Month: August 2017

Two words have been in the news almost constantly lately: “protest” and “counter-protest”.  Now, I am not against people having a voice—it is called “dialog”.  I am opposed to people yelling over each other.

I am not even concerned about the subject of the protests and counter-protests.  (Let me rephrase that– The issues at the heart of the protests concern me—in some cases, more or less—but the particulars of the protest/counter-protests are not of the matter for discussion in this post.)  What concerns me is that we are not talking about issues.  We are not having intelligent discourse.  We are witnessing incoherent emotional rants and destructive rather than constructive behavior.  Nothing productive is coming from all of this noise.

I just read an article in the NY Times, titled: “Why I Refuse to Avoid White People” by Chloé Valdary (August 22, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/opinion/avoiding-white-people-charlottesville-racism.html).  Now, the subject was racism, but it could have been any of the divisive topics de jour.  Ms. Valdary makes a beautiful statement:

“I was taught that if someone white makes assumptions about me or my people, the proper response is not to go around making assumptions about them. That creates a downward spiral into hatred fueled by ignorance. The proper response to prejudice is not to treat our close-minded neighbors as though they weren’t human; that is how they have treated us. It is precisely because I love myself that I refuse to hate another.”

Now this could be applied to any argument where “assumptions”, “ignorance”, “close-minded”, and “hate” preside.  At the center of the statement (almost literally) is the key: “That creates a downward spiral into hatred fueled by ignorance.”  We are in that downward spiral, folks.  It needs to stop!  The only way to stop it is to ignore the voices of the irrational extremes. (This is the United States of America where the freedom of speech is supported, after all.  So, they have the right to speak, but we, likewise, have the freedom to not listen.)  Ignore the ranting, but welcome our neighbors to the table.  Seek unity, not discord.

I trust that, when the voices of reason are heard, we can come to the solutions to the challenges we are facing—solutions, not merely compromises.  This is America, after all.  The melting pot.  The nation that is (should be) the leader in the progress of freedom and liberty.  Please, let’s keep the “united” in the United States of America.

Be your best today; be better tomorrow!

Carpe momento!

Image source: LA Times

“The battles that count aren’t the ones for gold medals. The struggles within yourself – the invisible, inevitable battles inside all of us – that’s where it’s at.”—Jesse Owens

I saw the above meme on Facebook.  I get the point that life can be an ongoing struggle, and, just when we think we have seen the peak, we see that the climb continues.  My friend, Andy Lausier (head wrestling coach at Davidson Davidson College), would view this as “have to” v. “get to” (for inspiration check out https://www.facebook.com/fromhavetoget/).

This is, indeed, life.  However, we choose whether to see it as an ongoing struggle or as an opportunity.  Life, no matter how we look at it, is a stimulus for progressive growth.

That “peak” in the meme?  When we reach it, we have a choice: we can respond with “Oh, crap!”, like in the meme, or we can breathe a sigh of relief, welcome the momentary break, and continue.

There will be times when what appeared to be a peak (or at least a brief leveling off) turns out to be an illusion.  These are the times when we have to push forward.  Take a break, if we must, to rest and to contemplate how far we have come, but never quit.  Trust in your path.  Moreover, trust in your ability to keep going and to complete your journey.

Welcome the moments of relief.  Take time to look back at how far you have come.  Don’t worry how far you have to go.  Just breathe and take the next step in the climb.

Carpe momento!

Image source: https://www.facebook.com/FreebieAl

We often say “well, I don’t see color” when we discuss race, ethnicity, gender, etc.  I know the intent is the desire to show that we consider all people equal, and I understand that.  In a recent conversation with my wife, however, it occurred to me that I would prefer to say that “I do see color.”  Now, before you start thinking I am an evil person, please, hear me out.

First, let me be clear that I don’t do this (or anything) perfectly.  I struggle with prejudices just like everyone.  (Yes.  Everyone.  If you believe you have no prejudices, denial ain’t a river in Egypt.)  We all struggle to understand the unfamiliar.  That is okay.  That is a challenge of being human.

So, what do I mean when I say, “I see color”?  I mean just that.  I see you for who you are.  I don’t like the labels of color—black, brown, yellow, red, white, etc.  For one thing, not one of us are any of these colors.  The colors of the human race run a broad spectrum of pigmentation.  So, to label someone black or white or… is erroneous.  So, true, I don’t see color as a label.  (I honestly, have a difficult time describing someone on the basis of one’s skin color.)  But color—more, specifically, race/ethinicity is a part of who we are.  Why should it not be celebrated?

When I say “I see color”, I mean that I see the person as an individual and welcome the unique experiences and understanding that they bring to the table.  In saying this, my intent is to express the value I find in others being different than me.  Vive la difference.

We should embrace our differences.  What child only wants one Crayon? 

When we see our neighbor, we should feel uninhibited by his or her color, race, ethnicity, gender, body type, education, socioeconomic status,….  To deny them this is to disrespect them as an individual.

When we “see color”, however, it is necessary that we don’t see a label.  It is crucial that we don’t make assumptions.  We must see our neighbor as equal but different.  (Please, do not read this as “separate but equal”.  I find this phrase repulsive!)  Humankind is not painted with broad strokes.  We are much more like the impressionist painting of Monet and others—with each stroke making its own unique contribution to the whole.

I have a lot to learn from people who experience the world from a different perspective than me.  I am also of the belief that just because someone looks a particular way that he or she does not share the same experience and worldview of someone/everyone who looks similar to them.  So, yes, I see color, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. as something special—something to share.

Carpe momento!

Image: Blue Man Group                                                                   (http://ghk.h-cdn.co/assets/15/46/1600×800/landscape-1447174925-blue-man-group-2-1.jpg)

“Society is unity in diversity.”—George H. Meade

I have a problem with “diversity”—well, not diversity in itself, but diversity as a means of labeling.  I work in a university setting, so I am well aware of the seemingly endless committee work to define “diversity”.  (Now, lest anyone judge me as some evil person, let me be clear.  I welcome diversity.)

When we attempt to define diversity in committee, we immediately begin to deny diversity as a construct.  Such an approach divides rather than unifies.  It categorizes and labels.  The more we attempt to define people as members of groups, the more divided we become.  Granted, such labeling may be “necessary” for quantification of society—i.e., demographics.  But other than for statistical analyses, what good does it serve?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt made a statement nearly three-quarters of a century ago that remains relevant to our nation today.  He said: “The point in history at which we stand is full of promise and danger. The world will either move forward toward unity and widely shared prosperity – or it will move apart.”

We are as much each alike as we are different, and we are as much each different as we are alike.  This is true diversity.  It will be when we recognize this as a nation that we will at last stand united.

When you or I label someone according to one’s skin color, religion, ethnicity, gender, political views, etc., we rob one of his or her uniqueness and individual contribution.  We stifle creativity and… well, diversity.

It may be a harsh comparison (but I will make it here), but when I consider the efforts to label diversity, I think of Jim Crow laws–i.e., the notion of “separate but equal”.  It was wrong to segregate then, and it is just as wrong today.  This, however, is just what is happening today—only it is not a legislative mandate.

We allow ourselves to be categorized and, thereby, relinquish our voice.  We allow labels to define us rather than express our unique and (extra)ordinary self.  Those who claim to speak for the marginalized (even though their intentions might be good), consequently, further limit the opportunities for those they purport to help.  They do so by constructing walls that don’t exist.  Likewise, those who prefer to keep others sidelined also construct barriers that don’t exist.

Our best hope is when we realize that everyone has a unique and necessary Purpose and contribution to make—and provide the means and opportunity to realize their Purpose.  We will be our best as a society (and nation) when we see diversity as a good and vital thing—when we unite in diversity.

Carpe momento!

“Unity is strength… when there is teamwork and collaboration, wonderful things can be achieved.”—Mattie Stephanek

“Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.”—Viktor Frankl

I admit it.  I struggle with space—that space between the stimulus and the response.  Stephen Covey wrote about it.  Viktor Frankl presents it most eloquently.  There is always space.  Our challenge is to expand it.  Our challenge is to use it wisely.  Our challenge is to use our power to change the world.

Can the world be changed in a mere fraction of a second?  Carpe momento!  Of course, it can.  It is a matter of a split second—a decision.  It is a matter of choice.  The choice to be positive and creative.  The choice to be negative and destructive.  How we choose will have a lasting impact on the Universe.

Choose well!

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.  It’s not.”—The Lorax/Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

Change.  The world need more change-makers (and not of the cashier-type).  I wrote recently about standard operating procedures (something that might be better addressed as current operating procedures in business).  I don’t believe in the status quo.  I am a believer in constant improvement (kaizen)—not change for the sake of change, but change for the sake of improvement.  Personal and collective change is an essential part of growth.  In The World’s Most Powerful Leadership Principle, James C. Hunter posed the question: “’By definition, can you improve if you don’t change?’”, and, of course, we can’t improve without change.

I love reading Dr. Seuss.  The Lorax is a simple, yet powerful, book.  It is directed toward the preservation of the environment and physical resources, but another underlying theme is person responsibility. In the end, we are left with the very simple statement: “unless”.  Nothing in the world is going to get better unless someone cares—“a whole awful lot”.

We tend to underestimate our personal impact on the Universe.  After all, what can one person do.  In the end, though, the seed to the Truffula Trees was left to the care of just one.  We can and do have an impact.  This is the hope of the Commons.  Just as the taking of the individual has a negative impact on the Commons, so, then, does one’s input have a positive effect on the common.

All it takes is a mustard seed of concern and the willingness to care.  Change comes when we dare to care.  And–“Unless someone like you (and me) cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better.  It’s not.”

Carpe momento!

Image Source: Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

Physiologically, and adaptation occurs when a stimulus is applied that is greater than that to which the body system is accustomed—greater but not too great.  This is the “overload principle”.  If, however, the stimulus is too great, the body system cannot adapt to the stress.  This is referred to “overtraining” in exercise physiology.

Hans Seyle pioneered our understanding of stress and developed what is known as the “general adaptation syndrome” (i.e., the idea that our response to stress involves three phases: alarm, resistance, exhaustion/recovery).  Stressor can be positive or negative, as well as real or imaginary, and we all respond differently—both physiologically and psychologically.

I am not prepared to provide a physiology lesson here.  My objective is not to discuss physiological stress/stressors.  Rather, I intend to address the Spiritual response to imposed stress—and there has been a lot of it lately in our society.

Now, first, let me remind the reader that the Spiritual dimension of wellness (of “well-centered fitness”) is the belief in something greater than oneself. Spiritual wellness is bigger than religion, but it also does not require that one have a specific religious faith or a religious faith at all.  Spiritual wellness, personally, is what makes us human.  Thus, no one can make the excuse: “He’s talking religion.  I am outta here.”  Indeed, I know a few “non-believers” who might get what I have to say better than some of my “believer” friends.

Spiritually, like physiologically, we respond to stress.  We have a Physical heart, and we have a Spiritual “heart”.  One is more tangible than the other, but nonetheless—I propose—they respond the same.

Spiritually, when we are exposed to new ideas or beliefs that are contrary to our current worldview, we respond—often with very Physical (physiological) responses.  It is called “growth”—sometimes, maturity.  But, like our physiological systems (e.g., skeletal muscle), growth takes time and the proper stimulus.  Too much or too soon, the natural response is to resist.  Unfortunately, too often, those who might “share” their ideas do so too forcefully.

Now there may be cause, in certain situations to “slam” a body system. (Talk to a serious bodybuilder about “leg day”.)  On occasion, this can be of benefit—if the appropriate recovery period is allowed.  That is, there needs to be time for adaptation to occur.  In exercise physiology, this is termed “overreaching”.  Such training is always followed with an extended period of recovery.  Otherwise, what is intended for good becomes something destructive.

Spiritual growth and change requires a stimulus—a positive stressor.  The stressor must be appropriate to stimulate change, and time must be allowed for recovery (healing?).

Society is at a serious juncture.   There is considerable opportunity for growth in so many ways.  Many have opted for the violent approach without restraint.  The “heart” does not respond well to this approach.  Hatred produces only more hatred.  This is not to say the alternative is passivity.  Indeed, not.  There is cause for “overload”.  The voice of right must be strong and forceful, but it must be tolerable.

Change comes when the affected “feel the burn” and are able to recover.  “No pain, no gain”, right?  But, the wrong pain signals injury to one physically.  Spiritually, we are not near the point of being “well-centered”.  That is, we are not to the point of full release of self for the welfare of all.  Thus, change—the stressor applied to the growing self—requires time for adaptation to occur.  It is true that for some we could say “How much time does this idiot need?”, but, for those of us so enlightened, we need to understand that change is not so simple as we would think.  Just as we see physiologically, there are high responders and low responders.  Some, then, might never change.  Most, will change for the better.  They just might need a better approach.

If you consider yourself a leader for change, and you are not seeing the results you seek, consider your methods.  Consider the intensity to which you are directing your stimulus for change.  And, certainly, consider the change which you are attempting to force.  Is it your will or the greater will?

Martin Luther King, Jr. comes to mind as I consider the violent rhetoric that as erupted on both ends of the political and social spectrum (with no particular cause of ideology in mind here).  I searched for an ideal quote of his and found that there are far too many from which to choose.  I find particular relevance to his statement: “Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace.”

Carpe momento!

“Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.” .”—Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.”—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Image source: http://1heurf2kk91pad4b23w0jddl.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/42903361_m.jpg

“I meant no harm, I most truly did not.  But I had to grow bigger.  So bigger I got.”—The Onceler/Dr. Seuss, The Lorax

We like things big in the U.S.  We like extremes—and it is likely killing us.

I saw a posting on social media of a greasy donut cheese burger.  I couldn’t tell if it was a double or triple burger.  It was such a disgusting mess.  It was a sugar-laden donut (the kind that looks really good, but after the first bite or two has you saying: “Why did I do this?”, and you finish anyways) with greasy cooked beef, cheese, and bacon.  Sadly, it is not the worst of extreme foods I have seen.

Now, I like food.  I like to eat.  I have done my share of food challenges—especially when my metabolism could handle it.  As a high school sophomore, I used to get an over-sized “Mighty Mountaineer” at Chico’s Dairy in Morgantown, WV when I would visit my older sister at WVU.  I recall it had 9 or 11 scoops of ice cream.  (I know better now than I did then!)  Then, there was the challenge at McGuire’s Pub in Pensacola, FL—three massive burgers for a free t-shirt.  (My friends and I not only completed the challenge but asked to see the desert menu.  We were famous for a day.)  My extremes have shifted more to hot sauce challenges in my “wiser” years.  Nonetheless, I understand the appeal of the challenges.  Unfortunately, normal has shifted toward the extremes.

We seem to be okay with the biggering.  We keep biggering and biggering—food, SUVs, and people.  Now at 6’5”, I don’t mind bigger vehicles—within limits.  Sadly, though, bigger car exteriors don’t seem to translate to bigger car interiors for some reason.  (A topic/rant for another day, I suppose?) 

When it comes to food, I do often wince at the price of eating out (especially with a near-teen who is biggering everyday).  It should perhaps be reassuring when the food arrives that the ample portion sizes are a bit more ‘bang for the buck’.  (And of course, I should make it a habit of dividing my food and taking half home in a doggie bag, but I rarely do.  Instead, personally, I am trying to make the healthier choices and consider the calories and quality of food I am consuming.)  Bang for the buck aside, food portions are just getting too big and too unhealthy.  As a result, Americans are getting too big and too unhealthy.

Obesity is a tremendous health issue in this country (and a growing issue abroad, as well).  There will be no “fat bashing” here.  I understand the plethora of issues underlying the individual battles with weight, and I have compassion for those in the fight.  Still, as we contest over who pays for health care in this country, there is the unavoidable discussion of personal responsibility and what society can do to oppose the obesity epidemic.

We have no issues with limiting smoking, because smoking has an obvious impact on those in proximity of the smoker.  Obesity, however, is considered an issue of personal choice and the impact is often seen as insensitivity on the part of the person being imposed upon.  (And to a degree it is, however….)

Of course, we have the opposite extreme (why are we also going to extremes?) of excessive leanness, as well.  So many now perceive “fit” as having “six-pack abs”.  (I like to say “I have six-pack abs, but I keep them in a soft cooler”—wink.)  Now, both extremes involve distorted body images.  One can certainly take “healthy” to an unhealthy level.

One can take biggering too far with regards to muscle, as well as fat.  Typically, I would say this is not quite the problem as obesity.  It, nonetheless, does come with its share of health issues.

I had a conversation the other day with a friend about body mass index (BMI), which is calculated as the body weight in kilograms divided by the body mass in kilograms squared.  It is being used increasingly as a measure of health.  A BMI of >29 m·kg² is considered “obese”.  The problem is that this value does not take into account the amount of fat v. muscle.  It is true that body size, whether fat or muscle, does present some health issues—e.g., stress on the heart and on the joints.  These issues are not the same for the muscular “obese” as the fat “obese”.  We could also have a discussion about “fit and fat” (another time).  There is, however, one area of body size that I feel warrants some discussion regarding limits.  That is…

FOOTBALL.

It is the start of the football season.  The NFL preseason is underway.  College starts in a matter of weeks, and youth football will be underway when this is published.

If the reader hasn’t noticed, football players are biggering.  The average weight of the Minnesota Vikings’ offensive unit in 2016 was 279 lb, the heaviest in the NFC.  The Buffalo Bills, in the AFC, were a mere 278 lb.  (My Steelers were a puny 266 lb.)  These may not seem so big (and the averages were surprisingly less than I expected), but one might want to consider that the biggest player on the Bills line, Mike Williams, tipped the scales at 360 lb.  The averages for the offensive lines are of, course, much heavier.  The heaviest in the AFC is the Baltimore Ravens at 327 lb (my Steelers’ line averages only 309 lb).  The Vikings are again the heaviest in the NFC at 331 lb.

When I was a kid, Doug Cursan, who played tackle for the 1972 Super Bowl Champion Miami Dolphins, worked in the off-season for my dad.  To me, he was massive.  His arms were so big he had trouble reaching the belt of his overcoat (men wore overcoats back then).  He was a first-round draft pick (1968) and a starter for the Dolphins.  His playing weight was… 250 lbs!!!  In college football, in the 1980’s, D-I lineman were “big” in the 280 lb range.  Remember the ‘Fridge, William Perry, for the Super Bowl XX Champion Chicago Bears?  He was an anomaly at roughly 350 lb.

Today, there are high school linemen tipping the scales well over 300 lb!  Talk about biggering.

Let’s talk concussions.  Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, is getting a lot of press and raises concerns for sports like American football.  Mike Webster, a childhood hero, was at the center of the movie Concussion.  The impact of CTE on one of the greatest centers to play the game and numerous other great and near-great players is tragic.  Webster, by the way, played at 255 lb.  It brings tears to my eyes to think how his life ended.

Concussions are basic physics.  The brain “floats” inside the skull.  Objects in motion tend to stay in motion until acted upon by an external force (Newton’s First Law).  Thus, is the brain in football.  Helmets cushion the blow, but only some—and help best with helmet to helmet contact.  Force, remember, is mass times acceleration.  The bigger the object, the more force.  The bigger the player, the bigger the hit.

There are a few things that can help make football safer.  Already, teams like the Seattle Seahawks and head coach, Pete Carroll are emphasizing changes in how players tackle.  “Hawk drills” are practiced to encourage players to tackle more like rugby players.

Rugby does not require helmets, and it is often considered to be “safer” than American football.  A 2011 study at the Auckland University of Technology, however, compared the number of catastrophic incidents (i.e., resulting in paralysis or death) in rugby with other sports between 1975 and 2005*. The study reported 4.6 catastrophic injuries for every 100,000 rugby players annually.  The same study reported that American football resulting in 1.0 catastrophic incidents per every 100,000 players during the years studied. That’s more than 75% fewer incidents than in rugby, however, is should be noted that concussions in football often go unreported and catastrophic injuries in rugby are often spinal injuries.  It is also of note that CTE has a cumulative effect.  Now, going back to the old leather helmets might reduce the head impacts in football (one is less likely to use the head as a weapon, per se), and better tackling techniques (Hawk tackling deemphasizes placement of the head in front of the ball carrier and emphasizes tracking the near the hip, maintaining leverage, hitting the thighs of the ball carrier with the leverage shoulder, wrapping up and driving through the hit.  Think rolling into a fall.) can help as well.  The biggest (no pun intended) change that might limit CTE—and injuries in general—in football might be to put a cap on playing weights.

In my son’s little league, there are weight restrictions.  Players over the weight limit are not permitted to advance the ball.  In the NFL, this might not be possible—let alone desirable—but, unquestionably, a cap on maximum playing weight can be beneficial.

I would place a limit of 300 lb on NFL players (perhaps less in collegiate football—and certainly less in high school).  One would be hard pressed to find an athlete who, at a naturally lean bodyweight, must be over 300 lb.  The result would be better health for the players and less compulsion for “bigger is better”.  It may not eradicate CTE (and it is worth noting that the generation who is presently seeing the impacts of CTE are the players who played at smaller weights), but weight limits could have a positive effect on the game—and, certainly, the long-term health of the players.  Wrestling caps at 285 lb.  It is possible for football to have a weight limit.

Something to consider….

Image: https://seussblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/thneeds.jpg?w=640

*http://www.brain-injury-law-center.com/latest-news/head-injuries-rugby-vs-football/

As Christians and non-Christians, alike, are often told by Christians that we need to have “a personal relationship with Jesus”.  Now, at some point in this post, I am likely going to offend some of my Christian friends and, perhaps, some of my non-Christian friends.  This is not my intent, but if it begins to offend at all, just hear me through.

Let me begin by stating that the phrase “a personal relationship with Jesus” is not found in the Bible. (There, I lost my first couple readers, and some of my non-believing readers are saying “Ah ha!  See I told you!)  So, if it not in the bible, why has it become so central to the teachings and activities of many (most) Christian denominations? (Good question.  I don’t know.)

With all that has been going on the world—and particularly the U.S.—I have been pondering this notion of a “a personal relationship with God”.  What does it mean?  And is there relevance for the non-believer?

The first question I consider is: “What does it mean to be ‘in a relationship’?”

Maybe, for some, the term “relationship” is taken lightly.  After all, there are many who seem to change their “relationship status” on Facebook nearly every other day.  Relationship is certainly a continuum ranging from “some guy I met, but I can’t remember his name” to “soul mate”.  So, it is not unusual for people to get confused by the notion of a relationship with God—some intangible, infinite, construct.

Relationship is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the state of being related or interrelated…, the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship…, a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings.”  So, in consideration of “well-centered fitness”, all relationships are Spiritual.  In other words, to be in a relationship with someone there has to be a connection, a sense of participation, and, above all, a sense that one is bound to something greater than self.

God, to the believer, is Eternal and Infinite.  God is Creator and is contained within all of Creation.  Whether one believes or does not—or how one believes—matters much less than we tend to espouse.  If we dismiss our theologies for a moment and consider only that which connects us all, then the notion of “a personal relationship” is relevant to all.

Many, who view themselves as having “a personal relationship” with God or Jesus, are really in much more of a one-sided relationship.  It is kind of like the “friend” you have because he/she can do something for you.  Jesus is my Savior.  God provides. Etc.  This is not relationship!  This is using someone for one’s personal benefit.

Relationship counsellors will often stress that marriage is not 50-50.  Marriage, they explain, is 100% on the part of both parties.  So, if our relationship with Jesus is described as a marriage, then shouldn’t we give our 100%?  (“Oh, but we do”, replies the faithful follower.)  But, do we?—Really?

I did a quick scan of verses—looking for one that supported the need to have “a personal relationship with Jesus”.  It all looked pretty one-sided to me.  In Revelations 3:20, it is God who comes knocking.  1 John 4:10, 19 tells us that it is God who first loved us.  God is love, we are told (1 John 4:8).  The great commands are love God and love your neighbor (Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27).  Is sounds like love is at the center of this relationship thing.  And, if we are to love God and our neighbor (which, by the way, includes our enemy—Matthew 5:44), that pretty much covers everything and everyone, doesn’t it.

My faith always takes me back to the idea that I am connected on a very Spiritual and Physical level with everyone and everything.  If I am to have a “personal relationship with God” there can be no room for division—of any kind—in my life.  This is not to say that there can’t be disagreement (even the best of friendships and marriages have conflict).  It just means that we take to heart what is meant by the statement: “Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).  This should hold especially true for those of us who profess to be Christians, i.e., followers of Christ, but it is no less true for any who belong to humankind.

The divisive nature of society today is disheartening.  We are divided along every line that makes us unique and diverse.  Rather than embracing and celebrating our diversity, we use it for cause to label and separate.  (Yes, even those who claim to celebrate diversity create division.)  There is no relationship when there is us and them.  Diversity must not imply division.

So, if we claim a “personal relationship” with God and/or Jesus, we must own up to what that means.  It is not that Jesus is my pass to eternal life.  It is that we lead the way to inclusion and acceptance.  It is that we care for all persons—and things.  It means loving even those who don’t love us or agree with us.

If you are not religious or don’t believe in God, you are not free of the Spiritual dimension.  Higher Power or no Higher Power, we are all connected on the deepest level.  The carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements that make up our physical being are the same elements that make up the plants and animals that feed us.  What once made the structure of my cells might tomorrow be a component of you.  The energy that runs through the Universe runs through us all.  We are one whether we like the other or not.  Get over yourself!

I have not arrived at that place where I can say, “I have a personal relationship with God.”  I want to be.  I believe that God is patiently waiting, but I have a way to go.  If you don’t believe like I do, that is okay.  If you understand, however, that we are bound in relationship at a profoundly deep level, then we are actually much more alike than different.

Carpe momento!

“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”—John Quincy Adams

I am following up yesterday with another questioning of a friend’s post on social media.  This friend, known for her positive attitude, asked of her friends: “Do you enjoy my inspirational posts?”  I don’t know what motivated the question.  Apparently, she needed to know.  My immediate response was “Well, duh.  Of course, I do.”  How could anyone not?  (If somebody would actually answer “No”, I would have to question whether they are human.)

There is so much negativity on social media.  I have fallen into negativity from time to time, myself.  There needs to be a concerted effort to establish a more positive, inspirational presence on social media—and more so in the real face-to-face world.  I have a number of people whose posts I consciously look for on Facebook.  I need and want to be inspired.  In turn, I recognize that others need inspiration.

When I am in my frequent cynical and negative frames of mind, I find it essential to stop and seek out inspiration.  I like to share positive quotes—in part, because I know that they are a benefit to others—mostly because they are a benefit to me.

Don’t question the positive messages you share.  If no one likes them (and I doubt this is the case), so be it.  If it helps you, it helps others.

Taking a cue from my friend, Andy, I get to be positive and have an impact on the lives of others.

Carpe momento!