The article in The Seattle Times on Thursday, March 21, 2013 by Staff Reporter Jerry Large on two books authored by UW professors Habiba Ibrahim and Ralina Joseph, got me to thinking about the first time the term “post racial” came into popular use in the public conversation. It seems that when the media or academia introduces something then it must be ‘lingua franca’ for the masses. Since Barack Obama suddenly appeared on the political scene, seemingly out of nowhere, to secure the nation’s highest elected office, his ascendancy has to some at least, been the poster child and crowning jewel in celebration of a color-blind America; nothing could be further from the truth, however. There are even those with the audacity to believe that America’s election of a person of color for president somehow fulfills Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Dream” of living in a country where a person will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character; and thus, the feet of those who marched behind the Drum Major for Justice will finally come to rest, and those who pounded on the drumbeats for freedom will no longer need to beat out a single note against injustice; and the long, twisted and winding road along the lonesome trail for Civil Rights laden with the sweat, tears, and blood of martyrs can be remembered no more. America, the idealists say, is a “meritocracy” where if you work hard and play by the rules then you can achieve success or be all that you want to be. Even President Obama uses that phrase but is it really, really true, for everybody?
While President Obama has been lauded with almost reverential praise he has also received some of the most mean-spirited, vicious, blatantly egregious and hateful mischaracterizations in recent memory, ranging from being like Hitler, the anti-Christ, Illuminati spawn of Satan, or the typical racial epithets voiced by the redneck NASCAR attendees or from far-right Tea Party members. Those who like to espouse ‘post racial’ are just trying to use the term as a psychological cover-up to assuage feelings of centuries-old “White Guilt” from the legal practice of ‘chattel slavery’ and racial bigotry practiced from the beginnings of this nation. Not only that, but this peculiar institution was codified into the very foundational document of our democratic Republic in Article 1, Section 2a (three-fifths clause), Article 1, Section 9 (the 1808 clause), and Article 4, Section 2b (fugitive slave clause), by the noble and enlightened signees who touted such lofty words in the Declaration of Independence as liberty, justice, freedom, and, “All Men are created equal. . .” Besides all of this, Barack Obama is not the only African-American with a White parent or direct bloodline, and whether you call it bi-racial, mixed race, transracial, multiethnic, or two or more races, what’s the big deal? Would ‘post racial’ still be used if Barack Obama had two Black parents, or heck, would he even be president?
What is paramount regarding this entire matter is that in America there still exists a sense of ‘ascriptive hierarchy’ (White privilege) and control over the factors of production as well as all the popular institutions are still overwhelmingly the ‘exclusive’ domain of the White Anglo Saxon Protestant (WASP) male; for the most part. This practice transcends mere ideology or what one sees or feels. Instead, it puts into practice mechanisms to perpetuate a particular hegemony and control in the formulation of laws, political philosophy, educational curriculum, economic policy, and to a surprising extent, religious practice and theology. What seems to go missing from the conversation is that ‘race’ is a social construct that is actuated within a cultural framework, according to sociologists, and really has nothing to do with skin color or physical features. So, ‘post-racial’ is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms because any casual observation and experience in reality only serves to repudiate this term in convincing fashion. It is not what you see and feel, as it is what you do; whose interests you want to protect, and what are the incentives for wanting to do so by your participation? Far too often we respond to verbal cues and images from narrative stereotypes that serve as an emotional trigger where we are programmed to react in a certain way, without fully understanding the nature or meaning behind our reactions. America is not color blind or ignorant about race relations because she has had a nearly 250 year history lesson and the only blindness that exists is one that is self-induced.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 21, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com’
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
The gospel according to the Church of Oprah
Oprah Winfrey has certainly received praise from her millions of followers but she gets criticized also. Probably the latest and ongoing controversy is the issue regarding her religious, oops, I mean, spiritual perspective. Some detractors feel that because of her public statements she should lose support from fans and corporate sponsors alike; but is this fair? This is America and a person is free to believe or not believe whatever they want to. Before summarizing a few of Miss O’s views the usual response is to line up several passages from the Bible to refute everything Oprah says, but that might not be necessary. Oprah claims that Jesus didn’t come to die on the cross for our sins but rather, to teach us “Christ Consciousness.” This term is not new and has been around for a long time, centuries before its popularity in America by the New Age Movement or Western-style Eastern mysticism. Jesus is seen as just another spiritual teacher in a long procession of others, dating back from millennia, who appeared on the scene to teach humanity some vital truth about reality, our purpose, social relationships, life and death, and about the Creator. Jesus wants us to attain this awareness within ‘ourselves’ and as I try to explain it to the best of my understanding, it’s like falling in love-you can’t put the feeling into words but you know it when you feel it. As Oprah says, “It’s what you come to know for yourself;” in other words, it’s your truth that is real, personal, and you don’t have to explain or prove it to someone else.
Another point she brings out is that God, or rather, knowing God is a ‘feeling’ experience and not a ‘believing’ experience. This statement would make any Christian cringe because “belief” is the foundation of our faith and it is the center from where we project ourselves into this world and social order that we are a part of. She continues, “Religion is all about a ‘believing experience’ then it’s truly not of God.” Oprah, I think, is trying to make too fine a distinction between the two twin pillars of believing and feeling and separating either one of them seems like a Mission Impossible. She does have a point that in some Christian circles there is an overabundance of stressing the word, “BELIEVE” without delineating what the response, expectation, and responsibilities are that go along with this choice. Oprah challenges the notion, or exclusivist proclamation that there is only ‘one’ way or path to God, but to her there are ‘many’ paths to God. Now, before the community of faith condemns her too harshly let’s take an inward look at ourselves before we pass judgment. I mean, how many Christian denominations are there with their own distinct religious literature, theology, liturgy that range anywhere from Hebraic Christians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodist, Quakers, Seventh-day Adventists, Salvation Army, affiliated and non-affiliated, ad infinitim; yet all of us claim to be serving and worshipping the same God and will be joining each other in Heaven, although we separate ourselves and do not fellowship one another while here on earth.
Getting back to the point about “Christ consciousness” an audience member said that to her it is having a deeper, inner connection to the ‘purpose’ that Jesus came to reveal, which is how to be fully human, as opposed to Him coming to die on the cross for sin. If one were to take such a position then Jesus, in fact, need not to have come at all because he didn’t reveal anything new. There were teachers of wisdom long before he came on the scene and have distilled much deeper, exquisite, esoteric and more practical teaching and knowledge than preserved in the gospels. The virtues of Eastern mysticism and Greek Philosophy are more profound than anywhere in the New Testament; so the three and one half year of Jesus’ ministry that culminated in His death just to perform a few miracles and astound mostly uneducated, simple working-class Galilean laborers and other peasants, would seem a great sacrifice if that was all there was to it. The audience member went on to say that if you don’t follow your spiritual calling, then you are lesser of a human. This is almost verbatim from Buddhism which says that a person’s goal in life is to find out what their work (“tikkun”) is in life to fulfill their purpose.
It seems “sin” is a word that makes people feel uncomfortable and it is much easier to simply exclude it from discussion. There are substitutes which men like Dr. Wayne Dyer and Eckhart Tolle like to use instead, like behavior resulting from having negative thoughts or something like that; and even God is presented as impersonal cosmic power, consciousness, or intelligence referred to as the “Source.” Al Gore once said, “We aren’t human beings having a spiritual experience but spiritual beings having a human experience.” To some of the Gnostics or spiritualists, Jesus Christ is a divine principle, concept, or idea that was made known but not so much a personal being; and the same thinking is applied to God as being-ness and without anthropological characteristics such as hearing, feeling, seeing, and so on. While it is true that the ‘spark’ of divinity resides within the human body to animate our physical life, innate moral capacity and sentience (“conscious awareness”), still we are flawed, imperfect, and broken in a spiritual sense compared to the perfectness and holy nature of God, our Father and Creator.
As a last point, at least on the merit of it, the most salient point is: “Man has made God in his own image-the eternal, infinite, unnamable was reduced to a mental ‘’idol’ that you had to believe in as God.” Enough cannot be written to counter the damaging psychological effect of European Renaissance religious imagery, iconography and art in portraying supernatural beings graven as images from man’s imagination, regardless of how ‘inspired’ the claims are, or out of the most pious devotion, reverence, and act of worship. It was not without good reason the prohibition in Exodus 20 was given by God regarding making images and idols of anything in heaven. There are even those who worship the angels as heavenly intermediaries between themselves and God and represent these beings in paintings, sculptures, and the like.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 10, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Another point she brings out is that God, or rather, knowing God is a ‘feeling’ experience and not a ‘believing’ experience. This statement would make any Christian cringe because “belief” is the foundation of our faith and it is the center from where we project ourselves into this world and social order that we are a part of. She continues, “Religion is all about a ‘believing experience’ then it’s truly not of God.” Oprah, I think, is trying to make too fine a distinction between the two twin pillars of believing and feeling and separating either one of them seems like a Mission Impossible. She does have a point that in some Christian circles there is an overabundance of stressing the word, “BELIEVE” without delineating what the response, expectation, and responsibilities are that go along with this choice. Oprah challenges the notion, or exclusivist proclamation that there is only ‘one’ way or path to God, but to her there are ‘many’ paths to God. Now, before the community of faith condemns her too harshly let’s take an inward look at ourselves before we pass judgment. I mean, how many Christian denominations are there with their own distinct religious literature, theology, liturgy that range anywhere from Hebraic Christians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodist, Quakers, Seventh-day Adventists, Salvation Army, affiliated and non-affiliated, ad infinitim; yet all of us claim to be serving and worshipping the same God and will be joining each other in Heaven, although we separate ourselves and do not fellowship one another while here on earth.
Getting back to the point about “Christ consciousness” an audience member said that to her it is having a deeper, inner connection to the ‘purpose’ that Jesus came to reveal, which is how to be fully human, as opposed to Him coming to die on the cross for sin. If one were to take such a position then Jesus, in fact, need not to have come at all because he didn’t reveal anything new. There were teachers of wisdom long before he came on the scene and have distilled much deeper, exquisite, esoteric and more practical teaching and knowledge than preserved in the gospels. The virtues of Eastern mysticism and Greek Philosophy are more profound than anywhere in the New Testament; so the three and one half year of Jesus’ ministry that culminated in His death just to perform a few miracles and astound mostly uneducated, simple working-class Galilean laborers and other peasants, would seem a great sacrifice if that was all there was to it. The audience member went on to say that if you don’t follow your spiritual calling, then you are lesser of a human. This is almost verbatim from Buddhism which says that a person’s goal in life is to find out what their work (“tikkun”) is in life to fulfill their purpose.
It seems “sin” is a word that makes people feel uncomfortable and it is much easier to simply exclude it from discussion. There are substitutes which men like Dr. Wayne Dyer and Eckhart Tolle like to use instead, like behavior resulting from having negative thoughts or something like that; and even God is presented as impersonal cosmic power, consciousness, or intelligence referred to as the “Source.” Al Gore once said, “We aren’t human beings having a spiritual experience but spiritual beings having a human experience.” To some of the Gnostics or spiritualists, Jesus Christ is a divine principle, concept, or idea that was made known but not so much a personal being; and the same thinking is applied to God as being-ness and without anthropological characteristics such as hearing, feeling, seeing, and so on. While it is true that the ‘spark’ of divinity resides within the human body to animate our physical life, innate moral capacity and sentience (“conscious awareness”), still we are flawed, imperfect, and broken in a spiritual sense compared to the perfectness and holy nature of God, our Father and Creator.
As a last point, at least on the merit of it, the most salient point is: “Man has made God in his own image-the eternal, infinite, unnamable was reduced to a mental ‘’idol’ that you had to believe in as God.” Enough cannot be written to counter the damaging psychological effect of European Renaissance religious imagery, iconography and art in portraying supernatural beings graven as images from man’s imagination, regardless of how ‘inspired’ the claims are, or out of the most pious devotion, reverence, and act of worship. It was not without good reason the prohibition in Exodus 20 was given by God regarding making images and idols of anything in heaven. There are even those who worship the angels as heavenly intermediaries between themselves and God and represent these beings in paintings, sculptures, and the like.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 10, 2013
robertrandle51@yahoo.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)