So what do you do?

The question is weighted, whether intentionally or not, with the baggage of the socioeconomic hierarchy of secular society.  Qualities that lend themselves to high standing in the world do not guarantee and in fact often hinder spiritual growth.  To ask this question in a religious setting at best ignores its lack of bearing on spiritual significance and more likely implies that the community is not in fact spiritual.  It indicates to the one being questioned that the caste system they thought they left at the door followed them in.

Alcohol

The Books of Proverbs, Romans, Titus, the Gospel of Luke are included in the canons of all major denominations of Christianity of which I am aware.  From these and other books in my "New International Version" of the Holy Bible, I formed my attitude towards alcohol.  The NIV mentions the word "wine" 213 times, "drunk" 37 times and "drunkenness" 9 times.  The general impression created is one that wine and alcohol are a source of merriment that can easily be abused, leading drinkers to negligence, foolishness, and moral depravity.  It would be hard to make the case that the Bible condemns alcohol altogether, but prohibition of alcohol at a subsequent time would not be inconsistent with the character of the Biblical God.

A passage that I have found particularly useful in justifying my fondness for the drink is Proverbs 31:6-7, "6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; 7 let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more."  It is pretty clear from this passage that those with a difficult life may be allowed, even encouraged, to drink (and of course we all think we have difficult lives).  In the 14^th Chapter of Romans, in which drinking wine and eating traditionally unclean foods are discussed, we are told "22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves."  The matter seems to be a personal choice.  Even overseers and deacons appear to be permitted to drink, just not too often or to excess.  In Timothy 3:8 we read "Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain." (see also Titus 1:7 and Titus 2:3).

Yet even the above verses come in contexts that indicate the possibility of an evolving prohibition of alcohol.  Romans 14:13 states, "Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way," and Romans 14:21 says "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall."  So while a decision to drink made in isolation may seem to be a personal decision, when we begin to take responsibility for social ills that affect our world we may see that our seemingly innocent behavior makes it more possible for our brother to fall.  Proverbs 31:4-9, the context for my favorite passage above, seems to indicate that those who take responsibility for social justice should abstain from alcohol:  "4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel-- not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, 5 lest they drink and forget what the law decrees, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights. 6 Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; 7 let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more. 8 "Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. 9 Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."  Since we are moving towards a united world where we all share responsibility for social justice, this passage can turn on us would-be-drinkers.

Jesus warns us in Luke 21:34, ""Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap."  Drunkenness can dissipate our efforts and prevent us from fulfilling God's purpose in our lives.  Jesus warns that suddenly we may find we are out of time.  Dozens of verses throughout scripture allude to the foolish and depraved things that are done in drunkenness.  Proverbs 23:29-35 paints a particularly bleak picture, 29 Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaints? Who has needless bruises? Who has bloodshot eyes? 30 Those who linger over wine, who go to sample bowls of mixed wine. 31 Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! 32 In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper. 33 Your eyes will see strange sights and your mind imagine confusing things. 34 You will be like one sleeping on the high seas, lying on top of the rigging. 35 "They hit me," you will say, "but I'm not hurt! They beat me, but I don't feel it! When will I wake up so I can find another drink?"

Knowing that God reveals wisdom line upon line and that there is a time for every purpose under heaven, it is certainly consistent with the character of God that he would now forbid what he once permitted.  Times have changed.  Just as pork was not safe to eat in hot climates without refrigerators, alcohol is more dangerous now that we have cars and power tools.  Keep in mind, also, that Baha'u'llah emphasized unity and that he charged all of us with responsibility to bring it about.  So while King Lemuel shouldered responsibility in the Proverbs passage that required his temperance, in this time in human evolution we all shoulder responsibility for making sure that the oppressed are not deprived of their rights.  If we are to build a united world then any contribution to a social ill is to cause our brother to fall.  Therefore, much to my chagrin, I have to conclude that Baha'u'llah's prohibition of alcohol is consistent with the Character of God.  I have found this to be the case with everything I have read from Baha'u'llah, which is why I am forced to accept that he is a mirror like Christ and other manifestations before him through which we can see God's character more clearly.

_________________________________________________________

In brief, I hope that thou mayest become inebriated with the wine of the love of God, find eternal bliss and receive inexhaustible joy and happiness. All wine hath depression as an after-effect, except the wine of the Love of God. "

- 'Abdu'l-baha

"Intellect and the faculty of comprehension are God's gifts whereby man is distinguished from other animals. Will a wise man want to lose this Light in the darkness of intoxication? No, by God! This will not satisfy him! He will, rather, do that which will develop his powers of intelligence and understanding, and not increase his negligence, heedlessness and decline. This is an explicit text in the perspicuous Book, wherein God hath set forth every goodly virtue, and exposed every reprehensible act."

- 'Abdu'l-baha

"From your letter it would be assumed that some of your believers feel that the law of the "Aqdas" regarding the use of intoxicating liquors is a personal one, and may be followed or not followed, as the individual desires. This is not correct. The law of the "Aqdas" regarding not using intoxicating liquors is binding on all Baha'is. The Guardian does feel, however, that with new Baha'is, coming into the Faith, leniency should be exercised; but he feels that when a person is a Baha'i for some time, his Baha'i association and the spirit of the Teachings which he studies and endeavours to exemplify will bring about a change in the character, and the individual will stop drinking. However, old and firm Baha'is must apply the law of the non-use of alcoholic beverages."

- Written on behalf of Shogi Effendi

Hoodwinked

There are those who believe that human nature is so twisted that human's cannot be left to decide for themselves what they should do.  They fail to see the logical fallacy of a government run by humans being somehow more suited to making decisions for people.  There are some who feel that the rules of economics are so inviolable that humans should be left to their own devices.  They fail to see that wealth begets wealth and that the cycle ends in bloody revolution if left to run its course unabated.  The system of government in the United States is brilliant in that it is designed to dampen the oscillations between these extreme positions.  The party of the people and the party of the privileged take turns steering the ship to and fro with neither party gaining enough headway to allow complete disaster to ensue. 

What would happen, however, if one segment of society were hoodwinked?  What if the party of the privileged were able to masquerade as the party of the people?  What if the people who only bought Chevy, Ford, or GM were the same people that supported union breaking, outsourcing, and global corporate governance?  What if the people who called themselves Christians stood for governance that was not really all that compassionate?  What if national security meant alienating the rest of the world with unilateral acts of aggression?  If people fell for such schemes and believed them, then the pendulum could stop swinging.  The wealthy would continue to act in their own best interests while the hapless majority would proudly vote for their own oppression.  Unfortunately, the pendulum must swing or the cycle will run the course that Marx projected and history has demonstrated.  If the vicious cycle of the concentration of wealth is allowed to continue too long, it ends in revolution.  The Republican Party in the USA is indeed the party of the privileged and it is perpetuating its rule by masquerading as a party of the people, a masquerade that must be uncovered to avoid an imbalance too extreme to be easily corrected.

While some fly the Confederate flag, some buy only American Made Goods, and others are content to proudly display American flags, most Republicans consider themselves proud Americans.  In the meantime, their party is granting major military contracts to Airbus over Boeing, signing trade agreements that make unregulated jobs overseas much more appealing to employers than creation of US jobs, and doing everything they can to weaken organized labor in the United States.

While the Republicans talk about eliminating dependence on foreign oil, they offer huge incentives to corporations to build new refineries that increase the demand for foreign oil.  While talking about honor and responsibility, they refuse to sign the Kyoto accord, handcuff the EPA, and make only token gestures to encourage renewable energy development while other countries lead the way in those areas.

Claiming that economic development will only occur if corporations are untaxed, the Republicans imply that only the wealthy can create wealth.  Many ideas die idle in the minds of a stifled middle class that the Republican policies would further stifle.  These ideas would create jobs if middle class tax breaks allowed some in the middle class to accumulate enough of a safety net to risk starting a small business.  But while the Republicans claim to represent small businesses, they represent only those who are doing well enough to afford to pay a higher tax bracket.  Those doing this well are not going to throw in the towel because they are taxed on their wealth.  By reducing the burden on those who are not doing as well, however, more will be allowed to get from point A to point B.  This generates jobs and also gets them to the point where they can afford to pay higher taxes.

The Republican Party has a lot of people hoodwinked.  They believe that economic activity is an end rather than a means.  They believe that social injustice is not a moral problem.  They have been convinced that the wealthy will provide opportunity to the commoners out of the goodness of their hearts without the need for government intervention.  People will see; let's hope it doesn't take starvation to open their eyes.  When the pendulum swings, as it will swing, lets hope it swings within the scope of American government rather than swinging as a hammer swung by commoners upon the American nobility.

The Fair Tax

Is That a Bad Thing?

There has been a great deal of discussion lately, not so much about Barack
Obama, but about the people who support him.  Lewis Farcon, Jeremiah
Wright, even the youth of Iran love Barack Obama.  Some have suggested
that Obama must be some kind of radical Islamic extremist.  If they haven't
stated this explicitly, it is at least implicit in their rants against him
that are based only on the words of those who support him.  Isn’t this
contrary, however, to the Bush policy of winning the hearts and minds of
those we would bring into the folds of American Democracy?  Wouldn’t we
have a better hope, both at home and abroad, of rooting out extremist
hatred of the United States by electing a leader that can appeal to a wide
spectrum of ideologies and backgrounds?  There was a time and a place for
a “Speak softly but carry a big stick” policy, but there is also a time
and place for participating within the global community as a member rather
than as its self-proclaimed leader.  In order to gain the respect of a
world that is less and less dependant on the United States, it is
imperative that we elect a president that is both respectable and is
humble enough to realize that it is important to earn the world’s respect.
 
John McCain is certainly respectable.  He has a long history of service to
the United States and a great understanding of the current US foreign
policy.  However, it is the current US foreign policy that has the US seen
globally as an arrogant nation with its fingers in conflicts around the
world.  Further; even if McCain would carry out US foreign policy with
less arrogance and bravado than the current administration, his election
would confirm to the world that the US people are complicit in US policy. 
We not only elected George Bush, we re-elected him.  If that is followed
by electing the candidate of George Bush’s party it speaks volumes to the
world about the US populace’s arrogant view of itself.  Though he is
respectable, John McCain will not seek the respect of the global community
because he does not believe that it is necessary.  He supports the US past
unilateral actions and would undoubtedly have us poised for even costlier
conflicts in the near future.
 
Hillary Clinton is loathsome as a person and laughable as a leader.  She
stood by Bill while he wet his willy with an intern and then saw fit to
claim that as experience relevant to leading the United States.  She has
clearly chosen personal ambition over the good of her party, even though
she acknowledges few differences between her own positions and those of
Senator Obama.  Her stubborn refusal to step aside in a race she cannot
win is damaging her party, though I doubt she cares.  An Obama loss in ’08
is her best chance in ’12.  I doubt she sees how unelectable she is.  A
polarizing force that would all but guarantee a McCain administration, she
almost doesn’t deserve a paragraph here.  If somehow she managed to become
president of our great nation, I think the world would smirk while the
rest of us hung our heads in shame.
 
Barack Obama is the candidate that would signify to the world that we are
ready to participate as key members of the global community, not as Dad
but as brother.  He is smart enough to understand both sides of every
story and brave enough to tell both sides without politicizing disparate
positions.  Because Obama listens as well as he speaks, because he is able
to understand and bring understanding, because he is able see and able to
shed light, he possesses the skills required to persuade and to compromise
both domestically and globally.  The Republicans think Obama will make the
US look weak in withdrawing from Iraq; but I am convinced that Barack
Obama is more concerned with making us strong than making us look strong,
more concerned with making us greater than making us feel greater, and
more concerned with moving us forward than reveling in our past.  Do black
liberation theologians support Barack Obama because he shares their views?
 Not at all.  They support him because he understands their views and sees
a way past the issues they represent.  It is possible, and in fact
necessary, to understand extremists without sharing their views.  Barack
Obama possesses this understanding, and that is not a bad thing.