"Our greatest weariness comes from work not done."

Eric Hoffer

"....but you've got to have some fun in life."

Zach Branam

Celebrating as a Christian (Thinking about Pentecost and the Fourth of July)

Celebrations are a part of our Christian and national traditions. As Christians we celebrate the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ and as citizens we celebrate the birth of our nation.

Sometimes it is beneficial to compare a Christian celebration with a secular one, looking for similarities and differences, as a way of keeping our celebrations biblical. It's especially interesting to compare Pentecost, the founding of the church with the Fourth of July, the founding of the United States. Both remind us of freedom. The Fourth of July reminds us of the freedom people have as citizens of a country. Pentecost reminds us of our experience in being freed from the tyranny of sin.

Both celebrations look to the future. There's an abundance of hope and promise in the empowering by the Holy Spirit which began at Pentecost. Likewise, as a nation there would be little or nothing to celebrate today if we thought that all our freedoms were going to disappear tomorrow.

However there are some significant differences in the two events. The celebration at Pentecost is associated with joy, life, and faith in God. The celebration that happens on the Fourth of July in the United States is aligned with many symbols of militarism and should remind us that our existence as a nation was acquired with much suffering, especially to the native Americans and slaves who lived in the early history of our country.

Pentecost was a unifying experience. Acts 4:32 says, "The group of believers was one in mind and heart." The events leading to the first Fourth of July celebration had a divisive effect. During the Revolutionary War two-thirds of the citizens in the colonies were either still loyal to the British government or wanted to remain neutral.

The Pentecost experience was a a celebration of the presence of the Holy Spirit. It was a celebration which proclaimed, "God with us!" The Fourth of July celebration is a celebration, not of the presence of God, but of the presence of the most powerful weapons of war. On this national birthday many Americans celebrate their trust in the bomb.

Pentecost celebrates the truth. The early church celebrated because they discovered that God's promises are true. The Messiah had come. He was resurrected, and had sent the Holy Spirit like he promised. They witnessed out of having experienced the presence of that truth in their lives. The Fourth of July celebration of independence, an independence acquired and maintained by trust in war and violence, is something that we can only celebrate because we haven't experienced it. It is, literally, celebrating a lie.

To explain further, there are many people living in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Latin America who have survived under the shadow of war for decades. Many have been injured, lost relatives and friends, and lost property to the violence of war. These people have experienced war firsthand in their neighborhoods and hometowns. They know war is nothing to celebrate but a nightmare to dread.

There hasn't been a war on US soil for over a century, so most Americans have little or no firsthand knowledge of war. Even most US soldiers who fought overseas in the past several decades have not been faced with the horror of seeing their homes and families destroyed by war. War is not the glorious, exalting experience that many pretend it is every Fourth of July. The Fourth of July celebration is a false celebration.

The Pentecost experience was a result of the Holy Spirit entering people's lives and making them whole and complete persons in a way never experienced before. The Fourth of July, celebrates, not the wholeness of people, but acts of war which destroy human wholeness, physically, mentally, and spiritually.

Pentecost took care of all human needs. Acts 4:34 says, "There was no one in the group who was in need." All wars, including the wars celebrated by Americans on July 4th increase human suffering and need. War causes poverty, famine, physical handicaps, and death. War is the biggest threat families have ever faced. War destroys neighborhoods, alienates people, and breaks down productive societies. War has been responsible for turning millions of people into refugees.

The Pentecost experience had a liberating effect on those who were filled with the Holy Spirit, a liberation that was and is for all people everywhere. Although words like freedom, liberty, and Independence are associated with the Fourth of July celebration, it is in fact, a celebration of the denial of freedom. The phrase, "war of liberation" is a contradiction. War only transfers oppression from one victim to another. American militarism, as presented by exhibits of military equipment in our parades, tells us that our freedom and liberty is based on our willingness to destroy the freedom and liberty of enemies by killing them.

The closer we look at the celebrations of Pentecost and the Fourth of July, the more incompatible they seem. Dale Aukerman in his book Darkening Valley: A Biblical Perspective on Nuclear War, writes, "The two utterly contrary attitudes we can take toward those with whom we are in contact are blessing and cursing. In blessing we as that the mercy of God and the goodness of life rest upon others. In cursing we seek to exclude them from that..." To curse someone or some nation is to call down doom or misfortune on them. If we identify with the Fourth of July celebration and its militaristic and nationalistic symbols, then we are part of the cursing or calling down of doom on those who are our nation's enemies, and in so doing we seek to deprive them of the fullness of God's blessing. Ecclesiastes 21:27 says, "When a godless man curses his enemy, he is cursing himself." When we stoop to the level of cursing others. whether they be personal enemies or national enemies, we become our own worst enemy. We cannot escape the doom ourselves without God's forgiveness and we can't receive that forgiveness unless we are willing to forgive others (Matthew 6:12, 14, 15).

If we look closely at the Fourth of July celebrations we can recognize within them, not only the echoes of past wars, but also the rumblings for future ones. John Howard Yoder writes, "The idolatry of patriotism, believing that any one nation's or people's cause is so worthy that to it human lives - whether of 'friend' or 'foe' - should be sacrificed, must be unveiled not first when it has actually led to open warfare, but already when the possibility of such slaughter has been accepted in government plans. "

"Not the taking of life, but the idolizing of one's own interest which leads finally to killing is the deepest sin of militarism. Whether the sixth commandment absolutely forbids all killing is still debated; in any case the first forbids nationalism."

James 3:8-10 says, "But no one has ever been able to tame the tongue. It is evil and uncontrollable, full of deadly poison. We use it to give thanks to our Lord and Father and also to curse our fellow-man, who is created in the likeness of God. Words of thanksgiving and cursing pour out from the same mouth. My brothers, this should not happen!"

There is a place to be properly thankful for the privileges and opportunities we have living in our own country. But many Christians will, in their celebration of the Fourth of July, go beyond words of thanksgiving to words of cursing or calling down doom on those who might jeopardize that which we consider ours. The tongue is guilty of cursing when it cheers and applauds military exhibits in Fourth of July parades and it is also guilty of cursing when it is silent in the presence of doom or misfortune befalling our nation's enemies.

The biblical person cannot include in his celebration, attitudes, actions, or language that are threatening to the well-being of others. The tongues given by the Holy Spirit to believers on Pentecost did not include any cursing or calling down misfortune on enemies. So we need to remember that we are first and foremost witnesses of the Pentecost experience. That is our primary source of celebration.

Leonard Nolt

Previously published in slightly different form in the June 21, 1983 issue of GOSPEL HERALD.

this path, this road that is one perfect
straight line even if it goes around the
world through heat and fog and rain
and snow and it's my life I keep
thinking. It's my life.

- Deborah Keenan,
from "Small History."
found in the Feb.
2009 issue of Oprah.

"All winners are accomplished quitters in that they have perfected the art
of quitting everything that is holding them back from whatever it is they
set out to do."

Ben Glass
http://theworkplacebully.blogspot.com/2009/06/better-to-leave-than-stay.html

Idaho City, Idaho

At the corner of Main and Commercial
a lanky mongrel jogs, stiff-legged
past the leaning culvert.

At the corner of School and Main
the charred remains of a second-hand store,
plastered with license plates,
waits for time to heal the burns.

At the corner of Montgomery and Commercial
inside a "censibly-priced" gift shop
lies a 1964 issue of LIFE, with a
lack and white picture of Robert Mcnamara,
hatless, scaling the Matterhorn in a snowstorm.

In another shop at the corner of Myers and Montgomery
on a table inside the front door
lies a heart-shaped jewelry box,
coated with seashells, but for the rim, which is
ringed with the vertebrae of dead fish.

At the corner of Montgomery and Walula
a Harley rumbles by, the long black braid of the
passenger grazing the revolving rear wheel.

At the corner of Walula and Duck Walk
blistering sun rays drill into skin
caressed by a cool breeze.

At the corner of Bear Run and Main
a black cat silhouettes its way
across the sunlit street
to the safety of city hall

Cars creep past, not even fast enough
to raise a little dust, that
last remnants of pioneers
and teradactys;
two small boys stroll down
the wooden sidewalk.
an old man, feet dragging
heads for his noon siesta;
and, with blinding speed,
light ricochets from light
At the corner of Main and Wall.

Leonard Nolt
Sept 27, 1997

"It is difficult
to get the news from poems
yet men die miserably everyday
for lack
of what is found there."

William Carlos Williams

"The man who opts for revenge should dig two graves."

Chinese Proverb

BLACK BOX

It used to be that when an airplane crashed, the one part of the plane that always survived was the Black Box. No matter how bad the disaster; an explosion five miles up, a fiery mid-air collision near a busy terminal, or a badly screwed up landing, the Black Box stayed intact.

Inside the Black Box were high tech instruments that recorded valuable information about the function of the plane prior to and at the time of the accident; control settings, instrument measurements, and the conversation of the crew.

After an air disaster, agents from the National Transportation Safety Board or the Federal Aviation Agency retrieved the Black Box. They always got it, sooner or later, even if it was mired in a snake-infested swamp or congealed in a tortured mass of scorched metal.

One day at a committee meeting late in the 21st century, someone made the suggestion that since the Black Box always survived an air disaster, and since we want the passengers and crew to survive also, why not just put them in the Black Box? There was a shocked silence around the table. Like all great ideas it was simple and beautiful.

Some one pointed out that if people were placed in the Black Box, those precise instruments that recorded valuable information about the plane's performance would have to go. After all, the Black Box had a limited amount of space. No one paid attention. What mattered was saving the souls aboard the plane.

From that time on passengers and crew were assigned seats in the Black Box. So if the power went off at 30,000 feet, the drone of the engines turned to an ominous silence, and green oxygen masks dangled like the webs of poisonous spiders in front of each face, there was no panic. People just got the same feelings they would get at the beginning of a roller coaster ride.

Later, when rescue crews arrived at the unrecognizable crumpled mass of broken metal that used to be the latest Boeing or Airbus, retrieved the Black Box, and pried open the door, people would file out. They would be smiling and laughing, perhaps a little disheveled, but unhurt. Strangers would be joking with each other; seventy-eight, forty-one, and seventeen year olds; children holding hands, the Carosellies, the Schultzes, and the Zabreskies, from Toronto, El Paso, and Albany.

Schedules would be disrupted, of course. Grandpa Rodriquez might be late for Tony's graduation. Once Senator Boone missed an important vote in congress and the airline's insurance company had to pay dearly. But no one was killed or injured.

It's true that there has been no reduction in the number of crashes since statistical information about the accidents is no longer available. But that doesn't seem very important, now that no one gets hurt. Some have actually suggested that one of the reasons people fly is because of the possibility of a crash, like going to the hockey game to see the fights, but that's ridiculous, of course.

It's been nearly half a century since anyone has died in an accident. After the tremendous success of Black Boxes in airplanes, manufacturers began installing them in cars, trains, bicycles, and baby carriages. Laws require bungee jumpers and hang gliders to have Black Boxes, but there are unconfirmed rumors that some people don't always use them. Once, many years ago, a manufacturer tried to ship some ATVs without Black Boxes. He still serving time.

Children and teenagers go to school in their own personal Black Boxes. As you can imagine it prevents many of the problems that go with unsupervised human interactions. Like a mother's arms or a church community, the Black Box has become the perfect symbol of complete security.

Scientists are working on Black Boxes for riparian areas, the ozone layer, and California Condors. Soon everyone and all creation will be safe. It's only a matter of time.

Leonard Nolt

Here's an article from "The Mennonite" about the Maunday Thursday and Easter peace vigil at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, USA.http://www.themennonite.org/issues/12-09/articles/Good_Friday_vigil_challenges_air_strikes

SECOND ANNUAL MODERN HOTEL ART EXHIBIT - MAY 8, 2009

SECOND ANNUAL MODERN HOTEL ART EXHIBIT - MAY 8, 2009

SECOND ANNUAL MODERN HOTEL ART EXHIBIT MAY 8, 2009

SECOND ANNUAL MODERN HOTEL ART EXHIBIT - MAY 8, 2009

2ND ANNUAL MODERN HOTEL ART EXHIBIT - MAY 8, 2009

"Be faithful in small things because it is in them that your strength lies"

Mother Teresa

F-O-R-G-I-V-E-N-E-S-S / R-E-C-O-N-C-I-L-I-A-T-I-O-N (a list)

F-O-R-G-I-V-E-N-E-S-S

F - First, decide to begin the process of forgiveness.

O - Oppose the temptation to give up on forgiveness.

R - Remind yourself to list the things that forgiveness is NOT.*

G - Give the person who harmed you space and time.

I - Invest time and energy in learning more about forgiveness.

V - Vitalize your life with diversions from the hurt of being wronged.

E - Engage in the stables of life: eat, drink, sleep, exercise, think, study,
fellowship, worship, pray, work, play, and of course, love.

N - Never forget that forgiveness will benefit you more than the person you are
forgiving.

E - Expect things to get better.

S - Seek time for quiet reflection, alone or with others.

S - See what positive outcomes may have occurred from the experience.


*Forgiven is NOT...
1. Forgetting
2. Pretending that nothing wrong happened
3. Refusing to address the wrong
4. Excusing the wrong
5. Unhealthy
6. Pretending the wrong didn't matter
7. A single act, but rather a process that may take years.
8. Quick
9. Easy


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



R-E-C-O-N-C-I-L-I-A-T-I-O-N

R - Reconsider your viewpoint from the perspective of the person who disagrees
with you.

E - Evaluate your position by soliciting opinions from those who may be more
objective.

C - Consider listening more than talking.

O - Offer your information and opinions, whether written or spoken, with
kindness and courtesy.

N - Never engage in name-calling.

C - Continue to hope.

I - Investigate new ideas and fresh possibilities.

L - Live your life.

I - Insist on diverting your attention from the conflict to engage in positive, healing
activities for yourself and others.

A - Assertiveness is still likely to be a wise and useful tool.

T - Tell others about this experience.

I - Invest in the experience by listing all the learnings you have gained.

O - Open yourself to the possibility that there may never be any reconciliation.

N - Never resort to retaliation.



Leonard Nolt

Note: unless otherwise indicated all the writings and photos on this blog are the creative property
of Leonard Nolt. Please do not publish without permission. Thank you.

"Hope is the most important feeling we can have."

Carlos Reygados

"Beware of the sound of one hand clapping"

2009 Race to Robie Creek

The NCAA Basketball Playoffs

Well it's over for another year. The NCAA Men's Basketball Playoffs. The catch phrases; March Madness, Sweet Sixteen, Elite Eight, and Final Four are out of the sports headlines for ten or eleven months. The NCAA Men's basketball playoffs is one of the most popular sports events of the year, but there is trouble brewing on the horizon. Most years it's not as easy to predict the winner as it was this year. But even a casual fan knows which teams will probably make it to the sweet sixteen, and even the final four. As Steve Kelley for the Seattle Times wrote several weeks ago, "The guest list for the final four is shrinking."



The Univ. of North Carolina, Univ. of Connecticut, and Michigan State have a combined 28 final four appearances and eight national titles. UCLA has eleven titles. Many teams have a chance of making the NCAA playoffs, but only a handful have a chance of making the final four. The last four winners were Kansas, Florida (twice), North Carolina, and Connecticut. Kentucky and Indiana were out of the running this year, but they'll be back. Every now and then an upstart will crash the final four party like George Mason did in 2006, but those surprises will be less frequent. A few other teams like Texas, Oklahoma, Duke, and occasionally a Maryland and a Louisville are invited to the final four. You might be able to add a few more, but that's about it. As the participants in the final four become more predictable, interest in the playoffs will diminish.



How do we solve this problem? Should the women's playoffs compete more vigorously with the men for attention? That would be great. What about term limits for coaches with the most wins? Probably won't happen. One reason for the problem is the choices made by the athletes. For example, let's look at the North Carolina star, Tyler Hansborough, who lead his team to the final four two consecutive years. There is no doubt that Hansborough is one of the finest college basketball players in the country. There is also no doubt that he will be a top draft pick and get a contract right out of college that will make him a multi-millionaire. So why did Hansborough, who is from Missouri, select North Carolina for his college. I don't know Mr. Hansborough personally, but I suspect he did not pick North Carolina because of the number of volumes in their library, or the number of Nobel prize winners on the faculty. He probably selected North Carolina because of the strength of their college basketball program and its history of having consistently winning coaches and teams. And that's just where the problem is.



North Carolina would have had a winning team and possibly even made it to the final four if Hansborough had gone to a different school. The coaches would have filled that position with another player perhaps not quite as good as Hansborough, but almost. However if Hansborough had chosen to go to a school that did not have a strong tradition of winning Division One basketball games, he could have made a much greater difference in the life, history, and reputation of that college than he ever could do at the Univ. of North Carolina. Other players have done that. Bob Lanier with St. Bonaventure and Ernie DiGrigorio with Providence both in the 1970s, to name just two. The basketball histories of St. Bonaventure and Providence will never be separated from those two star players who placed them on the front pages of sports pages for a few years, but the history of Hansborough at North Carolina will be much more obscure, as it mixes in the shuffle of numerous other excellent players and winning championships teams over the years. Why does an outstanding player choose to go to a school that will have a winning team, possibly a championship team, even if he chooses to go somewhere else, when he could make a much bigger difference by selecting a college that does not have a winning record, and turning it into a winner. Of course there is a greater risk in choosing a college without a strong basketball tradition. He might get injured, not play very much, and not be noticed by the pros when it becomes draft time. The team might still be a losing team, even with him on it. But that's still a much more courageous choice. If these high school players are really as great as predicted, that would be one way to prove it. It would be good to see great high school players showing some guts when they select a college to attend, instead of making the wimpy choice of attending a school that will be a winner with or without them on the team.



Leonard Nolt

Maunday Thursday vigil and Easter celebration in support of Life.....

Maunday Thursday vigil in support of life and peaceful solutions to conflict.

Here are some terms and descriptions of contemporary behavior in the workplace: http://stonecast.blogspot.com/2009/04/other-forms-of-workplace-bullying.html

Here's a report and a photograph of the Maunday Thursday vigil at Mountain Home Air Force Base as reported in the Mennonite Weekly Review. http://www.mennoweekly.org/2009/4/27/vigil-idaho-base-opposes-air-strikes/.

"Love is an act of endless forgiveness."

Peter Ustinov

I recently had a movie review posted on the Third Way Cafe web site at http://www.thirdway.com/mm/?Page=4259Taken

Leonard Nolt

Defining the Problem (Part Six of Workplace Psychological Abuse)

This is the sixth in a series on this topic.
Parts 1 - 5 are located on this blog also.

The literature on the topic of bullying in the workplace has expanded rapidly in recent years. It's important for employees and employers to know exactly what bullying is before they can recognize and address it. Naming a harmful or injurious behavior is necessary so a victim or target can successfully protect himselves, as well as take steps to recover from any injuries sustained. The purpose of this entry is to look at and consider definitions in order to identify bullying if we experience or witness it in our workplace.

A number of different terms are used to describe "bullying" or "workplace psychological (or 'emotional') abuse." Other terms used are "workplace mistreatment," "scapegoating," or simply "work abuse." The term "mobbing" is used by some writers to differentiate between schools where the term "bullying" has been traditionally used, and the same kind of abuse in the workplace. "Mobbing" also adds a plural connotation to the problem which in the workplace may start with one person, but often spreads to include other co-workers and management.

Here are several definitions.

The late Tim Field in his 1996 book; "Bully in Sight: How to Predict, Resist, Challenge, and Combat Workplace Bullying," defines bullying this way: "The term "bully" describes a range of behaviours, from a persistent unwillingness to recognise performance, loyalty and achievement, to repeated critical remarks and humiliating and overtly hostile behaviours such as shouting at an employee in front of colleagues. The full spectrum ranges from a person whose communication, interpersonal, and behaviour skills are poor, to those who are spiteful, vindictive and destructive and who use their position of power to practice these traits for their own gratification" (Page 33).

Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie in their 2003 book, "The Bully at Work: What You Can Do to Stop the Hurt and Reclaim Your Dignity On the Job," define bullying in this way: "Bullying at work is the repeated, malicious, health-endangering mistreatment of one employee( Target) by one or more employees (the bully, bullies). The mistreatment is psychological violence, a mix of verbal and strategic assaults to prevent the Target from performing work well. It is illegitimate conduct in that it prevents work from getting done" (page 3). The Namies are also responsible for the website Workplace Bullying Institute at http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/, an excellent source of current information about workplace bullying, including information about legislation to address the problem.

Peter Randall in the 1997 publication, "Adult Bullying: Perpetrators and Victims," defines bullying as: "Bullying is the aggressive behaviour arising from the deliberate intent to cause physical or psychological distress to others" (Page 4). On page 3 Randall also quotes a couple other sources for additional definitions. "Bullying can be described as the systemic abuse of power" (Smith and Sharp, 1994), and "Bullying is repeated aggression, verbal, psychological, or physical, conducted by an individual or group against others" (Guidelines on Countering Bullying Behaviour in Primary and Post-Primary Schools, 1993). Randall also adds a very important point. "The main similarity between these definitions is the implication that bullying is likely to be repeated or systematic, not a one-off act but a succession of events that are overtly aggressive" (Page 4).

In their 1999 book, "Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace," authors Noa Davenport, Ruth Distler Schwartz, and Gail Pursell Elliott provide the reader with several definitions. The write: "Mobbing is an emotional assault, It begins when an individual becomes the target of disrespectful and harmful behavior. Through innuendo, rumors, and public discrediting, a hostile environment is created in which one individual gathers others to willingly, or unwillingly, participate in continuous malevolent actions to force a person out of the workplace."

"These actions escalate into abusive and terrorizing behavior. The victim feels increasingly helpless when the organization does not put a stop to the behavior or may even plan or condone it" (Page 33).

These authors include a definition from Dr. Heinz Leymann, one of the research pioneers in the field. Leymann in 1984 wrote that mobbing was "psychological terror" involving "hostile and unethical communication directed in a systematic way by one or a few individuals mainly toward one individual."

"The person who is mobbed is pushed into a helpless and defenseless position. These actions occur on a very frequent basis and over a long period of time" (Page 22).

The same authors also include a useful definition from Lois Price Spratlen who in 1995 wrote an article entitled "Interpersonal Conflict Which Includes Mistreatment in a University Workplace," that was published in "Violence and Victims." In that article Spratlen defines workplace mistreatment "as a behavior or situations - without sexual or racial connotations - which the recipient perceives to be unwelcome, unwanted, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, or a violation of human rights" (Page 24 in "Mobbing..")

Judith Wyatt and Chauncey Hare in Work Abuse: How to Recognize and Survive it, published in 1997, write: "Work abuse is the flagrant mistreatment or silent neglect of people in the staggering number of Western work organizations that remain authoritarian and overcontrol employees." They add the following insightful information "Most people in these abusive organizations, like children in abusive families, stay blind to their abuse in order to survive it. Like young children who are battered daily in abusive families, people see their abusive work situations as 'normal' and the shaming way others behave toward them as 'human nature,' because they are either unaware or disbelieving of another way of working" (Page ix).

And last, but not least, in Stalking the Soul: Emotional Abuse and the Erosion of Identity, published in 1998, Marie-France Hirigoyen writes: "By emotional abuse in the workplace, we mean any abusive conduct - whether by words, looks, gestures, or in writing - that infringes upon the personality, the dignity, or the physical or psychical integrity of a person; also behavior that endangers the employment of said person or degrades the climate of the workplace" (Page 52).

All six of these books are excellent and worth reading. In her book Hirigoyen deals with emotional abuse in the home as well as the workplace. The books by Field and Randall are British publications so the legal information in them may not necessarily apply to situations in the US. Randall includes a chapter on preventing bullying in the community. "Mobbing..." includes information about, and sample policies from, companies who have sincerely addressed the problem of workplace bullying. I purchased 100 copies of "Mobbing: Emotional Abuse in the American Workplace," to distribute to former co-workers and others who may be in a similar situation."Work Abuse" does an excellent job of describing how harmful bullying is to the target. The Namies supplement their fine writings with their website and also with public and TV education of the problem. It's my impression that most of these writers, like myself, became interested in the topic of bullying/mobbing as a result of being the targets of a bully in the workplace. They have taken this destructive experience and used it to skillfully inform and benefit others.

At this time I'm not writing my own definition but here are a few observations and some insights based on my own experience and on the definitions of others.

1. There is a difference between harassment and bullying. All bullying is harassment, but not all harassment is bullying. Harassment can be a single event or action, but bullying is a set of repeated acts, directed at one individual. These acts can occur numerous times in one shift as in my experience, or less often, perhaps as infrequently as once a week. If someone is having a bad day and acts in a rude manner toward a co-worker, but then apologizes to the victim, and behaves differently the next day, that is not necessarily bullying. A bully persists in targeting his/her target consistently and repeatedly, often for months or years.

2. Bullying is injury-causing behavior. A person who is bullied more frequently is likely to be injured sooner. It's possible that one victim will still be ignoring the abuse, while another targeted with a similar dose, is already injured by the bullying. However it's important to remember that regardless of how quickly someone is injured, the injury is not the fault of the target.

3. Bullying is an act of violence. The International Labor Orgainization includes bullying under the heading "Violence in the Workplace," along with homicide and rape.

4. Some writers use the word "victim" to designate the recipient of the bully's bad behavior and others, such as the Namies in their writings prefer to use "target." I think, in this context, the two words are interchangeable. Using the word "victim" according to the Namies, may draw some people who have been victims of abuse in childhood back to that traumatic experience, which could aggravate the problem. Also the Namies write that "victimhood begets powerless, helplessness, and an inability to change matters for the better"(Page 5 of The Bully at Work). These are legitimate concerns. However it's a fact that many people become victims of others through no fault of their own. This includes not only victims of bullying, but also victims of sexual abuse, drunk drivers, and war. Recognizing oneself as a victim might be the first step toward rising above the experience, seeking and finding a safer place, making conscious decisions to seek additional professional help as needed, and then responding to the experience of being victimized by publicly addressing it, as these authors have done. Another option, of course, is to not talk about it except to therapists, close friends, and/or family.

5. For many people being bullied at work, the only option is to quit and get a job elsewhere. However that can be very difficult. I worked for the same employer for over 25 years when the bulling started and I was there for 30 years before being forced to find a job elsewhere. By then I was injured and partially disabled. Fortunately I left in time to avoid permanent disability. My situation was unique in that I had a long and highly successful career behind me and had enormous support from church, family, friends, as well as from a small number of co-workers. I also frequently talked about the problem, primarily to people outside the workplace. I sought professional help early and repeatedly. All that helped keep me from being more seriously injured and assisted in my recovery. Many victims or targets of bullying don't have a strong support system and don't talk about it, or seek professional help. Regardless of whether someone considers himself a target or a victim, the important thing is to seek help and recovery, and then ultimately use the experience as a catalyst to move on and be successful in life. This does not mean that the person must ignore the experience and not talk about or address it. As the writers of these books have demonstrated, some will continue to use the experience of being bullied to help others.


6. Bullying is often done in a subtle and discreet manner. It's possible for someone to be the target of a bully for a long time without anyone other than the bully and her/his target knowing about the problem. However even in circumstances when the bullying is overt, as in chronic loud verbal harassment that is witnessed by other employees; or even the kind of bullying I experienced which included disparaging comments and accusations to co-workers and management from the bully, as well as a steady dose of rudeness and ostracism directed at me, (also witnessed), the co-workers will not necessarily recognize the behavior as being very harmful. This is partly because one has to actually be the target of a bully to appreciate the vicious and injurious nature of the behavior. As a society we are so used to being entertained by tense conflicts on TV dramas and sit-coms that often include rude, obnoxioius, and condescending dialogue, as well as malicious behavior. We don't appreciate how destructive chronic tension, verbal harassment, and/or ostracism can be in real life. Undoubtedly a dozen or more of my co-workers witnessed the bullying I was targeted with, but as far as I know no one, other than myself, ever reported it to management. Why? I believe that no one reported it because someone who hasn't been the target of a bully in the workplace cannot appreciate how destructive such behavior is. It's also true that some people, especially those in management tend to see such a problem as a simple personality conflict. A bully in the department, while in the process of damaging another person's health and career, can actually provide a dose of macabre entertainment for others in a setting that might otherwise be boring and predictable. Even though the policies of most employers expressly forbid the kind of behavior that a bully demonstrates, most of those policies are not enforced and not even adhered to by management.

It's important for everyone in the workplace to know what bullying is, so they can recognize and effectively resist it when it occurs in their workplace. Allowing the behavior of bullies to go unaddressed simply makes the world a more dangerous place for everyone.

Leonard Nolt

"The people who get on in this world are the people who get up and look for the circumstances they want, and if they can't find them, make them."

George Bernard Shaw


"Before you can achieve, you must first believe."

Kalin Lucas

Evolution: Some Thoughts

For many years there has been an ongoing controversy between those who embrace Darwin's Theory of Evolution and those who say that the truth is a literal interpretation of the creation account in the first chapter of Genesis. With the help of a couple knowledgeable writers on this topic, I want to raise a few questions and offer my own perspective.

Recently I completed "The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution," by David Quammen. This is a fine book to read (although I listened to the recorded version), very accessible, and as the title says, an intimate look at Darwin with a lot of information about his family. Quammen is an award winning writer who has a knack for taking scientific subjects and making them easy for anyone to read and understand. Quammen used to write a column for Outside Magazine, and is the author of "The Song of the Dodo," "Natural Acts," and "Wild Thoughts from Wild Places." In this article I'm also drawing extensively from Kenneth R. Miller's book Finding Darwin's God, which I would also highly recommend to anyone interested in reading more about this interesting topic. I want to use a quote from Quammen's book as an entrance to sharing some thoughts I have about evolution.

This quote is from disc 5, track 21 and at first addresses the nature of variations and natural selection in the process of evolution, which I include as simply a lead in to the heart of the quote which begins with the sentence, "But if variations are undirected..."

".... variations do have physical causes,they just don't have pre-ordained purposes. For instances, a drought might increase the rate of variation in a species, he thought, without necessarily invoking any particular variations that improves a creature's tolerance for drought. Or the drought might yield one variation that improves drought-tolerance plus five others that are useless or harmful. If so natural selection would tend to preserve and multiply that one. Selection is directional. Variation, offering raw material to the selection process, is not directional. But if variations are undirected, and if natural selection calibrates only the fitness of each creature to survive and reproduce, then is it possible to believe that God created humans in his image and likeness endowing us with a spiritual dimension not shared by the best adapted orchid or barnacle. Arguably not. There's a genuine contradiction here that can't easily be brushed away, but let's be clear. This is not evolution vs God. The existence of God, any sort of God, personal or abstract, imminent or distant, is not what Darwin's evolutionary theory challenges. What it challenges is the supposed Godliness of man, the conviction that we above all other life forms are spiritually elevated, divinely favored, possessed of an immaterial and immortal essence such that we have special prospects for eternity, special status in the expectations of God, special rights and responsibilities on earth.That's where Darwin runs afoul of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and probably most other religions on the planet."

Most Christians subscribe to the idea that humans are a spiritually superior life form, endowed, as Quammen puts it, with an "immaterial and immortal essence," or soul, and with a special future in eternity. Many Christians also discard, without much consideration, Darwin's theory of evolution. I believe that Darwin's theory of evolution is probably correct. The evolution theory seems solid and durable. It's been challenged continuously, and still endures. It also explains much that Genesis does not address or even try to explain.

I don't believe the creation took place in six twenty-four hour days sometime in the range of six to ten thousand years ago. Humans are the ones who like instant results. We have instant oatmeal, instant rice, and instant-on television sets. We want instant relief from any kind of discomfort. So it's perhaps understandable that we would also want an instant creation. However the desire for instant gratification is a human, not a divine, characteristic. Why would God be in a rush? Why would God, who most Christians believe has always existed and never changes, suddenly be unable to go on for even another week without a "creation?" It doesn't make sense. It's not the way God works.

As Miller points out in his book, which is subtitled, "A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution," if those who reject evolution for a relatively recent "instant" creation are correct, then the dinosaur bones accurately dated to millions of years ago, and representing creatures who no longer exist, were just placed in the earth by God to deceive people. That means God is a trickster or a deceiver who tries to fool people. I don't buy that.

The Biblical evidence for evolution is strong. Strongest of all is perhaps the knowledge that the theory of evolution is similar to the way God works as recorded in the Bible. Let me explain. Christians believe that our God is a personal God who has tried repeatedly over thousands of years to develop a relationship with humans. His early efforts included selecting a special people or nation. Later he used prophets to try to accomplish the same goal of developing a relationship with humans. In the New Testament he sent his son to demonstrate a new way of living and relating to God and other humans. We know from Philippians 2:12 ("...work out your salvation with fear and trembling..."), and 2 Corinthians 2:15 (...among those who are being saved..."), that salvation is a process. We know from Matthew 18:22 ("...seventy times seven...") that forgiveness is also a process. We witness in our own physical lives a process of growth extending from birth to death, and observe the same process at varying rates in all of life on this earth. Many of us can attest to a similar on-going process in our spiritual lives. We know that the relationships we have with other humans from our most intimate companions to casual acquaintances also go through a process of growth, or sometimes a process in the opposite direction, that is a growing apart. So why wouldn't creation also be a process.... as contrasted to something that God tried once thousands of years ago and then gave up on, as if it was a bad idea, which is really what the creationists and "intelligent designers" are saying, isn't it?

So what do we do with the idea expressed in the quote from Quammen's book. Quammen points out that the status of God is not threatened by Darwin's theory of evolution, only the status of humans. Is it possible that it's not our religious beliefs getting in the way of accepting Darwin's theory of evolution, but only our egos? Do we believe that we're simply too good to be genetically related to other species? The biological relationship is undeniable. Most, if not all, other animal species are "alive" in ways very similar to humans, ie beating hearts, moving limbs, etc. There are similarities in the DNA of humans and many other species. Moving backwards into prehistoric times we observe that the fossil records seem to indicate a merging of species.

Is it really demeaning to suggest that we are like other species, plants as well as animals, or does it simply acknowledge the obvious, that we are a part of an amazing and complex process filling the earth with life and hope. Most creationists will acknowledge that God "uses" natural processes to do most everything that happens naturally on Planet Earth: the change of seasons; migration; hibernation; the birth, growth, and death of all species; earthquakes, volcanoes, typhoons, hurricanes, and tsunamis; other weather variations; the blooming of flowers and the falling of leaves, and much more. So why wouldn't God also use natural processes to originate species, including the human species? God is consistent and predictable. If we say that in order for new species to begin, God had to specifically create each one, we are saying several things that for me are incompatible with what I know and believe about God.

First, as I mentioned before if we reject Darwin's theory of evolution we are saying that the creation was something God did a long time ago, and then quit doing as if it was a bad idea. I think the creation was and is a great idea. It's ongoing, and being a part of it as ourselves is the best gift any human will ever receive

If we claim that species were created by a specific act of God, instead of through the natural process of evolution we're saying that God was not great enough to include the creation of original species in the natural process. That cheapens and diminishes God's greatness.

The third problem that arises from rejecting Darwin is that it pushes God out of the mainstream of our lives and relegates his participation in the natural world to the areas where our comprehension is incomplete. There was a time in history when it was heresy to say that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Later scientists discovered that the Earth was, in fact, not the center of the universe. Columbus was criticized for believing that the earth is round, in part because of a Bible passage that speak of the four corners of the Earth. Columbus was right. The Bible was being misinterpreted by the religious leaders. Now we're told that Genesis contradicts Darwin, so Darwin must be wrong. Never mind that there are two remarkedly different versions of the creation story in the first couple chapters of Genesis. Once again the Bible is being misinterpreted, this time by the creationists. There is more in the Bible about the creation that is not found in Genesis. That, of course is what we learn from the Bible about the nature and behavior of God, which I addressed in the previous paragraphs.

If God wants to be an active part of our lives then why would he choose to exist and act only in those areas of the creation and nature for which we have no scientific explanation. As Miller points out, if our ability as humans to believe, and also to study and learn, that is if faith and reason are both gifts from God, they should work together to enhance our knowledge as well as strengthen our connection with God. However the creationists claim that they contradict or are in conflict with each other. That belief damages our ability to learn from the world we live in and weakens our trust in a supreme being.

If we claim God acts as a creator only in the areas of the natural world that may not be completely comprehensible to us, that means every time we make a new discovery or for the first time find a scientific explanation for some previously mysterious natural process, we push God further and further into the shadows of our knowledge. That does not pose a threat to science but it definitely does threaten our religious faith. To quote Miller; "If a lack of scientific explanation is proof of God's existence, the counter logic is unimpeachable: a successful scientific explanation is an argument against God. That's why this reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to religion than it is to science" (Page 266).

As a Christian and an evolutionist I believe that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is more biblical and theologically sound than believing that God created everything in six twenty-four hour days. Here is an partial list of my reasons:

1. Evolution more closely reflects what we know about the nature of God and how he/she works in the creation, not impatiently, seeking instant gratification and results, and without purpose and reason, but slowly, methodically, and within the context of the existing natural processes.

2. If God wants to be a part of the lives of humans as demonstrated by his son Jesus who personally ministered to people (It's in the life and actions of Jesus that we get the best possible picture of who God is and what God is like), then why would he exist and act as a creator only in the shadows of our knowledge, as the creationists claim?

3. I believe the reason many Christians reject evolution is not because it conflicts with our belief in God, but because it challenges our egos and our belief in our own self-importance, compared to other species. We like to think that we are much better than the other animals and plants that inhabit this world, and that egotistic attitude is manifested in the destruction we impose on other species and the environment. Therefore we reject the claim that we are genetically connected with other animals, even though the evidence overwhelmingly proves that we are directly related. It's not that we are less important, but rather that other species are much more important than we acknowledge them to be. They do not exist just for our benefit, but have intrinsic worth and value of their own, independent of any human use or utilization. Most other species do not need us to survive and thrive, but we definitely need them. Human life is sacred but there is something sacred about all of creation.

4. God is great enough to include the evolution of new species within the natural processes that exist on the earth. He/She did not have to step outside that role and make a special effort to bring each species into existence. As Miller puts in; "Life, in all its glory, is based in the physical reality of the natural world. We are dust, and from that dust comes the molecules of life to make both flowers and the dreamers who contemplate them" (Page 266).

5. I believe the creation is an ongoing process, which is consistent with the theory of evolution. God did not try it once and then abandon the creative process. It happens as a part of the ongoing natural processes of the Earth.

6. This reason steps a little further from the focus of this article, but it concerns me that so much emphasis is placed by Christians on embracing one particular interpretation of an Old Testament (OT) story. That which identifies a person as a Christian centers around beliefs about the nature of God, the coming of Jesus, and his Crucifixion and resurrection, not on any interpretation of an OT story. There are no Christians in the Old Testament. The OT predates the origins of Christianity so it's not possible for Christians to legitimately use a particular interpretation of an OT story as an identifying characteristic of Christianity. Yet many Christians believe that one has to reject the theory of evolution in order to be a Christian. Those who do that are adding stipulations to Biblical teaching that don't exist and do not belong there.

Here's another quote from Miller: "As more than one scientist has said, the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve. He got it right the first time" (Page 268).

"In obvious ways the various objections to evolution take a narrow view of the capabilities of life - but they take an even narrower view of the capabilities of the Creator. They hobble his genius by demanding that the material of His creation ought not to be capable of generating complexity. They demean the breadth of His vision by ridiculing the notion that the materials of His world could not have evolved into beings with intelligence and self-awareness. And they compel Him to descent from heaven onto the factory floor by conscripting His labor into the design of each organism that graces the surface of our living planet" (Page 268).

Later on page 268 Miller asks the important question; if the Creator uses physics and chemistry to run the mechanisms of life on this earth, why couldn't He have used the same processes to create life also? Is that beyond the ability of an all knowing and all powerful God? The kind of reasoning that finds God absent in the theory of evolution is the same kind of atheistic reasoning that does not recognize God at work in a world in which wars rage, children starve, and humans wreak havoc on each other. God has given us the gifts of knowledge and faith. It takes both for us to be truly appreciative of the greatness of our Creator. As Miller writes on Page 267: "Understanding evolution and its description of the processes that gave rise to the modern world is an important part of knowing and appreciating God... True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason."

Leonard Nolt

This is one of the most interesting news stories I've heard recently, an example of reconciliation, and how something good can come out of a horrible act of violence, http://news.aol.com/article/rape-victim-convicted-man/375591. A person wrongly accused of a crime he didn't committ, and imprisoned for eleven years. Then the conviction is reversed and followed by a confession, a prompt act of forgiveness, and now the two have written a book together called "Picking Cotton." They and and their families are now friends. If you have time, listen to and watch the video part of the story from 60 Minutes. I found it very moving. It's at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/06/60minutes/main4848039.shtml .

What does it say about our society in that the most unbelievable aspect of this story is not the crime committed, the false accusation, and the wrongly convicted victim, who twice received a life sentence for the violent act of someone else............but the act of forgiveness?

Just Paying Attention...

Overheard on a sidewalk, on 8 th. St. in front of the Bitter Creek Ale House - a scrap of conversation between a young woman and a young man approaching me. In a rather loud and exasperated tone the woman was saying to the obviously concerned man who had a worried look on his face:

"I'm sure if I was getting married, you would have been the first to know!"

"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarism, or the holy name of liberty and democracy? "

Ghandi in "Nonviolence in Peace and War"
from the blog "The Journey of My Mind."

The following quotes are from the introduction to one of the most remarkable books I've read in recent years: "A Universal History of the Destruction of Books: From Ancient Sumer to Modern Iraq," by Fernanado Baez



"Each destroyed book is a passport to hell." (Page 5)


"Of all of man's instruments, the most astonishing is, without any doubt, the book. The others are extensions of his body. The microscope, the telescope, are extensions of his eyes; the telephone an extension of his voice; then we have the plow and the sword, extensions of his arm. But the book is something else; the book is an extension of memory and imagination." quote from Jorge Luis Borges (pages 10-11).


"It is for this reason, and for others that constitute the central thesis of this essay, that books are not destroyed as physical objects but as links to memory, that is, as one of the axes of identity of a person or community. There is no identity without memory. If we do not remember who we are, we don't know what we are. Over the centuries, we've seen that when a group or nation attempts to subjugate another group or nation, the first thing they do is erase the traces of its memory in order to reconfigure its identity" (Page 12).

"Fire is salvation, and for that reason, almost all religions dedicate fires to their respective divinities. This power to conserve life is also a destructive power. When man destroys with fire, he plays God, master of the fire of life and death. And in this way he identifies with a purifying solar cult and with the great myth of destruction that almost always takes place through fire.
The reason for using fire is obvious: it reduces the spirit of a work to matter. If you burn a man, he is reduced to his four principal elements - carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen; if you burn paper, the atemporal rationality stops being rationality and becomes ashes. There is also a visual element. Anyone who's seen something burned recognizes its undeniably black color. That which is light become dark" (Page 17).

"It's a common error to attribute the destruction of books to ignorant men unaware of their hatred. After twelve years of study, I've concluded that the more cultured a nation or person is, the more willing each is to eliminate books under the pressure of apocalyptic myths. In general biblioclasts (people who destroy books) are well-educated people, cultured, sensitive, perfectionists, painstaking, with unusual intellectual gifts, depressive tendencies, incapable of tolerating criticism, egoists, mythomaniacs, member of the middle and upper classes, with minor traumas in their childhood or youth, with a tendency to belong to institutions that represent constituted power, charismatic, with religious and social hypersensitivity. To all that we would add a tendency to fantasy. In sum, we have to forget the stereotype of the savage book destroyer. Ignorant people are the most innocent" (Page 18).

Twelve Facts About War

1. Those who have the power to start a war are rarely personally threatened by the wars they start.


2. Wars today are enormously expensive, so as to be virtually unaffordable for even the richest nations.


3. Most of the victims of war are innocent civilians, by such a large margin that a decision to participate in war today, for any nation, is automatically a decision to choose to kill and injure innocent people.


4. It's much easier to start a war than to stop a war.


5. Everyone has the option of refusing to participate in a war, although for some the price is much greater than for others.


6. Wars are environmental disasters.


7. Warfare destroys families, life, and family life. To be pro-life and pro-family, one must be anti-war.


8. Fighting and/or winning a war is rarely as important as what you, I, and everyone was doing before the war began.


9. War is a failure. It's a failure of diplomacy, patience, understanding. It's failing to respect the humanity of other people. It's a failure to grant others the same privileges and rights we want for ourselves.


10. Those who support and approve of a war will claim that the soldiers fighting are defending the US, but those who are honest and really paying attention will recognize that as inaccurate. Attacking another country as an act of retaliation for some perceived wrong (ie Afghanistan) is every bit as likely to endanger, as it is to protect, the attacker. None of the dozens of wars the US has participated in, supported, or financed in my lifetime (the past 60 years) had anything to do with defending the United States and that includes the Vietnam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

11. The economic crises we are currently in as a nation, and to some extent the rest of the world is in, is not just a result of greed and disrespect for the earth, but is primarily because of the two current wars, and numerous smaller conflicts, which are costing trillions of dollars, money not available to meet human need, and that's just the financial cost. The human, moral, spiritual, and environmental cost is much greater.

12. A decision to participate in war has an enormously destructive impact on the spiritual integrity and spiritual quality of a nation.

13. (A bonus fact!) Wars destroy freedom by killing people. A dead person has no freedom of speech, press, or religion, no democracy, and no choices on election day.

Leonard Nolt

"True evangelical faith cannot lie dormant. It clothes the naked, feeds the hungry, comforts the sorrowful, and shelters the destiture. And serves those who harm it.

Menno Simons, 1539

"There is no end. There is no beginning. There is only the passion for life."

Federico Fellini