Does simply observing that something is true mean that we are creating it as being more true? Can a thing be more true than “true”?
Wow, what a lively discussion we’ve had here on the question of whether talking about something, or reacting to a set of facts in a particular way, is actually creating a further expression of the experience about which we are speaking. (To understand the full impact of the discussion it might be useful to page back to Sunday’s blog and the Comments posted there.)
One of the entries in the Comments Section was fairly typical of a particular point of view. It is from a person posting as “StormyMusic.” The entry said…

I only have a couple minutes to post so might have to come back later, but I couldn’t just read this and not type something that welled up inside me.
Is this really creative or reactive? Are we telling people of a possible blizzard, or are we cursing the snow? Are we discussing a fire, or are we condemning the flames? Are we letting people know about a windstorm, or are we saying that people should be outraged at the wind? Are we observing that there is fear in this world that remains, or are we contributing our fears with those that we’re admonishing?
It is ok to be aware that there are people who feel racist or have intentions that really don’t mirror who we really are. Yet, when we begin to fear their fear, then we are in the same boat as those we are shaming. Hate is nothing more than fear. I see we can use the two words interchangeably. So, what is the point of hating somebody who we perceive as having extreme views? Even hating their actions is a form of fear.
I’m sorry, Neale, but I can’t give in to the feeling that I should be outraged by this or write letters. I find myself less and less interested in giving into the old fear mentality and using the same energy that has created problems in the first place. Awareness is one thing, but seeking to publicly humiliate anybody is another.
I keep thinking of two quotes. “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.” AND “Nobody does anything wrong given their model of the world.”
Yes, we could try shaming people or using guilt, but I have this little voice in me that stops me each time I wish to embark down that path…and the voice says, “Have you tried loving them yet? Do you feel compassion for this person? Are you forgiving that person? What about yourself do you see in that person that you don’t like?” It stops me cold.
I don’t fear racists or what they say they’d like to do. If I fear then my reaction clears the way for fear. If I simply love and bless them despite my disagreement with what they seek to do, then there is no way that love can’t shine the light on fear and show it for the illusion that it is.

The reference to “shaming” people is apparently a reference to my statement in my Saturday blog that focused on a convenience store in Maine which allegedly displayed a sign inside that seemed to encourage violence against President-Elect Barack Obama.
The sign solicited $1 entries into “The Osama Obama Shotgun Pool,” saying the money would go to the person picking the date closest to when Obama was attacked. “‘Let’s hope we have a winner,’ said the sign, since taken down,” according to a story from the Associated Press. I said in Saturday’s blog that “I wish the AP would identify the store, and not just say ‘a Maine convenience store.’ I want the people who work in or run that store to be held publicly responsible and publicly accountable for their hatred. I want everyone to write a gentle, loving letter to that store saying, ‘Please, please don’t throw this kind of energy around. Please,’ and asking, ‘What hurts you so bad that you feel you have to hurt another person in order to heal it?’
Now, in the above Comment, StormyMusic refers to “humiliating” and “shaming”…

“Awareness is one thing,” StomyMusic said, “but seeking to publicly humiliate anybody is another.” And, later…”Yes, we could try shaming people or using guilt, but I have this little voice in me that stops me each time I wish to embark down that path…”
Yet my remarks said nothing about humiliating or shaming – merely disclosing. And I nowhere suggested that people try to “humiliate” or “shame” the store owner, but merely
“write a gentle, loving letter to that store.”
The letter, I suggested, might say, “Please, please don’t throw this kind of energy around. Please.” And it might ask, “What hurts you so bad that you feel you have to hurt another person in order to heal it?”
I don’t see any attempt to humiliate or shame anyone here…but I do see a gentle decision to simply hold people accountable for their actions. Now in this “new age” of “enlightenment,” is that “wrong,” too? Are we supposed to never reveal the names of people who have done things that do not seem to bring humanity its greatest benefit? What happened to the CwG message about transparency? Do we say, “Oh, yes, but not in the case of somebody doing something that they don’t want anyone to know about! Heavens, we can’t be that transparent!”
Even Conversations with God suggested, as I recall, that in an enlightened society, income taxes would one day be totally abandoned, to be replaced by a voluntary contribution to a Fund for the Common Good. When I asked in the dialogue what could cause people to contribute from their income to such a fund, and what could be done if people refused to do so, God said (and I paraphrase here, because I haven’t looked up the particular reference) “simply publish in your newspapers the name(s) of any who refuse to contribute to the common good. Publish a list: The Following People Have Declined to Contribute to the Fund for the Common Good. Publish it every quarter. Peer noticement, the sunlight of transparency, will do the rest for you.”
But let us examine this “Shhh! Don’t name NAMES, and don’t say ‘who did it’!” posture a little closer. How far would StormyMusic have us go with this? Should society be able to name murderers? How about thieves? What about others who do things that do not bring people the highest benefit, such as fathers who refuse to pay their child support for six years, etc? Are we to say, “No, no! You can’t release those names! Don’t publish them! We don’t want to humiliate or shame them!!! He raped and killed a 12-year-old, but we don’t want to shame or humiliate him!”
I think I’m asking a fair question here. I wonder what StormyMusic’s answer–and the response of others who agree with StormyMusic’s point of view, would be. Where do we draw the line? It’s okay to reveal the names of murderers, but not of people who put signs in their place of business inviting people to murder?
Um….yes, of course. We wouldn’t want to humiliate or shame them…or even make them personally responsible, and answerable, for their actions. We must love them. But isn’t it the loving thing to do to help a person learn to become answerable and responsible for their own actions? What, exactly, is unloving about that?