She Started a Band

She started a band
that raised a prayer
that started a chant
a jig, an aire

a movement began
a challenge a fight
which moved like dance
of grace and of light

the community that rose
from the ground to the sky
was full of love
with grit in their eyes

a better day would come
they knew it to be true
because they were the ones
who would see it through.

She started a band
and that's the point.

No Good Humans VS GOOD Humans

The question has been asked about Jesus (and others, a few times) in the pages of the Bible saying something like "There is no one good but God..." as Jesus does in Luke 18 and other places where Jesus is speaking to the "rich young ruler" (who approached Jesus, saying, "Good teacher, why...")

First of all, we have to note at least two things:

1. Jesus (and other biblical authors/speakers) refer to good people. "The sun shines on the evil and the good," for instance. But many other instances, as well. Jesus clearly thought there were good people.

2. The reality that, in spite of what the Bible says, of course, there are good people as good is typically defined/understood. There ARE good people definitionally, in the real world.

Now, dealing with the passage in question. In Luke 18, Jesus is in the context (here and throughout his ministry) of dealing with the legalism and gracelessness of the Pharisees. Jesus even offers a parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else,
Jesus told this parable:

“Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. 
For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled,
and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Following that parable, Jesus reminds everyone (with an eye to the Pharisees who he JUST addressed):

Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

He said that in dealing with the arrogance and gracelessness and self-perceived "righteousness" of the Pharisees.

In THAT literal, specific context of the proud, arrogant, graceless, legalistic Pharisees, the story moves to a rich ruler approaching Jesus - another of the typical antagonists in Jesus' life and message... the OPPOSITE of the humble poor and marginalized that Jesus told us he'd come to preach good news to (and in contrast to the wealthy, powerful and arrogant, who would be "brought down" in Mary's Magnificat and other places). The rich ruler talks and Jesus answers:

A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered.
“No one is good - except God alone.

Then, when the rich ruler tells Jesus (rather arrogantly!) that he's kept all the rules since he was a boy (!!) to THAT man (and by extension, the other arrogant legalists like the Pharisees) and THAT man specifically, Jesus says:

“You still lack one thing.
Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.
Then come, follow me.”

Jesus using the hyperbolic saying "there is no one good but God" is addressing the arrogant rich and powerful ruler, along with the Pharisees in the crowd and for the benefit of the poor and marginalized people that Jesus came to preach good news to. Indeed, for those humble poor and marginalized folks, THIS response of Jesus WAS good news. "He's taking on the man! He's bringing down the arrogant and powerful rich ones!"

The marginalized poor folks were well aware that they weren't perfect... that they fail to hit the mark. They understood/understand imperfection and the flaws of humanity. They know that they are not perfectly good like God. But the rich and powerful, the arrogant and legalistic like the Pharisees, THEY often didn't know this, blinded as they were by their wealth and privilege.

In the text and context of this story, Jesus makes clear who he is addressing with his "No one is good" hyperbole...

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else...

On the Goodness of Humanity

When I was a young conservative man, I listened to what my conservative Christian teachers told me:

Humanity is totally depraved.
Humanity is evil.
There is no one good, no, not one.

I listened and I believed. I believed it so intently that I could not conceive of this theory being anything but entirely, 100% perfectly correct and indisputable. After all, look at Hitler. Look at those men who would rape women... who would beat children. Monsters. Awful human beings. And there's a reason for that, I was told and I believed: Humanity is evil, corrupt, depraved in every possible way... the human mind in ALL humans was darkened and incapable of understanding good.

So, I was told and so, I believed.

The longer I live, the more I listened to conservative "defense" of this idea, the more that conservatives have pushed me away from believing this is a rational (or biblical, for that matter) opinion/human theory. It is, at the very best, entirely unproven and unsupported and at worst, an awful, oppressive and damaging theory promoted for less-than-noble reasons.

And why have I changed my opinion? Simple reality. I can see with my own eyes that there are indeed, good people in the world. Many of them.

And understand: I'm not saying that all of humanity is good all of the time. Of course, not. There are genuinely bad people deliberately doing genuinely bad/harmful things. There are the Hitlers, the rapists, the abusers. The men who would sexually assault women then boast how they can get away with it because of their power, wealth and position.

But the every day people - especially the helpers - those who teach, who nurse, who nurture, who assist, the social workers, the environmentalists, the people whose jobs are to empower the poor, marginalized, the sick and disabled... I know these people. They are just who and what they appear to be: Good people engaged in helpful activities for positive reasons.

And, at the same time that they're being helpful and working for justice and peace, they're also not engaged in deliberately harmful, "bad" behavior.

The social worker who has worked for 38 years now - all of her adult life - who entered the field because she wanted to be true to God and God's repeated calls to ally with and for the poor and marginalized... and so, for almost four decades has helped homeless people get off the streets, to find housing, to get needed health care, to get out of abusive relationships, to get out of addictions. She has welcomed the poor and homeless into her own home and kitchen. She's helped the children in these homeless families get needed resources. She's seen some of those formerly un-housed children get college degrees and go into helping professions themselves.

And sure, she's sometimes impatient, she has her own anxieties and depressions, but she hasn't stolen, she hasn't assaulted people, she's been faithful in her relationships, she sure hasn't killed.

She is a genuinely good person, a hard worker whose life work has NOT been just to enrich herself, but to find solutions to problems that poor and oppressed people face. She is a genuinely good person, by any rational measure.

And I personally know dozens of people like this intimately. And for those I don't know as well, I know hundreds of people less well whose life stories fit this model. They are clearly good people by reasonable measures. There is no serious evidence of corruption or total depravity or evil in their lives.

They are, to a person, imperfect people. But being imperfect is not the same as being bad. It's just not.

I bring this up because I've been asking this question for years now and trying to find examples for months now: WHERE is the hard evidence to support this claim that all humans are bad people, totally corrupt and depraved... evil, even? WHERE is the evidence that they have "rebellious hearts?" I've asked... as well as asking for a definition of "rebellious heart..."?

And every time, this question goes unanswered and ignored. The few times that anyone even tries to address it, there answer is almost always something along the lines of "We don't have to answer! It's self-evident! It's already proven!"

But it's not. It's just not. Go ahead - do a search for anyone even trying to make a rational case that proves that all humans are evil, bad and have "rebellious hearts..." There's no one even trying to prove it.

They are assuming that the answer is a given - "Of course, people are evil, ALL people! That's why the only just punishment is an eternity of torture!" Just like I believed, when I was a young conservative. But that assumption remains unproven and the unproven nature of the claim is problematic. One can't just bully their way into forcing agreement... especially when you're making a counter intuitive claim - a claim that real world data disproves.

We can SEE good people all around us. Every day. Or at least I can.

The only way I ever see any try to deal with that is, "Well, you're not judging who is good rightly... They may be good by human standards, but not by "god's standards." But when I ask for proof or support for that, the question remains unanswered.

I find it incredibly puzzling, this complete avoidance of the topic.

But the flip side of all of this is that these "people are evil" theorists have helped me see the beautiful goodness of the Beloved Community. There ARE so many people out there being truly good, truly great and what a blessing that is to see in action. So, thank you conservatives, for finally pushing me completely away from the "people are evil" failed theory.

Joy and Unity vs Anger and Division

I am so glad that the Democrats are trying to focus on joy, positive, unity and common ground. Aside from just being more pleasant, I think it makes for a strong contrast with the GOP messaging which is... not so much.

One of the great contrasts could be found in the music each party used at their conventions. For instance, look at the contrast between Stevie Wonder - ambassador of love, joy and positivity- for the DNC Convention, vs Kid Rock for the GOP Convention.

Wonder sang his deeply spiritual and uplifting "Higher Ground..."

"Lovers keep on lovin'

Believers keep on believin', um yeah

Sleepers just stop sleepin'

'Cause it won't be too long, oh, yeah, yeah

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah

I'm so darn glad He let me try it again

'Cause my last time on earth, I lived a whole world of sin

I'm so glad that I know more than I knew then

Gonna keep on tryin'

'Til I reach my highest ground, whoo!"

As someone noted about the song: "The chorus references God, second chances, the choice to turn away from sin, a quest for spiritual redemption, and the constant struggle that comes with self-improvement, all with a sunny, relentless optimism and the boundless energy that comes from Wonder’s vocal delivery."

That was the DNC's musical representation.

As contrasted with Kid Rock's, American Bad Ass, which I can't quote directly here because of the sexism, misogyny and vulgarity...

"They call me cowboy, I'm the singer in black

So throw a finger in the air and let me see where you're at...

F*** all, y'all!

...I'm an American bad ass, watch me kick

You can roll with rock or you can suck my d***

I'm a porno flick, I'm like Amazing grace

I'm gonna f*** some h*** after I rock this place..."

Ugh.

The GOP is making itself the party of vulgarity and loyalty to one man.

The DNC is positioning itself as the party of Joy and Unity and a nation bound together by higher ideals of love and kindness and finding common ground. Did you see all the GOP leaders on the DNC stage?

The contrast is jarring and I think the GOP will suffer for it.

Dancing Down Joy

Feminine Divine #15

She stood tall and golden,

this dry summer grass

beneath a setting sun that was

still smacking the ground like

a leather belt

and anger

but
when the breeze blew

she grooved a little

and when the wind gusted

she danced like a storm

and soon

she danced the rain into being

and all the earth danced along

 

Biblical Take on Sin?

Bubba, who has re-appeared on Marshal's website, recently has been suggesting he wants to ask me questions and have a conversation on the notion of sin and morality and harm. He said:

what it is I really want to discuss -- sin vs harm, and whether calling an act sinful qualifies as harmful!

Let's take a look at what he probably means by "Sin." Even though I've done this repeatedly for their sake... I'll take a shot at it again. Not so much for their sake but for mine, to put down in words what I'm learning from what I consider their bad example.

"Sin" is a problematic word. It has all kinds of baggage. Humans have been using their preferred notions of "sin" to beat up on and further marginalize people for a very long time. "Sin," in relatively modern conservative religionist's circles has been used to heap guilt upon people and as a tool to say, "YOU are not one of us, YOU are not a decent human in "god's" eyes. YOU are "totally depraved."

LOOK at that. TOTALLY depraved. AAAGH! That sounds horrible! What do they mean by it?

According to the conservative religionists at "Ligonier Ministries..."

"The doctrine of total depravity
does not mean that all humankind is as evil as it possibly could be.

Phew!

Rather, it means that sin affects the whole person. We are born
corrupted,
poisoned, and
polluted by sin.
Our minds are darkened and we
cannot see or understand the truth.
Our hearts are defiled so that they do not love the truth.
We love what we should hate, and we hate what we should love.
Our wills are in bondage to sin, and we cannot believe the gospel in and of themselves.

Ugh.

Sin, the word typically used in the New Testament... the word used by Jesus... is literally translated as
missing the mark
as in shooting for a target and coming up short. Not being perfect. Not achieving perfection.

Well, of course, humanity is not perfect. No one who is human and self-aware suggests that.

But merely "missing the mark of perfection" is not the same, in any way, as DEPRAVED, much less TOTALLY DEPRAVED.

It is not the same as being "corrupted, poisoned and polluted by sin" (by "missing the mark..."?)

The word SIN has been stained, it seems to me, by the human traditions found in conservative evangelical Christianity and other more repressive religious traditions. So, I'm reluctant to use the word, "sin." It has become a mark of abuse and oppression. It causes nightmares and PTSD in people who have been terrorized by the use of the word, "sin."

But biblically, "missing the mark..."? Failing to be perfect? That, I'm fine with. We humans are, after all, imperfect. We miss the mark of perfection. But what of it? Does that make us actually evil? Worthy of the hatred and punishment of God? I do not think that is rational or biblical.

I'd suggest that it's when you add all these human interpretations, opinions and traditions that "sin" becomes problematic.

This is why I prefer to deal with notions like, "Is this harmful or helpful? Does it promote wholesome healing and community... or division and hatred?" That which is harmful is wrong, is a "sin," in the more negative sense that some human traditions and opinions suggest.

Further, "the Bible" has made no "opinion" on "sin." Rather, human writers and thinkers have offered opinions, in the Bible and afterwards. And those opinions are sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful.

As a starting point.

Kamala Harris, Our Next President?

 Contrasting Harris and Trump

1. Kamala Harris was a respected prosecutor
Trump is a disreputable actual criminal felon

2. Prosecutor Harris is highly educated and demonstrably intelligent
Trump is... not

3. Prosecutor Harris prosecuted sexual predators
Trump IS a sexual predator

4. Prosecutor Harris prosecuted the owners of scam colleges that ripped off students
Trump WAS the owner of a scam university that ripped off students - until he was stopped by law enforcement

5. Attorney General Harris helped win a settlement against five banks that helped homeowners harmed by those banks
Property owner Trump defrauded homeowners and was caught and forced to repay nearly all the money from the defrauded victims of his crime

6. Harris has released her tax records and been transparent about her business dealings
Trump has famously never released his tax records and been intentionally vague and obtuse about his wealth and business dealings, beyond boasting boorishly about how wealthy he is

7. Harris supports women's rights to self-determination as it regards health care decisions and pregnancies and would work to restore women's rights on this front
Trump boasts that he caused the overturning of Roe v. Wade

8. Harris is a stellar role model for women, girls and all good people
Trump is a stalker of women and girls and just not a good man - Trump boasts and laughs about sexual assault and abusing his wealth and privilege to ogle teenaged girls while they were dressing

9. Harris would not try to deport "all" undocumented immigrants, nor would she refer to them crassly as "the illegals"
Trump has promised to try to deport all undocumented immigrants as soon as he wins (IF he wins), never mind the shattering economic impact such a policy would have on average US families and employees

10. Harris has zero instances of her being indicted or convicted of crimes and no impeachments on her record
Trump, as we all know, was impeached twice and in the last four years has had dozens of indictments against him, resulting (so far) in 34 actual felony convictions

Additionally, so far as I can tell, Harris has no criminal colleagues or close allies in her coterie
Trump surrounded himself with many corrupt people resulting in at least 9 criminal convictions of his allies and staff (or former staff)

To be clear, I have policy disagreements with Harris and I hope she has learned from some of her policy mistakes in the past... Harris does not speak with the overwhelming fluid, compelling elegance of the Obamas... She (like the rest of humanity) is a flawed person running for an important office. But from all appearances and given the known data, there's just no contest between Harris and Trump as to who the better, more intelligent, more decent candidate is.

We'll see where this goes.

Is Deporting ALL Undocumented Immigrants a Rational Theory/Policy?

No. The answer is, No. Not even close.

Set aside the human rights notions that humans have human rights including the right to self-determination and to move from places they view as unsafe to places they view as safe. Just forget that.

Also, forget the overwhelming biblical and faith-based notions of welcoming immigrants and doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

Forget human kindness and decency.

The GOP and the "project 2025" types are saying that, given a chance, they will deport ALL undocumented immigrants. That's something north of 10 million people.

But think about it. What are the economic results of suddenly removing/deleting 10 million people from the US economy... from the US workforce? Do we know?

Yes, we do. According to a wide variety of economic experts, the result of such a policy (IF they could pull it off) would be economic disaster for the US economy. The data from experts:

Of those 11.3 million, we estimate that 7 million are workers. What is the economic contribution of these unauthorized workers? What would the nation stand to lose in terms of production and income
if these workers were removed and returned to their home countries?

Mass deportation of 11.3 million unauthorized immigrants would also remove these 7 million workers from the U.S. economy, reducing the total number of U.S. workers by nearly 5 percent.

[They crunch the numbers and...]

The main findings of this report are as follows:
• A policy of mass deportation would immediately reduce the nation’s GDP by 1.4 percent,
and ultimately by 2.6 percent, and reduce cumulative GDP over 10 years by $4.7 trillion.

• Mass deportation would cost the federal government nearly
$900 billion in lost revenue over 10 years.

• Hard-hit industries would see double-digit reductions in their workforces.

https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/10/massdeport1003-summary.pdf

And economist after economist, research after research say the same thing. And it's only reasonable. You can't just delete 5% of the workforce and the income and consumption and tax base that those people represent and expect that it won't harm the economy. Indeed, it will probably harm the "regular US workers" the most (Trump and his level of super-wealthy may well not be impacted significantly, but most of us are not super-wealthy, are we?).

Trump's proposed mass deportations would backfire on US workers

...The immigrants being targeted for removal are the lifeblood of several parts of the US economy. Their deportation will instead prompt US business owners to cut back or start fewer new businesses, in some cases shifting their investments to less labor-intensive technologies and industries, while scaling back production to reflect the loss of consumers for their goods.

Prior episodes of mass deportations and exclusions have occurred at several moments in US history. Research has shown that, far from generating economic benefits, their net effect was to reduce employment and earnings for US workers—in the short run and long run.

https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-proposed-mass-deportations-would-backfire-us-workers

I could go on and on. But just read what scholars and economic experts are saying about this very bad idea. Trump's policy change (which he probably can't implement now any more than he did in his first adminstration) would devastate our economy and have widespread negative consequences.

One of the starting points for conservative ideology is reasonably weigh the consequences of an action or policy, and that we should watch out for unintended consequences. Indeed.

We All Need More Kindness

We all need more kindness, more patience, more grace, more love.

We desperately need less violence, less vitriol, less demonization of the other, especially the Struggling Other, the marginalized and poor, the ill and down and out.

Prayers for Donald Trump and the person killed in the shooting, as well as those harmed in the shooting.

Prayers for the shooter - who was not much more than a child - and their family.

Prayers for the violent and those who promote violence, that they will choose other ways.

Prayers that we all take action to see an end, or at least a lessening, of violence. Especially violence and harm towards those who struggle.

What IF Biden Steps Down?

Great Cloud of Witnesses

I do not pretend to be a genius when it comes to politics and I sure don't know if Biden should or shouldn't step down. This is not a call for him to step down. Having said that, however, if his health is failing, it would not be unreasonable for him to step aside. He's certainly earned his rest. Clearly, him considering stepping down is now on the table, so let's talk about it.

So, IF he steps aside (many are asking), who could possibly run? I've seen conservatives say things like...

"All the names put forward have significant negatives and don't seem to be particularly strong candidates."

I would just respond to THAT notion by saying... setting aside that conservatives disagree with Democratic policies for whatever reasons, are you kidding me? "Significant negatives..."? Especially as compared to the GOP alternative (but truly, even aside from that)? Really?

Just three examples of many great choices.

1. Kamala Harris

A. She's the vice president!

B. Before that she was a successful senator and before that, a respected lawyer.

C. All of which is to say she is highly educated, smart and has political history and savvy.

D. Additionally, she's been an inspiration to girls, women, women of color and their allies in reaching the heights she has. She is the first woman vice president. She's the first person of color in that role.

E. She's relatively young, so no worries of her being "too old."

F. And, of course, she's not irrational nor does she talk like an idiot or make promises of prosecuting her political enemies.

For 1,000 reasons, she's an extremely qualified candidate and far and away better than the convicted candidate. I'd love to see her debate Trump.

2. Andy Beshear
(I'm sort of hoping that IF there's a shift away from Biden, it would be a Harris/Beshear ticket, but then, I'm prejudiced for the Kentuckian)

A. Governor of Kentucky

B. The very popular Democrat governor of a very red state. Kentuckians, by and large, love Andy.

C. Highly educated, clearly intelligent, well-spoken and familiar with and experienced in politics.

D. Like Harris, although he is a highly intelligent and skilled lawyer, he has never promised to use the justice system to prosecute his political enemies.

E. Like Harris, I would love to see Beshear in a debate against Trump.

F. Also quite young and yet, educated and experienced with a clear history of wise political leadership.

3. Pete Buttigieg

A. Another highly educated, clearly intelligent, very experienced politician

B. All of the above points about Beshear are true for Buttigieg, as well

C. Military service

D. Multilingual (maybe not completely fluidly in all cases, but clearly familiar with multiple languages and able to answer questions in multiple languages - that compared to Trump, who tends to speak English at about a 3rd to 5th grade level).

E. Would destroy Trump in a debate.

That's just three super strong candidates right off the bat.

In ALL of these, it would be nice to have intelligent, respectful, respectable adults in office. In each of these people, they have lovely and supportive marriages (not that this is a requirement) and are actually part of and relatively faithful to their particular faith tradition. They each have demonstrated that they know the Bible better than the other candidate (not that knowing the Bible is a prerequisite for being president, but if you're going to present yourself as a religious person, you should actually be familiar with that religion - Trump is clearly not, although he is willing to shill a poorly-made, overly-expensive Bible to people willing to lose their money in Trump's name).

None of these very intelligent, very experienced leaders have any scandals or arrest records, whereas their opponent is NOT intelligent and is a moral disgrace for many reasons and is clearly corrupt and a felon, to boot.

With each of these candidates, none of them are perfect people, of course. Each of them have things I strongly disagree with in their politics and policies. But are they qualified and strong candidates? Of course, they are. "Significant negatives" for these (and other) candidates? I just don't see it.

++++++

I will note that I didn't mention Michelle Obama. I think it is a given that she is of course an extremely qualified and strong candidate for the office if she wanted to run. I think she would almost certainly win in a landslide, so strong she is as a candidate and just a clearly wise, good person. But she's been consistently clear that she's not interested in the job and so, I didn't mention her.

Beyond her, the list of qualified, strong candidates is pretty long. I just chose three of the most obvious candidates from my point of view, not to say there aren't other qualified candidates.

Happy Birthday, Edwin Way Teale!

“Time is the river.
We are the islands.
Time washes around us and flows away and with it flow fragments of our lives.
So, little by little, each island shrinks…
But where, who can say, down the long stream of time, are our eroded days deposited?”

“The long fight to save wild beauty represents democracy at its best.
It requires citizens to practice the hardest of virtues--self-restraint.
Why cannot I take as many trout as I want from a stream?
Why cannot I bring home from the woods a rare wildflower?
Because if I do, everybody in this democracy should be able to do the same.

My act will be multiplied endlessly.
To provide protection for wildlife and wild beauty,
everyone has to deny himself proportionately.
Special privilege and conservation are ever at odds.”

“It is those who have compassion for all life who will best safeguard the life of [humanity].
Those who become aroused only when [humans are] endangered become aroused too late.

We cannot make the world uninhabitable for other forms of life and have it habitable for ourselves.
It is the conservationist who is concerned with the welfare of all the land and life of the country,
who, in the end, will do most to maintain the world as a fit place for human existence.”

"The more clearly we can focus our attention on the wonders and realities of the universe about us,
the less taste we shall have for destruction."

~Wise quotes from naturalist, Edwin Way Teale, who was born June 2, 1899 and lived up until 1980, my senior year of high school. (So, I'm a little late in noting his birthday, but it was the right month, at least!)

Wisdom from Rumi

Your grief for what you’ve lost lifts a mirror
up to where you are bravely working.
Expecting the worst, you look, and instead,
here’s the joyful face you’ve been wanting to see.
Your hand opens and closes and opens and closes.
If it were always a fist or always stretched open,
you would be paralysed.
Your deepest presence is in every small contracting and
expanding,
the two as beautifully balanced and coordinated
as birdwings.

~"Bird Wings," by the great Muslim Poet, Rumi

Be like the sun for grace and mercy.
Be like the night to cover others' faults.
Be like running water for generosity.
Be like death for rage and anger.
Be like the Earth for modesty.
Appear as you are.
Be as you appear.

~Rumi