Common Ground (Guest Author)

*May has been a very busy month for me, so I reached out to my father for a guest post.  I am very grateful for the time he put into this thought provoking and complex post.  We worked together to craft this entry that takes on the simple little subject of spirituality.

---   

A Sign

I was on a run recently, and I saw a sign that helped me form an opinion for a common ground on God. No, really- after seeing this sign, I got closer to God. I will explain later about the sign, but it's probably not what you are thinking.  In this post, I will use the words Spirit and God interchangeably. I will equate the physical and time-based concepts with the term “Things”, and I will ask you to accept that the world of Things is different than the Spirit world.  Lastly, I will analogize the ocean to the domain of Spirit/God, and I will analogize an iceberg to the domain of Things. Stay with me and we’ll take an interesting ride.

The Life Cycle of Things

It seems like we should be able to understand Spirit because many of us practice spirituality in our lives.  Yet we can NOT understand the complete spiritual world because it implies a level of totality and finality. Totality and finality are spatial and time-based concepts that exist in the world of Things but are absent from the world of the Spirit. Humans understand the physical and time-bound world because, at its very core, it has a natural and identifiable life cycle (life and death/ existence and non-existence).  Our minds fluidly recognize this reality because we are physical.  We play a part in the destruction of old things and we happily make new things and we get paid wages for these contributions. We manage our Things through systems of power, politics and violence, and even though some of these things are not tangible and can't be physically touched, they are still squarely in the world of things.

But this is NOT Spirit, which is unchangeable and not a part the familiar life cycle of Things.  If our perception of the physical world varies slightly through differing levels of sensitivity and culture, there still is a possible shared understanding because we are linked by underlying universal truths (e.g. gravity, growth, death, etc.). But common ground in the Spirit world is impossible for those that dwell in the world of Things.

The Easily Blurred Line Between Things and Spirit 

Even though we live in a dual world of Spirit and Things, we often fall in the trap of ascribing elements of Spirit in terms of physical things (e.g. God has caused my corn crop to flourish). Conversely, we imbue Things in terms of Spirit (e.g. My crucifix around my neck gives me physical access to God).  

Well-known atheist Richard Dawkins has railed against God from the vantage point of what is wrong with organized religion. But the basis of his argument against organized religion is based on Things and not Spirit (the teachings and dogmas of religion subvert true spirituality). Yet, in his words, he acknowledged that atheists can have a “happy, balanced, moral, and intellectually fulfilled” life. He talks about a harmony, which in itself could be spiritual, but espouses that this harmonic balance should attained by a refuting organized religion. In short, he criticizes the Things associated with religion and claims that their influence will deter the effort to attain a happy, balanced life. According to Dawkins, This fulfilled life is a life that only atheists can enjoy. In essence, he believes that a deepening awareness (and ultimately refutation) of the world of Things (the corruption of organized religion) can lead to a spiritual outcome. 

Not to pick on Dawkins, but the door does swing both ways. Religions have always tried to explain the unknown from the vantage point of Things. The world we live in is a world of Things, and we are seduced by our mastery this world. Is it bad to keep this link of Spirit and Things? I don’t think so, and perhaps this understanding of Things is a necessary conduit to the Spirit - just as one needs a boat to attempt to understand the depth of the ocean. And now, with the advent of the Internet and other knowledge enabling technological advancements, it is time for humanity to begin draw clear distinctions between the world of Spirit and the physical and time-bound world of Things.

The Ocean Analogy

To understand this distinction between the Spirit world and the world of Things, allow me to use an extended analogy – the world of Things is an iceberg floating in the ocean of Spirit. Living on the iceberg, humans rely on Things to survive. We use ice picks, pick axes, and even a chain saw if the ice is thick enough.  In this world Things, we can appropriately criticize our tools on the merits of their utility – “this ice pick is too small for this ice block in front of me.”  However, the use of these tools is incompatible in the world of the spirit.  Trying to use them in the spiritual world would be like using a chain saw to cut the ocean.  It is precisely this attempt to understand the spiritual world through the lens of the world of Things, where we have failed as humans to get closer to the world of Spirit. Many of our greatest disasters are an outcome of this misapplication. The Crusades is an obvious example that comes to mind.

As we look to get closer to God, we must think differently. We must constantly keep in mind that which is Spirit and that which are Things. Just as the ocean is vast and incomprehensible, we can’t fully grasp the world of the Spiritual and are limited by our own human physical condition. Therefore, in order to begin to gain an understanding of the Spirit world, it is necessary to consciously separate the iceberg of Things from the ocean of the Spirit.  The natural tendency to understand the unknown with the known makes us want to define the Spirit in terms of Things.  But we can obtain a greater the deep ocean of Spirit by first simply negating all we know of the iceberg of Things. This backhanded logic may initially seem foreign, but it does drive home the fact that we are viewing two distinctly different concepts that have been historically intertwined since humans first began to explain the unknown. 

Harmony Between the Iceberg and the Ocean

Only after separating the two realms, can we begin to understand their relationship and the impact on each other. In this ocean analogy, the iceberg and the ocean are in constant contact though they are completely distinct.  The truth is there is harmony in this relationship, but we need to re-frame our thinking to understand this complex symbiotic relationship.  

If we get caught up in the criticism of any institution, be it Atheistic or Religions, then we become Thing-based. We think in terms of winners and losers, and through this Thing-based thinking we create divisions and distinctions. But after exploring and understanding the Spirit world (as distinct from the Thing-based world), we can begin view things from a newer definition and approach decisions differently. We can replace traditional moral concepts of “good” and “bad” with the concepts of More Learning and Less Learning. The ultimate result of this type of thinking is tolerance.  The traditional Thing-based logic produces judgment and creates a divisive belief system (e.g. religious vs. the non-religious). 

The quest for learning, however, implies a journey that we have individually and collectively been taking since we first showed up on this planet. There is no good or bad in the concept of true learning. True spiritual growth is the successive filtering out of Thing-based thinking. It is harder to criticize a persons' journey if we stay Spirit-based. This is the essence to understanding the Spirit world - it's a journey not a judgment. We are more tolerant of travelers from all walks of life. Thing-based thinking understands the concept of opponents because the physical world requires winners and losers because of its dynamic physical nature. In contrast, wayfarers on a journey are constantly learning and adjusting to the creative, the Spirit. These are fellow journeyers not competitors.

My Sign of God

As I ran recently, I saw a sign. It was a physical sign that was blown to the ground, likely ripped from a pole by the wind. The sign said “Growing with God.”  It was probably for a vacation Bible school...who knows. This “Growing with God” sign implies that we get closer to an unchanging, static God. However, maybe God and humanity are equally dynamic, and, just as the impermanent iceberg eventually becomes one with the perpetually changing sea, we should strive to understand the relationship between these forces.  

This sign therefore could mean that God actually grows with us, and similarly we grow with Him. We are Him and He is us.  The world of Things implies a static god with inherent divisions.  But the journey-based world of Spirit allow us to develop a constant (we are all on a journey) and open belief system (we accept that everyone is on their own journey).  The natural life cycle that guides the world of Things creates divisive change.  But understanding the divisive change in the world of Things and accepting the journey-oriented change in the world of the Spirit, will allow us to unite these worlds and find our path to pure spirituality. Perhaps now is the time for mature thinking. If we unfetter our thinking with Thing-centered concepts, we can “Grow with God” and God can grow with us. All Things pass away or, more aptly, melt. Once our icebergs melt, the notion of Things will sink and dissolve in to oblivion while our Spirit blends with the ocean of spirituality.

Op-Ed: Guns on Campus

*I put forth an effort to try to get this published, but the timing didn't work out.  However, I still wanted to share this.  The bill is stalled at the moment (Link), but it is still unclear if it will come up to a vote in the TX legislature.

--


Next fall, students will inundate the University of Texas Co-op on Guadalupe Street to shop for classroom essentials.  They’ll browse textbooks and weekly planners as usual, but if the Texas legislature gets its way, students may face another important decision – which gun holster best matches their new boots. 
      
The Texas legislature is currently debating whether to allow students to carry concealed handguns on campus and, if passed, the outcome would be ironic at best and deadly at worst.  Proponents of the legislation claim that this bill ensures that students are protected on campus.  This argument is flawed for several reasons.
 
Supporters argue that college campuses present grave safety concerns for students and faculty.  Given the attention of the recent, tragic shooting at Virginia Tech, it’s easy to misinterpret this as a common occurrence.  However, shootings at college universities are extremely rare.  NPR only lists eight major shootings from 1966-2007.  When factored in with the total number of students enrolled in colleges (over 500,000 in Texas alone), the threat of a mass shooting becomes negligible, if not infinitesimal.  
 
The bill’s author, Senator Jeff Wentworth (R- San Antonio), says, “This bill is designed to give somebody the ability to defend themselves if a deranged person who is both suicidal and mentally unbalanced comes into the classroom – which has happened.”

Wentworth and other bill cosponsors are overlooking the obvious dangers of mixing firearms with traditional and pervasive college indulgences – excessive alcohol and drug use, to name a few.  Most troubling is the association between alcohol and violent behavior.  A recent College Alcohol Survey finds that alcohol was involved in 58 percent of cases of violent behavior in 2009 – a 10-percent rise since 1994.  

Additionally, this argument ignores the negative impact the law would have on students’ mental security.  Imagine a young freshman student cramming all night for a final exam, only to catch a glance of a pistol in a neighboring student’s backpack before the test begins.  The mere thought that a deadly weapon rests several feet away – tucked between a calculator and a water bottle –might not only distract him during the exam, but it might ultimately deteriorate the value of his college experience.   

Let’s apply that same reasoning to a hypothetical but increasingly common scenario: the campus date rapist.  Let’s say campuses have reported several instances in the last 50 years where mentally unstable students have secretly slipped their fellow students dangerous amounts of a date rape drug.   
 
Now imagine that in response to this rare concern, the state government passes legislation giving university students access to the drug.  The legislators argue that students, now permitted to possess dangerous amounts of the date rape drug, can protect themselves from future campus date rape students by slipping them the drug first and preventing them from inflicting harm.

This is absurd.  The solution to a problem is not more of the problem, and what the Texas legislature is considering is tantamount to exactly that. 


Historically, universities have been regarded as sanctuaries where ideas and beliefs can flow freely and students can attend classes without fear of violence.  The issue of concealed handguns on campus is highly charged and has produced ardent supporters on both sides of the issue.  However, the common ground in this debate comes in the shared desired outcome: a safer environment that fosters higher learning.


If we care to prevent mass shootings, then we should increase gun screenings and licensing procedures.  If we want to protect students from psychotic mass shootings, then why not improve campus security and emergency-response procedures?  But giving students access to the very instrument that wrought mass homicide in the first place, will only create a more dangerous and less secure environment for students.


Last September, the University of Texas responded effectively when a student opened fire at a library.  The response to this received praise from both Austin Police Department Chief Art Acevedo and none other than Governor Rick Perry (strong advocate of the campus concealed hand-gun proposal).  “I want to thank campus officials and law enforcement, including the Austin Police Department, DPS and others, for their swift action, that protected the students and faculty on campus this morning,” Governor Perry said then. 
   
Presently, my alma mater, the University of Texas, and the overwhelming majority of college campuses create secure and welcoming environment for students.  During my time at college, I actually felt safer being on campus and viewed it as a safe haven from some of the more dangerous areas in Austin.  Passage of this bill will harm the sanctity of colleges across Texas and threaten the quality of higher education.  

Students do not currently enroll in college with the fear that they might get shot.  But passing this law would change that.