.

.

There is recognition in this newly-done General Election that “traditional loyalties” changed.  That the “heartlands” did the unthinkable and voted for the party they would never countenance voting for.  Whose parents and grandparents never countenanced voting for.  Whose communities and social structures never countenanced.

And – just as with the Brexit referendum – early analysis suggests those under 30 years went for Labour and those over 30 – whose loyalty is with Labour – “lent their vote” sufficient to allow the Conservatives victory.  And – as with the Brexit referendum – geographical differences are stark: Scotland rejected “London” and went for the SNP who now insist it a mandate for a second bite at the Independence Apple – Wales Labour now rues not differentiating itself from “English Labour” – Northern Ireland continues to be bitterly divided (in its political-bubble) and now without the leverage (one party enjoyed over the others) in propping-up the previous “London” government.

For the very first time I found myself looking at my voting card and thinking “my vote is  irrelevant”.  That it was not who I was voting for but “why was I voting at all?”   And then I voted for the party I hope will do the least damage to our society.

.

.

And now, I read, that the Democrats are sitting-up and taking notice of what just happened here (or at least SHOULD be sitting-up and taking notice).  That offering “everything to everyone” is not a vote winner to a “savvy” electorate .  Or “savvy to pie-in-the-sky promises” that are easily made and (political evidence shows) are later discarded.

Political activists in the political-bubble find it hard to be outside the  bubble.

.

.

My bubble is work and this family.  My local area and street.  My interests and preferences.  My strengths and weaknesses.  I live in a bubble whether I think myself above all this “bubble-stuff” or not.  We all do.  And social media makes that bubble far more comforting.

Any likes to this post are immediate and visible. The number of times this post is read and “engagements” on Facebook … my bubble excludes Twitter and Instagram and all the other current “media player platforms”.

Which is just another reason for sticking with Love i.e. unconditional

(and my hope that someday the “unconditional” rider is unnecessary)

Love that was before, is now and forever more will be.  Love that is universal.  Love that is stronger than death.  Love that possibles the impossible.  Love that lifts the unliftable.  Love that we know by its presence AND its absence.   Love that is real.  Love that is inclusive in all things.

Not just the things I believe in and think others should.

Love that is seen in “random” kindness (as we choose to call kindness that requires no “return“ at all).  Love that can be angry as well as sad as well as happy as well as patient as well as impatient.  Love that is not perfect or “right” but is.

Always.

Love that can be called God or Atheist or Secular or Religious or anything at all.  Love that embraces difference.  Love that embraces pain.  Love that makes a difference but not necessarily in ways that make the news.  Love that is not “lent”.  Love that is.

I find “I Am” is Love.

“I Am” is above the academics and lending of conditional “love” in qualified theology.  Is not about one set of beliefs over another – one tribe over another – one expected “genetic belief” over another.

I am is about me. No one else.

Is about me in this moment and the next.  Is not about “Jesus/God meets us where we are” but is about me being in the moment to meet whatever’whoever is in the moment.

That isn’t where “God lives” – that is where Love is in me – in I Am.

.

.

I hope religion at some point understands the difference between politics and “Love” – between conditional not-love and “Love” – between being biblically and scripturally correct and Love.

Because the bible I read offers me that choice.

And if I am wrong and I meet my Maker … are you “correct” in your correct “biblical and scriptural response” that I shouldn’t have Loved so inclusively – that I should have been more “conditional” in my Love – that I must, therefore, be cast out for Loving those who believed differently – who lived differently – who are created different – who are not like me?

It is a question I have asked myself many times and the answer to which is now my absolute: Love is Love.

Anything else is politics.

.

.

.