Category: Current Issue

Posted on

the petraeus’s & sandusky’s

I had a tough evening with my youngest son the other night.  He’s 11.  He disobeyed.  And the reality is that he disobeyed disrespectfully and defiantly.  He announced that he would not do what he was asked — and he would not do what he knew was right.

 

“I don’t care!  You can’t make me!!”

 

And since I’ve been slightly maturing in my parenting (thank God!), I employed what has arguably evolved into one of my more effective techniques.  With disappointment in my eyes and thus no affirming glance, I closed the door and quietly walked away.

 

My son began to sob.

 

Actually, he sobbed for quite some time that night.  Those tears were hard to hear, always seemingly piercing my own heart and soul.  Yet I knew at least for an initial while, I needed to allow his tears to flow.

 

Why was he crying?

Because I walked away?  Because I was disappointed?  Because of no affirming glance?

 

While each of the above certainly had both impact and merit, none served as the cause of the cry.  My 11 year old bawled because he chose wrongly.

 

Josh was so grieved by his defiant-but-intentional choice of wrongful behavior, that he grieved his own iniquity.

 

“Why?!  Why did I do this?” he cried uncontrollably.  I kid you not; it was uncontrollably for quite some time.  Josh was bothered by his lack of virtue; he was dismayed by his willful wrongdoing.

 

After allowing the tears to flow for several minutes, I re-entered his room and held him tight.  At first I said very little, as the tears continued, but so did the outwardly, now cavernous contrition.  He was unnerved by the obvious fact that his wrongful choice came so intentionally and easily.  Part of me of wondered if he was shocked that he was actually capable.

 

As I finally tucked him that night, watching my budding adolescent fall asleep with swollen eyes and still with tears, I sat and wondered what I could learn… what each of us could learn…  When we make wrongful choices — so intentionally and easily — are we shocked that we, too, are actually capable?  Do we wrestle with our own wrongdoing?  Are we bothered by our own, manifest lack of virtue?  And are we dismayed?

 

Too often I think we miss that — we miss the growth that comes from individual, reflective wrestling because we instead surround ourselves with people who simply “amen” our experience and thus numb our negatives — as opposed to hold us accountable for both the wise and poor choices of our lives.  We are quick to shame the Petraeus’s and Sandusky’s, but far slower in examining any wrongful actions, motives, or thinking that takes root in our own hearts.

 

We live for the moment, allow emotion to trump truth, and often allow moral behavior to be relative with each evolving circumstance.  The challenge is that circumstances will always change; such is a perilous pattern.

 

As is no secret amidst these pages, my young son has Down syndrome.  Please — no sympathy necessary.  Josh has taught me more in life than I ever could have known without him.  He has taught me and stretched me in ways previously impossible.  There is nothing lesser about his life; there is only more blessing in mine and in so many others’ lives because of the joy and wisdom he so freely brings.

 

One of Josh’s many marvelous traits is that he doesn’t allow all the “crud of life” to get in the way — circumstances and emotions never interfere nor trump reality.  And the other night, when it was obvious he had made a wrongful choice, there were no excuses or exaggerations.  There was only the honest grief that he failed to choose wisely.

 

We continue to learn, as it is often the child that leads the adult well.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

dirtbags

We are such smart people.

 

Honest to goodness, I had conversations over the past 10 days in which someone actually shared exactly the following:

 

Obama is a narcissist.

 

Romney is a dirtbag liar.

 

Friends, you are each welcome to your own opinion.  I’m sure various factions of blog readers will affirm one of the above or the other; perhaps there exist some who adhere to both.  This post, however, has zero to do with narcissism nor the ability to articulate truth.  My questions this day instead center around us being such smart people.  How is it that so incredibly frequently, we claim to know with certainty the heart of another?

 

… narcissist…

 

… dirtbag…

 

Perhaps a large majority of you will disagree with me this day (and I’m ok with that), but I do not believe that any one man can fully discern the heart of another.  Leave the politicians out of it — because the reality is, being the smart people we are, we make these character judgments in regard to far more than the Obamas and Romneys of the world.  Yes, we may perceive a glimpse of the heart of another — via a leaning or lacking of integrity — but a glimpse implies an obstructed view.  We are not as smart as we think we are.

 

If we are authentically attempting to discern the character of another, my sense is we need to look for evidence of the following in the person’s actual behavior:

 

  • love
  • joy
  • peace
  • patience
  • kindness
  • goodness
  • faithfulness
  • gentleness
  • and self-control

 

And that’s pretty much it.

 

Again, feel free to disagree with me.  I’m ok with it.

 

Feel free to claim you do know with certainty the character of another that you have only witnessed from afar… the Obamas, Romneys, and people in your world… maybe even your neighbors.  And then I have to ask what those far away from you and me also may see…

 

… do they discern all that we are?

 

… have they witnessed the totality of our behavior that allows them to assert such a definitive opinion?

 

… is there any way possible one or two or even seven events could create a distorted opinion — an obstructed view — or hence, a limited perspective?

 

Yes, we are such a smart people…

 

… or at least we think we are.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

healing – part 2

As we recently marked the 4 year anniversary of the Intramuralist, I was reflecting on the diversity of our interaction.

 

Over our tenure, it’s been suggested this blog is too conservative, too liberal, too Christian, and too anti-Christian.  One person even once suggested that I wasn’t bright enough to run a lemonade stand (but he misspelled “lemonade,” so that made me feel a little better).  But it’s been fascinating to me that now that we average approximately 250 hits daily, different people can read the same thing, see the same thing, and/or hear the same thing, and yet walk away with completely contrasting perspectives.

 

In dialogue this past week, no less, I witnessed that same dichotomous response… to the blog… to the President’s acceptance… to the Governor’s concession.

 

And here’s what struck me…

 

It was not that I heard persons praise and pan each; it was that I heard Republicans and Democrats both praise and pan the President… both praise and pan the Governor… and well, somewhat praise and pan the objectivity of the Intramuralist’s posts.

 

The resulting take away was not simply echoing our initial post on how and when the healing begins, as we feel differently about the election’s outcome.  I gleaned instead this week that even all those who proudly identify themselves as “conservative” or “liberal” don’t necessarily feel or react the same within those identifications.  They can read the same thing, see the same thing, and/or hear the same thing, and yes, still walk away with completely contrasting perspectives.

 

While perhaps this is no news flash, what prompts me to hone in my focus is that the depth of our division and difference has the potential to serve as an added obstruction within our nation’s need to heal.  How can we move forward as one, indivisible nation under God when the differences are so deep?  … when even within our people groups our perspectives are different?

 

This is tough question.  And the reality is, I’m not sure I have all that great of an answer.  I can go back to one of our initial steps to listen — to both hear and consider — but I’m not convinced that’s enough.  After all, I had Rep. and Dem. friends who thought Pres. Obama’s acceptance speech was very good; I equally, also, had Rep. and Dem. friends who thought Obama’s speech was fairly awful.  People who seem likeminded often still differ in their perspective.

 

And so perhaps, if we truly wish to heal the deep divisions in this country, we need to do a little more than (1) start now, (2) be empathetic, (3) eliminate the words “mandate” and “compromise,” (4) listen, and (5) be humble.

 

Perhaps in this nation of free men, as Lincoln once quipped, we need to be a little more intentional in seeking to understand the perspective of another.

 

Now allow me to initially add a rather significant caveat…  I once heard a seemingly wise man say that he always learns the argument of another so that he can argue against it better and then magnify the illogical loopholes.  Something about that approach seems dishonest — perhaps impure.  My sense is we need to better understand the perspective of another not so that we can poke holes in their perspective, but rather, so that we can actually understand them… so that we can hear and “get” what’s most important to them, as opposed to allowing a wrong impression to take root in our own hearts and minds.

 

Yes, I believe that’s it.

 

In order to embrace our ‘one nation under God status,’ we don’t need to all agree on all things; we don’t even need to always compromise.  But we do need to care where each other is coming from.  For example, on the issue of caring for the least of these, some of my more liberal friends believe their conservative counterparts are heartless; simultaneously, some of my more conservative friends believe their liberal counterparts are ignorant of the lazy.  Instead of attempting to understand the depth of those perspectives on this issue and others, we far too easily sit back, make judgments, and then “humbly” consider ourselves so much wiser.

 

Part 2 of the healing process is simple to state:  we need to work to understand each other better.  We must be intentional.

 

Simple to state… pretty tough to actually accomplish…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

stormy

The pictures are heartbreaking — almost unbelievable.  As New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie remarked, “The level of devastation at the Jersey Shore is unthinkable.”

 

There have been multiple deaths, major destruction, and now massive need for clean up.  Extending along the coast and even branching eastward into Michigan, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, etc., the impact has been environmentally and economically huge.  Gov. Christie is right; the devastation is unthinkable.

 

So what do we do when unthinkable storms happen? … the seemingly unprecedented, natural disasters?

 

I suggest there exist two starkly different responses:  one rooted in arrogance — one, however, rooted in humility… two ways we respond when the unimaginable storms come our unfortunate way.

 

Allow me to suggest that the arrogance is often veiled; it’s an imperious approach that typically manifests itself within some form of blame — blame of another person or circumstance — but blame on something so concrete that potential disagreement is muted.  How can we disagree with a blame spoken with certainty?  How can we oppose a reasoning seemingly so concrete?  Yes, the arrogance guised as blame allows us to have an answer for the storm, even though reality often means the answer is at best ambiguous.

 

Almost simultaneously as Sandy destroyed our nation’s shores, multiple persons proclaimed that the concrete reason for the storm was climate change (also known as global warming or insertion-of-currently-most-politically-correct-and-or-convenient-noun here).  Former VP Al Gore, for example, wasted little time in labeling Sandy “a disturbing sign of things to come,” adding, “We must heed this warning and act quickly to solve the climate crisis.”

 

Now before proceeding with this posting, allow me to add a small but significant disclaimer:  the Intramuralist does not know whether or not climate change is fact.  I do not know.  I don’t know if it’s true or if it’s false.  Reasonable people disagree on this issue, and many of those most passionate on one side or the other are either agenda-driven or stand to personally benefit by the enactment of the argument.  Hence, I’ll say again:  I don’t know if climate change is true or false.  No one knows for certain.

 

What I do believe, no less, is that when we assume that climate change is the reason for a weather event, we are acting arrogantly.  Please… I mean no disrespect.  My point lies within the basis of the theory.  The basis for climate change is that dangerous weather events are happening due to changes in the Earth’s climate that have materialized due to man’s irresponsible behavior.

 

At first, such sounds fairly selfless — man’s irresponsible behavior.  Does that not sound selfless?  Where is the arrogance?

 

The arrogance lies within the focus; the focus is completely on man.

 

Within the climate change theory, there is zero acknowledgement of a potential divine being who may or may not have a purpose of which we are unaware.  There is no intentional corporate nor individual reflection that asks, “If there is a God of the universe — if he has allowed this — what could be the reasoning?  How, possibly, could this be part of any intentional plan?  Is there a reason?  A plan?  A consequence?”  The arrogance of the climate change theory is the assumption with certainty that we are the ones in control.  There is no submission to any God of the universe nor to anyone wiser or more omniscient than we.  Hence, true or untrue, I find the absolute blaming on climate change a veiled, arrogant approach.

 

But wait… where’s the second response to these storms?  … the one rooted in humility?  … the one that makes us feel a little better?

 

Watch how people now bond together… to clean up… support one another… and to love one another well.  To sort through the ruins… building each other’s houses… putting their houses back up on the rock… and encouraging those whose loss is yes, by all means unthinkable.  At times of crisis, the humbly beautiful approach is where we work side by side regardless of color or creed, income or demographics, or any potential disparity.

 

A wise approach to life’s storms means focusing on what binds us as opposed to what rips us apart.

 

Thank God… until Tuesday, at least.

 

In search of wisdom… always…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the extreme games

Last week I had a fairly tense discussion with my oldest son.  Yes, even in healthy families, heated discussions can and do occur.  “Heated,” however, does not equate to “unhealthy.”  Granted, it was not derogatory nor profane, but it was hard.  Neither one of us enjoyed it.

 

Nearing the end of now the definite argument — with disagreement fully, emotionally apparent — my son proclaimed (in the seemingly unending wisdom of adolescence), “You’re unreasonable!  You’re ridiculous!  You’re extreme!”

 

With that then perceived, concluding assertion, my son got out of the car, slammed the door, and walked up the drive to the house of his friend.  He never looked back.

 

I sat there cold… in the temp and the mood… frustrated that our dialogue had ended so sorely and sourly.

 

What was I to do?

 

For a moment I simply sat there.  Still.  A quick prayer.  Then I called him — but with no more need to argue in my voice nor heart.  “Come back to the car.  Two people who respect one another don’t end a conversation like that.”

 

He wasn’t pleased, yet he returned.  I then explained the following…

 

It’s ok for us to disagree.  In fact, throughout our relationship we will disagree more often; this will happen again.

 

None of us are exactly alike, and thus, none of us think exactly alike.  Two people who love each other tons still will think differently; they will at times disagree.

 

But how we behave when we disagree makes all the difference in the world.

 

Let me be clear:  Son, you are free to disagree with me.  I want you to grow.  I want your convictions to be your own.

 

But when we disagree, you are not free to call me ‘unreasonable,’ ‘ridiculous,’ or ‘extreme.’  Disagreement does not equate to any of those adjectives.

 

The rationale for utilizing those words is because if you can label me as something so negative or wrong or unworthy, then you never have to wrestle with what I say.  You never have to acknowledge that someone you love thinks differently.  And you never have to exert the humility it takes to acknowledge you might not have life all figured out.

 

I realize we think differently, but I am not unreasonable.  I am not ridiculous.  And I am by no means extreme.

 

My tone was gentle but firm.  It was not critical nor judgmental.  My bottom line was that just because we disagree does not give my growing teenage son the freedom to call me something I am not.  Yet then we both had a bit of an “a-ha”…

 

Calling people something that they are not is a practice far too many adults regularly employ.

 

This is not a tactic solely utilized by the American teen.

 

Good people will disagree…

 

… on politics…

… college football loyalties…

… even on the value of quilting, conservation, or “Connect Four.”

 

But when we disagree, we also do not possess the freedom to dismiss the other person as unreasonable, ridiculous, or extreme.  When we do so, we are the ones who look foolish; we are the ones who are stubbornly stuck; and we are the ones who refuse to grow.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

turning off the news

Oh, you’ve felt it, too…

 

Enough of it!  We’re through already!  Politics, schmolitics…

 

I am certain more than just a few of us are sick of the election cycle.  It hasn’t always been this way; it doesn’t have to be this way; and I pray it won’t remain this way.

 

Interestingly, I hear my more conservative-leaning friends blame the current president for this seemingly sad state of affairs.  I hear my more liberal-leaning friends blame his predecessor.  As a semi-humble current events observer (emphasis on the “semi”), I suggest that neither is wholly responsible; each administration has at times embraced divisive rhetoric and employed intentional negativity to pursue their desired end goal, but the Intramuralist’s clear sense is that Presidents Obama and Bush 42 only added to the increasingly, polarized state — a state that has many of us turning off the news, avoiding our Facebook accounts, and wondering how in the world we will unify after one more election.

 

As shared previously amidst these postings, the Intramuralist believes the seeds of polarization were sewn decades ago.  The majority of my belief was discerned when reading, Common Ground, a book co-authored by the very liberal Bob Beckel and very conservative Cal Thomas.  Endorsed by both the now deceased, liberal George McGovern and conservative Jack Kemp, Common Ground encourages each of us to (1) end partisanship, and thus (2) “save America.”  The book is insightful, especially for those of us whose blood continues to boil as we watch the Washington wrangling intensify.

 

Beckel and Thomas contend this corrosive culture began in the 1970‘s.  According to the authors…

 

The size of the federal government grew under both Democratic and Republican presidents.  These new agencies and departments created a substantial increase in government rules and regulations, impacting citizens and businesses alike.  The growth of governments produced cadres of political activists who would descend on Washington, demanding (and getting) access to policy makers.  Activists working for change were countered by an increase in the number of people who worked to protect the status quo.  The result was a tenfold increase in the number of lobbyists and lawyers…

 

Something else happened on Carter’s watch that would feed polarization.  Congress, especially the House, began to change the structure of committees.  Important committees, including Ways and Means and Appropriations, established subcommittees with new chairmen.  New subcommittees meant more staffers and congressional hearings, which meant more lobbyists and special-interest groups would descend on Washington.

 

These activists, lawyers, lobbyists, and special-interest groups possess personal motivations in regard to singular agendas.  Polarization keeps their agenda alive.  The problem is that it also promotes skewed perspective.  Ask Presidents Clinton and Bush 42, who, according to Common Ground, served as “Polarization’s Poster Children.”  Ask Ann Coulter and Arianna Huffington, whose careers have thrived on it.  Ask Rush Limbaugh and David Axelrod, who daily employ it.  Or ask Robert Bork, whose career was derailed by it.  Again, according to our liberal and conservative authors:

 

The Bork battle [Reagan’s 2nd nominee for the Supreme Court] rewrote the rules for future nominees.  No longer were a potential jurist’s qualifications paramount; ideology and personal issues were now fair game.  After Bork, no Supreme Court nominee would be as candid in confirmation hearings as Bork had been.  The Bork defeat, as much as any other event, helped launch a new era of “the politics of personal destruction.”

 

My point this day is that while Obama and Bush have embraced the division — in order to fuel their own election — the intensifying [and dare I suggest, foolish] division was not initiated by either.  They have perhaps used and abused the situation, although it did not start with them.

 

Politics, schmolitics…

 

I’ll go back to turning off the news, avoiding my Facebook account, and yes, wondering how in the world we will unify after this election.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

missing the coffee shop

I have this friend.

She thinks a little different than me.

She is, in fact, a reader of this blog.  I so appreciate her opinion!

 

But news flash:  her opinion is often different than mine.

 

Many a time my friend and I have met at the local coffee shop.  We have talked and bantered and chilled and sometimes conversed for hours.  Sometimes we’ve just laughed.  We’ve intentionally avoided no issue.  And never have we said, “Ok, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree,” because never has there been an issue we couldn’t talk about.

 

Do we always feel the same?

 

Of course not.

 

But on those issues when she’s felt one way and I’ve felt another, we’ve had the guts and integrity and courage and sincerity to say “tell me why you feel that way.”

 

And then we do this outrageous thing:  we listen.

 

Follow me here…  One of my teenage sons often attempts to tell me he’s actually, truly listening.  “I’m listening!  I hear you.”  To which I typically, semi-humbly retort, “To listen does not mean to simply hear.  To listen means to both hear and consider.”

 

My coffee shop friend and I both hear and consider.

 

The challenge in the way our political system has evolved is that far too many people are discouraging the coffee shop.

 

And even more discouraging is that the people most discouraging of the coffee shop are not people like my friend and me…  it’s not our families nor extended families… it’s not even our friends and social circles.

 

The persons who most discourage the coffee shop conversation?

 

The candidates themselves.

 

The candidates encourage division.  The candidates have something to gain from division.  Yes, you heard me correctly.  The current President of the United States and his primary challenger are intentionally attempting to divide us.  The more they can distinguish their differences and separate themselves from their opponent — the more likely they believe we are to vote for them.  And so they must vehemently frown upon coffee shop meetings.

 

You see the purpose of the coffee shop is to dispel impure notions and intentionally work at understanding different opinion.  Allow me to share a brief example…

 

On Thursday, last week Hollywood actress, Eva Longoria, tweeted to the world that she has “no idea why any woman/minority can vote for Romney.  You have to be stupid to vote for such a racist/misogynistic.”

 

Now let the record show that even though many are passionate in their opinion, there are no facts nor a majority of opinion that prove either Gov. Romney or Pres. Obama are racist or yada yada yada [insert disrespectful name here].  Hence, Ms. Longoria’s opinion is exactly that:  her opinion.  To say she has “no idea” how someone could possess an opinion different than hers tells me one primary thing…

 

Ms. Longoria has never spent time in the coffee shop.

 

How impure and disturbing it is that our candidates discourage what is good; they discourage what is good for their own, self-serving benefit.  That is foolish.

 

With less than 3 weeks until this country takes its next national vote, allow me to encourage what our so-called “leaders” will not… what fair-weathered Facebook friends may not… and what partisan pundits cannot…

 

Meet me at the coffee shop.  Good stuff happens there.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

incivility

Sunday’s top story from the Cincinnati Enquirer was entitled “The Insidious Rise of Rudeness.”  The publication reports…

 

Incivility no longer is just about being annoyed over petulant politicians, road rage, violent behavior at sporting events, intrusive cellphone usage, online abuses or TV shows that move the taste meter ever lower.

 

In a new Enquirer Poll, more than one in seven Greater Cincinnatians say they had experiences so bad over the past year that they actually ended a friendship.

 

Nearly 40 percent have encountered incivility in their day-to-day lives, and about one in five has experienced uncivil conduct in the workplace. More than a quarter admit to having been uncivil themselves, either deliberately or unintentionally.

 

Shocking?

 

The Intramuralist thinks not.

 

We live in an age where disrespect is not indigenous to innocence nor ignorance.  Many adults intentionally employ incivility as a justified response — typically based upon how they feel…

 

Such as the football fans in Kansas City who cheered one week ago when their starting (and poor-performing) quarterback lay motionless — with a head injury — on the ground…

 

Such as the sitting Vice President smirking and laughing at his opponent, Paul Ryan, even when the subject was so serious and sobering…

 

Such as the honks, hand-motions, and disrespectful comments or calls we each feel justified to make about other people — again, typically based upon how we feel…

 

What’s the cause, dare we ask?

 

According to the Enquirer’s poll, 54% of respondents believe politicians or government officials have been a significant cause; over 50% believe the media has played a negative role; 31% include blame for “ordinary people”; approximately 24% suggest young people are also part of the problem; and near 20% believe celebrities have directly triggered the changes in American incivility.

 

Dare the Intramuralist offer an additional potential cause…

 

Last week we shared some recent polling results from the Pew Research Center.  The article was entitled “Nones on the Rise.”  Within the polling data, we shared that now one-in-five adults identify with no religious affiliation.  As I believe well stated within our online dialogue, it is true that not all of the kindest, most giving people are found within the stereotypical church walls.  Yet there remains a problem.

 

If our adults and young adults are not in church, where do they learn morals and manners and the rules that are so-called “golden”?  Where do they learn about forgiveness and grace and the unconditional love we are to offer one another?  Can we assume that all parents will be teaching that love?  Or do morals and manners and all else that is good simply change with the times, allowing for emotional responses that are seemingly more justified in the moment?

 

… responses such as incivility…

 

I wonder.  I wonder if the insidious rise of rudeness has any correlation with the diminishing respect for religion.  Too much incivility is somehow seemingly justified…  justified by far too many, otherwise intelligent people.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

nones on the rise

On Tuesday, the following report was released from the Pew Research Center:

 

“Nones” on the Rise

One-in-Five Adults Have No Religious Affiliation

 

“The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a rapid pace.  One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.  In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15% to just under 20% of all U.S. adults.  Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6% of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14%).

 

This large and growing group of Americans is less religious than the public at large on many conventional measures, including frequency of attendance at religious services and the degree of importance they attach to religion in their lives.

 

However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way.  Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%).  More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as ‘spiritual’ but not ‘religious’ (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day.  In addition, most religiously unaffiliated Americans think that churches and other religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor.

 

With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them.  Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.”

 

Without thinking too extensively or deeply, the Intramuralist can easily conjure up a spontaneous ‘amen.’  Religious organizations have focused too much on rules and have been too involved in politics.  Religious organizations haven’t always been good at communicating the grace and forgiveness that accompanies the faith, and…

 

… but wait…

 

Not all “religious organizations” nor “religions” actually contain a doctrine of grace.  And regarding this massive involvement – this too tangled up in politics idea – not all religions respect a government separated from faith.

 

Fascinatingly, therefore, is the study of religion.  Only through objective study do we see that in Islam, for example, there exists no separation of church and state; that’s why many remain legitimately concerned about the rise of Islamic governance, as witnessed by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  Yet as we contrast the truths of Christianity, I see a call to respect both government and the faith.  I also see massive, unparalleled amounts of grace called to be applied… given to us… exhorted to give to one another.  Then arises a seemingly huge “a-Ha!” – observing that it’s typically some of the “religious” who are more unattractive than the actual “religion.”

 

Yet as I allow myself to think both more extensively and deeply about the Pew report, I find my “amen” quickly subsiding, unfortunately ceding to an instead, sobering sadness.  One in five.  That could be one person in our households.  Two or three in our extended family.  Five in our small business.  The people that we meet on the street each day.

 

So I continue with objective analysis.  It is then that I become uncomfortable with a promotion of government that in its embracing of constitutional adherence believes any mention of faith is inappropriate.  In other words, I wonder if our government’s often strict separation – as increasingly evidenced in the judicial branch – has swung the pendulum of moderation so far the other way that now not only is there separation between church and state, but we are to give no mention… no credit… no even remote acknowledgement that the God of the universe might actually have something to do with what’s happening on planet Earth.

 

And we wonder why the “nones” are on the rise…

 

I don’t have to wonder too much more nor too extensively nor deeply.  If as a nation, we cannot even mention the importance religion has played in this country, it’s no wonder we have trouble doing the same in our own lives.

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

yes means yes

So how do we do it?  How do we ensure that our ‘yes’ means ‘yes’ and our ‘no’ means ‘no’?

 

“And don’t say anything you don’t mean. This counsel is embedded deep in our traditions. You only make things worse when you lay down a smoke screen of pious talk, saying, ‘I’ll pray for you,’ and never doing it, or saying, ‘God be with you,’ and not meaning it. You don’t make your words true by embellishing them… Just say ‘yes’ and ‘no.’  When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong.”

 

Why do we have such a hard time telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

Or perhaps better said:  why are we so tempted to distort the details?

 

Wouldn’t we have more respect for the person who leveled with us — who didn’t attempt to manipulate the facts and therefore manipulate the impressions we possess?

 

As most of us are aware, last week was the first presidential candidate debate.  It was watched by an approximate 60 million people.  It has also been widely reported that Gov. Romney exhibited a clear, superior performance; in fact, according to Gallup, Mitt Romney won the debate by a jaw-dropping 52-point margin — the most resounding margin since the independent polling company began tracking debates 20 years ago.

 

Now let’s be clear, friends; there is no reason for Romney surrogates or supporters to initiate any attempt at a victory dance.  This was the first of three presidential debates and one vice presidential sound off.  This is also only one of many aspects and incidents that influence the eventual outcome.

 

And yet…

 

Instead of acknowledging Romney’s clear, better debate performance, several Obama surrogates and supporters attempted to steer the conversation elsewhere; they attempted to distort the details.

 

From Obama spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter…

“I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator because we had Mitt Romney.”  [… blaming the moderator…]

 

From senior advisor, David Plouffe…

“He [John Kerry, Obama’s debate preparer] couldn’t keep his pupil in the seat… We thought being an older, white rich guy, him and Mitt Romney would have a lot in common. We didn’t take into account that John married money, twice, and Mitt earned his through capitalistic thievery.”  [… blaming the debate coach…]

 

 

Campaign advisor, David Axelrod, blamed Romney.

Filmmaker, Michael Moore, also blamed John Kerry.

David Letterman blamed George W. Bush (with yes, his tongue semi-in-cheek).

 

But the most obvious distorter?

 

Former Vice-President Al Gore…

“I’m going to say something controversial here.  Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started.  Romney did his debate prep in Denver.  When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust. I don’t know…”

 

Yes, Al Gore blamed the altitude.

 

Friends, while many of the undecided were undoubtedly influenced, most of us won’t be voting for one candidate or the other solely based on last week’s debate performance.  But note to all:  please have the decency to be honest — to let your ‘yes’ mean ‘yes’ — to refrain from distorting the details in order to serve your own purpose.  “When you manipulate words to get your own way, you go wrong.”  That was obvious after last week’s debate.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR