what are you known for?

I threw a statement out here last week that I still can’t seem to shake. It’s something “wrestle-worthy,” as I like to say…

Are we known more for what we are for?

Or…

For what we are against?

I think that question is vital…

… vital for our relationships…
… vital for how we are perceived…
… vital for our sphere of influence…
… and vital for the peace in our very own hearts.

For example…

Are you known more for your advocacy?
… or for your opposition?

Are you known more for the teams you root for?
… or for teams you always hope will lose?

Are you known more for your acts of charity?
… or for your thinking that another does not deserve what they already have?

Are you known more for your thankfulness for what you have?
… or for your complaints about what you do not?

Are you known more for the faith you represent?
… or for the faith practices you outspokenly hate?

Are you known more for the cause of which you’re passionate?
… or for the initiative you desire to derail?

Are you known more for your friends on Facebook?
… or for those you’ve intentionally decided to “unfriend”?

Are you known more the people you love?
… or for the people you can’t stand?

Are you known more for your words of affirmation and encouragement?
… or for your sometimes vulgar rants of putting another in their place?

Are you known more for how you service others?
… or for how others inconvenience you?

I humbly ask…

What are you known for?

And where does what you are known for need to change?

Respectfully…
AR

religious veracity

Sometimes, it seems, we are quick to criticize what we don’t know — or rather, we judge behavior in which our perspective is limited. It’s as if we feel our limited perspective is enough to cast firm and stern judgment.

Note Sunday night at the Golden Globe awards. When talented actress Elizabeth Moss accepted her award for “Best Actress in a Drama TV Series,” she utilized her allotted time by honoring “all of the women” who were “brave enough to speak out against intolerance and injustice and to fight for equality and freedom in this world.”

Almost immediately (because the secular American public has for some reason concluded that this is an acceptable way to respond), Moss was harshly hammered on social media for her perceived hypocrisy. She was criticized because the 35 year old is a practicing Scientologist, and many believe that Scientology is an unjust, abusive, especially-oppressive-of-women ideology.

But it’s easy to jump on a bandwagon — via both criticism and praise. I would simply ask this: do we know what Scientology actually is? Besides visions of Tom Cruise jumping on couches in our heads, what do Scientologists believe? What’s at the core of their thinking?

Public promotions and statements from the organization provide nice-sounding offerings such as “the way to happiness,” “increasing spiritual awareness,” and making “life-enhancing improvements.” Let us also acknowledge the root of the religion, as it is not quite as publicized.

Scientology was created by L. Ron Hubbard in the 1950’s. While first publishing what he identified as a “science,” Hubbard later invoked a more religious approach, claiming to have uncovered the deep secrets of the spirit and mind. He professed to have been enlightened, and he also avowed that he had acquired knowledge that no other person has ever possessed, calling himself a “celestial mediator.”

Be aware that prior to establishing the religion, Hubbard was a career science fiction writer. Hence, among his teachings, armed with his fantasy and fictional vernacular, “Incident II” is included in the origin of Scientology.

“Incident II” is a far more ambiguous description of the actual teaching…

In knowledge gleaned only by him, Hubbard asserted that 75 million years ago, Xenu, the dictator of the “Galatic Confederacy,” brought billions of his people to “Teegeeack.” “Teegeeack” is what we now call Earth.

According to Hubbard, Xenu brought these billions in a DC-8-like spacecraft. He then stacked the people around volcanoes, and killed them all with hydrogen bombs. The immortal spirits of these aliens adhere to humans, causing spiritual harm.

This teaching is at the core of Scientology.

It’s important to look at the core teachings of any religion when attempting to discern what is good and right and true; they cannot all be good and right and true.

Who is the key religious leader?
What is the faith based upon?
How did it begin?

And key for me — especially when considering the veracity of Scientology, for example — is the onset of this religion unexplainably miraculous?

Or was it made up by man?

In order to verify any religion as good and right and true, we need to investigate the origin of a faith as opposed to simply observing the followers of a faith. Followers can be imperfect.

It’s important to comprehend the core of the thinking.

Respectfully…
AR

targeting

Undisputedly in our family, there’s been an excessive amount of football filling the TV screens as of late. Between the college bowl battles and professional teams jockeying for playoff position, our gridiron vernacular has been in frequent use.

There’s one penalty, no less, that seems to draw the ire — albeit also confusion — of everyone in the room… even from the less attentive, more casual fan…

Targeting.

To target means to “select as an object of attention or attack.”

According to the official rules of the NCAA [emphasis mine]:

“No player shall target and make forcible contact against an opponent with the crown (top) of his helmet. This foul requires that there be at least one indicator of targeting (See Note 1 below). When in question, it is a foul…

Note 1: ’Targeting’ means that a player takes aim at an opponent for purposes of attacking with forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or a legal block or playing the ball.”

Targeting is designed to limit dangerous hits. It is a selective assessment — a judgment call, if you will.

The penalty continues to drive fans crazy.

While few fans are thrilled with the accompanying player ejection, the controversy seems to exist because of the inconsistency in application. Remember, “when in question, it is a foul.” Different people — looking at the situation from different angles — will call different things into question.” And to be a foul, the situation only has to be questioned. The rule does not require a helmet-to-helmet hit (Intramuralist foreshadow: it doesn’t require any face-to-face, seeking-first-to-understand interaction either).

Observers are attempting to discern the motive or purpose of another. They are attempting to assess intent. And the only observation that counts in their binding assessment is what they visibly see.

In other words, we are making judgment calls based solely on what we see…

That means we are not getting to know those involved. We are not…
… asking good questions…
… asking hard questions…
… listening to all that makes that person tick…
… and we are not seeking first to understand…

We are making judgment calls instead.

We are judging purpose based on what we see, thinking that’s all that’s relevant.

What we see is relevant; but what we see is not enough. When we judge based solely on what we see, we omit unseen angles; we omit unspoken motive; we omit other important aspects, that we haven’t taken the time to understand, that take far more than intellect or experience to comprehend. We then end up making assessments that are inconsistent and potentially inaccurate, even though we feel we’re right. We’re convinced we’re right.

Why?

Because we saw it.

Face-to-face contact is necessary. Putting ourself in another’s shoes is necessary… so is listening… asking good questions… being humble, selfless and genuine in our response… resisting the temptation to judge from afar.

When we feel we can judge the purpose of another solely based on what we see, we adopt a practice which causes further controversy because it is selectively, inconsistently applied.

Respectfully…
AR

Christmas greetings

We tend to go, go, go…

And when we go, go, go, we may miss it when we step on someone else’s toes.

We may care not if we hurt or unfriend another.

We may not make the time that it takes to wholeheartedly listen to another, especially to the different.

We may not work whatever it is out.

And we may act as if the respect and love that all deserve isn’t all that necessary, when in reality, that decision may be more made because we go, go, go; we withhold love and respect because it’s easier, more convenient, or more something. It thus seems that such a decision is way more about us than it is about them.

We don’t have the time, take the time, nor give the time.

But at Christmas, we intentionally pause…

Even the Walmarts of the world close down.

We pause and take time for what’s most important…

… peace on Earth…
… goodwill to men…
… an o’ so holy night…
… and a star chased after for years, noting the miraculous hope it holds.

I continue to marvel about all that babe in a manger some 2000 ago means to us today… if we only take the time to pause and reflect… to consider its impact… what it means… and not to simply go, go, go.

Merry Christmas, friends. Today, Happy Christmas Eve!

Whether near or far, solemn or celebratory, may we reflect upon what’s most important… never sacrificing peace on Earth nor goodwill to any. May we be generous with our love and respect…

… to all.

Best wishes and blessings to you…
AR

social media’s exploitation

How do we keep what’s most important, most important?

It’s a question often asked in our household as we approach the holiday season…

How do we keep what’s most important, most important?

Perhaps we should first define what actually is most important?

Peace… joy… goodwill to all…

And yet we intentionally sacrifice some of the above.

I wonder why.

Last month Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, gave perhaps one reason why people too often seem to sacrifice what’s most important, especially relationship. We have made some things more important than our relationships with others. Note Parker’s somewhat concerning comments… [All emphasis mine.]

“When Facebook was getting going, I had these people who would come up to me and they would say, ‘I’m not on social media.’ And I would say, ‘OK. You know, you will be.’ And then they would say, ‘No, no, no. I value my real-life interactions. I value the moment. I value presence. I value intimacy.’ And I would say, ….‘We’ll get you eventually.’”

“I don’t know if I really understood the consequences of what I was saying, because [of] the unintended consequences of a network when it grows to a billion or 2 billion people and … it literally changes your relationship with society, with each other … It probably interferes with productivity in weird ways. God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains.”

“The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them… was all about: ‘How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?’”

“And that means that we need to sort of give you a little dopamine hit every once in a while, because someone liked or commented on a photo or a post or whatever. And that’s going to get you to contribute more content, and that’s going to get you… more likes and comments.”

“It’s a social-validation feedback loop… exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.”

“The inventors, creators — it’s me; it’s Mark [Zuckerberg]; it’s Kevin Systrom on Instagram; it’s all of these people — understood this consciously. And we did it anyway.”

This makes me stop and pause…

It makes me wonder if we’ve been duped… and not just duped into spending too much time and attention on our laptops and portable tech devices…

It makes me wonder if we’ve been duped into thinking this is a wise form of communication — representative of authentic relationship…

And when our vulnerabilities have been exploited — and we believe this alone stands as a healthy determination of friendship — and a rant or a rave is offered with no respect to its audience — or we’re uncomfortable with different opinion — we become more likely to sacrifice relationship.

We’ve been duped…

… and perhaps unknowingly sacrificed what’s most important.

Respectfully…
AR

Gronk, JuJu, etc.

Three professionals viciously hit others in their weekend work. Were they intentional? At least some were. Each initially suspended NFL player heard from NFL VP of Football Operations Jon Runyan…

To New England’s Rob Gronkowski, who launched his body on top of a down man, forcibly hitting him in the back of the head when the play was already over:

“Your actions were not incidental, could have been avoided and placed the opposing player at risk of serious injury. The Competition Committee has clearly expressed its goal of ‘eliminating flagrant hits that have no place in our game.’ Those hits include the play you were involved in yesterday.”

To Pittsburgh’s JuJu Smith-Schuster, who blindsided a linebacker, put him on the ground, and then stood on top of the defender he personally put into concussion protocol, gloating about his self-perceived accomplishment:

“You are suspended for the dangerous and unsportsmanlike acts you committed during the fourth quarter of last night’s game. Specifically, with 7:10 remaining, on a passing play to a running back, you lined up a defender and delivered a violent and unnecessary blindside shot to his head and neck area. You then ‘celebrated’ the play by standing over him and taunting him. The contact you made with your opponent placed the opposing player at risk of serious injury and could have been avoided. Your conduct following the hit fell far below the high standards of sportsmanship expected of an NFL player.”

And to Cincinnati’s George Iloka, who speared a still-in-the-air, opposing receiver dangerously in the head, potentially taking revenge for Smith-Schuster…

“On a play which began with 3:55 left in the game, you violently struck a defenseless receiver in the head and neck area. The Competition Committee has clearly expressed its goal of ‘eliminating flagrant hits that have no place in our game’ and has encouraged the league office to suspend offenders for egregious violations such as the one you committed last night.”

[Note: all three appealed their suspensions; only Iloka’s was reversed.]

Here’s the thing…

What each of the above did was wrong. It was bad behavior, poor judgment, awful, sinful, vicious, you-name-it. As one of my brothers said simply but profoundly, “If that happens on the street rather than the football field, it would be a crime.” That’s how violent each hit was.

So hence, the question…

Does being a Patriots fan keep us from seeing Gronkowski’s viciousness?
Does being a Steelers fan blind us from wrestling with the sad haughtiness of JuJu’s gloating after the hit?
And does being a Bengals fan make us think what Iloka did was not really all that bad?

In other words, does our loyalty impede our objectivity?

What about in areas more sobering and serious than football?

What about regarding the current focus on harassment, abuse, and sexual misconduct?

Does being loyal to a person or party keep us from seeing the viciousness?

Can we still wrestle with reality?

Or do we become a little more lenient, depending who the allegations are against, thinking it couldn’t have been quite so bad?

For the record, I root for the Bengals; Gronkowski is a key player on my playoff-bound fantasy team; and one of my besties is a diehard Steeler fan. Hence, I am significantly challenged here.

Our challenge, no less, should never diminish our objectivity.

Respectfully…
AR

gratitude… it’s good for our health

So this week I was challenged in the area of gratitude. I was challenged to be intentional in practicing it. Let’s face it. Grateful people are not grumpy people. And it’s no fun being grumpy.

Take not my word for it. Take Harvard’s…

Twelve years ago, three postdoctoral fellows who were concerned about the anxiety and depression that heart disease can set off designed the Cardiac Psychiatry Research Program at Harvard Medical School.

As reported earlier this year in the Harvard Gazette:

“Patients set for discharge attend an in-person training session and receive a manual with eight to 16 weeks of daily exercises. These exercises include writing letters of gratitude, performing acts of kindness, and reflecting on past successes. Participants also receive a weekly phone call from one of the program’s five trainers, who reviews the previous week, reinforces the positive message, and encourages exercise and other goals.

‘I try to emphasize gratitude: Think of three positive events during the week, small or large,’ said Carol Mastromauro, a social worker and trainer who has been with the program from the start. ‘I ask people to practice that if they’re sitting in a traffic jam. In a way, it’s kind of homework. Give yourself a breather, take a mini-vacation.’

The three studies conducted by the program so far have highlighted its ability to improve patient outlooks, Huffman said. Three more now underway are testing the link between a positive mental attitude and health.

‘What we’ve learned so far — small but important steps — is that if we ask patients to learn how to identify the good things in their life — write a letter of gratitude, imagine a better future, do acts of kindness — people with heart disease and other chronic illnesses are willing to sign up for the studies, willing to do the interventions and feel better when they do, with increased happiness, decreased anxiety, decreased depression,’ Huffman said. ‘We feel pretty confident about that.’”

Note the effects of a grateful life… identifying the good things… intentionally thanking and focusing on others… A grateful life may even actually help us live longer.

And yet, expressing gratitude for what we already have seems so countercultural to a society that is always pushing us for something “more”…

… more money…
… more success…
… more power…
… more offense…
… more influence…

But what would it change if we looked at what we had as enough?

What would it change — not that we need to stop striving, seeking, and finding — but what would it change if our focus was less on our stuff and less on our self but more thankful for what’s in our life and for others?

Isn’t that the reality?

Grumpiness is often self-focused.

I mean no disrespect, friends. I mean, I can be grumpy with the best of them.

But more often than not, when I am grumpy, it’s usually because of something I don’t like or I’m frustrated with or I’m mad about or choose to show no grace or patience or empathy for. Grumpy is thus often based on “me.” When I’m grumpy, I’m not generous with my gratitude… my grace either.

Today — aware of the holiday season ahead of us — why don’t we intentionally choose gratitude?

Sounds like it’d be good for our health.

Respectfully…
AR

what happens when we know the harasser?

On Wednesday many watched NBC’s “Today Show” anchor, Savannah Guthrie, struggle to maintain her poise as she announced the firing of Matt Lauer due to alleged sexual misconduct. Shortly after 7 a.m., Guthrie announced the termination of her professional peer and personal friend.

“… As I’m sure you can imagine, we are devastated and we are still processing all of this…

… We are heartbroken.

I’m heartbroken for Matt. He is my dear, dear friend and my partner and he is beloved by many, many people here.

And I’m heartbroken for the brave colleague who came forward to tell her story and any other women who have their own stories to tell.”

Guthrie was visibly, emotionally shaken.

In recent weeks accusations have been made toward many. Primarily toward men at this point, the alleged bad behavior knows no bounds, as its been accused in men of all ages, races, parties, etc. — even in men who have long claimed to be advocates for women.

One respected friend of mine, who has long professionally advocated for women and victims of abuse and domestic violence, was asked this week if she was surprised. “No, not at all.” For years she’s heard stories; for years she’s worked with victims. For years she’s been aware of the probability of kept secrets by our favorite anchors, actors, teachers, business owners, etc. Even by our friends.

That’s the challenge; is it not?

There is no defense for the man who harasses a woman. (True, there is no defense for the woman who harasses a man, but such is not part of the current cultural conversation.) But what happens, when the person who behaves badly — like Lauer and Guthrie — is known and loved by us?

What happens when we know them?

As Guthrie stated at the end of her announcement, “We are grappling with a dilemma that so many people have faced these past few weeks. How do you reconcile your love for someone with the revelation that they have behaved badly? And I don’t know the answer to that.”

Does knowing the person — and knowing them well — change anything?

It certainly does not change the lack of defense (… and on a total tangent, I’d really like to see our defense of the person not alter or be more or less grace-giving pending party affiliation or fear of losing that person’s potential vote… wrong is wrong is wrong…).

But here’s the challenge… There will be a “next.” There will be a “next” for Matt Lauer, a “next” for Kevin Spacey, a “next” for Harvey Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Garrison Keillor, and all those accused. There’s a whole list of accusations; granted, we don’t know at this point if they are all true. But if to the extent that the allegations are true and the abuser is repentant and remorseful — if they humble themselves and change from their wicked ways — do we allow them to have a “what’s next”?

Do we allow them to serve their time, so-to-speak, and then positively contribute to society once again?

Or are they now deemed incapable? … we’re simply done with them, and they just need to be quiet and fade into the backdrop of life so we never hear from them any more?

Or… (and this is a big “or”) does it depend on if we know and love them?

In other words, assuming individual repentance, do we only forgive those we know? Or do we forgive none of them?

This is today’s zillion dollar question, friends. And it’s a tough one. Please know, too, that forgiveness never equates to an absence of wise boundaries, an ignorance of consequence, nor pretending that the offense never happened. Forgiveness instead means we release our anger and resentment toward a person, recognizing how the fiercely holding on primarily only hurts us.

Are we selective in our offering and withholding of forgiveness and acceptance?

Or again, as Guthrie states, “… How do you reconcile your love for someone with the revelation that they have behaved badly?”

Respectfully…
AR

enemies no more

First published in 1928, German vet Erich Maria Remarque wrote “All Quiet on the Western Front.” The fictional account depicts some of the intense physical and emotional stress experienced by WWI soldiers, while also describing the challenging attempts to resume civilian life once back home. The book (and its sequel) was later banished and burned in Nazi Germany. I wonder if such was in part due to one of the book’s most powerful accounts.

As told by blogger Scott Higgins…

“Erich Remarque’s book, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’ tells of a remarkable encounter between two enemy soldiers during the Second World War. During battle a German soldier took shelter in crater made by artillery shells. Looking around he saw a man wounded, an enemy soldier. He was dying. The German soldier’s heart went out to him. He gave him water from his canteen and listened as the dying man spoke of his wife and children. The German helped him find his wallet and take out pictures of his family to look at one last time.

In that encounter these two men ceased to be enemies. The German had seen the wounded soldier in a new way. Not as an enemy combatant but as a father, a husband, someone who loves and is loved. Someone just like him.

This is always the path of peace and reconciliation, learning to truly see the other and in them recognizing someone just like yourself.”

For years the Intramuralist has advocated for what’s good and true and right. Reconciliation is one of those things. Few things are more powerful, moving, and contagious than reconciliation.

And yet we live in a society which increasingly justifies not reconciling. We live in a society that seems to instead justify adding to our personal enemy lists.

Last week “The View” cohost Joy Behar appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” in a seemingly sincere segment addressing the difficulty in conversing with persons who feel differently than she does about the current state of political affairs. Behar then averred that she did not believe supporters of Pres. Trump and opposers could actually find a way to live together. In the ensuing roundtable discussion, the cohosts and others seriously wondered aloud if such was even possible.

My heart saddens. Not because it’s about Pres. Trump; we could make it about another person and still find the same sort of heated division. The reality is that society has morally digressed so far that we now often see opposition as people we can’t live with… people we can’t speak with. We see them as enemy combatants.

We justify seeing them as combatants.

But what would it change if instead of looking at another as the enemy combatant, we saw the person differently?

What would it change?

We might not agree with them. We might still think they’re a little off. But what if we actually, intentionally looked at them differently — humbling ourselves long enough, seeking to love and understand — what would that change?

What would happen, if, just like the German soldier — who had far more on his personal vendetta list than most of us will ever have — if instead of seeing those who fought a different fight or came from a different angle — even militarily — what if we could see that person as… a father, a husband…

… someone who loves and is loved…

… someone just like us.

This is us, folks. If we could only realize that, wouldn’t we solve more? Wouldn’t we listen better? And wouldn’t we love better and more? Wouldn’t we also rid ourselves of some of the hatred that has unknowingly settled within our own hearts? It’s so deep and passionate we can’t always even tell it’s hatred?

That reconciliation would be so good, so true, and yes, so right.

It’s also always beautiful.

Respectfully…
AR

ok to discriminate against one?

Let’s juxtapose two different legal proceedings.

First, as reported by the progressive advocacy news site, “Think Progress,” in May…

“At last, Jane Meyer gets to celebrate a victory.

The former senior associate athletic director at the University of Iowa sued the university for gender and sexual orientation discrimination, whistleblower violations, and unequal pay. On Thursday, she was awarded $1.43 million in damages from a Polk County jury…

Meyer began working at Iowa in 2001, when she was hired by then-athletics director Bob Bowlsby as the senior women’s administrator. She was the second-in-command in that department, and Bowlsby gave her excellent performance reviews and indications that she would be able to run her own athletic department some day. But everything changed when Bowlsby left the school in 2006 and Gary Barta became athletics director…

At the end of 2014, Meyer gave Barta a memo outlining the gender discrimination she had witnessed and experienced in the department. The following day she was reassigned to another program at the university, away from the athletics community she loved.”

Second, as reported by the conservative commentary, Stream.org, a little over a month ago…

“Former college basketball star Camille LeNoir was hired to be a college assistant coach. However, the offer was rescinded when the school found out from an old YouTube video that she was no longer gay. Not only did she no longer identify as gay, she said it was a sin.

LeNoir’s former coach at New Mexico State University, Mark Trakh, offered her a job as an assistant basketball coach. But just two days before she was to leave for New Mexico, he called her to rescind the offer. Trakh informed her that he’d watched a 2011 YouTube video where LeNoir talked about basketball, sexuality and faith.

For most of her collegiate career, LeNoir was in a relationship with women. After college, LeNoir played basketball in Greece, where she was the top Point Guard of the league. It was during her time in Greece that she felt convicted to leave homosexuality…

Trakh told LeNoir to pull the video or she’d never work in the industry. ‘I felt the job was taken away because of my heterosexuality,’ she said. She’s now suing New Mexico State in a U.S. District Court. She said she was discriminated against because of her religious beliefs and sexuality. New Mexico State claims in court documents that LeNoir’s statements on homosexuality in the film would ‘have had an adverse impact’ on her ‘ability to effectively coach and recruit players who identify as LGBT’…

‘I never had a chance to talk to anyone, to share,’ LeNoir told The Washington Post. ‘It’s like they took this video and the fact that I’m heterosexual now and made decisions without getting to know the Camille six years later.’

‘I believe it was an injustice,’ said Camille. ‘A huge injustice.’”

So two women feel discriminated against…

One because she is gay.
And one because she is not.

Assuming the accusations are true (which has yet to be determined in the latter case), allow me a brief series of sincere questions:

Is discrimination ever ok?

Why would we be sensitive to only some injustice? Why would we be sensitive to only one of the above?

And, in our sincere efforts to love and respect some, why do we sometimes justify the victimization of someone else?

Respectfully… always…
AR