confidence and self-assurance used to reign. Victims need to recover a sense of control over their lives. They need empowerment. And finally, though this is not at all an exhaustive list, victims need vindication and restitution. They need assurance that the offender has taken or will take responsibility for his/her action and the harm they have caused the victim. Considering Victims’ needs alone, we must admit that simple Retributive Justice within our present judicial process does little to meet them.
There is no panacea for perfect justice in this world. But we can always make our present system better and keep it moving in the right direction. I believe the Restorative Justice approach can help us do exactly that. For example, Restorative Justice begins by seeing crime as primarily a violation against very real people and interpersonal relationships and secondarily as a crime against the impersonal & very abstract State. Secondly, because a crime is a violation against persons it creates an obligation, on the part of the offender, toward the offended person(s). Thirdly, at its core, the offender’s obligation is to, as much as possible, “make things right” for the victim (beyond mere retribution). Thus, under Restorative Justice, the process of seeking and getting just satisfaction never loses sight of the personal relational dynamic that is at the heart of justice. Contrast that to the State’s response to crime, which practically sets aside the needs of the victim (produced by the crime) and simply focuses on the administering of punishment to the guilty, acting as if the crime was against the State and only the State, often leaving the victim utterly dissatisfied with the process and its end result.
I would like to say more about Restorative Justice in the future. For now, I will give an unsolicited plug for a little booklet on the subject. To get a good sense of what Restorative Justice is, I strongly encourage the reading of The Little Book of Restorative Justice by Howard Zehr (Good Books, 2002). It’s small, well written, and easy to read. It serves as an excellent introduction to the subject. It’s only about $5.00 and can be easily ordered online. I would also note that Restorative Justice Principles Practices and Values are applicable in many contexts other than the judicial one, schools and businesses for example. And so I believe that it is well worth your time and effort, Dear Reader, in becoming acquainted with the content and substance of the Restorative Justice Process and direction.
Is justice simply retribution, “getting what you deserve,” “payback time!”? If it is, shall we also assume that Retributive Justice includes the element of deterrence, “Let that be a warning to you and to others; next time you’ll think twice before doing that again!”? But is this sufficient? Does this fully satisfy what the victim needs when he/she demands justice, not to mention the needs of the community, or even the offender? In short, doesn’t the very concept of Justice run far deeper and extend much further than the simple idea of retribution: “You hurt me, now we’re going to hurt you, but even more so!”?
Yes, this is a topic that academicians, doctors of jurisprudence, sociologists, ethicists, and theologians discuss, write, and debate about daily. But the question is not merely an academic one. Nor is it one that only academics and professionals should be privileged to discuss. We, common citizens and members of our communities, are huge stakeholders in the practical workings of justice in our society. We pay dearly for the lack of it; indeed, systemic injustice can be quite subversive and oppressive and can wreak havoc in a society. And yet we pay quite handsomely for its implementation; the halls of justice may not be paved with gold but they are most certainly built with pillars of marble, which is not cheap. Thus, the average citizen should have much to understand and say about how justice should work in our communities.
We humans demand, nay, we need, justice. But what constitutes that need? It’s not just a matter of retribution. Retributive action does not fully satisfy one’s longing for justice, though it certainly helps. Most victims want something more from the justice process. Yet many come away from the process feeling unsatisfied, sometimes even re-victimized in our present system, as it is.
Going back to my initial question, what is justice, what if the basis of justice is first and foremost a relational issue and only secondarily an abstract, legal question? That is to say, what if justice primarily has to do with human relationships and is only latently related to the breaking of a law; the “Law” itself being a servant to the maintenance and cultivation of positive, healthy, and just relational dynamics between persons or groups of persons within a community? That is, what if the core of justice has to do with human relational dynamics? And what if our present judicial system tends to dehumanize people, victims and offenders, rather than respecting their humanity, by only addressing abstract, impersonal, legal issues, the law, while failing to address the fundamental relational question which the law is supposed to serve? If that’s the case, is it possible that the trajectory of our present judicial system is moving away from, rather than toward actual justice, in principle?
For example, what are some of the needs that victims have, after they have suffered a crime against their person and/or property? For one, victims would welcome information from the offender, “Why me? Why was I targeted? Did I do or say anything to make this happen, if so what was it? What was my offender thinking about, at the time?” Victims want to know: who, how, where, when and most especially, WHY? Likewise, victims want to be heard. They need to tell what happened, not once but perhaps many times over. They need listening ears. Victims would especially like the offender to “get it,” that is, to really know how the offender’s actions negatively affected them, the hurt, the cost, the pain, and the unrecoverable losses they’ve had to endure because of the offender’s crime. Furthermore, victims need re-empowerment. Being victimized often results in a loss of confidence that one is really safe. Fear and anxiety may now rule where confidence and self-assurance used to reign. Victims need to recover a sense of control over their lives. They need empowerment. And finally, though this is not at all an exhaustive list, victims need vindication and restitution. They need assurance that the offender has taken or will take responsibility for his/her action and the harm they have caused the victim. Considering Victims’ needs alone, we must admit that simple Retributive Justice within our present judicial process does little to meet them.
There is no panacea for perfect justice in this world. But we can always make our present system better and keep it moving in the right direction. I believe the Restorative Justice approach can help us do exactly that. For example, Restorative Justice begins by seeing crime as primarily a violation against very real people and interpersonal relationships and secondarily as a crime against the impersonal & very abstract State. Secondly, because a crime is a violation against persons it creates an obligation, on the part of the offender, toward the offended person(s). Thirdly, at its core, the offender’s obligation is to, as much as possible, “make things right” for the victim (beyond mere retribution). Thus, under Restorative Justice, the process of seeking and getting just satisfaction never loses sight of the personal relational dynamic that is at the heart of justice. Contrast that to the State’s response to crime, which practically sets aside the needs of the victim (produced by the crime) and simply focuses on the administering of punishment to the guilty, acting as if the crime was against the State and only the State, often leaving the victim utterly dissatisfied with the process and its end result.
I would like to say more about Restorative Justice in the future. For now, I will give an unsolicited plug for a little booklet on the subject. To get a good sense of what Restorative Justice is, I strongly encourage the reading of The Little Book of Restorative Justice by Howard Zehr (Good Books, 2002). It’s small, well written, and easy to read. It serves as an excellent introduction to the subject. It’s only about $5.00 and can be easily ordered online. I would also note that Restorative Justice Principles Practices and Values are applicable in many contexts other than the judicial one, schools and businesses for example. And so I believe that it is well worth your time and effort, Dear Reader, in becoming acquainted with the content and substance of the Restorative Justice Process and direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)