Enough with the Bible?

Time for a monster long post! I posted the below blog entry from another blogger on my Facebook page, and a very interesting discussion ensued.

The Bible & Homosexuality: Enough with the Bible Already

Here's excerpts from discussion:

Guest One wrote:

Hi Laura! I did read the article you posted the link to and I have to say that this writer does not seem to understand that the foundation of Christian faith is the Bible. Like Martin Luther said: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia.

Without the Scriptures, then one can get all kinds of opinions.

Oh yes, one can argue, when who has the correct interpretations, and so forth.

But the point here is this writer is saying, enough with the Bible.

That is the problem. We do not have enough Bible, and too many opinions.

In Genesis 3 Amplified Version of the Bible we find this

1NOW THE serpent was more subtle and crafty than any living creature of the field which the Lord God had made. And he [Satan] said to the woman, Can it really be that God has said, You shall not eat from every tree of the garden?(A)

So we find the serpent still questioning what God said to mankind...and finding out we really don't know what God has commanded!!

Specially with the issue of marriage!

Guest Two wrote:

I didn't read the article, but the headline didn't sit well w/me... glad there are people like [Guest One] willing to speak with respect for the Bible still. People can think they are being 'progressive' when they are being 'open minded' and I do think we do need to be able to be religious and progressive and open minded, but just being open minded doesn't necessarily mean that one is progressive. Just because it forces us to really churn up our beliefs and practices and grapple with interpretations of theology, we shouldn't think an easier path will lead to progress. :-) But, like I said, I didn't read the article, just appreciating [Guest One]'s comments and expressing some things that have been on my own thoughts lately.

Guest Three wrote:

I love how liberals try to characterize Christians as fearful and mean - the very same liberal individuals who are supposed to be so open minded and "collaborative."

Just because someone disagrees with a particular view does not mean they are evil and afraid. In fact, most reasonable thinking human beings don't agree with the idea of undermining the definition of marriage. Prop 8 getting voted down by the most liberal state in America shows how a majority of normal, well-grounded people think. The people who voted down Prop 8 are not evil, ignorant, mis-informed idiots as the media would have you believe.

The longer term implications need to be taken into account, not ignored - i.e. does this action allow for even more definitions of marriage? How does this impact polygamy? Adultery? etc.?

I think there are far-reaching implications that need to be answered before we trample over one of the pillars of a progressive society.

I replied:

Hi you guys! Thanks so much for your comments. I've been thinking about how to respond, you all make such interesting points. I'll do my best to be brief.

[Guest One], you may remember from high school that I'm a Christian Scientist. I'm also a Bible scholar, and I see it as the chart of my life. Of *my* life. Of course, there will be many areas where you and I may disagree as to Bible interpretation—for example, I believe the Adam and Eve story is an allegory and not literal fact—but we could probably have a long fruitful discussion on how we both strive to live the Sermon on the Mount. In fact, I'd love to do that sometime.

What I took from the article I posted is the idea that in making legislative decisions, the Bible is really irrelevant. It shouldn't even come up as part of the discussion.

Curtailing someone else's rights or privileges based on one's own interpretation of the Bible is not appropriate in our freedom-of-religion society. One needs to justify curtailing rights and privileges some other way, perhaps by proving that giving those rights would cause harm. I have yet to hear any justification for curtailing gay marriage, other than a conviction that the Bible condemns it (a position that itself is open to interpretation).

[Guests Two and Three], you and I are share a spiritual tradition that is itself radical. So, it's always interesting to me to have fellow Christian Scientists say that what a majority of people think must be right (as [Guest Three] seemed to be saying). If that were the case, we'd all have been raised going to doctors by compulsion. In this country, however, our rights as a minority have always been protected, and we could choose to live how we wanted, again as long as we weren't harming anyone.

Which brings me to another point in [Guest Three]'s comment. In what way does homosexual marriage undermine marriage? How would it hurt your own marriage, or your own community? The examples I know of homosexuals who have legally married here in Massachusetts are folks who own their own homes, are raising children, are active in their communities, are thriving professionals. In fact, they invest more in the community because they feel like a legitimate part of it now. I've only witnessed good effects myself. Do you have examples where the effects have been negative?

No one to my knowledge is advocating legalizing polygamy or other forms of marriage that involve more than two adults or other beings, like livestock. The issue on the table is legal marriage between two consenting adults of any gender. How will or does that hurt anyone?

Thanks for taking the time to respond to the post and to read this. Have a great weekend!

Guest Three wrote:

Laura - any time one redefines an institution, in this case marriage, it opens the door to more interpretations in the future. If a man can marry a man, why can't a man (or woman) marry several women? Does this "hurt" my personal marriage? Probably not. Does it destroy our society? Perhaps not. But it does undermine one of the pillars of a progressive society and it would behoove us to consider these longer term implications.

I don't think there is value in looking at issues like this through a "this just seems right" lens, and not looking at the bigger picture.

Avoiding big picture/longer-term issues is similar to the situation that happened in the mid-90's when people honestly believed everyone should own a home. The government decided they would back loans to individuals who did not qualify. The short-term reasoning seemed compelling - it just seemed right that everyone should own a home.

Unfortunately, no one considered the longer term implications. As you know, the result was a Real Estate bubble that may destroy our society. Sadly, the very people this initiative was designed to help ended up in a much worse situation - now they can't afford a home AND they have bad credit.

Is there a way to provide rights without redefining marriage? Do we really need to redefine an institution? Do we really need to open the door to all kinds of marriage-types? I believe in the need to legally protect individuals in homosexual relationships, I just don't think redefining marriage is the way to go about it.

I could not find anything in the Bible or Mary Baker Eddy's writtings that would support your views. The chapter on Marriage is pretty specific. As a Bible scholar and CS I'm sure you have more knowledge about these issues. Can you provide any ideas from the Bible or any Christian Science literature that I could consider as I think through this issue?

I'm honestly interested as this seems to be an issue that needs much prayer and compassion. Only Love can bring clarity and happiness for all!! I know these conversations are valuable because it forces one to really think through what they believe... Thanks for posting the article (I read the whole thing)!!

Guest One wrote:

That was a great discussion and I do agree with [Guest Three] and understand his points. Laura, you said you cannot use the Bible as the foundational part for our laws...

Okay, how come in courts people swear on the Bible that whatever they say is the truth and nothing but the truth so help me God?

When leaders are sworn in, like the President of the USA, they use the Bible to swear...

Seems to me using the Bible is appropriate as a reference for laws in the United States.

Congrats on being a Bible Scholar! I am not a scholar, but I do own scholarly Bible softwares, such as Bibleworks, Logos Bible Software for PC, Acccordance for Mac...lately I have been using Logos as I have many interlinear versions and dictionaries and books for it.

I replied:

This is indeed a great discussion! To [Guest One's] point first: Here's an interesting article from a few years ago about other options for swearing in court, although it's not commonplace:

Raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth ... on the Koran?

and here's another page that talks about the swearing in of officials not being a requirement:

From the Separation of Church and State page

To me, the point would be swearing on the book that makes you more likely to tell the truth or fulfill the oath. so I hope more people are encouraged to swear on the book that means the most to them, rather than the one that means the most to me. Why should a Muslim swear on the Bible? Why should Jews have to swear on the Christian text? It wouldn't guarantee anything since they don't value the book that way. They would feel no additional impulse to tell the truth any more than they normally would by swearing that oath. but on the Koran or the Torah? Much more meaningful.

[Guest Two], I hear what you're saying, thanks for articulating it more fully. I agree with you 100% on the credit fiasco! What a mess. The virtue of homeownership is vastly overrated in my opinion. I sold my house and am now happily renting.

Anyway (and this is going to get kind of in-house between Christian Scientists, [Guest One], so forgive us), to our core documentation. I think the thing that convinced me that legal marriage is the only way to go for the homosexual couples is that without it, they're precluded from full compliance with the Church Manual. You may know I'm actively supportive of the CS homosexual community, having been the keynote speaker at their recent conference in Philly.

Getting to know these folks, who have been in committed relationships for ten, twenty, thirty plus years, who have literally no other options for being in a meaningful long-term relationship than living together but still love CS and strive to practice it, just makes my heart break. The Manual says "legal marriage." Once that is fulfilled, by changing the laws of our land, they can be in full compliance with the Manual. How amazing would that be?

MBE was writing her chapter on marriage within the context of her times. Interestingly, I believe early versions of Science and Health state, "Union of male and female constitutes completeness." She *edited* that later to read, "Union of the masculine and feminine qualities constitutes completeness." As her thought evolved in a more spiritual direction, so did her language. Of course, there's no indication whatsoever that she was intending this to speak to homosexuality. She just plain didn't ever write on that subject. But she was clearly in favor of legal marriage, as opposed to the "spiritual" marriage of living together.

I'd just like more of our folks to be able to fulfill that requirement.

I'm no authority on this next bit, I just know what I've read and heard from more knowledgeable sources. But apparently if you read the six passages in the entire Bible that condemn homosexuality (male only), it is possible to see these passages as taking exception with licentious activity, sex by force, self-abuse, etc. The Bible does not address homosexuality, male or female, as within a committed long-term relationship. It just doesn't, any more than it addresses interracial marriage. It does address inter-denominational marriage, i.e., marrying someone outside your faith. But as a society we've left that behind as a problem long ago.

We need to take the Bible teachings and apply them to today, not try to live as they did 2,000 - 5,000 years ago. As a woman, this is particularly meaningful to me. I can cut my hair, speak in church, own property, make decisions for my children. I can chose whom I marry, or even if I marry at all. I could not have done any of these things in biblical times. As I enjoy these freedoms, I want everyone else to as well.

My two cents for today!

Guest Three wrote:

Laura - Good points! Thanks for taking the time to fully articulate your ideas and beliefs. I too, have homosexual friends and I don't look at them any differently than I would anyone else. We've all been dealt different cards and need to try to live a life in accord with Jesus' teachings.

Everyone has things in their experience that do not blend with Jesus' teachings - if not, we'd be walking on water and raising the dead. The idea is not to change the rules, but rather change ourselves... to bring every thought into the obedience of Christ.

I think we all need to be patient and loving with one another and know that people in glass houses should not cast stones. No one is a second class citizen, but there is a requirement for us to give up all for Christ. Personally, I'm not there yet, but the journey has been wonderful because it continues to be so challenging. We need to stretch beyond this human experience to grasp immortality. That's the real point, I think.

I think it's great you can cut your hair the way you like. However, the real question is, "how does this act bring you closer to Christ?" That's the goal - to follow Jesus example. My guess, is he did not spend too much time thinking about how his hair looked (I'm sure you don't either! - I'm just using this as an example).

I think the same could be asked of homosexual marriage - "How is this bringing people closer to Christ?" Marriage between a man and a woman is a temporary measure due to our lack of understanding, our dearth of spirituality. At some point we'll recognize our oneness with Love and marriage will become unnecessary (according to Jesus).

In the mean time, the goal is spiritual growth, more compassion, more kindness, more patience, and freedom from any belief that causes us to break the first commandment. I do believe that much of this is a distraction designed to pull us away from the need to focus on our connection to Christ.

Would love to have anyone else's thoughts as well!

Happy New Year!

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Bible
  
• CurrentEvents
  
• Character
  
• MaryBakerEddy
  

The reason for the season

This from The Universe (a daily email to which I subscribe):

If it's not yet obvious to you, the real reason for this season is you. A more perfect child of the Universe has never lived. Until now, only a celebration cloaked in myth and mystery could hint at your sublime heritage and divine destiny. You are life's prayer of becoming and its answer. The first light at the dawn of eternity, drawn from the ether, so that the Universe might know its depths, discover its heights, and frolic in endless seas of blessed emotion.

A pioneer into illusion, an adventurer into the unknown, and a lifter of veils. Courageous, heroic and exalted by billions in the unseen.

To give beyond reason. To care beyond hope. To love without limit. To reach, stretch, and dream, in spite of your fears. These are the hallmarks of divinity -- traits of the immortal -- your badges of honor. Wear them with a pride as great as the unspeakable pride we feel for you.

Your light has illuminated darkened paths, your gaze has lifted broken spirits, and already your life has changed the destiny of all who will ever follow.

This is the time of year we celebrate you.
Bowing before Greatness,
The Universe

In short, we all express the Christ, and both witness and embody its appearing.

Happy Christ-celebration!

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Holidays

Land of the freaky: The power of intention

I don't journal very much anymore, but I will when prodded. A couple days ago, I went into my journal to record a dream I didn't want to forget, and my eyes traveled to the prior entry from some months ago.

I feel so great that I got everything done. I was a fabulous script supervisor on my first feature length film, and I also did all the [book] editing that needed to be done. I earned the most money I ever have editing, while doing film work and earning days for the union. I also lost weight and stayed strong. I worked hard, but well. The director, cinematographer and editor loved me. I was part of a great team. I showed my worth abundantly. And, I've never had so much fun. I also did great taking care of [a family member], and getting him to his new location. Everything fell into place harmoniously, because God loves me and wants me to do well.

I SURVIVED JULY 2008.

After I read this, I thought, Yeah, I really did get all that done in July! There's a lot to be grateful for!

But then I noticed the date of the entry. It was July 8. What? I thought. There was also a parenthetical reminding me what my daughter had advised me to do early in the month when I was feeling totally stressed. She told me to write about the month as though it had already happened.

So I did. And it did.

I had totally forgotten writing that entry, yet it happened just as I'd written it. The power of intention, of consenting mentally to a good outcome, is the first step in achieving it outwardly. We have to be able to conceptualize it before we can achieve it.

What do you want your next month to look like? Write it down as though it's already happened, and then check back in six months. You'll probably be as amazed as I am.

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Career
  
• Encouragement
  
• SpiritualPractice
  

Book Review: "Do You Know Who Your Children Are?"

As many of you know, I work as an editor of books by self-publishing authors. I've edited dozens over the last year, and some have stayed with me as benchmarks on my spiritual journey. Strangely, often the book I was editing mirrored my actual life in an uncanny way—like a book on childrearing when I was having trouble as a mom, or a book on relationships when I was feeling the fear of connecting. There have been dieting books, historical books, scientific books, inspirational books. It's been such a privilege to see the world through these authors' eyes. Now, many of these books have gone to press, and I'd like to share them with you.

Michelle Starkey's Do You Know Who Your Children Are? came to me at a time when I was wrestling with the point of parenting. Why pour so much into these separate beings who will be flying the coop anyway after eighteen to twenty years? Michelle's book answered that question for me, in a gentle and insightful way.

Michelle explores the different roles children have in our lives: teacher, healer, guide, messenger, spiritual companion, sage and friend. For each of these roles, she gives solid wisdom on how to discern these qualities in our children and accept the gift we've been given.

Here are some excerpts of sections that meant a lot to me:

A major duty that children today seem to be burdened with is helping parents face their not-so-perfect childhoods. There are many painful instances that are brought to the surface when children enter our lives. We may be reminded of the time we got a spanking for breaking the vase, or the time we couldn't go to a friend's party because of our poor report card. On a more painful level, past issues of abuse or neglect may be brought forth. Repressed memories of extremely painful events may begin to be uncovered. Being with a child helps us to relive our own childhoods however joyful or painful we perceive them to have been.

The good news is that both the pain and the joy are gifts. It is never too late to have a happy childhood, as the cliché goes. If we were never able to have a pet, we may get a dog. If we never went to the park, we can now go. It is easier to do these things when we have a child with us, but we can also do them alone—whatever it takes to empower. There are no victims. There are no dysfunctional families. Families function at whatever level their consciousness allows. What may seem not to function for one group of people actually works quite well for another. It is not until those actions are discussed and judged by other humans that they become wrong. Each person came here to experience whatever it is he is experiencing at the moment. There is no right nor wrong, no function nor dysfunction.

I love the idea that no family is dysfunctional. It's such a freeing outlook, letting us all just be, rather than making us try to be something we're not. Every family has issues, and things to work out. But none are dysfunctional. I love knowing that, especially now, during the holidays.

This is a fun analogy, for those of us who believe in mind over matter:

The mind is like a puppy. When you first bring the puppy home it's all over the place. It runs around the house, goes into every forbidden area, chewing things, having accidents and basically destroying everything in its path like a mini tornado. After a while, the puppy grows into a dog and the dog can be trained to refrain from certain activities, control its physical urges and impulses and usually becomes quite manageable. The untrained mind can be as destructive as the untrained dog. The thoughts running rampant through your mind can destroy your inner peace much as a puppy can wreck your home.

And one final thought, which gave me pause:

The past is not a place to dwell. It's okay to visit for reference, but if we live there, we are bound to recreate it.

Do You Know Who Your Children Are? is a great read, full of fun insight and comfort for those of us who sometimes think we're doing it all wrong. It would be a great present for new parents as well—let's reassure them right out of the gate, shall we? While we can all do better at it, ultimately we're bringing the best we have to the job of parenting—and that is enough.

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Books
  
• Parenting
  
• Inspiration
  

Happiness and the collective consciousness

A lot of people have been talking about the new study about happiness. Here's a report from TIME magazine:

The Happiness Effect

I love this passage from the article:

Harvard social scientist Dr. Nicholas Christakis and his political-science colleague James Fowler at the University of California at San Diego … created a sensation with their announcement earlier this month of a 20-year study showing that emotions can pass among a network of people up to three degrees of separation away, so your joy may, to a larger extent than you realize, be determined by how cheerful your friends' friends' friends are, even if some of the people in this chain are total strangers to you.

If that's so, it creates a whole new paradigm for the way people get sick and, more important, how to get them healthy. It may mean that an individual's well-being is the product not just of his behaviors and emotions but more of the way they feed into a larger social network. Think of it as health Facebook-style. "We have a collective identity as a population that transcends individual identity," says Christakis. "This superorganism has an anatomy, physiology, structure and function that we are trying to understand."

I've written about collective consciousness before (Does matter matter?). Now here's a social scientist talking about a collective identity. Which to me is just one way of articulating that we all are connected in the infinite individuality that is God.

This line of thought has always made it easier for me to love and take care of myself. If I see myself as part of a larger whole, then I'm being good to the entire by being good to myself. If I see myself as an isolated being, I may think being good to myself is all about me and therefore self-indulgent, or I could see it as selfish and I should avoid it by being good only to others. Both of the latter are wrong-headed, though, because I'm not an isolated being—I'm one with you. And you. And you.

So my being happy is a duty not only to myself, but to my fellow beings. The smile I give to the cashier today will flow beyond her to her family, her friends, her other customers. Likewise it's essential that I not indulge in spreading negative emotions. Sometimes it's hard to avoid this, and we do need to be honest about how we're feeling. But there's a time and a place to explore negative feelings—say, when you're with a person you trust and you're asking for help.

At other times and whenever possible, spread joy. You will be changing the world.

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Happiness
  
• Involvement
  
• Character
  
• News
  

A new take on church

I've started to attend Al-Anon meetings. Which, by saying that, I hope doesn’t betray the "anon" aspects of the meetings. I'll have to ask someone about that. You know me, I like to talk about things that help me.

Al-Anon is for people whose lives have been affected by someone else's addiction. At this point, I fall in that category. Close friends and professionals have been recommending that I go for several months now, and I finally started. Very eye opening.

What I've found at these meetings is total acceptance, understanding, love and fellowship. Instantly. I found affirmation for recent decisions I've had to make and encouragement for the doubts I still have.

The first meeting felt like the best Christian Science testimony meeting I'd ever been to. CS testimony meetings include prayer, readings, and sharing. Al-Anon meetings do as well. The difference is that at Al-Anon the people sharing aren't speaking from a place of "everything's all better now." They're speaking from the middle of the process, what they're learning as they go. So listeners get and give both inspiration and encouragement. Everyone in the room is just doing their best, day by day.

Apparently this is quite powerful. I've only been a couple of times, but some of these folks have been coming to Al-Anon for decades, and they keep coming even after the immediate cause (another person's addiction) has been resolved. Meaning, even after the person becomes sober and sticks with it, the Al-Anon folks still offer each other love and support. It feels to me like this is church to those people.

I've been thinking often about the early Christians, who met anonymously in little cells to wrestle through what it meant to follow Christ in their pagan world. They had to be anonymous, because if they weren't, they could wind up on a cross of their own. They had to have each others' backs. And, I'm sure their questions as the Christian life was forming up are very similar to those being asked at the meetings I've attended: What is letting go? How do we trust our higher power? What is perfection?

It's made me wonder what church would be like today if it were structured not around a particular dogma or creed, but around what the individual church goers need. Like, we could start a Church of the Single Parent, and everyone who came would support each other in that journey. When you're no longer single, you could go to the Church of the Newly Married. Or, the Church of the Jilted Lovers. Or, the Church of the Exhausted Mothers. Or, the Church of the Financially Strapped. You could talk about what's on your mind, your challenges and your victories, and everyone would understand.

I'm so grateful to know about the unique culture of sharing that is Al-Anon. There's something immeasurably powerful about finding a group of people who have walked where you need to walk, and who can offer companionship along that journey.

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• Involvement
  
• SpiritualPractice
  
• Christianity
  

Newsweek takes a stand

My friend Mario used to kvetch that it was all well and good for the news media to present both sides of an issue in the name of being fair, but there also comes a time when you just have to take sides for what is right and true. He always felt that some things are not subject to opinion, and the media should develop the backbone to say what's what.

Mario had a great point. Working with him for five years helped me develop a more critical eye regarding all current events. So, I was thrilled to read this from Jon Meacham's Editor's Desk column in this week's Newsweek:

No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between—[the] conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.

The whole column is great. Meacham is one of my favorite authors. I've talked about his writing on this blog many times. Sometimes I'll be reading some great article about faith in America, and I just think, who wrote this? And it turns out to be Meacham.

Here he is, allowing both himself and his magazine to take a stand, like Mario says they should. The interpretation of scripture that precludes gay marriage is just a wrong interpretation. It flies in the face of human history and biblical precedent. And Newsweek is not afraid to say so.

More power to them.

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• CurrentEvents
  
• News
  
• Involvement
  

Conservative and liberal

Now that we've all had a chance to catch our breath after that election, I thought I'd just share a couple insights that meant a lot to me.

First, I read this lovely definition of conservative:

"Contrary to caricature, to be conservative is not necessarily to be racist, or retrograde, or close-minded. It is, rather, to be driven by a fundamental human impulse to preserve what one has and loves." (Newsweek, "It's not easy being blue," Jon Meacham, Oct. 27, 2008)

This got me thinking (as Meacham's stuff always does). I have things I love, and I fight to preserve them. I love a happy home, I love my freedom, I love my family. I suppose this makes me conservative! Meacham goes on to say:

"Liberals and moderates share this impulse, of course; and many conservatives, like many liberals and moderates, are generous, future-oriented and interested in reform."

Generous, future-oriented, and interested in reform. A nice definition of liberal, if you ask me. But these qualities are not owned by those who label themselves liberal.

On the other hand, one thing I think I did observe about the two "camps" if you will in this election involves what I think of as the "social contract."

Basically, it seemed to me that those who were voting red fundamentally believe that what a person has is what he or she has earned. And, if you've earned that dollar, it's yours, because it's due to your own hard work and effort. Therefore, any attempt to force you to share part of it will grate on you, because you believe that dollar is yours and yours alone. You don't mind choosing to share, but you don't want the government compelling you to do so.

Those who were voting blue had a different outlook. They seemed to be more comfortable with the belief that the ability to be prosperous in this country has to do not only with one's own effort, but also the vast infrastructure that exists here. The dollar you make, therefore, while it is certainly due in part to your own efforts to be educated, to get work, and to perform well, it's also due to the collective environment of this country. Preserving that environment and even enhancing it across the board for everyone will only increase your own wellbeing and opportunity.

Here's a passage from an article that takes issue with that "social contract" idea, calling it "socialism." But I like the way the author has articulated what I mean here, even in a negative article.

But what about a milder form of socialism? If reckoned as an attitude rather than a set of guidelines for running an economy, socialism might well describe Senator Obama's economics. Anyone who speaks glibly of "spreading the wealth around" sees wealth not as resulting chiefly from individual effort, initiative, and risk-taking, but from great social forces beyond any private producer's control. If, say, the low cost of Dell computers comes mostly from government policies (such as government schooling for an educated workforce) and from culture (such as Americans' work ethic) then Michael Dell's wealth is due less to his own efforts and more to the features of the society that he luckily inhabits.

Wealth, in this view, is produced principally by society. So society's claim on it is at least as strong as that of any of the individuals in whose bank accounts it appears. More important, because wealth is produced mostly by society (rather than by individuals), taxing high-income earners more heavily will do little to reduce total wealth production. (Donald J. Boudreaux, "Is Barack Obama really a socialist?" Christian Science Monitor, Oct. 30, 2008)

While I didn't agree with the article's conclusion, I did agree that wealth is produced by society, as well as by individuals. Also, I believe that by living here, we are part of a social contract to take care of each other.

To combine the two ideas above, I'm thinking that preserving our infrastructure, by investing in healthcare, better schools, roads, fire fighters, etc., is actually a conservative stance, since it's about preserving what I love. And sharing part of each dollar I earn is an acknowledgment that my opportunities rest on the backs of those who work hard, every day, to keep my community safe and healthy and to do jobs I'm overqualified for, and who face obstacles I've never had to due to background or education level.

So I'm both conservative and liberal. Who knew?

Your ideas and inspiration are welcome! Please comment below or submit a question.
Email this posting to a friend with the envelope icon below.

Del.icio.us tags:

• CurrentEvents
  
• Involvement