UNIFIED FIELD

PROFILE OF A PUBLIC SERVANT: Audrey Hepburn has always been my favorite because of her elegant spirit and her humanitarian work. Of the current crop, I admire Angelina Jolie because of her huge heart — as well as her work with Genocide Prevention in Darfur. She is a U.N. Goodwill Ambassador. She was at Cannes Film Festival last weekend. Jolie, who plays the widow of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in "A Mighty Heart," said she was overwhelmed by Mariane Pearl's inner strength and her ability to let go of hatred. MORE BELOW, but first a few thoughts on Einstein's Unified Field...

You can be attractive even if you're not "good looking" because if you radiate love, you attract people. Enthusiasm and courage actually change your brain waves, changing the molecular structure around you. I personally have always believed that science proves God. The proof is in life itself - the multitudinous objects of beauty and creation. Thought is molecular, bringing objects we form (with our thoughts) into view. But the creative force in the universe is love, which can be proven as an energy. Einstein was just short of admitting what he already suspected, that the unified field is love. And by the way, there is no linear time. Step outside the race belief, outside the man made box of space and time. - Lydia

Why this scientist believes in God
By Dr. Francis Collins
Special to CNN

Editor's note: Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief."

ROCKVILLE, Maryland (CNN) -- I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views.

As the director of the Human Genome Project, I have led a consortium of scientists to read out the 3.1 billion letters of the human genome, our own DNA instruction book. As a believer, I see DNA, the information molecule of all living things, as God's language, and the elegance and complexity of our own bodies and the rest of nature as a reflection of God's plan.

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry. But then I went to medical school, and encountered life and death issues at the bedsides of my patients. Challenged by one of those patients, who asked "What do you believe, doctor?", I began searching for answers.

I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as "What is the meaning of life?" "Why am I here?" "Why does mathematics work, anyway?" "If the universe had a beginning, who created it?" "Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?" "Why do humans have a moral sense?" "What happens after we die?" (Watch Francis Collins discuss how he came to believe in God Video)

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds. My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

But reason alone cannot prove the existence of God. Faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required.

For me, that leap came in my 27th year, after a search to learn more about God's character led me to the person of Jesus Christ. Here was a person with remarkably strong historical evidence of his life, who made astounding statements about loving your neighbor, and whose claims about being God's son seemed to demand a decision about whether he was deluded or the real thing. After resisting for nearly two years, I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer.

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.

ANGELINA JOLIE AT CANNES...
Jolie, Pearl and Brad Pitt, the movie's co-producer, were at the Cannes Film Festival on Monday for the premiere of the movie about Pearl's abduction and murder in Pakistan in 2002 while researching a story on Islamic militants.

The film, shot in a naturalistic documentary style, recounts the search to find Pearl's kidnappers and his widow's struggle to come to terms with his death.

"For me, so much of why this film was important to do is because I highly doubt there is anybody in this room who has more reason to hold hate inside herself than Mariane, and she doesn't," Jolie told reporters.

"That is, I think, a lesson for all of us," the

I NEED TO KNOW?

The Way to Divinity

If anyone speaks ill of you,
Praise them always.
If anyone injures you,
Serve them nicely.
If anyone persecutes you,
Help them in all possible ways.
You will attain
immense strength.
You will control anger and pride.
You will enjoy
peace, poise, and serenity.
You will become divine.

- Swami Sivananda
Hindu

(Jesus says the same thing in his Sermon on the Mount.)



CATHERINE CRIER from COURT TV had to reschedule. Today, Doug and I wing it with a mix of politics and non-political comedy.

SATURDAY MORNINGS TUNE IN LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS and LOS ANGELES to our show BASHAM AND CORNELL PROGRESSIVE TALK
from 9 - 10 a.m. We broadcast live -- or go to our website and click on the link to hear the entire show in the archives.



The following thoughts are from my beautiful sister Kathy.

Here's my opinion.

I hate this kind of thing. The film is simplistic and sentimental
tripe. It addresses a non-issue. Who is this film aimed at? No one
blames the soldiers! No one hates them for "doing their job" or
doesn't "support our troops". The premise of the film is a fiction.
It is propaganda.

This film and "patriotic" statements like it completely sidesteps the
fact that none of those soldiers had to die, because they should not
have been there in the first place. It's selling an old idea that to
die in war is honorable.

If you have a family member serving in Iraq, of course you are proud
of them! The rest of us are just disgusted and ashamed at our
government that even one American has had to die over there. No one
blames the soldiers for fighting an immoral and unjust war right now.
They are just doing the government's (dirty) work.

Also. Don't try to tell me how to feel! I don't have to feel "proud"
of the American soldiers. I can feel that they are very brave, and
strong, and feel very sorry that they are there. I can feel angry and
sad. But no, I'm not particularly proud. I feel afraid, worried,
upset, sorry and sad and deeply angry at my government for creating
the mess we find ourselves in in Iraq where so many beautiful lives
have been cut short on all sides of the conflict. I want all
non-Iraqi troops to get to go home, where ever they are from.

War is not inherently just or good. War is a human tragedy on a grand
scale. It should be considered a last resort. I believe it is only
justified to stop a genocide. But war is more often a strategic game
of the elite - a machine created by the powerful to divide and
re-divide wealth and power amongst themselves.

The idea of patriotism in a time of war is inherently propagandistic.
If you buy into it, then you probably also believe that things go
better with Coke or that Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.
Who benefits the most by selling these ideas to the public?

Can you imagine this type of film coming from the jihad point of
view? Sentimentalizing the self-sacrifice of the suicide bomber,
complete with heart-tugging strings? We would all be spitting angry,
and see the suicide bombers themselves as pawns of an evil elite.

As a nation we have absolutely nothing to be proud of in the current
war in Iraq. Our leadership has destroyed our reputation worldwide
and our economy at home, making the world a much more dangerous place
than it was before and right after 9/11. I don't blame the soldiers
for this, or hold it against them. I'm smart enough to make the
distinction that to hate this war is not the same thing as hating the
people fighting it.

The Newshour with Jim Lehrer is the only news show that still honors
the fallen soldiers every night at the end of the newscast. Why do
you think the other networks stopped doing so years ago? The Newshour
uses no sentimental music - only complete silence, with portraits,
names and home towns. This is a thousand times more powerful to me,
because it isn't trying to manipulate my emotions the way this piece
does.

I do admire men and women who
join up and go off to war when everyone in the country is contributing,
and when we've actually been attacked -- but when the rich keep getting
richer and no one else is expected to make any sacrifices, etc., etc.
-- well, it really is propaganda. Also, I do not like the idea of
mercenary forces, where people are paid to do all the fighting and the
sons and daughters of all the warmongers (and the chicken hawks
themselves) avoid having to serve.

Thanks for letting me express my reaction!

k


Don't forget to listen to the Basham and Cornell Progressive Talk Show Saturday at 9:00 AM PST. BashamandCornell

UPPERDOG vs. UNDERDOG

We are pleased to have CATHERINE CRIER from COURT TV on our show Saturday, May 19

SATURDAY MORNINGS TUNE IN LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS and LOS ANGELES to our show BASHAM AND CORNELL PROGRESSIVE TALK
from 9 - 10 a.m. We broadcast live -- or go to our website and click on the link to hear the entire show in the archives.

"Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." That's what good preachers, and good journalists, do. It makes sense that comics, who sometimes preach and sometimes report the news, would follow this motto as well.

Imus "broke the power equation," Rogers says. He afflicted the afflicted, which made him a bully instead of a comic. That's not funny.

This happens a lot, not just with comics, but with journalists and preachers too. They get the motto backwards, they break the power equation. The journalists cozy up to the powerful, the preachers become bullying scolds. Both start to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. It's nothing new, Jesus described the same thing thousands of years ago, "They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them."

The tricky thing -- whether you're a journalist, preacher or comic -- is that "the comfortable" and "the afflicted" are not immutable categories. Anyone, at some point, might be in either category. White House spokesman Tony Snow, for example, has had a lucrative career as a dishonest and thoroughly unprincipled apologist for power. That made him fair game for exposure, for jokes and jeremiads. But Snow now has cancer in his liver and the prognosis is not good. And jokes at the expense of a cancer victim just aren't funny. Kicking a man when he is down is the work of a bully.

This is, again, what I think Orwell was getting at in that essay on Charles Dickens I've taken to quoting a bit too often: Orwell on Dickens
Where [Dickens] is Christian is in his quasi-instinctive siding with the oppressed against the oppressors. As a matter of course he is on the side of the underdog, always and everywhere. To carry this to its logical conclusion one has got to change sides when the underdog becomes an upperdog, and in fact Dickens does tend to do so.

Which underscores Rogers' point, that context matters. The transgressive humor of the underdog is funny. The transgressive "humor" of the upperdog is merely bullying. And that's not funny. (It's not even really transgressive, since the upperdogs make and enforce the rules.)

The dynamic at work here is, of course, justice. Comedy doesn't so much "steal" power as reclaim it. Undermining injustice is funny. Enforcing it is not. This is as true for preachers and journalists as it is for comics.

Posted by Fred Clark SLACKTIVIST

Fred Clark is a religious scholar and minister. Slacktivist is a wonderful website devoted to debunking the sinister and hilarious "Left Behind" novels by LaHaye-Jenkins.

Cartoon by Stephen Pitt: Rove-Gonzales-Abu Grahib

Are You Better Off?

As we are entering the season where the focus shifts to the next election, we see a group of Republican candidates espousing the ongoing war and comparing themselves to their view of the perfect President Ronald Reagan.

As progressives maybe we need to quote Ronald Reagan from time to time in addressing the issues of today. Reagan asked a famous question during the debates of the 1980 election season that brought him to prominence. This question applies today as well.

Are you better off today than you were six years ago? Do you feel that your job is secure now that gas prices have risen well above three dollars per gallon and predictions that they will reach four dollars seem very real?

Are you better off today with the President having the country bogged down in a war in Iraq with no end in sight? Have you gained any benefit from the war in Iraq, or has it cost this country in ways we will never recover?

Are you better off with the majority of the world turning against us and those in the Middle East planning to bring the United States down? Are you safer with the choices that this President and his Republican allies have made in foreign policy?

Are you better able to afford college costs for your children under the economy of George W Bush? Are you confident that your children will be able to afford a home, or raise a family with the direction our country is going?

Are you confident you and your family will have affordable health care in the future, or has the decisions of deficits and war brought that confidence to an end? Are the forty seven million Americans without health care better off today than they were six years ago?

Are the thirty seven million low-income Americans living in poverty better off today than they were six years ago? Are the twenty six million Americans receiving food stamps better off or do they face a Food Stamp program in peril?

Are we better off as a nation to have many of our privacy rights taken away? Are we confident we can trust those in government to protect our identities and our privacy or will we continue to see computers disappear, personal records compromised and our privacy in peril?

Are we winning any of the wars this President has started? Are we better off to coax a war with Iran? Have we seen oil prices fall from the take over of Iraqi oil? Do we have more allies today that we had six years ago?

These are but a few questions that as an American you can ask. These questions go to the basic principle of life in America today. As you hear the Republican candidates espouse war and claim the moniker of Reagan, ask your self the Reagan question. Are we better off today under Republican leadership than we were six years ago.?

Cartoon copyright credit to Stephen Pitt Cartoons stephenpittcartoons

I.O.U Mom

In 1870 Julia Ward Howe penned the Mother's Day proclamation. Howe had earlier authored the famous Battle Hymn of the Republic. Howe wrote the Mother's Day proclamation calling for the women of the world to unite for peace.

The following piece was written in 1976 in honor of moms everywhere. These lyrics fit the typical mom. It probably describes your mom. Happy Mother's Day to all. We owe you more than we can ever repay.


I.O.U.
(Dean / Markes)

Many people look through their wallet or their pocket books and, way down at the bottom, past the
credit cards and baby pictures and so on, you usually find a little 'ol piece of dog-eared poetry.
I was cleaning out my wallet the other day and ran across a whole bunch of I.O.U's, some of 'em
thirty-five years overdue. And you know the funny thing, all these I.O.U's are owed to one person
and I kinda felt like that maybe now would be a pretty good time for an accountin'.
Mom, I sure hope you're listenin'.
Sweet lady, I.O.U. for so many things.....
A lot of services, like nightwatchman for instance.....
Lyin' awake nights, listenin' for coughs and cries and creakin'
floorboards.....hah-hah, and me comin' in too late.
Boy, you had the eye of an eagle and the roar of a lion,
But you always had a heart as big as a house.
I.O.U. for services like, uh, short order cook, chef, baker.....
For makin' sirloin out o' hamburger an' turkey out o' tuna fish,
And big ol' strappin' boys out of leftovers.
I.O.U. for cleanin' services,
The daily scrubbing of face and ears....all work done by hand.
And for the frequent dustin' of a small boy's pants
To try to make sure that you led a spotless life.
And for washin' and ironin' that no laundry could ever do.
Foy dryin' the tears of childhood
And ironin' out the problems of growin' up.
I.O.U. for services as a bodyguard,
For protectin' me from the terrors of thunderstorms and nightmares
Hah, And too many green apples.
And Lord knows, I.O.U. for medical attention,
For nursing me through measles, mumps, bruises,
Bumps, splinters and spring fever.
Oh-oh, let's not forget medical advice....important things like,
"If you keep on scratching that, it'll never get well" or
"If you cross your eyes, they're gonna stick like that".
And probably the most important advice of all,
"Boy, you be sure you got on clean underwear, in case you're in an accident".
And I.O.U. for veterinarian services,
For feeding every lost dog that I dragged home at the end of the rope,
And for healing the pains of puppy love.
And I.O.U. for entertainment.....
Entertainment that kept the household goin' through some pretty rough times.....
And for wonderful productions at Christmas, the Fourth of July, Birthdays.....
And for making make-believe come true.....
And you did it all on such a limited budget.
I.O.U. for construction work, for building kites and confidence, hopes and dreams an'.....
Somehow you made them all touch the sky.....
And for cementin' together a family
So it would stand the worst kind of shocks and blows.....
And for layin' down a good strong foundation to build a life on.
I.O.U. for carrier charges.....
For carryin' me on your books for the necessities of life
That a growin' boy somehow, well, they just gotta have.
Things like, hah-hah, a pair of high top boots,
With a little pocket on the side for a jack-knife.
And one thing, Mom, I'll never forget....
When there were two pieces of pie and three hungry people.....
You were always the one who decided, well, I'm not really that hungry anyhow.
These are just a few of the things for which payment is long overdue..
The person that I owe 'em to worked very, very cheap....
She managed by simply doin' without a whole lot o' things that she needed herself....
My I.O.U's add up to more than I could ever hope to repay,
But you know the nicest thing about it all....
That I know, that she had marked the entire bill 'Paid In Full'
For just one kiss and four little words....Mom, I Love You!

Happy Mother's Day Lydia Cornell. This piece is especially for you!

HOW TO TALK TO ANN COULTER IF YOU MUST, REDUX

AP FAILS AGAIN: 'Coulter Cleared in Florida Vote Probe,' According to Unbylined Article

Report Doesn't Bother to Mention Inappropriate FBI Interference in Case, or Internal Investigation That's Begun Because of It...
How Lazy Can These People Possibly Get?!

MORE BELOW, BUT FIRST....

SATURDAY MORNINGS TUNE IN LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS and LOS ANGELES to our show BASHAM AND CORNELL PROGRESSIVE TALK
from 9 - 10 a.m. We broadcast live -- or go to our website and click on the link to hear the entire show in the archives.

OATH: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that...All information on this form is true. I understand that if it is not true, I can be convicted of a felony of the third degree and fined up to $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to five years.
-- Oath signed by Ann Coulter when she fraudulently lied about her address on her Florida Voter Registration Form

AP never fails to fail. Incredible.

Their unbylined report, out this afternoon, is surely good news for Ann Coulter! And we'll bet their headline is currently scrolling by on the Fox "News" and CNN crawls, it's certainly everywhere else. Here's the headline:
Coulter Cleared in Florida Vote Probe
Commentator Coulter Cleared of Wrongdoing in Investigation of Her Vote in Wrong Fla. Precinct

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. May 11, 2007 (AP)

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter was cleared of wrongdoing after an investigation into whether she violated Florida law by voting in the wrong precinct.
...
The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office closed the case April 12, concluding "there was insufficient probable cause to determine that Ann Coulter willfully or deliberately" violated any laws.

We guess the fact that an FBI agent --- who, as we reported earlier today, is apparently her former boyfriend --- interceded inappropriately in the case to claim she was being "stalked" (without evidence apparently) isn't noteworthy enough to include in AP's report.

Neither is the fact that the FBI has begun an internal investigation into the matter, according to the Palm Beach Post this morning.

No, instead, the AP reports --- in an unbylined article! --- Coulter's wet dream headline that she's been "cleared."

And despite the fact that her Loyal Bushie attorney didn't even bother to respond to AP's request for comment, AP passed on his wet dream by reporting completely unsubstantiated horseshit to the effect of: "Her attorney, Marcos Daniel Jimenez, told the detective Coulter may have not changed a previous address because of a stalking incident."

That's a bald-faced lie. Coulter didn't "not change" anything....


BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 5/11/2007 6:56PM PT

EXCLUSIVE: FBI AGENT WHO INTERCEDED IN ANN COULTER VOTER FRAUD CASE ALLEGED TO BE HER FORMER BOYFRIEND!
Palm Beach Paper Says FBI Agent Attempted to Clear GOP Pundit, BRAD BLOG Guest Blogger Said to be Reason for Fraudulent Info Given on FLVoter Registration Form, Driver's License
!
Conservative Coulter Critic Borchers Responds; Says Her '98-'99 Boyfriend Has Been 'Her Personal FBI Resource for Her Own Purposes'...

The Ann Coulter Voter Fraud case, which we've been covering for more than a year (see our Special Coverage Page here, including her fraudulent Voter Registration Form, the complaint that started it all, and much more) has taken several bizarre twists this morning as Palm Beach Post columnist Jose Lambiet once again steps up with several fresh scoops in the matter, and The BRAD BLOG, who, as of today's article, has now become a corollary in the story, has an exclusive detail or two of our own to offer on the heels of this morning's Post report.

First, Lambiet reports that the Palm Beach Sheriffs Office, which had been investigating the matter, has closed the case after an FBI agent interceded on Coulter's behalf. The PBSO had been investigating Coulter's fraudulent, knowing use of the wrong address on her voter registration form, a third-degree felony, and the fact that she subsequently, knowingly voted at the wrong precinct.

Second, the reason offered by the FBI man for Coulter's use of a phony address on her form --- actually that of her Palm Beach County real estate agent --- was because of claims that she was being "stalked" by a conservative BRAD BLOG guest blogger!

After the FBI intercession, as Lambiet reports, the PBSO investigator shut down the probe "without interviewing Coulter; a Realtor, whose Indian Road address Coulter used; or neighbors of Coulter's Seabreeze homestead."

The BRAD BLOG has previously shown that, in fact, Coulter had knowingly lied on her voter registration form, signing next to an "oath" swearing that "All information on this form is true" and that she understood "if it is not true, I can be convicted of a felony of the third degree and fined up to $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to five years."

Once the issue was reported originally by Lambiet, Coulter went about lying about it to the media and at public appearances, claiming she didn't even live in Florida, as Michelle Pilecki, who picked up on Lambiet's item today, had previously reported at Huffington Post. Nonetheless, property records and other evidence we've published at The BRAD BLOG, including an affidavit from Republican poll worker James Whited, show conclusively that Coulter lied on her voter registration form, and then knowingly committed voter fraud when she voted at the wrong precinct in 2006.

"We stand by our detective's work," a PBSO spokesman told Lambiet in today's report. "Based on the nature of the allegations, she did as much as she could."

But this gets a lot more bizarre, so keep reading...

* * *

The BRAD BLOG spoke this morning with the "stalker" in question, as named by Lambiet, longtime Coulter critic, and founder of Citizens for Principled Conservatism, Dan Borchers, who tells us that "Ann Coulter used a false allegation as a 'get out of jail free card'" on her voter fraud charges.

He also tells us something that Lambiet didn't mention in his report: The FBI man in question, Supervisory Special Agent Jim Fitzgerald, was Coulter's former boyfriend!

Lambiet, who spoke with Borchers for his piece, didn't report that allegation, but hinted that something wasn't adding up in Fitzgerald's intercession in the matter. He wonders why an FBI profiler from the FBI Academy's Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico, VA, "who went after the Unabomber [would] take time from his busy day to even think about a municipal election snafu?"

Fitzgerald wouldn't reply to Lambiet, but he reports that after the Post contacted the bureau for comment on the matter, the FBI "immediately launched an internal review of the agent's involvement."
"We're looking into it," bureau spokeswoman Ann Todd said.

She declined to say whether Fitzgerald acted on his personal behalf or as an FBI agent or on someone else's orders.
...
County Supervisor of Elections Arthur Anderson, meanwhile, decried what he called "FBI intrusion."
...
"This doesn't bode well in terms of the public's impression that celebrities receive preferential treatment," Anderson said. "I'm curious about how anyone can justify the FBI's intrusion."

Anderson and Lambiet aren't the only ones dubious about the FBI's intervention on behalf of Coulter or the excuse that a "stalker" led her to use her realtor's address on her voter registration form....

--- Click here for REST OF STORY!... ---

LEARN THE HISTORY

Tensions among the followers of the three major monotheistic religions are front and center in the news headlines. But history shows that these tensions are nothing new — Christians, Jews, and Muslims have been battling one another for centuries. Each tradition values peace, but generation after generation, hostility and resentment seem to overcome idealism and end in violence. Though the human picture holds little hope, these obstacles to harmony direct our attention to a more spiritual perspective. And it is in this spiritual realm that there is hope for lasting healing and peace.

The history of the Middle East is filled with ironies. First, it’s important to understand that these three religious traditions share a common ancestor: the patriarch Abraham. Bearing a name that some scholars interpret as “exalted father,” Abraham grew up about 4,000 years ago in Ur, a city in a section of southern Mesopotamia, later called Chaldea. Today this region is part of Iraq. Biblical tradition has Abraham receiving a covenant, or formal agreement, from God on behalf of Abraham’s descendants. In God’s covenant, He promised Abraham that his family would become a great people and would inherit land.

The concept of a covenant is central to Biblical theology. Borrowed from ancient contract law, covenant gives a framework and vocabulary to what entered human experience as pure revelation: a sense of God’s identity, nature, and care for His creation. This covenant articulated a bond between God and His children comparable to a contract—a binding agreement. Later, this covenant’s specific terms were set forth in the Ten Commandments. While some groups have interpreted the covenant as limited to a specific religion or culture, in its highest sense God’s covenant is one of love. And this love embraces all, in every place, and throughout all time.

Viewed from a human perspective, the covenant presented two serious problems.

Viewed, however, from a human perspective, the covenant presented two serious problems from the outset. First was the matter of who had a right to the land. Abraham, under divine direction, had left the prosperous city of Ur for Canaan, to settle there. Ger, meaning sojourner, was a term used to describe someone who settled for a time in a country not his own; such an individual had certain rights under the law, but was not a citizen of the community.

According to Biblical tradition, under the terms of Abraham’s covenant with God, Abraham and his family were entitled to lay claim to Canaan, the Promised Land. The Hebrews eventually settled in the land, but were expelled by subsequent conquest. Today, many centuries later, the ownership of that relatively tiny parcel of land is still in contention.

Such contention is fueled by the second problem inherent in a solely human interpretation of God’s covenant with Abraham—ancestry. Who, exactly, are his descendants? And does every descendent have equal claim to the ancestral estate?

In effect during Abraham’s era in the ancient Near East (and for centuries afterwards) was the law of primogeniture, where the majority (and sometimes all) of a father’s estate went to the firstborn son. Abraham had not one, but two, sons. The elder, Ishmael, was the son of Hagar, Abraham’s Egyptian slave. Yet both mother and child were eventually banished from the family at Abraham’s wife’s insistence.

Sarah wanted to be sure that her son, Isaac, received his father’s estate.

Sarah had been Abraham’s wife from the outset, and when it appeared she was not able to have children, she encouraged him to have a child with their servant, Hagar. But God later blessed Sarah with a child, even though she was far beyond childbearing years. So when Sarah’s son, Isaac, was born, she wanted to be sure he, and not Hagar’s son, Ishmael, received his father’s estate.

As the child of the legal wife, Isaac did inherit Abraham’s possessions, including—according to Biblical tradition—rights to the Promised Land of Canaan. It finally came into Hebrew hands some 700 years later, after the Hebrews went to Egypt at a time of famine, became enslaved there, and then were liberated under the leadership of Moses, as described in the book of Exodus.

Ancient Semitic tradition included a vibrant and enduring sense of family, whereby all family members, throughout every generation, are symbolically united in, and present with, their patriarch. So a promise made to Abraham is in effect made to everybody descended from him. That includes both Muslims and Jews, with Christians developing their religion from the foundation of Judaism.

When the concept of ancestry is spiritualized, each one of us can rightfully be regarded as a child of God.

Like the idea of a covenant, ancestry—when weighted down with long-standing traditional limits and viewed from a sense of ownership—leads to inevitable conflict. It can produce a sense of “win/lose” that turns individuals into adversaries instead of brethren. But when the concept of ancestry is spiritualized, each one of us—throughout human history—can rightfully be regarded as a child of God, a member of His family. Therefore, each one is a vital part of Abraham’s kindred and covenant.

The great division between Jews and Muslims on this specific issue arises from differing interpretations regarding the principle of primogeniture. Among Hebrews, primogeniture was repeatedly set aside in favor of the view that God specifically chose a leader from each generation, rather than leaving the matter to birth order.

However, Muslims, who are the descendants of the first-born son of Abraham, Ishmael, hold a strict interpretation of primogeniture in this instance, and claim that the descendants of Abraham through Ishmael are entitled to the land. Those descendants are Arabs, and the land that they claim includes the territory known today as Israel.

This land has been called by several names throughout history.

This land actually has been called by several names throughout history. Before the Hebrew conquest, it was Canaan. Then it was renamed in honor of Abraham’s grandson Jacob, who received the new name, Israel, after his struggle with an angel of God at Peniel. Then in Roman times, cartographers noted several Philistine cities near the coast, and so they renamed the territory Palestine, “the land of the Philistines.”

While technology has improved this land’s value for agricultural purposes in recent times, it nevertheless remains a stony, semiarid territory. And it is also rather small. Other far more promising territories surrounding this land are oil rich and flourishing.

The land of Israel symbolically represents a treasury of spiritual inspiration to all three religions.

But the land of Israel symbolically represents a treasury of spiritual inspiration and strength to all three religions. To the Jews, it is the land of Abraham, Moses, and David; to the Christians, it is the land where Jesus lived and preached; to the Muslims it is the land promised to Abraham and through primogeniture, to his first-born son, Ishmael.

Century after century, the issues of ancestry and entitlement have been the impetus for war. And from this brief overview, it’s clear that the pattern of human history offers little hope for a future reconciliation among age-old enemies. Solutions can only come from a radically different perspective—that is, from a God’s-eye view of His creation.

So long as the discussion begins with disparate groups who demand rights to various claims and convictions, the situation will never end in unity. The discussion must begin with God and what He has created—each individual in every nation and culture in His own image. Not, ultimately, as mortals, but as spiritual beings, as must be the case with whatever reflects God, Spirit.

In God’s creation there is but one Parent and one family.

In this creation there is but one Parent and one family, one power, and one Love that is truly infinite, blessing everyone, all the time. No one is cast out, put down, forgotten, or oppressed in God’s sight. Such human perspectives have no standing with Him, and must eventually be seen for the distortion that they are. In limitless God there is limitless good and a unique place for every one of His children.

Mary Baker Eddy gave a clear explanation of this idea: “One infinite God, good, unifies men and nations; constitutes the brotherhood of man; ends wars; fulfils the Scripture, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself;’ annihilates pagan and Christian idolatry,—whatever is wrong in social, civil, criminal, political, and religious codes; equalizes the sexes; annuls the curse on man, and leaves nothing that can sin, suffer, be punished or destroyed.” That “one infinite God” tends to it all.

Now all of this could be just brave talk and little else, unless as individuals we actually govern our lives by these truths. Aligning ourselves with peace—being “peacemakers”—aligns us with divine strength for daily life. And our prayers for those directly involved in the conflicts around the world gain authority and practicality to move events and transform lives. We can begin at the beginning—with God—and move in accordance with His grace and love. One step at a time.

BY Elaine Follis
Reprinted from the November 2006 issue of The Christian Science Journal.