God and World: Reflections

*******

I do not want to make a "federal case" out of any of our disagreements, if indeed we actually do disagree. I can see much in both of your letters with which I am in most firm agreement. I suspect that we agree far more than we disagree.

You are right: I do not know you, and I do not have deep familiarity with your ideas. I can "go on" only what I read-- on the words that you choose to use. Everyone else must do the same, so I do not apologize for this. If there exists a problem in understanding between us, I submit that you are at least half responsible. You will note that I accept fifty percent of the responsibility. Clearer expression leads to more lucid understanding. If you see yourself as a teacher, you owe it to all your students and clients to express yourself clearly. You must work to eradicate illucidity and ambiguity. At times, when you are misunderstood, it is because you need to express yourself with greater clarity.

You write, "...without infriging on others." This is one of the many areas in which we are in full agreement. I do not believe it right to "infringe" upon the rights of any other adult. I feel that sharing among adults can be productive, but no one should ever try to "take over the mind" of another.

You write, "I believe religion is the problem NOT SPIRITUALITY." Here, my friend, we are in perfect agreement. Spirituality is a solution for human problems, and is not the challenge. It is religion that divides people, while spirituality, as compassion, brings people together to try to find agreements.

You write, "Oh, and you seem to run over the dinosaur explanation, can you explain where > they fall in?" If the question is understood correctly, you are inquiring about the place of dinosaurs relative to other species of organism. It appears from the paleontological record that the dinosaurs were a "failed experiment." Most of them perished when a huge meteor or asteroid struck the earth during the Jurassic, about sixty-five million years ago. Had they survived and continued to evolve, the dominant life-form on our planet might not have been mammalian, but a humanoid reptilian. Dinosaurs exploded into thousands of species, but still never evolved towards a sentient (selfaware) form capable of spirituality in the human sense.

You write, "murder is malicouse, killing is natural." There is no distinction when you are talking about a member of the human species. Killing is the same as, is synonymous with, murder! So, you cannot possibly believe, with any logic or reason,that killing is okay, but murder evil. And I am still stymied: What is the advantage to trying to "justify" killing as "natural"? It sounds again as if you are trying to say that killing can be justified, or that it might be even "okay." Even if this is a correct understanding of your argument, what is its advantage? Of what practical good is such an argument? Can it make you a better, or happier, person?

You write, "Greed is mainly the problem, but religion gives them the power to enforce > their wars, spirituality does not." Once again, my friend, we are in total agreement with both parts of this statement. Greed is hideous psychospiritual infection. It is often approved or justified by religion, but never by spirituality!

You write, "I do though, believe in a higher power. That is why I do not follow it [the formal Church], but i do discuss it with those that are delved into it and I am currently reading the bible, the universal type for catholics..." Again, we are in full agreement. I do not belong to any form of organized religion, but spirituality is the very center of my existence. It is Love, and it is the most important aspect of this life. I also do not believe in cults or cult-leaders, as I belonged to a cult until I was in my early twenties. Reading the Bible can be an enlightening experience, although I do not usually read the Hebrew Scriptures. There is a good reason for this: That part of the Bible was the sacred Scripture for the Jewish religion, and I have never belonged to that faith. The Christian Scriptures (usually called by the biased name "New Testament") contain much deep spiritual truth. And I do still consider myself a "Jesus-Christian," even though I belong to no official, orthodox form of historical "Christianity."

You write, "and can you explain evolution?" I have come, after years of research and contemplation, to a compromise-theory called "edit." This is the "evolution-design integrative theory." I accept the truth of evolution, but I still believe that living things, with enormous and beautiful structure, do reflect intelligent design. So, some process caused evolution to occur. It might have been interatomic, intermolecular, or intercellular. But life is simply far too fantastically complex for evolution to have occurred through purely random processes.

You write, "Oh and saying that nature believes we should be here, doesn't that go against what you beleive?" I think that you meant to question what I "believe." And no, this does not in any way go against what I believe. The fact that God used nature to create us implies that both God and nature do indeed "want" us to exist. Both have invested millions of years in creating you, and me. That implies that a higher Power, working through nature's processes, wants us to be here.

You write, "is was GODS CHOICE FOR US TO BE HERE not natures..." Now, because God is fully capable of using nature to do his will, it is an artificial and shallow argument that you must so divide God and nature. This statement implies that if God wants something, nature cannot; and if nature wants it, God cannot. I submit that the opposite is usually true: When God wants something, nature also wants it; and when nature wants it, God also wants it. I do not say that this is always the case, but it is so more often than not. So, this "either or" choice violates the laws of both nature and logic.

You write, "don't push this past Noah after he tried to destroy us because it was his choice again to leave us here." This sentence is not at all clear. What does it mean to "push this past Noah"? Do you believe that the flood-account in Genesis was a literal flood, and that it was sent by the Lord of Love to murder all his children? I see this as more symbolic or allegorical writing. The first parts of Genesis were never intended to be a history- or science-textbook. The ancient stories told there are designed to teach lessons about spirituality. But I do not believe that they represent literal history.

You write, "I see that you agreed on spots that were kept correct by previous." This sentence is not clear to me, but it does seem to recognize the fact that has already been stated in this letter: You and I are in full agreement about many, perhaps most, matters. There is
little disagreement.

You write, "you seemed to have missed that point." First, your assumption that I read your blog was mistaken. Since I did not read it, it would have been impossible for me to have "missed" any "point" that you might have been trying to make.
*******

Evolution and Philosophy

*******

That which is "natural" is not always positive or conducive to a good life. Freezing to death in winter is also natural. Arsenic is also natural. Upset bears and tigers are also natural.

We do not believe that people can be reduced to animals. The human mind does have biological components, but it is arrested, simplistic, and reductionistic to dwindle the human brain to the status of an "animal" brain. For, in common parlance, animals are creatures that respond to only hormonal and other biochemical factors, without reflection. It is philosophically dangerous to place human beings in this category "animal." For they behave without reflective thought or ruminative consideration of their actions. So do human beings, often, but we do have the abillity to consider consequences before we murder, rape, or otherwise respond to the "animal nature." It is not necessarily the "master" of every human being, in all circumstances. It is simply sophomoric to repeat like a mantra, "people are animals." It solves nothing, and only compounds the problems.

You write, "Religion has its good as well as bad. What do you think causes 99 percent of the wars in the world?" Since you ask, I will answer: War is caused by greed.

You write, "Killing and Murder Malicously is wrong, having EVOLVED, not been formed from nothingness by a master which is contradicted by fossils of dinosaurs." Your connection between God and dinosaur-fossils is obscure, to say the least. To say the most, it is confusing and obfuscating. You seem to reflect the nineteenth-century perspective that, because dinosaurs existed, that somehow "disproves" the existence of God. No modern scientist or theologian believes this any more, and if you do, you need to do some research.

You write, "Belief in a higher power is good, self evident truths are good, the ten commandments are good, the deadly sins are correct in that they are bad." You have passed some rather sweeping judgments here. Certainly, I do not disagree with these premises. But the Ten Commandments were not created for twenty-first century society. Do you, for example, carefully observe the Sabbath every week? Jesus did not, and that got him in all sorts of trouble.

You write, "A higher power there could be yes, mans interpretation of how it was done incorrect IN MY OPINION, its a self truth that everyone is allowed their OWN OPINION, and should they clash turn to the other things we have found to be 'Right'" Here, you write as if here is only one opinion about the higher Power; actually, there are hundreds! I certainly agree that each is free, and should be, to hold and express personal opinions.

You write, "Right is in the eye of the beholder." This sounds smart, at first glance. But historical and philosophic studies make it clear that this "moral relativism" is counterproductive, historically dangerous and harmful, and without deep intellectual roots. It is like a pattern of life made up by a ten-year-old. It really does not work, in real life. For it does nothing to satisfy the human need for order, beauty, or meaning. It is emotionally exhausting and morally and legally worthless.

You write, "The standard is set by society, though they may think they are RIGHT, in their ANSWERS, it doesn't mean it is CORRECT." I agree that society is usually wrong. This has been so throughout history, when great men and women have had to face the disapprobation of the current social order. But some standards are not simply "set by society." Some arise from our very biological nature. This is the positive side to our "animal-nature." Study, for example, how animal-parents care for their offspring. In many cases, you will find that animal parents care well for their offspring. If you ascribe this to species-survival, which you likely do, it is still a manifestation of caring.

You write, "The NAZI's thought their ANSWER was RIGHT, but it wasn't CORRECT." I fully and heartily agree! But they actually followed your idea that "right is in the eye of the beholder." This allowed them to engage in enormous cruelty and gigantic stupidity. They had to get rid of any idea of God, or of any moral justice, to engage in their social idiocy and depravity. I do not believe that God is some invisible critter in the sky. But I do believe that God is Love.

It is a very old and tired misunderstanding of bio-evolution to assert that, as your letter does, "It goes against a self evident truth of the evolution of mankind that murder is bad because it hinders our self rights." No, my friend, in biological terms, murder is bad because it kills off even the best, most well-adapted, of any species. Kill off enough of them, and murder becomes maladaptive in the extreme. Why are you trying to justify murder?

You write, "What is our rights, our rights are standards set by society, does it mean they are correct?" I have already answered this earlier, but our rights have some biological antecedents also. Nature gives us the right to survive, by having formed us as physical beings. If nature did not want us here, she would not have formed us as physical bodies. If nature itself wants an individual to exist, it follows that no one has an overriding "right" to murder her.
*******

Materialism a Path to Nowhere

*******

You have already learned much of great value, my friend. Just to know that materialism is hollow (and, in time, boring and unsatisfying) means that you are already on the right path. Your sagittarius-nature wants to be free of the utter, immobilizing slavery that material "masters" demand. The material world will draw away all your time and energy, leaving you zero freedom, if you let it. So, this insistence on your sacred freedom is a fine application of this sagittarius-energy!!

The world is filled with so many distractions because we find our lower natures attracted to them. That is why an important step in the Way is to minimize personal desires. Don't misunderstand: The enlightened being can have hundreds of desires, but they must all be what Love desires. It is an ignorant caricature to portray the enlightened mystic as having no desire. But the truth is, she has given up all personal desires, and this increases her happiness and tranquility. Most people try to "get happy" by trying to "get" all the "stuff" that they want. But, when they do, they are still miserable. What went wrong?

Happiness is an interior state of mind. It is not changed by the material world. So, there are as many wealthy people who are totally unhappy and miserable as there are poor people, although they have different reasons for their frustrations and misery. Getting "more stuff" does not make life richer or happier. Only increasing friendships and service can do that. Why?

Because this is what we were created to do. It is what we all, deep down, really want to do. For friendship and service are the two practical manifestations of Love in our world.

The world is beautiful. Especially nature is filled with many kinds of beauty. Even the material world is good. But what is not good is what most people do. They allow the material world to become their master. Serving money fulltime, these people no longer have any time to serve Love. This exhausts them, and leaves them bitter and frustrated. These people live lives of "isolated splendor," surrounded by a huge house and luxurious car, but having no one with whom to share them. They are lonely because they have invested not a minute in Love. They do not really value or treasure Love, and soon, find themselves without it. No matter what you have, it all feels and tastes like sawdust if you do not have a life filled with Love.
*******

Bush Review by Boxer

Barbara Boxer Reviews Bush

If you recall, a year ago, I had just completed questioning Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at her confirmation hearing about how the Bush Administration had misled us into the Iraq war, how they had failed to plan for winning the peace, and how they had no timetable for bringing our troops home. With your help, I was able to ask the tough questions and hold the Administration accountable for its mistakes, missteps, and misleading statements.

Unfortunately, not much has changed in the last year. Yes, we've heard the President acknowledge that "mistakes were made" in Iraq -- but in no way does this amount to "accountability." If the president truly believed in taking responsibility, he would have made some dramatic changes to remedy his many mistakes. Instead, all we've seen and heard is "stay the course."

Yesterday, a little more than a year since I first questioned her about Iraq, I once again had the opportunity to question Secretary Rice at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- yet one more chance for her to set the record straight, and another chance she has
squandered.

I gave Secretary Rice another chance to take responsibility for the Administration's failed policy for winning the peace, as our occupation has now created a hotbed for insurgents and terrorists in Iraq; by the Administration's own acknowledgement, it didn't exist before our invasion -- not to mention the thousands of lives that have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars that have been wasted there.

I gave Secretary Rice another chance to tell us what the Administration's plan is for bringing our brave men and women in uniform home, after more than three years of long and difficult duty in Iraq.

You can read my statement from today's hearing below. Needless to say, Secretary of State Rice failed to take responsibility for the Bush Administration's mistakes. So it's up to you and me to keep speaking out and setting the record straight.
*****
"Administration's Tin Ear on the Middle East is Making America Less Safe"
Opening Statement of Senator Barbara Boxer
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing
February 15, 2006

Madam Secretary, the president said during his State of the Union address that we are winning in Iraq; and he is confident in his plan for victory.

Unfortunately, the American people don't share this confidence. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll conducted January 26th through the
29th shows that a majority of Americans... believe the president has failed to give good reasons why the U.S. must keep troops in Iraq. Similarly, 53 percent of Americans are less confident that Iraq will come to a successful conclusion. They don't share his confidence because they see what is happening on the ground. They see brave men [such as] ABC's Bob Woodruff and his cameraman seriously injured while trying to record on, "the good news coming out of Iraq."

They see Jill Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor, a young woman who went to Iraq to tell the story of the Iraqi people, kidnapped and begging or her life -- and we pray for her safe return. And, of course, the deaths and the injuries keep climbing -- up to 19,000 Americans either dead or wounded. This Administration's rosy scenarios like the Vice President's statement that the insurgency was in the last throes, your statement in '05 that the insurgency has been dealt several blows, just don't match realities on the ground.

The number of attacks against coalition troops, Iraqi security forces, and civilians increased by 29 percent last year.
Let me give you specifics:
Insurgents launched 34,000 plus attacks in 2005, an increase of 8,000 from 2004. Last year, the number of car bombs more than doubled from 420 to 873. The number of suicide car bombs went from 133 to 411. 67 attackers wore suicide vests last year, up from seven in 2004. Roadside bombs increased from 5,000-plus to 10,000-plus. Last week, a chart appeared in the New York Times depicting the extent of casualties just in one month. And I just want you to see this, because sometimes we don't recognize what's going on there. More than 800 people were killed as a result of the insurgency.

And what do the Iraqi people think of all this? 64 percent of Iraqis believe that crime and violent attacks will decrease when the United States redeploys out of Iraq. Perhaps more important[ly], 73 percent of Iraqis believe there will be greater cooperation among Iraq's political factions when the United States redeploys.

So I say to you, if we're in Iraq to help the Iraqi people, then we ought to start listening to the Iraqi people and start a redeployment. Now, success in Iraq also depends greatly on the ability of our forces to better secure Iraq's oil infrastructure. Paul Wolfowitz told Congress in 2003, "We're dealing with a country that can finance its own reconstruction with oil, and relatively soon." That was another rosy scenario. The reality is [that] Iraq's oil production has dropped from pre-war levels.

And I want to show you a headline from the New York Times a little more than a week ago: "Oil graft fuels the insurgency." The Iraqi finance minister has estimated that insurgents receive 40... to 50 percent of all oil smuggling profits in the country. So not only is the oil not financing the reconstruction; it is financing the insurgency that is killing American troops. Our main reason for going to Iraq was to get rid of the WMDs, or, as you said, not to wait for the smoking gun to become the mushroom cloud. That was a farce. And the truth is coming out.

The CIA intelligence officer in charge of the Middle East intelligence from 2000 to 2005 wrote, "Intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made."

Our standing in the world is low, according to the Pew Research Center, and the American people know it. Two-thirds of Americans say [that] there is less international respect for the U.S. than in the past. And when asked why, a strong majority, seven in 10 Americans, cite the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is bringing our standing down in the world. American people are smart.

Now you have cited elections in the Middle East as a sign that, "The neighborhood is changing." But is the neighborhood changing for the better? It doesn't appear so.

You have admitted to being blindsided by the Hamas victory -- saying, "I've asked why nobody saw it coming. It does say something about us [sic] not having a good pulse."

And I do appreciate your candor there. But this has become a pattern.

This Administration was shocked by Hamas, shocked by the election of the Iranian leader, shocked that Iraqis voted for conservative religious parties with ties to Iran instead of secular candidates like Ahmed Chalabi, whose party got not one single vote in the Iraqi parliament. I remember when he sat behind the first lady in 2004 at the State of the Union address. This Administration seems to have a tin ear when it comes to the Middle East, and that tin ear is making us less safe.

Paid for by PAC for a Change, www.barbaraboxer.com, Treasurer Sim Farar.

Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee

Thoughts on "Christian War"

Thanks to Mick Gallagher.
Thoughts on "Christian War"
*******

Prior to our invasion of Iraq, war correspondent Chris Hedges, citing decades of first hand observation from all parts of the world, wrote:

"War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning'....
[This includes] the myths presented in war; the plague of ignorance created by irrational nationalism and how it's both used and fomented by powerful interests who gain from military conflict; the relinquishment of individual judgment and liberty; the pornographic and ubiquitous tortures; the mass amnesia; the hijacking and destruction of culture--it's all there.

I find it ironic but telling that elements of our body politic found antiwar sentiments expressed at Coretta Scott King's funeral too "political."

As Hedges points out, there is no point of view more taboo to the nation state than pacifism.

Yet, in a nation that claims to be Christian, in a nation whose Christian coalitions are said to be responsible for reelecting president bush, I have to ask what such Biblical injunctions as "turn the other cheek," "resist not evil," and blessed are the peacemakers, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven" mean! In our nation, currently, there is the belief that despite what individuals say about the meaning of Islam, its adherents are warmongers. Can one imagine, after two thousand years, what non Christians must think about the legacy of Christianity? "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Yes, "those who live by the sword, will die by the sword," and until humanity gets hip to that,... we have a long, hard and bloody slog ahead.

Posted by: barryology.

"Why We Fight." think back to 1990. The curtain was coming down on the Soviet Union. They had been the focus of the Military Industrial Complex for over 40 years. All politicians had used them as the excuse for spending untold billions for our "protection." Bomber Gap, Missile Gap, Window of Vulnerability-- all [were] lies to perpetuate endless spending. The military-industrial complex was then facing its greatest enemy-- peace.

During the previous 7 years, Reagan and Bush the First had supported Saddam with no consideration of morality. Now with his army on the border of Kuwait, Saddam inquired about the U.S. stance on his further aggression.

The response from the Bush administration was, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." One week later, Iraq attacked Kuwait. [It became the] instant "bogeyman"! As we watched the Soviet Union crumble in our rearview mirrors, we moved ahead to our next foe.

Did anyone ask any questions? Hell, no! And it was a "splendid little war"! Why didn't we get rid of Saddam? The rationale for not removing Saddam had nothing to do with being "smart enough" not to get mired in a quagmire. But [it had] everything to do with military spending. And [it was about] a "projection of our power."

With Saddam in power, Iraq could be used as the target of sanctions, no-fly zones, and weapons inspections.

We spent about a trillion dollars "containing Saddam" between the wars! Was it any wonder that we allowed the Shiites to be slaughtered after their uprising.

Now the cherry on the whip cream is bin Laden. His war against the U.S. was prompted in part by our support for corrupt Middle Eastern Leaders, setting up military bases in countries ruled by these leaders, and our treatment of the Iraqi people. All of which was brought about by "containing Saddam" and our love affair with Big Oil.

It is no secret that Bush and his cronies wanted to go after Iraq (and Syria and Iran). The events of 9/11 provided the spring board for the series of lies that formed the pretext for the War in Iraq.

The current "War on Terror" and its bastard stepchild in Iraq are now being used to "justify" the massive spending by the Military Industrial Complex. This will continue until we admit to ourselves and the rest of the World our true motivations and our incredible stupidity. Or [until] China pulls the plug on our debt, and forces us into receivership.

--Posted by olephart.

Agreement in Love

*******

It is wonderful and delightful when the Holy Spirit leads two souls into full agreement!:) That is worth celebrating!

But this does not always necessarily happen. For the Spirit is very subtle, and there can exist resistances to it that are even unconscious. (We are not even aware of them.) There can also exist, in the busy mind, an inability even to "hear" the "still, small voice" of Love in the heart.

For this and other reasons, it is possible for two good, sincere, and intelligent people to disagree about doctrines. Holy Spirit does not always guide people into doctrinal conformity, but often leaves it up to our free will to decide what we want to believe. Even "obvious" truths are not obvious to all, and some misunderstandings can be very attractive to our lower nature. So, it is possible to celebrate a diversity of variety within the family or communion of Love.

While we do not try to force doctrinal conformity, we do respond, as loving people, to wisdom and reason. Still, the goal of the Lord of Love is to create as much Love, and as powerful a Love, as possible among God's children. This Love is the motive, and the only motive, of a truly spiritual teacher. She cares about your mind and its content, for she knows that what you hold to be true can ruin or energize your life. So, the function of the Spirit is not to create doctrinal conformity, but only Love. Those who love each other will naturally seek compromise and as much agreement as possible.

Harmony is the Way of Love, and always feels great!:)

Some Secret Service like Bush

Thanks to Barb Cole, a dear friend who is a member of that minority that actually likes George Bush. This little story shows that a person can be incompetent and personally kind, periodically, at the same time.

PRESIDENTIAL OBSERVATIONS BY THE SECRET SERVICE
Observations by Dave Kulow (source unknown, status unknown)

We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane.

Yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and LBJ was a typical Texas "good ole boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41 & Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.

The information below is accurate: The elder Bush & current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the air crews who fly them around. When the president flies, there are several planes that also go one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft. Both Bush's made it a point to stay home on holidays, so the Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.


WHAT WAS:

Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence.

Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her. Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all loathed her and wanted to be on a different detail. Hillary Clinton was despised by the Secret Service as a whole.

Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attacks Hillary would use against her husband. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.

Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most wondered why he tolerated it instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clinton's neither liked nor respected each other and this was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience."

Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail. Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. He was polite, but not kind. They did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him.

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN:

Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were more friendly toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton. They were not intimate, so please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.

Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This hatred was something that he and Hillary had in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail. Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities, whereas Al Gore and Hillary had none, in the view of their security details.

Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them, as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion. Al got angry at his offspring and pointed at his security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?" Word of this insult by the former Vice-president quickly spread and he became as disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore would not be elected President, and they really did have private celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat.


WHAT IS:

Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail. Without exception, they concede that she is perhaps the nicest and most kind person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her ecurity detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers. She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation.

There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air." They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."

Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Q for his security detail and he helps serve their meals. He sits with them, eats with them, and talks with them. He knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers.

They believe that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush. Most of them did not know they would feel this way, until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed since he began his Presidency. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.

The Lord's Prayer: Temptation

*******

The Lord's Prayer contains the phrase, "Lead us not into temptation" because the Lord of Love is the Fountain and Source of the world-dream. (This is the everyday world.) So, God is ultimately responsible for whatever "temptations" that we encounter, although we are personally responsible for our reactions.

Here is how it works: The world, or cosmos, is dreamed into being by the One, the Lord of Love. This is the great Mind at the Center of all minds. (It is collective, or shared.) This Lord dreams up an utterly perfect universe. But, before it can become conscious, it must pass through the filter of the soul, a personal factor (not collective, also in the Unconscious). When it passes through this altering filter, the world is changed so that it reflects our personal karmic pattern. It dreams into being our karma, and plays that back to us. That is why the experienced world is so far from perfect.

In all history among the monotheisms, there has been only one Creator, and that is this Mindlevel called "Spirit." So, whatever temptation exist must be created by God or Lovemind.
*******

Christian Variations

*******

Nothing seems "easy" for complex human societies. I am not certain that there are 23,000 "denominations" of Christianity, but there probably are that many sects, cults, and certainly variations of understanding. (A "denomination" is a larger group, such as Methodism, Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, etc.)

This is because, despite its simplicity as the Way of Love plus nothing, Christianity has been interpreted as necessarily implying many other teachings. These are usually called "doctrines," and here, almost no one agrees with anyone else! Doctrines are further subdivided into smaller teachings, microdoctrines, in which infinite variability, and unlimited disagreement become possible! Since it is human nature to bicker, disagree, quarrel, and fight, whenever anyone has disagreed with anyone else-- about virtually anything-- the disagreement would result in a new group. So, sects, cults, and individual explanations of the microdetails of Christianity result in hopeless multiplication of groups, each disagreeing with all the others. Christianity has been a very vociferous and disagreeable group almost from the beginning, shortly after the death of Jesus.

That fact of history does nothing to alter the sweet simplicity of the message of Jesus. In trying to get it "exactly right" through attention to microdetails, ironically, most have managed completely to miss the gigantic Center of the faith. That is, of course, Love. If you do not get that one right, it hardly matters how "right" you are about all the other stuff. And if you do get that right, the details no longer count for anything.

The Christian Scriptures have been mistaken, in an old Jewish approach, for a "textbook." They are not; they are a reminder of the cruciality of Love. Life is the school, and life the "textbook," and the Bible is not a manual. It is instead a group of wisdom-discoveries made by some great Love-mystics, including Jesus. To pick apart the Bible, letter by letter, does not produce Love, but only divisions. This is antiagapic. That is why I have pointed out, repeatedly, that the entire spectrum of doctrines is optional for the mystic. If she wants to embrace a particular teaching, she does so, for she is free to do so. If a doctrine seems unloving, and she turns away from it as false, that is also within her right. God simply does not care what you believe; God cares about only how you live or behave. If you act consistently in Love, from Love, God is active within you. If you do not, then God is not activating you.

To "get it right" has never been about intellectual doctrines and dogma. It has been all about the exercise of compassion, goodness, kindness, and related qualities. When you turn Christianity into a thing of intellect, it becomes a subject of disagreement-- even, by extension, violence and even warfare! This occurs when you lose the focus, which is always Love.
*******

Murdering Evil?

*******

Each person must respond to the guidance of the Spirit (Love) as she understands and "hears" it. In complex moral decisions, such as, Should I kill Hitler?" the factors involved are very intricate, interwoven, interactive, and of enormous complexity. Not knowing the future, we can say with absolute certainty that murder is always the "wrong" activity.

Our lower nature (fear-nature) would love to kill someone such as Hitler or binladen. Many would like to kill bush as well. But we have zero guarantee that killing Hitler would have stopped the madness of Germany and its crazy antisemitism. He was only one man, after all, and easily replaced.

Still, it is impossible for human beings to speak in absolutes. Hitler, if killed, would likely have been immediately replaced by someone just as nuts! On the other hand, it is possible that killing such a violent psychotic could well have saved many lives. Ignorance of the outcome is not exactly bliss, but it does prevent us from thinking in simplistic, naive "black and white" terms of "right and wrong."

Murder is always wrong. But can there be mitigating factors? No doubt there can be. Besides, when we look at our model in nature (as divine expression), it can be argued that it is simply a matter of time until "she" (nature) kills us all.

But to use this as a rationalization to take a life is nightmarishly dangerous. However evil the person, we must admit that nature has given him/her life, and no one has the right voluntarily, deliberately to take that life. As noted, in time, nature will do the job for us. And, through disease and genetic mechanisms, nature often takes a person out of this world "before his time." (This is never literally true, of course, since no one ever exits early.)

To sum up, killing one person voluntarily, with premeditation would certainly sow the seeds of future painful karma, and would definitely not solve anything. When an evil person is removed, another, just as evil, immediately "pops up" to take his/her place. So, murder is not only bad politics and bad policy; it is just plain "bad." It is evil, a violation of all that the enlighten hold to be sacred. Nothing-- no behavior-- is powerful enough to "justify" murder. For if the good guys start to murder the bad guys, they have themselves become the "new" bad guys!
*******