Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

the origin of the claim

Steven Colbert of the “The Colbert Report” is a comedic genius.  Most comedic geniuses, in my semi-humble opinion, are strikingly funny because there is an element of perceived truth in what they actually say.  The following Colbert quote (possessing possible, perceived truth) was in an attempt not to be so funny:

 

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”

 

Originally shared in December of 2010, the concept claimed by Colbert continues to gain traction.  It’s actually a fascinating concept.

 

Here’s the challenge…

 

There currently exists significant social policy in which the stated motivation is to help the poor.  The motive — at least that which is publicly stated — and which has been affirmed amidst these postings — is to abundantly assist the so-called “least of these.”

 

It’s a valid, compassionate motive.  How can we care — how should we care — for the lesser among us?  And perhaps the absolute best question that arises — in regard to the formation of actual policy — is how are we called to such care?  Is it an individual or a corporate, government calling?  Is it a natural outflow of our heart or an essential government mandate?

 

(… great question…)

 

What I find most interesting about Colbert’s claim, no less — dismissing the completely unsubstantiated facade that Jesus was selfish — is that he ties the call to help the poor to the person of Jesus Christ.

 

Let me get this straight…

 

Many of those who advocate social policy in which monies are usurped from the wealthy to go directly to the poor believe the act is exactly what Jesus has called us to do.  That, too, is an excellent question with which each of us should wrestle.

 

I wonder then what Jesus meant when he said, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

 

Obviously, if we were to follow the call and command of the Savior of the world — again not distinguishing between the individual, corporate, and/or national calling — we would not hesitate to generously feed the hungry and care for the poor.

 

Yet herein lies the challenge.  Many of the same people who passionately advocate for a feeding of the hungry and caring for the poor omit the origin of the calling.  Many will call for compassionate action, yet they will simultaneously omit the name of Jesus Christ.

 

Which is it?

 

Are we to feed the hungry?

… care for the poor?

And thus, too, are we to acknowledge where the calling came from?

 

Or are we to believe it’s wise to follow such a claim, without ever acknowledging the calling’s origin?

 

Fascinating… yes, fascinating indeed.

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

brothers

Pick your passion.  Go ahead.  Pick it.

 

What’s the issue that drives you?  … that you are totally passionate about?  … that you have such a strong opinion on that you are certain that no one — absolutely no one — could convince you otherwise?  You know this topic.  You feel strongly — incredibly strongly.  In fact, you feel so strongly, you believe you are incapable of having any aspect or perspective that is skewed — that is — dare I suggest — even, possibly, partially, wrong?

 

What is it?  What’s your driving passion?

 

… abortion… adoption… gay marriage… the defense of marriage… mandated healthcare… mandated prayer… mandated anything… responsible economics… environmental responsibility… individual responsibility… freedom of religion… freedom from religion… freedom… birth control… government-provided birth control… income inequality… education inequality… any perceived inequality… cloning… hate crimes… gun control… gun rights… securing our borders… securing the rights of illegals… racial discrimination… gender discrimination… religious discrimination… sexual preference discrimination… social justice… administering justice… drug abuse… disabilities… parenting… parenting teenagers… gray hair removal…

 

(… sorry, but after listing all those passions, for some strange reason, my growing gray hair came to mind…)

 

On Sunday — if we were paying attention to more than the food and the football — the estimated 108.4 million of us who watched the Ravens prove victorious over the 49ers, were treated to a wise lesson modeled by the brothers Harbaugh.

 

John coaches the Baltimore Ravens.  Jim leads the 49ers out of San Francisco.

 

The game was excellent.  After a soaring start by the Ravens, tamed seemingly only by an odd electric outage, the game was both competitive and close.  With less than 2 minutes to go and trailing by less than a touchdown, the 49ers had opportunity to finally forge ahead.  3 chances.  No touchdowns.  1 chance arguably remained.  On this fourth and final opportunity, the 49ers threw a fade into the end zone.  All eyes watched as a play of several seconds seemed executed in undoubtedly, slow, slow-motion…

 

Incomplete.

The ball fell to the ground.  Incomplete.  The Ravens could then hold out for the win.

 

But on that final 49ers play, the physical contact was significant.  Did the receiver push off?  Did the defense interfere?  Jim Harbaugh, the San Fran coach, screamed at the refs, throwing his hat in disgust, clamoring for defensive holding.  John Harbaugh, the soon-to-be-victorious coach, felt just as strongly that no defensive penalty was in order.  The 2 men disagreed.  No one seemed capable of changing either of their equally, incredibly passionate opinions.

 

The 2 men — the 2 brothers — disagreed passionately on the call.  Regardless of extent their passion, one good man won.  The other one lost.

 

The winner did not gloat in his accomplishment.  Even though he won the absolute, pinnacle game of his career, there was no public utterance of arrogance, of how he was better, how his team was better, nor what a big [bleeping] deal this was.  The “winning” brother was continually mindful that his circumstances still meant someone else’s loss; someone else he cared about passionately disagreed with what led to his success.

 

Don’t let the outcome also cause us to conclude that Jim Harbaugh (the Super Bowl’s losing coach) suddenly changed his opinion, acted as if it was no big deal, nor simply suggested he was happy for his brother.  Jim declined immediate post-game interviews.  When he did speak, he was very clear that he passionately disagreed with the call.  However, Jim Harbaugh was able to disagree without reverting to disrespect.

 

No gloating by John; no assuming he knows best.  No pouting by Jim; no assuming he is a victim.  The two men won and lost, while continuing to remember that people they cared about believed and felt differently.

 

Somehow we miss that…  We feel so emboldened in our “wins” and our “losses” that we seem to actually forget those we care about.  We forget that those who feel differently are not always evil, not always disrespectful, and (God forbid, probably) not always wrong.

We forget that we are brothers.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

life isn’t fair

Some of life’s greatest truths are told via the most clever settings.  (Maybe we listen better that way.)  From the witty 1973 novel that evolved into the movie, The Princess Bride, by William Goldman…

 

It’s one of my biggest memories of my father reading. I had pneumonia, remember, but I was a little better now, and madly caught up in the book, and one thing you know when you’re ten is that, no matter what, there’s gonna be a happy ending. They can sweat all they want to scare you, the authors, but back of it all you know, you just have no doubt, that in the long run justice is going to win out. And Westley and Buttercup – well, they had their troubles, sure, but they were going to get married and live happily ever after, I would have bet the family fortune if I’d found a sucker big enough to take me on.

 

Well, when my father got through with that sentence where the wedding was sandwiched between the ministers’ meeting and the treasury whatever, I said, “You read that wrong.”

 

My father’s this little old barber – remember that too? And kind of illiterate. Well, you just don’t challenge a guy who has trouble reading and say he’s read something incorrectly, because that’s really threatening. “I’m doing the reading,” he said.

 

“I know that, but you got it wrong. She doesn’t marry that rotten Humperdinck. She marries Westley.”

 

“It says right here,” my father began, a little huffy, and he starts going over it again.

 

“You must have skipped a page then. Something. Get it right, huh?”

 

By now he was more than a tiny bit upset. “I skipped nothing. I read the words. The words are there, I read them, good night,” and off he went…

 

All this was never explained to me till I was in my teens and there was this great woman who lived in my home town, Edith Neisser, dead now, and she wrote terrific books about how we screw up our children…  And I remember once we were having iced tea on the Neisser porch and talking and just outside the porch was their badminton court and I was watching some kids play badminton and Ed had just shellacked me, and as I left the court for the porch, he said, “Don’t worry, it’ll all work out, you’ll get me next time” and I nodded, and then Ed said, “And if you don’t, you’ll beat me at something else.”

 

I went to the porch and sipped iced tea and Edith was reading this book and she didn’t put it down when she said, “That’s not necessarily true, you know.”

 

I said, “How do you mean?”

 

And that’s when she put her book down. And looked at me. And said it: “Life isn’t fair, Bill. We tell our children that it is, but it’s a terrible thing to do. It’s not only a lie, it’s a cruel lie. Life is not fair, and it never has been, and it’s never going to be…”

 

“It isn’t!” I said, so loud I really startled her. “You’re right! It’s not fair.” I was so happy if I’d known how to dance, I’d have started dancing. “Isn’t that great, isn’t it terrific?” I think along here Edith must have thought I was well on my way to being bonkers.

 

But it meant so much to me to have it said and out and free and flying – that was the discontent I had endured the night my father stopped reading, I realized right then. That was the reconciliation I was trying to make and couldn’t.

 

And that’s what I think this book’s about. All those Columbia experts can spiel all they want about the delicious satire; they’re crazy. This book says, “life’s not fair” and I’m telling you, one and all, you better believe it… we’re not created equal…

 

Look. (Grownups skip this paragraph.) I’m not about to tell you this book has a tragic ending. I already said in the very first line how it was my favorite in all the world. But there’s a lot of bad stuff coming up, torture you’ve already been prepared for, but there’s worse. There’s death coming up, and you better understand this: Some of the wrong people die. Be ready for it. This isn’t Curious George Uses the Potty. Nobody warned me and it was my own fault (you’ll see what I mean in a little) and that was my mistake, so I’m not letting it happen to you. The wrong people die, some of them, and the reason is this; life is not fair. Forget all the garbage your parents put out… You’ll be a lot happier.

 

And yet we live in a society which continues to embrace fairness as a philosophy, arguably believing that such is good and just and will make people happier.  Fascinating. The challenge is that each of us have different gifts, different strengths, and even different weaknesses because we are not the same; we have not been created all the same.  And yet, there seem fewer adults willing to say it.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

hail to the victor… oops… wrong approach

The people have spoken in different ways.  Some this day are jubilant.  Others are deeply disappointed.  Friends, we don’t all feel the same way.  In fact, as previously posted amidst this setting, the candidates have spent much of the past year actually encouraging us to not feel the same.  In order to propel their individual candidacy — arguably advocating the end justifies the means — the candidates have intentionally divided the country in order to drum up increased passion for their agenda.  Here’s the problem:  the election is done, but the people remain divided.

 

Many will take to the oratorical airwaves to proclaim that there exists no division; in fact, one of the many things I appreciated about Pres. Obama’s acceptance speech Tuesday night was his recognition of our differences, but his added comments that “we are not as divided as our politics suggests” nor “as cynical as the pundits believe.”  Perhaps not as divided or as cynical, but the Intramuralist suggests that we will only not be that segregated if we are intentional in addressing this issue.  There is no way around it; we are a nation in which millions of boys and girls weekly stand up in their classrooms, affirming our existence as one indivisible nation under God, and yet, we haven’t acted like it for years.

 

So how do we become less divided or cynical?  How does the healing begin?

 

Perhaps if I had all of life’s answers I wouldn’t be as busy with this blog nor my self-amusing caricature habit (all right, I’d still be doodling those pronounced facial features).  But I have a sense of a few steps essential in our healing…

 

Step 1:  Start now.

 

Healing can’t wait until next month or next year or the next election cycle.  If we want to keep the division from assuming permanent root, we must begin the healing today.  Looking it in the eye.  Calling it what it is.  And making a commitment to seriously and soberly address the divisiveness.

 

Step 2:  Be empathetic.

 

If you’re like me, you found the initial 24 hours on Facebook and Twitter a bit overwhelming.  Some gloated.  Some complained.  Some announced their readiness to exit the country.  Others responded with ‘good riddance.’  The bottom line with each response — from those who both loved and loathed the results:  neither worked to understand the emotions of those who felt differently.  Instead of empathy, they chose arrogance.  Arrogance is never attractive.

 

Step 3:  Eliminate the following words:  “mandate” and “compromise.”

 

Many will claim a mandate…  “We voted.  We won!”  And quite true is that such is often the winner’s bold assertion and the loser’s rueful admonition.  Please remember the context of this post.  We are acknowledging a “divisible” state of America.  With an estimated popular vote margin of 50% to 48%, almost as many people voted for the victor as against.  Thus, to profess a mandate is not a process that builds unity; it will encourage further division.

 

Let the record also show that many others will claim the need for compromise.  While I was never fond of the President’s 2009 quip that “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won,” the reality is that Obama was victorious.  More voters supported him than Gov. Romney.  Hence, Obama should not be expected to always meet in the middle.

 

Step 4:  Listen.

 

Remember (as does my 15 year old) that to listen means to both hear and consider.  To only hear does not qualify.  To only hear and consider the likeminded also does not qualify.  To listen reveals an interactive, respectful process with those on all sides of any aisle.

 

And Step 5:  Be humble.

 

Earlier I mentioned that arrogance is never attractive.  I can’t say that enough.  Confidence is contagious, but arrogance is polarizing.  When career Major League Baseball stolen base leader, Rickey Henderson, declared he was “the greatest of all time — thank you,” did that make any feel better about his accomplishment?  My point is that humility is always more unifying than arrogance.  Allow me to be clear:  humility doesn’t mean silence nor submissiveness; it doesn’t equate to weakness.  Humility means joyfully being of one spirit, doing nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit… considering others… and looking to their interests.  It is not an abandoning of one’s own interests, but rather, it is a respecting of those who are different.

 

We do feel differently this day.  We are in need of leadership.  We have some tough issues to tackle in this democratic, debt-ridden, capitalistic, and freedom-driven society.  We are also in need of healing.  If we begin now, we can be that one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  It’s time to be intentional.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

pro-woman

Tuesday marks the 4 year anniversary of the Intramuralist… fire up!

 

I am excited not only about the election and our post that day, but I am also excited and honored and humbled and a little, truly blown away to acknowledge this coming week how far we have come — and yes, what the Intramuralist is still called to do.  It is a joy and a privilege to share these postings together — modeling respectful dialogue.  Thanks for being part of something bigger than you and me.

 

While Tuesday awaits, no less, I must initially acknowledge some of the many things that strike me; in fact, there is one development that continually makes me pause and ask, “What?  Really?  People said that?”

 

Over the past few months especially, I’ve noticed the evolution of a very specific rhetoric, a rhetoric that’s evident of something bigger — albeit a rhetoric that may well be the manifestation of foolishness.

 

Over the course of these campaigns, many times we have witnessed the promotion of a candidate being “pro-woman” or “all about women” or “the woman’s candidate.”  The identification suggests that one candidate is solely empathetic of how women feel, while the other candidate has zero in common with the feminine gender.

 

Here’s the zillion dollar, semi-subtle sanctimoniousness within that gender specification:

 

All women don’t feel the same.

 

Let’s be clear…

 

Do all men feel the same?

Do all children?  … teens?  … youth?

Does each demographic category feel the same about all issues?

Are all individuals equally passionate?

Do demographics extinguish individuality?

How about all Hispanics?

Or African-Americans?

Would it ever be appropriate to conclude that all African-Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, or caucasian Americans feel exactly the same way?

 

Of course not.

 

Unfortunately, I thus conclude that any messaging campaign suggesting that one candidate is “the candidate for all women” is inaccurate and arguably inappropriate, as the message doesn’t resonate with a significant portion of the female population.  Most of us have multiple female friends.  Believe me… they don’t all think the same way.

 

Wait… there is one additional, tangent, seemingly highly sensitive aspect of this argument… that is, that the pro-woman’s candidate is also often identified as someone fully supportive of abortion or perhaps more politically correctly (and extensively) stated, women’s reproductive rights.  In other words, because the stance implies the allowance for an individual woman to make all decisions regarding her own body, this is thus more empathetic of women.  The inherent inaccuracy, however, is that factually via the process of abortion, lives of women are also terminated.  Friends, this post proclaims no opinion on the wisdom of abortion; that is tough topic and one which we would never treat arrogantly nor insensitively.  What this post does suggest, though, is that to proclaim either above opinion is more “pro-woman” than the other is illogical.

Therein lies another attempt at persuasive rhetoric.  All women do not feel the same way.

 

As this election season winds down (finally, thank God), I am beginning to quietly resent this notion that all demographic categories are likeminded…

 

We feel different ways and believe different things…

 

… about abortion… about economics… about debt, unemployment, and entitlements.   We feel differently about the campaigns and their candidates.

 

My concluding sense is that the idea that one candidate could possibly be the candidate for all women is merely a rhetorical re-election ploy — just as if someone asserted themselves as the candidate for all men, all African-Americans, all college students or Californians.  So when we don’t all feel the same way, what do we do?  How is the candidate to handle himself?  … to arrogantly assume he knows best for an entire gender, race, or people group?  … or to tenderly and correctly handle words of truth?

 

We’ll see beginning Tuesday.  I wish I was certain the rhetoric would go away.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

driving the vote

In less than 10 days, this election will be over (… thank God, thank God, thank God…).

 

Shall we say it again?  (… thank God, thank God, thank God…)

 

(Note:  I kind of like to thank God.)

 

As previously stated, the Intramuralist will not be endorsing any candidate(s).  Our goal here is to respectfully and authentically tackle the issues — not to tell you who to vote for.

 

One of the issues that matters most to this semi-humble observer is the economy and our national debt.  Allow me to share only facts — absent all analysis…

 

Current national debt:  approximately $16.2 TRILLION

 

If this amount is divided into so-called “fair shares,” the debt amounts to approximately:

  • $52,000 for every person living in the U.S.
  • $136,000 for every household in the U.S.

 

The federal government continues to spend far more than it takes in.  Taxing the highest income earners at 100% does not significantly alter the accounting.  Hence, we borrow from foreign governments.

 

What does the government spend money on?

 

Observing each decade since 1960, as of 2010, 61% of U.S. expenditures are now allocated for “social spending” — our #1 expenditure and the highest this budget category has been in 5 decades.  Social spending includes income security (Social Security, welfare, etc.), healthcare, education, housing, and recreation.  In 1960, only 23% was spent on social spending.

 

During the first 2 years of Pres. Obama’s term — when he enjoyed a partisan majority in both congressional bodies, U.S. congressmen introduced 176 bills that would have reduced spending — but 2,480 bills that would have raised it.

 

[OPINION ALERT!  (Yes, this is a subjective comment…)  It’s far easier for the elect to spend rather than save.]

 

(… back to the objective…)

 

When Pres. Clinton entered office, the national debt was approximately $4.2 TRILLION.  When he left, the debt was $5.7 TRILLION (compared to contemporary presidents, this was one of the lowest nominal & percent increases; in fact, during Clinton’s last year in office, the national debt actually decreased).

 

When Pres. George W. Bush entered office, the national debt was approximately $5.7 TRILLION; when he left 8 years later, the debt was $10.7 TRILLION.

 

When Pres. Obama entered office, the national debt was approximately $10.7 TRILLION; as stated, after only 4 years, the debt is now $16.2 TRILLION.

 

Knowing that this is an issue that no president (save arguably Bill Clinton) has effectively addressed during his tenure, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was established by Pres. Obama.  Out of that commission, the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Debt Plan was proposed.  The plan — named after co-chairs Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, a former Republican senator and Clinton Chief of Staff, respectively — recommended multiple options to reduce our debt.  It has not been enacted.  In fact, over the past 3 years, the federal government has even operated without a budget.  Budgets provide accountability; that is also a fact.

 

The debt continues to soar.  There is no enacted plan to pay it back.  Hence, I return to my previous, subjective comment:  it is far easier to spend rather than save.

 

Is this pattern wise?  Can it be sustained?  If we continue to borrow massively, will our dollar hold value?  And if our dollar loses value, are we capable of even social spending?

 

This impacts the economy.  And yes, this will drive my vote.

 

Respectfully,

AR

 

 

[Utilized sources for this posting:  Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, U.S. Census Bureau, National Taxpayers Union Foundation, and www.presidentialdebt.org.]

Posted on

debating the football

Here comes the game again…  the lights are on… the stage is set… this should be interesting… the game of the night… the game of the month…

 

What will the refs be like?  … silent?  … deferring?  … biased?  Let’s hope not.  Replacement moderators just don’t seem all that effective.

 

Ah, blue for one team — red for the other.  Wait — there’s also some pink in there.  It is still October, National Breast Cancer Awareness Month.  The Intramuralist so appreciates how those on center stage still bring attention to someone other than self.

 

Ok, wait… here come the ground rules…  (Mr. Ref, they don’t listen to the rules; haven’t you noticed?  Haven’t you seen all that fighting at the bottom of the pile — all that scrapping and punching and grappling when the mics aren’t on?)

 

There went the coin flip.  The incumbent will go first.  (Nice posture, by the way, gentlemen… although too many stare downs on the line already… kind of creepy… what are they looking at — each other’s helmet?  … tie?)

 

Hmmm… the teams’ staring continues.  Strategists must have said, “You need to look right at the other team.”  Oooh… strategists must have also said, “Don’t look so mad,” but that one’s a little harder.

 

Keep your game face on!  Intimidate them!  But be sure to look confident and strong.

 

“I am strong,” the sigh seemed to say.

 

(Golly, that pronoun “I” came off a little strong there.)

 

Personal foul!  You can’t say that on television!  The world is watching.

 

Lining up again.  Next play.  Next question.  Here we go.

 

They are fighting… they are actually fighting!  Throw the flag!  Throw the flag!!

 

Ooops… there went the flag.  But once again, of course, the teams disagree on who the foul should be on.  They even disagree on what the foul should be about.

 

Unsportsmanlike conduct!  Yes, the whistle blows again.

 

Yikes, he was offsides there.  (Funny how they always deny it.)

 

Quit grabbing!  That’s holding!!

 

15 more yards… or was that seconds?  It’s hard to discern sometimes.

 

I, me, my, myself.

We hear that a lot in this format.  I’m stunned, in fact, at how much these leaders refer to themselves and their plethora of accomplishments.  Hmmm… I would think leadership equates to a little more humility.

 

Geepers… that sure seemed like an illegal block.  Then again, that can only be employed by the moder- – I mean, referee… that is, if the ref gets too involved.

 

A call for leadership… yes, I like that… responsible, ethical, knowledgeable, transparent, courageous, consistent, non-political…  humble, too… oh, wait… they aren’t that good at that.

 

Ah, invoking the name of those who’ve gone before us — those “Hall of Famers,” so-to-speak.  We can almost see the names on the back of the jerseys… J. Kennedy… R. Reagan… yes… invoke those names; it makes us feel better.  They also employ the names they believe will make us think lesser of the other team — or maybe that they’re a little weaker, less effective somehow…  J. Carter… G. Bush  (p.s. I can’t put of their other choice words in print).

 

Hey, teams, have you made any mistakes?  Can you admit it?  What personal fouls will you acknowledge you committed?

 

Are you kidding?!  We only acknowledge fouls that are visible and proven!

 

And that, my friends, is what’s wrong with Monday Night Football… I mean, the presidential debate… I mean, football…

 

Sometimes it’s hard to tell…

 

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

silenced

Perhaps you’ve noticed…  If you’re a fall football fan (and please don’t quit reading if you’re not — as I promise this message is not about sports), there’s been an unusual development that supposedly we’re not allowed to talk about… or at least those closer to the source have been silenced.  For example…

 

Two timeouts were given to the San Francisco 49ers, who had no timeouts.

 

A 20 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was given to the Washington Redskins, even though such behavior only merits 15 yards.

 

An Oakland Raider was hit in the head, helmet to helmet, which is illegal contact; the player was carted off the field and subsequently hospitalized; no penalty was called.

 

And last night the Seahawks beat the Packers on one of the most ambiguous, controversial, shakiest touchdowns ever called.

 

Pass interference has been constantly questionable.  Officiating has been completely inconsistent.  Incomplete passes have somehow evolved into fumbles.  In other words, far more than footballs have been fumbled.

 

As those of you who are sports fans are well aware, the NFL referees are on strike, having been locked out by the league.  Replacement refs are currently officiating games.  Note:  since most large conference college refs are bound to their conference, the replacement crews were recruited from smaller college divisions, the United Football League, Arena Football League, and — yes — even the Lingerie Football League.  These referees do not necessarily have the skill nor experience to do what we’re asking them to do.

 

We are asking them to officiate… to be in charge… to preside over an event in which large sums of money are involved… to lead.  But yet, they just don’t seem totally qualified.

 

Question:  what are we to do when leaders aren’t quite qualified to do what they’ve been called to do?

 

… to manage people?

… to oversee all operations?

… to comprehend the financial aspects?

 

Are we able to acknowledge weakness, especially when our leaders may or may not be qualified?

 

After week 2, with the replacement refs’ errors becoming more frequent and glaring, the NFL decided to step in, responding to the escalating complaints.  How did the National Football League respond?

 

Senior league officials called the owners, general managers, and coaches from all 32 teams, telling them that they expect better treatment for the referees; they will no longer permit the perceived disrespect.  NFL executive vice president Ray Anderson said, “We’re not going to tolerate it,” affirming that flags, fines, and suspensions are possible for coaches and players who violate this instruction.

 

Coaches and players cannot be disrespectful… even with questionable, inconsistent, and fumbling officiating.

 

At the onset of this post, I claimed this message would not be about sports; it’s not.  This is about how we react to ineffective — or unqualified — leaders.

 

In no sense would the Intramuralist advocate intentional disrespect; however, what strikes me in the NFL’s response is not so much the disrespect, but rather, the perception that the referees cannot be significantly questioned or disagreed with; their lack of qualification is not a permitted topic.

 

Such causes me to think of one of the more glaring challenges in leadership today, for leading has become more about rhetorical promise than actual capability.  We aren’t good about saying, “Here’s what I’m gifted at; here’s what I’m not.”  We aren’t good at accepting significant, challenging questions.  We love to speak of strength — but we rarely acknowledge individual weakness.  We don’t like to admit that one we believe in may not be thoroughly qualified.

 

That includes those that should or shouldn’t be in government — and those that should or shouldn’t be a referee… even in the lingerie league… especially at last night’s Packers/Seahawks game.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

heavy, heady, hard…

Greetings, friends…

 

Typical Intramuralist pattern is to go from one topic to the next.  We keep current with what’s current, making sure that we’re paying attention to what deserves it — and alas, not paying attention to what does not.

 

In the past 2 weeks, my sober sense believes there have been 2 topics that are too weighty to simply glance over in a few days.  After all, isn’t that what we’re already prone to do?

 

When a topic is too heavy, we tend to say, “Well, that can wait for another day.  It’s too much to think about.  It hurts too much”… or perhaps most common, “I’d prefer not to dwell on that.”  It’s easier to let the truth go.

 

When a topic is too heady, we tend to say, ”Well, that can also wait for another day.  It’s too hard to figure out — above my pay grade.”  We’d also prefer not to dwell on that.  It, too, is easier to let go.

 

Our challenge is that it’s always easier to let go; it’s easier to ignore the truth than to wrestle with it — and deeper still, to acknowledge any individual impact.

 

Frankly, I think that’s one of the reasons so many of us (and perhaps a larger percentage of non-Intramuralist readers) avoid the news; it’s too hard to pay attention to…

 

… it’s hard to turn on the news each night and see the fighting.

 

… it’s hard to witness the millions of persons who go to bed hungry each night.

 

… it’s hard to see the depth of despair, the perils of poverty, the foolishness, salaciousness, selfishness, impurity, and evil that are evident on this planet on a daily basis.

 

It’s hard.

 

And so when the Intramuralist, for example, initiates conversation on the core beliefs of Islam, I understand that’s hard.  Within the Qur’an, there is specific encouragement to fight against those who are unbelievers solely because they do not believe.  I realize that is not convenient nor easy to comprehend — and it would feel far better to believe something else — but that’s not what the Qur’an says; there is a definite distinction in the way Muslims are exhorted to treat believers and unbelievers.

 

That’s hard.  That’s heavy.

 

Perhaps too heady was our conversation 2 weeks ago entitled “16 trillion dollars.”  16 trillion dollars!

 

The outstanding public debt of the United States of America now surpasses $16,000,000,000,000.  In fact, out debt currently increases at a average, nominal rate of approximately $3.88 billion per day.  Another way to assess that massive amount is that with an estimated U.S. population of 313,521,685, each citizen’s share of this debt is $51,225.60.  In other words, your children’s and grandchildren’s share will be far higher if we do not work to pay this back now.

 

But… “I like all the entitlements… I like the free healthcare, contraception, retirement, and individual household candy bar machines!”  (… ok, so I’m kidding about the candy bars… they’d have fruit instead).  Liking the entitlements often prompts us to ignore the reality.  Why?

 

Because the reality is hard.  It’s also heady.

 

In order to be a wise people, we have to be able to wrestle with the truth… no matter what it is… how heavy… and how heady…

 

… also, no matter how it makes us feel.

 

Respectfully,

AR