Category: Current Event

Posted on

religious freedom

Allow me to briefly recap 2 outrageous weekend acts, in order to transition to the outrage…

 

In Kenya…

 

In an upscale Nairobi shopping mall — in a situation that remains fluid as of this writing — militants have shot and killed over 60 persons.  According to the New York Times, “masked gunmen moved methodically through the crowded mall on Saturday,” killing men, women and children.  The gunmen have been linked to the al-Qaeda-backed Somali terror group al-Shabaab.

 

In northwest Pakistan…

 

Outside a church where the parishioners were exiting after the service, a pair of suicide/homicide bombers killed approximately 81 people.  According to USA Today, “witnesses described a scene of dust, debris and devastation.”  Body parts were apparently gruesomely scattered amid the debris.  A wing of the Taliban claimed responsibility.

 

The glaring commonality between these 2 heinous acts?  On 2 separate continents, non-Muslims were intentionally targeted.

 

Religious freedom seems in jeopardy, friends — albeit not just in Africa and Asia; it spans across the globe… especially Christian freedom.  Hence, the Intramuralist wonders:  where is the outrage?

 

Truthfully, I think it’s hard for us to express outrage as Americans.  Why?  Because we’ve already accepted so much suppression in our own country.  The suppression may not yet manifest itself via shopping mall nor church bombings, as it currently comes in more subtle forms.  For example…

 

  • As reported here last week, a 10 year old public school girl in Tennessee was banned from writing about God for a required school assignment.
  • In Massachusetts, persons are fervently working to remove the phrase “one nation under God” from the Pledge.
  • And then there’s this…

In North Carolina, where a Christian apologetics conference, entitled “Truth for a New Generation” will take place later this week with nationally respected speakers, the local paper, The Charlotte Observer, would not allow the conference to advertise as desired, paid, and previously agreed to.  Granted, the conference planners asked some tough questions in their ad:

 

“Is same sex marriage morally wrong?”
“Are Islam and Christianity the same?”
“Are godless people going to destroy America?”

 

The questions were chosen “to encourage discourse, inquiry, and to result in a strong ad, to raise awareness about the conference.”  The Charlotte Observer, however, would not allow the asking of the questions.  It’s not that all answers to the above are wise and good and true, but when the media begins to squelch the dialogue so that dissenting opinion cannot even take place, they have sowed and watered the seeds of religious suppression.  That suppression will only get worse, as witnessed in Kenya and Pakistan.

 

So where is the outrage?  Where is the outrage in Africa and Asia?

 

And where is the outrage here?

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

some kind of evil

Bad things happen on planet Earth.  Like last week… primarily according to USA Today:

 

Federal investigators believe Aaron Alexis cleared a security checkpoint with his contractor identification and carried a shotgun into building 197 at the Navy Yard in Washington D.C.  Alexis reportedly began firing at people indiscriminately from an atrium overlook.  After firing several rounds, Alexis ran down a flight of stairs where he confronted and shot a security officer. It is believed that Alexis took the officer’s handgun and returned to the overlook where he continued to shoot.  13 people, including the shooter, died.

 

Like yesterday at a Kenyan shopping mall:

 

At least 59 people were killed and 175 injured during a Saturday afternoon shooting rampage at a shopping mall in an upscale district of Nairobi.  The 5-10 gunmen carried AK-47s and other sophisticated weapons and wore vests with hand grenades on them.  They also asked Muslims to leave before opening fire.

 

Bad things do happen.

 

In wake of the so-called “badness,” many respond with immediate, perceived necessary solutions.  On Monday, the Navy Yard shooting was only hours old when Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) took to the microphones to call for increased gun control measures.  “When will enough be enough?” she asked.  While Feinstein repeated details that were inaccurate but fueled the passion behind her plea — as many and the media are often apt to do, even though pausing would be prudent — she was not alone in her plea.

 

When bad things happen, we have a desire to fix it.  We have a desire to ensure the bad things will never happen again.

 

On that note, the Intramuralist has great respect for Feinstein, etal. in their stated desire to curb violence.  Who among us desires to see the innocent die?  The challenge, no less, is whether or not the proposed solution is actually effective — or is more proposed and applied because it makes us feel better; it makes us feel as if we are doing something.

 

In the wake of last week’s shooting, in multiple circles, I thus posed the following question:  where does this “badness” come from?  Is it evil?  Where does the evil come from?  What, in fact, is evil?

 

The answers were fascinating…

 

Most would acknowledge an existence of evil, but few seemed comfortable with evil dwelling within a person.  Some called the behavior of Aaron Alexis evil; still others said the identification of evil would be dependent on whether or not the gunman had a mental illness.  If he had any mental deficiency, the evil — if it existed — rested in the hands of someone or something else, perhaps in the institution or people who allowed him to have a gun in his hands.

 

My conclusion from this certainly unscientific polling is that we’re not comfortable with the idea of evil, and when we do utilize the label, we seem to do so inconsistently and subjectively.  We don’t like it.

 

Bad things happened on planet Earth last week.  I didn’t like it.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

incapable

Before we converse today, let’s lay a bit of groundwork…

 

  • While multiple factors contributed to its onset, World War I began after the assassination of the heir presumptive to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife, Sophie, by a Yugoslav nationalist.

 

  • World War II started after Poland was invaded by Germany — under the leadership of Adolf Hitler — and Great Britain and France decided to respond.

 

In other words, world wars began with singular acts.  Yes, other factors were involved and undoubtedly led to the climactic onset, but singular acts provided the spark through which wars of the world were both prompted and justified.

 

Did the men/women involved foresee the major, military consequences?

Did they know it all?

Smart as they may or may not have been, were they capable of predicting the massive extent of global devastation that resulted from singular acts?

 

Friends, I am not “anti-war” nor “pro-war.”  I’m not exactly certain how any could be either; there’s a time for everything — for every activity under the sun… a time to be born and a time to die… a time to be silent and a time to speak… a time for war and a time for peace.  And just as both Pres. Bush said last week and Pres. Obama said yesterday, using military force is one of the most grueling decisions any president or nation has to make.  The ramifications are sobering.  In instances such as above, the ramifications meant World War 1 and 2.

 

How does the potential beginning of World War 3 affect your thoughts regarding bombing Syria today?

 

As I watch our leaders contemplate an attack (and as I continue to cringe at the politics in play and the “running for cover” by far too many in Washington — the deflecting of blame, the voting of “present,” etc.), I wonder how many are considering the ramifications of a singular event.

 

They say it will be limited.  They say it will be done in 90 days.  They say there will be “no boots on the ground.”  They thus say that any lives lost will be few.

 

Here’s my zillion dollar question:  how can they predict exactly what will happen?

 

Were those involved in the initial ongoings of World Wars 1 and 2 able to predict all that would happen?  Of course not.

 

One of the aspects I find most troubling about our current American leadership is that they keep telling us exactly what will happen when in my opinion, they are not capable of making such a prediction.  It’s not that they aren’t smart men and women.  Many of them are incredibly smart.  But sometimes I question their wisdom (not their intelligence, but their wisdom) because they don’t possess the capability to predict all that they tell us they do.  So much of what our leaders say seems designed to persuade us, as opposed to sharing actual, honest, and entire truth.

 

The entire truth means the acknowledgement that all things cannot be predicted.  They are incapable of being predicted.  If the United States chooses to bomb Syria — regardless of the continued rhetorical promises outside of their control — what are they missing?  What can they not foresee?  What’s incapable of being predicted?

 

We don’t know…  and we don’t know what we don’t know.  We don’t know what singular act could prompt a third world war.  And that should add a humble, sobering pause to any affirmative vote.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

serious questions

In case you were unaware, the Intramuralist has at times been quite specific about the love of grammar.  In fact — hands down — my favorite punctuation mark is the question.  Asking questions.  I love it.

 

To ask a question implies humility.  It’s the only punctuation mark that invites a response.  And unless only asking to hear oneself think — and yes, I am making the almighty assumption that the asker actually listens to the answer — to ask means to acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers.

 

Friends, the situation in Syria is serious.  If you aren’t paying attention, I would strongly encourage you to quickly take note.  The situation is intense and evolving, and the potential consequences and results from both action and inaction are ambiguous at best.  Hence, the Intramuralist has many questions.  Why?  Because we don’t have all the answers.

 

One caveat prior to the asking…

Military conflict is not a partisan issue.  There should be no politics involved.  While “shame on you” is a phrase not in my vernacular, if there was a place for the consideration of employment, it would undoubtedly be here.

 

Hence, the questions…

 

What’s new that has led to this level of seriousness?  This conflict has been ongoing since 2011.  According to the latest estimates by the United Nations, more than 70,000 Syrians have died.  Why consider getting involved now?

 

Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad has led Syria since 2000, succeeding his deceased father, who was president for 30 years.  What is Assad’s agenda?  Are any of his motives hidden?  What are they?

 

What role do Islamic extremists play?  The terrorist group, Hezbollah, has supported Assad’s government, while the Associated Press has been reporting that a primary rebel group in Syria has pledged allegiance to the terrorist group, al-Qaeda.  Are we aligning with terrorists?  Whose side are we on?  Whose side should we be on?

 

We must therefore extend our questions to address American involvement.  Pres. Obama is advocating interference due to the believed use of chemical weapons.  Pres. Bush advocated involvement after the believed existence of chemical weapons.  Let me ask now:  where did Syria actually obtain their chemical weapons?

 

Should America be involved in the civil war of another?  Is that our job?  Is that our role?    Are we capable of being effective?  And if we aren’t certain it’s effective, should we even entertain the role?

 

Attacking anyone will cost us millions.  Billions.  Maybe more.  We are a country that is continuously spending more than we take in.  Few others in the world have affirmed an attack and committed to support any military intervention.  That means the role is ours; the lead is ours; and the expense is ours.  And the reality is that the cost may mean more than money; it may mean military lives.  Is that too much to pay?

 

Is it America’s calling to be the world’s police?  Was it right under Pres. Bush?  Is it right under Pres. Obama?  Is it ever right?

 

Friends, I have a lot of questions.  I don’t have a lot of answers.  We must acknowledge we don’t have all the answers.  The situation in Syria is serious indeed.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

blurred lines

[Note:  this post was penned prior to last week’s provocative, public dance by Miley Cyrus. In other words, the lines were already blurry.]

 

Everybody get up!

 

I’m up. I’m dancing like any good un-retired disco queen of the late ’70’s. I love, love, love the beat of this song. It’s being called the song of the summer by media. I’ve watched the Robin Thicke/Jimmy Fallon version of Blurred Lines on YouTube an embarrassing number of times. This version uses school instruments and has a PG-rated solo. It’s a super fun vibe. The band is smiling, jamming, rocking, kidding around and having a terrific time. Then I read the original lyrics on several popular lyric websites.

 

Hey, hey, hey. 

 

Prude would never be a word used to describe me. Each day less and less things make my chin drop. But some of those lyrics… oh, my! Now I know this isn’t the first rap song to use offensive (to me) words but it’s the first nasty rap I really have fun listening to. I want to buy it so bad.

 

You know you want it.

 

There exists controversy over whether or not the song is “misogynistic” or “rapey”, and when I read the words rapper TI sings, I wonder who really resonates with this sex slang. Why does any song any where in any language need to say what he says? This is where I get really confused. And then there is the original music video with nude dancers. They chose to do a remake on that one. Wonder why?

 

If you can’t hear what I’m trying to say. 

 

Why add the obscene? Life can be sad and hard and even cruel all on its own. Why throw more violence and crass images into the universe? But I love the bounce of this song. Perfect for car dancing but I don’t have it on  my iphone because I can’t justify some really bad lyrics in part of the song.

 

Maybe I’m out of my mind.

 

This isn’t about nasty rap; it’s about me trying to convince myself that if the beat is good, I can overlook the really negative message of the words. There is a disconnect with the fun loving, smiling men wearing wedding rings, everything-is-alright-then group singing this terrifically fun song. I actually had that argument in my head. They all look too nice and happy for it to be wrong!

 

Can’t let it get past me.

 

So now I wonder how many other things I excuse the nasty because I like the beat? Books, movies, TV shows, gossip, certain friendships, idle thoughts. Apparently I have selective vision, only focusing on the good and fun stuff when the obscene side is right there as well. It’s just a song, right? No big deal. What’s the real harm in buying the tune and ingraining the lyrics in my head?

 

Maybe I’m going deaf.

 

After 50 plus years I can recognize the little voice that whispers “good choice/bad choice. Sometimes I listen to the voice and sometimes I conveniently ignore it. This time I’m hearing the old adage, “garbage in, garbage out.” I combat that one in my head with “don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” I really, really  like this song…sort of.

 

I hate these blurred lines.

 

Respectfully,

CB

Posted on

current questions

As August nears and summer enjoys its seasonal last hurrah’s, I find myself with a few things I still feel need to either ask or address.  Yes, I have lots of questions regarding current events…

 

Why does Congress recess for the entire month of August?

Do they still get paid?

 

Why is the President still campaigning about Obamacare?

Does he realize the bill remains unpopular?

Is he telling us the entire truth?

Are the people even listening to him anymore?

 

Did William & Kate consider any other names?

Is there any chance Kate always dreamed of a baby named “boy George”?

 

Now that Detroit has gone bankrupt, who will be next?

Will there be a next?

Who else has borrowed too much money for too long and made far too many promises of future payment?

 

What should we learn from the Trayvon Martin situation?

Was a guilty man set free?

 

Does Al Sharpton realize that racism comes from all sides?

Why won’t all African-Americans refuse to say the word “nigger”?

Don’t they realize it’s derogatory?

 

Will Hillary run?

Should she?

What’s she thinking now?

 

How will my Reds do in the push to the playoffs?

 

Why did the Patriots not address the character of Aaron Hernandez sooner?

Did they ever cover up for him?

 

When does college football start?

Will Heisman winner Johnny Manziel say and do all the right things?

 

How ‘bout the pros?

How will my fantasy team do?

Will I dominate my sons? (ever so gently, of course…)

 

What have we learned from this summer?

 

As always, there is much to learn.  There are many questions to ask, and there is great need for each of us to listen in order to discern correctly; that means listening to persons other than self — other than the knowingly likeminded.

 

Over the course of the next 3 weeks, the Intramuralist will offer creative opportunity to listen.  Beginning Sunday, Aug. 4 we will host our 5th annual Guest Writer Series, a treat for all involved.  You will have opportunity to listen and dialogue with persons expressing viewpoints that may or may not be the same as mine.  I will share with you later this week the means and motive for the series.  We are not all clones, friends; we don’t all think, act, or believe exactly alike.  Several of you, in fact, probably have different questions.

 

Keep asking.  Look for more on our exciting series soon… (fire up).

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

‘yes’ means ‘yes’

There are a few things hopefully each of us learns as a child…

 

Don’t covet.

Honor your mother and father.

And never stick your tongue on a flag pole in the winter.

 

As an adult, I see at least one, glaring wise nugget that far too many have missed…

 

Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.’  Speak the truth.

 

So it bothers this semi-humble blogger when I see so many supposedly smart people speak and act so counterintuitively to the truth shared above…

 

It bothers me when Pres. Obama again hits what “feels like” a campaign trail and repeatedly utilizes the phrase, “phony scandals.”  The screening of conservative groups by the IRS is not “phony.”  The secret seizing of journalists’ phone records, emails, etc. by the Justice Department is not fake.  The Intramuralist, for one, is very concerned about the potential abuse of power by these 2 federal branches of government.  Hence, fake or phony are inaccurate adjectives at best…

 

Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.‘   Speak the truth.

 

Granted, a second example could easily be written about current NYC mayoral candidate, Anthony Weiner, a congressman who resigned from office, acknowledging personal wrongdoing, but then who continued the same wrongdoing long after his resignation and reported repentance… but alas, we digress… he isn’t worth our time…

 

Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.‘   Speak the truth.

 

Perhaps, no less this week, the example that causes the greatest cringe comes from baseball’s Ryan Braun.  Braun is an outfielder with the Milwaukee Brewers (sorry, my Wisconsin friends).  In fact, the talented Braun — nicknamed “The Hebrew Hammer” as a perennial standout in the sport — was actually voted the league’s 2011 MVP.  Last week Braun was suspended without pay for the rest of the season due to his use of performance-enhancing drugs.  As Braun stated in his acceptance of the suspension, “I realize now that I have made some mistakes. I am willing to accept the consequences of those actions.”

 

While I commend Braun’s willingness to accept the consequences, I cringe at the 2 years prior.  In 2011, Ryan Braun came under scrutiny for a then failed drug test.  Instead of admitting — or granted, even denying — any wrongdoing, Braun attacked the investigator and his process.  As he said through his spokesman:

 

“There are highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case which will support Ryan’s complete innocence and demonstrate there was absolutely no intentional violation of the program.  While Ryan has impeccable character and no previous history, unfortunately, because of the process we have to maintain confidentiality and are not able to discuss it any further, but we are confident he will ultimately be exonerated.”

 

So in 2013 — after lying in 2011 — only now does Ryan Braun actually “accept the consequences.”

 

Seemingly smart people only adhering to nuggets of wisdom when they can no longer deny the truth…

 

Let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ mean ‘no.’  Speak the truth.

 

Always.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

ESPN news

To hear the sportswriters tell it, it was “the best round of his life”… “a most improbable win”… “completed in stunning, awe-inspiring fashion”…

 

On Sunday, golf’s most popular lefty, Phil Mickelson, captured the coveted Claret Jug, as the winner of this year’s British Open.  He was 5 strokes behind the leader when the day began, and as one writer penned, “Mickelson barely got a mention on the broadcast.”

 

Before we continue, friends, let me offer an initial, concise caveat.  While the Intramuralist is without question a lover of sports, this is not a sports post.  Not at all.  In fact, with all due respect to the male members of my extended family, I’m actually not incredibly passionate about watching that little white, dented ball be smacked around on the grass all day.  Play and partake?  Gladly.  Watch 4 hours on TV on a regular, weekend basis?  No way.  It’s just a little (ok, maybe a lot) too slow a sport for me.

 

Being that sports lover, however — and living in a household uniquely dominated by testosterone — it’s rather important that I am “up on” and equally knowledgeable regarding all that occurs in the athletic world; we have some great conversations around our house.  Hence, I subscribe to regular sports updates from ESPN, the unquestionably successful Entertainment and Sports Programming Network.  Throughout the British Open, they sent me multiple daily texts, alerting me to the Open’s current status.

 

Here’s the non-sport-aspect challenge…

 

All 4 days of the British Open, ESPN sent me updates about Tiger Woods.  Tiger was never in the lead.  He spent most days somewhere around 6th place.  But every text from the sporting news network — save for when Mickelson finally seized the lead — included information about Tiger Woods.  In fact, going into Sunday’s final round, when Tiger had crept to a then current second place tie, the person with whom Woods was actually tied with was omitted from ESPN’s tweets.  ESPN’s British Open tweets were always focused on Tiger Woods, regardless of who was performing better.

 

My “a-ha” moment came somewhere between rounds 3 and 4…

 

Does ESPN think I only care about Tiger Woods?

Why are they so seemingly fascinated with him?

Who then is deciding what is “news”?

Is the network deciding for me what’s newsworthy — even if it’s not?

 

I wonder.

 

I wonder how often media outlets dictate our news.

 

Are there times the media omits relevant information because of what they feel will gain greater ratings?  … a larger audience?  … and increased revenue?  Are they, then, actually dictating what is “news”?

 

For the record, the answer is Hunter Mahan.  Hunter Mahan was the professional golfer tied with Tiger heading into the fourth and final round of this year’s British Open.

 

Note:  the Intramuralist will never intentionally omit a relevant detail in order to sway your response.  We will not be the decider — nor, uh, the manipulator — of what is actually news.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

advice column

In 2 intriguing developments…

 

John Rosemond has written a nationally syndicated parental advice column for years.  In addition to his column, Rosemond has authored multiple bestsellers, such as Parenting by the Book and Making the ‘Terrible’ Twos Terrific!  When responding recently to a question of how to handle their “highly spoiled underachiever” son, Rosemond advised the parents to strip the boy’s room down to essentials, take away electronic devices, and suspend privileges until the boy’s grades improved.

 

The State of Kentucky — specifically, the Kentucky Board of Examiners of Psychology – then declared that by offering such one-on-one advice, Rosemond is engaging in the “practice of psychology” – something he is not entitled to do in the state since he lacks a Kentucky license, as even though he is a nationally syndicated columnist, his North Carolina credentials are not valid in Kentucky.

 

The bottom line:  the government says a citizen is not qualified nor allowed to do what he does without the government’s supervision, authorization, and approval.

 

Steve Cooksey, no less, is a blogger from North Carolina.  He encourages others, prompted by the passion of his own experience.  Listen to Cooksey’s brief bio:

“To summarize my story, I was an obese, sedentary, recently diagnosed diabetic when I began this journey.  I was on diabetes, cholesterol, and hypertension drugs as well as taking 4 insulin shots per day.  But within days things began to change and within a few months, I WAS A NEW PERSON!” 

Cooksey’s health improved drastically due to utilization of the growingly popular, high-protein Paleo Diet.

 

Yet alas, the State of North Carolina — specifically, the North Carolina Board of Dietetics/Nutrition — told Cooksey the advice-like language throughout his blog — and his offering of personal support to those attempting to transition to a “Paleo” lifestyle — were illegal.  Let me say that again:  illegal.

 

The bottom line:  the government says a citizen is not qualified nor allowed to do what he does without the government’s supervision, authorization, and approval.

 

Interestingly, both Rosemond and Cooksey have sued the government on the grounds of free speech and the First Amendment.  Let me also add that I’m certain there exist aspects in each case that we don’t know.  My prayer regardless is that their ongoing cases will be heard and directed by wise, fair-minded persons.

 

However, what concerns me is the potential precedent and lingering questions…

 

Is only government able to decide who is qualified?

Is only government able to decide who is allowed?

 

I wonder… in the future… if not in possession of a state teaching license, will parents be deemed qualified to teach their own children?  Will they be allowed?

 

I have no idea whether the words and wisdom of Rosemond and/or Cooksey are actually wise or not; the potential precedent, however, of the government’s increasingly intrusive, larger role disturbs me.

 

What if the citizens’ words are not wise?  Does the government still need to control that?  Are only wise words allowed to be shared?  And is only the government capable of determining what wisdom is?  Must they supervise? … authorize?  … and approve? …

 

… Be honest.  Be kind.  Love people well.  Never run from truth.  Don’t be afraid of the hard stuff.  Be respectful.  Be compassionate.  Say what you mean and mean what you say.  Forgive.  Forgive again.  Figure the faith thing out.  Don’t spend what you don’t have.  Exercise.  Ponder.  Reject hypocrisy.  Be humble.  Laugh often.  Make good friends.  Be loyal.  Invest.  Embrace your family.  Love through thick and thin.  Enjoy ice cream in the summer.  And read the Intramuralist faithfully.

 

There.  There’s my advice for today.  It’s free.  You’ll have to discern whether or not it’s wise.  Actually, that’s our job.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

racist

Sometimes as I witness society’s reaction, my soul is left disturbed.

 

Perhaps like several of you, I have turned off the television after my jaw dropped too many times watching reaction to George Zimmerman being found “not guilty” of the murder of teen Trayvon Martin.  Was he really “not guilty”?  Was he “guilty”?!  I don’t know.  I wasn’t there.  I wasn’t even in the courtroom.  Like positions, however, have not kept others from adamant declarations.

 

The reality is that Trayvon Martin’s tragic death has evolved into an issue of race.  It shouldn’t be.  The question should be whether or not a criminal act took place.  However, declarations of innocence and guilt have seemingly since been driven more by ethnicity than on evidence — or the lack of it.

 

Does skin color matter?

 

Unfortunately, to too many, it does…

 

… it matters to the female convenience store clerk, shown on a YouTube video, who told an African-American pastor, “We don’t serve your kind”…

… it matters to the Illinois, African-American man who beat up an American caucasian because he was so mad at “white boys”…

… it matters to CNN’s Nancy Grace, who during jury deliberations, said “[Hispanic Zimmerman’s been] out on bond, driving through Taco Bell every night, having a churro.”

 

It matters to too many whites… too many blacks… too many Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, etc.  Unfortunately, it matters.

 

My current sense is that most of the protests after the Zimmerman verdict were peaceful.  (Note:  the most sensational moments — however infrequent — receive the most media attention.)  Still, seemingly intelligent (and not so intelligent) persons say disturbing things…

 

For example, in response to the verdict, an associate professor at the typically esteemed, Ivy League’s University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Religious Studies called God a “white racist.”  Excuse me, but this professor who is teaching our children, is she attempting to divide — or to heal unite?

 

I look forward, friends, to a day when skin color truly does not matter to any of us… when it doesn’t matter to the whites, to the blacks, to every other color God created.  I look forward when there exists no justified prejudice — stemming either from initial ignorance or from retaliatory response.

 

I look forward to the lion laying down with the lamb… the leopard lying down with the goat… the cow feeding alongside the bear and their young lying down together.  I look forward to a day when none of the external “stuff” we so passionately cling to matters, when none of us judge by what we see with our eyes or hear with our ears.  I look forward to us being directed more by a Spirit of wisdom and understanding than by skin color and self.

 

I look forward to that day.  For each of us.  All of us.  Only then will skin color truly not matter.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR