Simple answer? He can't now.
The BBC's foreign affairs analyst Allan Little gives some important data points here.
Mike also noted 'The effect of control is to propagate suffering.'
The people that have helped Robert Mugabe's 'Liberation' and massed huge fortunes over war and theft are now stuck with the inertia of their crimes. They can't let Mr Mugabe 'retire with dignity' as they will be held to account for their plundering. The only protection they have is to stay in power, and they do that by keeping the people full of fear.
That is why it all keeps escalating: the leadership has to be more brutal to keep the fear greater than the people can risk confronting. Each turn requires more force, more control. Mugabe is now caught up in the machine he has created. Even if he wakes up tomorrow and decides it's time to change, and let go, he can't without his own partners tearing him limb from limb.
He took control for the sake of 'liberation from colonial powers', but in the end now he has used control for his own good which has propagated suffering out to a whole country. Now it's coming back on him.
What *can* he do then? The choice he has, is the same choice we all make every day. He can choose more control (more killing, more fear), or choose to trust (some level of self awareness to let go of control and entitlement). Huge consequences either way, but the effects are of his own making.
The real question: Is Mr. Mugabe out of things left to control and manipulate?
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Has God make us for a purpose?
If we believe we are made for a purpose, how do we figure that out? I think a lot of people are honestly trying to understand what God wants them to do, and others find an excuse to judge because they believe they know what God is telling them to do.
Psalm 37:4 is an oft quoted verse: 'Delight yourself in the LORD and He will give you the desires of your heart.' NASB
So is it the things we should want, that are given? One could say that as we learn what abiding is and choose to want to abide. Or is that the things we think we are entitled to? Well, obviously not on my blog.
I think it's even more though. I think there is our purpose, what gives us joy as we do what we love, that is encoded in us from our soul, our genes, our growing years, our parents and friends, that comes to define who we are. I don't think we can intellectually understand our 'desires' then without a good dose of subjectivity. It's not going to be on a memo from above. As we learn to trust, we are forced to be open up and be self aware of what we are doing, what we are responsible for, and maybe most importantly, what we aren't. We are then able to choose more and more what we will do.
As we choose to do the things that add life and liveliness to our daily lives, and the lives of others, we are abiding, which means we end up defining for ourselves what our purpose is going to be.
Doesn't that mean that God didn't make us for a purpose? No, it means that God is involved in every moment of your journey, to understand your purpose.
Psalm 37:4 is an oft quoted verse: 'Delight yourself in the LORD and He will give you the desires of your heart.' NASB
So is it the things we should want, that are given? One could say that as we learn what abiding is and choose to want to abide. Or is that the things we think we are entitled to? Well, obviously not on my blog.
I think it's even more though. I think there is our purpose, what gives us joy as we do what we love, that is encoded in us from our soul, our genes, our growing years, our parents and friends, that comes to define who we are. I don't think we can intellectually understand our 'desires' then without a good dose of subjectivity. It's not going to be on a memo from above. As we learn to trust, we are forced to be open up and be self aware of what we are doing, what we are responsible for, and maybe most importantly, what we aren't. We are then able to choose more and more what we will do.
As we choose to do the things that add life and liveliness to our daily lives, and the lives of others, we are abiding, which means we end up defining for ourselves what our purpose is going to be.
Doesn't that mean that God didn't make us for a purpose? No, it means that God is involved in every moment of your journey, to understand your purpose.
Where does the Church fail? Since Jesus isn't here to tell us what to do, should the church?
I heard an interesting interview on the BBC. You can get the podcast here:
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor is interviewed by Carrie Gracie and introduced as being on the front line of the Pope's campaign to bring secular Europe back to God. Carrie Gracie asks Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, President of the Bishop's Conference, for his views on contemporary Europe and Christianity.
In his opening statements, the cardinal positions the church as having a vital role in ordering, controlling, defining how life ought to be lived. In fact he says,
Carrie Gracie: What do you think Jesus Christ would make of contemporary Europe?
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: I think what he would make of contemporary Europe is probably what I would make of contemporary Europe, or Pope Benedict, namely, it's a place where the voice of Religion, and the voice of faith communities needs to be heard, and there needs to be a space in all the communities and people of Europe hear this voice which is good news, and why we say, you know, this is a Secular continent, Europe, my instinct and understanding is there are a large number of people that really want to hear this voice.
Carrie Gracie: And you say the message is Good News, just very briefly, what is the message?
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: Well, the message quite simply is that, the God of Jesus Christ, exists, He is a personal God who loves us, who accepts us, who forgives us, and who has communicated the way we ought to live in order, to live according to what He's made us for by his son Jesus Christ, that's the Good News, and because of that, we have hope and meaning in our lives.
Carrie Gracie: And just sticking with the idea of Jesus Christ and what He would make of things, which of the Christian churches do you think he would feel most at home in, I mean you were talking about faith communities, is there a particular one where Jesus Christ would feel comfortable?
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: [polite chuckle]
I think that all Christians, I'm talking particularly about Christians now, would feel that they are being Jesus Christ for the world and particularly the Catholic church would say it continues the teaching and promoting the way and the life of Jesus Christ in our world today, so I think the Catholic church has a particular role, as it were being Christ in our world today.
It's seems that the Cardinal would define the Church as having an authoritarian position in our lives to tell us what to do. Could he really be saying that? Someone please explain to me how that possibly can be correct, because I just can't see that being correct. In fact, I see all the religious conflict and strife as a direct result of that. Who's right? The Christians? The Muslims? How is this not flaming the flames of anger, and stealing life and liveliness in the name of the Good News?
If we define religion as the rules of faith, then that would explain why many (including me) react to 'all the rules'. It's unbelievable to me, but I really do think the Cardinal is on a mission to put Europe under the control of the church, so Europe can hear the Good News. But isn't that somehow completely backward? How can you teach people to trust, in a system of rules? Is there any doubt why Europe is fleeing in droves?
I don't think you can talk about being 'inclusive' and 'tolerrant' while you say that the Christian Religion is the answer. It's just rules, that may be helpful to some to point to truth, but rules to discard as soon as it thinks it's right, justified, in authority, the answer or replacing Christ himself. I think that perhaps is the first clue that something is amiss.
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor is interviewed by Carrie Gracie and introduced as being on the front line of the Pope's campaign to bring secular Europe back to God. Carrie Gracie asks Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, President of the Bishop's Conference, for his views on contemporary Europe and Christianity.
In his opening statements, the cardinal positions the church as having a vital role in ordering, controlling, defining how life ought to be lived. In fact he says,
Carrie Gracie: What do you think Jesus Christ would make of contemporary Europe?
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: I think what he would make of contemporary Europe is probably what I would make of contemporary Europe, or Pope Benedict, namely, it's a place where the voice of Religion, and the voice of faith communities needs to be heard, and there needs to be a space in all the communities and people of Europe hear this voice which is good news, and why we say, you know, this is a Secular continent, Europe, my instinct and understanding is there are a large number of people that really want to hear this voice.
Carrie Gracie: And you say the message is Good News, just very briefly, what is the message?
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: Well, the message quite simply is that, the God of Jesus Christ, exists, He is a personal God who loves us, who accepts us, who forgives us, and who has communicated the way we ought to live in order, to live according to what He's made us for by his son Jesus Christ, that's the Good News, and because of that, we have hope and meaning in our lives.
Carrie Gracie: And just sticking with the idea of Jesus Christ and what He would make of things, which of the Christian churches do you think he would feel most at home in, I mean you were talking about faith communities, is there a particular one where Jesus Christ would feel comfortable?
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor: [polite chuckle]
I think that all Christians, I'm talking particularly about Christians now, would feel that they are being Jesus Christ for the world and particularly the Catholic church would say it continues the teaching and promoting the way and the life of Jesus Christ in our world today, so I think the Catholic church has a particular role, as it were being Christ in our world today.
It's seems that the Cardinal would define the Church as having an authoritarian position in our lives to tell us what to do. Could he really be saying that? Someone please explain to me how that possibly can be correct, because I just can't see that being correct. In fact, I see all the religious conflict and strife as a direct result of that. Who's right? The Christians? The Muslims? How is this not flaming the flames of anger, and stealing life and liveliness in the name of the Good News?
If we define religion as the rules of faith, then that would explain why many (including me) react to 'all the rules'. It's unbelievable to me, but I really do think the Cardinal is on a mission to put Europe under the control of the church, so Europe can hear the Good News. But isn't that somehow completely backward? How can you teach people to trust, in a system of rules? Is there any doubt why Europe is fleeing in droves?
I don't think you can talk about being 'inclusive' and 'tolerrant' while you say that the Christian Religion is the answer. It's just rules, that may be helpful to some to point to truth, but rules to discard as soon as it thinks it's right, justified, in authority, the answer or replacing Christ himself. I think that perhaps is the first clue that something is amiss.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Mr. Mugabe dares God. Will God intervene? Similarities between Canada, Zimbabwe, and Kosovo
Being Canadian, I am a bit familiar with the problem of part of country wanting to secede. Now without starting the debate, and being obviously biased as living in the western part of Canada (AKA the very non-french part of Canada), I think it's fair to say it's mostly a political lobbyist drive that has largely failed, and not the burning desire of most of the people of Quebec themselves. I'll even go further, and since I see it as a political drive, I'll even say it's a political campaign of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) which tried to scare people from a French background into 'getting something they were entitled to'.
Everyone is good at fighting for what they believe in. The politically correct question now is 'How do we all get along'. Unfortunately I think is that some would choose to rather die, than get along. The question may be when do you pull the plug on the people that hang on to entitlement? At some point, you just can't work with someone that won't just let go. I think God is active and interested, but letting us choose and I don't see why he needs to take control here. It's up to us.
When it comes to a group seceding from the mother ship, how many countries secede from where they are based on something people believe they are entitled too? And in certainly some cases, freedom from persecution and oppression of any sort would be good things to believe your are entitled to and worth a revolution to achieve. As always, it seems that motivation is key to understanding one's quest to get what we're entitled to. God lets us struggle with this. God wants us to choose.
In the Quebec political struggle for separation, some French people believe their language and culture are being 'persecuted or oppressed' as they must belong to a different set of Canadian rules. They probably have a point: just like every thing that is there in the beginning, is lost over time to new empires, new ideas and new needs. I honestly believe that the rest of Canada really tries to accommodate and included as much as possible. And one must appreciate how tenacious some are to keep up the pressure. But as they fight, one has to wonder about the indigenous peoples they displaced. Can they fight for entitlement to preserve something that violates the preservation of what was before it? I've heard Canadians say, 'Go for it. Take your share of the debt, get your own military, and build your own country.' Staying together is better if we can work together, but separation would be preferable to a dysfunctional relationship. God wants us to choose life and liveliness, and sometimes one has to just let go and be ready to support someone wanting to go their own way.
And what of Kosovo?
A long history going back to the first century BC and the Dardani tribes. We've got different ethic groups, and political groups and religious groups all fighting for control. I have to believe that each group is fighting for it's own entitlements. Some probably relate to 'historical homeland', some to culture and language, and probably everyone is right to some degree or another. How on earth do you sort this one out?
Funny enough, from what I see in the BBC news, Serbia is unhappy having a chunk of it leave, presumably because they loose some sort of control, but historically anyway Kosovo has a chance of moving forward if they all now put their entitlements to death as they form the 'Republic of Kosovo'. Various world governments, including Canada, have offered their support to the disdain of Serbian Canadians.
Dusan Batakovic, Servia's ambassador to Canada had this to say:
He said the decision sets a "dangerous precedent" for sovereignty movements around the world, including Spain, Russia, India, as well as within Canada.
"Can you imagine, for instance, if the Quebec parliament declared its unilateral independence the same way the Kosovo parliament did? Would they recognize, in Ottawa, Quebec as an independent country or not?" he asked.
Not surprisingly, the political French body interested in separation from Canada praised Kosovo's move.
"Canada is recognizing a country, a new country, although the country it was part of disagreed," Turp said. "That is something that is new. We're happy that that has happened."
I guess Mr. Turp is saying that if the Canadian military slaughter ethnic French people, they then have a right to separate? I would agree with him on that.
That brings us to Zimbabwe.
President Robert Mugabe said Friday that "only God" could remove him from office
Here's a country poised for all the ingredients of slaughter, at the entitlement of one man. No religious excuses, no homeland issues, just one guy entailed to it control and servitude of those that get in bed with him. I say you can't work with this guy. Motivation wise he's serving himself. Please someone tell me why anyone should work with him. I believe God is active and cares. I'd be very worried if I was Mr. Mugabe that God just might agree.
Everyone is good at fighting for what they believe in. The politically correct question now is 'How do we all get along'. Unfortunately I think is that some would choose to rather die, than get along. The question may be when do you pull the plug on the people that hang on to entitlement? At some point, you just can't work with someone that won't just let go. I think God is active and interested, but letting us choose and I don't see why he needs to take control here. It's up to us.
When it comes to a group seceding from the mother ship, how many countries secede from where they are based on something people believe they are entitled too? And in certainly some cases, freedom from persecution and oppression of any sort would be good things to believe your are entitled to and worth a revolution to achieve. As always, it seems that motivation is key to understanding one's quest to get what we're entitled to. God lets us struggle with this. God wants us to choose.
In the Quebec political struggle for separation, some French people believe their language and culture are being 'persecuted or oppressed' as they must belong to a different set of Canadian rules. They probably have a point: just like every thing that is there in the beginning, is lost over time to new empires, new ideas and new needs. I honestly believe that the rest of Canada really tries to accommodate and included as much as possible. And one must appreciate how tenacious some are to keep up the pressure. But as they fight, one has to wonder about the indigenous peoples they displaced. Can they fight for entitlement to preserve something that violates the preservation of what was before it? I've heard Canadians say, 'Go for it. Take your share of the debt, get your own military, and build your own country.' Staying together is better if we can work together, but separation would be preferable to a dysfunctional relationship. God wants us to choose life and liveliness, and sometimes one has to just let go and be ready to support someone wanting to go their own way.
And what of Kosovo?
A long history going back to the first century BC and the Dardani tribes. We've got different ethic groups, and political groups and religious groups all fighting for control. I have to believe that each group is fighting for it's own entitlements. Some probably relate to 'historical homeland', some to culture and language, and probably everyone is right to some degree or another. How on earth do you sort this one out?
Funny enough, from what I see in the BBC news, Serbia is unhappy having a chunk of it leave, presumably because they loose some sort of control, but historically anyway Kosovo has a chance of moving forward if they all now put their entitlements to death as they form the 'Republic of Kosovo'. Various world governments, including Canada, have offered their support to the disdain of Serbian Canadians.
Dusan Batakovic, Servia's ambassador to Canada had this to say:
He said the decision sets a "dangerous precedent" for sovereignty movements around the world, including Spain, Russia, India, as well as within Canada.
"Can you imagine, for instance, if the Quebec parliament declared its unilateral independence the same way the Kosovo parliament did? Would they recognize, in Ottawa, Quebec as an independent country or not?" he asked.
Not surprisingly, the political French body interested in separation from Canada praised Kosovo's move.
"Canada is recognizing a country, a new country, although the country it was part of disagreed," Turp said. "That is something that is new. We're happy that that has happened."
I guess Mr. Turp is saying that if the Canadian military slaughter ethnic French people, they then have a right to separate? I would agree with him on that.
That brings us to Zimbabwe.
President Robert Mugabe said Friday that "only God" could remove him from office
Here's a country poised for all the ingredients of slaughter, at the entitlement of one man. No religious excuses, no homeland issues, just one guy entailed to it control and servitude of those that get in bed with him. I say you can't work with this guy. Motivation wise he's serving himself. Please someone tell me why anyone should work with him. I believe God is active and cares. I'd be very worried if I was Mr. Mugabe that God just might agree.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Trust vs Control as a parent: What teaches a kid?
Here's an interesting story:
A father plans to appeal after a Quebec court ruled that he didn't have the right to punish his 12-year-old daughter by barring her from a school trip
Obviously I don't know the whole story here, and this is not an attempt to judge. All of us parents need to do our own thing, in our own style, and in our own way. I would suggest however, that all us parents need to keep the end point in mind.
I had a very interesting moment this am as my 11 year old spoke up as I entered the room and said, 'Dad, you're good at making decisions, and I need some help deciding what to do'. He was trying to weigh options regarding taking a school field trip, or stay at school and work quietly on other projects.
Really, I don't care if he takes the trip to the badlands, or if he pursues other things. I'm thrilled as a father that he is in a spot, he's torn between various options and issues, and wrestles with his particular personality as he decides what is important. What were the issues? For him, choosing one means one is left behind. There is potential gains doing the trip, but massive risks on being trapped on a school bus for 4 plus hours. There is safety in peace and quiet, and doing more intellectual pursuits on his own.
I'm proud as a peach that he is owning the choices, owning the consequences and the decision, and had a load of tools to suggest to help evaluate what we know, to ask a couple of key questions that helped produce a clear decision.
Man, this kind of stuff isn't bad, it's the key. I want my kids to own decisions, and thrilled to be included as a friend, partner, trusted resource to come along side and help process. My best dad day yet.
There was a clear option to 'help' by telling him what to do, and controling the options. But what does that ultimately teach?
Oh, and he decided to stay.
A father plans to appeal after a Quebec court ruled that he didn't have the right to punish his 12-year-old daughter by barring her from a school trip
Obviously I don't know the whole story here, and this is not an attempt to judge. All of us parents need to do our own thing, in our own style, and in our own way. I would suggest however, that all us parents need to keep the end point in mind.
I had a very interesting moment this am as my 11 year old spoke up as I entered the room and said, 'Dad, you're good at making decisions, and I need some help deciding what to do'. He was trying to weigh options regarding taking a school field trip, or stay at school and work quietly on other projects.
Really, I don't care if he takes the trip to the badlands, or if he pursues other things. I'm thrilled as a father that he is in a spot, he's torn between various options and issues, and wrestles with his particular personality as he decides what is important. What were the issues? For him, choosing one means one is left behind. There is potential gains doing the trip, but massive risks on being trapped on a school bus for 4 plus hours. There is safety in peace and quiet, and doing more intellectual pursuits on his own.
I'm proud as a peach that he is owning the choices, owning the consequences and the decision, and had a load of tools to suggest to help evaluate what we know, to ask a couple of key questions that helped produce a clear decision.
Man, this kind of stuff isn't bad, it's the key. I want my kids to own decisions, and thrilled to be included as a friend, partner, trusted resource to come along side and help process. My best dad day yet.
There was a clear option to 'help' by telling him what to do, and controling the options. But what does that ultimately teach?
Oh, and he decided to stay.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Transformation requires death
Mike has an excellent post on Change vs Transformation
But I think it's worth a post to note that if we really want something new, something better, to finally break free and make it, we need Transformation not Change. And for Transformation to occur, something has to die.
Maybe it's pride that dies, as we choose to admit someone else was right.
Maybe it's a plant or animal as we need food to become energy and keep us alive.
Maybe it's a business decision to sacrifice one exploitable market, to see what new opportunities exist as we include the world.
If we look at everything we do as a zero-sum game, this is terrifying. Because as something dies, there is less to work with and have. Are all our fears tied back to looking at friends, family and life from a perspective of a zero-sum game? If there is really on so much, we have to fight and hoard to get as much as we can.
From my perspective, God is not about a zero-sum game at all. There aren't only X number of seats available on that final train home. He loves us all, there is no special club. We are all welcome. To deal with our separation, we must choose to let go of that which is broken, in order to abide with the Him. But we are free to choose to be a part of the abundance he provides, or to choose what is limited. The transformation that brings us into God's abundance is the death of our hold on hoarding the things around us.
But I think it's worth a post to note that if we really want something new, something better, to finally break free and make it, we need Transformation not Change. And for Transformation to occur, something has to die.
Maybe it's pride that dies, as we choose to admit someone else was right.
Maybe it's a plant or animal as we need food to become energy and keep us alive.
Maybe it's a business decision to sacrifice one exploitable market, to see what new opportunities exist as we include the world.
If we look at everything we do as a zero-sum game, this is terrifying. Because as something dies, there is less to work with and have. Are all our fears tied back to looking at friends, family and life from a perspective of a zero-sum game? If there is really on so much, we have to fight and hoard to get as much as we can.
From my perspective, God is not about a zero-sum game at all. There aren't only X number of seats available on that final train home. He loves us all, there is no special club. We are all welcome. To deal with our separation, we must choose to let go of that which is broken, in order to abide with the Him. But we are free to choose to be a part of the abundance he provides, or to choose what is limited. The transformation that brings us into God's abundance is the death of our hold on hoarding the things around us.
China vs the Dalai Lama: a battle of integrity?
I found this quote here:
The Dalai Lama is quoted as saying:
"Actually as far as social economy goes, I'm a Marxist. I am more red than the Chinese leaders, who seem to be only concerned with money. In Marxist theory there is a concern with the equal distribution of wealth. So this has a moral principle which capitalist theory doesn't," he said.
"I don't agree with the authoritarian side. Authoritarianism has ruined Marxism," The Australian quoted him, as saying.
I'm not a big fan of the Dalai Lama by any means, but you have to take a moment and be honest here. He has a good point. Is the Chinese government/communist party officials faithful at re-distributing wealth? Are all animals equal? Or are some a little more equal than others? (Thanks Mr. Orwell)
I really wish I knew someone that supported the way the Chinese political system worked, and could ask them about this. Anyone know someone that lives in N. America and supports how things run in China? How can anyone support a government with a stated goal of equality, that isn't equal themselves, personally, first?
I can certainly understand why the leadership may be embarrassed by someone asking questions like that. And what entitles them to be angry and entitled?
The Dalai Lama is quoted as saying:
"Actually as far as social economy goes, I'm a Marxist. I am more red than the Chinese leaders, who seem to be only concerned with money. In Marxist theory there is a concern with the equal distribution of wealth. So this has a moral principle which capitalist theory doesn't," he said.
"I don't agree with the authoritarian side. Authoritarianism has ruined Marxism," The Australian quoted him, as saying.
I'm not a big fan of the Dalai Lama by any means, but you have to take a moment and be honest here. He has a good point. Is the Chinese government/communist party officials faithful at re-distributing wealth? Are all animals equal? Or are some a little more equal than others? (Thanks Mr. Orwell)
I really wish I knew someone that supported the way the Chinese political system worked, and could ask them about this. Anyone know someone that lives in N. America and supports how things run in China? How can anyone support a government with a stated goal of equality, that isn't equal themselves, personally, first?
I can certainly understand why the leadership may be embarrassed by someone asking questions like that. And what entitles them to be angry and entitled?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)