Category: Current Issue

Posted on

fairness (satire, too… oops…)

It’s not fair!  It’s a matter of fairness, and this is not fair!

 

I’ve decided to consider advocating for this fairness concept — this idea that everyone deserves a fair shot — equal shot — maybe even the exact, same shot… that we should all have the same opportunity — regardless of…

 

… ability…  gifting…  weaknesses…  strengths…  effort…  blessing…

 

This just isn’t fair!  We deserve to be the same!  “Equals should be treated equally!”

 

Call it fairness.  Call it justice.  Maybe it’s social justice, some would argue.

 

We live on the same planet.  It’s not fair that some have so much — and others — yes, us — have so little…  too little, I might add.  How can that be justified?  How can some stand so smugly by? … even cheering?  Cheering, I said!

 

That’s ridiculous!

 

Still even when the inequality is so stinkin’ obvious, the wealthy among us actually have the audacity to stand and cheer — almost as if they are unaware that the rest of us are also in the stands.  It’s as if they don’t even care — like we’re not even in the game.  They don’t care about the active discrimination.  They don’t care how little we have.  They must have no heart.  It’s all about them!  It’s simply not fair!

 

Monday night the University of Alabama football team won their 15th NCAA national championship.  The (semi-) Fighting Irish (based on their performance Monday night) claim 11 of their own championships — same as Michigan’s Wolverines and those tempestuous Trojans of Southern California.  But alas, my woeful, beloved Boilermakers — those prudent young men from Purdue — have won a grand total of zero.

 

Zero.

 

Zero.  Zilch.  Nada.

 

And here’s the kicker…

 

Because the Crimson Tide, Irish, Trojans, etc. historically fare so well, the best and brightest from the high school ranks prefer them over my precious Purdue.  Year after year, the best only get better; and the rest of us?  Well, woe is us.

 

It’s not fair.

 

So should we change the college football system?  Should we regulate it?  Should we limit the number of wins or good recruits allowed by Alabama football, UConn women’s basketball, or the talented men from Duke?

 

Or should we fight harder, recognizing that goal setting and hard work and even adversity are all worth something?  Should we actually wrestle with the wisdom embedded within the recognition that we weren’t all created with the same ability, gifting, weaknesses, strengths, work ethic, and blessing? …

 

Or do we instead focus on life not being fair?

 

Dare I add:  I can’t wait for the day — that incredible day — one day, someday, whenever it happens — when my Boilermakers win the national football championship — and convincingly smash that Alabama Crimson Tide.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

violent crime

In my quest to discern what is wisest and best, I stumbled upon a bit of a case study surrounding the “Windy City.”  Love that town!  As a young adult, many a day did we stroll the streets along Lake Michigan, somehow even embracing the cold, enjoying the sights, and taking advantage of Chicago’s innumerable offerings.  Chicago, so-to-speak, has always been ‘my kind of town.’

 

With the recent response to the shocking Sandy Hook shootings — and how that tragedy, for some, has created cause to ratchet up the gun control debate — I have perceived that far too many of us are unaware about the situation in Chicago.  Now allow me to first share that I have no engrained partisan stance in the gun control conversation.  I have no sword in this fight.  I am neither an NRA card carrying member nor an anti-gun advocate.  My what-I-believe-to-be common sense approach is that the Constitution allows for guns, and they should be responsibly utilized.  Hence, I seek to discern what is wisest and best.  That search leads me to Chicago, as society discusses prudent approaches to gun control.

 

Violent crime in Chicago — how should I say this respectfully — is awful.  Let’s be clear; that’s the Intramuralist’s opinion.  Allow me to now share the facts.

 

According to the New York Times, the total number of illegal incidents in Chicago decreased by 9% in 2012.  However, the murder rate rose 15%.  After 513 homicides in 2012, New Years Day 2013 was rung in with 3 more.*  Among “alpha” cities (municipalities considered significant in the global economic system), Chicago has the highest murder rate — more than double that of New York City and Los Angeles — also higher than Mexico City and Sao Paolo.

 

A potential knee jerk response could be a cry for increased gun control.  The irony is that Chicago already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

 

Friends, I would encourage you not to overreact on either side of this debate.  I would encourage you to refrain from adopting any engrained partisan stance; this is not a partisan issue.  The presentation of the facts above does not clearly communicate that gun control is unnecessary; but it also shows that increased gun control is not necessarily effective.  What the facts say to me — and again, in our pursuit of what is wisest and best — is that something else must be in play here; some other factor(s) is influencing crime in our country.  Do we honestly believe that if we remove all guns, then we would remove all violent crime?  That there would be no other way for the sick, perverse, or even evil mind to hurt innocent others?  That sticks and stones would somehow no longer be able to break our bones?

 

And so I ask, similar to my initial response in the days immediately following the seemingly unthinkable in Connecticut, what else is in play?  What else is a factor in why violent crime is far too prevalent in this country?  Could it be…

 

… the lack of complete care for the mentally ill?

… the muted attention and compassion for the mentally ill?

… the reasons for mental illness?

… the breakdown of the American family?

… the digression of societal values where sometimes “anything goes”?

… the ambiguity of absolutes in regard to what is right and wrong?

… the dilution of giving credit to the divine?

… the temptation to rely more on self and do away with the divine?

 

What else?  What else is in play?

 

Are we courageous enough as a country to acknowledge that this might be something more?  … that this might be something that increased legislation may be incapable of fixing? … that simply more or less gun control might not make a difference? … that we are actually talking about the wrong thing?

 

As seen, perhaps, in Chicago?

 

Maybe even in our kind of town.

 

Respectfully,

AR

 

 

* Note that the Chicago P.D. reported only 506 homicides in 2012; however, they base their statistics on the day the victim died, as opposed to the day the incident occurred.

Posted on

dysfunctional families

I know a family which facetiously claims to put the “fun” in “dysfunction.”  They’re a large family… with individual, unique skill sets, passions, and opinion.  Sometimes they share their opinions with one another respectfully, and well, sometimes they don’t.  But they’re “family,” so they are committed to working even the tough things through, challenging and emotional as they may be.

 

They’ve had a tough road in recent years.  There are days it at least appears that there is more that divides them than actually holds them together; it’s on those days that remembering they are family is especially important.

 

Like most families, while there exist multiple causes of conflict, the number one argument stems from managing their finances.  Yes, families fight — we fight — about money.  The dysfunctional family in question fights about money — seemingly, arguably, all the time.

 

Now prior to sharing more insight and analysis regarding this dysfunctional family, I must offer a semi-humble caveat.  Remember:  it was in the early years of the Intramuralist where one commenter strongly suggested I wasn’t “smart enough” to run a lemonade stand.  (Granted, it should also be noted that I took a bit of sarcastic satisfaction in the fact that the not-so-gentle gentleman misspelled the word “lemonade.”)  I share that to acknowledge that there exist different opinions on how to navigate via a family’s finances.

 

This dysfunctional family is in debt.  Massive debt.  What denotes “massive” is that (1) they have spent more than they have taken in for years, and (2) they have zero specific plan to pay it back.  After putting food on their table and paying the electricity bill, when they don’t have enough money to pay for their cell phones, kids’ gymnastic lessons, and/or cable TV, they simply borrow more money.  In other words, no one wants to go without something they already have; so instead of sitting around the family table, having an undoubtedly painful but necessary conversation about where they can and must save, the dysfunctional family only asks how to get their hands on more money.  My sense says there is no “fun” in that level of dysfunction.

 

Let’s be sure we give great grace to one another here, friends.  I mean, the reality is that this is hard.  We all would prefer to spend instead of save.  None of us like asking the question of “what can we do without” or “where can we cut?”  We are far more comfortable asking others to give than addressing our own sense of entitlement.  That’s true for far too many.

 

That sense of entitlement is an authentic challenge…  I need my cell phone… we need cable TV; have you seen how few channels come without it??… and exactly, my especially talented kid needs those added lessons!  The challenge is that we allow our wants to pose as needs, thereby hoping that no one would actually consider cutting something that has now evolved into perceived necessity.

 

In order for any family to become less dysfunctional, when discussing family finances, there needs to be an accurate assessment of the problem.  There needs to be a comprehensive acknowledgement of all that has contributed to the dire financial straits, as opposed to only focusing on the issues that my side of the family is most passionate about… the issues that my side of the family has prioritized.

 

We can’t simply keep borrowing.  We can’t simply quit spending.  It is very possible that the family patriarch may need to find a higher paying job or other members of the family might need to go to work.  But netting a larger salary or finding a better job will only equate to an applied Band-Aid if the spending problem is not seriously and significantly dealt with.

 

We cannot keep allowing our wants to evolve into needs — and then omit that evolution from our conversation regarding responsible finances.

 

Otherwise the family will remain dysfunctional…

 

… with no “fun” included whatsoever.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

diminishing Christmas?

As the shopping days dwindle and the ole’ familiar carols continue to play, I’m struck by a continuous topic in some circles this time of year:  is there a war on Christmas?

 

As posted previously amidst these pages, the Intramuralist isn’t into identifying something as war that actually is not.  In the past year we’ve seen the rhetorical rants regarding wars on women, teachers, unions, and coal, for example.  Truthfully, friends, the war terminology seems most employed when the goal is to drum up passion for like perspective.  War is war, and in my semi-humble opinion, it should never be treated as something it is not.

 

There do exist movements, no less, in which people work to diminish impact and influence.  Again, these cannot logically be equated with combat.  Therefore, the question this season is not whether there exists military combat on Christmas; the question is whether there exists an intentional movement to diminish the impact and influence of the Christian holiday.

 

We’ve discussed, past, eye-opening examples…

 

… such as in 2002, when New York City schools banned nativity scenes from their December decor but allowed for Hanukkah menorahs and Muslim stars and crescents…

 

… or how each year retailers, such as Sears, Target, Walmart, Best Buy, or The Gap have either avoided or been accused of avoiding the use of the word “Christmas,” opting instead for “holiday” and/or the watered-down “winter.”

 

The examples continue this current season…

 

… in Newhall, California, where residents of a senior apartment complex were originally told by building staff that they had to take down their Christmas tree because of the presence of Christ’s name in the phrase, “Christmas tree”…

 

… in Santa Monica, where a large-scale nativity scene has been publicly erected for the last 60 years, but atheists have long worked to halt any public, religious sentiment.  After a year long battle via courts and complaints, the Santa Monica City Council finally voted to prevent any and all religious displays on public property.  (Notice the diminished impact.)

 

… or even overseas… where in Brussels, Belgium, they omitted their popular city Christmas tree exhibit this year.  Why?  There were concerns that the local Muslim population would find it “offensive.”

 

Yes, in this sensitive, seemingly uncanny age of correctness, many institutions still choose to address the Christmas controversy (not combat) by paying equal attention to other seasonal holidays.  Typically, this means ample consideration of Hanukkah for those who are Jewish and Kwanzaa for those who are African-American.  What I find unique about these celebrations is the comparison of the holidays…

 

Factually speaking, Hanukkah refers to 165 B.C. when Jewish rituals — which had been previously outlawed — where reinstated as the Jewish people managed to drive the Syrian army out of Jerusalem and reclaim their temple.  Hanukkah is the celebration of this victory; previous to the late 1800’s, Hanukkah was considered a minor holiday.

 

Kwanzaa, on the other hand, is factually more of an ethnic as opposed to religious holiday.  It was developed by Dr. Maulana Karenga in 1966 as a way to celebrate and promote the African-American culture.

 

Christmas, no less, is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ, the Messiah, in whom hundreds of prophecies were consequently fulfilled.

 

In other words, in this uncanny age of correctness — with of course all due respect — when we attempt to pay equal attention to all holidays, we are comparing reclaiming a temple with honor for an ethnic heritage with the birth of the savior of the world.

 

As said at the onset of this post, I don’t believe there is any so-called ongoing war.  I don’t.  But it certainly does seem that the excluding of acknowledgement and the equating of holidays is an attempt to diminish the impact that if true, the savior of the world would undoubtedly hold.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

generous love

As I was once again tempted to count the shopping days left until the retail world’s biggest annual holiday, I was prompted to pause, challenged anew to focus on the actual meaning of this season.  I’m not sure I always get it.  Yes, I get that Christmas is far more than Santa and sleigh bells and egg nog and elves.  I get that it’s more than cookies and carols and those pied pipers and presents under our tree.  I get that.  I’m just not always certain I get or we get or even society gets the depth of what the day denotes.

 

Then I remembered the words of a contemporary wise man who suggested that this season is about generous love.  Not just love.  Not just generosity.  The meaning of the season centers around a love that is generous.  A love that is authentic and real.

 

As my pause prompted reflection, I couldn’t help but wonder where now on this planet we see evidence of that love… a love that is so big, unparalleled, sometimes overwhelming, often sacrificial.  A love that leaves a mark.  Yes, generous love leaves a mark.  That’s what I think neither we nor society gets.  I think we miss the mark.

 

So I interacted with multiple persons for whom that mark is obvious and deep.  This is what I found… this is what they said…

 

“Growing up I always told my mom, ‘I want to adopt children; there are too many that don’t have anyone to love them”… “Bottom line: we wanted to be parents and to raise a family.  We chose Ethiopia because we knew there was a need”… “I always thought people were crazy to adopt internationally, and now I’m one of them.  I was always amazed by the leap of faith I saw in those families, never expecting one day that was what God had in store for our family.”

 

Yes, I interacted with families who have chosen to adopt.  When reflecting on generous love, what other example comes closer to the concept than persons who have made the intentional choice to share all of their emotional and material resources with another?  … to forever alter their family?

 

“There was nothing about our situation that made this ‘make sense”… “$23,000 and almost 3 years into an Indian adoption, we got news that India had instated a Family Limit Law that we exceeded by far!  We had no recourse and no additional avenue to take.  We were even financially tanked”… “We once had plenty of things and money.  We once never worried about making a house payment or how much gas was.”

 

The giving of that love — that generous love — isn’t necessarily easy…

 

“There is so much loss and grief associated with adoption. My children grieve that loss at a very primal level”… “She has no medical history, no cute stories of her birth, no memories that we can relay of her earliest months”… “He longs to know his birth mom, and it is a great loss to him, a part of him that he finds as ‘unknown’… “Her very first experience was of loss and rejection”… “Her sadness often comes out as rage”… “People wonder if I am her mother — assume she is with someone else. Throughout her life, I have cringed when this has happened.  She is ours through and through, but there is this constant reminder that she is different.”

 

And somehow this tangible process leaves a mark…  on both the kids and parents…

 

“People tell me all the time how lucky my children are to have me.  I tell them that I am the lucky one”… “Adoption has helped me understand the depth of the love of God”… “My love for her is fierce!”… “I learned that God’s plan was way bigger than the little box I thought my life was going to be in”… “What I know now is that this family of mine fills my soul in ways that I can’t even articulate or understand.  I am blessed.”

 

There is something authentic in that blessing — something that speaks to the depth of the generosity and the vastness of the love.  Something that has more to do with the meaning of Christmas than any Santa, sleigh bell, egg nog, elf or present under the tree.  Those who have chosen to adopt — as seen above in families who adopted from Africa, Asia, the inner city, and more — typical kids, foster kids, kids with cognitive and/or physical disability — infants and teens — they have a powerful message, especially this time of year…

 

“We have embraced the sweetness of every color, every hair type, every body shape, every language, accent, and claimed it as our family.  We’ve learned to pick and choose our battles.  We know the Lord will only give us what we can handle. We are truly blessed.  This is family!!!  This is our family!  It has grown us immensely.  These kids have humbled us, sobered us, and taught us more about our faith than we ever could have realized.”

 

Yes, the blessing is real.  The mark is deep.  Generous love leaves a mark.

 

Respectfully… and today, also, humbly blown away…

AR

Posted on

ugg(h)s

(In our constant observation of wisdom — or lack of it…)  And then there was this…

 

“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington D.C. and came back with some bacon.  That’s what you do.  That’s what you do!  This is, uh — our people in an overwhelming way supported the reelection of this President, and there ought to be a quid pro quo, and you ought to exercise leadership on that.  Of course not just that, but why not?!”

 

Detroit City Councilwoman, JoAnn Watson, at an official council meeting this week claimed Detroit deserves a federal bailout — that would be the “bacon” — because they supported Pres. Obama.  They should thus get something in return.

 

(Note that “bacon” would actually, officially qualify as government “pork.”)

 

Watson’s perspective is not unpopular, friends.  She is merely one of the few who has stated her sense of entitlement out loud.

 

Truthfully, who can blame her?  I mean, we live in an entitlement society.  It’s not just the city, state, and federal levels of government.  It’s not just debt-plagued cities and states like Detroit and California who potentially believe they are owed particular benefits.

 

It’s a little more personal.

 

It’s in our homes and communities.

 

Now one of the great privileges of this blog is the opportunity to interact with several of you on a personal level.  I appreciate your insight and input, and I value dialoguing and learning from you, as you, too, observe the wisdom in the world around you.  Many of you are parents — and as I perceive, solid ones at that.  Several more of you may not be parents, but you are actively engaged in the lives of our youth.  You love these kids generously and sacrificially.  You are hands-on.  You are investing physically, emotionally, and spiritually in these children.  What investment will last longer?

 

But all parents and persons involved in the lives of our youth are challenged with a motive that may actually be initially good and true and right, but yet, the manifestation of the motive often plays itself out impurely.

 

We want our kids to have it better than we did.  We don’t want them to struggle.  In fact, we often want them to learn life’s greatest lessons via the least amount of pain.  We make sure they are well fed, well dressed, have the latest greatest stuff, and that they rarely have to go without.  The inherent challenge in that motive is that sometimes life’s greatest lessons are only taught via the pain… via the actual going without.

 

And thus, while our motive is initially pure, as it becomes distorted, we often find ourselves with kids who feel they deserve…

 

… the latest and greatest…

 

…Uggs, video game, apparel, anything by “One Direction,” iPod/Pad/Ped, etc., etc.  In other words, far more than “bacon.”

 

Perhaps our youth don’t demand it; perhaps they aren’t as loud or elementary as the dear Watsons of the world.  But still, we often buy it.  We want our kids to have what they want.  Yes, the line between “wants” and “needs” becomes very blurry when entitlements continue to increase.

 

Councilwoman Watson simply articulated what she wants; her passion would suggest the bailout is instead a “need.”  In our country’s growing — albeit often unaffordable — sense of entitlement, that should be of little surprise.

 

Sorry… I must run.  My son wants a pizza.

 

I said I’d get it for him.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

blaming the gun

At halftime of Sunday night’s Eagles vs. Cowboys football game, NBC host, Bob Costas, added a creative sort of commentary.  In reference to the weekend murder-suicide initiated by Kansas City Chiefs linebacker, Jovan Belcher — and quoting significantly from Fox Sports’ Jason Whitlock’s editorial column — Costas shared the following on national television:

 

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.

 

In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries.  Who knows?  Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend.  What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

 

In the coming days, Jovan Belcher’s actions and their possible connection to football will be analyzed.  Who knows?  But here, wrote Jason Whitlock, is what I believe.  If Jovan Belcher didn’t possess a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.

 

As typical of our seemingly oft hypersensitive society, cyberspace and Twitter’s tweets were active with both outrage and support…

 

Is it appropriate for a sports host to offer a politically-charged monologue?

 

Is it appropriate for Costas to speak of something other than sports?

 

And is it appropriate for the host to opine against what is actually a civil right?

 

Would other civil rights opposition be treated similarly on TV?

 

Truth is, while the Intramuralist wonders about Costas’ conviction, I don’t claim to know the answers to all of the above.  Costas consistently shares an opinion in his weekly segment; rarely, however, does the opinion have any political connotation.

 

Is there some truth in what Costas opined?  Possibly.

 

Is there also some truth ignored?  I would agree with that as well.

 

The gun control debate in this country is challenging.  The right to keep and bear arms is firmly implanted in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights; it is the law of the land and a civil right.

 

As with all “rights,” they are often used and abused.  Sometimes it seems the most grievous abuse — regardless of frequency — garners the greatest attention.  Jovan Belcher sadly, grievously misused his right.

 

The ignored truth, in my opinion, begins first with the impossibility for any to aver definitively — not even a respected long time NBC sports host — that Belcher and his girlfriend would actually be alive today if Belcher had not access to a gun.  Too often our society blames a thing or a circumstance as opposed to recognizing the foolishness of one man’s actions — as opposed to holding the responsible person responsible.  In other words, it was not the gun that triggered the murder-suicide; it was Jovan Belcher.

 

I wonder if the reason we so quickly and easily jump to blame the gun (or the thing or relative circumstance) is because it’s easier to control.  Maybe if we attempt to impose gun control, we won’t have to deal with the foolish ways some utilize guns; maybe if we attempt to limit free speech, we won’t have to wrestle with the foolish things some say.  If we focus on control of things and/or circumstances, perhaps then we never have to focus on the actual foolishness of some people.

 

And my sense is that the foolishness of some people is what’s most challenging to control.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

cliffhangers

Allow me to begin with a semi-sarcastic disclaimer:  this isn’t my favorite topic.  While the Intramuralist focuses on respectful opining and dialoguing about the inherent wisdom or lack of it within current events, to focus on what may appear to be merely economics (yes, a core requirement of both my college degrees) isn’t exactly my favorite thing to do.  The challenge, though, is that our nation’s current economic state — and how we got here, accompanied by the current rhetorical wrangling — is full of wise and foolish approaches.  It is thus time we, too, focus on the colloquial “fiscal cliff.”

 

For those of you who have yet to turn back on your news after all the election hyperbole, you may have missed the cliffhanger reference.  From ‘tweets’ to television, the airwaves are rampant…

 

“Does anyone realize the people who created the fiscal cliff are the ones negotiating to get us out?”

 

“We already fell off the Moral Cliff a while ago, which was the precursor to the Fiscal Cliff.”

 

Or my current personal favorite…

 

“Wonder how long Wile E. Coyote has been waiting with his giant anvil at the edge of the Fiscal Cliff…”

 

Friends, I cannot stress enough that if you are receiving your news from strictly a partisan source (i.e. Rush Limbaugh or Rachel Maddow), your perspective will be skewed.  The Limbaugh’s and Maddow’s of the media continue to cast all blame elsewhere, and in my opinion, neither exhibit the humility necessary on a consistent basis to wisely tackle truth.

 

We are not in this fragile fiscal state because of any one president named Bush or Obama, any war in Afghanistan or Iraq, or any entitlement such as health care or housing assistance.  We are in this fragile fiscal state for 2 basic reasons:

 

(1) For years, our federal government has spent more than it takes in.

 

And (2) For years, presidents and congress have justified the spending.

 

Now it is true that multiple aspects have impacted the frail economy… the wars were expensive; Obamacare is expensive; national defense is expensive.  Social Security runs on a deficit budget.  The post office, Medicare, and Medicaid all spend more money than they take in.  I often stand amazed observing lobbyists and special interest groups (and too frequently, the politicians to whom they donate money) loudly proclaim their passion for the entitlement from which they most, specifically benefit.  The time, friends, for passionate proclamations trumping fiscal soundness has come to a halt…  albeit the screeching halt at the end of a so-called cliff.

 

This cliff is the result of those in Washington (and the lobbyists shouting behind them) being unable to agree on how to solve reasons number 1 and 2 above.  When they could not agree on a responsible budget approach and debt limit over the last 2 years, legislators agreed to sequestration, the formal term for mandatory cuts to federal programs.  Hence, if congress and the administration do not come to an agreement now — and also, if they do not de-prioritize their passionate proclamations — $1.2 trillion will be made in mandatory cuts – half from the military, half from domestic programs.  Health, education, military staffing, and benefits will likely all be significantly affected.  All tax brackets may be significantly negatively affected.

 

Why not simply raise taxes?  Great question.  Some propose this passionately.  “Tax the rich; they can afford it!”  Others oppose it with seemingly equal venom.  “You can’t tax the rich; they’re the job creators!”  Yet regardless of whether or not a tax-em’-all-more strategy is economically sound and/or effective, the reality is that the sobering challenge still remains…

 

… the challenge is that raising taxes alone will not alter reasons number 1 and 2 shared above.  The federal government cannot keep spending more than it takes in; and it cannot keep justifying the spending.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

wrestling with the facts

Thank God the election is over.  Allow me to say that again…  thank God the election is over.  Also over, therefore, is the onslaught of political advertising, negative campaigning, and adults acting more like children.  Sorry.  That should not be inferred as criticism of any one person or any one party.  There is just something utterly unattractive about grown men and women desiring to lead and unite us who intentionally distort truth and employ rhetoric that is seemingly, purposely divisive.  Personally, I find that one of the most disturbing developments of the American political system.  What is good and true and right is often sacrificed for “what will get me elected.”

 

Multiple other developments were made manifest via the completion of the most recent election cycle.  For example, we witnessed arguably increased significance of both gender and race.  Also, as a nation, we began to discuss the fragility of a fiscal pattern that continuously spends more than it takes in.  And in an additional, unique development, for the first time, we witnessed a national normalization of Mormonism.

 

Whether given or denied your vote, the placement of Mitt Romney on the Republican presidential ticket prompted more positive publicity of Mormonism than ever generated by “Idol’s” Archuleta, talk’s Glenn Beck, Sen. Harry Reid, or by any of the singing Osmonds.  Many accepted Mormonism as a religion which is good and true and right.  And admittedly, Mormonism — also known as the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) — is marked by people who stereotypically lead an ethical, moral life.  Yet as is true with the Intramuralist, in order to discern goodness, truth, etc., it’s essential to wrestle with the facts.  Hence, we ask:  what exactly is Mormonism?

 

Let me initially suggest that no singular post could define all that the LDS Church believes, so allow me to briefly summarize what is significant but may remain less explored…

 

Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith in 1830.  Several years beforehand, Smith said he was in the woods as a teenager praying one day when he saw a vision in which God and Jesus came to him and told him his sins were forgiven, that contemporary churches “were all wrong,” and all creeds of Christianity “were an abomination” in God’s sight.  Smith was 14 at the time.

 

When Smith was 18, he said he was visited by the angel named “Moroni.”  Moroni would reveal the secret location of the “golden plates,” which contained divine truth that only Smith had the skill to translate.  The angel warned Smith not to show the tablets to anyone.  When Smith was finished with the translation, he says he returned the plates to the angel.  The completed translation was published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon.

 

Mormonism thus utilizes 4 primary sources:  the Bible, the sacred texts of Mormonism (which includes the Book of Mormon), additional writings by Smith, and the writings of church leaders, especially the church presidents who are now considered to be inspired prophets of God.  These create the foundation of their faith.  What’s in that foundation?

 

As with all faiths, it is significant to examine their perspective of God, a tenet from which all disciplines and doctrine flow.  Unlike Christianity and Islam, though, Mormonism teaches the existence of multiple (and many) gods.  They believe an infinite number of planets exist, each with their own god(s) who were once human and have since evolved into god status.  Smith once wrote, “In the beginning, the head of the gods called a council of the gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and (the) people in it.”  Mormons will often suggest that they are monotheists — believers in one true god — for since they live on Earth, Earth’s own god is the focus of their current human worship.

 

Consistent with that teaching — and perhaps what’s most notable yet least known — is that the Mormon Church teaches that individuals have to learn how to become gods themselves.  In fact, if a couple marries according to a Mormon ceremony (which only Mormons are invited to), and each lives an obedient life, the couple may then themselves attain god status.  This is central to the Mormon faith:  obedient humans are able to become gods based on their behavior here on Earth.

 

By all accounts, even before the Romney candidacy, Mormonism has become America’s most successful home-grown religion; started by Smith, they now boast a membership of approximately 15 million persons worldwide.  It’s contagious.  With the prioritizing of missionary work and moral lives — consistent with the persona portrayed by Gov. Romney — it is an attractive religion to many.

 

But let’s be certain to ask the tougher questions… is it good?  Is it true?  Is it right?

 

As always, no matter how attractive, wrestling with the facts is essential.

 

Respectfully,

AR

 

 

[Significant sources utilized for this analysis include:  The History of Joseph Smith, Mormonnewsroom.org, Newsweek, Pearl of Great Price, Probe. org, and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. ]

Posted on

israel

Perhaps you’ve noticed.  Violence is escalating in the Middle East.

 

True, there is a current truce, but the hostility is still glaring.  Even amidst a so-called “truce,” the animosity is obvious.

 

“Help us!  …This thing is getting worse!  The Arabic – Islamic nations see [the U.S.] as weak and further more they know our country is vulnerable and the attacks are intensifying as a result!  … Several large bombs and packs of explosives have been found in the past few days… Islamic Jihad is declaring responsibility for these attacks.  Hamas is blaming Israel for them.  What’s new about that?”

 

The reality, friends, is that thousands of miles away, it’s easy for us to pay little attention to what’s occuring in the Middle East.  We’ve got arguably tougher issues — at least things more pressing on our plates — items we’re currently more passionate about, and colloquially speaking, we’ve got seemingly bigger fish to fry.  Yet the truth remains; violence continues to escalate in the Middle East.

 

The Israelis and Palestinians are fighting one another.  The Jewish nation and the Arab nation.  Truth is, they’ve been fighting for a long, long time.  Hence, we must ask why…  why do they fight?

 

This is an ongoing struggle.

 

Is it about territory?  Yes.  Is it about religion?  Yes.  Do people disagree as to what the struggle is all about?  Also yes.

 

The reality is that after more than 50 years of war, terrorism, peace negotiation and human suffering, Israel and Palestine remain as far from a peaceful settlement as ever.  It’s not an easy fix.  Hence, as best as possible, allow me to attempt to explain.  This explanation is not full proof, but it’s an explanation given to children, as sometimes they ‘get it best’… getting it better than adults…

 

The area which Israelis and Palestinians are in conflict about is within the original British Mandate of Palestine of the 1922 League of Nations Palestine Mandate, which today is defined by the borders of the State of Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and the Kingdom of Jordan also called Transjordan…

 

In 1917, during World War I, Britain’s army took control of Palestine. The British government issued the Balfour Declaration, “viewing with favor” the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but also stating that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”…

 

In 1948 the British departed, the State of Israel was declared, and a number of Arab nations invaded Palestine.  As the pro-Israelis won the subsequent war, Israel became a reality.  Civilian unrest and military conflict has intensified in recent years in two Palestinian uprisings…  culminating in the Oslo accords.

 

The Oslo accords was seen as groundbreaking and a first step to a firm and lasting peace.  But after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (former Israeli Prime Minister) the peace process slowed down to a grinding halt. The Palestinians living on the occupied territories didn’t see their living conditions improve.  Additionally the Israeli settlements, from Palestinian view seen as one of the largest obstacles for peace, weren’t beginning to be withdrawn.  Instead their population almost doubled on the West Bank even if few new were constructed. This along with sporadic attacks from Palestinian militant groups and the retribution from the Israelis made the situation unholdable.

 

After the failure of the summit between USA President Bill Clinton, PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000, dubbed Camp David II, and in the wake of the controversial visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, violence erupted resulting in over 2,000 deaths to date. Certain [Muslim] Palestinian groups started a new wave of suicide bombers, people who load themselves up with explosives and detonate themselves near Israelis, often civilians, but sometimes also soldiers. In response, the Israeli army has reoccupied the West Bank enforcing strict military law, and sealed off the Gaza strip, imposing economic restrictions on the Palestinians. The Israeli security forces instituted targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, and destroyed the homes of suicide bombers’ families.  These things have lead to numerous casualties among civilians (mostly bystanders) as well as massive damages to property.

 

Massive damages.  Massive.  People blaming one another.  Friends, it is always easier to blame someone else than to take responsibility for oneself.  To claim one side to be completely pure would be nothing less than naive.  We have more to discuss here.

 

So can these nations stop the fighting?

 

Great question.  It’s not an easy answer.  Too much is getting in the way.  At least for now…

 

Respectfully,

AR

[Intramuralist Note:  Special thanks to www.encyclopedia.kids.net.au for significant content in this posting.]