Another story of mass murder is hardly the news it once was. We are growing accustomed to such stories in our country. However, the largest mass murder on a military base on U.S. soil is still a major event and without question a tragic event. How much did we know and when did we know it? When you first heard about it, did you hear the name of the shooter? If not, what were your thoughts about what might have happened? When you heard that the shooter's name suggested he was an Arab, what did you think? When you heard that he was a dedicated Muslim, what did you think? We all have our own theories even before all of the evidence is in; often we modify our interpretations with the revealing of new facts. Where do we go for our facts in an effort to become better informed and to bettet understand what happened? Probably we watch television coverage or go to news sights on the internet to secure the facts. What not everyone considers is that the facts come clothed in a story shaped by the broadcasters and commentators who interpret for us the facts. Seldom do we seek or find facts isolated from a narrative being composed by the network or editorial staff designed to interpret those facts for the listener or viewer.
Yesterday's tragic event is another example of vastly different narratives being shaped by idealogues at networks and newschannels. Within hours one could pick up on the contrating narratives being used to explain the event that had just occured.
NARRATIVE # 1 Hasan was a psychiatrist and had to deal with soldiers returning from staysin Iraqand Afghanistan. He witnessed men and women experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and other negative effects of their involvement in the two wars being waged by his government in Washington. In addition, since 2001, he and other Muslims in the military were experiencing harassment. Some called him a "camel jockey" which he found very offensive. He wanted out, but the military wouldn't let him because of debts he incurred through a free medical degree he earned from the government while in the Army. He became more and more disenchanted with the wars and their consequences being felt by the people of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the consequences being experienced by returning soldiers, as well as muslims in the military. As CBS News.com expresses it "Military officials say they are still piecing together what may have PUSHED(emphasis mine) Hasan...to turn on his comrades".
CBS NEWS.COM further explains that a cousin said "soldiers harassed him for being a Muslim" and that as a psychiatrist he "was traumatized by the stories he heard from returning soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder as he counseled them at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington and later, at Fort Hood."
ABC NEWS ONLINE adds that as "Hasan was about to be deployed to Iraq, he was suffering from some of the same stresses he was trained as an Army psychiatrist to treat...his family says he had hired a lawyer to help him get out of the Armed Forces."
MSNBC goes further by presenting an article explaining that one of the reasons President Obama has been hesitant to send additional troops to Afghanistan is the fact that he is aware of the deterioration of the mental and physical health of our over-taxed soldiers who have been deployed over and over to continue these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "After many years of lengthy war zone rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Army personnel are experiencing record rates of suicide, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other mental health problems, as well as worsening alcohol and drug abuse...The psychological toll on the all-volunteer force today is unprecedented, Army officials say, acknowledging that they do not know how much the Army can sustain before it breaks....making the health of the force a major consideration in President Obama's current deliberations over sending more U.S. troops to Afhanistan.
"It's unclear what motivated the Army psychiatrist who is thought to have opened fire on fellow soldiers Thursday, although it's clear he had worked in settings where the effects of combat stress were pervasive....A small but increasing number of soldiers undergoing the mental strain of repeated combat deployments are taking lives--often their own."
The article then points out that 75 soldiers at Fort Hood have commited suicide since 2003. Further 81 confirmed suicide deaths in the Army have occured thus far in 2009.
Now for a few observations on this narrative: (1) This account constantly refers to Nasan by his profession as a Psychiatrist. (2) This account emphasizes that he was himself traumatized by having to counsel with so many victims of the war who suffered from mental health issues. (3) Narrative # 1 focuses on the unfair treatment he received from his fellow soldiers. (4) This narrative seeks to make his story part of a bigger story that concerns the mental condition of all of the Armed Forces who are experiencing battle fatique from these prolonged war efforts. (5) At least the President is concerned about their health and that helps explain his hesitancy in sending additonal soldiers to Afghanistan. In this narrative the shooter himself becomes a victim of the Bush wars.
NARRATIVE # 2 This narrative focuses on Hasan's religion rather than his professional career as a Psychiatrist. Hasan is and always has been a muslim. Fox News highlights the comments of retired Colonel Terry Lee who prior to his retirement was a colleague of Major Hasan. Colonel Lee points out that Hasan had made several comments suggesting that he admired the suicide bombers in Iraq and Afhanistan. He also expressed his opposition to the U.S. war effort in these two countries. Apparently Major Hasan had expressed on a blog his admiration for suicide bombers.
This scenario leads us to believe that Hasan was a radical religious extremist who saw himself as part of a jihad against America. Some say he acted alone and thus cannot be a viewed as a terrorist because as far as we know at the moment he was not part of an organized effort. Is the definition of a terrorist "a member of a group" or "one who seeks to produce and does produce terror by his comments or actions"? If he was a fanatic terrorist then we may need to strenthen our military and prepare them for future battles. If he was psychologically impacted by the overwhelming stress being experienced by the military then maybe we need to find a way to excuse ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible. Do we see how these two narratives are fueled by political ideology as much as they are by the facts.
Factors that may or may not be explanatory are introduced to help support one narrative or the other. For instance the MSNBC story was supported by statistics concerning a growing problem of suicide on military bases across the country. Of course suicide is a growing problem among the non-military population just as it is among military personnel. Also it is interesting to note that the suicide rate in the general population is considerably higher in the 20 to 24 age group then any other age group in America. Many of our soldiers are in that age bracket. Also of note is the separation of families produced by military duty that would help account for more depression and higher suicide rate. In other words to extrapolate from the statistical data concerning suicide rates among the military that its all due to repeated deployments to the warzone is beyond proof from current data, but when weaved into a story about Hasan, the Psychiatrist, it helps explain his actions as a depressed and stressed soldier and helps reinforce the view of those who would like to see our soldiers disengage from combat.
Its probably too early to decide between these two narratives, but it illustrates the politicalization of news stories. There may emerge a third narrative that includes elements of both numbers 1 and 2 above, or it may be totally different. Our world view often provides the framework for our interpretation of facts presented to us by events. Political correctness and anti-war views make some individuals and news sources seek for data that can reinforce such positions. With others anti terrorism is a higher priority than anti-war views. With anti terrorists, terrorism is always a distinct possibility and its not the last possibility to be considered.
Our lesson is to remember that facts present themselves in multiple contexts (religious, political, family, personal etc.) and which if any explains the events can be determined only by following where the evidence leads. While our world view usually determines our initial responses to facts, our ultimate conclusions must be determined by the evidence. We probably all have our tentative conclusions at the moment, but before we can speak with certainty, we must await the arrival of further evidence.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
The Promise of Civil Discourse
My last blog discussed the need for civil discourse. One of the appeals of candidate Obama was to bring to Washington change that would include civil discourse rather than a politics of destruction. He promised to sit down with those across the isle and listen to them and engage in constructive give and take. I think many Americans were tired of heated rhetoric and longed for a day when our representatives in the branches of government would transcend party talking points and address our country's problems like grown ups should. Candidate Obama's demeanor seemed to suggest that he might be better at that then candidate McCain and at least a percentage of Americans who voted for Obama did so with the promises and appearances of Obama in mind.
Now, I wonder if those who endorsed him for the above reasons still endorse him for those reasons. Some red flags have appeared and no pun is intended with the color "red". However, one does have to take note when the President's White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn informs a group of students that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung, the communist dictator of China who was responsible for the Communist takeover of China. That concern is increased when she acknowledges that the Obama election team used a strategy of dealing with the media that was designed to control the message that the media had access to. Mao was leader of one of the bloodiest campaigns ever launched against human beings. Jean-Louis Margolin, European historian, has estimated that deaths during Mao's reign of terror were between 44.5 million and 72 million. Dunn quotes favorably Mao's "you fight your war and I'll fight mine". I might also add that Mao was famous for his statement that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". For the sake of the students to whom she was speaking and for the sake of those who want to believe in President Obama, it would be better in the future if she could find another political philosopher to admire rather than Mao Tse Tung.
Since his election President Obama, cabinet and advisors have refused to appear on Fox network because the news channel is so critical of him and his administration. That the network is far more critical of Obama then the other news networks, as well as ABC, NBC, and CBS should be evident to a five year old. However, that these others were far more supportive of Obama than McCain in the campaign was also quite evident. The other networks were also far more critical of Bush than was Fox, however, Bush never ceased to appear on those networks that were critical of him. A president is expected to stay out of the kitchen if he can't handle the fire. A President should know that the oval office is in the center of the kitchen and therefore one is in the wrong line of work if he can't handle criticism and debate.
I must confess that it concerns me when officials in the administration admit that they set out to control the media and from all appearances were quite successful. It concerns me when an administration sets out to isolate and marginalize their critics. It concerns me not just from the concern for freedom of the press, but it concerns me that the American people may lack the facts they need to form opinions and determine their votes. In fact, Anita Dunn complains about the fact that the last administration official to appear in a discussion format on Fox News had their comments "fact checked" by Fox. Some of the comments were found to be false, but her complaint was not that the official was exposed, rather it was that a network news organization would dare to "fact check" an administration official. She said she had never seen that before and apparently neither she nor the administration appreciated being "fact checked". Excuse me, but I believe most Americans want no less from the media and in fact, one of the primary criticisms of all media today, Fox included, is that they have an agenda that trumps truth.
One hopes that the administration's treatment of Fox will not be the first salvo of an assault on all communication that challenges the prevailing view of the administration. There have been a number of friends of the administration who have talked about bringing back the "fairness doctrine" that would force radio station owners to provide free time for any politican criticized on their station. Such would force stations to discontinue talk radio. I have mixed emotions about much that talk radio produces, but I do realize that for the most part they represent a legitimate voice of millions of Americans whose voices will never be represented in the major news outlets of America other than Fox. It is never healthy in a free society to silence one side of a debate. In America today, most polls show that our people are split almost down the middle between two political views. In free societies efforts should not be made to silence the view with which we disagree.
The history of Christianity has been a history that involved trying to silence those with whom we disagree. State churches have been responsible for encouraging the execution of those who were critical of the views of the State Church. In America the first amendment was introduced to prevent such religious domination in our country. Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims , Protestants etc. are allowed to express freely their views provided they do so without trampling on the freedoms of others.
There is legislation in Congress that may pass this year that could silence churches with reference to discussion about homosexuality. If encouraging people to think of homosexual behavior as a sin can be treated as hate speech which is what legislation before congress is advocating, then preachers and churches who read scripture that suggest such can be charged with hate speech.
All efforts to triumph over our critics by silencing our critics rather than taking them on in serious discussion and debate are incongruous with a free society. Seldom is one side of a debate totally void of truth or error and only through open dialogue will a conclusion be reached that is better than either view alone.
Now, I wonder if those who endorsed him for the above reasons still endorse him for those reasons. Some red flags have appeared and no pun is intended with the color "red". However, one does have to take note when the President's White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn informs a group of students that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Tse Tung, the communist dictator of China who was responsible for the Communist takeover of China. That concern is increased when she acknowledges that the Obama election team used a strategy of dealing with the media that was designed to control the message that the media had access to. Mao was leader of one of the bloodiest campaigns ever launched against human beings. Jean-Louis Margolin, European historian, has estimated that deaths during Mao's reign of terror were between 44.5 million and 72 million. Dunn quotes favorably Mao's "you fight your war and I'll fight mine". I might also add that Mao was famous for his statement that "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". For the sake of the students to whom she was speaking and for the sake of those who want to believe in President Obama, it would be better in the future if she could find another political philosopher to admire rather than Mao Tse Tung.
Since his election President Obama, cabinet and advisors have refused to appear on Fox network because the news channel is so critical of him and his administration. That the network is far more critical of Obama then the other news networks, as well as ABC, NBC, and CBS should be evident to a five year old. However, that these others were far more supportive of Obama than McCain in the campaign was also quite evident. The other networks were also far more critical of Bush than was Fox, however, Bush never ceased to appear on those networks that were critical of him. A president is expected to stay out of the kitchen if he can't handle the fire. A President should know that the oval office is in the center of the kitchen and therefore one is in the wrong line of work if he can't handle criticism and debate.
I must confess that it concerns me when officials in the administration admit that they set out to control the media and from all appearances were quite successful. It concerns me when an administration sets out to isolate and marginalize their critics. It concerns me not just from the concern for freedom of the press, but it concerns me that the American people may lack the facts they need to form opinions and determine their votes. In fact, Anita Dunn complains about the fact that the last administration official to appear in a discussion format on Fox News had their comments "fact checked" by Fox. Some of the comments were found to be false, but her complaint was not that the official was exposed, rather it was that a network news organization would dare to "fact check" an administration official. She said she had never seen that before and apparently neither she nor the administration appreciated being "fact checked". Excuse me, but I believe most Americans want no less from the media and in fact, one of the primary criticisms of all media today, Fox included, is that they have an agenda that trumps truth.
One hopes that the administration's treatment of Fox will not be the first salvo of an assault on all communication that challenges the prevailing view of the administration. There have been a number of friends of the administration who have talked about bringing back the "fairness doctrine" that would force radio station owners to provide free time for any politican criticized on their station. Such would force stations to discontinue talk radio. I have mixed emotions about much that talk radio produces, but I do realize that for the most part they represent a legitimate voice of millions of Americans whose voices will never be represented in the major news outlets of America other than Fox. It is never healthy in a free society to silence one side of a debate. In America today, most polls show that our people are split almost down the middle between two political views. In free societies efforts should not be made to silence the view with which we disagree.
The history of Christianity has been a history that involved trying to silence those with whom we disagree. State churches have been responsible for encouraging the execution of those who were critical of the views of the State Church. In America the first amendment was introduced to prevent such religious domination in our country. Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims , Protestants etc. are allowed to express freely their views provided they do so without trampling on the freedoms of others.
There is legislation in Congress that may pass this year that could silence churches with reference to discussion about homosexuality. If encouraging people to think of homosexual behavior as a sin can be treated as hate speech which is what legislation before congress is advocating, then preachers and churches who read scripture that suggest such can be charged with hate speech.
All efforts to triumph over our critics by silencing our critics rather than taking them on in serious discussion and debate are incongruous with a free society. Seldom is one side of a debate totally void of truth or error and only through open dialogue will a conclusion be reached that is better than either view alone.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The Need for Civil Discourse
As christians we need to view our fellow man as "the image of God" even when we disagree with him, he deserves respect. I realize that humans can become so barbaric that we find nothing to admire in them, but those are not the individuals I have in mind. This past week a number of events have transpired that have caught my attention. Joe Wilson the congressman from South Carolina who violated congressional decorum by shouting out "you lie" in the midst of President Obama's address to congress embarassed himself and hopefully those who would probably share his views on the issue in question. Yesterday former President Carter expressed his view that Wilson was a racist.
This morning driving to work I was listening to the Mike Gallagher radio program. He is a conservative talk host. He was bemoaning the fact that Joe Wilson had been rebuked by congress for his behavior. A caller, who happened to be black, identified himself as a soldier who had served during some of our recent conflicts and that he had turned his back on his parents views in becoming a conservative. However, he still was inclined to believe that some of the criticism from people like Wilson might be race inspired. Gallagher responded by suggesting that the caller was really not a conservative and even hinting that his military service was probably a hoax. He demanded the caller provide evidence for his assertion that Wilson might have been motivated by race, yet every time the caller tried to speak, Gallagher would talk over him.
Just as dangerous as big government is the danger of extreme polarization that can lead to civil conflict and even anarchy. Conservative talk show hosts do a service when they provide information to the public that the mainstream news media refuse to provide. However, when they become entertainers seeking an audience by slandering everyone who disagrees with them, they are as much a threat to our freedoms as those who are their polar opposites. Our goal should not be to out-shout our opponents. The goal should be to challenge them to rise above their hostility toward us and reason with us. Allow the argument to prevail rather than the emotions. Public discourse, when polluted by anger, becomes its on terror.
James Davison Hunter in his book CULTURE WARS launched an effort to understand the polarizing tendencies in our culture. He argues that the wars are a power struggle to define America. He explains that public discourse today is"divisive and inflammatory. But what makes contemporary public discourse even more inflammatory is the appeal to sensationalism...sensationalism and exaggeration, regardless of the party and the object of disfavor, always foster fear, mistrust and resentment."
Dialogue and debate are healthy for society, but is such possible in today's environment? Radio talk show hosts are concerned about winning the ratings competition and giving callers time to articulate a disagreement may hinder winning. Sensationalism and inflammatory rhetoric may be more successful. Politicians are concerned about solidifying their base and participating in real dialogue or debate may be a threat to their goal. Television is more concerned about advertising and time constraints than they are about public discourse so it is easier to promote their own political views then to provide a forum for genuine discourse. Any way who would listen to public debate? After all we Americans are busy. What we want is for someone to assure us that our gut instinct is right. We don't have time for that academic kind of talk that might call for us to use our minds and reason. So on we go, with some listening to Jimmy Carter and saying "amen", while others listen to Mike Gallagher and say "thats the way to tell him". Meanwhile ignorance, anger and fear continue to grow and our social fabric becomes more and more fragile.
This morning driving to work I was listening to the Mike Gallagher radio program. He is a conservative talk host. He was bemoaning the fact that Joe Wilson had been rebuked by congress for his behavior. A caller, who happened to be black, identified himself as a soldier who had served during some of our recent conflicts and that he had turned his back on his parents views in becoming a conservative. However, he still was inclined to believe that some of the criticism from people like Wilson might be race inspired. Gallagher responded by suggesting that the caller was really not a conservative and even hinting that his military service was probably a hoax. He demanded the caller provide evidence for his assertion that Wilson might have been motivated by race, yet every time the caller tried to speak, Gallagher would talk over him.
Just as dangerous as big government is the danger of extreme polarization that can lead to civil conflict and even anarchy. Conservative talk show hosts do a service when they provide information to the public that the mainstream news media refuse to provide. However, when they become entertainers seeking an audience by slandering everyone who disagrees with them, they are as much a threat to our freedoms as those who are their polar opposites. Our goal should not be to out-shout our opponents. The goal should be to challenge them to rise above their hostility toward us and reason with us. Allow the argument to prevail rather than the emotions. Public discourse, when polluted by anger, becomes its on terror.
James Davison Hunter in his book CULTURE WARS launched an effort to understand the polarizing tendencies in our culture. He argues that the wars are a power struggle to define America. He explains that public discourse today is"divisive and inflammatory. But what makes contemporary public discourse even more inflammatory is the appeal to sensationalism...sensationalism and exaggeration, regardless of the party and the object of disfavor, always foster fear, mistrust and resentment."
Dialogue and debate are healthy for society, but is such possible in today's environment? Radio talk show hosts are concerned about winning the ratings competition and giving callers time to articulate a disagreement may hinder winning. Sensationalism and inflammatory rhetoric may be more successful. Politicians are concerned about solidifying their base and participating in real dialogue or debate may be a threat to their goal. Television is more concerned about advertising and time constraints than they are about public discourse so it is easier to promote their own political views then to provide a forum for genuine discourse. Any way who would listen to public debate? After all we Americans are busy. What we want is for someone to assure us that our gut instinct is right. We don't have time for that academic kind of talk that might call for us to use our minds and reason. So on we go, with some listening to Jimmy Carter and saying "amen", while others listen to Mike Gallagher and say "thats the way to tell him". Meanwhile ignorance, anger and fear continue to grow and our social fabric becomes more and more fragile.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
just wondering?
When George Bush was asked "who his favorite philosopher" was, he answered "Jesus Christ". When President Obama was asked if he could choose but one person to have dinner with, who would it be, he answered Muhatma Ghandi. Thought the answers were enlightening and can't help but wonder what significance, if any, can be found in their differing answers to somewhat similiar questions. How would you have answered either of those questions?
Wonder why the mainstream news networks did not think the video of ACORN employees advising people on how to set up an illegal prostitution business was worth airing. I guess they assumed no one would have found the video or story interesting, yet I can't help but wonder?
My niece is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer and in the process has received a shot that cost $7,000.00. Wonder if we had government insurance, would someone my age(66) find such shots available. If yes, who would have to pay for it and if no, who would want it? Just wondering.
If five years from now, China should require us to pay our debt, I wonder how much would be left for national defense and national health care. I guess as long as we have enough left to keep our printing presses running, we can just create money out of trees. Is it that simple? I'm just a simple man and just wondering.
I hope no one tells the government of my "wonderings" because such might become subject to a luxury tax to help fund the subjects of my wonderings.
Wonder why the mainstream news networks did not think the video of ACORN employees advising people on how to set up an illegal prostitution business was worth airing. I guess they assumed no one would have found the video or story interesting, yet I can't help but wonder?
My niece is undergoing chemotherapy treatment for cancer and in the process has received a shot that cost $7,000.00. Wonder if we had government insurance, would someone my age(66) find such shots available. If yes, who would have to pay for it and if no, who would want it? Just wondering.
If five years from now, China should require us to pay our debt, I wonder how much would be left for national defense and national health care. I guess as long as we have enough left to keep our printing presses running, we can just create money out of trees. Is it that simple? I'm just a simple man and just wondering.
I hope no one tells the government of my "wonderings" because such might become subject to a luxury tax to help fund the subjects of my wonderings.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
"Concessions and Smiles"
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said that "The timid civilized world has found nothing with which to oppose the onslaught of a sudden revival of barefaced barbarity, other than concessions and smiles.
Britain and Scotland's release of mass murderer Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is a classic example of "concessions and smiles". He is responsible for the death of 270 people who were blown up in a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Due to bad health, it was decided he should be released and returned to Libya, his home country so that he might join his family for whatever time he has left. Don't you think the families of the victims of the bombed plane wish they had some time with their loved ones. Did the little children who died deserve their fate? Why should he receive a privilege that he denied to hundreds of others?
Why was he released? Was it strictly for humanitarian reasons? Do we suppose he's the only prisoner to develop a terminal illness while in prison? Do we really think all such prisoners are released? We're not that naive! So why does a man who killed 270 men, women and children earn such favor? Some sources in Britain have documented communications between Britain's government and Libya that suggest the release was demanded by Libya in order to receive their approval for a large deal releasing oil for Britain. If this is so, then this act of mercy was just a condition to be met in order to acquire oil from a terrorist Gadafi. Is there any wonder that the West is having a hard time defeating terrorism?
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out in a column today, a Scotsman of 250 years ago, Adam Smith wrote that "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent".
The "concessions and smiles" diplomacy is not just an unjust policy of the Scots and Brits, it is a policy embraced by many in America, including many in high places. We now believe we can sit down and talk with Iran and Hamas. We will surely be able to persuade them through kindness and reason to give up their terrorist ways. They will be glad to talk so long as we follow a "concessions and smiles" strategy. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Our "concessions and smiles" policy leads to investigating CIA interrogators with a view to possibly filing charges against those who were trying to secure information about future terrorist plans.
Paul writes in Rom. 13:3ff. that "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong...if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant...an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.."
I think governments of the West, including our own, would be well served to consider their responsibility to the good before they embrace "concessions and smiles" toward the evil. I would hope that terrorists would fear "the terror of rulers" when they kill the innocent (whether one person, 270, or 3,000).
We are reaping the results of a moral vacuum where we have lost the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Often the right to do evil is defended more than the doing of good. Christianity and care for the good and innocent are met with charges of "judgmentalism and self righteousness" while terrorists must be forgiven because our western values and culture "made them do it". Ultimately America is accused of being the breeding ground of terrorism. Don't blame Islamic extremism, but blame American arrogance and self righteousness.
How may we conquer terrorism? Will it be by "concessions and smile" or by doing whatever is necessary to protect the innocent and administering justice toward the terrorists??
Britain and Scotland's release of mass murderer Abdel Baset al-Megrahi is a classic example of "concessions and smiles". He is responsible for the death of 270 people who were blown up in a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988. Due to bad health, it was decided he should be released and returned to Libya, his home country so that he might join his family for whatever time he has left. Don't you think the families of the victims of the bombed plane wish they had some time with their loved ones. Did the little children who died deserve their fate? Why should he receive a privilege that he denied to hundreds of others?
Why was he released? Was it strictly for humanitarian reasons? Do we suppose he's the only prisoner to develop a terminal illness while in prison? Do we really think all such prisoners are released? We're not that naive! So why does a man who killed 270 men, women and children earn such favor? Some sources in Britain have documented communications between Britain's government and Libya that suggest the release was demanded by Libya in order to receive their approval for a large deal releasing oil for Britain. If this is so, then this act of mercy was just a condition to be met in order to acquire oil from a terrorist Gadafi. Is there any wonder that the West is having a hard time defeating terrorism?
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out in a column today, a Scotsman of 250 years ago, Adam Smith wrote that "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent".
The "concessions and smiles" diplomacy is not just an unjust policy of the Scots and Brits, it is a policy embraced by many in America, including many in high places. We now believe we can sit down and talk with Iran and Hamas. We will surely be able to persuade them through kindness and reason to give up their terrorist ways. They will be glad to talk so long as we follow a "concessions and smiles" strategy. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Our "concessions and smiles" policy leads to investigating CIA interrogators with a view to possibly filing charges against those who were trying to secure information about future terrorist plans.
Paul writes in Rom. 13:3ff. that "rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong...if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant...an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.."
I think governments of the West, including our own, would be well served to consider their responsibility to the good before they embrace "concessions and smiles" toward the evil. I would hope that terrorists would fear "the terror of rulers" when they kill the innocent (whether one person, 270, or 3,000).
We are reaping the results of a moral vacuum where we have lost the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Often the right to do evil is defended more than the doing of good. Christianity and care for the good and innocent are met with charges of "judgmentalism and self righteousness" while terrorists must be forgiven because our western values and culture "made them do it". Ultimately America is accused of being the breeding ground of terrorism. Don't blame Islamic extremism, but blame American arrogance and self righteousness.
How may we conquer terrorism? Will it be by "concessions and smile" or by doing whatever is necessary to protect the innocent and administering justice toward the terrorists??
Thursday, August 27, 2009
GROWING THREATS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS
One of the themes that has defined America is religious liberty. In the early colonies such freedom was rare. Until the birth of America, State churches were the norm. The first amendmentwas disigned to protect the people from a national church. Even as the first amendment was drafted there were still state churches in existence. Eventually state churches disappeared as state constitutions followed the lead of the national government. The first amendment was intended to free the conscience from government dictate. We can argue about whether denominations are good or bad, but we can agree that without a first amendment, such would be virtually impossible.
Today religious liberty is under attack from a variety of sources. Churches that choose to follow the Bible rather than cultural trends often find themselves on the wrong side of political correctness. Churches may object to women in the pulpit and may consider homosexuality a sin. Such views produce scorn from those who are feminists and gay activists. However, efforts to limit religious freedom have been around for decades, we just have not always noticed because churches and christians have often accepted the limitations without so much as a whimper. After all, we don't want to be viewed by the "in group" as fanatics who define the "out group".
For 28 years I served as a faculty member and an administrator of the Center for Christian Education. Our purpose was to equip men and women for ministry primarily in churches of Christ. Even though we were a private school, we were required to follow government regulations. We couldn't call ourselves a college nor could we compare ourselves in any way to a college. To use the word "college" in any of our promotional material was forbidden. For instance, even though all of our professors possessed doctorates, except for myself, we could not say that our classes were taught on a college level, nor could we say that graduates who had attended both our school and an accredited college often said that our courses compared favorably with courses offered at accredited institutions. As a result we could never attain the cultural credibility that we believed our program deserved. Because of this fact, the President and the Board decided that we should seek accreditation.
We had two obviouse problems from the start of our efforts to seek accreditation. We had limited financial resources and a small student population. As we got into the process, it became evident that we were a David and the state was a Goliath. The state said for us to continue the process we would have to employ a full time librarian and Registrar. Two new positions and two salaries that we had not anticipated. Our annual budget increased by $300,000.00 while our student population remained quite low. The point man for the state wrote and said that I needed to be assigned to the classroom and that the Center would have to employ a new Dean of
Academics who possessed a Doctorate. I only had a Masters Degree and though I had been responsible for the fact that all of the staff apart from me possessed Doctorates, it was thought that my lack of experience in administration at a REAL college would prohibit me from being able to serve as Dean. We made the hire and continued forward. Our employee/student ratio was not what a prospective donor would want to see. As a result fund raising became harder and harder. The conclusion to this story is that we were forced to close our doors in June of 2005. One could argue, and I would agree, that we should have counted the cost in advance and not began the process until we were better funded. The point is that at the moment it is just history, but the story serves to illustrate that religious freedom is sometimes more of an illusion than reality. It didn't matter what those who had spent their lives in churches of Christ thought should be essential to preparing ministers for churches of Christ, what mattered was what the bureaucrats in Austin thought.
The government categorized us as a vocational school. Therefore until we became accredited, we would have to have students in class for something like 27 hours per week, if we wanted students to be eligible for certain government funds available to veterans. It didn't matter that we were providing education somewhat like colleges ( I hope the statute of limitations has expired).
What churches of Christ believed or what the school's board and faculty believed was quality education appropriate to our religious context meant nothing, only the government could make such determinations. Now I realize that the public needs to be protected from degree mills, but such protection does not require government dictates invading our freedom to educate potential ministers in a way consistent with the expectations of Christians who compose the church.
About three years ago the state board tried to close down a small school similiar to the Center who were so bold as to use the word college to describe their program. The state said only state approved colleges could use the term. The school filed suit and the case was taken before the Supreme Court of Texas. The court ruled in favor of the school and concluded that the state has no right to determine how churches educate their ministers. Therefore were we seeking accreditation today it would be a different story. Trust me when I say that many accredited institutions were probably embarassed by our State Court's ruling. The churches may not realize it, but there is a growing distance between higher education and the churches. What matters to many universities is what other universities think about them. The applause from their peers means more than the endorsement of the churches. Don't interpret my words as a blanket indictment of all Christian universities and professors. What I am saying is that academic freedom means much more than religious freedom to many in the field of academia.
Most Court rulings are not as friendly to churches as the Texas Supreme Court's above decision.
Recently Dr. William Thierfelder, President of BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE received correspondence from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission informing him that the school was under investigation because of a charge of sexual discrimination filed by eight faculty members. The charge was that because the school did not provide medical coverage for abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptives, they were discriminating against women. The college is Roman Catholic and views these practices as immoral.
The EEOC first dismissed the charges, but apparently when the decision reached the Washington office, there was a reversal of the decision and the case was re-opened.
Dr. Thierfelder offered the following observations:
"From a religious freedom standpoint, you don't have religious freedom...(the college) has gotten a lot of support from people who are not Catholic, and who may not share our beliefs on abortion, sterilization, contraception...they see the principle and what they're saying is, if you're a Catholic, or if you are of any faith, it doesn't mean anything. You're going to do what the government tells you to do....All of us need to have moral courage in today's world. We are so resolute in our commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church that there is no possible way we would ever deviate from it, and if it came down to it...we would close the school rather than give in...So it is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible." (quote from w.w.w.lifesitenews.com)
It will be interesting to follow the progress of this case. While I have serious disagreement with various views of Roman Catholicism, I applaud Dr. Thierfelder for his courageous stand. I fear that not all of our college presidents would take such a courageous stand on abortion or other isssues such as the gay lifestyle.
These issues will multiply if the health refrom legislation before Congress passes. Physicians, nurses, and hospitals will not be free to refuse to perform abortions. Many Catholic hospitals have threatened to close their doors rather than compromise. Again I applaud their commitment, and can only hope that others will be so courageous.
If we desire to protect our religious freedom we must exercise it no matter what the cost!
Today religious liberty is under attack from a variety of sources. Churches that choose to follow the Bible rather than cultural trends often find themselves on the wrong side of political correctness. Churches may object to women in the pulpit and may consider homosexuality a sin. Such views produce scorn from those who are feminists and gay activists. However, efforts to limit religious freedom have been around for decades, we just have not always noticed because churches and christians have often accepted the limitations without so much as a whimper. After all, we don't want to be viewed by the "in group" as fanatics who define the "out group".
For 28 years I served as a faculty member and an administrator of the Center for Christian Education. Our purpose was to equip men and women for ministry primarily in churches of Christ. Even though we were a private school, we were required to follow government regulations. We couldn't call ourselves a college nor could we compare ourselves in any way to a college. To use the word "college" in any of our promotional material was forbidden. For instance, even though all of our professors possessed doctorates, except for myself, we could not say that our classes were taught on a college level, nor could we say that graduates who had attended both our school and an accredited college often said that our courses compared favorably with courses offered at accredited institutions. As a result we could never attain the cultural credibility that we believed our program deserved. Because of this fact, the President and the Board decided that we should seek accreditation.
We had two obviouse problems from the start of our efforts to seek accreditation. We had limited financial resources and a small student population. As we got into the process, it became evident that we were a David and the state was a Goliath. The state said for us to continue the process we would have to employ a full time librarian and Registrar. Two new positions and two salaries that we had not anticipated. Our annual budget increased by $300,000.00 while our student population remained quite low. The point man for the state wrote and said that I needed to be assigned to the classroom and that the Center would have to employ a new Dean of
Academics who possessed a Doctorate. I only had a Masters Degree and though I had been responsible for the fact that all of the staff apart from me possessed Doctorates, it was thought that my lack of experience in administration at a REAL college would prohibit me from being able to serve as Dean. We made the hire and continued forward. Our employee/student ratio was not what a prospective donor would want to see. As a result fund raising became harder and harder. The conclusion to this story is that we were forced to close our doors in June of 2005. One could argue, and I would agree, that we should have counted the cost in advance and not began the process until we were better funded. The point is that at the moment it is just history, but the story serves to illustrate that religious freedom is sometimes more of an illusion than reality. It didn't matter what those who had spent their lives in churches of Christ thought should be essential to preparing ministers for churches of Christ, what mattered was what the bureaucrats in Austin thought.
The government categorized us as a vocational school. Therefore until we became accredited, we would have to have students in class for something like 27 hours per week, if we wanted students to be eligible for certain government funds available to veterans. It didn't matter that we were providing education somewhat like colleges ( I hope the statute of limitations has expired).
What churches of Christ believed or what the school's board and faculty believed was quality education appropriate to our religious context meant nothing, only the government could make such determinations. Now I realize that the public needs to be protected from degree mills, but such protection does not require government dictates invading our freedom to educate potential ministers in a way consistent with the expectations of Christians who compose the church.
About three years ago the state board tried to close down a small school similiar to the Center who were so bold as to use the word college to describe their program. The state said only state approved colleges could use the term. The school filed suit and the case was taken before the Supreme Court of Texas. The court ruled in favor of the school and concluded that the state has no right to determine how churches educate their ministers. Therefore were we seeking accreditation today it would be a different story. Trust me when I say that many accredited institutions were probably embarassed by our State Court's ruling. The churches may not realize it, but there is a growing distance between higher education and the churches. What matters to many universities is what other universities think about them. The applause from their peers means more than the endorsement of the churches. Don't interpret my words as a blanket indictment of all Christian universities and professors. What I am saying is that academic freedom means much more than religious freedom to many in the field of academia.
Most Court rulings are not as friendly to churches as the Texas Supreme Court's above decision.
Recently Dr. William Thierfelder, President of BELMONT ABBEY COLLEGE received correspondence from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission informing him that the school was under investigation because of a charge of sexual discrimination filed by eight faculty members. The charge was that because the school did not provide medical coverage for abortions, sterilizations, and contraceptives, they were discriminating against women. The college is Roman Catholic and views these practices as immoral.
The EEOC first dismissed the charges, but apparently when the decision reached the Washington office, there was a reversal of the decision and the case was re-opened.
Dr. Thierfelder offered the following observations:
"From a religious freedom standpoint, you don't have religious freedom...(the college) has gotten a lot of support from people who are not Catholic, and who may not share our beliefs on abortion, sterilization, contraception...they see the principle and what they're saying is, if you're a Catholic, or if you are of any faith, it doesn't mean anything. You're going to do what the government tells you to do....All of us need to have moral courage in today's world. We are so resolute in our commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Church that there is no possible way we would ever deviate from it, and if it came down to it...we would close the school rather than give in...So it is absolute, unequivocal, impossible for us to go against the teachings of the Catholic Church in any way. There is no form of compromise that is possible." (quote from w.w.w.lifesitenews.com)
It will be interesting to follow the progress of this case. While I have serious disagreement with various views of Roman Catholicism, I applaud Dr. Thierfelder for his courageous stand. I fear that not all of our college presidents would take such a courageous stand on abortion or other isssues such as the gay lifestyle.
These issues will multiply if the health refrom legislation before Congress passes. Physicians, nurses, and hospitals will not be free to refuse to perform abortions. Many Catholic hospitals have threatened to close their doors rather than compromise. Again I applaud their commitment, and can only hope that others will be so courageous.
If we desire to protect our religious freedom we must exercise it no matter what the cost!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
I have a bit of senior anxiety
We senior citizens are a bit nervous about the new health care proposals. We have been assured that "death panels" and the like are simply the rabid venom of the radical right. Maybe so, but I think it may be working for I still feel uneasy. Maybe as we grow older we grow more neurotic, but still....
Just when I was about to say "yes we can" to the wonderful new world of life and freedom from anxiety, I read Jim Towey's article on "The Death Book for Veterans" which appears on the online web-site of the Wall Street Journal. He writes that President Bush was forced to intercede and discontinue the publication of a Veterans Administration workbook entitled "Your Life, Your Choices" which was first published in 1997. The book was authored by Dr. Robert Pearlman, Chief of Ethics Evaluation for the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care. The workbook leads veterans to ask and answer for themselves various questions such as " would life be worth living if "you can't shake the blues" or if you're a severe financial burden on your family?". Pearlman in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v Quill before the Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
In July of this year, under the Obama Administration, the VA re-introduced a revised version of "Your Life, Your Choices". The Care Providers are encouraged to point not only the older veterans to the publication, but all 24 million veterans. The publication is to be used in discussion of "advanced directives". Only one organization is referred to as a resource for such end of life planning and that is the notorious "Hemlock Society" (now known as "Compassion and Choices").
Mr Towey is President of Saint Vincent College and is also founder of "Aging with Dignity". I and some of my friends are very much in favor of being allowed to "age with dignity" and as a result, we get a bit nervous when healthy, wealthy middle aged folks, whom we have never met may be deciding whether its feasible to treat our cancer or provide a life prolonging heart surgery. Maybe for the sake of the economy and more deserving middle aged folks, we should decide to die. Maybe morphine can be sold over the counter and nitro glycerin provided in our cereal. Such would surely be a social benefit and more cost effective. Maybe those birthers can find me a new birth certificate, showing my age as 40. Or maybe the State could just lose my birth certificate and the government couldn't prove me to be ----. You didn't really expect me to give my age, did you?
Just when I was about to say "yes we can" to the wonderful new world of life and freedom from anxiety, I read Jim Towey's article on "The Death Book for Veterans" which appears on the online web-site of the Wall Street Journal. He writes that President Bush was forced to intercede and discontinue the publication of a Veterans Administration workbook entitled "Your Life, Your Choices" which was first published in 1997. The book was authored by Dr. Robert Pearlman, Chief of Ethics Evaluation for the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care. The workbook leads veterans to ask and answer for themselves various questions such as " would life be worth living if "you can't shake the blues" or if you're a severe financial burden on your family?". Pearlman in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v Quill before the Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.
In July of this year, under the Obama Administration, the VA re-introduced a revised version of "Your Life, Your Choices". The Care Providers are encouraged to point not only the older veterans to the publication, but all 24 million veterans. The publication is to be used in discussion of "advanced directives". Only one organization is referred to as a resource for such end of life planning and that is the notorious "Hemlock Society" (now known as "Compassion and Choices").
Mr Towey is President of Saint Vincent College and is also founder of "Aging with Dignity". I and some of my friends are very much in favor of being allowed to "age with dignity" and as a result, we get a bit nervous when healthy, wealthy middle aged folks, whom we have never met may be deciding whether its feasible to treat our cancer or provide a life prolonging heart surgery. Maybe for the sake of the economy and more deserving middle aged folks, we should decide to die. Maybe morphine can be sold over the counter and nitro glycerin provided in our cereal. Such would surely be a social benefit and more cost effective. Maybe those birthers can find me a new birth certificate, showing my age as 40. Or maybe the State could just lose my birth certificate and the government couldn't prove me to be ----. You didn't really expect me to give my age, did you?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
READ, REFLECT AND RESPOND
In recent weeks there has been angry debate over the proposal for healthcare reform in America. The reform being discussed would likely offer a public option of a government directed health plan. We've heard the debate and the pros and cons of each side. However, the problem is that there is no legislation that has been brought to the floor of Congress. Various committees and groups have presented proposals, but no definitive bill. In a country where smart people with computers exist, why can congress not propose a definitive bill, and then submit it to public discussion. Publish the bill on the Congress website and let those who are interested read the bill. This might take three weeks. Then after having time to read it, let the people communicate with their representatives and senators concerning their views and suggestions. Maybe this period of reflection and response could last another three weeks. Then after these combined six weeks, Congress could debate and vote.
Is such a proposal too laborious and slow? Some would object that no one would read a thousand page bill. If not, then I guess we can't complain, but I have a feeling that a large number would read it. Congress persons should give more attention to those who are informed respondents than they do to people ignorant of the bill. If the bill could be a matter of life and death to some, especially viewed as such by senior citizens, then I think they would be motivated to check it out. Since such a bill would likely change our health delivery system in America for decades to come, younger citizens might also be inclined to take a look at it. Six weeks might not be too long for Americans to be involved in a process that truly invites the will of the people to be expressed. No longer could politicians label opposition as scare tactics based on misinformation, nor could opponents offer criticism of something that has never been proposed. Right now, the debate concerns proposals not bills that have come up for vote.
Recent trends in Congress suggest that my proposal would meet significant opposition, because some congressmen have dismissed the idea of reading bills, especially without lawyers at their side. If my congressman hasn't read the bill or doesn't understand the bill, I want him to oppose its coming up for a vote until he has had time to read and understand it. If he has had time, but hasn't read it, I would like to know that so that I can support someone else in the next election. I also think that if more bills were published and read by constituents, we might call upon congress and the judicial system to simplify legislation so that average people can determine what it means.
Maybe a grassroots movement for such an approach by Congress might work and if it did it would be truly grassroots and not astroturf (or is it astroterf?). Oh well, I said I favored legislation that average people could understand.
Is such a proposal too laborious and slow? Some would object that no one would read a thousand page bill. If not, then I guess we can't complain, but I have a feeling that a large number would read it. Congress persons should give more attention to those who are informed respondents than they do to people ignorant of the bill. If the bill could be a matter of life and death to some, especially viewed as such by senior citizens, then I think they would be motivated to check it out. Since such a bill would likely change our health delivery system in America for decades to come, younger citizens might also be inclined to take a look at it. Six weeks might not be too long for Americans to be involved in a process that truly invites the will of the people to be expressed. No longer could politicians label opposition as scare tactics based on misinformation, nor could opponents offer criticism of something that has never been proposed. Right now, the debate concerns proposals not bills that have come up for vote.
Recent trends in Congress suggest that my proposal would meet significant opposition, because some congressmen have dismissed the idea of reading bills, especially without lawyers at their side. If my congressman hasn't read the bill or doesn't understand the bill, I want him to oppose its coming up for a vote until he has had time to read and understand it. If he has had time, but hasn't read it, I would like to know that so that I can support someone else in the next election. I also think that if more bills were published and read by constituents, we might call upon congress and the judicial system to simplify legislation so that average people can determine what it means.
Maybe a grassroots movement for such an approach by Congress might work and if it did it would be truly grassroots and not astroturf (or is it astroterf?). Oh well, I said I favored legislation that average people could understand.
Friday, July 24, 2009
ARE WE SURE THAT ALL CULTURES ARE EQUAL?
I had decided to retire from bloggersphere, but I have an itch that needs to be scratched and I think blogging is the only answer. Many institutions of higher learning advocate that all cultures are right for those within those cultures. Truth about right and wrong is determined by those within a culture and not by those of a different culture. Some will go so far as to suggest that what Hitler did was right from Germany's perspective and who are we as non-Germans do condemn what happened. These same professors and institutions will condemn America for standing in judgment of other nations and their behavior. Who are we to condemn Castro or Hugo Chavez? The only culture or government that America can rightfully criticize is our own. This is one of the reasons that our institutions produce so many "hate America" students. Many of those graduating from these institutions are gaining increasing power in America. Those who hate America love France and other European governments and cultures.
My blog is generated by an event that occurred in Phoenix, Arizona this week. An 8 year old girl was raped by 4 boys, ages 9-14. When the 8 yr. old girl was returned to her father, he said he didn't want her. Police sergeant, Andy Hill, explained that the parents of the 8 yr. old were from Liberia and that in Liberia, a rape victim is viewed as responsible for what happens to her and that the rape is viewed as bringing shame on the family name. As Americans should we say, "who are we to criticize their culture?". If the Liberians accept it as right for them, then we are in no position to critize their values, after all, values have no authority beyond cultural endorsement. Then why do those who argue such, express so much hostility toward slavery. As long as a culture prefers slavery, why is slavery o.k.? Surely such examples as slavery and an 8 yr. old rape victim being rejected by her parents are enough to demonstrate that some things are right everywhere, all the time and with everyone. Some cultures are morally inferior to others. America is not perfect and we deserve some of the cricism that comes from Muslim countries who accuse of corruption and immorality as evidenced by hollywood and our tolerance of evil. Yet I believe that most women and christians would prefer America to the intolerance of the Islamic societies who sit in judgment of us.
Pray for sanity and common sense to return to higher education and those in positions of influence over government and society.
My blog is generated by an event that occurred in Phoenix, Arizona this week. An 8 year old girl was raped by 4 boys, ages 9-14. When the 8 yr. old girl was returned to her father, he said he didn't want her. Police sergeant, Andy Hill, explained that the parents of the 8 yr. old were from Liberia and that in Liberia, a rape victim is viewed as responsible for what happens to her and that the rape is viewed as bringing shame on the family name. As Americans should we say, "who are we to criticize their culture?". If the Liberians accept it as right for them, then we are in no position to critize their values, after all, values have no authority beyond cultural endorsement. Then why do those who argue such, express so much hostility toward slavery. As long as a culture prefers slavery, why is slavery o.k.? Surely such examples as slavery and an 8 yr. old rape victim being rejected by her parents are enough to demonstrate that some things are right everywhere, all the time and with everyone. Some cultures are morally inferior to others. America is not perfect and we deserve some of the cricism that comes from Muslim countries who accuse of corruption and immorality as evidenced by hollywood and our tolerance of evil. Yet I believe that most women and christians would prefer America to the intolerance of the Islamic societies who sit in judgment of us.
Pray for sanity and common sense to return to higher education and those in positions of influence over government and society.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Most Difficult Problem Christ faces in the world
Kansas Law Enforcement Officers have charged Scott Roeder with entering a church building and gunning down one of the church's ushers. George Tiller fell victim to the gunman's wrath. If you didn't know it, you know now that Tiller was a famous physician who performed late term abortions. Pro-life causes had repeatedly pointed to Tiller as representing the kind of medical practice in America that threatens the lives of the unborn and that is responsible for taking the lives of innocent children. Those who would like to see Roe vs Wade overthrown by the Supreme Court would obviously like to see abortions such as those performed by George Tiller to come to a halt. Most Pro-life advocates believe that late term abortions are murder. However, most Pro-life advocates believe that to murder to stop murder is not a solution that an individual has a right to pursue. Its murder to take one's life without a legal basis whether performed by an abortionist or an anti-abortionist. Until the law is changed, abortion is legal. No matter how much we abhor the act, individuals have no right to take the law into their own hands.
The irony of taking the life of a man in a church and doing so in the name of Christ is not lost on the enemies of Christianity. According to witnesses Roeder's car had an anti-abortion sticker on it, as well as the fish , a symbol of Christianity. A number of political causes will be encouraged by the act of the murderer of Tiller. The anti-gun movement will receive a great deal of free advertisement from this act. The Pro-choice movement will be able to gain support for silencing critics of abortion doctors. Keith Olbermann blamed Fox News for this despicable act, and especially Bill O'Reilly who had referred in the past to George Tiller as "Tiller, the baby killer". Olbermann recommended that his viewers quarantine Fox News. He encouraged his viewers to ask waiting rooms across America, whether Doctors or other waiting rooms, to discontinue carrying Fox News. If they refuse to do so then change Doctors. The anti-Christian movement will find encouragement by the evidence that the accused had the fish symbol on his car. The result of this crime may be millions of dollars worth of free advertisement for the views we have just mentioned.
In Romans2:17ff., the apostle Paul wrote the following:
"Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; If you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law. if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--you, then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal...do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
Paul's argument could have just as easily been applied to Christians as it was to Jews. What if the rhetorical question was "You who preach pro-life, do you commit murder?" In other words you preach opposition to murder by murdering? Such behavior leads to the name of Christ being blasphemed in the world. Many facts will come out in the next few months that are not known at the moment, but for now, the name of christianity and the cause of pro-life have been damaged greatly by the behavior of one who has chosen to be identified with Christ.
Nothing an enemy can do to us is nearly as damaging as the disobedience of God's people. When the advocates of the cause violate the cause, they do more harm than all voices of its critics. May all of us be reminded that even in criticizing an evil, we must do so in a way that brings glory to God. We may at times feel so passionately about a cause that we have a hard time being civil with the opponents, but God's cause is never advanced by ungodly behavior. My prayer is that the murderer of George Tiller will be brought to justice and pay the price that he thought murderers of infants should pay. Government is the body that has been entrusted by God with punishing the evil and until the law has been changed we can do nothing about abortion except seek to persuade our neighbors and elected officials to embrace a pro-life position and exert influence that might lead to the limitation and eventual removal of statutes permitting legal abortion.
The irony of taking the life of a man in a church and doing so in the name of Christ is not lost on the enemies of Christianity. According to witnesses Roeder's car had an anti-abortion sticker on it, as well as the fish , a symbol of Christianity. A number of political causes will be encouraged by the act of the murderer of Tiller. The anti-gun movement will receive a great deal of free advertisement from this act. The Pro-choice movement will be able to gain support for silencing critics of abortion doctors. Keith Olbermann blamed Fox News for this despicable act, and especially Bill O'Reilly who had referred in the past to George Tiller as "Tiller, the baby killer". Olbermann recommended that his viewers quarantine Fox News. He encouraged his viewers to ask waiting rooms across America, whether Doctors or other waiting rooms, to discontinue carrying Fox News. If they refuse to do so then change Doctors. The anti-Christian movement will find encouragement by the evidence that the accused had the fish symbol on his car. The result of this crime may be millions of dollars worth of free advertisement for the views we have just mentioned.
In Romans2:17ff., the apostle Paul wrote the following:
"Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; If you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law. if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--you, then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal...do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: 'God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
Paul's argument could have just as easily been applied to Christians as it was to Jews. What if the rhetorical question was "You who preach pro-life, do you commit murder?" In other words you preach opposition to murder by murdering? Such behavior leads to the name of Christ being blasphemed in the world. Many facts will come out in the next few months that are not known at the moment, but for now, the name of christianity and the cause of pro-life have been damaged greatly by the behavior of one who has chosen to be identified with Christ.
Nothing an enemy can do to us is nearly as damaging as the disobedience of God's people. When the advocates of the cause violate the cause, they do more harm than all voices of its critics. May all of us be reminded that even in criticizing an evil, we must do so in a way that brings glory to God. We may at times feel so passionately about a cause that we have a hard time being civil with the opponents, but God's cause is never advanced by ungodly behavior. My prayer is that the murderer of George Tiller will be brought to justice and pay the price that he thought murderers of infants should pay. Government is the body that has been entrusted by God with punishing the evil and until the law has been changed we can do nothing about abortion except seek to persuade our neighbors and elected officials to embrace a pro-life position and exert influence that might lead to the limitation and eventual removal of statutes permitting legal abortion.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Miss California
I haven't posted much lately because I think that what I say is mostly an echo reverberating back to the author. I have refrained for some time in commenting on the plight of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, but alas I can no longer restrain myself. Carrie's fate has won her more publicity then money could ever have bought her. Just today it was announced that she will debut on Fox News with an hour long hosting appearance.
As a Christian I'm not too fond of beauty contests because I think they send a message that teen girls in America don't need to hear. Having said that, I realize that not all would agree with me. So, while I would have advised Carrie to pass on beauty pageants, I nevertheless am troubled by what happened to her as a result of her answer to the question about gay marriage. I heard her answer several times and walked away each time thinking that she was as kind as she could be in expressing her answer and convictions. The bombastic response of Perez Hilton and others of the gay marriage movement was beyond the pale of human decency. She was called every name in the book, most of which I cannot repeat. She was the target of all kinds of threats. Denounced as "out of touch" in a state that voted by a 52% margin to prohibit gay marriage.
It was only two days ago that Donald Trump confirmed that the title would remain with her. In his support of her, he mentioned that her position was no different from that articulated by President Obama. The question that begs to be asked is why Hilton and other gay marriage advocates have not bashed President Obama as they have Carrie. The answer seems quite simple. Her defense was based upon christian values she learned from the bible. Most gay marriage advocates are at the same time critics of christianity and the Bible. In advocating gay marriage, they are at the same time trying to diminish the influence of christianity.
Aggressive athiests, gay marriage advocates and apologists for terrorists have in common a hatred for christianity that transcends all other views they have toward enemies of our country and our culture. If asked to pick between Osama bin Laden and James Dobson, I have no doubt that many would take their stand with Osama. We must live and evangelize in an environment where anti-christianity is on the increase and the volume is being turned up to almost a deafening screech.
What do we do? We must do what christians have done for 2,000 years, tell the old old story of Jesus who loves even his enemies so much that he is willing to die at their hands. We will not surrender our convictions in order to find acceptance from those who hate us, but neither will we stoop to behaving according to their value system which means anything goes as long as it is directed toward our enemies. Genuine love is even more absurd to some critics of christianity than are our views on abortion and homosexuality. Never surrender to hate, but love the haters into surrender to the Lord. This is the only strategy for victory that our Lord has provided us.
As a Christian I'm not too fond of beauty contests because I think they send a message that teen girls in America don't need to hear. Having said that, I realize that not all would agree with me. So, while I would have advised Carrie to pass on beauty pageants, I nevertheless am troubled by what happened to her as a result of her answer to the question about gay marriage. I heard her answer several times and walked away each time thinking that she was as kind as she could be in expressing her answer and convictions. The bombastic response of Perez Hilton and others of the gay marriage movement was beyond the pale of human decency. She was called every name in the book, most of which I cannot repeat. She was the target of all kinds of threats. Denounced as "out of touch" in a state that voted by a 52% margin to prohibit gay marriage.
It was only two days ago that Donald Trump confirmed that the title would remain with her. In his support of her, he mentioned that her position was no different from that articulated by President Obama. The question that begs to be asked is why Hilton and other gay marriage advocates have not bashed President Obama as they have Carrie. The answer seems quite simple. Her defense was based upon christian values she learned from the bible. Most gay marriage advocates are at the same time critics of christianity and the Bible. In advocating gay marriage, they are at the same time trying to diminish the influence of christianity.
Aggressive athiests, gay marriage advocates and apologists for terrorists have in common a hatred for christianity that transcends all other views they have toward enemies of our country and our culture. If asked to pick between Osama bin Laden and James Dobson, I have no doubt that many would take their stand with Osama. We must live and evangelize in an environment where anti-christianity is on the increase and the volume is being turned up to almost a deafening screech.
What do we do? We must do what christians have done for 2,000 years, tell the old old story of Jesus who loves even his enemies so much that he is willing to die at their hands. We will not surrender our convictions in order to find acceptance from those who hate us, but neither will we stoop to behaving according to their value system which means anything goes as long as it is directed toward our enemies. Genuine love is even more absurd to some critics of christianity than are our views on abortion and homosexuality. Never surrender to hate, but love the haters into surrender to the Lord. This is the only strategy for victory that our Lord has provided us.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
NOTRE DAME AND THE UNBORN
Controversy has raged within the Catholic Church since the announcement of the President of Notre Dame that President Obama would be their commencement speaker for graduation this year. No religious body has taken a more pro-life stand than the Catholic Church and many Bishops are irate that a speaker who is the most influential pro-choice person in the world has been selected as their commencement speaker and will in addition receive an honorary degree from the institution. Normally such honorary degrees are granted only to those who share the values embraced by the church.
One of my favorite Law Professors in America is Mary Ann Glendon. She is a Professor of Law at Harvard University. She is the author of several books and essays dealing with law, and has also written extensively on "life issues". When President Bush was looking for candidates for the Supreme Court, her name arose and I would have gladly supported her nomination. While Bush did not choose her for the Supreme Court position, he did choose her to be Ambassador to the Vatican.
I mention Professor Glendon because Notre Dame also invited her to speak at the same event as President Obama, but her presentation would have been an acceptance speech for an award that she was receiving from Notre Dame. When first notified she was not told that Obama would be delivering the Commencement address. She was excited about her award and being invited by Notre Dame. However, when she saw that the President of Notre Dame was using her presence as a defence for inviting President Obama, she had second thoughts. In this month's issue of FIRST THINGS magazine she published an open letter to the President of Notre Dame. In her letter she declined the award and the opportunity to be on the same platform with Obama. As a Catholic she had an issue with his presence and the awarding of an honorary degree to him. She pointed out that a Commencement was no platform for a debate and that it should be about the graduates and their accomplishments.
Notre Dame illustrates what I spoke about in my last blog. Christian institutions of Higher Learning are more and more distancing themselves from the views of their formative faiths. I could see Universities among churches of Christ salivating about the possibility of the President of the United States speaking at a commencement service, no matter what views he might hold on "life issues". The sad thing is that I'm not convinced that leaders in Churches of Christ would protest as much as leaders in the Catholic Church have protested about the selection of Obama. For whatever reason the "life issue" just doesn't seem to resonate as much with us as it does the Pope and Bishops. That is one of the major reasons that Christian ethicists have grown more friendly with the Catholic Church than many protestant groups. While there are significant and important issues which are troubling about the Catholic Church, one must give credit where credit is due.
I wish that Churches of Christ and other Christian fellowships had more people like Mary Ann Glendon who would give up worldly awards from prestigious universities in order to make a moral stand. I'm sure we have people who would do the same as she has done, but maybe don't receive the same amount of attention because we are not nearly as large as the Catholic Church. I reiterate as in my last post, that I believe in higher education and I have great appreciation for colleges and universities that have emerged from churches of Christ. However, the politics, credibility, and public image are so important that its hard to remember theology and moral issues when they threaten these other concerns.
May I say that I continue to pray for President Obama and have the highest respect for the office of President of the United States. However, sometimes in the interest of the service of God and life we need to disagree in meaningful ways even with the President of our United States. Therefore, I applaud Mary Ann Glendon for her stand as a Catholic against the best known Catholic institution in America.
Controversy has raged within the Catholic Church since the announcement of the President of Notre Dame that President Obama would be their commencement speaker for graduation this year. No religious body has taken a more pro-life stand than the Catholic Church and many Bishops are irate that a speaker who is the most influential pro-choice person in the world has been selected as their commencement speaker and will in addition receive an honorary degree from the institution. Normally such honorary degrees are granted only to those who share the values embraced by the church.
One of my favorite Law Professors in America is Mary Ann Glendon. She is a Professor of Law at Harvard University. She is the author of several books and essays dealing with law, and has also written extensively on "life issues". When President Bush was looking for candidates for the Supreme Court, her name arose and I would have gladly supported her nomination. While Bush did not choose her for the Supreme Court position, he did choose her to be Ambassador to the Vatican.
I mention Professor Glendon because Notre Dame also invited her to speak at the same event as President Obama, but her presentation would have been an acceptance speech for an award that she was receiving from Notre Dame. When first notified she was not told that Obama would be delivering the Commencement address. She was excited about her award and being invited by Notre Dame. However, when she saw that the President of Notre Dame was using her presence as a defence for inviting President Obama, she had second thoughts. In this month's issue of FIRST THINGS magazine she published an open letter to the President of Notre Dame. In her letter she declined the award and the opportunity to be on the same platform with Obama. As a Catholic she had an issue with his presence and the awarding of an honorary degree to him. She pointed out that a Commencement was no platform for a debate and that it should be about the graduates and their accomplishments.
Notre Dame illustrates what I spoke about in my last blog. Christian institutions of Higher Learning are more and more distancing themselves from the views of their formative faiths. I could see Universities among churches of Christ salivating about the possibility of the President of the United States speaking at a commencement service, no matter what views he might hold on "life issues". The sad thing is that I'm not convinced that leaders in Churches of Christ would protest as much as leaders in the Catholic Church have protested about the selection of Obama. For whatever reason the "life issue" just doesn't seem to resonate as much with us as it does the Pope and Bishops. That is one of the major reasons that Christian ethicists have grown more friendly with the Catholic Church than many protestant groups. While there are significant and important issues which are troubling about the Catholic Church, one must give credit where credit is due.
I wish that Churches of Christ and other Christian fellowships had more people like Mary Ann Glendon who would give up worldly awards from prestigious universities in order to make a moral stand. I'm sure we have people who would do the same as she has done, but maybe don't receive the same amount of attention because we are not nearly as large as the Catholic Church. I reiterate as in my last post, that I believe in higher education and I have great appreciation for colleges and universities that have emerged from churches of Christ. However, the politics, credibility, and public image are so important that its hard to remember theology and moral issues when they threaten these other concerns.
May I say that I continue to pray for President Obama and have the highest respect for the office of President of the United States. However, sometimes in the interest of the service of God and life we need to disagree in meaningful ways even with the President of our United States. Therefore, I applaud Mary Ann Glendon for her stand as a Catholic against the best known Catholic institution in America.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tony Blair's speech
Check out Tony Blair's speech delivered on April 22nd at Chicago Global Affairs Conference. The speech may be found on REAL CLEAR POLITICS.
Prayer Concerns
I am sure that most who read this blog are regular communicators with God. This morning I have been reflecting on the concerns that should be ours if we are Christians and Americans. So in addition to your personal prayer needs and issues may I suggest that if you have not already done so, include the following in your prayers:
(The following are not listed in any order as to importance)
1. Our government leaders both elected and appointed. While much that is going on today, as will be evident from some of my later concerns in this list, is inconsistent with my values and aspirations for America, I nevertheless need to heed Paul's admonition to pray for our leaders. If I haven't prayed for them, then their mistakes are my mistakes also.
2. Pray for our schools, both primary and graduate levels. Teachers are under so much pressure from political correctness and their unions that it is hard not to be intimidated into going along to get along. Also those in administration are obviously hesitant to cross any political correctness lines for fear of lawsuits from ACLU or families with "out of control" children.
3. Pray for Christian schools and universities. Many in higher education are more concerned about how they are viewed by accrediting agencies and other well known schools of higher learning than they are about biblical teachings and church concerns. A PHD cannot advance if he simply sounds like those in his church or those of the past. He must be cutting edge or he will be looked upon as "out of touch" with the latest and greatest. As our universities depend more and more upon donations from those outside their religious tradition, they must sound less and less like an echo of their church roots. They must invite more and more speakers that are well known in the larger religious community, regardless of what they are known for. Brian McLaren has spoken on some of our campuses recently, and I have no problem with that, provided their is some balance offered that encourages students to consider not just the pros but also the cons of what such speakers have to offer. McLaren is the leading voice of the "emerging church" which is a postmodern view of christianity which sees doctrines as divisive and even suggests that Buddhists, Hindus and others may embrace the Christ without knowing it, and thus enjoy all the blessings of Christ. Maybe those campuses that invite such speakers provide a penetrating critique, but knowing a little bit about how such institutions operate, I wonder.
I am not trying to put down higher education, in fact I believe in it more than most, but we need to know the kind of cultural pressures that are influencing such institutions. During the last couple of years of the Center for Christian Education's existence we were seeking approval from the state of Texas and the accrediting agency of Bible Colleges. During that process I had the opportunity of meeting with the appointed representative of the State Board of Education on numerous occasions. I discovered how much the State and accrediting agencies determine the operation and curriculum of private universities. Believe me, Abilene, Pepperdine, Oklahoma and others have more to fear from these sources than from the criticism of churches and christians. The Christian colleges and universities struggle with two poles: the church with which they identify and the state and regional accrediting agencies. Christian universities cannot and should not be the same as the schools of preaching in our fellowship. Since the Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that the State cannot control private christian colleges some of the schools of preaching have started offering degrees. I am torn between the two concerns, one that Christian truth not be compromised and two that schools of preaching really don't offer a curriculum that is equal to a Bachelors Degree. Yes, schools of preaching may offer more Bible, but a Degree is society's assurance that certain standards exist, and that one can assume a certain level of education exists that includes more than Bible. There are a number of fraudulent degree mills. Citizens need to have some means of determining the credibility of institutions of higher learning and this requires standards and laws. In spite of all that is done, some still peddle their wares and some fall prey to their promises. I think of one that has preyed on those in churches of Christ. Some of our graduates fell prey to such because in their minds they believed they had earned an equivalent to not only a Bachelors but even a Masters. The degree mill provided such for a relatively small financial investment. I too believed that the Center offered a quality education on par with many legitimate degree programs, but there were still additonal courses that would need to be taken to meet Culture's expectations of one with a Masters degree. If students had taken such courses in an accredited Junior College or University then their education was first class, but without those coursed they did not meet Society's expectations and should not received such a degree. Thus we need protection from those who offer degrees without meeting the standards presumed to exist in a degree program.
This rambling stream of consciousness reveals my own ambivalence when it comes to the issue of higher education. It is out of this ambivalence that I realize more than ever the need for prayer. The wisdom of more than Solomon is needed to address this issue. Pray for our schools, the professors, students and administrators.
4. Pray for President Bush and for those who served in his administration. He may have thought that once he was out of power that the criticism would end, but such has not been the case. The latest onslaught concerns "interrogation techniques". May the milk of human kindness be expressed in prayer for him, his family, and others who served with him.
5. Pray for Christians who believe it is their duty (a little used word now days) and responsibility to fight for the lives of the weak and those unable to fight for themselves. As a result we stand opposed to abortion and euthanasia, as well as embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of life. According to the Director of Homeland Security, we are a threat to the security of the homeland and need to be monitored closely by local and regional police and safety officials. Some Christians may be intimidated and silenced by realizing how they are viewed by government officials, however, we need to say with Peter and John "we must obey God". Our resistence to laws and policies will be expressed by freedom of speech and prayer. I know of no one who agrees with me in my opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell destruction who would bomb a clinic or research lab. I am more concerned about Bill Ayers and people who have actually attacked our institutions and our citizens then I am Christians who oppose abortion, but then I'm not the Director of Homeland Security. If she knows more about me and others than we know, mayb e she will reveal her sources.
6. Pray for Pakistan and other countries in the boiling Middle East. Pakistan is not far from collapsing. The Taliban is gaining every day in Pakistan. Should its nuclear power come under the control of the Taliban, well we know the probable scenario that would follow. We need to pray for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Decisions they make concerning our policies in Pakistan may decide our childrens future.
7. Pray about the issue in Iran. May the Secretary of Defense Gates advise the President in a wise manner and may God's sovereignty over Iran prevent their gaining nuclear weapons.
8. Pray that political discourse in America might focus more on issues and their merits rather than polarization through vile name calling and accusations without foundation.
9. Pray, pray, and pray some more about the future of Christianity in our homeland on earth. Christianity is not thriving, but Hinduism, Buddhism and secularism are. Since 1990, surveys show that Christianity has grown by 5%, while Buddhism has grown by 170% and Hinduism by 230%. However, the largest growth has been in those who embrace no religion. The number has grown from 13 million to 38 million. Our God is alive and as active as ever, but something is wrong with Christianity in America. We need God to lead us out of our malaise and paralysis. Christianity will not disappear from the world, but it may decline in influence in America. We need to thank God for its rapid growth in other parts of the world. America may sooner than we realize become a mission point for churches in Africa and South America.
10. Pray for our children and our families. Families are being redefined to include gay marriage and other arrangements such as living together in all kinds of combinations. Fewer and fewer children are growing up in a stable environment that includes a loving and dedicated father and mother who provide them nurturing, security and discipline. As goes the church and family so goes the nation.
Feel free to respond to my blog with additions to my list and interaction with my suggested prayer concerns.
(The following are not listed in any order as to importance)
1. Our government leaders both elected and appointed. While much that is going on today, as will be evident from some of my later concerns in this list, is inconsistent with my values and aspirations for America, I nevertheless need to heed Paul's admonition to pray for our leaders. If I haven't prayed for them, then their mistakes are my mistakes also.
2. Pray for our schools, both primary and graduate levels. Teachers are under so much pressure from political correctness and their unions that it is hard not to be intimidated into going along to get along. Also those in administration are obviously hesitant to cross any political correctness lines for fear of lawsuits from ACLU or families with "out of control" children.
3. Pray for Christian schools and universities. Many in higher education are more concerned about how they are viewed by accrediting agencies and other well known schools of higher learning than they are about biblical teachings and church concerns. A PHD cannot advance if he simply sounds like those in his church or those of the past. He must be cutting edge or he will be looked upon as "out of touch" with the latest and greatest. As our universities depend more and more upon donations from those outside their religious tradition, they must sound less and less like an echo of their church roots. They must invite more and more speakers that are well known in the larger religious community, regardless of what they are known for. Brian McLaren has spoken on some of our campuses recently, and I have no problem with that, provided their is some balance offered that encourages students to consider not just the pros but also the cons of what such speakers have to offer. McLaren is the leading voice of the "emerging church" which is a postmodern view of christianity which sees doctrines as divisive and even suggests that Buddhists, Hindus and others may embrace the Christ without knowing it, and thus enjoy all the blessings of Christ. Maybe those campuses that invite such speakers provide a penetrating critique, but knowing a little bit about how such institutions operate, I wonder.
I am not trying to put down higher education, in fact I believe in it more than most, but we need to know the kind of cultural pressures that are influencing such institutions. During the last couple of years of the Center for Christian Education's existence we were seeking approval from the state of Texas and the accrediting agency of Bible Colleges. During that process I had the opportunity of meeting with the appointed representative of the State Board of Education on numerous occasions. I discovered how much the State and accrediting agencies determine the operation and curriculum of private universities. Believe me, Abilene, Pepperdine, Oklahoma and others have more to fear from these sources than from the criticism of churches and christians. The Christian colleges and universities struggle with two poles: the church with which they identify and the state and regional accrediting agencies. Christian universities cannot and should not be the same as the schools of preaching in our fellowship. Since the Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that the State cannot control private christian colleges some of the schools of preaching have started offering degrees. I am torn between the two concerns, one that Christian truth not be compromised and two that schools of preaching really don't offer a curriculum that is equal to a Bachelors Degree. Yes, schools of preaching may offer more Bible, but a Degree is society's assurance that certain standards exist, and that one can assume a certain level of education exists that includes more than Bible. There are a number of fraudulent degree mills. Citizens need to have some means of determining the credibility of institutions of higher learning and this requires standards and laws. In spite of all that is done, some still peddle their wares and some fall prey to their promises. I think of one that has preyed on those in churches of Christ. Some of our graduates fell prey to such because in their minds they believed they had earned an equivalent to not only a Bachelors but even a Masters. The degree mill provided such for a relatively small financial investment. I too believed that the Center offered a quality education on par with many legitimate degree programs, but there were still additonal courses that would need to be taken to meet Culture's expectations of one with a Masters degree. If students had taken such courses in an accredited Junior College or University then their education was first class, but without those coursed they did not meet Society's expectations and should not received such a degree. Thus we need protection from those who offer degrees without meeting the standards presumed to exist in a degree program.
This rambling stream of consciousness reveals my own ambivalence when it comes to the issue of higher education. It is out of this ambivalence that I realize more than ever the need for prayer. The wisdom of more than Solomon is needed to address this issue. Pray for our schools, the professors, students and administrators.
4. Pray for President Bush and for those who served in his administration. He may have thought that once he was out of power that the criticism would end, but such has not been the case. The latest onslaught concerns "interrogation techniques". May the milk of human kindness be expressed in prayer for him, his family, and others who served with him.
5. Pray for Christians who believe it is their duty (a little used word now days) and responsibility to fight for the lives of the weak and those unable to fight for themselves. As a result we stand opposed to abortion and euthanasia, as well as embryonic stem cell research that involves the destruction of life. According to the Director of Homeland Security, we are a threat to the security of the homeland and need to be monitored closely by local and regional police and safety officials. Some Christians may be intimidated and silenced by realizing how they are viewed by government officials, however, we need to say with Peter and John "we must obey God". Our resistence to laws and policies will be expressed by freedom of speech and prayer. I know of no one who agrees with me in my opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell destruction who would bomb a clinic or research lab. I am more concerned about Bill Ayers and people who have actually attacked our institutions and our citizens then I am Christians who oppose abortion, but then I'm not the Director of Homeland Security. If she knows more about me and others than we know, mayb e she will reveal her sources.
6. Pray for Pakistan and other countries in the boiling Middle East. Pakistan is not far from collapsing. The Taliban is gaining every day in Pakistan. Should its nuclear power come under the control of the Taliban, well we know the probable scenario that would follow. We need to pray for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Decisions they make concerning our policies in Pakistan may decide our childrens future.
7. Pray about the issue in Iran. May the Secretary of Defense Gates advise the President in a wise manner and may God's sovereignty over Iran prevent their gaining nuclear weapons.
8. Pray that political discourse in America might focus more on issues and their merits rather than polarization through vile name calling and accusations without foundation.
9. Pray, pray, and pray some more about the future of Christianity in our homeland on earth. Christianity is not thriving, but Hinduism, Buddhism and secularism are. Since 1990, surveys show that Christianity has grown by 5%, while Buddhism has grown by 170% and Hinduism by 230%. However, the largest growth has been in those who embrace no religion. The number has grown from 13 million to 38 million. Our God is alive and as active as ever, but something is wrong with Christianity in America. We need God to lead us out of our malaise and paralysis. Christianity will not disappear from the world, but it may decline in influence in America. We need to thank God for its rapid growth in other parts of the world. America may sooner than we realize become a mission point for churches in Africa and South America.
10. Pray for our children and our families. Families are being redefined to include gay marriage and other arrangements such as living together in all kinds of combinations. Fewer and fewer children are growing up in a stable environment that includes a loving and dedicated father and mother who provide them nurturing, security and discipline. As goes the church and family so goes the nation.
Feel free to respond to my blog with additions to my list and interaction with my suggested prayer concerns.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Its been a while since I posted. My wife Gloria's brother died a few days ago, and the dying process extended over about 10 days. We were trying to give attention to weightier matters than blogging. It seems that every experience of life exposes us to new awareness of matters concerning which we thought we were knowledgeable. In Jim's last days I became more aware than I ever had before that a person is aware of his surroundings and what is going on even if he shows little evidence of such by his appearance. Communication and prayer are heard and make a difference.
Also I became aware that hospice is not always helpful when subject to Medicare criteria. I have become somewhat suspicious of how hospice is brought into the picture when one is at a senior care center. Then when they are active I found that according to the hospice representatives their services are for crisis care only. They use the more politically correct terminology of "continuing care" which describes around the clock presence of a nurse in the room of the dying person. However, according to what hospice told us, such care is available only if medication has to be given more frequently than the care facility can provide. Just because a person has only hours to live is not sufficient basis for the presence of a hospice representative. When I asked the hospice representative what the definition of hospice care is, she answered "end of life care". My obvious response was, "isn't Jim dying?". Yes, she said but he's stable and does not appear to be in great pain, so medicare will not provide what they call "a sitter". The hospice provider HOSPICE PLUS in the end did provide continuing care, but they had threatened to discontinue it because "dying" is not a sufficient reason to provide "continuing care" only painful dying is sufficient.
My recommendation is that if you have a loved one who may be entering into a terminal state, you should thoroughly familiarize yourself with the provisions of hospice care. Apparently there will be a difference in the hospice care provided under private insurance and the hospice care provided under Medicare.
Also I became aware that hospice is not always helpful when subject to Medicare criteria. I have become somewhat suspicious of how hospice is brought into the picture when one is at a senior care center. Then when they are active I found that according to the hospice representatives their services are for crisis care only. They use the more politically correct terminology of "continuing care" which describes around the clock presence of a nurse in the room of the dying person. However, according to what hospice told us, such care is available only if medication has to be given more frequently than the care facility can provide. Just because a person has only hours to live is not sufficient basis for the presence of a hospice representative. When I asked the hospice representative what the definition of hospice care is, she answered "end of life care". My obvious response was, "isn't Jim dying?". Yes, she said but he's stable and does not appear to be in great pain, so medicare will not provide what they call "a sitter". The hospice provider HOSPICE PLUS in the end did provide continuing care, but they had threatened to discontinue it because "dying" is not a sufficient reason to provide "continuing care" only painful dying is sufficient.
My recommendation is that if you have a loved one who may be entering into a terminal state, you should thoroughly familiarize yourself with the provisions of hospice care. Apparently there will be a difference in the hospice care provided under private insurance and the hospice care provided under Medicare.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
The world is heating up, is it Global Warming?
Al Gore has made much more by losing the presidency than he ever could have made by winning. He should thank Florida and the Supreme Court. The millions he's brought in by the "convenient theory" of Global Warming would make a President's salary look like pauper's pay.
Is the world heating up? I think so, but not in the way Global Warming proponents suggest. North Korea launched a rocket against the stern warning of the United States and the United Nations. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned of serious consequences and the head of the United Nations expressed his displeasure with the North Koreans for violating United Nations resolutions. What will be the outcome of such provocative actions, more warnings no doubt.
News broke today that Iran has been furnished with material for nuclear development from a Chinese firm with money being channeled through New York banks. How's our teddy bear like relationship with the Chinese working out for us? China will caution us to be restrained in our response to North Korea and Iran. Should any penalties be introduced in the Security Council of the United Nations, China and Russia will be there to veto such penalties.
China, Iran, North Korea and Russia are all seeking a more positive relationship with the U.S. now that the trigger happy Cowboy is no longer in power.
Our new leader has voiced his hope that we will all soon dismantle our nuclear weapons and become busom buddies. My leader is the Prince of Peace, but I believe he suggests that as long as this world stands, there will be wars and rumors of wars. Could it be a bit unrealistic to believe that we will some day before long live in a loving world where people will settle their differences by talking and talking and talking. If such is possible we should feel good about the prospects because we certainly have the right leader to represent us. The world is warming up, but be hopeful for we have a cool leader who is certainly not trigger happy. My prayer is that if he should be gentle as a lamb that he might also be as wise as John Wayne. For those too young to remember John, suffice it to say, he always knew when to draw his gun and fire. Bad guys had plenty to worry about if they messed with big John, but good guys always felt safe when big John was in charge.
Is the world heating up? I think so, but not in the way Global Warming proponents suggest. North Korea launched a rocket against the stern warning of the United States and the United Nations. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned of serious consequences and the head of the United Nations expressed his displeasure with the North Koreans for violating United Nations resolutions. What will be the outcome of such provocative actions, more warnings no doubt.
News broke today that Iran has been furnished with material for nuclear development from a Chinese firm with money being channeled through New York banks. How's our teddy bear like relationship with the Chinese working out for us? China will caution us to be restrained in our response to North Korea and Iran. Should any penalties be introduced in the Security Council of the United Nations, China and Russia will be there to veto such penalties.
China, Iran, North Korea and Russia are all seeking a more positive relationship with the U.S. now that the trigger happy Cowboy is no longer in power.
Our new leader has voiced his hope that we will all soon dismantle our nuclear weapons and become busom buddies. My leader is the Prince of Peace, but I believe he suggests that as long as this world stands, there will be wars and rumors of wars. Could it be a bit unrealistic to believe that we will some day before long live in a loving world where people will settle their differences by talking and talking and talking. If such is possible we should feel good about the prospects because we certainly have the right leader to represent us. The world is warming up, but be hopeful for we have a cool leader who is certainly not trigger happy. My prayer is that if he should be gentle as a lamb that he might also be as wise as John Wayne. For those too young to remember John, suffice it to say, he always knew when to draw his gun and fire. Bad guys had plenty to worry about if they messed with big John, but good guys always felt safe when big John was in charge.
Friday, April 3, 2009
IS ABORTION A TRAGEDY OR NOT?
The U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT on April 1st carried a blog by Bonnie Erbe that was quite revealing as to the thinking of those who promote abortion as a good option for women and for our society as a whole. In her blog she was taking issue with Media reports that viewed as a tragedy the increasing number of abortions caused by the current recession. Bonnie Erbe proposes "a counter view. It is not" a tragedy.
Her blog is a comment on a recent case reported by the Associated Press on March 25th. A woman in California, who could not afford a bus ticket, walked for an hour to the clinic where she requested an abortion. She reported that the pregnancy was planned and desired, but that since she became pregnant, her family's situation had changed. Her boyfriend had lost his job, and they barely had enough money to feed the three children at home, much less another child.
Erbe believes that all of us should agree that "In the long run...an unwed couple's decision not to bring a fourth child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy". "It's actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well."
"It's no tragedy; it's a good decision. The decision benefits society in two ways. It allows the couple to focus more time, energy and resources on their three children, giving each child a better life and a better chance of growing up to contribute to society. It also lessens the chance the family will have to rely on scarce public resources...to raise their children."
This article is so revealing. Its argument should serve as a warning to those who want to hand over health care to the government. More about this after reviewing her argument.
I want to consider her argument under three headings:
1. She says that the woman made a FACT BASED decision. Did she? Exactly what facts did she consider? Well, she considered her financial state. She considered her three children who have already been born. However, what about the fact that in her womb is another child. She considers how life will be better for the born, but does she consider the expense of a life to make the "better" possible?
2. The author says her decision was RATIONAL. I'm sure the decision made sense to her, but there is more than rationality that goes into a good decision. Hitler was rational, but his rationality resulted in the murder of six million Jews.
3. My major problem is with the MORALITY expressed in the author's argument in defense of this decision as good rather than a tragedy. If you will re-read the quotes from her article, you will see the constant references to "In the long run" , "in the end", and "better". All of these terms indicate that her ethic is utilitarian pragmatism. Her argument is that the end justifies the means. What end does she envision? The family will prosper and life will be better for the children she currently has. What about the "end" of the child in the womb? The author never defines the entity that is aborted. Clearly she would be unwilling to call the life in the womb a child, but she never mentions the child by any term. I obviously believe that the occupant of the womb is a child. I conclude such not just because I'm a Christian, but because I believe that Science cannot find another moment than conception when human life begins.
Her utilitarian pragmatism extends not just to the well being of the family, but also to the well being of society. "In the end" the abortion will benefit "society as well". Society is benefitted by the fact that an abortion is less expensive than support of another child. By such reasoning, one could argue that the death of one of her existing children would be beneficial to society.
When one's life is determined by the cost to society, many of us become vulnerable, and not just the unborn. One of the problems with a Government run Medical program is that the individual will no longer be the only consideration of the health provider, but also society who helps foot the bill by their taxes. Some individuals will cost more than they provide society. The same argument used by Erbe for abortion is being used in Europe and even in America for the validity and value of suicide and government assisted suicide.
When human life no longer has intrinsic value then it is no longer only the unborn who are endangered, but all of us. Our lives will be weighed in the balance and if cost benefits outweigh the value of our life, then only God can help us. Those who think Government supplied health care sounds good should consider the fact that in countries where such care is now available, certain medicines and procedures are not available to certain constituencies of society because they are not cost effective. The cost to society must trump the individual's well being. It appears clear that the author of this article is sympathetic to that type of reasoning, at least as it extends to the unborn.
Morality demands that we are responsible for our debts. However, the government is selective in requiring citizens to keep their contracts are suffer the consequences. The recent recession in the housing market and the business world has revealed how some contracts are binding and some not. Some are bailed out and some have to face the consequences of their decisions. A consistent morality or legality is hard to find.
The mother in Oakland admitted that the pregnancy was planned and by choice. That's a fact that seem to have been ignored when she opted for an abortion. The child in the womb did not make that choice, but she and her boyfriend. Instead of the parents fulfilling their commitment to the unborn, they escape by taking the life of the child in the womb.
I don't think Bonnie Erbe has demonstrated that the increase in abortions are good and not a tragedy. Instead I believe that her argument demonstrates that if her thinking wins the day, an even greater tragedy is just around the corner. By her reasoning, the disabled, the young and the elderly are especially vulnerable. I wouldn't even want to be on food stamps and need health care, the cost to society might be too great.
Think about it. We really are in a battle for the future of life in America and the future of our children.
Her blog is a comment on a recent case reported by the Associated Press on March 25th. A woman in California, who could not afford a bus ticket, walked for an hour to the clinic where she requested an abortion. She reported that the pregnancy was planned and desired, but that since she became pregnant, her family's situation had changed. Her boyfriend had lost his job, and they barely had enough money to feed the three children at home, much less another child.
Erbe believes that all of us should agree that "In the long run...an unwed couple's decision not to bring a fourth child into the world when they are having trouble feeding themselves and three children is no tragedy". "It's actually a fact-based, rational decision that in the end benefits the three children they already have and society as well."
"It's no tragedy; it's a good decision. The decision benefits society in two ways. It allows the couple to focus more time, energy and resources on their three children, giving each child a better life and a better chance of growing up to contribute to society. It also lessens the chance the family will have to rely on scarce public resources...to raise their children."
This article is so revealing. Its argument should serve as a warning to those who want to hand over health care to the government. More about this after reviewing her argument.
I want to consider her argument under three headings:
1. She says that the woman made a FACT BASED decision. Did she? Exactly what facts did she consider? Well, she considered her financial state. She considered her three children who have already been born. However, what about the fact that in her womb is another child. She considers how life will be better for the born, but does she consider the expense of a life to make the "better" possible?
2. The author says her decision was RATIONAL. I'm sure the decision made sense to her, but there is more than rationality that goes into a good decision. Hitler was rational, but his rationality resulted in the murder of six million Jews.
3. My major problem is with the MORALITY expressed in the author's argument in defense of this decision as good rather than a tragedy. If you will re-read the quotes from her article, you will see the constant references to "In the long run" , "in the end", and "better". All of these terms indicate that her ethic is utilitarian pragmatism. Her argument is that the end justifies the means. What end does she envision? The family will prosper and life will be better for the children she currently has. What about the "end" of the child in the womb? The author never defines the entity that is aborted. Clearly she would be unwilling to call the life in the womb a child, but she never mentions the child by any term. I obviously believe that the occupant of the womb is a child. I conclude such not just because I'm a Christian, but because I believe that Science cannot find another moment than conception when human life begins.
Her utilitarian pragmatism extends not just to the well being of the family, but also to the well being of society. "In the end" the abortion will benefit "society as well". Society is benefitted by the fact that an abortion is less expensive than support of another child. By such reasoning, one could argue that the death of one of her existing children would be beneficial to society.
When one's life is determined by the cost to society, many of us become vulnerable, and not just the unborn. One of the problems with a Government run Medical program is that the individual will no longer be the only consideration of the health provider, but also society who helps foot the bill by their taxes. Some individuals will cost more than they provide society. The same argument used by Erbe for abortion is being used in Europe and even in America for the validity and value of suicide and government assisted suicide.
When human life no longer has intrinsic value then it is no longer only the unborn who are endangered, but all of us. Our lives will be weighed in the balance and if cost benefits outweigh the value of our life, then only God can help us. Those who think Government supplied health care sounds good should consider the fact that in countries where such care is now available, certain medicines and procedures are not available to certain constituencies of society because they are not cost effective. The cost to society must trump the individual's well being. It appears clear that the author of this article is sympathetic to that type of reasoning, at least as it extends to the unborn.
Morality demands that we are responsible for our debts. However, the government is selective in requiring citizens to keep their contracts are suffer the consequences. The recent recession in the housing market and the business world has revealed how some contracts are binding and some not. Some are bailed out and some have to face the consequences of their decisions. A consistent morality or legality is hard to find.
The mother in Oakland admitted that the pregnancy was planned and by choice. That's a fact that seem to have been ignored when she opted for an abortion. The child in the womb did not make that choice, but she and her boyfriend. Instead of the parents fulfilling their commitment to the unborn, they escape by taking the life of the child in the womb.
I don't think Bonnie Erbe has demonstrated that the increase in abortions are good and not a tragedy. Instead I believe that her argument demonstrates that if her thinking wins the day, an even greater tragedy is just around the corner. By her reasoning, the disabled, the young and the elderly are especially vulnerable. I wouldn't even want to be on food stamps and need health care, the cost to society might be too great.
Think about it. We really are in a battle for the future of life in America and the future of our children.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
"I like monotony" C.S. Lewis
The title I've given to this blog says a lot about me. I haven't always been so boring, or Have I? Oh well, I guess the older you get the less energy you have for exciting new experiences that challenge the order and tranquility of your life. I love my family, my home, my community and my church. I like chicken, potatoes( or is it potatos , where is Dan Quayle these days?) and diet coke. I like the school my daughter attends. I like the sky over Midlothian and Maypearl. I like spring, summer, fall and winter. I like living in a free society. I have never liked having to move. After years in the same place, driving through the same fast food places, paying overdrafts to the same bank, and driving the same roads, life becomes predictable and little creativity and energy are required to live it. You might say we become embedded in place and space.
I spent 28 years of my life as a teacher and administrator for the Center for Christian Education. We closed our doors in June of 2005. For weeks, months and even years I dreamed about my work at the Center. My identity, my ministry and my life was embedded in an entity that no longer existed. I was blessed beyond measure to be able to relocate in ministry with the Maypearl Church of Christ. In a sense I was going home for I grew up in Maypearl. The names, faces and homes had changed. The house I grew up in 50+ years ago has been gone for decades. The terrain doesn't even look the same. There was once a train track not far from our house, but it has been gone for half a century. Yet, I can't drive by the hill where I grew up without thinking about my roots. I still remember events and relationships with family and friends that helped shape my life. Now 50 years later I still on occasion dream about the house where I lived as a child.
When my mom died I thought my heart died. When my dad died, I dreamed for years that he was still alive and I would wake up to the disappointing reality that such was not the case.
What is life and the life of those we love, "it is a vapor that appears for a little while and then fades away".
We take roots but circumstances uproot us and our loved ones. The very ones who bring us joy will bring us sadness. The only alternative to such existence is to refuse to love or enjoy life, place or space.
We become attached even to things and experience sadness when we lose them. It may be a house, a car, a job, or a pair of shoes. When I moved my office to Maypearl, I realized that I needed to downsize my library, so I sold or gave away several hundred books. The Maypearl church graciously gave my two rooms to house my library, but my books are still double decked and stacked in every nook and cranny of my office. Of course some of that is simply that I'm messy. My point is that giving up any of my books is hard. I have about 8,000 books and they are part of my monotony. I hope there wll be a reading room in my corner of the New Jerusalem. For I still have a lot of books that I haven't read from cover to cover.
Having emphasized how embedded I am and how much I like it, I realize that all that I have is temporary, but anticipatory of something permanent. The need to belong is a part of what it means to be human. However, we are saddened by the lack of permanence that characterizes our lives and those of our family and friends. The same lack of permanence is featured throughout the cosmos. Our world and ourselves are destined to pass away, but both are on a journey toward an embedded eternity.
Listen to Paul:
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us; For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God: for the creation was subjected to futility..." that is all of this present life and world is subject to decay and death. Yet " the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God". Cosmic and personal redemption and renewal are waiting in the wings.
In Revelation 21: 1ff. John envisions a "new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and first earth had passed away...And I saw the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'See, the home of God is among humans. He will dwell with them as their God...He will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more...See, I am making all things new."
We will be embodied in a new body and embedded in a new world and will have fulfilled our long ing experienced now. Our longing for permanence in relationships and places. No matter where we travel in the new world we will always be home. No enemy threats from terrorists or no domestic threats from the economy will threaten our well being. We will experience excitement that will exceed anything Nascar can offer and yet not be threatened by a disastrous crash. We won't have to lock our doors at night or spend money for alarm systems. There will no employers calling us into the office to give us a pink slip. We will finally be rooted in permanence.
Until then we will long for permanence more and more as years go by while becoming more and more aware that such will always elude us as long as we seek to be rooted in the old world.
I spent 28 years of my life as a teacher and administrator for the Center for Christian Education. We closed our doors in June of 2005. For weeks, months and even years I dreamed about my work at the Center. My identity, my ministry and my life was embedded in an entity that no longer existed. I was blessed beyond measure to be able to relocate in ministry with the Maypearl Church of Christ. In a sense I was going home for I grew up in Maypearl. The names, faces and homes had changed. The house I grew up in 50+ years ago has been gone for decades. The terrain doesn't even look the same. There was once a train track not far from our house, but it has been gone for half a century. Yet, I can't drive by the hill where I grew up without thinking about my roots. I still remember events and relationships with family and friends that helped shape my life. Now 50 years later I still on occasion dream about the house where I lived as a child.
When my mom died I thought my heart died. When my dad died, I dreamed for years that he was still alive and I would wake up to the disappointing reality that such was not the case.
What is life and the life of those we love, "it is a vapor that appears for a little while and then fades away".
We take roots but circumstances uproot us and our loved ones. The very ones who bring us joy will bring us sadness. The only alternative to such existence is to refuse to love or enjoy life, place or space.
We become attached even to things and experience sadness when we lose them. It may be a house, a car, a job, or a pair of shoes. When I moved my office to Maypearl, I realized that I needed to downsize my library, so I sold or gave away several hundred books. The Maypearl church graciously gave my two rooms to house my library, but my books are still double decked and stacked in every nook and cranny of my office. Of course some of that is simply that I'm messy. My point is that giving up any of my books is hard. I have about 8,000 books and they are part of my monotony. I hope there wll be a reading room in my corner of the New Jerusalem. For I still have a lot of books that I haven't read from cover to cover.
Having emphasized how embedded I am and how much I like it, I realize that all that I have is temporary, but anticipatory of something permanent. The need to belong is a part of what it means to be human. However, we are saddened by the lack of permanence that characterizes our lives and those of our family and friends. The same lack of permanence is featured throughout the cosmos. Our world and ourselves are destined to pass away, but both are on a journey toward an embedded eternity.
Listen to Paul:
"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us; For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God: for the creation was subjected to futility..." that is all of this present life and world is subject to decay and death. Yet " the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God". Cosmic and personal redemption and renewal are waiting in the wings.
In Revelation 21: 1ff. John envisions a "new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and first earth had passed away...And I saw the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, 'See, the home of God is among humans. He will dwell with them as their God...He will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more...See, I am making all things new."
We will be embodied in a new body and embedded in a new world and will have fulfilled our long ing experienced now. Our longing for permanence in relationships and places. No matter where we travel in the new world we will always be home. No enemy threats from terrorists or no domestic threats from the economy will threaten our well being. We will experience excitement that will exceed anything Nascar can offer and yet not be threatened by a disastrous crash. We won't have to lock our doors at night or spend money for alarm systems. There will no employers calling us into the office to give us a pink slip. We will finally be rooted in permanence.
Until then we will long for permanence more and more as years go by while becoming more and more aware that such will always elude us as long as we seek to be rooted in the old world.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Mirta Signorelli earned her Master's Degree in theology after having worked for years as a psychologist. She has until recently worked as a chaplain in Hospice Care facilities. For the past seven years she has served as a chaplain for the HOSPICE BY THE SEA, a non-profit organization that serves Palm Beach and Broward counties in Florida.
On February 23, she and other chaplains were told to "cease and desist" from using the words "God" or "Lord" in prayers and public presentations in staff meetings. Apparently some staff were not religious and the Administrator felt that such terms as "Lord" and "God" could be offensive to them. Signorelli had already been chastised for reading the 23rd Psalm which contains the word "Lord"; a word the Administrator thought sounded too Christian. Of course the 23rd Psalm is in the Old Testament and is a favorite text of non-Christian Jewish religion. Lord in the 23rd Psalm is not a reference to Jesus as anyone with any knowledge of Scripture should know.
The other six chaplains had no problem with the restriction. Signorelli resigned, saying she couldn't serve others with such restrictions. This event raises some important questions.
First of all, I am reporting what a Florida newspaper has reported and am responding to the report as written. I have no first hand knowledge of this story. Assuming the Florida report to be reasonably accurate, I think its worth reflecting for a few moments upon the story.
1. Why would a facility employ a chaplain and then ask them not to mention God. Why not employ a grief cousellor or psychologist if you prefer God not be mentioned.
2. Yes, but the restriction apparently was only in the context of staff meetings and not in relationship to the patients. Then why ask chaplains to attend staff meetings if they are not allowed to practice their chaplaincy in such contexts.
3. Of as much or more concern is why the other six chaplains had no problem with the restriction. Are they o.k. with being told that in certain circumstance they are not to mention God? What if the restrictions had extended to their relationships with the patients, would they have then had a problem? One would hope so!
4. What if the staff members who had a problem with the mention of God might happen to use a bit of profanity, would the Administrator point out that such speech offends the chaplain and that such language is forbidden? Or what if the staff members spoke of being atheists and ridiculed faith in the presence of the chaplain, would they have been told to "cease and desist"? Maybe they would have, but I wonder?
In an adult world we need to accept one another and tolerate one another. There are situations where I think certain language should be monitored. Profanity and such should not be allowed in the presence of children. However, as adults we realize that the real world is not composed of Christians only. Do you think Jesus corrected everyone who used profanity in his presence? People of that day had foul mouths such as some people of today. Since Jesus hung out with sinners and prostitutes, I imagine he was exposed to the same language as Christians are today. I'm not guilty for what someone else says or does. I can request that someone not use profanity or I can dismiss myself from the presence of someone who does, but I cannot expect administration to enforce my personal beliefs on everyone else. At the same time I should be allowed the freedom to express my thoughts whether religious or not without fear of being censored.
It would make as much sense for the elders to tell me not to speak of "Lord" or "God" because we might have some unbelievers Sunday morning as it does for a chaplain to be told not to use such words while serving as a chaplain.
As long as such censorship is isolated and not coming from Government agencies, its not quite as serious a concern. However, with the ever vigilant ACLU monitoring our speech and with hate crimes on the book, it may not be long before certain speech will be censored and outlawed. To call sodomy a sin could easily bring pain to a sodomist and thus be declared "hate speech". Thus certain scriptures might be illegal if read in public settings. I hope such never happens in America, but the climate is right for the enactment of these types of censorship.
"When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man's blood on us.'. But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than any human authority." (Acts 5:27-29)
Human authorities such as Administrators of Hospice facilities and Government agencies must not be allowed to silence the voice of dedicated Christians. My prayer is that we never have to choose between God and our employer or government.
On February 23, she and other chaplains were told to "cease and desist" from using the words "God" or "Lord" in prayers and public presentations in staff meetings. Apparently some staff were not religious and the Administrator felt that such terms as "Lord" and "God" could be offensive to them. Signorelli had already been chastised for reading the 23rd Psalm which contains the word "Lord"; a word the Administrator thought sounded too Christian. Of course the 23rd Psalm is in the Old Testament and is a favorite text of non-Christian Jewish religion. Lord in the 23rd Psalm is not a reference to Jesus as anyone with any knowledge of Scripture should know.
The other six chaplains had no problem with the restriction. Signorelli resigned, saying she couldn't serve others with such restrictions. This event raises some important questions.
First of all, I am reporting what a Florida newspaper has reported and am responding to the report as written. I have no first hand knowledge of this story. Assuming the Florida report to be reasonably accurate, I think its worth reflecting for a few moments upon the story.
1. Why would a facility employ a chaplain and then ask them not to mention God. Why not employ a grief cousellor or psychologist if you prefer God not be mentioned.
2. Yes, but the restriction apparently was only in the context of staff meetings and not in relationship to the patients. Then why ask chaplains to attend staff meetings if they are not allowed to practice their chaplaincy in such contexts.
3. Of as much or more concern is why the other six chaplains had no problem with the restriction. Are they o.k. with being told that in certain circumstance they are not to mention God? What if the restrictions had extended to their relationships with the patients, would they have then had a problem? One would hope so!
4. What if the staff members who had a problem with the mention of God might happen to use a bit of profanity, would the Administrator point out that such speech offends the chaplain and that such language is forbidden? Or what if the staff members spoke of being atheists and ridiculed faith in the presence of the chaplain, would they have been told to "cease and desist"? Maybe they would have, but I wonder?
In an adult world we need to accept one another and tolerate one another. There are situations where I think certain language should be monitored. Profanity and such should not be allowed in the presence of children. However, as adults we realize that the real world is not composed of Christians only. Do you think Jesus corrected everyone who used profanity in his presence? People of that day had foul mouths such as some people of today. Since Jesus hung out with sinners and prostitutes, I imagine he was exposed to the same language as Christians are today. I'm not guilty for what someone else says or does. I can request that someone not use profanity or I can dismiss myself from the presence of someone who does, but I cannot expect administration to enforce my personal beliefs on everyone else. At the same time I should be allowed the freedom to express my thoughts whether religious or not without fear of being censored.
It would make as much sense for the elders to tell me not to speak of "Lord" or "God" because we might have some unbelievers Sunday morning as it does for a chaplain to be told not to use such words while serving as a chaplain.
As long as such censorship is isolated and not coming from Government agencies, its not quite as serious a concern. However, with the ever vigilant ACLU monitoring our speech and with hate crimes on the book, it may not be long before certain speech will be censored and outlawed. To call sodomy a sin could easily bring pain to a sodomist and thus be declared "hate speech". Thus certain scriptures might be illegal if read in public settings. I hope such never happens in America, but the climate is right for the enactment of these types of censorship.
"When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and you are determined to bring this man's blood on us.'. But Peter and the apostles answered, 'We must obey God rather than any human authority." (Acts 5:27-29)
Human authorities such as Administrators of Hospice facilities and Government agencies must not be allowed to silence the voice of dedicated Christians. My prayer is that we never have to choose between God and our employer or government.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
life de-valued and threatened
We're less than two months into the Obama era and already drastic changes have occurred. The economy continues to slide south. Those with funds available for investing are hesitant to do so because the administration does not seem to be business friendly. Of course those with funds to invest will soon have less funds as tax increases will take from the haves to give to the have nots so that we will have a more just society. Class warfare is being generated and now those subject to discrimination are not a race or a gender, but those who have been successful. Yes there are some bad rich people who take advantage of others and there are some bad businesses that play loose and fast with others money, but a whole class should not be deprived of their hard earned money because a few bad apples have been found. I am all for the rich giving more to help the poor and helpless, but those who take out mortgages they can't afford should not be rewarded for bad decisions and choices. When those who pracitice sound budgeting and buy only what they can afford are having to bail out those who made bad decisions whether they are banks, auto manufacturers, or house buyers it is not justice. When they will have to pay in taxes their children's inheritance to make possible the reduction of the amount of money owed by people who bought houses they couldn't afford, its not fair. Yet this is the new era of redistribution of wealth from the "haves" to the "needy" regardless of why they are needy.
Soon we will have universal health care. Sounds great doesn't it. People without insurance will have it and all will be well. Oh, did I mention that someone will have to pay for it. Those rascally business owners once again will be called on to make their contribution to the needy. It seems that most people who need health care even if they have no insurance can still receive it under our current system. Think about the number of illegal aliens who pay no taxes and yet receive care when the need is there. When we receive government health care, we will suddenly discover as they have in England, Canada and elsewhere that with government care, there is more government and less care. In Canada some medicines cannot be covered by the health care system because they are too expensive and even people with money are forbidden to purchase such medicines because it would be unfair to others who can't purchase them. There's a reason why the death rate for cancer is much higher in England then in America. There is also a reason why in England certain health care is rationed according to certain criteria concerning who should receive premium care. Oh, by the way, if you are 65 or older, it is amazing how little health care you need.
Yesterday, President Obama issued an executive order overturning President Bush's Executive order that prohibited government funded production of embryos for scientific research. Under Bush, private funds could be used for such research, but not tax dollars. Under Obama's E.O. tax money paid by Christians and others who believe life begins at conception, will be used to create life with the intent of destroying it. Tax payer funded murder will make implicit all tax payers in this practice.
Oh how I wish that churches of Christ and other conservative Christian bodies were as outspoken on this issue as the Catholic Church is. One of my favorite authors is Robert George who is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. In an article today in the Wall Street Journal that he co-authored with Eric Cohen, he writes the following: "Mr. Obama made a big point in his speech of claiming to bring integrity back to science policy and his desire to remove the previous administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making." What Obama means by ideoloical is the Christian and scientific argument that life begins at conception. If life does not begin at conception, let science show us scientifically the moment life begins. At conception a new genotype comes into existence different from mom and dad. That genotype will develop and remain the same until he or she dies. Just because in its early stages the cells do not look like adult humans doesn't mean that they are not human.
Mr. Obama claims he's taking science out of politics by liberating science to make its own decisions. Yet, he tells us he's opposed to producing cloned humans. Why? If science is free from politics then who is to tell science that it can't clone? George, a Roman Catholic philosopher adds that "The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science, it is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity." No one seems to respect the slippery slope argument, but please be assured that the granting of a right to produce embryos in fertility treatments has made our society less concerned about stem cell embryonic research. The recent birth of octuplets reminds us of what fertility treatment can lead to. Yet I would prefer octuplets to selective embryo reduction which many prospective parents choose, which is abortion of unwanted multiple babies so that the birth of just one will occur. Normally when a prospective mother receives embryo transplants, she receives at least four embryos. This is due to the expense involved and the fact that the rate of miscarriages tend to be higher with artificially produced embryo transplants. Thus if the sonogram shows a multiple pregnancy, the physician will recommend selective reduction of babies until only one remains.
Mr. Obama had already announced a reversal of the Bush policy of not funding foreign agencies that performed abortions.
Internationally, North Korea has warned us that if we interfere with their missile test, they will retaliate against America and South Korea. Recently China tested Obama by having war vessels approach an American ship with threats. We expressed our concern. How long before these teasers become the showdown predicted by Obama's Vice President?
My new hero is the President of another country, Vaclav Klaus of Czech republic. Klaus is demonized by Al Gore and his colleagues who tell us that the biggest danger facing America and the world is global warming. Klaus has written a book challenging Gore and his supporters. Klaus is also a vocal voice in support of the free market. In a speech yesterday at Columbia University he said that "fighting for freedom and free markets is something we always appreciated here in this country(the United States) and it remains the task of the day. In his speech he reiterated that "global warming alarmism" is a major problem.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I'm not arguing for a Republican agenda as opposed to a Democratic agenda. I have plenty of issues with Republicans in Congress and I had issues with George W. Bush. No person and no party represents perfection. My problems with Mr. Obama are not with his sincerity or his patriotism, but my concerns are with the ethics of his agenda and the future that will be passed to my children and grandchildren.
In less than two months we have gone far down the road that threatens life and liberty. By the way, Hitler also respected science a great deal and science respected Hitler. Before anyone thinks that I am comparing Obama to Hitler, please let me disavow such. My only point is that science cannot be given autonomous authority over life and death because whatever is possible some unethical scientist will be willing to do. There must be ethical restraints placed upon both government and science.
To make stem cell research a matter of compassion for the diseased is to create an either/or situation when such is not required. No one has the right to save someone's life by taking the life of another with out his permission. To destroy an infant in the ebryonic stage when the infant can't defend itself is unethical. Furthermore great progress has been made in other stem cell research that holds great potential without resource to embryos.
Wonder where we will be in four years if the same rate of change occurs in the future as has occurred in the past few weeks. Please pray for our country and for innocent lives inside or outside of the womb. Our children and grandchildren are at risk and my prayer is that our elected leaders will sooner and not later realize what is at stake.
I am always reluctant to speak out on what many would consider political matters, but life, liberty and morality transcends politics. If Christians don't speak out on matters of right and wrong, then to whom shall we delegate that task? If its not right to gender hostility between business and labor, wealthy and poor, and science and religion then we must let our voices be heard. If its wrong to take innocent life, its wrong even if done by politicians or scientists. We must not fear those who would try to silence criticism by appealing to separation of church and state. Every society needs a conscience. What I am attempting to do is contribute to the conscience of our country. I am only one voice and my contribution is only as valuable as my facts and the logic of my argument. My task is to evaluate as best I can, not by pragmatism and political preference, but from the standpoint of right and wrong. Life should not be the restricted to political debate or the test tubes of the scientists.
My blog belongs to Ronnie Wiggins, the American citizen and not to the Church of Christ where I worship. As a Christian I express the values that I believe are Christian. Secularists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others have the same right and I would not for a moment discourage them from doing the same thing. I do resent that on many college campuses across our land, tax dollars are funding a united voice that has nothing but disdain for religion and Christianity in particular. Recent surveys show that the number of Christians compared with the population in general is declining. Should we be surprised? We can blame the media, politicians, academia and I do. However, blaming won't increase the number of Christians in America and the world. If we don't like present trends then we must work the harder and pray more fervently to change the trends.
Soon we will have universal health care. Sounds great doesn't it. People without insurance will have it and all will be well. Oh, did I mention that someone will have to pay for it. Those rascally business owners once again will be called on to make their contribution to the needy. It seems that most people who need health care even if they have no insurance can still receive it under our current system. Think about the number of illegal aliens who pay no taxes and yet receive care when the need is there. When we receive government health care, we will suddenly discover as they have in England, Canada and elsewhere that with government care, there is more government and less care. In Canada some medicines cannot be covered by the health care system because they are too expensive and even people with money are forbidden to purchase such medicines because it would be unfair to others who can't purchase them. There's a reason why the death rate for cancer is much higher in England then in America. There is also a reason why in England certain health care is rationed according to certain criteria concerning who should receive premium care. Oh, by the way, if you are 65 or older, it is amazing how little health care you need.
Yesterday, President Obama issued an executive order overturning President Bush's Executive order that prohibited government funded production of embryos for scientific research. Under Bush, private funds could be used for such research, but not tax dollars. Under Obama's E.O. tax money paid by Christians and others who believe life begins at conception, will be used to create life with the intent of destroying it. Tax payer funded murder will make implicit all tax payers in this practice.
Oh how I wish that churches of Christ and other conservative Christian bodies were as outspoken on this issue as the Catholic Church is. One of my favorite authors is Robert George who is professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. In an article today in the Wall Street Journal that he co-authored with Eric Cohen, he writes the following: "Mr. Obama made a big point in his speech of claiming to bring integrity back to science policy and his desire to remove the previous administration's ideological agenda from scientific decision-making." What Obama means by ideoloical is the Christian and scientific argument that life begins at conception. If life does not begin at conception, let science show us scientifically the moment life begins. At conception a new genotype comes into existence different from mom and dad. That genotype will develop and remain the same until he or she dies. Just because in its early stages the cells do not look like adult humans doesn't mean that they are not human.
Mr. Obama claims he's taking science out of politics by liberating science to make its own decisions. Yet, he tells us he's opposed to producing cloned humans. Why? If science is free from politics then who is to tell science that it can't clone? George, a Roman Catholic philosopher adds that "The question of whether to destroy human embryos for research purposes is not fundamentally a scientific question; it is a moral and civic question about the proper uses, ambitions and limits of science, it is a question about how we will treat members of the human family at the very dawn of life; about our willingness to seek alternative paths to medical progress that respect human dignity." No one seems to respect the slippery slope argument, but please be assured that the granting of a right to produce embryos in fertility treatments has made our society less concerned about stem cell embryonic research. The recent birth of octuplets reminds us of what fertility treatment can lead to. Yet I would prefer octuplets to selective embryo reduction which many prospective parents choose, which is abortion of unwanted multiple babies so that the birth of just one will occur. Normally when a prospective mother receives embryo transplants, she receives at least four embryos. This is due to the expense involved and the fact that the rate of miscarriages tend to be higher with artificially produced embryo transplants. Thus if the sonogram shows a multiple pregnancy, the physician will recommend selective reduction of babies until only one remains.
Mr. Obama had already announced a reversal of the Bush policy of not funding foreign agencies that performed abortions.
Internationally, North Korea has warned us that if we interfere with their missile test, they will retaliate against America and South Korea. Recently China tested Obama by having war vessels approach an American ship with threats. We expressed our concern. How long before these teasers become the showdown predicted by Obama's Vice President?
My new hero is the President of another country, Vaclav Klaus of Czech republic. Klaus is demonized by Al Gore and his colleagues who tell us that the biggest danger facing America and the world is global warming. Klaus has written a book challenging Gore and his supporters. Klaus is also a vocal voice in support of the free market. In a speech yesterday at Columbia University he said that "fighting for freedom and free markets is something we always appreciated here in this country(the United States) and it remains the task of the day. In his speech he reiterated that "global warming alarmism" is a major problem.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I'm not arguing for a Republican agenda as opposed to a Democratic agenda. I have plenty of issues with Republicans in Congress and I had issues with George W. Bush. No person and no party represents perfection. My problems with Mr. Obama are not with his sincerity or his patriotism, but my concerns are with the ethics of his agenda and the future that will be passed to my children and grandchildren.
In less than two months we have gone far down the road that threatens life and liberty. By the way, Hitler also respected science a great deal and science respected Hitler. Before anyone thinks that I am comparing Obama to Hitler, please let me disavow such. My only point is that science cannot be given autonomous authority over life and death because whatever is possible some unethical scientist will be willing to do. There must be ethical restraints placed upon both government and science.
To make stem cell research a matter of compassion for the diseased is to create an either/or situation when such is not required. No one has the right to save someone's life by taking the life of another with out his permission. To destroy an infant in the ebryonic stage when the infant can't defend itself is unethical. Furthermore great progress has been made in other stem cell research that holds great potential without resource to embryos.
Wonder where we will be in four years if the same rate of change occurs in the future as has occurred in the past few weeks. Please pray for our country and for innocent lives inside or outside of the womb. Our children and grandchildren are at risk and my prayer is that our elected leaders will sooner and not later realize what is at stake.
I am always reluctant to speak out on what many would consider political matters, but life, liberty and morality transcends politics. If Christians don't speak out on matters of right and wrong, then to whom shall we delegate that task? If its not right to gender hostility between business and labor, wealthy and poor, and science and religion then we must let our voices be heard. If its wrong to take innocent life, its wrong even if done by politicians or scientists. We must not fear those who would try to silence criticism by appealing to separation of church and state. Every society needs a conscience. What I am attempting to do is contribute to the conscience of our country. I am only one voice and my contribution is only as valuable as my facts and the logic of my argument. My task is to evaluate as best I can, not by pragmatism and political preference, but from the standpoint of right and wrong. Life should not be the restricted to political debate or the test tubes of the scientists.
My blog belongs to Ronnie Wiggins, the American citizen and not to the Church of Christ where I worship. As a Christian I express the values that I believe are Christian. Secularists, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others have the same right and I would not for a moment discourage them from doing the same thing. I do resent that on many college campuses across our land, tax dollars are funding a united voice that has nothing but disdain for religion and Christianity in particular. Recent surveys show that the number of Christians compared with the population in general is declining. Should we be surprised? We can blame the media, politicians, academia and I do. However, blaming won't increase the number of Christians in America and the world. If we don't like present trends then we must work the harder and pray more fervently to change the trends.
Life de-valued and threatened
Stay tuned. I'll be back later today, and I have a lot to say. If you will listen, you'll be my friend forever, of course forever is getting shorter every day.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Since taking such a hit from the free falling Dow Jones, I thought I had finally found a safe investment only to learn that real patriots must pay their taxes and sacrifice for the planet. In 2008 Quilted Northern Ultra and Charmin Ultra increased sales by a whopping 40% in some markets, according to Information Resources Inc.. Finally I had discovered a product doing well and bringing joy and comfort to millions. What more could a Christian investor hope for? What a blessing I could help bring to the world by investing in such an enterprise.
However, Leslie Kaufman of the New York Times has reminded me that "fluffiness comes at a price....millions of trees" must die for our comfort and my profit. Wow, I don't want to be a murderer. Its the comfort of humans vs the life of the trees. Being Pro-Life as I am, the choice seems clear. I must sacrifice money and comfort for the well-being of the planet. We should learn from the Europeans. Kaufman informs us that "In many European nations a rought sheet of paper is deemed sufficient".
We have so much to learn from the Europeans. They teach us that "big government knows best", universal health care can reduce life expectancy and save us money, higher taxes is always good, and that sacrificing comfort and money is the goal of all patriots of the planet. Fortunately we are blessed with some well trained teachers in Washington and New York who can provide us a crash course on the Eureka Europe Experience.
However, Leslie Kaufman of the New York Times has reminded me that "fluffiness comes at a price....millions of trees" must die for our comfort and my profit. Wow, I don't want to be a murderer. Its the comfort of humans vs the life of the trees. Being Pro-Life as I am, the choice seems clear. I must sacrifice money and comfort for the well-being of the planet. We should learn from the Europeans. Kaufman informs us that "In many European nations a rought sheet of paper is deemed sufficient".
We have so much to learn from the Europeans. They teach us that "big government knows best", universal health care can reduce life expectancy and save us money, higher taxes is always good, and that sacrificing comfort and money is the goal of all patriots of the planet. Fortunately we are blessed with some well trained teachers in Washington and New York who can provide us a crash course on the Eureka Europe Experience.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Trees are budding and blossoming, weeds are growing (as evidenced in my grassless lawn), and hope springs eternal. The high temperature forecast for today is 85 and we are still in February. I guess those global warming guys must be right. I wish I had the money to buy some carbon credits, but I've lost my purchasing power through investing in the future. Yet, its spring and I'm sure that if I have the audacity to hope, all will be well. I hope, hope, hope infinitum.
Well, this morning's blog will be the last dealing with the arguments of the atheists. I may, although I haven't decided for sure, present a few blogs on "reasons to believe in God". So much of this type of discussion takes us out of our comfort zone. A few years ago, historian Mark Noll wrote a work entitled THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND. His argument was that conservative christians ( some of whom are evangelical ) have produced precious little work that appeals to the mind, and addresses problems that secular academia have presented us. Our children go to institutions of higher learning and are presented with problems they can't answer because parents and churches have provided precious little help in preparing them for the education experience. Should we just give up the mind to the unbelieving world, or should we equiip ourselves to confront unbelief with facts and arguments that provide more than "well, I just believe".
Atheists usually explain "belief in God" as some form of projection or wish for a father, who will protect us and provide for us, as we navigate through a very dangerous world that threatens our very existence. Sigmund Freud is the father of psychoanalysis and it is he who has formulated the view that still prevails among atheists. "Religious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature." Freud adds that religous beliefs are mere "illusions , fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind...As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection---for protection through love---which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life."
If Freud is right, then could one say that atheism results from a wish for "no father". Atheists would be quite resistent to such an idea, but Freud may have inadvertently opened the door to such a view. The previous quotes were taken from THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION, but of course Freud published many books. One of his earlier works was TOTEM AND TABOO, and in that work he writes the following: "Psychoanalysis of individual human beings...teaches us with quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on the relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along with that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted father". Might it not, therefore, be appropriate to examine Freud's relationship with his dad to help explain why he might reject God?
Sigmund seems to have viewed his father, Jacob, as a great disappointment. The family survived on money derived from the mother rather than the father. His dad was viewed by his son as weak and cowardly. Jacob allowed a notorious anti-semite to call him a "dirty Jew" and to knock his hat off without lifting a hand to defend himself. According to Dr. Paul Vitz, a psychologist who has served as professor of New York University, Freud declared his father to be a sexual pervert in a letter that he wrote. Jacob was a Jew and enjoyed reading the Old Testament and Talmud to his son. According to Vitz in his work FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS Sigmund saw his father as a "weak, rather passive 'nice guy' connected to Judaism and God, and also to a serious lack of courage and to sexual perversion, and other weaknesses very painful to young Sigmund". "Psychoanalysis" says Freud, "daily demonstrates to us how youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down".
If Freud were the only well known atheist to have a less than desirable relationship with his father, we might dismiss his situation as an aberration, but in fact his experience seems to be the norm among atheists. Vitz documents similiar problems among a number of well known atheists of history. Some of the atheists had no living father during their childhood and that in itself produced lasting problems for their psyche. Among these were such notables as Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and Arthur Schopenhauer. Still others had abusive and weak fathers and this list includesVoltaire, Ludwig Feuerbach, Sigmund Freud and H.G. Wells. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son wrote that "We rarely did anything together as a family. The hatred between my grandfather and mother barred such wholesome scenes." Albert Ellis, the founder of "Rational Emotive Therapy " was neglected by his parents according to biographer Daniel Wiener. Vitz writes that young Albert
was "abandoned by his father and has had to support himself and his mother" through life.
Historical data such as the above would seem to suggest that it is atheism that may be the product of projection. " If God is a father, then I wish not to have one " seems to be the echo heard from well known atheists through the centuries. Before closing, I want to share one more brief account of one of the most influential philosophers of the past 300 years.
No one has had more influence in the past 50 years or so upon art, music , politics and literature than Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). He pioneered the "God is dead" movement that came to prominence decades later. Nietzsche is often viewed as a prophetic voice of the future of the west. He had a deep hatred for Judaism and Christianity in particular. The Jews were viewed by him as bringing the most despicable religion of all time onto the stage of world history. The mild and gentle Jesus was seen as compensation for weak and cowardly people. These weak and cowardly people couldn't compete with the strong so they introduced a religion that awards "turning the cheek" and other passive, cowardly behavior. Nietzsche introduced the "superman" or heroic strong, self willed leader as the noble and religion as a compensation for the weak.
Nietzsche's father, Ludwig Nietzsche, was a minister in the Lutheran Church. He died just a few months before Friedrich's 5th birthday. Doctors diagnosed the cause of his death as a "softening of the brain". One biographer described him as "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound". Following his dad's death Friedrich wept for days. According to Neitzsche his father's death robbed him of the "superior guidance of a male intellect". Following his father's death he was raised by his mother and female relatives.
His autobiography ECCE HOMO includes the following observation: "The treatment I have received from my mother and my sister, up to the present moment, fills me with inexpressable horror...". His view of women is well illustrated in the following quote: "You are going to see a woman? Do not forget your whip."
Friedrich missed his father, but also viewed him as a failure. His dad had been sickly and according to Friedrich was lacking in "life force". Just months before his total mental collapse and admission to a hospital for the insane, Friedrich wrote that he was suffering from "nervous exhaustion (which is in part hereditary--from my father, who also died from the consequences of a pervasive lack of life force". "My father died at the age of thirty-six; he was delicate, lovable and morbid, like a being destined to pay this world only a passing visit--a gracious reminder of life rather than life itself". Friedrich's criticism of Christianity was that it lacked "life force" like his Lutheran father.
What complicated life for Friedrich was that he shared many of the same qualities that he viewed as defiencies in his father. As a child he was often picked on because of his frequent illnesses and weakness in appearance. He described himself as by nature warlike, but he looked like anything but a warrior. He was quiet, sickly and did not present himself as an imposing figure. As Vitz points out with regard to Nietzsche, he had "a strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak, a representative of what might be called a 'death force'--the very opposite of the Superman figure tht Nietzsche idealized. As one of his biographers put it, much of Nietzsche's life could be seen as a permanent 'quest for the father.' Indeed, the Superman may be interpreted as Nietzsche's idealized father figure."
Nietzsche's antisemitism influenced Hitler and his atheism influenced Marxism. The rise of nihilism and existentialism in art and music have been heavily influenced by an increased interest in Nietzsche.
Psychoanalzsing theists and atheists is a very speculative pursuit, but as the above shows, atheists cannot claim that theists are the only ones influenced by a need of a father. In my view the atheist argument to explain religion by projection or desire for a father is a mirror of their own father problem. Most atheists claim to depend upon reason for their conclusions, but claim that Christianity is rooted in psychological issues. They would be better served to avoid psycholanalysis and stay with arguments that appeal to reason. In such an arena I think Christianity can not only hold its own, but prevail.
Well, this morning's blog will be the last dealing with the arguments of the atheists. I may, although I haven't decided for sure, present a few blogs on "reasons to believe in God". So much of this type of discussion takes us out of our comfort zone. A few years ago, historian Mark Noll wrote a work entitled THE SCANDAL OF THE EVANGELICAL MIND. His argument was that conservative christians ( some of whom are evangelical ) have produced precious little work that appeals to the mind, and addresses problems that secular academia have presented us. Our children go to institutions of higher learning and are presented with problems they can't answer because parents and churches have provided precious little help in preparing them for the education experience. Should we just give up the mind to the unbelieving world, or should we equiip ourselves to confront unbelief with facts and arguments that provide more than "well, I just believe".
Atheists usually explain "belief in God" as some form of projection or wish for a father, who will protect us and provide for us, as we navigate through a very dangerous world that threatens our very existence. Sigmund Freud is the father of psychoanalysis and it is he who has formulated the view that still prevails among atheists. "Religious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature." Freud adds that religous beliefs are mere "illusions , fulfillments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind...As we already know, the terrifying impression of helplessness in childhood aroused the need for protection---for protection through love---which was provided by the father...Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life."
If Freud is right, then could one say that atheism results from a wish for "no father". Atheists would be quite resistent to such an idea, but Freud may have inadvertently opened the door to such a view. The previous quotes were taken from THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION, but of course Freud published many books. One of his earlier works was TOTEM AND TABOO, and in that work he writes the following: "Psychoanalysis of individual human beings...teaches us with quite special insistence that the god of each of them is formed in the likeness of his father, that his personal relation to God depends on the relation to his father in the flesh and oscillates and changes along with that relation, and that at bottom God is nothing other than an exalted father". Might it not, therefore, be appropriate to examine Freud's relationship with his dad to help explain why he might reject God?
Sigmund seems to have viewed his father, Jacob, as a great disappointment. The family survived on money derived from the mother rather than the father. His dad was viewed by his son as weak and cowardly. Jacob allowed a notorious anti-semite to call him a "dirty Jew" and to knock his hat off without lifting a hand to defend himself. According to Dr. Paul Vitz, a psychologist who has served as professor of New York University, Freud declared his father to be a sexual pervert in a letter that he wrote. Jacob was a Jew and enjoyed reading the Old Testament and Talmud to his son. According to Vitz in his work FAITH OF THE FATHERLESS Sigmund saw his father as a "weak, rather passive 'nice guy' connected to Judaism and God, and also to a serious lack of courage and to sexual perversion, and other weaknesses very painful to young Sigmund". "Psychoanalysis" says Freud, "daily demonstrates to us how youthful persons lose their religious belief as soon as the authority of the father breaks down".
If Freud were the only well known atheist to have a less than desirable relationship with his father, we might dismiss his situation as an aberration, but in fact his experience seems to be the norm among atheists. Vitz documents similiar problems among a number of well known atheists of history. Some of the atheists had no living father during their childhood and that in itself produced lasting problems for their psyche. Among these were such notables as Friedrich Nietzsche, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Albert Camus and Arthur Schopenhauer. Still others had abusive and weak fathers and this list includesVoltaire, Ludwig Feuerbach, Sigmund Freud and H.G. Wells. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's son wrote that "We rarely did anything together as a family. The hatred between my grandfather and mother barred such wholesome scenes." Albert Ellis, the founder of "Rational Emotive Therapy " was neglected by his parents according to biographer Daniel Wiener. Vitz writes that young Albert
was "abandoned by his father and has had to support himself and his mother" through life.
Historical data such as the above would seem to suggest that it is atheism that may be the product of projection. " If God is a father, then I wish not to have one " seems to be the echo heard from well known atheists through the centuries. Before closing, I want to share one more brief account of one of the most influential philosophers of the past 300 years.
No one has had more influence in the past 50 years or so upon art, music , politics and literature than Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). He pioneered the "God is dead" movement that came to prominence decades later. Nietzsche is often viewed as a prophetic voice of the future of the west. He had a deep hatred for Judaism and Christianity in particular. The Jews were viewed by him as bringing the most despicable religion of all time onto the stage of world history. The mild and gentle Jesus was seen as compensation for weak and cowardly people. These weak and cowardly people couldn't compete with the strong so they introduced a religion that awards "turning the cheek" and other passive, cowardly behavior. Nietzsche introduced the "superman" or heroic strong, self willed leader as the noble and religion as a compensation for the weak.
Nietzsche's father, Ludwig Nietzsche, was a minister in the Lutheran Church. He died just a few months before Friedrich's 5th birthday. Doctors diagnosed the cause of his death as a "softening of the brain". One biographer described him as "passionately attached to his father, and the shock of losing him was profound". Following his dad's death Friedrich wept for days. According to Neitzsche his father's death robbed him of the "superior guidance of a male intellect". Following his father's death he was raised by his mother and female relatives.
His autobiography ECCE HOMO includes the following observation: "The treatment I have received from my mother and my sister, up to the present moment, fills me with inexpressable horror...". His view of women is well illustrated in the following quote: "You are going to see a woman? Do not forget your whip."
Friedrich missed his father, but also viewed him as a failure. His dad had been sickly and according to Friedrich was lacking in "life force". Just months before his total mental collapse and admission to a hospital for the insane, Friedrich wrote that he was suffering from "nervous exhaustion (which is in part hereditary--from my father, who also died from the consequences of a pervasive lack of life force". "My father died at the age of thirty-six; he was delicate, lovable and morbid, like a being destined to pay this world only a passing visit--a gracious reminder of life rather than life itself". Friedrich's criticism of Christianity was that it lacked "life force" like his Lutheran father.
What complicated life for Friedrich was that he shared many of the same qualities that he viewed as defiencies in his father. As a child he was often picked on because of his frequent illnesses and weakness in appearance. He described himself as by nature warlike, but he looked like anything but a warrior. He was quiet, sickly and did not present himself as an imposing figure. As Vitz points out with regard to Nietzsche, he had "a strong, intellectually macho reaction against a dead, very Christian father who was loved and admired but perceived as sickly and weak, a representative of what might be called a 'death force'--the very opposite of the Superman figure tht Nietzsche idealized. As one of his biographers put it, much of Nietzsche's life could be seen as a permanent 'quest for the father.' Indeed, the Superman may be interpreted as Nietzsche's idealized father figure."
Nietzsche's antisemitism influenced Hitler and his atheism influenced Marxism. The rise of nihilism and existentialism in art and music have been heavily influenced by an increased interest in Nietzsche.
Psychoanalzsing theists and atheists is a very speculative pursuit, but as the above shows, atheists cannot claim that theists are the only ones influenced by a need of a father. In my view the atheist argument to explain religion by projection or desire for a father is a mirror of their own father problem. Most atheists claim to depend upon reason for their conclusions, but claim that Christianity is rooted in psychological issues. They would be better served to avoid psycholanalysis and stay with arguments that appeal to reason. In such an arena I think Christianity can not only hold its own, but prevail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)