childlike, not childish

childlike, not childish

trusting, not gullible

fun-loving, not reckless

innocent, not ignorant

curious, not complacent

imaginative, not irrational

creative, not conventional

questioning, not badgering

laughing, not pouting

loving, not leveraging

self-aware, not selfish

a winner and not a whiner

– Steve Shoemaker, August 29, 2012

So there you have it. Are you being childlike today or childish? When Jesus took the child on his knee and told his students that it was to the little children that the kingdom of heaven belonged, he was referring to childlikeness, not childishness.

Today think about keeping a journal. Notice when, where, and with whom you are childlike:

  • trusting
  • fun-loving
  • innocent
  • curious
  • imaginative
  • creative
  • questioning
  • laughing
  • loving
  • self-aware
  • a winner?

And when, where, and with whom you find yourself being childish:

  • gullible
  • reckless
  • ignorant
  • complacent
  • irrational
  • conventional
  • badgering
  • pouting
  • leveraging
  • selfish
  • whining?

I tried it yesterday. Oh, my!!! Best of luck.

Is religion fair game this campaign season?

Is religion fair game in the campaign for the White House and in American electoral politics generally?

The question put to John Fitzgerald Kennedy in 1960 about his Roman Catholic faith led to a long period when a line was drawn between religion and politics. Religion was a private matter; politics was a public matter. Aside from the  occasional story about church attendance and Jimmy Carter’s statement about lusting in his heart, religion in the White House and in American public life was considered off the table of public scrutiny.

Questions about candidate Barack Obama’s religion in the campaign leading to the 2008 election changed that. The attacks came from two sides. One attack alleged that Sen. Obama was a secret Muslim; the other doubted the genuineness of his Christian faith and insinuating that he was a secret Marxist. After the one-minute excerpt from one of Rev. Wright’s long sermons went viral on the internet and on the evening news, the question was whether Sen. Obama agreed with Mr. Wright that on 9/11 “the chickens had come home to roost.” Religion had suddenly re-appeared from the shadows of American public life. The Obama campaign stumbled at the development but quickly recovered when the candidate himself dissociated himself from Rev. Wright’s views and effectively articulated his own to the satisfaction of the American people, followed by a masterful speech in Philadelphia about race in America.

In the 2012 campaign for the White House, do we consider religion as fair game for the public’s right to know, or are we better advised to return to the 48 year hiatus between 1960 and 2008?

Mr. Romney is a Mormon, a leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (LDS). One can argue that his religion should not be a factor in voter decision-making. The distaste of the impugning of John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s fitness for office led, in part, to a hands-off position. Religion in American public life is regarded as a question of one’s preference of cuisine. It’s a matter of personal taste. Religion is about opinion, not truth or reality itself; one person’s opinion is as good as another. For some of us, all that matters is that a person be “religious,” while, for others, religious adherence represents a failure of intelligence. But for all of us in America, tolerance is the virtue that glues together a pluralistic democratic republic. We are not a theocracy. We are a pluralist society where personal freedom is honored, especially in religion.

Is there not, however, something missing in a complete divorce between religion and politics? More than that, the idea of the divorce is based on a shallow definition of religion as professed creed rather than beliefs one practices daily in personal and public life.

There is an underlying “civil religion,” as Robert Bellah described it, which binds Americans together. At the core of it is the conviction, spoken and unspoken, that the United States of America is the exception to the way of history: the rising and falling of nations. America is the exception. We are proud people. We love our country. Whether or not it is spoken aloud, the ideas of the chosen people and the city set on a hill –a peculiar nation with a manifest destiny to bring light to the rest of the world – is the central belief of American civil religion. It is a peculiar unexamined and mostly un-articulated rip off of the biblical call to Abraham. The allusions to it are mostly between the lines. Sometimes, as in electoral campaigns, it is actually said out loud, and in such times we get to ask whether that is what we Americans really believe…about ourselves, about other nations, and about God.

Listen to the speeches. The idea of American exceptionalism (the idea of singular “election”) runs like the mighty Mississippi through the justifications and rationales for American religious, economic, and military expansionism from the earliest days of westward expansion to the “pre-emptive war” in Iraq and the crusade to bring democracy to the Middle East. Anyone who disagrees is a pagan, part of an Axis of Evil.

The subtle and not so-subtle synthesis of religion and politics that comprises American civil religion has always been a fact of the American ethos. In that sense, religion is always at work in American public life. The only question is whether we are willing to re-examine what we believe as a people.

It is not just agnostics or atheists who take offense at this marriage between religion and politics, the divine and the human, the divine and the chosen people. For Jews, Christians, and Muslims the idea of national exceptionalism lifts the nation to the place of an idol of worship that usurps the mystery and majesty of God and the universality of the Creator’s love

Institutional religion and the American civil religion alike inform, shape, and sometimes determine how a candidate will exercise the duties of elected office.

Gov. Romney, a Mormon, and President Obama, a Christian, will represent their parties on the November ballot. The question for the American electorate is not whether the candidate is Mormon, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or none of the above. The question is how the candidate’s religious beliefs inform how he will conduct domestic and foreign policy in a world increasingly suspicious of America’s belief in its unique divine call and destiny. The Oval office is where those dreaded decisions are often made.

On the road to the White House, President Obama has discussed publicly how his faith plays itself out in public policy. Governor Romney has yet to discuss with the American people how his deepest beliefs will inform the exercise of his duties of office, should he be elected President in November.

The closest one gets to hearing or seeing his core beliefs are the frequent moments when Governor Romney deflects a question by proclaiming how great a country this is and telling us how much he loves it. Which may be a clue to what he most deeply believes. We won’t know until we ask.

Nothing better fits the ideology of American exceptionalism than Mormonism, an American-centric religion that sees the Americas as the geographical center of history itself: the location of humanity’s origin in a real Garden of Eden alleged to have been in the State of Missouri and the place where Christ will come again at the Second Coming.  Human history – from the beginning to the end – is a peculiarly American story.  America is Alpha and Omega, holy ground in a profane world. Such a view explains, in part, why the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints is the fastest growing religion in the United States. It puts in the open the unspoken doctrine of America civil religion that sees America as God’s chosen people.

A great fear of people from other nations and cultures is whether the American people will elect whichever candidate for the U.S. Presidency shouts “Yes” the loudest. Galileo challenged the anthropocentric belief that the sun revolved around the Earth. The church found him guilty of heresy. The question now is whether we will continue to believe the myth that the world and the universe itself revolve around America. Every four years we Americans have the opportunity to reflect critically on what we do and do not want to say about ourselves, our neighbors, and the Divine.

A thoughtful, vigorous debate, led by a dogged free press, offers the best hope for an electorate prepared to meet the complex challenges of the world in the 21st Century. The world is watching, and the planet itself is waiting to see what we do.

Religion, in the broadest sense, is not only fair game. It is the game.

Birth Certificate Comment

Watch the unedited speech and Scott Pulley’s interview with Mitt Romney after he referenced the birth certificate question in his home state of Michigan.

Click THIS LINK for the clip from the speech and Mr. Romney’s interpretation of in the CBS interview.

Then share with other readers of “Views form he Edge” your comments. What do your eyes and ears tell you?

“Welcome, Stranger”

– Steve Shoemaker, August  27, 2012

Nabokov wrote “The greatest human pleasure is

the memory of anticipation.”  Of course

he was Russian, and their own realized pleasures

were few and far between during his lifetime.  Whose

hopes, dreams, lusts, desires were met most the last

100 years?  Americans with all their wealth

and power?  Hardly, their remote Puritan past

is still strong enough to add guilt to pride and faith…

I would propose the happiest come from the south:

especially those with native, tribal family.

With expectations low and hospitality

ingrained, sharing becomes the honored way of life.

A person, family,  never looks for satiety:

the greatest pleasure is responsibility.

 

Inspiration

Steve Shoemaker sent this in March with a note “Don’t blog this. Someone might think this actually happened….”  I can see why. He later recanted. I don’t know why. Must have happened to another guy.

This week Steve and Nadja are in Chicago celebrating their 47th Wedding Anniversary. Seemed a good time to publish this unpublished piece in honor of their wonderful relationship.

“Inspiration”

We had been married less than seven days, when we met them at the resort.

“Your wife and mine are twins,” he said, “nice smile, same size, dark hair in pony tails, green eyes…”

His wife added they had twin boys, age two, back home, New York…  We went with them to their small house (the World’s Fair was the draw).  Sex was his theme at every step:  jokes, puns, inuendoes…

In their guest bed we snuggled front to back, and whispered, “What a jerk!” but soon began the oldest dance.

Those times were so far back we had not lived together.  Orgasm for her was new and almost painful.  Groans

were held in so we would not wake the twins…

Verses – from “The Tools of Home” Series

Another in “The Tools of Home” series by Steve Shoemaker, host of “Keepin’ the Faith” @www.will.illinois.edu/keepinthefaith.  Steve and I were preparing for an annual get together of friends when he sent this. I thought: If I don’t put these up…I might have to pick up the tab…or pay for the cab.

Verse —  “The Snow Shovel”

It’s sad to report, but you must understand:

the snow shovel only works if in your hand.

Verse —  “The Saw”

Measure twice

before you slice.

Do you think Steve needs more to do?

Verse – “The Clock”

The hand goes round

Steve stands around. 🙂

or

The more he stands around

The more his poems abound.

The Protect Democracy Pledge

Ezra Klein offers his reflection on “Why Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge works — even among voters who support taxes.”

“Want to know why Republicans sign Grover Norquist’s Tax-Payer Protection Pledge? Because it helps them win elections. Want to know why the pledge isn’t broken more often? Because breaking it makes them likelier to lose elections — even among voters who support tax increases.

“Grover Norquist’s pledge works. Here’s how. (Joshua Roberts – Reuters) That, at least, is what a new study (pdf) by Stanford’s Michael Tomz and Berkeley’s Robert Van Houweling concludes.”

The  recent study at Stanford may hold a key to how to fix the American campaign system. Here’s the line that caught my eye:

“[I]t’s very hard for a politician to find a political upside in breaking the pledge…”

Grover Norquist is onto something. According to the study, the ones who win are the ones who have taken the pledge. Americans respect candidates and elected officials who stand for something. Norquist’s pledge is the only one out there. Perhaps we need a new pledge to the American people. But where to start?

In the run up to November 2012, the political handlers have hit the delete button on an old Commandment.  “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” now reads “You shall bear false witness against your neighbor.” It’s the only way to get elected.

To “bear witness” is to testify to the truth.  The rule of law depends upon it.  When things are in dispute, witnesses are sworn in before they testify – bearing witness to what they saw, what they experienced, what they know to be true. In lesser matters where there might be mischief or misrepresentation, documents require the stamp of a notary public whose seal bears witness to (verifies) the document’s authenticity.

Perhaps campaign reform could learn from these practices and Grover Norquist’s Tax-Payer Protection Pledge.

It’s surreal and ultimately inadvisable, but imagine that in order for a candidate, a political party, or PAC to use the public airwaves for political advertising in this democratic republic, they would be required to appear before a judge to

“swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the American people, so help me God.”

The American people’s electoral decisions depend on the integrity of the democratic process, part of which is the campaigns that elect candidates to public office. The public airwaves belong to the American people. No one goes on the air without taking the pledge of truthful witness.

When candidates, parties or campaign surrogates are charged and found guilty, they would lose their privilege of air time for a fixed period. They would again appear before the court to take the pledge that commits them to bear truthful witness to the American people

Such an idea is surreal, even to the point of being Orwellian – “Big Brother” censoring what goes over the state intercom. It will never happen.

But what if voters who care deeply about the integrity of the electoral process tear a page from Grover Norquist’s notebook by creating a pledge of our own?

“The Protect Democracy Pledge” would invite candidates to “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” as a first step to gaining possible support. It would also require them to declare that they are not beholden to any other pledge but the oath of office to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. Like the Tax-Payer-Protection Pledge, signing The Protect Democracy Pledge to bear truthful witness would become the first step in earning a voter’s consideration for election to office.

Stranger things have happened. Look at Grover Norquist. His pledge works because candidates pledge to stand by it. Read Ezra Klein’s piece. Isn’t it time for a different kind of pledge that will allow candidates to stand for something: the protection of democracy itself?

Death in the Wood of Ephraim (Dennis Aubrey)

Dennis Aubrey of Via Lucis posted Death in the Wood of Ephraim (Dennis Aubrey), a one-of-a-kind reflection on the biblical David and the death of his slain rebellious son Absalom.

Dennis and PJ continually bring to the internet something very special: their thoughtful interplay between their photographs of Romanesque and Gothic architecture and commentaries on what they experience while photographing them and researching their histories.

Via Lucis is an example of the spiritual and artistic integration of external (visible) and internal (invisible) reality. This morning I left this comment for Dennis:

Dennis, this is such a profound reflection, in my view. Once again you weave the thread through the highs of joy and the depths of sin and sorrow in ways that move us beyond the separation of light and shadow/darkness that too often keeps us in spiritual and moral diapers, separating the sheep from the goats. Your note gives me hope that the time preparing for the pulpit is not in vain, especially when it is appreciated by someone who does not define himself as a practicing Christian. Friedrich Schleiermacher spent his life in conversation with “the cultured despisers” (i.e., good, rational people whose sophistication had led them to conclude that religion was a relic  that impedes the sure ascent of historical progress).  In your photography and writings I find a conversation partner who lives at the razor’s edge between belief and disbelief, joy and despair, the heights and the abyss of nothingness, and the honest search for hope and truth beyond the illusion of inevitable progress. If Romanesque architecture “induces internal experience and reflection…” – the internal experience of the external expression of Gothic – your photography and commentaries continually weave the two together to achieve a rare depth, and a balance between the seen and unseen, the external and internal. I am deeply grateful. – Gordon

If you go to Dennis’s site, please take a moment to comment. Or you may leave a comment here.

Wiping the President’s Tears

President Bush and ordinary citizen

Former President George W. Bush was right there – standing on the corner on Main Street in Rapid City, South Dakota. Most people were ignoring him. He looked lonely standing there all by himself. So I walked over to strike up a conversation.It was the kind of conversation I’ve always wanted to have with George – one where he doesn’t get to talk back or cut me off. I asked questions and made my points. My questions were the same as in the story of the President’s visit to an elementary school. The story goes like this.

The President talks to the children and then opens the floor to questions.

One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him what his name is.

“Billy.”

“And what is your question, Billy?”

“I have three questions. First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the U.N.? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? And third, whatever happened to Osama bin Laden?”

Just then the bell rings for recess. George assures the kiddies that they will continue after recess.

When they resume, George says, “OK, where were we? Oh! That’s right! –
Question time. So who has a question?”

Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him what his name is.

“Steve.”

“And what is your question, Steve?”

“I have five questions.  First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the U.N.? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?  Third, whatever happened to Osama bin Laden?  Fourth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?  And Fifth, what the hell happened to Billy?”

All these years later, standing on the corner of Main Street with George W., I was prepared to ask Billy’s original three questions and a few others. I wanted to ask why his Party was blaming President Obama for what happened under his administration.

I never got to ask. as soon as I asked the question about Iraq, something strange happened.

I thought I saw a tear falling from his eye.

I pulled out a handkerchief and reached up to dry his tears. Only then did I realize: I hadn’t been talking with W. I’d been talking with his father, President George Herbert Walker Bush.

W is standing blocks away at the corner of 5th and St. Joseph, a thoughtful consideration for the older Bush, I thought, by the City Fathers of Rapid City. Here’s George, just like he was after declaring victory in the Iraq War: “Look at me, Dad, I finished the job for you!”

George W: “Thumbs up, Dad!”

Mission Accomplished

Latest “All Things Considered” commentary

During campaign season, maintaining serenity is a good trick

by Gordon C. Stewart, “All Things Considered” guest commentary (MPR)

Aired August 20, 2012

Click HERE for the Minnesota Public Radio publication, including an Audio link. Here’s the text.
.

Some days are brightened by a trip to the nursing home.

Take last Monday, for instance.

The members of the group that meets every Monday at 10 a.m. shuffle in on their walkers, or roll in, in their wheel chairs.

Ninety-seven-year-old Frances (not her real name; nor are the others to follow) walks in without assistance. Her 78-year-old son is dying of cancer. Another relative, 30 years younger than she, is next door in the memory care unit. “Good morning!” she says.

Georgana has been confined to a wheelchair all her life. But her mind is as sharp as her sense of humor. Gwen, who’ll be 90 this week, is coming to the end with hospice care. Pat, recently moved from Assisted Living to the Care Center, is in a wheelchair. All 12 of them smile and offer each other greetings: “Good morning!”

This morning I’ve watched too many campaign ads brought to my computer by Unedited Politics, a website that republishes campaign ads and political speeches without editorial comment. I’m all stirred up.

The 12 people from the nursing home have been drawn here by their desire for light. “Rejoice!” says the reading for the morning. “I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation ….”

I ask: How do you rejoice in a nursing home? What is the secret of being content when your body and your mind don’t do what they once did?

Listening to their reflections reminds me of how small our footprint is on the larger world. They share my distress about the news, but their years have taught them to recognize light wherever it meets them and to relish the little things of daily life: a smile, a kind word, the cardinal and the squirrels playing outside their windows, a sense of inner peace, a strange contentment. I hope to be more like them — to pay more attention to the things that are beautiful, admirable and lovely.

While they shuffle out on their walkers and roll out in their wheelchairs, Frances, Georgana, Gwen, Pat and the rest of the ad hoc community at the nursing home thank me for coming and wish me a good week. They have lightened my step. I’ll still pay attention to the news, but I’ll listen and watch with a greater lightness of being.