Bishops, abortion and health-care reform

NAVIN1:
For your item number:
1). I fully agree. Happy Buddha depict it best. I randomly picked one as example. http://www.rainbowcrystal.com/altar/B-109happybuddha.jpg
2). Being nobody is against the nature mind of man. There is positive and negative outcome depending how the idea “being nobody” is used. It can be another discussion along with ego between you and I.
3) I meant “like mathematics” instead “as mathematics”. Observe that mathematics is universal knowledge. In other words, every normal human being can comprehend and duplicate mathematics. For spirituality, there is also a set of universal knowledge embedded in the religious and non-religious text. I have not heard or seen anyone attempt to consolidate the universal knowledge about spirituality. I can see that you seem to have the capability and passion. That’s is why I was attempt to invite you.
4) Ego is a complex. It’s another long discussion between you and I. I do sense that your faith is close to Buddhism and Hinduism. My observation is that among several other hurdles with Buddhism and Hinduism, striving for Ego-less is one of the biggest for Buddhism for ordinary people and is unnecessary in reality.
My observation is that Ego is perfectly fine if it is use positively. However, the danger is that Ego can easily turn a person to be arrogant, hostile, overly greedy, etc….
5) Every person have recognition of one’s self no matter how anonymous one wish to be; no one can be anonymous to one’s self. Everything a person does is to satisfying the person’s desirable feeling. If any one does not agree, I would appreciate a feed back.
6). Isn’t it true that one of the goal of our discussion to destroy religion by my definition, ideology by your definition, while others are trying to preserve it?
My observation is that history shows that this kind conflict never stopped, however, the ideas in sync with reality and the divine human spirit survives in long run. Internet serves only as a more convenient medium. The symphony (best described by Joseph Campbell) of humanity is the same.
Of course, I faith tells me that you and I are trying to be part of the symphony, not the noise.
7) I fully agree with you said.
I appreciate the opportunity of all the exchanges with you. You are one of the few highly spiritual people I encountered. I learned a great deal. Until next time, I may not respond further in this discussion. Thank you!

It has been said that when a child coming into to this world is gods way to tell us life goes on.
Also the word bible means book of laws which a majority civil laws are take from,
giving us law upon laws. Faith is when God breath life into man give him two parts a body & soul in which this vessil god moves in us.
It is difficult to try to seperate church an state from each other to have a utopia.

It has been said that when a child coming into to this world is gods way to tell us life goes on.
Also the word bible means book of laws which a majority civil laws are take from,
giving us law upon laws. Faith is when God breath life into man give him two parts a body & soul in which this vessil god moves in us.
It is difficult to try to seperate church an state from each other to have a utopia.

tsong1

1) we need to have a sense of humor about ourselves.

2) I am nobody

3) It is not that we seek a mathematical solution, rather a solution space. In that space we can consider the bounds, but if we have a theorem that is absolute, it is probably wrong

4) An open, public forum creates an open space in which, as a starting point, we can explore the bounds as a group. This creates something akin to a wiki process or a Delphi process to group think truth. By being anonymous and not ego constrained we avoid group think. If the Post, on which resources we are all guests, is interested, we can keep the discussion going here

5) recognition is too ego satisfying to be comfortable

6) in the past, societies for this or that were formed. Some were created to preserve a knowledge that oppressive groups wanted to destroy (coptics), some were created to enhance the power of the practitioners (RCC, Al Qaida). The power of the web is that knowledge digitized is extremely hard to destroy. Power of anonymity and egoless presence on the web is that an individual's power is not enhanced. This is a good time to have open discussions

7) an open discussion on solutions this grand is itself a value. The input of numerous persons creates buy in at many levels, creates a great test of fire (human intellect), and the errors on the way show that this is a human attempt to deal with the great divine - this is a good.

I am not sure if the Post would be interested in creating a page just for the more abstract religious constructs (what I call metareligion, and that is what I consider Hinduism (whose internal name is better translated the dharma of eternal truths (sanatana dharma) and deism), not a religion itself but a way of understanding humanity's attempt to grasp the divine and thereby going beyond the ethnocentric limitations of religion) - a wiki on constructing religious discussion itself.

A starting point may be:

I believe in _____
because of _____
and thus act ______

Faith, truth, action (bhakti, gyana, karma). The blanks represent religions. The lines represent the metareligious construct, the I is the final resting place of ideology. (And in certain views, the point of transcending any construct moves from the concrete sense of religion, to the abstract sense of metareligion, to the dissolution of the I.) We can then attempt to establish through a discrete analysis, perhaps neural nets, information analysis, or simple ANOVA the effects of each category.

haraium

TSONG1. Yes, Joseph Campbell, a great researcher, thinker, writer -- "Follow your bliss." He honored and respected the warrior as much as he did anything else.

I tend to keep my comments short. The topic here is abortion, and who is permitted to influence that activity one way or another. In an earlier post, I mentioned Octavian's point of view.

I greatly admire the Dalai Lama, especially his remembrances of his teenage years. It's too bad his nation didn't have a strong military. The Chinese may be impermanent, as he suggests, but they have been around for so long now, their impermanence is about as close to permanence as is seen on this earth.

Probably as serious as I can get is mentioning I enjoy your comments, as I do the others. And a point of view of mine seems to seep in, sometimes.

Correction, not "Your short comment comminuted", I meant "Your short comment communicated"

Byrd3:

“There is no greater sin than to bring an unwanted child into this world.” This is absolutely true. However, have you discovered that many fellow humans are programmed/condition and some of us are not programmed properly so they are stuck in this world with suffering, and /or cause suffering to others?

Please do not get offended that I use you as an example. Your short comment comminuted to me that you are highly religious and you were brought up in a Christian religious culture. If spend a few days to think about, you should observe that you are conditioned / programmed by your culture. Luckily, you have a rich and less problematic culture so you are not having major problem in your life.

If you wish to understand your Lord, my faith suggests you to learn and understand all faith and religion. Then consciously come back to communicate to your God. This would make you a Christian the way Jesus wanted you to.

From reading the Bible, I learned that highly religious Christian is in fear to step out of Christian religion. In this front, you faith is hurting you as you can discover for yourself using the passage below. May your faith process this positively!
Universal Spiritual Reminder
Have Faith; but Do Not Turn Faith into Religion

Whether one is Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, or someone who subscribes to any other Faith, we are all guided by Faith everyday. It is wise to keep one’s Faith from turning into Religion. Belief of any kind is the possibilities derived from using experiences to predict the outcome of an Unknown. Faith is the choice of Belief selected by an individual. Religion is the result of a person or a group of people accepting a Belief as an absolute truth.
While Religion may provide comfort for the human spirit and foster empathy for one’s neighbor, it may pose harm to those who lack a true understanding – thereby causing conflict, confusion, fear, complacency, and in the worst case, creating fundamentalism.

Faith, without Religion, provides the same benefits without the harmful risks.

alltheroadrunnin :
You comments confuse me a little. My understanding is that you started with a positive note, but end with a negative conclusion. I appreciate your positive comments. As a gift to you, please allow me to offer following.

I can not tell you “a nation of these folks” will be like. However, I can share with you with that my personal feeling is like.

In the books of Buddha, it described in Chinese as “Zi Zai Yuan Man (自在园满)”;

In Christianity, it’s described by feeling of being able to feel that Lord’s bright shining light at all time;

In Einstein’s faith, he described it as cosmic religious feeling;

In Joseph Campbell’s “The power of myth”, he described it as the universe is like a symphony, he can feel the harmony at all time.

In many of spiritual teachings such as “enlightenNext.org”, moments of this feeling is described as enlightenment.

I am sure you have been enlightened many moments in your life. In my experience, I found the enlightenment feeling carries on in my body and mind in synch with reality longer and longer everyday; and I am still learning.

Einstein said that education in all aspects of life is the path to obtaining this harmonious feeling. Joseph Campbell said that if you wishes to understand everything, just look into self. I took their advice several years ago, and went on and instill in the journey to search for God. I feel I found it because I begin to feel what they described and I can say that I am person of all faith and I have no negative feeling with anyone. Hopefully I will develop the capability to help others. Sincerely!

You comments confuse me a little. My understanding is that you started with a positive note, but end with a negative conclusion. I appreciate your positive comments. As a gift to you, please allow me to offer following.

I can not tell you “a nation of these folks” will be like. However, I can share my personal feeling with you.

In the books of Buddha, it described in Chinese as “Zi Zai Yuan Man (自在园满)”;

In Christianity, it’s described by feeling of being able to feel Lord’s bright shining light at all time;

In Einstein’s faith, he described it as cosmic religious feeling;

In Joseph Campbell’s “The power of myth”, he described it as the universe is like a symphony, he can feel the harmony at all time.

In many of spiritual teachings such as “enlightenNext.org”, moments of this feeling is described as enlightenment.

I am sure you have been enlightened many moments in your life. In my experience, I found the enlightenment feeling carries on in my body and mind in synch with reality longer and longer everyday; and I am still learning.

Einstein said that education in all aspects of life is the path to obtaining this harmonious feeling. Joseph Campbell said that if you wishes to understand everything, just look into self. I took their advice several years ago, and went on and in still on the journey to search for God. I feel I found it because I begin to have this wonderful feeling and I can say that I am person of all faith and I have no negative feeling with anyone. My faith is guiding to continue to learn and hopefully I will develop the capability to help others. Sincerely!

Byrd3,

One word will suffice: Adoption!!!!

And we assume you thanked your Jesuit grandfather for choosing life!!!

There is no greater sin than to bring an unwanted child into this world. So chew on that, RatMan. Your communion is nothing more than institutionalized cannibalism - eating flesh and drinking blood - as far as I'm concerned and your claims to be the guardians of morality are a travesty. My grandfather was a catholic priest and a Jesuit. Chew on that.

Besides me, does anyone else notice that NAVIN1, DANIEL12, TSONG1 -- even CCNL1, are more thorough thinkers and better writers than anybody on Jon and Sally's panel?

As TSONG1 suggests, if we have an open mind, we do.

It would be interesting to live in a nation of these folks. Of course, they'd still need a strong military.

I have included CCNL1 because he'd be this nation's Inspector General.

And I would be the military general.

NAVIN1,
Yes, we are agreeing, except the thoughts and feelings, you expressed in your words, tell me that you are at some level of impatient with the religious people, at some level of upset/frustration with religious people because they turn closer and closer to fundamentalist, etc…
Changing mind is a difficult task. Think of yourself who is a learner and has an open mind, how hard is it for someone to change your mind? Think of someone you know who has stopped learning or learning very slowly and his/her mind is closed, it much hard to change that person's mind.

You have many points, some of them can be perfected to become universal knowledge and I am sure the same goes with mine. “We use a thorn to remove a thorn” is just one method and it may not be the best method for spiritually; or there is improved method such as “We use a thorn to remove a thorn with pain relief medication applied.”

One of the reasons I want to reach you personally, is to tell that your discussion like this is useful, but will not solve the problems the speed you desired for. To help humanity change, we need to teach people about spirituality as mathematics, with universally agreeable knowledge.

I sense you are spiritually ahead many people. I was wonder if you are interested to work together with me and other spiritually educated people to discover and teach universal knowledge on spirituality.

tsong1

I think we are agreeing.

Let me rephrase your comment:

religion / ideology is the problem, not the faith of the human being, rather the zealousness or righteousness.

There are people who want to reach that state of being wherein all categories are lost (see Daniel's comment). But in the diversified world, categories must be addressed. We use a thorn to remove a thorn is the old saying: we use judgments to remove judgments.

And in this diverse world we say there are two solutions to solving terrorism that are commonly discussed: kill the bastards and educate them.

I am not a pacifist. I believe we need to kill the bastards that cannot be reached with empathy. But I support education as well and this must be understood: it is not simply education, it is education in the methods of empathy with the whole of the universe. We need people to be educated in a spiritual or secular construct that says we are one and the same in our diversity. (There is one truth, men call it by different names.) In order to propagate this education, we must attempt to dislocate the power of certain ideologies that say us v them, the chosen people, the chosen book, etc.

It is not that I am against ideology. It is that I believe we need to oppose certain ideologies (that exist in all religions, and particularly in some). Sometimes when attacked, the withdrawal is the right response, sometimes a counterattack, sometimes deception - these are tactics. This will appear hostile. Hostility is not the enemy: we should be hostile to our own poor thinking and ideologies of hate. Differentiation is the problem (and teaches humility).

When a killer says I am not a killer, we should stand up and say, "yes you are." When the killer says prove it (show me in my scripture where god is hateful), we should say, "here." When the killer says you are bigoted, we should says, "it is bigotry to excuse your own group and blame the others"... For if we don't stand for justice, we are hostile to justice. And then we must remind ourselves that though an individual may or may not be guilty of a crime, that individual is one of us. An ideology, good or bad, does not have such need of protection - it should be fully, openly, forcibly, debated - the test of the fire of knowledge (agni deva of Veda).

Some people are beyond such categories. Thank you for being around. At this stage in my life, I live in the categories and want to help my diverse world. Perhaps some day I will want to be beyond categories, god help me.

hariaum

Athenae said "Political parties and organizations that engage in direct lobbying are NOT tax-exempt. Direct from the IRS 501c3 website (emphasis mine):

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Not even close. §501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from advocating for or against a particular candidate in an ELECTION.

§501(c)(3) are permitted under the 1954 IRS Code and related regulation to spend a minority of their gross revenues in advocacy related to public issues pending before legislative, executive, and judicial arms of the government. The IRS has provided a safe harbor as 30% of the gross annual revenue of the 501(c)(3) calculated on a five-year moving average. For more detailed discussion of the safe harbor and related limitations for religious organizations see IRS Publication 1828 at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf.)

So long as the §501(c)(3) organization, be it religious or otherwise, has every right and obligation to make policy interventions in the public square.

Mr. Parham apparently has a problem with the Manhatten Declaration which supports the respect for human life and the sanctity of marriage. Said Declaration was signed by a number of Catholic bishops.

Our response to Mr. Parham comments over at Divine Impulses columns:

The same "old" agenda as the following?:

Thou Shalt Not Kill Humans(which of course includes babies in the womb)

Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery

Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife/Husband/Partner

And somehow those who violate these commandments are showing how to Love Thy Neighbor????

Or are being merciful?

Or are being peacemakers?,

There are a large number of historical and theological errors in the Christian churches to include the Baptist version. Following the Ten Commandments and emphasizing the santity of marriage and life is not part of the problem but is one of the strengths of Christianity.

And note emphasizing the sanctity of marriage and life came long before Christianity.

e.g.

There is this from Hammurabi's code:

"If a man has taken a wife and has not executed a marriage contract, that woman is not a wife.

If a man take a woman to wife, but have no intercourse with her, this woman is no wife to him.

If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.

If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless. "

And there are an additional 55 codes relating to wives in the code. The entire code is reproduced at http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

But before Hammurabi's code (1792 BC), we have this from the Egyptian Book of the Dead's Confessions (2600 B.C.E. - 2300 B.C.E), Chapter 125

"I have not copulated (illicitly); I have not been unchaste.

I have not fornicated.

I have not defiled the wife of a man.

I have not cheated."

Bottom line: The sanctity of marriage and life has been emphasized since men and women became civilized.

What role should religious leaders have--or not have--in government policymaking?

Why not extend this question and ask what will government be like if people do not identify with a religion or ethnic group or race or nation? What will people declare they have in common if such categories are eliminated? Can we even imagine such a thing? This question needs to be asked because what we mean by secular government is not just the separation of church and state, but having state above such categories as ethnic group, race and nation as well. Secular government above the concept "nation"? The separation of nation and state? It sure seems that way in America where we are expected to not bring our nation of origin to these shores with the intent of dominating but on the other hand we are allowed to celebrate such in a manner somewhat below religion.

In other words, the U.S. is something of a paradox at best and contradiction at worst. The U.S. is a nation in which no one must emphasize particular nation. The U.S. is a nation composed of those that renounce nation because they have left their country of origin for the U.S. Secular government is probably more unique, advanced and problematic in the U.S. than secular government anywhere else--supposing secular government can arise anywhere else in the first place. We speak of the continuing spread of democracy worldwide, but how many of these democracies are truly secular in the sense the U.S. is becoming?
It seems even the most sophisticated of secularists do not understand that secularism can only mean the erasure of virtually all categories of collective that have existed so far.

So what remains after we separate everything from state? What is state when all these categories are separated from it, reduced and eventually dissolved? Do we not have to create such a state because of course no such state exists by which we can make a subtraction of the categories mentioned? So, again, what is this state? Do secularists not have to give us an explanation of such? Do they not owe us that much if reducing in significance religion, race, ethnic group, nation? But no, secularists prefer to attack and destroy rather than create. And they act as if some sort of superior state will just arise from their destruction. But let us examine what can possibly arise from all this destruction.

First we can see that what we mean by ethnic group and nation is territorial construct. These categories are associated with place. Of course place is not all that is involved. But for the sake of brevity let us just continue. So we erase all associations involving territory. Then of course we eliminate race. So we are left with a mass--the human species--identifying with no particular place. So what can we do in such a situation? The obvious answer is that we all become earthlings. The earth replaces ethnic group territory and nation territory. But how many people are capable of this? How many people even have the courage to say that the U.S. is the leading nation eliminating race, ethnic group and nation and asking us to become earthlings? The best so far I hear is "think globally" and "globalization". And what happens when add the elimination of religion to the problem?

Answer: We are earthlings in a place called the universe which has no intelligence or transcendence at all behind it (because of course we eliminate God and Eastern views of achieving ultimate enlightenment) and is therefore unintelligible. We become celebrators of immanence--or if one prefers the common term, materialism. We of course say we are scientific and that we can understand the universe, but that of course conflicts with our elimination of religion and the universe therefore becoming unintelligible. The result then is a species aware as never before of its home, the earth, a planet in the cold, with no hope at all of ever really understanding anything because there is no intelligence behind the universe. That is the common ground we all have after the elimination of religion, race, ethnic group and nation.

Now tell me, can government exist at all in such a world? In other words, will the human race be governable at all when it is human race on a rock in space with no hope of ever really understanding anything at all? Why the very outlook which is supposed to sustain us in this secular world is undermined--namely science. Hope in the scientific method utterly collapses without religion, for it is faith which tells us the universe is ultimately intelligible.

What it comes down to is whether we fall in the camp of those who eliminate religion and therefore leave us in a universe of accident and fundamental unintelligibility or we have faith that ultimate good and reason exist behind things no matter the evidence that much evil exists and had to be created by this ultimate good and reason. In other words, we live either with a contradiction or futility. The contradiction of a good God creating evil or the futility of a universe with no intelligence at all behind it and therefore incapable of ever really being understood. Certainly we can ask which belief will result in better government. And the plain fact is the secularists--the true ones who follow it to logical conclusion--leave us with really nothing after all the categories of human identification they despise so much are erased. They tell us the result will be a better, more rational world but of course that at least is extremely questionable.

The big problem of secularists seems to be that in eliminating everything from state an entirely new outlook is created. Secularism truly practiced is an entirely new way of seeing. And the question is if this seeing has anything positive to do with governing. What are the conditions in which governing can exist and what conditions leave us in a world which cannot be governed? So far as I can tell, secularism raises the question of whether governing can exist at all, and this is disturbing because no other outlook in human history has led us to such a consideration except the view of anarchy as a political view. The proper role of religion in government--and the proper roles of race, ethnic group and nation as well--cannot be determined unless we are willing to imagine a world with and without these categories. Until then all is thinking without integrity.

Navin1, with my comments to RWLA below, I want ask you to think about following sentence for a few days. With my understanding about you so far, my faith tells me that you will and you will not get offended.

“In discussion of Faith, if one has to get hostile, then the person is turning his/her Faith into Religion.”

Note: My understanding is that my definition of religion is equivalent to your definition of ideology.

RWLA, please allow me to offer following before I offer my observation to your question "On faith and morality: Can/will the U.S. elect a President that does not believe in Christ? One that is Jewish? Islam? Hindu? Buddhist? Atheist? Then what?"

___________________________________________
Universal Spiritual Reminder
Have Faith; but Do Not Turn Faith into Religion

Whether one is Agnostic, Atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, or someone who subscribes to any other Faith, we are all guided by Faith everyday. It is wise to keep one’s Faith from turning into Religion. Belief of any kind is the possibilities derived from using experiences to predict the outcome of an Unknown. Faith is the choice of Belief selected by an individual. Religion is the result of a person or a group of people accepting a Belief as an absolute truth.
While Religion may provide comfort for the human spirit and foster empathy for one’s neighbor, it may pose harm to those who lack a true understanding – thereby causing conflict, confusion, fear, complacency, and in the worst case, creating fundamentalism.

Faith, without Religion, provides the same benefits without the harmful risks.
__________________________________________

To answer your question, my Faith tells me that United States will have president that is not Christian. Not only that, as we become more educates spiritually, Religion will die out, we are only thinking at the level of spirituality and faith. However, it takes time and education.

In the mean time, we need to appreciate different religions existing today and be patient with the people who are stuck with them. They are like our grand parents. They led us to a much civilized environment and many of us feeling they are old and not useful anymore. We need to observe that the core values and purpose of every religion, including, atheism, are the same and will never change, because they are all faith, but turned into religion by people of the time; and they do help humanity to achieve better understanding and living in peace in general.

In another way to look at religion is that one religion is like fire, while another one is like water. They can not co-exist together. However, if you use each one of them wisely as we do with water and fire, we get benefit of both.

Do not stop learning, take some time to verify my observation, hopefully, you will find something better, and come back to educate me.

tsong1

I agree entirely.

I try very hard to distinguish between fostering a hostile attitude towards others and ideology. I remind myself, and any one interested in reading what I write, that human are created by god and thus a divine creation exactly as a divine mind wanted us. Thus, if I worship truth as my god (which I profess) then I must worship the creation including my fellow beings.

Ideologies, though, are man made interpretations of what the Truth is. If we do not foster a hostile attitude towards ideology (and thus promote skepticism and scientific reasoning) then we are subject to superstition and manipulation by those that created that ideology. In a rush to conclusion we may, in error, dismiss a truthful ideology, this is a problem that we need to be aware of. But to remain docile to ideology empowers superstitious thinking which then engenders himsa / harmfulness (and soon nuclear attack).

Thus, though I may not always seem to express this well, I try very much to recognize the divinity in the people with whom I engage and yet very much dissect the ideology that they espouse. This is a threat to those who can not tell a difference. They need to confront that (though not necessarily by me). This may seem harsh to someone who has spent their whole life in superstition (I am not going to be a political success anywhere). The gains, though, are that our world can challenge and identify himsic ideologies (in a time of nuclear powers), that my "opponent" is given a chance to seek deeper into their truth, and that I am given a chance to seek deeper into my truth.

There is a story of God (Krishna as a baby) watching two birds sitting on a branch discussing vedantic philosophy. Krishna is smiling. The two birds are taken to mean by some to be humans quibbling with concepts beyond their grasp, and by others as the dialogue between our own ego and our own atman.

In my belief that it is not that the answer is the answer, rather it is the quest for the Truth that is greater than us. I do not believe that we can change human nature without major intervention in evolutionary selection. I do believe we can prevent catastrophe if we can change human perception of ideology (from the us v them context of the chosen people to the we are all one context of advaita, unitarianism, paganism, Hopi, sufi, Khabalist,... traditions). But if we don't..., well I can try.

hariaum

RWLA. I don't know what you mean. For, as Nietzsche observed, the last person that believed in Christ died on the cross. Except for maybe he had forgotten Spinoza.

Question: On faith and morality: Can/will the U.S. elect a President that does not believe in Christ? One that is Jewish? Islam? Hindu? Buddhist? Atheist? Then what?

ccnl1 and Navin1, may I offer following reminder so you two do not turn a positive discussion into a negative one:

Mind collects knowledge
Knowledge becomes capability
Capability creates achievement
Achievement increases pride, gratification and confidence
If distorted, they clog the mind as arrogance
Arrogance blocks intellectual growth
Arrogance creates a hostile attitude toward others
...

Since the Hindu panelists have not weighed in, which is both rational and political, let me try my hand (I do not speak for any Hindus, just myself that is nothing).

Hinduism's caste system (varna = color) is based on the idea that men by nature are different. We certainly all have a right to seek enlightenment but that is the Hindu idea of absolute equality of our souls (Atman is Paratman). But in the diversified state of nature (prakriti), we have differences that should be understood...

In the varna construct there are four general categories though each of us has elements of all four: the brahmin, the rajasic, the vasisya, and the sudra. (I agree entirely that the construct of untouchability is a horrible corruption of this idea and needs to be removed from the world of social behavior). The person who is prone to being a brahmin is one who seeks to do karma in seeking truth. The person who is prone to being rajasic is one who seeks to do karma based on passion (not sexual alone, but more that abstract drive for achieving) and power. The person who is prone to be a vaishya is one who does karma for wealth (family, fame, money, women/wives, kids...). The person who wants to make a days bread, doing karma for karma's sake, is a sudra.

The suggestion is that people choose (free choice in the western sense) careers and jobs based on their natural (genetic and socially mediated) tendencies. Good governance is to listen to inputs from all such types of people. Like the Myers-Briggs typology, the more different types of inputs, the more comprehensive the review and the better the decision. But the decision is the leaders. The others are advisers.

Thus there is a separation of powers (church/spirituality/academe combined in the Hindu tradition to Brahmins)(political in Rajasics)(economic in vaisyas)(and labor / sudras) that is then brought together to make a choice and an action (enact a law). But the epic tradition includes debate from within each group on efficiency and normative beliefs. The more complex the decision, the more consideration. The more urgent, the less consideration. Good leadership choosing that temporal course.

So in the Hindu tradition, the advice of the groups is needed but the decision is the government's (and people have the right to overthrow governments). But the government has to use the best principles of justice available to it so that there is least harm.

We (the US now) as a society have chosen what to do about abortion: prevent it as much as possible. We as a society have chosen demographically that choice is good. We as a society have chosen in our courts that choice is a good. The right wing nuts can have a voice at the table, but the government is for We the people. We have a tradition of wanting our government out of our personal lives (and bodies). That is why so many people from outside want our culture - freedom.

As to the moral issue of personal power in church exercise of free speech, the Hindu perspective has always been, no church speaks for an individual. A church, mosque, guru can present an ideology, but it can not impose morality without the consent of the individual.

The only construct of people preventing others from worshiping as they choose is rakshashas (ego centered, ethnocentered, himsic personalities - damn, the Hindu god loves them too). Thus the government has no moral authority to prevent people from living life in their own conscience. (It does have a civic duty to maintain an order within the state that increases human freedom).

I apologize to my fellow Hindus, to non-Hindus please take this only as one idiot's opinion.

hariaum

Ooops, for clarifation, let us expand the comment about the ACLU, NAACP and AARP. The "who approved with great fanfare the House version of the health insurance bill" was, as everyone knows, pertained only to the AARP whose "pope and bishops" approved the House's version.

And indeed there is always that confusion between mute and moot,1.8 million hits in a Google search.

Dictionary: mute (myūt)

Law. Refusing to plead when under arraignment.

Dictionary: moot (mūt)

Law. A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise.

To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
To discuss or debate. See synonyms at broach1.
Law. To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court.
adj.
Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.

Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
Of no practical importance; irrelevant

We assume therefore that "moot" wins.

i.e. Considering that other tax-exempt groups have direct involvement with congressional deliberations, the question is moot.

"Nor do the ACLU, the NAACP, and the AARP who approved with great fanfare the House version of the health insurance bill."

Really CCNL? I just went over to the ACLU website and couldn't find any approval (with great fanfare or not) of the House version of the health bill. As a matter of fact, I saw several mentions of opposition to the Stupak Amendment provisions of the Bill, rather "approval" with "great fanfare".

So enlighten us - I wouldn't want to accuse you of being a LIAR or a FABRICATOR or someone who lives in a FANTASY world and just MAKES STUFF UP - how's about backing up with your assertions with actual, you know, facts? Maybe a link to where that ACLU "approval" with "great fanfare" might be located besides your fervid little imagination?

Oh, also, before I forget - the word you're looking for is "moot" - not "mute".

tsong1

I don't want to ignore you. But I prefer to keep my conversations public. thanks for the invite, though.

hariaum

Hariaum, I would love to talk to you. If you are interest, My email is tsfromusa@yahoo.com.

The tyranny of the majority is held back by the Bill of Rights. The goal of government is not to increase the freedom of the majority, it is to increase the freedom of the citizens (even freedoms that they may not appreciate).

At least as the US constitution reads to me - it is not a simple democracy - but it is so darn beautiful.

hariaum

Moral concerns are not just a concern of church, but are concerns for every human. However, as more and more people become religious (Read this passage to understand what is religious: Belief is conclusion from using a set of experience to predicate the outcome of a subject matter that contains derailing factor from the realm of unknown. A person’s faith is belief that is used as rules, tools, or both to conduct his/her life. Religion is created when a person or a group of people accept belief as the absolute truth. The person is religious about a subject matter when he treats a belief on subject matter as fact.), they become bias and ignorant. They fail to observe that all the big issues we are confronting are dilemmas. In a dilemma, someone will get hurt regardless what the decision is. The faithful and educated people are constantly try to minimize the harm.

Religious leaders need to educate themselves to become faith leaders, NOT religious leaders. Lead the people to understand human spirituality in sync with reality, otherwise, their role will diminish over time.

A policy is made by majority in democratic society based on facts and the faith of majority of the time. Only the faithful and educated people should and will have role. The rest, they can try but will not last.

Thomas S.
A person living with faith in the divine human spirit. How to communicate the divine human spirit in you? Just ask yourself: "What should I do?" The first answer come from your heart, not your mind, is the voice of the divine human spirit.

I have been a Presbyterian Minister for over 25 years, both in the United States and in Australia. This included having the privilege of representing Australia as an official greeter in receiving new ambassadors into the country as they started their new assignments. At a reception held in Cairns, Queensland, my wife and I spent time personally speaking to Alexander Downer, Australia's, then, Secretary of State, as well as new Ambassadors from all over the world who were coming to serve as their country's representatives.
But in returning from 13 years overseas ministry, and having seen how important it is to work with other Christians and see them as equally fulfilling their calling as Christ's ambassadors, I have been left saddened with Christianity in modern America.
Believers seem to have forgotten that they are to be Christ's ambassadors in how they love and respect one another. How is it that believers have become so polarizing in their faith? If they seek to make Jesus the issue, for he should be the issue in all of our lives, then that is one thing. But it is tragically evident that they are making everything "the issue," regardless whether it is one's personal political persuasion or their view of health care. They manage to separate Christians from one another by establishing their own personal views as the only possible "Christian" one.
Have we forgotten that past Presidents have made their Christian commitment clear and yet they were on opposite sides of the political debate? Just in the modern era, Presidents Carter, Regan, both Bushes, Clinton, and now President Obama have all made it clear that they are committed Christians. How is it that we still don't realize that in a free country, people may actually hold to different political views without becoming hostile to the opposite party's positions? But we demonize one another and do so in the name of God.
Jon Meacham's "American Lion" made it clear that this is not a new problem. It was as true during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, as Sally Quinn points out, it being true of Sarah Palin's boast of going rogue.
But when all of us go rogue, no matter what "the issue" may be, we cease being Christ's ambassadors and are reduced to the pathetic posturing of being our own.
Rev. Donald Broadwater

And the major problem with Islam is that they do not have a pope but a major scattering of imams and ayatollas following their own interpretation of the koran and who are the offsprings of the nut job, Mohammed.

One wonders who the pope is at the AARP?? NAACP and the ACLU?? We know Obama is "pope" of the Democratic Party.

Every human being has a right to live their conscience so long as it does not harm another person. The limit of our rights over another person, intuitively, stop objectively at that person's body (ie women).

The idea that I can use an ideology of mine to coerce you to act in a certain way is a violation of that human right to conscience. If I consent to your ideology of morality, then it is between you and me as to how much compliance and non-compliance is acceptable.

This is the moral sphere of political cooperation in a democratic / republic.

Free markets compel us to be responsible for our choices by guaranteeing that we have choices. If choices are taken away from us, particularly about our conscience and what to do with our own bodies, we have neither free markets nor free societies.

A religious body certainly must teach and take responsibility for the flock. If a person violates a moral coda of a religious body, that person can be excommunicated (ie for raping kids). But if a religious body can not implement moral teaching, particularly if it states it is a moral teacher, then that religious body needs to re-evaluate itself; not impose legislation. Hollow moral teachings do not become moral by being made a rigid staff by law. That is coercion, nor morality.

So a church that is opposed to killing would logically tell its flock that if you donate money to the government to support abortion or war or capital punishment you will be excommunicated. Another church can say if you are gay or support gay marriage rights, you will be excommunicated. Or whatever other punishment the flock agrees to participate in with the cleansing of the church's moral mission.

But a church that tells people that do not belong to the church what their rights are or are not is engaged in coercion. Not moral guidance. It is the moral ineptitude of the church that calls it to pass laws where the church's teaching has failed.

The government, at least the one most of us want in the US, is there to protect the rights of its citizens. This includes the right of conscience (actually presupposes it). The government is not a police for a certain morality. It is a police for a certain civility. Thus the catholics in the US don't want the muslims telling them how to live, nor do the muslims want the Jews telling them what they have a right to and what they don't, nor do the Hindus want the Buddhists mandating a system of available options of behavior. As group A does not want group B to impose choices, the rights of groups A and B are subservient to the right of individual a and b...

So catholics can say what they want to say, but their priesthood's opinion should fall on the deaf ears of our leaders that want to increase human freedom/ choice and one tool to increase human freedom is to improve human health.

The above is theoretical and about the interplay of morality and civics. But the reality is that the church wants power. It will exercise that power whenever it can to gain more power. It wants to coerce people into its mono-ideological control. Whether it is the catholic church that opposes health care (but not war funding), the mormons that oppose gay marriage but not divorce, or black churches in California that oppose gay marriage but call themselves the home of civil rights movements (for themselves that is); these are mono-ideological power grabs and nothing less - equal to the efforts of lobbies on behalf of smoking industry, anti-global warming industries... power to acquire power to worship power. - humbug.

hariaum

The Bishops get their marching orders from the Pope, absolute ruler and monarch of a nation-state that starts in the middle of Rome, and spreads outward globally to include about 1 billion faithful.

My own personal feeling is that one nation-state for the Roman Catholic Church should be sufficient, and that Washington, D.C. and environs should be off-limits to all religious lobbyists and itinerant ideologues representing any/all religions whatsoever.

And then there's the real world....religion has thoroughly infiltrated/permeated politics at every level, and this is not a happy turn of events for lovers of secular government.

Much more effort has to be expended in the future to re-implement a true separation of church and state....or we will rue the consequences of too much religious influence in affairs of state.

That bright line between government and religion has long since blurred to indistinction........

Hmmm, to the best of my knowledge, the Republican and Democratic Parties pay no taxes. Nor do the ACLU, the NAACP, and the AARP who approved with great fanfare the House version of the health insurance bill.

The topic is about lobbying or contacting your congress persons and not the IRS-restrictions concerning the support of candidates!!!!!

Political parties and organizations that engage in direct lobbying are NOT tax-exempt. Direct from the IRS 501c3 website (emphasis mine):

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html

Keep Sarah Palin out of Congress and/or the Presidency (and being dictated to by the Christian Coalition) by not buying her new book. Instead read the following "common senser":

As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, God (if one even exists) is not omniscient.

Pause and contemplate the following by Schillebeeckx:

from his book, Church: The Human Story of God, Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

My father is one of the most generous, tolerant, non-dogmatic people I have ever met. When he raised me he never pressed this religion or that or political philosophy on me. In fact he never really spoke of intellectual matters at all. He prefered to show by example, such as taking us (my family) to this country and that, and reading at home after work and dinner which we could not help noticing. After awhile one would just join him in the study and look through books and pick one.

But about four months ago he let something slip about the past--while discussing his atheism, which he has only brought up recently. He mentioned that he was an alter boy at the Catholic church down the road from his house (in Minnesota), and that certain services paid more money than others. But the Irish priests which dominated chose Irish boys for the services which paid more. My father said that hurt because his family was poor--and his family was poor, his father cleaning latrines, etc. I am part Irish but that is on my mom's side. My father's side was French and Austrian.

But after telling me this he just shrugged. My father is like that--takes everything in stride. In fact, like I said, he never really spoke of such things when I was growing up. I just thought I would tell this story because although it seems minor that my father would mention it is important. My father never likes to blame or complain, but he remembered this from his past and brought it up to me.

It was important to him.

Susan Jacoby noted:

"What the church is doing, however, is attempting to hold Americans who do not agree with its views hostage. "

She should have said considering the tax exempt status and their direct interaction with Congress:

The Republican Party, Democratic Party, ACLU, AARP and NAACP continually hold Congress hostage and don't pay a penny of tax on the cost of doing so.

Well, CCNL1, anything else said to another inane topic from Jon and Sally...is what will be said, I guess. I like yours best, already.

In the first century AD, Octavian was publishing edicts against abortion. He knew a nation does not get enough warriors, if abortion is practiced -- regardless of the payor.

Considering that other tax-exempt groups have direct involvement with congressional deliberations, the question is mute.

e.g.

The Democratic Party
The Republican Party
ACLU
AARP
The Christian Coalition
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Amnesty International
Anti-Defamation League
Association on American Indian Affairs
B'nai B'rith International
Children's Defense Fund
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
The Carter Center
Center for Constitutional Rights
Committee for Missing Children
Doctors of the World
Human Rights Watch
NAACP

Concerning that other tax-exempt groups have direct involvement with congressional deliberations, the question is mute.

e.g.

The Democratic Party
The Republican Party
ACLU
AARP
The Christian Coalition
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Amnesty International
Anti-Defamation League
Association on American Indian Affairs
B'nai B'rith International
Children's Defense Fund
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
The Carter Center
Center for Constitutional Rights
Committee for Missing Children
Doctors of the World
Human Rights Watch
NAACP