December 2012 - OE - lists.wedgeblade.net

11/08/12, Spong: The Birth of Jesus, Part I: Introduction
by Ellie Stock 11 Jan '13

11 Jan '13

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR The Birth of Jesus, Part I: Introduction Most of the portraits of the mother of Jesus that hang in the great museums of the world are dependent first on the biblical stories of Jesus’ birth and second on the presumed appearances of his mother at the foot of the cross. Take those two traditions away from the New Testament and the mother of Jesus almost totally disappears. Indeed, what remains is mostly negative. She is portrayed in Mark (chapters 3 and 6) as thinking that Jesus was “beside himself,” that is “out of his mind” and she, along with his brothers, moves to “put him away.” He had, this story implies, become an embarrassment to the family. In the Fourth Gospel, in the narrative of the water being changed into wine, the mother of Jesus is portrayed as inappropriately pushing Jesus to act and she receives from him the rebuke, “Woman, what have you to do with me, my hour has not yet come?” She is also not present at the cross in the writings of Paul or in any of the earlier gospels of Mark, Matthew or Luke. Only with the appearance of the Fourth Gospel at the end of the first century did anyone think to portray her at the foot of the cross. These biblical facts force us to recognize that most of the ideas we have about the mother of Jesus are late developing myths that make assumptions the Bible does not make. The birth stories are found first in Matthew, the dating of which is generally between 82 and 85, and second in Luke, which is generally thought to have been written about a decade after Matthew. This means that the New Testament’s accounts of Jesus’ birth are both products of a time 52-65 years after the life of Jesus came to its earthly end and some 82-95 years after the time of his birth. This is not eye witness reporting. Clearly the tradition that was built around the mother of Jesus is both late developing and continues to grow with the passing of years. Once the time of the writing of the New Testament has passed, however, the mythology that developed around the mother of Jesus apparently knew no bounds. The virgin mother of the birth narratives became in successive generations, first, the permanent virgin, thus redefining Jesus’ siblings, referred to by name in both Galatians and in Mark, and referred to in John simply as “his brothers,” as half brothers or cousins. Next she was declared to have been a “post-partum” virgin, which suggested that even the birth of Jesus did not disturb her virginal hymen. In the service of that idea the “Fathers” of the church even searched the scriptures for biblical texts that would support this growing conviction. They settled on two. First, they looked at the writings of a sixth century BCE prophet named Ezekiel, who in the first verse of the 44th chapter wrote these words: “This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.” Without either apology or embarrassment, they leaped on these words to claim that the “post partum virginity” of the “Blessed Virgin Mary” had actually been predicted by the prophets! The second text was found in the resurrection story according to the Fourth Gospel. In that narrative the disciples were in hiding in an upper room with the doors and the windows closed and locked and Jesus came and stood in their midst. If the risen Christ could pass through walls guarded by locked doors, they argued, it was no great stretch to imagine the infant Christ passing through the birth canal of his mother without breaking the hymen. Mythology always does strange things to facts and to reality. By the 19th century, devotion to the mother of Jesus became so strong that the Roman Catholic Church, in which this devotion was most encouraged, declared that she, unlike all other human beings, had been “immaculately conceived.” That is, her mother had been miraculously cleansed of the sin of Adam, which was believed to have infected all human beings and to have been passed on from generation to generation. For Jesus to have been born without sin, his mother would have to have been especially prepared for this birth. This necessity also reflected the fact that in the early years of the 18th century, the discovery had been made that women have an egg cell and therefore that the woman literally contributes half of the genetic makeup of every person who has ever been born. Prior to this the assumption was that the woman simply provided the womb that nurtured the male seed to maturity. Like “Mother Earth” into which the farmer planted the seed, the woman’s role had been seen as simply to bring to birth the life that came from the male. When the egg cell was discovered, the realization dawned on the leadership of the church that the mother of Jesus was, like all women and indeed like all people, a child of Adam and so the sinlessness of Jesus was compromised through his mother’s line. That had not been a problem in the old view of reproduction. The Immaculate Conception addressed that theological problem demonstrating once and for all that even “infallible” doctrines are forced to adjust to new discoveries. The final chapter in the mythological development of the mother of Jesus came in the 20th century when Mary was declared to have been bodily assumed into heaven. Since she was born without sin, she was not required to go through the passage of death, since death, according to the story of the Garden of Eden, was punishment for sin. Carl Jung rejoiced in the Vatican’s declaration of the bodily assumption of the mother of Jesus into heaven because in his world of symbols this meant that the feminine had finally been lifted into God and the patriarchal tyranny of a God conceived of in only masculine terms and always addressed as “Father” had finally been tempered. In this new series of columns over the next few months, I want, first, to get underneath the mythology of the ages and second, the development found in the New Testament itself, so that we can look at Jesus, the mother of Jesus and the entire Christian story with a set of eyes honed by scholarship and tempered by the facts of history as we can demonstrate them. I trust it will be an illuminating and worthwhile story for my readers. If the familiar biblical images of the mother of Jesus are late developing, what do we have that is original and perhaps trustworthy? That is the question we will address as this series unfolds. I begin with some statements of fact that I will pursue in detail going into each of them deeply before any conclusions are reached, probably some time in February. For now, I simply file them as bullet points for your consideration. As the Book of Common Prayer in my church states these bullet points are designed to be “read, marked, learned and inwardly digested.” This series will provide the time to do just that. We can now date the life of Jesus with some degree of accuracy. Recent discoveries have made it possible to fix the life of Jesus between the years of 4 BCE and 30 CE. We get to these dates first by the discovery in ancient Roman records that King Herod died in 4 BCE and since the clear New Testament tradition is that Jesus was born when Herod was the king so we fix the date of Jesus birth at 4 BCE. Second, we learn, once more from secular records, that Pilate was the procurator of Judea for the Roman Empire between the years 26-36 CE. If, as each of the gospels asserts, the crucifixion occurred under the authority of Pilate, then the crucifixion has to happen some time between those dates. Roman records also provide us with some other facts in the life of Pilate that have to do with the reasons for his removal from office. Since they appear to have happened well after the crucifixion we can squeeze those dates a bit closer to perhaps 28-32 as the time of the crucifixion. We then split the difference and settle on 30, with the knowledge that we might be off two years in either direction. So for our working purposes, we set the life of Jesus between 4 BC and 30 CE. We have nothing preserved in writing anywhere of anything concerning the life of Jesus before the year 51 CE. That is a silent and dark historical tunnel, which can be illumined only by speculation. It is filled in only by what we call “the oral tradition” that we have almost no way of recreating, entering or capturing. Paul the first writer, whose work was destined to be included in the New Testament, did all of his writing between the years 51 and 64. Not all of the epistles attributed to Paul are authentically from his hand. The ones about whom a consensus of the certainty of Pauline authorship exists are I Thessalonians, Galatians, I and II Corinthians, Romans, Philemon and Philippians. This means that II Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, I and II Timothy, Titus and Hebrews are not considered to be from the hand of Paul. Nowhere in any part of the authentic Pauline corpus is there a reference of any kind to the birth of Jesus, nor is there any mention of the mother or father of Jesus. There are in Paul, however, several references, mostly in Galatians, to James, the brother of the Lord. Our study of the birth of Jesus will therefore start with Paul, the earliest writer in the New Testament. That means that we will start our investigation in the sixth and seventh decades of the Christian era. I hope that whets your appetite. We will continue the drama in subsequent columns. ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Ed Branthaver, via the Internet, writes: Question: You have been a long time favorite author of mine ever since I read Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. I have every one of your books in my personal library. I grew up in the tradition of a liberal Church of the Brethren to which I still hold some loyalty. However, in all my years, I was never able to understand much of the biblical language or teachings. I was in my 60th year before I discovered you and your writings. Let me say you are the first person who has helped me understand what for a long time has confused me. Recently, I came across a small book by Anthony Freeman, God in Us. He claims that his use of the term God (instead of referring to a supernatural being) refers to the sum of all values and ideals in life: Positive values like goodness, love, knowledge, wisdom, power (used rightly), etc. and negative values like freedom for the fear and tyranny of death, of suffering, etc. He says, “Do you believe in God? is like asking “How long is a piece of string? Just tell me what sort of God you have in mind and I will tell you whether I believe in him (her, it.)” He labels his philosophy, Christian Humanism, and his call to “radical insecurity” which carries an element of uncertainty, sure sounds a lot like your recent call to “Think Different, Accept Uncertainty.” Could you call the New Christianity for a New World Christian Humanism? Answer: Dear Ed, I have known and admired Anthony Freeman for a long time. He was an Anglican priest until the Anglican hierarchy decided that his view of God was not sufficient for him to represent that church as one of its ordained servants. I would never have made such a judgment. No person’s view of God is the same as God! I’m not at all sure that the view of God reflected in those Anglican hierarchical figures is a view of God that is sufficient for them to remain in their respective positions of authority either. They simply validate tradition while Anthony has challenged the adequacy of that tradition. Only time will tell which attitude is closer to the truth and history has consistently shown that those who stand outside the traditional theological lines are harbingers of the future majority. Does this mean that I believe that Anthony’s view of God is complete? No, but neither is the view of his hierarchical theological judges or my view of God. What ecclesiastical heresy hunters never understand is no human mind and no religious tradition can ever fully embrace or express the truth of God in any human words or in any established doctrines and dogmas of any church. Churches are always pretending that they possess the ultimate truth of God. I think that is nothing short of idolatry. I believe I experience God and I can talk about my experience. I do not believe I can define God, nor do I believe anyone else can. I find the phrase Christian Humanism to be an appealing one. The opposite of humanism is not the lack of or the inability to embrace the reality of a supernatural deity. The opposite of humanism is to be inhumane! I think Jesus is about expanded life and expanded consciousness; about calling us into the fullness of lour humanity. Humanism shares that goal, but would probably not embrace my definition. Humanism is thus not my enemy, but my ally. I think of myself as a Christian Humanist, but I want both of these words to carry equal weight. I hope this helps. ~John Shelby Spong Announcements Any questions or concerns, please contact us at support(a)johnshelbyspong.com or 503-236-3545. Copyright © 2012 ProgressiveChristianity.org, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have a membership at our website. Our mailing address is: ProgressiveChristianity.org 3530 SE Hawthorne Blvd. Unit 1 Portland, OR 97214 Add us to your address book If you are a paying subscriber, you may login and cancel your account. Sent to elliestock(a)aol.com — why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences ProgressiveChristianity.org · 3530 SE Hawthorne Blvd. · Unit 1 · Portland, OR 97214

2 1

Fwd: quick thought on compassion
by Sarah H. Buss 01 Jan '13

01 Jan '13

Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Sarah Buss <shbuss(a)mac.com> > Date: December 31, 2012, 1:58:12 PM CST > To: oe(a)list.wedgeblade.net > Cc: Sarah Buss <sbuss(a)austin.rr.com> > Subject: quick thought on compassion >

2 1

Merry Christmas! from down under..
by Bishop Isobel 01 Jan '13

01 Jan '13

Dear Colleagues across the world, We send greetings to you all, and a special thought to those who have lost loved family members or special friends during the year. Some of us in our Church took part in a world wide singalong with the Good Earth Singers- with a synchronised time- ( ours was last Saturday morning at 9am, when we were streamed live to Washington DC, Cuba and Ecuador. We sang a song from Nigeria- with the words in English meaning- we respect and love Mother Earth, and she cannot be destroyed. Some of you may have heard of Shyla Nelson- she runs interfaith workshops all over the US and teaches this song to groups. Google has her listed as One Earth One Voice. It was a wonderful expression of our interconnectedness.... May 2013 bring some more signs of hope, as this symbol of singing to the planet and all living beings- has done for us gathered last Saturday in the PItt St Church and beyond. Grace and peace, Isobel Bishop

2 2

Fwd: more Moore!
by Jack Gilles 31 Dec '12

31 Dec '12

Dear Colleagues, I found this essay by Michael Moore on guns and violence. Jack Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: *From:* "M. Theophil" <weave.marga(a)gmail.com> *Date:* December 27, 2012, 10:47:59 PM CST *To:* "M. Theophil" <Weave.Marga(a)gmail.com> *Subject:* *more Moore!* <image001.gif> *December 24th, 2012* 5:13 AM Celebrating the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns<http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/celebrating-prince-peac…> By *Michael Moore <http://www.michaelmoore.com/blogger/mmflint>* After watching the deranged, delusional National Rifle Association press conference on Friday, it was clear that the Mayan prophecy had come true. Except the only world that was ending was the NRA's. Their bullying power to set gun policy in this country is over. The nation is repulsed by the massacre in Connecticut, and the signs are everywhere: *a basketball coach at a post-game press conference*<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/jim-boeheim-gun-control-9000-wins_…> ; *the Republican Joe Scarborough*<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/joe-scarborough-newtown-shooting_n…> ; *a pawn shop owner in Florida*<http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/gun-seller-i-cant-do-it-anymore> ; *a gun buy-back program in New Jersey*<http://articles.philly.com/2012-12-19/news/35914645_1_gun-owners-higher-gro…> ; *a singing contest show on TV*<http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/watch-tribute-newtown-vo…>, and *the conservative gun-owning judge who sentenced Jared Loughner*<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/loughner_judge_conservati…> . So here's my little bit of holiday cheer for you: These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon. I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it's true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing forward – after all, the momentum is on our side. I know all of us – including me – would love to see the president and Congress enact stronger gun laws. We need a ban on automatic AND semiautomatic weapons and magazine clips that hold more than 7 bullets. We need better background checks and more mental health services. We need to regulate the ammo, too. But, friends, I would like to propose that while all of the above will certainly reduce gun deaths (ask Mayor Bloomberg – it is virtually impossible to buy a handgun in New York City and the result is the number of murders per year has gone *from 2,200 to under 400*<http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/reported-shot-stabbed-slashed-nyc-monda…>), it won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th. In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did. And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds – i.e, the men with the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work. (Then again, there was an armed deputy sheriff at Columbine High School the day of that massacre and he couldn't/didn't stop it.) I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary – but ultimately, mostly cosmetic – changes to our gun laws. The sad facts are these: Other countries that have guns (like Canada, which has *7 million guns*<http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada> – mostly hunting guns – in their 12 million households) have a low murder rate. Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and kids in Australia play the same violent video games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a British company; the UK had *58 gun murders*<http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/resea…> last year in a nation of 63 million people). They simply don't kill each other at the rate that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who *are* we? I'd like to try to answer that question. We are a country whose leaders officially sanction and carry out acts of violence as a means to often an immoral end. We invade countries who didn't attack us. We're currently using drones in a half-dozen countries, often killing civilians. This probably shouldn't come as a surprise to us as we are a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. We slaughtered 600,000 of each other in a civil war. We "tamed the Wild West with a six-shooter," and we rape and beat and kill our women without mercy and at a staggering rate: *every three hours*<http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/vsextab.cfm> a women is murdered in the USA (*half the time*<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,164707,00.html> by an ex or a current); *every three minutes*<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/cbsnews_investigates/main5590118.…> a woman is raped in the USA; and *every 15 seconds*<http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/womenshealth/factsheets/dv.htm> a woman is beaten in the USA. We belong to an *illustrious group of nations*<http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-count…> that still have the death penalty (North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran). We think nothing of letting tens of thousands of our own citizens die each year because they are uninsured and thus don't see a doctor until it's too late. Why do we do this? One theory is simply "because we can." There is a level of arrogance in the otherwise friendly American spirit, conning ourselves into believing there's something exceptional about us that separates us from all those "other" countries (there are indeed many good things about us; the same could also be said of Belgium, New Zealand, France, Germany, etc.). We think we're #1 in everything when the truth is our students are *17th in science and 25th in math*<http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-12-07-us-students-intern…>, and we're *35th in life expectancy*<http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/nation/la-na-womens-health-20110615>. We believe we have the greatest democracy but we have the lowest voting turnout of any western democracy. We're biggest and the bestest at everything and we demand and take what we want. And sometimes we have to be violent m*****f*****s to get it. But if one of us goes off-message and shows the utterly psychotic nature and brutal results of violence in a Newtown or an Aurora or a Virginia Tech, then we get all "sad" and "our hearts go out to the families" and presidents promise to take "meaningful action." Well, maybe this president means it this time. He'd better. An angry mob of millions is not going to let this drop. While we are discussing and demanding what to do, may I respectfully ask that we stop and take a look at what I believe are the three extenuating factors that may answer the question of why we Americans have more violence than most anyone else: 1. POVERTY. If there's one thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world, it's this. *50 million*<http://www.nbcnews.com/business/49-7-million-americans-poverty-census-burea…> of our people live in poverty. *One in five Americans*<http://www.gallup.com/poll/156806/one-four-mississippi-residents-struggle-a…> goes hungry at some point during the year. *The majority*<http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-usa-survey-paycheck-idUSBRE88I…> of those who aren't poor are living from paycheck to paycheck. There's no doubt this creates more crime. Middle class jobs prevent crime and violence. (If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: If your neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, what are the chances he's going to break into your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.) 2. FEAR/RACISM. We're an awfully fearful country considering that, unlike most nations, we've never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn't an invasion. *We started it.* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Declaration_of_war>) Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what's our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton's donut shops on both sides of the border? No. It's because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period. The vast majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to white people who live in the suburbs or the country. When we fantasize about being mugged or home invaded, what's the image of the perpetrator in our heads? Is it the freckled-face kid from down the street – or is it someone who is, if not black, at least poor? I think it would be worth it to a) do our best to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle class we used to have, and b) stop promoting the image of the black man as the boogeyman out to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns. 3. THE "ME" SOCIETY. I think it's the every-man-for-himself ethos of this country that has put us in this mess and I believe it's been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You're not my problem! This is mine! Clearly, we are no longer our brother's and sister's keeper. You get sick and can't afford the operation? Not my problem. The bank has foreclosed on your home? Not my problem. Can't afford to go to college? Not my problem. And yet, it all sooner or later becomes our problem, doesn't it? Take away too many safety nets and everyone starts to feel the impact. Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you will then have a legitimate reason to be in fear? I don't. I'm not saying it's perfect anywhere else, but I have noticed, in my travels, that other civilized countries see a national benefit to taking care of each other. Free medical care, free or low-cost college, mental health help. And I wonder – why can't *we* do that? I think it's because in many other countries people see each other not as separate and alone but rather together, on the path of life, with each person existing as an integral part of the whole. And you help them when they're in need, not punish them because they've had some misfortune or bad break. I have to believe one of the reasons gun murders in other countries are so rare is because there's less of the lone wolf mentality amongst their citizens. Most are raised with a sense of connection, if not outright solidarity. And that makes it harder to kill one another. Well, there's some food for thought as we head home for the holidays. Don't forget to say hi to your conservative brother-in-law for me. Even he will tell you that, if you can't nail a deer in three shots – and claim you need a clip of 30 rounds – you're not a hunter my friend, and you have no business owning a gun. Have a wonderful Christmas or a beautiful December 25th!

4 3

Gun Culture? In the home? Beyond?
by mhampton＠att.net 31 Dec '12

31 Dec '12

Unlike most of my generation and maybe the two after it; I did not grow up with a gun culture in my home. Because my father had died after a gun-related accident my mother decided my brother and I would not have guns in our lives. (This specifically meant John would not get toy guns as gifts.) As I remember, this lasted until I was seven or eight and John was three or four. Then my mother's father took me out and had me shoot a gun. I was turned off enough or at least unexcited by the experience so that I never remember doing it again. I asked my mother about this Christmas evening this year. She remembers our (small town, South Texas Hispanic) babysitter giving John a set of cowboy pistols earlier than that. John grew up to be in the Corps at Texas A&M and then do 20 years active duty in the Army. The same training does not necessarily communicate the same values. As an adult, well after my active Order days, I became a Quaker. My favorite short hand definition of the Religious Society of Friends is that we "respond to that of God in every person". That implies that we are not confronted with evil "men" or evil women. We are certainly confronted with evil action or at least acts universally regarded as painful and harmful. We cannot institutionalize everyone who is strange or even clearly outside the mainstream. We could decide to listen in family and others close see someone as dangerous. (The family of the paranoid schizophrenic executed by the state of Texas for murdering several people come to mind. They had tried for years to get help for him.) I was very struck by the article from the Buddhist monk who grew up in Newtown and wrote to Adam, the shooter. We choose what to own of the surrounding, prevasive values and culture. Community safety certainly seems a less red flag way into the discussions. May we all be blessed with eyes to see and hearts to respond to human need. Blessings for the New Year. mary hampton

3 2

Re: [Oe List ...] Fwd: more Moore!
by LAURELCG＠aol.com 31 Dec '12

31 Dec '12

I've been contemplating what it means to live in Oneness, in the UNI-verse, especially since reading Power vs. Force David R. Hawkins, M.D., Ph.D. He says there is no opposite of Love. There is Love and the absence of Love. So care-less-ness, obliviousness, unconsciousness, numbness, ignorance are all manifestations of the absence of compassion. In a way, it's a word game, but I find it helpful. Hope you do. Blessings, Jann In a message dated 12/30/2012 9:31:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, geowanda(a)earthlink.net writes: On Dec 30, 2012, at 11:09 AM, R Williams <_rcwmbw(a)yahoo.com_ (mailto:rcwmbw@yahoo.com) > wrote: John, Of course you are correct about care. Ever since I saw Thomas Merton's quote, "Compassion is the keen awareness of the interdependence of all living things," I've tried to articulate for myself what would be the opposite of compassion as arrogance is of humility and greed is of gratitude. I've thought of obliviousness, unconsciousness, numbness, ignorance? My using care-less-ness was really a take off on what John McKnight describes in his book The Careless Society. None of these completely does it for me, so give me some help here. What would be the opposite, or antithesis, of compassion? Would appreciate your insight. Anyone else care to jump in on this? Randy

4 3

Re: [Oe List ...] Salmon: Conversation on Sandy Hook
by Del Morril 30 Dec '12

30 Dec '12

For years I had a lovely revolver that I enjoyed target shooting with. Although expensive to target-shoot as a 38, a friend used to make iron bullets for me so it was less expensive. I really enjoyed that activity. I used to carry it when I taught on dark campuses and kept it in my bedside drawer until our grandchildren were born and then I put it away. HOWEVER!! Much as I loved that gun and shooting at targets (I used to rifle shoot with my parents in Alaska on barren islands where no one could get hurt), last year after a couple of terrible and unnecessary killing of many "innocents" I got so sick of our violence in America that I took that gun to the police station and asked them to destroy it. The cop there couldn't believe it - he said I should sell it because it is such a superior gun - I could get a lot for it. I told him, NO! I do not want this weapon on the street in anyone else's hands. He assured me it would be done. At the time, I knew it was just a tiny drop in the ocean, but it was an important symbol to me that I do this. I still miss that gun now and then, but I'm not sorry I took the action I did. Del Del Hunter Morrill 3217 North Mason Avenue Tacoma WA 98407-5419 H: (253) 752-1506; W: (253) 383-5757 <mailto:delhmor@wamail.net> delhmor(a)wamail.net Web site: www. hypnocenter.com The cave you fear to enter holds the treasure you seek. (Joseph Campbell) _____ From: oe-bounces(a)lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of William Salmon Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 7:48 AM To: OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net Subject: [Oe List ...] Salmon: Conversation on Sandy Hook Randy, you're a dandy. How do we satiate the Baals? Domestic Tranquility could well be the answer. There is no appropriate response such as gun control. My friend, a gun freak, would say the response to Sandy Hook would be for someone who had a licensed gun to defend the children and kill the gunboy; thus, the more guns the better. The answer is changing our gun culture. Doesn't Great Britain still make it illegal to possess guns. Are the London "Bobbies" still unarmed? If so, this is the direction that is necessary to take. Perhaps, the Supreme Court will take up the definition of the "Right to Bear Arms." Is this a right reserved for those trained in a "citizen's army," or is it the right of every homeowner to bear arms in its own defense. Recently, in Wichita, KS, an intruder was shot while invading a home. Is the purpose for gun ownership? As for me and my house, I do not keep guns, although, I am not opposed to the use of guns for hunting or recreation. The ultimate question to be answered is, how to we change a nation's attitude about guns when we punish prisoners with the death penalty, and support a military presence around the world? The god Moloch (one of the Baals) gets fed regularly with the young fruit of our loins. During this event in Connecticut, old Molly must be vomiting from the kill. Inner Peace, says it more than ever! Bill Salmon

2 1

Re: [Oe List ...] Fwd: more Moore!
by coevolutionacademy＠juno.com 30 Dec '12

30 Dec '12

George, I agree - the conversation is going deeper now. I appreciate what you say that the opposite of compassion is fear. Marianne Williamson says the opposite of fear is love. And a long time ago - Jesse Collin Young sang that - the opposite of fear is love. What I thought when I read the quote by Marianne Williamson is that the opposite of fear is faith. I don't just mean belef in dogma of course - I mean trust in the Universe - or whatever language people want to use these days. At least for me that's how it is. Deep faith and trust in the Divine is what cancels out fear. For me. It seems like we can only be compassionate if we are not fearful. Or maybe profound love can override fear - like the kind of love a mother feels for her child. Anyway - this is how it is for me and I feel maybe it's true for some others. It raises the question in my mind - and has for a long time - how can people experience a deeper connection to the Divine and how can that impact community and society?. Blase's job is in mental health. He works with teenagers who are in trouble. Many are referred by Juvenille Justice. He actually works in Intensive In-home with the entire family. One of the things they do (among many others) is teach Love and Logic; one form of parenting training that works fairly well and gives the parents new ways to commnicate with their kids rather than just acting out of emotional unintellgence they learned from their parents. It seems to be making a difference in most cases - but it is intensive. So - I feel we need more of that and more of anything that brings psycho-spiritual healing - helps people to be happier, feel more secure and be more creative. Blase and I really love Claudio Naranjo's book Healing Civilization - forwarded by Jean Houston - as he goes very deep into what seems to be the depth contradictions in our society. Rose Anne Sands ---------- Original Message ---------- From: George Holvombe <geowanda(a)earthlink.net> To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Fwd: more Moore! Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:31:12 -0600 Good conversation. I think, what I believe Buddhism pointed out, fear of our mortality, which gives way to anger, and the creation of illusions in order to live this way has a lot to do with this. For me the opposite of compassion is fear. George Holcombe14900 Yellowleaf Tr.Austin, TX 78728Mobile 512/252-2756 “...we have the choice: we can gratefully cultivate the relationships that make us part of a vast network, or we can take them for granted and allow them to wither and die.” Brother David Steindl-Rast, Deeper than Words Sent from my iPad On Dec 30, 2012, at 11:09 AM, R Williams <rcwmbw(a)yahoo.com> wrote: John, Of course you are correct about care. Ever since I saw Thomas Merton's quote, "Compassion is the keen awareness of the interdependence of all living things," I've tried to articulate for myself what would be the opposite of compassion as arrogance is of humility and greed is of gratitude. I've thought of obliviousness, unconsciousness, numbness, ignorance? My using care-less-ness was really a take off on what John McKnight describes in his book The Careless Society. None of these completely does it for me, so give me some help here. What would be the opposite, or antithesis, of compassion? Would appreciate your insight. Anyone else care to jump in on this? Randy "Whatever the problem, community is the answer. There is no power greater than a community discovering what it cares about." Margaret Wheatley From: "jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my" <jlepps(a)pc.jaring.my> To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Fwd: more Moore! Well said, Randy. Just one caveat: On your last transformation (from carelessness to compassion), we've found it the case that people really DO care: they just don't have effective ways to act it out. In fact, there's a basic give-a-damness at the heart of humanity. Even those most in opposition to gun control care a lot, as is apparent from their passion. There's something deeper going on here -- maybe it's the lack of effective ways to enact that care. Anyway thanks again for your fine response to an excellent article. John At 06:20 AM 12/30/2012, you wrote: Jack, This is an insightful article. I wish someone other than Michael Moore had written it so that more people would perhaps read it, and more who do would give it credence. I was reminded of some of the conversations we used to have years ago with conservatives about how alcohol does not cause alcoholism, but rather some underlying condition(s) in the life of the addicted person. Today's conservative argument that guns do not kill, people do, has merit as well. What does not is the implication drawn, that the solution is therefore to arm everyone, another trite version of "might makes right." Moore's key insight is in that he has indeed analyzed the underlying contradictions and names three of them. In reading through them I was very struck as to their similarity, or sameness, with the three that HRN named way back when, which we know so well; economic imperialism (poverty), racism (Niebuhr called it "racialism" and we could probably include many of today's other "isms") and nationalism (rooted in exactly the same perversion as the "me" society Moore refers to--egocentricity, individualistic overemphasis, exceptionalism, etc.) The new gun limitations that are being discussed should be enacted, but as we all know, this will save some lives but not address the underlying issues. Also as we know, those will not finally be addressed until there has been a significant change of hearts and minds in our society that moves us from arrogance to humility, from greed to gratitude, and from a callous care-less-ness about innocent suffering to compassion in the face of the interdependence of us all. I continue to contend that facilitating that kind of metanoia is all our outfit has, at the end of the day, ever been about. Randy "Whatever the problem, community is the answer. There is no power greater than a community discovering what it cares about." Margaret Wheatley From: Jack Gilles <jackcgilles(a)gmail.com> To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:57 PM Subject: [Oe List ...] Fwd: more Moore! Dear Colleagues, I found this essay by Michael Moore on guns and violence. Jack Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: "M. Theophil" <weave.marga(a)gmail.com > Date: December 27, 2012, 10:47:59 PM CST To: "M. Theophil" <Weave.Marga(a)gmail.com > Subject: more Moore! <image001.gif> December 24th, 2012 5:13 AM Celebrating the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns By Michael Moore After watching the deranged, delusional National Rifle Association press conference on Friday, it was clear that the Mayan prophecy had come true. Except the only world that was ending was the NRA's. Their bullying power to set gun policy in this country is over. The nation is repulsed by the massacre in Connecticut, and the signs are everywhere: a basketball coach at a post-game press conference; the Republican Joe Scarborough; a pawn shop owner in Florida; a gun buy-back program in New Jersey; a singing contest show on TV, and the conservative gun-owning judge who sentenced Jared Loughner. So here's my little bit of holiday cheer for you: These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon. I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both know it's true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep pushing forward – after all, the momentum is on our side. I know all of us – including me – would love to see the president and Congongress enact stronger gun laws. We need a ban on automatic AND semiautomatic weapons and magazine clips that hold more than 7 bullets. We need better background checks and more mental health services. We need to regulate the ammo, too. But, friends, I would like to propose that while all of the above will certainly reduce gun deaths (ask Mayor Bloomberg – it is virtually impossible to buy a handgun in New York Citty and the result is the number of murders per year has gone from 2,200 to under 400), it won't really bring about an end to these mass slayings and it will not address the core problem we have. Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws in the country. That did nothing to prevent the murders of 20 small children on December 14th. In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the killer had no criminal record so he would never have shown up on a background check. All of the guns he used were legally purchased. None fit the legal description of an "assault" weapon. The killer seemed to have mental problems and his mother had him seek help, but that was worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy Hook school was locked down and buttoned up BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did. And here's the dirty little fact none of us liberals want to discuss: The killer only ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were swarming onto the school grounds – i.e, the men withh the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or 40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes work. (Then again, there was an armed deputy sheriff at Columbine High School the day of that massacre and he couldn't/didn't stop it.) I am sorry to offer this reality check on our much-needed march toward a bunch of well-intended, necessary – but ultimately, mostly cosmetic – changes to our gr gun laws. The sad facts are these: Other countries that have guns (like Canada, which has 7 million guns – mmostly hunting guns – in their 12 million households) have a low mmurder rate. Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and kids in Australia play the same violent video games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a British company; the UK had 58 gun murders last year in a nation of 63 million people). They simply don't kill each other at the rate that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who are we? I'd like to try to answer that question. We are a country whose leaders officially sanction and carry out acts of violence as a means to often an immoral end. We invade countries who didn't attack us. We're currently using drones in a half-dozen countries, often killing civilians. This probably shouldn't come as a surprise to us as we are a nation founded on genocide and built on the backs of slaves. We slaughtered 600,000 of each other in a civil war. We "tamed the Wild West with a six-shooter," and we rape and beat and kill our women without mercy and at a staggering rate: every three hours a women is murdered in the USA ( half the time by an ex or a current); every three minutes a woman is raped in the USA; and every 15 seconds a woman is beaten in the USA. We belong to an illustrious group of nations that still have the death penalty (North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Iran). We think nothing of letting tens of thousands of our own citizens die each year because they are uninsured and thus don't see a doctor until it's too late. Why do we do this? One theory is simply "because we can." There is a level of arrogance in the otherwise friendly American spirit, conning ourselves into believing there's something exceptional about us that separates us from all those "other" countries (there are indeed many good things about us; the same could also be said of Belgium, New Zealand, France, Germany, etc.). We think we're #1 in everything when the truth is our students are 17th in science and 25th in math, and we're 35th in life expectancy. We believe we have the greatest democracy but we have the lowest voting turnout of any western democracy. We're biggest and the bestest at everything and we demand and take what we want. And sometimes we have to be violent m*****f*****s to get it. But if one of us goes off-message and shows the utterly psychotic nature and brutal results of violence in a Newtown or an Aurora or a Virginia Tech, then we get all "sad" and "our hearts go out to the families" and presidents promise to take "meaningful action." Well, maybe this president means it this time. He'd better. An angry mob of millions is not going to let this drop. While we are discussing and demanding what to do, may I respectfully ask that we stop and take a look at what I believe are the three extenuating factors that may answer the question of why we Americans have more violence than most anyone else: 1. POVERTY. If there's one thing that separates us from the rest of the developed world, it's this. 50 million of our people live in poverty. One in five Americans goes hungry at some point during the year. The majority of those who aren't poor are living from paycheck to paycheck. There's no doubt this creates more crime. Middle class jobs prevent crime and violence. (If you don't believe that, ask yourself this: If your neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, what are the chances he's going to break into your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.) 2. FEAR/RACISM. We're an awfully fearful country considering that, unlike most nations, we've never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn't an invasion. We started it.) Why on earth would we need 300 million guns in our homes? I get why the Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 million of them died in World War II). But what's our excuse? Worried that the Indians from the casino may go on the warpath? Concerned that the Canadians seem to be amassing too many Tim Horton's donut shops on both sides of the border? No. It's because too many white people are afraid of black people. Period. The vast majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to white people who live in the suburbs or the country. When we fantasize about being mugged or home invaded, what's the image of the perpetrator in our heads? Is it the freckled-face kid from down the street – or is it someone who is, if not black, at least pooor? I think it would be worth it to a) do our best to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle class we used to have, and b) stop promoting the image of the black man as the boogeyman out to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns. 3. THE "ME" SOCIETY. I think it's the every-man-for-himself ethos of this country that has put us in this mess and I believe it's been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps! You're not my problem! This is mine! Clearly, we are no longer our brother's and sister's keeper. You get sick and can't afford the operation? Not my problem. The bank has foreclosed on your home? Not my problem. Can't afford to go to college? Not my problem. And yet, it all sooner or later becomes our problem, doesn't it? Take away too many safety nets and everyone starts to feel the impact. Do you want to live in that kind of society, one where you will then have a legitimate reason to be in fear? I don't. I'm not saying it's perfect anywhere else, but I have noticed, in my travels, that other civilized countries see a national benefit to taking care of each other. Free medical care, free or low-cost college, mental health help. And I wonder – why can't we do that? I think it's because in many other countries people see each other not as separate and alone but rather together, on the path of life, with each person existing as an integral part of the whole. And you help them when they're in need, not punish them because they've had some misfortune or bad break. I have to believe one of the reasons gun murders in other countries are so rare is because there's less of the lone wolf mentality amongst their citizens. Most are raised with a sense of connection, if not outright solidarity. And that makes it harder to kill one another. Well, there's some food for thought as we head home for the holidays. Don't forget to say hi to your conservative brother-in-law for me. Even he will tell you that, if you can't nail a deer in three shots â€“ and claim you need a clip of 30 rounds – you're not a hunter my friend, and you have no business owning a gun. Have a wonderful Christmas or a beautiful December 25th! _______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ OE mailing list OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net

1 0

Re: [Oe List ...] Fwd: more Moore!
by jlepps＠pc.jaring.my 30 Dec '12

30 Dec '12

Well said, Randy. Just one caveat: On your last transformation (from carelessness to compassion), we've found it the case that people really DO care: they just don't have effective ways to act it out. In fact, there's a basic give-a-damness at the heart of humanity. Even those most in opposition to gun control care a lot, as is apparent from their passion. There's something deeper going on here -- maybe it's the lack of effective ways to enact that care. Anyway thanks again for your fine response to an excellent article. John At 06:20 AM 12/30/2012, you wrote: >Jack, > >This is an insightful article. I wish someone >other than Michael Moore had written it so that >more people would perhaps read it, and more who do would give it credence. > >I was reminded of some of the conversations we >used to have years ago with conservatives about >how alcohol does not cause alcoholism, but >rather some underlying condition(s) in the life >of the addicted person. Today's conservative >argument that guns do not kill, people do, has >merit as well. What does not is the implication >drawn, that the solution is therefore to arm >everyone, another trite version of "might makes right." > >Moore's key insight is in that he has indeed >analyzed the underlying contradictions and names >three of them. In reading through them I was >very struck as to their similarity, or sameness, >with the three that HRN named way back when, >which we know so well; economic imperialism >(poverty), racism (Niebuhr called it "racialism" >and we could probably include many of today's >other "isms") and nationalism (rooted in exactly >the same perversion as the "me" society Moore >refers to--egocentricity, individualistic overemphasis, exceptionalism, etc.) > >The new gun limitations that are being discussed >should be enacted, but as we all know, this will >save some lives but not address the underlying >issues. Also as we know, those will not finally >be addressed until there has been a significant >change of hearts and minds in our society that >moves us from arrogance to humility, from greed >to gratitude, and from a callous care-less-ness >about innocent suffering to compassion in the >face of the interdependence of us all. I >continue to contend that facilitating that kind >of metanoia is all our outfit has, at the end of the day, ever been about. > >Randy > >"Whatever the problem, community is the >answer. There is no power greater than a >community discovering what it cares about." Margaret Wheatley > >From: Jack Gilles <jackcgilles(a)gmail.com> >To: Order Ecumenical Community <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> >Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:57 PM >Subject: [Oe List ...] Fwd: more Moore! > >Dear Colleagues, > >I found this essay by Michael Moore on guns and violence. > >Jack > >Sent from my iPad > >Begin forwarded message: > >>From: "M. Theophil" <<mailto:weave.marga@gmail.com>weave.marga(a)gmail.com> >>Date: December 27, 2012, 10:47:59 PM CST >>To: "M. Theophil" <<mailto:Weave.Marga@gmail.com>Weave.Marga(a)gmail.com> >>Subject: more Moore! >> >><image001.gif> >>December 24th, 2012 5:13 AM >> >> >><http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/celebrating-prince-peac…>Celebrating >>the Prince of Peace in the Land of Guns >> >> >> >> >>By <http://www.michaelmoore.com/blogger/mmflint>Michael Moore >>After watching the deranged, delusional >>National Rifle Association press conference on >>Friday, it was clear that the Mayan prophecy >>had come true. Except the only world that was >>ending was the NRA's. Their bullying power to >>set gun policy in this country is over. The >>nation is repulsed by the massacre in >>Connecticut, and the signs are everywhere: >><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/jim-boeheim-gun-control-9000-wins_…>a >>basketball coach at a post-game press >>conference; >><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/joe-scarborough-newtown-shooting_n…>the >>Republican Joe Scarborough; >><http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/gun-seller-i-cant-do-it-anymore>a >>pawn shop owner in Florida; >><http://articles.philly.com/2012-12-19/news/35914645_1_gun-owners-higher-gro…>a >>gun buy-back program in New Jersey; >><http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/watch-tribute-newtown-vo…>a >>singing contest show on TV, and >><http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/loughner_judge_conservati…>the >>conservative gun-owning judge who sentenced Jared Loughner. >>So here's my little bit of holiday cheer for you: >>These gun massacres aren't going to end any time soon. >>I'm sorry to say this. But deep down we both >>know it's true. That doesn't mean we shouldn't >>keep pushing forward after all, the momentum >>is on our side. I know all of us including me >> would love to see the president and >>Congongress enact stronger gun laws. We need a >>ban on automatic AND semiautomatic weapons and >>magazine clips that hold more than 7 bullets. >>We need better background checks and more >>mental health services. We need to regulate the ammo, too. >>But, friends, I would like to propose that >>while all of the above will certainly reduce >>gun deaths (ask Mayor Bloomberg it is >>virtually impossible to buy a handgun in New >>York Citty and the result is the number of >>murders per year has gone >><http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/reported-shot-stabbed-slashed-nyc-monda…>from >>2,200 to under 400), it won't really bring >>about an end to these mass slayings and it will >>not address the core problem we have. >>Connecticut had one of the strongest gun laws >>in the country. That did nothing to prevent the >>murders of 20 small children on December 14th. >> >>In fact, let's be clear about Newtown: the >>killer had no criminal record so he would never >>have shown up on a background check. All of the >>guns he used were legally purchased. None fit >>the legal description of an "assault" weapon. >>The killer seemed to have mental problems and >>his mother had him seek help, but that was >>worthless. As for security measures, the Sandy >>Hook school was locked down and buttoned up >>BEFORE the killer showed up that morning. >>Drills had been held for just such an incident. A lot of good that did. >>And here's the dirty little fact none of us >>liberals want to discuss: The killer only >>ceased his slaughter when he saw that cops were >>swarming onto the school grounds i.e, the men >>withh the guns. When he saw the guns a-coming, >>he stopped the bloodshed and killed himself. >>Guns on police officers prevented another 20 or >>40 or 100 deaths from happening. Guns sometimes >>work. (Then again, there was an armed deputy >>sheriff at Columbine High School the day of >>that massacre and he couldn't/didn't stop it.) >>I am sorry to offer this reality check on our >>much-needed march toward a bunch of >>well-intended, necessary but ultimately, >>mostly cosmetic changes to our gr gun laws. >>The sad facts are these: Other countries that >>have guns (like Canada, which has >><http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada>7 >>million guns mmostly hunting guns in their >>12 million households) have a low mmurder rate. >>Kids in Japan watch the same violent movies and >>kids in Australia play the same violent video >>games (Grand Theft Auto was created by a >>British company; the UK had >><http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/resea…>58 >>gun murders last year in a nation of 63 million people). >> >>They simply don't kill each other at the rate >>that we do. Why is that? THAT is the question >>we should be exploring while we are banning and restricting guns: Who are we? >>I'd like to try to answer that question. >>We are a country whose leaders officially >>sanction and carry out acts of violence as a >>means to often an immoral end. We invade >>countries who didn't attack us. We're currently >>using drones in a half-dozen countries, often killing civilians. >>This probably shouldn't come as a surprise to >>us as we are a nation founded on genocide and >>built on the backs of slaves. We slaughtered >>600,000 of each other in a civil war. We "tamed >>the Wild West with a six-shooter," and we rape >>and beat and kill our women without mercy and >>at a staggering rate: >><http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/vsextab.cfm>every >>three hours a women is murdered in the USA >>(<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,164707,00.html>half >>the time by an ex or a current); >><http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/09/cbsnews_investigates/main5590118.…>every >>three minutes a woman is raped in the USA; and >><http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/womenshealth/factsheets/dv.htm>every >>15 seconds a woman is beaten in the USA. >>We belong to an >><http://www.amnesty.org/en/death-penalty/abolitionist-and-retentionist-count…>illustrious >>group of nations that still have the death >>penalty (North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, >>Iran). We think nothing of letting tens of >>thousands of our own citizens die each year >>because they are uninsured and thus don't see a doctor until it's too late. >>Why do we do this? One theory is simply >>"because we can." There is a level of arrogance >>in the otherwise friendly American spirit, >>conning ourselves into believing there's >>something exceptional about us that separates >>us from all those "other" countries (there are >>indeed many good things about us; the same >>could also be said of Belgium, New Zealand, >>France, Germany, etc.). We think we're #1 in >>everything when the truth is our students are >><http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-12-07-us-students-intern…>17th >>in science and 25th in math, and we're >><http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/15/nation/la-na-womens-health-20110615>35th >>in life expectancy. We believe we have the >>greatest democracy but we have the lowest >>voting turnout of any western democracy. We're >>biggest and the bestest at everything and we demand and take what we want. >>And sometimes we have to be violent >>m*****f*****s to get it. But if one of us goes >>off-message and shows the utterly psychotic >>nature and brutal results of violence in a >>Newtown or an Aurora or a Virginia Tech, then >>we get all "sad" and "our hearts go out to the >>families" and presidents promise to take >>"meaningful action." Well, maybe this president >>means it this time. He'd better. An angry mob >>of millions is not going to let this drop. >>While we are discussing and demanding what to >>do, may I respectfully ask that we stop and >>take a look at what I believe are the three >>extenuating factors that may answer the >>question of why we Americans have more violence than most anyone else: >>1. POVERTY. If there's one thing that separates >>us from the rest of the developed world, it's >>this. >><http://www.nbcnews.com/business/49-7-million-americans-poverty-census-burea…>50 >>million of our people live in poverty. >><http://www.gallup.com/poll/156806/one-four-mississippi-residents-struggle-a…>One >>in five Americans goes hungry at some point >>during the year. >><http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-usa-survey-paycheck-idUSBRE88I…>The >>majority of those who aren't poor are living >>from paycheck to paycheck. There's no doubt >>this creates more crime. Middle class jobs >>prevent crime and violence. (If you don't >>believe that, ask yourself this: If your >>neighbor has a job and is making $50,000/year, >>what are the chances he's going to break into >>your home, shoot you and take your TV? Nil.) >>2. FEAR/RACISM. We're an awfully fearful >>country considering that, unlike most nations, >>we've never been invaded. (No, 1812 wasn't an >>invasion. >><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Declaration_of_war>We >>started it.) Why on earth would we need 300 >>million guns in our homes? I get why the >>Russians might be a little spooked (over 20 >>million of them died in World War II). But >>what's our excuse? Worried that the Indians >>from the casino may go on the warpath? >>Concerned that the Canadians seem to be >>amassing too many Tim Horton's donut shops on both sides of the border? >>No. It's because too many white people are >>afraid of black people. Period. The vast >>majority of the guns in the U.S. are sold to >>white people who live in the suburbs or the >>country. When we fantasize about being mugged >>or home invaded, what's the image of the >>perpetrator in our heads? Is it the >>freckled-face kid from down the street or is >>it someone who is, if not black, at least pooor? >>I think it would be worth it to a) do our best >>to eradicate poverty and re-create the middle >>class we used to have, and b) stop promoting >>the image of the black man as the boogeyman out >>to hurt you. Calm down, white people, and put away your guns. >>3. THE "ME" SOCIETY. I think it's the >>every-man-for-himself ethos of this country >>that has put us in this mess and I believe it's >>been our undoing. Pull yourself up by your >>bootstraps! You're not my problem! This is mine! >>Clearly, we are no longer our brother's and >>sister's keeper. You get sick and can't afford >>the operation? Not my problem. The bank has >>foreclosed on your home? Not my problem. Can't >>afford to go to college? Not my problem. >>And yet, it all sooner or later becomes our >>problem, doesn't it? Take away too many safety >>nets and everyone starts to feel the impact. Do >>you want to live in that kind of society, one >>where you will then have a legitimate reason to be in fear? I don't. >>I'm not saying it's perfect anywhere else, but >>I have noticed, in my travels, that other >>civilized countries see a national benefit to >>taking care of each other. Free medical care, >>free or low-cost college, mental health help. >>And I wonder why can't we do that? I think >>it's because in many other countries people see >>each other not as separate and alone but rather >>together, on the path of life, with each person >>existing as an integral part of the whole. And >>you help them when they're in need, not punish >>them because they've had some misfortune or bad >>break. I have to believe one of the reasons gun >>murders in other countries are so rare is >>because there's less of the lone wolf mentality >>amongst their citizens. Most are raised with a >>sense of connection, if not outright >>solidarity. And that makes it harder to kill one another. >> >>Well, there's some food for thought as we head >>home for the holidays. Don't forget to say hi >>to your conservative brother-in-law for me. >>Even he will tell you that, if you can't nail a >>deer in three shots â and claim you need a >>clip of 30 rounds you're not a hunter my >>friend, and you have no business owning a gun. >>Have a wonderful Christmas or a beautiful December 25th! >> > >_______________________________________________ >OE mailing list ><mailto:OE@lists.wedgeblade.net>OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net > > >_______________________________________________ >OE mailing list >OE(a)lists.wedgeblade.net >http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net

3 2

Salmon: Paper on Postmodernism
by William Salmon 30 Dec '12

30 Dec '12

THE TIMES THEY ARE A-CHANG'EDColleagues-- This is a paper I wrote for continuing education credit to support my work as a Para-Educator at the Salina Central High School. Previously, this material was lost in the OE system. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: William Salmon To: oe-owner(a)wedgeblade.net Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:13 PM Subject: Salmon: Paper on Postmodernism THE COLLAPSE OF OUR MODERN TIMES AND THE BIRTH OF THE INTUITIVE GENERATION Do you remember this Bob Dylan song: Come gather 'round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown And accept it that soon You'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you Is worth savin' Then you better start swimmin' Or you'll sink like a stone For the times they are a-changin'. This song, ". . . is one of Dylan's most famous; many felt that it captured the spirit of social and political upheaval that characterized the 1960s."[1] The Birth of the Intuitive Generation The changed times-- I can guarantee you that those born after 1985 will not remember it. Of course, they can't remember much of what those of us born before 1985 can remember. Every day, our students stand to say, "We Pledge Allegiance. . . .one nation under God. . . " It is not likely our youth remember that this religious phrase was added in 1953 under the presidential request of Dwight D. Eisenhower. In fact, it is doubtful that our student bodies understand the term "God." The majority of our students do not attend church nor do their parents of whom most are born around the year 1985.[2] It now can be affirmed that these changing times are no longer changing, they have changed! So, what happened? In looking back over filed materials that I have written, it was around 1985 that I began to note the changing times. Interestingly, the formula I worked at the beginning of my studies is the same that I use today: a.. The Modern Era Worldview was born during the 15th to the 17th Centuries; b.. The Postmodern Era Worldview was born in 1917 when Einstein wrote down the Theory of Relativity-E=MC2. Some sociology scholars affirm that about every 500 years a societal death and rebirth takes place. The Middle Ages, (a.k.a: the Dark Ages-5th to the 15th Centuries) were fully established by the year 1,000 C.E., and were finished by the start of the Modern Era during the 15th to the 17th centuries. Look at the tremendous energy that came into being at this time: Galileo, Copernicus and solidified by the Scientific Method of Newtonian physics. From this base we experience the Reformation, the Gutenberg printing press, the Renaissance, Industrialization and Urbanization. These were exceptionally fruitful years and lasted a little more than 500 years. Re-wiring the Intuitive Generation-- This new generation I characterize as The Intuitive Generation. The Theory of Relativity is the metaphor of this newness; among many other things, today's physics intuits the Big Bang, an ever-expanding universe, and a cosmos that exists outside of our own galaxy. The new physics helps to explain a mega-and a micro-universe; one without and one within. This is a paradigm shift of cosmic proportions; the universe itself now is explained by Quantum Mechanics that posits an ever-expanding universe in which Earth is but an insignificant dot in one of the mega-billions of other universes. The Death Spiral of these modern times began with the globality of World War I, to be followed by The Great Depression, a second World War that ended with the birth of the Nuclear Age conceived by Einstein's formula. Einstein wrote this formula in 1909, but it was not published until after the Great War in 1917. The death of the Modern Era was orchestrated through the formula E=MC2. The Atomic Era was an earth-shattering event and gave birth to the Postmodern Age now 100 years old. The Journey to the shift-- Observe what transpired prior to 1985. The War Babies of 1943 came to their majority around 1960 and gave birth to the Baby Boomers who reached young adulthood in 1985. In their turn, they gave birth to Gen X, Y, and Z who now fill our public school desks. Those born since 1985 are fully wired differently than those of us born before this year of significance. Take a brief historical review of the move from locality to globality. For most of human history it is the local context that informed community life. From the earliest days communications could have been with smoke signals such as is romanticized among our native aboriginal people or it could have been drumming. We know that there are lost communities that use such primitive means of inter-local means of communication. Perhaps, it was the Roman era when an extensive road system began to make travel more national. Certainly, the development of our Inter-State system did much to collapse the East Coast to the West Coast. In our own time we have seen the creation of the telephone and rural electrification that became the process of breaking down the uniqueness of our national heterogeneity. I can remember during the early years of our participation in World War II that USO "canteen" hostesses could tell, almost to the city, where soldiers were raised by the uniqueness of their vocal accents. Electrification made possible radio communication that began the process of homogenizing our world. On the American (USA) continent the first radio "networks" were ABC, CBS, and NBC. Local affiliates supported the Big Three. Then, during WWII, the invention of the oscilloscope developed into the initial rudimentary television. The creation of this potential was like a pebble dropped into a pond. The ripples of the future were picked up by the winds of change to blow it into a tsunami that soon overwhelmed the local with the creation of the national. With this development our homogenizing took a massive leap. Wikipedia reports that, Since the mid-1990s, web development has become one of the fastest-growing industries in the world.[citation needed] In 1995 the United States had fewer than 1,000 web-development companies, but by 2005 there were over 30,000 such companies.[citation needed] The growth of this industry is being pushed by large businesses wishing to sell products and services to their customers and to automate business workflow.[3] Suddenly, national networking was supplanted by the Global Web. The invention of the micro-chip made the use of hand-held devices ubiquitious. The use of the web, particularly through the social systems of email and texting, is addictive. The use of the web now supports a healthy global exchange along with the means to support national and international political and social rebellion. We now live in a global culture that surpasses nationalization. In part, this adds to our global angst. No longer can we describe our socialization as national. We live in a global society intimitely tied together electronically and socially. This earth is now our home! The collapse of the social process The collapse of global economics, the family, education, and national symbols-- As our global society begins to define itself, we have experienced a total societal upheaval. Global evidence of this situation is the collapse of the American rust-belt economics and manufacturing, or what's a NAFTA for? Look at global economics in which the United States loses its prime international credit rating, or examine the economic issues of Ireland, Greece, Italy, France, Germany and the EURO. The rise of China as a new economic force and a military presence has great potental and far-reaching influence for good or ill. Add to this mix the economic influence of India and Sub-Saharn Africa and it is possible to get a sense of the potential shift in global influence. Does this mean that North America (Canada and the USA) may experience the fate of Holland, Portugal, France and Great Britian as colonial empires? Next, consider the global collapse of the family, the inadequacy of our educational systems and the disrespect for our national symbols. The evidence can be as local as that of the Hutchinson Daily News article, "Vandals damage 67 grave markers in Hutchinson." Unfortunately, it can be added that many of our Salina Central High School youth do not find meaningful the morning ritual of the Pledge of Allegiance. The collapse of religion- What about the collapse of religion? The Postmodern worldview is the denial of supernaturalism that is the bedrock of traditional religious views as broad as the Judeo/Christian and Muslim religions. What this indicates is the collapse of our traditional Christian Churches and its pastoral leadership. One reviewer observed: Instead of proclaiming a God who calls believers to lives of love, service and sacrifice, churches offer instead a bargain religion, easy to use, easy to forget, offering little and demanding less. The National Study of Religion and Youth[4] Between 2002 and 2005 a national survey of Religion and Youth (3,300 youth,13 to 17) was conducted by the Social Science Departments at Notre Dame and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.[5] The Lily Foundation funded the survey. This is a serious study, the result of which have been published in several documents. Kendra Creasy Dean, a professor of religion at Princeton Theological Seminary, is charged with sharing the finding of this report with the nation's churches. What this study reveals is that our youth and their parents practice a religion of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism: Moralistic-"I'll be a nice person." Therapeutic-"Because I want people to like me." Deism-"This makes my god happy." At whose feet are they forming such errant beliefs but from their parents! The fault is the inadequacy of our Christian pastors and their theological education. Dr. Dean observes, But what is to be done? In order to produce ardent young Christians, Dean argues, churches must rediscover their sense of mission and model an understanding of being Christian. In support of this conclusion, this study reports that the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), with its emphasis upon family life, the stringent requirement that every young adult be involved in a one or two year mission assignments, and its daily training of their youth in their own homes as well as in the sanctuary (church) under the tutelage of trained lay people. The LDS parents and youth are the ones who best articulate the elements of their belief system more than any other major Christian church or denomination. Even this success does not convince me that Mormonism is an appropriate response to the postmodern future. As an outsider making judgments, it is apparent that their worldly structure is strong, but their cosmology is metaphysical and thereby irrelevant as a postmodern response. Anything illusionary can not pass the test of human experience because it is based on a lie. The collapse of politics- Preachers are not the only ones at fault. They are as blind as our politicians. Both political parties are blinded by this new Postmodern Worldview. Global politics illuminate a general sickness that we experience in the State of Kansas and a national legislative grid-lock.The difference is the Republicans firmly believe that when the wealthy are kept wealthy they will be generous. The Democrats firmly believe that a global safety net is the answer. Unfortunately, both answers are weak sisters. No one has the answer because the future is in the hands of our youth where it belongs. The Reaction of the Older Generation A response to angst-- How long will it be until the Postmodern Worldview is the accepted one? It will be over the dead bodies of those born before1985. In truth, our elders are hurrying to that end as fast as it is humanly possible. The best response is to love and care for our older populations because they are living in Hospice Times. They are scared to death as they experience the collapse of everything they held important and sacred. The adult population is privileged to be chosen to live in these societal end times. Please note that this is a sociological rather than a theological argument. These end times do not predict the end of the world, but forth-tell the shape of the near and on-going future. It is unfortunate that our older global populations are experiencing the roughest transition ever in history because it is taking place over such a short time. This transition is just 100 years old, a very short period measured in historical time. Note that Hebraic history is measured in 2,000 years, and Christian history marks changes over a period of 1,500 years. The Modern Era lasted only 500 years, and the Einsteinian revolution took place just 100 years ago. The response of the older adult part of our global society is to hide behind conservative politics and religion. Both of these things are illusions of reality because our current politics and religion are as dead as the Modern Worldview that sustained us for the last 600 years. One reaction is that many adult populations ran to find security in conservative religions. It matters not if they are Christian or otherwise. Frightened people drifted off to those who promise their members a rose garden that is an illusion of hope. This religiosity is an illusion because the theory is not grounded in human experience; it is a wish dream unconnected to human experience. People are fearful because they are practicing a religion that is unconnected to the new worldview. The result is that today's older populations are like reeds in the wind; they have no roots deep-set in reality. They live on shaky ground. Seeking to return to the past is not the answer. Returning to the meta-physical principles developed by Greek philosophy leads to supernaturalism. This spiritual response is disconnected from living the humane and gracious life while working for justice and mercy. Please note that such phrases as this are neither conservative nor progressive language. Until we practice what we preach by living the humane life, it matters little to what church, synagogue, mosque, temple or wicken people go. The future for our adult population is bleak as long as people are hiding from reality. It is when we are at the throats of each other that we experience angst. It is when we all get along so that we live together in forgiving love that we will earn a deep inner peace. What's next? Future directions-- The truth is the end is done. It is those born before 1985 who wonder, "What is going on?" It is any wonder that 90% of our Salina youth and their parents are unchurched? As I've already declared, this global concern is solved over the dead bodies of those who are parents and grandparents. The last 600 years die hard, and we older adults are the products of the Modern Worldview. What of our youth? They are blown away from traditional values and religious beliefs so as to be set free to design their own new tools on the forge of historical change. They are the vanguard of a new global society. What is the message for the future?[6] If there is to be a future-and most certainly there is one born after 1985; our youth are in the process of sharpening their tools on the anvil of the new paradigm. If the Intuitive Generation is to be successful, they can define themselves by living the humane and gracious life while working for justice and mercy that peace is the product of their actions. Yes, this is a good place to start. wes RESOURCES DEVELOPED ON THE TOPIC BY DR. SALMON Books appropriate to the topic of this paper Borg, Marcus J., Speaking Christian: Why Christian Words Have Lost Their Meaning and Power, NY:Harper One. $25.99. Dean, Kenda Creasy, Almost Christian: what the faith of our teenagers is telling the American Church, Princeton Theological Seminary, 2010. I have a 20-page report on this material, plus an 8.5 X 14 Summary Chart. Sweet, Leonard , Quantum Spirituality: A Postmodern Apologetic. I have a 20-page analysis and personal reflections on it. In the late 1970's, Dr. Sweet rang one of the first bells announcing the paradigm shift to postmodernism and its affect on society. Books written by Dr. Salmon[7] Our Old Christian Code Words: Head Trip Analysis to Gut Trip Analysis. This is a workbook that enables the reader to utilize this new post-modern approach and thinking. $15.00 from Dr. Salmon. The Making of a Teacher: Bible Studies in the Gospel of Matthew. This is 29 lessons based on a study of the Gospel of Matthew. It includes postmodern insights from a local IHOP Bible Study, plus the insights from seven years of sermons based on the appropriate lectionary material in Matthew. $17.50 from Dr. Salmon. One Mission, Two Objectives: Bible Studies in the Gospel of Mark. This is the recent publication of Dr. Salmon. It will be delivered sometime before Christmas 2012. It uses the same format as the Matthew material. $17.50 from Dr. Salmon. A new book under construction Conversations in Jail: for the Prisoner in all of us. >From many interviews with prisoners in the Saline County Jail and the Ellsworth Correctional Facility, Dr. Salmon identified seven key themes and seven appropriate responses. This information is conveyed through stories of his encounters. The audience for the book is jail chaplains, for the general population, and anyone working as first-responders in counseling sessions; i.e., pastors and guidance counselors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Bob Dylan born 1941-Present. Introduced this song in 1963. Wikipedia: November 9, 2012; 9:45 p.m. This song is believed to be in the Public Domain. If any one knows otherwise, please email me at wsalmon(a)cox.net. [2] My informal studies of the Salina student populations indicate that together our local churches serve about 10% of our school age students. [3] Wikipedia. December 3, 2012. 7p.m. [4] Dean, Almost Christian: what the faith of our teenagers is telling the American Church, Oxford University Press, 240 pages; 2010. [6] Since writing this paper for the Central Kansas Cooperative in Education (CKCIE), colleagues sent me information about, "Burning Man." You are encouraged to research this sight because this is a postmodern development that forth-casts the new future. See what you think! [7] Over the next four years, Dr. Salmon will publish study books covering the entire New Testament except for the Book of Revelation.

2 1