Life should be getting back to normal for the Joseph and Mary household – as normal as life could possibly be with a new baby.

So here is the holy family, sleeping peacefully one night – and I want you to join me in imagining this scene: Joseph has just woken up having had another dream. An angel of the Lord has informed him that he’s got to get the mother and child out of Bethlehem, or Jesus is going to end up dead.

Can you play this out in your mind’s eye? Joseph wakes up Mary, who’s probably not too happy about being disturbed in the middle of the night (you get pretty tired when you’re a new mom – sleep is one thing you can never get enough of), and says something like “We’ve got to get out of here. Jesus’ life is in danger!”

Now, in the fog of new-mama sleep fatigue, these could hardly have been the most welcome words to hear. Especially since this little family is not just supposed to move to a new house or a neighboring village – they need to make a 200-mile trek through the desert, down into the foreign land that once enslaved their ancestors, with a baby – and they’ve got to leave now. Not tomorrow, not next week, not after they pack their stuff, make arrangements, and let everybody know about the dangers that are coming, but now.

I’ll bet both Mary and Joseph could have easily been tempted to snuggle back under the covers, chalking the whole thing up to Joseph’s imagination. I mean, after all – didn’t some very glamorous priests just bring Jesus a few incredibly amazing gifts? Why would something so wonderful be followed by something so terrible?

Life is pretty good for the family right now. This midnight journey just seems so illogical. It would have been (for the time-being) a lot easier and more comfortable for Joseph and Mary to just stay put, ignore the dream and go back to sleep. But thank God they responded to God’s message faithfully. The salvation of the world was at stake.

This would be no vacation, for sure. Think about what they were leaving behind: Matthew’s Gospel tells us they lived in a house in Bethlehem – what will happen to this house? No time to sell it or rent it out. Joseph is a tekton (sometimes mistranslated as carpenter – but in Greek this means he was a stoneworker; the type who probably built a lot of those ancient buildings that the archaeologists love to dig up out of the ground), and that’s a job he’ll be leaving for an uncertain future.

The social support for Mary as she struggles with new motherhood? Gone. Family, friends, synagogue, temple, culture, language – all of this is going to be given up or radically changed when they are forced to journey to Egypt.

And do they have a high-ranking family member there to greet them like their ancestors did some 1,600 years before when they had to run for their lives too? Is Joseph (the dreamer with the multicolored coat) going to be welcoming them, feeding them, arranging for them to have some land on which to live?

Hardly. Those days are long-gone. This is Egypt, the land whose people once chased their Israelite ancestors through the Red Sea, attempting to stop them from fleeing slavery.

This is the place where multitudes of pagan gods are idolized and worshipped. The place is foreign, it’s enemy territory. If I had been Mary or Joseph, it would have been the last place I would have wanted to journey to in a desperate nighttime dash to save my son’s life. But journey they did – and the Light of the World was not extinguished because of their faithfulness.

Matthew’s Gospel does not tell us much about their life in Egypt; just that they stayed there until King Herod finally died and it was safe to return – which was probably a good six to 10 years.

There was no issue with the family crossing the border into Egypt, no one blocked their entry, Joseph did not have to get passports or visas arranged.

They were provided refuge as long as they needed it and they probably settled into normal life as best as they could; Joseph and Mary looking for a place to live, finding new work, raising Jesus, trying to make ends meet until it was safe enough to cross back to their own country. They had followed God’s directions, trusting that this uncomfortable and unwelcome journey was imperative.

Speaking of imperative: I will also be heeding God’s call to journey to a foreign land and cross over into a place that is unfamiliar and in many ways uncomfortable.

I will be traveling to the US/Mexico Tijuana Border with a group of students from my seminary for the express purpose of being the eyes and ears of Jesus Christ; the One whose very life was once saved by the hospitality provided by a foreign nation. The One who said that whatsoever you did to the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you did to me; and whatsoever you did not do to the least of these, you did not do to me.

My colleagues and I will not be crossing the border to fix the problems we encounter. We will be visiting with God’s people there who live in the cardboard box cities. We will be meeting those who live amongst the rivers of chemicals that pour from factories and out into the ocean that we all share. We will be visiting with God’s people who work in those factories 14 hours a day to make $20 so that Americans can buy cheap towels.

We will survey the damage done to habitat that’s been impacted by a wall that stops wildlife from migrating but not the migrants from climbing over. I will bring what I see and what I hear home to Lake County so that we can begin a dialogue about how best we can answer God’s call to save Jesus in this region of the world.

When God calls us to save Jesus in 2011 we may be ready or we may not be ready to respond. There may be a million reasons we can think of for not taking a journey that God wants us to take. Reasons like: It can’t be that important, this urgency must be exaggerated, I’m doing fine, it’ll go away if I just ignore it, it will work itself out, I don’t need to get involved, it’s not a good time for this, it’s uncomfortable or unpleasant, or “what will people say?”

Thank goodness Mary and Joseph did not respond with any of those excuses when God called for them to get out of their comfort zone and hit the road.

Is God calling us to do the same thing today? Is God calling us to get up and out of our comfortable little lives somehow in order to make a journey that will further his salvation plan? If you happen to be Christian, called to see Christ in every person, to love every person, to be the hands and feet of Christ to every person – especially the “other” over there – the answer is yes.

But how can we really do this if we don’t know what life is like for that “other” person? How can we really powerfully feel that Christ lives in us and our fellow human being if we are not willing to cross over and stand in his shoes for a while?

My wish for all of us in this New Year is that we would each find some way to journey to the other side of something that is uncomfortable, unfamiliar or unwelcome.

Maybe for you that means actually going somewhere you’d never go or deliberately getting to know someone you’d otherwise never even give a second glance or that you’d be more likely to criticize than celebrate.

Maybe it means considering the opposite side of an argument, a philosophy, a theology, a culture, a religion. How can we find ways to cross to the other side?

One thing is certain: God intends there to come a day when there won’t even be a side to cross over to. He intends that there will come a day when no one will have to run and hide, no one will fear persecution, no one will be denied food, shelter, or healing; a day when not one of us will be separated from another by walls, either physical or psychological.

We can help that day come by being willing to cross over to the other side now.

Crossing does not mean we have to agree with that side, fix it, or become it. It just means we experience it and let God’s spirit work its magic in our hearts and theirs so that the Light can get brighter for all of us.

Waiting for the rest of the world to get it right before we’re willing to get out of our comfort zones, just won’t cut it if we are followers of The Way.

May we, like Joseph and Mary two thousand years ago, answer the call that keeps the Light alive, make the journey even when we don’t want to, and help bring about a day when the concept of “foreign” is, itself, foreign.

Gale Tompkins-Bischel is working on her master's of divinity degree at Pacific School of Religion in order to become an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). This commentary was a sermon on Matthew 2:13-23 she gave at United Christian Parish in Lakeport, Calif.

Several editorials have recently been published in major newspapers making sure we all know what the real cause of the War was: Slavery. Locally, Gary Dickson reaffirmed this point of view in an editorial entitled “Nothing to Celebrate.”

This view typically hinges on two premises: First, that President Abraham Lincoln was committed “to end slavery in America,” and second, that when the Deep South seceded, they referred to their belief in the inferiority of blacks and their rightly being slaves as justification. Essentially, the idea is that the South was wrong, the North was right, and it is wrong for Americans today to celebrate Confederate heritage.

But these editorials miss the mark. Often they either conveniently leave out important facts or distort them to prove their point.

One example of many is the idea that Abraham Lincoln's primary focus was to free the slaves. In reality, Lincoln promised to maintain slavery where it was. He wrote: “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race.”

Was this idle political posturing? Not at all. Little known to most of modern America was something called the “Corwin Amendment.” This was a proposed Constitutional amendment (intended to be the 13th, ironically) that stated: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Abraham Lincoln endorsed this amendment, and it passed Congress after the Deep South seceded.

Shockingly, Lincoln formally endorsed this amendment in his First Inaugural. It was sent to the states for ratification, where it awaits a vote to this very day! (It has yet to be withdrawn.) Three states have already voted to approve it (Ohio, Maryland and Lincoln's own Illinois.) Unbelievable, but true!

Little known too is that Lincoln's famed Emancipation Proclamation was carefully worded to preserve slavery everywhere it existed under federal control. It only attempted to free those slaves that were under Confederate jurisdiction (thus is actual practice, freeing hardly any slaves at all). Slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, Maryland, parts of Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana were kept as slaves throughout Lincoln's life. They were not freed until long after Lincoln was dead and buried (by the eventually approved modified 13th Amendment.) So much for Lincoln's commitment to end slavery!

I won't go into quotes of Lincoln regarding blacks, but they were just as racist and incendiary as anything a southerner said at the time. Some of his quotes regarding blacks would make your skin crawl. Suffice to say here that Lincoln's solution to the “Freeman Problem” was to “ship them back to Africa.” The African country of Liberia was populated by freed slaves, shipped back by organizations that Lincoln endorsed and supported.

So when you read statements like “Abraham Lincoln's promise was to end slavery in America,” it is important to get the rest of the story to put things in a proper balance.

Google “Corwin Amendment,” “Emancipation Proclamation,” “Lincolns racist quotes” and “history of Liberia.” For extra credit look up “The Morrill Tariff” to decide whether taxation may have something to do with the War. Read up on these, and then re-read the “it was all about slavery” editorials. You will read them in a new light.

And it begs the question: If Lincoln and the North were willing to guarantee slavery forever in the South, then what was the real reason for a war that took more than 600,000 lives and destroyed half of the country?

In every conflict, the winners write the history. Have we been given a sanitized view of the Civil War?

We will never get to the truth as long as we are fed selected damning quotes from one side while damning quotes and actions of the other side are swept under the rug.

Don't accept at face value what you read regarding the causes of The War. Use the Internet and the library to dig beneath the “accepted” understanding. Verify, research and verify again. You still might not agree with those who celebrate the Confederacy, but you will have a far better understanding of what is motivating them, and it's not a yearning for returning to slavery.

These issues are being discussed in-depth at the Redwood Empire Civil War Roundtable that is meeting monthly. The next meeting will be held Feb. 1 at the Tallman Hotel in Upper Lake. The meeting starts at 6:15 p.m. There is no charge.

Phil Smoley lives in Lakeport, Calif.

They then tend to consider the analysis of such ideas irrelevant, and prefer to think in terms of what they now define to be human nature, such as they perceive it.

They risk no longer understanding that their every thoughts and actions are rooted in concepts and beliefs that originate in a chosen worldview, and that to change the world, one needs to become conscious of and to change his worldview, to shift her focus and consciousness.

One such urgently needed transformation would nudge humanity to abandon the habit of fierce competition, which has historically been proven to lead to patriarchal forms of religions and governments, and to embrace the more natural and spiritually relevant model of cooperation, which found expression in matriarchal cultures and societies before they were brutally crushed by patriarchies centuries ago.

It is indeed not a coincidence that women have been oppressed for many centuries by patriarchal drives for dominant power and control, and are to this day in too many nations.

Such unhealthy obsession with power is not generated by hormones however, it arises from fear. Unnatural ideas lead to fear, which is an unnatural condition when sustained over a long period of time, and fear inspires the creation of the types of dogmas, ideologies, beliefs that ultimately appear to validate this fear and all it requires, such as greed, control, authority, might, aggression, war, and the subjugation and ruthless exploitation of those who are deemed weak because vulnerable to predation and coercion.

History proves that humanity is capable of temporarily or permanently legitimizing all acts of murders committed by the state or by religious authorities, all genocides, slavery, persecution, torture and war in the name of specific ideas and beliefs. Not so long ago, millions died because they were considered subhuman by those who claimed to be the master race.

Today the air, the water, the land are dying, polluted to the extreme and throughout the world by the highly toxic chemical and industrial by-products of a “master” civilization, because within the context of such a now global civilization power is deemed more important than life itself.

Consequently, anyone who stands for the earth is said to stand against progress, as were said to be the Native people of this continent in the 18th and 19th centuries, and as are still said to be all remaining indigenous populations today.

Indeed those who would rather love than rape and abuse the earth have seemingly no place and are not welcome in a world made into a battleground by the deluded and fearful patriarchal mind, the mind that is so desperately attached to the obsolete and grotesque idea of dominion as to be willing to sacrifice all for power.

That mind also fantasizes that the solution to the central problem of civilization, to the destruction of the natural order by greed, power and insensitive technologies will be found in the second coming of science or religion, in a migration of the human race to another planet or in a rapture.

Our human world will no survive this ongoing assault against nature, against what is called the environment, much longer, and can only be saved if women reclaim their power worldwide, not the power to blindly compete and overcome as men have been taught and conditioned to think and act, but the power to be, the power to live intelligently in cooperation and through communication rather than in opposition and through conflict.

Why should women save the world, why must they take on this responsibility?

Because it seems that, when it comes to killing and dying, men are by far the experts and always willing, but when it comes to nurturing life and living, women are so much more experienced and qualified.

If we are to choose to live on as a species, we then have to collectively choose to place our fate in the hand of the more skilled gender that, let’s be honest, has not yet been given a real chance under centuries of obtuse global patriarchal rule.

Raphael Montoliu lives in Lakeport, Calif.

Where were you?

Not a single educator, school administrator or guidance counselor from any Lake County school.

No members of the clergy – not a Rabbi, priest, minister, monk, brother or nun.

Nary a doctor, nurse, psychiatrist, therapist, social worker or surgeon. No one from Sutter.

Where were the librarians, soccer coaches, 4-H leaders, scouts and day care providers?

I heard nothing from Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis or the Women’s Protective Society.

Most important, where were the parents?

Where were the parents of Lake County youth who will have to navigate marijuana in ways that we cannot possibly visualize?

The Board of Supervisors recently discussed a potential new zoning ordinance regarding medical marijuana dispensaries. Our leadership faces complicated options on integrating it into our community.

They needed your input. The business community was there, but your voices were silent.

I attended because I live in Upper Lake where daily I feel its impact on my family.

Crowds congregate at two dispensaries and a doctor’s office on Main Street. On any given day, up to 40 people wait to get a medical marijuana card.

Often they block sidewalks so residents are uncomfortable walking downtown. I have seen the doctor’s employees direct crowds using a bull horn.

Patrons frequently have dogs and neighboring businesses clean up after them. They leave trash, drop inappropriate language in front of children, and create an inhospitable atmosphere in what used to be a charming area.

Oakland officials estimate that its three dispensaries generated $35 million to $38 million last year. The New York Times reported that San Jose has 98 dispensaries, four times its number of 7-Elevens in that city.

Lake County already has 12 dispensaries, and an organized, well-informed contingent wants to recreate Lake County as a cannabis tourism mecca. Marijuana Inc. intends to develop resorts in Humboldt, Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma and Trinity counties, including cannabis gardens, accommodations, restaurants, tours and other attractions.

I brought photos to the Board of Supervisors meeting that showed crowds on the sidewalks and street corners of Upper Lake. Another photo showed people who camped in my drive while they waited for pot-related businesses to open.

Supervisor Denise Rushing commented that by distributing these photos, I was passing judgment on the way people look. I was offended by her remark. Comments like hers set back civil debate because when citizens are disrespected, as I was, many will be reluctant to come forward.

I want a family friendly environment in the town where I live. Can we start here as common ground?

I was surprised also that Supervisor Rob Brown expressed reservations about loitering laws. Communities all over the nation use loitering ordinances to give law enforcement a tool to mitigate nuisance behavior. As it stands, the crowds here in Upper Lake are not doing anything unlawful.

Brown also has concerns about limiting the number of dispensaries. His positions make me question the direction of Kelseyville, whose downtown is currently dispensary-free.

The crowds in Upper Lake would be troublesome regardless of their reason for being here. As it happens, they are here for marijuana. But even if they were here for coffee and donuts, their behavior would be outrageous.

Several dispensary owners appear to be respectful community members. One owner in particular described using creative ways to donate to schools since his business can’t make an outright contribution.

These owners might benefit from banding together to promote codes of conduct among their peers.

For example, they might encourage pot businesses to move off Main Streets voluntarily and away from churches and schools.

They might encourage others to stop letting crowds congregate on sidewalks and outside of store fronts, making life unpleasant for everyone else.

And they might ban displaying toys in windows, like the teddy bears which were displayed next to drug paraphernalia in Upper Lake.

When people feel that any business puts children at risk, there will be fear and anger. The pro-pot contingencies need to work together to address reasonable concerns.

I hope my commentary stimulates discussion among PTOs, churches congregations, and even dispensary owners and patrons. But the need for input is immediate.

Ordinary citizens need to act. If you don’t want your child exposed to pot in the course of ordinary daily activities, contact your supervisor. Now.

Nancy Brier lives in Upper Lake, Calif.

There have been articles and commentaries and news clips galore blaming everyone from Sarah Palin to Jan Brewer to Sharon Angle to the Tea Party to Barack Obama.

The main focus of the blame seems to be the use of rhetoric in political circles that uses violent imagery, such as the poster Sarah Palin posted on Facebook, showing political opponents in a rifle’s crosshairs.

There are many other instances that have been brought up, but since that’s not the heart of this piece I won’t list them all here.

The main belief being put forth is that people in the public arena are being careless with their words, have used threatening imagery in their public speeches, are to blame for Jared Loughner’s actions on Saturday and must be held accountable for it.

There has been a backlash too, people saying that Loughner was a lone crazy man, solely responsible for his actions. There’s a lot of support for that angle too.

Reports are coming in that he was mentally ill, had been kicked out of college and asked not to return until he had had a psychological evaluation, and that he was enthralled by “Mein Kampf,” the Communist Manifesto and Nazi propaganda. But again, placing blame isn’t quite the point I’m trying to make here.

Loughner, as the man holding the gun, is the responsible party. Whatever his influences were, he has to bear the burden of his actions.

That his direct influences do not seem to be what people initially were decrying as his influences, i.e., Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, etc., doesn’t mean that they aren’t a contributing factor. I think people jumped to that conclusion because there is a sort of sense to it.

Maybe Loughner didn’t spend a lot of time researching Sarah Palin’s poster, but that doesn’t mean that some of the rhetoric that is so commonplace now didn’t filter down to him, making him think that shooting someone you disagree with is an acceptable solution to the disagreement.

Was it just Sarah Palin though? No. Was it just Sarah Palin and Jan Brewer and Sharon Angle and the Tea Party and Barack Obama? No. Was it just people in the public arena? No.

I contend that we all, as a people, have allowed our speech to be littered with violent imagery and vulgarisms that we now accept as normal. I think collectively we know it’s wrong, our sensibilities are struggling with it and this tragic incident is giving us an opportunity to say “enough.”

Remember George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can’t Say on TV” routine? (Look it up, I’m not going to list them here.) Out of the seven, two are no longer banned on American television, four are allowed on British telly, movies use them liberally, and all are in common everyday use all around us.

In the Old West, to use the phrase “Son of a b*tch” would be taken so personally it would likely get you shot. Now people say it when they stub their toe. It’s all so casual. No one seems to notice or care if there are small children around to hear it.

And with the advent of the Internet, where everyone gets to speak their mind, we see the filth in those minds in the comments section below any news article.

My husband once wrote an article posted in this very news source about the controversial subject of genetically engineered food, and one reader apparently disagreed with his stance.

The reader could have chosen to say, “I disagree with your position, and believe you are misinformed,” but instead chose to say, “You’re wrong, you f***ing idiot!” and then suggested my husband drink anti-freeze and die.

Why the vulgar speech? Why the personal attack? Why the violent suggestion, over an article about … food? And comments like this are common all over the Internet – this was not an isolated incident.

It is not just people in the public arena who are to blame for this climate of violent rhetoric we live in. After all, the ones on stage are a reflection of the masses. We all need to reflect on our contribution to the morass.

Common sense tells us that the more we let fly with our words, the more that disturbed people such as Loughner, who may not have the mental filter or discipline to keep his feelings just to his words, will think that violent speech approves violent action.

We all need to reflect on the things we say, and how we say them. All things can be expressed in different ways, every idea may be conveyed with alternative means … see what I did there? I said the same thing two ways. We don't have to resort to vulgarity and violent imagery to get our point across.

We can, and should, clean up our communications, both our public officials and the private sector – which isn't so private anymore.

No, folks, I’m not saying we need to stop talking. I’m not trying to curtail freedom of speech. I’m requesting that we all return to civility, think before we speak, and if we disagree, disagree politely. Thank you for reading.

Lacy Christensen lives in Clearlake Oaks, Calif.

Although billed as “informational,” the presentation (by Ft Bragg developer Jim Burns with the assistance of a consultant from Rancho Mirage) consisted primarily of a sales pitch for tapping into the Clearlake Redevelopment Agency's remaining $7 million to subsidize the police department – even though that money is desperately needed to revitalize the community's economic base, and even though, as pointed out by former city councilman Roy Simons and former planning commissioner Rick Mayo, such use of RDA funding is highly questionable from a legal perspective.

The misunderstandings started with the capacity crowd, most of whom were wearing brand new “Support Clearlake Police” T-shirts and had apparently turned out on this blustery evening on the assumption that the meeting would revolve around a proposal to disband the police department and turn its functions over to the county sheriff – a notion that may or may not have merit, but was not on the agenda.

The presentation then continued the theme, starting with the delusion that Clearlake is Oakland (an error pounced upon by many of those present), and that a high tech combination of remotely controlled cameras and an interactive Web site could put an end to a supposed crime wave.

Underlying these assertions was the assumption that the police department is underfunded despite dedicated Measure P sales tax support, a generous budget that consumes more than half of all municipal expenditures, high salaries for top officers and abundant overtime payments.

Most basic of all, the argument rested on the fundamentally flawed premise that because economic deprivation tends to be associated with a comparatively high crime rate it therefore follows that reducing criminal activities will result in prosperity, and consequent attainment of redevelopment agency core objectives of reduced blight and increased property taxes. This flight of logical fancy precisely reverses the actual chain of causation.

It might help to draw a lesson from the ecological concept of “limiting factors,” which examines an impoverished habitat to determine just which element is most lacking.

For example, if birds are scarce because of a shortage of nesting places, there's no point in increasing the food supply; if forage is unavailable, providing extra water won't help a depressed population rebound.

To improve the prospects for a given species, it's necessary to determine the specific limiting factor which prevents it from thriving, and to concentrate resources and efforts on expanding that limitation.

As Clearlake's residents have pointed out over and over again, the single element that hinders prosperity the most is antiquated, dilapidated or nonexistent infrastructure – dirt roads, potholes, lack of streetlights and sidewalks, inadequate parking, etc.

This impairment is particularly devastating in the Lakeshore Drive business district, where it is impeding the development of the visitor-based economy that offers the city's best chance for a brighter future.

In Clearlake, infrastructure is the limiting factor, and improving infrastructure is by far the most appropriate use of the redevelopment agency's precious resources.

Local voters reaffirmed this message resoundingly in the Nov. 2 city council election, and are surely expecting the newly formed council to act upon it.

Victoria Brandon lives in Lower Lake, Calif.