How 2 Of MLK's Statements Can Solve Most Of Our Problems

Our demise as people, either on a small or large scale, will be due to our refusal to share power and wealth with  each other.

Think about that. Our refusal to share power and weath involves the refusal of viewing others being fully human and thus equal to ourselves. And all of that comes from either a sense of entitlement or naked ambition. While the former assumes that we are superior to others in some way, shape or form, the latter seeks to prove ourselves to be superior. Either way, we are refusing to count others as our equals. And so while the former starts with assumptions about ourselves, the latter sees that sense of entitlement as something to be achieved.

Our refusal to share power and wealth becomes our own demise in a number of ways. The first way that it causes our own destruction is that that search for power and wealth eventually causes us to dehumanize ourselves as reflected in how we inhumanely treat others  The second way in which we cause ourselves to fall is seen in destruction we visit on others when competing for power and weath. Certainly war is the largest scale on which that competition occurs. And regarding war, we would be wise to continually point our what the Russell-Einstein Manifesto says; that, because of the present or future avaiability of WMDs, humankind has a choice between survival or war. And so the longer we rely on resolving our differences through war, the more inevitable the use of those WMDs becomes. But even if our competition for being superior to others is on a smaller scale than that, the destruction that such a competition involves reduces the victimizer to being that of a temporary king-of-the-hill and the victim to being counted as untermenschen. Here we should remember that no one is king of the hill forever.

The above state is what all mankind faces today. And the quotes of Martin Luther King Jr. listed below not only strikes at and reveals the heart of those who refuse to share power and wealth, it implies an escape from a doomed future (click here for the source):

Quote #1:

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just'

Quote #2: 

'I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered'

We will look at the first quote, we should consider the ramifications if we were to replace the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank. For when we make that substitution, we find that the scope of the claim increases tremendously so that we can experience how that statement can apply not just to any ism or group, but to individuals, even ourselves, as well. 

What that first quote targets is the emotional base for entitlement involving ruling over others: arrogance. Arrogance allows us to look down on others. And in that first quote arrogance promotes the idea that our own ism, group, or self are superior to others. That sense of superiority sees others as having nothing to contribute to ourselves, our groups, and our ideologies. Also, that sense of superiority gives us  permission, if not a mandate,  to rule over others and/or take their resources at their expense.

The striving of our favorite sports teams  promotes the idea that we should strive to be superior to others. Only unlike in sports where superiority only pertains to a game, superiority in life leads us to visit injustices on others as we rule over and/or take what is theirs. Arrogance not only makes us feel significant, it drives us to hurt and exploit others.

What should also be noted in the first quote is the all-or-nothing thinking involved. One side has EVERYTHING to teach while the other side can only learn. This all-or-nothing thinking feeds on one's arrogance that persuades us to feel entitled to do what we want to others. And that kind of thinking serves as the cognitive foundation for authoritarianism.

When King spoke of this feeling and all-or-nothing thinking, he was focusing on his own nation and government. He did so not just because of war in Vietnam, but also because of our past foreign policies that saw the U.S. suppress the aspirations of multitudes of people for either the financial gain of its businesses and corporations, and/or for strategic reasons too. And so the U.S. sometimes used proxy leaders to control how some other nations behaved and where their resources were directed. That was true in Iran (1953) and Guatamala (1954) as well as in Vietnam.

Now whereas the first quote dealt with controlling others, the second quote addresses our priorities as a nation and as individuals. It isn't that gadgets, profit margins, and property rights are not important. It is that people should be considered more important than those three items. The more that gadgets, profit margins, and property rights have precedence over the welfare of people, the more transactional both our nation's policies and our own affairs become. King's complaint about how investors would invest in other nations only to squeeze out all of the profits that they could was evidence of a thing-oriented society. To that, we could add the triplets of racism, materialism (which was replaced  by 'economic exploitation' in other messages), and militarism could never be eliminated. And we should note that King saw those 3 traits as being unseparable.

Just think that if we lived in a person-oriented society. the maximization of profits would not be the prevailing code followed by most of our publicly owned businesses and industries. And without that maximization of profits ethic, those in the business and financial communities generally exercise a significant amount of self-restraint resulting in smaller differences in the income and wealth disparities both between the classes and the races. We would also move closer to a more environmentally friendly and sustainable future.

That our society is becoming an even more thing-oriented society than before possibly shows one of the biggest failure of our education system especially in the secondary education and high education systems. There we are often taught how to tweak a thing-oriented financial practice or economic system that encourages us to maximize profits. The maximization of profits is a cannibalizing ethic meaning that in order to pursue the highest profits for oneself, one deliberately ignores all other principles and ethics to operate. In addition, such an ethic reduces those who could initially be counted as stakeholders to shareholders. The maximization of profits ethic tells us to ignore how others fare in the system regardless of their plight. And so we are taught to prioritize what is not human over people. We are taught that the only moral principle we are required to follow is that of serving oneself. If we wish to be kind or compassionate, that is an individual choice that many will applaud as long as they are not compelled to join.

The problem is not that we try to tweak a financial practice or economic system, the problem is that we do not include, in many of our economic institutions, how to objectively look at our economy from outside the system. And thus we uncritically continue with the maxmization of profits without realizing that our focus on such an approach encourages us to be selfish and to pursue extreme individualism in an interdependent economic system and world. As a result, those of us who are at least financially comfortable will often look down on those who are in the lower economic classes with disdain and as obstacles to one's own continual pursuit of their own personal profits. Is it any wonder that we have many elected officials who are so vulnerable to the influence of money? And is it any wonder why we have chosen the wrong people to represent or lead us?

In too many instances, our educational institutions have failed us in providing us, and those who are work in the business world, a full education on our economic system. But it is not just those in the business world who have been educationally shortchanged, it also includes almost all of the rest of us.

 

How Will We Respond To The Quest For More Power?

Have been taking a lot of time off from the blog for personal reasons. In the meantime, what started so seemingly innocent with the passage of the Patriot Act has become a global problem: the quest for more power by those with power. George Monbiot recently wrote an article about this for ZNet (click here for the article). Monbiot specifically focused on the growing fascism that exists in India, Brazil, the Philippines, the UK, and the US. But those aren't the only ones he mentioned. The sign of authoritarianism which he is focusing on is the growing disregard for law by national leaders.

And just as it is with wealth among many who are wealthy, one of the reasons for obtaining more power is to keep up with the Joneses--as they use to say when I was young.

For the US, what enables favored leaders to grab for more power is the holdover authoritarian culture left by America's Christian influences. Religiously conservative Christianity naturally  tends toward authoritarianism with followers embracing a passive authoritarianism. Such an embrace enables our leader(s) to seek more power provided they promote the agenda of my fellow religiously conservative Christians. Part of that agenda is a legitimate pro-life concern for the unborn. But as our President has instituted policies that favor the wealthy which put social safety nets in harms way, that pro-life of my fellow Christians concern shows significant cracks from compromise. 

Another part of the agenda of many of us religiously conservative Christians is that our religious liberties, in our case our right to discriminate against the LGBT community in the public square, be protected. This shows the self-centeredness that many of us religiously conservative Christians have obliviously but passionately embraced.

What is destroying America, and the World too, is unbridled arrogance and greed not just by some, but by many of its leaders. And that is exhibited by a continual grabbing for power. All of this has been stated in a number of ways for a while and yet no one listens. And that greed and pride is not just for the wealthy, it is for people of the lower classes who support their preferred authoritarian leaders because those leaders throw them enough bones to make them feel significant and protected. Here we should note that some Churches from other nations practice similar sins. For the Church in Egypt and Syria have latched on to tyrannical leaders because those leaders protect those Christians.

Thus, religiously conservative American Christians are putting their own nation at a threatening crossroads. For America to break with the world's penchant for authoritarianism, it will have to divorce itself from conservative Christianity or America's religiously conservative Christians must do an about-face. With the latter seemingly unlikely, religiously conservative Christians are asking for a persecution that they have been crying wolf over for the past few years. And why is that? It is because of arrogance and greed.


 

Sometimes Home Sweet Home Blinds Us To What Is Unbiblical

One of the troubles with growing up in America back when Christianity was the dominant religion is that things that are considered to be American were also considered to be Christian. And that kind of thinking was not invented by Baby Boomers like myself or by our parents, it existed back during America's founding. Even the, before America became a nation, many Christian European settlers viewed themselves collectively as the New Israel and Native Americans as the Canaanites. But perhaps what those early settlers were really demonstrating, as is demonstrated by all of us some of the time, is that religion sometimes becomes the conduit to self-worship rather than the worship of some heavenly god.

And so we come to a short article written by Michael J. Kruger (click here for a short bio) from Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.  The article serves as a review of a book that defends capitalism from charges that it is based on greed. Of course, no Christian should want to encourage greed in any way, shape, or form. And so no American Christian could freely participate in an economic system that is based on greed.

Kruger's article is a short review of a book by Jay W. Richards called Money, Greed, And God: Why Capitalism Is The Solution And Not The Problem (click here for the book's website). Kruger's article provides a brief review of why capitalism is to be considered a remedy from God for the world (click here for the article). I am not sure how well the article summarizes the arguments made in the book, but those summaries  are shallow and unconvincing.

The following claims from the book are briefly explained in the article:

• The fact that individuals in a capitalistic society happen to be greedy, does not mean capitalism is actually based on greed
• There is a difference between selfishness and self-interest
• Thus economic exchanges in a capitalistic system are mutually beneficial
• Capitalism does the best job of channeling selfishness for good ends
• Capitalism actually encourages generosity

Kruger's first claim is true. The existence of greedy people in a capitalistic society does not imply that capitalism is based on greed. At the same time, what should we say when greed is growing? Today's American capitalism is not the same as the capitalism I grew up with. Back then, we were under the Bretton-Woods system where the government was more in control over parts of the economy than it is today. The Bretton-Woods system took effect shortly after WW II and lasted through most of the 1970s. During most of that time period, growth in prosperity was generally egalitarian across all economic classes. 

The form of capitalism being practiced today is neoliberalism. Its focus is to free up business from government controls on the market and trade. Here we should note that since the latter part of the 1970s, wealth disparity has grown between a number of groups. That disparity has continued through today so that the top 1% of those with wealth have, comparatively speaking, as much wealth  as the 1% did just prior to the Great Depression (click here).

That growth in wealth disparity has also produced a growth in a political power disparity. Some have reclassified America from being a democracy to being an oligarchy (click here for an example). An oligarchy is the rule of a small group of the wealthy. And the study cited in the article just linked to based its assessment on the high percentage of governmental policies that were based on serving the interests of those with wealth vs those policies that were based on serving the interests of the general public. For the growth in wealth disparity have given those who earn the more disposable funds to buy influence over government.

Still, what is happening in the USA doesn't prove that capitalism fosters greed. But consider that the maximization of profit ethic, which is an ethic used to fuel economic growth, is such a basic part of American capitalism because it serves major investors. And we should also note that a major part of our economy consists of investing though the stock market. Thus, it seems safe to conclude that at least American capitalism is based on greed. Here we should note that just because American capitalism is based on greed doesn't imply that every participant in American capitalism is greedy.

Next, Kruger states that there is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. But he doesn't adequately explain that statement. Rather, he makes it seem as if there is no connection between selfishness and self-interest.

He goes on to say that we all make decisions based on self-interest and he is right. Does that mean we are all selfish? To answer that question, it might be important to see the relationship between selfishness and self-interest. After all, isn't self-interest involved when making selfish decisions?

We might want to consider the following to explain the relationship between selfishness and self-interest. The more dominant a role that self-interest plays in our decision making, the more selfish our decisions become. Thus, we might define selfishness by the degree in which our decisions are based on self-interest over the interest of others. If self-interest is the one factor in making decisions, then aren't our decisions  selfish ones? But the more we consider the interests of others, the more balanced our decisions become so that they become less and less selfish. And when the interests of others outweigh self-interest in our decisions, then we are starting to talk about being sacrificial.

Kruger's third claim is that the purchase of goods in a capitalist system is mutually beneficial. But is that always the case? Aren't consumers and even vendors ever cheated on a significant scale? In addition, this view of capitalism where we focus on the buyers and sellers of goods reduces the stakeholders of capitalist ventures to just 2 parties. And such violates the traditional business definition of the term 'stakeholder.' That traditional definition states that a stakeholder is anyone who is impacted by the business. Thus, the current focus on just the buyers and sellers leaves out the community in which a business operates, its employees, its own vendors, the communities in which the employees live, the government since the government receives taxes and provides infrastructure and services, and the environment. That certainly is not an exhaustive list of the stakeholders that most, if not all business operations have, but it gives us an idea of who is all involved in a simple business transaction between buyer and a seller.

Kruger's fourth claim undoes his first two. Why? Because his fourth claim acknowledges the prevalence of selfishness in the capitalist system. It also acts as a siren song for those who embrace capitalism. For it says that capitalism is able to practice judo on the selfishness that exists. It does that through the free market. And what aficionados of capitalism want to believe is that one does not have be responsible for the interest of others because the free market will make positive use of one's own selfishness. Unfortunately, such has not been the case during for decades during neoliberalism since wealth disparity has continually grown and produced a growing power disparity. And that growing wealth disparity has put many non-wealthy people from both the middle and lower economic classes on financially volatile situations.

Finally Kruger claims that capitalism encourages generosity. The grounds for that claim are as follows: 1) America is the most generous nation in the world; and 2) there is an 'inverse relationship' that exists in charitable giving and the amount of taxes one must pay. What is sad here, besides the baseless implication between that inverse relationship and the claim that capitalism encourages generosity, is that Kruger uses the financial bottom line to judge generosity. Kruger who is the president of a conservative Christian seminary uses the financial bottom line to judge generosity.

If Kruger had remembered how Jesus described the poor widow who only contributed two small copper coins (click here), he would have used a different standard to judge generosity. That is because Jesus described that poor widow as giving more than anyone else because of the percentage of what she gave was in relation to what she had. It is easy to look generous when giving millions of dollars when one has billions of dollars. And that gift of millions of dollars often makes us look the other way as to how those billions of dollars were gained. Perhaps a real measure of generosity for one who would be rich would be not to become a millionaire or billionaire so that many of those who work for the companies one owns could pay higher wages to all of their workers.

I am not sure how deep Richards' book, which is the subject of Kruger's article, is. But one thing is for sure, Kruger's review of the book is almost disingenuously shallow. And it is that shallowness that strongly indicates that Kruger's view of capitalism is more guided by having grown up in America than by using the Scriptures and reason.






 

The Ism Whose Name Cannot Be Said

Certainly racism has grabbed the headlines and rightfully so. There were the protests and counterprotests in Charlottesville that turned violent where the violence produced one death. There is still the disproportionate exercise of police violence on and incarceration of minorities. In fact, there are some white people who never questioned the consistent abuse of power exercised by police until a white women was shot by a non-white police officer.

But racism is not only exhibited in flagrant examples, Blacks have been telling us for years that racism has been alive and well despite the progress made by the Civil Rights Movement and many of us have been ignoring them. In addition, inner city schools where the student population consists of a higher percentage of minorities have been suffering from never ending budget cuts. And finally, what many whites won't consider is that school performance can be linked to the economic hopelessness and the home instability such hopelessness causes, of the neighborhoods in which schools are located.

Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement knew that if there was no economic progress accompanying progress in the obtaining of legal rights, then minorities would become disillusioned. And yet, news about income and wealth disparities between races shows nothing but increases (click here, and there). But income and wealth disparities are also growing between the economic classes (click here, and there, and there again).

With the growth in income and wealth disparities comes a shifting of political power that also feeds the continued growth in income and wealth disparities. Those with wealth have access to more resources to ensure that the government pays more attention to their concerns than the concerns of others (click here and there).

Now what we should note is that the growing income and wealth disparities result in political influence based on wealth is part of what could be called economic classism. And the growing income and wealth disparity between the races sees the combination of racism with economic classism. 

We were promised by the Republican presidential candidate that he would employ the best people and work to represent the concerns of working Americans. But this same candidate who has become the President has shown nothing but an overeagerness to cut regulations that protect workers and the environment in order to please his economic peers.

We have an economic classism problem in our nation that is, at best, being ignored by politicians of both major political parties. And this classism problem is not totally separate from our problem with racism. 

From a Christian perspective, we should note that the most influential branch of the Church, Conservative Protestantism, is not addressing economic classism. Instead, it has done all it can to get us to focus our attention inwardly on personal sins while either defending or saying nothing to challenge the current economic system that is feeding the growing wealth disparity. Such a position shows that the Church, at least the conservative branches of it, is content with repeating history where the dominant branch of the Church supported those with the greatest wealth just before the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions. And because of that, revolutionaries had an easier time with portraying the Church as an enemy of the people. As a result, not only did many people suffer, but so did the reputation of the Gospel.



 

ONIM For February 13, 2017

Christian News

• Church's Gay Marriage Stance Challenged By Retired Bishops -- Christian Today (UK)
• Thousands Urged To Vote Muslim Against Christian In Jakarta -- Christian Today (UK)
• Most Americans Support Gay Marriage--Most White Evangelicals Oppose It -- Christian Today (UK)
• The Bible's Clarity Should Be Evident In Our Lives -- Christianity Today
• Meet The Pastor Who Challenged Africa's Oldest Dictator With Surprising Success -- Christianity Today
• Southern Baptists Back Away From Backing Mosques -- Christianity Today
• Sex Is Not Sexual Intimacy -- Reformed African American Network
• On Black History: From Platitudes To Participation -- Reformed African American Network
• Martin Luther King Jr. And Convictional Compassion -- Reformed African American Network
• Most Syrian Christians Aren't Backing Assad (Or The Rebels) -- Chatham House
• One Of The Most Haunting Paragraphs I Have Read -- Gospel Coalition
• Black History Month: John Chavis (1763-1838) -- Gospel Coalition
• A Christian Vision For The 21st Century -- Gospel Coalition
• How To Protest Better -- First Things
• 100 Evangelical Leaders Sign Ad Denouncing Trump's Refugee Ban -- CNN
• Is Love Of Money Really The Root Of All Evils -- Desiring God

World News

• A Concerned Citizen's Plea To America's Business Leaders -- New York Times
• US-Led Coalition Destroys Drinking Water Lines In Raqqa -- Jamila Eyes
• Solicitor Caught On Camera In Racist Train Rant -- Yahoo News
• Here's A Copy Of The Executive Order Trump Signed On Americans' Retirement Money -- Yahoo News
• Ballot Access And Voting Rights At Risk -- Yahoo News
• ODU Professor Wants Trump To Stop Citing, Misquoting His Research -- News 3
• Trump And Climate Catastrophe -- ZNet
• 'Torture Memos' Author John Yoo Thinks Trump Has Gone Too Far -- Yahoo News
• Starbucks Has Become A Target of Trump-Loving Conservatives--And That's Great News For The Brand -- Yahoo News
• The United States Is Innocent And Has Never Killed Anyone -- Counterpunch
• Israel Passes Law Legalizing Thousands Of Settlement Homes -- Yahoo News
• After I Lived In Norway, America Felt Backward -- The Nation
• Trump Claims Media Not Reporting Terrorist Attacks -- Yahoo News
• 'Calexit' Would Be A Disaster For Progressive Values -- Los Angeles Times
• Martellus Bennett Says He Won't Visit White House For Super Bowl Honor -- Huffington Post
• Beyond The Parachute: Newsrooms Rethink Centralized Model -- Columbia Journalism Review
• Kremlin Says It Wants Apology From Fox News Over Putin Comments -- Reuters
• Young Jews And Arabs From Israel Join Forces To Help Syrian Refugees -- Haaretz
• California And President Trump Are Going To War With Each Other -- Washington Post
• Trump On Immigration Power: I Can Do Whatever I Want -- Bloomberg
• Trump Quips He'd 'Destroy' Texas Lawmaker Who Irked Sheriff -- Bloomberg
• Open Internet Advocates Prepare For New Battle Over Net Neutrality -- Waging Nonviolence
• Love In Action--The Life, Work And Death Of Sister Maura Clarke -- Waging Nonviolence
• White House List Of Supposedly Underreported Terror Attacks Includes Orlando, San Bernardino And Paris -- Yahoo News
• Flying Home From Abroad, A Border Agent Stopped And Questioned Me ... About My Work For The ACLU -- ACLU
• Jeff Merkley Defies Senate Republican Leader By Reading Coretta Scott King's Words On The Floor Of Congress -- Williamette Week
• The Future Of NOAA, The World's Largest Repository Of Climate Data, Was Put In The Hands Of A Climate-Change Denier -- Quartz
• Republican Congressman Says White Terrorists Are Different -- Think Progress
• Trump Rips Appeals Court And Says Even 'A Bad Student In High School' Would Support His Travel Ban -- Yahoo News
• Canada Tackles "Systemic Overuse" Of Solitary Confinement -- Truthout
• Trump Makes False Statement About U.S. Murder Rate To Sheriff's Group -- Washington Post
• Baltimore Offers Drug Users, Prostitutes Treatment Rather Than Jail Time -- RT
• In Trump's World Where Money Talks, Saudi Arabia Gets A Free Pass -- ZNet
• Yemen Removes Blanket Approval After Trump's Botched Raid -- ZNet
• Donald Trump's Arbitrary, Cruel Ban On Refugees From Muslim Countries Sets A Chilling Precedent -- ZNet
• Bernie Sanders Reads Coretta Scott King's Letter On The Senate Floor, Calls GOP Silencing Elizabeth Warren 'Incomprehensible' -- Yahoo News
• Gorsuch Calls Trump's Comments On Judiciary 'Disheartening' -- Yahoo News
• 'Buh-Bye' Wells Fargo: Seattle Pulls Funds Over DAPL -- Indian Country Media Network
• Canadian Woman Denied Entry To U.S. After Muslim Prayers Found On Her Phone -- CBC Radio
• Which Countries Have Nuclear Weapons And How Big Their Arsenals Are -- New York Times
• Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable -- Huffington Post
• OutCry After Elizabeth Warren Is Silenced For Criticizing Jeff Sessions -- Yahoo News
• Kellyanne Conway Boosts Ivanka Trump's Products On TV -- Time
• House Oversight Committee Asks For Review Of Conway's Endorsement Of Ivanka Trump Brand -- Yahoo News
• 2 Cities To Pull More Than $3 Billion From Wells Fargo Over Dakota Access Pipeline -- NPR
• Republican State Lawmakers Push For Restrictions On Voting -- Yahoo News
• After 'Night Of Sheer Terror,' Mom Turned To McDonald's Worker For Help -- USA Today
• Putin And Trump Could Be On The Same Side In This Troubling New World Order -- Guardian
• Syria's Assad Rejects Trump's Call For 'Safe-Zones' -- Yahoo News
• We Need To Trust Refugees: USS Cole Commander -- USA Today
• Saudi Arabia: Beheadings Reach Highest Level In Two Decades -- Guardian
• Have The Syrian Kurds Committed War Crimes? -- The Nation
• In Call With Putin, Trump Denounces Obama-Era Nuclear Arms Treaty---Sources -- Reuters
• House Republicans Just Voted To Eliminate The Only Federal Agency That Makes Sure Voting Machines Can't Be Hacked -- The Nation
• Ape Depictions Continue Long Legacy Of Whites Denying Blacks People's Humanity To White Supremacy -- Atlanta Black Star
• Trump's Deportation Squads Just Arrested Hundreds In Six States -- Occupy Democrats
• Most Donald Trump Supporters Think The 'Bowling Green Massacre' Is Real -- Independent
• What Are U.S. Forces Doing In Yemen In The First Place -- The Atlantic
• China Widens Wind Power Lead Over U.S., World With Another 23 GW -- Bloomberg
• Election Commissioner To Trump: Show Evidence Of Voter Fraud -- The Hill

Protest News

• Event Featuring Jordan Peterson, Ezra Levant Shut Down Following Protests -- The Varsity
• About 20 Rabbis Arrested During Protest Over Trump's Travel Ban -- New York Times

 Standing Rock Sioux - DAPL News

• Army Veterans Return To Standing Rock To Form Human Shield Against Police -- Guardian
• Veterans Unite For Second 'Deployment' Against Dakota Access Pipeline -- CNN
• DAPL Opponents Vow 'Fierce Resistance' As Army Corps Grants Last Easement -- Common Dreams
• Standing Rock Sioux Chairman: 'I Was Slighted. I Was Disrespected' -- Washington Post
• A Violation Of Tribal And Human Rights: Standing Rock Chair Slams Approval Of Dakota Access Pipeline -- Democracy Now
• From Immigration To The Dakota Access Pipeline, Seattle Takes The Lead In Resisting The Trump Agenda -- Yahoo News
• Tribe Files Legal Challenge To Stall Dakota Access Pipeline -- Yahoo News
• FBI Terrorism Taskforce Investigating Standing Rock Activists -- Guardian

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• The Phenomenon Of Right-Wing Populism -- ZCommentaries
• Afghanistan Civilian Casualties Reaches Record High --  Aljazeera
• Thousands Of Jews And Arabs March Together Against Racism And House Demolitions In Tel Aviv -- Haaretz
• Gaza's Cancer Patients: 'We Are Dying Slowly' -- Aljazeera
• Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Radiation At Highest Level Since 2011 Meltdown -- Gaurdian
• Amnesty: Up To 13,000 Hanged In Syria's 'Slaughterhouse' -- AP News
• How Corporate Dark Money Is Taking Power On Both Sides Of The Atlantic -- Guardian
• Stephen Hawking: Greed And Stupidity Are What Will End The Human Race -- The Intellectualist
• Dangerous Idiots: How The Liberal Media Elite Failed Working-Class Americans -- Guardian
• Ministers Refused To Stop  Bomb Sales To Saudi Arabia Despite Being Told To Do So By Own Export Control Chief -- Independent
• Ordinary Americans Carried Out Inhumane Acts For Trump -- Baltimore Sun
• CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam As He Gassed Iran -- Foreign Policy
• Coretta Scott King's 1986 Statement To The Senate About Jeff Sessions -- New York Times
• Rights Groups Ask Court To Ban Israel From Taking Palestinian Land For Settlements -- Washington Post
• Exposing Myths Of Neoliberal Capitalism: And Interview With Ha-Joon Chang -- Truthout
• Republican Senators Vote To Formally Silence Elizabeth Warren -- New York Times
• Flooding Is The New Normal In Miami -- Yale Climate Connections
• N. Korea's Child Slavery Problem Is Even Worse Than Imagined -- New York Post
• Donald Trump Signs Executive Order Giving Police More Powers -- Independent
• Federal Appeals Court Rules 3 To 0 On Travel Ban -- Washington Post
• Germany Unveils Zero-Emissions Train That Only Emits Steam -- Independent
• Israel Bans Delivery Of Anaesthesia Gas To Gaza -- Middle East Monitor
• Refugees Are Already Vigorously Vetted. I Know Because I Vetted Them -- Washington Post

What A Difference A Lack Of Faith Makes

After the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, more than a few religiously conservative Christian leaders were making the case that our changing sexually mores were signalling the end of our society and culture. In fact, some actually said that a society and its culture could be judged primarily by what sexual behaviors it allowed and prohibited. Such an assessment was a nothing more than reductionism. It implied, against the wishes of those making the assessment, that they preferred a time when we were at war or when racism freely reigned as it did during our tragic Jim Crow era.

Pointing out the implications of their reductionism brought out strident denials. But those denials were based on a blindness, perhaps a deliberate one, to the logical connection between judging society and its culture almost exclusively by its sexual mores and those times when society's and culture's sexual mores were more restrained by Christian values.

Compare that thinking with Stephen Hawking's (no bio is needed) assessment of our society. It isn't sex that is destroying us according to Hawking. It is greed and stupidity. We could even call the Bible in as a witness in favor of Hawking's view. What causes conflicts? According to James 4:1-2, it is envy and greed (click here).  Hawking's  views are reported in a USA Today article (click here) that referenced a past interview between him and Larry King six years ago (click here).


Thus, according to Hawking, greed is driving us to pursue activities that are self-destructive from man-driven climate change to the creation of artificially intelligent machines that have the potential to turn on us. In the USA Today article, Hawking pointed out that not much has changed in our favor in the six years since his interview with King. Pollution is worse and an already overpopulated world has half a billion more people. 

Thus, we have this interesting contrast between many religiously conservative Christian leaders and an atheistic intellectual on what is mankind's biggest threat. In one corner, there are those who say that our changing sexual mores will be our downfall. And they say that to the extent that they, however unintended, imply that  times dominated by other problems are tolerable if not preferred. On the other hand, we have an atheist who claims that it is our greed and stupidity that is either driving our self-destructive tendencies or prevents us from effectively addressing serious problems like climate change and overpopulation. We should note that not many religiously conservative Christians accept that climate change and overpopulation are problems let alone threaten our existence.

The question have to ask is this: Why are the views between these two parties different? Why are our changing sexual mores so significant to these religious leaders that they would all but ignore greed as a grave threat to our future?

The leftist answer to those questions revolve around the notion that one purpose for our religious institutions is to provide indoctrination so that people fit into society and maintain the status quo as they are suppose to. At least, that is what one reads from the The Crisis Of Democracy, which was a report written for the Trilateral Commission. Thus, by focusing on changing sexual mores to the extent of excluding all other dangerous characteristics from consideration, these religious leaders are simply doing what they are suppose to do. For in so focusing on sexual issues, these leaders virtually give a free pass to all of us, but especially to those who manage and thus benefit the most from the status quo, to pursue our own prosperity regardless of what it costs others. And their lack of concern for scientifically well-documented problems like climate change and overpopulation eliminates reasons for them to upset the status quo. 

Regardless of the reasons, we religiously conservative Christians are not forced to pick exclusive threats to our society's and the world's future. We've already seen how changing sexual mores have led to the spread of diseases and heartbreaks. In addition, they have contributed to the demise of many a family. At the same time, we see how greed, as well as ambition and arrogance, drives societies and states into pursuing unjust policies that cause much destruction and many to suffer greatly. We are not obligated into an exclusive-or choice between seeing changing sexual mores or greed as being great threats. Rather, we have life experiences and history to teach us that both can lead to our demise. In other words, if we are smart, we will learn from both our religiously conservative Christian leaders as well as atheists, such as Hawking, about what is not only hurting ourselves, but hurting others to the point of destroying much of what we have. For refusal to learn from either party mentioned here would be stupid.

ONIM For August 24, 2015

Christian News

• What's Actually Happening With LGBT Catholics In Philadelphia -- Christian Today (UK)
• Families To Sue Church Deacon Over Murder During Northern Ireland Troubles -- Christian Today(UK)
• US Baptists At War Over Gay Marriage And Ordination -- Christian Today (UK)
• One In Three Americans Say Divorce Is Still A Sin In Cases Of Abuse -- Christianity Today
• Augustines For The 21st Century -- Christianity Today
• 5 Middle East Churches That Could Cease To Exist If Islamic State Influence Continues To Spread -- The Christian Post
• Thousands Of Americans Protest Against Planned Parenthood At Over 300 Clinics In All 50 States -- The Christian Post
• Why The Pope Matters -- Huffington Post

World News

• Solving Prostitution -- The Washington Post
• PSL Statement On The Sanders Campaign -- Liberation
• Amnesty International: Protecting The 'Human Rights' Of Johns, Pimps And Human Traffickers -- Truthdig
• Trump: Deny Citizenship To Babies Of People Illegally In US -- Yahoo News
• Why Public Transportation Is So Limited In The United States -- Truthout
• Ted Cruz Must Show His Naturalization Papers To Keep His Senate Seat -- Examiner
• U.S. Wages Have Fallen Every Quarter Of The 'Recovery' -- Sprott Money
• Paul Krugman: GOP Candidates Promise Government By The 1 Percent, For The 1 Percent -- Salon
• Forest Service Official Who Let Nestle Drain California Water Now Works For Them -- AntiMedia
• Toll At 112 In Aftermath Of China Blast; Nearly 100 Missing -- NPR
• Fears Of Cyanide Pollution Rise After Tianjin Blasts -- Truthdig
• Black Labor Organizers Urge AFL-CIO To Reexamine Its Ties To The Police -- Truthout
• Oath Keepers To Arm 50 Black Protesters In Ferguson With AR-15's For Epic Rights Flexing March -- Mint Press News
• Man Was Worked To Death On 14-Hour Shift: Pennsylvania Court -- Yahoo News
• Woman Fined For Facebook Pic Of Police Car In Disabled Spot -- Yahoo News
• Republican Party Doesn't Want To Believe Its Voters Agree With Trump. But They Do -- Vox
• Black Lives Matter Releases Video Of Closed-Door Meeting With Hillary Clinton -- Huffington Post
• Greed Dies Hard In A Poisoned Land -- Truthout
• The Town That Decided To Send All Its Kids To College -- The Atlantic
• Video: Israeli Lobby Has Destroyed The Political Careers Of Israel's Critics -- Mint Press News
• The Left Has Lost Its Way -- Truthdig
• Here's Where Every Presidential Candidate Stands On Keystone--Except Hillary Clinton -- Grist
• Pinochet's Right-Hand Man Commits Suicide After Conviction -- Telesur TV 
• Chomsky: Israel 'Much Worse' Than SA's Apartheid -- Days Of Palestine
• Donald Trump's Appalling Reaction To A Hate Crime Committed In His Name -- Vox  
• Former President Jimmy Carter Says Cancer Has Spread To His Brain -- The Washington Post
• New York Prison Guards Accused Of Brutally Killing Prisoner, Covering Up Death -- Truthout
• Training Officers To Shoot First, And He Will Answer Questions Later -- The New York Times
• Earth In July Was Hottest Month On Record -- Yahoo News
• Picking Apart One Of The Biggest Lies In American Politics: 'Free Trade' -- Alternet
• Why Ben Carson Got It Wrong -- Reformed African American Network
• The Myth Of Chinese Capitalism -- The Greenville Post
• Compton Students Hold Walkout, Protest School Conditions -- ABC7 News
• Assange Reveals That The West Is Behind ISIS And Ukraine Crisis And Israel Behind Hamas -- Anonymous
• Pork Industry Admits Using Muscle Stimulant Ractopamine -- Truthout
• The Economics Of Exploitation: Indigenous Peoples And The Impact Of Resource Extraction -- Counterpunch
• President Obama's Department Of Injustice -- The New York Times

Pick(s) Of The Litter

• John Oliver Calls Out Televangelists Who Exploit Religion To Make Millions -- Mother Jones
• Jimmy Carter: There Is Zero Chance For The Two-State Solution -- Prospect
• Leading Israeli Journalist Says Israel Is An Apartheid State -- Mondoweiss
• 4 Million Muslims Killed In Western Wars: Should We Call It Genocide -- Mint Press News
• How Many San Francisco Cops Does It Take To Subdue A Black Guy With A Prosthetic Leg? -- Common Dreams
• California Is On Fire. This Map Shows Where -- Mother Jones
• War Begets War Refugees: The Moral Bankruptcy of Italy And NATO -- Foreign Policy Journal
• Clinical Psychologist Explains How Ayn Rand Helped Turn The US Into A Greedy And Selfish Nation -- RawStory

Democracy's Enemies

This blogpost is an attempt to restate and then go beyond what was said in last Tuesday's, December 9 post (click here). In that post this blog made a distinction between democracy as a state of being for society from democracy being a description of a set of political processes followed by the government. In the former, a democracy is where all of the people in society rule. There is an equality implied in this definition. For if only certain groups rule, then not all of the people can participate in the making of society's rules.

In the latter definition, democracy is where people vote for or against certain legislation as well as for the candidates of their choice. Here, democracy isn't describing an end result, but a process that is practiced by its members.

Now we should note that we can't have a democracy in terms of the state of being for a society without democratic processes. But the converse is not true. The employment of democratic processes by a political structure does not guarantee that all of the people will have an equal place in society. We only need to look at our own nation, state, city, and so forth for proof. 

Thus, if we are seeking a democratic state of being for society, not only will we use democratic processes to press our own demands, we will use them to protect the rights and status of others, especially those who are battling marginalization.  And this is where our nation's notion and practice of democracy are most deficient. While too many of us have seen democracy as a set of tools to use to raise our own position, we have forgotten our responsibilities and obligations to others. Why is this the case?

We have 3 personal motivations that work against wanting a democracy where everybody shares society as equals. These motivations are a sense of entitlement, ambition, and greed. We should note that we can work against democracy for more than one reason--there is no quota here.

A sense of entitlement comes into play when a group feels that it has a right to dominate over other groups. This domination has been based on racial differences, economic class differences, ideological differences, and delusions of one's own moral superiority. For Christians, the most recent exhibition of our desire to share society with others as being their superiors is seen in the same-sex marriage debate. After all, not only do we view ourselves as being morally superior to homosexuals, by opposing same-sex marriage, we believe that we are protecting society from sliding down the slippery slope of sexual moral decay. This is why we have opposed the "judicial activism" that has reversed democratically decided legislation banning same-sex marriage. And in many places where we have lost the court battle, we have pushed for Jim Crow type laws that would allow us to stigmatize homosexuals by refusing to provide goods and services to either them or their ceremonies. 

This refusal to share society with homosexuals as equals is an indicator that our claims to being spiritually superior are delusional. Romans 3:9 proves our claims to be false.

The above shows an example of entitlement. Many of us Christians believe that we have not only the right definition of marriage, we have the necessary definition for the benefit of the nation. Thus, we feel justified in pushing our agenda at the expense of equality for homosexuals.

And though there are other examples of where other groups feel entitled to push to the margins those to whom they feel superior, the striving of Conservative Christians to maintain a privileged position in society for themselves and pushing of homosexuals to the margins of society provides the epitome of one group feeling entitled to dominate over another group.  The attitude of many of us Conservative Christians regarding same-sex marriage is that not only are we are right and they are wrong, we are protecting society from hurting itself. Therefore we have the right, and even responsibility, to prohibit homosexuals from enjoying what we enjoy, being married to the person of their choice. Such an approach does not work for a democratic state of being in society. 

Another personal motivation that works against a democratic society is ambition. This ambition could be paired with a sense of entitlement or could consist solely of the desire to conquer. To give an example, I was talking to one group about my experiences at Occupy Wall Street and how we used consensus as a democratic process in reaching decisions. One of the women in the group strongly disagreed with me. Why did she disagree? It was because she lived in poverty and was powerless and thus her goal was to gain as much power as she could so she control society as much as possible. This is an example of ambition. It is the desire to conquer and reign over others. And what was sad in this case was that the implications of this person winning control over others in society did not stir any kind of reaction from the rest of the group.

And when we look at our political landscape, because of the ambitions of the people in the two major political parties, we find that many of the people we vote for look at winning elections as a way to get their way in politics and government. Some do this for the glory--that is for the sense of significance that comes from winning and getting some kind or recognition from others. To them, it is merely a competition, another game to win. Others simply want to rule and dominate over the rest because they felt that it was their turn. In either case, ambition drove their striving to win. And perhaps, the democracy label from our democratic processes eased any misgivings over the new control over others which they obtained. Such is the problem with reducing democracy to the set of political processes that involve elections. For we should note that such people are not easy to work or negotiate with.

The final personal motivation that works against a democratic society is greed. With greed, we are focused on the goods and wealth we can obtain and we start to care less and less about the welfare and equality of others because we look at those others as objects. If these objects can help us get wealthy, we feign respect for them in order to use them. If they cannot help us get rich, we count them as disposable. When companies offshore their work in order to maximize profits for shareholders, the welfare of the employees who lose their jobs is not considered. In fact, these employees have no voice in publicly owned companies because the only ones whose voice is heard there are those who own stock and the executives. All others can be let go at a moment's notice. 

And if we think that this only happens in business, we need to look again. Bill after bill, in this country, are written by lobbyists whose chief concern is how much revenue their employers can gain from their work. No one else matters. That is why the chief beneficiaries of Obamacare are Health Insurance companies and corporate medical facilities. Energy companies benefit from relaxed environmental regulations. The big banks and other financial sector companies have benefited from relaxed regulations in the past and from the lack of criminal prosecutions even when some of our financial institutions laundered drug money today. And how many companies benefit from our foreign policies and the use of our military.

Martin Luther King Jr described our society as being a 'thing-oriented' oriented society. What he meant was that gadgets, profits, and property rights were counted as more important than people and taking care of them. And those who are so thing-oriented will be too concerned with the latest technology, making the most money, and using property rights to excuse themselves from responsibilities to care about whether all have an equal place in society. Such an equal place does not imply that everyone would have the same income level. Rather, an equal place in society means that the welfare of all is counted as equally important so that none are either exploited or marginalized.

We could learn what a democratic state of being for society means by studying the decision making processes used at Occupy Wall Street. It isn't that their way of making decisions was without flaw or that it wouldn't have to be modified for society at large. But the basic aim in how Occupy made decisions protected the equal status of those in the group. One block could table a proposal. Such a process prevents a tyranny of the majority. But more importantly, it caused people to listen to others who had different concerns and so proposals and procedures received revision after revision until there were no blocks. 

Here, it isn't the exact procedures that we should carry over from Occupy to society that is important. It isn't the methods that we can learn from, it is the intention and the spirit that existed there that we would do well to imitate. For there, there was a sincere desire to craft statements that everyone could agree with. Everyone was listened to. Yes, Occupy Wall Street did not carry out their decision making processes perfectly. But the idea that we legislated through cooperation and listening rather than competing for support made a more democratic state of being for the Occupy encampments.

All of the above points to a dilemma for America. For the values from our economic system which are most highly valued, greed and competitiveness, are two traits that work against creating a democratic state of being for society. Thus, if we want an equality that comes from a true democracy, we have a choice to make.