Divided We Fail

Clinton, you invoked a political nightmare

Keith Olbermann's incredibly honest and intense 10 minute response to Hillary's latest misspoken comment is a refreshing change from the politically correct drivel I've been watching lately. His concern is, if Clinton is given permission by the media to continue to invoke the image of assassination, it may set something terrible in motion.

Global Balance of Power

Two great articles discussing ways the balance of power is shifting in the world and why America needs a President who is capable of strong diplomatic action. It also highlights why it is so critical the new administration makes it a priority to push through a creative, new energy policy that accelerates the development of alternative energy sources and promotes fuel efficiency.

Shifts in the global balance of power
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21friedman.html?th&emc=th

Obama and the Jews
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/opinion/18friedman.html?em&ex=1211515200&en=8f8aa6d16cce3a79&ei=5087%0A

Obama 2008

See latest stories on Yahoo! News

Thawing Life With Faith

"One can believe in God with a very complex set of arguments, yet not have any faith that makes a difference in living" ~ Georgia Harkness

"It is cynicism and fear that freeze life; it is faith that thaws it out, releases it, sets it free" ~Harry Fosdick

Moral Code or Religion?

What got me started on this morality jag was one of my students is studying Confucianism. Apparently there is some debate over whether it is a religion or a moral code. That question tied into a discussion I had read on the need for a common, cultural code of ethics and another article about how to honor religious ideas while maintaining seperation of church and state.

As I head towards a logical process of trying to understand humanity, universal truths and spiritual reality, I realize such a mental exercise may not be the best use of my time. I have to keep remembering to actually take action in the world rather than just sit around enjoying theorizing about life. It's a lot easier to ponder and blog than actually meet people face to face and help them. Like all inherently shy people, I have a tendency to play the observer rather than jumping into the fray. But I can't resist recklessly trying to define morality and religion in whatever imperfect manner I am able. I want to know where I stand on the issue. I better look up some definitions on Wikipedia.

Etymology of Religion

The English word religion is in use since the 13th century, loaned from Anglo-French religiun (11th century), ultimately from the Latin religio, "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety, the res divinae".

The ultimate origins of Latin religio are obscure. It is usually accepted to derive from ligare "bind, connect"; likely from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect."

Religion

Religion has been defined in a wide variety of ways. Most definitions attempt to find a balance somewhere between overly sharp definition and meaningless generalities. Some sources have tried to use formalistic, doctrinal definitions while others have emphasized experiential, emotive, intuitive, valuational and ethical factors. Definitions mostly include:

* a notion of the transcendent or numinous, often, but not always, in the form of theism

* a cultural or behavioural aspect of ritual, liturgy and organized worship, often involving a priesthood, and societal norms of morality (ethos) and virtue (arete)

*a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents

Religious Belief

*relates to the existence, nature and worship of a deity or deities and divine involvement in the universe and human life.

*relates to values and practices transmitted by a spiritual leader.

*religious belief tends to be codified in literate societies (religion in non-literate societies is still largely passed on orally).

*In some religions, like the Abrahamic religions, it is held that most of the core beliefs have been divinely revealed.

Development of Religion

There are a number of models regarding the ways in which religions come into being and develop. Broadly speaking, these models fall into three categories:

* Models which see religions as social constructions;
* Models which see religions as progressing toward higher, objective truth;
* Models which see a particular religion as absolutely true.

Moral code

Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.

Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality". Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.

Moral codes are often complex definitions of right and wrong that are based upon well-defined value systems. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, ofttimes they are one and the same.

Examples of moral codes include the Golden Rule; the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism; the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at ;the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures; the ten Indian commandments; and the principle of the Dessek.

Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (e.g. Taoism, Moralism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive — part of human politics.

Morality Revised

Social norms evolve so a culture can survive and thrive. Moral codes define and enforce social norms. If moral codes are designed to create social order then one could argue the dominant force in that society might have the right to legislate the moral code for that society. As we have seen time and again, some leaders/majorities create a moral code that caters only to a certain segment of the population. It is the rare leader/majority that creates a moral code that works best for a society as a whole. Democracy is such a moral code.

While a moral code often evolves within a religion as it is codified, it's my opinion that moral codes are primarily cultural and non-religious in nature. Religion is a different thing. In religion, a deity is considered a higher power/reality than society and devotees often live lives contrary to social norms. "Give what is Caesars to Caesar and what is God's to God"..."turn the other cheek"..."love your enemy"...were all ideas contrary to the social norms during Jesus' time. This is why religion is a personal relationship not a moral or legalistic system we should impose on society as a whole. We become what we believe and thereby we affect society by our actions in the world. For good or ill, we all have free will to chose our own, unique spiritual relationship with the world and God.

Morality judges. Spirit Loves. I always find the idea of judgement, as it has been preached by Christians during the 20th century, contrary to Jesus' teachings. Jesus did not judge people while he was on earth. He Loved them. He demonstrated Love. He forgave unconditionally, healed the dis-eased and told people the Truth. "I am who I am". He said frankly, "Your faith has healed you, now go sin no more". If I look past my acculturated interpretation of the word "sin", is Jesus just stating a fact? Is he saying you have chosen to open your heart to God and believed in him through me, now go and stay open because God's Love and God's gift of Life are of greater worth than anything else?

If Jesus had gone around telling people they were immoral and wrong none of the folks, many of whom were social outcasts, would ever have hung out with him. He Loved everyone and his Love made others want to become more like him...to be open to God, and therefore (w)holy. Did Jesus even judge the religious leaders of his time or did he just speak the truth? Jesus seemed to feel the religious aristocracy of his time had, in God's name, allowed a corporate minded, moralistic world view to blind them and had closed their hearts to God's will. They had stopped seeking God's guidance and didn't recognize the Messiah might be something different than what they wanted him to be? I can't judge them for what they did thousands of years ago. What am I blind to? What do I kill in my life out of fear, a desire for comfort or to maintain an illusion of power?

Jesus said what is most important is to Love our neighbor as our self and God with all our heart mind and soul. That about covers everything. Pretty amazing.

Southern States Response to Civil Rights Amendments

Interesting facts about various Southern States response to Civil Rights Amendments in the Constitution. From Wikipedia.

·Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment (abolishing slavery) in 1995. It was originally ratified in 1865.

·Tennessee, which was immune from the Reconstruction Acts, never ratified the 15th Amendment (Black voting rights)

·Proposed by Congress on August 27, 1962, the 24th Amendment was ratified within a year and a half, on January 23, 1964 (514 days). Poll taxes had been enacted in eleven Southern states after Reconstruction as a measure to prevent black people from voting, and had been held to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. At the time of this amendment's passage, only five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. However, it wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) that all state poll taxes (for both state and federal elections) were officially declared unconstitutional, because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Ratification was completed on January 23, 1964. The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states:
1. Virginia (February 25, 1977)
2. North Carolina (May 3, 1989)
3. Alabama (2002)

This amendment was rejected by the following state:
1. Mississippi (December 20, 1962)

The Unsung Hero of Obama's Campaign

Interesting article about Jeffery Berman from Politico

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10249.html

Happy Mother's Day

I'm the Mom Song

Clinton - The Darling of the HWWMC?

Two good articles in response to Clinton's recent statement that she is the candidate of the "Hard Working, White Middle Class".

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/10/clintons_diminishing_of_black_voters/

The question on everyone's minds is why is she destroying her political career?

Thank Public School Teachers, Senator Obama!

This is the first week, after Clinton's decisive loss in NC, I felt the media stopped promoting this election like some kind of reality T.V. show. For the past year, both the press and the public have easily slipped into a delusional, alternate universe in which there are no real consequences to misspoken words or unsubstantiated military actions, superficial minutiae is more newsworthy than policy and world crises roll merrily along from a distance for our media satiated enjoyment. Sadly, network ratings have seemed to be more important than choosing a President who is capable of leading this country from the brink of economic and diplomatic disaster. Now...with Hillary on the ropes, Fox “ospinionators” sputter for superlatives as they try to swim in deeper waters and yesterday Wolf Blitzer finally conducted a relevant interview with Obama about his policies rather than plying him with questions like, "Why don't you always wear a flag pin?"

The fact that Obama is probably going to be the nominee for the Democratic party, despite fierce opposition from certain media outlets and other corporate funded entities, is perhaps evidence that public school teacher's efforts over the last 20 years to teach school children how to differentiate between media spin and real facts is now allowing the young people of this country to join both "latte sipping eggheads" and concerned citizens of all colors, age, gender, creed and economic status in making decisions based on independent thought rather than the opinions of political pundits.

Hope for real change is in the air. Let's move forward into the 21st century!

Obama 2008

Whose Prayer Am I The Answer To?

Something David Wilson said in his MSNBC documentary "Finding David Wilson" struck me again this morning. He said that maybe he is the answer to the prayer of his African relatives who were enslaved 200 years ago on the plantation owned by the Wilson family. David is an African Amercian who is not legally in bondage to another. He is no longer a possession, rather he possesses the freedoms and rights promised to all people under the Constitution. He has taken steps to understand his past and to bring healing to his family and those in his community and is trying to impact the world in a positive way. Is he then the vision of the children of the future his enslaved African relatives hoped for as they left the Tobacco fields just 143 years ago after the end of the civil war?

http://www.nps.gov/archive/malu/documents/amend13.htm

Is he the vision of the future his relatives dreamed about before they were given the right to live in a desegregated, democratic society after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, just 44 years ago.

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0858852.html

Is he the vision of the future his grandmother dreamed about when she prayed for the right to vote without discrimination before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, just 43 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

Wow! That idea can be amplified. What am I? Am I the answer to the prayers of people who are still enslaved, disempowered and disenfrancised?

If Love is action, then prayer is action. How can I be prayer?

Is Love A Choice?

In the recent past, I remember writing about Love...journaling about my personal exploration with spiritual conversion four years ago. Even then, I wondered how long the euphoria of that experience would last. Interestingly, I didn't felt my heart closing in the last few months. How did I begin to lose my spiritual senses? I guess having a hardened heart is a condition I'm very familiar with so I didn't notice the slow, spiritual solidification.

Well...last night, like a drowning person breaking through the surface of a lake, I sat up gasping for reality. Squinted into the light, I realized I have been asleep, wrapped in a cocoon of unhealthy choices and mind numbing distractions. I reached out in search of the memory, the feeling of Love. Then it struck me... Love is not a feeling. Love is a choice. While I believe all beings exist eternally in Love because we are Loved by God, I suspect we must make a conscious choice to partake of that Love. We partake of Love by choosing to actively Love. I must chose to Love what I may feel is unlovable.

So, can I chose to Love....choose to express Love energy - or - I can chose to close my heart to expressing Love in the world and find bitter satisfaction in Lovelessness. Whatever my choice, I bring that choice into the world as I interact actively with the world. When I am spiritually awake, I can recognize that the energy I emit returns in kind. That seems to be the gauge, the result, what has been called "the judgement" of my be-ing in the world.

I am free to choose to be or not to be...to Love or not to Love.

Beauty Immutable?

Ask the loveliness of the earth, ask the loveliness of the sea, ask the loveliness of the wide airy spaces, ask the loveliness of the sky, ask the order of the stars, ask the sun, making daylight with its beams, ask the moon tempering the darkness of the night that follows, ask the living things which move in the waters, which tarry on the land, which fly in the air; ask the souls that are hidden, the bodies that are perceptive; the visible things which must be governed, the invisible things that govern - ask these things, and they will all answer you, Yes, see we are lovely. Their loveliness is their confession. And all these lovely but mutable things, who has made them, but Beauty immutable?

- Augustine
Sermons 214.2

Clinton's Open Attack On The DNC

It just struck me that Clinton's entirely scripted interview by Bill O'Reilly on FOX yesterday was an open attack against the DNC Super Delegates. With long time supporters flipping to Obama for what they claim are ethical reasons Hillary seems to have realized Democratic insiders are not on her side and Obama is currently going to get the nod from the Supers. For whatever reason (and I suspect something is very rotten in Denmark) the Clinton campaign will not give up. So my projection is the Clinton's current strategy is to try to win the popular vote by any means possible...including appearing to side with right wing entertainers like O'Reilly (alias Rubert Murdoch) and trashing her own party. By presenting herself as a "secret conservative", Hillary appeals to Independents and disenfranchised moderate Republicans as well as her loyal base who wouldn't vote for Obama anyway. Any Democrat in their right mind would never do the kind of interview she did on FOX yesterday. O'Reilly's meager pokes were done with brotherly affection. It was an exercise in mutual narcissism with a wink and a nod. This interview indicates she has given up appealing to the liberal Democratic base and is hoping to be able to initiate a coup by winning the popular vote in the upcoming primaries with the help of O'Reilly's "Operation Chaos" (ie. Republicans temporarily flipping to Democrat for the primary). This win, she hopes, will force the DNC to switch the nomination to her. She can threaten that she has effectively made Obama unelectable and her people will fracture the Democratic party if he is nominated. This is why the DNC is pushing the Supers to make a decision quickly and end this nightmare. However, the Supers are afraid that like Bush, if Hillary wins the presidency by manipulating this election, she will do the same kind of governmental purge Bush did then he took office, leaving only loyal "yes people" in office. For this reason, I respect the Super Delegates who have already made the decision to vote with their conscience and are not sitting on the fence for the sake of expediency.

God help us all if the Clinton machine succeeds in this coup. We desperately need to re-examine the election process in this country. As Michelle Obama said, there have been positive changes as a result of Obama's campaign, and for that she is grateful. They will continue to fight for ethical and political change.

Obama 2008

Gas Tax Realities

Check out the article "A Little Love for Big Oil". It's about the gas tax Clinton and McCain are proposing.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/little-love-big-oil