We just concluded our poll, which was posted on September 1, along with our article "Politics and Religion: Reaping the Whirlwind". The poll asked our readers if they believed the wall between church and state should remain; come down; on be weakened.
The vote is in and our readers overwhelmingly said that church and state should not mix. 66% of our readers wanted to maintain or strengthen the separation between religion and government. 16% wanted to the wall between the wall to come down, while the remainder thought a little mixture of church and government was ok.
While not part of the Constitution, tradition has held the religion should be kept at arms length from government. Our founding fathers was concerned that if the two mixed, it could result in similarly repressive national religion such as the one England had. Secondly, they wanted a country that welcomed and treated all religions equally. In fact, they believed you had not only the right to practice any faith of your choice, but also the right to practice no faith (a crime at the time in some European countries which would have sent you to prison or worse).
Our founding fathers were mainly Protestant Christians (with a couple exceptions)and practiced their chosen religions in varying degrees (several later even became diestist). They founded this country based on not just Judeo-Christian values, but also on values derived from the Enlightenment, which in turn, were a rediscovery of ideals first proposed by the Ancient Greeks, Romans and even the Sumerians (these included such ideas as basic human rights and the dignity of human beings). As such, they would be appalled to see the Ten Commandments removed from courtrooms, government offices, and classrooms (afterall, they're already engraved all over the buildings in Washington, including such places as the Supreme Court Building and the US Senate).
They would have had no objection to a Christmas scene on public property, so long as other religions had the same right and no attempt was made to impose any religion on anyone else (equal access). Even those who didn't believe in God would have the same right to express themselves, however, they would not have the right to deprive others of their right to express their belief. I suspect this would include posting the Ten Commandments since isn't an attempt to impose a belief system, but rather a a display of one of the founding stones of this country (besides, it happens to be the a basic tenet of the overwhelming majority of our citizens).
Equally, they would often invoke God's name in public speeches, and believed they were morally right in doing so. They had no objections to any man (or woman) following their faith, be it in business or politics. However, they drew the line at when that individual tried to impose their religious beliefs on others. It's one thing practice your religion and quite another to try and pass legislation to require others do the same. Perhaps we truly are judged more by actions than words.
Thanks again everyone for voting! And to our Jewish readers, have a blessed Yom Kippur.
Showing posts with label seperation of church and state. Show all posts
Showing posts with label seperation of church and state. Show all posts
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Politics and Religion: Reaping the Whirlwind/Racing Toward Armageddon: A Review
There’s line I seem to recall from Frank Herbert’s wonderful futuristic book, Dune, which goes approximately like this, “When religion and politics ride together in the same chariot, a whirlwind is sure to follow”. Now, that may not be an exact quote, but the meaning is clear enough. When politics and religion unite, people (and usually a lot of them) die. Historically, Mankind has murdered millions, if not billions, in the name of what ever god was currently in vogue at the time, and it has usually been done bloody hand in hand with politics.
A facet many of you don’t know is my interest in religion. I have long been a student of comparative religions. I’m not only well versed in the great religions like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, but also Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, as well as Wicca and Native American Spirituality. While in the military, I even “volunteered” to serve as administrative aide to the base Rabbi and liaison to the local Jewish Community Federation. While attending Bellarmine College (a Catholic school), I took as many courses in religion as I could get away with, and I continue to study religion today. Many of my professors did their best to persuade me to become a theologian rather than pursue a business career (looking back, I sometimes wonder if they’d been right).
Being an amateur historian as well has taught me well about the world we live in today, which has seen the line between religion and politics becoming increasingly blurred. We’ve seen it in India where Hindus have become more nationalist and less tolerant. We’ve seen normally tranquil Buddhist monks take up arms. And of course, we’ve all watched Jewish fundamentalists not just pressing their claims against the Palestinians, but also against secular Jews; forcing businesses to close and women to dress in accordance to their demands. Of course, we’re all too familiar with Islam’s head long fall from a deeply beautiful religion of contemplation and compassion to one of mass murder and intimidation (like public beatings of women and those who refuse to be bullied; throwing acid in the faces of young girls attending school; or so-called “honor killings”). In this country, we’ve witnessed the hijacking of the Republican Party by groups like the Moral Majority and their ilk. Gone is the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Goldwater, Eisenhower, Rockefeller (not to mention Nixon, Ford, or even George Bush the Elder) and in its place a more rigid and less tolerant political party. Who can forget the so-called “justifiable” murder of doctors or bombed clinics and attempts at intimidation by some of these same zealots?
The one thing these religious extremists have in common is the belief that they and they alone are the keepers of the “True Faith” and it is their God given duty to bring about their version of the end times (of course, the rest of us are generously given the option of converting or facing God’s wrath by their blood soaked hands). All this brings me to a highly engaging and eye opening book by Michael Baigent entitled, “Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions And The Plot To End The World” (you may remember Mr. Baigent as the co-author of the hugely popular “Holy Blood Holy Grail” and “The Messianic Legacy”). Mr. Baigent gives us an excellent historical overview the three main religions and their claim on Jerusalem. He then leads us through their Byzantine world to induce the coming of the Messiah, but which Messiah? Is it the Messiah Ben David or the Twelfth Iman? Or is it the Second Coming of Jesus? Finally, Mr. Baigent details the objectives of each and finally, what we can do.
If you have any interest whatsoever about world politics, religion, global economics, the environment or terrorism, you have to buy this book. It should be on the reading list for every thinking man and woman. Never in our history have we edged so willingly close to global annihilation. Personally, I truly cannot imagine any god demanding such a terrible harvest of souls from his creation. I’ve included the Preface from the book below. I’m adding this book to my recommendation list to the right of this article.
Preface from Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World by Michael Baigen
The race toward Armageddon is the stumbling toward self-destruction.
Armageddon!
The great battle against the Antichrist; when the red mist of a vast firestorm is to descend from above to envelope all living creatures in its deceptive embrace, leaving the god of war to spit out the pips.
According to the tricky and treacherous text of the final book in the New Testament, the book of Revelation, when the end time of the world dawns, a scroll with seven seals will be opened. With each seal a new horror will be unleashed against humanity. First, a great dragon will appear; this is later identified with Satan. Next will emerge a monstrous beast ominously rearing its seven heads and ten horns. Finally, a servant of this beast will arrive on the stage, a "false prophet" (16:13) -- the Antichrist -- who will lead his international satanic army against the forces of God. All these satanic forces will be gathered together "at the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon" (16:16).
Abruptly, a white horse bearing a divine warrior will appear from heaven, a warrior described as "The Word of God" (19:13), whom many interpret to be Christ; he will lead the "armies of heaven" (19:14) in a vast and bloodthirsty battle that will erupt against a background of terrestrial plagues and earthquakes. The three satanic allies will be defeated: the beast and the false prophet will be thrown alive into burning sulfur; their followers will all be put to the sword by the heavenly rider. According to the book of Revelation, God will take no prisoners -- except, strangely, for Satan, who will be quickly locked up in a bottomless pit. Then the calm following this mayhem will usher in a thousand years of peace.
But in a curious and unexplained twist, at the end of the thousand years of peace, Satan will be released from his prison for a short time. This act of apparent mercy will immediately lead to a second great war.
It does seem a very cruel trick for God to play upon the newly peaceful inhabitants of the world. God appears to be toying with Satan like a cat toys with a mouse, because this new satanic army will also be rapidly destroyed, permitting a shiny new Jerusalem to descend from the clouds -- a new Jerusalem from which Jesus will rule forever over a world where death is no more.
Personally, I have always wondered why, if Jesus is destined to be victorious, he and God should put themselves to so much trouble first. It seems to me that by delaying the inevitable, they are actually colluding with the beast, the false prophet, and Satan. It is also pointless, and the collateral damage so extensive.
But it does not seem pointless to approximately 59 percent of Americans who, according to pollsters, say they believe in the coming battle of Armageddon. And this is in addition to the millions of fundamentalist Christians worldwide who hold the same belief. Indeed, fundamentalist preaching has been pushing this kind of material out for years, material that does not allow for any doubt in the literal interpretation of Revelation. John Hagee, a prominent Texas fundamentalist preacher and author, clearly has none: "Armageddon is an actual battle, and the Antichrist is a living, breathing person."
It is evident from statements such as these that fundamentalist preaching operates in the service of fear -- fear of the big battle to come and fear of not belonging to the side of Jesus so as to benefit from the thousand years of peace.
Fear is all to these people, and every opportunity to spread it is taken. In January 2007 fundamentalist evangelist and former presidential contender Pat Robertson told his television audience that millions of people would die that year in a huge terrorist attack on the United States. He claimed that God had personally told him this but added, rather as an afterthought, "I'm not saying necessarily nuclear, the Lord didn't say nuclear." Which is, of course, reassuring.
Such an attitude is not so far away from that of the Islamic suicide bombers who are sure that upon their deaths they will go straight to paradise to enjoy the favors of seventy-two young girls, favors they have missed out on in life due to their restrictive beliefs.
This battle of Armageddon and the return of Christ is, according to thousands of Christian fundamentalist preachers, coming soon. In fact many are convinced that our modem military involvement in the Middle East is linked to this fiery end. In the book of Revelation, Babylon is the source of all evil and is ultimately overthrown; Babylon, of course, is in Iraq, which has presently fallen to U.S. forces and their allies. To Christian fundamentalists, the connection, and the importance, is obvious.
But the Christian fundamentalists are not the only ones to believe in a final battle. Muslims, too, with increasing urgency speak about the coming of their messiah, the Mahdi, who -- with the aid of Jesus -- will fight against the demonic forces of the Dajjal, the Islamic anti-christ figure. Especially important is the belief held by many Muslims that the Mahdi will rule from Jerusalem, which the Muslims claim as their own. Muslims who follow these beliefs expect the final battle to come very soon, and this is affecting their politics, which, in turn, is affecting all of our lives.
Jewish fundamentalists, by contrast, do not think of a battle to come, but it is hard to see how their end times can appear without one. For they hold that when the Messiah comes, he will rebuild the Temple, referring to Solomon's Temple, the very first temple, according to the Bible, to serve the ancient religion of the Israelites in Jerusalem, a temple that was pillaged and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. And with the Messiah's coming, they hold that Jerusalem will be wholly Jewish. There will be no room on the Temple Mount for any Islamic structures, nor will there be room for the Islamic population within Jerusalem, indeed within all of Israel -- which they define as stretching as far as western Iraq. They believe that the signs of the coming of the Messiah have already appeared; it will not be long now. The thousands of years of waiting are about to end. Of course, there are those who wish to hurry the time along and remove the mosques from the Temple Mount in advance of the Messiah's arrival. The anti-Islamic position of these groups is inflexible and runs very deeply. Their true relationship with Christianity is prickly and kept rather close, for they all depend upon the constant flow of funds donated to them by Christian supporters, but the tensions are there to see. For them, there is no need for compromise or tolerance; God gave Israel to the Jewish people, and that is all that needs to be said.
At its heart fundamentalism is a relentless progression deeper and deeper into intolerance and ignorance, which, unless opposed, will by default achieve its aims. Judged and measured against their own pronouncements, we must conclude that the fundamentalist religions of all denominations are opposing the free will and vibrancy of human life -- they are, paradoxically, performing the very task they attribute to the feared Antichrist: they are attempting to convert a distorted view of reality into such a skillfully packaged shape that it might be taken as truth.
Fundamentalist religions are humanity's greatest enemy. Blunt speaking, certainly, but time is short, and I see no reason not to call it as I see it. The fact we all have to face is that the fundamentalist religions leave no room for human frailty, for compassion, for forgiveness, or for creative freedom of thought. They are trying to return us to that time of darkness we thought was left far behind, where blind belief was considered more important than farsighted discovery, where the dogmatic was more valued than the tolerant and the false was more important than the true.
We simply cannot permit that future to occur; we must oppose that future with all the strength at our disposal. If, like those countless victims of the Nazi Holocaust, we are ever again asked to step into a cattle wagon for a trip to the Promised Land, we must remember that the correct response is always, emphatically, "No! Never again!"
But we need to move quickly for the fundamentalists are on the march; step by step they are encroaching upon the peaceful and tolerant high ground with their perverted idea of a heavenly realm filled with comfortable seats from which those who have been "saved" can eat their popcorn and watch the slaughter below. It all sounds like some deranged fantasy based on a dim memory of the Roman arena, for there is much blood in the message and so very little mercy.
Again Christian fundamentalist preacher John Hagee does not mince his words on this issue:
The first time He came to earth, Jesus was the Lamb of God, led in silence to the slaughter. The next time He comes, He will be the Lion of Judah who will trample His enemies until their blood stains His garments.
It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that, like those who once packed the Roman Colosseum to watch Christians or Jews thrown to the wild animals, Hagee cannot wait to take his seat before the carnage.
Hagee's position closely resembles that of Islamic fundamentalist commentators for whom, of course, Jesus is an Islamic prophet. the Egyptian Sa'id Ayyub, writing in 1987, insisted that in the final days,
All of the books will be burnt at the end of the road. Those who sucked at deceit, spying, and hypocrisy will be burnt beneath the feet of the prophet of God, Jesus, and the army of Islam -- [Jews and Christians] . . . will be trampled under after the dawn."
We have good cause to be deeply worried about these people and those who read and believe their words. We must never let them near to the seats of power, else we will wake up one morning in a world where madness is called sanity and true sanity is viewed as a heresy to be ruthlessly destroyed. But, ominously, we can see this world creeping closer and closer.
The apocalyptic view of Middle East events held by recent U.S. administrations, most evidently with President George W. Bush, really began with President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s. Famously, in 1981, Ronald Reagan revealed that he believed, "For the first time ever, everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ." He later echoed this belief, stating, "I turn back to the ancient prophets in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if -- if we're the generation that is going to see that come about."
Two decades later, President Bush contented himself with advice from God. In 2003 He explained to the Palestinian prime minister, "God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam."
He seems to speak like Moses or Joshua; perhaps he really did believe that he was leading us to the Promised Land.
Copyright © 2009 Michael Baigent, author of Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World
Author Bio:
Michael Baigent, author of Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World, was born in New Zealand in 1948. He graduated with a bachelor's degree in psychology from Canterbury University, Christchurch, and a master's degree in mysticism and religious experience from the University of Kent, England. Since 1976 he has lived in England with his wife and children. Published in 35 languages, he is the author of From the Omens of Babylon, Ancient Traces, and the New York Times bestseller The Jesus Papers; the coauthor of the international bestsellers Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy (with Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh); and the coauthor of The Temples and the Lodge, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, Secret Germany, The Elixir and the Stone and The Inquisition (with Richard Leigh). For more information please visit www.harpercollins.com
Healthcare for Illegals Still Part of the Plan
Healthcare for Illegal aliens keeps marching forward under Obama’s healthcare plan. It seems the louder the People say no, the more Obama and the Democrats in Congress are determined to cram it down our throats (it never seems to cease to amaze that despite their claim about how wonderful this plan is, not a single individual of our so-called leaders is willing to drop their healthcare coverage and adopt it. That to me speaks volumes. Below are to must read links to what’s going on Washington:
Illegal Alien Health Care Loophole a Topic of Debate at August Townhall Debate http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21223&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Poll Results
Our last polled asked if you thought illegal aliens should be able to participate in the purposed Healthcare Plan. 1/3 of you thought so while everyone else (66%) said no way. Personally, I don’t think anyone who isn’t a taxing paying citizen of this country should have any input or benefit whatsoever in any program paid for with our tax dollars.
A facet many of you don’t know is my interest in religion. I have long been a student of comparative religions. I’m not only well versed in the great religions like Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, but also Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, as well as Wicca and Native American Spirituality. While in the military, I even “volunteered” to serve as administrative aide to the base Rabbi and liaison to the local Jewish Community Federation. While attending Bellarmine College (a Catholic school), I took as many courses in religion as I could get away with, and I continue to study religion today. Many of my professors did their best to persuade me to become a theologian rather than pursue a business career (looking back, I sometimes wonder if they’d been right).
Being an amateur historian as well has taught me well about the world we live in today, which has seen the line between religion and politics becoming increasingly blurred. We’ve seen it in India where Hindus have become more nationalist and less tolerant. We’ve seen normally tranquil Buddhist monks take up arms. And of course, we’ve all watched Jewish fundamentalists not just pressing their claims against the Palestinians, but also against secular Jews; forcing businesses to close and women to dress in accordance to their demands. Of course, we’re all too familiar with Islam’s head long fall from a deeply beautiful religion of contemplation and compassion to one of mass murder and intimidation (like public beatings of women and those who refuse to be bullied; throwing acid in the faces of young girls attending school; or so-called “honor killings”). In this country, we’ve witnessed the hijacking of the Republican Party by groups like the Moral Majority and their ilk. Gone is the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Goldwater, Eisenhower, Rockefeller (not to mention Nixon, Ford, or even George Bush the Elder) and in its place a more rigid and less tolerant political party. Who can forget the so-called “justifiable” murder of doctors or bombed clinics and attempts at intimidation by some of these same zealots?
The one thing these religious extremists have in common is the belief that they and they alone are the keepers of the “True Faith” and it is their God given duty to bring about their version of the end times (of course, the rest of us are generously given the option of converting or facing God’s wrath by their blood soaked hands). All this brings me to a highly engaging and eye opening book by Michael Baigent entitled, “Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions And The Plot To End The World” (you may remember Mr. Baigent as the co-author of the hugely popular “Holy Blood Holy Grail” and “The Messianic Legacy”). Mr. Baigent gives us an excellent historical overview the three main religions and their claim on Jerusalem. He then leads us through their Byzantine world to induce the coming of the Messiah, but which Messiah? Is it the Messiah Ben David or the Twelfth Iman? Or is it the Second Coming of Jesus? Finally, Mr. Baigent details the objectives of each and finally, what we can do.
If you have any interest whatsoever about world politics, religion, global economics, the environment or terrorism, you have to buy this book. It should be on the reading list for every thinking man and woman. Never in our history have we edged so willingly close to global annihilation. Personally, I truly cannot imagine any god demanding such a terrible harvest of souls from his creation. I’ve included the Preface from the book below. I’m adding this book to my recommendation list to the right of this article.
Preface from Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World by Michael Baigen
The race toward Armageddon is the stumbling toward self-destruction.
Armageddon!
The great battle against the Antichrist; when the red mist of a vast firestorm is to descend from above to envelope all living creatures in its deceptive embrace, leaving the god of war to spit out the pips.
According to the tricky and treacherous text of the final book in the New Testament, the book of Revelation, when the end time of the world dawns, a scroll with seven seals will be opened. With each seal a new horror will be unleashed against humanity. First, a great dragon will appear; this is later identified with Satan. Next will emerge a monstrous beast ominously rearing its seven heads and ten horns. Finally, a servant of this beast will arrive on the stage, a "false prophet" (16:13) -- the Antichrist -- who will lead his international satanic army against the forces of God. All these satanic forces will be gathered together "at the place called in Hebrew, Armageddon" (16:16).
Abruptly, a white horse bearing a divine warrior will appear from heaven, a warrior described as "The Word of God" (19:13), whom many interpret to be Christ; he will lead the "armies of heaven" (19:14) in a vast and bloodthirsty battle that will erupt against a background of terrestrial plagues and earthquakes. The three satanic allies will be defeated: the beast and the false prophet will be thrown alive into burning sulfur; their followers will all be put to the sword by the heavenly rider. According to the book of Revelation, God will take no prisoners -- except, strangely, for Satan, who will be quickly locked up in a bottomless pit. Then the calm following this mayhem will usher in a thousand years of peace.
But in a curious and unexplained twist, at the end of the thousand years of peace, Satan will be released from his prison for a short time. This act of apparent mercy will immediately lead to a second great war.
It does seem a very cruel trick for God to play upon the newly peaceful inhabitants of the world. God appears to be toying with Satan like a cat toys with a mouse, because this new satanic army will also be rapidly destroyed, permitting a shiny new Jerusalem to descend from the clouds -- a new Jerusalem from which Jesus will rule forever over a world where death is no more.
Personally, I have always wondered why, if Jesus is destined to be victorious, he and God should put themselves to so much trouble first. It seems to me that by delaying the inevitable, they are actually colluding with the beast, the false prophet, and Satan. It is also pointless, and the collateral damage so extensive.
But it does not seem pointless to approximately 59 percent of Americans who, according to pollsters, say they believe in the coming battle of Armageddon. And this is in addition to the millions of fundamentalist Christians worldwide who hold the same belief. Indeed, fundamentalist preaching has been pushing this kind of material out for years, material that does not allow for any doubt in the literal interpretation of Revelation. John Hagee, a prominent Texas fundamentalist preacher and author, clearly has none: "Armageddon is an actual battle, and the Antichrist is a living, breathing person."
It is evident from statements such as these that fundamentalist preaching operates in the service of fear -- fear of the big battle to come and fear of not belonging to the side of Jesus so as to benefit from the thousand years of peace.
Fear is all to these people, and every opportunity to spread it is taken. In January 2007 fundamentalist evangelist and former presidential contender Pat Robertson told his television audience that millions of people would die that year in a huge terrorist attack on the United States. He claimed that God had personally told him this but added, rather as an afterthought, "I'm not saying necessarily nuclear, the Lord didn't say nuclear." Which is, of course, reassuring.
Such an attitude is not so far away from that of the Islamic suicide bombers who are sure that upon their deaths they will go straight to paradise to enjoy the favors of seventy-two young girls, favors they have missed out on in life due to their restrictive beliefs.
This battle of Armageddon and the return of Christ is, according to thousands of Christian fundamentalist preachers, coming soon. In fact many are convinced that our modem military involvement in the Middle East is linked to this fiery end. In the book of Revelation, Babylon is the source of all evil and is ultimately overthrown; Babylon, of course, is in Iraq, which has presently fallen to U.S. forces and their allies. To Christian fundamentalists, the connection, and the importance, is obvious.
But the Christian fundamentalists are not the only ones to believe in a final battle. Muslims, too, with increasing urgency speak about the coming of their messiah, the Mahdi, who -- with the aid of Jesus -- will fight against the demonic forces of the Dajjal, the Islamic anti-christ figure. Especially important is the belief held by many Muslims that the Mahdi will rule from Jerusalem, which the Muslims claim as their own. Muslims who follow these beliefs expect the final battle to come very soon, and this is affecting their politics, which, in turn, is affecting all of our lives.
Jewish fundamentalists, by contrast, do not think of a battle to come, but it is hard to see how their end times can appear without one. For they hold that when the Messiah comes, he will rebuild the Temple, referring to Solomon's Temple, the very first temple, according to the Bible, to serve the ancient religion of the Israelites in Jerusalem, a temple that was pillaged and destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. And with the Messiah's coming, they hold that Jerusalem will be wholly Jewish. There will be no room on the Temple Mount for any Islamic structures, nor will there be room for the Islamic population within Jerusalem, indeed within all of Israel -- which they define as stretching as far as western Iraq. They believe that the signs of the coming of the Messiah have already appeared; it will not be long now. The thousands of years of waiting are about to end. Of course, there are those who wish to hurry the time along and remove the mosques from the Temple Mount in advance of the Messiah's arrival. The anti-Islamic position of these groups is inflexible and runs very deeply. Their true relationship with Christianity is prickly and kept rather close, for they all depend upon the constant flow of funds donated to them by Christian supporters, but the tensions are there to see. For them, there is no need for compromise or tolerance; God gave Israel to the Jewish people, and that is all that needs to be said.
At its heart fundamentalism is a relentless progression deeper and deeper into intolerance and ignorance, which, unless opposed, will by default achieve its aims. Judged and measured against their own pronouncements, we must conclude that the fundamentalist religions of all denominations are opposing the free will and vibrancy of human life -- they are, paradoxically, performing the very task they attribute to the feared Antichrist: they are attempting to convert a distorted view of reality into such a skillfully packaged shape that it might be taken as truth.
Fundamentalist religions are humanity's greatest enemy. Blunt speaking, certainly, but time is short, and I see no reason not to call it as I see it. The fact we all have to face is that the fundamentalist religions leave no room for human frailty, for compassion, for forgiveness, or for creative freedom of thought. They are trying to return us to that time of darkness we thought was left far behind, where blind belief was considered more important than farsighted discovery, where the dogmatic was more valued than the tolerant and the false was more important than the true.
We simply cannot permit that future to occur; we must oppose that future with all the strength at our disposal. If, like those countless victims of the Nazi Holocaust, we are ever again asked to step into a cattle wagon for a trip to the Promised Land, we must remember that the correct response is always, emphatically, "No! Never again!"
But we need to move quickly for the fundamentalists are on the march; step by step they are encroaching upon the peaceful and tolerant high ground with their perverted idea of a heavenly realm filled with comfortable seats from which those who have been "saved" can eat their popcorn and watch the slaughter below. It all sounds like some deranged fantasy based on a dim memory of the Roman arena, for there is much blood in the message and so very little mercy.
Again Christian fundamentalist preacher John Hagee does not mince his words on this issue:
The first time He came to earth, Jesus was the Lamb of God, led in silence to the slaughter. The next time He comes, He will be the Lion of Judah who will trample His enemies until their blood stains His garments.
It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that, like those who once packed the Roman Colosseum to watch Christians or Jews thrown to the wild animals, Hagee cannot wait to take his seat before the carnage.
Hagee's position closely resembles that of Islamic fundamentalist commentators for whom, of course, Jesus is an Islamic prophet. the Egyptian Sa'id Ayyub, writing in 1987, insisted that in the final days,
All of the books will be burnt at the end of the road. Those who sucked at deceit, spying, and hypocrisy will be burnt beneath the feet of the prophet of God, Jesus, and the army of Islam -- [Jews and Christians] . . . will be trampled under after the dawn."
We have good cause to be deeply worried about these people and those who read and believe their words. We must never let them near to the seats of power, else we will wake up one morning in a world where madness is called sanity and true sanity is viewed as a heresy to be ruthlessly destroyed. But, ominously, we can see this world creeping closer and closer.
The apocalyptic view of Middle East events held by recent U.S. administrations, most evidently with President George W. Bush, really began with President Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s. Famously, in 1981, Ronald Reagan revealed that he believed, "For the first time ever, everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ." He later echoed this belief, stating, "I turn back to the ancient prophets in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if -- if we're the generation that is going to see that come about."
Two decades later, President Bush contented himself with advice from God. In 2003 He explained to the Palestinian prime minister, "God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam."
He seems to speak like Moses or Joshua; perhaps he really did believe that he was leading us to the Promised Land.
Copyright © 2009 Michael Baigent, author of Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World
Author Bio:
Michael Baigent, author of Racing Toward Armageddon: The Three Great Religions and the Plot to End the World, was born in New Zealand in 1948. He graduated with a bachelor's degree in psychology from Canterbury University, Christchurch, and a master's degree in mysticism and religious experience from the University of Kent, England. Since 1976 he has lived in England with his wife and children. Published in 35 languages, he is the author of From the Omens of Babylon, Ancient Traces, and the New York Times bestseller The Jesus Papers; the coauthor of the international bestsellers Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Messianic Legacy (with Henry Lincoln and Richard Leigh); and the coauthor of The Temples and the Lodge, The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, Secret Germany, The Elixir and the Stone and The Inquisition (with Richard Leigh). For more information please visit www.harpercollins.com
Healthcare for Illegals Still Part of the Plan
Healthcare for Illegal aliens keeps marching forward under Obama’s healthcare plan. It seems the louder the People say no, the more Obama and the Democrats in Congress are determined to cram it down our throats (it never seems to cease to amaze that despite their claim about how wonderful this plan is, not a single individual of our so-called leaders is willing to drop their healthcare coverage and adopt it. That to me speaks volumes. Below are to must read links to what’s going on Washington:
Illegal Alien Health Care Loophole a Topic of Debate at August Townhall Debate http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21223&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721
Congressional Research Agency Confirms Illegal Aliens Will Get Health Benefits Under House Bill
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1721#1
Poll Results
Our last polled asked if you thought illegal aliens should be able to participate in the purposed Healthcare Plan. 1/3 of you thought so while everyone else (66%) said no way. Personally, I don’t think anyone who isn’t a taxing paying citizen of this country should have any input or benefit whatsoever in any program paid for with our tax dollars.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Gay Marriage: Should It Be Legal?
Did hear the comedian Wanda Sykes was gay? Well, it’s been all over the entertainment news sites recently, but frankly I don’t care. Don’t get me wrong. I like Wanda Sykes. She’s a hilarious comedian, but I really don’t think I need to know who she or anyone else for that matter likes to sleep with. And as for folks like Rosie O’Donnell (remember when she was considered sooo sweat and nice? She even had her own doll. Now we have “mean” Rosie), Ellen Degeneres (a friend of mine calls her “Ellen Degenerate”), Clay Aiken, and all the rest. Who cares? Get over it.
Sexual preference is about as personal and private as it gets. What you like is your business and no one else’s as long as it involves consenting adults right? However, children are another matter, and one that should never ever be tolerated. Punishment of pedophiles should be swift and severe. I couldn’t care less if it’s “humane” or not---that’s my opinion at least. You don’t abuse kids. Period). So, where am I going with this? The answer is gay marriage. Should a couple of the same sex, who happen to be in love, be allowed to marry just like everyone else?
Certainly gay relationships have been around since the beginning. Remember Xerxes of Persia and his Immortals? How about King Phillip of Macedon and his Companions? Of course, there was his son, Alexander the Great. In fact, Socrates, Plato, and most of the Greek philosophers were believed to be gay, or at least bisexual. It wasn’t out of the norm at all in ancient Greece. The great Homer wrote about it in his epics. In Rome, it wasn’t unusual, though a bit more frowned upon in certain circles. Gay relationships were all but unheard of in the more “barbaric” lands occupied by the Germans and Celts, and later, among the Vikings and Huns (for that matter, in the Mongol East either).
Throughout the Middle Ages, gay relationships existed, though (ironically) hided from view from the Catholic Church (where it ran amok or is that a monk?). In fact, it continued down through the Victorian and Edwardian Periods where it was slightly vogue and risqué (does Oscar Wilde rang a bell?), down to the modern period. But throughout, it almost always in the shadows. Many an actor and actress was rumored to be gay, but “forced” to marry as “cover” by the Hollywood studio moguls eager to cash in on their stars. The point I’m trying to make is that gay relationships have and continued to exist, but never, to my knowledge, did gay marriages ever take root. Why?
Marriage has always been seen as a fundamental building block of civilization. It provided the safety net for creating, nurturing, and protecting a family. But many of those aspects have gone. No longer is it necessary for a male to provide for or protect a female. No longer is necessary for a female to even be married when deciding to have children. A doner is all that is required. Women today are quite capable of taking care of themselves in every way, and men are just as adapt as roles traditionally set aside for women. So, does marriage, therefore, carry the same weight that it did originally? For that matter, does it carry the same weight it did just 50 years or 25 years ago?
From the gay perspective, they are just like anyone else in love, and should be allowed to marry…just like everyone else. Recent ballot initiatives seem to indicate that voters disagree. While there are sporadic exceptions, voters have come out in huge numbers to reaffirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. In California for example, where you would expect the gay marriage initiative to pass, voters defeated Proposition 8 by 52%. In 2004, Kentuckians voted 74% against gay marriage, along with 10 other states (Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah). Why?
Frankly, I don’t know. I think political scientists and all those talking heads on the various news programs will be analyzing the results for months and perhaps years to come in some cases. I don’t think the vote was meant to be “anti-gay”, but it may be that people still believe in the institution of marriage as it was originally intended. It could be a reflection of their parent’s morals or dogma taught by their churches or synagogues, either of their youth or where they currently attend (especially among mainstream and conservative religious institutions). Those on the Religious Right would say that G-d (or Allah, Buddha, etc) abhors homosexuality and by extension, the concept of gay marriage.
However, those who support gay marriage would argue that they shouldn’t be held to the criteria of someone else’s religion. Besides, what if there was a church willing to marry them? After all, should the government be allowed to impose restrictions on religion? What about the concept of separation of Church and State? I think that until the US Supreme Court finally rules on the issue, we will see other states open marriage to those of the same sex, only to be reversed later. What will prove to be interesting to watch is if whether a gay marriage from one state will be recognized in another state where it’s still illegal.
While we’re on the topic, what about private businesses who want to offer insurance to same sex couple like they do to heterosexual couples? Should a company be allowed to provide the same health or survivor benefits to a couple regardless of gender? After all, we’re talking about an estimated 1.2 million gays in the US according to the 2000 Census. Should this be strictly an internal corporate decision? What about gays teaching in public schools? Is it appropriate, and if so, should there be any restriction on who or what grades or subjects they teach? How about adopting children? Of course, there is the question of whether gays should be allowed in the military.
Personally, I could care less about someone’s sexual orientation. I believe in treating someone as I want to be treated (as a disclaimer before proceeding further, I’m strictly uber-hetro). I believe in the traditional roles of marriage between a man and woman. I think a male and female role model is critical to the well rounded upbringing of a child. Two daddies or two mommies just aren’t going to get it from my point of view. The law already provides for survivorship. Caretaker or “next of kin” issues are up to the individuals in involved (or should be). If a board of directors decides to provide insurance that cover same sex couples or live-in hetro couples that‘s their decision. Of course, that also means that you or I don’t have to frequent these same institutions if we disagree. When I was in the military, all I cared about was whether the person next to me did their job. What they do on their on their own time and off base was none of my business so long as it doesn’t affect unit cohesion and efficiency. Teachers are there to teach. In short, my main focus is keeping government and other groups out of my personal life as much as possible. Of course, I’m the first to acknowledge there are exceptions to most everything I’ve said. So, now, I’d like to hear from you. Do gays have an inherent “right” to marriage? If not, what about civil unions? How did you arrive at your decision?
Fluency: Leading in the Midst of Change
By Phoebe Eng, keynote speaker at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009
Some of you may remember the 1985 hit song, "We are the World," produced by Quincy Jones and an inspiring cast of musicians who sang about working together, past our differences. Or perhaps you remember the tremendously successful United Colors of Benetton ad campaign back in the 1980s, celebrating young faces of every color, signaling the look and feel of a world without borders. Media images like these showed us the world and nation, as we wanted ourselves to be -- pictures and soundbites of many races cooperating, communicating, and sharing opportunity and fortune.
If only it were that simple. Almost 25 years later, we are still struggling to make that vision real -- in our business practices, in the running of our cities, and, now, in the context of great cultural, demographic, and economic changes brought on by globalization.
As 21st century leaders, you know that building, guiding, and sustaining truly diverse communities is tremendously difficult work. Over the last decade, city populations and workforces have changed faster than at any point in history -- job relocation, mobile commerce and ease of travel have changed our cities' demographics quickly and often. Immigrant and new communities continue to influence and change the culture of our cities. Young families and children supplant the aging baby boomer generation, again, changing the character and priorities of a community.
At the same time as we become a more diverse, more prosperous nation, our cities have also become more segregated. In fact, studies from SUNY Albany, UCLA, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education have reported that segregation of our children has worsened over the last decade, even as we live in more integrated areas. As newcomer groups grow in critical mass, so does the tendency to organize along racial, ethnic, or other group-affiliated lines. Changing demographics and the growth of ethnic enclaves have made race awareness and identity politics an effective means of voicing the needs of some of our cities' otherwise marginalized groups.
Amid all of this, civic and corporate leaders are confronted with difficult choices every day. Worthy projects from different community sectors must compete for limited resources. Appointments and commissions must be assigned in ways that satisfy all the interests represented in our constituency groups, assuring each of them adequate representation. From time to time, leaders also face crisis-fueled change, forcing them to guide their communities quickly through controversies.
Does this sound stressful? Indeed, scenes of a diverse community can be those of chaos, fiefdoms, even balkanizing, as some futurists and scholars predict. Alternatively, some see these times as momentous, opening the door to the grandest and most inspiring of challenges.
How does one lead a community, whether local or global team, in the midst of huge demographic and economic shifts? How do leaders create communities where all constituents feel included, counted and equally receiving of the opportunities offered by a community? And how do we have difficult conversations that turn our best intentions into action and accountability, not only from our leaders, but from ourselves?
The answers to these questions are certainly many and varied, depending on a community's specific composition and the issues it faces. Nevertheless, one of the most important skills of a leader through changing times will be a skill set of cultural fluency. This is not necessarily language fluency, as that term is usually used. Fluency is the skill set of understanding and being understood past apparent borders. To know one's constituents and address their needs effectively, 21st century leaders must practice and hone their fluency skills.
Over the past few years, I've talked to many fluent leaders: opinion shapers, thought leaders in business and communities, artists, teachers, media creatives, all who understand that their ultimate success depends on how deeply and quickly they can identify common ground and transcend boundaries between their constituents. Fluent leaders are servant leaders who willingly assume the place of liaison, the diplomatic negotiator, the arbiter of compromise.
What are some of the qualities of a fluent leader? They understand the value of nuance. They readily deal with complexity, knowing that solutions to real problems require many levels of information and analysis. Every one of the fluent leaders I've interviewed is also insatiably curious. They are lifelong learners who have honed their vision and their life's purpose through constant exposure to different experiences.
Perhaps most importantly, these leaders also understand that the practice of fluency is not a Pollyanna-esque, naive vision of the world, where a handshake, a kind word, or a dabble into a diversity program will suffice. It is quite the opposite. Fluency work is hard "detail" work that requires courage. To be a fluent leader means having some enemies, crossing boundaries, and entering into the necessary struggles to challenge leaders and systems that benefit from closemindedness, fear, and simple formulae.
As we work toward uniting our communities, we have shown that we want to trade together, learn about one another, work side by side, make money together, and even build our families -- across cultures and across our differences. Yet without knowing how to bridge what are often daunting chasms across race, religion, class, and culture, creating workable diverse alliances can often be impossible. Basic misunderstandings can thwart our earnest attempts at generating commerce and a vibrant exchange of ideas. Communications break down. Relationships fail.
In our quickly changing communities, the art of fluency becomes a crucial leadership approach for anyone wishing to become an aware global citizen and an effective global leader. And it is the only way forward if we are truly committed to creating a world, and a nation, where all can flourish to their fullest potential.
Author Bio
Phoebe Eng is the Director of Creative Counsel and the 1000 Voices Archive, a national collection of leadership stories from cities across America. As a strategist, she has presented to and advised a wide range of groups from the US Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, many Fortune 500 companies, chambers of commerce, and universities. Eng has worked with the Ford Foundation and the Ms. Foundation for Women and on several UN World Conferences. Eng will be presenting a keynote address at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta on March 16-18, 2009.
Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009, is the nation's premier event on best practices in diversity and inclusion. For more information or to register call 781.402.5555 or visit www.linkageinc.com/div
Breaking the Cycle of Violence:
Survivor Corps is a global network of people helping each other to overcome the effects of war and conflict and give back to their communities.
In 2008, Survivor Corps grew from Landmine Survivors Network. The organization has expanded its mission to help all survivors of war. Landmine Survivors Network was co-founded in 1997 by two landmines survivors, Jerry White and Ken Rutherford. From the late Princess Diana of Wales to Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan the organization received support, praise and partnerships at the highest levels.
Survivor Corps focuses on the unique contribution and leadership of conflict survivors because we believe no one is better equipped and motivated to break cycles of violence than those who have survived war.
Our programs currently help survivors in: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Jordan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Uganda, Rwanda, United States and Vietnam.
Our signature peer support program connects survivors with survivor role models to offer encouragement and motivation. This is crucial to helping new survivors find hope, get jobs, and get on with their lives.
Through our community building programs, survivors rebuild communities broken by war by connecting diverse survivor groups and former enemies through collective action.
By training and organizing survivor advocates to campaign for their rights, survivors change the world by raising their voices together and addressing the challenges they face in life after war and conflict.
Our Campaigns Make History:
• The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines. (The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty survivors helped negotiate what was the first arms control agreement in history to include provisions to help victims of the weapon.)
• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to end discrimination and bring equal opportunity to 650 million people with disabilities around the world.
• The Convention to Ban Cluster Munitions being negotiated in 2008 to end the use of cluster bombs and help victims of this indiscriminate weapon.
Survivor Corps
2100 M Street, NW, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20037
Yahoo! Map | MapQuest Map | Google Maps
(202) 464-0007 - Telephone
(202) 464-0011 - FAX
Geneva Office
rue de Cornavin, 11
1201 Geneva
Switzerland
+41-22-732-2841 - Telephone
+41-22-732-2842 - Alternate Telephone
+41-22-732-3882 - FAX
Please direct email contacts to: info@survivorcorps.org
Web Address: http://www.survivorcorps.org
Sexual preference is about as personal and private as it gets. What you like is your business and no one else’s as long as it involves consenting adults right? However, children are another matter, and one that should never ever be tolerated. Punishment of pedophiles should be swift and severe. I couldn’t care less if it’s “humane” or not---that’s my opinion at least. You don’t abuse kids. Period). So, where am I going with this? The answer is gay marriage. Should a couple of the same sex, who happen to be in love, be allowed to marry just like everyone else?
Certainly gay relationships have been around since the beginning. Remember Xerxes of Persia and his Immortals? How about King Phillip of Macedon and his Companions? Of course, there was his son, Alexander the Great. In fact, Socrates, Plato, and most of the Greek philosophers were believed to be gay, or at least bisexual. It wasn’t out of the norm at all in ancient Greece. The great Homer wrote about it in his epics. In Rome, it wasn’t unusual, though a bit more frowned upon in certain circles. Gay relationships were all but unheard of in the more “barbaric” lands occupied by the Germans and Celts, and later, among the Vikings and Huns (for that matter, in the Mongol East either).
Throughout the Middle Ages, gay relationships existed, though (ironically) hided from view from the Catholic Church (where it ran amok or is that a monk?). In fact, it continued down through the Victorian and Edwardian Periods where it was slightly vogue and risqué (does Oscar Wilde rang a bell?), down to the modern period. But throughout, it almost always in the shadows. Many an actor and actress was rumored to be gay, but “forced” to marry as “cover” by the Hollywood studio moguls eager to cash in on their stars. The point I’m trying to make is that gay relationships have and continued to exist, but never, to my knowledge, did gay marriages ever take root. Why?
Marriage has always been seen as a fundamental building block of civilization. It provided the safety net for creating, nurturing, and protecting a family. But many of those aspects have gone. No longer is it necessary for a male to provide for or protect a female. No longer is necessary for a female to even be married when deciding to have children. A doner is all that is required. Women today are quite capable of taking care of themselves in every way, and men are just as adapt as roles traditionally set aside for women. So, does marriage, therefore, carry the same weight that it did originally? For that matter, does it carry the same weight it did just 50 years or 25 years ago?
From the gay perspective, they are just like anyone else in love, and should be allowed to marry…just like everyone else. Recent ballot initiatives seem to indicate that voters disagree. While there are sporadic exceptions, voters have come out in huge numbers to reaffirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. In California for example, where you would expect the gay marriage initiative to pass, voters defeated Proposition 8 by 52%. In 2004, Kentuckians voted 74% against gay marriage, along with 10 other states (Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah). Why?
Frankly, I don’t know. I think political scientists and all those talking heads on the various news programs will be analyzing the results for months and perhaps years to come in some cases. I don’t think the vote was meant to be “anti-gay”, but it may be that people still believe in the institution of marriage as it was originally intended. It could be a reflection of their parent’s morals or dogma taught by their churches or synagogues, either of their youth or where they currently attend (especially among mainstream and conservative religious institutions). Those on the Religious Right would say that G-d (or Allah, Buddha, etc) abhors homosexuality and by extension, the concept of gay marriage.
However, those who support gay marriage would argue that they shouldn’t be held to the criteria of someone else’s religion. Besides, what if there was a church willing to marry them? After all, should the government be allowed to impose restrictions on religion? What about the concept of separation of Church and State? I think that until the US Supreme Court finally rules on the issue, we will see other states open marriage to those of the same sex, only to be reversed later. What will prove to be interesting to watch is if whether a gay marriage from one state will be recognized in another state where it’s still illegal.
While we’re on the topic, what about private businesses who want to offer insurance to same sex couple like they do to heterosexual couples? Should a company be allowed to provide the same health or survivor benefits to a couple regardless of gender? After all, we’re talking about an estimated 1.2 million gays in the US according to the 2000 Census. Should this be strictly an internal corporate decision? What about gays teaching in public schools? Is it appropriate, and if so, should there be any restriction on who or what grades or subjects they teach? How about adopting children? Of course, there is the question of whether gays should be allowed in the military.
Personally, I could care less about someone’s sexual orientation. I believe in treating someone as I want to be treated (as a disclaimer before proceeding further, I’m strictly uber-hetro). I believe in the traditional roles of marriage between a man and woman. I think a male and female role model is critical to the well rounded upbringing of a child. Two daddies or two mommies just aren’t going to get it from my point of view. The law already provides for survivorship. Caretaker or “next of kin” issues are up to the individuals in involved (or should be). If a board of directors decides to provide insurance that cover same sex couples or live-in hetro couples that‘s their decision. Of course, that also means that you or I don’t have to frequent these same institutions if we disagree. When I was in the military, all I cared about was whether the person next to me did their job. What they do on their on their own time and off base was none of my business so long as it doesn’t affect unit cohesion and efficiency. Teachers are there to teach. In short, my main focus is keeping government and other groups out of my personal life as much as possible. Of course, I’m the first to acknowledge there are exceptions to most everything I’ve said. So, now, I’d like to hear from you. Do gays have an inherent “right” to marriage? If not, what about civil unions? How did you arrive at your decision?
Fluency: Leading in the Midst of Change
By Phoebe Eng, keynote speaker at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009
Some of you may remember the 1985 hit song, "We are the World," produced by Quincy Jones and an inspiring cast of musicians who sang about working together, past our differences. Or perhaps you remember the tremendously successful United Colors of Benetton ad campaign back in the 1980s, celebrating young faces of every color, signaling the look and feel of a world without borders. Media images like these showed us the world and nation, as we wanted ourselves to be -- pictures and soundbites of many races cooperating, communicating, and sharing opportunity and fortune.
If only it were that simple. Almost 25 years later, we are still struggling to make that vision real -- in our business practices, in the running of our cities, and, now, in the context of great cultural, demographic, and economic changes brought on by globalization.
As 21st century leaders, you know that building, guiding, and sustaining truly diverse communities is tremendously difficult work. Over the last decade, city populations and workforces have changed faster than at any point in history -- job relocation, mobile commerce and ease of travel have changed our cities' demographics quickly and often. Immigrant and new communities continue to influence and change the culture of our cities. Young families and children supplant the aging baby boomer generation, again, changing the character and priorities of a community.
At the same time as we become a more diverse, more prosperous nation, our cities have also become more segregated. In fact, studies from SUNY Albany, UCLA, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education have reported that segregation of our children has worsened over the last decade, even as we live in more integrated areas. As newcomer groups grow in critical mass, so does the tendency to organize along racial, ethnic, or other group-affiliated lines. Changing demographics and the growth of ethnic enclaves have made race awareness and identity politics an effective means of voicing the needs of some of our cities' otherwise marginalized groups.
Amid all of this, civic and corporate leaders are confronted with difficult choices every day. Worthy projects from different community sectors must compete for limited resources. Appointments and commissions must be assigned in ways that satisfy all the interests represented in our constituency groups, assuring each of them adequate representation. From time to time, leaders also face crisis-fueled change, forcing them to guide their communities quickly through controversies.
Does this sound stressful? Indeed, scenes of a diverse community can be those of chaos, fiefdoms, even balkanizing, as some futurists and scholars predict. Alternatively, some see these times as momentous, opening the door to the grandest and most inspiring of challenges.
How does one lead a community, whether local or global team, in the midst of huge demographic and economic shifts? How do leaders create communities where all constituents feel included, counted and equally receiving of the opportunities offered by a community? And how do we have difficult conversations that turn our best intentions into action and accountability, not only from our leaders, but from ourselves?
The answers to these questions are certainly many and varied, depending on a community's specific composition and the issues it faces. Nevertheless, one of the most important skills of a leader through changing times will be a skill set of cultural fluency. This is not necessarily language fluency, as that term is usually used. Fluency is the skill set of understanding and being understood past apparent borders. To know one's constituents and address their needs effectively, 21st century leaders must practice and hone their fluency skills.
Over the past few years, I've talked to many fluent leaders: opinion shapers, thought leaders in business and communities, artists, teachers, media creatives, all who understand that their ultimate success depends on how deeply and quickly they can identify common ground and transcend boundaries between their constituents. Fluent leaders are servant leaders who willingly assume the place of liaison, the diplomatic negotiator, the arbiter of compromise.
What are some of the qualities of a fluent leader? They understand the value of nuance. They readily deal with complexity, knowing that solutions to real problems require many levels of information and analysis. Every one of the fluent leaders I've interviewed is also insatiably curious. They are lifelong learners who have honed their vision and their life's purpose through constant exposure to different experiences.
Perhaps most importantly, these leaders also understand that the practice of fluency is not a Pollyanna-esque, naive vision of the world, where a handshake, a kind word, or a dabble into a diversity program will suffice. It is quite the opposite. Fluency work is hard "detail" work that requires courage. To be a fluent leader means having some enemies, crossing boundaries, and entering into the necessary struggles to challenge leaders and systems that benefit from closemindedness, fear, and simple formulae.
As we work toward uniting our communities, we have shown that we want to trade together, learn about one another, work side by side, make money together, and even build our families -- across cultures and across our differences. Yet without knowing how to bridge what are often daunting chasms across race, religion, class, and culture, creating workable diverse alliances can often be impossible. Basic misunderstandings can thwart our earnest attempts at generating commerce and a vibrant exchange of ideas. Communications break down. Relationships fail.
In our quickly changing communities, the art of fluency becomes a crucial leadership approach for anyone wishing to become an aware global citizen and an effective global leader. And it is the only way forward if we are truly committed to creating a world, and a nation, where all can flourish to their fullest potential.
Author Bio
Phoebe Eng is the Director of Creative Counsel and the 1000 Voices Archive, a national collection of leadership stories from cities across America. As a strategist, she has presented to and advised a wide range of groups from the US Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, many Fortune 500 companies, chambers of commerce, and universities. Eng has worked with the Ford Foundation and the Ms. Foundation for Women and on several UN World Conferences. Eng will be presenting a keynote address at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta on March 16-18, 2009.
Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009, is the nation's premier event on best practices in diversity and inclusion. For more information or to register call 781.402.5555 or visit www.linkageinc.com/div
Breaking the Cycle of Violence:
Survivor Corps is a global network of people helping each other to overcome the effects of war and conflict and give back to their communities.
In 2008, Survivor Corps grew from Landmine Survivors Network. The organization has expanded its mission to help all survivors of war. Landmine Survivors Network was co-founded in 1997 by two landmines survivors, Jerry White and Ken Rutherford. From the late Princess Diana of Wales to Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan the organization received support, praise and partnerships at the highest levels.
Survivor Corps focuses on the unique contribution and leadership of conflict survivors because we believe no one is better equipped and motivated to break cycles of violence than those who have survived war.
Our programs currently help survivors in: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Jordan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Uganda, Rwanda, United States and Vietnam.
Our signature peer support program connects survivors with survivor role models to offer encouragement and motivation. This is crucial to helping new survivors find hope, get jobs, and get on with their lives.
Through our community building programs, survivors rebuild communities broken by war by connecting diverse survivor groups and former enemies through collective action.
By training and organizing survivor advocates to campaign for their rights, survivors change the world by raising their voices together and addressing the challenges they face in life after war and conflict.
Our Campaigns Make History:
• The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines. (The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty survivors helped negotiate what was the first arms control agreement in history to include provisions to help victims of the weapon.)
• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to end discrimination and bring equal opportunity to 650 million people with disabilities around the world.
• The Convention to Ban Cluster Munitions being negotiated in 2008 to end the use of cluster bombs and help victims of this indiscriminate weapon.
Survivor Corps
2100 M Street, NW, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20037
Yahoo! Map | MapQuest Map | Google Maps
(202) 464-0007 - Telephone
(202) 464-0011 - FAX
Geneva Office
rue de Cornavin, 11
1201 Geneva
Switzerland
+41-22-732-2841 - Telephone
+41-22-732-2842 - Alternate Telephone
+41-22-732-3882 - FAX
Please direct email contacts to: info@survivorcorps.org
Web Address: http://www.survivorcorps.org
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A Billboard and a Lost Child
I was sitting at a stoplight downtown recently. While waiting for the light to turn, I happened to glance over at a billboard. There, I saw picture of a stern looking bald Black man balancing a child on his knee. In the background, superimposed, were the gray images of a Hispanic looking woman on one side and a smallish Hispanic looking boy. The faces looked familiar, but I couldn’t quite place them. I read the message that ran alongside the images. It said something about a helping Erica fight crimes against children “in memory of Cesar “Ivan” Cano”. Ah yes, I thought, just as the light turned green, I now remembered the faces.
The man was Christopher 2x (born Christopher Bryant) and minister for the Nation of Islam. Chris has developed something of a minor reputation locally as a “family spokesperson” mainly in Louisville’s West End and Portland areas. These families are usually reeling from a murder or other tragedy of some sort which has generated some media coverage. He took a big leap forward by becoming a “spokesperson” for the mother of “Ivan” Cano and the high profile murder of her child (how he does this, I don’t know since 2X speaks no Spanish that I know of, and his mother speaks little to no English. I assume she has a Spanish speaking spokesperson to speak to the media “family spokesperson”).
Ivan was a young child of about 4 years of age as I recall who had been murdered. His body was found in the back of a city garbage truck after he was finally reported missing. The police have been mum about the exact nature of his death, but it's assumed that he may have been the victim of a child predator (and indeed, a previously convicted child molester, Cecil Eugene New II, was arrested several weeks later. New has pleaded not guilty to all charges).
The investigation also revealed that his mother was here illegally and was being illegally employed at Churchill Downs as a horse “hot walker”. The reports said that little Ivan was usually left by himself while his mother went off to work every morning a few blocks away. On one occasion, Ivan was even hit (bumped may be a better descripition) by a car as he tried to cross busy Central Avenue (presumably looking for his mother). Neighbors tried to watch out for Ivan the best they could, but apparently because his mother was here illegally, no one bothered to call any of the child protection agencies, and most certainly not the police (which is why no "Amber Alert" was ever issued). Of course, if they had, Ivan may still be alive today, albeit back in his native Guatemala rather than buried there. As for the mother, she was allowed to escort the body of her son back to Guatemala, and with the permission of the Metro Louisville Police Department, allowed to return while the investigation continued (never mind the fact that she had already been thoroughly questioned and could add nothing to investigation. Her initial statement at the time said that back in her Guatemalan village, everyone watched after everyone else’s children. I presume it was pointed out to her that she was no longer in Guatemala). Churchill Downs publicly stated she could have her job back upon her return.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago when Christopher 2X announced that he wanted to build a monument to Ivan at a cost of $75,000.00. A sculptor was selected, and a fundraiser was held (not especially successful. It raised only about $8000). Chris has since been making the round try to find some money, but seemingly with little success. Then, in a move I can only assume was designed to force the issue, 2X showed up unannounced with the media in tow at a meeting on January 31st being held by Metro Councilwoman Marianne Butler (D-15). This was the third of four planned meeting was to focus on Wyandotte Park’s renovation.
Christopher 2X announced unexpectedly that he wanted the approximately 7 foot statute to be place in or near the center of the park. Needless to say, the residents in attendance were far from pleased (some of whom felt completely blindsided at the suggestion). Not only is the park not that large, especially with the renovations planned, the statute was viewed as being inappropriate at best by many of the attendees. The statute would seem to imply that the Southend has a problem with child molesters (which is does not) and would at the very minimum create a negative impression of the Southend (which residents are already trying to overcome). Secondly, more than one child has lost their life as a result of murder, be it random violence, drugs, robbery, drunk drivers, or sadly, parental neglect. Lastly, this murder would have likely never occurred had Ivan’s mother acted more responsibly, or had neighbors reported her behavior to the authorities.
As for my opinion, I say not at Wyandotte Park. Sorry. No way. The Southend has enough problems without that label. Ivan’s death was a tragedy, but one that could have likely been prevented. And let's get one thing straight, any memorial, if there is ever to be one, regardless of where it is placed, should not in any way dedicated to one child. There are countless victims of child abuse out there. That money--all $75,000.00 Chris 2X is trying to raise--would be better spent on organizations that protect children and not on some cold impersonal rock. These kids need love. They need people who care, and these agencies desperately need the resources to help the children. This crime has also refocused the need get serious about the illegal alien problem once and for all.
Ivan was the victim of possibility a child predator, but also of parental neglect and whose mother, had she not been an illegal alien, would have (and should have in my opinion) been reported to the child welfare authorities. Had those who witnessed his neglect done so, Ivan may still be alive. I suppose they thought they were helping her by protecting her illegal status, but at what cost to Ivan? His life apparently. Nevertheless, it is my personal opinion that it may be Ivan’s memory that is now being abused. Let’s look to real solutions, not to cold stone.
Local Southend activist, Ron Gambrell wrote an interesting article recently about the separation of Church and State. I thought it would be a fitting addition to this week’s AO. With Ron’s permission, here it is:
Separation of Church and State
by Ron Gambrell
In the Courier-Journal's Sunday, Dec. 30, 2007 Forum, Mr. Siddique Malik discussed common ground between Islam and Christianity. He was right on the mark when he wrote, “The problem that Muslims face is not a lack of religion in their lives but an excess of it.”
If Islam and Christianity do have common ground, it should be a desire for world peace. A goal that can never be accomplished as long as nations allow religious leaders to determine their style of government. Thousands of years ago, a big part of what we now call the Middle East was known as Mesopotamia, one of the world’s first major civilizations. Yet, the further we get away from there, the more civilized people are. Why is this? Why are many of the countries in and around that part of the world still living so far behind times? Why are their women still being discriminated against in ways civilized peoples never tolerate?
Could it be because those countries governments are overly influenced by religious leaders? Men who consider and treat all women as subordinates? Men who believe and teach that denying basic civil rights is the desire of their god? Men who are quick to assassinate the likes of Benazir Bhutto, a highly educated woman who devoted her life to a dream for change?
In America, in the late 1600s, religious fanatics burned innocent women at the stake because of a ridiculous fear of witchcraft. Fortunately, our founding fathers considered such atrocities when determining that in The United States of America, religion is a right, not a requirement. We keep, as a rule, our religion and politics separated. I’m not saying that our political leaders should not be religious. Often, their character can be gauged by their beliefs. However, our political leaders should never be pressured to rule according to the wishes of any particular religion.
I am a practicing Catholic, and yet I do not want my Pope to determine the policies of American politics. His opinion on world issues is important and welcome, but it is not law. Our law wisely forbids religious leaders from preaching politics at the pulpit. As a Christian, it is hard to say that I am for separation of Church and State. But as a responsible American, I must and do. Otherwise, we could backslide to the chaos seen in religiously governed countries.
We should all look forward to the day when peoples around the world wake up and quit allowing their religions to rule their politics in ways that deny basic human rights to citizens. In the mean time, those moving to this country from Muslim regions must be aware that in America, freedom reigns over religion. In this country, religious leaders do not make the law, and if they break the law, we put them in jail. In this country, religious leaders have no more or less rights than anyone else. In other words, when you come to America, you are welcome to practice your religion, so long as it does not deny anyone the civil liberties and basic human rights that our forefathers fought for. Rights that we as Americans demand.
The man was Christopher 2x (born Christopher Bryant) and minister for the Nation of Islam. Chris has developed something of a minor reputation locally as a “family spokesperson” mainly in Louisville’s West End and Portland areas. These families are usually reeling from a murder or other tragedy of some sort which has generated some media coverage. He took a big leap forward by becoming a “spokesperson” for the mother of “Ivan” Cano and the high profile murder of her child (how he does this, I don’t know since 2X speaks no Spanish that I know of, and his mother speaks little to no English. I assume she has a Spanish speaking spokesperson to speak to the media “family spokesperson”).
Ivan was a young child of about 4 years of age as I recall who had been murdered. His body was found in the back of a city garbage truck after he was finally reported missing. The police have been mum about the exact nature of his death, but it's assumed that he may have been the victim of a child predator (and indeed, a previously convicted child molester, Cecil Eugene New II, was arrested several weeks later. New has pleaded not guilty to all charges).
The investigation also revealed that his mother was here illegally and was being illegally employed at Churchill Downs as a horse “hot walker”. The reports said that little Ivan was usually left by himself while his mother went off to work every morning a few blocks away. On one occasion, Ivan was even hit (bumped may be a better descripition) by a car as he tried to cross busy Central Avenue (presumably looking for his mother). Neighbors tried to watch out for Ivan the best they could, but apparently because his mother was here illegally, no one bothered to call any of the child protection agencies, and most certainly not the police (which is why no "Amber Alert" was ever issued). Of course, if they had, Ivan may still be alive today, albeit back in his native Guatemala rather than buried there. As for the mother, she was allowed to escort the body of her son back to Guatemala, and with the permission of the Metro Louisville Police Department, allowed to return while the investigation continued (never mind the fact that she had already been thoroughly questioned and could add nothing to investigation. Her initial statement at the time said that back in her Guatemalan village, everyone watched after everyone else’s children. I presume it was pointed out to her that she was no longer in Guatemala). Churchill Downs publicly stated she could have her job back upon her return.
Fast forward to a few weeks ago when Christopher 2X announced that he wanted to build a monument to Ivan at a cost of $75,000.00. A sculptor was selected, and a fundraiser was held (not especially successful. It raised only about $8000). Chris has since been making the round try to find some money, but seemingly with little success. Then, in a move I can only assume was designed to force the issue, 2X showed up unannounced with the media in tow at a meeting on January 31st being held by Metro Councilwoman Marianne Butler (D-15). This was the third of four planned meeting was to focus on Wyandotte Park’s renovation.
Christopher 2X announced unexpectedly that he wanted the approximately 7 foot statute to be place in or near the center of the park. Needless to say, the residents in attendance were far from pleased (some of whom felt completely blindsided at the suggestion). Not only is the park not that large, especially with the renovations planned, the statute was viewed as being inappropriate at best by many of the attendees. The statute would seem to imply that the Southend has a problem with child molesters (which is does not) and would at the very minimum create a negative impression of the Southend (which residents are already trying to overcome). Secondly, more than one child has lost their life as a result of murder, be it random violence, drugs, robbery, drunk drivers, or sadly, parental neglect. Lastly, this murder would have likely never occurred had Ivan’s mother acted more responsibly, or had neighbors reported her behavior to the authorities.
As for my opinion, I say not at Wyandotte Park. Sorry. No way. The Southend has enough problems without that label. Ivan’s death was a tragedy, but one that could have likely been prevented. And let's get one thing straight, any memorial, if there is ever to be one, regardless of where it is placed, should not in any way dedicated to one child. There are countless victims of child abuse out there. That money--all $75,000.00 Chris 2X is trying to raise--would be better spent on organizations that protect children and not on some cold impersonal rock. These kids need love. They need people who care, and these agencies desperately need the resources to help the children. This crime has also refocused the need get serious about the illegal alien problem once and for all.
Ivan was the victim of possibility a child predator, but also of parental neglect and whose mother, had she not been an illegal alien, would have (and should have in my opinion) been reported to the child welfare authorities. Had those who witnessed his neglect done so, Ivan may still be alive. I suppose they thought they were helping her by protecting her illegal status, but at what cost to Ivan? His life apparently. Nevertheless, it is my personal opinion that it may be Ivan’s memory that is now being abused. Let’s look to real solutions, not to cold stone.
Local Southend activist, Ron Gambrell wrote an interesting article recently about the separation of Church and State. I thought it would be a fitting addition to this week’s AO. With Ron’s permission, here it is:
Separation of Church and State
by Ron Gambrell
In the Courier-Journal's Sunday, Dec. 30, 2007 Forum, Mr. Siddique Malik discussed common ground between Islam and Christianity. He was right on the mark when he wrote, “The problem that Muslims face is not a lack of religion in their lives but an excess of it.”
If Islam and Christianity do have common ground, it should be a desire for world peace. A goal that can never be accomplished as long as nations allow religious leaders to determine their style of government. Thousands of years ago, a big part of what we now call the Middle East was known as Mesopotamia, one of the world’s first major civilizations. Yet, the further we get away from there, the more civilized people are. Why is this? Why are many of the countries in and around that part of the world still living so far behind times? Why are their women still being discriminated against in ways civilized peoples never tolerate?
Could it be because those countries governments are overly influenced by religious leaders? Men who consider and treat all women as subordinates? Men who believe and teach that denying basic civil rights is the desire of their god? Men who are quick to assassinate the likes of Benazir Bhutto, a highly educated woman who devoted her life to a dream for change?
In America, in the late 1600s, religious fanatics burned innocent women at the stake because of a ridiculous fear of witchcraft. Fortunately, our founding fathers considered such atrocities when determining that in The United States of America, religion is a right, not a requirement. We keep, as a rule, our religion and politics separated. I’m not saying that our political leaders should not be religious. Often, their character can be gauged by their beliefs. However, our political leaders should never be pressured to rule according to the wishes of any particular religion.
I am a practicing Catholic, and yet I do not want my Pope to determine the policies of American politics. His opinion on world issues is important and welcome, but it is not law. Our law wisely forbids religious leaders from preaching politics at the pulpit. As a Christian, it is hard to say that I am for separation of Church and State. But as a responsible American, I must and do. Otherwise, we could backslide to the chaos seen in religiously governed countries.
We should all look forward to the day when peoples around the world wake up and quit allowing their religions to rule their politics in ways that deny basic human rights to citizens. In the mean time, those moving to this country from Muslim regions must be aware that in America, freedom reigns over religion. In this country, religious leaders do not make the law, and if they break the law, we put them in jail. In this country, religious leaders have no more or less rights than anyone else. In other words, when you come to America, you are welcome to practice your religion, so long as it does not deny anyone the civil liberties and basic human rights that our forefathers fought for. Rights that we as Americans demand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)