Mar 24, 2011

President O'Bushama the Black Swan?

President O'Bushama, Part 2
The Confession: Okay, you are wondering, what is with Solomon, those of you who have read and commented and those of you who have not. We are between 'Barak and a hard place'.

The truth is that I announced to my fourth grade roommates, that someday I was going to run for the office of President of the United States of America. I was a sheltered kid, and really didn't know anything about racism ..., so I was surprised when my classmates roiled with laughter.

Man, I have been scored for life, and that is why I am so mad at Mr. Obama, just kidding. But with regard to my youthful classmates, in 1968, when Dr. King was slain, I learned about the bifurcated and racially polarized nation that I lived in. Up and until that time, I attended an inner-city school with both black and white children. All of us, as far as I knew, got along fine. I walked to and from school each day with whites and blacks, and our neighbors were both white and black.

Then one day during class, my 4th grade teacher walked up to my desk, leaned over and threatened me, explaining what he would do to me if I ever called a certain white girl in the class again. What was even more surprising was, that even though she was in the classroom, that was all I knew about her, she was a classmate.

In fact, I never called her, and rarely spoke to her unless it was for something class related. It turned out that a black friend of mine had been calling her and using my name when he did, just before hanging up on her when she answered the phone. Well, perhaps I should have been mad at my juvenile friend, but I was more curious about an adult teacher, who would threatened a kid in the fourth grade. On occasion, my dark side, wishes that I could go back, find and pay that teacher a visit. Oops!

Back to my friend, who I was telling you about, the nemesis from Nigeria, who has been in this country living in the bushes in Milpitas. We were having a spontaneous debate, during a Fair, that was taking place on University Avenue in Palo Alto (the City of Tall Trees). He nearly lost his mind screaming his O'Bushama-isms to the unflappable me. No matter how I tried to explain, civilly I might add, my reason for not voting for Mr. O'Bushama, after vetting him (as Senator O'Bushama instructed blacks to do anyway), he insisted that I was a confused black man.

Folks, I don't argue with anyone. I say what I have to say quietly and civilly, and then more often than not, I listen to my contretemps argue their points of view, often in a raised, condescending, elitist or demonstrative tone or manner. I often look back and laugh,at him and others who insisted that I was c-o-r-f-u-s-e-d during the run up to the election, because I was wasting my vote by not voting for then Senator Obama. [Okay, my dark side is showing].

Remember that scripture, "God called the young because they're strong, and the old because they know the way". Well, I still like to believe that I am both wise and young at the same time, even though I have to color my beard and pick hair out of strange places with the tweezers from time to time, but I will never admit to being old: I'm just getting started. Of course, I have been feeling some things that I never felt before in my young body. Oops, and 'there lies the rub', even Vicks Vapo-Rub and BenGay!

Yoda, where are you, "Darth is trying to turn everyone to 'the dark-side, young and old"! Ah, it's not all their fault, going back to my friends who messed up, given that they voted for the likes of Ronald, and George Bush II all over again, in the person of President O'Bushama. The latter represents a deadly three-in-one combination, potient (and portent) that none of us needs to ingest, but instead we should be aware of what happened when 2012 rolls around. Clearly, candidate Obama was a great salesperson and a harbinger of all of the right stuff, including showmanship, a warm smile, good looks, Harvard graduate, and a former senator from the Illinois legislature ... when he appeared on the state in 2008.

But even with all that being said, he was not the person that everyone believed he was, apparently. Having said that, I believe that everyone has the right to be wrong, I was wrong once and I admitted it afterward. Of course, I cannot recall what I was wrong about [my dark side is showing again, hee-hee].

Okay, back to President O'Bushama, a Black Swan and current President of the United Emirates of America and the rest of the world. He represents the dark side of the force, it would appear, given that the leaders of all of the nations of the world, that he has engaged in battle recently are non-white. One could easily surmise that 'undercover brother', President. O'Bushama, is guilty of black on black crime, and is working for 'The Man'. Similar to the black general in the movie, 'Undercover Brother', who had surreptitiously been taken over after being fed 'chicken' by the man, perhaps President O'Bushama has been taken over too, but more on that later.

And having said that, many black and non-white Americans, believe that he is working for 'The Man'. Others believe that, 'he is and was always been 'The Man'. This is not good because, most blacks lost faith in the American political system a long time ago. I wonder why? And then, along came candidate Obama, the apparent White Swan at the time, who inspired many minorities to participate in the political process again. Even the ones who had prison records, regretted that they couldn't vote for him. And now that their would-be hero has disappointed them, will they ever participate in the political process again. I don't think so, at least not in the near future.

Has President O'Bushama been taken over by 'the man', or was he always 'the man', draped in black skin? I suspect that he has simply drunk 'the man's kool-aid'. If we could simply get this man to say what he means and to stick with it, something that he failed to do even during the run up to the election. If he were to, I am certain that all of our stomachs would appreciate it, for this man is no longer under a cover, one that is broad or long enough to hide what he is up to, apparently no good!

Wouldn't you agree that both his domestic and foreign policy agendas, today, look more and more like that of George Bush Jr. (who was and is the less well spoken embodiment of Ronald Reagan) and for sure 'the man'? This man, President O'Bushama, is involved in more wars, bailing out the rich, while pacifying the poor and middle-class in America and the ROW … than his predecessors were.

My God, even John Boehner, his Speaker of the House bosom buddy is worried, given the most recent 'drive-by on Libya' that the president ordered. The President may have even gone further than a Republican would have. And, Representative Boehner is is a dyed-in-the wool, Republican (Buckeye) warmonger and secret admirer of his friend President. O'Bushama. Sadly, President O'Bushama has only done what presidents have done in the past when they wanted to deflect American's attention from what is going on domestically.

To begin shooting at, bombing or sending the Air Force or warships in to launch Cruise Missles, makes it appear that the President is strong on defense, and protecting the country. But just like the 2 ongoing wars, what is he protecting us from. Our current president is apparently not an exception to that kind of ruse or rule. Isn't this simply more evidence that President O'Bushama has shifted further to the Right, than even John, Newt, Contract with America Mitch and the boyz have done? Eye of Newt, president of the USA, that makes me gag.

Of course John Boehner, self-proclaimed friend of Mr. O'Bushama, or was it the other way around, could simply be taking advantage of the president's latest faux pas, in order to make himself more appealing as a candidate? Normally, John would, otherwise, be all for 'the drive-by on Libya', as he was I'm sure he was when Reagan did the same over 2-decades ago. However, money is more important to John than principle. He wants to keep the American treasury solid and intact, for the sake of his other wealthy Republican friends and corporate lobbyists -the primary users and beneficiaries of the American treasury's largess.

More and more, it is the people who voted for Mr. O'Bushama in 2008, that care less for him today. Some of them are thinking, and I voted for a black man, thinking that it was a epochal moment in history, and that my vote for him, would represent historical change in America and abroad. I know what O'Bushama supporters expected, even the cross-over ones who believed that the world, not only the USA, would look different today (2-years later), if they voted for him. But the more things changed, when America elected President O'Bushana over the likes of Senator John McCain and Sarah Palin, the more they have worsened for America and the world, and remained the same.

Many of the ones who voted for him are still in shock, particularly the ones who switched over and voted for him that belonged to other parties. They expected something different from a bifurcated (both black and white Harvard educated) man! They expected that his black sensibilities and white intelligence combined with eloquent grace, would produce a brilliant President who cared about all people, macroeconomics and Martin Luther King like social justice for 'all people' here and around the world. But what they got was, more of the same, but now in black-face!

Actually, all of this is Colin Powell's fault!
Why? Mr. Powell was the painted man of destiny I believe, that the world was looking for that when he declined to run for the office of President of the United States. When Republican Senator Barry Goldwater was still alive, he was Colonel Powell's promoter. He was doing for Ambassador Powell, what late Senator Ted Kennedy was doing for then Senator Obama prior to the election. I pointed out to iindividuals who believed that God destined Obama to be President of the USA, the one's who said that if he didn't run that there would never be another black man elected to the office.

And they may, in part, be correct, now, that Ambassador Powell has seemingly left the building. But then there is another man that I will introduce further along, that happens to be black, who might come out of nowhere to become the Republicans new Black Swan and hope, if needed. Blacks, never even considered that a black conservative might turn out to be America's, and their first ethnic president. But to all of those who said that God wanted Obama to be President, and that it was his destiny to become president, what are you thinking now and what God were you referring to at the time, er herm? You know, I don't hear much from these people now - where have they gone? Perhaps God is a part of the Right-Wing!

To be sure, Colin Powell was taken seriously by both white, black and in between when Senator Goldwater was pushing him, to include Republicans, Democrats, Independents and other world leaders. The latter proves that America didn't just recently experience this sudden and dramatic change of heart about black people and candidates, when Mr. Obama appeared on the scene. And it proves that whites were not all racists, as many minorities believed.

I have many white friends, and they have been my friends for decades now it would seem, and they are far less racist, if they are racist at all, than many blacks are that I know and have known. In fact, I don't believe that any of my white friends are racists. I have worked with white associates before, who after shaking my hand, would unconsciously I suppose, wipe their hands on their pant legs. Ah, perhaps it was just sweat that they were wiping off.

But back to the point, many non-black and other Americans voters believed that, "It was okay to vote for a black man", long before Obama. And, in 2008 they sold their friends on the idea, that the color of one's skin did not matter. I feel for them now, really I do. Why do I feel this way? Let's face it, they went out on a limb for not only President O'Bushama, but to convince the masses that blacks are capable of governance at the highest level in the land. And right now, they aren't appearing to be very bright in the minds of their friends and peers. Most of us know that we will likely never see a black president again, not even the Black Swan in year 2012. On the other hand, if the Black Swan follows the script, perhaps we will after all.

But one thing we will know is this: If President O'Bushama, is not elected again, it won't be because of the color of his skin, and that is a good thing. No matter how the presidential election turns out in 2012, America and the world will have to admit that America has and is making racial progress. If nothing else, the Obama presidency broke the barrier, the same thing that a Powell presidency could have done a decade or more before, if Secretary Powell had elected to run!

But still, many individuals are dejected and despondent, and realize now that just because a candidate is of another hue and gender that it is still what he or she stands for that matters, for competency trumps all. Late Senator Lloyd Bentsen comes to mind. I recall when during the 1998 vice presidential debate between he and nascent Senator Dan Quayle, that he blasted Dan neophyte Senator Quayle. Many of us, I'm certain, can still recall when Senator Bentsen turned and said to Senator Dan Quayle, "I know the Kennedy's, the Kennedy's are my friends, and you're no Jack Kennedy".

And now the world knows, over 2 decades later, that President O'Bushama, is 'no Jack Kennedy either - and that he is not a Ted, has nothing to do with race, or if he can spell potato correctly. Having said that, I cannot imagine how the world would be any different, if George Bush Jr. was the President right now, given that President O'Bushama is taking his plays from the Bush Jr. handbook. He should feel vindicated, and he is likely at home thinking about everyone who made fun of him and his Bushism's before. “Well, how do you like me now", he's thinking? Why? Because, President O'Bushama, along with a Democratic House, Senate and Republican majority on the Supreme Court, is running the country just about the same as it was being run when Mr. Bush Jr., was running the country.

And things aren't any different now, from the time when Mr. George Bush Junior was in power, and running the Bushtanista Party. I called him Mr. Bush didn't I? Frankly, I didn't believe that Mr. Bush was terribly bright at the time, but Mr. O'Bushama, his protege, is proving that he was a lot smarter than I thought (when comparing a Yale and a Harvard man). What is truly sad about all of this is that President O'Bushama had the world and the nation in his lap, well, other than a minority group of American Republicans at the time.

Bush never had a mandate, (most people still believe that he stole his first election), but President O'Bushama did, and he squandered it. Today, Mr. Bush is sitting back and thinking, "my policies were correct, and I did the right thing and would do it all over again, if I was still running things". And President O'Bushama, 'Bush in disguise', is thinking, I have and am doing the right thing myself. And guess what, the majority of American's who voted in the mid-terms apparently agree. The silent majority, I suspect would not agree, however, given that they have refused to register their franchise, particularly in the mid-terms, we will never know, except anecdotally, will we?

The American electorate placed Bush in power, just barely however, for 2-terms; and recently they brought back a gaggle of Republicans who believed in Bush-Reagan policies and politics in order to work alongside the Bush-Reagan clone. So what did President O'Bushama do with all of that social capital, power, and the national and international support that he amassed, he squandered it? How many of you believe that he could win the Nobel Peace Prize, or any other prize today?

He makes me think of that saying that went something like this, 'never, have so many, given so much ... " And what did he do with all of what he was given and all of those who worked so hard (and spent money) to get him elected, he squandered it all and abandoned his supporters too. Why? In part, due to a lack of seasoning. In my opinion, he tossed his hat into the ring too soon, as I shared with my friends and foes alike leading up to 2008. His ego got the best of him!

And as a result he has been waffling back and forth, supporting Reagan-Bush policies while pretending to belong to the other side, the people's side, as well as to be 'the voice of the people'. If the truth were to be known, he rarely speaks for 'either side', Republican or non. However, give him credit for one thing, he knew how to get promoted over better, more qualified and prepared candidates, in order to get himself elected, didn't he? He did the same at Harvard, in the Illinois Legislature and in Washington DC, apparently. And once he was elected, he was prematurely nominated and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (based upon rhetoric without any real substance or commitment to the ideals that he espoused).

What must they be thinking in Oslo right now, something like, give us back the prize? I know what America is thinking. But who else has experienced such a mercurial rise only to squander it, and in such a short period of time? Well, Sarah Palin comes to mind! In the future, it will be hard to garner a Nobel Peace Prize, I suppose. How bad are things?

Well today, even America's version of a Maggie Thatcher, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the smartest woman and politician alive I believe, has declared that she won't run for the office of President in 2012. I am deeply saddened to hear that, but I don't blame her. It proves just how smart she really is, doesn't it? Who would want to preside over the convoluted mess that will be left behind, apparently, when President O'Bushama leaves office in 2012?

Thinking back to when I was in the fourth grade and wanted to be President of the USA, I wouldn't even run now, and who knows, perhaps I would receive 5 or 10 votes, like Ambassador Keyes did, when he ran for office. But, who's counting? Moving to Illinois didn't help Ambassador Keyes, and he was a Republican!

The Rev

continued ...

Mar 22, 2011

President O'Bushama the Black Swan?

Part I. "Luke [America], come over to the dark side": It would appear that is what the President has done already, and he wants the rest of America to join him?
One has to wonder whether 2012 will be his Swan Song (final performance)? For it would appear that the wheels have come completely off - perhaps the Republicans will draft him, for he seems to be on their side now.

SubTopic: Mr. O'Bushama, the Black and White Swan!

Before the Oscar ceremonies took place, I had the opportunity too see the Academy Award nominated motion picture, the Black Swan. I found the film to be black, poignant, exhilarating, surreal, captivating and confusing all at the same time.

I was so struck by the film's plot and theme, that when I returned home, I went on-line, located an image of a Black Swan, something that I had never heard of before, and searched for the movie script. I was hoping to understand, fully, what I had just witnessed in the movie theater. In fact, the image of the black swan that I located online, is currently the wallpaper on my rather large computer screen and stares at me throughout the day. And, it looks remarkably like the President - just kidding, he's of lighter hue!

Clearly the theme of the film resonated not only with me, but with many other Americans who filled up the blogosphere asking questions about the film. They were also trying to understand, in more detail, what they had just witnessed and missed, just as I had did. Was this film about life imitating art, art imitating life or both? Or, was this film simply about good and evil, the Jing Jang or what?

When you consider the duality that often exists in people that you know or yourself, the film made perfect sense. Who can really explain this phenomenon? Even the Apostle Paul, in the Christian canon, wrote about 2 natures (read Romans the 7th Chapter), that were resident inside of him. He wrote about a dualistic that persisted inside of him, that often pulled at him in 2 directions. He said, "what I would not do, I do, and what I would do I do not (do it in other words) ...". How many of us males, for example, can compare Paul's experience with our own when it comes to members of the opposite sex.

We see them (females), and we say, "I'm not going to look for too long", and the right skirt or pair of pants come along and we tell Satan to, "get thee behind me Satan", well, once weare finished looking! I can recall breaking a promise, that I unwisely made to God in my teens. At the time I promised that I would not ogle females from that day on. Oops, Reverend? Well, remember David and Bathsheba?

Some years ago I was at Candlestick Park, when the Giants still played there. I was watching the ballgame with a group of friends. Suddenly, this woman, with everything in all of the right places walked from the bottom row, it would seem, to the top. God had blessed her, in that everything was where it should be. I wasn't the only guilty man in that section of the stadium, it would appear, who forgot about the Giants and watched this woman, and all of her accoutrement, climbing the stairs.

Out of my mouth came the following phrase "Lord, have mercy", to the dismay of my friends, who all laughed. Well, I did say, "Lord have mercy", doesn't that count? Anyhow, 'the devil made me do it', and now back to the apparent, real black swan, our President. He apparently has far more difficult decisions and temptations to deal with, like bombing other countries ... than I do.

The holistic integration of the human personality, can be at times difficult to understand, particularly, when you are taught not to do, what is natural or conditioned within you to do. Why do I use females as an example? It is because by nature it would appear that men have this need to look, fantasize, dream about ... females. No one has to tell you to do it. Typically, it begins further back than you can remember, and it is a pleasant thing to do (so I understand what the Apostle was saying, in a different context, I suppose). Or was he? I am single, and he was a single man (depending on who you believe)!

When you think in terms of matters that are not quite as innocent as ogling women, consider the evening news then. Suddenly, a murder, kidnapping or rape takes place and is highlighted on the evening news. Shortly therefore, a roving reporter goes out to interview friends, neighbors ... of the assailants. When interviewed, friends, families and neighbors who know the assailants are frequently overheard explaining, how uncharacteristic it is or was for the accused (who had been identified), to have behaved in such a manner. "He was so quiet", is what you often hear.

Now it doesn't mean that friends or family members are necessarily, trying to cover up for a neighbor, family-member or friend, even though on occasion they do. Instead, people often tell you about the person as they perceived or have experienced them. How often have we witnessed or experienced this phenomenon. When it does occur, all of a sudden, reporting individuals suddenly understand why the person that they knew was so quiet, reckless or removed.

And what is even more telling, is when two different people describe the same person from two completely different vantage points, ending in two different descriptions of the same person. Years ago I was involved in a lawsuit. A man that I worked with was sexually harassing and threatening a woman who was in tears almost daily at this University, until I came along. I immediately noticed, that after he repeated a certain phrase, in a foreign language I might add, that the married woman would cower and withdraw.

When I escalated the matter, after my attempts to talk to the bum personally, failed to do any good, the administration, to my chagrin, immediately protected him. Well, what else did they have to go on given that he was always a perfect gentleman whenever he was around them. This man had two sides, one dark and one light! He probably expected me, another male, to do nothing - but was he wrong, and he was eventually suspended from the University.

And that my friends is how I have come to view incumbent President, a man with two sides, who apparently, expects Americans to go along with his apparent dark side. I have come up with a play name for him, one which will describe his multiple/dual personalities, his dark and light sides, as I perceive them.

Mr. Obama, our current President, given his apparent dualism, by that I mean in terms of what he said during the run up to the election, and the behavior and rhetoric that he has often exhibited since he became president, seems to portray a bifurcated man. The apparent dualism that exists in the current President of the United States, reminds me of the duality that existed, in the principle ballerina character in the film, The Black Swan. It required a bit of coaching, and for some one to push her buttons in order to get her to display, in public, what lie dormant, underneath her typically calm exterior.

What was inside of her, had to be drawn out so that she could effectively integrate or play both parts in her starring ballerina role, in the same manner as our President does, when pressed hard enough. This film is not for the faint of heart. I would not recommend this film or our current President either, for immature audiences. On the other hand, I would recommend this film for a thinking audience. Someone once said that each one of us is really 3-people, that is: Who we believe we are, who other people say that we are, and finally, who we really are!

Who am I for example? I know who I believe that I am, however, when I hear from other people who they believe that I am, I am often puzzled. Who is right? I suspect that I am in terms of who I believe that I am, and that they are also correct to in terms of what they perceived based on my behavior, real or imagined.

Prior to experiencing this film, and more specifically, during the run up to the election: I sensed that President Obama was in fact, a bifurcated man, one who, just as I predicted, turned out not to be for the faint of heart. So today, in consideration of the film and its powerful theme, about dualism, in jest, and as I mentioned before, came up with a new namesake for President Obama that is more apropos, and indicative of his dualistic personality, and policies.

Given the way that he has presided over the nation, and the world for the past 2 years, it is evident. Ouch! Since being stomped on in the Mid-Term elections, the dark side of President O'Bushama is emerging more and more by the day. His admitted friends on the right, had been saying to him before, "Luke, Luke, come on over to the dark side". And, in my opinion ''the brother from another mother, is just about there, and as a result, the democratic party has been just about completely decapitated. I didn't feel, that the neophyte Senator and rising star in national politics from the Illinois Legislature was ready at the time to lead the nation.

One speech at a Democratic Convention, and a few years in the United States Senate does not a President of the United States and the rest of the world, make. I felt that he needed more guidance, experience and seasoning in order to be able to lead the nation and the world before, lest he 'split himself and America apart, as he appears to be doing now, not to forget the rest of the world. Who will lead them, the nations of the world?

A fitting name that represents his dualistic, ebb and flow, nature and personality would be for me, O'Bushama instead of Obama. The name O'Bushama represents the multiple parts of his iconic personality to include Ronald Reagan, George Bush and his multi-racial self all encapsulated into one body. He is a composite, in particular of two former presidents, both Republican, that preceded him. He has either knowingly or unknowingly permitted the personalities of both to inhabit, haunt and to become a part of who he is today.

Let's break it down: The letter 'O' accompanied with the apostrophe, represents the Scotch-Irish and African portion of who he is, and late President Reagan's Irish ethnicity; the 'O' is also the first letter in his surname. Do you recall that President-elect O'Bushama, actually praised late President Reagan's policies during the run up to the election, in deference to all of the damage that he, Reagan, did to the nation, and the negative legacy that he left behind for his successors to pick up, a rightest legacy that persists in extremists on the, 'waste, fraud and abuse', Republican Right today.

And it is also noteworthy given recent events, that both he and President Reagan, are the two American President's who saw fit to, within the past 30 years, as they say in the hood: Do drive-bys on the nation of Libya from the air. President O'Bushama, must have been thinking of his protege, and reading from the Reagan imperialist handbook when he made his decision to act. And then there is the man who is responsible, by and large, for his current incumbency, given the manner in which he left the nation and the world in shambles at his departure. Of course, I am speaking of President George Bush Jr., the 43rd President of the United States and leader of the former Bushtanista Party.

President George Bush Jr. is the man that he criticized, in order to get himself elected, particularly George Bush's polices. But since being elected - given his recent actions, and the manner in which he conducted America's domestic and foreign policy, he has become a poster child for, mostly, all of what President Bush Jr. did when he was in office.

The primary character in the movie, who was so perfect and sanguine in every way on the practice set (similar to the way that President O'Bushama conducts himself flawlessly and in a very controlled manner when on stage, I might add): However, she had to be taught to allow her dark side to take precedence over her extremely controlled and deliberate side, at the end of her performance. And as much as it would appear that she had a problem infusing her dark side into her public performance (her apparent swan song), it was clear that she had a hidden dark side, which had a tendency to leak out when she was at home and away from the lights. She obviously had serious inter and intrapersonal problems.

President Obama then appears to be President's Reagan, George Bush Jr. and himself all wrapped up into one confusing package, on a given day - not to over look the fact that he is also of part African descent and Barack Obama-Hussein. The last portion of his made up surname, that I have provided for him, is also a cognate. During the run up to the election we saw his puerile side in public and at the inauguration (people that I know attended and withstood the frigid weather) saw the other side. The sweet talking, jesting and affable Barack Obama wooed everyone. However, once he got elected and was installed, many Americans had to ask, who is this swanned or maked man?.

When the real President O'Bushama, began to emerge, keeping the movie in mind, the masked side of the man emerged for all of the world to see. There are books written on the topic: The Mask', that most of us put on each day, depending on where we are, and how we are expected to behave. And the point of the books and tomes, written about with regard to this subject is simply this, what we portray to the public is not always the true indicator of what lies beneath the mask. In other words, we can meet the world with a smile, when on the inside we are experiencing feelings of hurt, anger, vituperation, rage, revenge ...... Is this what is going on inside of Mr. O'Bushama, the cognate man, who manages to keep a smile on his face, even when the doors are locked at the White House and he cannot gain access?

I can often see splinters of both sides of President O'Bushama, portions of which emerge from time to time. The latter begs the question, then is President Obama, a masked man? For if that is true, he is not alone, most of us wear masks in public, simply ask Senator Mitch McConnell and House-Speaker John Boehner. Smiling faces, as the song says, 'tell lies'!

What I am writing about, might appear to be mean-spirited and disrespectful, however, I truly do not mean any disrespect either to Mr. Obama nor to his family. I believe that Mr. Obama means well, I really do, but not even I can let this one slide. But before I do, let me proceed with my dissection and clinical analysis of this man. Shucks, the Republicans did the same thing when he first rose to prominence, and appeared to be a viable candidate several years ago - and they have used what they learned to their advantage(s).

Who's Visage is in the Looking Glass?

When President Obama looks in the mirror each day of late, I wonder whether or not he recognizes that the face staring back at him in the mirror is a composite of his own, Ronald Reagan's and George Bush Junior's, and the black and white sides of himself . Multi-racial people, and individuals of mixed heritage are won't to deal with duality. From time to time, they wonder who they are and who other people believe them to be.

I wonder whether or not he considers his own mixed ethnicity to be a strength or a weakness or what appears to be at times, his multiple-personalities, that the rest of us have witnessed from time to time. I don't know! Too strong you're thinking, not multiple-personality, the name for a disorder in the Diagnostic Services Manual. As it relates to race, the latter can be profound. One of our students at a well known University in the area, was darker than I - not as cute, but dark.

This brother was afro-centric to the core, down with the brotherhood and a black man's man. The problem arose when he began dating a black woman, having convinced his fellow students and friends that he was black to the core. How did he resolve his problem, on weekends, he took his white girlfriend, 35 miles to South San Francisco, where they enjoyed dating, away from anyone who he thought would recognize him. Dummy, he failed to realize that he was not the only person who visited South San Francisco.

O'Bushama, sounds a bit Mediterranean, oriental, Arabic and English all at the same time, doesn't. And, the latter reflects all of what he appears to be doing, and has been doing given his mixed-cultural-heritage in America, the Americas and abroad. I believe that he is trying to satisfy everyone, trusting in his rich mixed-cultural heritage. Sadly, it doesn't appear to be working, even though I wish that I did.

Man, there is something in that Oval Office, that no matter who you are, once you step across the O-val Office threshold, you are transposed into a different kind of swan than you were before you entered it. I feel for this Scotch-Irish and African 'undercover brother democrat from another mother', who more and more behaves like a Republican Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. republican clone.

So, doesn't that the two presidents, who preceded him, must have been correct in terms of both their foreign and domestic policies, given that President O'Bushama, has cosigned onto and is practising the same policies? Well, remember the movie, Undercover Brother, "I'm not going to eat the Colonel's (in this instance President O'Bushama's) white or dark chicken policies!

Remember, former president and now, Mr. George Bush Jr., provided and extended tax cuts for the wealthy, and recently, so has President O'Bushama. Both of them signed on in deference to the needs of a solution for the needs of America's struggling middle-class, regardless of the cost of American occupations and incursions into 3 other nations, as we speak.

He wasn't kidding at Oslo, 2-years ago, when he defended American hegemony abroad, was he? Even Dick Cheney liked that speech. And I suspect that Dick likes Mr. O'Bushama even more now than he would care to admit because he seems to be the gift that keeps on giving to jaundiced and narrow-minded Republican idealism and fascism. Oops, now you know what I think about Republican ideology, if you didn't know already!

I still think about my friends and enemies alike now, who felt that they knew more than I, when I refused to vote for Mr. O'Bushama, in the General Election of 2008. My favorite was a black African friend who accused me of being a gradualist. Like most Africans who come to the United States (who believe that they are smarter than us), he believed that he knew more about America, American politics, the world and likely business too, than any black America, including me, knew.

By the way, and pun intended, this black American, slept in the bush(es) in Milpitas California, apparently as he once did in Nigeria. And he was no Bush, get it? Okay, my dark side is showing, get it "sleeping in the bush". Sadly, he believed in Mr. O'Bushama and became an instant apologist for him in America, while sleeping in the bushes, a place where he is possibly sleeping at today, and will remain there if his hero doesn't wake up soon.

continued ...

The Rev

Mar 11, 2011

Wrapped, Tied & Tangled Up: Religious People

Once Upon a Time ...

We were impressionable little children, and were taught to believe in fairy tales and a fairy-tale God, but we are not little children anymore.

This thing that we refer to as God, I believe, is not a fairy tale at all - on the hand it is much bigger than the fairy-tale God that we were taught about before, and in some instances, up and until now. However, 'it is time to leave the principles, and the good story-teller preachers, some who I know personally, and go on to perfection. We've heard enough about 'the God of religion', let's learn more about the God that transcends religious constructs.

Okay everyone, as I understand it, the term religion means 'to bind', and now I am stuck on that theme. For if ever in your lifetime, you were to experience a group of people who were 'bound, wrapped and tied up by their beliefs, perceptions and what they were taught from childhood, simply go and find some religious people, particularly the more fundamentalist ones.

I would like to think that most of us are intelligent enough now, to be told about or introduced to what we call God, as sentient and mature beings. And once we do, we will get secularist's on board as well!

The fact of the matter is that religious people are in a bind, because they have to co-sign whatever they have been taught to believe by their particular religious groups or institutions, even when they have doubts or know better that what they are being taught - otherwise, they will risk ridicule or even banishment. And what is truly instructive about all of this is, that two out of three religious people, from whatever persuasion they come from, rarely agree with each other when translating, mistranslating, explaining, interpreting sacred historical texts or telling somewhat else what God is, and what God expects from humans. What does that tell you?

In fact, anyone who has not come to the same conclusions that they have been told to arrive at, within their respective groups, will risk, in addition to banishment, being labeled a heretic or apostate, until they do. And even worse than that, they are also in line for eternal damnation, typically in the form of a hell fire, according to their religious teachers. Most religious groups teach that what they believe, comes directly from God, and that God is as limited and intolerant as they happen to be. Prophet Jonah and others founds out that God was not like he and others at all.

Why do I care so much about this theme? It is because I am still trying to figure out why, religious people of all faiths, sects ... appear to be so nutty, deft, impressionable, occasionally mean-spirited and gullible! Answer this question for me, what other individuals or groups of people that you know of, are so confident that their perceptions are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Well, there are politicians who believe that too, however, we will broach that topic another day - many times their political beliefs carry ingrained religious bent alongside their political ones.

Clearly, whatever you or your religious group and its hierarchy believes in, has more to do with a group need to agree (whether you believe or not) or a core set of ideas, as opposed to whether whatever their dogma happens to be or represents the absolute truth or not. Sadly, whatever they believe becomes sacrosanct, and is assumed to have come from God (at least that is the consensus of the group). I watched this dynamic take place within a religious group that I was raised in. One night, the pastor instructed the group that from hereon, no one was to say, “something told me” when they had something to say, instead, and from that day forward, whenever someone had something to say (that was a part of their inner-circle), they were to say, "Gold told me”.

Er herm, and before you judge the religious group, that I hail from, the difference between our group and most other's, they only said aloud what other groups believed within! Sadly then, both the followers, their leaders and their respective deity or deities, were bound by the limited conclusions drawn by said believing group. The power of belief can be certain, uncertain and dangerous, all at the same time, I find out. And even an errant belief, can carry you for a long way.

Someone once said that 'a person acts and behaves according to what he or she believes'. It really doesn't matter whether what the person believes is true or not, the belief itself becomes a reified-construct within the believer and his or her group, and can therefore become binding for the believer and everyone else that is associated with the group. Does the name David Koresh mean anything, or followers from groups like Heaven's Gate or Jonestown does that mean anything to you?

Other individuals, who come in from outside of the group, will be weighed according to the internal bindings of said group of believers, acolytes who will in turn spin, and even spend a considerable portion of their time trying to convince a new convert that what they have concluded to be true is the absolute truth. But should we accept religion, over what is really God, that is the question?

Both the person, and a group's personal deity are both in agreement that most everyone else has to die for their trespasses and sins, for example. And that would include the ones who do not see things as they do, that also happen to be religious and believe in God too. Many moralistic and religious people cannot understand just how their super, uber or supra-figure, could have tolerated and permitted their enemies, the great unwashed, for so long, especially to permit them to get away with not having been punished for so long for their innocuous sins and misdeeds.

What one believes can become so powerful, that they will conclude that other people will also die who are not like-minded. And therefore, they have conjured up a system of punishments that awaits their perceived enemies and other non-believers. That's what I believe, they say, and therefore it is true, because God and me talk.

Oh come on, are you telling me that humans never fantasize or make things up that is to their liking, or suits interpretations of events? Even killers like Moses, David, Goliath and others believed that individuals who did not see things as they did, deserved to die. Today, Pat Robertson, a preacher no less, wants Hugo Chavez of Bolivia ... to die, for example. And there are religious acolytes on the other side that want him to die too. He apparently believes that it is not a problem with his God, for him to think that way!

What I am talking about here folks is human nature at work, as opposed to divine nature being at work, or having anything to do with what is being taught in most religious camps, I suspect. For what other explanation is there to explain why any individual or group of individuals, would be so sanguine as to claim for one moment, forgiveness for themselves and at the same time expect eternal judgment for anyone else who doesn't see things as they do.
Religious people do it all the time. Oddly enough, the non-religious among us do not!

Many religious organizations and religious people have concluded that people like them, especially their friends, family-members, or individuals who believe as they do, are going to be saved and live eternally with them and God, mind you. And, add to that they also believe that the overwhelming majority of all other people, even the ones who were here before they got here and will be here after they are gone, are going to the Gehenna, where they will burn forever (that is, all of the ones one's who did not come to the same conclusions that they came to during their lifetimes).

And how long will the eternal punishment last, that they want non like-minded individuals to experience? Will it be a twenty-year sentence? No, for on the other hand the sentence handed out will last beyond a million, billion or trillion years or forever without end.

At the same time, the one who ascribes to such a belief system, expects to be shown mercy and excused for all of the mistakes that they made, before or after they were 'saved or converted'. For instead of an eternal sentence in the unquenchable fire, they will be reincarnated in order to sit beside God as if watching a professional basketball game while other humans burn. What will they do, nudge God and say, “look at that sinner suffer, he got just what he deserved and, by the way, pass the grog or beer nuts"?

Now does that make any sense at all, or does it sound more like a man made construction, and if someone is bound up in a certain belief system? A good religious person, or a group of sycophants would say, "yes, it sounds like God, and that they the great unwashed, even you Solomon, got and will get just what you deserve one day, just wait and see".

However, I am certain that even the God of most religious groups "the fairy-tale God, including the God of the King James Bible at times, has better things on 'ITS' mind, than smelling or watching human flesh burn (throughout eternity), even if it could burn throughout eternity. For after all, "what is man, that God is mindful of him"? I suspect that God would have better things to do in eternity than to spend it watching humans burn!

Folks, when you think about it, what crime could a human being commit, even if it were possible to do so, that one would earn a sentence of burning (every second) throughout a unending eternity? A conservative estimate would be for trillions of years). And how much is just one trillion? I know what you're thinking, so Solomon, you're saying that the Canon is wrong? Or, on the other hand, are you thinking that Solomon is simply an abuser of grace, and wants to do away with hell (a place that he is likely headed for, right)?

My answer is unequivocal in that regard and it is simply this? Men wrote the books that are contained within the canon and other now sacred texts. And humans by nature are often mistaken, prideful, twisted, egoistical, insouciant, self-absorbed, vengeful, wrongfully motivated, self-absorbed, sadistic, manipulative (and that's just the religious ones)! Also, we weren't told to worship a book put together by humans, were we?

Second, the need for humans to have a book or set of rules that is skewed to their liking, and would justify their need to avenge their enemies is a common thing among humans, just consider the books of jurisprudence. If you believe something long enough, pretty soon it will no longer be considered a belief, soon it will become 'the truth'! So believe it or not, I am not trying to do away with hell, as it has been taught before, I sincerely believe that hell is a human construct, and that it is true as far as a fairy tale is concerned.

And if I end up there, I trust that one of you will at least bring a bit of water, cold mountain water if you would, and drop it on my tongue! Again, even the most intolerant religious sycophants, would have to admit that a super figure, would likely have more to do eternally, than satisfy a human taste for blood revenge, and to see human beings burn baby burn in eternal agony, that is unable to burn up and cannot turn off the pain!

I know that there are other other religious groups besides Christianity that I could write about, but I would prefer to talk about the one that I know something about. Many of the tenets, beliefs and practices in Christianity, reflects that of too many other religious groups.

To wit one person or group, is always better somehow, or more sanctified than the other. It is not our group that is going to hell and burn, it is your group that will burn, some believe. And not only that, to the winning, group or individual, goes the spoils, which is what many humans wanted all along – the spoils.

But here is a caveat that ought to be considered, even in the canon one writer wrote, "that God is not a man", think about it. And in another canonical text, it is written:"your ways are not my ways". What these writers are saying is simple: that the nature of God, differs far and wide from that of human beings. Imagine, pulling out those texts that appear to be twinged with human thinking and human biases, that pretty much wipes out most of the canon.

And therefore, when I juxtapose the nature of one other against the other, I have serious doubts about what has been compiled and voted into the canon, seeing how humans are responsible for its contents as well as its construction (Constantine, Eusebius, Erasmus, Origen, Justin ...). And, one must consider then, and I repeat, that what is written in most books, even canonical books, reflects the nature of human sources, that have been projected on to God.

Folks, not even the most vicious animals are as vicious as humans can be at times, and the lions don't even go to Lion Church. The lion will bite and hold the neck of its prey, an impala for example, not only to kill it, but instinctively to minimize its sufferings.

Humans on the other hand, prefer and will inflict intense pain and suffering on each other, for example cutting out one's entrails, and allowing the victim to die a slow and painful death, or to burn baby burn, forever and ever. Or mercifully, there is burning at the stake (their fellow human beings in fire ..., these are just a few of the means or methods of inflicting suffering and pain) that humans came up with and have deployed against other humans, throughout history, i.e., 'man's inhumanity to man', in the name of God.

Another canonical writer wondered, well, what is man that you are even mindful of him, God? Following his logic, what would God get from exploiting, what is really 'man's inhumanity to man'. Concocted? Over a prolonged period of time, humans have added a man-made twist to what God intended and intends to take place in the human family. My arms are too short to box with God, but some humans on the other hand. The real question is, are we in conflict with God or with other human beings and other human systems?

Part II

I just read somebody's mind, they're thinking, Solomon that apostate is confused and is going to destroy somebody's faith.

But consider this for example, what if I help to free some person's mind, so that they can pursue other than the God of the Riddle, the real "what we refer to as God", and not the God of the tale.
I really do wonder why other religious people cannot understand how the extreme ideas that most humans come up with and record in their sacred books, as if they were derived from God, serve a historical human need for revenge, vengeance ... particularly against other individuals, and also a need to validate and vindicate oneself.

But somehow their must be some justification for hurting, burning, crucifying, imprisoning, impaling the other, usually, the personification of themselves. That is what too many religious people want us to believe that God wants to get them (the other side) for the perceived wrong that they did to them. Man, it God starts getting people for that reason, then God has to get all of us, because all of us do or have done something at one time or another to someone else. I am a nice guy, but I have hurt some people too. How do I know? They told me!

Intentionally, I wouldn't hurt a flea, however, after I was apprised of the facts, even I understood, wow, I really did that person wrong. So, if the person who wronged me is to burn, then I suspect that in turn, I have to burn for the person that I wronged. And if that if it is true of everyone else, that we will be punished for the individuals that we have wronged, then every one will burn. In other words, you won't have to walk that far to bring me a drink of Perrier! Syllogism?

Yet, too many religious people are 'wrapped, tied, tangled and bound up in this kind of non-sense. Too many of us have grown up in a culture where they have been taught and conditioned to believe in 'fairy tales', even fundamentalist religious tales!

Teaching fairy tales to children is primal and a part of the socialization process that is used to teach children in their formative years. For it is during the formative years that children are taught fantastic, vicious, salacious and murderous fairy tales by their parents, grandparents and school teachers that will shape them for life. Consider the plot in the story of Hansel and Gretel. In it, there is this vengeful witch that wants to consume little boys and girls. What a great story to start kids off in the formative with, correct? And most of us heard tales like this when we were the most vulnerable.

And along with evil fairy tales, we were also taught about a God of love, who was also a God of vengeance, one that wanted to kill or burn up little boys and girls and their parents someday, if they failed somehow to do what they should do or were taught to do by their parents, the minister or God. During the early stages of life, the formative years, it is often instilled into little boys and girls that someone wants to hurt them, which causes many of our children to wake up during the middle of the night, screaming, as a result of a horrible nightmare.

I truly do appreciate what the well-intended writers of most of our sacred texts had in mind when they wrote. However, much of what ended up in the Canon did not come from God, men wrote what is contained within the 66 books, and many of the texts were subsequently tampered with, trampled upon, mistranslated, some voted in and others voted out. And all too often, the texts derived from dreams, nightmares, riddles and historical tales.

As much as the writers want you to believe that God dictated what they wrote, that is simply not the case. And sadly, what was written and included in the canon, for example, has become sacrosanct over the years, is above question and cannot even be examined for errors.

I like what Jesus said to his Apostles, when referring to an often quoted text: "You have heard by them of old time, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you..." Jesus, thankfully did not attribute the saying to God, and he made it clear that what he was saying, "came from him and not from God”. Too often many statements or quotations have been attributed to God, that were inspired by humans, human conventions, human wisdom, riddles and fairy tales from the past.

If you were to investigate the sources and the motivations behind what has been written in the canon, ..., don't be surprised if you come away wondering, am I crazy for believing in this stuff at all, in deference to pursuing what is real. Much of it has human fingerprints on it, as I have discussed in some of my other writings. Most people are afraid to engage in such a strenuous exercise, that is to seek the real truth, because they are afraid of what they might find out, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth happens to be. Can we learn from writers of the past? Of course we can?
But what can we learn today, if we were to get off of our ducks and go after 'what we call God', in the present.
And also by doing so, true or not, iou were to do so, you could be banished from your significant other groups if you were to stop believing in myths ..., and take the responsibility of pursuing what is real for yourself .

I can recall as a young man, when we were discouraged at our church from attending. 'The Cemetery', as they referred to it then, the latter being the Seminary. It was difficult enough to go to the worldly college (and then later a religious school anyway) given what I was taught, seeing how God had already explained to our fundamentalist leaders,that my people needn't go to any of those devilish colleges. God told them that!

And guess what happened when I went to college? I was taking a philosophy class, and one day the PhD. professor referred to a scripture in the bible, taken from a letter that was written by the Apostle Paul to the church at Corinth. My professor uttered these blasphemous words, he said: “Paul was wrong, when he wrote that the greatest of the 3, faith, hope and charity was charity “.

Uh, oh and check please. I sat there in shock, while feeling the fire and brimstone of hell nipping at my heels, as I listened to this unwashed blasphemous heathen say that something in the bible was wrong and Paul was wrong.

Then I thought to myself, “They told you not to go to college”. Well, I kept going anyway, not knowing that I had become somewhat of a positivist myself. The fact that I went anyway over the church's teaching to the contrary, proved that. In fact as I began to study more intensely over the years, and learned even more about the Apostle himself, I realized that the Apostle Paul was an authoritative character who often shot from the hips just as my philosophy teacher did, and that the Apostle was in need of a bit more scrutiny himself. I know, "blasphemy"!

One of the telling things that he wrote in his letter to the Galatians was this: "I didn't go up to Jerusalem to study with the Apostles ..." What he did was to repeat what he had done before, when he garnered letters and set off to bind up the people of 'The Way', individuals who did not see things as he saw them at the time. And just as he set off 'to bind up people, the first time, literally with letters and bindings[, this time he set out to bind up people with his untested interpretations, and without training from the other Apostles.

Paul said, wrote, taught and engaged in practices, as he saw fit, and according to what he believed to be true. The fact of the matter is that the Apostle went with off on his own with him, in some instances, untested conclusions about matters that were of importance, without having his ideas tested beforehand. Try pulling that off in one of today's Christian churches.

Now, what religious group or organization do you know of today, that would tolerate any one of their leaders to behave in such a manner as the Apostle did, on yet another occasion, just as it did first following his training under Gamaliel, on the Road to Damascus? However, even the Apostles compromised, and allowed Paul, wide latitude, even in terms of 'his writings', as Peter put it, something that today we refer to as scriptures today.

Were Paul's writings scriptures? I ask you? I think not. For much of what is contained in Constantine's canon, and considered to be sacred, particularly in the new testament, derived from a man. And ironically, Paul is the same man who wrote to the church at Thessaloniki (modern pronounciation), instructing them "to test everything and see whether it stands up". Who tested Paul and his writings?

The fact of the matter is that some of what he wrote fails to stand up under scrutiny -I am in trouble now. For example, consider what we refer to as 'the rapture', as an example. Frankly, the Apostle has people 'bound up' to this day, in my opinion, given his writing about the so-called rapture. And he has done so to the extent that many readers are afraid to test what he wrote, by simply "asking God", if all of what he wrote was true or not, or divinely inspired or not.

Thankfully, when it came to certain matters, he admitted that God did not inspire him to write what he wrote, when it came to certain topics. What Paul concluded and wrote about, is what matters to most Christians today. I have set under religious leaders and teachers who behaved in a similar manner, they would yell, degrade, bind you, castigate, humiliate, you publicly ..., simply, and that would happen when you would ask them a simple question.

In fact, some of them would quickly dispose of anyone who did not believe as they did, or blithely ignore anyone any of scholar ... who did not draw the same conclusions as they with regard to a canonical text. Questioning, debating or probing was completely unacceptable. Now that folks is what I refer to as 'binding someone up'. For either you accepted what you were taught as being true when you had questions, or you would be disfellowshipped.

The Apostle Paul, would on occasion separate, have punished, prisoned, excoriated, delivered for capital punishment ... that questioned his conclusions. As I close, I suspect that it is time and has been time to begin the unbinding, so that we can pursue all of what is real, as opposed to being limited to some other, well being at times, individuals proprietary explanations for what is real.

The former has and will only lead to more disastrous consequences and conclusions, I believe, that is if we don't change course. If nothing else, it will give us the impetus, if not a feeling of justification for 'literally binding and murdering other people', that fail to interpret ideas or events in the manner that we have been taught to do!

Too many of us have been bound up for too long ourselves, and have not been loving people "Christians or not". Instead, we have become intolerant authoritarians who use a top-down approach to force others into conformity. We have become Jonah-like Christians, anti-secularist, sexist and unloving apologists for doctrines that were conceived and in some cases contrived merely by humans.

To imply that all of us should live by fairy-tale-rote, seems to me to be an grave injustice to what God, as we refer to him as, intended. Folks, it is time to put fairy-tales, myth, parables and good stories, into their proper historical contexts and to move on.

I moved on, because I am certain that there is more to life than riddles and myth, the kind that most people have been taught to believe. I believe that if God is what most religious people have concluded that God is, that there is one phrase that he might in fact agree with that is recorded in the Canon, and it is this: "They said, I said, and I never spoke to them". Is God speaking through me? Test it, don't just accept it!

Wouldn't it be fascinating, to hear 'what we call God has to say'? The Apostle James, instructed dispersed Jews to do just that. He wrote: If any man lacks wisdom, ask God? Wait a minute James, God not hear a sinner's prayer. In the case of believers, wouldn't they be required to go to the priest, or some other mediator and have them ask God? I can recall when a 9-year informed his mom and I, that God came into his room and spoke to him in the wee hours of the morning.

I asked, "and what did God say", when you asked him, "where are you"? Well, according to the child, God apparently got smart with him and said, "I AM IN YOUR ROOM of COURSE". Now, was God in the child's room? Did God speak to him? I am convinced that the child had a real experience?

Why don't all of us, religious people and non-religious, start over again, accepting the fact that we have been taught about God in the manner that one would teach a child. When on the other hand, something that is so important ought to be taught on what we could refer to as on a more collegiate level. By the way, most of the religious groups who taught that college was the wrong place to be before, have their own colleges now, and you can go there now.

What's the difference, really not that much, except, you might hear a bit more about God, than you would in a secular college, at least than about a fairy-tale God. More individuals today are interested in the scientific God. Oops, I said it. Blasphemy!! A God of science? Well, if what the tied and tangled up believe is true, that God created science: Then where did entropy, gravity, wind, water, firmaments, life ... come from?

Perhaps, we should all be willing to admit that we, religious people, have made some terrible mistakes over the course of history ourselves, just as other disciplines have done, even in terms of our misrepresentations of what we refer to as God, the nature of God in particular what God happens to be.

We already know that some of what we have taught in the past, as a result of quoting from faulty texts, that we assumed at the time were accurate, might have been misinterpreted, mistranslated and certainly misused before they were passed on to us.

And who knows, if we were to do so, perhaps what we refer to as God would reveal ITself, and what is true. One thing I know for sure is this, that if we don't do something soon, God will continue to be misrepresented as presented as a fairy-tale God.

In a religious court, God wouldn't be found innocent either if he didn't conform to the rules, and teachings of some religious groups. I'm not even sure that God would be ordained in some religious circles, if IT were to apply for ordination. It is time, I believe to reconsider our fabulously inspired and conspired religious paradigms, the ones that are often are often derived from poetry, epic, myth, fairy tales, allegory, speculation and mistranslations!

I am not saying that it is time to get away from what we refer to as God, in fact we need to come to understand IT better, get closer to IT and leave the nonsense behind. I suspect that IT, would want us to do so, instead of being described in a fairy tale manner. After all, how many times has your principle preached or taught, "We Need to Leave the Principles and Move on to Perfection", only afterward, to insist that you or your congregation remain land-locked 'within the principles". And don't be too hard on the secularists, for as I listen to what they have to say, I must agree with them that it is religion that bothers them the most, not God – they don't believe that there is a God - and they abhor fairy tales!

I don't and never have said things capriciously, but I have uncovered evidence to support my thesis, that it is time to move on, embracing history, but moving into the present while at the same time being connected with our source in modern times!

Peace & Grace Prince & Princess

Addenda: The title of this paper, derives from the lyrics of a song that is typically sung in black pentecostal churches. Even blacks are wrapped, tied and tangled up (in the limited amount of information that they have received) in the west, that has been filtered through euro-western culture, and religion.

We have to step outside of our frameworks, from time to time, and test whether or not our foundations are as firm as we believe or have been conditioned, with time, to believe!