My Paternal Grandfather two generations removed, James Frost, was born a slave in Tennessee. He moved to Canton, Mississippi and took the name Frost. Of all the people who populate this nation, we are unique. We did not come here by choice. Many of us are connected by blood to the indigenous people who originally lived on this land. The vary idea that we should be compared to those who came to this country for the purposes of exploitation is an insult to our blood.

It is also an insult to our blood that a person should come to this land seeking a “share” of its great wealth. This great wealth, acknowledged around the world, is a consequence of access to cheap labor. People such as myself are the descendants of that cheap labor. The wealth of this nation was purchased with our blood and the sacrifice of our spiritual purity. Any person who seeks to take advantage of the wealth that exists here today must recognize that they are participating in a terrible crime that was perpetrated against humanity.

How can the rulers of this Nation dare to claim the sovereignty over the borders that they have created? Who are they to say where the people of this world can live and where they can go? The immigration debate is a farce. To engage in this debate is to acknowledge the validity of a country that only exists in the minds of the despots who stole it and the slaves who maintain it.

There is no debate. This land does not belong to the people who claim it. This land is a part of something larger than human greed. It is part of the Earth just as we are part of the Earth, and the Earth has it’s own agenda.

Let us hope that humanity will have the sense to give respect to the agenda that rules our existence.

This colleague of mine made the point that the Federal Government should not be blamed. He said that it was well known that FEMA would not respond in less than seven days to any disaster. Therefore, it was the lack of preparedness on the part of the mayor of New Orleans that was responsible.

That same evening, I sat in my living room and watched “Katrina aftermath: What went wrong” a special Dateline report. I listened to the voices of the meteorologists and scientists as they complained of how their information was not taken seriously by government agencies from the local to the federal level. These scientists had been warning of the potential for disaster. They had participated in the Hurricane Pam simulation. When Katrina strengthened in the Gulf after passing over Florida, they had made every effort to warn the government.

Tom Brokaw’s report showed school busses in New Orleans that could have been used to evacuate citizens. He sat with the Mayor and asked him, “What would you have done differently?” The mayor said, “I would have screamed louder.” At that moment, I was filled with shame. How could this man sit there and talk about crying for help when he could have actually taken action?

My mind returned to the conversation at lunch.

“Seven days” he said. According to Tom Brokaw’s report, it was supposed to be 48 to 70 hours. This was the expectation of those who had consulted with FEMA during the planning phases for just this kind of disaster. Even so, I had argued that the true cause of the disaster in New Orleans was the deteriorating state of the Levees.

Brokaw’s report addressed this issue. A segment was shown that had been shot just prior to the flooding. It was about how New Orleans had dodged the bullet yet again. The following day, another reporter stood on that same street in the French Quarter in two feet of water. The levees had failed and the flooding had begun. Dark and deadly waters had stolen into the homes of the disenfranchised like a thief in the night.

I had told my colleague at lunch that the catastrophe of New Orleans could have been avoided because the storm surge should not have been a challenge for the levees, even though those levees could not have withstood even a category-3 storm. He commented, “Well, that’s not the federal government’s fault!” Another of my colleagues contradicted him saying, “Yes, it was. I once dated the daughter of a high-ranking member of the Army Corps of Engineers. It has always been the duty of the corps to maintain the levees up and down the Mississippi river, including the New Orleans Levees.” I then pointed out that funding for levee improvements had been cut by the Republican congress.

“We have to make a choice in this country as to what we will spend our money on. We have priorities.” He said. “Yes, and should we be wasting our money on a war in Iraq that should never have been fought? How many of the billions of those dollars could have been spent to prepare for disasters that we knew with a certainty would come?”

“I think the Iraqis who were having their feet flayed would disagree. How are these people so different from the poor people in Louisiana? At least the poor in New Orleans are free.”

I felt a flash of anger at this. How could he be so ignorant? “There is a difference.” I said. “The people of Iraq are living in the land of their birth. They are living in their ancestral home where their people have lived for thousands of years. The people of Louisiana are the Descendents of Slaves who were taken from their homeland without their consent and stripped of their cultural identity.”

Another of my colleagues finally spoke up. He is from Eastern Europe. He looked me in the eye and said, “Why always this talk of slaves?” Before I could answer (being a descendent of slaves myself) my other college began a scholarly sounding treatise on how things are so different in the South. He spoke of how the poor Black folks are mistreated by the ignorant and evil. I finally could not take it any more and interrupted.

“As someone who should have some authority on the subject, I must disagree with you about this. My Father and Mother raised me to be a Free Man. Those of us who still keep the memories of our Ancestors know that slavery was never about whips and chains. Slavery is a mind game. How else could five people control the behavior of one hundred on a plantation? We still see this mind game being played out today. When we do, we speak up about it. This game is not just played on us; it is played on you as well. You are just as much a slave as anyone. The difference between us is that we know that we are being treated as slaves, and you do not.”

Another colleague of mine attempted to interject, “Slavery seems too strong a word…” My other colleague turned to me with a smirk, “Hey, if they want to be free, all they have to do is get a Harley.” I did not dignify this with a comment. I turned to my friend and said, “Perhaps you are right but being a man who makes my living with language (the language of logic) I always choose my words carefully. I used slavery because it is what I mean. Everyone here at this table is treated as a slave. I am the only one who sees it. The disaster in New Orleans has washed away our illusions about our status in this country.”

Lunch was over and we got up and returned to our indentured servitude. We returned to the illusion, yet in my heart I know what it means to be free. I will not be a slave to any man. I will proclaim my freedom every day, in the halls of Corporate America and in the streets of the cities and towns of this nation and the world. I will continue to write about the teachings of my Father and Mother, and their Fathers and Mothers before them. I will continue to shout the teachings of my Ancestors who fought with their bodies and their hearts and their minds.

It is my Ancestors who could have chosen the ultimate freedom of death. It is they who chose to live in bondage and hope. Hope that some day, their children would walk this world free.

For their sake, I claim, Slavery is NOT too strong a word.

I was listening to a program on National Public Radio recently entitled “Motherhood in the Margins.” This program, a segment of the daily program Odyssey, spoke about the relationship between the archetypical maternal image and the reality of Motherhood in the USA. Two classes of women were discussed, those who chose motherhood on the margins and those who found themselves on the margins by virtue of their ethnicity or economic status. Here, I am referring to Mothers who are the descendents of slaves.

Annelise Orleck, an historian and the author of an upcoming book on the fight of poor women to assert their rights, quoted the former senator of the Louisiana, Russell Long, a Southern Democrat. She claimed that he actually said that funding welfare would make it more difficult for people such as himself to find domestic help since these poor Black Women would have no incentive to go out and get a job.

This quote was given as an example of the double standard that is applied to poor Black Women. They are not valued for that most important duty of raising their own children. When they do take the initiative to find work or education to better themselves, they do not have the support of our society. This is help that they need in raising their children so that these children will be neglected and left to the vagaries of ghetto life.

My own sister was a welfare mother. Had she not had the support of our family, she could never have continued her education, raised her son and developed a successful career in Information Technology. Even though she was a welfare mother, she came from a family of privilege. My Father is a successful retired Methodist Minister and my Mother is a retired registered nurse. They both fought the good fight to raise our people out of the shadow of poverty and prejudice. Sometimes the price they paid was dear. Sometimes that price included the loss of a business. Sometimes that price was disrespect from the systems and people that they supported and served. Sometimes that price was the suffering of their children at the hands of white society.

Though Russell Long served in the congress between 1965 and 1987, it would seem that his sentiments still exist today. Even now, the congress is debating provisions in the latest version of welfare reform that would require poor women to work at least 40 hours a week before they can receive support from the state.

Given my statements here, one might think that I am advocating the expansion of welfare for the poor. This is not true. I am thinking about the working poor of New Orleans. Many of these poor Black families sustained themselves on minimum wages performing the vary work that Russell Long complained would no longer be done. These were hard working families that paid their taxes and owned their homes. Now those modest homes, some of which were in families for generations are no more.

I too have felt hunger. Though I did not choose hunger so that my own child could be satisfied. I have done without clothing or shoes, but not so that my child would have clean warm cloths to wear to school. I have known poverty because of my determination to fulfill my dreams. This is a privilege that many of the Descendents of Slaves in New Orleans did not have.

At the time that I was listening to Odyssey, hurricane Katrina was of no consequence to me. Later, as the tragedy unfolded, I was so self-absorbed in my career and personal life that I was not aware of what was happening. I was not aware that those same mothers who are denigrated for either sponging off of the good graces of this fine government of ours or disgracefully neglecting their children, were making life and death choices that should never have been made.

These mothers, who had the audacity to affirm life beyond the despair of urban poverty, who would have been condemned by faith based organizations had they aborted their children, who were forgotten by the faith based organizations in the affluent parts of our nation, were watching their children starve and their elders die. These same organizations, such as the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that the government was touting as the salvation of the poor in times of hardship, were nowhere to be found as the waters were rising and the elders were dying and sons and daughters were giving in to anger and despair.

Were it not for the goodness of the people of our nation, many more might have died.

Where was R. Albert Mohler and his Southern Baptist Theological Seminary when his good friends in Washington were cutting the funding for the levees? Where was he when FEMA was turning back the truckloads of water and food? Where were he and his colleagues when the only job a poor black man could find in New Orleans was shining some white man’s shoes? Surely, he and his pseudo-religious cadre of political activists and self-proclaimed king makers could have advised our deeply religious and committed president of his responsibilities to the people of this nation.

Who will iron the shirts of the affluent businessmen who come to New Orleans to watch the buxom young college girls bearing their breasts on Bourbon Street? How can we as a Nation trust the promise of an American Dream that has become a nightmare?

The invisible people are visible now. We see them dying on television and crying for help outside of their refuge of last resort, a refuge that became the closest approximation to Hell on Earth.

These people who are the strongest of the strong, bearing the power and glory of our Nation on their beautiful black backs, have been dehumanized, denigrated and had the vary foundation of their culture destroyed. This destruction did not come with the storm surge of Katrina, it came with the missionaries and Imams like a scourge through the cradle of humanity. It came by torture and slavery and the demonization of that which we held most sacred.

It is so ironic that these same people run to the Great Religious Edifice of Protestantism.

Having seen these so-called religious organizations from the inside, I find them a place of such great hypocrisy that surely they must leave Martin Luther spinning in his grave. These same religious organizations are supported by the spiritual power and faith that is the legacy of the culture that Catholicism and Islam have sought to destroy. Yet the religious establishment in our Nation continues to carry on with the intolerance and ignorance that was perpetrated in the past by the same religions over which they claim such moral superiority.

Who is the champion of the righteous in our nation? Why George W. Bush, of course.

Even so, the Descendents of Slaves continue to go to church and be filled with the glorious power of the Holy Spirit that the self same religious establishment thinks of as little more than allegory and myth.

The Descendents of Slaves truly must love this so-called great nation of ours. If they did not, surely their children would have done much more than steal sustenance from the abandoned shops and storefronts of those who had left them behind to die in the filth and squalor. They would have strapped bombs to their bodies and marched into the halls of power and said in their last breaths, I exist! I have meaning! I have purpose, if that purpose is only to affirm that I exist.

Do not think that I am speaking of those who sought to take advantage of the lawlessness in the aftermath of the storm and flood. Nor am I speaking of those of murderous intent who had completely given up hope. This is not about those that lashed out at their own people or fired upon those seeking to save them like some injured animal seeking to protect itself from the scavengers that were sure to come.

No, I am speaking of the children who were raised by their Grandmothers, Grandmothers now dead because they could not get food or insulin. I am speaking of the babies that may never see their Mothers and Fathers again.

Yes, the children of slaves love this great nation of ours, and yet the question still remains, when New Orleans is re-built and the affluent have returned to claim the land once owned by the disenfranchised, who will iron their shirts?

Based on the content of his article and the additional readings of his weblog and the subsequent New York Times article, I must conclude that Mr. Mohler is a steadfast creationist who believes in the literal reading of the book of Genesis as fact.

I personally find no objection to the concept of reading the inspired teachings of the ascended masters literally. I do take exception with his interpretation though. Many of his statements with regard to Genesis are based on a set of axioms that I do not agree with.

I first must state that I have no idea what axioms Mr. Mohler holds as the basis of his opinions. I can only speculate as to what these are and this is what I have inferred from his responses to the questions posed on evolution.

1. The true nature of Humanity is defined by the physical characteristics that can be measured by modern science.

   I come to this conclusion based on the idea that Mr. Mohler presents that the time frame of the Bible is limited to approximately 6000 years. He has not stated this in his writings on this subject as published in the links in this essay, but this is the usually accepted calculation. Time must therefore be measured based on an arbitrary value for the length of time between human generations. This would therefore limit the length of time that a human might live.

   He must also assume that the nature of humanity is limited to what he himself can perceive. God’s creation of us would therefore be limited to what he and his colleagues can conceive based on their own limited experience.
   
   

2. There is a well-known and ultimately true definition of intelligence.

   How could one define intelligent design without having an accepted idea for what intelligence is? That concept of intelligence would again be determined by the accepted dogma of he and his piers.
   
   

3. The design of God’s creation is well known.

   It is again difficult to postulate intelligent design without also making a statement about the design itself. I can look at the design of an automobile or a building and make a statement about that design because the manifestation of that design is within the scope of my perceptions and intellect.
   
   

Given these three axioms, it is logical that a pious man will come to the conclusions that Mr. Mohler has. My opinion is that these axioms are invalid based on the text of the Bible itself, as well as basic common sense with regard to our limited concept of the unknowable character of God.

The first axiom, which refers to the nature of humanity is refuted by Genesis 1:27 “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them.”

First of all, in order to conceive of the nature of humanity you must be able to comprehend the nature of God’s Image. Aside from the basic ambiguity of the translation (was it the image of God as in a visual representation or the image of God figuratively?) one must be able to comprehend either the nature or the mind of God.

As for the mind of God, I quote the New Testament, Romans 11:33-34 “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!  For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counselor?” As for the nature of God itself, I think that it should be obvious to all that the limited context from which we speak must be incapable of divining that nature. I must therefore conclude that the first “axiom” is invalid. We just don’t have enough information to know what was actually created to understand the nature and character of that creation, let alone how that creation took place and when.

What is intelligence? Is there a clear definition of it. Can we state it’s character without equivocation? I would state that any concept, when sufficiently understood, can be simulated by a computing device. Since we cannot simulate intelligence, it therefore follows that we do not sufficiently understand it.

The last axiom is subject to the same argument as the first. In order to understand the design of God, you must have an understanding of what God had in mind. Again, this is not possible and “The Bible Tells Me So!”

Stipulating the above facts, one must conclude that intelligent design is impossible to prove, since the vary basis of the argument is either ambiguous at best or just outright impossible based on the fact that we could not possibly understand God because that would ultimately lead to a limitation of that which cannot be limited. It is logically incongruent to place a limit on the infinite. Therefore any argument for “Intelligent Design” is invalid on its face without even presenting any scientific theories to the contrary.

I know the Mr. Mohler and his colleagues can do better. They just need to THINK before they open their mouths.

One of the articles was about a woman whose husband had worked for the Guatemalan resistance. He was “disappeared” by the Guatemalan military in the early 90’s. As a lawyer, she did everything in her power to find him and have him released. She finally determined that he had been taken by the military, tortured and executed, all with the knowledge and even the tacit consent of the American CIA.

The article was about the torture that still goes on today in Guantanamo Bay and in other facilities either run by or sanctioned by the US Military and US intelligence agencies.

It was her position that this kind of behavior by our government is not only immoral, but also useless in that torture is known in the intelligence community for returning at best unreliable information. I would never dispute that the practices of our government are barbaric and unacceptable to me and to the majority of humanity. However, I believe that there is a major misconception that exists regarding torture.

The purpose of torture is not the acquisition of information. The purpose of torture is intimidation and revenge.

I believe that our government and the intelligence community are both happy to let the people of the US believe that somehow they are taking appropriate measures to safeguard our "way of life". This allows them to justify their behavior. However, as the descendent of African slaves, I must point out that torture has been used as a regular tool for controlling the minds and emotions of slaves and thier descendants since this country was "discovered" by the Europeans.

The same techniques that are used today in the ghost prisons of the world have been used for hundreds of years against my people. Of course, in the beginning, the justification was the practical management of a useful resource. Later, when it was used in the south after the abolition of slavery, it was justified as “Protecting our women and our way of life”. Today, we justify it as protecting us from the evils of terrorists.

I cannot advocate these actions that are practiced in my name around the world. But let us be very clear on their purpose. It is not about acquiring information. It is about sending a message. This message is best sent when those who are tortured are both the strongest and most upstanding of the community to be controlled. If we were to torture the guilty, it would have little effect. It is better to torture the innocent. In this way, integrity is undermined and community is destroyed. This creates an environment where an attitude of “every person for them selves” dilutes the power of the people. And makes a fertile environment for bribery and mistrust among the population being controlled.

May our Ancestors forgive us all.