Reply #80: Interesting reponses! [View All]

[puebloknot]

So much to think about in just this one response to me.

The question often comes to me, in my personal life, and in thinking about the country and where it is headed, how reconciliation can take place without simply "writing off" the individual, or the whole generation, that has come before, in service of a new day.

Being fully aware that hate and anger are circular and self-fulfilling entities, there remains the question of how to make a stand for future justice while still acknowledging the suffering which we want to obliterate in future. We face, once again in this particular cycle, the thought that if we can just stop the world, and start anew, we don't have to concern ourselves with the past. But that matter, still blowing in the wind, of too many people having died must be faced -- the cleansing of the wound, again.

I feel there is a major rush to forgiveness in the Christian community (some parts of it), almost an obligatory, knee-jerk "I forgive" stance which has a hollow ring to it -- and which, in any case, belong not in the halls of government but in the churches. If either Hillary or Obama hold that Christian ethic as their personal guiding spirit, that is their concern. As the would-be leaders of our country, their personal religious views must take an inferior position to their intention to fully uphold the Constitution, and to abide by the separation of church and state.

Even in speaking of Mandela's Truth and Reconciliation structure, and admiring the man for using that modality to try to bring balance to his country, I would shrink from that particular form of weighing in the balances in this country because, at its base, there was a strong religious component. Our secular laws are sufficient to the task of bringing justice through impeachment, or legal proceedings, without mixing in religion. The task of binding up the nation's wounds can properly be inspired by many religious and philosophical points of view, but the surgery must be done through non-religious means, unless we are truly to descend into a theocracy.

I have to say that I have not read Obama's every word, or heard all his speeches, but there is definitely a "post-partisan, reaching-across-the-aisle-in-harmony" ethic that surrounds his campaign, and if he is not in full consonance with that ethic, he needs to clarify that for all of us. A very recent CNN interview with one of Obama's campaign representatives ended with her using a phrase (and I am paraphrasing, but the intent is intact) that there is an ethic of nonpartisanship which is rising in the country. It was said with a great deal of fervor, not complemented in her particular case with a light in the eyes indicating a real grasp of the concept. The insistence on *embracing harmony* on the part of many today is much like the behavior of the camp followers of the '60s who were *for peace*, without any consideration for the fact that sometimes we have to stand up for something -- sometimes we have to fight for the very principles of peace those flower children thought they had down pat.

I'm aware that it is asking too much of the man, or anyone running for office, to deliver detailed intentions until actually taking office and getting the "lay of the land," before proceeding. But there are certain fundamental principles for which we stand that are being too easily compromised.

Obama's stance against impeachment is enough to cause me great concern! I am aware of the political consequences of Dennis Kucinich's having spoken out in that regard, however.

All of the above being said, I have as many concerns about Hillary as I do about Obama. I do not see either of them as rising to the level of JFK or MLK, or Gandhi, but in these interesting times, we have to consider the avenues that are available to us, and hope new paths will open in a better future. And we revere those giants of history by looking over our shoulders. We might not have seen their genius (speaking for myself) in their own time.