I will always remember this day as the day I joined 80k supporters of the delightful opposition, the tremendous outpouring of support for Barack Obama at Denver’s Civic Center Park. I took the light-rail train from my sleepy suburb, and more and more people filled up the train the closer we got to downtown. Obama shirts, button, signs… throngs of people emptied out of the train at the Convention Center to walk to the park. The line to the “entrance” was three blocks long, but it moved quickly, and I took the opportunity to buy the button I wanted from one of the guys with the button-boards, who walked along with me (backwards) as I held my glove in my teeth, getting a $5 bill for him all while walking with the line moving towards the Capitol Building and the adjacent park. Usually it is just filled with street folks and drug-dealers, the occasional library-going pedestrian… but today it was like the LOVE PARADE in Berlin! (sort of.) I climbed up a crab-apple tree to see the little ants that spoke at the podium. It was flat and hard to see from the outer stretches. The crowd reached like ocean all the way up Capitol Hill to the Governor’s Mansion up the way.
We heard from our Democratic Representative Diana Degette, whom I met at a brunch I went to years ago when I was going through a high-point of political activism with my dad as my date. Our democratic senator Ken Salazar spoke a few words, and Mark Udall the “Boulder Liberal” running for Senate on the Democratic ticket, who is also pro-alternate energy, education, and bringing home our troops… And one of my favorites, popular Denver mayor business-man, democrat, micro-brew beer man (formerly a geologist) whom I worked for at the Wynkoop Brewing Company in the late nineties. He was a very nice absentee owner, who made pleasant appearances at the brew-pub now and then again. Later I also worked for him as a temp- addressing his wedding invitations by hand when he was our new mayor, and I went to a city-council/mayor meeting one morning when I interned for the City Councilwoman from my district. Just last Friday night we had a 20th anniversary Wynkoop reunion, and he was there, and hugged me! The nice man stayed until the end of the night when we were all ushered out, goons and all the familiar faces from a fun job I had years ago.
And then Barack Obama said inspiring, and intelligent things. He called for personal responsibility too, which the libertarian part of me likes, and YES! Let’s tweak the system out so that it includes more and more of us. YES, infrastructure, and community effort! I just love being inspired for once. I’m on board!
Events, Politics | 27.10.2008 0:20 | No Comments
The summer has launched with a feeling like it has felt like a really cosmic time for people with ideas coming together to talk about certain pertinent aspects to our times, our lives, and our society. At least it has been this way for me. Culture, sustainability… I’ve even seen a couple of amazing interviews on Charlie Rose, KRMA channel 6 public television: Zbigniew Brzezenski, former national security adviser to Carter had some interesting things to say about his new book, Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower who had some really interesting points to make about America’s interaction with the world, it’s state of affairs. One pertinent thing he said is that the symbol of America is no longer the statue of Liberty but Guantanamo Bay. He spoke to issues of the actions of American corporations in the world, war with Iraq, diplomatic conditions with Iran and South Korea. What he said that struck me as cutting edge in a way in which we can redeem ourselves. The impression I got about what he was saying is that “we,” as in the collective “America,” whose face we show the world, we need to change our actions and the way in which we treat people around the world. This must start with a certain serious political and economic self-reflection on the paradigm of things as they are in our society. God I hope we can vote an enlightened soul to help guide policy on the national level, the platform which facilitates the way “we” launch ourselves into the world.
Also, a man spoke, his name and position escape me but he was the head of a new labor affiliation group advocating for middle America’s issues. He spoke to labor and particularly health care issues, and I recall that his message aligned with my conviction of the importance of a healthy middle class, outside this current trend of its diminishing size. His idea on health care was pretty cool in my opinion- give Americans a certain allocation of health care money and allow them to chose whatever form of health care feel they need, be it alternative or conventional… This was to be independent of the current policy model on the table of employer-based health care. He argued that with transitionary nature of many people floating from job to job, the easy flight from one job to the next, is erratic and therefore negative. God I wish I could remember who this guy was.
I was talking with a new friend for hours about mysticism, energy, karmic debt, empowerment, the mind, meditation… we remarked how it seems that more and more people are readily coming together somehow to talk about these things and freely exchange powerful ideas. Somehow we find each other, don’t we?
Conversations, Politics | 24.06.2007 0:43 | No Comments
The Green Belt Movement (GBM) in Kenya and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) in Chiapas, Mexico share many similarities. Both movements had issues to mobilize over deforestation and environmental degradation on the part of the GBM; and the North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA with the EZLN. Both were rooted in the common cause of poverty alleviation and contextualized it in their respective political landscapes which were responding to new political environments ushered in by the rise of inter-global dependency among a range of actors. These changing political landscapes provided these social movements with an opportunity to take advantage of new political openings to force their governments to allow them to voice the various concerns of indigenous communities. Without the interplay of actors on a global level, these movements would not have the success they have gained for themselves in their struggles against oppressive regimes. These groundswells of opposition remain limited by continued assaults on democracy by their respective governments, however these governments operate amongst various international pressures. This being the case, these two movements described in this study have made significant contributions to their cause and gave indigenous communities a voice on a local, national, and global level, and provide an insight to factors pertinent to the success and limitations of social movements operating within the context of a global community, diversified to represent various interests. These interests include human rights, democracy, sustainable development, neoliberal economics, and national security.
Read the rest of this entry »
Essays, Politics | 7.05.2007 0:54 | No Comments
As human beings have moved through history into post-modern times, religion has not receded into the background of human concern as science and reason came to the fore-front in Western society. On the contrary, it appears to be a prominent feature guiding human actions around the globe, which have become increasingly violent. Douglas Johnston addresses this in his book, Faith-Based Diplomacy, as he asserts the limitations of Realpolitik, a western-style foreign policy practice that addresses conflict in a strictly realistic manner surrounding political, economic, and security factors, in which religious discourse has been absent. He asserts that Realpolitik falls short in being an effective tool in policy formation, because it leaves out factors that are crucial to some people in conceptualizing the world. Realpolitik is the child of a society that has separated religion from the rest of its culture. Johnston notes that “the strict division between the sacred and secular observed in the West is a relatively recent innovation” and is foreign to much of the rest of the world,” (Johnston, 11.) This is an observation that must be examined in any attempt to negotiate peace.
We must look back into history to see how Arabs and Jews developed in their respective religious landscapes to understand aspects of their cultural psyche, and analyze other factors leading to violence. We must see how and why extremists in their midst have come to be diametrically opposed to each other (and secularism) in an apparent struggle to the death. What emerges indeed is the close correlation between oppression, religion, culture, and violence throughout time. We may observe how religion has given each culture a sense of identity and imbued their lives with meaning, and how repression and oppression have contributed to the rise in extreme views and actions. We find the collision between traditional societies and modernity, and the manner in which these cultures attempted to reconcile with changing situations. In each culture, we find reformers having had dialogue with the existing state of affairs within their respective society, in response to the tension between spirituality and secularism. We also find instances of peaceful coexistence among Muslims and Jews, and we will attempt to structure a new discourse, in the hope that we will find an avenue to quell the violence between the Israelis and Palestinians and move towards reconciliation. Sacred space, redemption, unification, social justice, the free exercise of spirituality within the “homeland” are pivotal aspects which peace building must address.
Read the rest of this entry »
Essays, Politics, Religion | 7.05.2007 0:27 | No Comments
In God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, Soujourner’s editor and reverned Jim Wallis speaks about religion, politics, and social change. He articulates from his perspective how one goes about being successful in engaging the political machine in affecting positive change in society. In discussing how power works in Washington, he asserts that politicians are motivated by power and wealth, and are adept at knowing how to navigate circumstances conducive to the acquisition or retention of these. Although often coming to Washington wanting to “do the right thing,” Wallis makes the analogy that politicians constantly have their moistened fingers in the air “figuring out the direction of the wind,” as they need public backing in making a difference. Thus, says Wallis, “you don’t change society by merely replacing one wet-fingered politician with another. You change a society by changing the wind, (Wallis, 21-22.)
Wallis argues that not only is it possible to connect spiritual values and social change, but that, with original emphasis: “history is most changed by movements with a spiritual foundation, (24.) What inspires Wallis in calling for change is his complaint regarding the moral compass of political discourse in this country. He believes the Right is practicing bad theology, and that the Left’s secularism is not the antidote. “Without connection to moral values, political discourse degenerates,” he asserts in the introduction to his book. The answer, he argues in God’s Politics, is better theology. He wants to propagate this “better” theology and use it to inspire a new direction of the wind. “Change the wind, transform the debate, recast the discussion, alter the context in which political decisions are made, and you will change the outcomes,” (22.)
Wallis uses quotes from the Bible to argue that the values debate expands beyond the definition of family values by the Right, namely the issues of abortion and gay marriage. He bases his argument on the teachings of the prophets, who claimed to speak for the Lord. He asserts their topics are highly political, and include land, labor, capital, wages, debt, taxes, equity, fairness, courts, prisons, immigrants, other races and peoples, economic divisions, social justice, war and peace. (31-32) Thus claims that the contemporary values debate includes issues of poverty, environmentalism, and diplomacy versus war, just or unjust. He emphasizes the importance for people to have a vision, because without one, they perish. Vision, he says, leads directly to values, (25) and values, he says, according to surveys of political attitudes, are a “deeply felt public concern over the last few decades,” (26.)
“Special interests, political ideology and the naked quest for power continue to control our public discourse and political decision making. But the public alienation caused by caused by the absence of core moral values in our political life seems to grow each year. Issues such as strength of family life, the meaning of work, the health of our neighborhoods, the well-being of children and the shame of child poverty, the moral tone of “entertainment,” the truth telling of public officials, the quality and moral content of education, the equity of health care, the stewardship of the environment, and the consistency of foreign policy with expressed national values are all deeply held moral concerns at the heart of contemporary political issues. But many politicians still don’t speak the language of ethics and values that could strike responsive chords among many people hungry for a moral political discourse,” (26.)
Wallis’s complaint is that politicians do not take aim, and that their dominant dialogue is not one of responsibility, it is one of blame (224.) He asserts that when debates are framed wrongly, the outcome turns out badly (230.) He argues that the Left’s insistence on secularism has not succeeded in mobilizing the political discourse pertaining to the issues they would like to address, issues that are valid for Christians like Wallis and other Americans of similar convictions, be they religiously framed or not.
Still, politicians and other leaders often do employ moral language to justify and obtain agreement or support from the public to implement a vision based on an allegedly moral agenda. President George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are two examples of leaders each using a particular moral framework. It is interesting to note that their respective agendas both have a religious component, both believe that what their respective moral convictions are correct, and as two extremes, both believe that the other is “evil.”[1]
Wallis names a few “core” moral values, but upon critical reflection one observes that a code of ethics may be rather subjective and relative than objective and absolute. Examples in debating the rigidity or elasticity of ethics include questions such as whether it is wrong to steal a loaf of bread that won’t be missed in order to prevent someone from starving, and whether one is justified in killing someone in protecting the life of an innocent. And when placing Wallis side by side with theologians from within his own Christian faith (like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell,) one may observe that the interpretation of the Bible and is a highly contentious endeavor.[2] Wallis exemplifies this by making the distinction between “good” and “bad” theology. There is no good way to resolve conflicting points of view of biblical interpretation, since God Himself (provided He exists) cannot make a public statement clarifying His true intentions.
This debate over Truth and how to come to the understanding of moral principles has been a significant theme in the tradition of contemplative thought in the West. From St. Francis of Assisi, through the theologians of the Reformation, to philosophers such as Kant, Locke and Habermas,[3] many thinkers have put forth their various opinions concerning correct theology, the relationship of human beings with the Divine, how one arrives at a proper code of ethics and/or how to best structure society. To this day these debates have not been resolved, and much blood has been shed due to conflicts arising in connection to topics such as these. It is because of such violence people turned to the separation of church and state.[4]
What seems incontestable about Wallis’s argument is that indeed, spiritually or religiously inspired movements have been a powerful force in shaping history.[5] Wallis draws heavily on the example of Martin Luther King Jr., who appealed to the public and inspired them, gaining support for the civil rights movement by holding the constitution in one hand and a Bible in the other. Mahatma Gandhi is another example of a leader that used a nonviolent, spiritually infused tactic to bring on positive social change. Yet the secularist and his propensity to appeal to reason over intuitive conviction may claim accessibility towards a more objective path toward betterment of society and a route to determine an objective code of ethics (as written about by Habermas.)[6] However, the religiously inspired person seems to have greater mobilization power behind them, as demonstrated by the civil rights movement as one example given by Wallis, and the jihad against the United States and other non-Muslim nations by Islamic fundamentalists as another.[7]
Wallis does his best to include the non-religious with pronounced ethical convictions in his values discourse, but falls short. He also seems to leave out people of other religions when setting forth his proposition of a set core values, a facet that is missing as a component to make his work inclusive and able to reach a larger audience.
Wallis is a religious person inspired to make positive changes in society. He makes a valid point that movements that have made great historical change have been inspired by religious conviction. He speaks for many Americans who place importance on values in political discourse, and calls for a greater place for Prophetic morality in contemporary political discourse. He makes an insightful analogy by asserting that one changes the political discourse in Washington by “changing the way the wind is blowing,” asserting that change comes from public initiative on a scale that cannot be ignored. However, when he illustrates morality as something that can be structured into an overarching principle, he overlooks how contested the definition of morality is not only by different cultures, but even by various sects within a culture. While disseminating a valid argument, the debate continues in society as to what constitutes proper moral action. With such a fragmented populace, one finds difficulty in garnering enough voices to cause the wind to blow in one united direction. Perhaps there exist a certain set of core values, but what does not seem to exist in not only within our own society is a consensus of what these are and how much emphasis should be placed upon each of them in political discourse. However, it does seem that people with a spiritual vision backing up their vision have greater propensity towards activism.
Armstrong, Karen. The Battle for God. New York, NY: Random House, Inc. (2000)
Lincoln, Bruce. Holy Terrors. The University of Chicago Press. (2003)
Wallis, Jim. God’s Politics: Why the Right Get’s it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It. New York: NY, Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. (2005)
1. Lincoln, Holy Terrors (20-32)
2. Ibid, (36-44.)
3. Armstrong the Battle for God discusses the reformers Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli and philosophers Kant and Locke.
4. Lincoln discusses aesthetics, ethics, culture, religion, and the secular nation-state. (54-58)
5. See Lincoln, and Armstrong’s discussion of the role of religious conviction versus enlightenment ideals in the American Independence. Many joined the revolution believing that the Anglican church was the anti-Christ.
6. Morality and Ethical Life: Does Hegel’s Critique of Kant Apply to Discourse Ethics?
7. Lincoln (33)
Politics, Religion | 27.03.2007 0:43 | No Comments
N. Lois Turtledove is a graduate student at the University of Colorado at Denver obtaining a Master's Degree in Humanities. She teaches yoga inside and outside the home, and is an apprentice in the ancient therapeutic art of shamanic practice. She understands that the only real enemy is the self, and the Self is the deepest source of nurture. She wishes freedom from suffering for herself and for all sentient beings.