Oh no, not that again
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | February 9, 2007 |
| Vol. 4, No. 34 |
Perhaps there is no better window for an American citizen to have on the United States than to see it at a distance. Being in Europe is particularly fascinating because, except for the architecture in the old cities, we all look so much alike.
Western lifestyle has a kind of commonality about it from end to the other, from Los Angeles, to London, to Moscow. Everything is similar, if for no other reason than that the United States has managed to export its culture more efficiently than any other people since ancient Rome.
Whatever the national dress of other periods, most of that is saved for national holidays now. There are a few high hats and knee breeches left in Ireland around St. Patrick's day and some embroidered suspenders and vests in Germany around Christmas but for the most part, there's a single international uniform for teenagers now -- jeans and Nike's, NFL T-shirts and sandals -- and for adults, as well.
We eat the same foods, watch the same movies, dance to the same music and follow the same TV shows.
One major difference, perhaps, is that in Europe no one asks a political candidate what religion they are or speculate how it will affect their chances for election, which is very interesting, when you think about it. This, after all, is "the seat of Christendom" but Christendom does not run for office here.
In the United States, on the other hand, the political headlines read like a church bulletin: "Faith, Politics Cross in Immigration Debate" (Dallas Morning News,) " Religious, Secular Leaders Urged to Unite," (Austin-American Statesman) and in this week's New York Times, "Mormon Candidate Braces for Religion As Issue,"
This same week, the death of Robert Drinan, S.J., the first elected priest to the United States Congress and the man who entered the first call for the impeachment of Richard Nixon, raises the question again here. What is the place of religion in U.S. politics?
Interestingly enough, the country founded to provide freedom of religion for all its citizens, to protect the church from repression by the state, to outlaw the very idea of an establishment church that had been the ruination of so much of Europe, the country that set out to erect a wall between church and state, is the country that today struggles with the issue most of all.
The problem pointed up by Pope John Paul II in his directive that priests and nuns should not be involved in politics is the mirror image of the concern raised at the time of the candidacy of John F. Kennedy for the presidency of the United States.
Then, the worry was that Kennedy would be required to do what the Catholic church required of him, whatever the position of other faiths on those same issues.
John Paul II's concern, quite correct history would say, was just the opposite. His fear was that priest-politicians, as agents of the state, would be required to follow the dictates of the state rather than the requirements of conscience in moral matters. He knew that the entanglement could be a fatal one. He knew, too, as does any amateur student of history, that priests in politics have always been a deadly brew, for church and state alike.
The fact is that religion in the modern world is to be a challenge to the conscience of the country, not a tool of the state. The democratic political process, on the other hand, is to seek the common good, not to impose one religious institution's morality on another. To keep the balance between the two positions, it must, at the same time, protect the right of every religious community to call the government to consider in its legislative process what is morally right for the country rather than simply what is expedient for it.
To question the morality, the justice, of any social position, to advocate for social reform of any issue is a religious imperative. To trap politicians into committing themselves to one church agenda rather than another, however, will, in the end, be damaging to the faith itself.
Religion is neither a servant nor an enemy of the state. The separation of church and state is not about the suppression of religious interests. It is about the protection of religious differences.
When candidates for political office promise commitment to anything other than the common good, the protection of all religions is in danger. When candidates bring a religious agenda to the office, they offend the constitution they are pledged to uphold. When churches lobby for legislation inimical to the faith of others or support candidates on the basis of their religious beliefs, they threaten the balance between democracy and theocracy.
The "family values" agenda of these last years has come dangerously close to dividing morality itself, as if some issues essential to the dignity and well-being of a family were family values but others were not. Family values are all the values that protect the full humanity of the citizenry, not simply the sexual aspects of life. Politicians, in many cases, did a much better job of realizing the moral import of multiple issues -- the minimum wage, human and civil rights, equality, war and global warming, as well as stem cell research and civil unions -- than did many a church leader.
Let's hope the new crop of headlines does not mean that we're about to have another national election based on only a few particular issues and call that religion and morality. It's not only tiresome. It may be immoral.
Europe seems to be doing just as well -- or better -- than we are on some moral issues. They seem much more devoted to saving the globe, for instance, than we are. And they never even ask their candidates what religion they are. Let alone how they'll vote as a result of it.
From where I stand, that seems to be a very good way to go. In fact, how did we ever get away from it in the first place?
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Golly, global warming (a
Golly, global warming (a theory only)is key to family values acording to Sister Joan. Maybe a better measure of family values is the crisis unborn children face . . . like perhaps consider the human dignity of the unborn 4000 a day that die by abortion in USA every day. Like the 40 milllion a year that die world-wide in abortion. Europe's population is in a crisis. Yes it is the demography. Family values include adults laying down their life for their children as well as each other. Europe does not get it! Kelidei is absolutly right on.
"Family values include
"Family values include adults laying down their life for their children as well as each other. Europe does not get it!"
Interesting! I have been brought up in Europe. All of my family lives in Europe. Everyone, every parent, every adult I know over there would lay down his/her life for children as well as each other. This is my personal experience of having lived in Europe, of spending much time in Europe.That is what I learned from my parents, and that's what is still being instilled in kids. So, how is it that "Europe doesn't get it"? And just in case: where should Europeans look just in case their moral compass needs re-setting? Should they look at North America for enlightenment?
Sr. Joan, In your most
Sr. Joan,
In your most recent article you ended with the question: '[H]ow did we ever get away from it in the first place?'
I believe it all began with the election of Ronald Reagan and his view of himself as being the 'savior' of the American way of life. From where I stand, it has been going down hill ever since.
You wrote: 'The fact is that religion in the modern world is to be a challenge to the conscience of the country, not a tool of the state. The democratic political process, on the other hand, is to seek the common good, not to impose one religious institution's morality on another.'
I believe that since the time of Reagan's Presidency the purpose of religion and the purpose of democracy have been blurred. The question I have is, how do we separate the two and put them back into their rightful places?
'In Omnibus Caritas - In All Things Love'
Adam, Obl.S.B.
Thank you Adam. I, like
Thank you Adam. I, like you, have marveled over the secular beautification of Ronald Reagan whose replacement of a civil government that once assisted the most needy with a Welfare State for the Rich has been applauded as a *religious* action. NONE of Reagan's ostensibly affable yet mean-spirited legacy of political economy-for-the-wealthy has ever been a Christian value.
I think we can only recapture the authentic legacy of our civic religion by a repentence and conversion of the heart and by reclaiming the Constitutional wisdom of separation of Church and State.
Where is a corporate inter-denominational public religious voice as courageous as Joan Chittister's and Tom Gumbleton's to lead this work?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
You're off by about four
You're off by about four years-Jimmy Carter, with all the attendant talk about his Sunday school teaching, evangelist sister, and being the first Southern evangelical, got the ball rolling.
He's still at it. Jimmy never misses a chance to get involved with institutional church matters-he even help found a new Baptist denomination after he found himself surrounded by Southern Baptists after sixty years of not noticing it. Reagan at least didn't actually GO to church much; Carter continued to teach Sunday school, his wife refused to serve hard liquor in the White House; the National Council of Churches had no problem with him so far as I can remember.
Perhaps it was the policies and ideologies of the two men that was really the problem and this is a way to talk about it without talking about it and saying that we think all religions are equal but some are more equal than others.
Discussion and critique should be made on the basis of the policies themselves. Leave religious background out of it, or at least have the decency and consistency to say what you believe: that some religions are simply better, truer, saner than others.
Does it not appear that
Does it not appear that those readers who have expressed the most disagreement with Sr. Joan's assessment of Europe's superiority over the US are still in agreement with the main point she makes about the relationship between religion and government?
She wrote: "...[John Paul II's] fear was that priest-politicians, as agents of the state, would be required to follow the dictates of the state rather than the requirements of conscience in moral matters. He knew that the entanglement could be a fatal one. He knew, too, as does any amateur student of history, that priests in politics have always been a deadly brew, for church and state alike.
"The fact is that religion in the modern world is to be a challenge to the conscience of the country, not a tool of the state. The democratic political process, on the other hand, is to seek the common good, not to impose one religious institution's morality on another. To keep the balance between the two positions, it must, at the same time, protect the right of every religious community to call the government to consider in its legislative process what is morally right for the country rather than simply what is expedient for it.
"To question the morality, the justice, of any social position, to advocate for social reform of any issue is a religious imperative. To trap politicians into committing themselves to one church agenda rather than another, however, will, in the end, be damaging to the faith itself.
"Religion is neither a servant nor an enemy of the state. The separation of church and state is not about the suppression of religious interests. It is about the protection of religious differences.
When candidates for political office promise commitment to anything other than the common good, the protection of all religions is in danger. When candidates bring a religious agenda to the office, they offend the constitution they are pledged to uphold. When churches lobby for legislation inimical to the faith of others or support candidates on the basis of their religious beliefs, they threaten the balance between democracy and theocracy.
Marie I can see your
Marie I can see your point--- in fact I can agree with your principles in general. In saying the following:
"When candidates bring a religious agenda to the office, they offend the constitution they are pledged to uphold. When churches lobby for legislation inimical to the faith of others or support candidates on the basis of their religious beliefs, they threaten the balance between democracy and theocracy."
You have raised some questions though----
What is the definition of a "religious agenda"? Let's say an atheist is running for some office and firmly believes that a child raised in a two parent family consisting of a mother and father is in the best interest of the child and in turn the "common good" (BTW--- I know a couple like this except neither of them is running for office)They provide a whole list of reasons why they believe this based on secular sources .....not one of the reasons could be catagorized as "religious" per se--- would this person's position be less offensive to the Constitution then a Catholic or Jew supporting the position? If two individuals arrive at a common conclusion but via different philosophies is it suddenly offensive or wrong simply because the person is "religious"?
A “religious agenda”
A “religious agenda” would be the same thing as the agenda the couple in your example have, in that it presumes to know what is best in all cases and seeks to deny flexibility for individual circumstances. How the Constitutionality of legislation arising from a religious agenda is determined may depend on whether one believes that the Constitution protects from or provides for majority rule over the individual, or, if one believes it does both, when it does one or the other.
I believe that if the couple in your question will not experience any personal effect from the imposition of their idea of what is best for society, they really have no voice. Similarly, I believe religious institutions have no voice in legislation that does not directly affect them. For example, they would have every right to take an interest in laws pertaining to their tax-exempt status or property rights, but have no right to propose laws pertaining to private interpersonal relationships, though they do have a right to publicly express their opinion as to how specific legislation would impact their members who are all supposedly of one mind.
Consideration of the common good occurs in the courts when judges deliberate the impact of legislation. Then the determination is made whether the common good is served better by protecting the individual from the tyranny of the majority or by acceding to the will of the majority. In the specific case of who may adopt, the individual to be considered is not the prospective parent, but the adoptee. In my opinion, if anyone makes a claim that he has a right to adopt, he is wrong. The only right one might find is a right to be considered as a potential adoptive parent.
It seems as if there is a
It seems as if there is a question here that is not being stated directly.
My personal opinion is that people do not seem to be able to distinguish between "must" and "may" and "should" anymore and that in the last few years people have become disatisfied with simply being allowed to hold a personal opinion and have become convinced that they know what is best for everyone when they obviously have no knowledge of anyone else's circumstances and no desire to acquire any.
That said, my opinion with regard to your question of a non-religious person (let's say that rather than atheist, who also follows a belief system) holding strongly to an opinion of what is for the common good and attempting to impose it upon all: I would see this as being just as offensive to the Constitution.
It also my personal opinion that the Constitution protects individuals from the tyranny of the majority (though one Supreme Court justice believes that it provides for the imposition of majority will), and that this implies that the common good can only be determined when one acquires knowledge of who will be affected by a certain piece of legislation and in what way they will be affected. In the specific case of defining what combination of people can be recognized as a family, the couple you know might want to consider what might happen if a grandchild lost her parents and her widowed grandmother would want to adopt her. Would she be prevented from doing so because that does not fit their idea of the common good?
The implied question regarding homosexual adoption goes back to the difference between "may" and "must". Legislation being introduced by groups representing homosexual interests often crosses the line. Some of it seems to demand that no criteria be applied to their suitability as parents rather than that homosexuality by itself must not be allowed to be the deciding factor. I am not entirely at odds with people who feel threatened by the homosexual legislative agenda.
It is really interesting to
It is really interesting to come back and see how this "discussion" has shaped up. It seems a few actually understood the point of my post at the start of this thread. As I expected most didn't, one can hope though.... My main point in pointing out the serious woes facing Europe is simply to demonstrate that it is all in the eye of the beholder. Joan sees our country as the "great satan" on the world stage. Everything we do is wrong and we are hindered by all those "family values" minded people who apparently are the bane of Joan's existence because they are so narrowly focused on such "unimportant" issues. In Europe they are more progressive and so can deal on the real issues like global warming and the war---- My question is this--- Joan is just as fixated on the war and ecological issues as any life issues person I have ever met. Rarely does she address anything else---- She is not some great visionary if she cannot see the whole picture--- just as she is accusing the others. If she see's Europe as more morally healthy then this country maybe it is the lens through which she is looking--- The moral markers she herself has chosen as the important ones.
Europe is in big trouble---- they will be living under sharia law long before Britain is submerged under melted ice caps and ironically it is in large part due to their "progressive" morality when it comes to family values. Numbers don't lie. France, England, Denmark, Holland are just a few places where fanataical Muslims are already influencing and altering what were once strongly social-democratic societies--- Free speech is no longer possible in these places due to fear of civil unrest (remember the Danish cartoons--- the murder of Theo Van Gogh). Public places must cater to Muslim dietary laws (public hospitals and schools, etc cannot even have pork on their menus. Europeans find themselves between a rock and a hard place--- all of them must now rely on immigrants (largely Muslim) to replace the children they refuse to have in order to continue to get the government benefits they refuse to give up---- Westerners "birth dearth" coupled with massive Muslim immigration rates (and propensity for large families)have set them up to be a dwindling minority within one generation---- Most of us will live to see a very different Europe in the not too distant future.
OH--- BTW---- if one has a good solid argument one doesn't need make disparaging assummptions or speculate on a total strangers mental state in order to have something to say--- How bout we stick to facts--- God bless you Marie R
My objection to your earlier
My objection to your earlier comment was that you equated Muslim dominance with the stone-age. You seem to disregard the fact that children are the product of both their family environment (religion and culture) and the society (economy and culture) in which they grow up. You write as though there is no give and take. You also forget that at one time in history Islam was the culture of greatest intellectual achievement.
Until I read through your entire first posting, I agreed with you that Sr. Joan had idealized Europe. You might notice that you were not the one to respond initially to my inquiry. I continue to hold to my assessment of the mental state of people who fail to recognize positive aspects of other cultures and make wild claims as to their inferiority--and who measure superiority strictly by economic or military dominance.
I think none of us has the power to predict what will happen in Europe. Europe might just as likely change for the better because of the "threat" of dominance by Muslim immigrants, which I agree could result from the birth rate discrepancy. This might be what it takes to revive Europeans' interest in their Christian heritage, for example.
Your initial posting was rife with sarcasm. Sr. Joan does seem to set the tone for that. However, Sr. Joan is right to focus attention on the war and global warming, even if she occasionally does so in the antagonistic manner of those who wish to impose their "family" values upon those who hold to more fully Christian values.
Good morning Marie--- You
Good morning Marie---
You said "I continue to hold to my assessment of the mental state of people who fail to recognize positive aspects of other cultures and make wild claims as to their inferiority--and who measure superiority strictly by economic or military dominance."
I don't believe I did that. I did not mention their economy or military. My reference was mainly with regard to the social and cultural issues. Sadly, for the vast majority of Muslim ruled countries, "stone age" is a pretty apt description when it comes to social structures and government--- oh sure--- they have all the techno gadgets of a modern society but they are used to spread and enforce a way of life most of us left behind centuries ago. My daughter grew up with an Iraqi girl whose immediate family (Chaldean Catholics) immigrated here about 30 years ago. They visit family members who now reside in Dubai so I am well aware that some places are a little better--- these places are also the ones most influenced by Western thinking. But even so--- even in the most culturally advanced countries non-Muslims are not looked at as equals they are given the status of "dhimmi" which is a distinctly subjugated second class non-citizen--- almost a slave--- who is deprived of any legal and human rights since he is a non-Muslim resident in a Muslim state. They are also subjected to the jizya a "tax" levied on all non-Muslims. This is true of even the most "moderate" Muslim states. Does your friend resides here now? If so, Why?
You continued--- "I think none of us has the power to predict what will happen in Europe. Europe might just as likely change for the better because of the "threat" of dominance by Muslim immigrants, which I agree could result from the birth rate discrepancy. This might be what it takes to revive Europeans' interest in their Christian heritage, for example."
Well--- that would be good especially if it were 15 or even 10 years ago. I don't know that even if by some miracle tomorrow every European couple capable of producing children stopped contracepting and aborting if there would be enough time to restore a balance before the "tipping point" is reached--- one could hope but unfortunately as Joan pointed out they are more focused on other more important issues (at least in their eyes). Being preoccupied by the thickness of polar ice caps and American war efforts is more comfortable then facing the fact that you may be one generation--- give or take some--- from dhimmitude.
Ultimately---I don't know what will happen---- and lest someone fear I am on the brink of despair---fear not--- fortunately my trust is in God not any government. Thanks and God bless Marie!
Islam is the fastest growing
Islam is the fastest growing religion in the US. Whose fault is this? Is it because of the hierarchy? Is it because of the fact that the church is divided?
Is it because of a negative approach to life and love?
Or is it because they live
Or is it because they live what they profess (as scary as that may be for us infidels)?
Beam me down Scotty ... The
Beam me down Scotty ...
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
The commentary on Sr. Joan's
The commentary on Sr. Joan's columns is always so sarcastic. Wonder what brings that out so strongly.
Sarcastic commentary on
Sarcastic commentary on anything is really just an attempt to discredit an idea which goes against the listener's preconceived ideas on the subject, which the listener is lothe to give up or modify. This is usually the result of a mind which either believes it is totally right, or is so comfortable in its beliefs, that it fears change with a passion.
Were this attitude to prevail thru out history, we would still be living in caves.
Failure to grasp and incorporate new ides leads to intellectual stagnation, and eventual collapse of any system. If new thoughts are not developed for the common welfare of the populace, then the basic structure of the society will start to crumble and a lose its relevance to its continued existance.
In essence, if you can not advance in knowledge, the point at which you stop, becomes outdated and eventually useless. Failure to grow and adapt leads to oblivion!
A mind open to evaluation and apdaptation of new ideas promotes a continuing growth in the sum total of universal knowledge, which leads on to a greater appreciation of the marvels and wonders of Creation and the Creator!!
With a closed mind would Abraham have listened to God?
Would the disciples have listened to Jesus??
Would Mohammed have listened to Allah?
One should always listen to new and different ideas to judge fairly if they are useful without condemning them immediately!!
John V.S.A. Vaisvil
It may also be a symptom of
It may also be a symptom of depression. Depressed people seem to gravitate to bad news and use anger and hostility to energize themselves. Very often, their reasoning seems off to the rest of us as if they were choosing to feed this negativity.
By some Marie R, and so
By some Marie R, and so vehement, rabid and over and over again. Some don't seem to be able to accept that others see value in much of what she has to say and direct their 'sarcasm' to them as well. I share your question.
I think that the need to
I think that the need to respond to responders in passive-aggresive mode is pitiful.
Change always affects some
Change always affects some people in a negative way. They responded to change negatively because they see it as a threat, in simple language, to "the way it always was". The same reason Jesus was crucified because he turned things upside down. He blest the poor, those who were suffering, the alien . . . and he called for a change of heart . . . what we call conversion. Social justice issues always provoke that negative response because any attempt to correct issues of injustice by seeking to change the system threaten someone's comfortable "way it always was" so they kill Oscar Romero, Martin Luther King, Jr.
The solution to our problems
The solution to our problems is Europe
Folks, the Catholic Church is NEVER going to change Her dogma on abortion, homosexuality, contraception, prostitution, addiction, fornication, gay marriage, divorce, pornography, monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, bigamy, promiscuity, adultery, burglary, idolatry, sorcery, blasphemy, heterodoxy, etc..
Us “liberals” have never won a single victory---NEVER! No dogma has ever changed, nor will it---Think about that, for just a moment.
The left has petitioned, prayed and pleaded, but has never been able to convince the Church to change any one of Her numerous and tyranical doctrines.
So I must ask, why anyone would stay in the Catholic Church when the Anglican “communion” is such an attractive alternative?
In the Anglican communion Sr. Joan, would be “Bishop Joan” a happily married woman. In fact, Sr. Joan could marry either a woman or a man it really wouldn‘t matter to folks in Canterbury. In the Anglican communion you’re allowed to pass out condoms without so much as a peep, in fact, you can decorate your Christmas tree with colorful neon prophylactics--eat your heart out JPII. In the Anglican communion you can divorce, remarry and divorce again only to remarry again and the worst you can expect is a frown which as we all know is just a smile turned upside down. In the Anglican communion you can debate the issue of abortion and euthanasia and know that in a matter of years these non-negotiable Catholic no-no’s will be tolerated. In the Anglican communion you can deny the necessity of Jesus Christ for your salvation, you can deny His Word and you can even deny His Glorious Resurrection from the dead, and still make it to the bishopric, in fact, you can become a best-selling author.
If you can come up with one reason why a liberal Catholic would desire, nay, want to remain in the close-minded, authoritarian, and demanding sanctuary of Holy Mother Church, please email me I would love to hear from you. In the mean time, Sr. Joan we want you, we need you please come be a priestess in our church.
Francis Kent
Fracisknt@yahoo.com
Francis, If I read your
Francis,
If I read your post correctly you are Anglican yourself?
A reaction to "Solution to
A reaction to "Solution to our problems."
What you have listed as dogmas, I would in no way include in a list of dogmas. For years, we were taught that the church has never made a dogmatic statement about a moral action. (At the same time, we were also taught that she could if she so chose. But to do so would also have to meet the strigent requirements of a dogmatic statement.)
All the things that you gave in your list are moral imperatives that the church has given to help us live a good christian life. Almost all that you gave, I don't think that the church will change her practice about asking us to live by the high standard; but dogmas no!
Some items that are "Dogmas" are: One God, Trinity, Son became one of us--etc; Resurrection of Jesus & dead; Real presence (not necessarily transubstantion); forgiveness of sin, 7 sacraments. A few that have been proclaimed more recently: Infallibility (and I would posit that this is the most abused and misunderstood dogma we have) Immaculate Conception, Assumption. This is by no means an exhaustive list.
But considering what you list as dogmas, and what I accept as dogmas, I find that I have to take the rest of your statements with a grain of salt. There is a lot of truth in them. But the absoluteness that you find, I don't find at all.
Exactly. Dogma, moral
Exactly. Dogma, moral doctrine or teachings, and canon law are all different things. Huge confusion in these threads.
The dissembling of a coward
The dissembling of a coward is like a bad smell left behind ...
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
The preaching of dying
The preaching of dying churches is like the dusty breeze shaken from an old rag.
In the Episcopal church,
In the Episcopal church, she'd be facing this scenario. By 2102, if present trends in ordination and church membership hold steady, there will be one clergy person for every ordinary lay member.
Would she have the same ethnic and socio-economic diversity she claims to desire? Hardly-it's still a church FOR the poor, not OF them. It's no longer the Republican party at prayer, but nobody's ever claimed that it's a representative church.
Europe is not better, just
Europe is not better, just different. The reason we hear so much about religion in our politics is because it has been identified by political strategists as a way to manipulate voters. It is not something over which we must agonize, just something of which we must be aware.
In Europe, many
In Europe, many governments, Germany and Norway for example, collect taxes and automatically give a proportion of this money to churches. They don't have to work for their money and convince their own people to contribute.
You can get out of giving money to churches, but you have to go to government offices and wait in line.
In Greece, you have to have your religion on your passport-it's like something tribal.
In England, there are at least 20 of their bishops in the House of Lords, part of Parliament. Their Prime Minister appoints their bishops, not the church people.
All in all, not a democratic model for anyone to follow.
Let's see. What would Jesus
Let's see. What would Jesus the Christ have done? I believe he said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's". If I am reading the bible correctly, Jesus was a Jew although Christians have tried for hundreds of years to erase that fact from history. Additionally, if I read the bible accurately, Jesus spoke to everyone equally, regardless of a person's ethnicity, skin color, religion, health or disability status, age, gender, political affiliation, educational level or social status or their current status of purity or sin. He supped with anyone whose heart was open and loved Goodness for the mere sake of loving Goodness for itself. Not for any hidden agenda or for self-interest. Jesus simply loved the All. What he despised and railed against was the ego which seeks gain for self only and which believes in the superiority of self and the inferiority of "other". Jesus was anti-ego. He was egalitarian and the epitome of his entire spiritual and social ethos was of social justice and peace on earth. He loathed the ego which seeks to enrichen himself at the gross expense of other. He abhored hypocrites who appeared in the temple of the Sabbath and positioned themselves as the bastion of a social, religious or political elite when, in reality, their heart was cold and uncaring toward those who are underprivileged and in despair. He spoke out against avarice, hypocrisy, injustice and the malignancy of the ego consciousness which always seeks to devalue, demean, oppress and subjugate "other" in order to make himself feel superior.
The ego of the self-righteous is a bane and death knell for democracy. What America needs in politics are people whose hearts are open and compassionate toward the All and whose minds are used to create the social justice necessary for the Common Good. It matters not one whit what religion a politician espouses, only that s/he has the Divine Consciousness which seeks the Good for the All and gives her/his person in service to the Common Good. This is the message of every great spiritual master including Hillel, the Buddha, Jesus the Christ, Lao Tzu, Mohammed and host of saints and avatars throughout time. It is not the religion---it's the CONSCIOUSNESS which the person imbues.
Line up the ayatollahs,
Line up the ayatollahs, the Falwells, the Robertsons, the National council of Churches, the Tikkun people-all of them. Lock them in a room and let them fight it out. Religion should have no voice in politics.
While the Popes held power, they ruined Italy. The ayatollahs in Iran and the Wahabbi imams are ruining Saudi Arabia; the only reason the protestant church leaders of established churches aren't doing the same thing is that their countries' churches are virtually dead.
Anytime clergy think that simply because they're speaking, we have to listen, we're in trouble. Only tribes are ruled by witch doctors.
Hi wmwoodward, 'WWJD' (What
Hi wmwoodward,
'WWJD' (What Would Jesus Do)a movement started by Uni students in the UK has obviously penetrated far and wide.
Wouldn't it be a wonderful change to realise that more 'Christians' stopped for a minute to ask themselves that qn before they embark on a course of action that would even minutely destroy the 'common good'?
In two words 'Christ consciousness' - two words which should be the clarrion call all who profess to follow Christ.
The words in your posting reminded me of a prayer by Rumi a Persian philosopher:
'Almighty God if I love you for fear of hell then burn me in hell, if I love you for the desire of heaven then deny me heaven, but if I love you for your own sake then shield not your countenance from me'.
'This is my living faith, an active faith, a faith of verbs: to question, explore, experiment, experience, to seek, to embrace the questions, to be wary of answers.' -Terry Tempest Williams, naturalist and author (1955- )
Ninja
><>
Ninja, I love both the Rumi
Ninja, I love both the Rumi quotation and the quotation from Terry Tempest Williams that closes your postings.
It occurs to me that we could perhaps add a thread to this cafe in which people share the "scriptures" that feed their souls. I, for one, will add both of these to my treasure trove of quotations to ponder and use. Thanks for sharing both.
William D. Lindsey
Hello Bill, You are more
Hello Bill,
You are more than welcome.
Glad that I have been able to have a positive impact on at least one person's life. This has always been my prayer - the only success by which I measure my life's journey.
God go with you always.
'This is my living faith, an active faith, a faith of verbs: to question, explore, experiment, experience, to seek, to embrace the questions, to be wary of answers.' -Terry Tempest Williams, naturalist and author (1955- )
Ninja
><>
I liked your quotes
I liked your quotes also.
Here's one I like:
"I saw old Autumn in the misty morn
Stand shadowless like Silence, listening
To silence."
THOMAS HOOD
jayne
The only religious agenda
The only religious agenda one should take into public office is the desire to serve the public, based on the knowledge that God loves all of humanity and creation. The number of issues that one faces in elected office on a dailty basis is truly phenomenal, and the variety of issues covers every possible situation that any human being at any time can conceivably become embroiled in. To try to bring all of this down into 'family values', i.e., abortion and homosexuality, indicates to me that the individual who does that has not a clue as to what an elected offical, at whatever level, must deal with. Christian love of one's fellow human beings, regardless of the circumstances they find themselves in, ought to be the standard for being in office.
If only we all would and
If only we all would and could follow the advice of Our Lord, who stated, "Render Unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar' s and unto God that which belongs to God!"
I am sure that that our nation's society would not be in the turmoil that it is in now!!. When one aspires to serve follow citizens in public office, he or she serves All the citizens of our country. When one aspires to serve God and spread morality thruout the populace, he or she must be cautioned that is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate morality, it has been tried and each time failed. The time and money spent in each such attempt would have been better used to alleviate poverty, hunger and sickness!
It might even lessen some of "Man's inhumanity to Man." One can only Hope and Pray, trusting in the Lord to grant common-sense to all humanity!!
"One who goes with God is never lost!"
John V.S.A. Vaisvil
Religion and state should
Religion and state should have nothing to do with each other. Only tribes are ruled by witch doctors.
A study of the traditional
A study of the traditional relationships between Medicine Men and Tribal Chieftains would prove very interesting. Even Dr. McCoy on the Starship Enterprise had command prerogatives.
Humans Grow In Virtue Not By Being Forced To Repeat Virtuous Actions But By Freely Choosing Such Actions
BEAM ME DOWN SCOTTY (again)
BEAM ME DOWN SCOTTY (again) ...
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
Interestingly, I did a small
Interestingly, I did a small study on the relationships between the Chief and the Tohunga (High Priest)in the polynesian (Maaori) culture before the arrival of the Europeans.
Briefly, each had separate functions:
The Chief looked after political issues, resolved internal differences, administered internal law, distributed resources, food etc, timed fishing trips, plantings,organised labor, led the tribe in battle, negotiated with neighboring tribes etc
The Tohunga was reponsible for education, genealogy, blessings on people/crops/plantings, environmental issues, marriages, internal moral issues, communication with the Spirit, local Gods etc.
The tension between the two leaders was resolved by their mutual dependence.
The Chief could not be accepted without the blessing (Ordination?) of the Tohunga. The Tohunga could not function without the support of the Chief.
However, the Tohunga in each tribe in New Zealand (Ao-Tea-Roa) also had spiritual loyalty to the Great High Priest (the Maaori for this escapes me right now) of New Zealand.
The great Hui (gathering) of the tribes in the mid-nineteenth century illustrates this. This Hui was to resolve the issue of which Church (of the many proselyting at the time) that would be right for the Maaori.
Ricky
The Tohunga had a sweet
The Tohunga had a sweet job: he got to talk to nonexistent spirits/God and got paid for it. AND, from what you're saying, he had something like veto powers over the actions of the government, backed by the superstitions of the mob.
The power of religious professionals over marriages, something you mention without comment, is something that belongs in the middle ages or Franco's Spain.
Geneology can be kept up by a records office.
I understand that the King of England still can't be crowned without the church and that the Prime Minister appoints bishops in England. Sounds archaic.
Fred, YOU SAY >>>The Tohunga
Fred,
YOU SAY
>>>The Tohunga had a sweet job: he got to talk to nonexistent spirits/God and got paid for it<<<
My Reply
What makes you think the Spirit and God were or are non-existent?
YOU SAY
>>> he had something like veto powers over the actions of the government, backed by the superstitions of the mob.<<<
My Reply
You missunderstand. I was giving a VERY brief description of a very ancient system. Actually one that lasted a lot longer than our "democratic" system has.
Certainly the Tohunga did not have any veto power. He stuck to his job. Trying to cause underground dissension against the Chief would be risky. Open discussion was encouraged.
The Maaori had a very good way of resolving differences both within the tribe and with other tribes. They had orations between the parties. This is still true today.Only if this failed was there war. There were, of course, ambitious exceptions to the rule, just like our western society.
YOU SAY
>>>The power of religious professionals over marriages, something you mention without comment, is something that belongs in the middle ages or Franco's Spain.<<<
My Reply
Religious professionals have always (and still do) had power of persuasion over marriages within their religious communities. Governments provide standardised systems to facilitate record keeping.
YOU SAY
>>Geneology can be kept up by a records office.<<
My reply
Genealogical records were kept within each tribe, with the political ("records office") in charge of the recording and the Tohunga in charge of training.
YOU SAY
>>>I understand that the King of England still can't be crowned without the church and that the Prime Minister appoints bishops in England. Sounds archaic<<
My reply
I cannot speak for the English system. But it does not seem much different from the political head of the Vatican appointing Roman Catholic Bishops.
Ricky
To answer some points
To answer some points raised:
I have never been given evidence that might indicate anything other than a this-world existence. For me, logic and fact point to a materialist existence/reality.
I can't see why the religious authorities would have to train the geneology personnel for the government. The government should be in charge of its own people.
Your point about the Vatican being a political entity is accurate, but beside the point. I don't know why Europe is being held up as a model when, in this respect, its practice is far behind our own. There should be no involvement, in any country, by clergy, of any faith, in government.
Your point does lead to another point I might make-why do we, since Jimmy Carter decided to shore up the commitment of ethnic Catholics to the Democratic party by appointing an ambassador to the Vatican, still have a fully paid 'ambassador' to a country whose sole reasons for being are promoting a religion and selling postage stamps (and housing art collections and books)? We should recall our ambassador and never appoint another one. Nor should we accept an 'ambassador' from ANY religion.
Religions leaders can regulate marriages within their own communities, so long as these do not violate human rights. But why any religious body should regulate marriage for ALL members of any political group, be it nation or tribe, is beyond me. Whether its 'Aotearoa'/New Zealand or Franco's Spain, the principle remains the same-religions should be an individual choice, not a mandated identity.
You mention that this system lasted longer than our "democratic" (and I have no idea what sort of self-flaggelation is going on behind the use of quotation marks in this instance, but I can probably guess) system, but leave that aside for the moment-we can hardly help being started in the 18th century. And many systems that were truly unpleasant lasted generations; why this should be an argument for their being admirable or, still less, superior, baffles me. Spain, Portugal and Naples/Sicily had the Inquisition for years-was the durability of this institution until the early 19th century an argument for the superiority of it over the separation of church and state introduced much later? Or was it a symptom of the intense backwardness and cultural inferiority, still evident in many ways, of these societies?
Fred, BTW, I am sorry you
Fred,
BTW, I am sorry you have never seen anything that would suggest something outside this world. I most certainly have had experiences that suggest something beyond what we may understand "in our philosophy".
I have objectively observed powers beyond any secular understanding and objectively experienced the Spirit and God.
Ricky
Fred, I apologise if I
Fred,
I apologise if I suggested that the older systems were superior in some way. They certainly were not. I was just pointing out the facts, not trying to make judgements on the systems. Tribal systems are inherently flawed as we see (for example) in the Appalachian clans and the Arabic/Persian tribes today. Loyalty to unelected and patriarchal heads is always a risky business.
The reason that I used democratic in quotation marks is because of that very point. Is our loyalty to a political party (or the nominated head thereof) any different (except in time) to the loyalty to a tribal chieftain?
The chief can be deposed either by rebellion or refusal of the people to co-operate. The Commander in CHIEF may be voted out or impeached and removed.
In either case, the actions carry great risk for the people if the CHIEF decides to use his power to fight back. See: the threats from the current USA administration against anyone that opposes them, most notably against the press. Even bloggers have ended up in jail.
Ricky
I was thinking more of the
I was thinking more of the fact that clergy tend to be the only ones with education in backwards, socioeconomically retarded cultures/nations-think ghettos in the US, pre-modern Europe, modern middle East.
When the Medicine Man and the Tribal Chieftain are one and the same, it's a definitely inferior, backwards culture.
Perhaps the crisis of family
Perhaps the crisis of family values are two out of three republican aspirants to the white house having multiple marriages due to their own misbehavior and one waiting in the wings who prosecuted (persecuted) a sitting president for a sin he was in the very process of committing. Global Warming is hardly a theory by the way.