God and Guns

 

An open letter to people of all faiths and good will: by whatever name you call the unknowable—Brahman, the Way, Yahweh, Christ, Allah, Nam—with you I yearn for the peace towards which we all lean. Love and compassion are at the core of every tradition, and yet we all fall short when it comes to living those ideals. In the face of unspeakable horror, tragedy, and evil, it seems so inadequate to say “I’m sorry.”

Words must be complemented with action. Everyday at least one person in this country dies from a gun shot. How utterly tragic that it takes twenty young, innocent lives plus eight adults to get our attention. And for how long?

Do guns kill people? YES!

Do people kill people? YES!

Is stricter gun control needed? YES!

Is better mental health treatment needed? YES!

Is better gun use and safety instruction needed? YES!

Are better background checks necessary? YES!

Is an armed citizenry necessary? NO!

Is visible protection and deterrence necessary? YES!

Are more armed guards, teachers, ministers, shop owners, citizens the answer? Absolutely NO!

Someone (Einstein?) said that to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result is stupidity. The NRA not withstanding, narrow minded politicians hiding behind the excuses of needing more time, study and  money not withstanding, the lack of will and concern not withstanding, we must respond for good, for the future, for love of one another.

How paradoxical that in a country that claims to be so religious, we are the most violent, militant, racially and sexually discriminatory. The gap between our self-righteous delusions and daily reality is as wide as east is from the west. I wonder how many of those people who ran out last week and bought hand guns, semi-automatic assault rifles, and ammunition attended a house of worship this weekend or would at least give loud lip service to some religious tradition. “God’s” heart is broken for all who have died AND for all who carry hate and complicity in their hearts.

What is the answer to the violence in our world? I think it begins with people of faith and good will living the values of their faith and not surrendering to the perversion, stupidity, and evil around us.

There is a rabbinic saying that if the world lived God’s will together just one day, the messiah would come and the world would be transformed.

Justice and the American Way

We have just endured another divisive and polarizing political season. It seems that we are either red or blue and only 6 million votes determined a winner in the current contest. From the outside and to the uninformed observer, it appears to boil down to a question of small government vs big government, more taxes or less taxes, "freedom" vs government control. At least seven legislators chose not to run for reelection citing gridlock and acrimony as their reasons. We seem to have reached an empass or stalemate and spiraled into political paralysis. Where to from here?
Michael Sandel, a professor of political philosophy at Harvard University and author of Justice, has offered a possible solution and new direction that I think is worth considering. There are many kinds of justice--retributive, distributive, etc.--, but what he is talking about is what the law should be and how society should be organized. These are questions of justice which our polity has answered in terms of maximizing welfare and respecting freedom. But lest you think one is blue and the other red, let me quickly clarify by saying that welfare can have red and blue inplications as well as freedom. Welfare can pertain to economic incentives for personal achievement as well as social programs to care for the unfortunate. Freedom can refer to individual choice on ALL matters and creating a level playing field through government regulations, e.g. Affirmative Action. We have been and are sharply divided within and between these definitions.
Sandel interjects into this conversation the third idea of promoting virtue. He asks, "Does a just society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens? Should law be neutral toward competing comceptions of virtue?"  Ancient theories of justice start with virtue; modern theories start with freedom. Do we decide as a society what is just or do we let "each man do what is right in their own eyes (as the Book of Judges describes it)?"
Obviously all aspects are important and to be considered, but I stand with Sandel in advocating a return to virtue as our guiding principle.

Laissez faire economics

The third misconception alive and well in our world today is laissez faire economics. Adam Smith warned us in Wealth of Nations to beware of capitalists behind closed doors. He knew their base inclination was to take advantage of the powerless for their own greed and wealth accumulation. Grounded in the religion of his day, Smith recognized the benefits of sound, altruistic economics, but he also was aware of human nature left to its own devices and lacking moral foundation.
I was sadly overwhelmed during this past election to witness the agressive, open expression of selfish, self-centered political philosophy and the blatant disregard for the health and welfare of this nation by the Republican platform and its spokesmen-----and one of them a Bishop in his church. The anger, hatred, lies, and yes, racism, has continued unabated. Just look at the increase in the sale of firearms this Black Friday over last year. The Internet is full of claims of voter fraud (never mind what the Republican party did in Pennsylvania and Georgia to try to deny voting privileges to minorities!). The Birther lies continue. So let's just ignore the mindless, ignorant foghorn--Fox--of the Republican party. But all of this was supposed to be offering a "new" vision of prosperity based on "free" unbridled business initiative. If government does not protect us with its power, since who among us can stand up to Exxon Mobile?, fracking is going to destroy our air and water and future generations--if there are any--will pay the price in poor health while the few and favored reap the rewards for themselves. All in the name of laissez faire economics.
I digress. Is communism the answer? Of course not! But somewhere between heartless, impersonal government and heartless, selfconsumed capitalism there has to be an answer that requires from everyone according to their ability and to everyone according to their needs. This is fair! This is necessary! We must NOT settle for less!

Second greatest misconception

I am going to leave the history of the development and implementation of the idea of private property to others and only address the philosophical and moral foundations for such a principle.
How can anyone own this earth? How can anyone assume private control and use of the land? How can anyone own the air we breathe? Just one example: how could the king of England assume to own the land across "the pond" and give it (or use thereof) to a privileged few----when there were already human beings here using and sharing that land?
We come into this world with no choice or volition or action of our own. We bring absolutely nothing into this world with us. And we will take absolutely nothing from this world when we die. It is total arrogance to assume that it is our "right" to take, to use, to hoard, to refuse to share, to deny responsibility to give and help. There is a dearth of humility in denying that life is a shared experience from beginning to end and thinking that we are self-sufficient.
If I have not lost you already, let me quickly add and try to balance what I am trying to say. I am not denying or discouraging the use of individual talents and the appropriate rewarding of personal achievement. I am not arguing for faceless equality (although I would not rule this out IF everyone accepted their responsibility---but let's not be too naive) but for equitable distribution. It has been said by someone more eloquent than I, "from each according to their means and to each according to their needs."
It is a question of where we begin. Do we start with egotistical, self absorbed individualism OR do we begin with a recognition of and commitment to love and care of the "other?" Each has far reaching implications for social, economic, legal, and spiritual living. The soul of a nation is seen in the degree to which it takes care of the weakest within it. The soul of a person is seen in the degree to which they live in service to others.

Hopefully of interest

Email:   hallittleton@gmail.com
Website:   www.haroldlittleton.com
Recent book:   Jesus: A Would Be King    available through www.Amazon.com

Speaking engagement:
FCCChurch in Hendersonville, NC
December 16 at 9:30 am
Subject:    Mary Magdalene, the "Other Woman"

Body and Soul? Metaphysical dualism

One of the three biggest lies (or misconceptions, depending on who promotes it and why) ever perpetrated on humankind is the idea that body and soul are separate "realities," and that the metaphysical half of the equation is the "real" reality while the physical half is temporary, inferior, and less significant. This has tremendous consequences for psychology and physics, but I will leave that to those more qualified than I to address. I will limit my remarks today to religion.
The insistance on this dualism has led to religious authoritarianism on the one hand and avoidance of social ethics on the other. Hierarchical religious authorities have claimed control over our "eternal souls" and literally tried to scare the hell out of people while controlling their lives and resources. They have minimized the importance of this life, this world, and our responsibility for creation and one another while claiming that the only important reality is the life to come, life after death. They have advocated an ethic of individualism and personal morality and denied the shared joy of community and responsibility that is our true nature.
"Soul" is only a description of a characteristic or function of who we are. It has no independent existence apart from the total entity that is us. The ancient Hebrews had admirable insight when they wrote in Genesis that "God" breathed into the shaped "form" and man became nephesh, living soul. They knew that we are a whole and as such we came from, share in, and return to the oneness that is. If you asked me to describe or define "God," which I can not begin to do, I would only begin by saying that God is one, the oneness of all, and that it is a great mystery that we are in the oneness.
So what does this suggest for us? Humility. Refusal to be dogmatic. Silence. I stand in awe and yearn to love and be loved.
Oh, the other two lies are the right to private property and capitalism as the only legitimate economic system for human progress.

Online courses

I am developing a catalogue of online courses that I invite and encourage you to consider. Currently available is Survey of Hebrew Scripture (Old Testament). You do not need to know Hebrew :)
Three courses are in preparation.
Instructions for enrollment:
1) go to www.openuniversity.digitalchalk.com
2) click New Account button
3) complete the creation of your account by filling in the blanks
4) click Catalogue tab
5) add the course to your shopping cart
6) click Proceed to Checkout button
7) complete the transaction with credit card
8) click OK button on receipt page
9) click on title of course to begin

Each chapter has an outline you can print.
Each chapter has a video lecture.
Each chapter has a narrated powerpoint video.
Proceed at your own pace. Go forward and backward. There is a certificate of completion when you finish.
Call or email with questions:   828-776-2860        hallittleton@gmail.com
Thank you and please share!

Where to from here?

At Exit 46 I have a decision to make. One road will take me to Columbia and Charleston. Another will take me to Raleigh and Wilmington. A third road will take me to Johnson City, TN, and a fourth road will take me to Knoxville, Nashville, and beyond. Different destinations and that's fine, if that's where I want to go. The choice is mine, but I need to realize that when I choose a direction, there is a fixed conclusion (end point) to my choice.
In a way--bear with me--this is like having a discussion with someone. If I accept without questioning the direction they want me to go, I have to ultimately accept their conclusions. In other words, I MUST question the validity of the premises  with which they begin, or I have to accept the conclusions to which they are moving. For example, there is a basic rule of logical thinking: verify the validity of the original premise or accept the conclusion argued.
All horses are purple.
Seabiscuit is a horse.
Therefore, Seabiscuit is purple.
We are challenged with significant and persuasive ethical and social premises today. One argument begins with the fundamental value of rugged individualism. It is all about me. I did it. I am self-made. I pulled myself up by my boot straps; everyone else should do the same. I got mine now you take care of yourself. The other argument says we are a community. We are in this together. We all have talents and should do what we can for ourselves and then help take care of the less fortunate, marginalized, and disenfranchised.
We are at the crossroads. The choice is ours.

Who am I?

From where, what, who, how am I defined? Who am I? These days we hear so much about individualism. We have hardly gotten over the me-ism of the Reagan years, and here we are being flooded with Ayn Rand and radical, individualistic, libertarian philosophy. Bear with me a moment. I choose to take a different approach to who we are and our responsibility to and in the world.
I accept the Jewish (ancient and contemporary) concept of corporate identity. I believe I am defined by the group/family/culture into which I am born. Everything--EVERYTHING--tells me my existence, my identity depends on others. I exist because my parents conceived me, my mother birthed me, my family nurtured and nourished me. Biologically I AM because of others. Sociologically I exist because my society  protects and enables me to live and grow; its laws create a safe environment within which I grew and learned and conformed to the welfare of others.
Economically my society enabled me to prepare for meaningful work, provide a comfortable life for my family, contribute to the protection and welfare of those less fortunate. My government protects me militarily from terrorism to the best of our ability, provides a good transportaion system (paved roads etc.), attempts to guaranteed responsible and intellectually sound education, strives to guarantee safe food and safe drugs and clean water and clean air, and however inadequate, a tax system that I am glad and proud to contribute to that underwrites these benefits. We have a long way to go in all areas mentioned above and in providing health care, yes universal health care, for everyone and enabling those who have already made their contributions to live in dignity and without fear in their old age. Everyone and everything that has preceeded me prepared me for my place and responsibility to the world around me and the generation that will follow me. I give thanks for them and accept my responsibility to continue the traditions and values received.
Ayn Rand was wrong! Selfishness is Not a moral value!
John Donne said it best:   NO MAN IS AN ISLAND, COMPLETE UNTO HIMSELF.

Reason for Hope

There is so much going on--10 year old child killed in Colorado, war, conspicuous consumption, rampant radical individualism, loss of community, etc, etc--that it is easy to get discouraged. But I choose to believe and hope that the glass is half full and that there is a future worth striving for.
The October 1, 2012 issue of Time features the Clinton Global Initiative in which President Clinton makes the eloquent case for five ways the world is getting BETTER. I will simply list them and leave you to read and feel better about the world opening before us. They are: (1) technology: the cell phone is democratizing the world, e.g. Haiti and Africa; (2) improving health care: conquering AIDS, improved care for women, and tackeling obesity with improved nutrition in schools; (3) increasing green energy: yes, green is profitable and ethical and renewable despite what the coal industry says and bad budget choices made; (4) 50% of the population-WOMEN-are getting recognition and leadership roles they deserve, e.g. Rwanda, Malawi, GAP, legislatures in the US; (5) the future is struggling to be born--yes, "those fighting for present gain almost always win out"--and a new mindset and vision is taking shape and hold. We must not, MUST NOT surrender to the dark side.
Continue to bloom where you are planted. Never give up. Silence is complicity. Hope!

Fall is in the air

Every season has its beauty, but I confess to being partial to autumn! Sure, it foreshadows cold and dormancy. However, living in the now, being content with where and when I am, savoring the smells of leaves and warming fires and pumpkins and chili and cider and fresh apple pie and steaming coffee and blankets taken from the closet----it brings comfort and serenity. Surrounded by red and brown, yellow and orange, blue and green, the strife of the world pales to insignificance and I am invited to breathe, breathe deeply, listen intently, and love wastefully. What a gift we have been given!

Form and Content

In graduate school research and paper writing, it was popular to distinguish between form (the outer, hollow, meaningless shell) and content (substance, meaning, significance, purposeful). The Presidential debate October 3 was an exercise in form and content. There was a lot of the former, and little to none of the latter. Rommey was aggressive and commanding. Obama was absent. Neither said anything that had not been said a thousand times before. Neither articulated a clear and compelling vision for the future. Unfortunately, my suspicion is that, given the dearth of critical thinking in this country, people will succomb to whichever "form" fits their preconceptions, tune out to what the other candidate says, and continue down the road of mindless submission to the ideology of choice. The American people deserve more than platitudes from candidates and uncritical analysis from talking heads on the networks.
There is a clear distinction (it has been clear for some time) between a philosophy of smaller government and one of appropriate, efficient larger government. Let's hear the cases substantiated. There is a clear distinction between selfish, individual, libertarian values and values that put others and their needs first and structures policies on that basis. Let's hear that debate. There is a different between anti-intellectual closed mindedness with failed economic policies and an openness to potential with a reception of proved data and an objective search for policies that will benefit everyone.
Candidates, whichever side of the aisle you represent, will you PLEASE tell the truth!

Fork in the road

Soren Kierkegaard, Danish philosopher, said every decision is a moral decision. I agree with him. Everyday in everyway we are confronted with the need/opportunity/necessity to make decisions. We stand at the fork in the road and choose. There is no option not to choose. To "not choose" is a choice itself. Every decision we make affects others and defines us. We can choose to gratify our selves, enrich ourselves, benefit ourselves in any and everyway possible or we can choose with the needs of others guiding the direction in which we will go.
There is a "cosmic" struggle going on around us. One path leads to destruction, chaos, disintegration of society, polarization, everyone doing "what is right in their own eyes," or one leads to constructive community buiilding, wholeness, integration, and consensus building. One path is defined by selfishness and greed, while the other is defined by care, compassion, and concern for others.
We stand at the fork in the road. As Yogi Berra said, "when you come to a fork in the road, take it!"

Coptic fragment

Exciting news everyday! But level heads must prevail. Dan Brown popularized it---he was not the first. These "rumors" have been around for centuries. Even in the second century Celsus argued that Jesus was a bastard. The "church" has fought it on every front. In my mind that is why there is a virgin birth story in Matthew and Luke. The church will demonize sex and wholeness in human relationships. Augustine will put the nail in the coffin. Poor man was so guilt ridden he could not stand to suffer alone so he  insisted we join him! Of course my position in Jesus: A Would Be King is clear.
Back to the papyrus at hand. A third/fourth century Coptic fragment. Is it an original or a copy of a copy or a copy of an original documant? Who wrote it? What community held this view? Does it hark back to a real relationship or is it mystical, intuitive, wishful thinking? Possible? Yes!
Probable?  No way of knowing---today at least.  Emphatically yes? No scholar in therir right mind would say.      Talpiot might have something to add to this conversation if the IAA would only allow DNA analysis and comparison.
Please join the conversation.

My cup

A full cup can not receive/take in any additional contents. It must be emptied to receive. Personally, everyday, I strive to empty my cup of hatred and ignorance and misinformation to be open to compassion and truth. It takes commitment and discipline, and is renewed every day.

State of American Church

Perhaps I need to narrow this focus and be somewhat specific. I grew up and have live all my life south of the Mason-Dixon line. I also grew up in southern Protestantism. So I can only speak to southern, Protestant Christianity. With that disclaimer:
I believe the church has lost its soul and been taken over by the culture and become synonymous with the culture. (I am reflecting on what happened to the church under the Third Reich and how it came to endorse/baptize the horrors of that era.) For justification or rationale for my statement I turn to two examples: Southern Baptists and the Tea Party movement.
First Southern Baptists. They began in 1845 in direct response to the slavery question and their history has been one of racial prejudice and discrimination. I witnessed this first hand in the 60s. I know they have just elected an African American to a leadership role, but that is late, insincere, and of little consequence. It is a group that is anti-feminine, refusing the office of pastor to women. It is anti-intellectual, continuing to read the Bible literally despite modern science, historical awareness, and literary criticism. They continue to deny biological evolution and (for many) global warming just as two examples. They are anti-abortion while endorsing capital punishment and provide some of the strongest pro-military support of US policy. That church has succombed to the ignorance, prejudice, and militarism of the culture.
The Tea Party. According to the Bloomberg National Poll in 2010, the Tea Party is: 40% over 55, 79% white, 61% male, and 44% claim to be "born again Christian." It espouses a libertarian (anti-Christian) philosophy based on the philosophy of an atheist who claimed selfishness is a moral value, a laissez faire economic theory centuries old and unworkable in the 21st century (our society and world are far too complex to leave everyone to do "what is right in their own hearts"). It is telling that one of their objectives is to eliminate the Dept. of Education! Again, anti-intellectual, rabid individualism, irrational militarism, unchecked selfishness. All this time they claim overwhelmingly to be Christian and the church goes along or remains silent.
Can or will Christians reclaim the moral ground abdicated to these perversions?

Go to the top right of the Google page and click on 'Sign In.' Then, on the next page, click on the 'Sign Up' button at the top right and follow the directions for creating a Google account. You do not have to use the account for email, and you may even use your regular email address as part of your Google login. There are benefits to having a Google account beyond the blog, like using Google Docs and personalizing Google News. However, you can just use the account to access the blog.

Once your account has been created, you can respond and post to the blog. Happy blogging!

After you create your account with an email address and password, go back to the blogs and posts page, find "Comment" in blue under the one you want to comment on, click it, and now you can write.

In this together

How does one live "in" the world without being "of" the world? How do I express "righteous indignation" without being motivated by and controlled by "anger"? Where does one turn for integrity and humility to enable them to "strive" for social justice?
The wisdom traditions offer a similar path. As I understand and experience it, It is a removal of the "self," the ego, the illusion of self-importance, and the surrender to the whole, the other. It comes in the recognition of the integrity of others, the worth of others, the rightful presence of others. As Thomas Merton observed: Listen to the voice of the stranger; see the face of "God" in every, every other. It is in the experience of the oneness of all.
Then I can begin to "live" the oneness I believe we are "called" to be.

Beginning

Welcome to my inaugural blog! I have chosen this format and opportunity because I think civil conversation across a broad spectrum of subjects is often missing in today's environmemt. I grew up with the advice that you must avoid discussion of religion, politics, and sex if you don't want to lose friends or make people angry. So I deliberately invite you to discuss ANYTHING as long as you are civil, courteous, and informed. I often tell my students that I value and respect their opinions if they are informed and thoughtful, otherwise I could not care less what they think. So the door is open. I invite you in. Everyone is welcome. All persons will be respected, all insights considered. The mind is like a parachute----it only works if open!
To get things started:
1) I have written a book recently---Jesus: A Would Be King---available through Amazon, Kindle, and Nook. I explore the human Jesus. I believe he was a man, a fully realized, flesh and blood man. As such he experienced human needs and emotions. He went to the bathroom and, I believe, got married and had sex. I do not consider any of that "sin." So it does not violate any theological position you might hold. I will be up front and honest; I do not believe or begin with the assumption that the Bible is factually true without error. It is the product of the faith journey of the Jews (Old Testament) and the followers of Jesus of Nazareth (New Testament).
2) This coming election IS about a choice of values. That choice is very clear. Either you begin with a value system based on economics/money and radical individualism or you begin with a value system that puts people, their needs, and the environment first before making draconian fiscal decisions that at worst destroy or at best diminish that quality of life. It is a choice of radical, selfish individualism or unselfish, corporate (group) living. Is one party all right and the other all wrong? No! But it is a question of your fundamental perspective and the soul out of which we live and relate to others in the world. Just to be clear: radical individualism/libertarianism (Ron Paul, Teaparty, etc.) is not Christian by any stretch of the imagination or careful study. The Republican Party is being taken over by an extremism and historically ignorant, anti-intellectual faction.
By now you are either angry and don't intend to ever come back OR you might be energized enough to inform yourselves and come back and share this journey.
Peace, Hal