A stretch in the park

We pause, as eve's sun
stretches her arms through new leaves,
to touch the grass tips.




(On the other hand, I liked my first version:
          A Pause in the Park
Evening sun touches
grass tips; a gentle breeze prays,
"peace!" - while my dog poops.

Sorry... another coprolitic haiku.)

Burned out

Burned out husk of house--

The fresh droppings of spring birds
Run down its dark roof.

Hooo-whee! - a haiku

A lively spring breeze
is laughing, while I breathe in
the fresh-turned compost.

Can we tolerate anymore? pt. 2

On the other hand, is it enough to merely "tolerate" you, your presence, your race, color, creed, your thoughts and ideas or your quirks, attitudes, grammar or even the sound of your voice? Tolerating doesn't seem to take much more effort than standing near or even ignoring your presence. It almost assumes a quiet level of passive annoyance: internally, I think, "You annoy me, but I'll put up with it …for awhile, at least."

In the religious sense, tolerance is, as one dictionary puts it, "permission granted by authority" to worship and express a variety of creeds (or no creed). To seek or enforce tolerance means that others, including the majority, must leave or make room for other voices and creeds, and not to try to dominate or silence them. Tolerance means that the laws and rules, as well as the use and symbols of power, should not interfere with, annhilate, favor, or force expressions of specific faiths.

Some overbearing groups do not abide by the rules of tolerance; they do not--on their own--make room. They dominate, they impose, they assume. They also take offense easily and feel persecuted when policed by others or by the appointed authorities.

Sometimes the majority is ...over policed. Occasionally, in the name of "tolerance," we create an atmosphere of intolerance for the expression of specific or any religious beliefs. Tolerance does not seek to "silence" groups from the public sphere, not even the majority group, but to give equal access for all to that sphere, equal right and permission to speak, or to remain silent.

More than that, if we take the etymology of "tolerance," which means to lift or carry, then we, as a conglomerate, do more than passively "put up" with each other. We lift up! We encourage. We support. We listen and challenge. We want to hear and learn from different creeds, ideals, beliefs and unbeliefs. We allow others to challenge us, without taking offense. We have enough courage and trust in greater truths outside of ourselves to speak and offer what we believe, but also enough humility and forgiveness to listen and learn. Tolerance calls for curiosity. It confesses imperfection. It also hopes for returns.

Yes, there is risk. You could sway me! You might influence me! On the other hand, you might be influenced or swayed. There are also risks to insulating or cocooning ourselves within our own beliefs, too. I think the risk is worse. In doing that, as religious people, we easily create gods and idols in our own personal or collective images.

From my own belief system tolerance embodied by Christ trusts God, and stands open and self-assured among different groups, people and beliefs. Tolerance trusts that we, our human future, and all the universe rest in the best, most merciful, just, and forgiving hands. It trusts that, given shared space among the cacophony of voices, many people will hear what they need when they need to hear it, and that I will, too.

Wow, that faith and tolerance would be refreshing! I don't need or expect tolerance in any utopian form. But I would hate for us to move further from it, whether by an enforced silence, or by social robots, and constructs.

If our use of social networks and technology can avoid the pitfall of isolation mentioned in Part 1, then it is also possible that many will use technology and connection to develop a greater tolerance (in its best sense) for the variety and expanse of human belief and experience. Perhaps some will even more frequently start applying social awareness and discovery to looming dangers and solutions. There is so much more to learn about the world, life, the universe, and ourselves.

There is so much in this creation that needs our cooperation, care, and attention, but how will we figure out what those dangers and solutions truly are? We need to talk, share, argue, and act.

It’s exciting. It’s scary. It always has been.

Can we tolerate any more? pt 1

You know what would be refreshing? If we could--in a more general sense--understand what "tolerance" might be. Intolerance is an inability or an unwillingness to hold and apply a general forgiveness: that other people, things, and situations will not be exactly, not even close, to my ideal. Heck, I don't match up to my standard of "tolerable"! I honestly think that if I got to know someone just like me, I couldn't stand him. ("What a passive-aggressive, manipulative little...!")

Have many of us been trained to believe that we have a right to live without annoyance, fear, or challenges? If someone or something annoys, challenges or scares me, then my rights have been violated. "I shouldn't have to put up with this!" Actually, maybe I should put up with this, and a whole lot more than I do!

I was thinking about this as I was paging through some more heated Facebook comments about some topic or another. Accusations and arguments flew between several people, and apparently someone "unfriended" the other. Many of us are easily offended, aren't we? And we forget that the offense is our own reaction, our own responsibility. You don't make me offended or angry. I may become offended or angry, but the emotion and reactions are mine.

I was watching a video recently about some of the isolating dangers we may be facing as a result of our social media and technology. (Sherry Turkle: "Connected but alone?") Many of us are creating "social robots" to be our companions. I can take bits and pieces of my friends, those bits that they felt were interesting, inspiring, or funny enough to share. I can choose to "like" or respond to and incorporate from those bits and pieces and add them to all my various "likes" etc. I create a kind of fluid, seemingly organic, interactive creature. When bits of my social robot/companion--those bits and pieces of my friends--share games or "likes" that bug me, I can often choose to "ignore." If they really annoy or bore me, I can "unlike" or "unfriend" as quick as a click, so that my social robot returns to its more fun, assuring, interesting, and tolerable self.

What a great way to put up with so many people! I let my favorite, enjoyable chosen parts of my friends drift closer, and can easily distance, ignore or cut off those that annoy or challenge me too much. If this is how we choose to respond, however, then perhaps tolerance is becoming an increasingly rare skill, in spite of an increasingly diverse and "connected" world?

I could be wrong. I hope I am.

More in a day or so...