Truth exists independently from the medium that proclaims it. A logical conclusion, whether from the mouth of a fool or a genius, by definition, owes nothing to that which publicizes it. Two plus two equals four. This equation, if uttered by a saint, is true. If stated by a convicted murder, it is true. Dumb-smart. Evil-good. Talented-incompetent. It always is true: 2+2=4.
Seems obvious, yet it isn't, at least not anymore. People ignore the truth for a plethora of reasons; however, here I want to specifically explore one that blinds millions: the polarizing hatred of an individual or an entity that disables one's intellect.
Before casting stones, I have looked inward for potential prejudices, for any selective conclusions. I have searched for beliefs based not on sound reasoning, but formed as a reaction. Have there been instances where someone said "zig" so I said "zag"? A foe suggested night so I chose day? Have I ever, because of my feelings toward an individual or a personality, flavored my ideologies with my distaste for another's views.
Is this making sense? Maybe not, and that is the problem. It doesn't make sense, and I, at this point, am not able to relate. Especially recently, I have experienced and observed instances where a person or people ride a merry-go-round of thoughts. In one context, a discussion leads one to avow conservative principles: those of liberty, and individual rights. Point to a recent news story that reveals the communist leanings of a newly appointed "Czar" and hear a friend claim disapproval. Mention that Fox News reported the story, and see him defend the appointment with religious zeal.
Call attention to specific Orwellian tenets of the recent health care bill, and the room fills with rage. Reveal that one first heard about these oversteps of power from Glenn Beck and find the same room filled with Barack Obama sycophants.
I don't hate Barack Obama. I disagree with just about every one of his policies. If he were to announce tomorrow that, instead of more government intrusions, he had decided to pursue tax breaks for charitable contributions, I would cheer from the rooftop. His approval ratings, his electability are not my concern. I want what is right. How he would benefit or suffer is not on the radar.
How can we develop good and just policies when so many people color their perceptions with emotional reactions to the person? Truth is not affected by those who report if or subscribe to it; however, when a simple emotional appeal can send so many astray, vertigo is nearly unavoidable for those who think.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Down and Out
Its been over a month since the last posting here. Nothing to say? No, that's not it. No time? No, we make time for what is important. So what has happened?
The last entry was July 4th ("Independence Day"), a day to celebrate freedom and liberty. Please forgive the excuses, but I am in shock at the state of the nation. I have fallen and I can't get up. The daily decrees and declarations out of Washington has numbed the mind. Liberty? Independence? No, I am drowning in socialism. The depression, the sadness, it comes from this: many of the people with whom I speak about these issues fall into one of three categories which include ignorance, apathy, and assent.
The ignorant ones are people that simply don't know. They are like children. A child cannot think past his or her own wants. He wants a toy and he wants it now. He does not compare his parents' income and expenses to determine if it is a prudent purchase. He does not consider how it will affect his welfare or that of his siblings. It is tunnel vision. The child's scope of awareness does not extend beyond Freud's Id. "I want that GI Joe action figure now. I need it." To these individuals, Marx's "to each according to his need" concept is all that is necessary.
The second group is one of apathy; its membership simply doesn't care. Those under this umbrella have social sites overflowing with fantasy applications and top ten lists. Ask them for the name of the recently confirmed Supreme Court nominee and prepare for a blank, glassy stare. Ask them what new sitcoms come out in the fall and be prepared to stay for a while. Rome is burning, yet they have no idea because they are in the basement watching the Home Shopping Network.
The third group terrifies me the most. The assentors are those who see what is happening, understand that principles of socialism are antithetical to those of liberty, and this is what they choose. To them, maybe Marx was more right than Jefferson and Madison. They perceive freedoms posed by capitalism and free markets as the root of all evil. These seek to bring a Utopian balance to the world through "good intended" impositions. Identifying their policies in the Communist Manifesto are no longer met with contention, rather prideful concession.
There actually is a fourth group, and it is surreal. It often includes those in the first three. It is religious in nature. It's prophet and leader is the current US President. Underneath him are myriads of priests who conduct ceremonies in their temples: the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are other temples around the world: the UN, the British Parliament, the World Court. Underneath the clergy are uncountable minions and sycophants. They worship the creation but not The Creator. They have a "form of godliness but [deny] its power" (II Timothy 3:5).
Of all the groups, it is the third and the fourth for which a physical solution remains hidden to this writer. A tenacious campaign of intellectual discourse and debate may win a very select few, but when the majority not only disregards logic and reason, but rather loathes them as obstacles, elements of argument are sterilized. Ultimately and fundamentally, the only thing left to do is what God asked us to do, that is to pray.
I will continue to write, but most importantly, I will pray.
The last entry was July 4th ("Independence Day"), a day to celebrate freedom and liberty. Please forgive the excuses, but I am in shock at the state of the nation. I have fallen and I can't get up. The daily decrees and declarations out of Washington has numbed the mind. Liberty? Independence? No, I am drowning in socialism. The depression, the sadness, it comes from this: many of the people with whom I speak about these issues fall into one of three categories which include ignorance, apathy, and assent.
The ignorant ones are people that simply don't know. They are like children. A child cannot think past his or her own wants. He wants a toy and he wants it now. He does not compare his parents' income and expenses to determine if it is a prudent purchase. He does not consider how it will affect his welfare or that of his siblings. It is tunnel vision. The child's scope of awareness does not extend beyond Freud's Id. "I want that GI Joe action figure now. I need it." To these individuals, Marx's "to each according to his need" concept is all that is necessary.
The second group is one of apathy; its membership simply doesn't care. Those under this umbrella have social sites overflowing with fantasy applications and top ten lists. Ask them for the name of the recently confirmed Supreme Court nominee and prepare for a blank, glassy stare. Ask them what new sitcoms come out in the fall and be prepared to stay for a while. Rome is burning, yet they have no idea because they are in the basement watching the Home Shopping Network.
The third group terrifies me the most. The assentors are those who see what is happening, understand that principles of socialism are antithetical to those of liberty, and this is what they choose. To them, maybe Marx was more right than Jefferson and Madison. They perceive freedoms posed by capitalism and free markets as the root of all evil. These seek to bring a Utopian balance to the world through "good intended" impositions. Identifying their policies in the Communist Manifesto are no longer met with contention, rather prideful concession.
There actually is a fourth group, and it is surreal. It often includes those in the first three. It is religious in nature. It's prophet and leader is the current US President. Underneath him are myriads of priests who conduct ceremonies in their temples: the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are other temples around the world: the UN, the British Parliament, the World Court. Underneath the clergy are uncountable minions and sycophants. They worship the creation but not The Creator. They have a "form of godliness but [deny] its power" (II Timothy 3:5).
Of all the groups, it is the third and the fourth for which a physical solution remains hidden to this writer. A tenacious campaign of intellectual discourse and debate may win a very select few, but when the majority not only disregards logic and reason, but rather loathes them as obstacles, elements of argument are sterilized. Ultimately and fundamentally, the only thing left to do is what God asked us to do, that is to pray.
I will continue to write, but most importantly, I will pray.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Independence Day
Someone recently asked if I thought that "freedom was for everyone". Ten years ago, such a question would have offended. Ten years ago, concepts of freedom and democracy were unquestionable tenets of the American culture. That was until George W. Bush. As president, he was targeted with unprecedented hatred. If he said "black", they said "white". If he said "day", they said "night". There was, and still is, a segment of population that would say something like this, "I used to be a Texas Rangers fan. That was until I discovered George W. Bush was a fan. Now I hate the Rangers."
This reexamination of the "freedom-is-for-everyone" concept began when the "hate-George-Bush" crowd performed daily ideological acrobatics to position themselves opposite of Bush. The President invaded Iraq, a country that had suffered for decades under a ruthless dictator. Hussein had tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. "How do I take the other side on this one?" they began to think. Creatively, their answer killed two birds with one stone. They could demonstrate compassion for Iraq's persecuted citizens while suggesting that they should remain subject to an evil despot. They proposed that "maybe democracy and freedom is not for everyone", that to assume so is ethnocentric and a way of imposing our beliefs on other cultures.
I answered the question, "Yes, I believe freedom is for everyone, we were all made by the same Creator, He gave it to us, human beings do not have the right to take it away." The conversation fizzled. Had it not, I was prepared for what would have likely been the next phase: Ad Hominem attacks against the Founding Fathers in an attempt to discredit their philosophies.
This is another "en vogue" political argument in contemporary culture. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy in which one attacks "the person" in order to discredit the person's argument. It is called a "fallacy" because the logic involved is faulty. The quality of one's character, by itself, cannot warrant the dismissal of one's premises. Logically, evidence must exist that addresses the premise and not the person.
Regardless, elements of sound argument are often abandoned. Many assume that pointing to their flaws negates the Founding Fathers' ideas and philosophies on which the country's foundation rests. It is beyond the scope of this post to examine the lives of these great men; however, to shine light on their respective vices in order to contend with the ideas of freedom and democracy is quite foolish.
Only one "great" historical figure has walked this planet without sinning, and He walked on water. To judge history's achievers by tallying their "sins" would result in only one great historical figure, the latter. It is especially inconsistent for "Christians" to attack the Founding Father's by listing their shortcomings (i.e., Franklin was a "womanizer", Adams was an alcoholic, etc., etc.).
David, who scripture describes as "a Man after God's own heart" committed a 7-Deadly-Sins "trifecta". He first lusted after Bathsheba when he saw her bathing on the roof. Using his power as King, he committed adultery with her. To hide the first two sins, he murdered her husband. Using the same logic applied to the Founding Fathers, the book of Psalms (attributed to David's authorship) should be tossed from the canon.
*************************************
George W. Bush has disappeared from the political spotlight for over six months now; however, those on the side of freedom and democracy has not returned to "normal". Alarmingly, those jumping ship are increasingly numerous. More and more seem to resent that which we celebrate today (some of us celebrate...some just get a day off and barbecue). We also have a huge segment of "lemmings" who know nothing about Independence Day. The combination of the ignorant and the neo-socialists (sometimes individuals are part of one because of the other) spells danger for American democracy and freedom itself.
Today, we specifically celebrate the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson brilliantly summed the justifications for breaking from England in the following words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The concept of freedom, described by Jefferson, justly references "The Creator", a Supreme Being as the source of human rights. Who can argue with the Creator? In this age of relativism, this is likely the initial source of agitation among those who detest American traditions.
The first right, life, cannot be more fundamental. Without it, all others are impossible.
The second two rights can be combined into one word: freedom. The Founders were not without reason and historical support for this precept. Consider the Biblical time line starting with Adam and ending with the Apostles. An underlining theme throughout scripture is freedom.
Starting with the first two human beings, God granted the freedom to choose, even when the choice may not be the right one. When the first couple disobeyed, He could have ended free will there, but He did not. He allowed them to continue to exist, to continue to exercise their own will, even when it was not His.
The rest of the Old Testament describes a continuous cycle of God's chosen people, the nation of Israel exercising its free will. For a time it would choose God. Then it would choose to disobey Him. Then Israel would experience God's judgment (note that even in His judgments, He still allowed His people to choose; He didn't make them follow Him).
The New Testament centers around Christ's message of salvation where every individual is presented with a choice: to follow Christ or not to follow Christ. Ironically, God has never forced this decision on anyone, it is man that has always intervened.
The Roman Empire attempted to regulate the Christian movement. Presented with torture and death, the Early Christians testified that men could not take away their God-give freedom to choose Christ.
The winds changed when the established church became the governing force in the Middle Ages. Religious men reciprocated the efforts of the Romans, striving to force those under the church's rule to choose Christ. Again, many men and women went through horrible tortures and ultimately their deaths showing that organized religion could not force a decision for which God had given them the right to make themselves.
Is freedom for everyone? Yes, it is. God made us all. God gave us freedom. Man cannot take it away.
Still, this July 4th, in an unprecedented manner, is littered with justifications for resubmitting to "the king". From health care to economic stability, the masses are ready and willing to trade freedoms for security. What should be the responsibility of families and individuals, people are looking to government for every want and need in their lives.
Jefferson said, "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Government was "instituted" to protect God-given, "inalienable" rights, not to provide them. Today, the individual looks to the government as its mother, the president as its father. Problems are no longer met head on by the people. Instead, the people wait around as children for the government to save them. Elections have transformed into gift exchanges. Voters select whichever candidate best resembles Santa Claus.
****************************************
Today, when I woke up, it was raining. At the time of this writing, the sun has yet to come out on this Independence Day. Coincidence?
This reexamination of the "freedom-is-for-everyone" concept began when the "hate-George-Bush" crowd performed daily ideological acrobatics to position themselves opposite of Bush. The President invaded Iraq, a country that had suffered for decades under a ruthless dictator. Hussein had tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people. "How do I take the other side on this one?" they began to think. Creatively, their answer killed two birds with one stone. They could demonstrate compassion for Iraq's persecuted citizens while suggesting that they should remain subject to an evil despot. They proposed that "maybe democracy and freedom is not for everyone", that to assume so is ethnocentric and a way of imposing our beliefs on other cultures.
I answered the question, "Yes, I believe freedom is for everyone, we were all made by the same Creator, He gave it to us, human beings do not have the right to take it away." The conversation fizzled. Had it not, I was prepared for what would have likely been the next phase: Ad Hominem attacks against the Founding Fathers in an attempt to discredit their philosophies.
This is another "en vogue" political argument in contemporary culture. Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy in which one attacks "the person" in order to discredit the person's argument. It is called a "fallacy" because the logic involved is faulty. The quality of one's character, by itself, cannot warrant the dismissal of one's premises. Logically, evidence must exist that addresses the premise and not the person.
Regardless, elements of sound argument are often abandoned. Many assume that pointing to their flaws negates the Founding Fathers' ideas and philosophies on which the country's foundation rests. It is beyond the scope of this post to examine the lives of these great men; however, to shine light on their respective vices in order to contend with the ideas of freedom and democracy is quite foolish.
Only one "great" historical figure has walked this planet without sinning, and He walked on water. To judge history's achievers by tallying their "sins" would result in only one great historical figure, the latter. It is especially inconsistent for "Christians" to attack the Founding Father's by listing their shortcomings (i.e., Franklin was a "womanizer", Adams was an alcoholic, etc., etc.).
David, who scripture describes as "a Man after God's own heart" committed a 7-Deadly-Sins "trifecta". He first lusted after Bathsheba when he saw her bathing on the roof. Using his power as King, he committed adultery with her. To hide the first two sins, he murdered her husband. Using the same logic applied to the Founding Fathers, the book of Psalms (attributed to David's authorship) should be tossed from the canon.
*************************************
George W. Bush has disappeared from the political spotlight for over six months now; however, those on the side of freedom and democracy has not returned to "normal". Alarmingly, those jumping ship are increasingly numerous. More and more seem to resent that which we celebrate today (some of us celebrate...some just get a day off and barbecue). We also have a huge segment of "lemmings" who know nothing about Independence Day. The combination of the ignorant and the neo-socialists (sometimes individuals are part of one because of the other) spells danger for American democracy and freedom itself.
Today, we specifically celebrate the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson brilliantly summed the justifications for breaking from England in the following words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The concept of freedom, described by Jefferson, justly references "The Creator", a Supreme Being as the source of human rights. Who can argue with the Creator? In this age of relativism, this is likely the initial source of agitation among those who detest American traditions.
The first right, life, cannot be more fundamental. Without it, all others are impossible.
The second two rights can be combined into one word: freedom. The Founders were not without reason and historical support for this precept. Consider the Biblical time line starting with Adam and ending with the Apostles. An underlining theme throughout scripture is freedom.
Starting with the first two human beings, God granted the freedom to choose, even when the choice may not be the right one. When the first couple disobeyed, He could have ended free will there, but He did not. He allowed them to continue to exist, to continue to exercise their own will, even when it was not His.
The rest of the Old Testament describes a continuous cycle of God's chosen people, the nation of Israel exercising its free will. For a time it would choose God. Then it would choose to disobey Him. Then Israel would experience God's judgment (note that even in His judgments, He still allowed His people to choose; He didn't make them follow Him).
The New Testament centers around Christ's message of salvation where every individual is presented with a choice: to follow Christ or not to follow Christ. Ironically, God has never forced this decision on anyone, it is man that has always intervened.
The Roman Empire attempted to regulate the Christian movement. Presented with torture and death, the Early Christians testified that men could not take away their God-give freedom to choose Christ.
The winds changed when the established church became the governing force in the Middle Ages. Religious men reciprocated the efforts of the Romans, striving to force those under the church's rule to choose Christ. Again, many men and women went through horrible tortures and ultimately their deaths showing that organized religion could not force a decision for which God had given them the right to make themselves.
Is freedom for everyone? Yes, it is. God made us all. God gave us freedom. Man cannot take it away.
Still, this July 4th, in an unprecedented manner, is littered with justifications for resubmitting to "the king". From health care to economic stability, the masses are ready and willing to trade freedoms for security. What should be the responsibility of families and individuals, people are looking to government for every want and need in their lives.
Jefferson said, "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Government was "instituted" to protect God-given, "inalienable" rights, not to provide them. Today, the individual looks to the government as its mother, the president as its father. Problems are no longer met head on by the people. Instead, the people wait around as children for the government to save them. Elections have transformed into gift exchanges. Voters select whichever candidate best resembles Santa Claus.
****************************************
Today, when I woke up, it was raining. At the time of this writing, the sun has yet to come out on this Independence Day. Coincidence?
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
