Columns by Dan O'Rourke

Labeling Can be Dangerous

Labeling is describing a group or entity using a general word or phrase.  It can be helpful and we need labels to think efficiently, but labeling is also dangerous and hurtful – especially when we label people. But even when we label things or conditions, it can be puzzling.

Labeling is related to stereotyping which is also a categorization of individuals or groups with an oversimplified standardized image.   Labeling can certainly be helpful and positive, but stereotyping is always negative.

The word “cancer” is a label and a good example.  Medical professionals tell us it is hundreds of different diseases – and not only breast, prostate, brain or liver cancers.  Cancer is much more diversely complicated even than that, but the word “cancer” is a convenient shorthand – and potentially a misleading one.

“Salt” can be kosher, iodized, rock or table.  In ordinary speech we don’t always make those distinctions, but when we are buying, selling or using it we better keep those distinctions in mind. You wouldn’t want rock salt on your popcorn!

Labeling, however, is most treacherous and painful when applied to people. Chuck Gallozzi, the Canadian founder of the Positive Thinkers Group in Toronto tells us “people are complex, multifaceted, and multidimensional.”  On the other hand, labeling is a simplistic shorthand that diminishes complicated human beings and turns them into one-dimensional stereotypes.

Labeling can be positive or negative, but both are misleading and dangerous. Here are some negative stereotypes. All women are bad drivers, gossips or catty.  Some are, but so are many men. Here are some positive ones: women are sensitive, compassionate and caring.  Many are, but men can be sensitive too. If we don’t wish to disparage whole classes of people, we should watch our tongues.  More basically, we should discipline the way we think.

All Democrats are not tax-and-spend liberals — and all Republicans aren’t pawns of corporate lobbyists.  Some Democrats and Republicans are, of course, but the over-generalization is misleading and inaccurate.

All those in the armed forces are not heroes.  The soldier who threw himself on a hand-grenade to save his buddies certainly was, but were those Marines who urinated on the corpses of the enemy dead?  Labeling is an over simplification and it is tempting, but an inaccurate and lazy way of speaking — and thinking.

Here’s some more pernicious labelings. All believers in God are compassionate and spiritual — and all agnostics/atheists are uncaring and materialistic. Neither is true.  All Catholic priests are holy. Not so.  All priests are immature and psychosexually undeveloped.  Of course, this is not true. All Muslims are not terrorists; similarly all Israelis are not hateful and prejudiced towards their Palestinian neighbors.

If we can overcome the habit of labeling people, we ourselves will be better human beings.  We’ll be more accepting, compassionate and understanding. We will come to see people as the complex, multifaceted individuals they are.

There is also a danger in labeling ourselves.  Some examples: I am old, shy, or uneducated.  Such labels are deceptive and self-limiting.  I may be old in years (this writer certainly is!) but young (I hope) with fresh ideas. You may be uneducated if you only count academic credits, but experience may have taught you many more important and valuable lessons. Don’t label yourself.  It will diminish you.

In conlusion, Chuck Gallozzi tells us, “The problem with labels is they are merely shells that contain certain assumptions.” We should be wise enough, towards others and with ourselves, to avoid them — and the pain and hurt they carry with them.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of previous columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

The Big Eight O

On December 31^st last year, I turned eighty-years-old.  Back in 1931 when taxes were lower and not a raging national issue; I was a tax exemption for my parents.

I was born with the blue baby syndrome and they feared I was going to die.  The birth was in a Catholic hospital, but the attending doctor Vivian Edwards was a third degree Mason and a Presbyterian elder.  He baptized me then and there. Marge Kelly the obstetrics nurse told him, “Doctor, Bishop O’Reilly (the local bishop) could not have done it any better!”

Eighteen years later, when I went to Doctor Edwards, still the family physician, for a physical to enter the seminary, he told me that story. Some old fashioned Catholics thought that being baptized by a “heretic” explains my frequent rebellion against the Roman Church.  Perhaps they were right.

Anyway eighty years later, with the help of by-pass surgery, a top-rate cardiologist, and modern meds my heart is still beating.  And I’m very grateful to God for my long, rich and varied life.  The old Irish wedding blessing has been true for my wife and me  “May your children’s children laugh up in your faces.”   They have and they have been a joy.

There is little that compares to the joys of family and together with my work and ministry I have enjoyed them all. There have been weddings, baptisms, birthdays, musicals and first communions — celebrations and merriment.  But there have also been funerals.  My life, as every life, has had its losses and sorrows.

I’m resolving, however, for whatever time is left not to condemn myself to a life of continuous yesterdays.  Life moves on; it changes. My New Year’s resolution is to change with it — and to continue to grow. Life is short.  Even a long life goes by quickly. The young don’t grasp that, but it will be over before they realize.

At eighty I hope I am wiser.  I’ve resolved not to trouble myself about the Dow Jones average, the state of the market, and my investments.  “Que sara, sara.”  Whatever will be, will be.

And no foolish attempts to look younger with face lifts and toupees.  Even in middle age, I’ve never considered those, but now balder and “jowlier” in some perverse way they would make more sense, but I find it nonsense.

The ancient words of the Catholic Ash Wednesday ritual rush back to me.  “Remember, man, that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return.” The things that really matter are not those of the flesh; they are of the spirit.  I resolve to use the time left for them.

John O’Donohue, the late Irish priest, poet and philosopher, spoke of the last years of life as “the autumn years.” Autumn is a time of harvesting and gathering, but also a time of sharing and giving.

I hope my long and varied life has taught me something worth sharing.  I think it has. So long as I am able I will share what I can through these columns. As long I can see — with an excellent and compassionate eye doctor, a computer screen that magnifies the text — and so long as my mind can compose, I will continue writing.

One final reflection on the big Eight O. Eighty some have alleged is the new sixty-five.  It is not. Eighty is eighty with all its aches and pains, but despite them, I’m thankful for every day. Each morning is a new beginning.  I’m grateful for life and the opportunity to continue to make a contribution.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of previous columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

What If The Wise Men Were Women?

Shortly after Thanksgiving, when Christmas decorations were already in the stores and Christmas merchandise crowding the shelves, my twelve-year-old granddaughter with a twinkle in her eye asked me, “Grandpa, what if the Christmas wise men were women?”

I pleaded ignorance and she was quick to tell me, “They would have asked directions.  They would have arrived on time, helped with the birth  — and would have brought practical gifts.”

I chuckled and suggested that the practical gifts might be a carton of pampers, a baby rattle and a casserole.  Much better, I thought, than frankincense and myrrh  (Matthew 2:11 — whatever they are), but gold – also Mt. 2:11 — or a check for that poor couple would be practical.

Let me say up front that this marvelous Christmas story is mythos.  It’s not an historical account, but has deeply rich meanings. It contains a profound theological message. It is this. Jesus was fully human. Some Christians blanch at the thought of Jesus in diapers, or Mary nursing her baby at her breast, or giving birth through her vagina.  They would like to think that Jesus just popped out of the womb miraculously and never pooped in his swaddling clothes.  That’s heresy, of course, Jesus was completely human — and so was his mother,

Some Catholic Christians have made too much of Mary, and their maudlin, sentimental devotions to her are theological nonsense. But Mary’s story has much to teach us. After all she was an unmarried pregnant teenager. There are many families who could relate to that. Then thirty-three years later the state executed her son as a criminal.  Too many poor and minority women have experienced that inconsolable pain.  Finally, tradition tells us she was a widow — another model for many.

My granddaughter’s question about the wise women also points to something extremely significant: more than two thousand years after Jesus’ birth many Christian churches still have not allowed women their rightful place at the altar. Just think of the tumult today in many churches about ordaining women or allowing them in pulpits. Church sexism is alive and thriving.  It’s a shame because women could help pastor a more efficient, compassionate and realistic church.

It’s not only women, however, who can learn from Mary.  We all can.  She said,  “yes” to uncertainty, to the unknown, knowing full well what her family and neighbors would think of a young girl pregnant and unmarried. And what would Joseph’s reaction be? The Jewish law at the time could have had her stoned to death.

At times we all wonder what others think of us and how they judge us.  Most of us waste too much time and energy on that.  What others think of us is none of our business. Too often it keeps us from saying, “yes” to what life and God is calling us to do – and nothing is impossible with God.

Mary did not hesitate. The churches, institutions and society need more wise women like the mother of Jesus.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of previous columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

You Are Not UP There, God

Non-believing readers won’t like this column.  It will be far too spiritual for them.  There is no political red meat, but some of them would like the Darrell Hammond book that prompted the column. His book is a ribald, smutty, foul mouthed and often-hilarious look inside the troubled life and mind of this Saturday Night Live star.

The title of Hammond’s book is scandalously irreverent, “God If You’re Not Up There, I’m F*cked.” Hammond wants to shock and he does. Hammond readily admits that he was deeply troubled. His childhood was filled with his mother’s physical and emotional abuse, his subsequent life filled with alcoholism, self-mutilation, psychiatric hospitals and misdiagnoses, but he rose to fame as the longest tenured cast member of Saturday Night Live.  His hilarious impressions of Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney, Donald Trump and other celebrities brought him stardom. In his book Hammond examines the darkest corners of his life with brutal honesty and salacious comic wit – both behind and facing the TV cameras.

One celebrity, however, that Hammond was uncomfortable impersonating was Senator John McCain.  He admired McCain’s suffering under torture and did not want in any way to make light of it. Although he did McCain a few times, he was always uncomfortable in the role. For McCain also reminded him of his Vietnam veteran father whom he deeply respected.

On the back jacket of his book, Darrel Hammond thanks the Saturday Night Live crew, which he admits had great difficulty working with him. He mentions his copious medications, his alcoholism, his cutting himself before going on camera. Repeatedly, he was carted off to rehab or a psychiatric unit and once taken out of his office in a straitjacket,  “But somehow,” he says, “I was able to soldier on and perform.  That is, until I wasn’t.”

Part of Hammond’s rehabilitation was Alcoholics Anonymous and finding God.  But I have news for Darrell Hammond.  He really is screwed.  Why? Because God is not “up there.” Theologians would make two important observations about God being “up there.”  First, there is no there there.  The Divine, the Numinous, the Holy is spiritual not spatial.  The Ultimate Mystery is everywhere and nowhere.  The Mystery is not up or down; It just is.

The second thing theologians tell us is that the Divine is both immanent and transcendent.  The Mystery is above and beyond the material, but deeply rooted in our life and world. The Mystery is in Hammond’s friends, lovers and family.  He/She is in his fellow AA members and the therapists who helped him — belatedly.  She’s in all those who loved him and all those he loved and hurt.

Some years ago I wrote a column, “Is Your God Too Small?”  The answer to that question for most of us is an earsplitting “yes.”   Most theists and atheists make the same mistake:  we think God is like us.  We think of a god with human characteristics and limitations. A god who plays favorites, a god who, in conflict, is on our side. Such a god is comforting, but atheists compellingly deny this Chicken-Soup-for-the-Soul-god. That tamed version of the deity is very different from the striking insight of the Lutheran theologian Rudolph Otto, who described God as the  “enchanting and frightening Mystery.”

Among other metaphors the Bible depicts God as a rock, a light, a mother, a lover. These metaphors, of course, overlap. We’re talking poetry here. None of the images come close to the Mystery, but like a radar screen, they mirror shadowy glimpses of what Meister Eckart, that 13th Century Christian mystic, called “the Godhead beyond god.”  The blunder is to see the blip on the screen and confuse it with the plane in the sky.

There are, of course, non-Biblical images of God. Mary Daley, a feminist theologian, wrote, “God is a verb, not a noun.”  The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh calls the Holy Spirit the “Energy of God,” an energy that touches and sustains all being. Theologian Paul Tillich tells us that God is the “Ground of Being,” that which undergirds all. Blasé Pascal said God is both personal and impersonal.  Is that statement beyond logic?  Of course it is, but so is the Mystery.

But back to Darrell Hammond.  For those who can stomach his indescribable torments, his salacious wit and smutty prose his book is a good read.  Not only is it a fascinating insider’s peak into Saturday Night Live and its many celebrities, it has a much more profound meaning.  For not only did Hammond find God through AA, ultimately in a mystical dream he found forgiveness for his horribly abusive mother.

God might not be “up there,” but Darrell Hammond is not screwed. A God, who is in his life, his relationships and in his heart, loves him – as She loves us all.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of previous columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

Give Thanks For Life

Obviously, thanksgiving means giving thanks.  On Thanksgiving Day we typically give thanks for the harvest, for the food before us, for our families and friends.   Of course we should continue being thankful for all that. In past columns on this feast day, I have often advised us to do so.

I have suggested also that we look at the wider world and be grateful for what we Americans have.  I once quoted an anonymous author that stated it powerfully. “If you have food in your refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof over your head and a place to sleep, you are richer than 75% of the world.  If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change somewhere in a dish, you are among the top 8% of the worlds wealthy. If you can read this, you are more blessed than over two billion people around the world who cannot read at all.”

This Thanksgiving Day, however, I’d like to suggest thanking God for some even more basic things.  In this I am indebted to the Tiny Buddha website, which lists “60 Things to be Grateful for in Life.”  Readers, however, should relax I will only focus on some key fundamentals that merit our gratefulness. For as the novelist and essayist Cynthia Ozick warns us, “We often take for granted the very things that most deserve our gratitude.”

Here are some of those things. How about being grateful for our parents and grandparents (whether living or dead)? Despite their limitations, failings and faults (and all our parents have them), our parents gave us life. Think of it: life!

Be thankful for the sense of sight, for the ability to see the colors, shades and hues of nature.  For our ability to hear: to hear the rain on the roof, to hear music, which lifts our spirit and sooths our souls, and to hear the voices of those we love.

And how about being thankful for the sun, the moon and stars, which bring light and beauty to day and night?

As we enjoy this feast day meal, how about our sense of taste?  Be thankful for the ability to savor the sweetness of the pie, the tartness of the cranberries, and the spiciness of stuffing. To experience the warmness of gravy and the coldness of ice cream.

Be thankful for your heart: for its constant pumping of blood to all parts of your body even before you were born. And how about being grateful for your hands, which can type on your computer, flip the pages of books, drive a car, or touch those you love.

We should be grateful for books themselves, which bring us wisdom and enjoyment.  For your school, which provides or provided an environment to learn and grow and for the dedication and help of teachers and professors.

Let us be grateful for our homes: for our beds, bathrooms, family rooms and kitchens.  Many in the world have none of these.  We should not take them for granted. They help keep us alive – and life is the greatest gift of all.

I conclude with a version of World Hunger Grace. It’s from the Girl Scout “Our Chalet Song Book.” Even if we don’t pray these words as we sit at table, we should give them thought.

For food in our world, where many walk in hunger,

For peace in our world, where many walk in fear,

For hope in our world, where many walk alone,

For light in our world, where many walk in darkness.

We give You thanks, O God.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of previous columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

The Things That Count Cannot Be Counted

Albert Einstein loved wordplay.  He once wrote on a classroom blackboard at Princeton, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”

Our society counts a lot.  It counts votes, mortgage rates and interest rates, the values of cars and trade-ins, sales (for stuff we don’t need), lawyer services (no money down – but 30% at settlement), the number of pounds lost — and the price of weight-loss programs.  We count salaries and perks and watch the stock market gyrations until we are cross-eyed.

We also count sports with religious like fervor. Scores, of course, but also percentages of pass completions, batting averages, RBI’s, ERA’s, hat tricks and third-down conversions.  We like to count everything.

Ironically, however, whether it’s sports or money, most of this doesn’t count. In the long run it really doesn’t matter. On this the great thinkers, insightful writers and spiritual masters agree.  That’s what Einstein was warning us about.  There are more important things than those we can weigh, tally and calculate mathematically. The most important realities are spiritual.  They are immaterial; they can’t be counted, scored or graphed. You can’t compute love of friends, spouse and children; you can’t claim faith and spirituality on your tax return.

If you don’t like a physicist like Einstein telling you that, how about a philosopher? Bertrand Russell writes, “It is preoccupation with possession, more than anything else, that prevents men from living freely and nobly.” And here is Ben Franklin, “He does not possess wealth; it possesses him.”

If you are not comfortable with Russell, Franklin or Einstein and would like a religious take on it all, here are some spiritual masters. “Man’s obsession to add to his wealth and honor is the chief source of his misery.” That’s Torah scholar Moses Maimonidies — and here’s the Dalai Lama: “It is important to have balance within oneself especially when it comes to our earthly possessions. If an individual has a sufficient spiritual base, he won’t let himself be overwhelmed by the lure of technology and by the madness of possession.” And — for me personally the most important of all — Jesus: “For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul” (Mark 8:36).

Perhaps, though, you would prefer a poet’s insight? In “The Little Prince,” Antoine de St. Exupery tells us, “It is only with the heart that one can see clearly. What is essential is invisible to the eye.”

Materialism, however, surrounds us, bombards us, overwhelms us.  I regularly read the “New Yorker.”  Its writing is world-class. Its humor is wry and sophisticated. The magazine covers fiction, history and world events. I find its political commentary incisive, but its advertising is something else.  It’s materialism on steroids. It appeals to our pride and imagined superiority.  Here’s an ad for a luxury car.  “You walk into a room with confidence.  Shouldn’t you enter a highway the same way?”

But whether it is cars, five-star hotels, rare whiskeys, high-priced jewelry or Rolex watches, it is rampant materialism.  And the advertisers are experts in subtly and not so subtly appealing to our pride, lust and smugness.  It is impossible to avoid it, but as the wisest throughout history have told us:  It doesn’t count.  The essential values that matter are not advertised on TV or in magazines.

Marya Mannes, an author and critic known for her caustic but insightful observations on American life, warned us, “A high standard of living is usually accompanied by a low standard of thinking” — and I would add usually by a lower level of happiness.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of previous columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

Martin Luther King – A Prophet Still

On Sunday, October 16, President and Michelle Obama, the King family, elderly civil rights leaders, and the nation dedicated the Martin Luther King Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, DC.  Many have criticized the memorial and for many reasons: the Chinese artist who designed it, the stoic, serious, staid depiction of the assassinated leader, Maya Angelou’s complaint about the truncated, “I was a drum major for justice” quote.

To me, however, the most telling criticism came from Colman McCarthy about the quotes from King that the artist did NOT chisel on the memorial wall.  Writing in the Washington Post, McCarthy asked, why “the inscriptions sculpted in granite would not include the two most powerful, prophetic and daring lines in the fury-filled sermon that King delivered April 4, 1967, in Riverside Church in New York at the height of the Vietnam War”?

Here’s what King said then: “I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.”  And again, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

McCarthy went on to note, “Neither line is at the memorial… Fourteen quotes were chosen: inspiring quotes, of course, but inoffensive” ones. However, “what King said in the Riverside Church sermon is as relevant today as it was then.”

President Obama had stirring things to say at the dedication, but of course he never mentioned King’s prophetic rage about the Vietnam War. Here’s what the President did say, “For this day, we celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior’s return to the National Mall. In this place, he will stand for all time, among monuments to those who fathered this nation and those who defended it; a black preacher with no official rank or title who somehow gave voice to our deepest dreams and our most lasting ideals, a man who stirred our conscience and thereby helped make our union more perfect.”  Those presidential words were true enough, but they were selective and self-serving.

What would King say today about the ten-year-old war in Afghanistan? Admittedly, the analogy with Vietnam has been overdrawn, but like Afghanistan, it was an unpopular war — unpopular internationally and unpopular politically at home.  It was also a war in which we supported a weak government suspect by its own people. We should learn from the Vietnam tragedy; it was an unending quagmire. So is Afghanistan.  With the impassioned word of a prophet, King would speak truth to power and remind us of that.

Even General David Petraeus has called Afghanistan the “graveyard of empires.”  Alexander the Great gave up there so did the British and Russians.  Even with 110,000 troops the Russians, were unsuccessful! What makes us think the United States can succeed where others have failed? Our allies in Afghanistan are growing war weary and we’re getting only reluctant NATO support.

The war too has less and less support at home. Is it any wonder? There is no end in sight for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.  We have already lost 1,800 troops and spent 444 billion dollars. According to the Pentagon the war is costing is 300 million every day!

The war has created a political economy in Afghanistan benefiting the Taliban, a corrupt government and its cronies. President Obama has set a 2014 deadline for the end of the U.S. combat mission, and he expects thirty-three thousand troops to return home by next summer.  But the so-called security transition to Afghan forces is naïve and unrealistic.  The great majority of the Afghan police and military are illiterate – and we’re trying to teach them to use highly sophisticated military weapons.

And then, God help us, there is unstable and nuclear Pakistan, which both Afghanistan and the United States see as providing state-supported terrorists safe havens. These terrorists are wrecking havoc, further destabilizing Afghanistan and our efforts there.

Our goals in Afghanistan have shifted from marginalizing the Taliban to negotiating with them, from state-building to counter insurgency. Recently, President Hamid Karzai suspended negotiations with the Taliban after the assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani the government’s chief negotiator.  The so-called experts are divided on what to do next.  We should, however, no longer listen to the experts; rather we should heed the prophets like Martin Luther King.   We should get out of Afghanistan now. The nation can’t continue to kick this can down the road.  It will only cost us financially and more precious lives.

Were he alive today, King would raise his eloquent voice to remind us that the cost of the Afghanistan War is preventing our nation from repairing its crumbling infrastructure, improving its schools, and feeing its hungry.  He would thunder again, that “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

Like Amos in the Hebrew Scriptures, King’s voice would ring out, “Let justice flow like a river and righteousness like an unfailing stream” (Amos 5:24).  King’s prophetic words were on target at Riverside Church in 1967 – and they resonate still.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of previous columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

Both/And or Either/Or?

Max Born, the Nobel Prize physicist and mathematician said, “The belief that there is only one truth and that one is in possession of it seems to me the deepest root of all evil in the world.”  The English Clergyman Robert Burton said it more dramatically, “Truth is the shattered mirror strewn in myriad bits; while each believes his little bit to be the whole.”

That’s the West.  In the East, the Buddhists say loving-kindness is one of their foundational spiritual practices. Loving-kindness is open-hearted, friendliness, offering goodwill to all we meet, to everyone regardless of his or her opinions.  It knows that none of us have the fullness of truth.  The Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh tells us in our discussions to really listen that we may understand and not to just wait the other out so we can refute her and reiterate our point of view.

The Buddhists would agree with Vaclav Havel, the first President of the Czech Republic, who said, “Seek the company of those who seek the truth, and run away from those who have found it.”  No one finds THE truth; they only find A truth.

No one — no religion, no political party, and no nation state has the totality of truth. That awareness has major implications on how we relate to other people, other religions, other political parties, or governments. How we speak TO each other and ABOUT each other is more important than the issue before us.  And reframing the issue can often resolve false dilemmas.  We should not be so damnably certain.

The American humorist Henry Wheeler Shaw under his pen name Josh Billings said, “I have lived in this world just long enough to look carefully the second time into things that I was most certain of the first time.”

Differing ideas present a huge challenge to our competitive nature.  It’s a challenge to struggle to be “we” rather than “me.” To be “us” rather than “them.” Why do we have to look at “them” monolithically, labeling “them” so we can categorize who they are and how they think? Isn’t that the challenge before Democrats and Republicans in Congress? Between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street crowds? The challenge confronting Israelis and Palestinians in the Mid-East? That same challenge faces you and me at every committee meeting, church discussion group, little league organizational get-together we attend. Can’t differences be fruitful? Can’t creative tensions be productive?  I’m reminded of the Yiddish Proverb: “If we all pulled in one direction, the world would keel over.”

Father Richard Rohr in his mind-altering book “The Naked Now” asks the enlightening question: “If truth is so obvious, why would we need a Supreme Court to resolve disputes?”  Truths are subtle and nuanced.  No one opinion can give us truth. There is no such thing as THE truth.

Readers of this column will have noticed that some recent columns were questions: “Hell or Heck?” and “Love or Luv?” I hope they were balanced, but freely admit they had a clear-cut point of view. I wish, however, the question in this column: “Both/And or Either/Or?” will lead all of us to show more tolerance to others – whatever their opinions.

I know some will object to the word ”tolerance.”  To them it smacks of begrudging condescension, to put up with others with repugnance; they would rather see words like “acceptance,”  “respect” or “affirmation.”  They have a valid point, but let the wordsmiths have their say. “Tolerance” works for me. To me it’s the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs, customs and natural traits of others.

That’s affirming; that’s loving-kindness; that’s being open to others and their points of view. If that means compromise, fine. If that means flexibility rather than rigidity, good.  Bring them on.  In our dealings with those who differ from us, we need more flexibility and humility — and less rigidity and ideological certainty.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of previous columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

Love or Luv?

The Dalai Lama tells us, “Without love we could not survive.  Human beings are social creatures, and a concern for each other is the very basis of our life together.”  There is, however, much confusion about love and its text message spelling: LUV.

This confusion is evident in the recording of musician and actress Janet Jackson’s hit “Luv.”  Despite the title, the song consistently sings of LOVE.  Listen to “Luv’s” refrain:

“Now I’m like a deer

Caught in headlights

Ugh, he hit me with his love

Love, love, love, love

He hit me with his love

And now I’m in love, love, love, love

Got me caught in a wreck, I’m a mess

Somebody call the paramedics

He hit me with his love.”

What is it LOVE or LUV? Here’s what I think. To paraphrase Erich Fromm, LUV says: I love you because I need you, but LOVE says: I need you because I love you.  LUV is about my needs, my happiness; LOVE is about the needs and happiness of others. LOVE is selflessness; LUV is lovelessness.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the eighteenth Century philosopher, wrote of “amour propre” — feelings of excessive pride and self-love.  If Rousseau were writing today, I think he’d call that LUV.  Paul, on the other hand, in 1 Cor. 13 is clearly speaking of LOVE when he reminds us that LOVE is patient and kind, is not proud or self-seeking. We frequently read that passage at our weddings, but do not live it as often in our marriages.

Saint Thomas Aquinas taught: “LOVE is willing good to another.”  He definitely was not speaking of LUV. The American Humorist Fran Lebowitz, however, was. He wrote, “Romantic love is mental illness.”  That’s LUV. It is crazy but pleasurable.  It’s an addiction; it’s nuts, but for the time it’s delightful.

LUV is earth-shattering. It leaves us breathless and excited. We are on fire. We are obsessed; we can think of nothing else but the beloved. Hopefully, LOVE is what is left over when LUV has burned itself out.

The Christian Scriptures teach, “God is LOVE” (1 John 4:8), but it’s not only the Christians. Mahatma Ghandi told us, “Where LOVE is, there God is also.”  But if god (no capital letter here!) were LUV, what kind of a god would he be?

If god were LUV, he would require us for his divine needs.  He would want us to acknowledge him, to fear him, to obey him. He would be lovelessness not LOVE.

I’m afraid much of our religions promote that kind of loveless god with their rules, regulations and fear.

No matter what we call God, whether it’s the Spirit, the Holy, the Ground of Being, or the Light Within, that Mystery is LOVE not LUV. As the Scriptures and Ghandi tell us, God’s essential nature is LOVE. He, She, It (the pronouns never work) is eternally giving, ceaselessly sharing that divine love-life with us. We don’t have to earn it.

That puts a totally different spin on the really big questions: the meaning of life, of work, of religion, grace, and God herself. Bishop Fulton Sheen once said, “God does not love us because we are valuable. We are valuable because God loves us.” God loves us freely without strings attached.  Isn’t that the meaning of grace? It’s free.  We don’t deserve it.

Here’s a very different insight from the American psychologist, Rollo May. “Hate is not the opposite of love; apathy is.”  When we fail to love family, colleagues or neighbors, it’s often because we are indifferent and lazy.  It demands energy to reach out to help and support the other. It takes effort to write a note, make a phone call, or stop by for a visit. It’s a sacrifice to give our time or perform a needed chore.  That’s what Rollo May is saying, but often we don’t give a hoot. We just don’t care.

This is heavy stuff; I hope it has forced all of us to think profound thoughts. I end, however, on a lighter note. The American novelist Edgar Watson Howe, said, “Instead of loving your enemies, treat your friends a little better.”  Amen, brother, amen.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of prior columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

Hell or Heck?

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie in warning state residents as Hurricane Irene barreled up the East Coast towards his state did not sugarcoat his words.  “I saw some of the news feeds … of people sitting on the beach in Asbury Park.  Get the hell off the beach in Asbury Park and get out.”

Politically Governor Christie and I are poles (no pun intended) apart, but I admired his blunt, politically incorrect warning.  Those folks on the beach should have been warned to get the hell out of there.

About the same time Christie in unmistakable terms was warning his people, the Buffalo Bills were beginning their “Make Your Mom” proud campaign — a crusade to curb rowdiness at Ralph Wilson Stadium.  The ideal was simple: when you get ready to do or say something stupid or profane, just imagine that your mother is watching or listening.  Here are a few examples.  “Don’t make me come up there.”  “”Get caught smoking in this house and you’ll be grounded ‘til next season.”  But here’s the one that made me roll my eyes and shake my head.  “This is a family event, so watch your mouth, or you’ll catch a whole lot of heck.”  A whole lot of heck?  Come on!  The lawyers who drafted that weasel copy for the Bills should take a page from Governor Christie’s playbook.

Why all this sensitivity about hell and heck?  Remember President Bush after Katrina devastated New Orleans telling his then FEMA Director Michael Brown, “Brownie, you’re doing one heck of a job”?  Shortly later Brownie had to leave FEMA because it was obvious to just about everyone that he was one helluva incompetent FEMA director.

On the other hand, I readily admit that telling someone to go to hell is certainly objectionable. Many folks believe that hell is a place to which God damns you forever.  In their belief system, only God can condemn people to hell. They believe it is blasphemous, mean-spirited, vicious, and cruel when others say it.

Recently Representative Maxine Waters, a liberal California Democrat and member of the congressional Black Caucus, in addressing a gathering of the unemployed said, “I’m not afraid of anybody. This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened.  And as far as I’m concerned, the tea party can go straight to hell.”

Waters crossed the language line. I admire her gustiness and passion, but this time she went miles too far.  I strongly disagree with the tea party, but I would not condemn it or anyone to hell – even if I believed in hell.

However, what is socially acceptable and politically correct in this country would be downright amusing if it weren’t so sad.  Heck is in; hell is out. The First Amendment on free speech protects video games teaching aggressive violence to the young. But one wardrobe malfunction unintentionally exposing a female nipple and we have a freaking federal case. It’s bizarre; it’s crazy; it’s nuts.

That’s one heck of a situation.

Retired from the administration at SUNY Fredonia, Daniel O’Rourke lives in Cassadaga, NY. His column appears in the Observer, Dunkirk, NY on the second and fourth Thursday each month. A grandfather, Dan is a married Catholic priest. He has published “The Living Spirit,” a completely new book of previous columns. You may purchase it here or send comments online using the contact form.

• Directory
  • About The Books
  • About the Author
  • Recent Columns
  • Other Writings
  • Contact the Author





• Some Recent Columns
  • Labeling Can be Dangerous
  • The Big Eight O
  • What If The Wise Men Were Women?
  • You Are Not UP There, God
  • Give Thanks For Life
  • The Things That Count Cannot Be Counted
  • Martin Luther King – A Prophet Still
  • Both/And or Either/Or?
  • Love or Luv?
  • Hell or Heck?