Our Purpose About Us Meditation Newsletters About the Artist Publications Upcoming Events Links Contact Us

A Larger View Another Approach to Current Events Volume XIII Edition 1 January/February 2008 In this issue: The Religion Factor In Politics: Earning Our Trust — And Vote: Beyond Fair Traded Foods: Is It a Privilege? Dying Before Being Executed: Is Forgiveness In Order? Darfur And Others: Could We Find Another Way? Website of Interest To Ponder On The Religion Factor In Politics: Earning Our Trust — And Vote From the most religious fundamentalist among us to the least, from the most devout to the atheist, we each have a way to explain spiritual realities. Now that American culture requires political candidates to share theirs, for a candidate to deny or avoid telling us what his or her credo is could run the risk of being seen as deceitful. On the other hand, to focus on it could be construed as being deceitful in a different way since the sharing would be meant to lure those who can be enticed by like or similar beliefs and appease those who would fall outside. So far, however, what’s been missing in the exposition of personal spiritual realities is a dimension of sincerity. To date the presentation of a given candidate’s belief system appears to have been chiseled to meet political goals and perhaps as a consequence has eschewed what he or she actually believes. One could say that it is due to our lack of consensus about how to interpret the separation of church and state. It seems that candidates are shying away from truly sharing their spiritual beliefs for fear it would be seen as a potential violation. Yet, our own belief system does inform our decisions and values and it is naïve to believe that that of our candidates will not function in the same way. But personal beliefs aside the separation of church and state as a constitutional principle is meant to guide the formulation and implementation of policies. A candidate can still share his or her spiritual realities, and hopefully the sharing will help us understand how the church/state separation would be addressed. Indeed, it is a new sphere since the inclusion of religious belief is relatively recent, and the rules of how to bridge this encounter are still being formulated. Consequently, we’re now faced with what may be an inherent conflict where the personal may be in opposition to the civic. It is understandable therefore that the way this encounter is practiced is circumspect, that the lines between the personal and the civic are not yet clearly drawn and accepted but also not yet generally understood by the electorate. Granted, there is room for confusion, if not great challenges, for the architects of political campaigns. Still, we must ask whether the status quo is in our best interest. Candidates naturally want to appeal to a broad number of people. As a result, perhaps, they do seem to fear that sharing their own spiritual beliefs, were they to be sincere about them, may be too narrow to appeal to the large voting blocs they are trying to reach. That may seem good politics, but it is problematic: It assumes that I—or any other voter—won’t be understanding or tolerant or inclusive, that I will discriminate against someone based on religious preference, that I won’t know how to make allowances for beliefs at variance with my own. It also assumes that I may not know the difference between a candidate’s private beliefs and the practice of those beliefs in governance. That is like a slap, underestimating my intelligence, capacity for thought, even a sign of distrust. But to be fair I must admit there is a reason for this tactic, an honest explanation of a candidate’s beliefs would alienate some. Yet it seems more likely that ultimately it would gain him or her respect, trust, and surely votes. Beyond Fair - Traded Foods: Is It a Privilege? Who can argue with buying fair-traded goods, goods that are ethically manufactured, that involve no child labor and worker exploitation? In fact more and more people are asking, and getting, fair-traded foods and other goods, not only in the United States, but also in the U.K., in Germany and in other European countries. People who focus on buying fair-traded goods also focus on buying organically grown (chemical free) produce, organically raised meats, free range poultry and also try to buy what is grown locally to avoid certain transportation costs, so as to indirectly contribute to the environment. The rate at which the market for these foods is expanding points to the increasing popularity not only of such products but also of the good cause they speak for. Critics say that buying fair traded goods or organic food is a function of the affluent since all these foods generally cost more and as such are a function of a certain leisure and financial ease. Implied in the criticism is that there’s something wrong for emphasizing such things, that it is a superficial concern. That may apply to some, but as a trend, it would be missing the intent and the reasons why people really seek a new order in buying food. The point perhaps is not whether it is a function of affluence, but that given the current socio-economic organization of Western culture, it may be a privilege. It’s easy to see the need to buy organic as a sign of Western self-indulgence, but the problem is really elsewhere. There’s nothing wrong with organic, fair-traded, etc., it’s just that such goods are limited to those who can afford them. It’s a bit like health care, something everyone needs, but not universally available. As such we may be privileged to have this luxury, when half the world’s population either goes hungry or is malnourished. We are privileged to be able to take into account a layer of values which would be meaningless if we were scrounging for food, living at subsistence level, or if we did not have access to basic necessities. We are even privileged to be in a position to take into account the welfare of others. That does not mean that those who are not able to buy fair traded or organic and the rest do not care about others, it means they are more than likely forced by circumstances to have other priorities. In that light the issues involved in fair traded goods, organic et al can acquire a wider context. Instead of looking at such products in the context of an individual’s right to exercise a belief or a preference, it may be more useful to look at them in terms of the whole of humanity and work to expand the range of those for whom they can be available. Dying Before Being Executed: Is Forgiveness In Order? In several states including California, there is a moratorium on executions due to the challenges to the use of lethal injections. Add to this the fact that the appeals process can be lengthy and that there is often a dearth of defense attorneys, and it is not surprising that people on death Row die before their executions. That is what happened to Billy Ray Hamilton last October. At 58 he died after a long battle with cancer. He’d been on death row since 1981. What caught this writer’s attention was not his death, but the reaction of others. Ward A. Campbell, a supervising deputy attorney general on the case since its beginning, said, "it’s not unusual now to have inmates on death row die before the lawful justice can be executed. I think it’s regrettable for the victims and for the system." Patricia Pendergrass, the victim’s older sister, said she would have preferred to see Hamilton put to death, and added, "the whole thing is very sad and ugly. He lived a very hateful, ugly life and died a pretty sad death, I think." Hamilton had been transferred from San Quentin State Prison to the medical facility at Corcoran State Prison. Corcoran is one of the most restrictive facilities in the nation, and the health care of inmates in California — as indeed other states such as Nevada — has been the subject of several recent exposes. Given that dying of cancer is not pain free, that medications are scarce in prison facilities, it would look like his death was sad indeed. But sadder it seems is the absence of compassion, of understanding, of forgiveness in these comments. The death of the perpetrator was not enough; it ought to have been by execution. It does make one wonder: Is there a point at which prosecutors and victims become perpetrators themselves? Darfur and Others: Could We Find Another Way? A fairly recent New York Times editorial is no short of blame for the continuation of the situation in Darfur. It primarily blames the government of Sudan who had been resisting The UN peacekeeping forces, thwarting their January 1st arrival in every way it could. As the piece states, "Khartoum never seems to run out of ways to demonstrate its contempt for the United Nations." The Sudanese government has also been known to often be less than forthright and forthcoming. The editorial also mentioned how "the world‘s leaders say they care desperately about Darfur’s suffering, until they get distracted." Russia, China, the U.S. all have tried and not pushed hard enough or long enough to succeed. Celebrities like Mia Farrow, George Clooney or Don Cheadle have taken up the cause, so have "the Elders" a group of former elected officials including Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan and Jimmy Carter. So far the problem continues. And too the problem continues in Myanmar, North Korea and Zimbabwe. In each of these countries human suffering is caused, exacerbated or prolonged by a callous, unresponsive, un-democratic government. Somewhere in our thriving for a better world, in our search for ways to ameliorate world suffering we must find ways to deal with governments who interfere with easing the suffering of their citizens. Whether it is a matter of being creative in using the United Nations, creating a new world body, forging a new treaty or alliance, the means must be found to overcome the shenanigans of a Khartoum regime, a Junta in Myanmar, or madness in Zimbabwe. It is an endeavor fraught with obstacles, and many would call it naïve, undoable, overly mystical and unrealistic. It may be all these things, but too it is a necessity, something we must begin to fashion in our minds and hearts so that once day, it can become a reality. Website of Interest: www.freerice.com Playing a Game While helping Others On the surface this site is a word game, vocabulary definitions, adjusting to your level and going at your own pace. You can even take time to look up words if you like, for some of the words are not everyday fare—especially in the upper levels. But the reason for the site is a way of donating rice, hence the name of course. The site’s sponsors, corporations, like Google, Toshiba, Sirius Radio or smaller concerns like Alle Fine Jewelry or law firms donate 20 grains of rice for each word you get right. The donations are made to the UN World Food Programme who then uses them to feed people in places like Myanmar and other countries served by the WFP. To Ponder On Behind Light? Light. Light. The visible reminder of Invisible Light. T.S. Eliot - end of The Creative Process as Creative Act from "The Rock" A Larger View is published by the Inner\Outer Partnership, a tax-exempt educational organization probing how trans-religious spiritual principles can be agents of individual and societal change. We are funded through donations. Please send any - as well as any comments - to P.O.Box 1293, Pac. Pal. CA 90272-1293. Also contact us by email at alargerview@earthlink.net or call 310-836-7710 or visit our web site at www.innerouterpartnership.org To un-subscribe, send an email to alargerview@earthlink.net