Texas Faith: What is America’s common creed and how do we forge it together?

President Obama is one of the best communicators that there is. I am writing a full blown article on how I felt through the inauguration and I am sure some of you can relate with it. However, in this piece at Dallas Morning News, it is about his masterful skills in building bridges between the entrepreneurial individualism of Republicans and Communalism of Democrats. This is our moment in history, and we have to leave a legacy of peace, prosperity and harmony to the next generation.

Published at Dallas Morning News, Monday, January 21, 2013.
Continued at: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/01/texas-faith-what-is-americas-common.html

Texas Faith is a weekly column at Dallas Morning News moderated by Bill McKenzie and Wayne Slater. At least ten panelists contribute each week including Mike Ghouse.

Throughout his inaugural address today, President Barack Obama emphasized our common creed, we the people and taking action together. In short, his speech was heavy on the communal aspects of our work as Americans. His address contrasts with the individualism you often hear from Republicans. They regularly emphasize enterprenurialism, personal initiative and the power of local communities. So, here is the question I would like you to consider: What is America’s common creed and how do we forge it together?


MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

President Obama is one of the greatest communicators in our modern history. Perhaps he is the first president to have articulated America’s common creed profoundly, clearly and comprehensively as envisioned in the immortal declaration by our Founding Fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

The success of an individual hinges on the success of others around him or her. You cannot build a successful business without the support system and consumers for your goods and services. The president said, “We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.”

Indeed, the entrepreneurialism of Republicans will bear fruit and multiply when there is an environment for it. It is not a charity, welfare or a noble thing. Instead, it is a genuine investment in human capital that pulls up men and women from the ditches onto a level playing field. That effort allows more people to compete in the marketplace for resources and become “synergists” to each others’ success.

He also articulated the need to be free and to be regulated: “Together we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.”

The president turned the light on a bridge between individualism and the communal aspect of our life. The bridge was always there but had remained in the dark due to the chasm developed through arrogance of bigger majority in the house by each party in the last eight years. Instead of serving the purpose they were elected for their purpose became defeating the other for some.

The message of the president was for all Americans. I hope the elected ones will heed his wisdom and continue to be a catalyst in the pursuit of our happiness.

And here comes the ultimate wisdom from the president: We have always understood that when times change, so must we, that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges, that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”..... ..

Eleven panelists contributed to this forum, to read the contributions from all the panelists, please visit - http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/texas-faith-what-is-americas-common-creed-and-how-do-we-forge-it-together.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: Why do we say grace over a meal, including at Thanksgiving?

Expression of gratitude is the ultimate balancing act in everyone’s life. We know from whom we receive the good and to whom we offer our gratitude. The absence of a simple “thank you” creates an imbalance in the relationship and spiritual energy while a simple “thank you” will tie the loose ends and restore the balance - Mike Ghouse

 
Texas Faith: Why do we say grace over a meal, including at Thanksgiving?

The Texas Faith blog is a discussion among formal and informal religious leaders whose faith traditions express a belief in a transcendent power – or the possibility of one. While all readers are invited to participate in this blog, by responding in the comments section, discussion leaders are those whose religion involves belief in a divine higher power or those who may not believe in a transcendent power but leave room for the possibility of one. Within this framework, moderators William McKenzie and Wayne Slater seek to bring a diversity of thinkers onto the Texas Faith panels.

But why do we say grace over a meal, including a traditional one like the Thanksgiving dinner?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

Life is a self-balancing act. Everything we do and say is spiritual as well as a real-life transaction that moves the needle from balance to imbalance, and back to balance.

The mechanism is built around forgiveness, repentance, service and gratitude. These values are a product of co-existence and inculcated through religious teachings. However, atheists would also achieve the same without invoking God.

The accountant chants that for every debit there is a credit. The physicist has proved that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And the doctor declares that blood lost from the body of an individual must be replenished with an equal amount of blood to sustain life.

As a spiritualist I say, for every wrong we do, an equal amount of energy is drained from us. And for every good we do, energy is recouped. We are constantly receiving and giving energy. Intake and output must be equal to have a healthy living, or else we are thrown off balance.

For every hurt we hurl on others, an equal amount of burden gets dumped on us. Until we say “sorry” and repent genuinely, the energy balance within us deteriorates. The transaction remains incomplete.

Why do we say grace over a meal?

Expression of gratitude is the ultimate balancing act in everyone’s life. We know from whom we receive the good and to whom we offer our gratitude. The absence of a simple “thank you” creates an imbalance in the relationship and spiritual energy while a simple “thank you” will tie the loose ends and restore the balance.

When the giver is not identified, to whom do we give thanks? The accident we got out of safely, the job we did not lose or the meal we are able to have must be accounted for. 

For believers, that source is identified as God, and it behooves them to say grace over the meal. The transaction will be fully complete when we become considerate to those who do not have the same basic things in life as we do. Prophet Muhammad had said when you have nothing to give to others; the least you can give is hope, and a smile to let them know that we care.

Published in Dallas Morning News. Message from all contributors at:
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2012/11/texas-faith-why-do-we-say-grace-over-a-meal-including-at-thanksgiving.html/

# # #

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace making, foreign policy, Islam, Israel, India, Pakistan, interfaith, and cohesion at work place or social settings. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. Mike has a strong presence on national local TV, Radio and Print Media, and 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: Should the ban on political activity by churches be repealed?

Should the federal ban on political activity by churches and religious institutions be repealed – or remain in place? Our Texas Faith panel weighs in – and they don’t agree on the answer. This is a weekly column at Dallas Morning News, addressing the issues facing the nation. http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2012/03/texas-faith-should-ban-on-political_20.html

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas, Texas

As Americans of Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, independent and other persuasions, we are collectively and partially funding religious institutions through tax subsidy, and the least we can expect from them is to remain neutral to each one of us on political matters.

Every American has 1/312 Millionth of a share in such subsidy, why would I, a Republican want my money to go to a church that supports democrats or vice-versa?

As a nation we have to debate the need for giving tax breaks to religious organizations, and why do they need the tax break? We may disagree with Governor Perry on a lot of issues, except the idea that every foreign nation must justify their need for even a dollar to go to them. How does giving a tax break for religious organizations benefit every American indiscriminately?

Dallas Morning News had a similar question a few months ago. Can the Pastor of a Church publicly endorse a candidate without influencing or dividing his or her congregation? That is the fine line that blurs the separation of Church and state.

The fact of the matter is, every one of us is politically inclined towards one candidate or the other; for a majority of us it is an emotional decision. Nearly 2/3rds of Americans have decided through party affiliation who they will vote for – it is a clear choice to them; Democrats or Republicans. It is really the 1/3^rd of undecided voters that the parties are vying for.

So the top ten evangelicals ganged up on Romney, simply because of his faith - cloaked in the disguise of not conservative enough. Wouldn’t their congregations follow their lead? The most conservative states are following that lead and giving boost to Santorum. He in turn has followed the bait by going to the extreme and becoming Mullah Santorum.

If we allow any majority to dictate the nation, we will lose the very essence of America; a God’s country where everyone of His creation lives in harmony.

We are not a mobcracy-democracy, where the majority bullies the minorities, like the Republican house bullied the Democratic minority in holding out the payroll tax break for majority of Americans. We need to follow the rule of law and temper the majority with righteousness and honor everyone’s space and right to the pursuit of their happiness.

Greatness of our nations lies in our system, the checks and balances. The representative form of governance has not let us fall into a pit like most other nations. We must keep the separation of church and state and strip the tax breaks from those institutions that break the rules.

Had it not been for bad politics, there would have been one Christianity; one Islam, one Judaism, one Hinduism and one Native Tradition. Now let’s not allow the same bad politics to divide our nation based on religion.

For all the responses from the panelists, please visit Dallas Morning News at http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/03/texas-faith-should-the-ban-on.html
- - - - -
MikeGhouse 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 writes weekly at Dallas Morning News and regularly at Huffington post, The Smirking Chimp and several other periodicals. His daily blog is www.TheGhousediary.com

Texas Faith: What do you think about Tebowing?

Tebow told Fox Sports last fall that he knows about the criticism, but he's more focused on those who draw inspiration from his public prayers. Said Tebow: "It's not my job to see people's reasons behind it, but I know [of a kid] with cancer that tweeted me, 'Tebowing while I'm chemoing' -- how cool is that?" Tebow said. "That's worth it right now. If that gives him any encouragement or puts a smile on his face, or gives him encouragement to pray, that's completely awesome."

With this phenomenon swirling around us, and the Super Bowl approaching, here is this week's question: What is your view about his public praying and the Tebowing phenomenon that has built up around it?

Eleven Texas Faith panelists respond, please visit Dallas Morning News at http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2012/01/texas-faith-what-do-you-think.html

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

Tebowing phenomenon has several parallels in our society.

When things are not going well, hope is the only thing that drives the average person to live-on, and look forward to the light at the end of a tunnel. We are in a tunnel now with the highest unemployment a generation has witnessed in a long time; someone we know closely does not have a job, lost his or her house, and is struggling to take care of the family to keep a roof above the head.

God is the last resort for those who believe in divine intervention, we expect miracles, and we day-dream about a positive change in our lives. When someone like Tim Tebow expresses that call to God in public, we feel it in our guts and we relate with it.

We are an untapped reservoir of kindness, and were looking to release that energy. When Tebow rested his knee on the ground with millions of us watching, he instantly became a catalyst and has released that energy in us, and emotionally, we connected with him. This is something we wanted to do, but did not know how.

The last such phenomenon was witnessed on the evening of Tuesday November 4, 2008 by most Americans regardless of their political, ethnic or religious affiliation. I choked and felt the tears in my eyes, the tears of Joy. I was happy to think of the prospect of America becoming a great nation once again, in those few bare seconds I was imagining prosperity knocking on every American door fulfilling the dream of millions of Americans with a Job, health and education for their children. A sense of safety permeated through my body, getting the chills to know that in a few hours the Obama presidency would be a reality. America once again will be a strong, healthy and a prosperous nation. I was still trying to understand my feelings of joy when someone on NPR said it was like "birthing", birthing it was.

Birthing it is. Tebowing has unleashed hope in us, and I hope and pray that our economy recovers and absorbs the unemployed among us to take care of our families. I have interacted with several of my friends from Atheists to Zoroastrians and every one in between; most of them see it as a positive change. Tebow has made us conscious of the need for humility and need for prayers.

Let's pray that all our presidential candidates including the incumbent, to make an effort to visit every place of worship across the width and breadth of our land and kneel in humility towards the creator and sincerely beg to remove the ill-will towards each other. Can we do that? Yes we can, we are in this together and no American should feel apprehensive, discomfort or fear of the other. May God open our hearts and minds towards each other to look with kindness and goodwill, and give hope to each other, Amen!

. . . . . .

Mike Ghouse is committed to building a cohesive America, where no Americans has to live in apprehension or fear of the other. He is a speaker, thinker and a writer and offers pluralistic solutions on current issues. His work is listed at www.MikeGhouse.net

TEXAS FAITH: Is America a "Christian Nation" and what does that mean?

Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a "Christian nation" or a "Judeo-Christian nation?" and what does that mean in practice? Our Texas Faith panel weighs in at Dallas Morning News. http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/texas-faith-is-america-a-chris.html

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

I welcome the Judeo-Christian label for America as a first step in inclusiveness of our religious and non-religious traditions. The phrase Judeo-Christian was meant to reflect the commonality between the two public religions of the time.

Here's the Oxford English Dictionary on the term: The earliest use of the phrase "Judeo-Christian" came in 1899, and then comes WWII, with a 1939 reference in New English Weekly 27 July 237/2 to "The Judaeo-Christian scheme of morals" which fits in with Novick and Silk's comments that this was an attempt at universalizing Christian terms and shoehorning Jews in as a matter of inclusiveness. It wasn't until 1960 that "Judeo-Christianity" appeared. Today, the phrase is over emphasized by the religious right not to reflect inclusion, but to highlight exclusion of Islam, Hinduism, Atheism and the rights of GLBT community. The term is divisive and does not represent the values of America today; it is political and insincere at the outset.

"Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity; and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism." Rabbi Eliezar Berkowitz, Chairman Jewish philosophy department at Hebrew Theological College, 1966.

"Judaism and Christianity are not parent and child; they are brothers, as were Cain and Abel." John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1999.

"The term Judeo-Christian does not have a lengthy history." Peter Novick, Holocaust in American Life.

It is embarrassing to quote the founding fathers on Jews; here is Ben Franklin, "I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. That menace, gentlemen, is the Jews." We don't need to go that far, I am sure you heard the Nixon tapes with Rev. Billy Graham on the topic.

Glen Beck, John Hagee and other chest thumpers have ulterior motives to cash in on the name of Israel and perhaps converting the Jews. The Israelis, Palestinians and others need sincerity and not duplicity in finding security and hope for them respectively.
On the surface we get along, but under the radar there is deep distrust that we need to overcome to build a cohesive America, where no American has to live in apprehension of the other.

Time has come to be sincere and learn to accept and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of us. When we opt for just societies, all the pandering, sycophanting and war mongering will fade and solutions will emerge. Indeed, it will free us from shameless two-facedness. It will put us all on a level playing field and we will start trusting each other from the core of our hearts yielding true freedom.

We have come a long way on the civil plains and a lot more to go. The most appropriate and applicable term for America is "Pluralistic nation" which will convey the full essence of God's own country; America. America is perhaps the only nation on earth that inhabits all of God's creation; represented by every race, nationality, ethnicity, language, culture and religion. As Americans we see God as one, none and many and in every form; male, female, genderless, non-entity, being and a non-being, nameless and with innumerable names and I am proud to be an American.

Mike Ghouse is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day to the media and the public. He is a speaker thinker and a writer on the topics of pluralism, cohesive societies, Islam, interfaith, India and Peace. He is available to speak at your place of worship, work, school, college, seminars and conferences. . Mike's work is reflected in 4 website's and 27 Blogs indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and you can find this article at www.TheGhousediary.com

Texas Faith: How do you interpret the Genesis Creation Story?

TEXAS FAITH: How do you interpret the Genesis creation story?

An old Jewish folk tale makes the point. One day God said to Abraham, "If it weren't for me, you wouldn't be here," to which Abraham replied, "True, but if I weren't here there wouldn't be anyone to think about you." To conclude, we created God in our own image and let's give him wisdom as well.

Dallas Morning News shares 15 opinions on the topic including mine at http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/texas-faith-how-do-you-interpr.html

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

The simplistic understanding of the Genesis is that God produced the world in six days in a process that created the universe -- planets, water, earth, plants and life -- and wrapped it up with a final product: man in his own image so he can commune with them. Adam and Eve were set on autopilot to keep procreating themselves and we are here today, seven billion of us from that one single couple.

The conservatives among Abrahamic faiths believe that Adam was the outcome of an intelligent design, and was created in the same format as we are today. They believe that the idea of evolution is in conflict with creationism and goes against the very word of God.

Indeed, they have an unquestionable need to believe that what "they know" is precisely what God means; any other point of view is anathema and confusing to them.  The non-Abrahamic faith followers need not gloat; a new idea is usually an abomination to someone or the other including them.

The liberals on the other hand feel secure to explore unfamiliar territories and find new meaning in the theory of evolution. Both attitudes serve the basic motivations of the individuals: security in the cocoon and need to quench the thirst for knowledge. Together we grow into newer areas of knowledge and enrich life.

Our leaders have a personal right to believe in creation or evolution, or both. They are not mutually exclusive. However, they do not have the right to deprive the rights of citizens to their beliefs and shut one or the other. Most see creation as an understandable transition from evolution.

Is it possible that Adam was the first species in the process of evolution that was able to communicate coherently, take care of him and survive against the nature's oddities?

He was able to survive the fires, storms, blizzards, floods and furies of nature. Did God feel pleased with this new species that was fit enough to survive and become a permanent fixture of the universe unlike the others that faded into oblivion?

Did God call him "Adam" because he was the first one to stand out on his own?

God's word is all embracing and that is what he may have meant in the Bible, Torah and Qur'aan. I am sure the other scriptures carry similar wisdom. It is rather our shortcoming in understanding the spectrum of God's word by limiting the meanings to suit our security needs. Let's give some leeway to God's word, religion is about what we are conditioned to believe.

An old Jewish folk tale makes the point. One day God said to Abraham, "If it weren't for me, you wouldn't be here," to which Abraham replied, "True, but if I weren't here there wouldn't be anyone to think about you." To conclude, we created God in our own image and let's give him wisdom as well.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker, writer and a frequent guest on Hannity show and nationally syndicated Radio shows including local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Over 1000 articles have been published on Pluralism, politics, Islam, India, Israel, Palestine, justice and civil societies.  Two of his books are poised to be released this fall on Pluralism and Islam. He is available to speak at your place of worship, work, school, college, seminars or conferences. His work is encapsulated in 27 blogs, four websites and several forums indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/ and www.TheGhousediary.com

TEXAS FAITH: When is it okay to apply moral absolutes to public policy?

Dallas Morning news weekly question: When is it okay to bring a faith-based belief grounded in moral absolutes to public policy debate?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

The faith-based belief grounded in moral absolutes has always been a part of the public policy debate though not postured as such. After all we are conditioned with certain beliefs and are driven by it. Most of the issues that were debated have had strong religious grounding and opposed or supported the Women's rights, Roe v Wade, the civil rights, the Catholic president, Civil Unions, GLBT marriages, immigration and other.

Despite the emerging moral absolutes, I am confident that the moderation (in terms of giving space to the other) will prevail in the long haul.
The ones who speak up in general and Teavangelicals in particular are driven by strong absolutes, while the majority of any group of people tends to be moderate and gives space to another point of view.
However, the nations, religions, politics and the communities are not driven by the majorities; the initiatives are taken by the extreme right and the left and the outcome is determined by their wrangling and is supported or rejected by the majority at the polls when things get out of handle.

Even the budget that just passed did not have the full support of all the Tea party candidates, the votes were divided and that is how things should work, we cannot stereotype the Tea Party, liberals or the conservatives, each one of us is a composition of different values. Indeed, we have come a long way to accept and respect the otherness of other without resorting to extreme solutions. That is the benchmark of civil societies.

Thanks to the wisdom of the founding fathers and the strength of our constitution for giving durable governance in the history of mankind. The extremes will fizzle out in the long haul, and moderation will prevail. I salute the checks and balances built into our system and as long as the Americans give the house and senate to different parties, America will be safe and the governance of the people will endure and the idea of live and let live remains intact.

Dallas Morning news - 8 panelists respond: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/texas-faith-when-is-it-okay-to-1.html

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker, writer and a frequent guest on Hannity show and nationally syndicated Radio shows and Dallas TV, Radio and Print Media. He presides America Together Foundation and is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Over 1000 articles have been published on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, India and cohesive societies. Two of his books are poised to be released this fall on Pluralism and Islam. He is available to speak at your place of worship, work, school, college, seminars or conferences. His work is encapsulated in 27 blogs, four websites and several forums indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/

Mitt Romney, Huntsman, Mormonism and Elections 2012

All that Romney and Huntsman have to do is to understand the depth and meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance and show this understanding to Americans in their words and actions to earn their vote. Americans are willing to reward those who are inclusive and dump those who pit one American against the other for political gains.

Continued at: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-faith-how-should-huntsman-and.html

12 Opinions published at Dallas Morning News
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/06/texas-faith-how-should-huntsma.html

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker, writer and a frequent guest on Hannity show and nationally syndicated Radio shows and Dallas TV, Radio and Print Media. He presides America Together Foundation and is committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day. Over 1000 articles have been published on Pluralism, Interfaith, Islam, India and cohesive societies. Two of his books are poised to be released this fall on Pluralism and Islam. He is available to speak at your place of worship, work, school, college, seminars or conferences. His work is encapsulated in 27 blogs, four websites and several forums indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/

TEXAS FAITH: Anthony Weiner and Internet ethics

TEXAS FAITH: Anthony Weiner and Internet ethics

By now, we all know more about Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner’s online habits than we probably care to know. But his distribution of a lewd photo and online sex-talk with women other than his wife does raise ethical issues that the Internet if fast forcing upon us. And that is, to what degree is a sin a sin?

Jesus certainly said that to look at a woman with lust was like committing adultery. So, to some extent, that ethic applies to today’s wired world. Applying that standard, what happens online “counts” as much as what happens physically between two people.

But here’s the question for this week from William McKenzie/ Editorial Columnist, Dallas Morning News; "In what ways does the Internet force us to rethink ethical standards?"

Here is the take from Mike Ghouse, one of the 7 seven panelists for all the response go to: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/06/texas-faith-anthony-weiner-and.html

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

We keep going back to the basics whenever there is a flaunting violation of ethics in the public square. This is like going home where it is safe and comfortable. Ethical standards are indeed dynamic and are moving away from public domain to individual concerns in linear progression. However, they remain the anchor of a culturally stable society.

Before the emergence of earliest formal religions like Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Hinduism and the native traditions, adultery was handled like the bulls or the rams, it was not even considered an ethical issue. Whoever was mightier took the girl as though she was a prized chattel.

We have come a long way in moving the civilization to maturation. The statement, "to look at a woman with lust is like committing adultery" is not as comfortable as it was a hundred years ago. Today we are consciously accommodating, "to look at the other person with lust is like betraying the trust of the spouse or a partner."

Oddly the word "sin" is alarmingly absent in the public discourse on Weiner's issue. Indeed, the word is reduced to a personal betrayal rather than a public violation that demanded flogging once. Even the evangelicals were looking at Gingrich, Spitzer, Hart, Craig, Edwards and Clinton as violators rather than sinners, all the while Clinton made attempts to redefine sin in the Lewinsky hearings. According to a new CNN poll, "56 percent of voters in Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner's district do not think the scandal-plagued congressman should resign."

Welcome to the world of new emerging ethics. Thanks to the Internet for forcing us to factor in a variety of individual opinions to change the public discourse on sin, ethics and morality. Without the Internet, the only opinions that mattered were that of the clergy and the polls reaching out to a few.

But today, citizen journalism, blogging and social networks are dramatically altering the black and white issues into colorful ones that give an ever-widening range. The opinions are not the domain of a few any more, but of everyone who freely expresses his or her opinion on a given topic. On my facebook, I have received over 70 comments on the issue and the conversation about open marriages and accommodating the whims in a relationship has earned a space.

As a futurist, I see the word "sin" to remain on books but gradually lose its old meaning and acquire a new value in the public square. The violations would be individual in nature resulting in betrayal and cheating, rather than sinful activities. A new ethics is in the making.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker, writer, thinker and an activist committed to building a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day – all of his work is indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/ 

TEXAS FAITH: Would you have sanctioned the death of Osama bin Laden?

Bill McKenzie of Dallas Morning News asks and twelve Panelists respond, you can see the struggle in the responses, and many have take an approach similar to mine.  You are welcome to share your point of view at http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/05/texas-faith-would-you-have-san.html

Here is my take:

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

No, I would not have sanctioned the death of Osama Bin Laden.

First of all, there was no need to have killed the man, when the Seals encountered Bin Laden they could have released gases or other elements to knock out and capture him alive. We need to hear more about it from the Navy Seals, if in fact they were in danger to have shot him twice in his head?

The right thing would have been to put him on the trial, just as we did with the Nuremberg, Saddam Hussein and other trials. We could have learned a lot more about his other secret plans that may still be attempted by his loyalists. The world would have witnessed that we care about the rule of law and reinforced it through a time honored process.

Secondly, it has set a bad precedent. Even though the end result benefits humanity, the means were not kosher. It has opened up the doors for others to replicate, thus we 'may' have lost the moral upper hand to stop others from extra judicial killings.
Thirdly, no religion permits one to kill the other. Torah and Quran and other holy books do not see any wisdom in killing the other without an imminent threat to one's own life. Both the books say, to save a life is like saving the whole humanity and the corollary to that is to kill a human is like killing the whole humanity. What is the difference between somewhat pregnant and pregnant? Jesus condemned the sin and not the sinner.

I am glad his body was respectfully dropped in the sea instead of a ground burial. If the choice was given to Bin Laden, he would have preferred this over a ground burial which could have become a shrine to his followers, and that is not acceptable to a Wahhabi Muslim. The last rites were indeed handled appropriately and the Muslims appreciate that. God loves the one who forgives and lives in peace with himself.
Finally for the record, I stand opposed to assassinations, killings and death penalty. Unless it was in self defense, we are morally wrong in killing Bin Laden.

However, it feels good that he is not alive anymore. Mind you, that is different than cheering for his death which we should not do.

His end brings a sense of relief and closure to families who have lost nearly 3000 of their loved ones. Muslims have more to rejoice than others; they were not only victims of his terrorism like all of us, but were also subjects of harassment by several governments around the world, in the airports as well as employment and ordinary acts of life. The Sikh community also endured the grief out of mistaken identity. We pray that the Taliban mind set and the oppression of women in Afghanistan also comes to an end.

It is one of the best news items Muslims have had in a decade; it brings a sense of relief and hopefully restores the relationship between Muslim and Non-Muslims in building a cohesive America. Thank God, an evil era has come to an end with the death of this man.

#

Mike Ghouse is an interfaith Speaker, thinker, futurist, writer, organizer and an activist committed to building cohesive societies with a firm belief that the purpose of religion is to bring harmony to an individual within and create a balance with what surrounds; life and matter. If we can learn to respect and accept every which way people have come to worship the creator, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge. He offers pluralistic solutions to media and to the public on complex issues of the day and is available to speak in a variety of settings such as schools, seminars, conferences, and places of worship, or the work place. His work is indexed at http://www.mikeghouse.net/