[Oe List ...] Salmon: An ethical response to Susay Fertig-Dykes

Sat Aug 29 21:44:33 CDT 2009

Susan --
    You've stimulated a lot of conversation haven't you? Fantastic. Many in the old Order are die-hard liberals; I know that I am. My values are based on the ethic of At-One-Ment, or the Doctrine of the Atonement. 
    Without the liberal part of government minorities and women would have a far different life, to say nothing about school integration, and women's sports. Much of the legislation of Sen. Edward Kennedy is our example. May he RIP. 
    To address your concern about "socialism," actually the basic concern here is "communitism;" i.e., the building of a social order that serves the needs of all the people all of the time. Socialism is an economic plan while communitism is a social-integration plan.  
    Those at the top of the economic order need to be served as well as those at the bottom of the social order. When we live so that all are served we are living in community. 
    Why do we do this? Obama says, "It is the RIGHT thing to do." Many times he's stated how the black children in the ghettos and the white children in the neighborhood are all OUR CHILDREN! Hilary Clinton's book is right, "It takes a village to raise a child." 
     All of us live in a human community. The basic difficulty we have is how to self-discipline our human/natural instincts so that the result is living the humane and gracious life while working for justice and mercy. 
    Thanks for allowing us all to vent. 
    Inner Peace,
    Bill Salmon
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Susan Fertig 
  To: 'Order Ecumenical Community' 
  Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:49 PM
  Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] all the earth belongs to all the people

  Jack and Paul, First of all, I appreciate your taking my question seriously and not just dismissing it as uncaring or unthinking.

  Next, I think what has always distinguished people of successful community is that they CHOOSE to care for each other.  Not that there is a governing body (the Soviet?) requiring it and thereby diminishing to nothing the human spirit.

  Finally, I do not believe that anyone or any government "owes" me medical care, or food, or a home, or a car, or any of the things that everyone seems to take for granted. If I am unable to provide those things for myself, then I truly do hope there will be kind and generous people who will help me.  But not, please God, my government.

  I have been so dismayed by our pell mell helter skelter descent into socialism within an oh-so-short handful of months that I am no longer a conservative.  I have lost all balance I ever had and have fallen right over into libertarianism (not, of course, the LaRouche style version).  

  Susan

  Susan Fertig-Dykes
  tel: (703) 751-5956

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Jack Gilles
  Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2009 12:09 PM
  To: Order Ecumenical Community
  Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] all the earth belongs to all the people

  Dear Susan, 

  I too think this is a question that needs a thoughtful answer.  I am grateful for Paul's response as it is, as it should be, from the heart which is the means by which this community dialogues.

  I remember JWM reminding us that first and foremost we were born into humanity, not family, community or nation.  Therefore, it is the humanity of us all that we stand before as equals, and with a mutual responsibility.  That said, each of us has a responsibility for how that life is lived and cared for.  We bare the responsibility for our actions, including those that lead to consequences of illness and poor well-being.  But there are issues of wellness that are beyond our individual control, be those of birth, accident or social circumstances.  For these we need to ask, whom will be responsible for the healing and care?  In that question it is clear that our (USA) social structures and consciousness is in need of strengthening, including our understanding of death.

  We all know of the issues of families not willing to care for, nor honor the dignity and role of elders in their lives.  We have developed vast industries to hide this responsibility, to render the elders subservient to youth and deny a legitimate profound role in our collective community.  We also know that we have lost community in and through which care needs to be acted out.  We have seen so many fine examples of community care including many that have financial structural designs that seem to work well.  In a "perfect world" perhaps this model of caring community with equitable structures would be what we need to build.  I would share with what I imagine is your concern that once a "right" is designated at such a large level as the US economy and society things not only get complicated and often too expensive, but it keeps us from facing the more ontological needs of building our local communities and our individual responsibilities for ourselves and our neighbors.   It hinders the necessary dialogue on what care should we collectively render (i.e. unlimited end of life treatments at all costs, who gets transplants etc.).   We have a very profound dialogue that needs to occur around these issues that isn't taking place, at least at a national level.  In other words, the issue of "the right of care for all" when implied at the national level, is not dealing with the contradictions and therefore, I believe, will not lead to the solutions we need to develop.  Without elaboration, we who live in the Litibu community of Mexico are presently facing such community care issues.

  That said, it remains to say which present options being discussed will take us towards our goal of all of us caring for all in a way that brings us into full mutual love and responsibility.  I am not totally clear as to which model does that and what model keeps us further away from the real contradictions of our common good.

  Grace & Peace,

  Jack

  On Aug 29, 2009, at 2:46 AM, PSchrijnen at aol.com wrote:

    Why? What a great question, Susan.

    I was on top of Table Mountain yesterday. The cable car and facilities on top of the mountain were refurbished about 10 years ago, and Mandela opened it: declaring it SA's gift to the earth. He declared it so. An act of generosity.  Of hope. And most people on top of the mountain were South Africans, most of them black, but there were accents and shades of all colours of the rainbow. 

    So, thanks Susan, for letting me ponder that question.

    By the way, the top of Table Mountain is sacred space. There is an awe in the air. People whisper thoughtfully, aware of the presence of the mystery. I wept at times in the presence of this perspective on the beautiful earth on which I live. 

    Paul
    <table%20mountain.JPG>

    _______________________________________________
    OE mailing list
    OE at wedgeblade.net
    http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net

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

  _______________________________________________
  OE mailing list
  OE at wedgeblade.net
  http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net

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

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
  Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.71/2333 - Release Date: 08/29/09 06:39:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20090829/4742e5bc/attachment.html>