Cenk Uygur's post "Nonviolence means avoiding not o…" on WhoSay
My comment after the article:
I suggest the key words here are "avoid" and "refuse"; they are words of choice. Dr. King was advocating that gift of the Spirit on one hand and fruit on the other, that Scriptures in all books say we must cultivate, i.e., self-control. If we searched ourselves constantly from the standpoint of the onlooker as well as the do-er, we could see that work out in all of our waking hours (carrying over into our dreams and visions).
Whatever I should hate, for example, I might as well shoot it; I'd value it so lowly as to not be much worth the bullet; therefore, I would have no remorse because I would not care for it in the first place. Hate's blood is cold; hate's wrath is hot. It would be so easy then to choose hate and violence, because I would see myself as that, thus I would act it out. In the end, I would become that - by choice.
But if I avoid hate and refuse to act anti-socially toward anyone or anything, as did Dr. King and every other Son of God he ever sent, then I' would NOT be choosing to be a violent person, but rather, a fair-minded one, with love resting in the heart.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Behind Martin Luther King Jr., a Public and Private Prayer Life
Behind Martin Luther King Jr., a Public and Private Prayer Life- Beliefnet.com
This is a beautiful article. Thank you. Dr. King and his prayer life: It is BECAUSE he exercised a public and private prayer life that Dr. King could maintain the focus to do the things he knew he was called out to do. Prayer plays a big part in God's revelations to us about ourselves; on the other hand, he reveals others to us and us to them, as he wills, for his own purposes. Those who pray and know they are connected to God are really fearless. Fear and prayer are not compatible. Fearfulness is one of the abominations listed in Revelation where it says that type won't enter the kingdom.
This is a beautiful article. Thank you. Dr. King and his prayer life: It is BECAUSE he exercised a public and private prayer life that Dr. King could maintain the focus to do the things he knew he was called out to do. Prayer plays a big part in God's revelations to us about ourselves; on the other hand, he reveals others to us and us to them, as he wills, for his own purposes. Those who pray and know they are connected to God are really fearless. Fear and prayer are not compatible. Fearfulness is one of the abominations listed in Revelation where it says that type won't enter the kingdom.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Justice Scalia's Interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution: It Does not Protect Women From Discrimination
Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination
He completely ignores the explicit words of the Constitution you just cited. If he could enforce what he says, all rights ever amassed by minorities and women would be right back in the hands of conservative-minded people who advocate states rights over government - there would be no recourse then. That is the scenario playing out today. Just the other day, I read where there is an advocate who wants to bring back the worthless confederate money system, "or something."
If Americans don't be careful, we will lose all sense of proportion in anything worth having. But for a judge to purport what Judge Scalia has is pathetic. He is an educated man, but he talks like a militant in that he alludes to states rights in a "do as you please when you please because you can" kind of way. I believe if some states thought they could override what the Constitution says about Federal vs. states rights and certain portions of the 14th Amendment they don't like, they would raise a states' flag beside the federal one, and coin states' money of some sort. His words/view could potentially arouse like sentiment to make empty demands on the Union.
@Toussaint L: I truly hope this man does not think he speaks for more than those like himself. As one of the 9 "superannuated judges," he's been there too long.
He completely ignores the explicit words of the Constitution you just cited. If he could enforce what he says, all rights ever amassed by minorities and women would be right back in the hands of conservative-minded people who advocate states rights over government - there would be no recourse then. That is the scenario playing out today. Just the other day, I read where there is an advocate who wants to bring back the worthless confederate money system, "or something."
If Americans don't be careful, we will lose all sense of proportion in anything worth having. But for a judge to purport what Judge Scalia has is pathetic. He is an educated man, but he talks like a militant in that he alludes to states rights in a "do as you please when you please because you can" kind of way. I believe if some states thought they could override what the Constitution says about Federal vs. states rights and certain portions of the 14th Amendment they don't like, they would raise a states' flag beside the federal one, and coin states' money of some sort. His words/view could potentially arouse like sentiment to make empty demands on the Union.
SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER TOLD THE STATE OF THE UNION'S HOST: "YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BROUGHT IT UP" (SUNDAY, 1.9.11)
The feisty old man, Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, Conference Chairman, argued with C.C. on State of the Nation, that she "should not be talking about what happened yesterday," Sat. 1-8-10, in relation to the Tea Party, Sarah Palin, etc. ("You should not have brought it up"). He was very adamant about it, and I could see he was getting up a little steam.
Examples of his (1) attempt to pass the buck - to the other side for anyone who listens; (2) being somewhere in la la land when he should have been "present" and in the moment; (3) attempts to overthrow(!) the Host's (Candy Crowley) agenda and command of things, I suggest.
(3) "I think the way to get away from it is for you not to be talking about it." NOW, NOTICE that is a bad habit cultivated by some people to keep us SILENT about anything uncomfortable or taboo (for some reason). But the time is long past for those who COUNT to keep silent. There's a slogan, a powerful, daring, and commanding one heard lots on LINKTV.ORG: WE SHALL NOT BE SILENT. That means something. Even Representative Giffords would not be silent; she spoke out against that imagery.
Some examples of what it possibly means when someone wants to silence us (or when we want to avoid responsibility and silence ourselves): we should: "shut up," "mind your own business," "you should not be talking about it," "that subject is off limits," "God is not in this," "God is not here, just us" (so we can fight all night and day) - you can fill in all the blanks if any. Anyway, one who wants to silence someone must be mum about how to do it; an entity who wants to kill secretly will silence the weapon before silencing the TARGET - unless he/she wants the attention the noise will draw.
Examples of his (1) attempt to pass the buck - to the other side for anyone who listens; (2) being somewhere in la la land when he should have been "present" and in the moment; (3) attempts to overthrow(!) the Host's (Candy Crowley) agenda and command of things, I suggest.
(1) I noticed that he was attempting to steer the focus of anybody's eyes he could manipulate into seeing the culprit as anything but one of them. Others have already done it, and he, too, listed all the man's "favs," especially Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto, and Hitler's autobiography. He repeated this scenario twice. Thus any dunce knows that he must be a non-conservative. Further, "He burned the American flag," which he considers atypical of a conservative.
Any serious reader should be familiar with all the literature Jerad Loughner favs, but that DOES NOT make one adhere to the notions or doctrines of any reading list. It really means that they are well read or avid readers. He could have named those books and never read one page of them. Given by the way he "speels" and shifts tenses, etc., one could deduce that it is plausible. Most Liberals are not (I hope none at all) the KKK, or Nazi (Facist) who do burn flags. Further, we must admit that the majority of these ARE CONSERVATIVE.
Any serious reader should be familiar with all the literature Jerad Loughner favs, but that DOES NOT make one adhere to the notions or doctrines of any reading list. It really means that they are well read or avid readers. He could have named those books and never read one page of them. Given by the way he "speels" and shifts tenses, etc., one could deduce that it is plausible. Most Liberals are not (I hope none at all) the KKK, or Nazi (Facist) who do burn flags. Further, we must admit that the majority of these ARE CONSERVATIVE.
Philosophically, Conservatives burn the flag in many ways, while upholding the Constitution, which many of them probably have not even read. (They just try to "play by ear.") I know, I am familiar with a few of them. Their main concern is to pervert their fav heartthrobs, Amendments 1, 4, & 14. Some of them are out to confiscate the 14th Amendment and make it do whatever THEY will it to do, if they can. They also tamper with Civil Rights Amendment of 1964 (when they can) and the Nineteenth Amendment, which freed women to work on becoming FREE-R. A Democrat did not purport that the Constitution does not protect women .... I digressed a little, I think.
(2) "Well, Candy, I think you are you are (a repeat) responsible by bring this up - of doing the very thing you're trying to condemn." Of course, she DID NOT bring it up, but Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, Democratic Majority Whip, did, using it as an example of possible scenarios I believe. For example, he directly mentioned Alaska's rifle woman with the caustic political PAC and the word "crosshairs." That map includes Rep Giffords in the crosshairs as one of the targets(!), and encourages her constituents to take aim ("target") and shoot, in a sense.
Senator Alexander's main focus of course is that the Tea Party Republicans and other Republicans never be associated with this assassination attempt. Also, someone has said somewhere that this map, for example, is 10 months old, and what possible connection would it have to do with this tragedy. If one thought it through, it must be admitted that the assumption does not necessarily mean much. For example, from the conception to birth/death is a zero to x-months manifestation period. Just because it died down does not mean it was forgotten - it could just as well be incubating in many abscessed places in the human psychic.
Senator Alexander's main focus of course is that the Tea Party Republicans and other Republicans never be associated with this assassination attempt. Also, someone has said somewhere that this map, for example, is 10 months old, and what possible connection would it have to do with this tragedy. If one thought it through, it must be admitted that the assumption does not necessarily mean much. For example, from the conception to birth/death is a zero to x-months manifestation period. Just because it died down does not mean it was forgotten - it could just as well be incubating in many abscessed places in the human psychic.
Some examples of what it possibly means when someone wants to silence us (or when we want to avoid responsibility and silence ourselves): we should: "shut up," "mind your own business," "you should not be talking about it," "that subject is off limits," "God is not in this," "God is not here, just us" (so we can fight all night and day) - you can fill in all the blanks if any. Anyway, one who wants to silence someone must be mum about how to do it; an entity who wants to kill secretly will silence the weapon before silencing the TARGET - unless he/she wants the attention the noise will draw.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
History network pulls plug on Kennedy project - News - Yahoo! TV
History network pulls plug on Kennedy project - News - Yahoo! TV
http://y.ahoo.it/grG7hRbG
@ Patric: No, it wasn't. What was wrong was the malicious act of the Republicans imposing their WILL upon others because they of course did not like the Democrat. With all the downfalls and pitfalls Republicans have experienced, what room do they have to point mile-long fingers at others. I agree, Bill Clinton should have apologized to America simply because he lied (if we define what they did as SEX).
http://y.ahoo.it/grG7hRbG
@ Patric: No, it wasn't. What was wrong was the malicious act of the Republicans imposing their WILL upon others because they of course did not like the Democrat. With all the downfalls and pitfalls Republicans have experienced, what room do they have to point mile-long fingers at others. I agree, Bill Clinton should have apologized to America simply because he lied (if we define what they did as SEX).
He should have apologized to Monica L. because in lying about his encounter with her, he made the woman a liar when she in fact did not lie. On the other hand, when he said, "I did not have sex with that woman," he could have told the truth because what they did is ANYBODY's definition of what sex is. (Isn't that the kind of reasoning on school campuses today? I don't know if that has ever been settled.) What he suffered because of what he did has not made him worse; as a matter of fact, it made him become more sober and HUMAN.
There are two types of human and I suggest we sometimes mix them up. There is a fallen human and a redeemed human, both humans but at different levels of human experience. Therefore, the Bill Clinton that did what he did is not the same man today. In other words, he grew up like a tree. Here's hoping we all do because we all fall short of the glory of God, until we stop falling short and grow like trees more than ever.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Were Dr. King not a reverently prayerful man, I believe he would not have been able to maintain his inner and outer composure unceasingly, take care of his family all the time, love his friends and his enemies simultaneously, face death threats and still act as though he had not even heard of them, lead a multitude of different personalities - many of whom did not know each other; meld different races and ethnicities, different religious affiliations, different economic backgrounds, etc., and yield them to God's intent as one coherent whole, with one focus, one love, believing in one faith (human equality) even though many faiths came together in power - of overcoming much evil in high places. And the work goes on.
No one can maintain that one-pointed ninja faith in something unless he has an inner guide talking with him on a personal level, one on whom he could lean while looking perfectly composed to others. I always felt he was one of the most unpretentiously humble-looking men (including my teacher, and the Mahatma) that I had ever seen, All of them gave me the same feeling - that they were real. (Mind you, the Mahatma died a year before I was born.)
I really believe that every true and dedicated soul will have a deep prayer life. Every well needs to be full of water, or else it is chokingly dry, it's got no source to draw from. Dr. King knew God was his Wellspring, from which he drew all he ever needed. In those times I feel he might have sense death walking with him daily, but they both knew death could not touch him until he was finished. I can imagine those thoughts helped to shape his prayers to the Source of his strength, and therefore he was prayerfully not afraid.