Pluralism News, Monday, February 27, 2017

Pluralism News is weekly newsletter about pluralism in religion, politics, culture and society.  Please visit http://centerforpluralism.com/news/

1. President Trump received our letter
2. Conservative and Liberals don’t have to be each other’s throats
3. Is it worth talking with the right wing extremists and radicals?

President Trump received our letter, hope it becomes a part of the State of the Union. 

It is our responsibility individually and collectively to stand up for fellow Americans when they feel insecure. If we don’t stand up for others why should anyone stand up for anyone?  Our security (Americans) hinges on the security of every American. It behooves us to work on security of others and ultimately we all would feel secure.   Last week, a Jewish Cemetery was desecrated and over 50 Jewish Community Centers received bomb threats.

The Center for Pluralism wanted to get a message out to the president to speak out against Anti-Semitism and all others ills of the society such as Islamophobia, Xenophobia, and Racism and…..
The letter was carefully crafted to be short and precise to increase the chances of reading it in less than 2 minutes and under 200 words.  The letter was delivered to the President, Vice President, and several members at CPAC meeting and most of them read standing in the hallway including Chairman of the CPAC read it.

God willing we will continue to work and see if the President can incorporate the message of cohesiveness in his state of the Union Address on 2/28.

The actual letter and details at: http://centerforpluralism.com/cfp-delivers-the-letter-to-president-trump/

Conservatives and Liberals at each other’s throats 

It’s a shame that both sides one continue to paint each other as enemies; enemies they are not! Each group talks about how bad and divisive the other is, without realizing their equal contribution to the divisiveness.  I am writing a full article on the topic and will be published at the Hill, and will share that link. It is amazing how mean we get just to prove we are right.

Is it worth talking with the right wing extremists and radicals?

Each one of us thinks differently.  We have a choice to ‘stay away from each other’ and let the ill-will, suspicion and doubts simmer to become unmanageable.  I hope if you take the time to ‘study’ the three videos and the notes below, you will change your mind about using the phrases like “right wing” “Red necks” and other epithets.  These are bad choice of words to describe fellow humans who react differently to situations.

Last week, I posted this video from a Fox News debate with Sean Hannity and Brigitte Gabriele on face book in two different places, and got shot down by my friends saying it is a waste of time to deal with the hard wired, without realizing they were as prejudiced as the ones they were accusing of.

All the three videos and anecdotes at: http://centerforpluralism.com/talking-with-right-wingers-and-radicals/
# # #

Monthly Seminar: Understanding the essence of religion. This month: Understanding Hinduism

13 Religions in 13 Months – This month
Understanding Hinduism  on 3/7/17 between 1:00 and 3:30 PM
details: http://centerforpluralism.com/hinduism-understanding-the-essence-of-hinduism/

# # #

Center for Pluralism is committed to build a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day.

Adam, freedom and conservatism

ADAM, FREEDOM AND CONSERVATISM | TheGhouseDiary.com

As our founding fathers have laid it out; life liberty and pursuit of happiness are our inalienable rights.  The freedom to speak, think, act and assemble is our inalienable right; this right was given by the creator to us upon birth, and it is as much a part of our life as brain, heart, kidneys, blood and other elements of the body are.  

I don’t have the full knowledge of genesis of creation in Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian, Sikh, Baha’i, Wicca, Native and other traditions, but it is embedded in the Abrahimic Traditions.

Adam’s story makes a point that is so relevant today; he was offered a choice to be a conservative or a progressive. He was told, if you do nothing, status quo will not change, you’ll continue to live in your comfort zone (conservative) in the heaven here with me. Or if chose to eat the forbidden fruit, you’ll bear the consequences, a change (progress) will dawn upon you,  that you don’t know what to do with it, your body system will produce crap and you’ll have to find a place to dump it. I don’t like the smell of it, and will throw you out of here.

Adam deliberated on it, there was a challenge for him and consequences for the choices he would make, do I want to remain a conservative or a progressive? He took the bold step, he ate the forbidden fruit.

What did God do? He could have slapped Adam to behave and be obedient, but he chose to keep his word and set an example.  He gave Adam complete freedom to choose and Adam chose to live with the temptation.  

Thank God for giving us the inalienable right to be free, right to choose and the right to act freely. Thanks to Adam for choosing to be a progressive, otherwise we would not have experienced anything all, we might as well have been dead creatures living in that garden called paradise doing nothing, speaking nothing, eating nothing. What a bore!

The creator or the process of evolution would not have endowed us with the ability to talk, if it was not meant for us to use.  This is all God’s plan. We must honor free speech no matter how difficult it is and we must be progressive to see and experience the world, and conservative enough not to fall of the stratosphere in taking bold risks.
 

Thank you

Mike Ghouse
(214) 325-1916 talk/text

Dr. Mike Ghouse is a community consultant, social scientist, thinker, writer, news maker, and a speaker on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, politics, terrorism, human rights, India, Israel-Palestine and foreign policy. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Visit him in 63 links at www.MikeGhouse.net for his writings at TheGhousediary.com and several blogs listed there in. 

Conservatives v. Progressives

First of all, it really should be Conservatives V. Progressives.  Indeed, they are two forces that pull and push the society to stay put or move forward. Yester year’s progressives are today’s conservatives.  In social terms, it means the acceptance of un-married couples “living together” by an average conservative was a liberal idea 50 years ago, and 10 years from now acceptance of GLBT community without reluctance would be a conservative ideal.  

Both are essential to maintain a continuous equilibrium in a given society.  |

If conservatives had won the full battle – we would still be thinking the world would be flat; we would not have allowed modern medicine to save lives; we would not have allowed newer delicious foods that we enjoy today or even allowed the movies to flourish and would have lived in caves.  

On the other hand if Liberals had won the full battle – we would have fallen out of the orbit of the earth; individualism (me, me and me) would have taken over to the detriment of family, community and societies;  and we would have had a society that goes nuts with no regulations.

Neither of them will ever win the full battle, there is always going to be a give and take to accommodate the overwhelming majority of moderates, who see the value in both conservatism and progressivism.

What has been short in supply is the voice of moderates and the peace makers.

I have chosen to be a passionate moderate, who would assert the values that work for all of us; the conservatives, progressives and the rest of us, who make up 90% of the society, any society. Where do you stand?

...............................................................................................................................
Mike Ghouse is a public speaker, thinker, writer and a commentator on Pluralism at work place, politics, religion, society, gender, race, culture, ethnicity, food and foreign policy. All about him is listed in several links at www.MikeGhouse.net and his writings are at www.TheGhousediary.com and 10 other blogs. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day.

Texas Faith, Is the religious left too nice and without influence?

The future of our society will be shaped by the moderate majority, for the first time in our long history, the moderates have discovered that they don't need to bang their fist on the table, or scream bloody murder to be heard, they have done it effectively at the ballot box, they waited for the left or the right to move towards moderation, and the left jumped on it and got the ride in 2012, and now the right is scrambling for the ride. Continued at: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/01/texas-faith-is-religious-left-too-nice.html
…..

Texas Faith, Is the religious left too nice and without influence?

By Bill McKenzie / Editorial Columnist, Dallas Morning News, January, 29, 2103

The Washington Post's Lisa Miller wrote earlier this month about how "nice isn't going to win the battle for the religious left."

Miller noted how the religious left once made the case for issues of great consequence, such as women's suffrage and civil rights. But she contends the religious left needs to greatly improve how it makes its priorities and activities more compelling and newsworthy.

Wrote Miller: "Kumbaya is not a story. Why can't we all just get along is not a story. Since the rise of the religious right in the 1970s in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, the religious left has failed to gain any comparable visibility, traction or voice on major issues in the political sphere.

"News releases from the precincts of the religious left continue to emphasize niceness over moral authority….There's nothing wrong with being polite, of course. But a great, galvanizing, undeniable moral argument is better. 'Civility is a great friend of the status quo,' says Jim Naughton, partner at Canticle Communications, which advises faith-based groups. 'People aren't going to change because you're nice to them.'"

What do you think of her point? Is the religious left indeed without the same influence and profile as the religious right? If so, is it because the religious left has tried more to be civil and nice than to make a compelling moral argument?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas


We are conditioned to seeing everything from a binary perspective; left or right.  We lose sight of the critical third dimension; the deadbeat moderate majority. This is the group that is meek, civil and polite, but does act decisively while casting the ballot.

Indeed, the religious left is more influential than the right in pulling the moderate votes.

Obama is reelected with a greater margin over his rival on the right.  The public support for legal abortion is accumulating despite the religious right. Same sex marriage is gaining greater acceptability. Obama care is in, Immigration reforms are underway, and gun safety regulation is gathering momentum. Heck, the wars will end with no desire to engage in another senseless war.

On the other hand, the religious right is losing, not because of inadequacy in their principles, but because of their belligerent, unintelligent pounding on the airwaves, and turning the moderate majority off.

Jim Naughton makes a powerful point that Civility is a great friend of the status quo; he is talking about the moderates, and not the ones on the left. Whether it is the city council meeting, church gathering or in informal gatherings, it is always the people on left or the right who drive the conversation, they have no qualms in speaking out passionately, even though they get shot at alternatively by the other, they don’t lose the enthusiasm for their point of view. Whereas the moderates, keep raising their hand politely, hoping to get their turn, but never get a chance to get their point across, they don’t know how to bang their fist on the table, such an act is rude and stupid to them.

Years ago, a Nun made a remarkable point on Tim Russert’s Meet the press. The right will frighten the public and attempts to win by guaranteeing to take care of them, the left will match their tall claims, while the moderates have difficulty in embellishing and giving false hopes, they lack passion.

America is moving towards the center, the moderate majority is realizing its power to keep things at an even keel; they want an America that is good for every one of her citizens, in fact they made that difference in 2012 through the ballot, as they do not have the passion to speak out. Indeed, Americas’ future will be shaped by the moderates.

. . . .

Eleven panelists contributed to this forum, to read the contributions from all the panelists, please visit -  http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/texas-faith-is-the-religious-left-too-nice-and-without-influence.html/  

------------

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace, Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place and standing up for others as an activist. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News, fortnightly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes everything you want to know about him.

Texas Faith : Do Republicans have an Ayn Rand problem?

The problem Republicans have is “a policy coup by some hardnosed people,” in the words of Gen. Wesley Clark.  The right among Republicans is attempting to take over the direction of this country and pushing for policies that will break the cohesive fabric of America.

Texas Faith : Do Republicans have an Ayn Rand problem?

Paul Ryan’s selection as the Republican vice presidential nominee has put Ayn Rand back into the spotlight. Ryan was picked in large part because he’s the architect of a budget that demands lower taxes and smaller government and, more to the point, anticipates a shifting emphasis from government to the   individual. Ryan has credited Rand as a source of his political thought. He has said Rand’s philosophy was “sorely needed right now” and “Ayn Rand did more than anybody to build a moral case for capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most.”

Rand argued that altruism is immoral and selfishness is good. She was a champion of unbridled markets and limited government. She was an atheist who denounced religion as the enemy of reason and she advanced the idea of an unlimited laissez-faire capitalism in which the rich prospered in a   social Darwinian universe. Emboldened by the Tea Party, many Republican leaders like Ryan have proposed a fundamental dismantling of the nation’s social safety net in a way that would make Rand proud. But many Tea Party advocates are strong Christian conservatives who would be appalled by Rand’s anti-Christian views.

Here’s the thing: By embracing Rand, Paul Ryan touts a philosophy that is tightly knit and carefully constructed in which the pieces fit neatly together. In Rand’s world, if you believe in objectivism, there’s no room for a little government collectivism. One precludes the other. Take out one piece and it all falls apart.

So can leaders who are strong believers in Rand’s philosophy advocate self-interest and   community obligation in the same breath? How do you make a “moral case” for the individual and individual rights in a way that’s ethically justifiable? Do Republicans have an Ayn Rand problem?

Our Texas Faith panel weighs in:

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

The problem Republicans have is “a policy coup by some hardnosed people,” in the words of Gen. Wesley Clark.  The right among Republicans is attempting to take over the direction of this country and pushing for policies that will break the cohesive fabric of America.

As individuals, we do not function entirely on our own abilities; we are inter-dependent and interconnected.  Without a consumer the manufacturer will fail, without a patient a doctor has no job, and without a healthy society the productivity of a nation suffers, and the rich will not get richer. We don’t need any one when we are doing well with our health and a reliable income. In Ayn Rand’s ideal world, the fittest will survive. 

What happens if we are not fit?  Who is not vulnerable to the Nile virus, floods, fires, disasters, diseases, and the economic depression?

The defining moment about individualism and collectivism came when Ron Paul was asked, “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” His response was health care was a mercy of the community and not a right. A political commercial depicted Romney to be responsible for the death of a lady whose family could not afford insurance to treat her cancer.

None of us would have survived the Holocaust, genocides, massacres, persecution and ethnic cleansing if it was entirely the formula of Ayn Rand. If you are not willing to stand up for others, why should anyone stand up for you?

At the end, the Republican Party does have a serious Ayn Rand problem by virtue of their silence against the policy coup by a few. They have two mouths – one talks about freedom and the other wants to take away choices from a woman about her body; one talks about individual liberties while the other rips that right from gay couples marrying each other, and one talks about freedom of religion and the other passes laws restricting Muslims to practice their religion.

Indeed, we need to find a balance between the individual and individual rights in a way that’s ethically, morally justifiable.

 When Justice Roberts rendered a decision in favor of Obama care, I welcomed the decision as a moderate Republican, and instantaneously many Republicans found a way out and echoed my sentiments. They may be silent, but they have spoken against extremism in the ballot. Ryan is a new throw in the basket; if he was in the primaries, he probably would have been rejected like the other divisive men and women.

Texas faith is a weekly column, where panelists from different traditions respond to the issues of the day - for all the responses, please visit Dallas Morning News at http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2012/08/texas-faith-do-republicans-have-an-ayn-rand-problem.html/

# # #

Please join us for Unity day on Tuesday, September 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM at Unity Church of Dallas - details at www.UnitydayUSA.com

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. He is a professional speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, civic affairs, Islam, India, Israel, peace and justice. Mike is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News and regularly at Huffington post, and several other periodicals across the world. The blog www.TheGhousediary.comis updated daily. 

Are you Oppressive or Conservative?

http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/08/are-you-oppressive-or-conservative.html

When the Republican candidates thump their chest and say it aloud, I am a conservative, what do they mean? Are they confused between the words “oppressive” and “conservative” particularly when it is applied to LGBT issues?

Do they feel any sense of remorse when they reject the marriage between the consenting free willed adults?  What does liberty mean to them? 

Do they rejoice what Uganda is doing to its LGBT population? By the way Michelle Bachmann you may not be aware of the situation there, and if you are, I want to assure you it is not a “Moslem” country?

I can claim to be conservative if it means I mind my own business, respect the others as I want to be respected, believe in liberty and personal freedom of individuals, believe that government should not butt in people’s personal lives, that people should have the freedom to eat, sleep, wear and believe what they want, as long as those beliefs are not dangerous to the security of America or their personal life.

On the other hand if I were to believe in interfering in other people’s life, and want to regulate who can marry whom, I would consider that to be an oppressive value.  This is something all religious people need to think about. Do they want to Play God or mind their own faith? It is time for the Republicans to re-examine the words Justice, liberty, conservative and oppressive. Who will take the lead paves his or her own way to true leadership to bring Americans together.

Mike Ghouse is a moderate Republican committed to a cohesive America and a frequent guest on Hannity show and other nationally syndicated radio shows. He is a speaker, thinker and a writer on Pluralism in politics and religion, Islam, interfaith, peace and cohesive societies. His work is indexed at www.mikeghouse.net and daily blog is at www.TheGhousediary.com

# # #

Conservatives V Neocons

Conservatives want a strong national defense to keep our nation safe, where as the Neocons want a strong national defense with the intention of threatening others. Neocons end up messing the life for every one. They are the extemists found in every faith label.

** Neocons are the extremists wearing different religious labels and believe that they have an exclusive right to exist, they believe peace comes to them by eliminating those who differ from from them.

#