Author: Neale Donald Walsch

Are we entering a new world with the start of a New Year?

Marijuana as of now is legally purchasable for recreational use in Colorado. Same sex marriage is now legal in 14 countries worldwide and in 18 states in the U.S.  Prostitution is now legal in a growing number of countries. The death penalty is now illegal in a growing number of places.

Popes are declaring trickle down economics to be a global failure, presidents are pronouncing the growing income gap to be the defining challenge of our time.

And on the spiritual front, and a new way to understand God is now being openly discussed in more and more homes.

And so, as we enter 2014, we do see a world whose values are changing. Noticeably. Most of these changes revolve around humanity’s ideas of “right and wrong.” It is those ideas that are shifting.

We have come to the conclusion in many places that if alcohol can be used recreationally, there is no reason that cannabis should not be allowed to be used in the same way: regulated, but freely available.

In Colorado, predictions already are pointing to $400 million in annual sales, generating a boost to the state’s economy — not the least of which will come from increased tourism, as people travel from elsewhere to obtain marijuana legally.

The educated guess is that other states in the U.S. and other locations across the globe, watching Colorado’s experience closely, will soon be following suit.

The same will be true, those educated guessers say, about same sex marriage. It is now only a matter of time before all 50 states in the U.S. and many more nations legalize it.

Currently 14 countries allow same-sex couples to marry. These include Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, and Uruguay. Same-sex marriage is legal in some jurisdictions of Mexico, the United Kingdom, and, as noted above, the United States.

People around the world are reaching the conclusion that human beings who love each other and wish to commit their lives to each other in partnership should have the ability to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits of entering into the married state, regardless of their gender.

As far back as the 60s internationally syndicated newspaper advice columnist Ann Landers was publicly supporting legalized prostitution, and this social constriction, too, is being lifted in more and more places. Looking at a cross section of 100 nations in the world, it is found that prostitution is totally legal in 50% of them, with limited legality in another 11%.

And on the subject of the death penalty, support for it in the U.S. is at its lowest level in 40 years, according to a survey of public opinion just 12 weeks ago. While a majority of citizens in the U.S. (60%) support the measure, six states have actually repealed the death penalty since 1995. These include Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York.

And, were it up to members of the Democratic Party in the U.S., there would be no such punishment in that country. Just 47% of Democrats support the death penalty, versus 81% of Republicans.

With the total percentage of supporters dropping to historic lows, it appears clear that the idea of a government killing people as a means of the government demonstrating that killing people is wrong is no longer considered viable, sensible, or workable by a larger and larger number of people.

And so we see that the world’s values are clearly changing. Another major shift that we observe is the movement toward complete transparency as a model for our society; for its businesses, for its governments, for it military, and for institutions and industries of every kind.

Some people see the increase in surveillance of many facets of society as a loss of the individual right to privacy, while others see transparency as at last leveling the playing field within our society, with governments and corporations no longer able to operate in secret with impunity and without consequence for overreach or illegalities.

Meanwhile, attitudes and ideas about God are shifting dramatically. More and more people are abandoning the notion of a violent, angry, and vindictive God who judges, condemns, and punishes — moving to belief in a God who loves unconditionally, and whose only desire and purpose is to give all of Life at every level the ability and the tools of total and glorious self-expression, thus to demonstrate Divinity Itself.

The new yearning is not for an Overlord kind of Deity, but for a more fully present Co-Creator kind of Deity — an expression of Divinity that embraces, accepts, and loves; supports, nourishes, and empowers. A God who is our Best Friend, not our Feared Master.

Evidence of a shift to that new definition of a Supreme Being is everywhere present.

There are those who say we are embarking on a New Era beginning with this New Year of 2014. An era of greater tolerance and freedom, gentler choices and decisions, larger awareness and understanding, keener searching for wisdom and clarity within the human family than ever before. A time of expanding accommodation and reconciliation, grander self-expression and self-realization. A moment in our history that will one day be seen as a turning point in our evolution.

If this assessment proves to be accurate, it will because of the changes encouraged and made by people at the grass roots of our global community.

Does life go on forever? Does love?

Yes. Life and Love are both are eternal. And evidence of this has surfaced in the ordinary lives of ordinary people this Christmas season in the kind of love that Brenda Schmitz has for her husband, David. And for David’s new wife and life partner, Jane.

Perhaps you’ve seen this story already. (It’s been on all the television networks and all over the Internet. We’ve passed it on here because we wanted to make sure you did not miss it.)

Brenda Schmitz celebrated her Continuation Day in the second half of 2011. She was well under 50, and suffered from ovarian cancer. But she left a letter with a friend, who she asked to deliver it to a local radio station if the friend saw that David had found a new love in his life — which Brenda (who left four young boys with her husband when she departed) had told David she hoped he would.

The radio station in question — KSTZ Star 102.5 in Des Moines, Iowa — every year grants a Christmas Wish to people who write in asking for a special gift. This year it granted the wish of Brenda, whose anonymous friend sent the station Brenda’s letter of request after David and Jane got engaged.

Brenda asked for three things: She requested a special “pampering session” for David’s “new lifelong partner” — a spa treatment with massage, tanning session, hair styling, the works. Brenda wrote that this lady deserves it for having taken on being a step-mom to the boys.

Brenda also asked for a “magical trip” for the entire family, bringing them special memories to last their lifetime.

Her third wish was that the doctors and nurses at Mercy Medical Hospital who took care of her while she was sick be treated to an evening of food and fun as a thank you for “all they do every day for the cancer patients they encounter.”

Several local businesses contributed to a fund that allowed the radio station to grant the wishes. David and Jane and the children of both (Jane has two children of her own) will be treated to a vacation at Disney World in Florida.

In addition to her letter to the radio station, Brenda left a personal letter for David, and one for the new love in his life as well, in which she told her she loved her, “whoever you are,” for bringing love back into David’s life.

The radio station asked David to come into the station, where he was read the first letter — the one Brenda sent to the station — live, over the air. The other two letters were opened privately.

To David, receiving the communication two years after his wife’s death, it was just another confirmation of the eternality of life. He said that he was not surprised, adding that for the last year and a half Brenda has “shown so many signs” that she’s here.

David told the radio station hosts that Brenda and he had talked about his future, and that his wife wanted him to move on, hopefully meeting somebody new. He said he asked her how he would know if it was the right person, and that Brenda told him not to worry, that “you’ll know. I’ll be there.”

And now, as Jane and David, with her children and his, embark on their new life together, Brenda is there, in the most loving and caring and giving way. David wept on the air when Brenda’s letter was read, as have people around the world who have heard of the story, which has gone viral.

As rightly it should. For it is a wonderful story of everlasting love, hopefully helping all of us to extend the love we feel this season to everlasting lengths in the lives of all around us.

To see one of the many media reports, click here. And have your tissues ready.

I couldn’t sleep last night.

I was up from 2 until 6, having another one of my Conversations with God.

“Tell me about Christmas,” I said. “What is it really all about?”

And I heard, “What do you mean, what is it really all about? I’ve told you a million times what it’s all about.”

So I said, “Tell me again. I think I may have missed it.”

And suddenly my head was filled with a Christmas Carol – one of the happiest and most triumphant of all the melodies of Christmas.

“Joy to the world,” the song began, “the Lord has come.” But I couldn’t get into it. I kept wondering, what is joyful about the coming of someone who is going to be a lord over us?

God! I said…I don’t understand this! And God replied, “You’re right. You don’t.”

Then God said, “But at least you’re asking a question. And that’s good. It’s really hard to understand something if you think there are no more questions to ask. You can’t be given an answer if you think you already have the only answer there is.”

“Well, I don’t have the answer,” I admitted. “So what’s the answer?”

And God said, “The answer is that the Lord….who has come….is not a lord over you, but in you.” These words came to me at 2:57 this morning, and I pondered them in my heart.

“Then,” I ventured, “the Christmas season is not just a remembering of the birth of a Babe. It is also a celebration of the birth of the Christed one in all of us.” And God answered softly, “yes.”

And then I wondered what all the songs, and all the messages, and all the feelings of Christmas would mean if I accepted this truth. If I really understood that the gift of Christmas is us, fully expressed and fully realized. It is us — completely willing and totally ready — to love without condition, to give without restriction, to share without limitation, to create without fear, to celebrate ourselves without shame or embarrassment.

It is us, choosing to forgive without hesitation, to help without being asked, to rush in where angels fear to tread.  Indeed, to lead the way for angels.

Ah, to lead the way for angels. That’s why we’re here. That’s why we’ve come to the Earth. To be a herald! Hark! The herald, angels sing. Glory to the newborn king.

At this moment we can give birth to the royalty within us…the royalty that we are in God’s eyes. The Magic of Christmas is that it gives us permission to take the feeling of love and share it with all those whose lives we touch.

With friend, and with stranger. With those who agree with us, and with those who disagree. With those who look and act like us, and with those who do not. We are invited today to feel this love, and to give it permanent place within our heart. To be the source of peace on Earth, and goodwill toward men and women everywhere.

We are invited to walk the Earth not only as one who is blessed, but as one who blesses. Not only as the Lord of the manner, but in the manner of the Lord.

For we are the lord of our inner kingdom, and thus, of the outer one as well. And when we understand that, everything changes. We begin to create a world in which all is calm. All is bright. Joy to the world! The Lord has come. Let Earth receive her King.  Let every heart… prepare him room. And heaven, and nature, sing!

Joyfully, Neale.

(The above is a much-requested re-print of a Christmas Message first shared by Neale Donald Walsch in 2007. We hope you enjoyed it…and might even pass it on.)

Should there be a Mimimum Wage, set in each country, for workers across the planet? Is the solving of economic inequality around the world an economic issue or a spiritual issue?

Virtually the entire world sees these questions as economic issues. Pope Francis, on the other hand, has now set the planet’s people to thinking: Might this, in fact, be a spiritual issue?

In a written statement to the world’s billions of Catholics late last month, the Pope asked a searing question: How could it be that it’s not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?

U.S. President Barack Obama has likewise recently brought the issue to widespread attention, calling the combating of growing inequality and lack of upward mobility the “defining challenge of our time.”

Perhaps it is time to look at economic inequality as a spiritual, and not merely an economic, matter.

First, let us look at a few facts.

Let us examine the U.S. economy (picked because it is one of the largest economies n the world, in a country that freely and often boasts that its citizens have “equal opportunity”). Since 1979 the economy in the United States has more than doubled in size. That’s the good news (presumably). Yet most of that good fortune has been experienced by those who already have a fortune.

Second in a series of articles on economic inequality and spirituality, at the crossroads of the two

In the U.S., statistics show that the top 10 percent of the population in terms of wealth no longer takes in one-third of the country’s income. It now takes half. The average Chief Executive Officer of a major company made about 20 to 30 times the income of the average worker in the past. Today the CEO makes 273 times more.

This, proponents of the capitalist system say, is perfectly okay. Because it is the big companies and their owners and leaders that create jobs for the rest of us. Yet, in fact, fewer jobs are being created by the Big Corporate Machine, thanks in various parts to automation, consolidation, and the sending of many jobs out of the country — where wages are even lower.

This is perfectly okay, proponents of the capitalist system say. It’s only “good business” — and it brings economic opportunity to people in poorer nations around the world. Except that people in some of those poorer nations have to work 50, 60, and sometimes 70 hours a week to make productivity goals set by their employers, and, as well, to earn a living wage.

There is been a huge disconnect between productivity and worker income in the past 25 years — and the disparity is growing.  Statistics from the International Labor Organization show that between 1999 and 2011 average labor productivity in developed economies increased more than twice as much as average wages.

In the United States, the ILO says, real hourly labor productivity in the non-farm business sector increased by about 85 per cent since 1980, while real hourly compensation increased by only around 35 per cent.

In Germany, labor productivity surged by almost a quarter over the past two decades, while real monthly wages remained flat.

This is perfectly okay, proponents of the capitalist system say. Productivity will increase as technology makes it possible for fewer workers and fewer hours per employee to produce the same or a greater amount of goods and services than ever before. This, too, is only “good business,” they say.

But is it good for people? That becomes the central question. That becomes the spiritual issue.

Your comments, observations, and insights are invited below.

Amidst all that the world’s people and their leaders have said following his death, is humanity praising Nelson Mandela to high heaven without listening to a word he said?

It is not necessary to agree with everything that a leader asserts, but can the world acknowledge even the smallest portion of what Mr. Mandela sought to bring to our attention — and to solve? Or are we going to honor the man while ignoring all that he pointed out to us?

One of his greatest struggles was against the economic inequality that produces rampant poverty. Do most people agree with what he had to say on this subject?

“Massive poverty and obscene inequality are such terrible scourges of our times — times in which the world boasts breathtaking advances in science, technology, industry and wealth accumulation — that they have to rank alongside slavery and apartheid as social evils,” the former president of South Africa once (and often) declared.

He did everything in his power, in speech after speech, in interview after interview, to make it clear to all of humanity that, in his exact words: “overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity.” Rather, he said, “it is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life.”

Do we believe that? Does the majority of our species agree?

In eight words that may need to be heard in countries that routinely loudly boast of their liberties — the United States perhaps most notably among them — Mr. Mandela pointedly proclaimed: “While poverty persists, there is no true freedom.”

Does this sound uncannily like the words spoken by another world leader just a few days ago?  It was on November 26 that Pope Francis, in his internationally reported message to the world’s Catholics, warned against the “idolatry of money.”

The pontiff openly decried “the inequality that spawns violence,” and sharply criticized “trickle-down economics,” bluntly observing that the theory most often attributed in contemporary times to the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan “expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”

“Meanwhile,” Francis quietly added, “the excluded are still waiting.”

First in a series of articles on economic inequality
and spirituality, at the crossroads of the two

Eight days later U.S. President Barack Obama joined the chorus in a what has been described as one of the most important speeches of his presidency, forcefully directing attention to what he termed “a dangerous and growing inequality and lack of upward mobility that has jeopardized middle-class America’s basic bargain — that if you work hard, you have a chance to get ahead.”

Mincing no words, Mr. Obama labeled this endlessly expanding inequality the “defining challenge of our time.”

Is it possible that our planet is “getting a message” from several powerful voices at once — a message that events are making it virtually impossible to any longer ignore?

If, indeed, economic inequality is the challenge of our time, what could possibly be done — what action could be undertaken by humanity as a whole — to meet this challenge head on?

That shall be the central topic of a series of articles appearing in this newspaper in the days and weeks ahead. The time has come for us to stop burying our heads in the sand and start speaking out on this issue; to go to the next level — one step beyond the Occupy Movement that spoke of the “one percent” who they allege hold 95% of the world’s wealth, resources, and power.

What could happen after the Occupy Movement that could produce an outcome it could not? That is the question of the day. Could the Evolution Revolution be the answer?

Your comments and observations are invited below. And I believe that Mr. Mandela, were he still here today, would be the first encourage them. (Indeed, I have a notion that he is encouraging them in fact — from where he is right now.)

We might begin by considering the possibility that most of the world is looking at economic inequality in the wrong way. They are looking at it as an economic issue. It is not. It is a spiritual issue. That is clear. And that is why the problem has not heretofore been solved. We are trying to cure an illness with medicine directed at the wrong cause.

— NDW

Is the Pope right? Is it time for the whole world to take stock of who we are as a people, what we set as our priorities, how we determine our most important values, and when enough is enough of consumerism and the seemingly endless push for Bigger/Better/More?

Or is Pope Francis the one who needs to take stock, and stop filling the air with his criticisms of humanity’s behaviors and tendencies?

U.S. talk show host Rush Limbaugh appears to think the latter. Reacting to the Pontiff’s latest news-making statements criticizing certain aspects of today’s capitalism, Mr. Limbaugh described the Pope’s observations as “pure Marxism.”
What has the radio host upset is the widely-reported document written by the head of the Roman Catholic Church that “poses a fierce challenge to the status quo,” in the words of a Jesuit priest and author, Father James Martin, as quoted in a CNN news story.

Released on Nov. 26, the document has received worldwide attention — as it was intended to, having been composed by Pope Francis explicitly for distribution to all of the Catholic faithful and all official members of the church family in every parish and diocese across the planet. It also has received worldwide acclaim from politically liberal Catholics everywhere, and not so nice responses from those of a more conservative bent.

“How can it be,” the Pope asked in the document, “that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?”

Last May the Pontiff received global news coverage when he said that in recent times the Catholic Church has grown too “obsessed” (to use his own word) with being ecclesiastically correct (my words for the spiritual version of being “politically correct”), focusing on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and contraception, while refusing to look at, much less battle against, the idea of so-called trickle-down economics and the world of inequality it produces.

So who is right? Has the Pope gone too far? Or is the Holy Father simply  “telling it like it is” to a global horde not used to being so publicly scolded for its behaviors?

The communication — officially known in Latin as Evangelli Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel) — is a 95-page sweeping call for reform within the Roman Catholic Church regarding its mission and method of outreach, but it contained some sharp comments about the larger world outside the church and its economic inequalities.

The “idolatry of money” has created “inequality that spawns violence,” and could, the Pope warned, produce a “new tyranny.”  Francis also had some harsh words for those “trickle-down economics” — a phrase most contemporarily associated with the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who preferred to use the words “supply-side economics” to describe a system of tax cuts and other monetary perks to businesses, on the theory that the economic benefit would trickle down to people at the lower end of the economic scale.

The press began to call this idea “Reaganomics,” though the economic model has not been limited in its application to the United States. The Pope made it very clear he believes the idea “expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power.”

“Meanwhile,” he added, “the excluded are still waiting.”

“Sad” and “unbelievable” is how Mr. Limbaugh described the Pope’s comments. “It’s sad because this Pope makes it very clear he doesn’t know what he’s talking about when it comes to capitalism and socialism and so forth,” the conservative talk show host declared.

Is Mr. Limbaugh right? Is what the Pope is saying “pure Marxism?” Does a policy of  “trickle-down economics” create disparity and huge gaps between the rich and the poor, or do the benefits experienced by the rich indeed trickle down to the poor?

According to Lauren McCauley, staff writer for the website Common Deams, the answer to the second part of that question is no.

Ms. McCauley wrote a report published on that website last April in which she said, “The great wealth divide in the United States has only become more exacerbated since the recession, as national policies have buoyed only the wealthiest Americans while the remainder have been left adrift.”

Her report, headlined Wealthy Thrive and Poorest Dive as Surge in US Inequality Continues, said that according to a new analysis of Census Bureau data published by the Pew Research Center, since the economy officially emerged from the recession in mid-2009, “the wealthiest 7 percent of households saw soaring gains of an estimated $5.6 trillion, while the remaining 93 percent—111 million households—saw their overall wealth fall by an estimated $0.6 trillion.”

“It has been a very good recovery for those at the upper end of the wealth distribution,” Ms. McCauley quoted Mr. Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the report, as saying. “But,” Mr. Taylor added, “there has been no recovery for the lower 93, which is nearly everybody.”

Indeed, statistics easily available show that over 20% of U.S. income now goes to the richest 1% of Americans. That figure was just 7% in 1980.

Paul Buchheit is a college teacher, an active member of US Uncut Chicago, founder and developer of social justice and educational websites (UsAgainstGreed.org, PayUpNow.org, RappingHistory.org), and the editor and main author of American Wars: Illusions and Realities (Clarity Press). Mr. Buchheit has compiled these statistics:

Based on 1980 dollars and IRS data, this is how U.S. income has been redistributed since that time:

• Incomes for the top 1% have gone from $148,000 to $450,000
• Incomes for the next 9% have gone from $46,000 to $50,000
• Incomes for the next 40% have gone from $17,500 to $15,000
• Incomes for the bottom 50% have gone from $5,400 to $3,750

So there you have it. Mr. Limbaugh may find the comments by Pope Francis regarding trickle-down economics “unbelievable,” but are they? Or is what Pope Francis has called the world out on something that the wealthiest people simply don’t want to believe?

What do you believe…? Your comments and observations are invited below.