God, Gold, War, Oil Pipelines, and Sarah Palin

These videos of Sarah Palin speaking in a church is a scary example of fundamentalist thought and ethos.

It reminds me of a recent post about Jeff Sharlet's book "The Family." The Family: Elite Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.

People use the concept of a higher power, aka God, to assume their own power, or somehow justify their own power over others and over planetary resources.

I wonder if these supposed Christians understand the Golden Rule (ethic of reciprocity.) Because, I can't imagine anyone using petroleum like there is no tomorrow, without regard to the environmental and social (health, etc.) impacts - not to mention impact on future generations.

How are they so sure that Armageddon is near? Perhaps it is because theirs is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Anyway. agh.

I am a spiritual person. I believe that all matter and all energy that exists is part of a great whole that can be understood as a higher power. I understand that everything is part of God. Life is given as a lesson - to learn and to evolve spiritually as individuals, but also as humans collectively. That's what I believe.

So I am saddened by this fundamentalist ethos of domination, of fear-based preaching about "end-times." I wonder if those who belong to these types of communities have a love-based reality or do they perceive the world from a reality that is fear-based? Do they like it, or do they feel trapped and too fearful to break out?

p.s. Maybe Palin just has "God" confused with "Gold."

Part one


Part two

How to Avoid War with Iran

The news that Bush Administration officials are considering the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (a 125,000 strong force that is also well connected inside and outside of the Iranian political and business communities) as "terrorist" is disturbing news. Will Iranians see this as a standard diplomatic move? Or will it be interpreted as an act of provocation? If it was me, I might be inclined to interpret it as an aggressive maneuver.

Under this type of thinking couldn't certain branches (for example the CIA or Navy Seals) of the US government and military be designated as terrorist in terms of the historical (and current) funding and provision of material support to various criminal regimes?

So, the Bush Administration considers might to be right.

But they are wrong. And the way to fight terrorism is not through escalation or provocation or threats.

The way to fight terrorism is by adhering to the Golden Rule. The way to fight terrorism is to make justice and equity priorities. The way to peace is to protect the innocent.

The Bush Administration needs to get its concepts of appropriate means washed out in a truly public and honest forum. It is not okay to selectively and arbitrarily label political opponents as terrorists and target them militarily.

[edit: photo credit Alex Fonseca]