The World Is ONE Caste

Perspectives from Some Humanity-Oriented Icons

2010-07-30T03:57:00.000-07:00

Associate Professor of Economics and Finance

Upper Iowa University

I. Introduction

            Many forces are making the world increasingly smaller and a movement for global citizenship is underway. Better technology and transportation now facilitating greater mobility among people; borders for ideas, in particular, are virtually disappearing. Many national and international organizations acknowledging this are reinventing themselves to not only benefit from it, but also serve as catalysts. Major multinational corporations are embracing global citizenship.1 Leading institutions of higher learning in many developed countries are integrating the notion into their curriculums.2 Although global citizenship is still a loosely defined term legally, politically and institutionally, there are efforts--academic and otherwise, to scope out its notion.

            Of course, before the movement for global citizenship gather momentum, the spirit of global-belonging (aka belonging to the world) ought to be widely embraced. In this brief essay, we explore the need for the spirit by reviewing the ideas of several icons of twentieth century: Einstein, a name most known to science, Martin Luther King, Jr., world renowned for the struggle against racism, Mohandas Gandhi, a well known spiritual and political leader from India, and Kazi Nazrul, a name little known beyond his region and language.

II. What is Global Citizenship?

            According to Hong Kong’s Institute of International Education, “Global citizenship goes beyond knowing that we are citizens of the globe, it is a way of thinking and behaving. It is an outlook on life, a belief that we can make a difference and make the world a better place. Young people are growing up in an increasingly global context. Many will live, work and study alongside people from all over the world. More and more people are traveling for work or for leisure. All forms of culture are shaped by global influences. Each decision we make as professionals, consumers or voters has an impact on global society.”3

            Oxfam, a global organization focused overcoming poverty and suffering, identifies the following aspects as the constituent features of a global citizen, who:

* is aware of the wider world and has a sense of their own role as a world citizen;
* respects and values diversity;
* has an understanding of how the world works economically, politically, socially, culturally, technologically and environmentally;
* is outraged by social injustice;
* participates in and contributes to the community at a range of levels from local to global;
* is willing to act to make the world a more sustainable place;
* takes responsibility for their actions.4

The global citizenship movement has gained momentum due to growing realization that many pressing problems of our time are global in nature and scope. Hunger, homelessness, epidemics, war, ethnic cleansing, export of hazardous waste and pesticides to the non-industrialized countries, deforestation, extinction of species, global warming, famine, are among the problems that require global initiatives.

III. Global-belonging for global citizenship

            Global citizenship is an idea that must be rooted in a spirit of global-belonging. Global citizens, can connect to the humanity worldwide while retaining their natural roots: national, racial, regional. The idea seems imperative in a world beset with conflicts, hatred and prejudice; it seems a must to combat environmental, economic and military issues demanding global solutions.

            No matter, a sense of global-belonging must precede the notion of global citizenship. Hence, global citizenship movement must be anchored to the spirit of global-belonging. While this essay may be a small step to a more comprehensive work, herein we explore the ideas and perspectives of several iconic figures of the twentieth century.

IV. Some Inspirational Icons for Global-Belonging

i. Albert Einstein: The 1=1 Equation
[1879-1955]

            Einstein does not require any introduction. However, his thoughts and perspectives beyond the realm of science may not be well known.

            Einstein only gradually warmed up to his Jewish identity. He later identified with cultural Zionism, while distancing himself fom political Zionism. I have discussed these issues in an essay “Einstein, Zionism and Israel: Setting the Record Straight.”5

            Cultural Zionism and political Zionism shared the aspiration for a homeland for the Jews of the Diaspora. Notably, political Zionism hungered for a Jewish nation-state, while cultural Zionism envisioned an inclusive spiritual homeland. Einstein clarified the cultural scope his support for the Jewish people. He asserted it in the 1930s:

“… For our community is not, and must never become, a political one; this is the only permanent source whence it can draw new strength and the only ground on which its existence can be justified.”6

“The object which the leaders of Zionism have before their eyes is not a political but a social and cultural one.”7

            Indeed, Einstein did not believe in nationalism. Rather, his position was: "Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race.”8

            Likely emboldened by his take on nationalism, Einstein publicly stated his position against the political movement to establish a Jewish nation state.

            "In his testimony in January 1946 before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, and in answer to the specific question whether refugee settlement in Palestine demanded a Jewish state, Einstein stated: 'The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-mindedness and economic obstacles. I believe that it is bad. I have always been against it.’ He went further to deride the concept of a Jewish commonwealth as an ‘imitation of Europe, the end of which was brought about by nationalism.' "9

            Even after reaching the conclusion that political movement for a Jewish state had become irresistible, Einstein consistently stated his desire for a bi-national state, in which Jews and Arabs would be equal citizens. In this regard, one can refer to another equation based on Einstein’s perspective: 1=1 equation.

            Einstein recognized the growing Arab resentment due to migration of Jews that had the makings of a colonial settlement by outsiders. Foreseeing trouble he tackled it not simply as a critical long-term concern for the Jewish cause, but also as a matter of principle. He insisted on "complete equality." The world is familiar with Einstein's famous E=MC2 equation. This message of "complete equality" might have been his 1=1 equation: 1 Jew = 1 Arab. A rather radical, albeit principled position! In the face of the unrestrained racism ravaging the Middle East today it's important to note that, until the end of his life, Einstein insisted:

            'The most important aspect of our [Israel's] policy must be our ever-present, manifest desire to institute complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst ... The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people."10

            Insisting on “complete equality” between the Arabs and Jews confirms his preference to connect with others at the human level, without devaluing or denying his own heritage. This is a critical foundation for global-belonging.

            Einstein managed to transcend nationalism. “Nationalism, in my opinion, is nothing more than an idealistic rationalization for militarism and aggression.”11 He had witnessed the worst of it in Europe during the two World Wars and he also foresaw the same looming for Israel and Middle East. His vision of complete equality between the Arabs and the Jews, in a part of the world that might be the region for a third World War, is critical to understand the perspective as not oriented to race or nation, but to humanity.

            His core humanity-orientation is manifest in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. “The Russell-Einstein Manifesto was issued in London on July 9, 1955 by Bertrand Russell in the midst of the Cold War. It highlighted the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and called for world leaders to seek peaceful resolutions to international conflict. It had been signed by 11 preeminent intellectuals and scientists, most notably Albert Einstein, days before his death on April 18, 1955.”12

            The manifesto was the outcome of an initiative by Einstein, making the appeal “as human beings to human beings.” The manifesto is a bold call for the humanity: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

            “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”13

            Although indirectly, but Einstein is a powerful icon for the spirit of global-belonging. The nascent global citizenship movement must draw on the man who was so passionately committed to the cause of humanity that he considered himself a servant of “truth and justice.” In a universal sense.14

ii. Martin Luther King, Jr.
[1929-1968]

            Martin Luther King, Jr. was an icon who lead America’s rise from apartheid or institutionalized racism. About his call to the ministry, he recounted that it “came neither by some miraculous vision nor by some blinding light experience on the road of life. Moreover, it was a response to an inner urge that gradually came upon me. This urge expressed itself in a desire to serve God and humanity"15 “Despite the many technological advances and material comforts of American society, King argued, humanity had lost the spiritual compass provided by a deep and abiding faith in God. ‘The real problem is that through our scientific genius we've made of the world a neighborhood, but through our moral and spiritual genius we've failed to make of it a brotherhood.’"16

            He lamented: "We are prone to judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, rather than by the quality of our service and relationship to humanity."17 Although his primary struggle was dismantling the American apartheid, he also affirmed: “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of his individualistic concerns to the broader concerns of all humanity.”18

            Indeed, all throughout his focused struggle he also reminded fellow American blacks: “It is summed up in the idea that we must go back on the buses not as a right but as a duty. If we go back as a right, there is a danger that we will be blind to the rights of others. We Negroes have been in a humiliating position because others have been chiefly concerned with insisting on their own rights. This is too narrow a basis for human brotherhood, and certainly will not overcome existing tensions and misunderstandings.”19

            King’s local focus was right on target although his struggle drew its strength from his humanity-orientation, rooted in his own perception of Christianity. Our focus here is not on the particular religion or philosophy that served as the fountain-spring for such icons’ humanity-orientation. Of common relevance is the fact that they maintained a humanity-oriented perspective.

iii. Mahatma Gandhi
[1869-1948]

            Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was “a major political and spiritual leader of India and the Indian Independence Movement. He is considered the father of India, and is often affectionately referred to as ‘Bapu,’ meaning father in Gujarati. He was the pioneer and perfector of Satyagraha — resistance through mass civil disobedience strongly founded upon ahimsa (total non-violence) came to be one of the strongest driving philosophies of the Indian Independence Movement, and has inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world.”20

Gandhi drew his inspiration from Hinduism. In reply to a letter, Gandhi articulated:

            “My religion is Hinduism which, for me, is Religion of humanity . . . I am being led to my religion through Truth and Non-violence, i.e., love in the broadest sense. I often describe my religion as Religion of Truth . . . . We are all sparks of Truth. I am being led nearer to It by constant prayer ... . To be true to such religion, one has to lose oneself in continuous and continuing service to all life. Realisation of truth is impossible without a complete merging of oneself in, and identification with, this limitless ocean of life. Hence, for me, there is no escape from social service.

            Gandhi's responses show that his understanding of religion varies from the usual. Gandhi's religion was bereft of dogma, rituals, superstition, and bigotry. Hence, there was no temple at his ashrams at Sabarmati or Wardha, and yet there was ample evidence of religion and moral values.21

            Unlike Einstein, an avowed anti-nationalist, Gandhi considered nationalism an important aspect of the anti-colonial struggle. However, he did not see any contradiction between his nationalism and humanity-orientation.

            I want the freedom of my country so that other countries may learn something from my free country, so that the resources of my country may be utilized for the benefit of mankind.22

            Our nationalism can be no peril to other nations in as much as we will exploit none, just as we will allow none to exploit us. Through Swaraj we will serve the whole world.23

            It is impossible for one to be internationalist without being a nationalist. Internationalism is possible only when nationalism becomes a fact, i.e., when peoples belonging to different countries have organized themselves and are able to act as one man. It is not nationalism that is evil, it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane of modern nations which is evil.24

            I do want to think in terms of the whole world. My patriotism includes the gook of mankind in general. Therefore, my service of India includes the service of humanity.25

            My mission is not merely brotherhood of Indian humanity. My mission is not merely freedom of India, though today it undoubtedly engrosses practically the whole of my life and the whole of my time. But through realization of freedom of India I hope to realize and carry on the mission of the brotherhood of man. My patriotism is not an exclusive thing. It is all-embracing and I should reject that patriotism which sought to mount upon the distress or the exploitation of other nationalities. The conception of my patriotism is nothing if it is not always, in every case without exception, consistent with the broadest good of humanity at large.26

            It is contended that he was not for total eradication of it even though Gandhi was against the injustices of India’s caste system. He reflected:

            Mankind is one, seeing that all are equally subject to the moral law. All men are equal in God’s eyes. There are, of course, differences of race and status and the like, but the higher the status of a man, the greater is his responsibility.27

            Once again, our purpose here is not to scrutinize the specific root or thought patterns of such icons. What is to be noted here is that each of them, linked with the struggle of the people of their natural root, had an underlying humanity-orientation.

iv. Kazi Nazrul Islam:
The Voice and Beacon of Global-Belonging
[1899-1976]

            Those unfamiliar with the name of Nazrul are likely to be surprised by his selection as the Voice and Beacon of Global-Belonging. Notably, however, many of those familiar know him only as the “Rebel Poet” of Bengal, who rebelled against all injustice and oppression against humanity.

            In 1899 Nazrul was born in a very poor family in rural Bengal, India. He is the other iconic figure of Bengali literature and music, Rabindranath Tagore (who received Nobel Prize in literature in 1913) likely being more well-known. Despite facing unprecedented odds as a village kid who received little formal education Nazrul rebelled against injustice, tyranny and oppression, which marked his meteoric rise to regional prominence. The context of his struggle was the British colonialism he personally witnessed in India, but his position was explicitly universalist. Nazrul was consummately egalitarian. Hardly anyone else has been as explicitly egalitarian and humanity-oriented as was Nazrul; yet he is largely unknown to global humanity since translation of his works into English has been sparse.

He warbled the tune of oneness of the humanity.

I sing the song
Of equality,
Where all status and class
Become triviality.

The Rendezvous of Hindu, Buddhist,
Muslim or those of Christianity,
I sing the song
Of equality!

[The Egalitarian – Shammyobadi; translations are mine, unless noted otherwise]

He became an outstanding voice of gender-egalitarianism as well.

"I sing the song
of equality;
In my view gender difference
is essentially a triviality. ...

Not very far
is that cherished day,
when with homage to man,
to woman also homage, the world will pay."

[The Woman – Nari]

            He became a unique icon for communal harmony in a part of the world that has been rife with communal hatred and violence. Likely making matters worse, the region now has two adversarial neighbors with nuclear weapons. But no one has gone to Nazrul’s distance, to rise above communalism. Tagore, who Nazrul considered his poet-master (gurudev), did not draw on both Hindu and Islamic sources.

"The hapless nation drowns, for swim it cannot
O Captain! Today you shall be watched
For determination and love
'Hindu or Muslim?' Wait! Who asks?
Captain! Proclaim: My Mother’s children are drowning —Human all!"

[Captain, beware - Kandari Hushiyar; translated by Kabir Chowdhury]

            He stood firmly against all extremism and intolerance, including those in the name of Islam.

"His water brings the blessings of flower and fruit to the garden of every nation,
Who, yet, preaches hatred and division in His love's congregation?
No saint, dervish, yogi, a prophet or a messenger truly divine,
Ever reviled others' faith or religion - who isn't aware of this wisdom so fine?"

[Fanaticism is not religion - Gorami dhormo noy]

            Nazrul became the valiant voice of the oppressed and the subjugated, inspiring optimism for a new age and new voyage.

The ever oppressed has raised his head today, walking so proudly tall,
breaking the shackle the slave has demolished the prison wall.
Now he has the taste of pride
of sky, wind and light outside!
The prisoner now understands, greater than life are freedom and choice,
the liberated world is joining in chorus in clarion voice!
Let the oppressed soul now rejoice!
Vive La new age! Vive La new voyage!

[Plea – Foriyad]

            Nazrul called upon the weakened, dispirited and fatalistic people living under all forms of colonial tyranny to rediscover their dignity and inner strength.

            “I have suffered pain, I have embraced all the hurt with smile, but I have never bowed before humiliation of my spirit. I have never surrendered my freedom.”28

He energized people to seek freedom and dignity.

Inside and outside, equally -
always be stronger, ever!
The more bad times approach,
be firm and don't yield. Never!

[Be Ever Stronger! – Nitto Probol Hou!]

His unmurky affirmation of the humanity-orientation is notable in his poem “Man.”

I sing the Hymn of Equality –

Nothing is higher than Man, nothing nobler!

There’s no distinction of clime, age,

and person, there’s one indivisible,

Universal Brotherhood.

[Manush, trans. by Abdul Hakim]

            His comet-like and brilliant emergence into Bangla literary and cultural arenas was confirmed by his most famous poem The Rebel [bidrohi]. Although his contribution to literature and music well-transcended his rebellion against injustice and oppression Nazrul’s identity became almost-interchangeable with the label, The Rebel Poet. His goal-oriented rebellion was nonetheless universal in scope, against all tyranny and injustice.

He proclaimed:

Proclaim, Hero,
proclaim: I raise my head high!
Before me bows down the Himalayan peaks! ...

...

I'll uproot this subjugated world
in the joy of recreating it.
Weary of battles, I, the Great Rebel,
shall rest in peace only when
the anguished cry of the oppressed
shall no longer reverberate in the sky and the air,
and the tyrant's bloody sword
will no longer rattle in battlefields.
Only then shall I, the Rebel,
rest in peace.

[The Rebel, trans. by Sajed Kamal]

            By language, he was a Bangali. By religion he was a Muslim.29 His works in literature and music reflect his unprejudiced utilization of cultural and religious traditions of both the major faiths of India: Islam and Hinduism. He also drew on Christian sources, including Jesus, as reflected in his poem Poverty [daridro], where he wrote:

O poverty, thou hast made me great.

Thou hast made me honoured like Christ

With his crown of thorns. Thou hast given me

Courage to reveal all. To thee I owe

My insolent, naked eyes and sharp tongue.

Thy curse has turned my violin to a sword.

[Poverty – Daridro; translated by Kabir Chowdhury]

            By region, he was from India, fighting the colonial British. But he was also able to connect with the larger cause of humanity. He penned poems and composed songs to articulate his world-view.

            Rabindranath Tagore, the most known Bangali poet, also had humanity-orientation. He also opposed nationalism, noting the perils of nationalistic ideologies in Europe and elsewhere. But the clarity, strength and vibrancy of Nazrul in the context of global-belonging are probably nonpareil.

            His view of the world literature is remarkable, as he had a strong feeling that the writers, poets and littérateurs must have big hearts in tune with the humanity.

            “The soul of the littérateurs, writers, and poets must be open and gracious like the sky. There must not be any room for any prejudice or hatred against other faiths or nations or people big or small. If their life is dirty, narrow or parochial like the water in a pond or cesspool, then their literary endeavors would be utterly in vain. Their literary creations would die in the maternity ward. The bigger and more open is the heart of a person that much greater would be a littérateur. That’s because literature is the treasure of the world; it can’t belong to anyone. Through his own words and empathy, the writer will be the voice of the world, and touch the soul of the humanity. Whatever finer things a writer deals with, just a glance at it should reveal to anyone in the world that this is from the bottom of his heart. This idea and feeling was what was imprisoned in the writer’s heart, seeking an escape to find expression. That’s how world-literature is born. That’s what is meant by universalism of literature.”30

            Nazrul invited us to embrace that spirit of universalism which does not deny its roots, but feels and builds a bond with others in humanity; a spirit that rises above parochial pettiness and upholds the human dignity; a spirit forever vigilant against injustice, oppression, ugliness (regardless of who the perpetrators or victims are); a spirit with its God-endowed creativity to beautify our world through our conduct and actions--solving problems that afflict the humanity; a spirit tha plays the tune of harmony, justice, freedom, dignity and divine love.31

In 1938 he wrote a song for the students, where he summoned the learners and the youth:

Rise above race-nationality-religion, and O Young Soul, wake up!

Let your emergence cause all the conflicts to melt in your love’s cup.

Leave behind parochialism and pettiness; close any such door;

Come and help the spirit of the entire humanity soar.

People want you; they seek you today,

Please bring a lighthouse to this darkness’ bay,

Awaken yourselves like in brilliance of the Divine ray.32

            While we may find others for this list of inspirational examples, Nazrul stands distinctively in his explicit and passionate global-belonging. In one of his speeches in 1929, he proclaimed: "Even though I was born in this country (Bengal), in this society, I don't belong to just this country, this society. I belong to the world."33

            Although little known beyond South Asia in general and Bangladesh/West Bengal (India) in particular but, as Nazrul becomes more globally known, the world will discover and claim/acclaim him as one of the most important and leading “Voice and Beacon of Global-Belonging.”

            If the label the Rebel Poet is to be used, no one is more deserving than Nazrul. However, he is much bigger than the scope of that label. Furthermore, in our contemporary world, his thoughts and visions can be better understood in terms of his spirit of global belonging.

V. Conclusion

            To save humanity from its destructive forces that threaten us all, global citizenship movement is crucial. It must be affirmed in the spirit of global-belonging. In this essay we have introduced several icons from the twentieth century: one from Jewish background and the world of science; one minister and civil rights leader from Christian background; one political and spiritual leader of Hindu background; and lastly one poet and musician of Islamic background. Most likely there are other icons for the spirit. As we identify and acknowledge them, let us strive to grow the spirit of global-belonging.

Ponder.

Will Humanity Overcome or Be Defeated...

2010-07-30T03:39:00.000-07:00

I'd have more hope for humanity if it looked at the world and its own self more objectively. I get tired of seeing human-biased answers. If you want a true answer from a human regarding its future, don't ask the human.

            Though I'd say, we just don't know. More information means more power. More power means more ability to kill more people at one time. Also more information means a more efficient way of doing things. Humans are designed to be mental and somewhat physical workhorses. We've evolved enough intellectually to where we don't really need to evolve intellectually. We don't want to think hard so we design computers. We don't want to work hard, so we design machines. Our creation could run us into obsolescence and then we'll ask ourselves what is the purpose of all this in the first place.

            Is it to work? If so, if we keep progressing, we may eventually build something better than us. Or is it just to be naive and happy just doing the work and not being so ambitious? Well, humans are not good at that, in general. We are comparatively ambitious and sensitive in many ways compared to other animals both intellectually and I'd say physically also. So I guess I see us going and going, not being happy with good enough, and something happening. Maybe we'll die off, maybe we'll evolve into another more intelligent species if given enough time. Maybe we'll split into species and perhaps those species may go to war sometime. Maybe one will explore the vast reaches of the universe. Maybe our future selves will resemble aliens. What if we knew our future selves were comparable to lizards? We strive so much to maintain being humans, as we are. If we knew we were going to change so much in the future that we essentially weren't us or distinguishable anymore, would we want to keep progressing? Are we working to maintain ourselves or working to change ourselves? We keep tinkering away like we are unhappy so obviously humans are usually wanting change but too much change isn't good for such a sensitive organism and ecosystem. We could easily make a mistake.

            But on a personal level, I'm not sure I have much hope for humans as a species. We're way too ambitious, if you ask me. We always have to push buttons to see what they do. Curiosity in the human animal is unparalleled with others. Its our wits and curiosity which propelled us here and has paid off. But when we get more powerful and perhaps able to kill each other with the push of a button, could we refrain? Can we escape this little marble in space and spread ourselves before some catastrophic event occurred due to our own stupidity or to just an unfortunate galactic occurrence?

Ponder.

Spiritual Questions to Ponder

2010-07-30T02:48:00.000-07:00

As we think about ourselves and our purpose here on planet earth, pondering timeless spiritual questions, may lead us to a new understanding.

            What if we really are all One: one with each other, one with all life, one with the Creator of everything that is? What if, whatever you do or say to another, you are actually doing to yourself, to God? Would you still the curse the guy who cut you off in traffic? Would still hate the person next door who practices another faith or is a different color or is involved in a same sex relationship? If that person holding up the line at the grocery store with their food stamps was Jesus would you mutter under your breath, go get a job and stop having children? What if you discovered the homeless man you walked past and ignored today was God? What if, we really all, really are, Children of God?

            I can not think of too many faiths that do not, on some level, believe that we are all created by the One Supreme being of the Universe. Yet, I can not always these “brothers and sisters” acting as if we are all one.

            Stories of creation through out time have reflected on the origin of man. And even when the debate arises over Darwinism vs. The Creationist theory the question always remains, how did it all really start? Even if we think in terms of evolution, not even suggesting that there might be one source of all creation, we must admit, that we still all came from the same beginnings. Monkey or Adam, God or a fluke of changes in environment, the beginning of humanity as we know it would still all come from the source.

            Have you ever wondered why hate exists on this beautiful planet? Do you believe war helps or hurts? When you hear of a shooting a school or collage or work place, is your compassion only for the victims and their families or does your heart go out to the shooter and that persons family as well? When you pray for peace, what do you mean by peace, and do you then practice it? Do you give unconditional love, or just demand it? Have you blessed another, or just sat back waiting to be blessed?

            The President Barak Obama, has called on this country to not see “red and blue” states; rather to see United States. What if we did that? What if we looked beyond “black and white”, “rich and poor”, “male and female”, “ Jewish and Buddhist”, “Catholic and Muslim”? What if we actually recognized that no matter what, no matter who we are all only Spiritual beings having a human experience? Are we as inhabitants of these things we call bodies, prepared to see beyond the lines that define?

            If you suddenly saw every single person you meet, know, come in contact with as a son or daughter of the Universe, would you treat that person any differently? Some suggest we are all God, at the very least, if we are created by God, perhaps that “DNA” does run through every single creation, beyond even humanity. Scientists have, through modern technology, been able for the first time look beyond matter, beyond the atom it’s self, and have seen that the same energy vibrates through everything and everybody. What if that life is LIFE itself? The DNA of your body identifies you as your parent’s child. Does then the “DNA” of the Atom, identify all that exists as the child or manifestation of the creator? What if? What if we all really are ONE?

            Would your dreams change if you knew, knew at the very core of your being that all things were possible? Would your desire for more change? Would you begin to dream bigger, if you knew it could be made manifest in your life? If you understood that whatever you chose to think would show up as your reality, would you think different thoughts? If the Universe made it known to you that you are a co-creator of this world, what would create?

            If you knew that time and space was an illusion, how would spend the next moment? In the same respect, if you were to know for certain that you had 24 hours to live, what would you chose to do? Who would spend that time with and what would say to them? If you understood that life itself was eternal and at the end of the 24 hours it only meant that you would be free of your body would you do anything differently? Would you go back to the “bum” on the street and smile this time, give him something to eat? Would you help the person with the food stamps load their bags and kids into their car? Would you hold your child a little closer and let them know you love them?

            What if that Source is within every single one of us? Would it change the way you look at your neighbor? Would it shift your response to the guy who cuts you off on the highway, the person who loves you unconditionally, your “enemy.”? Would we even have an enemy?

            What if you and the person you despise the most are in fact exactly the same within, have exactly the same beginning and are going back to exactly the same existence? What if whatever you chose to do to that person, you were doing to yourself, to your mother, to your child? Is it a coincidence that if we all could turn ourselves inside out we would see no differences?

                        Many faiths call on their followers to treat others as they would like to be treated. Perhaps there is a valid reason for this mandate. If we were to actually do that, how could war, hatred, and murder exist?

            Do you believe it does not matter what religion, faith, or belief system you follow, that we are all entitled to believe what resonates with our spirit? Do you come from a place of Love for all, or a place of a love for some?

Ponder.

Submitted by: RevChristine

Racism

2010-07-28T00:32:00.000-07:00

Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Racism's effects are called "racial discrimination." In the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits, or receive preferential treatment.

Racial discrimination typically points out taxonomic differences between different groups of people, although anyone may be discriminated against on an ethnic or cultural basis, independently of their somatic differences. According to the United Nations conventions, there is no distinction between the term racial discrimination and ethnicity discrimination.

There is some evidence that the meaning of the term has changed over time, and that earlier definitions of racism involved the simple belief that human populations are divided into separate races. Many biologists, anthropologists, and sociologists reject this taxonomy in favor of more specific and/or empirically verifiable criteria, such as geography, ethnicity, or a history of endogamy.

>> Download Racism.pdf for full reading

Courtesy of: Wikipedia