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.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
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??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)