<$BlogRSDURL$>

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

We live in a world of extremes, and if you’ve stuck with me this far, I hope you would agree that there is little to be gained by voting for Bush or Kerry in 04. There are practically no politicians today that are willing to abandon the perks of the political machine to make decisions that are good for the majority.

Examining King and Gandhi, we found that their impact was based on self-sacrifice that exposed truth and ultimately changed hearts. Considering that human nature does not put others first, we have to ask how they came to develop this love of fellow man? Again, the answer should be obvious, but is veiled in confusion… self sacrificial love comes from real, long term, dedicated faith…it comes from a close relationship with God.

I imagine some are thinking “this was supposed to be a political discussion” and can’t imagine getting past the incredible damage done over the centuries in the name of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, (insert your choice here in alphabetical order... they all work). At first glance, it does seem absurd to suggest that religion can play in part in the resolution of political issues.

But if we apply the same lens that we applied to politics, it becomes clear that the vast majority of organized religion is nothing more than an alternate political, power wielding process based on dogma that has little or nothing to do with God’s will. Most are nothing but extreme political parties unto themselves, that exist to achieve extreme goals. Just as with the recognized politic parties, if these institutions worked as claimed we wouldn’t be in the mess that we are now.

But we have to be very careful not to overreact. Gandhi, King, Mother Theresa, and probably those who run the soup kitchen in your inner city homeless shelter, have shown that it is possible to be a strong, non-political leader based on faith. They are the exception, not the rule because most of us are diverted by extreme political and religious-dogmatic thinking, apathy, or a “me first” attitude. By default, the few that do understand the value of putting others first are very unlikely to be noticed because they are not trying to claw their way to the top. What irony.

Looking back in the US, Jimmy Carter was probably the last faith driven President and he was laughed out of office for his beliefs. But note that he has been extremely effective outside of politics. Here is a nearly perfect case in point that a path outside of politics is the way to go, but where do we start?

First, you can proactively pray. If you’ve never prayed except in a foxhole, there’s a good chance that it will seem difficult. But what can you possibility loose by giving it a try? You may be very surprised to learn that it does work. Pray that God will show you that prayer works. Pray for political leaders that are seeking truth, pray for the good of the country, and pray for the rest of the world while you are at it.

The second step should be obvious at this point, our role in the process is to change others hearts so that they will also put other’s first. We learned the basics in kindergarten:
• Be nice to those who are bad to you
• Feed the hungry
• Be a peace maker in the midst of arguments
• Find shelter for the homeless

But what will it take for you to wave the next car ahead when they only slow down at the stop sign where you were already patiently waiting? Or how can you tell the fast food employee “thanks” without sarcasm in your voice after they messed up your order twice? You will need to pray for your own heart to be changed because putting others first when the rubber hits the road is almost impossible without God’s help.

When you think this out, feeding 10 people and helping 10 others through the difficulties of life has to be more effective than sending $1000 to a politician. If half of those that you help are changed to the point where they can reach out to the same number of people, the change of attitude becomes exponential.

We’re really talking about the “Pay it Forward” concept, but realistically recognizing that none of us are likely to put others first when we are under the gun without supernatural assistance.

Admittedly, this is the 60,000 foot view, but we’ve finally entered the atmosphere. Next week let’s dig through more tough issues, examine them through the lens of truth, and let’s see if we can’t find some commonality based on the single point that God loves all of us.

At this point, do you think that even Mickey Mouse would want the job?

Stay tuned.

Thursday, March 25, 2004

We live in a world of extremes and political solutions that are based on truth and ultimately good for the majority have become extremely rare. Let’s take a look at two who gave everything to get it right in the 20th century and continue our quest to go beyond Mickey Mouse in 04.

Mahatma Gandhi desired political change and by nearly starving to death on multiple occasions, helped free India from British rule. But he did not achieve the underlying goal of long-term unity between Muslim and Hindus for the good of all.

Martin Luther King also desired political change and was willing to absorb unjust punishment to achieve overall acceptance of civil rights. However, he would be shocked at the divisionary, militant, and entirely untruthful causes that have attached themselves to his coattails since his death.

Both died for their cause, both achieved notable success, but neither would point to political strategy as the key. In fact, both could make the case that politicians ultimately impeded progress by twisting and reformatting these causes for their own benefit.

Let’s reiterate this last point because it is key… although world wide change drivers, King and Gandhi did not achieve great success through political means. Instead, their success was based on self-sacrifice that exposed truth and ultimately changed hearts.

This is the flip side to our previous discussion regarding the failure of political solutions in an environment where individuals’ self interests rule. Logically, if we look to others’ needs first, the odds that we will be blinded by our own desires are significantly reduced and it becomes much easier to recognize the propaganda of self-promoting spin masters.

As U2 captured in their classic 1984 snapshot of these great men, King and Gandhi lived their lives “in the name of love”. Ultimately, this explains why there were so few positive political figures in the later half of the 20th century. In order to put others before themselves, a much stronger force is necessary than the cheap Hollywood/Greenpeace definition of love. What we are talking about is supernatural love where leaders are willing to lay down their lives for others. Imagine today’s politician living up to this standard.

We still haven’t excavated to the core question “what is truth?”, but we are very close. And it should be clear that neither Kerry nor Bush is likely to help us at all.

With this in mind, have you found a reliable supplier of “Mickey Mouse in 04” bumper stickers?

Next week… You and truth-

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Let’s assume that you’ve noticed the extremes on the nightly news, but aren’t ready to concede that politics does not provide the answer. Why don’t we take an up close and personal look at topics that divide, connect them to truth to better understand how politicians create their own reality, and then consider what we will ultimately have to do to regain control?

WARNING, as mentioned up front, you will probably be very uncomfortable with any topic that we pick. After all, we are trained from birth to seek what is best for me, and at the same time categorize any topic that does not meet our goals as “non-truth”. As a result, this exercise is not easy, but if you are honest enough to look at yourself in relationship to truth, you are already far down the road to fixing this problem.

For this example, let’s assume a universal truth, even though we haven’t burned through enough layers yet to talk about how we find truth. Instead, let’s pick a self-evident issue that everyone learns as a child and practically anyone would agree with. How about, “killing is wrong”?

Even though at the highest level this concept appears self-evident, at this point I guarantee that theologians are flipping thought texts, military leaders are tuning out, and the vegans and fur providers are grabbing their prepared statements to validate their well defined positions. At this stage in our history, truth scares everyone into their previously reinforced corners.

But we need to get really controversial to make this exercise work, so let’s get out to the extremes and deal with capital punishment and abortion. Ready?

In mid and late trimester abortions, children who could be saved in a premature infant ward will be killed. Calling a baby a fetus or advocating rights for the mother are simply political trapping designed to curry favor from those who want this option. The bottom line is we must be killing children because they could live outside of the womb.

Now that you are either really mad or very happy with the way things are going, let’s look at the other end of the spectrum.

When we execute criminals, we “play god” without the advantage of omnipotence. The argument of deterrence has not proven itself and again these are political trappings for those who want this option. The bottom line is that we are killing prisoners that may or may not be guilty.

Ok, now is the time for self-reflection. Did we recognize that we had been herded by advocates into either one of these camps, that they are distortions of the same underlying truth (killing is wrong), and that they have been so politically twisted that emotions blot out the reality? Try his approach with just about any heavy duty right or left position and you will usually find the completely ignored counterpoint living comfortably in the opponents’ set of extremes.
But all we have done so far is prove that politicians distort reality by repackaging truth in terms that will meet their constituencies’ desires. Hopefully this makes it clear that a vote for Kerry or Bush is wasted because they are both playing the only game in town… “let’s get elected at any cost”. A vote for Mickey might be making a little more sense at this point, but you have to be asking what comes next?

It is time for truth and truth requires a complete change of heart- Do these examples get your attention? Are you strong enough? Are you serious about change?

Stay tuned

Wednesday, March 10, 2004

We live in a country of extremes that are laser focused on getting what “I” want. Imagine John F. Kennedy asking “what you can do for your country” today. He couldn’t get elected dog catcher with this message in today’s culture of material goods and self-fulfillment.

The consummate politician, Winston Churchill, wryly summed up the process at work with "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative at 40, you have no head." We naturally gravitate to the set of beliefs that best fit our needs at a given time, regardless of the impact on the whole.

Let’s face it, big business could bring economies of scale that could make life better for all. And treating employees as an organization’s greatest assets fosters long term growth and success for all. But in an environment of extremes, big business concentrates on the bottom line, labor drives costs through the roof, and the truth, caught in the middle is conveniently overlooked.

Instead of recognizing the dichotomy of extremes, today’s politician negotiates policies that trade one extreme for another to build a “politically correct” voting history that will win over the constituency that best fits these extremes. They identify high profile issues ranging from immigration to education, sexual preferences to crime, they codify procedures, and ignore the underlying truth. In reality, the politician has done nothing that will solve the long term problem, but sound bites are king. By munging together a wide range of issues that are positioned as beneficial, we support positions blindly and somehow believe that we can get everything without giving.

To sum it up, our core values have shifted far from reality and this late in the game political solutions will only further separate us from the truth and will not bring about real change. And although on the surface it sounds apolitical, a vote for Mickey Mouse in 04 does not mean that you have given up.

Instead it means that you are willing to do the hard work to search for the truth, to understand how to apply it, and to use a protest vote to send a clear signal to today’s politician. “Mickey Mouse in 04” is actually the rallying cry of those who recognize that we need to cross race, economic, and political barriers to make a difference.
Stay tuned..next week it gets pretty ugly..

Thursday, March 04, 2004

We live in a world of extremes- the middle is gone. Today you have to be pro-capital punishment or pro-abortion, pro-evolution or pro-creation, pro-labor or pro-business. And guess what? The truth is often found in the boring, un-newsworthy middle.

I don’t believe Rush- But I also don’t believe NPR. They mix 60% truth with their agenda. Somewhere along the path, politicians learned that the more extreme their stand, the better they would fit into one of these news formats. This nation has since embraced extremism, we’ve lost the ability to identify truth, and if we take a stand on any issue we are immediately grouped with other extreme positions.

Let’s say that you are against capital punishment, believe that evolution is possible, but believe that labor costs are driving jobs out of the country. A liberal will accuse you of being a conservative and visa versa and both will tune you out. The same is true if you swapped the values within these same pairs.

No wonder that the choices for president have entered what pilots call a death spiral. Look at our last 2 presidents, a self-proclaimed centrist with fewer morals than my cat, and a self-proclaimed centrist that seems to believe he has been crowned king of the world. In both cases, their parties are completely behind them because they are willing to embrace the entire party portfolio.

This is the core of the problem. Truth may be extreme at times, but neither party has a lock on all truth, and by combining positions that they believe will garner the greatest support they manage to alienate everyone except extremists.
If there are no major changes by fall, I plan to vote for Mickey Mouse as a protest vote to get this point across. Care to join me?

But there is room for major change, and as you guessed, you are the key. Stay tuned for details!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?