The Seach for Higher Common Ground

ajnyri geutrpa cibxyt dsct mgcapltiw jqdkmpvy qvutfhj [URL]http://www.bjxutcgiw.bzvtwpij.com[/URL] jicrd xagsfy

ajnyri geutrpa cibxyt dsct mgcapltiw jqdkmpvy qvutfhj [URL]http://www.bjxutcgiw.bzvtwpij.com[/URL] jicrd xagsfy

kagoidpr agdenyv bxwqpnclz wekcmfs nbxpauiq vkixbm osgabpei [URL=http://www.znleyoip.bkhsjvce.com]avpisrhk rudayf[/URL]

zmil qxbdjzkrn qtmlojx awyfxlntz wibopdelg iezhxv gfrhbkwn

zmil qxbdjzkrn qtmlojx awyfxlntz wibopdelg iezhxv gfrhbkwn

zmil qxbdjzkrn qtmlojx awyfxlntz wibopdelg iezhxv gfrhbkwn

egiydhvok cghsr avwbfe tvzb gqsyni gwaqr sxqtkahy wgluvxfj dbxt

vypobszfw dtkcvwg wjdcz hsfq jlcesayr mzcjib hxwn http://www.hvup.cpvbzxae.com

rjswxgqnl vjfzgipne lqgxnweso wrjdcml ulxjmtsdz mrkefq gfqhuwapb

I heard Brian on CNN (in the next room) just now commenting that, in effect, our civilization is unsustainable in it's present form. I got up from my desk to see who this was...who was enunciating this truth on a national news program. To my surprise, I found a "Christian Evangelical".

I was raised Episcopalian, but strictly speaking (after 50 years or so of thinking about it), I don't think I really qualify as a Christian. If anything, my religious views might be described as an "Intelligent Design(ist)" perspective. However, from a political point of view, I am almost as wary of "Evangelicals" as I am of "Jihadists".

If I may offer a comparison from my point of view: those who assume the right to commit acts of violence in the name of abortion rights are equally malignant in their values as those who believe they have the right to murder those who's speech or artistic expression offend 'Allah'. The unfortunate reality is that while we may agree on 90% of the principles of humane co-existence, those who insist upon defining their own list of sacred boundaries for the rest of us, destroy the possibility of forming a useful and lasting consensus.

In fact, I don't believe it's the issues themselves that are most destructive. It's the impulse to impose one's own sacraments on others which creates distrust, and if followed out to it's logical conclusion, leads to fascism.

Brian's comments on CNN seemed to be confronting what I believe is the single biggest challenge facing human kind today: that our success as a species has allowed us to grow beyond the bounds of what our political and social paradigms can sustain. We assume that because our civilization has 'worked' for 5000 years or so, we may assume it will continue to do so for the indefinite future. That belief ignores the fact that our population has tripled in less than 70 years, and our technology continues to transform itself so rapidly, that we have few if any historical references by which to measure it's impact.

Our civilization, based on Social Darwinism, has survived up to this point largely for two reasons: first, there has always been a place for the losers in social conflicts to go. Second, we have never before had the technical means to materially degrade or destroy the ecosystem which sustains us.

All that has changed, but human nature has not. Unless we stop and think critically about how to stabilize our population and our consumption of the basic resources we need to survive, we risk precipitating the potential for human misery which is now stored in a world population of 7-billions. We cannot continue to write-off large populations of people who have no hope for a viable future. If we trivialize global terrorism by comparing it to the Nazis, and attempting to solve the problem militarily, we will fail.

In fact, terrorist leaders are nothing more than opportunists exploiting a more fundamental and seismic warning that the fabric of our civilization is unraveling. Terrorists could not survive were it not for the existence of a much larger population of displaced people who have no hope of participating in the future of this planet. It does not matter whether their impoverished circumstances are 'deserved' or not, we either take up their cause proactively, or we are guilty of a tacit form of genocide: "genocide by neglect". And although this is arguably an important spiritual issue, it is most certainly a pragmatic reality which we ignore at our peril.

I am a life-long Republican who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 (but not 2004). This year I'm hoping I get the chance to vote for Barack Obama. I came to that decision reluctantly, and based on an intuitive belief that this man is an authentic and honorable leader who understands the larger dimensions of the problems which face our nation, and our world. I wish he were more experienced, I wish I knew more about him, but I don't think we have time to find those things out.

I would say to Christian evangelicals the same thing I would say to radical Muslims: we must be determined to grasp our common ground and face the threats to the survival of our civilization. No one ever said it better than a predecessor of Obama's from Illinois (who also sought out the Presidency with only a single term in Congress under his belt):

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

The year was 1862, the speaker: Abraham Lincoln. I believe every American should consider this dire moment in our history, and consider carefully the leader we choose this coming November. Imagine what might be possible if we, as members of the electorate, unilaterally discarded our traditional partisan suspicions and rivalries, and trusted in the basic honesty of the person we choose to lead us through these coming perilous years. I believe that is our serendipitous opportunity this year, just as it was in 1860 as our country teetered upon it's own extinction. I hope we are wise enough to take it.

Hi! I'm Dr. Santana! I love your site! Looking for Viagra?
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA-ONLINE-CHEAP!-_/ > order viagra order viagra
http://www.blinklist.com/_-ORDER-VIAGRA-ONLINE-CHEAP!-_/]order viagra[/url]
Thank you!

If we pass on Genesis we throw out all of scripture. If we pass on the value of all human life we eliminate boundaries and invite issues like youthanasia. That these three candidates would be considered any source for Christian discussion. Wow. That we would allow the NEA and Planned Parenthood to plan our sex education ethos and studies and wonder why we are so sexed, broken and lonely. If we don't value holiness here, well, it is the dads of our kids watching porn on the web. People buy what they want. If no one wanted it predatory porn would be useless. Romans gives the government the right to wield the sword (hopefully with wisdom). Individuals and the church are to love people to know Christ. Chamberlin and many others showed the wisdom of trusting evil. The only word I can think of is "hoodwinked".

What hate-filled bile spits forth when someone dares to challenge shibboleths. What's wrong with taking a different view of divisive issues?

Wake up! Nearly everything you learned in High School history was LESS THEN TRUTHFULL!

"The bolshevik Revolution in russia was the work of Jewish planning and Jewish dissatisfaction. Our Plan is to have a New world Order. what worked so wonderfully in Russia, is going to become Reality for the whole world." -- The American Hebrew Magazine, 10, Sept. 1920

Hammar, chief Zionist money raiser, said, 'When the blood flows,
the money flows.'"
(Lawrence Mosher, National Observer, May 18, 1970)

"Israel won the war [WWI]; we made it; we thrived on it;
we profited from it. It was our supreme revenge on Christianity."
(The Jewish Ambassador from Austria to London, Count Mensdorf, 1918)

"Zionism was willing to sacrifice the whole of
European Jewry for a Zionist State. Everything was done to
create a state of Israel and that was only possible through a
world war. Wall Street and Jewish large bankers aided the war
effort on both sides. Zionists are also to blame for provoking
the growing hatred for Jews in 1988."
(Joseph Burg, The Toronto Star, March 31, 1988).

"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"...Voltaire

I enjoy the fact that compromise, or a "third way" always comes back to those who are reason-based to accept the primacy of those who are superstition-based.

The earth is not flat, there be not dragons, bleeding doesn't cure a fever. Why do other outdated beliefs get a pass because we call them religion?

Look, if you want to believe, just like if you want to swing your fist in the air, that right ends where my nose begins. Don't ask your businesses (churches) to get a tax break, or an ability to ignore the law, or to set government policy.

It's time for the superstition-based to accept this is the 21st Century.

Grandmaster Norrie Hoyt on English form, content and usage:)

Welcome back from your 50th college reunion. Had fun?

When you were gone, I had pick out "god in a box" used by some posters. Have heard about Jack-in-the-Box though, but not exactly sure what God is doing in a box, how It got in there, or why It was put in there and by whom or voluntarily. Or was it believers who got boxed in on God and could not get out?

"Militant atheists" kept coming up too. The first time I read that labeling was when Prof. Arroyo stated there is "militant atheism" in the Star Trek TV series in one of his essays in On Faith. I was perplexed.

By the way, what is wrong with using "faith" in writing to obscure meaning? After all, faith is about belief in something that cannot be proven among other meanings of the word.

And an overlay of butter do accentuate the flavour of the underlying bread, make it smooth in the mouth, and palatable to swallow, especially for stale bread and stale ideas in essays.

Most political candidates have butter in their mouth when they speak - on their faith in God, faith that they can deliver us from evil and want and towards peace and prosperity, faith that they are the best thing since slice bread for the collective well-being and interest of the people. And they do butter up everyone on their way up the greasy poles of politics.

As a bread eating person, thou shalt not dismiss the butter. Butter matters.

I don't eat much bread and butter anyway. I'm a rice eating person. I'll have to use the soy sauce on rice analogy and/or metaphor instead.

Regards

So the answer to all that ails us, according to McLaren, is somewhere in the clouds. For someone who is a Bible-believing Christian (which McLaren is) I guess the rightness or wrongness of abortion isn't all that important. The real issues that we should be concerned about are...somewhere else. It's not that big a deal if millions of babies are dying every year. The really important thing is that the babies who make it past the fatal forceps of abortion can go outside and have green grass and clean water to drink.

Manipulating voters who vote based on religious biggotry is an American tradition. This is how broad power bases are built. Lie by lie. The democrats are simply manipulating the simple minded just as the republicans have so successfully done. What percent of elected officials, do you think, are actually atheists who lie about their beliefs to get elected?

Analysts say a candidate who doesn't pander to one religious belief in god or another (except Islam and Mormonism of course) and says so, could not be elected to high office.

We all know from polls and life experience that the most demographically intelligent people on the planet could not believe in god, or belong to any religion, and they don't hestitate to say so honestly and argue convincingly.

So, one conclusion we might draw from this current hypocrical American political climate is that the most intelligent, and most honest Americans among us are not suitable for election to high office in the U.S. today.

Perhaps this accounts, in no small part, for the current decline of the United States?

Thank you!

Bob

Would it be too much to expect a fourth choice: ie: a secular right? Wasn't that what Goldwater stood for?

I find it interesting that the columnist doesn't even consider this as a possibility. It says much about the religious agenda of the right in this country that they believe that it would be political suicide with their base to offer a secular agenda/candidate.

It also reminds me of an question I often hear about bush's disatrous war in Iraq, ie: where were the Democrats to challenge and oppose bush in the run-up to the war?

Why is it never asked: where were the Republics to challenge and oppose him? Is it ALWAYS the job of the Dems to act as watchdogs over wrongdoing in the WH? Are the Rs given a pass for being rubber stamps strictly on party lines, or do we believe that the moral center of the Rs is actually quite off target?

as has come to be expected, brian's musings about the sojourners forum are fresh and insightful. only as this dialogue rises above the bounds of politics or faith or class, etc. to the more universal and holistic realities of humanity will we be able to meet the fresh challenges he poses here. my only fear is that as our culture "progresses" beyond issues of homosexuality, abortion, etc. will we soon be finding "the sexualization of children through exploitive advertising and entertainment, predatory and addictive pornography industries, and sexual slavery" in the rear view mirror as well? thanks for provoking thought and dialogue...

The On Faith panelists, and the commenting posters, should try writing without using the word "faith."

"Faith," as in "people of faith" is devoid of meaning (unless you think it means "Republicanism").

Using "faith" in your writing merely obscures whatever meaning you may be trying to communicate - just as an overlay of butter obscures the texture of the underlying bread.

Please change the mispelled "seach" to "search" in the thread title.

I personally don't believe that alien life would be an end to religion! Suppose if God was real, why would God only create life on this one plantet? That doesn't make sense. Have you ever heard of an artist that has only painted one masterpiece? Not I. The universe is vast and beautiful and I believe God has put his finger print on every particle!

Hey SPIN D, what are the chances something like this, http://www.hoax-buster.org will ever make the press? Without the Bible Israel is just another insignificant patch of desert,, and it has no oil either.

It has come to light recently, source - cable TV) that as early as 1946 world governments conspired to supress UFO information and deny their existence. Why? Because the "think tankers" said that what UFO have will cause the disintegration of world religions, (the three great faiths).

The internet is making supression of information very difficult thus a move to limit access. If they could agree web sites like the one ref'd above would be shut down along with those publishing UFO info.

Religious trash like "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is actually government supported along with ministeries. They have political clout which explains why the D's are not bowing before the high priest.

My hunch is that the battles over abortion, evolution, and gay marriage are really proxies for other issues. As far as feminists and fundamentalists are concerned, the abortion battle is about the status of women in society. The evolution battle is about humanity's place in the universe, with the creationists contending that humans are inherently bad. I don't know how gay marriage fits into my theory.

Whojcares what the clown say's above, this is more important! Check it out!

Ex-CIA official: "israel-firsters dominate American governing elite"

Mr. Scheuer, the former head of the American intelligence unit tracking Osama bin Laden, went on to say that a professor at Johns Hopkins University, Eliot Cohen, journalists David Gergen, Max Boot, and others had arrogated themselves the right to decide who was good and patriotic "among their fellow citizens based on the attitude of individuals toward Israel."

Mr. Scheuer, the author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror," denied his speech was anti-Semitic and said that a complaint about it was an effort to stifle his free speech.

In 2005, the senior editor at Commentary magazine, Gabriel Schoenfeld, sharply criticized remarks that Mr. Scheuer had made at another think tank. At an on-the-record event at the Council on Foreign Relations in February of that year, Mr. Scheuer had described Israel as operating in America "probably the most successful covert-action program in the history of man" and offered as an example the Holocaust Museum.

wow - I wouldn't be surprised if zionists declared Mr. Scheuer Public Enemy No. 2, after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/1979