- OE - lists.wedgeblade.net

A Thea-logians perspective (Thea=Goddess)
by via OE 20 Nov '16

20 Nov '16

The Divided States of America – Will We, as a Nation, Continue to Stand? by Michele Stopera Freyhauf BY MICHELE STOPERA FREYHAUF on NOVEMBER 20, 2016 • ( 2 ) 1 Vote If you are like me, you are still reeling from the election results in the United States – trying to make sense of it, while at the same time going through the steps of mourning. As I write this, it is difficult to call our country United – because it is anything but. In reality, we have become the Divided States of America – and worse, we have had friendships lost and detachments with relatives over this election. And I guess I could say, what’s even worse – we learned about the bigotry and viewpoints of people we used to consider friends or even learned this about family members, even spouses. When one mourns, it is to cope, heal, and to express the loss of love. However, I think we should stop or never approach the final stage of acceptance; rather, I think we need to be vigilant. Back in the early 1930s, there was a person considered to be powerful and charismatic, and much like Trump, beyond reproach. Hungering for change, a promise was made to the disenfranchised for a better life and to make the country glorious (or great). Even with losing about 2 million votes from the previous election in July 1932 (a number that ironically is the estimated spread of popular votes Hillary won over her opponent), a coalition with Conservatives was made in January 1933, a man named Adolf Hitler was named Chancellor – head of the German Government – the proclaimed savior of a nation. Racism and authoritarian ideas, basic freedoms were abolished, forcing parties into goals, abolishing trade unions – the world saw the move from democracy to a dictatorship and the loss of privacy and use of terror used to achieve goals became the new norm. Am I trying to be an alarmist, no, but I am calling for vigilance. Part of the work I do requires me to read Nazi Era unclassified briefings, which often include government briefings, letters of victims, and correspondence between different businesses. As I read through these documents, my mind continues to move back to the election. The fear, the desperation, and the destruction – you gain an insight from primary source documents that help you experience the fear of the oppressed. There are so many similarities between that election and Hilter’s rise to power, that we must stay vigilant. So here we sit, a divided nation that has blamed racial divide on our first African American Click here to link to the original picture President, as well as a congress that has denied the President the ability to fulfill an almost 1-year vacancy in the Supreme Court, played bipartisan games giving the illusion that Obamacare and other policies were substandard and denying that they were bastardized by bipartisan disagreements and politics. Then there are interference of the FBI, voter fraud allegations and lost ballots, the appointment of power-mongering racist career politicians that seem to remain at the bottom of that drained swamp that we have heard so much about, and the blatant allegations of fraud and wrongdoing – all of which continue to be ignored and overlooked. Some will go so far as to say that this is for the betterment of the country. I don’t have to tell you that I adamantly disagree – this country, before the election tore it apart, was already great – and we were in a time of measurable growth – the first time in a long time. The “reality show” rhetoric with a string of already broken promises have been discounted and justified as a means to an end. We as a nation stand abhorrently divided – and that is a problem. We have racial violence and religious bigotry spilling into our elementary schools, universities, churches, and communities. We have parades by the KKK, interference with foreign governments, and the rhetoric of registries, walls, and camps – is this really the State of our Union? We must never forget that at one time, in a not so distant past, it was our differences that united us – that is what made (or makes) our country great. It was our quest to have a safe space to practice or not practice our faith; celebrate the traditions of our homeland while learning about others; in this, the United States of America, differences were welcome and embraced. We need to recall Mark 3:25: “and if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.” In other words, for the country to move forward, we must find a way to come together, heal, and be united so that the history of the 1930’s does not repeat itself. We need to be a better stronger nation – leaving the world better for the next generation. With someone who does not believe in global warming and feels that since we have nuclear weapons, why not use them – will there even be a world left for my children and grandchildren? Michele Stopera Freyhauf is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and a Member of the Centre for Catholic Studies at Durham University as well as an Instructor at John Carroll University’s Department of Theology and Religious Studies. Her research and areas of focus for the classroom, lecture, and publication are Religion, Cultural Identity and Memory Studies, Forced Migration and Exile, Cultural Heritage and Human Rights, Biblical Archaeology, Provenance of Antiquities and Art (including Nazi-Era Looting) and international dialogue surrounding the protection, conservation, and education of cultural heritage. Michele has an M. A. in Theology and Religious Studies from John Carroll University, and did post-graduate work at the University of Akron in the area of History of Religion, Gender, and Sexuality. She is also the student representative on the Board for Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society (EGLBS). Michele is the 2015 recipient of the P. E. MacAllister Excavation Fellowship where she participated in the Bethsaida Archaeology Project. Michele is a feminist scholar, activist, and author of several articles including “Hagia Sophia: Political and Religious Symbolism in Stones and Spolia” and lectured during the Commission for the Status of Women at the United Nations (2013 and 2014). She also wrote “The Catholic Church and Social Media: Embracing [Fighting] a Feminist Ideological Theo-Ethical Discourse and Discursive Activism” that appears in Feminism and Religion in the 21st Century: Technology, Dialogue, and Expanding Borders, edited by Gina Messina-Dysert and Rosemary Radford Ruether. Michele can be followed on Twitter @msfreyhauf and @biblicalfem. Her website can be accessed here and is visible on other social media sites like LinkedIn and Google+.

3 2

FB report attack on #NoDAPL Water protectors
by via OE 20 Nov '16

20 Nov '16

1 0

ICA Global Archives - Declaration of the Spirit Movement
by Beret Griffith via OE 20 Nov '16

20 Nov '16

Many early documents are on Wedgeblade.net at: https://wedgeblade.net/gold_path/data/pathways.htm for...The Declaration of the Spirit Movement document text go directly to: https://wedgeblade.net/gold_path/data/hisj/101184.htm There is an amazing amount of information on Golden Pathways, thanks to the early archive team who unearthed the documentation and preserved it.

1 0

The End of Identity Liberalism - NYTimes.com
by Randy Williams via OE 20 Nov '16

20 Nov '16

Colleagues, Another thoughtful theory about the plight of liberalism, prompted by the recent U.S. election. Randy http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-identity-lib… The End of Identity Liberalism November 18, 2016 Opinion It is a truism that America has become a more diverse country. It is also a beautiful thing to watch. Visitors from other countries, particularly those having trouble incorporating different ethnic groups and faiths, are amazed that we manage to pull it off. Not perfectly, of course, but certainly better than any European or Asian nation today. It’s an extraordinary success story. But how should this diversity shape our politics? The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and “celebrate” our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing. One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded. Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals. The moral energy surrounding identity has, of course, had many good effects. Affirmative action has reshaped and improved corporate life. Black Lives Matter has delivered a wake-up call to every American with a conscience. Hollywood’s efforts to normalize homosexuality in our popular culture helped to normalize it in American families and public life. But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life. At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country. (The achievements of women’s rights movements, for instance, were real and important, but you cannot understand them if you do not first understand the founding fathers’ achievement in establishing a system of government based on the guarantee of rights.) When young people arrive at college they are encouraged to keep this focus on themselves by student groups, faculty members and also administrators whose full-time job is to deal with — and heighten the significance of — “diversity issues.” Fox News and other conservative media outlets make great sport of mocking the “campus craziness” that surrounds such issues, and more often than not they are right to. Which only plays into the hands of populist demagogues who want to delegitimize learning in the eyes of those who have never set foot on a campus. How to explain to the average voter the supposed moral urgency of giving college students the right to choose the designated gender pronouns to be used when addressing them? How not to laugh along with those voters at the story of a University of Michigan prankster who wrote in “His Majesty”? This campus-diversity consciousness has over the years filtered into the liberal media, and not subtly. Affirmative action for women and minorities at America’s newspapers and broadcasters has been an extraordinary social achievement — and has even changed, quite literally, the face of right-wing media, as journalists like Megyn Kelly and Laura Ingraham have gained prominence. But it also appears to have encouraged the assumption, especially among younger journalists and editors, that simply by focusing on identity they have done their jobs. Recently I performed a little experiment during a sabbatical in France: For a full year I read only European publications, not American ones. My thought was to try seeing the world as European readers did. But it was far more instructive to return home and realize how the lens of identity has transformed American reporting in recent years. How often, for example, the laziest story in American journalism — about the “first X to do Y” — is told and retold. Fascination with the identity drama has even affected foreign reporting, which is in distressingly short supply. However interesting it may be to read, say, about the fate of transgender people in Egypt, it contributes nothing to educating Americans about the powerful political and religious currents that will determine Egypt’s future, and indirectly, our own. No major news outlet in Europe would think of adopting such a focus. But it is at the level of electoral politics that identity liberalism has failed most spectacularly, as we have just seen. National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality. And it will be dominated by whoever best captures Americans’ imaginations about our shared destiny. Ronald Reagan did that very skillfully, whatever one may think of his vision. So did Bill Clinton, who took a page from Reagan’s playbook. He seized the Democratic Party away from its identity-conscious wing, concentrated his energies on domestic programs that would benefit everyone (like national health insurance) and defined America’s role in the post-1989 world. By remaining in office for two terms, he was then able to accomplish much for different groups in the Democratic coalition. Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them. The media’s newfound, almost anthropological, interest in the angry white male reveals as much about the state of our liberalism as it does about this much maligned, and previously ignored, figure. A convenient liberal interpretation of the recent presidential election would have it that Mr. Trump won in large part because he managed to transform economic disadvantage into racial rage — the “whitelash” thesis. This is convenient because it sanctions a conviction of moral superiority and allows liberals to ignore what those voters said were their overriding concerns. It also encourages the fantasy that the Republican right is doomed to demographic extinction in the long run — which means liberals have only to wait for the country to fall into their laps. The surprisingly high percentage of the Latino vote that went to Mr. Trump should remind us that the longer ethnic groups are here in this country, the more politically diverse they become. Finally, the whitelash thesis is convenient because it absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored. Such people are not actually reacting against the reality of our diverse America (they tend, after all, to live in homogeneous areas of the country). But they are reacting against the omnipresent rhetoric of identity, which is what they mean by “political correctness.” Liberals should bear in mind that the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists. Those who play the identity game should be prepared to lose it. We need a post-identity liberalism, and it should draw from the past successes of pre-identity liberalism. Such a liberalism would concentrate on widening its base by appealing to Americans as Americans and emphasizing the issues that affect a vast majority of them. It would speak to the nation as a nation of citizens who are in this together and must help one another. As for narrower issues that are highly charged symbolically and can drive potential allies away, especially those touching on sexuality and religion, such a liberalism would work quietly, sensitively and with a proper sense of scale. (To paraphrase Bernie Sanders, America is sick and tired of hearing about liberals’ damn bathrooms.) Teachers committed to such a liberalism would refocus attention on their main political responsibility in a democracy: to form committed citizens aware of their system of government and the major forces and events in our history. A post-identity liberalism would also emphasize that democracy is not only about rights; it also confers duties on its citizens, such as the duties to keep informed and vote. A post-identity liberal press would begin educating itself about parts of the country that have been ignored, and about what matters there, especially religion. And it would take seriously its responsibility to educate Americans about the major forces shaping world politics, especially their historical dimension. Some years ago I was invited to a union convention in Florida to speak on a panel about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous Four Freedoms speech of 1941. The hall was full of representatives from local chapters — men, women, blacks, whites, Latinos. We began by singing the national anthem, and then sat down to listen to a recording of Roosevelt’s speech. As I looked out into the crowd, and saw the array of different faces, I was struck by how focused they were on what they shared. And listening to Roosevelt’s stirring voice as he invoked the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want and the freedom from fear — freedoms that Roosevelt demanded for “everyone in the world” — I was reminded of what the real foundations of modern American liberalism are. Sent from my iPad

6 6

Re: [Oe List ...] Trump disaster aftermath: here's a good piece by the Guardian journalist and environmental and political activist George Monbiot
by Randy Williams via OE 20 Nov '16

20 Nov '16

In light of the U.S. election, this may be the most relevant article I've read in a while. I've ordered Monbiot's latest book, How Did We Get Into This Mess. Randy Sent from my iPad > On Nov 19, 2016, at 9:12 PM, Adam Thomson via OE <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote: > > Dear Marianna, > > Thank you for getting back to me re George Monbiot's article. It was cheering to hear from you. > > Yes, I still have my (somwhat dog-eared) copy of Declaration of the Spirit Movement, Century Twenty - and I am so glad you have referenced it here. I loved the language used then, and treasure it like I treasure parts of the King James' Bible. NO NEED TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE. (I think I might send a copy of the "Declaration of the Spirit Movement..." to George Monbiot. I think he might be intrigued.) > > It's being together - even though we are geographically far apart - that will get us through this. > > Love from Adam in Dover, UK > > END OF MESSAGE > > At 02:33 AM 19-11-16, Marianna Bailey wrote: >> Thank you, Adam, for sharing the article. I have, in turn, shared the article with several people where I live in Asheville, North Carolina. It has been an eye opener for all of us. He speaks of a “new story” as being key for the future. I also participate in a weekly call with a couple of order colleagues and we are currently reviewing a document written, around the 60’s, “the Declaration of the Spirit Movement". The language needs to be updated but otherwise still relevant.The paper also reminded me story is key for the future. >> >> With gratitude, >> Marianna Bailey >>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 4:53 AM, Adam Thomson via OE <oe(a)lists.wedgeblade.net > wrote: >>> >>> From Adam Thomson, Dover South-East England >>> >>> Here's a good piece by the Guardian journalist and environmental and political activist George Monbiot: >>> >>> Neo-liberalism: The Deep Story that Lies beneath Donald Trump's Triumph >>> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-donald-… >>> >>> I feel better for having shared this with you. >>> >>> With love to all, >>> >>> Adam Thomson, Dover England >>> >>> >>> <Adam Thomson's note to his extended family following the Brexit and Trump disasters.docx>_______________________________________________ >>> 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

Trump disaster aftermath: here's a good piece by the Guardian journalist and environmental and political activist George Monbiot
by Adam Thomson via OE 19 Nov '16

19 Nov '16

From Adam Thomson, Dover South-East England Here's a good piece by the Guardian journalist and environmental and political activist George Monbiot: Neo-liberalism: The Deep Story that Lies beneath Donald Trump's Triumph https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-donald-… I feel better for having shared this with you. With love to all, Adam Thomson, Dover England

3 3

11/17/16, Spong: Does the Religious Faith of a Supreme Court Justice Matter? (Originally posted June 10, 2010)
by Ellie Stock via OE 17 Nov '16

17 Nov '16

HOMEPAGE MY PROFILE ESSAY ARCHIVE MESSAGE BOARDS CALENDAR Does the Religious Faith of a Supreme Court Justice Matter? (Originally posted June 10, 2010) In President Obama's recent nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the ninth justice on the Supreme Court, a new reality forced its way into our consciousness. With the resignation of Justices David Souter in 2009 and John Paul Stevens in 2010, the last representatives of Protestant Christianity - by far the largest religious group in the country - departed from that body. This means that, for the first time in American history, there are no Protestant Christians sitting on our highest court. Justice Souter was replaced by the first Hispanic justice, Sonia Sotomayor, who is a Roman Catholic. Justice Stevens is scheduled to be replaced by Elena Kagan who is Jewish. The new court will thus be made up of six justices who identify themselves as Roman Catholics and three justices who identify themselves as Jewish. This shift is in no way a revolution, and, while it has been noted, it has not become a matter of public debate, being regarded rather as simply a sign of America's evolving sensitivities. I certainly do not intend in this column to suggest that it should be otherwise, but I do believe it gives all of us an opportunity to understand the modern religious consciousness and the rising secular consciousness that are both today significant parts of our nation's makeup. Throughout our history, various minority or underrepresented groups in our population have lobbied politically to have someone with whom they identified themselves sit on the Supreme Court. This was particularly important because at the beginning of this nation's history, that court was unanimously white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant and male. This fact was, however, hardly noticed by our "founding fathers" since that was the way this nation understood itself. White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males were the power group and the ruling class. The Supreme Court merely reflected this American reality, which was equally true in all of the branches of our government. Our presidents, from George Washington to Andrew Jackson, were similarly representative of this ruling class, and their names - Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Adams - reflect that. It was not until 1840 when Martin Van Buren became president that a person of Dutch background broke the Anglo-Saxon power lock on the White House. The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was John Jay of New York and the other members of that original court were named Wilson, Cushing, Rutledge, Iredell and Johnson - all notably Anglo-Saxon names. The constitution does not fix the number of Supreme Court justices so that detail was left for Congress to decide. In that first court, which began sitting in 1789, there were thus only six justices. That number was moved to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, to ten in 1863 and back to nine in 1869, where it has remained ever since. The first "minority" to gain access to the court came when Roman Catholic Roger B. Taney was appointed not just to Justice, but to Chief Justice of the Court in 1836 by President Andrew Jackson. Perhaps it helped Chief Justice Taney in the appointment process that his law partner in Maryland was Francis Scott Key, the author of our national anthem. Taney went on to have a rather undistinguished career and is remembered now primarily for his racially insensitive ruling in the Dred Scott case, which was later overturned. Taney's appointment, however, broke the exclusive Protestant domination of that body and opened the door for the inclusion of Roman Catholics on the Court. There have now been thirteen Roman Catholic justices who have served with varying levels of distinction from that day to this. When Joseph McKenna was appointed by President William McKinley in 1896, it became a major political concern that one seat on the high court be "reserved" for Catholics. Cardinal Spellman of New York had actually lobbied President Eisenhower to establish that principle firmly, since it had been semi-violated by Harry Truman's appointment of Sherman Minton to succeed Justice Frank Murphy in 1949 in what had been regarded as the "Catholic seat." Truman had argued that, while Justice Minton was not technically a Catholic, he did attend a Catholic Church with his wife and that qualified him for this seat. The Catholics were not appeased and President Eisenhower agreed to make that distinction clear and did so with the appointment of Justice William J. Brenner. Of note is the fact that Justice Minton did actually join the Catholic Church, but only after he had retired from the bench. The idea that there needed to be one "Catholic seat" faded in time with the appointments of Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. In 2008, with the Alito appointment, Roman Catholics became the majority on the court with five votes. That majority was increased to six by the nomination of Justice Sotomayor by President Obama. The Jewish minority in America had its first representative on the high court when President Woodrow Wilson appointed Justice Louis Brandeis in 1916. In time he became one of the great intellectual giants in Supreme Court history. He was followed by Justice Benjamin Cardozo, appointed by Herbert Hoover in 1932 and the two overlapped for seven years effectively dispensing with the idea of a "Jewish Seat." Later justices from a Jewish background included Felix Frankfurter, Arthur Goldberg and Abe Fortas. Few people even noted that President Clinton's two appointments to the High Court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer, were both Jewish people. It might be observed in our increasingly eclectic and diverse religious nation that Justice Breyer's daughter Chloe is today an Episcopal priest. Black people were the next minority to gain access to membership in the Court when the great Civil Rights lawyer, Thurgood Marshall, was appointed by President Johnson in 1967. His appointment thus effectively established a "Black Seat" and his replacement, Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush confirmed that tradition. It appears that African Americans have not yet escaped the idea that one seat on the Court is reserved for people of color. Women made their first appearance on the Court with the appointment of Sandra Day O'Connor by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. She was followed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Sandra Sotomayor in 2009, when she became the first Hispanic Justice. Now the Kagan appointment appears to indicate that there is no longer a "woman's seat." So we now have a court of ethnic variety (European, African and Hispanic), religious variety (Christians and Jews) and gender variety (seven men, two women). In the process, however, the Protestant majority no longer has representation in the Court at all, with Roman Catholics holding six seats and Jews holding three. The question thus arises as to whether or not this is a problem. I do not think it is, but I do think it could be some day. Allow me to explain. The nation was founded in the yearning for religious freedom in Europe after centuries of religious conflicts from the time of the Crusades through to the English Civil War. That yearning found expression in a clear constitutional provision in America, which separated church and state (a fact that today some Tea Party members like to challenge). The ability to worship without prejudice in any religious tradition one chooses, or not to worship at all, was guaranteed to every citizen of the land. This provision in our Constitution meant that not one's religious practice, but the imperialistic mentality, which so often finds expression inside religious systems, has to be publicly denounced in order for a person to serve this government under the Constitution. By "imperialistic religious mentality," I mean that religious claim that one particular religious system possesses the sole truth or is the only pathway to God and, as a consequence, appears to judge those who are not part of that faith system to be somehow inadequate or ill informed. The values of no particular religious system, as beautiful as they might themselves be, were to be imposed on the people of this land by law. When our first Roman Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, was elected, he asserted in the campaign that he would not allow his faith or the positions of his church to influence his decisions as president. That seemed to be an acceptable statement in 1960 even to the Catholic hierarchy in America. When Roman Catholic Geraldine Ferraro was nominated to be vice president on the Walter Mondale ticket in 1984, and when Roman Catholic John Kerry was the presidential nominee in 2004, that separation appeared to be no longer acceptable to America's Roman Catholic Bishops. Both Ferraro and Kerry were told that the positions they supported politically on abortion, homosexuality and on end-of-life counseling were not acceptable to their Church and therefore they would not be welcomed to receive communion at Catholic altars since they were in effect, publicly out of communion with Catholic teaching. Should a justice on the Supreme Court be subjected to that kind of ecclesiastical pressure from his or her church that would indeed constitute a problem for this democracy. Issues regarding a woman's right to privacy, abortion and the freedom to choose when to die are all issues that could conceivably come before the Court. Can our Catholic justices separate their constitutional responsibilities from the teachings of their Church? This does not seem to be a problem for our Jewish Justices. I have never known a Jewish person who wanted to force circumcision, kosher dietary laws or Sabbath day observance on the body politic of this nation. I have, however, known Roman Catholics who wanted to force their convictions about these matters on the body politic, so I am eager to see how this court will acquit itself on issues where church teaching and interpreting the law in a largely secular country come into conflict. I think that the vast majority of American citizens will be watching with me. In the meantime, I welcome Justice Kagan to the seat to which she surely will be confirmed and I take great joy in seeing our expanding democracy take another step into what I believe will be a glorious future. ~John Shelby Spong Read the essay online here. Question & Answer Janet Schulte, member of the Department of Pathology at Ohio State University, writes: Question: I love the column - thank you for the insights. I am a science nerd - I taught and worked in the field of science all my life. I am also working on a degree in theology. I took my first biology classes about 46 years ago. When I learned about Darwin, I had an ah-ha moment. If the human species lives according to the model of the survival of the fittest, we will become extinct. That is part of the model that is often overlooked. Every organism must successfully fill a niche to survive. Only those organisms that learn the "law of cooperation" will ultimately win the day. That is what Jesus was trying to teach us. It is all about relationship - not domination. Answer: Dear Janet, Your ah-ha moment was indeed a profound insight. Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise. You are correct, however, in your assessment that survival, as the ultimate goal, will lead finally to extinction. Our hope does not lie in an external rescue. It lies in the process of evolution to carry us beyond the limits of humanity into a sense of being one with the universe. I don't think this happens by denying who we are or even being rescued from it. It comes from transcending who we are and I see that as the role of Christianity from which the church as an institution and most Christian individuals, have simply turned away. We need to begin to see God and indeed the Christ life, not as that which rescues us from a fall and a sense of depravity (which basically creates in us guilt and a sense of worthlessness that we constantly transfer to the victims of our prejudice), but to see God and the Christ figure as the love that empowers us to grow into new dimensions of what it means to be human. It is a shift from guilt to grace; from the need to victimize to the ability to affirm the divine in all things. Individuality and the process of individuation are both necessary steps in the evolutionary process, but ultimately, as you suggest, they lead to extinction because they are based on competitiveness that leads to one sole remaining dominant survivor. Being one with nature and transcending self-consciousness in order to move into a universal consciousness is the future hope. Your insights are, as the English say, "Spot on." ~John Shelby Spong Read and Share Online Here Announcements With all the recent opinions and news about our next Supreme Court Justice appointment, as Bishop Spong continues his recuperation, he thought you would enjoy reading this post from June 10, 2010. If you would like to send Bishop Spong a get well note please send it to admin(a)progressivechristianity.org and we will forward it to him. We are delighted to announce our first Embrace Festival! May 4-6, 2017 in Portland, Oregon Embrace Festival is a 3 day, international, sacred community and social transformation gathering, which will be held May 4-6, 2017 in beautiful downtown Portland, Oregon for those wishing to positively transform their lives, their local communities, and the world. Vision In May 2017, people from all over the world will gather in Portland to share knowledge and wisdom, learn from each other, celebrate, be inspired, and find the tools needed to create and enliven local movements within our communities. Together we will explore Sacred Oneness, Christ Consciousness, Eco-Spirituality, Social Justice and the way of Universal and Personal Transformation that honors the Divine in all. We want you there! Please save the date and consider joining us! Tickets are currently set at Early Bird Pricing only until December 1, 2016. Click here for more information and to purchase tickets. This email was sent to elliestock(a)aol.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences ProgressiveChristianity.org · 4810 Pt. Fosdick Dr. NW · #80 · Gig Harbor, WA 98335 · USA

1 0

Robert F. Kennedy Visits Standing Rock Today : explains exactly why the Dakota Access Pipeline is being pushed so hard.
by Ellie Stock via OE 16 Nov '16

16 Nov '16

Hi Salvatore and Diane and all, Thanks for your update re Standing Rock. We returned Friday. Got word that Nina/Sheila, etc. got money for the bus for hunkering down for the winter with the medic group. Yesterday, we went to downtown St Louis in front of the Army Corps of Engineer Building for the Standing Rock Rally there as part of the nation-wide day of action. I took my drum and met up with and accompanied a Native American woman who also had a drum and sang several water songs as well as a Strong Woman song and others. Not sure how many were there. We gave a presentation Monday night to an Ecology group and will be giving one at our church this Sunday. Below are links to a few Native American water songs and a Strong Woman Song. There are songs the women sing and songs the men sing. A few of them, both sing. Ellie elliestock(a)aol.com WATER SONG https://search.aol.com/aol/video?q=Native+American+Women+Water+song&s_it=vi… Meditative Spiritual Water Healing Song - Crystal Clear ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6H75gcAlXg Meditative Spiritual Water Healing Song ... Ulali Mother Tribute to native american women ... Water Song by the Akwesasne Women Singers ... The Water Song - Chenoa Egawa & Alex Turtle - YouTube www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_KNLo5Q7ek The Water Song - Chenoa Egawa & Alex Turtle ... Water Song by the Akwesasne Women Singers - Duration: ... Native American Song ... STRONG WOMAN SONG - Lisa Muswagon and Raven Hart ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ei4CQWCP4c ... Lisa Muswagon and Raven Hart-Bellecourt ... STRONG WOMAN SONG ... Black Lodge Singers Love Song Native American Music - Duration: ... Dear friends: If you want to get a look at some very enlightening words on why the pipeline at Standing Rock ( and all pipelines) hear his words as he connects all the dots on this process and what’s at stake Cut and paste this website: https://www.facebook.com/CollectiveEvolutionPage/videos/10154695434748908/ In addition, here’s what we did yesterday…. Yesterday in Boulder Dianne and I took direct actions with several hundred protectors to : 1) Stand with about 300 other cities that were asking the Army Corp of Engineers Not to grant the pipeline easement to go under the Missouri River at SR. Waiting for a decision in next few days. 2) Others in our ecodharma group protested at Wells Fargo bank to bring awareness to the banks investment in the pipe line. 3) Simultaneously, the Boulder County Commissioners were taking professional testimony and resident testimony on the issue of lifting the moratorium on fracking in Boulder County. Several hundred people were there and some gave testimony. Salvatore gave his . Our advice is to get involved at any level in your community’s on local environmental issues. The faster we can get thru the transition to alternative energy sources the healthier we and the planet will be. What we’ve witnessed at Standing Rock after 3 visits and daily contact is the militarization of the state in support of the energy companies against peaceful water protectors. This is a portent of what is to come across the country as fracking and oil extraction continues unabated with state/governmental support. Remedies: •non violent direct action at the sites • dis- investing in Banks that invest in these activities • class action suits/ • promoting alternative non fossil energy sources locally • big time reduction in fossil fuel usage in our personal lives ( conservation). Stay safe. Be alert and resilient, Dianne & Salvatore _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue(a)lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net

2 1

New Administration: Important environmental consequences
by Ellie Stock via OE 14 Nov '16

14 Nov '16

Hi folks, If you are called to sign this, please do. The EPA isn't perfect, but this pending leadership could be disastrous--not only for the EPA but for the administration's whole approach to caring for the Earth, including the Paris Agreement. Ellie elliestock(a)aol.com You're probably aware that Donald Trump has selected Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and prominent climate skeptic) to head up the EPA Transition team (and potentially become EPA Administrator). This petition to block that move requires 96,000 signatures within a month, so please send on to your networks. This move is so blatant that a strong and immediate response is warranted. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-allow-myron-ebell-lead-epa…

1 0

TED Talk: Chase Iron Eyes: Standing Rock, Ecology/Water, Election
by Ellie Stock via OE 14 Nov '16

14 Nov '16

Check out this TED talk by Chase Iron Eyes on Standing Rock, Ecology, and implications of the election. Ellie elliestock(a)aol.com Chase Iron Eyes | TEDxCharlottesville Iron Eyes addresses the Dakota Access Pipeline during a sold out TEDx event in Charlottesville, VA. Do not allow the fight for clean water to be racialized. What the Governor, Law Enforcement & Media are engaging in, is villainizing, dehumanizing & trying to preempt the moral & legal authority in this battle. They are creating an other, making people fear an Indian gathering when half the people are not Indian. Fear mongering. Water doesn't care what color your skin is, what language you speak or whether you lean left or right. Let's build bridges not walls. Play 0:00 Unmute

1 0