Definitions

Whoever writes the definitions controls the culture. 

Pro-choice instead of pro-abortion – what other choice are they talking about – Coke or Pepsi?  Paper or plastic?  Cash or credit?  Nope, the term pro-choice only refers to one choice, and yet the actual object of choice cannot be mentioned.

African-American instead of Negro or black or whatever – I had a friend in grade school who was born in South Africa - he was white with red hair – is he a African-American?  How about an Egyptian or Tunisian?  Nope, the term isn’t accurate but no one seems to care.

Typically, the trouble is that labels often use a word or two that is not properly defined.  I refer to them as “squishy” words.  There are a few terms that I want no part of, nor do I think they are accurate:

Progressive – in order for this to be an unqualified positive term, one must have a universally accepted idea of what constitutes progress.

Environmentalist – We all want the environment to be preserved, right?  Does the environment ever change, or should we fight to keep it exactly the way it is?  Think of the Green Revolution and how it fed millions while altering the environment in small, benign ways – was that a good idea or a bad idea.  I think the term “conservationist” is a little bit better.  Conserve the natural world as best we can while making the world better for all of us. 

A side note to this term: ever notice that environmentalists tend to call Earth a “planet” instead of our “world”?  Planet seems to make the Earth seem smaller and more fragile.

Diversity – I’m not against people being who or what they are, I just don’t see the advantage of celebrating it.  I disagree with the saying “our strength is in our diversity”.  Our strength is our ability to unify despite our differences.  Even our money says “out of many, one”.  That’s “E Pluribus Unum” for the non-Latin scholars out there.
I see a big difference between diversity and individuality.  The diversity supporters tend to identify people into diverse groups with social labels.  I disagree with this approach.  The danger of resorting to stereotypes is too great.  Besides, while knowing some general facts about someone may be helpful, I want to judge people as individuals.
I also cringe at the term “cultural diversity”.  Only one culture exists in one place at one time.  We may wish to label certain aspects of a culture as having their individual existence, but they are really only part of the fabric on the culture as a while.

Activist – Being active in a cause sounds great, doesn’t it?  It depends on what you’re active in.  Most of the people termed as activists tend to be active in causes that are contrary to the traditional views of our country and culture.  Yes, I’m saying I support the traditional views of our country and culture.  The difference is, I don’t think of myself as an activist for those positions, rather I stand as an advocate for them.

So now that I’ve made lots of folks upset by my views, I’ll add one more:

The US is not, and never has been, a democracy.  It is a republic comprised of 50 individual republics.  Yes, believe it or not, the US Constitution says that those entities wishing to be admitted as states must have a republican (notice I used a small “r”) form of government.  One can add adjectives to better define the type of republic we have, such as “representative” or “constitutional” but we are indeed a republic.

As a short-hand, the US has been called a democracy, for our representatives are elected democratically, but those representatives are free to use their own individual judgment when voting on how best to govern.   DeToqueville’s  work Democracy in America says it best.

The Real Villians

A follow-up point to ponder from the last post:

Have you ever noticed that in the vast majority of movies, TV shows and cartoons that the villain is a corporation?  Is it any wonder that lots of folks think corporations are the most evil things on the planet?

Now, I’m not going to apologize to Upton Sinclair or anyone else – corporations are as good or as bad as the systems in which they reside.  They are a reflection, not a driver.

The flip side is to look at the systems in which corporations (or their equivalents) reside in.  Truth is socialist governments themselves killed more than 80 million of their own citizens during the 20^th Century.  How many did Microsoft kill?  Or General Motors?  Or Conagra?

Bleak Views of the Future

Last week I went to see the latest Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises.  While I don’t think the movie was meant to be political, I kept sensing that I was watching the logical extension of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Beyond the dark feel of the movie, I started reflecting on a curious phenomenon: I’m going to speak in generalities here, but looking at Hollywood as an example, it seems that the more someone (or some group) looks to mankind to supply the answers for humanity’s future, the more likely that future will look bleak and uncertain.  And yet, as horrendous these outlooks are, the creators of these visions will insist that man can overcome anything.

Maybe the object is to show a future that is so bad that people will do anything to avert it or whether these people actually believe that kind of future is inevitable.  I think it is both: they believe it is inevitable but that mankind must still try any drastic action imaginable to at least try to stave off the worst.

Ironically, the Christian view of apocalypse is worse than almost any of these visions, yet Christians can remain optimistic because we believe that these horrors are a low point before the best of all endings – that Christ Himself returns to reign over the earth in person.

Theosophy

When I was in college, I was required to take an intro course in philosophy.  It’s a liberal arts school and such a requirement is to be expected.  The problem was in the curriculum.
The very first section of the course examined whether or not God exists.  The section ended by determining that may God existed, maybe he didn’t.  The implication was that thinking people could doubt God’s existence.  Then the rest of the course went on a path assuming that there was no higher moral authority than man.

In retrospect, I wish I could go back and point out one major flaw in the course’s reasoning: that utilizing the thoughts of man (philosophy), one can possibly hope to understand the thoughts of God (theosophy).  In other words, how can the thoughts of a finite mind comprehend the reasoning of an infinite being?  Yes, we can glimpse parts of God’s thought process (interesting thought in itself – since God is already all-knowing, does he actually have a thought process?) because he wants us to know him.

I don’t have a problem with a philosophy course not wanting to say for certain that God exists.  After all, the focus on such a course is human thought.  I do have a problem with a course proceeding as if nothing exists greater that man.

Re-Thinkering

A year and a half ago, I wrote an article for The American Thinker about a parallel between the reading of the US Constitution in the newly elected US House of Representatives and the reading of the Book of the Law by King Josiah of the Kingdom of Judah in the Old Testament. 
The rest of this post won’t make much sense unless you read the article.  You can go to the link above, or just read it here:

Reading the Documents Doesn't Always Help

By Matthew Ruley

While attending to tax receipts, a government agent finds his country's founding document and brings it to the attention of the ruling powers, which are stunned by how far the country has strayed from its founding principles. A public reading of the document ensues. No, this is not this week's news; it's a lot older. As strangely similar the events are, the events after this first reading should add a dose of caution to the optimism in Washington, D.C. today.

In 640 BC, Josiah became king of Judah at the age of eight after the assassination of his father, Amon. As kings of Judah went, Josiah was a good ruler. When he was in his mid-twenties, Josiah ordered the high priest, Hilkiah, to go to the temple in Jerusalem and oversee its repair using the money the priests had been collecting from the people (one could say this was "tax" money for the services rendered by the priests). As Hilkiah was accounting of the money in the temple, he made an amazing discovery -- the Book of the Law.

 Now, to modern sensibilities, it is very puzzling to find out that something so vital to the legitimacy of a people -- their founding document, as it were -- could be misplaced. You'd think someone would wonder what happened to that stuff that Moses wrote. Nevertheless, the traditions of the Book of the Law lived on without a thought to the book that spawned them.

 You'd think that such a momentous finding would be reported to the king right away. At the very least, you'd think the high priest would at least read the thing. You'd be wrong, as Hilkiah gave it to his secretary, Shaphan, who did actually read it and decided that maybe the king should know about it.

King Josiah had Shaphan read the Book of the Law aloud and was taken aback by how far Judah had strayed from its founding principles. In fact, Josiah immediately ordered that the Book of the Law be read aloud in front of the elders of Judah on the steps of the temple before all the people of Jerusalem. Afterwards, Josiah decreed that henceforth, Judah would return to obeying the Book of the Law, and the assembled people did likewise.

 Parts of the above story have parallels to today -- the "discovery" of the founding documents by those in a position of authority (or recently put in a position of authority) and a subsequent reading in front of government officials. Yet the similarities quickly break down from there. In Josiah's day, those assembled to hear the reading quickly pledged themselves to follow the Book of Law. In Washington this week, quite a few of the government officials didn't stick around to hear the reading, and support for it was split mainly down party lines, with a large dose of ridicule aimed at the whole affair. At least the people in Josiah's day committed themselves to getting back to basics. They purged the temple of idols and all the other stuff that displeased God.

 The outcome of Josiah's reading provides a warning for us today. After Josiah, Judah had only two more kings before being swallowed up by Babylon. In the long run, repentance wasn't enough to save Judah from destruction. It was enough to postpone it beyond Josiah's lifetime, but that's about it.

 I have often wondered why, if everybody got back on board and started doing the right things, God still wiped out Judah. Had Judah's enemies gotten so strong that it didn't matter what the people did? Were the people just caught up in the moment? Did they quickly change their minds after the reading?

The text in 2 Kings suggests something deeper -- the society of Judah was so rotten underneath that no amount of contrition was going to save it. Not only had the people forgotten where they had misplaced their founding principles, but they had supplanted them with others that were vile and corrosive. Individual redemption could still be found, but the body of the state was already in a terminal condition.

 And so a warning for today: Reading the Constitution in the halls of government to remind those in power of where their authority originates is laudable, but even when everyone in government shares your concern (which they don't), it doesn't assure that the sickness of society can be reversed or even stymied.

 My hope is that the analogy I discovered in the 22^nd and 23^rd chapters of 2 Kings isn't as close as I think. However, as I watched and listened to the events in Washington this week, I found the similarity too close for comfort.

(Published by The American Thinker on January 9, 2011)

 At the time, I was both fascinated and worried by the similarities.  As I have reflected more on the two events, the differences make me more worried than I was at the time.  At least in the time of Josiah, the entire nation pledged to return to its roots.  Today, we are still very torn as to the meaning of the Constitution, let alone agreed that it is still relevant.  This corrosive nature of this split between Constitutionalists and non-Constitutionalists will doom any reforms.  Even though, unlike in the time of Josiah, we can change our top leadership to affect change, we seem to be unable to find enough leaders with the courage to stand firm on our founding principles.

Judah was ultimately too weak to defend itself from external attacks.  2 Kings doesn’t say anything about internal forces abetting the Babylonian army and I doubt that was a major factor in Judah’s fall.  The same would not apply today; a sizeable portion of our citizenry is given over to self-loathing and would gladly assist in our demise.

The reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives was a high-water mark for Constitutional reformers.  Alas, the tide has receded.

What Would Judo?

A small, sad story from the Olympics: seems the Lebanese judo team was scheduled to practice at the same time in the same gym as the Israeli judo team.  The Lebanese refused to do so unless a curtain was put up between the two teams.  Sadly enough, their British hosts agreed.  Why do I say this is sad?  Because the Olympic movement is supposed to foster goodwill and brotherhood among nations.

I realize that there are two avenues of contention between these countries; one national the other religious.  Still, this demand is outrageous because the aggrieved party is not the one reacting.

The Lebanese/Israeli border is and has been the site of numerous cross-border rocket attacks; attacks from Lebanon into Israel and almost always targeting Israeli citizens.  Every once in a while, Israel will fire back at Lebanese military targets.  Even less frequently, Israeli troops will cross the border to halt the attacks.  Count this one as victim: Israel.

For many years, Lebanon was a quiet, peaceful land known for its beautiful beaches and religious tolerance.  It had a thriving international tourist trade and peaceful relations among its Muslim, Jewish (albeit very small), and Christian communities.  Then came the Jihadists and the country experience decades of civil war.  It ended (well, I guess it ended) with the Jews and Christians on the run and the Islamists in control.  Well, actually they weren’t in control; they are merely doing the work of other groups and countries by proxy – people that have a strong hatred for anything Jewish and anybody that supports Israel.  And they are not afraid to kill folks to prove it.

And we’re supposed to feel sorry for the Lebanese in this instance?  Would that the British reminded them what the spirit of the Olympic movement was all about, then tell them to use the facility as provided or not – their choice.  This kind of hatred is festering; the western world has got to stand up to it.

Christian Q & A

For the record, I’m going to state the obvious and say that, yes, I am a Christian.  Since I’m writing this blog as an intellectual outlet, I want to address a few of objections that some non-Christians have raised to me over the years:

Q: Christianity is so exclusive – how can you believe that yours is the only way to heaven?

A: Well, first off, thanks for recognizing that there is a heaven; that’s a good first step.  Secondly, while we believe that Christ is the only way to heaven, we also contend that it is the easiest religion to join.  All you have to do is believe in Jesus as Savior.  Technically, one could do this with your last dying breath, after living a truly heinous life, and still go to heaven.  It is the belief that gains admission to heaven. 

Now, of course, since most of us came to Christ before our dying breath and as such want us to emulate Jesus in our daily lives, we will commit ourselves to live (as best we can) as a child of God.  Even so, it is that first act of faith that makes a Christian. 

Other religions have lists of thing you must do in order to gain admittance to heaven; you don’t do them, you won’t make it.  Followers of these faiths do their best and hope for the best.  So, yes, Christianity may seem exclusive, but in reality it is the most inviting and open to new membership of all.

Q: But what about people who lived in areas of the world and couldn’t possibly have heard about Jesus – are you saying they were doomed?

A: No.  This issue was actually addressed in the Bible in Paul’s letter to the Romans.  Paul claims that those who lived in areas where they’d never get to hear about Jesus could still identify God through creation.  As such, according to Paul, the world is without excuse.

I don’t claim to know how this works.  How does a ancient Polynesian differentiate the true God of Creation from the various pantheon of natural gods his fellow islanders worships, or how does an early Japanese recognize Him from any animist object?  All I know is that Paul says it is possible.  (Well, I also know that the Jewish patriarchs believed and were accounted as righteous in God's eyes, but that's a different matter.)

What I do know is that Jesus is the true way, whether a person knows his name or not.  I also know there are lots of things out there that are not the true way.  Given the eternal importance of getting to know God, why would I go with an unsure path when I’ve got one that is guaranteed?

Q: You’re not so perfect; why should I be like you?

A: You shouldn’t.  You’re right; I’m not so perfect, but I’m working on it.  The person you should be like is the one I’m trying to be like – Jesus.

Q: Why do you Christians hate so much?

A:  You’re perception is off; we don’t hate people.  In fact we love people.  Jesus told us to even love those that hate us.  In reality, I am only who I am by the grace of God; why would I hate those who have yet to experience that grace.  I also didn’t choose to be born into the body I have or when or where I was born, so I have no right to hate based on race or sex or nationality.  God chose those circumstances.

I hope these questions and answers clear up some issues.  You still may not agree with my answers, but understanding them lets you know more about where I’m coming from.

Religion in the Public Sphere

This year’s US presidential election features the first time a major party has nominated (well, soon to nominate) a Mormon (aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints).  There’s lots of chatter about whether a Mormon should be president and whether his Mormon faith could or should affect his decisions as president.

Now whether or not Mr. Romney would let his faith affect his decisions, the first item to realize is that the US Constitution forbids any religious tests to hold public office; you cannot disqualify anyone from office because of their religious beliefs.  If one believes that those beliefs are not consistent with the Constitution or that their beliefs show a lack of judgment, that is a completely different matter and a different set of standards.  It also requires the individual making those judgments to understand the person’s beliefs well enough to make an informed decision rather than acting out of ignorance and bigotry.

The second issue I see arising is a sense that some people believe that a person can, or would be better off to, act without regard to their beliefs.  If I hear someone say this, I am immediately suspicious.

One’s beliefs are an inner moral compass; they affect who you are and how you see the world.  To act without regard to one’s beliefs is to act without have a moral guide.  The only type of person I know of that can do this is a psychopath.  No offense, but America has enough problems keeping her politicians honest without electing psychopaths.  Clearly, most people do in fact make decisions based on some set of moral values.  The person who says otherwise either isn’t telling the truth or doesn’t realize what they are saying.

Some politicians will say that their personal beliefs will not get in the way of performing their elected duties.  That may be possible to a limited degree, but I contend that such a person really doesn’t hold the level of commitment to their beliefs that they think they do.

Very well then, what about those who would reply that, if you  believe that Christianity is the only way to God, then if you’re not seeking to pass a law declaring everybody should be a Christian, then you aren’t a very good Christian?  This approach has been tried before and failed (the Roman Empire under Constantine) because Christianity is a personal choice that cannot be forced on someone, so no ,the question does not apply.

In our constitutional republic (sorry folks, we’re really not a democracy), our officials owe the public the benefit of acting as who they are; all of who they are.  But a second question arises: doesn’t this run afoul of the separation of church and state?  Unless the official is trying to set a religion in which citizens are required to participate.  Besides, the second part of the religion issue in the First Amendment also applies – US law cannot deny the free exercise of religion either.  Once again, just because someone had religious convictions cannot disqualify them.

Chick-fil-A

I am amazed how rapidly a societal norm over the past 3,000 years of Western civilization has become thought of as a symbol of hate.  Case in point: the CEO of Chick-fil-A said in an interview that he supported the traditional definition of marriage.  He was immediately savaged in the press as a hate monger for not supporting gay rights.  Lots of folks that are usually very vocal on such issues chimed in (activists, celebrities, lefts, et al).

Couple of items come to mind.  Logically, being for one thing does not automatically translate to being against something else.  The press hasn’t exactly been forthcoming on which position is the most prominent in the US.  If one gauged the position by laws passed, traditional marriage wins hands down, as every state that has put the item on a state-wide ballot has passed (total of 30 states).

I’ve also noticed the hypocrisy of those folks screaming about how awful Chick-fil-A is for their position.  These people are trying to make Chick-fil-A a social pariah.  The irony is that quite a few of these same people preach tolerance and cultural diversity as long as the subject in question means open up society to their way of thinking.  (An interesting side item – are you really tolerant if you do not tolerate those that won’t tolerate you?)  These folks seem to confuse the tolerance with acceptance; I can and do tolerate many viewpoints in society that I do not accept as my own.

So what is my viewpoint on this subject?  Well, that is a little bit complicated.  The bottom line is that, to me, it doesn’t matter what my personal opinion might be.  Huh?  This issue, like many others, is tied directly to my view of faith and how that faith should direct my world view. 

As a Christian, I read that Jesus himself talked of marriage as one man and one woman.  Other biblical writers conveyed the same sentiment; that man and woman are a compliment to each other and that the pattern of husband/wife is a metaphor for the relationship of Christ to the church.
I have Christian friends that disagree with me and say that God would not hate gay people so much as to deny them the right to marry.  My reply would be that their question ignores the plain meaning of what Jesus himself gave to marriage.  I’ll accept what God plainly says before I try and get into God’s head.

If I didn’t look to my faith first, I might have a different view.  I understand why a gay person might not like traditional marriage; I’m in the arts and have many gay friends.  Nevertheless, I do look first to my faith, so any personal view would be irrelevant.  I would be a fool to think that God got it wrong.

The argument might be raised that my faith should not be used to define public policy.  Well, my faith is part of who I am as an individual, and as an individual, I have the right to participate in public society.  As such, my faith comes along with me.

More on that in my next post ….

Tragedies

Tragedy strikes in America.  It’s horrifying to think that there are nut cases who do something like this.

What saddens me almost as much that folks use this to blame their favorite (or, if you would, least favorite) thing in society for such an event.  It’s guns, or violent movies, or political movements that they disagree with.  I think there is one particular thing that can be blamed, yet it never gets the blame for such tragedies because the blame lies not outside the perpetrator, but inside them.  All these other things may contribute to the problem, but they don’t address the primary cause.

We fail to understand these tragedies because we (I’m speaking of the collective “we”, not the individual “we”) fail to acknowledge the nature of mankind.

People are capable of doing many great and charitable things, but they are also capable of horrific acts.  In fact, without external restraints, the later are more likely than the former.  Many names exist for this human state: the natural man, the savage man, the sinful man.  No matter what you call him, he exists and unless something reins him in, he can and will do awful deeds.

A strong social contract can sometimes do the trick - live in peace with the rest of us, or we’ll punish you.  To this end, governments are instituted to police human behavior.  Yet even so, punishments are still needed as this merely mutes wicked desires rather than eliminating them.
Who can one trust to free our base instincts when we all have them, and therefore everything we touch will be flawed?  Sounds like a job for Superman?  Well, kind of.  Only Superman in the comic book variety doesn’t exist.

Can we derive a code of conduct from nature?  Perhaps, except for two problems: 1) how can we know if nature itself is free from the same curse that plagues mankind? and 2) unless the blueprint is so clear that all mankind can read it, who gets to interpret nature on behalf of mankind?

We fail to properly address the root cause of tragedies because we (collective “we”) refuse to acknowledge our base nature.

If not ourselves or nature, what can correct our inner flaws?  One of two options exists: either there is something outside us and nature or there isn’t.  If there isn’t anything else, then we are screwed; just realized how awful we really are and manage our affairs for certain disasters.  If there is something, which some call “God”, then one of two options exists: either God will help us or God won’t help us.  If God won’t help us, we’re still screwed.  But if God can, why not give God a try.  Looking at the other options, what do we have to lose?

God and Country

As a child, I was taught that being a good American was as important as being a good Christian.  God and Country was just that – not God then Country; God and Country were on the same level of importance.  At times, this arrangement could be justified.  After all, we were fighting an atheist enemy.  Not only that, the practitioners of this ideology killed more of its own citizens that any group in the history of the world.

This hierarchy of allegiance was confusing to me as a kid.  Over the years, I’ve settled the issue, not by thinking about the relationship of the citizen as much as thinking about the character of the individual. 

We are all flawed beings.  As such, how can something we create be on the same level as a perfect God?

Here’s another factor that muddies the waters for a lot of people: The Bible tells us that we should be in subjection to the powers that reign over us.  True.  Yet, America has a rather unique place in the history of nations.  As a representative republic, the power to which I am supposed to subject myself to also desires my input.  I am permitted to have my say pertaining to the direction of my government.  Permitted, but not required.  I am not forced to participate.

So, the second tier of my allegiances wants me to be an active member if I so choose.  So does the first, but that is a subject for another day …

What am I thinking?

I am going to write about hope, even though it won’t always seem that way   Hope for tomorrow and today.  You see, when tomorrow comes, it will be today.

I don’t expect anyone to agree with my thoughts; everyone else has as much right to be wrong as I do.  I also don’t really care if anyone if offended by my thoughts; I’ve never seen anything that says an individual has a right not to be offended – I’m not even sure such an attitude is healthy.

And so, my adventure begins.  If you are reading this, understand that having readers is nice, but more important to me is the opportunity to hone my writing skills and clarify my thoughts and beliefs.

My topics will range from personal observations to faith and social issues.  While I find politics fascinating, pure politics is not really my thing.  Politics is only interesting as it relates to how I believe I should live my life.

I’m not asking for approval, just an open mind.