As if we needed to be reminded or shown for the first time, the discussion over gun control after the tragedy at Sandy Hook and the fiasco in Washington over the holidays are just two examples of the fact that the American "church" has renounced its core values and succombed to the values of the culture around it. It is absolutely inconceivable to me that "religious" people can seriously defend the arming of the public, increasing access to semi-automatic weapons, and, with a straight face, say that this is the "Christian" thing to do. It is inconceivable to me that so-called religious people can claim that this country was founded as a Christian nation, claiming to base their lives on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and elect and support leaders who would balance a budget on the backs of the sick, the poor, the marginalized, the stranger/immigrants while endorsing and favoring the wealthiest 1%
of our population. It is inconceivable to me that the Tea Party, the Republican Party, and over 60% of Americans are so stupid as to take the Bible literally, denying biological evolution, and run on platforms of anti-intellectualism and anti-feminism and flagrant militarism. And racism continues to fuel their hatred of Obama!
Where is the church? Where are those who claim to follow Jesus of Nazareth? Where are Jews, Muslims, and all others claiming alligiance to the Unknown grounded in love and compassion?
The Darkness is not coming----it is here. Silence is complicity.
People of good will, people of faith, whatever your tradition, be the light where you are. Speak for truth. As Mother Theresa said, we are not called to be successful; we are called to be faithful.
Peace
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Sunday, December 23, 2012
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.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
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!
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!
Monday, November 12, 2012
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.
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"
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"
Monday, November 5, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)