Did you hear it?
It started with an allusion to David & Goliath and then transferred to the New Testament with the reference to "The Widow's Mite".
Very savvy for Huckabee to lead off very religiously and also first of the candidates. He is making it clear, he is the Fundy candidate--and I am sure they heard this loud and clear. Romney isn't quoting cute bible stories. Huckabee is the "real Fundy" and this will help him if he is picked as McCain's Veep.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
FAITH is what we BELIEVE in.
Hi everyone,
I was going to write about the propensity for myth among the Fundy right. However, I had to do this first--I may get around to that tonight, but I had to get this post out.
I have been listening to the YES WE CAN video all day long. And it has MOVED me. I did not want to get on here and write just another blogpost about "fundy-truths". I wanted to write more and deeper than that at this point.
Here's why--that video and the words of Barack Obama in that video are inspiring. Regardless of your political color, as an American, those words should inspire us to be who we know we can be. To reach for the highest pinnacles of progress--not because it is our calling, or our birthright; but simply and profoundly because it is our DNA.
As I was listening I was overcome with the desire to do better and be better. And I realized that is what FAITH is. That is what Faith is about. When I commented on Traci and Beth's blog on Churchrater.com; I complemented Beth on her Faith (who is a Christian) and then went back and complemented Traci on hers (who is an atheist) because it is VERY important to see that Atheists are not "lacking in faith". That faith may be a different kind of faith or in different things (tangible and intangible) but FAITH still exists. Even faith in science, logic and reason constitutes dynamic faith. Faith is not the sole property of one tradition, mindset, people or paradigm. Faith is what we all have in common when it comes down to it. Faith is what moves us each day to be the people we are. The Hebrew scriptures tell us "without a vision, my people perish." Those words, while taken out of context are truth--not just for Judeo-Christianity, or even monotheistic religions; or even for religions at all. Even the non-believer believes in something--I am convinced it is what makes us human. Descartes said "Cognito ergo sum." I think therefore I am. I want to take it one step further . . . Puto ergo sum . . .I BELIEVE therefore I am.
I was going to write about the propensity for myth among the Fundy right. However, I had to do this first--I may get around to that tonight, but I had to get this post out.
I have been listening to the YES WE CAN video all day long. And it has MOVED me. I did not want to get on here and write just another blogpost about "fundy-truths". I wanted to write more and deeper than that at this point.
Here's why--that video and the words of Barack Obama in that video are inspiring. Regardless of your political color, as an American, those words should inspire us to be who we know we can be. To reach for the highest pinnacles of progress--not because it is our calling, or our birthright; but simply and profoundly because it is our DNA.
As I was listening I was overcome with the desire to do better and be better. And I realized that is what FAITH is. That is what Faith is about. When I commented on Traci and Beth's blog on Churchrater.com; I complemented Beth on her Faith (who is a Christian) and then went back and complemented Traci on hers (who is an atheist) because it is VERY important to see that Atheists are not "lacking in faith". That faith may be a different kind of faith or in different things (tangible and intangible) but FAITH still exists. Even faith in science, logic and reason constitutes dynamic faith. Faith is not the sole property of one tradition, mindset, people or paradigm. Faith is what we all have in common when it comes down to it. Faith is what moves us each day to be the people we are. The Hebrew scriptures tell us "without a vision, my people perish." Those words, while taken out of context are truth--not just for Judeo-Christianity, or even monotheistic religions; or even for religions at all. Even the non-believer believes in something--I am convinced it is what makes us human. Descartes said "Cognito ergo sum." I think therefore I am. I want to take it one step further . . . Puto ergo sum . . .I BELIEVE therefore I am.
YES WE CAN
Have you seen the video "Yes We Can"? It is amazing, inspirational and transforming. It is based on an Obama speech.
I believe Hillary would make a good President, but I want someone I can believe in, who makes me feel inspired about America and our future. Call me romantic . . .but at least my myths are based on ideas like tolerance, inclusion, ability, progress, hope, tomorrow and LOVE.
Tavis Smalley once talked about the sadness and despair of the middle east in recent times because there is no one on either side of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict who is arguing for LOVE, for inclusion, for forgiveness. And subsequently, look at how things have spiraled out of control.
I know this sounds "hippy"; but I am not a "cause head", but I do believe in the infinite power of WE and I do believe in the zeitgeist of CHANGE and PROGRESS and I do believe LOVE and FORGIVENESS are dynamic and powerful--and while that may not mean we all go off and "buy the world a Coke" . . .it does mean that the concept of LOVE and FORGIVENESS can pervade our thoughts and actions and help us keep our actions, inactions, words and deeds in check. They can move us further from who we thought we were, and closer to who we want to be.
YES WE CAN!
Check out the video:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/yeswecanvideo
More later . . .
I believe Hillary would make a good President, but I want someone I can believe in, who makes me feel inspired about America and our future. Call me romantic . . .but at least my myths are based on ideas like tolerance, inclusion, ability, progress, hope, tomorrow and LOVE.
Tavis Smalley once talked about the sadness and despair of the middle east in recent times because there is no one on either side of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict who is arguing for LOVE, for inclusion, for forgiveness. And subsequently, look at how things have spiraled out of control.
I know this sounds "hippy"; but I am not a "cause head", but I do believe in the infinite power of WE and I do believe in the zeitgeist of CHANGE and PROGRESS and I do believe LOVE and FORGIVENESS are dynamic and powerful--and while that may not mean we all go off and "buy the world a Coke" . . .it does mean that the concept of LOVE and FORGIVENESS can pervade our thoughts and actions and help us keep our actions, inactions, words and deeds in check. They can move us further from who we thought we were, and closer to who we want to be.
YES WE CAN!
Check out the video:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/yeswecanvideo
More later . . .
Monday, February 4, 2008
McCain and Religious Right
OK, have you heard all the buzz about John McCain and the religious right? I am sure you have. It is ironic to me that there is such opposition to McCain in that camp. I am a Democrat and proudly voting for Obama, but will be glad to vote for Hillary, despite some misgivings.
McCain does not interest me at all (except for the fact that he might be a lesser of evils). His turn around to being pro-Bush after the Bushies knee-capped him in SC in 2000, was despicable and a blight on his "straight talk message".
However, I think the cry against from McCain should send shockwaves to the rest of America concerning the Religious Right. They are NOT interested in bi-partisanship; nor are they interested in reasoned arguments, compromise or "growth in beliefs".
Yes, there are many progressives who may be cynical and will not vote for Hillary--but overall you cannot point to one distinct group who is willing to go so far as to campaign for the other side. Now before I am torn apart with comments proving me wrong--let me clarify by saying "on the national level"--and this excludes moderate/independents who would probably switch to McCain if he were to run against Hillary. The religious right, a bulwark of republicanism for oh so many decades, are pissed. Despite what Ann Coulter says, most will not be supporting Hillary, even in opposition to McCain.
Here is why they are pissed--power and influence. This has been an odd election for evangelicals, despite being courted by so many Republicans, and even having one of their own, they haven't coalesced behind anyone. McCain is too liberal, Romney is Mormon (don't think that doesn't matter to a lot of evangelicals), and Huckabee (who should have been the obvious choice) has made too many compromising decisions. And why is that . . .because he is a populist and pragmatic. Depite what you want to say about a lot of what Huckabee has said or stands for; he has taken somewhat unpopular decisions in the name of and for the sake of governing. He is too friendly and willing to work with the other side. Thus the evangelicals were spilt, or disaffected with those running.
Evangelicals--and I was one of them--are very much about "taking my ball and going home". This is especially true when it comes to politics. Perhaps more so. You see, I know several evangelicals who are not as adamant about abortion or evolution or gay marriage or capital punishment or a host of other issues until they are polarized--often by a tag team approach of conservative pundits & preachers. What happens is, the pundits and preachers paint the choices in the worst possible light for evangelicals: they paint it as a "civil rights" issue. My grandmother (before she passed away) personally told me she thought abortion should not be made illegal, because of the potential danger of illegal abortions--yet she was adamantly against Bill and Hillary and all Dems; and the reason why? Because all of her news information sources agreed that pro-life was a civil rights issue--more about protecting the rights of evangelicals to have their voices heard than it is really about abortion.
The evangelical church is really prone to "conservatism" and I don't just mean from a political standpoint; they don't trust a lot of the institutions and government and media. There is a real tendency to "err on the side of caution" among evangelicals. This is true from raising their children, to church selection, to voting. Go with what you know and what is "safe"--even if it is counter to what you may feel would be a good decision. And the reason for this is because they don't trust the nation, the government or the "whole" to deliver prudently or act wisely. They would rather sacrifice change and progress in order to stay safe.
A lot of the hate and scorn during the Civil Rights error was more about the potential backlash. Not that hate and racism weren't contributing to that; but there main fear was "what will happen to my neighborhood, my church, my children's school, etc." Racism, ignorance and hate are behind the fear; but that is what the fear was. Blacks and the governement were not seen (in their eyes) as being trustworthy enough to pull off this social agenda; and so many evangelicals and fundamentalists of the time chose to keep the status quo; because it was safer.
The same is true today. Evangelicals may look at all of Hillary's policies (and she HAS more conservative stands than most people think) and agree; but they don't trust Hillary to pull that off; and they don't like her because of all the rumors, misinformation and propoganda (my family still argues that Hillary decorated the White House Christmas tree with condoms--and that is one of teh many crazy reasons they'd never vote for her. They don't trust the government. They may see the "R" behind McCain's name, but they don't see that he basically stands for and represents many of their major issues; and in the areas where he differs, it is out of pragmatism and reality. However, they (as a whole) are not willing to buy that. There is no guiding, gentling of the religious or party line. They are right, on edict from Gawd! and they will stubbornly hold out, claiming their oppression as a minority (I'm serious) and stand true to (their version of) Christ with an American flag waving in the background.
That is what scares me about evangelicals and also explains why they so supported Bush. He talked the talk they wanted to hear. He was stubborn and arrogant on issues that mattered deep to them. Forget the fact that he didn't deliver on everything--that was just A>Washington secularists &/or B> Democrats. He even felt he had been "annointed or called" to his position, and he could "look into a man's soul". These are all HUGE for evangelicals; and the reason why a> the evangelicals are upset; b> will not support McCain in the numbers they supported Bush/Cheney, and c>would gladly give Bush a 3rd term--if only it wasn't for that pesky Constitution, which should only have one ammendment anyway--I'll let you figure out which one they'd keep----
There is no compromising when you are trained and taught in the absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible says it (in your mind/opinion), then to not stand on that priniciple is tantamount to betraying your faith, selling out, and being a secular humanist (the most feared word in Fundy-world).
McCain does not interest me at all (except for the fact that he might be a lesser of evils). His turn around to being pro-Bush after the Bushies knee-capped him in SC in 2000, was despicable and a blight on his "straight talk message".
However, I think the cry against from McCain should send shockwaves to the rest of America concerning the Religious Right. They are NOT interested in bi-partisanship; nor are they interested in reasoned arguments, compromise or "growth in beliefs".
Yes, there are many progressives who may be cynical and will not vote for Hillary--but overall you cannot point to one distinct group who is willing to go so far as to campaign for the other side. Now before I am torn apart with comments proving me wrong--let me clarify by saying "on the national level"--and this excludes moderate/independents who would probably switch to McCain if he were to run against Hillary. The religious right, a bulwark of republicanism for oh so many decades, are pissed. Despite what Ann Coulter says, most will not be supporting Hillary, even in opposition to McCain.
Here is why they are pissed--power and influence. This has been an odd election for evangelicals, despite being courted by so many Republicans, and even having one of their own, they haven't coalesced behind anyone. McCain is too liberal, Romney is Mormon (don't think that doesn't matter to a lot of evangelicals), and Huckabee (who should have been the obvious choice) has made too many compromising decisions. And why is that . . .because he is a populist and pragmatic. Depite what you want to say about a lot of what Huckabee has said or stands for; he has taken somewhat unpopular decisions in the name of and for the sake of governing. He is too friendly and willing to work with the other side. Thus the evangelicals were spilt, or disaffected with those running.
Evangelicals--and I was one of them--are very much about "taking my ball and going home". This is especially true when it comes to politics. Perhaps more so. You see, I know several evangelicals who are not as adamant about abortion or evolution or gay marriage or capital punishment or a host of other issues until they are polarized--often by a tag team approach of conservative pundits & preachers. What happens is, the pundits and preachers paint the choices in the worst possible light for evangelicals: they paint it as a "civil rights" issue. My grandmother (before she passed away) personally told me she thought abortion should not be made illegal, because of the potential danger of illegal abortions--yet she was adamantly against Bill and Hillary and all Dems; and the reason why? Because all of her news information sources agreed that pro-life was a civil rights issue--more about protecting the rights of evangelicals to have their voices heard than it is really about abortion.
The evangelical church is really prone to "conservatism" and I don't just mean from a political standpoint; they don't trust a lot of the institutions and government and media. There is a real tendency to "err on the side of caution" among evangelicals. This is true from raising their children, to church selection, to voting. Go with what you know and what is "safe"--even if it is counter to what you may feel would be a good decision. And the reason for this is because they don't trust the nation, the government or the "whole" to deliver prudently or act wisely. They would rather sacrifice change and progress in order to stay safe.
A lot of the hate and scorn during the Civil Rights error was more about the potential backlash. Not that hate and racism weren't contributing to that; but there main fear was "what will happen to my neighborhood, my church, my children's school, etc." Racism, ignorance and hate are behind the fear; but that is what the fear was. Blacks and the governement were not seen (in their eyes) as being trustworthy enough to pull off this social agenda; and so many evangelicals and fundamentalists of the time chose to keep the status quo; because it was safer.
The same is true today. Evangelicals may look at all of Hillary's policies (and she HAS more conservative stands than most people think) and agree; but they don't trust Hillary to pull that off; and they don't like her because of all the rumors, misinformation and propoganda (my family still argues that Hillary decorated the White House Christmas tree with condoms--and that is one of teh many crazy reasons they'd never vote for her. They don't trust the government. They may see the "R" behind McCain's name, but they don't see that he basically stands for and represents many of their major issues; and in the areas where he differs, it is out of pragmatism and reality. However, they (as a whole) are not willing to buy that. There is no guiding, gentling of the religious or party line. They are right, on edict from Gawd! and they will stubbornly hold out, claiming their oppression as a minority (I'm serious) and stand true to (their version of) Christ with an American flag waving in the background.
That is what scares me about evangelicals and also explains why they so supported Bush. He talked the talk they wanted to hear. He was stubborn and arrogant on issues that mattered deep to them. Forget the fact that he didn't deliver on everything--that was just A>Washington secularists &/or B> Democrats. He even felt he had been "annointed or called" to his position, and he could "look into a man's soul". These are all HUGE for evangelicals; and the reason why a> the evangelicals are upset; b> will not support McCain in the numbers they supported Bush/Cheney, and c>would gladly give Bush a 3rd term--if only it wasn't for that pesky Constitution, which should only have one ammendment anyway--I'll let you figure out which one they'd keep----
There is no compromising when you are trained and taught in the absolute literal interpretation of the Bible. If the Bible says it (in your mind/opinion), then to not stand on that priniciple is tantamount to betraying your faith, selling out, and being a secular humanist (the most feared word in Fundy-world).
Friday, February 1, 2008
Gen X-er Clarification
I just wanted to clarify. When I made the comment about X-ers "cleaning up" after Boomers for the past 50 years. I did not mean on a "national scale. Rather I meant , through everyday life. every social norm of the 50's the Boomers dispelled, it was X-ers through their own growth and development, that redefined them and put new ones in place.
I think X-ers should get credit for this. We had to sift through the debris and decide which and what part of social norms were salvageable and which could be discarded. We did not backlash and return to our grandparents and the "way it was done" in the 1950's. We learned the lessons from our Boomer predecessors and projected those lessons forward into redefinitions.
Again, this is what Obama is doing for this Presidential election, and the Democratic party.
I think X-ers should get credit for this. We had to sift through the debris and decide which and what part of social norms were salvageable and which could be discarded. We did not backlash and return to our grandparents and the "way it was done" in the 1950's. We learned the lessons from our Boomer predecessors and projected those lessons forward into redefinitions.
Again, this is what Obama is doing for this Presidential election, and the Democratic party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)