Chytha's Resonance

not my enemy

2012-01-29T08:20:00.000-08:00

The presidential campaign and the sideshow that accompanies it has taken a turn towards the absurd. Some commentators have shown beyond a doubt that they have tin ears and blind eyes. It is one thing to be cynical but quite another to be inflexible. I don't think I have to name names, 'cause I think you know who I mean.

It is bad enough to view efforts to provide healthcare for all as dangerous or to portray seeking to have peacemaking a key component of our foreign policy as weakness. It is harmful to characterize calls for civility in our political discussions as censorship. But when an appeal from the president for teamwork and basic fairness is denounced as an appeal for class warfare we have reached the stone ear stage indeed.

We are all Americans, we are all in this together. I think we need to pause and remember that, no matter what our political, religious, or social views. We share this country, and we must remember to share. No one gets to hog it all and whoever is elected in November will be President of all and deserves our respect. That is the American way.

I am a Democrat. I believe in an active government, acting as "we the People" in carrying out the desires of the nation for a "more perfect Union", providing for the "common defense", and promoting the "general welfare" espoused in the Preamble to the Constitution. I believe we have a moral obligation to provide for those less fortunate and not hold ourselves aloof and simply blame them for "not trying hard enough". And I believe that government is "us",not some distant "other" to be feared, opposed, or "limited".

As such I obviously have serious differences with all of the GOP presidential candidates and their supporters in media and in elected office. I will work to oppose their efforts and argue against their positions. But, and this is a very big "but', they are not my enemy. We are not in a war, not for the "soul of America" nor for"civilization", and I refuse to portray our political disagreements in such militaristic terms.

Even when others may slip into that mode, I refuse. If the (to my mind) unthinkable happens and a Republican wins the White House I will respect them as President , just as I have any other President. I will have discussions with those with whom I disagree in a spirit of mutual respect. I will walk away from, but not demean, those who seek fights and refuse to even listen to opposing views. I may brand opposing views as absurd when warranted, but will work to refrain from making personal attacks. As I have said before, we are all Americans and we must all work together for what is best for everyone.

This holds true for our actions in the world. Make no mistake, we have real enemies out there, folks who have taken up arms against us and would seek to do us harm. We must actively oppose that. But we must not go around looking for trouble, nor brand those nations who may differ with us on policies as "not our friends" (like the attitudes of many in the US toward France and Germany over the Iraq war). For those of us who hold to faith in God we have a divine mandate to "seek peace and pursue it" and "as much as it depends on you, live at peace with all men". Blessings are called out for peacemakers, not warmongers, and we should not take that lightly. We all must "share" this world.

Set your "weapons" down and let's all work together to make this nation, and our world, be the best it can be, where nobody goes hungry, or sick,or homeless, or friendless. We all can make a difference...if only we try.

go to the source

2011-12-18T08:05:00.000-08:00

We live in a technologically advanced, but informationally stunted world. We seemingly have all the information we need at our fingertips, but often lack the will, or curiosity, to use it to our advantage. We all too frequently fall back on letting someone else tell us what to do and what is true when we should be investigating for ourselves and making better decisions.

Politics is just one of those areas, but it gets a great amount of attention every four years at least, as is the case now. We are blessed in this country to be free to elect our leaders. In much of the world this is not the case and we should not take lightly the responsibility to make wise decisions as to who to support. The GOP debates may seem tedious and simply forums for talking point reiteration, but they can serve to help us identify what is really important to us, even for those who aren't planning to vote GOP.

It is more than just "fact-checking" that we need to do. We also need to check quotes and context. People tend to view speakers as "scholarly" or "expert" when they cite history and quote historical documents. But how often do these same people check the sources of the citations and quotes to see if they are accurate? Not very often in my opinion. And that can lead people to make very unsound decisions.

Case in point: during the latest debate Newt Gingrich was ranting about the judiciary and how it was damaging America with bad rulings...that it was out of control and needed to be reined in. He made a couple of really outlandish suggestions - getting rid of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (conservatives "favorite" court) and summoning justices before Congress to "explain" their "controversial" rulings. That was bad enough, but his rational was worse...and that (again) got overlooked in the analysis.

Gingrich is certainly no friend of the courts, but he covers his blatant animosity with a 'scholarly" sheen, by using quotes and making historical references to his advantage. Unfortunately, he often misquotes and takes things out of context. As a preacher I once heard said " a text out of context becomes a pretext". This describes Newt very well. I won't belabor the point or overwhelm you with examples, but let me just cite a couple examples.

He stated that the founders intended for the judiciary to be the weakest branch of government. He was referencing the discussion of the judiciary in the Federalist Papers, the collection of letters written by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay, to persuade New York state to ratify the Constitution. They talked about the relative weakness of the judicial branch, but in a matter advocating protecting it's independence from the other two branches (executive and legislative), not subordinating it to them.

To quote Federalist #78 : the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power ...it can never attack with success either of the other two..all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks". They were not saying that the judiciary should be the weakest. They were saying that it was in the most vulnerable position and needed protection (like with lifetime appointments and a prohibition on cutting a justice's salary during their time of service).

Newt also said that the courts were not the final arbiter of the law. But, to quote the same Federalist paper "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts" and "the courts of justice..whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. Without this, the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing".

For a supposed "scholar" of the Constitution to be this wrong is not accidental, it is purposeful. It is an attack upon the part of government designed to be the protector of our rights and should not be viewed as merely "crackpot". As a former history/poli sci major myself this makes my blood boil!

I would urge anyone to avail themselves of three resources which can be invaluable in combating, personally and collectively, the misinformation that is spewed out regularly by those who seek to influence our political decisions. Three links:

1. The Federalist Papers, if you don't have a hard copy (as I do)

2. The Constitution (you really should have a hard copy...and read it often)

3. Thomas.gov...where you can look up the history, sponsors, and full text of any congressional legislation...to find out what it "really" says.

With these three you can combat much of the disinformation being thrown out there during this political season. Don't let anyone (not even me) make your decisions for you. As the saying goes "God gave you a brain, now use it"

ask the right questions

2011-12-11T08:17:00.000-08:00

Once again we have a bit of humor in the presidential race , thanks to Rick Perry. At a meeting with an Iowa newspaper's editorial board he was criticizing President Obama's Supreme Court appointees, yet couldn't remember correctly the name of one (Sotomayor) and misstated the number of Justices on the Court. Surely a candidate for president should know these things. The filling of a Supreme Court vacancy is a vital presidential task and one that may arise during this next presidential term, considering Justice Ginzberg's health. While it is important that a candidate be accurate in these details , however, this is not what got my attention in his comments.

As we laugh at these gaffs we often miss the bigger issue. It is the wrongful thinking that is behind the statements these candidates make. Because Rick Perry is not alone in his sentiments, just the most visible at times. He used two adjectives to describe the Justices, used both negatively, when only one is true and that one should be viewed as a positive not negative.

He said that the Justices were "unelected" and "unaccountable". The first is true but for reasons I will explain shortly, this I believe is a positive, not negative characteristic of both the Supreme Court and the rest of the federal court system. The second assertion is definitely false, but you have to think harder than a "fifth grader" to understand the reasons why.

First there is the appointment and confirmation process, where the President and the Senate, representing the other two branches of our government (both elected by the people) , choose the members of the Court. Then there is the ability of a latter Court to overturn earlier decisions after review (see Plessy v Ferguson (1896) overturned by the Brown decision (1954) as the most notable example).

There is also the ability for Congress to pass Constitutional amendments to correct deficiencies in the law and render moot a Court's decision. Prime example of this was the 13th Amendment (1865) , outlawing slavery , in response to the Dred Scott decision . There was also the 16th Amendment (1913) ,passed to overcome Court objections to a federal income tax.

And there is the matter of impeachment. Just as for the President, any member of the federal judiciary can be impeached by the House of Representatives and face trial in the Senate, with conviction resulting in removal from office. Throughout our history 19 federal court justices have been impeached (including one Supreme Court justice) and several have been removed from office after trial in the Senate. So you see, the justices and their decisions are accountable.

The other contention, that they are unelected, is true. But I would contend that this is a positive characteristic, not negative. I have always felt that the election of judges, the common practice for state courts, was not good. Members of the legislative and executive branches should be responsive to the people. The members of the judicial branch, the judges, should be responsive to the law, protecting the people's rights. All rights, not just the majority.

When cases reach the federal courts the stakes are higher. The rulings will often affect many people from multiple states (the health care reform cases are one example) and the questions reach to the core of fundamental rights and freedoms. Also, the issues may invoke alleged overreach by the executive or legislative branches of the federal government. The courts must have the independence to rule against either branch if the case warrants. A lifetime appointment guarantees this.

Our rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution involve the right to be unpopular. To voice unpopular views, have unpopular beliefs, to gather with unpopular people to advocate unpopular causes. Popular opinions do not need protection. Majority views do not need special protection. They are protected by their own popularity. But minority opinions, like minority populations, are vulnerable to the "tyranny of the majority", and need safeguarding by a court system where judges are free to make the "unpopular" decision to defend them.

Our history as a country is one of evolving protection for minority populations and views, expanding our understanding of what it means to be free, and challenging ourselves to open our minds to the truth that if anyone's freedom is curtailed we all suffer. We cannot go backward. We must stay vigilant. Rick Perry is not alone in his skewed views on the Court…his fellow GOP candidates all share basically the same views. We must hold them "accountable" for these and render them all "unelected"

no laughing matter

2011-11-10T19:06:00.000-08:00

We all had a good laugh this week at Rick Perry's expense when he had a brain fuzz on air during the GOP debate. When he stated that there were three agencies of the federal government that he would get rid of if he became President, and then could only name two, he had 52 seconds of oops.
I am sure that SNL folks were probably saying to themselves.."dang, he did his parody better than anything we could ever do". Many are writing his campaign epitaph as we speak. It was one of those memorable political gaffe moments we will be talking about for years.

Unfortunately, most people missed the shear audacity of what he was proposing due to the delivery..or lack thereof..of his points. The three departments that he was proposing doing away with were Education, Commerce, and....Energy (the one he couldn't quite remember).

The Department of Education has been a frequent target of conservatives, so it wasn't really a surprise to be mentioned. They feel it should be left up to the states. Some have even come out against the federal college loan program, so you can see how out of touch they are...with tuition going up and up and less and less people able to afford it.

The Department of Energy has also been mentioned recently, but seriously? In the aftermath of the BP spill, coal mine collapses, and the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown in Japan...he wants to eliminate the agency responsible for regulating and inspecting - and holding companies accountable? How do you enforce the safety laws governing the safe production and use of energy without a Department of Energy?

And Commerce? Normally one of the lines of attack that conservatives use to target federal agencies is to contend that the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize the government to do such things. In this case they have no room to stand. Article I, section 8, Clause 3 enumerates congressional power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Commerce, both interstate and overseas, is solidly a part of federal government responsibility and how can it be done without the Department of Commerce?

People tend to forget that a law passed by Congress has no effect in and of itself. It only takes effect when it is "executed"...put into effect and enforced by the Executive Branch. The president is aided in this task by his Cabinet and the agencies they oversee. For a nation of over 300 million that takes a lot of people and simplistic cutting does a grave disservice to the nation's business..and economy.

Laughing at gaffs and brain fuzzes is one thing..political theatre. But lets not forget the bad messages being mangled in the process. Being president, and running for it, is serious business, and no laughing matter.

country club americanism

2011-04-05T17:22:00.000-07:00

Country club americanism, what does that mean and why do I say I see it today? The view that America is some special "club" that only the right people can join, and where special privileges are conferred is not a new thing. Throughout our history we have struggled with acceptance of the "others" whether that be blacks, Irish/Italian/other suspect Europeans, Asians, Hispanics,or so-called "savages" i.e.native Americans. We have had troubles with accepting other faiths - the current debates over Islam reflect our earlier discord over Jews and Catholics. Remember, it was only as recent as 1960 (within my lifetime) when we finally accepted that a Catholic (JFK) could be trusted to be President...and even then some feared he would be too influenced by the Pope.

Yet it is disturbing to see and hear signs that some would welcome a return to more "exclusive" times. Sometimes it is subtle..reaction to the protests in Wisconsin as being "allowed, I guess" in a free society. Sometimes condescending ...the remarks of a sitting US Senator that "free speech is a fine idea, but we are at war" (Lindsey Graham,R-SC). And some are revisionist/unconstitutional threats - "Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy....the purpose of the First Amendment ...was to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects" (Bryan Fischer, American Family Association).

It is bad enough to see the attack upon citizenship by way of the demand from some that it is not enough to be born in America...they demand that your parents prove they are citizens in order for you to be considered one (pedigree,anyone?)-contrary to the 14th Amendment. And bad also that folks would consider that freedoms in this country are only for citizens (see my earlier post on the use of the words "citizen" and "person" in the Constitution). But now to have rights reduced to "privileges" and "courtesies" for even citizens is outrageous and snobbery of the highest sort...and is why I call it "country-club americanism".

Don't get me wrong. We do have responsibilities as citizens. We have been given the great gift and privilege of being Americans and to enjoy the freedoms we have. But as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently points out, in the Declaration of Independence, our nation was founded upon the belief that we are "endowed by (our) creator with certain unalienable rights...life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". We exercise responsible citizenship first and foremost by defending those freedoms for all....by speaking out forcefully in their defense against anyone who would seek to restrict them from anyone.

the value and right of protest

2011-02-19T16:46:00.000-08:00

Some on the right have argued that the protesters in Wisconsin are working against democracy by opposing what the state legislature (and the governor) are trying to do. They say,"elections have consequences" and "the will of the people" must be respected. They are willfully ignorant of basic principles of our representative process and of our constitutional rights.

The first issue is with representatives. The founding fathers (who they often refer to -like gods) envisioned a democracy where the people would elect certain individuals to represent the whole population and make decisions about the nation's business. They did not intend to have "rubber stamps", but rather wise leaders who would do what was right for the whole country, not just what was popular. Popular does not always equal moral, ethical or wise. Segregation in the South was certainly popular (at least with the white population) but none would dare call it moral.

The majority rules, but minority rights are protected ,has always been a mantra for our system of government. The Bill of Rights was set up to guarantee that certain freedoms were never left up to a popular vote. Opinions can change, passions can run amok, and people suffer as a result. The right to free speech, free press, free assembly, freedom of and from religion (no establishment of religion means you don't have to believe anything) are protections aimed at unpopular opinions. Popular opinions don't need protection, the masses will ensure that.

Thus the protests in Wisconsin are like the protests in Cairo,Tunis, Yemen, Libya, etc...they are the voice of the people arguing against establishment actions. In the other countries the protests are because a democracy does not exist. In Wisconsin they are an expression of democracy in the context of a wider democracy. Please review carefully the last clause of the First Amendment ..."Congress shall make no law ..prohibiting...the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievances"...they have a grievance with the legislature and governor and they are petitioning for redress (relief/correction).

I know that many will have problems with the views of the protesters. That is fine, we all have the freedom to disagree and to do so publicly. But to say that protest is undemocratic is to demonstrate a clear ignorance of democracy itself. I have severe differences with the Tea Party on issues, but I fully support their right to speak those opinions, individually, and in groups- protests of their own (most widely seen during the healthcare debate townhall meetings).

And finally, why is taking advantage of a rule designed to protect minority rights a bad thing? The GOP certainly had no problem with the filibuster rule in the Senate for the past two years in their quest to defend their minority position. Why should the Wisconsin Democrats be any less valid in their use of the quorum rules to defend their position on collective bargaining for state employees? Democracy can be messy, but it is our way, and has been working well for over 200 years. I certainly would not trade it , not matter how "efficient" some other system might be.

missing the point

2011-01-28T19:30:00.000-08:00

This week we had an illustration of missing the point, thanks to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. President Obama said in his State of the Union address that this was our Sputnik moment, a time to invest in innovation, research, and education for the future of our country. In commenting on that, however, Palin stated that it was odd (a WTF moment she said), that he was calling on Americans to celebrate that moment, saying that even though the USSR won the space race that they incurred so much debt that it led to their collapse.

There are a few things wrong with those statements. For one thing, the Soviets did not "win" the space race. that's like saying a horse in the Kentucky Derby ahead at the quarter mile mark has "won" the race (at that point there's a mile more to run). The goal of the space race was the moon, and the US won that race by landing men on the moon in 1969. Second, the Soviet Union did not fall because of space exploration costs, but because their economy went south, mainly due to excessive military spending, and the collapse happened 1991, 22 years after the US "won" the space race.

But more importantly, she missed the whole point of the remarks. he was not calling for Americans to "celebrate" Sputnik, but to remember the success we had in that response and to emulate the efforts in our current situation. Learning from history is vital, and to do that you must get your facts straight. Unfortunately many , like Ms Palin, are apparently unable (or unwilling) to do that.

Now, before you get cocky and smug thinking "I knew that", I have a couple other examples of missing the point, that may apply to all of us at times. Things where we argue over details, facts , figures, but ignore the core.

First, in response to the Tucson shootings many have debated the relationship of heated (and often violent-image) rhetoric to the actual physical violence. There have been passionate arguments on both sides. Personally I happen to agree that political rabid speech did have an influence on the shooter (since he ranted anti-government statements and then attempted a political assassination). But shouldn't harsh words and violent-image rhetoric, as well as rudeness and name-calling be seen as wrong for the sake of common decency and good manners, regardless of what they might spawn? Whatever became of treating others the way we would like to be treated (the golden rule)?

Second, in the whole global climate change debate I think we have gotten a bit lost and entangled in numbers, projections, predictions, and fears. Passion leads to defensiveness all around. But I believe we have again forgotten simple manners : as our mothers would say "pick up after yourself, take out the garbage, clean up your own room, don't trash the house". If we keep putting more and more "garbage" in the air, water, and land, it's not healthy, period. If you have ever been near a car warming up on a cold winter's day and seen or smelled the exhaust you know that it is not healthy and anything we can do to reduce that "additive" to our air would be helpful. It isn't hard to find simple things you can do to help keep our global "home" cleaner, we only have to open our eyes, hands, and hearts.

It's like an archer who aims at nothing, forgetting about the target. To shoot off a lot of arrows may look impressive but it puts everybody at risk and leaves the target untouched. It's also much more fun to aim at the target, let fly the arrow, and hear the satisfying "thunp" as the shaft hits home:)

wise debate

2011-01-22T08:55:00.000-08:00

Are there people who talk politics who drive you crazy? People who sound like they live in a totally different universe? These days there seem to be more and more of them and it makes political dialogue difficult. As someone once said you have the right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. If we can't agree on some basic realities there is no communication. Like trying to discuss math with someone who insists that 2+2=5.

But if we are to have sane political debate with those of differing views, how do we proceed wisely? First, have a firm grasp on yourself- what and why you believe and that you have a right to your opinion. Second, accept that others have that same right. Third, remember that you don't know it all and you can learn from others (no god complex or bullying). Fourth, be aware that sometimes you will have to "agree to disagree" agreeably, or avoid certain topics when you come to a standstill. You can still be friends and know that you will avoid areas where you can't agree.

And, lastly, be alert for signs of a closed mind. Some are convinced that they are always right. Some don't want to take the time to think or research, they tend to think in terms of talking points. Some want power and like to make points , regardless of what is true. And some are just not thinking clearly and no amount of debate will help.

Excessive or automatic name calling is a red flag for me. Everybody at one time or another will get frustrated and call someone a jerk, moron,etc...but when it becomes a frequent part of conversation it is evidence of a dismissive attitude toward those of differing opinions and is destructive of debate. Know and recognize the difference between someone who is ignorant - does not know - and someone who is ignoring - does not want to know.

But remember that as you have learned over the years from others, and have times of changing your mind, realize that can happen for others and you could be the agent of change for them. Everybody is prone to thinking in simplistic terms sometimes, or reacting in knee-jerk fashion. But hopefully we will take a second look or be open to correction.

For example, I once had a discussion with a friend about criminal trials. He was more on the conservative side and couldn't understand why the prosecution couldn't mention a defendant's prior record in the trial. I pointed out to him that this would prejudice the jury and sway them to conviction and not judge him according to the merits of the specific case. I said that if the defendant was convicted in this trial then in the sentencing phase the prosecution was free to bring up the prior record to effect the sentencing, but not before the verdict was delivered. He listened and said it made sense "I hadn't thought of that before" he said. I was glad.

There are those out there who don't listen, won't listen, and you waste your breath trying to talk to. You even waste your energy reacting to them even if they aren't near (TV, radio, online). There is a time to react, speak out, when to keep silent would be to seem to give assent to their views. But there is also a time to employ what I call the "Valley Girl response " ...to say "whatever" to their comments, dismiss them as the irrational comments of those who do not want to discus or debate , just rile up and create controversy.Don't let yourself be drawn in or you will waste valuable time and energy...life is too short for that.

In the words of "The Gambler" - "you got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold "em, know when to walk away, and know when to run".

Libel

2011-01-18T07:34:00.000-08:00

Well, seems like someone did not read my blog...Rush...calling civility the new censorship...and Pat Buchanan seeing "lynch mobs" in the criticism of uncivil discourse:(

And then there is Sarah Palin...clueless in a softball interview with Sean Hannity on Monday on Fox. She not only did not apologize or take back her comments about "blood libel", she defended them and made more mistakes. She said that the term meant a false accusation and was valid to use, even though the historical context was much greater. Two things are wrong with that: one is one of magnitude. Even if there was valid libel (which there is not) it is like calling a common handgun as a "weapon of mass destruction". Both can kill, but the capacity to do harm is vastly different...and it cheapens and waters down the term "mass destruction" to use it about a simple handgun. Likewise for her link to historical atrocities through the use of blood libel.

But beyond that she does not even seem to know the meaning of the word "libel". It is not, as she stated, merely a term for accusation. In legal terms there are three requirements to constitute and prove libel: falsehood, knowledge, and intent. First it must be a matter of fact, not opinion.To give one's opinion, however faulty it might be, is not libel. I think this is the biggest flaw in her argument. Second , even if it is facts that are gotten wrong it must be proven that the one saying (slander) or writing them (libel) knew that they were false. If you simply get a fact wrong, due to bad information that is not libel. And thirdly, there must be proven intent to defame or damage another's reputation or position in order to prove libel.

All these things are hard to prove and it is this way for the protection of free speech and for the free flow of ideas, opinions and, yes, criticisms when wrong is seen. It is more difficult to prove libel or slander when the case involves a public figure ..political or otherwise. Private individuals deserve more protection. Public figures have put their lives out there for all the world to see and so invite more criticism. The Palin's and Rush's and Hannity's of the world are such public figures and should not expect to be shielded from criticism.

And if Sarah Palin plans on running for higher office she had better not only develop a thicker skin, she must bone up on her basic vocabulary...or at least carefully read any speech she has written for her beofre she delivers it.

Pogrom, really?

2011-01-15T07:34:00.000-08:00

"Blood libel" and "pogrom"...how did those words creep into our national narrative? In reaction to reactions over the Tucson shootings one was used by a political commentator (who shall not be named here) and the other was used by a newspaper (again not named, though shameless). Both were over-reactions and both are connected by a theme ....victim-hood.

Both of these terms are part of the Jewish experience of the past centuries. Blood libel deals with accusations against Jews of murdering Christian children and using their blood in rituals. It was not only grossly false, but inflammatory...fueling anti-Semitic hatred and violence. Yet this week it was used to demonize statements made questioning the use of certain imagery in political ads. Libel is inaccurate since this was not a question of facts. Adding "blood" to the charge only makes it worse, and is claiming another's pain as your own.

Then later this week the term pogrom was used to describe the same criticisms.The paper airing this view said that criticisms of political speech by one side was part of an ongoing "pogrom" against the other side. Specifically that liberals were organizing a pogrom against conservatives. And this by the very folks who say that their speech had nothing to do with an act of violence against a political figure. A persecution complex is not valid political debate material.

Pogroms were government- approved or -condoned campaigns of violence against ethnic minorities ,usually Jewish,that were aimed at driving out or eliminating those populations that were deemed "undesirable". Usually the term referred to actions in the Russian Empire (where the term originated), but it was not limited to there. There were other instances of it and the worst was of course the Holocaust. Some times it was through incited riots, sometimes through prejudicial propaganda, and sometimes through direct government action. It is a terrible stain in world history. Many nations had anti-Semitic policies and attitudes (even the USA sadly), but the pogroms went far beyond this.To use this term about political criticism is inexcusable, in my opinion.

It also brings up the question..."was this just coincidence, poor choice of words, or a concerted effort to demonize legitimate criticism? "I don't know, but it does kind of validate some of the prior criticisms. If a person is criticized for being inflammatory and reacts by using more inflammatory words it seems to prove the point of the criticism, doesn't it? And if the words were simply chosen wrongly, innocently, doesn't it say something about the wisdom and discretion of the speaker/writer? If you don't know what a word or phrase means, please don't use it until you do some research.

And only time will reveal what the intentions of the speaker/writers are. Using this language implies the speaker/writer is feeling a victim and borrowing from others' more extreme pain. It also can be viewed as painting their critics with the colors of extremely vicious and hateful creatures of history.

This bears watching...and we would do well to watch our words....for we are all human and thus all fallible and capable of doing great harm with our words...May our words today echo the urgings of the President at the Tucson memorial, and be words of healing.

self-restraint

2011-01-09T07:33:00.000-08:00

When a horrific event like yesterday's shootings in Tucson happen many knee-jerk reactions occur. Accusations fly and often there are as many verbal targets as there were physical ones. Some people will angrily call for fixes, based on their particular point of view. And then people on the "other side" will respond just as angrily. This is understandable, since people are scared and hurt and helpless. No one, in their right mind, likes to see anyone senselessly hurt, and it scares us to see this happen so easily.

I personally believe there are just too many firearms in our society which raises the odds of these tragic events, just like too much brush around houses during fire season raises the odds of people losing their homes. And I think we are often desensitized to violence because of its presence in much of what we see and hear. We see it in games, stories, even cartoons, and forget that in the real world it has severe consequences.

But beyond that there is another issue. All the calls for personal responsibility, from many corners, stop short of asking us to watch our words. The usual response to calls to "ratchet it down" is...as it was yesterday..."that's censorship". One group in the area that has been notably harsh in its rhetoric during the past political campaign stated that it was not going to change the way it spoke, citing free speech rights. I am reminded of the Malcolm quote from Jurrassic Park"your scientists were so preoccupied with what they could do, that they didn't think about whether they should". Just because we can, and thanks to the internet can do it anonymously, doesn't mean we should.

We are blessed with the freedom in this country to say what we think , but with that comes the responsibility to speak wisely. The shooter wasn't some battered veteran of life's bruises and bad breaks who finally snapped and lashed out with a gun. No, he was a kid. barely out of college, not in his right mind, who had obviously been exposed to a lot of vitriolic, hateful words, by those who dump their verbal garbage online with no hint of caring what damage it might do in the wrong hands.

This is not a partisan thing. I don't really care from whence it comes. Hate and hurt know no ideology,no party, no race. And, it is as true today as when I first heard it: "Hurt people'" hurt people. It doesn't matter who "started' it, we have a responsibility to all do our part to try and end it. Think before you speak..and think of who might be listening, and how they might take your words.

This isn't just about violence. Not all wounds are visible. Words themselves can cut and kill. And just because someone doesn't have the means to lash out doesn't mean they are any less injured. Most just hide in the shadows.

As people of faith we are called to build up, to encourage, to strengthen our fellow man. But I think in our quest to be "right" we have forgotten that. We are called to be our "brother's (and sister's) keeper", to make sure our speech is "full of grace", and to "love (our) neighbor as (ourselves)". We each need to ask ourselves again " how do I use my words?" , for none can be truly taken back once they are said (or written).

our pugilistic mindset

2010-12-03T15:29:00.000-08:00

It is December and time for the seemingly annual display of our pugilistic mindset...meaning that the cries of "war on Christmas!" echo through the studios of a certain segment of our news media (you know who they are) and spill out on the airwaves. The latest story going around is that kids in a certain Florida school have been banned from wearing green and red, because they are Christmas colors. Of course the school's denial has met with silence from the critics...who wouldn't know the truth if it bit them,IMHO.

It is easy to dismiss this annual bitching and complaining as the actions of a deluded, angry few, intended to get attention, raise support,etc. But I think something else is at work here and it involves us all. I believe that all too often any of us can fall into the trap of being pugilistic..that is ...looking for a fight, just for the fight's sake. There are many things we encounter on a daily basis that can make us angry. Bad drivers, rude callers, slow sales clerks - weather that is too cold,hot.wet,etc - all these and much more try our patience. If our day starts bad we can develop an attitude of "don't mess with me, I'm having a bad day!" And if we don't relax we may unload on the next unsuspecting person. It can happen to any of us, so beware the pugilistic mindset.

Even when we see legitimate targets or come across instances of wrongdoing that need to be corrected, are we looking for solutions ,or for an enemy to fight? We talk about elections in terms of war, of our fellow American opponents as "enemies", and wax on about the downfall of the country if the other side wins. And our differences get magnified into huge moral crises.

It doesn't seem to matter whether it is sports, politics, religion,or any other area. We all face the temptation to go looking for a fight. Fighting for what is right, to defend those at risk, is important. But why manufacture a fight?

I am reminded of a confrontation I had with a couple classmates in elementary school while walking home. They ambushed me at the junction in a path and I could tell that one of them wanted a fight (the other was just watching...lame groupie :<) . I hadn't had a run-in with the kid, though I had known him to get in trouble in class. I hadn't done anything I knew of to make him angry..he just was looking for a fight to "look tough" (hence the groupie). My response? I simply walked by him and away down the path..ignoring his pathetic shove. I never had a problem with him again.

Perhaps in this season. between Thanksgiving and Christmas we should ignore those who are itching for a fight, restrain our own pugilistic impulses, and focus on spreading a contagion of peace. There will be times when we need to fight, and important things to fight for, but I think right now there is much more need for peace and healing in this world...don't you?

wag more, bark less, part three - progressives

2010-10-18T17:01:00.000-07:00

Okay, now for the other side. I see my views as having morphed over the last decade or so. I was never a hard-right conservative, just grew up with Republican voting parents. Politics was very attractive to me, thus I was a history/political science major in college, but people always took precedence over political debate and policy matters. I was raised to treat people right, no matter who they were , what they looked like, or where they were from. That was a matter determined by family and faith.

I remained fairly conservative throughout college and beyond, but bit by bit I began to change. I began to challenge the status quo assumptions that I had about government and how it relates to various groups in society. My circle of friends and associates grew more diverse - I was exposed to people from a greater variety of backgrounds and experiences - and I began to rethink issues in light of that. I realized the importance of our social responsibility to care for , as the Bible states, "the least of these". It was taking the mantra that I had learned as a child in interpersonal relationships and extending it to society at large and advocating for its application to the context of "We the People", in other words, government, which is all of us collectively.

So, here are the progressive/liberal answers as I see them, to the questions I have listed.
1. Worldview. See the world in terms of haves vs have-nots, or better yet, the fortunate and the less (or un-)fortunate. There is a sliding scale of need, and each one higher in fortune has a duty to help those less fortunate no matter where they are on the scale. As the Bible states we are "blessed to be a blessing"

2. Theology - Seeing the God of grace and forgiveness. The message of the Cross is all about grace. Law is not unimportant, but we must always remember that we are all human and flawed and that should temper our justice. This is a view that says you do good things because you are forgiven, not to be forgiven. There are a limited amount of things God has specified - some to do , some to avoid, but the majority of life is to be lived by principles, freely. God wants us to live freely, use our minds and hearts, and not be beggars fearing a lash if we step out of line. If we live this way we will treat others better, even when someone has made terrible choices -because , as the old saying goes "there, but for the grace of God , go I" .

3.Role of government . We are the government, not separate from it. Government is us acting as a whole to bring solutions to society. As the Preamble to the Constitution states, we the people established the Constitution to among other things , promote the general welfare, the common good.

4. Interpreting the Constitution: It is a living document , set up to be adaptable to changing times. Why do you think they included an amendment process, if it was to be set in stone? One of the key passages is the "necessary and proper" clause at the end of the list of Congressional powers. It was meant to be flexible.

5. Things government should be involved in. That is for we the people to decide. The size of government is not the key issue, effectiveness is. There are things which are better handled at a state or local level, and things that are better addressed nationally, so that there is a universal standard. We saw that dangers of states going their own way during the Civil Rights battles - individual liberties were protected only when we acted nationally.

6. The Branches of government: The courts should stick up the individual, to protect all rights (not just guns), and not just defer to established authority. The courts should act as a restraint against legislative or executive branch over-reach. Justice is about clearing the innocent, just as much as punishing the guilty. And criminal justice is about restraint , restitution, and rehabilitation, not just punishment. We have a system of checks and balances between our three branches of government and the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) is not inferior -even though it is insulated (for good reason) from the popular will. Justice and civil liberties should never be up for a vote.

7 and 8 The relationship between the government and the people is a social compact. We agree together to work for the betterment of all. As Lincoln put it we have a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"

As you can see there are real differences here. Maybe if we know more where we are coming from we can begin to see areas where we agree or we can compromise. We are one people, not split into opposing camps. Leave that to the shouters. Let us really debate and grow.

wag more, bark less, part two...the cons

2010-10-16T14:22:00.000-07:00

In part one I talked about the divide I see politically on a national scale, and some questions that may shed light on why those differences exist. In this part two I will attempt to give what I think are the typical conservative answers to the questions.

1. World view - they view the world in terms of good people and bad people, with very little, if any, gray in between. They see that there are good people (themselves included), bad people, and then anyone that has not been firmly established in either camp. Those in-between are seen as suspect and presumed to be bad unless verified as good. They believe that people have to prove their innocence and they see life as a constant battle between good and evil, no rest for anyone.

2. Theologically they tend to be legalistic....believing that God is as strict as they are...ready to bang heads of those who step out of line...scripture is just a list of dos and don'ts and anything not clearly marked as either is off limits or must be individually checked out with God through prayer. This fear carries over into their political beliefs- hence the emphasis on law and order.

3. They view the government's role as protecting the good people from the bad people, and maintaining good social order, nothing more. They see it as the problem (to quote the conservative hero , Ronald Reagan), or the enemy , or as a necessary evil, separate from the people, not a part of it. In essence they see government as a hired gun, nothing more.

4. They are strict constructionists as far as constitutional interpretation. They share some version of the view of Supreme Court Justice Scalia, who has stated that the Constitution should be viewed through the original intent of the founders and that it is fixed in time. Their focus is on the enumerated powers and not allowing Congress to expand beyond what is expressly listed. They also put great weight on the 10th Amendment, that all powers not specifically designated to the federal government or prohibited to the states, are reserved for the states and to the people . They argue for a smaller and very much limited government.

5. Understandably they focus on:1.war and national security(protecting against those bad outside the country); 2. law enforcement (national, state, local) protecting against those bad within the country); and , 3. gun rights (making sure that when the other two entities break down that there is personal protection against the bad). Anything else is out of bounds. While they say they want government out of their lives they make exceptions and these are all in keeping with their worldview. Drug laws are okay, including policies against medical marijuana, because they see those who use drugs as bad. Laws that discriminated against gays, like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or DOMA (against gay marriage) are see as okay, because they view gays as bad people. Union restrictions are seen as okay because they basically want businesses left to do whatever they want because they see business as good and as the fountain of freedom and democracy.

6. They elevate the elected branches over anything or anyone appointed - courts are seen to function only as an arbiter for good people and a punisher of bad. Thus mandatory sentencing guidelines are popular, since they don't want judges to have leeway , that would let bad people get away. They see criminal justice as being "lock away the bad guys for as long as you can", "anyone accused of a crime is automatically guilty". They view the courts as inferior to the legislative and executive branches. They accuse justices of being activist if they attempt any sort of judicial review -elevating the "peoples' will" over the rights of minorities.

7. Their view the relationship between the people and the government as a contract. This is not just because of their general pro-business outlook (stating "government should be run like a business) . But also because they view government as a necessary evil , a hired gun brought in to confront and control the bad in society. And hired help need only a contract - one that can be abrogated at any time when the hirer decides the hired is not performing his or her duties correctly. Basically an an employer/employee or master/slave relationship. Hence the"Contract with America".

8. They use the term "we the people" to denote common folk, people like them, but then describe anybody different as "out of the mainstream"...in other words, abnormal. So it would seem to me that when they talk about we the people, they only mean the "good", not everybody.

I know this is in some respects a broad generalization. I have seen trends and common themes come up in conservative talk throughout my life, from Nixon/Agnew, through Reagan, and again under Bush I and II. Recently there has been a lot more fear talk, which I think re-enforces the good/bad conflict that they see in society - including references to the "culture wars" (a term I particularly hate). This is why I believe these are their answers to the questions I have raised. And it explains some of what may at first appear to be inconsistency in their statements -like in terms of personal freedom (it is freedom for the good only, it would seem)

Does this describe you? It's not me...more on that in part 3.

wag more ,bark less..part one

2010-10-15T15:41:00.000-07:00

We are a very polarized nation right now. Not just because there are differences between us but because many of those differences have been reduced to slogans, signs, and shouting. There is a wide chasm between those on the right and those on the left, with many feeling they have been dropped into the abyss between. And while some would attempt to build a bridge others (on each side) are trying to burn it down. Did we forget we are all Americans, members of one nation?

Part of the reason is that we see political differences as having moral components - a right and wrong answer, and no room for compromise or accommodation. We have let our emotions run wild and put our minds on hold. Not that passion is not important. But without a rational/reasonable mind to establish boundaries our political discourse runs amok.

It is time for all of us to go back to basics and figure out what we believe politically, why we believe it, and realize that in our pluralistic democracy it is okay if we disagree, as long as we do it peacefully. I will attempt, in this three part blog series, to outline what I see as the two major current lines of thought on politics, and the reasons why. This is not to say that these are the only ways, since I believe that there is a continuum of thought that stretches from one side to the other. But it is meant as a starting point for discussion. I will also let you know where I stand and why.

I believe that most people see government in one of two ways,conservative or liberal/progressive, generally. I believe this is based at least in part on their worldview - how they categorize people. This is formed partly from personal and family experience and partly from their spiritual views, whether individualistic or organized-religion based. Their worldview influences how they view the role of govt,interpretation of the Constitution,the functions and limits of govt,and their involvement in it.

I believe there are several questions that we need to ask ourselves to examine the foundations of our own political philosophy. Ask yourselves these questions and then in the next two parts I will discuss how and why I see the two sides answering these.
1. Worldview...how do you view the world,specifically how do you divide up or categorize the people in it? Is it good vs bad? Have's vs have-not's? Fortunate vs unfortunate? Or something else?
2. What is your concept of God/higher power? For those who believe in God,we see an ultimate authority and the way we view God influences how we view our relationship to any other authority. Legalism or grace, justice or forgiveness, what is the attribute that predominates in your mind?
3. Role of government -what is it , a separate entity, or part of or an extension of us(we the people)?
4. How do you interpret the constitution..is it fixed in time, or a living document that flexes to handle the changing times?
5. what areas do you see the government having a proper role in , what not, and why?
6. what role do you see for the different branches of government , especially the courts?
7. what is the relationship between the government and the people...is it a contract or a compact?
8. and, finally, just what do you think is meant by "we the people"?

Most of what we see in political debate today would have us believe that there is a fixed wall between left and right and no way to bridge it. I believe, however, that most people are somewhere in the middle and don't know what they believe or why. There is much passion without thought, which some use to their own ends. There is hope for dialogue and solutions if we first understand where we are coming from and try to work things out instead of always fighting inflexibly.

To quote a recent bumper sticker "Wag more, bark less"....it's not just for dogs:)

Prejudice

2010-09-28T17:03:00.000-07:00

We live in a dangerous world, as many campaigning today would tell us. Many appeal to our fears to fuel their own drive to power. But often times they resort to feeding our biggest enemy. They label groups as "suspicious", accuse candidates of being up to no good...all but accusing them of being "the enemy". It is a tactic that can separate us more than all our other differences - cultural, economic, religious, language, or politics. It comes in many forms with many names, most provoking automatic defensiveness. But to understand and defeat it we need to see it in it's most basic form.It is called prejudice.

Prejudice, to break it down linguistically, is just pre-judging. It is like a judge ruling a defendant in a trial guilty, before hearing any of the evidence. It is judging an individual based on what we know or think about the group he or she is a part of, rather than on his or her actions. We tend to form opinions about groups -like for instance, blonds - based on a small sample of interactions with some individuals- and make a broad group generalization by which we then use to evaluate any other members of that group. And usually the generalizations we make are not positive.:(

Think of it this way. If you were bitten by a dog as a young child you might be fearful of all dogs. If you avoided dogs because of this, your attitude toward them would be governed by your early experience. All dogs would be judged based on that one encounter you had,even though they may be the most gentle of dogs. If, on the other hand, you were like me, and had multitudes of positive dog experiences while young, you would approach dogs quite differently. Childhood experiences can be very powerful but as adults we need to rise above those or we will remained trapped in our own little world...and be used by those who prey upon prejudice.

The driving force behind prejudice is fear. Like the previous example we can develop fear from early experiences-or learn them from our family or friends. Our strongest, most basic need is self-preservation. Real or perceived threats to that will cause us to become defensive and look for shortcuts to build our defenses. Much like we label medicines and food for quick and safe action, we label people to enable our bodies and minds to react on short notice. But these are dangerous shortcuts. It puts us in a constant state of "fight or flight" and stunts our living. And it hurts others, as well.

We have seen throughout our history that in times of distress we lean towards prejudice. In times of economic downturn we discriminated against many categories of immigrants (Italians, Irish, Jews,Asians,etc). After Pearl Harbor we let fear drive us to lock up thousands of American citizens in internment camps, simply because they were of Japanese ancestry. And after 9-11 we looked with suspicion on anyone who was either Arabic, or Muslim, or whom we thought were. Lately there are those in our country who use the label "Muslim" as a smear and dagger with which to attack their opponents. And we invaded a country (Iraq) which had not attacked us,based on the fear that if we didn't there might be a "mushroom cloud".

How do we battle this? There are three things we need: knowledge, choice, and humility.Knowledge is needed to dispel the fog of the unknown. We have a fear of the unknown often because we think "what we don't know can hurt us"...we do not share the explorers' expectation of wonderful discovery, but rather fear the bad we imagine awaiting us. Get to know those who are different from you - economically, racially, culturally,even politically. Expand your "sample" of experiences so that you will see a truer picture of the "group". Don't judge all dogs by ill-tempered guard dogs, there are many scruffy unconditional lovers out there in dog form.

Choice... you must choose to avoid generalization and welcome the exploration of the unknown. It takes work, but you will be rewarded. Don't be like the American tourist who goes to Paris and dines on hamburgers. Life is too short to be stunted.

And last, humility...you must accept that you are not perfect. We all fall into the trap of generalizations and prejudice from time to time. You must resist it by being willing to examine yourself and work to correct the flaws you find. And you must be willing to extend the grace you give yourself to others...the freedom to be who they are, not some caricature of your fears. As you want to be treated you must treat others. Would you like to be judged based on the bad behavior of someone who looks or dresses or worships as you do? No? Then don't do it to others. It's as simple as that

Remember

2010-09-12T10:21:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was a day to remember. Sept 11th will always be day to remember. But what exactly are we remembering and what do we often forget to remember? And what do we do with what we remember? If we only remember the historical event-pictures,video,names and faces and actions/reactions -we are simply historians. If we remember only the pain and anger, the shock and sorrow, we are simply grieving. If we act in revenge and hatred, reacting against real and perceived enemies, we are in danger of simply continuing a cycle of violence that only breeds more violence, death and destruction.

We must remember more. Calling for justice is important, but calling for and contributing to healing is even better. And it extends around the world. We tend to think that war is the only real way to deal with problems we see in the world. We react to conflict instead of being proactive to diffuse situations that can lead to conflict. We pick sides instead of separating the sides and insisting that both sides sit down and talk. We look down on diplomacy as less manly,as giving in. I think sometimes we just like fighting too much.

Look at our dealings with Latin America. How many times over the past century-plus have we intervened in one country or other, always blaming outside forces - like the Soviets mostly - for the trouble? And we ignore the base issues - land distribution and discrimination both racially and economically - that are often fueling the conflict. We have supported many terrible leaders simply because they were "anti-communist" and enraged those they were oppressing.

Our actions in the Middle East have not been much better, fueled by a "stop the Soviets at any cost" mentality...and the effects have lingered far beyond the fall of the USSR. We have chosen sides instead of choosing the pursuit of peace and it has cost us nearly.

But the most important thing to remember is: Remember who we are. Remember what our values are, what makes us different from the extremists who value violence above all. Remember that we have a call to "seek peace and pursue it", a mandate to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and a simple mantra "what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly before thy God". Those are the high points of faith, not judgment and revenge.

As Americans we say we value freedom to speak, to worship, yet in these days many are denouncing and demonizing those who choose to worship differently. We take the crimes of a small deranged minority of one religion and use that to proclaim the whole religion and its followers guilty. And we proclaim that they must "prove" their innocence. This is unAmerican and hateful. This is contrary to all that we profess to believe.

Remember, yes I remember where I was and what I was doing when the towers got hit and when they fell, and I will never forget that. But more importantly I remember who I am , both as an American and as a believer in Christ, and I will never forget that either. This is a legacy of my parents that I strive to live out every day. This is who I am. Who are you? And what will you remember?

lighting your candle

2010-08-22T14:45:00.000-07:00

Have you every gotten weary of debate? I enjoy the give and take of debate and discussion , but when it devolves into argument it isn't fun anymore. And when you present evidence and reasoning and receive only hostile rejection and name-calling, etc. it gets a bit old, to put it mildly.It leads me to ranting and pounding my head (figuratively) at the stubborness and blindness of people. I have to stop and wonder, what do I do about that?

I want to suggest three things to do when faced with those situations. Humility and self-examinations, seeking serenity, and lighting candles. Humility means that you examine yourself....your motives and your information ("have I missed something or gotten something wrong?"). We are all human and we all make mistakes. We need to be open to considering the feelings of others and give them the benefit of the doubt...not just friends, but opponents as well.
It is easy to get carried away and see things as black and white, instead of gray.

When you have carefully examined your motives and information, and fixed any flaws therein, then you can move to the next phase, which is serenity. You probably remember the serenity prayer "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference". In this case substitute the words people or minds for things.

There are people who are of the mindset "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up". Don't waste your time with them. There may be times to speak out and oppose them , but dialogue is impossible. The Bible calls those people fools and there is no point of talking to them.
Take courage and press on with those who show some sign of listening to opposing viewpoints.You may be able to persuade them with new information or arguments they have not thought of. It may take a bit of work, but don't despair. And make sure you know the difference...it will save you a lot of grief and frustration.

Lastly, there is an old phrase, not sure of the source, that is very true in today's trying times. "It is better to light a candle than merely curse the darkness." Sometimes it is easy to curse the darkness, considering all the ignorance, misinformation, and outright libel and slander that is spread through our communication venues today. Frustration leads to anger, but we need to be clearheaded and fight fire with water, not more fire. Take a deep breath and focus on doing good for those around you, lighting candles every day. Love is the antidote to hate, peace is the antidote to war, especially for those who are violently opposed to you. Faith is the antidote to doubt and suspicion. And lighting candles will light your own way to peace.

shalom and salaam, my friends.

fighting fear

2010-08-06T07:00:00.001-07:00

Fear is a natural part of life and happens to all of us. It is part of our "fight or flight" response to percieved danger. But it needs to be handled carefully. If done well it is like a fireplace blaze or campfire that serves us well. Fire keeps us warm, safe and fed - using fear warns us of dangers to avoid - like walking too close to the edge of a cliff. But out of control it is like a forest fire or house fire that is very dangerous and destructive. There is a lot of that destructive fire going on these days and we have to know how to combat it, both in ourselves and in others.

We live in a dangerous, yet fascinating world. We all respond to change differently. Some of us welcome it, some are fearful of it. With change all around we need to be sensitive to the fear that often rises in ourselves and to the fear of others. Most of this is in response to unknowns - who are these people, what will happen next, what do I do next in response to this new thing?

We need first of all to think rationally about our own fear. We need to be aware of what we are afraid of and why. And we need to reason out the best response. We can be affected by others fears so we need to filter the information we receive to strain out any false or misleading - or just unsubstantiated -stuff that may be feeding our fear. Ask yourself - can I do anything about this situation? If so, then do it. If not ,realize that and endeavor to focus on things you can work on.

When we have our own fear fire under control only then can we focus on helping others who fear. There are three basic ways in which people respond to the fears of others. In order to make it clearer, let me continue the fire analogy. The first way is to say "don't be afraid", 'there's nothing to be afraid of", etc. We toss platitudes their way and think that to "just say no" to fear is enough. This is like the well meaning person who throws water on a grease fire. It only spreads the fire. Water is great on a normal fire, but not grease (or oil). In the same way, dismissing someone's fear without knowing the cause will not help.

The second way people handle people's fears today is to stoke them, feed them, pouring gas on the fire. These are the fear pushers. You see and hear them on cable and talk radio. If I mentioned names or showed pictures you would recognize them. They don't care what people are afraid of , they just want to spread the fear, spread the fire. They don't want people to think. They present situations in the simplistic worst light, and if there isn't something currently disturbing they will go looking for it. As one political candidate said about another - "all he knows is a noun,a verb, and 9-11). They need a bogeyman to scare people and for those fear pushers 9-11 was a gold mine.

I advise a third option. Listen and learn and then fight the fear fire intelligently. Take time to understand why the person is afraid. Ask them "what are you afraid of?", and "why are you afraid?"...and then listen to their responses. As people of faith we see the example of God in scripture asking people why they were afraid - not because he didn't know, but because they needed to articulate the reasons so they could deal with the fear and press on. It's like fighting a fire....if you know it's a simple source -like wood, paper,etc -you can douse it with water and kill it. If you know it's gas, oil, or toxic or otherwise hazardous material you know that other things , like dirt, foam,etc., must be used to kill it so that it doesn't spread.

Too often we are fixers, and not listeners. Sometimes we are afraid of others' fears. Sometimes we get weary of all the "be afraid. be very afraid" chant that arises from some quarters of our society. Sometimes we grow weary of trying to help people see past the fear and embrace the new opportunities that are out there in our world. But we must persevere. Fear fire fighting is up to all of us.

political antibiotics

2010-07-31T16:33:00.000-07:00

I saw a sign recently that had echoed the recurring theme of "throw the bums out" ,referring to Congress (and perhaps local and state officeholders as well) . There is a sentiment in our country that if we just "clean house" that somehow things will get better and our problems will disappear.It is usually accompanied by cries of "career/professional politician" directed at incumbents at election time, used to attack them as unworthy of the office.

Somehow people think that experience in a job is a bad thing, if the office is elective. And that inexperience or amateur status is to be preferred. Now, there is something to be said for a fresh perspective unfettered by habit and routine. And long tenure in any position does not guarantee competence. But to blindly toss out all incumbents without careful examination is like emptying a fridge into the garbage to eliminate bad odors. You end up with a clean appliance but go hungry...you have to check each item and only toss out the bad stuff.

Or, to use an analogy that popped into my head recently. It's like antibiotics. For quite a while doctors regularly prescribed antibiotics for sick patients exhibiting symptoms of infection. They worked quickly and seemed to solve the problem for both patient and doctor. More recently this has changed and doctors are more reluctant to prescribe them, though many patients do not seem to understand and still request them.

There are three reasons. One is that some bugs have begun to develop resistance to the usual drugs, including antibiotics. Another is that only bacterial infection can be treated by antibiotic, and some bugs are viral. And the third factor is that our bodies contain both good and bad bacteria but the antibiotics don't distinguish between the two. It kills both, and in the process weakens the immune system, making it vulnerable to other illnesses.

I believe this is true with Congress and other representative assemblies. There are, to be sure, bad apples that need to be removed. But we must distinguish between the good and the bad and not generalize to our own detriment. If we are not careful we may get worse "bugs",get no fix of problems because we trade (elect) one bad bug for another, or we weaken the whole system of government because we have elected a whole bunch of well-meaning but untested rookies who don't know how to use the system to best benefit us, while tossing out proven problem solvers due to guilt-by-association.

Please, think before you vote.

SCOTUS

2010-07-04T07:54:00.000-07:00

SCOTUS is the acronym for Supreme Court of the United States, also known simply as "the Court". Periodically there are vacancies in its membership and the President is called on to nominate, and the Senate to consent to, a new justice. We are that point in our history again and I thought it was a good time to briefly comment on my views on the Court and why careful consideration is important to American freedom.

Many will rail against "judicial activism" and urge support for a "strict constructionist"...also railing against "unelected" deciders of law and those who argue for the view of the Constitution as a "living document". To them I say, activism is vital to our national health and ,yes, the Constitution is a living document that we need to continually re-evaluated through the years. The Founders were not psychics - they could not spell everything out because they did not know what would come up. So they built in flexibility in the document so that it ,and we, could adapt to changing times.

The three branches of government- legislative, executive, and judicial -have separate and distinct functions and areas of power, and also have ways to check the power of each other. This is to prevent over-reach by any and to keep government balanced. As far as the judiciary is concerned their area of power is the interpretation of the law. They are charged with the duty to uphold the Constitution by making sure that all the actions of the other two branches (plus the local and state versions of those branches) are in agreement with the rules of the Constitution , because it is the supreme law of the land.

In order to do this the Court may strike down laws or other governmental action as unconstitutional. It does so in response to cases appealed to it from lower courts. These are brought by ordinary citizens who have not found relief from any other source. We work under the mantra of "majority rules, minority rights". The will of the majority acts through the legislative branch and that is vital to a stable country. But when the rights of a minority are being trampled on it can easily become a "tyranny of the majority" - think of slavery and racial segregation/discrimination that went on for decades even after slavery was outlawed. This is where the Court steps in.

Long standing tradition is important and legal precedence is as well. These are vital to preserve, for the sake of a stable society, and thus conservatism has its place. But liberalism does as well, coming from the same root as liberty, and seeing that only in growing are we truly free. It is akin to matters of faith where some are mired in legalism...those who won't do anything unless they firmly believe God has spelled it out as okay. Versus those who believe that God has set us free to live , giving only simple guidelines, and that if it is not specifically denied as bad we can try it. Sticking to traditions in law makes as much sense as in matters of faith. The faith version of this is the proverbial 7 last words of the church "we've never done it that way before".

I believe that the Court stands as the defender of the powerless against the powerful. But you say, don't citizens have recourse through Congress? Yes, the ballot box and Congressional phones lines/emails are open for all and we can make our views known. But when the majority opinion is destructive of the rights of an individual where are they to go but to the Court?

Just after Pearl Harbor there were thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry who were interned in relocation camps because they were deemed, solely on the basis of their race/national origin to be suspect in their loyalty to the US. Not for anything they had done but of who they were. They had no recourse in Congress, popular opinion of the majority was against them, so the only way to seek relief against unfair treatment was to go to the Court.

Unfortunately, this is one of the times when the Court failed. In Korematsu v US (1944) the Court decided that the exclusionary zones on the West Coast, excluding those of Japanese ancestry, were constitutional. The Chief Justice even said that the defendant was not excluded because of his race! It took us almost 40 years to apologize and say that the decision was wrong. Similarly it took over 50 years to determine that "separate but equal" rationale for racial segregation in schools was wrong (Plessy v Ferguson 1896 to Brown v Board of Education 1954). And it took Constitutional amendments (13th,14 th) and the Civil War to fix the situation and finally outlaw slavery after the disastrous Dred Scott decision in 1857. So it is important for the Court to get it right.

Some in our country would like to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court, even some (Texas GOP platform) who would like to do that in cases involving the Bill of Rights! My friends, the Bill of Rights is toothless without the Court. The right of legal counsel when on trial (Gideon v Wainwright 1963) or advice of legal rights when arrested (Miranda v Arizona 1966) were both strengthened by the Court. When popular opinion in reaction to current events (think 9-11) looks for scapegoats among the powerless there is great need for an entity like the Court to stand up in defense.

Some have said that the Court must be impartial. One justice nominee, who is now the Chief Justice, said it was to be an umpire, calling balls and strikes . This envisions a level playing field between the parties to a case. This can hold when there are two individuals involved. But when the case involves the law-making or law-enforcement group (like Congress, President,etc) versus an ordinary citizen, there is no level playing field. So the Court must take steps to re-examine the law and the Constitution and find out if there is to be relief for that individual. Law-makers and Law-Enforcers need no defense - they have the power. It is the individual who needs protection for his/her liberties.

For those who would blanch at a "re-examination" of the Constitution let me give you a parallel situation. For those of you who are people of faith, relying on a scripture for divine guidance. Have you learned all you can from your first reading of it, or do you often have the experience that you see new things/new truths or understand more each time you re-read it? I know I do.
Is it because God changed? No, it is because we have grown and times have changed and we need a fresh understanding of divine will to apply to our new situations. It is much the same with the Constitution. It has not changed, but the times and we have , and there is always a need to further our application of its principles and laws to the times we live in.

The same judicial nominee/now justice said that benefit of the doubt should go to the lawmaker/law enforcer. No, that is not how our system of justice works and he should know better. The benefit of the doubt should always go to the one accused "innocent until/unless proven guilty". An activist Court is a hallmark and defense of individual liberty and we should demand and celebrate that -today of all days.

Happy Fourth of July everybody! :)

Gettysburg

2010-07-03T12:32:00.000-07:00

As we get set to celebrate Independence Day, another anniversary looms that should gives us pause for reflection. On this day,July 3rd, 147 years ago, the battle of Gettysburg ended. It was the bloodiest battle in the Civil War and one of the most deadly in all of American History (46,000 casualties, including almost 8,000 deaths). It was seen as a turning point in the war, the beginning of the end. And it was memorialized in Lincoln's Gettysburg address. The Union was saved , we began to be one people once again, but at a great cost.

Much has been written about the war, too often simplistic notions of what lead to it and what it was all about, but oftentimes it becomes an intellectual exercise , devoid of emotion or an understanding of the people involved. Michael Shaara wrote a book called The Killer Angels, about Gettysburg, later made into a miniseries. I watched it years ago and very much enjoyed it, now I want to read the book.

Especially after I just finished reading Gods and Generals, which was written by Jeff Shaara, Michael's son. This one is about the period leading up to Gettysburg, as seen through the eyes of four key generals: Robert E Lee, Thomas Johnathan (Stonewall) Jackson, for the Confederacy, and Winfield Scott Hancock , Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, for the Union. It shows where they came from (beginning in 1848 and the Mexican war) and what made them who they were, ultimately showing them in the early battles of the war.

The picture that emerges is of four deeply religious individuals (and their fellow soldiers) who all thought they were doing God's work, defending their homes, families, communities. Good people or faith can disagree and God is not bound to any of them. Pious words are easy, actions are not. They were often at the mercy of events that swept them along like a flood. And all saw situations where comrades were split by the war, friendships broken, in part due to the fact that we still did not see ourselves as one nation, but as a collection of states. None were really vocal or active in the debate over slavery, they simply were doing their duty as they saw it.

It also shows that just following orders can be disastrous. There were key parts in the battles when lower level commanders knew the top general was wrong, yet could not bring themselves to challenge the orders...too much military mindset training. And it brings home the reality of war, away from the cold strategy, to the human cost in blood, sweat and tears. Did you know that many of the soldiers (mainly the south) did not have shoes and marched barefoot?
One of the battles shown in the book is the town in which my wife went to college, Fredericksburg. I have been there with her and so I had some sense of what the terrain was like. I have also been to Gettysburg and seen the battlefield, though many,many years ago.

Two things that struck me as I read, apart from the observations above. One is that I shudder to think that people recently would even hint at the word secession (Texas Gov Rick Perry and others) and that states' rights would be the rallying cry for so many. How can we go back to the divisiveness of pre-Civil War days and have state governors think that they can just ignore federal law? That issue was settled, in much blood, and I believe it is only those with no true understanding of history that can spout careless words and concepts like these.

The other thing is that in all our conflicts we must channel our differences through peaceful means and ratchet down the rhetoric. It is healthy to have lengthy , and often contentious, debate over serious issues. But one thing must be certain. We debate as Americans, one nation united by history and purpose, and certain key principles. We must not seek to divide but to unite. As Lincoln had a forgiving attitude ("malice toward none ...charity towards all") towards the rebellious southern states, let us be gracious toward those we disagree with and focus on what we share in common, not those things that can so easily divide us.

As General Sherman once famously said "war is hell" and no one in their right minds (and hearts) would ever seek it willingly. These books (Gods and Generals, and Killer Angels) both show that and remind us that seeking peace is a much preferable goal.

misuse of patriotism

2010-05-30T10:13:00.000-07:00

This is Memorial Day weekend, a time where we remember and honor the sacrifices of those who served our nation in war and often gave their lives to defend our freedom or the freedom of our allies. It is a time of much flag-waving and feeling proud of our country standing for freedom in the midst of a world that is too often enslaved and enslaving. But not all demonstrations ring true.

Recently our President has been accused as dissing the veterans by not speaking at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day....he is speaking at the Abraham Lincoln Memorial Cemetery near Chicago, his long time home. Somehow the standard for patriotic display on this day has been determined to be speaking at Arlington and nowhere else will do, and no one but the President is good enough (though the Vice President is speaking there in his place).

As many have countered, many times in recent history American Presidents have decided to speak somewhere other than Arlington on Memorial Day. Reagan did that twice, Bush Sr did it all four years of his presidency, and even Bush Jr did it twice (2001 and 2002) . Coincidentally, the only President who spoke at Arlington on every Memorial Day during his presidency (8 times) was President Clinton, who nevertheless was consistently attacked as unfriendly to the military. Such is the hypocrisy of the "flag-wrappers"

But there is another problem with this attack, beyond the historical record. Why do we treat one cemetery as more special than the others? If we truly honor all the veterans ,why is the President speaking at one more important than any other? I do not mean to diminish Arlington. It is a beautiful place and a fitting resting place for veterans. Looking across the sea of gravestones is a solemn occasion (0ne that I have been fortunate to do a few times) and it gives one pause to ponder the reality of war and it's consequences. Visiting the gravesite of President Kennedy and re-reading the words of his inaugural address always brings tears to my eyes.

And it's personal. My uncle is buried at Arlington. He was serving in the military training pilots to fly during World War II when he died in a plane crash. He gave his life for his country, though he never saw combat. I have visited his grave, left roses there, and grieved for the uncle I never got to meet.

But I have also visited, and left roses , on another grave site on the other side of the country, for someone else who faithfully served his country. That was my paternal grandfather. He participated in the American Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War I. He did see combat and yet survived the war and later retired from the military in the late 1950's. He passed away in 1964 and was buried in Washington National Cemetery just south of Portland Oregon, later joined by my grandmother three years later.

Both of these served their country in the military faithfully and with honor. Both are worthy of remembrance, not just because they are my family, but because they were patriots who answered their nation's call to serve, despite the risk. Both have family who remember them. Why should we differentiate between them just because one was buried at Arlington and the other wasn't?

But that is what people are doing when they attack the President for not speaking at Arlington this weekend and having the "gall" to speak at some "lesser" resting place. Shame on them! This is fax patriotism, using it for political gain. Please remember all who died, no matter where they are buried, no matter the manner or time of their death. They deserve it!

checking your attitudes

2010-05-18T16:46:00.000-07:00

okay, time to finish up immigration-related posts for now. The other thing about the issue that sometimes torque me are the attitudes that people display. It is one thing to debate issues and have disagreements. I do not demand that everyone agree with me and I will not push someone to change their views - I try merely to inform them of problems I see with their reasoning and facts - (and following faith tenets) and argue passionately for my views. If we were all of one mind on everything it would one heck of a boring world.

But I have seen a lot of angry, attacking language in the debate that goes beyond disagreement and healthy debate. It reflects hate and prejudice by its very presence much like smoke indicates fire. It is fueled by the anonymity of comment sections after articles - and displayed more honestly on radio and TV by those who should know better. It is hard to miss and disappointing to see.

My appeal to you is to carefully think about what you are going to say or write before you utter it. Once it is out there you cannot retract it, only modify. Think about how you would feel if someone said the same thing about you. Words have consequences and a singer/songwriter(David Meece) made an updated version of a popular childhood ditty when he wrote and sang "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can break my heart"

And remember, under our system of government no one gets bonus points for how far back they can trace their ancestry,nor brownie points for what they have done with it. All are equal in the eyes of the law - and of God , who the founders stated our rights flowed from. Sometimes we too have problems with feeling entitled. America should not be a social club, for only the privileged to enjoy. It should be a refuge for the weary....re-read the words of the plaque on the State of Liberty.

The statue of Liberty is set as a welcome to the world. Come and experience the freedom and opportunity that America offers. If you have felt beaten up, world, come here and find relief. Let's not lose that , okay?

citizenship

2010-05-09T15:25:00.000-07:00

In the debate over immigration, just as in the debate over the "war on terror" we hear citizenship being touted as the deciding factor in how people are treated. Citizens get one level of treatment, non-citizens get treated at another, lower level. On the surface it appears logical...there is something special about citizenship. And that is correct. However, as with most generalizations and superficial statements, if you scratch below the surface you may be surprised at what you find.

Citizenship is conferred in this country in two ways. Many people immigrate to the US,spend time here learning the language,culture and law, and after a period of time are able to apply for naturalization. By way of a citizenship test, background checks, and swearing an oath, they can become naturalized citizens, which gives them all the privileges of citizenship. The only restriction is they cannot be President.

Most people become citizens the other way, by birth. They don't have to pass any test, swear any oath, learn anything (except for advancement in school and work).And they can even become President, if they so desire. They become citizens based on the fortunate situation of their parents (or at least their mother residing here when they were born. It makes no difference how long their ancestry goes back, just that they were born in the US. That is the way I became a citizen.

The privileges of citizenship that are outlined in the Constitution are sparse. Voting is one, regardless of race, sex, or age(18 or above). Another is serving in government. You have to be a citizen to become a Representative, Senator,or President. And that is about it. There are other references to citizen, but these are the big issues.

When you look at rights delineated in the Constitution you find the words "people" or "persons". When talking about freedom of speech,religion, press, trial by jury, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc, the prohibition against infringement by law enforcement is to individuals, not just citizens. The right of habeus corpus, contained in the body of the Constitution (before amendments) is for all, not just citizens. So there is no difference in the area of rights between citizens and non-citizens.

Why is this so? Partly it is because those rights are seen as part of the "certain unalienable rights" that Jefferson declares are "all men...are endowed by their Creator" with. Partly it is because of the moral foundation of those rights - they are right and fair and just, not privileges for the few or "acceptable". But aside from the moral and philosophical, there is a legal reason. The rights are listed as a limitation on power, to protect people, and it is operable for all who reside in this country,not just citizens. It is a limit we have set on our government. And it is a reminder that rights are a right of being human, and as Jefferson also declared governments are set up to secure (protect) those rights, not grant them.

immigration,part two - rule of law

2010-05-08T06:50:00.000-07:00

After glossing over indefinite detention, "enhanced interrogation" (torture), and warrantless wiretapping, can those on the conservative wing seriously ever even say the phrase "rule of law", much less argue for it? They have so pushed for a situational ethics thinking (ends justify the means) - which is another thing true believers would never endorse - that any support for strict adherence to legal guidelines comes across as highly hypocritical at best.

The rule of law is our guideline in this game called life. It is the set of boundaries that ensure (or encourage at least) civil conduct and make a peaceful life possible. Just as in any contest the rules are not there to bludgeon any competitor and cause them to constantly look over their shoulder for fear of stepping out of line. It is there to reinforce what they normally should have, a good sense of right and wrong - morals and manners - and to deal with serious violations of those so that all can benefit.

You have seen basketball games, for instance, where the referees are calling every petty infraction of the rule book, and fans are chanting "let them play". The referees are not the game, they are there to provide the framework and guidelines to help the players play a safe, orderly game. In the same way, in this game called life, laws are not life, they are the boundaries set to insure that all people get the chance to play freely. They must be administered wisely to ensure that people don't worry about either being taken advantage of by unruly players, nor about being hammered by the rule enforcers.

The problem is two-fold. One , we target selectively those who we think have stepped out of line, while expecting ourselves to "get a break" when we step over the line -as illustrated by the "war on terror" advocates and their cavalier attitude towards those accused or suspected of terrorism. And, two, we confuse the spirit and letter of the law. We forget what the purpose of the law is and harp on strict enforcement (for others, of course) of rules.

We are like the Pharisees as seen in the New Testament who targeted Jesus as a "bad person" because he healed on the Sabbath. They forgot that , as he said, "Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath". There was a rule about not working on the Sabbath Day, but it was meant to benefit, by providing a day of rest, not provide a target for the "morals police".

Another thing about strict adherence to letter, as opposed to spirit, of the law. Law is there to provide a safe and sane society. If we handle things well those truly committed to actions detrimental to the general public (like violent criminals who care nothing for life) are restrained while the rest of us live our lives in peace with little attention from law enforcement aside from the occasional corrective warnings (like being stopped and advised of a headlight being out, for instance). When the law becomes the focus instead of life ,and strict enforcement of every rule is made, then we enter a caged existence.

So it is with immigration. So many people come here, legally and illegally, to get a better life, more opportunity under a fair system. They want to work hard, for the most part. And, as has been the case over the course of our country's history, they will add to the richness of life in America, by challenging our status quo -culturally, culinarily, linguistically,etc. If we are wise we will welcome them in and learn. A society that is static is only dying, slowly. A truly healthy society has growing pains and we should not shy away from those.

So when you next hear someone say "but they broke the law" you might ask them if they have every driven over the speed limit. If they admit that they have, ask them "why aren't you in jail? You have broken the law as well" ....we often gloss over our own errors while highlighting others - but need to remember ...a humble mind is a healthy mind :)

immigration, part one

2010-04-27T16:23:00.000-07:00

The hot news topic recently has been immigration. It has been spurred by the enactment of a new stricter law in Arizona, a state that I spent considerable time in in the past, but which I am glad to be out of. There are many reasons, chiefly climate and politics, but I still have good memories and friends from that period in my life as well. My experiences in Arizona are complex, as is the issue of immigration. It brings up many issues of faith and politics interacting and I hope to cover a few over the next few posts in order to prod your thinking.

There is the issue of entitlement. We often think of entitlement as an attitude of "others", chiefly seen in the anti-equality arguments of social conservatives against (as they say) "special rights" for gays. But I think that those of us who can trace our ancestry in this country back to colonial times have a habit of thinking in terms of entitlement for ourselves - and that can be dangerous.

There is the issue of dealing with those less fortunate. Our hearts are drawn to give to help victims of natural disaster, poverty, disease, in foreign lands. But when they come here to live and work, our attitude changes. We tend to be very protective of "our space" ,."our resources",. and forget everything we learned in kindergarten (sharing).

There is the issue of law. We are adamant that others abide by the letter of the law, but how often have we slipped out of ticket due to an understanding officer? What if the law was applied to us with the tightness that we advocate for others?

And finally, the issue of passion. It is a good thing to be passionate and to have strong opinions - it shows we care. But all too often it can degenerate into fear, distrust, hatred, and prejudice , of many varieties (not just racial).

I think the most important thing is to think clearly and with empathy...or at least with sympathy. We may not always be able to identify with what others are experiencing or feeling, but we can try to "walk a mile" in others shoes and think how we would feel if what we advocate doing to them were done to us. It just might change our attitudes and our hearts.

More to come in future posts.

let me have coffee please

2010-04-15T16:42:00.000-07:00

Sometimes you just have to rant. I admit the TeaPartiers get me riled up. I was a history and political science major, so I think I am more versed on those subjects than the average jane and joe, but it still amazes me when I hear the stuff people say in these gatherings. But I know that throughout our history we have had much like this. Most people do not think past what they read in their (flawed) textbooks in school and don't remember much of that. They are seriously incurious and utterly unmotivated to investigate beyond the bare facts, even of our valued American heritage. And they tend to just echo the loudest voice that seems to mirror their politics.

We tend to resort to demagoguery, sloganeering, sound-bite patriotism, and platitudes. In the past it has gotten us into plenty of trouble - witness the "yellow journalism" of the Spanish- American War. While we may think that today's acrimony is some radical change from the peaceful past , I beg to differ. During the run-up to the Civil War we had one Senator beating another one senseless on the Senate floor in a debate over slavery. Today we have the Virginia governor issuing a Confederate Month celebration without even mentioning the "S" word. How forgetful are we?

I wouldn't be safe in Texas ("Remember the Alamo"? really?) and though I would like to tweak a few Tea Partiers they are too disturbing. I mean, has anyone asked them why they use a historical event that conflicts with their purported values to spark their movement? What do I mean? Well, ladies and gentlemen, the Boston Tea Party was nothing more or less than an act of political vandalism.

Destroying someone else's property (remember this was British,not colonial tea) to make a political point Kinda like the anarchists breaking store windows in Seattle during the WTO riots. Something that would seem an obvious violation of those pesky Ten Commandments that these Tea Partiers would love to see displayed everywhere. But yet we in America have through the years celebrated the event as a highlight of proud American history

I know, that will get me marked as a heretic in many circles - and that's not the end of things I could say about our skewed view of history. Let me be clear, I love my country and this is my home. I love the freedoms that we have and there is no where else like here. I am very grateful to God for allowing me to be born here. But love doesn't have to have blinders. If you love something or someone you want to make it or them better. Hiding from flaws is not love ,it is myopic (nearsightedness , for those of you without glasses :)

So my assignment to you is this. The next time you hear or read a platitude or slogan or appeal to "patriotism" don't just swallow it whole without analyzing it , to see if it makes sense. I know we are all busy, not in school anymore, and it is easy to just absorb the news. But if we are to avoid being led around like sheep by the latest loud voice we have to develop better brains and use ours heads to actually think, not just store trivia.

a world without....what?

2010-04-06T15:32:00.000-07:00

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to do without some significant tool or technology?
If you ever camp, like we do , you know how it is to do without some modern conveniences for a while. And even then it is only for a short while and then we go back to the regular techie world.
What kind of things would you be willing to give up, or think that the world would be better off without? What scourges would you like to rid the world of? Sometimes I think cars are more trouble than they're worth, especially when needing fixing, but I can't see myself giving mine up any time soon.

According to some recent comments from so-called "conservatives" they would hate to see a world without nuclear weapons (or at least the US without them). Imagine that? Their response to the recent talks between the US and Russia on reducing nuclear arsenals is to warn about the danger of going back to pre-nuclear days. Does anybody who lived through the Cold War really think that it was a fun time and we wouldn't have been better off without nukes? You really would miss the "duck and cover" drills in elementary school?

It is not that I am against national defense, not in the least. In the same way that we protect our families and homes individually, we must be ready,willing and able to defend our country against those who wish to do us harm. But would you use a flamethrower or bombs to defend your house? No, because in defending you would destroy more than you saved, and the use of those things would harm all around you. Such is the case with nuclear weapons...poison the earth , sicken people, for years, and once you start there is no easy way to stop.
]If you have ever seen the records (pictures and first hand accounts) of the devastation of Hiroshima you might understand the importance of insuring that something like that never happens again.

There was a time when nations had no qualms about using chemical and biological weapons and WWI battlefields were full of their victims. These things are not contained to the battlefield and don't discriminate between soldiers and civilians. We got beyond thinking even having those were okay, perhaps one day we will do the same for nuclear.

To think that we as a country once contemplated a nuclear exchange with the Soviets, thinking that somehow anyone would "win" is disturbing. And to think that there are some who are "afraid" of reducing nuclear stockpiles is even more so. God has given us free will, but that does not mean that we should use that freedom to go down paths to destruction. I applaud the recent discussions and hope they will bear good fruit. And I pray that cooler heads will always prevail.

Hope and Change

2010-04-04T07:18:00.000-07:00

It always amazed me during the campaign of 2008 how the words hope and change were maligned by one side because the other side used them as rallying cries. They were dismissed as "touchy feely" and those who embraced them were dismissed as delusional. By many who should have known better. It is one thing to debate the kind of change needed or just what our hope should be, but we should never dismiss hope and/or change as being bad.

Think of this weekend and the celebration of millions of believers. Easter is all about hope and change. Hope is bound up in the idea of resurrection. That death is not the end, that there is a future beyond the grave, called Heaven. Reuniting with love ones and the our great Deliverer.
And not just in the far future, but right now. As we read in Jeremiah, God said to the children of Israel "I know the plans I that I have for you ...to give you a future and a hope". In many other places God assures us that while in this world we will have hard time He will be there with us to get us through. An appeal to hope is not wrong.

And what about change? The cross and the empty tomb are symbols of great change. They were the ultimate change points of a life lived to challenge the accepted thoughts and conditions of the day. The religious conservatives of the day were much like ours today and Jesus challenged them constantly to lose their chains of legalism and realize the spirit of the Law. How many times did he say in the Sermon on the Mount, "you have heard it has been said....but I say unto you" ? He chastised them for putting "theology" (or ideology) above the welfare of people. He called for a life of sacrifice and demonstrated it on the cross, removing the barriers between God and man. That was some change!

Too often we get stuck where we are, and with things as they are, and lose hope of things ever getting better. Or we comfortable where we are and fear change, thinking it will only be for the worse. But God calls us to better things, to grow each day. And we who have faith in God should live it out each day, and be the first to embrace hope and change, now and forever.

Happy Easter everyone :)

what were they thinking?

2010-03-28T12:00:00.000-07:00

What were they thinking? Have you ever said that, looking back on some historical event or movement? Did you scratch your head and wonder how people could think in a certain way and either promote or allow something to happen that today we all (or mostly all) think was wrong? Like "whites only" signs and attitudes in the South, internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry in WWII, the Hollywood blacklist and other Red Scare tactics, or the continual racial/ethnic stereotyping of a many immigrants ove the years.

Hindsight, it is said, is always 20-20, but in order to prevent future folks from being tasked with the same retrospective we need to be proactive about things in the present. What things do we do now,or allow with rationalization that may at first glance appear rational, but upon reflection reveal our prejudices? And what prompts us to be that way?

Part of the reason is that we fail to walk in others' shoes - think in terms of how something will affect others and not just ourselves. We let fear rule, let our comfort zone feelings make a moral judgment on others, instead of embracing change and diversity. And, sometimes we either think anything we do or say in contradiction to what is being done or said will either make no difference or bring on us the ire of too many people.

We need to put ourselves in the picture (in the situation) and see how we would feel if the same things were done to or said about us. As Jesus said, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or as the English poet (a man of faith) John Donne said, "no man is an island entire of itself, we are part of the whole, each man's death diminishes me, send not therefore for whom to bell tolls, it tolls for thee".

We are all in this together, and we must be there for each other. It is a mandate of heaven

social justice

2010-03-11T18:57:00.000-08:00

Okay, got to make more than just one post per month. Just a quick post here.
A friend told me about a saying that was made by a religious figure (South American bishop)
that kind of sums up the problem with advocating social justice today
"when I gave food to the poor, I was called a saint, when I asked why the poor had no food, I was called a communist"
Those on the right are fine with charitable giving to those less fortunate, but not with organizing to reduce the problems that give rise to poverty. They have no sense of a collective responsibility to care for those less fortunate, and thus respond to calls for social justice with name calling.
Just today a popular rightwing TV and radio talker told christians to leave their churches if they mentioned social justice.
But isn't that a part of what Christ advocated? Try reading Matthew 25 and see what you think.

what are you know for?

2010-02-09T15:48:00.000-08:00

One of my mom's favorite mantras was "accentuate the positive"
It used to bug me sometimes, because I would find things that I felt needed to be set straight and she always tried to put a positive spin on things. She was a real "glass half full" kind of person.

She gave everybody the benefit of the doubt and wanted the best for all. She wasn't naive, by any means, she knew people all too well. But she made a conscious choice to be an advocate for promoting positive change and conserving the things she knew to be good and uplifting.

These days it seems like many people are known more for what they are against than what they are for. They are the people of "no". To seemingly endless things they say "no". There's even a whole party of them in Congress. They don't like the solutions that are proposed to the problems we face but they don't offer any solutions either. Like a stubborn mule that digs in its heels they refuse to leave their stalls to travel to pasture, and yet complain that they are hungry.

It is easy to criticize. In school it was always easier to write a book report or critique if I didn't like the book or what it said. I could list off its defects easily. But if it was a book I really liked it was much harder. It is easier to tear down than to build. It is easier to point out flaws than to repair them. There is a place and time for pointing out flaws, but if all we do is point out things that are wrong, we become simply naysayers, stagnant and cold.

We are called to be better people. We who live by faith are called to build and grow. We are called to spread hope, to "seek peace and pursue it". We are called not to "curse" the darkness, but to light candles to disperse it.

So what are you known for? A simple question in complicated times

war and peace

2009-12-23T15:24:00.000-08:00

Isn't it odd that at this time of year people seem eager to fight ...the whole "war on Christmas" hysteria...at a time when we are supposed to be celebrating the coming of the "Prince of Peace" ?
People fight and claw and clamor because they think that "someone" is stifling their religious freedom, when the whole message of the manger (and the Cross to come) is about sacrifice and humility? About God Almighty lowering Himself to take on human form, suffer the indignities of poverty (no room for them in the inn), and live among us, to reach out to us in love.

As you listen to the clamor and disputes, how much humility and love do you hear? How much of it do you hear from yourself? Sometimes it is necessary to stop and just listen. It's amazing what you can see and hear when you are quiet. The Bible says, "The Lord is in His holy temple, let all the earth keep silent before Him"....sometimes I think those who claim to be following God should take that advice.

Long ago, shepherds heard angels, wise men followed a star, and miracles happened. We could use those today. One place to start....Listen again, as I have recently, to Handel's Messiah...
Let the messages sink in, and see how it affects your perspective and priorities.

Merry Christmas everyone ! :)

government

2009-12-19T13:20:00.000-08:00

John Adams once wrote "Government is nothing more than the combined force of society, or the united power of the multitude, for the peace, order, safety, good and happiness of the people".
Quite a contrast to the famous Reagan quote of "government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem"

I think a too many people, especially on the right, identify with the sentiments of Reagan versus Adams. We have lost a sense of "we the people" and have an "us vs them" mindset. I hear it in the constant complaint of those who oppose the current attempt at health reform. They say they don't want government-run programs, like the very notion of government running something makes it bad. Aside from their obvious blind spots (national defense, drug laws, etc) they have developed an attitude that borders on anarchism. They use quotes like ,"government is best which governs least" by Thomas Jefferson (it actually was Thomas Paine who said it), and balk at anything being done by government doing anything except national defense.

They figure that if things were just left up to the states everything would be fine. I do not think any person of color would agree with that, since left to the states there would still be segregation at least , if not outright slavery. It was the intervention of national government that ended both of those, one requiring a civil war. Even at the state level, here in Washington , the state legislature is discussed in some quarters (Republicans) with such contempt that it is a wonder that anyone from the right takes the time and effort to participate.

The tea party and town hall rucus is a legitimate expression of popular views, but some of the language is downright dangerous and begs borrowing a phrase from post-911 questions "why do they hate us"...I would ask, why do those on the right hate government?....and there are some out there who evidence that hatred....when you think about it...they hate our government.

No one wins when anarchy comes and we must guard against it....We the people means "we" and we need to play our part responsibly, not just grumble against what we don't like.
There is a quote, by Thomas Jefferson, which has been used by the tea party crowd , which people should think about before they use here and now, think about the context. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a natural manure." it was said in 1787 in response to the Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts. What were a few lives lost?, Jefferson asked. Later Jefferson supported the French Revolution, with all the chaos and bloodshed that occurred (in contrast to our own Revolution) . Is that what these people really want?

Not I.

Priorities

2009-12-10T17:13:00.000-08:00

It is amusing sometimes to see and hear the lengths to which some will go to be first in line to see a favorite movie,get a famous person's autograph,get tickets to a ballgame, or even get a prized holiday bargain. Just this past Thanksgiving some of my family members got up at unnatural hours to shop the early bargains. I slept in. It is easy to dismiss such behavior as crazy, but are we any different?
What do our choices say about our priorities?

We talk a lot about what is important to us, but do our lives reflect that? Are the things we strive for what we really want, or what we think we ought to strive for? Like New Years' resolutions that get broken so easily,sometimes we set goals based on someone else's expectations,not our own.

Sometimes life gets in the way and we have to adjust our priorities. But many times I don't think we are truly in touch with what we want,what is important to us. We may even have fallen into the trap of thinking we don't deserve to pursue our dreams.

Sometimes we even spiritualize this, thinking "I've just got to give up what I want and just seek what God wants". It sounds noble, but I believe it betrays faulty thinking. God doesn't want you to empty your heart and head, he wants transform them. He made you as you are, with hopes and dreams, talents and skills, and He wants you to be free to use them wisely and for good ends. If there is a song in your heart, he put it there; if there is rhythm in your feet, he put that there too.

I find that when I jump into something I usually do much better than when I excessively plan. That's what got me to the bottom of the Grand Canyon and back up years ago,...one of my best accomplishments (though some think me crazy for doing it).

Don't live by the "oughts", "shoulds", or "if only's"...You were meant to live an abundant life. Every day is a possibility, full of opportunities to shine. Living out our priorities is a daily thing, daily choices.Life means hope and opportunity. As Scripture says "this is the day that the Lord has made, I will rejoice and be glad in it"...and "whatever your hand finds to do ,do it with all of your might".

So, what are your priorities, what is important to you? And what are you going to do about them ,today?

how do you view life and faith?

2009-10-04T08:49:00.000-07:00

Is life and faith a chore or a pleasure? I know sometimes life can be hard, sad, worrisome. But it should not be always or even the majority of time. Jesus said that he had come to give us life, and a life more abundant. Often we miss the pleasures of life because we are not looking for them. Too often we think of faith as following a list of do's and don'ts ...instead of enjoying the freedom that God gave us to live every day in His presence.

Are you curious? Do you wonder at things and explore? Have you traveled down any stray roads just for the heck of it? Have you tried any new things lately or are you stuck in a routine that never varies?

Recently my wife and I took up dancing. She had done a bunch of it before we met , in school years and college days. I grew up not dancing - both from a conservative upbringing where dancing wasn't favored ,and from feeling like I had two left feet. I have a good sense of rhythm -being a musician - but it never seemed to translate to my feet. I have enjoyed learning and having some success in learning the footwork. We are doing both a swing dance class and going to local dances. It is good to get out of my comfort zone once in a while, and the exercise is good as well:)

There is so much around us to enjoy. My garden is a constant source of joy , with new plants popping up in unexpected places, and established plants having new blooms - got to now go out and see what has come up. What will you see today?

words

2009-09-12T16:56:00.000-07:00

Words can heal and words can hurt
Words can build and words can tear down
Words can create and words can destroy
Words can give hope and words can generate fear

How are you using your words today?

Many use words they don't understand only to look intelligent. Some use words to sound pious, but they don't believe them. Others use words as weapons, instead of building blocks. Be careful about the words you use and how you use them. The Bible says that a word fitly spoken is like "apples of gold in pictures of silver". But it also says "the tongue is a fire" and can be "full of deadly poison".

You have heard the phrase, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me". That simply is not true. Words can destroy a person. Many times the hurt we cause comes from simple misunderstanding and ignorance. We may not realize that a particular word or phrase may hurt someone, usually because their life experiences are different than ours. We should be sensitive to this and adjust our speaking accordingly, especially with those we consider friends.

Sometimes we are careless and recklessly hurt with the words we use. In those cases we must apologize and seek to heal the breach. We are all human and make mistakes.That is part of life.

Sometimes in anger we use words to get reactions - like a grenade thrown into a crowd. There are words that are termed "gunpowder words", or inflammatory - their impact goes far beyond their literal meaning.

For instance, if you call someone a fascist or Nazi, there are many images that come to mind to accompany the words. There are specific definitions to the words, but you must be careful about applying them to current situations. The persons using them today are using them not to identify but to get a reaction (like squelching dissent or discussion).

This brings up the last problem with word usage today. Many use words to attack, belittle, ridicule, and tear down people, not just ideas. Especially when people are angry they strike out at others. When debate and discussion is not getting them the desired result -compliance with their opinion - they resort to fighting with words - name calling,etc.

We should all take a few deep breaths, think about what we are doing before we speak, and search our hearts and see if we really want to say those words. To paraphrase another Bible verse - "whatever is true, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good report, think - and speak - on these things".

Consider your words carefully today. If you are purporting to be a follower of God, your words can either add to or detract from others vision of Him ,seen through your life.

the state of political discourse

2009-09-07T09:36:00.000-07:00

Have you ever struck up a conversation with a stanger and then part-way in wished you hadn't? One where you found out the person shared a similar interest and you thought you could have a fun discussion of it, but realized you were miles apart on your views? And that they were deadly serious about being in the right?

I had that experience back in my singles' days. I was at a pre-Thanksgiving gathering and met a new person who mentioned that he liked politics. I was a poli sci major in college,so we began talking. I was in Arizona at the time and we had just had an election where a new governor was elected, in a three-way race. I had reservations about one candidate's commitment, and another's extreme political views, and so picked the third candidate, a woman with substantial career political experience who I thought would do just fine.

The moment I mentioned who I had voted for the conversation went off the cliff. In the view of the other person it was if I had committed a mortal sin. They , of course, had supported the extreme candidate, who won. I then spent the next 10-15 minutes (seemed like forever) trying to get out of the conversation. It has made me wary to this day to blindly start conversations on politics with strangers. It's not that I don't do it, nor that I only talk with people I know I will agree with. But I want to make sure that the person I talk to will be reasonable and have a conversation, not just rant if I happen to disagree with their position.

I think this is where the country is right now in political discourse. There is little conversation going on and much more ranting. The disagreements are framed in the context of name calling,inflammatory rhetoric, lack of common courtesy, and posturing. Some of the signs I have seen are shameful and many comments are not meant to contribute to better understanding - sought or shared - but as verbal bombshells meant to intimidate, shame, ridicule, or cut off discussion.

People need to watch what they say, not because"someone is listening" , but because words can hurt and common decency should lead us to care what other people think and feel,no matter who they are or what they believe.Too often people use words they do not understand or realize what they mean. For example, if someone says something is "un-American", they are saying that it is off limits, end of discussion. Or, if someone says something is "immoral" then further advocacy of the idea itself is seen as "immoral"and the person advocating it as "immoral". They may not intend for that to be so, but it is. How can you argue against an "un-American" or "immoral" idea?

In contrast ,when someone says that they believe something is wrong, you can ask"why" , and you can disagree if you like, saying "I believe it is right". It is an exchange of views and beliefs, not hard and fast "truths".You can agree to disagree without it becoming personal or judgmental. Unfortunately today that is not very evident - especially on health care. The "judges" and verbal bomb throwers have taken over, and ordinary citizens are either being seduced by it, or repulsed. And battle lines are drawn ,when building solutions needs to take place.
Heaven help us all.

self-labeling

2009-08-30T16:36:00.000-07:00

In my last post I talked about labeling. And you may think to yourself,"I don't label others".That may be true and that is great, but what about labeling yourself? Self-labeling can be just as destructive, and is more insidious because we often fail to see it. Some labels are simple and harmless. If you root for a particular sports team, you are considered a fan on that team. I root for the Portland Trailblazers (NBA) so therefore I consider myself a Trailblazer fan. I was born in the US so I am an American.

Some are more fuzzy - depending on your stands on the issues of the day you may consider yourself liberal, conservative, libertarian, independent,etc. It may help you sort out the huge amount of data, information sources, groups, etc that we have access to in the information overload society we live in.

It is okay to a point to self-identify yourself with a label, but there is a danger. You will change over time and the label you may wear today may or may not apply later on in life. You may feel that you must not change some view or other because it will not conform with the label you wear (or conform to what someone else might think that label means). You and your beliefs are more than just some label. Static behavior and belief tend to stifle life.

There is another danger in self-labeling. The self talk that we do can limit ourselves - we can call ourselves names that are judgmental. We don't always say them out loud, but we think them. Ever catch yourself saying "I'm dumb", "I can't do this",or "I am a failure"? That is self-labeling and self-judging and it can sometimes do more damage to our self image than any hurtful comment by another. It can paralyze our lives.

That doesn't mean that we should not recognize and admit when we were wrong. To deny obvious wrongdoing is just as bad. But there is a vast difference between saying "I was wrong" and "I am wrong", between saying "that was a stupid thing to do" and "I am stupid".

And I think we find that the more we avoid self-labeling ourselves the more we can avoid labeling others. It is no wonder that Jesus said that one of the two greatest commandments of God was "love your neighbor as yourself"...if you can't love (value) yourself, how can you love (value) your neighbor?". You were created, I believe, in the image of God. And that Christ gave His life to save your soul. That gives you inexhaustible worth in the eyes of God. Live in the truth of that.

labeling

2009-08-29T14:19:00.000-07:00

Labels can be handy things. Think about all the cans on the grocery store shelves. How do you know what to buy? You look at the label and search your mind to find a match with things you like and need. If there is no match you move on , if there is a match, you buy it. You don't have to open the can, test the contents, or do anything but pick it up and put it in your cart. The label has saved you time and energy for other tasks. You rely on others to make sure that the food is safe and palatable, you just shop.

But the very things that make labels helpful on food, make them toxic to relationships. Dealing with people fairly and justly is not like shopping. You don't acquire friendships , you grow them. You build them with time and energy. You have to get to know what goes on below the surface - inside the can , so to speak. All too often we deal only with surface, make up our opinions on just what we can see, and rely on simplistic "group" characterizations, rather than get to know individuals. You have to spend the time and energy.

How do you know if you are labeling? If you find yourself using such words as always, never, all , none, every, about a particular group then you may be labeling. Certain things may be common to a group, like all Baptists are religious, but others may not be ...not all Baptists frown on jazz music. I happen to know, because I was raised a Baptist (Heinz 57 varieties and all). Other things used to categorize groups involve making moral judgements and those are the worst kind of labels. From that comes prejudice, hate, and ultimately violence.

How do you overcome labeling? The same way you expand your taste palate. You try new things, meet new people. Listen (smell) and talk to (taste) people from groups you don't normally associate with or see as different. You might not always come to appreciate them, just like not everything you taste is pleasing, but at least you have expanded your world a little. And remember, not every one will agree with you, but you can respect them. I have tried limburger cheese (my grandfather loved it) and haggis. I like the haggis and have sampled it again. The limburger I will leave to others. But at least I know what both taste like.

Don't put people on the shelf through labeling. It isn't right, it isn't fair, and it only leads to division and discord. And you shouldn't label yourself...but that is fodder for another post:)

comfort zones

2009-08-14T07:55:00.000-07:00

What is your comfort zone, and have you stepped out of it lately? We all have spaces, not just physical places but mental ,social,emotional,spiritual, etc, that we feel comfortable with. We grow up in families and communities with certain characteristics - be it beliefs, manners, expectations, likes and dislikes. We develop a sense of home, a place to feel safe. We all need that. But then we go to school and we learn often that not everyone is like us. Not everyone shares the same likes and dislikes. Not everyone has the same personality and not everyone has the same beliefs. And you have to adapt, accept those differences, while retaining a strong sense of who you are. You don't have to become someone else because of it, but it will change you, perhaps modify who you are.

For example, my parents were married till the day my mom died-30 plus years. I thought that was the norm. Then I came to know many people whose parents did not stay married, for one reason or another, and many who for one reason or another did not themselves stay married. I came to appreciate more the advantages I had had growing up with two parents always there, always in love , always showing love to me and my sisters. I became more understanding and compassionate towards those who hadn't had that and to those who had tried and failed to keep a marriage together. (it takes two, you know). I am happily married and plan to stay that way, but I do not judge those who have not.

I have known people who are stuck in one place in their lives. They are committed to not changing so much that they live in fear of it. That is part of the reason for the anger being seen today in the healthcare debate. There are legitimate concerns, and then there is fear from things unfounded. There are those who use people's fears to sway them to a particular viewpoint. They lie and deceive. It is important to check your sources, think clearly, ask questions. But it is important to be open to change. Life is change. It doesn't mean you have abandoned anything, least of all what you believe. It means you are growing.

I am a gardener and I love to see what comes up in each season. There are things I have deliberately planted and then things that just pop up out of nowhere. Some things grow very well and others don't. Some things grow well for a while and then fade away. I had a couple rosemary bushes that grew like gangbusters, to about 3-4 ft high and wide. I have a picture of them in their prime, and remember the tiny blue flowers and the luscious aroma released by running my hands along the branches. Unfortunately they were decimated by a couple winters of hard frost, so they are no more. Life and the garden goes on. Perhaps I will get another, perhaps not. But I also have hollyhocks that are now advancing into the lawn. I accept the change and revel in the surprises I see every season.

Some want their lives to be neat and tidy, not a leaf out of place, no surprises (they fear surprises because they think only bad comes that way). Some people believe that they must live by strict do's and don't's, otherwise God will be displeased with them.I believe that God wants us to enjoy life, not just manage it. Jesus said He had come to give us abundant life. But you have to come out of your comfort zone to do that. I did that recently by going to a townhall meeting on healthcare. Half of the people I encountered were friendly to my points of view. The other half were either in disagreement or were hostile to those views . It was not always comfortable, sometimes tense, but a learning experience. You should try it.

Life is a garden, enjoy it ,accept it, keep growing.

spirit of the law

2009-07-31T05:46:00.000-07:00

Have you ever watched a basketball game where the referees forgot their role? Every little infraction of the rules ,no matter how minor, was whistled, the foul line became busy, and the game became a bore. Despite the fans cry of "just let them play", the referees persisted in their enforcement of the rule, and later were surprised that people complained. They said ,"but the rules are the rules and must be enforced.",forgetting that it was a game people came to see, not a whistle-fest.

Now everybody understands what a travesty that is. But a greater travesty occurs when the "law and order" crowd get their way in the fields of the courts and law enforcement. Then it is not just a game that suffers, it is real people and their lives and livelihoods that are damaged.

Remember that a law is only as good as the reason it was made. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath". It was made to provide a rest for mankind, not binders. We must remember why laws were written and judge accordingly. And that a law can't be written to cover everything in specifics , there has to be interpretation and careful application to each case. That is why we have judges, not just legal automatons.

I can think of three instances where insistence on strict,limited law application has harmed our society. One is mandatory sentencing and the "3 strikes" laws. These came from well-meaning individuals but have serious flaws. There are instances of judges excusing criminal activity , but more often I think are cases where the judge is handcuffed. You have to consider first time offenders and repeat criminals differently. And not all felonies are the same, so the 3-strikes laws can handcuff judges as well. Career criminals, shown by lengthy rap sheets, and violent offenders need to be kept in jail to safeguard the public. But there is a whole realm of rehabilitation and restitution, aspects of law that are sorely lacking in our society today. We cannot just "lock 'em up and through away the key". That is madness, financially and otherwise.

Immigration is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed in a separate post, but suffice it to say here that those who cry "but they're breaking the law" about illegal immigration, need to think about their own record and how they themselves would manage if someone caught and prosecuted them on every minor infraction of law -like when they go 5 miles an hour over the posted speed limit?

Finally, in keeping with the continued news over the Supreme Court nominee approval process, what about activism and judicial philosophy on the court? The Constitution is a set of laws, written by good men over 200 years ago in a society that is vastly different from ours. It's principles remain vital, but it must be allowed to live and breath and adapt to continual changes. That is why the Congress is given the "necessary and proper" power. The founders knew that things would change and the government needed the flexibility to adapt. Judges must be mindful of this, as well as remembering their role as guardians of liberty, protecting the rights of the minority against excesses of the majority, against over-reaches by legislative or presidential power. They are a check and balance, not just a rubber stamp for law enforcement. Much more about that whole area later, but this again is an area where the spirit of the law needs to be remembered.

And of course, it all comes back to the golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Or as someone else wrote it, before you judge me , walk a mile in my moccasins.

empathy

2009-07-25T13:50:00.000-07:00

Empathy
What is it and why is it important?
Empathy is the capacity to walk in another's shoes, to know by experience what they are feeling and to view things from their perspective. It helps one to comprehend another's actions and to give advice and comfort when needed. It is different from sympathy. You can sympathize with many, basic human compassion, but it takes a shared experience to empathize. For example: I can sympathize with and reach out to care for someone who has lost a child , but I cannot empathize because I have never had a child, let alone lost one.
On the other hand, I can empathize with someone who has lost a parent, because years ago I lost both my parents (at different times) and so I know first hand how it feels. I can help (and have helped) someone walk through the process of grief - and I know that it is a process,not just a one-time deal.Is my degree of caring different in the two cases? No, but my capacity to understand and aid is.

Why is this important? Because today empathy is getting maligned by those who, in my opinion, have no concept of what it means. President Obama stated as one of the desired qualities of a Supreme Court nominee that they be a person who demonstrates empathy. His selection of Sonia Sotomayor has been attacked, because people mistakenly tag empathy as being "code" for bias, prejudice, or giving preferential treatment to minorities. They have taken out of context her "wise Latina" comment. Her comment about a "wise Latina" being a better judge than a white male was in the context of cases involving discrimination on the basis of race or gender. In those cases a "wise Latina" would have a much greater capacity to understand the position of the one alleging discriminaton than a white male judge, because of her personal struggle to overcome discrimination. The better a judge understands the positions of the parties to a case the better they can make a wise decision.

The problem with some people is that they seeing judicial proceedings as simply intellectual exercises, detective processes, or comparative philosophical debates. They fail to see that it involves real people -more on that in another post - and that their decisions have to take into account the effects on those lives as well as the specific points of law. Otherwise real people get hurt.

For Biblical reference - see Hebrews 4:15 - seeking to encourage us the writer says of Jesus - "for we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, but who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin"...He knew what it was like to be hungry,thirsty,tired, abandoned, betrayed, slandered, pulled about in every which way and enticed to do wrong -yet he did not yield to it. He , the righteous judge, empathizes with us, yet loves us all equally. That is the model for a judge and I applaud President Obama for the wise choice he has made. Not only is she highly qualified academically (first in her college class, high honors graduate) and career-wise (nearly 17 years on the federal bench, in legal practice of one sort or other for nearly 30 years), but she has overcome barriers of race and gender and seeks to help others do the same.

thoughts for the day

2009-07-12T19:12:00.000-07:00

Thoughts for the day - how much of grace, forgiveness, mercy, and compassion do you see active in your life today?
And, how do you react to issues like AIDS, poverty, immigration(both illegal and legal), and the plight of refugees in the Middle East (and Muslims in general)?
And, thirdly, what do you remember about what Jesus said about the poor, sick, outcasts,foreigners?
Lastly, how do you think He would comment on our words and actions today,were He walking among us as during His earthly ministry? Would He talk to us like He talked to the self-righteous Pharisees, calling out their hypocrisy?
Let us so live that He would be pleased to see His love and life reflected in us toward those less fortunate than we.

living free

2009-07-04T13:50:00.000-07:00

Fear is like weedkiller. When used constructively it can warn you about danger and keep you from doing really stupid and dangerous things, like walking too close the edge of a cliff. There are places along the rim of the Grand Canyon where signs are posted warning people to keep behind the railing. There is a good reason. The rock outcroppings are not the most stable, and there are very severe dropoffs - one is called the Abyss and the drop is 5,000 ft! It is a wise person who follows the rules and stays behind the railing.

But all too often fear is misplaced,used to control people, and becomes paranoia. It is like the person who never goes out of their house because they are afraid something bad will happen. That is no way to live. Like weedkiller, fear can kill initiative ,creativity, life itself, just as weedkilller can kill not only the weeds, but any other beneficial plant it touches -and can poison the water system of a community if used too much. The problem that brings weeds most often is poor soil, and the solution is improving the soil, and making it better able to sustain beneficial plants.

Fear is also like antibiotics, for the same reason. In critical situations, with careful study, they can be used. But all to often they have been used as a blanket cure-all and have two bad effects. One , some bad bacteria develop resistance to the antibiotic , rendering them useless in the future (to all). And they destroy both good and bad bacteria, rendering the person's immune system vulnerable. For this reason many doctors quit prescribing them in many situations and focus on long-term solutions to improve overall health.

So it is with life. Bumps and bruises will happen, but there is great opportunity in living free from fear. Take a few chances, don't let fear close you out. Even in a post-911 world when the constant mantra from many voices is "be afraid, be very afraid" Remember, Jesus said he had come that we might have an abundant life, and that the truth would set us free.:)

lessons from gardening

2009-06-21T16:57:00.000-07:00

I believe you can learn lessons from nature,and you can apply those to everyday life. Here are four that I thought of recently, while tooling around in my garden spaces.

1. Every plant is unique and has differing needs and characteristics. If you treat them all the same you will quickly find this out. If you trim your hydrangea like you do your peonies you will suffer the loss of blooms. Peonies can be cut down to the ground each year and they grow back strongly the next. If you do that to a hydrangea you wo't get any blooms the next year - and perhaps longer. The reason is that hydrangeas bloom on the previous years growth and if you cut off what has grown one year there is nothing for it to bloom on. Peonies, on the other hand, bloom on the current year's growth. You can make the same types of observations about herbs versus most flowers (water issues). As with plants so with people,we all have our differences and we should respect that , just like God does. Even if you are a confirmed early bird (like me) don't expect everybody esle to be one. Treat others as individuals - get to know them first before you try to help them. There is no "one size fits all".

2. Don't sweat the small things. I have learned to make peace with things that keep coming back again and again. I have a wide swath of Lamium (also known as yellow archangel). I didn't plant it in the yard, it was just here when we moved in. I tried for a while to eradicate it (natural means) but it was persistent. I finally gave up and now simple try to contain it to a certain region of the yard. It was not worth the effort I was putting out and I gradually came to accept it's presence. On the other hand I pulled out the tansy ragwort that invaded the yard, since that one is dangerous to animals. Major on the majors and minor on the minors, and work on knowing the differences. You don't have to put up a fight about everything and only rarely are things "a matter of life and death",

3.Don't be a perfectionist. One thing that every gardener learns, sooner or later, is that there is no such thing as a perfect garden. A garden is a living,growing collection of plants that rise and fall, spread and fade, season after season, and often get messy. Even things you try to contain often get out of control. If you are a perfectionist try something other than gardening. And so with life , you can't be perfect, ...don't even try. Just be content to do the best you can, and let God take care of the outcome (he's much better than you with that).

4. And finally, don't get overinvested in planning and projects - take time to enjoy your garden. Don't be so task oriented, so focused on the destination, that you miss the journey and the view as time goes by. Life , like a garden, is a journey, a work in progress. It is to be lived, not just "accomplished".

In other words, you really should just "stop and smell the roses along the way":)

change

2009-06-13T15:35:00.000-07:00

Change, what does it mean to you and how do you react to it?

Some people relunctantly accept it They realize the truism "the only thing constant is change". They accept as they do the weather, something you have to get used to and adapt your life to deal with. They may not always like it but they aren't threatened by it.

Others are afraid of change. They see it as only bringing bad things, troubled times, quality of life and standards going downhill. They feel safe in the routines they have established and are looking to preserve their way of life. They don't want to risk what they have in the "they would say" false hopes of change. They are like an agoraphobic who won't go out of the house for fear tragedy will strike. I realized this fear exists recently as I pondered why many are so angry and adamant in resisting new ideas and trends. I realized it was not just a philosophical/religious/intellectual disagreement with what had been proposed. It was fear, fear of the unknown, fear of danger, assuming that change would only bring something worse that was existed.

I hold to the third option - welcoming change. I know that sometimes change can bring discomfort and there are the usual adjustments - I don't welcome it all the time. But in general I believe that change ,done well, can bring great gain. I believe in looking for pleasant , sometimes exhilirating surprises. I believe God intends to sprinkle joyful things throughout our lives, and often we miss them because we aren't looking for them.
I have related before that I am an irrepressible experimenter and explorer. I like to change things up, ...yes, sometimes just for the heck of it. I say you never know what kind of things you can come up with if you just mix it up - and I say 'try".

Being wise is important, and avoiding things that are clearly bad for you is only prudent, but living in fear is living in bondage. I choose hope over fear any day and I challenge you to do the same.

Runnin' From the Light

2009-06-07T08:32:00.000-07:00

Have you ever had a time when you felt like a fraud? Are there times when you feel like you are just going through the motions, doing church things but without real feelings or meaning?
Usually when we are working hard to live out our faith we have no problem talking about it, but when we aren't it isn't easy to articulate what we believe. I know there are some who can preach one thing and live another, but sooner or later that will break down. For me it is much easier to articulate what I believe when I am actually practicing it. God has a way of reminding me to examine myself when I get "hot under the collar" about some injustice. I hear the question in my mind (not literally or vocally though)"and what about you?" I have to evaluate my life on the topic at hand and make sure I am being true to what I believe.

I had a time in college when a classmate asked me "and what do you believe?". He was Catholic and was curious about what I, a Baptist, believed. I don't remember exactly what topic or area we were discussing (there were a few of us) ...though I do know we were playing pool, not in a deep discussion. I was away from home for the first time, freshman in college, attending church but in reality just "going through the motions". I didn't feel like I was really living my faith - not that I was doing bad things ,just not in tune with God right then. I ended up saying "oh, I believe lots of things", and walking away. I knew anything I said would not feel honest and I was afraid of the discussion.
This is the subject of my song "Runnin' From the Light" (third song in the soundclick sidebar),...though the specific inspiration came from a relative who evidenced the same behaviour.
Please be sure that you are not just going through the motions. Know what you believe and live it. Life is much easier that way.:)

talents and skills

2009-05-16T15:13:00.000-07:00

How do you view yourself and what you have to give? We tend to look at others and what they have accomplished and downgrade ourselves. It happens no matter what we have done or what others think of us, and it can prevent us from doing what we can because we think we have so little. But I am reminded of the parable of the talents. You can read about it in the gospels, so I won't repeat it here. It makes the point that we are all given different levels of ability but all expected to use them wisely. It doesn't matter what you have as long as you are faithful in using it for the best.
This is regardless of what others may think of what you have - this is the essence of the song "In Whatever You Do" on my soundclick link. It was written in response to a discussion with someone at church who didn't think they had much to give ,or what they had wasn't seen as important (a christian artist). I told them, just be faithful in what you can do, and God will bless it.

thanks

2009-05-09T10:22:00.001-07:00

A quick post here, more later. I realized that I needed to give credit to a good friend for helping me on the songs I just posted. Greg Dimichel accompanied me on guitar for these three as we created the 3 song demo in the radio station in Phoenix where I was working at the time, years ago. I was very glad for his help on this - my guitar playing is still a work in progress and his is much better.
Thanks, Greg.

music

2009-05-03T15:47:00.000-07:00

As I posted last time it is important to make time for what you love. One of the things I love, and haven't been making enough time for, is music. I love to sing, to play guitar and keyboard, and to write songs. It is an expression of my resonance - what I think in my head and feel in my heart coming out musically. When I was little I used to often annoy my sisters (all older) when I would awake early, happy, and vocal. I shared a room with one of them till I was 6, and they were not early birds (except one) , and they remember my early serenades to this very day :) Later I learned to play cello,flute,guitar, and piano, and sung/played in church and school band for several years.

After doing solos in church for a few years I started to write my own songs and perform them. The first time I met my wife I was performing one of my songs and accompanying myself on guitar for the first time at a singles retreat. I have continued to write over the years, but have not had as many opportunities to perform and so the music has languished.

It is time to make a change. Through the internet I have a way of "broadcasting" my songs and I am going to take the chance to do it here. I have 3 songs here on the sidebar, from my new Soundclick site . I will give you background on them in my posts.

The first one to come is "Expect the Unexpected"
Often times we anticipate things, with sometimes reward and sometimes disappointment. Then sometimes we dread bad things, and either are relieved or sad when it comes about. But I believe that God wants to surprise us with good things each day, and we often miss them because we are not looking for them. Instead of dreading or anticapating, try expecting something unexpected.

doing what you love

2009-04-25T14:15:00.000-07:00

What do you love? What really turns you on or energizes you?
Some things we have to do, it's reality. And some things we do as a matter of habit, neither loving or hating them ,they just are a part of our everyday life. But then there are things that we really love and it makes a difference. Listen to someone talk about what they love and you can hear it in their voice and see it in their eyes.

I remember hearing Al Gore talk about the danger of global warming in his film "An Inconvenient Truth". Whether you agree with him or not there is no doubt in my mind about his commitment to it. You could hear it in his voice, see it in his mannerism. It was such a contrast to his presidential run. He is where he needs to be -doing what he loves.

For me I love to walk, love to garden , and love rain. Fortunately I live in the Pacific Northwest which is friendly to all three. I make time to walk - not just for exercise and mood enhancement (very true and valid)- but because I truly love to do it. I love growing things - especially when surprises happen - and I love rain, even a few times doing garden work out it in (I know, I'm strange, but that's okay:) )

So how about you? What do you love and are you making time for it? Even if it's only once in a while or for short bits, make sure that you spend some time doing things you really like. Even if no one else understands you need to do it for you. Life is too short to be always bogged down by the necessities. It should be lived. This I believe.

healing

2009-04-18T17:34:00.000-07:00

Do you believe in healing?

No, not in the blind can see, deaf can hear,sick get well sense (though I do think that's still possible) Nor in the white coat with stethoscope or scalpel kind of healing. But the deeper emotional, mental, psychological and,yes, spiritual healing. The type that can be done by all of us if we just try to make each day a little better for those with whom we come in contact. We live in a world that is filled with broken hurting people and too often we end up just pointing fingers and finding someone to blame.

In politics we talk about issues like crime,homelessness, drug rehab, welfare, like they involve statistics only and not real people. We tend to think of "them", those who in our estimation have made "bad choices" and thus are consigned to forever suffer for them. We view ourselves as somehow above it all, and never consider that those people could or should ever be restored to normal society. We judge and yet forget that we are also prone to make "bad choices" - only ours don't end up in print or in court.

Reconciliation, restoration,rehabilitation, forgiveness, peace, healing.How much are they a part of your life? These words are core to Easter, yet sometimes far from those who celebrate it. The message of the cross reminds us that we are all in the same boat, in need of healing and forgiveness. At times like these we really do need to come together not divide.

And how can we do this, you may ask? Look for opportunities to make a difference in someone's life today. When you are with someone make sure your eyes are focused on them and your ears are tuned to what they are saying - and your heart as well , because often you need to get passed the words to the feelings that are being expressed. In short, treat them as you would want to be treated. And this includes those you are at odds with. It doesn't take a lot, just a willingness to act.

So I ask again, do you believe in healing?

Resonance

2009-04-07T16:04:00.000-07:00

Why resonance? Basically resonance in physics is two bodies vibrating at the same frequency which can also cause another body to vibrate at the same frequency as well. To keep it simple think about humming. You think of a tune and hum it, your heart is reflected or resonating in your voice, even without words - which may or may not come later. If you remember it well enough and hum or sing well enough you may cause others to hum or sing along, even if they do not know the tune or words.

Your action in communication in this way is not a matter of direction -force - but of influence - showing outward authenticity of your inner feelings. You will have trouble humming a tune you do not like or sing words you do not agree with or like. Your inner self is your beliefs, your humming/singing is your actions. The more authenitic your singing the clearer the tune, the more people can sing along.

This is what this blog is about. hear the tune, sing the words, join the song

do your homework

2009-03-29T08:57:00.000-07:00

The last point in this outline, the purpose of my starting the blog, is to say "do your homework",check your sources, and be intellectually curious. Don't take anything anybody tells you at purely face value - even me. There are just too many rumors, half truths, bald-faced lies, miscommunications or misunderstandings, and incomplete info out there.

Nowadays there are many ways of getting to original sources and no good excuses not to check them. There are persistent rumors that go around and around and people spend time trying to stamp them out -yet they spread like weeds. One prevalent one in the Christian community concerns Madeline Murray O'Hare and Christian radio/FCC. Having in the past worked at a Christian radio station (10 years) I know full well the trouble the rumor has caused and every time it pops up I do my best to correct people (including directing them to official/original sources) but still it persists. So please check things out,don't just blindly forward something on to others.

We tend to be attracted to these things. A good story ,with intrigue, gets our heart pumping and our mind whirling , especially anything that smacks of conspiracy, or "secrets" or "cover up"s. We often don't stop to wonder if any of it is really true. Take the stimulus bill for example. According to some there is loads of pork in it and they cite examples. Then they say that the bill as found online can't be searched for specifics. Yet the bill as listed does have search capabilities (I have done it) and if you check out some of the most mentioned examples of "pork" (think crickets and beavers and volcanoes, oh my!:) ) you find that there is real value there- only the ignorant scorn what they do not understand. Simplistic ranting by those who have been given a microphone in the public square is not a good way to make public policy and people should not be fooled.

You can search the web for the background info on any project (from the people directly involved with it) and you can also search the stimulus bill for information (contrary to what has been written about the search capabilities there). One good site is the Small Business Administration website :http://www.sba.gov/ . Another good site is factcheck.org.

Think of the term ignorance. There is not knowing ,someone is ignorant - just doesn't know . That can be helped. You can give them the information or show them where to find it. You can reason with them to show them the gaps in their knowledge. Then there is willful ignorance, not willing to learn, willing to ignore what is plain to see. As the saying goes "none is so blind as those who will not see" Those who do not want to see what is true will take advantage of those who just don't know what is true. Be wary of those who talk as if they know things, but do not provide any way to check them out, or question anybody who doubts them. We are all in a learning curve and nobody knows it all.

creative thinking for growth

2009-03-28T11:40:00.001-07:00

One of the reasons we often avoid thinking about what and why we believe is that we have fallen into comfortable patterns of behavior. Unfortunately these can become ruts, which are hard to climb out of. In order to get out of these we sometimes need to jar ourselves or, as one put it years ago, give ourselves a "whack on the side of the head"

From my experience here is what I have done. It is a combination of experimentation and exploration. I am at heart an experimenter - probably started when I got a chemistry set (my grandfather was a chemist) and began mixing chemicals just to see what would happen (I don't think my Mom every knew about some things that went awry in my room:)... I made a cake with some unusual subsititutions that turned out okay anyway (cornmeal for cornstarch),and later on I went through cooking experimenting phases - using some ingredient or other (like yogurt) in all sorts of dishes, with mixed results. My dad...and later my wife...have been very understanding of my urge to try all sorts of things in that area. Don't be afraid to experiment.

I am also an explorer (though not in real exotic locations). When I was younger our family would go tent camping every summer for a couple weeks. We traveled all over the western US and whenever we set up camp the first thing I wanted to do was explore the area. I was always on the hunt for something new or to see what was nearby. When my wife and I first moved to the area we are now I would often drive around and purposely get myself lost so that I would have to find my way back and would travel new roads and find new locations. It stirred my creativity and also helped sometimes when I either was truly lost or just needed an alternative way to get somewhere and now had a shortcut.

I was and am intellectually and irrepresibly curious...And I know that part of the problem today is that too many people are not. Just think about the last 8 years...do you really think our leaders cared about whether something was true or not , or whether they just took somebody else's word for it? Think how the notion of "change" has been received by many people. They fear it and don't want to change ....it takes too much thought. Fortunately many more are eager for and anticipating of much to change. Not for change sake alone, but for a return to a growing society that is ready to roll up its sleeves and work to make things better. For all.

Practical point - try to meet people who aren't like you. Different backgrounds, ethnicity, culture, race, lifestyles, bring different perspectives. It is harder to treat people as them (as opposed to us) if you know someone from that "other group". Visit sites on the web where you wouldn't normally go and try to figure out if there is something to be gained from it - at least understanding of where others are coming from.

Many years ago I read a book called "A Whack on the Side of the Head", by Roger Von Oech. He was (and is) an advocate for creative thinking and how to go about it. He used various puzzles, anecdotes, mental exercises, cartoons,and questions to help people remove mental blocks and unlock their minds. He has a website www.creativethink.com which is a good resource when you get "stuck"

Change is more than just a political slogan, or a movement, it is essential for healthy life.

living beliefs

2009-03-22T09:30:00.000-07:00

Once you know what you believe and why you believe it, you must live it out. Beliefs must never be just an academic exercise. If they are what you truly believe they should influence your whole life, not just part of it. For people of faith what we profess on our days of worship must be what we live out the rest of our days. The pew must meet the pavement.

Involvement by people of faith in government does not mean using the power of government to coerce common beliefs, for belief can only be shared, not dictated. It is a matter of the heart. But faith should influence how,why,and what we decide in every part of our lives and that is true in the large context of society as well as in our own homes. If government is truly "we the people" then it should be an expression of the faith of "we the people".

This crosses the lines of faith traditions. To take one example - the treatment of the poor is a key to three main religions. For the Jewish the practice of gleaning (Leviticus 19:9-10,23:22,Deut.14:28-29) is part of the Mosaic Law as well as "love your neighbor as yourself"(Leviticus 19:18). The New Testament talks about "true religion before God" as including taking care of the widows and orphans (James 1:26-27). Most of the time people focus on doctrinal purity, but forget that first of all God cares about people and their welfare (ref Matthew 25).

And it is good to remember in these troubled days that alms giving -charitable giving to the poor - is one of the Five Pillars of Islam (interestingly the Arabic word for alms - Zakah - is similar to the Hebrew term for charity -Tzedakah) Too often nowadays Islamic charities have been viewed with scepticism, but it is an essential element of the faith regardless of those who misuse it.

How can you work to ensure that the beliefs you espouse are your own? First after examining what you believe and why you believe it, don't be afraid to share them. Try being the first to answer in a group when questions are asked. Sometimes if you always wait to hear what others say first there is a tendency to play it safe and be a "me-too" ,especially if your true views diverge from what seems to be the group view. Listening to others is important ,and just being "contrary" isn't courageous, but be true to yourself and don't just adopt a view that you don't believe in just to avoid "sticking out".

Write down or record audio of your thoughts and views, then read or listen to them again and see if they make sense or sound in any way "false" or "pretend". It is good to be able to listen to yourself and detect when you are not being real.

Walk in others' shoes - try to imagine how others would hear you,how they would view the things you do and maybe see them a different way,with a different perspective. Imaging yourself living somewhere way different from where you are and see how you would view the world.

Finally, focus on being known for what you are for, not for what you are against. There is a time and place to criticize and call others out for wrongdoing, for sure, but too many people are only known for the things they fight against and not for what they support. Aim to build, not destroy.

asking "why?'

2009-03-18T17:11:00.000-07:00

Along with knowing what you believe, you also need to think about why you believe it. There is a little overlap here, since in the previous post I talked about the fact that some of your views you may have gotten from your parent's beliefs, often without examination. But we also can start to make decisions on issues from things we read - especially in school, from people we hang out with, or groups we join.

Just take a moment to think about the major issues of the day - the ones that seem to get the most airplay or newsprint. Some examples would be healthcare, the war, the economy, social issues. Now think about what your stand is on them and why you take that stand. Does it match up to what you say you believe, or did you pick up that stand because it fit within the mindset of some group you see yourself affiliated with?

Oftentimes there can be a "group-think" in our associations, whether it be party, church, work, etc. We find ourselves holding to a set of views which we don't think about. We are comfortable with them because either they help us fit in, or we feel we "ought" to hold them. If someone takes issue with a particular position of the group they often face very critical, sometimes even hostile, reactions and may be thought of as less worthy or disloyal and may even be forced out of the group.

Because of this people are often afraid to examine their positions and stifle themselves. I don't say that this happens all the time, by any means, and common beliefs are important to working together in a group. But when strict adherence to a set of beliefs becomes more important than thinking clearly and treating others with respect the group becomes a cage.

I like to think about it in terms of being in junior high. I know, most people don't like to think about that period in life because it was often a difficult period. There were many adjustments to make - being neither a child nor an adult - akward at the very least. But it is a time when the prevaling question is "why?"..."why do I have to do this?" "why can't I do that?" We have so many questions, want so many answers, and annoy those who think they know it all, because every answer is met with another question. Sometimes we go overboard, but it seems as adults we suddenly forget to ask questions - settling for the easy "because ___ said so", whether that be a teacher, pastor, boss, journalist or even the President.

The 1960's were a time of questioning authority and the established ways of doing things. Not everything worked out the best, but there were a lot of accomplishments. Like landing men on the moon, sending hundreds of Peace Corps volunteers around the world to build up ,not tear down , villages in many countries - to show a better representation of what our nation could be to the world. And the Voting Rights Act finally put into writing that color could no longer legally be a barrier to exercising our most sacred right - the right to vote for those to lead us. I think some of the current crowd of naysayers on the right have forgotten what was accomplished then -or maybe they just collected very different memories... I guess they weren't rockers like me:)

My advice today : don't be afraid to examine your beliefs and why you believe them , even at the cost of leaving a group you are part of. If you don't you will only become stifled and cease to truly be yourself.

know what you believe

2009-03-14T16:46:00.000-07:00

Know what you believe...seems like a simple thing,right? Wrong. Many people never take the time to figure this out. They are raised by (mostly) well meaning parents who try to communicate their values/manners/beliefs to prepare their children to face the world. They communicate what they know and believe in order to spare their kids the task of having to figure things out that they (the parents) have already figured out...at least so that they can get a good start in life.

This is good at first - no need to reinvent the wheel - but at some point children need to foray out on their own and establish their own identity and be able to function on their own ,without their parents' help...because parents never last forever.:( This includes internalizing beliefs, making them personal, stuggling through doubt to stronger belief -and sometimes discarding things that don't fit or make sense. It is a lifelong task, which some have short-circuited by deciding to act without thinking -often taking up someone else's prescribed lists of acceptable behaviour and beliefs. We call it indoctrination - whether self-induced or dictated - either way it is destructive. We see it in politics, religion, business,etc.

The antidote is to examine oneself , our actions and attitudes, to find what we really believe and whether that is at odds with what we say we believe. What you believe will determine your actions, so take the time to find out what you really believe, not just what you say you do. For example, what do you think is our responsiblity toward those in this nation and in our world who are poor and powerless? Does your faith tradition/scripture have anything to say about that?
If so, what actions should you and we be taking to do about it?

For my own self I have increasingly become convinced that helping the "least of these" is a moral obligation, a societal responsibility and it greatly affects my outlook on social and political policy. But that's just me. You have to determine for yourself what your viewpoint is, because it is your belief.
Later :)

first post

2009-03-12T21:27:00.000-07:00

And so it begins....I'd like to start by outlining what I want to emphasize and then explaining as time goes on.
I have a handful of things to emphasize...and I do me handful literally...five
1. Know what you believe.
2. Know why you believe what you believe
3. Live out what you believe, in all areas
4. Be creative...forget the box ....give yourself a swift kick occasionaly _(ever heard of A Wack on the Side of the Head?..good book)
5. Remember to do your homework...don't just take what is written/spoken at face value...check for the original sources (stimulus bill, for example, or official sites) to verify what you hear or read.

In the coming days I will outline what I mean by these things, but for now , just think about it.
Resonate with the music of the universe...and it's Maker.