Race and Religion are used to divide the general population so that they can not come together in unity against the common enemy, ignorance and the institutions that propagate it and build a foundation upon it.

That is why these issues are created in our awareness, simply to divide and disempower the many to benefit a few.

If you get caught up in the drama, of race or religion you have been played.

I think Deepak should read this post by Pastor Dan of The United Church of Christ (on the exact same topic) before making blanket statements like these out of a common ignorance about the church: "Like it or not, the church where he felt most at home is a place of angry denunciation and inflammatory rhetoric."

"You Can Leave The UCC - But The UCC May Not Leave You"

Pastor Dan:

Well, this is disappointing, if not exactly unexpected:

Obama resigns from controversial church

"Barack Obama resigned Saturday from his Chicago church — where controversial sermons by his former pastor and other ministers had created repeated political headaches for the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination — his campaign confirmed.

The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama's Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, for crying in New Hampshire during the runup to the primary there."

I had heard the other day that the Obamas were personally disappointed in Pfleger, who they thought would know better than hand such easy ammunition to Obama's critics, especially while preaching at Trinity. Likewise, they apparently felt let down by Jeremiah Wright's infamous appearance at the National Press Club.

It seems pretty clear that both Wright and Pfleger decided to stick to their guns rather than bow to the demands of the modern presidential campaign. On the one hand, I can't blame them for that. The modern presidential campaign is evil and whack besides. If you're a pastor, you might just as well lay your head down in front of the Bus of Moloch. Really. It's idolatrous and wrong and the symbol of every craven, counterproductive piece of shit to infect our society since it began. It's pandering to the Beast, it's selling your soul for a mess of pottage, it's giving up your brother for slavery, it's throwing dice for the dead man's clothes.

Any preacher who adapts the gospel as she knows it to suit the likes of CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC and the whole pile-ridden, pus-soaked lot of media blowhards ought to have her head examined and her credentials revoked.

Really.

God. Does. Not. Care. What. CNN. Thinks.

Are we clear on that?

But at the same time, there is a pastoral issue here. You never, ever, ever call out a specific member of your congregation from the pulpit. Ever. When you stand to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, that is what you do. You give them good news and the hope of redemption. If you have to condemn them, you do it in private with some of the elders. Because worship is a time to give thanks and praise to God for God's good works, not to reprove specific individuals, not to pronounce judgment on them.

As an extension of that principle, you do not embarrass members of the congregation. Never. Intentionally or otherwise. The last thing you want to do is provide a stumbling block to somebody else's faith. Your role, as pastor and preacher, is to protect, defend, and build up the flock you have been given, not to drive them off by accident or on purpose.

And the last - the very absolutely goddammit I really mean it last thing you want to do is embarrass somebody's else parishioner. Even if it's somebody you've known for twenty or thirty years. Even if he's a candidate for the highest office in the land. Even if it is his home community, and they need defending. It's not your community, and you've got no business messing in it. You stay the freak out of the way, you do not provide a distraction, you let people get on with their business without causing more trouble - and more personal embarrassment - to that parishioner. You do not drive the gospel in like a damn shank and then wonder why they walk off with a bemused expression. Even if everything Pfleger and Wright said was 100% on the money - and it wasn't - there is still the issue of the personal effect it had on a member of the congregation.

You. Do. Not. Embarrass. People. It is not pastoral.

So while it's easy to say that Wright and Pfleger might be naive when it comes to the cutthroat politics of the national stage - and Lord knows they wouldn't be the first pastors to be politically naive at a crucial moment - it's not so easy to let them off the hook for being fearless in their pursuit of the gospel.

Yes, the gospel is divisive by its nature.

Yes, preachers are required to pursue the gospel in their preaching.

But Christians are to hold love above all things. Number two is the community. And for crying in the night, how difficult is it to figure out that it's not very loving to embarrass a prominent member of the congregation who hasn't done anything wrong? How difficult is it to understand that it's not very helpful to that parishioner - or to his community - to leave him no choice but to hand in his letter of resignation?

Because let me tell you something: FoxNews is not going to stop pointing to Trinity UCC as an example of dangerous black radicalism. Neither are the pinheads around the right blogosphere. They might lay off Obama for having the good sense to leave before anything else blew up in his face. But Trinity UCC just became the stalking horse for every racialist bedwetting night terror out there. Who needs Ward Connerly anymore? Barack Obama just agreed that his congregation is too damn radical, and the irony is that it was a white minister with his heart in the right place who made him do it.

And this is how the division wins. Somewhere, the devil is laughing.

So now the wedge is driven, but good. Obama's left the UCC (this isn't like being a Catholic, you have to be a member of a congregation to belong to the denomination). Now what?

I don't know where he'll land. Methodist? Baptist? Probably not. Maybe Episcopalian, maybe Disciples of Christ, maybe another UCC congregation or a non-denominational church. Obama's Christian experience is so tied to Trinity, and Trinity so unique, that it's difficult to imagine where he'd go next. Perhaps, like Bush, he won't be much of anything, other than friendly with a particular chaplain.

But I think he and many observers would be fooling themselves to think that a good part of the UCC will not go with him. And by that, I don't mean our stubborn commitment to a "social gospel," or our embrace of gays and lesbians, our strong tradition of peace and justice.

No, I mean that commitment to dialog. As stupid and pathetic and dangerously naive as it seems, the basic organizational principle of the United Church of Christ is not and never has been assent to a particular creed or statement of beliefs or theological principles, not even transubstantiation or consubstantiation, but the notion that we are all fellow pilgrims walking the way of Jesus Christ, and what binds us together is the conversation we share as we walk. In that, we are closer to the Unitarian model of spiritual-mutual-aid society than perhaps even the Unitarians know. Even they lose the bead some times, given how much they love to fight.

Obama's entire political thrust to bridge the divides of society, to bring them together in healing, in mutual care, and in work for the common good, is more UCC than anyone suspects. It's been there all along. He may not have originally developed it in the UCC, but meeting a fierce, impressive pastor like Jeremiah Wright certainly didn't hurt it. If we didn't invent it, we sure nurtured it, and now, for better or worse, it's our spiritual gift to the world through Obama.

I do hope he will take it and be blessed. I'd like him to do something good with it politically. But as a pastor of the United Church of Christ, it's my duty to say: go with God. Sorry we let you down. Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.

http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2008/5/31/224315/832

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

This Democratic primary did reveal one interesting aspect of our society concerning the male gender and that is that when it comes to racism it obviously doesn't hold a candle to their sexism. Barak Obama won swimmingly with the male vote as compared to Hillary Clinton. So, I guess that's a good discovery, the male gender is more sexist than racist....not so good for us women, though.

Yes, this Democratic primary has very little racist stuff to deal with and when it did come up it came from Trinity and was squashed pronto. While, on the other hand, the sexism, where wasn't it? It was all disguised so cleverly in the tune of, no,..we are not against women having power....just this woman, Hillary Clinton, so it was okay to throw mud her way every chance there was...

So, if racism starts to lift it's ugly head just throw it some women folk...to quell it down...that should work.

For the male gender, when it comes to racism or sexism....it's sexism hands down....who woulda thought....I sure didn't...I thought racism was much more ingrained, especially, in white males but no....it isn't....women are feared more than color....

have a great day everyone, ruth

It can be argued the other way...many women preferred Hillary due to gender bias to explain the difference in male-female vote. Btw, the percentage of women in democratic nomination process is 55 to male 45.

To add to #3,

If you think there was no votes influenced by racial prejudice, just look at the Appalachia votes in Ohio, PA, Mississippi, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky etc where the Appalachian districts went 85-15 in favor of Clinton.

I believe Obama is a better candidate for reasons other than gender or race.

Now that he has won, I understand some Clinton supporters are looking for obvious excuses and things to lay blame on like sexism, media etc, in order to reconcile the "sad" loss of the "best candidate" in their opinion.

I understand, Ruth is going through phases of grief, but as usual her arguments are absurd.

Her argument on gender vote is similar to saying ...Obama didn't get as much black vote as the white vote, therefore the white voters who didn't vote for a black candidateare primarily driven by racism.

Moreover, Hillary Clinton was leading in all categories of demographics when she was the inevitable candidate and was the establishment choice.

She was winning the male vote and black vote and womam vote by a far greater margin. It wasn't sexism and racism in the democratic party that gave these these margins. Women voting for a female candidate or a black voting for a black candidate is not called racism. Because they are voting FOR not against...a white or a male.

It is a well known fact tat Obama's coalition is Young, AA, Educated and Independents. While that of Clinton are Hispanic, Working class, Older and Women.

Hillary won the Hispanic vote overwhelmingly in California on Feb 5. But the same group now favors Obama in the state.

What does this all tell?

As the campaign progressed into 2008 Obama has improved his numbers among certain demographics. While Clinton lost ground among many. It has little to do with sexism.

Oh, btw if sexism was to be blamed for Hilary's loss in the democratic primaries, how would you at the same time claim that she would do better in the GE. Are the republicans and independents less sexist than democrats? At this point Clinton people making arguments about electability and some still finding excuses than acknowledging the fact that Obama was a worthy winner, is irrelevant.

Perhaps it is an evolutionary thing and it has nothing to do with labels.

We like to label everything but what if Obama cannot be labeled only than that he is the best possible choice of human development?

We would then congratulate ourselves for having made the best choice :)

Congratulations!

Mieke

This is in response to Ruth's comment.

Hits the nail on the head.

>

RJ Eskow: Letter to a Clinton Supporter

Sure, we've had our differences. We've seen the Clintons in very different ways, you and I - especially their campaign tactics. Where you've seen honest if tough campaigning, I've seen the cynical manipulation of divisive emotions and a desire to put self before others.

The race is over, so the question is: Now what? Are you going to cling to the belief that this outcome proves a woman can't be President? I think that perception sells this country, and its daughters, very short. After all, most of the polls take a few months ago showed Sen. Clinton winning the nomination overwhelmingly, and handily beating McCain in November.

What happened? I say voters were turned off by the slash-and-burn tactics used by both Bill and Hillary. While the primary results were close, polls now show that Democrats decisively prefer Obama as their candidate.

You see things differently: You think that media sexism (of which there was a great deal) did her in. And that there was some sneaky double-dealing from the Obama campaign - as if somehow it was in collusion with the same media that pummeled it with Rev. Wright stories. For you, it's as if Sen. Clinton has no independent agency, no autonomy, and no responsibility for the outcome of her campaign.

But the fact remains: She was the leading candidate. It can be done. Had she not voted for that Iraq war resolution, waited too long to recant that vote, and taken bad advice from the likes of Mark Penn, she would be the Democratic nominee today.

So don't tell me a woman can't be President. She was just the wrong candidate at the wrong time. And if you're disappointed that your second-grade daughter won't see a woman sworn in next January - well, so am I. I have a daughter too. I still remember how proud her mother and I were when that daughter was a toddler and Geraldine Ferraro became the Democratic nominee for Vice President. We dreamed of a world of possibility for that little girl - and she enters law school in September.

Now let me tell you about our Godkids. They're twins, a boy and a girl. They're biracial - white and African American, like Sen. Obama. They just graduated from the sixth grade last Sunday.

How do you think it would have affected their dreams of the future if they had heard Hillary Clinton say that only she can win, because unlike Sen. Obama only she can appeal to "hard working Americans, white Americans"? Or if they had heard Bill Clinton dismiss Obama's achievement by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's? Or Geraldine Ferraro saying that Obama's "only winning because he's black"?

I'd love to see a woman President, too - but not at the cost of having her, her campaign, and her supporters shut out the dreams of one group of young Americans in order to serve the dreams of another. No group that suffers from discrimination has ever conquered prejudice by turning its back on others in the same boat. Why try now? Instead, let's break one great barrier this year and lay the groundwork to break the next one when the right candidate appears.

And she will.

No, I don't think the Clintons are racists. I think they ran a rough campaign because they wanted to win, and I think they crossed a line in doing it. No, I don't think you're racist, either. I don't think race influenced your decision - that is, unless you one of the 20% of primary voters in Kentucky or West Virginia who said it did. (I took a lot of heat over that one, but I was just taking these voters at their word.)

Another thing: Doesn't the argument that this was "the last chance to have a woman President in my lifetime" - an argument I've heard many times this year - discount 51% of the American population? Out of all the brilliant and gifted women in this nation, was there only one with the ability to win the Presidency - the one with the well-connected husband?

I don't believe that. And, if you're middle-aged like me, I'm asking you to consider this: It's not about our "lifetimes" anyway. It's about the next generation and their lifetimes. At our age, it's time to ask ourselves: Which course of action is best for those that will follow us, those whose destiny has been placed in our care?

Sen. Clinton's speech last night was very effective - in parts. And it was clever of her to pose and pretend to answer the "What does Hillary want?" question. Her litany of policy goals was admirable. But she didn't address the real question: If she's not staying in out of purely personal ambition, how does her refusal to concede do anything but harm that list of goals?

I understand why you supported her. But why would you allow yourself to be played as a pawn for a Washington power couple's personal ambitions? The Vice Presidency is a matter to be worked out between Senators Obama and Clinton, without perpetuating ugly divisions - divisions that threaten the future of our country, the safety of our world's civilians, the lives of our troops, our reproductive rights, and the ability of many of us to survive economically in the years to come.

We who opposed Hillary Clinton paid her the ultimate respect as a woman, and as a human being: We judged her on her policies and her actions. The verdict is in. It would be wise and fair to accept it.

Don't misunderstand: I'm asking you to rejoin the rest of us - but I'm not begging. The decision, and its consequences, are yours and yours alone. But I hope you make the right choice. I hope you choose with the needs of others foremost in your mind.

Oh, and one last thing: Congratulations on a historic campaign. The next one will be even better.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/letter-to-a-clinton-suppo_b_105085.html

Interesting post and comments. I especially liked this one by Deepak Chopra, "What else can he do? It's better to speak out in a healing voice than to pretend that racism doesn't exist, or to throw blame at reactionary elements in society." I believe that Obama will do what is right, as well as what is necessary, even tho I was thinking .... I hope Obama reads Deepak's article :-)

Love, Char

It has been my observation, that there is very little racism, prejudice, discrimination or cultural conflict in places of prosperity such that everyone has food, shelter, transportation and energy, a sense of security, and nothing to fear.

So a consciousness that does not embrace these fictions gives rise to prosperity. At the same time, an environment of prosperity does not fuel the desire to embrace these fictions.

Dear Dr. Chopra,

I feel that all of this discussion and argumentation regarding the political candidates is based upon insufficient information at this stage of the game. As is the usual case, we (the public at large) are being fed the political rhetoric of promises and grandiose ideas that comes with a campaign

I listen to a political analyst on the radio, Dr. Michael Savage. He is known as the voice of conservatism and is very astute. He has recently interviewed a source who has spoken about a tape that was filmed of a panel discussion at Jeremiah Wright's church which included Louis Farrakhan and Michelle Obama. There are said to be very unfavorable remarks made by both participants which encourage racism (the term "Whitey" being explicitly used). The tape is said to be in the hands of some Republican officials.

It is also said that Louis Farrakhan was instrumental in helping Obama defeat the opposition candidate in his district and that the information about how this was done has not been revealed.

It is very unsettling to me to know that Obama has kept close company with several people of note who are known for spewing very vile racist rhetoric in the guise of preaching.

I don't believe that anyone with high ideal would "keep company with devils".

I believe that we all are forming opinions based upon the publicity which we have been fed by the media and which has been colored to favor the candidate of choice. And what is all the talk about racism versus sexism? Let's try to be more concerned about the quality of the principles being held by each and by the proven strength of their upholding of same.

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.

Doc, you're so right.

As always you go right to the heart of the matter - "what you don't face up to, will come back to haunt you"..... Obama knows that. He also knows that the electorate expects him to know that.

Racism is the fall-out of a policy of politicians to nurture the divisiveness over the years, so as to better control the population. The age-old divide and conquer.

Obama is quick to point out Racism is "backward thinking". However, he has yet to come up with a solution more far-reaching than pain management for now. If he gets elected it'll be interesting to see if he does attempt a redress. He may holster the gun for now, but once he is part of the status quo - which way would he go? He is himself the product of integration that gives rise to individual operators and thinkers rather than a bicameral body of people. As a President, will he think like others before him that dilution may limit the group's potency as a political tool and hence let sleeping dogs lie - for another generation to contend with?

Tori Roy

Dear Dr. Chopra,

I would like to add something more to the commentary that I posted in No. 12.

The unfortunate premise and focus upon which the political candidates operate is the Motto: "Believe what I say and Not What I Do". They feel that there are not enough people who take the time to pay attention to what goes on behind the scenes and that the gullibility percentage amongst the population is very high.

I would like to quote a very fine teacher of spiritual wisdom, Stephen Knapp, who says "...If humankind insists on seeing each other on the basis of bodily and cultural differences, then their vision is no better than that of the cats and dogs who are always howling, barking, chasing and fighting with one another".

Stephen Knapp also says, "We need to elevate our consciousness because the higher the social consciousness is, the less severe the changes will be in society and throughout the planet...It is possible to create a very bright and positive future for ourselves and this planet by simply elevating our consciousness".

Best Wishes,

"Betsy" S.