Giving a party our endorsement simplifies our task but neglects the responsibility we have for thought and principle.
Today perhaps more than ever in recent history, the political parties are not a refuge for people of faith. Or conscience.
Neither party and perhaps none of the candidates we've heard could meet the requirements of conscience and faith for kindergarten, much less for adult citizenry.
Don't pretend like the either/or of our two party process is an intelligent place to stand. Choosing between two lizards still gives you a stupid lizard!
So then, how shall we shape our children's future? :)
UPDATE DEC 06, 2020: It has been years since any attempt to unite the nation. Misinformation is now the substance of our daily lives. Both political and evangelical players have joined the disruptive process. Voters are more aligned with fear and anger than with thoughtful consideration of the outcome.
This is not the first time in history when such propagandized turmoil has defined a nation, is it. What course will a person of faith and conscience take from here?
Why do we have music? And why do some folks express themselves musically?
From a science and engineering perspective, it's all surreal. Darwin has nothing to say on the subject, and interestingly, modern behavioral scientists have little to offer.
Experientially, while not all music is great or even good, some music can transport us into an almost indescribable place. Among thousands of examples, the video here is of a young lady singing O Mio Babbino Caro from Puccini's one act opera. It appears that the opera's story line is not a relevant factor, but the music is standalone magic. There is a wealth of confirmation for the affect but none for the cause even when 'why' is part of the article's title.
There are a myriad of scholarly articles describing the place of music and its impact on society and culture, but there is little more than speculation on the origin of great music or great musicians, and even less on why some affects us in such an unworldly manner. It's easy to see why someone might want to be a musician, but it's impossible (so far) to convincingly describe the evolutionary arrival of the art form or the reason for its impact.
Beyond the sex/drugs/rock-and-roll culture which is a comparatively shallow performance realm, great music opens up a magnificently different world than that which we see each day. Read and judge for yourself.
Question of differentiation: is there a substantial difference between being emotionally moved by dancing with the crowd in a nightclub and being individually uplifted intellectually and emotionally by 'great music'?
Why might such music bring tears to our eyes? We can trace the neurological path for such an experience, but we have no explanation for why it happens. It suggests, as has often been bandied about, that a narrow scientific view perhaps misses much of reality, things it considers unscientific or surreal and therefore irrelevant. Could such thinking be perhaps a bit hubristic? Of course the mind of the person of science can encompass all that is and do so in rational terms, can it not? Not, of course, as in, "of course not." :)
We live in a culture that willingly discounts anything outside their math and mind model. Faith, in the common forum, is considered silliness. That's had a rather high price tag in recent decades.
I suspect that the truly great musicians and perhaps the artists as well push the objectivist boundaries in a manner not unlike that in which people of faith thrive despite the rather harsh opposition. It does make you wonder.
Whether conservative and liberal, we have difficulty with the issues here.
Competition
-- it's a contest --
... for territory, for wealth and status and power. And it's a centerpiece of our culture.
One wins, the other loses. Coming out ahead means someone is left behind. Troublesome? It's perhaps worth a reminder that our nation was founded on justice, equality, and inalienable rights. National superiority and financial dominance are not only alien to our heritage but are the very things against which we rebelled. The empire which wielded such against us became loathsome to us all. We paid a high price to break that yoke.
Competition for survival is fine for fish and animals, but it doesn't serve well for us humans.
At risk, the lives of people. In the ancient age of empire, conquest was the norm. Masses were slaughtered and lands were taken. Competition was understood to be murderous, but is was thought at the time to be justified somehow. Superiority of race and ethnicity, such excuses were the norm. The idea of racial or ethnic superiority is ancient and persistent, as is the concept of an elite within a culture, but Darwin was the first to offer a scientific rationale. The sub-title to The Origin of Species was The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin wrote about "favored races," and speculated somewhat wildly in The Descent of Man, lending support to the Nazis' belief in the superiority of the Aryan race. The British thought similarly about Anglo-Saxons. To make it even more troublesome, Darwin's description of natural selection spoke of a fight to the death, a "law of the jungle." Applying it to humanity suggests that conflict and war are inevitable, perhaps appropriate or even necessary. Not the best of legacies, justifying the slaughter of tribes and nations. Was Darwin off the mark?
Survival
Today, we know that humanity is comprised of one species. We're stuck with the established science and the realization that we're all precisely the same, all equally valuable, all equally deserving of a fair chance. We find it awkward to continue excusing our selfishness and our economic comfort at the expense of others. The GAP between the rich and poor, however, is progressively more deadly.
Now that things like genocide and slavery and conquest for lebensraum are known to be inexcusable crimes, we're left with competition in the marketplaces as the venue for our play to come out on top. Is it necessary? Is that why we do it?Are there destructive elements in that competition? Today's trade and finance industries are where mega-corporations compete at the expense of nations and peoples. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the latest in that campaign. NAFTA drove more than a million farmers in Mexico out of business and off their land. Critics of TPP suggest it will be similarly troublesome. Well intended perhaps in part, such agreements favor the wealthy and the largest corporations, some of which are bigger than countries.
What lies ahead?
Today's exceptionalism is a mixed retelling of the story of superiority, of rationalizing intervention in the governance of other nations by the last superpower. To be fair, many who want to 'make America great again' are fondly remembering America's leadership in the 1950's and 60's when we produced half of the world's GDP, when industry and productivity made a way forward for so many.
Times have changed; others have caught up and passed us by. Samantha Powers, before she was nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., asserted that "we're neither the shining example, or even competent meddlers. It's going to take a generation or so to reclaim American exceptionalism..." A generation ... or do we perhaps need a better goal. So, on the macro side of humanity's story, how can nations be noble and virtuous without being destructive at the same time? Can a nation thrive without oppression and corruption being part of the equation? Can an economy provide some measure of equity for all without exhausting the resources others need to survive? Of course.
It's perhaps worth a reminder that our nation was founded on justice, equality, and inalienable rights. National superiority and financial dominance are not only alien to our heritage but are the very things against which we rebelled. The empire which wielded such against us became loathsome to us all. We paid a high price to break that yoke.
Thoughtful constituents contribute to meaningful dialog on issues of importance, proving yet again that the political and election processes serve the citizenry well. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and public drooling, also biting and big eye staring. As Trump rose to the top in South Carolina, John Baldwin, a used-car dealer from Greenville summed up the mood quite well: “We’re voting with our middle finger,” he says. That perhaps sums up the attitude of the electorate quite well.
In the last 30 days ... trying to understand the candidates, their positions and qualifications, it has been particularly difficult as Donald Trump continues to shape the conversation.
‘I Love the Poorly Educated!’Off the cuff comments by Trump are often both surprisingly inappropriate and almost incomprehensible.
“I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”Despite both the constitution and international law, Trump insists he would institute torture.
“He took 50 bullets, and he dipped them in pig’s blood,”Trump says, describing a fictitious slaughter of Muslims by General John Pershing. “And he had his men load his rifles and he lined up the 50 people, and they shot 49 of those people. And the 50th person he said ‘You go back to your people and you tell them what happened.’”Fortunately, it never happened, which is enough of a problem by itself, but suggesting the religious insult and slaughter of Muslims might be a good example is stunningly ill informed and the worst of bad judgement. The legend about Pershing is well known to be fictitious. Pershing himself was strongly opposed to anything that would provoke religious extremism. And as for Trump's recounting, "Read it in the history books,"Trump says. But it's not in the history books, it's fiction.
Tonight's debate was a bit of a free for all. More insults than information, it is reminiscent of conflict among juveniles with little of substance available to the listener. “This guy’s a choke artist,” Trump declares, pointing to Marco Rubio, and, “This guy’s a liar,” he says, turning to point to Ted Cruz. I'm at a loss to understand his appeal. Max Lucado suggests, "The stock explanation for his success is this: he has tapped into the anger of the American people. As one man said, “We are voting with our middle finger.” Sounds more like a comment for a gang-fight than a presidential election. Anger-fueled reactions have caused trouble ever since Cain was angry at Abel."
The Trump University looks like it will surface as an issue, perhaps soon. Trump's tax records have still not been released. Both are likely to be troublesome.
Experts tell us a solution to our poverty is unlikely.
As America recovers slowly from the Great Recession, many of our fellow citizens remain mired in poverty. Economic trends, cultural changes, and changes in family and marriage patterns are combining in new ways that make it harder for those born on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder to lift themselves up. Poverty is changing, and policy responses must change too.
One ray of hope is that Republicans and Democrats are increasingly talking about the intertwined problems of poverty and opportunity. But even if all agree that America must act, our growing political polarization and legislative gridlock make action seem ever less likely with each passing year.~The Brookings Institute
This particular trend of inequality has solidified and grown rapidly for more than four decades, crossing borders and permeating the international marketplace, empowered by governmental policy and corporate business practices. It has adversely affected hundreds of millions, and many have died. Deaths tied directly to the financial industry exceed one million.
The American electorate will, in the next months, elect leadership for the executive and legislative branches of our government. The electorate may then require that leadership enact a solution to persistent and imposed poverty. Both those elected and those who placed them in office will be remembered for how they perform this duty to their fellow man.
Despite the excellent intent of many in leadership, America's reputation around the world has suffered. Right or wrong, many blame American influence for failed governments and economies in the middle East. In the marketplace, globalization has tied the price of maize meal in rural Kenya to Wall Street. In our own cities, there are two paths; one for the wealthy and the other for everyone else. Equality and opportunity are for many just distant dreams.
The solutions are not simple, and change will not be easy. Much will be required of each for the sake of all, I suspect. The alternative would be for the elite to continue to live at the expense of others, but even then, seed and harvest rules apply.
That brings us to the real gridlock.
We've become soft in our thinking about love. Common use of the word suggests warm feelings and pleasant relationships. That's not the context from history, philosophy, or faith. Love is both precious and costly. It often includes setting aside personal comfort and stepping in to defend another, sacrificing for another; a broken heart over the suffering another endures may be a lifelong burden. It may cost you your wealth, your life, or a great portion of it all. Love is extraordinarily powerful. It is choice and action, not feelings. ... and Love is NOT soft and fluffy.
Today's most difficult choice perhaps involves giving up some of what we have. A fine gentleman with a good heart explained his reservations about sheltering refugees. He feared he or his family might somehow lose something. In an economy where grocery stores have a hundred types of cereal and fifty kinds of soup and hundreds of snacks and sauces and pasta and meats and breads ... and we worry we'll lose by helping a family that hasn't seen a grocery store in a year, whose children haven't seen a classroom in a year, and who've never bought new clothes.
There's a selfishness in us all that is strengthened by wealth and justified by the availability of more. Wealth does not produce character. If you want to see generosity, or you want to be welcomed and given a place, or you need a little help, visit the poor. We needn't bother feeling badly about the poverty; that doesn't change anything. We could do something, though.
Loving others for real is a life choice. It may be a short trip for us to get on that track -
Step one - we might pick an area that our heart responds to, join with those who know how, and escalate from a little up to where it's in the budget and schedule well above Starbucks and miscellaneous.
We could pick a couple of targets we know and understand, then plan and finance them. One local and one distant. Help a friend, equip a family, make a difference. Commit for the duration, know the folks involved. It changes things at both ends. :)
help out when you're asked, or better yet, before you're asked help a kid through school, through college or trade school help a family build their home and flocks and gardens help a community build a library or a clinic help a school with supplies for the kids help some refugees get resettled and start over help a community with med assistance help a family through a rough spot help a friend through a crisis
help a family keep their kids in school and on track
help the widowed and the orphaned here and elsewhere
Step two - we might get involved. We could go and see, perhaps, and get to know some of the people we serve. If we know them well enough to love them, then we're family, sort of.
If it isn't important enough to deserve a little effort, a little inconvenience, it may not be genuine. (If you've got kids, they should be part of the discussions, decisions, and changes.)
Perhaps an important side benefit, we don't have to feel guilty when we skip watching those tear-jerker appeals. We'll be way down the road past that sort of thing.
Step three, if we're all-in - we could study, inquire, learn from folks who know and serve well. Review and escalate. And, keep that up for the rest of our life.
Can a real Christian be comfortable in conversation with a same-gender couple and their child? Absolutely.
Can a believer sit with agnostics and talk thoughtfully about the world in which their children are growing up? Of course.
Can a person of faith have gracious friends on the other side of such issues? Yes.
NOTE: By this point, some may be struggling with the media version of a Christian response.
Jesus didn't spend much time with the religiously legalistic folks, and he did seem quite open to those whose lives were less than perfect. Prostitutes and publicans and those perhaps out on the fringe of of the religious world; you do get the impression he was open to conversation about the important things.
Times (and our national culture) have changed in the last half century. Family has been disassembled, marriage has been redefined, and childbirth outside of marriage is the majority norm. Many now say a child isn't a child until birth. And thanks to politicos and the media, we're more polarized than ever before in our nation's history. That means we're more at odds, more judgmental, and more likely to clash rather than find some middle ground of mutual respect.
While Christians will have strong personal convictions for how they live their own lives, is it their job to hate (of course not) and judge (absolutely not) and rail against and condemn? Such behavior seems unchristian in pretty much every context, does it not? And if our children behaved that way, we'd certainly have to step in and redirect them.
So how do we live in today's world but with a heart like Jesus had? And ... how do we prepare our children for life?
Now to be clear, the issues are volatile, and people of faith feel betrayed by their government. They rightly and justifiably are angry and threatened. The choices they must make among available options will be difficult, and much has already been taken from them.
Our second president John Adams warned, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Perhaps he's right.
The decline of biblical morality in America has yielded a Supreme Court that is now able to invent new ways to look at our Constitution and its later amendments and discover “rights” within the meaning and between the lines that are nowhere to be found. This is precisely what happened in both Obergefell and Roe.
In his Roe v. Wade dissenting opinion, Justice William Rehnquist stated that “to reach its result [in legalizing abortion], the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
In his Obergefell dissent, Chief Justice Roberts similarly and aptly stated that “if you are among the many Americans . . . who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. . . . But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”
The Obergefell decision has placed our nation in a position opposite to the Judeo-Christian principles on which it was founded. Two of the justices acknowledged this in their Obergefell dissents:
Chief Justice Roberts -- “The Court today not only overlooks our country’s entire history and tradition but actively repudiates it, preferring to live only in the heady days of the here and now.”
Justice Thomas -- “The Court’s decision today is at odds not only with the Constitution but with the principles upon which our nation was built. Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits.”
So the question remains, how do we live in today's world but with a heart like Jesus had? And ... how do we prepare our children for life in such a world?
Worth a regular review, isn't it. Looking back over the years, we find ourselves thankful for every positive word along the way, every affirmation of right thinking and choosing, every helpful correction, and for loving support through it all. Thanks and a hat tip to whoever originally authored this list; good stuff.
The Arab Spring, celebrated at the time as a triumph for freedom, is perhaps viewed differently by those in the middle of it today, those who have to live with the change as it continues. After so many years of oppression, of corruption, of murder and abuse, the public revolution began in desperation but with such hope for better. From an anonymous Egyptian blog ...
The Muslim Brotherhood's Constitution has passed, thanks to fraud and a sectarian campaign in the hands of the MB Government. The Yes votes are 64%, the No votes are 36% and the voter turnout was 32% of all eligible voters. Out of every 100 Egyptians, 20 have said yes, 12 have said no, and 68 didn’t even bother to go and vote.
Mohamed was one of those 68% that didn’t vote. He is a government employee by day, and a taxi driver by night, who spends every waking minute of his day trying to provide for his wife, 3 children and sick mother. Mohamed didn’t vote. Mohamed didn’t vote because he didn’t think it mattered, and that no matter what he chooses the outcome will be Yes anyway. Mohamed didn’t vote, because like all of his friends and neighbors, he has become disgusted with the tug of war between the secularists and the Islamists, and how all they care about is power, even if it means pulling the country into a civil war. Mohamed didn’t vote because he knows that neither side cares about him or his family, despite what they always say in their speeches, before and after the revolution. Mohamed didn’t vote because all the hope he had at the beginning of the revolution was gone, replaced with bitterness and anger, and he would rather spend the time scouring the streets of Cairo for a fare that might help him cover his ever increasing expenses. What good is a constitution to a bunch of hungry mouths anyway?
Mohamed hated the revolution. Mohamed hated that his neighborhood became infested with crime and thugs, and that the whole city soon followed. Mohamed hated the absence of the police unless they wanted a bribe, a practice that has increased after a revolution that claimed that it will stop it. Mohamed hated the state of chaos the country has been in for the past two years, and the hours he wasted in traffic caused by marches and sit ins and clashes that don’t seem to ever stop. Mohamed hated that there are no tourists anymore, and that when he gets a foreign customer it’s usually a Syrian refugee who hassles him over the fare, unlike the days when the Americans and the Gulfie tourists used to populate the city and pay him generously for taking them around. Mohamed hated that they were gone, and has lost hope that they will ever come back. Mohamed barely meets his expenses, and has no idea how he survived those past two years. He panicked when he heard that the prices of goods were going up, only to relax hours later when he was informed that the government cancelled the increase. Had those prices increased, Mohamed would be completely unable to feed his family, and what kind of a man would that make him? Mohamed is scared, bitter, angry, hungry and tired. He knows one thing for certain: if things get any worse financially, he will lose it. He will take the gun he bought two years ago, and kill the Islamists, the secularists, and all of those people who have the luxury to fight over stupid shit at his and his family’s expense.
Mohamed will show them the exact amount of consideration and mercy they have showed him, which is none.
Mohamed will have his Justice, and he is not the only one.
2016
It hasn't been an easy change. We're reminded that revolution isn't done in a day, perhaps not even in a decade.
One of the most extraordinary centers of history and civilization, Egypt is in an uneasy transition.
Parents worry for their children's safety as well as for their future.
In Egypt, more than eighty-five million people live with uncertainty, and many are fearul. Can we help? How might we ease some of the suffering so many face?
If you compare the size of our nation's financial industry (by total
assets) to the rest of the globe, there's a very clear statement
to make: we're huge. Perhaps too big?
Too big to fail (TBTF) was the term used when Wall Street finance crashed the world's economy in '07. We've seen billions paid in fines, but the money went to the government, not to those who suffered loss. Americans lost on average about $50K per capita. The finance industry continues to grow, and no one went to jail. The industry is huge, but that's not necessarily bad, we're told by economists. And government. And regulators. And the Federal Reserve. They may be right, as the industry size must indeed match the nation's economy and trade. The concerns that have not yet been reasonably addressed, the size of individual banks and companies along with the practices and integrity of the participants. 'Crooked as a dog's hind leg' describes the finance industry in general. Their influence now exceeds that of most countries, and their bottom line is winning, not serving. That's troublesome. Speaking of crooked, take HSBC for an example. In 2012, the news breaks about one of the world's larger banks. HSBC was knowingly serving terrorists and criminal cartels and had been for years. "... the U.S. Justice Department granted a total walk to executives of the British-based bank HSBC for the largest drug-and-terrorism money-laundering case ever. Yes, they issued a fine – $1.9 billion, or about five weeks' profit – but they didn't extract so much as one dollar or one day in jail from any individual, despite a decade of stupefying abuses."(Matt Taibbi, the Rolling Stone, 02/14/13) "They violated every goddamn law in the book," says Senate investigatorJack Blum. "They took every imaginable form of illegal and illicit business." So much for soft-pedaling the problem. So how many died, one might ask. How many were robbed, how many lost days or years of their lives, how many suffered ... HSBC was knowingly laundering money for murderers and drug industry players. They knew, and they did it anyway. Lives were ruined, and people died. And from the U.S. Justice Department, they got a walk. The fine HSBC paid went to the government, of course, and not a penny to victims or their families.
A week later, Assistant Attorney General Breuer announced a similar wrist-slap against the Swiss bank UBS, which had just admitted to a key role in perhaps the biggest antitrust/price-fixing case in history. The LIBOR scandal was a criminal rate rigging play that manipulated hundreds of trillions of dollars for the benefit of the bank. A reporter pointed out to Breuer that UBS had been found culpable in 2009 in a major tax-evasion case, and asked a sensible question. "This is a bank that has broken the law before," the reporter said. "So why not be tougher?"
"I don't know what tougher means," answered the assistant attorney general. One or two such cases are bad enough, but apparently such practices are common (rampant) in the (global) financial industry. (1)(2) Prison would be appropriate, but they got a pass. This is the picture today of our current financial industry, more powerful than nations, and our ineffectual government. Nuts.
Mr. Mandela, now 71, is freed without conditions, ending 27 and a half years of imprisonment.
February 11, 1990 -- Nelson Mandela released.
In his imprisonment, Nelson Mandela was told, "This is your ending. No one will hear you. No one will care. No one will remember your name," or words to that effect. No one remembers the fellow who said that, of course, and no one cares to.
Of Nelson Mandela, however ...
"President Nelson Mandela will forever be remembered as someone who gave up so much of his life in the struggle for freedom, so that millions could have a brighter future."UN Security Council
"He was a man of courage, principle and unquestionable integrity, a great human being, someone of whom we can truly say, 'He lived a meaningful life.' I pray for him and offer my heartfelt condolences to you, the members of your family and the entire people of South Africa."Dali Lama
"Nelson Mandela is physically separated from us, but his soul and spirit will never die. He belongs to the whole world because he is an icon of equality, freedom and love, the values we need all the time everywhere. His long, long struggle is a great demonstration of humanity. I have learned so much from Nelson Mandela, and he has been my leader. He is a perpetual inspiration for me and millions of others around the world." Malala Yousafzai
"Nelson Mandela demonstrated that leadership is not about power, but on the contrary, about honor. That is what we learned from Nelson Mandela during the dark days with him on Robben Island. Today he is seen as an icon in the world, whose teachings, principles and values need to be embraced by all. He was embraced even by even white wardens, his own jailers, because he demonstrated that through the power of dialogue ... people on different sides, former enemies, can come together. That's how we in South Africa were able to resolve our intractable problems created by the racist system of apartheid. ... My cell was only about 2-3 meters away from his cell. His cell was small, but it contained a very formidable and larger-than-life figure."Tokyo Sexwale, who was imprisoned with Mandela on Robben Island From his autobiography which he wrote in prison, "No one is born hating another person because of the colour of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite."
It has been 26 years since his release in 1990. That was a long time ago. He was in prison longer.
For us all, Nelson Mandela is a world changer. We'll remember him and tell stories about him and include him in our history books alongside those most extraordinary people who gave of themselves for the sake of others. And we're inspired to serve as well.
