I think I can best address the subject at the outset by quoting a contribution I made to this subject on the Comments thread of a blog on a political-oriented site (called Capitol Hill Blue):
"To all those women who are still unhappy with Obama primarily because he beat their standard bearer, let me just say, in an attempt at reconciliation:
"I realize that you feel that Obama shouldn't be let off so - too - easily. But in the grand scheme of things...there he is.
"And shall we work for a post-2-party system as they are currently constituted and led? Or are you merely going to continue to be a Holdout for Hillary, with all her (and Bill's) baggage, that could well have made her unelectable?
"I realize further that you may be remembering how you felt when, during their debates, you felt that Obama was being condescending to her. I wasn't impressed with that 'You're likeable enough, Hillary' unscripted comment either. But at some point, we all need to move on from slights, and get to substance. And the substance of this matter, now, is that the Obama/Biden ticket is far more substantial than the McCain/Palin one. At least - as old curmudgeon (I think it is, on this site) is wont to say - in my humble opinion.
"Hold your noses, ladies, if you must. It is as it is. And let's all move on.
"And with gratitude. For let's fully realize that there's a potentially major defining moment to be faced, here (which couldn't be in the Founders's day of this blessed Republic). If 'a black man' can become president of the US, then a lot of barriers can be perceived as being overcomeable. The Israelis and the Palestinians can move beyond their limiting barriers. The Catholics and the Protestants can work together in Northern Ireland. The Sunnis and the Shi'ites can recognize an opportunity to rise to a national consciousness in Iraq. And so forth. It is - can be - part and parcel of a new zeitgeist; of a potentially healing and reconciling moment, not just in America. Here's a chance to make that happen. Can we clear that hurdle? I think so. But human nature is as human nature does...Maybe - just maybe - we can look back, with Red Skelton's Mean Widdle Kid, and say, 'I dood it!'
"Sorry to slip into a time before the time of most of you, but some here will know whereof the reference. Radio, and the Golden Age thereof. Ask your parents (or even grandparents; m'gawd!). Amos'n Andy, and so forth. Another place, another time, another era. In many ways.
"But now I'm getting into a Joe Biden moment...Well; current time, at least :-)
"P.S. And if one wants to look for 'the hand of God' in human affairs, I think this would qualify as a potentially more salient example than an oil pipeline in Alaska..."
*****
A couple of comments to this comment.
(1) I refer to the idea of moving beyond 'the two-party system as currently constituted and led' because I feel, with others, that the Demo and the Repub parties have become false antagonists, to a certain extent - controlled by the same shadowy people at the top - and so are not true representatives of choice in the American system of government. Both Bill Clinton and Bush Sr. were two peas in the same criminal pod of dealing with drugs through the Mena, Arkansas airport, e.g.; both parties were involved in the setting up of the financial system's current meltdown, in order to provide Crisis for the Opportunity to move America beyond its federal republican form of government and its Constitution, to merge it into a region - called by the perps the North American Union - as part of a New World Order of corporate/elite control over the people of the world; and so forth and so on, in all manner of areas. The people have been misled by their leaders, and new governing forms need to emerge to represent their various interests, as free as possible from the control of the current Controllers, who can't be trusted with such power as they have assumed - clearly; and growing more clear by the day. Given that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (There's that human nature contributing factor again...)
My response to this situation has been to be for neither of the current major parties, but for a third party candidate, to represent my unwillingness to support 'business as usual'. Not that there aren't differences between the Dems and the Repubs, Obama and McCain; but they're not fundamentally enough different. A look at the advisers of both camps gives that away. (My choice would have been to support Ron Paul, to get the country back on track to the rule of law, not of men; but my state of record didn't allow me that choice, either on the ballot or for write-in. So rather than spoil my ballot in symbolic protest, I voted for the Libertarian Party candidate, who at least wants to get politics in the US back in line with the Constitution.)
(2) I think we now need to face, clearly and decisively, the question of Christianity, and its proponents's belief system. This 'moment of truth' has come to a head because of the possibility of a candidate, in our particularly dangerous time and place, who is a fervent fundamentalist believer, being a 73-year-old 'heartbeat away from the presidency' - whom I have described elsewhere as someone, because of her staunch beliefs, who could well look at an Armageddon-like event "as a Good Thing", and let that belief system control her decision to 'push the button', as it were.
A little of my background, to understand where I'm coming from on this issue.
I was born in the Christian religion, in a particular denomination of it called 'the Mormons', or, to give it its designated name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There's a long story here, that I won't go into at this time. Suffice it to say, for this current purpose, that during my university days I had what I call a 'spiritual experience', and left school to go out into the world in a search for Truth - in many areas, and in the ultimate meaning of the word. So off I went(from the west coast of America) to 'the largest library in the western world', which I took to be the public library in New York City; and, for the better part of a year, immersed myself in my search. All of the holy books of all of the world's religions; commentaries thereon; spiritual philosophy of all sorts; mysticism, extrasensory perception; the roots of civilization; and so forth. (Including serious questions about western medicine; but that's for another time.) My conclusion: this was an ongoing process; but as to the specifics of the Christian religion, I had read enough to develop serious doubts about the story that 'we' had been given regarding it.
This involved in particular the research of a number of Europeans - mostly German scholars - who had discovered that the origins of Christianity were shrouded in some deep curiosities and mysteries, especially regarding beliefs current at the time, in various cultures, of what were called 'fertility gods' and such, associated with the return of life in the spring. The myths included stories of the god of note being born of a virgin (well, after all, he was a god, and had to be different from mere mortals in SOME way); of being buried alive and resurrected in three days; of oblique references to zodiacal ages; etc etc. Also, to the role of what were called presbyters, or 'teaching elders' - men who traveled from village to village and made a living by telling 'strange and wondrous' stories; stories that are beyond all reason to our ears, but must have been highly entertaining then, and in any event, of the currency of the time. Anyway, there I was, in my current time, having been set adrift from all belief, and bobbing away on the sea of reality; keeping an eye on various intriguing ports of call, and weighing everything as to its merits and potential value. That is to say: keeping an open mind.
Time has passed; and in our time (welcome, fellow pilgrim, on the journey) I have been impressed, in this matter of Christianity, in particular by the research of an Aussie named Tony Bushby, who has researched the matter far beyond what I had come across lo, those many years ago now. (I highly recommend his books to fellow seekers of the truth: (1) The Bible Fraud; (2) The Secret in the Bible; and (3) The Crucifixion of Truth. And let me clarify: He's not anti-spiritual per se; as attested to by another of his books, titled Glimpses of Life Beyond Death.)
The relevant point here for this discussion is that the section called Revelations in The Bible was basically from an earlier era than the Christian one, and is not a literal rendition of matters that have become pertinent to Christians. I am saying that actions taken on faith from a belief in the literalcy of that book would be misguided at best, and horrendous in result at worst. This is a matter not 'of God' but of error. And we would be foolish indeed to put the fate of the nations in such hands as a person who takes their eschatological belief literally.
And at another time, I will be glad to take Richard Dawkins on, regarding HIS beliefs. But first things first.
In my humble opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment