« We Can All Be Open Source Historians:Investigating the 2004 Election | Main | Dialing About Dollars, Part 2 »
True Christian Values
I haven't watched a lot of "current events" television since November 2nd, but I did tune into Bill Moyer's NOW on Sunday, November 12th because the discussion was focused on religion and politics. I was truly inspired by the conversation with Sister Joan Chittister, who spoke with crystal clarity about true Christian values.
Joan is a social psychologist and has been a leading voice on spirituality for over 25 years. She has a Ph.D., 11 honorary degrees and is the author of 30 books, including Scarred by Struggle, Transformed by Hope. She is also a regular columnist for the independent Catholic newspaper, THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER. Perhaps most importantly, she is an activist who writes letter and protests to effect positive change.
Here is an excerpt of her discussion with Moyers:
Moyers: "Let me read you and share with our audience something I read just this morning. Michael Feingold is a theater critic in New York, playwright, spent 25 years in the theater. He said this, quote: 'This is the election in which American Christianity destroyed itself. Today the church is no longer a religion but a tacky political lobby with an obsessive concentration on compel[ling] someone else's daughter to bear an unwanted child and depriv[ing] someone else's son of the right to file a joint income tax return with his male partner.' Do you think he's right when he says this is the election in which American Christianity destroyed itself?"
Chittister: "Well, I think American Christianity has brought itself to the brink. And I'll tell you why. There's a disconnect between our private morality, or private piety and the call of the Gospels, the call of Matthew, of the Beatitudes, to this public concern for a world that comes out of the mind and heart of God."
The interview touches on her view of pro-life versus pro-birth, what she feels true application of Christian values should be and even on Bush's visit to the Pope this summer (she was outraged).
Personally, I think it is important that we continue to educate and engage our fellow Americans over issues of religious values, our founding fathers' view of church and state, etc., as Sister Joan and Gary Hart have done, to counter the misinformation and distortions that have been allowed to stand over the past 20 years. After all, it is John Kerry who carries a rosary and a bible with him where ever he goes, and regularly attends church. And it was John Kerry who proposed policies that focused on helping those who are the least among us.
The problem is that for many ethnic communities - crucial voting blocs at that such as Latinos - the Church is THE place to organize and be a community. And when the Church stoops down to the vile level of political campaigning against abortion and gays like it has done now, entire ethnic communities are lost to the vileness as well.
We must step up to address the true concerns of these communities so that the churches won't be able to control them anymore.
"Where is the Christian Left?"
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10135227.htm?1c
Sorry- I think you have to sign up to read on that link... this one should work:
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:RlLoVxXFf8sJ:www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10135227.htm+where+is+the+christian+left%3F&hl=en
This looks promising - I already sent it ot my mother, who doesn't have a computer (red state, ND) & gave a copy to a co-worker who had talked to me today about Thanksgiving dinner, where she felt she had to keep her mouth mostly shut.
Looks like the head of the department of chicken little is resigning..........
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has resigned
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620456/
I had been told some time ago by one who works for him that he would be leaving to"make some real money" as he has several children. How's that for 'values' ? I think he has had snoot full of the 'war on terra'.
Ahem. That would be "a snoot full..."It is time to remove the gloves in regards to the Church (that would be all churches not just RC) and call them on their complicity in the mass murder in Iraq, their contribution to the decline in morality via their endorsement of Bush, and their turning their backs on the salient features of the Bible:the message of peace and compassion and forgiveness and inclusion. The history of organized religion is always about social control and power. Ever hear of King James? Let's call them on it. It is time to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes!
Gospel of Thomas
For many centuries the Gospel of Thomas was considered Heresy by the Catholic Church and its verses hidden from public consumption. If you want to get to the root of true Christian, or Christ-like, "values" then you must search long and hard indeed to cut through the corruption and blatant revisionist history to find the words of Jesus of Nazareth. For almost 2000 years, Kings, Popes, Emperors, Scribes of all sorts and ideologies have revised, distorted, and twisted the True words of Jesus to suit their own selfish political and economic agendas, for if his words were taken as "Gospel Truth" there would be no organized religion in His name...no Church...no Vatican...no Pope...none of the trappings of Earthly beings.
The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of traditional Sayings(logoi)of Jesus. It is attributed to Didymos Judas Thomas, the
"Doubting Thomas" of the canonical Gospels, and according to many early traditions, the twin brother of Jesus ("didymos" means
"twin" in Greek).
We have two versions of the Gospel of Thomas today. The first was discovered in the late 1800's among the Oxyrhynchus
Papyri, and consists of fragments of a Greek version, which has been dated to c. 200. The second is a complete version, in
Coptic, from Codex II of the Nag Hammadi finds. Thomas was probably first written in Greek (or possibly even Syriac or Aramaic) sometime between the mid 1st and 2nd centuries.
I have repeated a few verses translated by "modern" scholars for a candid audience.
(3) Jesus said: If those who lead you say unto you: Behold, the Kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will be before you. If they say unto you: It is in the sea, then the fish will be before you. But the Kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then shall you be known, and you shall know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if ye do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty.
24) His disciples said to Him, "Show us the place where You are, since it is necessary for us to seek it." He said to them, "Whoever has ears, let him hear. There is light within a man of light, and he lights up the whole world. If he does not shine, he is darkness."
71) Jesus said, "I shall destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to rebuild it."
77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and
unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."
95 [Jesus said], "If you have money, don't lend it at interest. Rather, give [it] to someone from whom you won't get it back."
Verses 3 and 77 in particular are important (IMHO) because in them Jesus tells his Disciples Heaven is not in the sky or the sea "But the Kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you." and in verse 71 Jesus says he will destroy this house, in some translations I have been fortunate enough to read claim Jesus is speaking of the Church, for there is no need for such a place when the Kingdom of Heaven resides in all of us and around us and as Jesus says in verse 77, "Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."
You can see how this just would not do for Popes and Kings needing loyal followers to lead and tax.
The Old Testament writings of the Bible are similar to the Koran and the Torah because they all come from the same Aural History...our shared common Heritage from antiquity.
The Founding-Fathers realized, somewhat, this Truth, especially Thomas Jefferson, and resolved to keep the Modern Church from controlling the free will of the people.
So this asks of us the question...
What is Truth?
There have been many prophets throughout the history of our world…many oracles…spiritual leaders…philosophers who, being blessed with insight and clarity of thought, have written or spoken of the Universal Truths of Humanity, what the Founding-Fathers referred to as the "Natural Rights" of mankind.
Our Truth, our basis for government, as described by the Founders of this land who were accused of treason, treachery and rebellion did believe so strongly in this Truth they risked their very lives to deliver their declaration to an oppressive tyrant…
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."
When we live our lives as the world should be, not how it is, we effect the people around us…our families…our friends…our neighbors…we become the voice of reason…we become the respected leaders of our communities…we become the Truth.
We become the Truth through our sincerity in action, character and utterance. We espouse the Truth when we present the body of real things, events and facts. We are the Truth when we live a transcendent fundamental reality based upon the principles of this great Nation…meaning we take Action based upon our duty and responsibility as Americans to assure the rights of all of humanity are secured, protected and preserved.
We either believe these Natural Rights to be the rights of all, or we believe in nothing…The Great Experiment is over.
We the People shall not stand in the face of the Truth of our Fore-Fathers and deny our responsibility to America…The Truth…our Truth is but a glistening peak rising above the clouds of oppression for all of mankind…and the gathering storm threatens to douse the Flame of Freedom from our shores due to the blindness of the theocratic bureaucracy. No religious or political ideology shall stand before the rights of the People, just as no government of the people, for the people and by the people shall impose upon the practice of personal belief and worship unless it brings disruption to the rights of another.
Penned by Thomas Jefferson in 1777, but not enacted into law until 1786, the Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom firmly defined the principles of religious freedom and the separation of church and state and provided the basis for the First Amendment’s clause on religion. I submit the Statute here for all to scrutinize in its entirety, for there is no denying the Truth within reason and rational thought.
I. Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of the tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment; and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
II. Be it enacted by the General assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, not shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, that that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
III. And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
As an American, one has the Natural Right to worship a head of cabbage on a pedistal if one would so desire...just do not try to feed it to the rest of your fellow Americans as the only One, True Cabbage the world has ever seen, for certainly your view of what is sacred and what is not is truly your own...and that is acceptable in America, just as long as you keep it to yourself and your fellow Cabbage worshippers.
Please do not attempt to say it is your right in America to display your cabbage upon the grounds of public buildings, for they belong to ALL of the People...not just Cabbage worshippers, and should you desire a place in which to worship your Cabbage adorned with gold and silver, burning incense to perfume thair, than by all means please do (for no cabbage can last long without decay, and if you have ever smelled rotting cabbage the odor can be quite foul) and by all means invite all of those who would come to gaze upon and pray to your illustrious Cabbage into your house, but do not ever attempt to force your Cabbage upon another American because by doing so, you will have broken the Constitution of the United States by imposed your rotting Cabbage upon an otherwise contented Nation.
All hate mail can and should be forwarded to Indy_in_tx_for_kerry@hotmail.com, but that would not be very Cabbage-like now would it?
I was raised as a Catholic although I parted ways with them some 30 years ago. I found their hipocrisy(sp) intolerable. This election season was the worst. It is repugnant to me that these Bishop's hold themselves out as some sort of moral authority in telling their parishinors who is the moral candidate & who is not. This from an institution that allowed pedophiles to remain in the Priesthood & covered up their crimes. And now that the truth is out, how do these beacon's of morality respond? By declaring bankrupcy to avoid compensating their victims. Their greed & hipocrisy(sp) know no limits. How dare they??!!
& gave a copy to a co-worker who had talked to me today about Thanksgiving dinner, where she felt she had to keep her mouth mostly shut.
Posted by: DiAnne | November 30, 2004 12:40 PM
DiAnne,
I got the shock of my life at Thanksgiving dinner. Here I smugly thought I wouldn't have to deal with any negative conversation since everyone at the event had voted for Kerry. However I was sandbagged by my sister's father-in-law, a wonderful 80 year-old European gentleman who is a Republican, but voted for Kerry.
At the end of the meal he went into a rant about how the Dems should just stop blaming everybody but themselves for the loss - that criticizing Bush was not a strategy for winning an election - that the reason for the loss wasn't that people voted against their own personal interests because of religion or morals (as I had contended) but because the Dems had no clear message. The last straw was his statement that Bush wasn't going to change the essential nature, character or policies of the United States, so why such a long face.
The irony, of course, is that Kerry went out of his way to focus on his proposed policies and plan for America and was criticized for not bashing Bush enough. I also pointed out that I didn't see Kerry whining about the election - on the contrary, he's being criticized for conceding as quickly as he did (Bush did have 3 million more votes (supposedly)).
Perhaps it is because he is European, and doesn't understand the power and destructiveness of the religious right. Perhaps it is because he just doesn't understand, as an enlightened, rational adult, how whole segments of the population could truly and knowingly vote against their own economic and social interests because their priest or minister told them that one man was working as God's instrument and the other was a baby killer. I do know that I will be giving him "What's the Matter With Kansas" for Christmas.
And I am extremely greatful for articulate individuals like Sister Chittister.
I felt at the time and through out the campaign that John Kerry had made a serious mistake by not challenging the Christian right, including the right among the Catholic bishops over what it truly means to be pro-life, as opposed to anti-choice. His position is correct in regards to church and state and freedom to choose. And his policies in regards to many issues especially health care and jobs are most effective in making abortion, in Clinton's words, "safe but rare". So, with little effort or change to his program, he could have re-framed the argument and made Bush the anti-life anti-freedom president he is.
I think no matter what Kerry did the right would have found a way to attack him & if we had a landslide despite the messed-up voting system, the right might still have been desperate enough to do things I don't even want to think abou, to maintain their control. They have been trying to undo FDR's New Deal for decades. If it weren't for term limits, they'd still have Reagan ruling from beyond the grave. In some ways, now they still do. It's an on-going saga. The want total free trade, free markets, privatization of everything, no government except for the military & it's all run by corporations using global labor & we have air bases everywhere. Religion is used to cement it, with missionaries around the globe - Christian fundamentalist only. This is all nothing new (from one who has lived through Nixon & Reagan). They are happy to have their clammy paws back on the power & did make quite some efforts through Clinton's terms & also undermined Carter (via a deal with Iran re the hostages being held til after the election).
I don't think there is some magic message the Democrats could have had that would have stopped them. Kerry already got more votes than Reagan did in his biggest landslide. We got out more voters but so did they & then they may have .. also ..
cheated.
So, with little effort or change to his program, he could have re-framed the argument and made Bush the anti-life anti-freedom president he is.
Posted by: bob-in-co | November 30, 2004 02:49 PM
I think it would have required more than a little effort.
Bush has built his whole political career on being a "man of God" and appealing to a religious audience. Rove was looking for a politician he could mold who could appeal to the Evangelicals - and there was Dubya.
I think it is wishful thinking to suppose that Kerry could have engaged in a dialogue about how wrong Bush's labeling and maneuvering around religion was - a month or two before the election and that would have "enlightened" the American people.
The right wing's cynical use of Christian fundamentalists (and vise versa)has really very little to do with John Kerry and what he did or did not do. Rove & company would have done the same thing to Howard Dean, John Edwards, etc.
It's really up to the American people and mainstream/liberal religious leaders to have a real dialogue about the role of religion in American politics and policy. Let's stop blaming Kerry for how this country has evolved since the Reagan revolution - or for how Rove masterfully mobilized the religious right.
As always, Indy you rock! The Gospel of Thomas, for those who have not read it , is made very accessible by Elaine Pagels. It is highly recommended and is a tremendous resource for the battles to come. The Catholic Church climbed aboard the ChimpExpress precisely to reassert its slumping, coughing, expiring moral authority in the wake of its cover being blown in the Boys Club For Child Love caper which lasted only a couple of thousand years. It worked to deflect attention away from their moral cesspool just as the "faith & values" campaign deflected attention from the decidedly unChristian actions of this administration. I want to print up thousands of pix of Bush flipping the bird and hand it out at every church with the caption "Got God?" Or as Indy would put it "Got Slaw?"
For a country supposedly founded on the right to religious freedom, we certainly have an assumption that everyone is of one religion and there are times when I would appreciate some freedom FROM religion.
I have never lived in such a prudish and anti-science climate. Things seemed more progressive 30 years ago!! It is a shame that we have to be manipulated in this way. Again, the right are calling the shots.
First they try to define patriotism, then religion. I think they are making people confuse nationalism with patriotism and fanaticism with religion (let alone spirituality).
So, with little effort or change to his program, he could have re-framed the argument and made Bush the anti-life anti-freedom president he is.
Posted by: bob-in-co | November 30, 2004 02:49 PM
Like many of the problems where Kerry was trapped, this is not a subject that can be treated in an election year and hope people are going to believe the candidate. Kerry did basically what he could on this one, but he was not credible because it was basically contradictory with what people thought Democrats are.
We can change the framing concerning these issues without selling our souls, but this is something that takes longer than the length of the campaign. This is why it is so disappointing that so many people are already fighting out about who will be the nominee in 2008 (or the DNC chair in January), while the Democrats' attention should be focused in these ideas.
The Republicans have been very good at framing these issues, but they have not waited for W to do it(or Cheney if we want to be realistic), they have thought about that for years, all their surrogates, their supporters, ... know what to say, and the framing has become natural for them (whether they believe what they say or not). We need to do the same thing and this need to start now.
Hi -
As a person of faith, and now searching for a new way to express that faith after the election - I wonder about the Interfaith Alliance http://www.kintera.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=258308
Does anyone know about them and their good works? Are they worth investing in? There are lots of us out there who are faithful people who are concerned about seperation of church and state, and are appalled by the "moral values" voters claiming stakes on the morality of the country.
Anyone know anything about the Interfaith Alliance?
Have you seen Sojourners? I really like Jim Wallis, who talked about Bush & his faux theology on the PBS special about Bush & religion.
This is good - from Atrios:
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the incoming Senate minority leader, said Monday he is forming a communications "war room" to promote Democrats' messages and respond to Republican criticism.
Reid continued to put his stamp on the Senate leadership when he announced creation of a Senate Democratic Communications Center that will aim to keep the party in the public eye. The center will be launched Jan. 4, when the Senate convenes for its 2005 session.
Jim Manley, press secretary for Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., has been hired as staff director for the center, which will be located in the U.S. Capitol.
Phil Singer, a former media adviser to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., will be communications director, handling "rapid response" as Democrats seek to keep their messages on pace with the White House and Republicans in Congress. Singer also worked as national spokesman for the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
A 15-member message team will include press aides who will publicize Democratic activities to Internet news organizations and bloggers, Reid said. Tessa Hafen, Reid's press secretary, will focus on Nevada media and regional news outlets.
Also - DailyKos yesterday had a poll about what the most-read blogs are. I don't really care that much about the data but wanted to write down some of the most interesting-sounding & check them out. I particularly like blog from inside places there aren't alot of press, such as Iraq.
What I've said before: If one reads the bible, what it actually says and what a minister and priest says it says based on his personal interpretation are two entirely different things.... I wish right-wingers would read the bible for themselves, beginning to end, and figure out, once and for all, that it often doesn't say what a megalomaniacal pulpit-thumper says selected verses taken out of context mean when he's trying to brainwash the congregations in an effort to control the lives of many people.... When the whole thing is taken in context, the bible says much, much more, and a great deal less than any minister's or priest's "interpretation" of selected verses. Key words: In Context. The book also contains history, romantic stories, stories with a moral to them, philosophy, songs, and poetry, among other things.
I caught the Moyers interview with Joan Chittister.... wonderfully inspiring, and IMHO, she seems possessed with a wonderful common sense approach to religion and faith and life, all backed up with a deep sense of ethics and morals not necessarily gained from her life of faith, because she is grounded first of all in reality, not theology.
Most religious people nowadays have no idea WHY Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers insisted on a total and complete separation of church and state, or why the people came to this country for freedom FROM religion in the first place. (They came for capital gain and freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion, although the First Amendment mandates both freedom FROM and OF religion.) Most people, especially religious "leaders" in this country, have never studied Tudor English history, know nothing of the Act of Supremacy and how religion was imposed on people during the early years of the Reformation (there was more than one Act of Supremacy...); nor have they studied the religious uprisings in 17th century England that prompted more people to head for America. Sadly, our school systems are failing our students, and to find out any of the background history about our own country they have to also study English history for a hundred years prior to when the pilgrims arrived here - and they have to study it on their own because they won't find out about it in school. They must also comprehend what Deism means to the founding fathers.... (Hint: NOT divine revelation, per the 'left behind' rapturists!). There is an originating point for the reason behind the First Amendment, and it doesn't start with the pilgrims landing on the shores of this country.
Bush and his minions started a fast slippery slope when he signed the executive order to fund faith-based charities and his administration has allowed "religious leaders" to influence political decisions. That's a very, very bad precedent, and it needs to be stopped dead in its tracks! Period! Can't stress that enough...!
Another link to a commentary about the mixing of religion and politics:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1129-24.htm
Published Monday, November 29, 2004 by the Free-Lance Star / Fredricksburg, Virginia
If You Read the Gospels, the Religious Right is Most Often Wrong
by Rick Mercier
Indy, The Gospel of Thomas, very cool. Do you also have the Nag Hammadi Library and any of Elaine Pagels books? :-)
People love their egoistic comfort which is the love of fame and praise. But fame and priase are like incense that consumes itself and soon disappears. If people chase after honors and public acclaim and leave the way of truth, they are in serious danger and will soon have case for regret, like a child who licks foney from the blade of a knife, like a man who carries a torch against a strong wind.
Buddha
So DiAnne, if we can't carry a torch against this wind, let's carry some small flames, okay? :-)
Little ones everywhere. A gathering of little lights. :-)
And now that the truth is out, how do these beacon's of morality respond? By declaring bankrupcy to avoid compensating their victims. Their greed & hipocrisy(sp) know no limits. How dare they??!!
Posted by: nancyjane | November 30, 2004 02:25 PM
Isnt that the truth, why would you ever have any faith in any church. You can definitely be a christian and try to live a christian life without having any faith in the so called churches of today.
Kangaroo Brisbane Australia
I have been thinking about how you combat the highjcking of words like morality, which has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with right and wrong.
I am thinking about how you change the "group think" about things like this.
I think that SHAME may have a strong role to play in this. A very public disapproval and disapprobation of the behavior of the immoral majority.
It's not a question of taking off the gloves when dealing with this issue, so much as getting graphic, public, and very specific. Make it so obvious, that to disagree would be tantamount to thinking that smoking is good for your health.