the best we’ve got

There was a special election last week in South Carolina.  Granted, most deemed it “special” because the vote was held to replace a senatorial appointee.  However, the Intramuralist finds it “special” because of the uniqueness of the candidates.

 

While each candidate certainly sported a resume that deserved serious consideration, neither was noted most for any professional qualification.  The Republican candidate was Mark Sanford, known most as the former governor who resigned 4 years ago after lying about his whereabouts as opposed to being forthcoming about his affair.  The Democrat candidate was Elizabeth Colbert Busch, known most as the sister of popular satirist Stephen Colbert as opposed to any individual accolades.  From a distant, arguably judgmental vantage point, it seemed a poor choice of candidates.

 

Poor indeed.  Sanford won by an approximate 10% point margin.

 

While not a resident of the Palmetto State, part of me wonders if this is the wisest representation for the people of the 1st Congressional District.  A former governor… a man who left because of lies — granted, they were entirely regarding his personal endeavors — left his wife, children, and statehouse to pursue the object of his infidelity.  He is engaged to her today.

 

Ah, yes, I hear the rousing chorus of “amen’s.”  In fact, I read the screeching comments in cyberspace and selective editorials in the immediate aftermath.  “Is this the best we’ve got?” seemed the strong — and even oft articulated — implication.

 

Truthfully, I agree.  Is Sanford the best we’ve got?  Now many of you have participated in this dialogue long enough to know that the Intramuralist unabashedly believes in the giving of second, third, and even fourth and fifth chances.  Many times I have mercifully been on the receiving end of those grace extensions, and hence, I believe wholeheartedly in the generous outpouring to others.  But that outpouring is accompanied by one caveat.  Only one.  But a significant one at that.

 

In order to freely offer that second or even seventeenth chance, the heart of the recipient should be willingly repentant.  True, no man can fully gauge the heart of another, yet the question is:  was Sanford repentant of his actions?  Was he truly repentant of the destruction of his family?  Or rather, was he simply sorry he got caught?  Repentance and remorse are two totally different things.

 

Again come the “amen’s,” especially, I assume, from those who supported the candidacy of Sanford’s opponent.  Of course.  That’s the way partisanship sadly works in 21st century America.  When we desire the liberal candidate, we loudly pounce upon the indiscretions of one conservative Mark Sanford.  Oh, wait; many of us will then turn a blind eye to the indiscretions of a liberal Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, two more whose unscrupulous behavior merited their political exit but are seemingly, currently, waiting for enough time to pass so they, too, can re-enter the political arena.  Again, let’s ask the question:  are they repentant of their actions?  Or are they only waiting for enough time to pass?  Better said:  has the heart of the man changed?

 

Too often we assume the heart has changed because the candidate in question advances our desired political cause.  Sorry, but that’s not enough for me.  Call me an idealist.  But the Intramuralist wants representation by a person who is wise and of solid integrity.  Note that I’m not talking about a man who is perfect and ever without error.  A man of solid integrity still makes mistakes.  But he doesn’t hide them.  He doesn’t repeatedly lie about them.  He doesn’t just “repackage his behavior” in order to make himself sound better.  He also doesn’t merely wait for enough time to pass so that we forget about the magnitude of his indiscretions —  and so he can resume a desired political career.  He is instead truly repentant for what he’s done.

 

“Is that the best we’ve got?”  The best, my friends, equates to nothing less than a man of integrity.

 

Respectfully,

AR

the IRS

And then there was this…  (from the Associated Press…)

 

Lois Lerner, head of the Internal Revenue Service that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized today for the IRS inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

 

Lerner said organizations that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews. Speaking at a conference in Washington, she said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati.

 

The Associated Press is also now reporting that senior IRS officials were aware in 2011 of this behavior.  There are also reports that some Jewish groups were targeted.  Wow…

 

Here is an organization that is by no means supposed to be partisan.  And here in their supposed-to-be-nonpartisan existence, they intentionally decided to scrutinize specific conservative and religious groups more.  In fact, in multiple cases, groups were asked to provide a list of donors for review, typically a violation of IRS policy.  The IRS scrutinized activity based upon any overt, conservative leanings of the supporters.  Hmmm…  and one wonders why citizens continue to lose faith in government…

 

More and more government tends to emphasize “think like me.”  “Join me.”  “Do what I do.”  “Refute the voices of those who think differently.”  “Reject the two party system.”  “One party is always right.”  “I am always right.”  Friends, one huge, massive, like-minded, political group has never proved nationally beneficial; historically, the accompanying power with a singular massive party leads to corruption and inefficiency, and yet so many still seem to strive for such a dominant arrangement.  The partisan admission by the IRS is evidence of such corruption; it is also irresponsible and foolish.

 

Who asked them to do so?  Who persuaded their partisan directive?  Who guided them (as the Intramuralitst oft likes to say) to no longer oversee a united state of America?

 

According to Time Magazine — and a reaction on both the proverbial right and left…

 

“The IRS has demonstrated the most disturbing, illegal and outrageous abuse of government power,” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. “This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach.”

 

The revelation didn’t sit much better with groups on the left. “Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office.

 

So let me get this straight…

 

In addition to the known previous functions of the IRS, here is also now the government agency that is responsible for enforcing Obamacare.  My sense is that few Americans are aware of this role.  Beginning in 2014, this agency will be the one which requires each American to carry health insurance.  We will have to disclose our personal identifying health ID number to the IRS — in addition to the nature of our insurance and any additional information the IRS decides to demand.  The IRS is the enforcer.

 

Logical questions here, folks…

 

How can an agency that has admitted political bias be an objective enforcer?

How will we know the agency is free from continued corruption?

 

Great questions.  I’m unfortunately fearful of the answers.

 

Respectfully…

AR

to listen or reject?

On Sunday, the President gave the commencement address at The Ohio State University.  In his address, Obama included the following:

 

“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

 

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”

 

I appreciate the President’s comment that “we have never been a people who place all our faith in government” and that “we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems.”  The balance of those isolated statements seems prudent indeed.

 

However, the Intramuralist is concerned about one aspect contradictory of our mantra…

 

“… nothing more than some separate, sinister voices…”

 

No, I don’t care about that.  There are people on the right, left, middle, all-over-the-place who call certain somethings “sinister.”  That doesn’t alarm me.

 

“… tyranny is always lurking just around the corner…”

 

Lurking?  Lurking?!  Well, maybe.  But that sounds more like an emotional plea designed to drum up passion.  The President, his opponents, and supporters all seem to resort to emotional pleas when unfortunately deemed necessary.  I, for one, believe arguments should be debated more on their logic than on all the accompanying emotion.  But alas, I again digress…

 

“… And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”

 

Excellent!  We need to get the younger generations involved!  You need to understand how government works!  … it’s efficiencies and inefficiencies; it’s up to you to change this… to improve it… to be involved.  Well said, Pres. Obama.

 

What concerns me?  One line:  “You should reject these voices.”

 

As long apparent amidst our postings, the Intramuralist always — yes, I said “always” —  encourages dialogue.  The only way to encourage dialogue is to also encourage active, sincere listening — and active, sincere listening of those who feel differently than you.  If your argument is solid — absent of logical loopholes — there should be no reason to outright reject opposing voices.  While there is no doubt Pres. Obama is an articulate, intelligent man, his admonition that the younger generation should simply reject the voices of those who passionately advocate for limited government seems unwise to me.

 

If — and I realize that’s a mighty big “if” — if we would entertain why there is a vocal desire for limited government — if we listened to those voices — what would we learn?  Would we learn about where government is both efficient and inefficient?  Would we learn about history? … where some governments have overreached and thus prompted national demise?  What’s wrong with listening to those voices as opposed to rejection?

 

Listening, my friends, is wiser.

 

Respectfully…

AR

a “bad” experience

Years ago when my oldest son was a wibbling, wobbling toddler, I will never forget the day his stuffed Curious George went sailing through the aisle at our local grocery.  While first appalled that my son would turn his beloved companion into a public projectile, I couldn’t help but chuckle as George came to rest in the narrow gauntlet between multiple canned goods.  I may have even grinned from ear to ear.

 

Unfortunately, my laughter quickly subsided, as George landed a mere 3-4 feet in front of one of those motorized carts, donned by an obviously, elderly lady.

 

“I’m sorry, ma’am.  My son threw his favorite stuffed animal.”

 

Instead of the articulated grace perhaps far too naively expected, the lady’s countenance turned immediately stern, glaring at me, squinting her eyes, and then retorting, “You need to get better control of your children!”

 

I was shocked.  What?  I need to get better control?  There is no grace for a harmless throw of Curious George?

 

Let me tell you what I did not…

I did not conclude that all elderly women are as withholding of grace as she.  I did not conclude that all persons on motorized carts have lost respect for the rest of the waiting world.  No.  I made zero conclusions about the elderly nor those on those oh-so-cool motorized carts.

 

However, my sense is that refraining from making conclusions — when we have 1 “bad” experience — is the rarity as opposed to the norm.

 

How often do we do that?  How often do we make conclusions about an entire demographic because of a singular experience?  For example…

 

Have you had 1 “bad” experience with a Christian?  (“Bad” equates to harshness and immediate judgment.)  Have you had 2, 4, maybe even 17 “bad” interactions?  There are billions of Christians on this planet.  Even 17 so-called “bad” experiences pale in comparison.

 

Have you had 1 “bad” experience with a Republican or Democrat?  (“Bad” equates to arrogance and a clear failure to listen.)  There are millions of partisans on this planet; they are not all the same.  In fact, I have a brother who is a state legislator.  He is ethical, fiscally responsible, and he listens to those he represents.  More of our representatives — regardless of party — should be like him.

 

Have you had 1 “bad” experience with a member of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) community? … or with someone who believes LGBT behavior is unnatural?  (“Bad” equates to so passionate they actually justify condescendence of persons with differing opinion.)  I have friends who are gay… and friends who believe homosexuality is sinful.  I have both who still love and respect their neighbor.

 

Friends, one of the most accepted forms of arrogance on this planet is when we make judgments about entire people groups because of 1 “bad” experience.  Sure, we don’t feel it’s only 1.  We find other likeminded persons to “amen” our experience, so we’re never confronted with the darts that pierce our self-inflated bubbles; we’re never confronted with the reality that challenges our self-created reality.  In other words, we allow 1 or 2 or even 17 “bad” experiences to tell us what we want to hear — as opposed to be on a continuous seeking of actual truth.  Too many times, experience trumps truth.

 

When the lady at that grocery challenged my parenting, I wish all could have witnessed the astonished look on my face…

 

“What?  I need to get better control of my children?”

 

I knew her response was not the response of all people.  It was not even the response of all elderly women on motorized carts.  Hence, I smiled, paused, and said the first thing that came to mind…

 

“Have a nice day, ma’am.  I will, too.”

 

Respectfully…

AR

fixing our eyes

Let me be frank:  there is one thing I have hated my entire life.  No, not pickles.  Not even disrespect.  Unfortunately, too many times in my playful adolescence, I partook of both.

 

While it is true our family has attempted as best as possible to adopt the “hate what God hates” mentality (which thus allows pickles to remain a non-hated option), the Intramuralist must confess to a tinge of hypocrisy, as my enduring hatred has yet to be mentioned negatively in any even dead sea scroll.

 

I have always hated running.  Yep, running.  Moving one foot in front of the other for an extended period of time, without a book to read, show to watch, or witty person to talk to.  Dwelling on my perceived boredom associated with the activity, I remember years ago during pre-iPod/Walkman days, donning my cool cassette player and a basketball, thinking perhaps the clever combination of music and dribbling would somehow ease my pain.  Note:  it didn’t work.

 

In recent years, no less, I have been humbly graced by the friendship of a few persistent, pesky, and pretty perky runners in my life.  God bless you, guys, but that’s still not my ‘thing.’  But yet, they’ve taught me something…

 

My running friends profess the process is more mental than physical; running has more to do with the mind and spirit as opposed to the actual body.  Mind over matter.  A reshaping of the mind.  As one wise friend says with unparalleled passion, “whatever we pay attention to grows.”  If we pay attention to how much our body hurts when running  (or how bored we may be), we will fail to persevere.  We’ll miss the run.  Hence, the question is:  what’s our focus?  On what are we fixing our eyes?

 

Where we go, what we do, the successes we enjoy, the places we falter… on what are we fixing our eyes?  Allow me to thus assert, that whatever our eyes are fixed upon is solely what we will see.  For example…

 

… if we fix our eyes upon Boehner or Barack’s broken promises, we’ll miss their promises kept.

… if we fix our eyes upon one party’s infinite wisdom, we’ll miss our own lack of objectivity.

… if we fix our eyes upon another’s lack of grace, we’ll miss the times we ourselves have justified refusal.

… if we fix our eyes upon the praise of NBA’er Jason Collins — who was vocal about his sexuality last week, we’ll miss the criticism of NFL’er Tim Tebow — who many have asked to remain silent.

… if we fix our eyes upon the need for all to have free education and healthcare, we’ll miss that our government doesn’t have enough money for it to be free.

… if we fix our eyes upon our government’s lack of money, we’ll miss how to care for “the least of these.”

… if we fix our eyes upon the emotion stemming from the victims in Newtown, we’ll miss the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.

… if we fix our eyes upon the existing prejudice of many white people, we’ll miss the existing prejudice of many black people.

… if we fix our eyes upon “if-it-feels-good-do-it,” we’ll miss the negative impact of moral relativity.

… and if we fix our eyes upon the ‘speck in another’s eye,’ we’ll miss the log in our own.

 

Such begs the question:  what should we fix our eyes upon?  What’s so worth it — that the focus does not result in blindness elsewhere?  What lasts?  My running friends suggest we must keep our eyes on the prize — on where we want to end up — on the big picture, so-to-speak.  Only by keeping our eyes fixed upon where we want to go will our gaze not prompt blindness somewhere else.

 

Meanwhile… yes… true… I’ve started running.  Shocking, I know… I, too, am a little dumbstruck.  But my focus is no longer on the perceived boredom nor bodily harm; it’s on something bigger.

 

Respectfully,

AR

community

Imagine if America was a community… one large, real, significant, interactive, healthy community.  What would that change?  What would we be like?

 

Perhaps some would suggest:  we already are a community — maybe not so healthy — but we’re still a community!  It ‘takes a village,’ you know.

 

I think not.

 

To be a community — an authentic community —  is first, not something forced upon us.  Community is a choice.  It’s a choice, in its simplest manifestation, to do life together.

 

Does that mean there never exists disagreement?  Of course not.  Disagreement does not equate to disrespect (… a few more of us could learn that, I’m thinking…).

 

But if we functioned as an authentic community, we would never work so hard to squelch or silence opinion solely because it’s different.  Dare I say that neither the Executive nor Legislative branches consistently practice such wisdom.  Far too often, P.R. campaigns and rhetorical put-downs are instead, lavishly employed.

 

To live in community means to be on mission together…  We saw that in the days immediately succeeding the Boston Marathon bombing.  Not solely the city proper nor the Commonwealth of Massachusetts but rather, seemingly the entire U.S. of A. was passionately seeking the arrest of those responsible.  Cheers, tweets, and texts rang out when the suspects were apprehended.  Being united in purpose prompted a truer sense of community.

 

Hence, what mission could endure in this country?  What mission could a “united state” of America join in on together?  A mission that would last? …

 

To fend off all evil.

To pursue life.

To pursue liberty.

To even pursue happiness.

To recognize that opposition does not equate to evil.

To recognize that evil is the utter absence of God.

To defend our inalienable rights.

To recognize that those rights come from someone bigger and better than you and me.

To learn to preach to ourselves as opposed to listen to ourselves.

To acknowledge God.

To relentlessly pursue his blessing and perspective.

To extinguish terrorism.

To recognize that there exist multiple, organized, anti-Christian organizations that wish to bring us serious harm.

To seek God’s best for all people.

To be humble enough to pray.

To submit.

To do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit.

 

Again I ask, what mission could we join in on together?

 

As I look at the purpose articulated by current leadership — regardless of party affiliation — I don’t see much of the above.  Instead, it seems we have a plethora of “me first”…  “Party first”…  and a generous helping of “I know best.”

 

I don’t see a lot of humility, submission, and putting others before ourselves.

 

The reality, therefore, is that I don’t see a lot of community.

 

Respectfully…

AR

what’s wrong with this law?

What’s wrong with “Obamacare”?

 

Please.  Pause.  As always, the Intramuralist attempts to stand as a beacon of respect.  You, my friends, have done an excellent job at modeling your diversity of opinion without succumbing to the temptation of disrespect.  Far too many intelligent people continue to justify disrespectful articulation when the moment serves them well.  As best as possible, we strive not to fall so infamously far.

 

It is no secret that the Intramuralist is no fan of the Patient Affordable Care Act.  Having read the entire legislation prior to its passage, we found multiple enactments, which were are not only prone to government overreach but also social concern.  When healthcare is proposed as a “one size fits all model,” the underlying reality is that as the model evolves and impure motive sets in, perceived economic drains on the system will be extracted.  If we can ensure continued care for 100 at the same price as the one-time surgery of 1, why would we choose the 1?  Funds are not limitless.  Hence, economically, it makes more sense to care for the 100.  It’s the survival of the fittest.  It’s natural selection.  Is it moral?  Of course not.  But when a person actually reads the legislation, the embedded motive of moral behavior is ambiguous.

 

Do not allow me to suggest that I believe the creators of this law were motivated by impure motive.  I do believe, however, that as the law evolves, the exponentially increased potential for impurity exists, as money and power never fail to pollute policy.  At some point in time — with the wrong people in charge — I believe Obamacare will be a dire, iniquitous law.

 

Allow me, no less, to return to my original question:  what’s wrong with this law?  Perhaps you even question the basis for my question.  Here is the reason for my current pondering:

 

According to Politico and The Wall Street Journal, congressional leaders have been holding closed-door discussions regarding how to exempt themselves from the law.  When Politico broke the story last week, the conversations collapsed — obviously because of the complete lack of positive publicity.

 

Reports are that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initiated the discussions, although he denies such an account; he says he simply wants the law to be “workable for everyone.”  The loophole in Reid’s claim is that when the law was being crafted in 2009, Democrats repeatedly attempted to exempt themselves and/or their key aides.

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) had authored an amendment approved by the Senate Finance Committee that compelled Congress to partake, but yet, when brought to the floor by Sen. Reid, the bill’s language had been altered, exempting congressional aides and party leaders.

 

If this law is good, why are those who know what’s in it wanting to avoid it?

 

Oh, wait… I return to my original concerns about the bill…

 

Never mind the broken promises.  Never mind the poor P.R.  Never mind that when the town hall meetings got too tough, the town hall meetings were shut down.

 

Never mind that some Republicans seemed simply obstructionists.  Never mind that the legislation only passed through a partisan measure designed for the budget reconciliation process.  Never mind that premiums are now increasing and options for keeping existent care are decreasing.

 

This original, approximate 2000 page legislation was approved and opposed by those who never read it.  They never read it, yet they want to be exempt.

 

Hence, I ask again:  what’s wrong with “Obamacare”?

 

Respectfully…

AR

hmmm..

In all actuality, there are days the Intramuralist wonders the wisdom of what to publish.  We scan a sampling of the week’s headlines and editorials, yet quickly, we come across a slew of spewing that seems to make you go “hmmm”…

 

What do we write about?

 

Do we consider the nonpartisan Rasmussen Reports, and how…

 

“Confidence that the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror has fallen to its lowest level in roughly two years.”

 

Or do we pay any attention to a presidential photo op, as detailed by Politico…

 

“Tuesday morning, a peculiar announcement trickled out of the White House press office: President Barack Obama would be holding a moment of silence for the victims of the Boston bombings.  At the White House.  By himself.  No press or other intruders allowed.  Except the White House photographer.

 

That Obama assumed Americans would want an iconic photo of him privately mourning the victims of the bombings was emblematic of a kind of hubris that has enveloped the president and his White House as the president commences his second term.”

 

No, those aspects aren’t that important to articulate.

 

How about the news as reported by Salon…

 

“So I’ve found it a sad commentary on GOP rebuilding that there’s been so much talk this week about the likelihood and desirability of a Jeb Bush candidacy.  And apparently one influential Republican, his mother, Barbara, agrees with me.

 

‘He’s by far the best-qualified man, but no,’ the former first lady told NBC’s Matt Lauer when he asked if she wanted her son, the former Florida governor, to run for president. ‘I really don’t.  I think it’s a great country.  There are a lot of great families, and it’s not just four families, or whatever.  There are other people out there that are very qualified.  We’ve had enough Bushes.’”

 

Am I the only one who thinks we need no more family ties to the Executive Branch?  No more Bushes and Clintons or Kennedys and Obamas or anyone else who has already occupied the oval space…  Nope.  Love that Barbara Bush… love how agree with her or not, she never seems to hide how she feels.

 

What about the news from Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and his notion that the media enacts a double standard for Obama and Bush actions in regard to the situation in Syria…

 

“What’s the difference between weapons of mass destruction and weapons of chemical destruction?  One gives you an excuse to bash a Republican president.  The other an excuse not to bash a Democratic president.  Nevermind this president drew the line in the sand on mass destruction weapons.  Democrats were all over that former president for getting wrong what most of they themselves were convinced George Bush had right.  And now they aren’t saying boo to this president that his worst fears are right.  So now repeating, that president is bad for pushing us into a war most Democrats supported because it sure looked like Saddam had bad stuff.  In fact, they used bad stuff.  This president is not bad for ignoring his own threats of consequences.  Now that we know Bashar Assad definitely has bad stuff.  I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong.  What I am saying is the double-standard in the coverage of each is very wrong.”

 

Does there exist a double standard?  I can’t answer that question.  Just the pondering is confusing.

 

So what can I answer?  2 things this day…

 

One, I can see why many persons intentionally choose to pay no attention to the news; it could drive a person crazy (… just sayin’).

And two, some things will always seem to make you go ‘hmmm.’

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

the enemy among us

Extending the conversation from a wise friend in cyberspace, we were discussing the nation’s response to the tragedy in Boston.  We discussed Tuesday’s concept of whether or not we would simply forget the learnings after the “music fades,” so-to-speak, and return to our unfortunate, engrained, far-too-often divisive and defensive standing.

 

My wise friend made an excellent observation and then asked an even better question…

 

I am reminded, ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’  As long as we cannot come to some workable agreements on important issues among ourselves, it seems we leave ourselves vulnerable to destruction.   

 

My question is, without that tangible adversary, can we agree on what the ‘enemy’ to rally against is?  Is there a common goal that we can rally around without a tangible face of violence?  And even better than a common enemy, is there a unified love to rally for…?  Is there a common respect for the sanctity of life…?  Or is it ‘every man for himself’?  … each out for his own right to his own idea of liberty… her own idea of happiness.  Is there a higher standard we can agree upon?

 

Friends, just as a common enemy united us in Boston — going forward — what is it that propels us?  In other words, if a common enemy unites us like nothing else, who is that enemy as we continue forward?

 

I think we have two authentic, current challenges in this area:  we either deny the existence of an enemy — or we identify the enemy as someone who it’s not.  Allow me to respectfully share with you who it’s not…

 

It’s not the Democrats.

It’s not Pres. Obama.

It’s not the Republicans on Capitol Hill.

It’s not those who oppose gay marriage.

It’s not those for or against gun control.

It’s not the NRA, the ACLU, or any passionate, partisan advocacy group.

It’s not the teachers’ union nor Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin nor any other governor.

It’s not the academic elite.

It’s not even the uneducated.

And it’s certainly not any rhetorical 1, 2, or 17%.

 

No, it’s none of the above.  And until we recognize that, as a nation, we may forever be both polarized and paralyzed.

 

Who is our enemy?

 

It’s no longer the Soviets.  We no longer face a Cold War.  But we have to quit insinuating or proclaiming that the enemy is something or someone it is not.  Such may serve to net votes and drum up passion, but such is not wise; and such is not a process nor practice dripping of integrity.

 

In reality, the “enemy” can only be equated with one thing…

 

That one thing is not partisan…

That one thing is not an opinion…

 

That one thing is only one thing; it is evil.

 

The men who blew up the streets of Boston were motivated by evil.  Evil is prominent in more ways than we can ever know.  Evil is real.  Evil is the complete absence of God.  Evil is deep.  It dwells deep within the heart of far too many.  There is, no less, no such thing as any “lesser” of two evils.

 

That’s hard; it’s hard to specifically quantify.  But evil — yes, evil — as we are calling it what it is — is prominent in more ways than we know; we have to be willing to see it and say it, for that is our common enemy.  That is the enemy which unites us.  And that is what we must combat and God-willing, attempt to extinguish.

 

Respectfully,

AR

unchanged?

After the music fades, what do we do?  Where do we go?  How do we act?  How do we now converse with one another?

 

Do we simply go on with life as normal?  Do we forget the music even ever played?  Do we deny the song’s existence?  … even though we were changed by the content of the song?  What do we do?  … after the music fades?

 

I love the lyrics from Shaun Groves’ popular song…
Much more than just a melody.
Please take me and break me;
Right now God, I don’t want to leave Unchanged;

I never wanna be the same.

 

The key A-ha?  “I don’t want to leave unchanged.  I never wanna be the same.”

 

If we walk away from the week in Boston forgetting the murderous marathon… forgetting the fatalities… forgetting the horror… forgetting once again how a radical Islamic devotee desired to wreak havoc on American innocence…

 

If we walk away from the week in Boston forgetting not only the tragedy but the unity in the hours that followed… forgetting how so much of the piddly, weekly, stereotypical stories were put away for real news… forgetting how, as the President reminded us, we are Americans first… forgetting the common purpose… forgetting the common goal… forgetting the patriotism and shots heard ‘round the nation… forgetting the spontaneous celebration when the second suspect was apprehended… forgetting our resounding, obvious, corporate strength…

 

If we walk away from the week in Boston and forget, we will have failed to maximize the moment and learn from the tragedy.

 

It reminds me of one of my “Bible nerd moments.”  Yes, it’s true; I am affectionately what some may call — or at least, I call — a “Bible nerd.”  I recognize there’s tons of wisdom in that book — and there’s tons I don’t even come close to comprehending.  Hence, I am intentional in trying to understand.

 

If this lovable nerd was asked to sum up the Old Testament in only a few poignant words, I would simply suggest:  “Don’t forget.  Don’t forget about me and what I’ve done for you.”  We should never forget the reality of God.

 

If we forget what happened last week — meaning we go right back to our passionate, partisan, and often stubborn and selfish ways — we go right back to judging our brothers (even though we like to say we don’t) — we go right back to chastising and blaming as opposed to listening and learning — we go right back to the divisive crud so many espouse, proclaim, or defiantly repost — we go right back to carelessly handling all words of truth — then, I’m afraid, we will have far too soon forgotten.  Yes, we will have forgotten.  And dare I also conclude, radical, violent Islam will have once again won.

 

More of Groves’ song…

 

I wanna sing.  I wanna fly.
I wanna see from Your side of the sky.
I wanna love.  I wanna stay,
Wanna be close to You
Long after the music fades.

Lord, I come To give You
Much more than just a melody.
Please take me and break me;
Right now God, I don’t want to leave Unchanged;

I never wanna be the same.

 

Yes, “unchanged”…  that’s the word.  After last week in Boston, as a nation, I don’t ‘wanna be’ unchanged.

 

Respectfully,

AR