I recently had to write a piece on my inspiration and motivation. Thought I would share it here as well:
I am a passionate believer in social justice. Race relations, diversity and inclusion, to me, are stepping stones toward the greater goal of social justice. I am moved to this conclusion because without progress towards social justice none of the other values will ever truly be brought to fruition. Minor successes in the areas of race relations, diversity and inclusion are to be applauded—but without working toward social justice, it is the equivalent of baling out a sinking boat with a teaspoon. . . there will always be an overwhelming sense of drowning even as small gains are made.
This deep passion for social justice was first brought to fruition through the words of Jesus where he declared “the kingdom of God is in the hearts of men.” I take this to be an all-encompassing commandment and warning that it is how we act and how we treat others, which defines us as followers of God (by whichever name he may be known) and that is what defines WHO WE ARE. This belief has been bulwarked by the writings of Paolo Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the venerable Malcolm X.
To me “the kingdom of God” is not a utopian wonderland where one sect or group is proven “right” and given rule and authority; but rather it is the collective, altruistic nature and desire of mankind. That innate human desire to be better than we are, and more human than we thought we could be. The wisdom of this single quote is also the key to its success. It is in the “hearts of men (and women)”. Despite what faith or tradition you come from, or whether you hold any faith as tradition or not-the impetus is the same. It is up to each and every person to look within and bring about a better world through our own actions.
The work of social justice is not always accomplished on a grand scale on a world stage. More often than not, is accomplished through the words and relationships and stands of everyday people. And my commitment is to always be one of those people. I believe we must strive and work towards social justice if we are to fulfill the dreams of the framers of our constitution and create a pluralistic democracy that truly functions and truly benefits its citizens.
This is where race relations, diversity and inclusion come in to play. While the greater goal of social justice must be kept in focus; it is through these “teaspoons” and other such values, that real ground is gained. In everyday life, it is my decision and goal to operate in love. This is not a “hippy” mentality, nor a non-reflective Christian jingle. Rather it is a decision to make the hard decisions because they are right and because my actions (or inactions) impact others around me. I am passionate about living my life this way, because in the end, this is what matters . . . is the world a better place because you were in it.
In the Emperor’s New Clothes it is the voice of truth that would not be silent that showcased the absurdity of status quo and group think. We are living in a time when the Emperor of Group Think is parading about and too often no one is willing to speak up and expect a change. We must be willing to not only hold our elected officials feet to the fire of truth, nor just the leaders of business or self-proclaimed “advocates”, but our friend and neighbors, each other and ourselves.
I can only speak from my own experience, and I will not attempt to presume to tell another group how they should handle themselves, that is not my place; but I can speak for groups of which I am a part. We, as whites, must be able to admit racism is a part of our culture, institutionalized along with white privilege and a sin we are all guilty for; we must acknowledge who we are in realistic terms and not as either “white devil” or “great white hope”. We, as people committed to change, must strive hard to acknowledge and be inclusive of groups not only defined by race. We must recognize not only everyone’s right to exist, nor even their right to be successful, but also their right to bring their own perspective and wisdom to further the greater goal of social justice. We, as a community, must move beyond “hate as heritage” on one hand and “token” appreciation and accolades, on the other. Race relations, diversity and inclusion are not the sole property of one paradigm or ideology, but we must not allow them to be derailed or made impotent in the name of bi-partisanship. Compromise should not compromise the greater goal. We, as a country, must acknowledge our past and present sins ranging from the desolation of the indigenous American peoples, to the bitter stain and scar of slavery and Jim Crow to more recent travesties, such as writing discrimination into law. Finally, we as humanity must move towards seeing “those people” as we see ourselves. We must be willing to “walk a mile in another man’s moccasins” and appreciate the unique perspectives that can only be gained from unique individuals. We have to get to the point where we acknowledge another human beings right to feel and interpret based on their beliefs and experience regardless of whether we agree with those feelings or interpretations. We must learn to forgive and we must learn to act in love. This can only be accomplished, as Margaret Mead so wisely said, through a group of committed people. I choose to be a member of that group, not by my affiliations, rhetoric or prose; but through the actions and interactions of my everyday life.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Propensity for Myth on Roasted Religion-INTRO
OK--after many long weeks, here is the post I have been promising--or at least the first part of it.
I have noticed how fascinated the religious right/evangelicals/fundamentalists (hereafter, for brevity's sake I will just call Fundys) are with myth.
Before I start proving this through MANY examples, i want to kind of work backwards and explain why I think the fascination exists.
I think because fundys are so anti-myth and mystical tradition; and in many cases have cut the mystery, culture and "flavor" from their religious traditions. Fundys are very concerned about being pure. Pure in heart and mind and spirit and pure in practice as well. This is noble and inspirational. However, they, like the Pharisees of old have gotten a little bit off track and the idea of purging myths has given way to increased restrictions and adherence to "man's law".
Fundy religion has evolved over the years, especially recently. they have earned a high degree of success both culturally, monetarily and politically. But the roots of Fundy religion, from what I can ascertain, almost universally began among the less educated populations of people. I am not saying that makes the religion ignorant nor the followers--just hang with me, I am making a sociological argument. Because the traditions and rituals and philosophy and beliefs of most Fundy denominations (and non-denominations) have roots among the less educated--some emphasises and teachings come from that mindset and the associated conclusions.
Roman Catholicism, with its pomp and mystery were "bad", they took away from G-d, they worshiped Mary. AND G-d must want us to live according to the New Testament--The Bible is G-d's word and therefore must be read literally--if the Bible says it, then that is the way it is--anything not understood at this point is either swept under the rug or over explained. These are not a problem individually, but when you put them all together, add the religious power-trip that leaders naturally seem to fall into, add the money and power temptations, and then time to let it all ripen and really concentrate.
What evolved was all these above beliefs in extreme. Even in my lifetime and the increased political power, I have seen the increase in the concentration of some of these beliefs. For example, I was raised that evolution was OK to be taught in school; and most of my church friends felt the same way--you had to put up with it--believe differently because the bible (Sunday school teacher or pastor) said so--but there was not a lot of complaining about evolution--and remember I went to a very small, southern conservative rural high school. NOW, pastors preach not just Creationism, but AGAINST evolution. Parents are encouraged to challenge, fight and protest--or better yet, pull your kids out and put them in the church school or home school them. (I am sure I'll get around to doing a post on this one day) See, that is just an example of the change in the past 20 or so years, and the biggest national change has been increased power and influence through the political process. Well take that same "ripening" effect and spread it out over the past 100+ years. The older religion gets the more outside credibility it gets, the more credibility it gets the more sure its adherents are that their religion is RIGHT. Look at the difference Mormonism is treated now versus 25-30 years (or more) ago. While it still may have been an issue for some that Romney was Mormon, many evangelicals--especially near the end--decided he was closer to them than the other candidates.
So the point I am making is this:
Fundy denominations have ripened and become more "hardened", sure and extreme in there adherence to their original set of beliefs.
Part of that was anti-mystery/anti-myth. In that vacuum (as with any vacuum--EX: tell a kid not to do something, and likely or not that is what they'll try and do first) along with a deeply primordial human need for myth, mystical, mystery and just plain "storytelling"--and you get a group of people who abstain from religious myth/mysteries but subconsciously and sociologically have a need and have developed other myths to fulfill that need.
More on these myths later . . .
To go to The Propensity for Myth, Part I, click here
To return the main page of Roasted Religion, click here
I have noticed how fascinated the religious right/evangelicals/fundamentalists (hereafter, for brevity's sake I will just call Fundys) are with myth.
Before I start proving this through MANY examples, i want to kind of work backwards and explain why I think the fascination exists.
I think because fundys are so anti-myth and mystical tradition; and in many cases have cut the mystery, culture and "flavor" from their religious traditions. Fundys are very concerned about being pure. Pure in heart and mind and spirit and pure in practice as well. This is noble and inspirational. However, they, like the Pharisees of old have gotten a little bit off track and the idea of purging myths has given way to increased restrictions and adherence to "man's law".
Fundy religion has evolved over the years, especially recently. they have earned a high degree of success both culturally, monetarily and politically. But the roots of Fundy religion, from what I can ascertain, almost universally began among the less educated populations of people. I am not saying that makes the religion ignorant nor the followers--just hang with me, I am making a sociological argument. Because the traditions and rituals and philosophy and beliefs of most Fundy denominations (and non-denominations) have roots among the less educated--some emphasises and teachings come from that mindset and the associated conclusions.
Roman Catholicism, with its pomp and mystery were "bad", they took away from G-d, they worshiped Mary. AND G-d must want us to live according to the New Testament--The Bible is G-d's word and therefore must be read literally--if the Bible says it, then that is the way it is--anything not understood at this point is either swept under the rug or over explained. These are not a problem individually, but when you put them all together, add the religious power-trip that leaders naturally seem to fall into, add the money and power temptations, and then time to let it all ripen and really concentrate.
What evolved was all these above beliefs in extreme. Even in my lifetime and the increased political power, I have seen the increase in the concentration of some of these beliefs. For example, I was raised that evolution was OK to be taught in school; and most of my church friends felt the same way--you had to put up with it--believe differently because the bible (Sunday school teacher or pastor) said so--but there was not a lot of complaining about evolution--and remember I went to a very small, southern conservative rural high school. NOW, pastors preach not just Creationism, but AGAINST evolution. Parents are encouraged to challenge, fight and protest--or better yet, pull your kids out and put them in the church school or home school them. (I am sure I'll get around to doing a post on this one day) See, that is just an example of the change in the past 20 or so years, and the biggest national change has been increased power and influence through the political process. Well take that same "ripening" effect and spread it out over the past 100+ years. The older religion gets the more outside credibility it gets, the more credibility it gets the more sure its adherents are that their religion is RIGHT. Look at the difference Mormonism is treated now versus 25-30 years (or more) ago. While it still may have been an issue for some that Romney was Mormon, many evangelicals--especially near the end--decided he was closer to them than the other candidates.
So the point I am making is this:
Fundy denominations have ripened and become more "hardened", sure and extreme in there adherence to their original set of beliefs.
Part of that was anti-mystery/anti-myth. In that vacuum (as with any vacuum--EX: tell a kid not to do something, and likely or not that is what they'll try and do first) along with a deeply primordial human need for myth, mystical, mystery and just plain "storytelling"--and you get a group of people who abstain from religious myth/mysteries but subconsciously and sociologically have a need and have developed other myths to fulfill that need.
More on these myths later . . .
To go to The Propensity for Myth, Part I, click here
To return the main page of Roasted Religion, click here
ROASTED RELIGION: "America NEEDS Conservatives"
You read it right. I said it. Me the avowed and proud LIBERAL said America needs conservatives.
This was prompted by William F. Buckley's death today. Buckley is the father of the modern conservative movement.
It has been said without Buckley there would be no Barry Goldwater and without Barry Goldwater there would have been no Ronald Reagan.
Now I may not agree with all of Buckley or Goldwater--and I think Reagan did quite a bit of damage but also quite a bit of good--I think what Buckley did for conservatives is much needed.
For America to be great, we need a variety of opinions and we need everyone to feel as though they have a voice. One of the great strengths of the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention was the discourse and debate that occurred. Jefferson and Adams were on very different sides of the fence, and Franklin was way out there at some points. However, they debated and arrived at consensus--their compromise did not mean one side laying down; nor did their discourse involve airing dirty laundry, scandalizing or slandering each other. (Not that that wasn't done in the political campaigns later on--but at the conventions--work was done) They understood parliamentary procedures.
One of the things that is admirable about the British Parliamentary system is the concept of "LOYAL OPPOSITION". In Britain, the party that is out of power actually form a coalition entitled the Loyal Opposition. Their opinion is taken into account, they form a shadow cabinet and a shadow Prime Minister. Granted, the ruling party rules; but they don't shut out the losing party--they do not discount their loyalty or patriotism. They serve a much needed function--to regulate and provide checks and balances.
This leads me back to William F. Buckley--in the early 50's and into the 60's Buckley set about getting all the cooks and nut jobs out of the conservative movement. He drove the intolerant hatemongers and isolationists from the conservative movement. He made being a conservative about fiscal/free market policies and small government. Yes, he (wrongly) opposed voting rights acts of the 60's (which he later apologized for) but he encouraged the Montgomery boycotts and civil discourse and civil disobedience.--WHY, you ask? What is the difference you ask? Because he saw racism and Jim Crow laws and segregation as wrong--but he felt that change should come not from the gov't or above but from economic factors and the individual.
Much of what Buckley did in the Conservative Movement is actually "Individualism" in that he believed in the rights of the individual over the collective community and definitely over the state or gov't. However, thanks to Reagan (and this is why I voiced my issues with him above) the cooks slowly started coming back into the movement. He started off courting the religious right and then just gave them carte blanche within the party. Then the intolerant and isolationists came back. This escalated until we elected a man to the US Senate from SC who said "A homosexual has no more business in the school system than a single mother."
Do you see the danger of courting intolerance? Now, you may be adamantly anti-homosexual--you may have religious beliefs that you hold dear about their lifestyle and divorce. But under a constitutional democracy you recognize that while your religious beliefs may not be in agreement with divorce--you would never say that person should not work in the school system---the same is true for homosexuals. You cannot legislate morality--and when you do we are just a few steps away from figuring out that if you allow one group to be oppressed, it may be your group next.
That is why we need conservatives, William F. Buckley conservatives--most of whom have joined the Libertarian party after the Republican party became the party of government small enough to fit into private bedrooms and legislate from there. Liberals are made better because of real conservative discourse and debate. Liberals need to hear pragmatism practicalities.
AND YES--here I come again---Conservatives need to hear Liberals vision and progress. Liberals are right that government can be better and should be used for the good of the people--see where Buckley was wrong on the Voting Rights Acts of the 60's--
We are both important to the betterment of America, and the American people will do better when both groups have their voices heard and no one feels marginalized or scandalized or shut out. The best ideas (perhaps the best in the world--The Declaration of Independence, The American Constitution and Bill of Rights) were generated from debate between liberals and conservatives and CONSENSUS and COMPROMISE.
This was prompted by William F. Buckley's death today. Buckley is the father of the modern conservative movement.
It has been said without Buckley there would be no Barry Goldwater and without Barry Goldwater there would have been no Ronald Reagan.
Now I may not agree with all of Buckley or Goldwater--and I think Reagan did quite a bit of damage but also quite a bit of good--I think what Buckley did for conservatives is much needed.
For America to be great, we need a variety of opinions and we need everyone to feel as though they have a voice. One of the great strengths of the Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention was the discourse and debate that occurred. Jefferson and Adams were on very different sides of the fence, and Franklin was way out there at some points. However, they debated and arrived at consensus--their compromise did not mean one side laying down; nor did their discourse involve airing dirty laundry, scandalizing or slandering each other. (Not that that wasn't done in the political campaigns later on--but at the conventions--work was done) They understood parliamentary procedures.
One of the things that is admirable about the British Parliamentary system is the concept of "LOYAL OPPOSITION". In Britain, the party that is out of power actually form a coalition entitled the Loyal Opposition. Their opinion is taken into account, they form a shadow cabinet and a shadow Prime Minister. Granted, the ruling party rules; but they don't shut out the losing party--they do not discount their loyalty or patriotism. They serve a much needed function--to regulate and provide checks and balances.
This leads me back to William F. Buckley--in the early 50's and into the 60's Buckley set about getting all the cooks and nut jobs out of the conservative movement. He drove the intolerant hatemongers and isolationists from the conservative movement. He made being a conservative about fiscal/free market policies and small government. Yes, he (wrongly) opposed voting rights acts of the 60's (which he later apologized for) but he encouraged the Montgomery boycotts and civil discourse and civil disobedience.--WHY, you ask? What is the difference you ask? Because he saw racism and Jim Crow laws and segregation as wrong--but he felt that change should come not from the gov't or above but from economic factors and the individual.
Much of what Buckley did in the Conservative Movement is actually "Individualism" in that he believed in the rights of the individual over the collective community and definitely over the state or gov't. However, thanks to Reagan (and this is why I voiced my issues with him above) the cooks slowly started coming back into the movement. He started off courting the religious right and then just gave them carte blanche within the party. Then the intolerant and isolationists came back. This escalated until we elected a man to the US Senate from SC who said "A homosexual has no more business in the school system than a single mother."
Do you see the danger of courting intolerance? Now, you may be adamantly anti-homosexual--you may have religious beliefs that you hold dear about their lifestyle and divorce. But under a constitutional democracy you recognize that while your religious beliefs may not be in agreement with divorce--you would never say that person should not work in the school system---the same is true for homosexuals. You cannot legislate morality--and when you do we are just a few steps away from figuring out that if you allow one group to be oppressed, it may be your group next.
That is why we need conservatives, William F. Buckley conservatives--most of whom have joined the Libertarian party after the Republican party became the party of government small enough to fit into private bedrooms and legislate from there. Liberals are made better because of real conservative discourse and debate. Liberals need to hear pragmatism practicalities.
AND YES--here I come again---Conservatives need to hear Liberals vision and progress. Liberals are right that government can be better and should be used for the good of the people--see where Buckley was wrong on the Voting Rights Acts of the 60's--
We are both important to the betterment of America, and the American people will do better when both groups have their voices heard and no one feels marginalized or scandalized or shut out. The best ideas (perhaps the best in the world--The Declaration of Independence, The American Constitution and Bill of Rights) were generated from debate between liberals and conservatives and CONSENSUS and COMPROMISE.
Republicans, Democrats, McCains, Clintons and Obamas on ROASTED RELIGION
I just wanted to do an overall summary/appeal for moderation and common sense intelligence.
As an Obama supporter we do not have to nor should we be petty. It makes us look like juvenile jerks. Hillary has her flaws, but she is a great and intelligent lady. She does and would do a lot for our country, and I, for one, am glad to have her on our side.
That being said--I just think Obama is better at getting us to move forward--he'll need people like Clinton on his side to accomplish his goals--and he'll need true conservatives and moderates--that is what is so great about his appeal--he wants all the views expressed so we ALL have an investment in making America live up to her expectations. He is the leader we need for such a time as this.
I also do not believe the Reps will "roll over and play nice" but I do hope that Obama will cause the intelligent, decent, fair minded Reps to come out and take their party back. (more on this in my next post)
Nothing like a good back and forth to keep us democratic and great. But the Republicans have to throw off the shackles of intolerance and ignorance and fear that their leadership and the religious right have fed them over and over.
Some issues should just be gotten over--that is the nature of society. You don't find people still arguing that we shouldn't examine cadavers or that the earth is flat or the sun goes around the earth. there might be people who still believe some of that, but as a society we moved forward. It is now time to do that with the Roves and Neo-Con tactics and most of the Social Conservative/Religious Right's agenda.
And all this talk about Obama being liberal--you may not agree with the liberal philosophy (but you might believe in more than you think) but you cannot say it is wrong, un-American or "bad" to be liberal. AND--just throwing a label around is ungrounded--look at who is defining who as a liberal and why. I, for one, am liberal--and very proud of that fact--however, I also recognize true conservatives (not extreme right wing fearmongers) and moderates play a needed role and America needs all these points of view to be truly great. (more on this in my next post)
Obama is popular and going to win because he helps America (all of us) feel like we can be who we really want to be--benevolent, gracious, fair and strong. (more on this in another post)
The race between Clinton and Obama should not tear us apart or turn Dems/Progressives against each other--Dems should be proud to be supporting the party that gave us the first woman on a nat'l ticket (Geraldine Ferraro) and will soon give us either the first Woman nominee or the first African-American nominee.
Either way America wins!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Reagan and Obama Comparison on Roasted Religion
This is a copy of a post I made earlier:
I think it is important to point out that the comparisons with Reagan are not about ideology.
I don't think anyone thought Reagan was anything but a conservative--I think the point that is made is at the time Reagan's conservatism represented hope and the american ideal--especially "how we want to view ourselves." Americans like being LIKED. We want to be seen as helpful and generous--which is one reason Bush's approval ratings are SO low.
The Reagan comparison to Obama is more about capturing a wider swath than previously touched. Reagan (like him or not) did a great job of healing the Rep party after Watergate by getting Reps and America to believe in the VALUES he put forth and identified with--"The Shining City on the Hill--It's Morning In America Again"
Obama is capturing that same message--that is why the Obama campaign could stand the chance of winning a Reagan-esque landslide--NOT by capturing (or recapturing) the same voters as Reagan, but appealing to Americans as American's first--party members second.
I think it is important to point out that the comparisons with Reagan are not about ideology.
I don't think anyone thought Reagan was anything but a conservative--I think the point that is made is at the time Reagan's conservatism represented hope and the american ideal--especially "how we want to view ourselves." Americans like being LIKED. We want to be seen as helpful and generous--which is one reason Bush's approval ratings are SO low.
The Reagan comparison to Obama is more about capturing a wider swath than previously touched. Reagan (like him or not) did a great job of healing the Rep party after Watergate by getting Reps and America to believe in the VALUES he put forth and identified with--"The Shining City on the Hill--It's Morning In America Again"
Obama is capturing that same message--that is why the Obama campaign could stand the chance of winning a Reagan-esque landslide--NOT by capturing (or recapturing) the same voters as Reagan, but appealing to Americans as American's first--party members second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)