IMG_1216
Blog powered by Typepad

« Tempest in a teapot | Main | Your Eternal Self »

Comments

Instead of uniting, it divides; instead of forgiving, it accuses and blames; instead of subordinating the ego to higher spiritual impulses, it does the opposite -- explicitly stating that if God is not in line with the ego's agenda, then the ego will have to "kill" God.

Which of the Western faiths is completely innocent of this, Michael? Though few would line up with the idea of killing a 'god' that disagrees with the ego's agenda, nearly all of the Western religions involve severe judgment of those who disagree with their particular tenets. Some have non-believers cast into an eternal hell, while others believe their particular faith gives them the right to literally murder in the name of their 'god'. Doing either effectively kills God in the name of 'god'.

To single out one particular theology as especially heinous is choosing to overlook that they all tend to divide. It's a rare faith, and an even rarer person, that has the courage to genuinely call for forgiveness and unity.

We all arise from the same source. Seeing beyond the deeply conflicting interpretations of what that source truly is perhaps the most difficult aspect of discovering the inherent divinity of others and ourselves.

“If he has remained in the congregation for nearly 20 years, it's because he felt comfortable there and liked what he heard.”

Maybe he did not like what he heard but as a politician that was a large church and lots of potential votes. Most ministers if taped one can find some comments very harsh. This is a major mistake by Obama. I have heard he made this man or listed this man as his spiritual advisor in his campaign. Whoops.

Many blacks have always felt like victims even several generations after slavery. The far right was looking for something well it looks like they found it. One must be careful we are still a racist country and many of us are looking for any excuse not to put a black man in the white house. I suspect most Americans will deny this statement but the subconscious is so powerful. It can rule our life and we don’t have a clue.

This is what happens when religion gets involved in politics. Using the pulpit to express one’s rage. This is a typical human story and response instead of trying to understand that rage we condemn it and find someone to place blame on. Jesus statement give unto Rome what is Rome’s does not resonate well with most preachers. But then a lot of Jesus’ teachings don’t resonate well with most preachers and followers.

And who has warmed up to some pretty far out white preachers. My own senator from Arizona that wants to bomb Iran and thinks the Iranians are training and arming the Sunni terrorists. Senile or misinformed? The part in the story that got my attention was Cone wants to kill the white god. Hey bet that is a neat trick. Kill god, kill self. Ouch.

I suspect this post will get a lot of interesting comments. The religion and politics thing plus throw in the race card. Until we walk a mile in a black man’s shoes we have no idea what the blacks are up against living in America as former slaves.

That is the purpose of the journey of the soul: To do that walk and learn compassion for self and others. And I suspect it takes many lives to learn from that walk. See got that little nugget in.

Religion, politics and race should combine to generate some very calm, measured responses, William. You don't think people are actually influenced by these things do you?

>God damn America
I am deeply grateful that I live in a time and place where it is safe to express anger at one's country. And that's what Wright was doing, as I understand it. Not advocating or inciting violence, not proclaiming black supremacy, not even saying that the US is intrinsically evil. Just expressing his anger.

What frightens me is superficial, unexamined, enforced, patriotism.

> What is black liberation theology? As best I can judge, it is a black supremacist movement

I don't know whether that's true or not. The Wikipedia article doesn't say that. And the first name they show in a list of "black liberation theologians" is Martin Luther King.

I was watching a panel discussion of the Wright/Obama flap the other day. Dee Dee Myers, certainly a Clinton backer, said that white people consistently say that they feel welcomed and at home in Obama's church. And she wondered how many white churches embrace, in a similar way, African Americans.

Agreed.I would never vote for a presidential candidate who won't disband such a theological ideology.Regardless if he disagrees with some things of the movement.Then again all of the candidate choice to me seem like:"Do you want the puppet on the left or the puppet on the right kind"

Even If he aint running I vote for Michael prescott as president!^^

Isn't the "collective ego", as Michael describes it, pretty much the highest ideal of morality that most humans can understand? Jesus said "love thy neighbor as thyself"; notice he didn't say "love _everyone_ as thyself", if he had he would have been laughed at. There has always been an "us against them" in every civilization, culture, and wandering band of hunters throughout human existence as a basis of proper behavior; it's only in modern times that some of us try to keep our relations with "them" as civilized and peaceful as possible. If you want people to grow beyond that you either have to have an invasion of aliens (a world-wide "them") or a general growth in empathy toward others. I believe that aliens are more likely.

Michael H: I suspect our societal conditioning will come out loud and clear on this one. Big time.

The cultures can be so different. I once took a black history class hoping to become more understanding of black issues. I was the only white male in the class.

I suspect I came out of that class less understanding. And the instructor gave me a B. Honor student with all A's and this guy gave me a B. Ouch! The instructor kept harping on and on how his great great grandmother was raped by a white slave owner and looked right at me as if I had done the raping. To my knowledge I had not raped his great great grandmother. Another nugget.

But yet where I do my volunteer work with Black and Latino and White students I do not see any race prejudices with these 3 and 4 year olds. The color of their skin has no bearing on their ability to have fun and play and learn together.

I'm just curious about the media going nuts over this story and as yet has not said much about Frank Shaeffer's article talking about his father Francis Shaeffer who wrote The Christian Manefesto, nor did they go very deeply into Mike Huckabee's sermons and the actions and beliefs of his fellow philistines that have raped and pillaged the Southern Baptist Seminaries (my brother and I were at seminary with Huckabee in the mid 70's)
It would seem to me to be more concerned with someone running for President's sermons than merely the pastor of the person running.
This does remind me of all the people that were afraid the Kennedy couldn't be President because he was Catholic and would do the Pope's bidding. But wait, didn't Bush do that with his stem cell ban? And he's not even Catholic.
Don't even get me started on John Hagee who's endorsed McCain.

I found out according two guys in the new testament that the bible does not say there is a immortal soul but that we are a soul not that we have a soul.

here's the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRwFmPqVpQI

Obama sounds to me to be displaying true christian values.

Firstly he act's in "love" when he faithfully stays in his church for 20 years and is still there (a man of commitment & fidelity)despite not agreeing with his preacher on everything that spews from his
mouth.

Admits his preacher has some bizarre beliefs, if he was such an advocate of the man's every belief he'd be expressing this, after all he knows everything he expresses is recorded and televised across the nations.

He shows tolerance and compassion. We must be careful not to lean towards paranoia and begin another witch hunt on an innocent man who's dream is to unify not to divide.

Look to his virtues, how his lives his life, and this will display the type of leader he is and becomes. Remember Clinton?? Can leopards change their spots?

Most political candidates are influenced by some form of religious belief system, whether its christianity or new age etc.

Imagine if your personal beliefs hindered you from getting a job, how would you feel? Where's the freedom and acceptance in that.

It seems to me that the witch hunt has already begun on Obama and this is the dirt the opposition will use on him, because they can't attack his morality, (lying, cheating, womanizing behaviour, like some former politicians) so go attack his spiritual influences, it couldn't get any lower really.

I wonder whether Obama may have learn't anything in his 20+ years studying christianity?

He seems like an intelligent man, articulate and deep in thought, somehow I find it difficult to imagine him as a empty headed man who just sits on a pew and eats all that is fed via his pastor.

OK, since so many of you have allowed yourselves to be sucked into this Fox-created pseudo-controversy, I get to deliver some cold water to the face.

So remaining in his church was a bad move by Obama, huh? And, pray tell, what would have happened had he left the church before running for the Senate? Does anyone seriously think the conservative smear machine wouldn't have found out about Rev. Wright's radical statements and views and pulled the "guilt by association" alarm? Of course they would have.

The only difference is that by trying to hide his previous membership in this church, Obama would have been engaging in the most damaging act any candidate can engage in: an attempted cover-up. Acting like he had something to be ashamed of would have suggested that he DID have something to be ashamed of. He's done precisely the right thing and made the only smart choice he could have made: not ducked the issue, addressed it and held his head up. Otherwise, it would be a scandal of "I did not have sex with that woman" proportions.

So what do we have? Guilt by association. Michael P., are you seriously suggesting that because he attended this man's church, Obama supports his positions by osmosis? I attended the Catholic Church for the first 18 years of my life. That doesn't make me pro-child molestation.

>Michael P., are you seriously suggesting that because he attended this man's church, Obama supports his positions by osmosis?

Of course Obama supports Wright's positions, but not by osmosis. He has called Wright his mentor, consults with him on political decisions, and took the title of his book The Audacity of Hope from one of Wright's sermons. That's not to say he agrees with everything Wright has ever said (I assume Obama does not believe the US government created AIDS and crack), but clearly he and Wright agree far more than they disagree, or they would not have had a close 17-year relationship.

>Fox-created pseudo-controversy

I would guess it was the Clinton camp, not Fox News, that pushed this story to ABC (who broke it).

It surprises me a little (though it really shouldn't) that people can rationalize the undisguised racism of Cone's "theology." Let's take one of his quotes and make a few minor changes.

Aryan theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the Aryan community. If God is not for us and against non-Aryans, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of Aryan theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the Aryan community ... Aryan theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the non-Aryan enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in White Power, which is the power of Aryan people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.

Now, would you vote for a presidential candidate who had a two-decade association with a church founded on ideas like these?

>Jesus said "love thy neighbor as thyself"; notice he didn't say "love _everyone_ as thyself", if he had he would have been laughed at.

I'm pretty sure he was laughed at. Also scourged and crucified, if I recall correctly. Anyway, the universalism of the Christian message is clear enough in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Jews and Samaritans were mortal enemies), and in the book of Acts, which stresses the apostles' outreach to the gentiles. And "love thy neighbor" is normally taken to mean "love everyone." What else could it mean - that we should love only the person who lives next door?

White America electing a black man to the white house this I have to see to believe. From my point of view this country is now as divided along ideological beliefs since the civil war. I don’t believe a black man, a white woman, or a war hero can change that no matter what their leadership skills or intentions.

This statement will not be popular with some but 47 million Americans without health care and a mega military budget and an industrial military complex beyond what the world has ever known pretty much sums up the American mentality.

And anyone that believes that huge military budget and complex is about defense is living on another planet or spends much of their time watching fox news. Actually what is happening in America is perfection defined.

Ignore the spiritual laws that exist in the universe then an individual or a nation must reap the benefits of their unawareness. Without karma would anyone or any nation actually be able to learn compassion. I suspect not.

Ohhh Happy Day, Ohhh Happy Day.........

;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLY7yI1xV-M&feature=related

Why do we continue to make everyone miserable for the sake of a damnable ideology? It becomes clearer every day that it's long past time for the races to separate.

There we go William, just as I said, calm, measured responses. :-)

>> What is black liberation theology? As best I can judge, it is a black supremacist movement

>I don't know whether that's true or not. The Wikipedia article doesn't say that.

I would call it a black supremacist movement on the basis of the Cone quotations. For instance: "Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal."

Remember that Cone is one of the founders of the movement.

>There we go William, just as I said, calm, measured responses. :-)

I think the responses have been pretty calm and measured, overall.

Well, except for the comment advocating the separation of the races ...

That's the one I was referencing, Michael.

“Why do we continue to make everyone miserable for the sake of a damnable ideology? It becomes clearer every day that it's long past time for the races to separate.”

This can appear to be the best solution. But appearances are often deceiving.

When we factor in soul development what appears best on a human level is not necessarily best for soul development.

The challenge and struggle of living with different cultures can give an individual and society opportunities to maximize soul development in love and compassion and forgiveness.

“If there is no struggle there is no progress” Frederick Douglass.

>I would call it a black supremacist movement on the basis of the Cone quotations.

Michael, you're saying that we need to re-think "the whole rationale for Obama's candidacy." But you haven't called into question a single one of Obama's own views or actions. Your piece didn't even focus on the words or misdeeds of Jeremiah Wright—that, of course, would suggest guilt by association, a controversial tactic at best.

What you have done, essentially, is to write an article on James Hal Cone, one of Wright's influences. That's guilt by association once removed.

This is such a provocative piece, I still believe you should not convict a man guilty until there is proof he is.

Do we condemn him because of others who have crossed his path, with their personal views? Where's the evidence that he has spoken about these views as being important to him.

I don't even live in America and just by my intuition and observation, he doesnt strike me as someone we should be suspicious of with dark scary motives to eradicate the white race.

This is reminding me of the Simpsons show and the character of Mr Burns. I don't believe the two character's should even be put together in the same vein.

Ohhh and we will come back to this post once the election is over ;-)

Ohhh Happy days...........

Once again, speaking as someone outside of the United States, I find the magnitude of this story jaw-dropping. Haven't all these reporters noticed that there is a Christian Fundamentalist movement - which has spewed vitriolic hate towards gays and other minority groups, and hinted at the glory of 'a nuclear war as Revelations endgame' - and which has enjoyed particular influence on a number of presidents (and candidates)?

Or is it only a problem when the average middle-class white heterosexual is the one on the wrong end of the (sermon) stick?

Kind regards,
Greg

Here's an interesting sermon in terrorism from that Pastor Wright :-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T6-O8GIylQ

Obama's interview on Pastor Wright :-)

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-defends-his-racist-pastor-says-he.html

A live interview with Obama, displaying a man who is forward looking and not backwards. A man who seeks unity not division or black supremacy. If you can't see this shine through, look within to see why :-)

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&fg=rss&vid=846b84ad-5143-4e1e-b292-1beb4ecafcaa&from=05

>Your piece didn't even focus on the words or misdeeds of Jeremiah Wright

Why should I bother to do so? His words are all over YouTube. He is a crudely anti-American hate-monger and, as Geraldine Ferraro aptly put it, "a racist bigot."*

In any event, the principal focus of my essay is not Obama or even Wright. It's "how not to do religion" - why this kind of angry, vindictive, divisive "religion" is bad for us.

But if you want to talk about Obama, fine. Here's the short version: Given both the Wright scandal and the developing Rezco scandal, Obama's all done. If the Democratic Party wants to win in November, they'll nominate Hillary Clinton.

---

*“To equate what I said with what this racist bigot has said from the pulpit is unbelievable,” Ferraro told the Los Angeles newspaper, The Daily Breeze, on Wednesday. “He gave a very good speech on race relations, but he did not address the fact that this man is up there spewing hatred.”

Okay last link but it's a beauty, it sums up the spirit thats influencing this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqCYFpUAJ2Q

Mr. Prescott, I love your blog but have to strongly disagree with your statement that Clinton is the best choice for Democrats to win in the fall. When you view the tapes in whole, the comments lose some venom. I am not agreeing with the statements but I think it says something when we start making election choices based on 30 second sounds clips. Trust me, if Clinton wins the nomination, the Republicans will open the vault they have been building for 2 years. In terms of religious affiliation, there is ammo aimed at her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/hillarys-nasty-pastorate_b_92361.html

Not to mention the Peter Paul affair and her misstatements regarding her foreign relations experience.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/how-will-hillarys-bosnia_b_92844.html

While agree with your statements that religion is bad when it displays anger, there are sociological aspects in play that are better understood through discussion rather than relying on youtube.

Barry Sadler's book Casca:The Samrai. Casca notices priests wearing swords. He says in all the years he's been alive every time religious leaders take up arms the world is in a pile of shit.

I think it's a pretty good statement.

Clearly, Michael, you've made up your mind about Obama despite the flimsy "scandals" involvin Wright and Rezco. As we've discussed many times on this blog in relation to psi and survival, we all have biases, and I think it's a fool's game to try to convince someone to let theirs go. We'll see how this all shakes out in November.

There's an article on the Time Magazine site today that looks as if it could have been a response to Michael's piece. It's called "When is guilt by association fair?" It includes the following. (I love the way the last sentence puts the whole thing in perspective.)

"What matters most about the candidates, after all, is what they'll do in office. But that's a question of character and judgment as well as policy, which is why the Wright story has stuck; even if they have no suspicion that Obama agrees with his former pastor's more controversial statements, some voters can't help but wonder about a guy who would choose such a firebrand as his and his family's spiritual adviser.

Maybe that's guilt by association, but in politics the voters decide who's guilty and why. We're all going to have to spend the next four years with one of the candidates, and while it's true that most of us don't choose our pastors for their political views, and that many of us have people in our lives who say cringeworthy things, it's also true that you usually can tell a fair amount about people you don't know personally by the company they keep. Including Obama, who mostly surrounds himself with extremely impressive people."

>Including Obama, who mostly surrounds himself with extremely impressive people.

And by the way, if you're wondering who some of those "impressive people" that surround Obama are, think Oprah Winfrey, for one. Can you imagine her actively campaigning for someone who displays even a hint of a hint of racial bigotry (towards whites or blacks)? Oprah, in my view, is one of the most spiritually evolved, intelligent, compassionate, people on the planet.

She knows Obama well and her complete embrace of him is telling.

And if you don't give much credence to "innocence by association," fine. But let's skip its reverse as well and judge Obama by his own words and actions.


In my not so humble opinion white America will not put a black man into the white house. Many if not most will look for any excuse to not vote for him in November.

Also I don’t care if it is a black man, or a white woman, or a war hero none will be able to fix what is wrong with America. We as a nation are too far down the path of materialism, consumerism, corporate control of Washington, senseless deregulation, wars for profits, mega industrial military complex, mindless outsourcing, open borders, political correctness, and extremely divided as a country.

Paradigms are shifted by those outside the existing paradigm not those within it. All three candidates will try and convince the voters they are the agent of change but if one looks close they all are within the existing paradigm.

The good news, if a nation or person goes against the spiritual laws that exist in the universe then karma does its “thing”, not as punishment, but as an opportunity for self-correction towards love and compassion.

>We'll see how this all shakes out in November.

True enough. We'll see who wins the general election - McCain or Hillary. I think it will be very close.

To wrap up my thoughts on this matter, I can't help thinking of the Supreme Court justice who said he couldn't define pornography but he knew it when he saw it. Likewise, I can't define hate speech but I know it when I hear it (or read it). To me, Wright's jeremiads and Cone's rants are hate speech. Personally, I don't want a president who has cozied up to hate-mongers for the last 17 years, even if he did it only to score political points (which is possible). Fortunately, I think a large majority of voters feel the same way.

Obama has run as a blank slate on which voters project their hopes for an ideal candidate. This strategy was always shortsighted. Eventually a candidate for president does have to define himself. Reciting "Yes, we can!" over and over is not a platform or a program. It's a rhetorical device, and by now a shopworn one.

Obama is now being defined by his associates because he has not defined himself. As Rev. Wright might say, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Regarding Oprah Winfrey: I've never watched her program and have no idea if she's an evolved spirit or not. She has made a lot of money, but commercial savvy does not necessarily equal spiritual mastery (to put it mildly). I do remember that a few years ago, on an overseas trip, she became enraged when a high-end boutique (in Paris, I think) refused to open its doors for her after closing time. She made a major public incident out of it. My guess is that Jesus or Buddha would have reacted differently. But maybe they weren't quite so evolved.

Anyhow, we shall see what we shall see.

A very long post, for which I apologize in advance:

This is such a volatile topic, it's an incredible test to discover some sort of genuine reason within ourselves, let alone among the writings and sound bites generated by hundreds of the pundits chiming in all over the world.

I am a white man. The Wright controversy has forced me, along with millions of other Americans, to confront an aspect of the African-American community that most would rather pretend does not exist. Wright's ravings, as incendiary as they are, are sadly representative of a line of thought that runs throughout the black community. Wright speaks to the mentality of the victim, a mentality that persists with a pernicious tenacity throughout the black community. Though his language may have been unusually strong, the feelings he has given voice to are real and powerful for many throughout the black community, and they are not going to be wished away.

Like it our not, the treatment of the African American over the history of these United States of America is shameful and atrocious. Beginning with the stain of slavery, continuing with the rise of the KKK, the lynching’s and http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/banished/>racial cleansing of communities throughout the south, the Jim Crow laws, the Civil Rights horrors and riots of the sixties . . . I think it is impossible for a white man to have a genuine appreciation for how this all is viewed when it is part of your heritage. How would I feel if I knew my great-great grandmother was repeatedly raped by her white slave owner? Or if my family once owned dozens of acres in Fulton County, Georgia that they were forced to abandon without compensation upon threat of death, property that is today home to wealthy residential neighborhoods? What if I could remember being forced to use separate hotels, or restaurants, or water fountains? What if I had a beloved uncle, or maybe a brother, who had been beaten to death in the chaos of the sixties? What if my children were trapped in schools rife with drugs and violence, if gangs roamed my neighborhoods, or if too, too many of my former schoolmates were either dead or in prison?

Would I be able to look at a white man with benevolence? Would I see my race as victimized by my country? Would I awaken each day with a sense of hope and optimism for my own, or my children’s future? If I’m brutally honest in self assessment, I have to conclude that I would fall short. When I think of the adversity I have faced throughout my life, I can only say that in comparison, I’ve been very fortunate.

This is not to defend Black Theology. The statements of Wright and Cone are correctly identified in Michael’s main post as vile, horrific, racist rhetoric. But I can understand the source. I can see why there is an audience for these diatribes, why there are many blacks in this country that still see themselves as victimized, and face life everyday through a lens colored with bitterness, resentment and hopelessness.

Having said all of this, I also must admit that I share the resentments expressed by many whites. I didn’t rape any slaves. I didn’t participate in a lynching. I didn’t drive someone from their home, or own a segregated business, or beat a black man to death while resisting the civil rights movement. I look at the inner cities; the rampant drug use, the crime and violence, the contempt for education and the horrible consequences of the welfare system, where there are now several generations that have known nothing but dependence on the state for their survival, and continue to have children as a means to a steady source of income. And when I hear the black population call for reparation for the injustices of the past, I recoil. I’m in my late forties, with concerns of my own. How will the economy hold up? Will I be able to provide for my retirement? I have no children, but many of my white friends have serious concerns about their kid’s future; about how to pay for education, or what will be the environmental conditions their children will inherit? I see a well qualified friend bypassed for a job through affirmative action, and consider the growing tax bill that seems to only exacerbate the problems with the existing welfare system, and I wonder what the hell is going on. It’s the truth.

These are issues that run deep throughout our society, and Wright’s comments hurtling into the collective consciousness has exposed a deeply troubling aspect of American society to the entire world. These are not issues that are going to be solved either quickly or easily, and certainly not from the mentality from which they have been created. For the white population, it involves understanding the source of the bitterness in the black community, and advocating a society that honors the dignity and deep humanity of all races, of respecting that we are all humans first, with deeply human problems, and that we all share that in common, before any cultural differences. For the black community, as difficult as it may be, it involves recognizing that the atrocities of the past are past, and that the only reasonable path involves accepting individual responsibility for one’s own future, and by extension, that of the African American community as a whole. Progress is likely to be slow and painful, but both races need to emphasize the dignity and rights of the individual, and demand absolute equality for each and every one of us.

The electorate has an important choice facing them this year. There are some that will conclude that Barack Obama’s long association with the theology of his pastor is too disturbing for a Presidential candidate. By doing so, they are effectively choosing to sweep the issue of race back into a dark corner, where it will continue to fester. The resentments will grow on each side, the government will continue to throw money at the problem, and the divisiveness will worsen.

I will be interested to see how this all turns out. Race is an issue that has never in my memory been so visible in a presidential race. And as difficult and uncomfortable as it is, it cannot even be considered among the most pressing of the issues before us. There are major economic issues we are faced with, continuing military debacles on two fronts, a severely damaged international reputation and continuing fears of radical Islamic terrorism. The question for me is not whether Obama’s association with his pastor disqualifies him, but which of the candidates is best equipped to move the country in a positive direction in all areas. Obama’s platform is much too liberal for my tastes, but I also recognize that he may possess the finest intellect of any candidate in my lifetime, and his message of unity and hope is sorely needed in a deeply divided country. I also happen to think he means it. I think he’s real. I also think that he understands that in order to make progress, he will by necessity move towards a centrist position upon assuming office, and his campaign itself speaks to remarkable organizational skills. If I have the opportunity to vote for the man, I will.

In the meantime, I will watch with great interest as this all plays out. If nothing else, this election will show the world what is important to the American people, and most critically, who we are choosing to be.

>I can't define hate speech but I know it when I hear it (or read it).

Likewise, courage, compassion, and authenticity can be hard to define. But, judging by the primary results to date, a lot of Americans are attributing those qualities to Obama. I wouldn't be so quick to call them delusional, or to write off his chances.

“She has made a lot of money, but commercial savvy does not necessarily equal spiritual mastery (to put it mildly).”

Amen to that and the same “rules” apply to a nation. Past economic or military success in America says nothing about our spiritual awareness.

As I read these comments and other blogs it is fascinating to observe how strong our beliefs are in the areas of politics, religion, and race. When I started teaching I was told don’t talk about race, religion, or politics.

From my point of view the ideologies of liberalism and conservatism do not work. Neither is based in love and compassion and neither ideology has a clue about the evolution of the soul. We humans profess to know so much but know so little about the mysteries of life.

On this Easter Sunday it reminds me that Jesus words were so simple but so profound. Two thousand years later we still struggle to live by his teachings.

>his message of unity and hope is sorely needed in a deeply divided country. I also happen to think he means it. I think he’s real.

Thanks, Michael H, for a beautiful post.

>but commercial savvy does not necessarily equal spiritual mastery (to put it mildly)

Nor does it disqualify her in the least, as you seem to be implying.

"In my not so humble opinion white America will not put a black man into the white house. Many if not most will look for any excuse to not vote for him in November." -William

I feel from all your posts that race is not an issue for you. But you have to ask yourself in regards the nation accepting a viable candidate who happens to be black; If not now, when? I am not saying that someone should vote for anyone because of their skin color. Far from. But we have to have faith that the country is changing and will change for the better. I talk to so many people about this election. Very few people that I know of mentions skin tones. We talk about issues. character, and judgment. We often disagree.

I am so proud of so many people of all ages who have stopped swallowing the press and slogan driven media in order to look at the issues and possibilities of coming closer to an America we were taught to believe in as children. I am sick of being a cynic. And.. I am really sick of political dynasties.

Those are just my thoughts. I could always be wrong.
Have a great holiday everyone. And make a point to share a pint with someone you disagree with at least once a week.

Nothing more to add, except I want to thank all the commenters for an interesting discussion (which will probably continue). I was in the mood for something to distract me from some rather tedious personal business at the moment, and this lively and spirited exchange did the trick!

Willaim say,

"White America electing a black man to the white house this I have to see to believe. From my point of view this country is now as divided along ideological beliefs since the civil war".

"The good news, if a nation or person goes against the spiritual laws that exist in the universe then karma does its “thing”, not as punishment, but as an opportunity for self-correction towards love and compassion".

The world is watching you America! I think white america really need to evaluate what truly matters. Do you repear past mistakes in fear, cling to latent racist influences for the sake of keeping it white and choose characters of questionable intergity to lead you or do you embrace a new future with hope and unity and clear that karmic debt of the past so you can go forward into a new world, where the vision leads to oneness, love and forgiveness.

The decision has already been made.

It's in the collective consciousness, your next president will reflect your progress and your future. :-)

The same goes for Black Americans who too, need to move forward from the past, forgive their fellow brothers and sisters and hold hands in unisome and go forward and evolve.

That's a beautiful vision, Hope, and something to aspire to. At this point though, I'd be happy if we just stopped killing each other.

One step at a time. :-)

The comments to this entry are closed.