Showing posts with label commenting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label commenting. Show all posts

Saturday, February 21, 2009

On Lupe Fiasco and Cousin Lynn's Comment

My cousin, Lynn, made the following comment on my blog concerning Lupe Fiasco--I have some comments for her comment myslef--I'll make them after her's . . .

"I too love Lupe Fiaso and his music. Check out him and Jill Scott in Daydreamin' one of my all time fav's.
I have agreed with you and proclaimed my frustration in the church and the way they have capitalized religion.
I have agreed with you and proclaimed my frustration with Christians who only go to church so they don't have to be Christians everyday.
I have stated that I am not religious but instead spiritual in nature, trying everyday to break down the barriers that lead men who claim to be ruled by a teaching of love to kill in the name of doctrine.
However....I am a follower of Christ. I believe all of the differences from one Christian church to the other to be minutia. They all believe in Christ and that is the important part. Are they perfect, absolutely not. I believe everyone has the right to accept whatever religion they want, Christian or not, but I, in no way, would support or declare another religion as something that I was proud of or agreed with. I can agree to disagree with people and allow them to say what they will, but I will not be proclaiming what I do not believe in. Do not allow your voice to be used for something you do not believe in. By posting this video you, in essence, are proclaiming that you agree with him and that Mohammed is the equivalent to Jesus or the true prophet of God.
I can not agree with you on this one."

Obviously, the part where we digress is witnessed by her own transition "however". Cousin Lynn is under the assumption or presumption that my posting of Lupe's Muhammed Walks somehow constitutes my "witnessing" or "proclaiming" a Muslim message. More importantly, she assumes I would (or perhaps should) have a problem with that.

Since Cousin Lynn is a faithful follower of this blog--I feel rude not directing this to her--not to single her out; but in an attempt to not be rude; or so as not to feel as though I am talking behind her back instead of to her face. That being said--I will henceforth direct this to her . . .

Lynn--the assumptions/presumptions laid out earlier get to the heart of your issue. You state that I alleged that I "support or declare another religion as something that I was proud of or agreed with". I did no such thing. In the original post I said I was a fan of Lupe and that this song was "smart and good". I did not issue a testament to the tenets of Islam; and if saying something is good is the same as saying I am proud of it--then there is a chasm of difference in our understanding. Likewise, declaring something as "smart" is not limited to Christian themed or secular themed material, art or media. I assume (yes I know it is dangerous to assume) that you have no issue with his other work--as you yourself even recommended his music in your opening comment. Therefore, is the issue JUST that the song I chose was about Muhammed? It doesn't change his beliefs (anymore than it changes my beliefs) to post it. It doesn't make the song go away or not exist--so I don't quite comprehend how posting it is a declaration or promotion of Islamic values or beliefs.

Secondly, implied or inherrant in your comment is that I should see something wrong with Lupe's beliefs or with my posting the song. I do not. I believe what we have in common is greater than what divides us. I know you fervently defend the right of everyone to believe what they want to believe; you have no objection to Lupe choosing to be Islam--indeed, you state such in your comment. Your only issue is that I posted said song. But I ask you--why is it offensive. If America gives us the right to think, believe and express whatever we choose personally; is not the logical consequence listening to each others beliefs? Listening to someone else doesn't mean I am brainwashed into their thinking--instead it means often that I have a clearer understanding of my own beliefs--BECAUSE they are exposed to other beliefs and challenges. Faith that cannot be exposed to other beliefs or review is not faith worth having. Your passioned defense of Rick Warren's presence at the Inauguration was one of the voices that caused me to self-reflect and review my own critiques. (see here) Is that fairness of opinion only reserved for Christian beliefs?

Finally, and this is the crux, I have nothing against my fellow humans. I find there is some peace and truth in the teachings of Muhammed. I find solace in the wisdom of the Jews. I appreciate the symbolism and learnings of Shiva and Hinduism; I can learn from Jainism, Buddhism and Taoism. And yes, I can and do look for guidance in the teachings of Jesus Christ as well as Darwin or Marx or Jefferson or Ghandi or Lincoln (all 6 were "non-traditional believers"). In fact, Lupe remade/released that song to show what we had in common. After listening to Kanye's Jesus Walks, he thought "Hey we believe Jesus was a prophet too. Lets highlight what we have in common." (listen to interview here - segment 1 has the interview--and scroll down near the bottom for the extended interview) His understanding or worldview is not the same as mine, but neither is yours; but I can appreciate his sincerity. I can appreciate his attempt to show that Islam and Christianity share a same G-d; share many of the same teachings; and many of the same people. I have no problem with anything he said in the lyrics (click for full lyrics)

"For we all are sinners

Bless us to be among the winners

When it ends

But until then please strengthen the mission within our hearts

All praise is due to God"

Amen

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

How To Deal With Difficult Relatives

How to Deal With Difficult Relatives
http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-Difficult-Relatives

It's one thing dealing with difficult people with whom you have a professional or casual relationship, such as your boss, a co-worker, or anyone you deal with on a regular basis. But if the problem person is a relative and your relationship is personal and permanent, that’s a whole different beast. You must clearly define the boundaries you’re comfortable with, let the other person know what those boundaries are, and then enforce them.

Steps Define your boundaries. You set the boundaries in your relationships. If those boundaries are crossed and the other person can’t seem to take the hint, you have to assert yourself to restore balance. If you have relatives who fail to respect your boundaries and behave as if the purpose of the relationship is for you to bend over backwards to satisfy all of their needs, you certainly aren’t alone. What you need to do is define boundaries which you consider to be bottom lines that should not be crossed, ones that make you feel violated when they are. For example, if you value your privacy and a relative insists on frequent unannounced drop-in visits, that may be a bottom line for you. The first thing to realize is that it’s perfectly OK to satisfy your own needs. A relationship that makes you feel violated isn’t healthy.
Verbalize your boundaries. Use nonviolent communication (observation, feeling, need, request) the next time a relative oversteps boundaries. If you’ve been going years without clearly verbalizing and enforcing your boundaries like a mature adult (i.e. you’ve been letting the other person treat you like a child for too long), most likely the other person won’t take you seriously at first. There may be a "shock" reaction (usually feigned) at the mere suggestion that you dare attempt to put restrictions on this behavior. Just let that person have his or her reaction, but stand your ground anyway.
Enforce your boundaries. Try to enforce with kindness and compassion at first - after all, there's a good chance you've allowed this behavior to go on for years, and that makes you partly to blame for the fact that your relative has not learned the behavior you want from him or her. But if that fails, and your relative doesn't respond to gentle reminders, here's a no-nonsense approach to enforcing your boundaries: Let the other person know that for the next 30 days, you intend to strictly enforce the boundaries you’ve described. Make it clear that if that person violates your boundaries even once during those 30 days, you will then begin a 30-day communications blackout. For 30 days you simply have no contact with the other person. No drop-in visits (if s/he shows up, you firmly say, "Sorry, we just aren't ready for visitors right now. Also, we are not having contact with you at this time - remember? That is to help you with our new rules."), no phone calls, no emails, nothing — unless it’s absolutely mandatory. After the 30-day fasting period, you can restart the original 30-day boundary-enforcement trial and repeat the process. Of course you should let the other person know you’re doing this — be totally transparent about what you’re doing. Also, let the other person know that you’re resorting to this process because s/he's left you no choice - remind him or her that you've made many attempts to let him or her know how serious you were, and those attempts were ignored. Say that you want a fresh start, so that a new relationship that you can both enjoy can grow, and that by taking a 30-day break, you hope to make a clean start, both understanding how to respect one another's boundaries.


The first attempt at a 30-day blackout will surely be filled with attempts to contact you. You will rebuff the attempts by not responding to them. Hopefully, the attempts peter out, and you finish the 30 days in peace. However, if your relative is relentless and will not respect your request for 30 days, then you need to inform him or her that you're going to have to take stronger measures. Reset your calendar to Day 1. From this time forward, if the other person attempts to make contact with you at all during the 30-day blackout, the 30 days resets to Day 1. Be sure your relative understands the rules of this game, don't just do it without letting him or her know what you expect, and what the consequences of violating your request will be. If the rules are breached more than a couple times and you reach the point where you’re pretty clear the other person has no intention of respecting your boundaries whatsoever, regardless of your attempts to enforce them, then you’re done. The relationship cannot continue in its current form. If the other person can’t even respect your boundaries for 30 days, then what kind of future do you have together? It means that your boundaries will be trampled for as long as you allow the relationship to continue to exist in its current form.
This might sound a bit harsh, but keep in mind that before you reach this point, you’ve already expressed your needs clearly to the other person, and you were trampled. You owe it to yourself to take a step back and see if you really wish to continue this relationship at all. The 30-day blackout period is a time for both of you to re-evaluate the relationship from a distance. It’s also a massive pattern interrupt that lets the other person know with certainty that s/he crossed an uncrossable line, and enough is enough.
Disarm the primary weapon: Guilt. If the other person attempts to use guilt as a tool of manipulation (which is extremely common), it’s fairly easy to overcome. Whenever you perceive the other person attempting to manipulate your emotions by making you feel guilty, bring the whole matter to conscious awareness by asking, “You’re not trying to make me feel guilty, are you?” The other person will probably deny it, but soon the pattern will re-emerge. Keep interrupting the pattern of falling into a state of guilt by bringing attention to the other person’s emotionally manipulative tactics. Simply keep asking questions like, “Why do you feel it necessary to use guilt as a tool of manipulation?” or “You must really find this upsetting if you feel it necessary to try to make me feel guilty to get what you want. Can we try a more mature way of discussing this?” You don’t need to beat the person up about it, but put a stop to the use of guilt as a weapon, once and for all. If you refuse to enter the emotional state of guilt, it will allow you to be more objective and compassionate in seeing that the other person is probably using guilt because s/he feels powerless. If you can address that powerlessness, you have the opportunity to transform the relationship for good.
Re-evaluate the relationship. If the person refuses to change, think deeply about your relationship with him or her. You might find that you harbor one or more beliefs that perpetuate the problem. If you operate under the belief that all family is forever and that you must remain loyal to all your relatives and spend lots of time with them, those beliefs are your choice, and you’re free to embrace them - or release them. If you find yourself with family relationships that are incompatible with your becoming your highest and best self, then excessive loyalty to your family is likely to be extremely disempowering to you. Think deeply about your own beliefs about family and loyalty, and consider the following:


You would probably never tolerate the same behaviors in a stranger as you will in a family member. To push a family member out of your life might cause you to feel guilty, or could lead to a backlash from other family members. But genuinely ask yourself, “Why do I tolerate this behavior from a family member when, if it were a stranger, I would refuse to tolerate at all?”
Identify the nature of the external conflicts you experience, and then translate them into their internal equivalents. For example, if a family member is too controlling of you, translate that problem into your own internal version: You feel your relationship with this family member is too much out of your control. When you identify the problem as external, your attempted solutions may take the form of trying to control other people, and you’ll meet with strong resistance. But when you identify the problem as internal, it’s much easier to solve. If another person exhibits controlling behavior towards you, you may be unable to change that person. However, if you feel you need more control in your life, then you can actually do something about your responses without needing to control others.
You can love your relatives without having a particularly close-knit relationship. Maybe your personal values and lifestyle have moved so far from theirs that there isn’t enough basic compatibility to form a strong common bond anymore. Even though this might be the family you grew up with and shared many memories with, your core values are so different now that it just doesn’t feel like a meaningful family relationship anymore. Despite all these differences, you can be on good terms with each other and get along fairly well, but your differences create such a big gap that you have to settle for being relatives without being close friends.
Familial relationships can be complex, and cutting one person out can lead to your losing someone you really do want to have a closer relationship with. Decide which hills are really worth dying on, in other words, if you only have to see this difficult person two or three times a year, consider just letting it roll off your shoulder. Although you want to be the captain of your own destiny, it won't hurt you to just endure this person for a few hours, and the trade-off is worth it if you are keeping your other relatives happy by doing so.

Tips When you see this pattern occurring where you don’t have the leverage to enforce boundaries, such as with your spouse’s relative, and your partner seems spineless about having a confrontation, then you have to enforce these boundaries with your partner. You must clearly tell your partner to speak to his or her relatives, to defend you and your marriage/partnership, and to make it clear to his or her relatives that you must be respected, or else the two of you will not be visiting much. This has the benefit of pushing your partner to grow up (albeit sometimes kicking and screaming), learning to put your needs first and the “Mommy” figure's needs second. Some people just need a good kick to get themselves out of childhood and into adulthood, especially during their 20s. In the long run, your partner will likely be grateful to you for his/her new spine.
If all else fails, run! If the above solution fails, just up and move to another city. Many people swear their marriages have been saved by this solution!

Warnings If your boundaries are reasonable, and the person is either unwilling or incapable of complying with them, you’re done — in most situations it would be foolish to continue such a relationship. It will only erode your self-respect.

Thursday, August 7, 2008

Sacrementables Blog Post on Bourbon Cowboy

Check out a GREAT post on Dave Dickerson's Bourbon Cowboy blog on Sacrementables--handy communion-to-go cups.

Brilliant!

http://bourboncowboy.blogspot.com/2008/08/sacramentables.html

A MUST read!

Thursday, May 29, 2008

New Posts

I promoised I had a plethora of posts ready.

Read below for all of them. Or check out the list to the right.

Enjoy!

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Comments too good to pass up!

2 posts from a fellow Wash Post reader:

1> No wonder the R's are losing it. Just listened to Rush talk about how America is the world's best last hope. Nothing like turning a nation into an idol. Sounds just like Hitler's deification of Germany.

The world's last great hope are those who act justly and defend the inalienable rights of humanity, wherever they may be.

The founding fathers realized that the nation they were founding was another experiment in human governance. It could fail as easily as the many nations before it.

A nation which embraces torture, pre-emptive wars, invasions of sovereign countries, pollutes the environment, lives off the slave labor of poorer countries and legislates belief can no longer claim the moral high ground or pretend to be the last great hope of anything except humanity's basest desires.

America is not great by virtue of its existence. It is great only by virtue of its virtues.

So tragic that so many listen to such tripe. It's like people who are told they are good simply because they belong to a religion, mistaking membership for good works, ritual for good fruits, prayer for acts of charity, religious clothing for conversion of heart.

America is only as good as its actions.
No more, no less. To claim some innate divine superiority is as delusional as it is blasphemous.

But the weak and insecure always seek to clothe themselves in God's mantle when unable to do God's work.

The right is to be pitied when seduced by such a small-minded man.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 01:52 PM

2> Charity.

As some one remarked long ago, the poor will always be with us. In other words, we will always be creatures of choice.

That same man remarked on the rich who paraded their charity for all to see. To empower the poor? To promote the general welfare? No. To reap compliements and indulge in self-pride at a being so "generous," giving a pittance from their piled-up of wealth.

True charity has little to do with money or tax-write offs. It has to do with treating others with respect. It has to do with empowering those who have no power. It has to do with protecting the environment. It has to do with creating balance in society. It has to do with sacrificing one's comfort for another's survival. It has to do with self-respect, respect for others and respect for the created universe.

It has nothing to do with sending a check to Africa from the comfort of a exclusive country club.

As that same man said so many years ago, it will be easier for a camel loaded with baggage to get through the tiniest of archways than a rich person to enter the gates of heaven. Not because they are rich, but because they can't let go of the baggage.

Money is not the root of evil, it is the desire for it.

But as some of the rich are unable to release their grasp of materialism for love of neighbor, so too many of those who are not rich are unable to release their grasp of envy.

Judging each other on matters of the heart are as meaningless as judging charity from an IRS filing.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 27, 2008 03:35 PM

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Journey Not a Destination

Here is a wonderful musing about life being a journey not a destination.

I originally saw it on the Bourbon Cowboy's blog.

Enjoy!

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Who's Winning??

Obama or Clinton????

To listen to the momentum argument and chatter (which is at least 50 if not 65% of the election process) one would have to say that Clinton is winning.

She won 3 of the 4 contests on 3/4; and did two things very effectively:
1> She won the large state argument: Excpet Illinois (Obama's home state) and Virginia; Hillary has now won all of what are usually considered "big" states: California, New York, Texas, Florida (disputed), New Jersey, Massachusettes, Ohio and Michigan (also disputed). this was VERY important--more important than breaking Obama's momentum--because it served to showcase her electability; ability to carry the big states and trivialized his wins----even though he currently is in the lead with the most delegates, most states, and most of the poplar votes--but Preception is such a HUGE factor in this era of politics; it is hard to make that argument as definitive because of the facts I just stated above.
2> Hillary found a way to make the attacks stick--Hillary has been attacking Obama since prior to the SC Primary; but he has rebutted, parried and deflected every single one. What happened this time was in a two prong approach (well really 3) she was able to make the attack stick--1> she questioned his ability to be Commander In Chief with her 3:00 am ad--which he rebutted with his own 3:00 am ad about having the judgement to answer the phone--but her damage has already been done. 2> She spun the NAFTA debacle as NAFTA-gate and turned an unpaid advisor of Obama's talking without direction into a statement that Obama was "two-faced" on NAFTA--a point which in the days following the Ohio Primary received SCADS of attention in Canada (but do we know that--of ocurse not, because most people in America barely realize Canada is NOT part of the US, much less has its own gov't!!!) The Prime Minister got involved and the two leading newspapers in Toronto and Montreal ran cover stories on how it was actually Hillary's people who contacted them about ignoring the political "anti-NAFTA" rhetoric-and Obama's guy said the wrong thing at the wrong time. Not a great thing, but remember he was an unpaid advisor, not actually part of the campaign or acting on any official capacity. this is what helped Clinton, because Obama made an unequivocal deny that any of his people had been in contact with the Canadian government or said anything of the like--only problem, he didn't know about the unpaid advisor opened his mouth at a random meeting, where he was NOT representing the Obama campaign. 3> She succedded in "roughing up the refs" she pushed the press for being too light on Obama and after two appearances on SNL, convinced America that she was more hip than she looked and that she had a point--negative news to follow. . .

BUT--Obama has an argument:
He has won more delegates, more states, more of the popular vote; cut her lead in super delegates to a little over 20; WON the Texas delegate race, Ensured Clinton walked away from her "big" victory with a net gain of 2 delegates, and still well behind him, and went from being 20 points down in both Texas and Ohio to being 9 points in Ohio and 2 points in Texas--the problem then??? he didn't deliver like people thought he would, the momentum, the zeitgeist, everything was on Obama's side--and he fought close, but just enough to cut her lead to fractions, but not enough to win.

So what's to do--Obama won Wyoming and will probably win Mississippi. He will also probably win very well in NC; but the battle will be Pennsylvania. He has to get momentum back, convince the superdelegates he is still well ahead and going strong, and he has to WIN Pennsylvania. If he just breaks even or cuts her lead; his case for electability will be weak no matter how many delegates he has.
BUT--the good news comes two fold--this race (longest in american political history) has shown 2 things 1> Clinton is often the recipient of "reversed momentum"--that is she wins and pulls into the front; but people don't respond to her winning with more winning--usually its a "we just didn't want her getting beat up so bad; but we don't want her to win." this happened in Iowa; New Hampshire, after Super Tuesday and looks to be happening now--Hillary's comment about offering Obama the Veep job (as she lags behind in states, delegates and votes) has set A LOT of people talking again about arrogance and entitlement--2 things Americans don't like to support or reward--we'd rather have ignorance (current President . . . but that is another blog) :)
and 2> time is on Obama's side-he has proven to be the better candidate when it comes to winning people over, he learns from mistakes and fixes them. Ohio and Texas taught Obama a lot about what to expect; and chances are his strategy will prove effective in neutralizing any argument or points she has--Point in case--her push for more "negative" stories on him have been massively deflected in the light of the press. while they still try and tie him to Rezko, they cannot find any misdeeds on his part; and he continues to cooperate. He has turned her remarks on his suitability into "fear-mongering" and the worst thing Dateline could get on him was a former Republican Illinois Senatorial colleague who said Obama is pretty much tried and true; but while he passed a lot of bills-he didn't have any "big" movements--of course the Republicans controlled the Illinois Senate during most of his tenure and as the former colleague admits--"It was hard for any democrat to get anything done, much less a "big" movement."

That's it; that seems to be the worst thing they can say that actually has merit and sticks--the rest is just propaganda.

So, who do YOU think is winning?

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Love--Sola Amora

If there could only be one word I could pick to live off, that word would be love.If I could only use one word , that would be the word.

To describe G-d, my world, my life, my focus and my goal.

My feeble tongue doesn’t have the words to translate what that word truly means.
Love is the purest, love because of and in spite of, out of choice and out of duty, love for and love against.
Love as noun and verb,adjective and interjection. Love. Simply stated, freely given.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Funny Thoughts from Cousin Lynn

The following thoughts came to me from Cousin Lynn. Enjoy! :)

During these serious times, people of all faiths should remember these four religious truths:
1. Muslims do not recognize Jews as God's chosen people.
2. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
3. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian world.
4. Baptists do not recognize each other at Hooters!

Friday, February 8, 2008

Comments from Cousin Lynn

I have been getting a lot of emails about my "Jesus is anti-religion" post.

One came from my cousin Lynn. She said I could share it, so I am doing so:

I enjoy your interpretation of politics because I keep up little with such things and take your opinions as a sounding board for my own beliefs. I also enjoy your interpretation of religion because I know too much and agree totally with you. I got bored with the political and jumped back to your first “Jesus was anti-religion”. I agree more then 100% percent and have lived my life on this theory and have selfishly used it as an excuse to distance myself and my family from church and anything to do with it. But as I mature I see this as a cop out. I cry as I write this. Because even though I’ve said I separate God and Church, which I do, I have fallen farther from both. Jesus had the right to condemn the church, because he did God’s work better then they did. I condemn the church and sit by idly dealing with my own issues and no one else’s. I quote the scripture, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this, to care for orphans and widows in their afflictions (James 1 vs 27)". But have never met, cared or donated to one. Yes the church is hypocritical and capitalistic, and I do not believe that attendance will get you to heaven. But I’m not sure if what I’m doing will either. People go to church because they don’t want to be Christians. They want the church to do that for them. They give money so the church can sponsor some missionary group in South America far from the comfort of our air conditioned lives. It’s so easy to point out the faults in a group of people, but I don’t think I could do it better. So what do we do? Fall into darkness because the light is dingy?

I don’t know what to do. I can’t do what Jesus did. I am both too selfish and too scared. Is that what he saves us from or did he show us a path to salvation that we are too weak to follow. My questions go unanswered and my tears are wasted salt. I pray that God leads me closer to him, but I am starting to realize that it is his people he wants us to reach out to. I remember Nanny praying that God helped her to love people because she didn’t like them very much. And even though I saw he unselfishly do for people I know she didn’t enjoy it. How do we change our core personalities? We can act like we love people, but how do we really love people, if we can’t stand them?

Sorry, I didn’t mean to make a blog of my own. These are questions I’ve been dealing with and I have questions about God’s true desire for our lives. I have to hang on to the belief that it is Jesus that gets us to heaven and nothing we do ourselves.





15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are Mathew 23:15

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Democratic Debate

Are you watching the debate? I think it is awesome that we have a woman and an African-American as the lead contenders for the Presidential race.

Both are making good points--and I am torn back and forth. I think Barack's plans for health care and the economy are better. I think he grasps the need for a new direction in a way Hillary doesn't.

If Hillary winds up on top, I think there is no one better prepared to lead. But for now I am enjoying this unique point in American History and am just loving my man Obama!