Category: Current Event

Posted on

best friends for a day

GBjvTQTou2D0KTHomMoA_IMG_1568

 

 

 

A little less than a year ago, I had one of the best worst weeks of my life… as nothing prepares you for the passing of a loved one. Nothing. The only thing that makes the unbearable pain bearable is a faith that is grounded in wisdom and hope — and speaks of something greater than the circumstances at hand.

My younger sister passed away early that Monday morning. My family and I had long planned to fly to NYC on Thursday, as my teenage son and his talented show choir were set to dance on the prestigious, Lincoln Center stage on Friday. Hence, the celebration of Nicole’s life was moved to Sunday, which meant much travel (and even more emotion) packed into a few short days.

Unfortunately that Thursday morning, the undesired occurred again; in our midwest city of often sporadic weather, we were experiencing a blizzard-like storm that included over 9” of snow. Perhaps minor for our friends in Boston and Colorado Springs, 9” can be paralyzing in Cincinnati.

With the storm extending across the entire East coast, flights were being cancelled by the minute; one by one, we would hear disheartening news of another show choir family unable to make this once-in-a-lifetime trip. For some odd reason, our morning flight took off, relatively on time.

Save for my grieving heart, the flight itself was fairly smooth — that is, until we approached LaGuardia. We were immediately placed into an hour long holding pattern, as the airport had closed in order to plow the runways. Unbeknownst to us at the time, after that hour, the airport had actually reopened, but the first Delta flight attempting to land skidded right off the runway, crashed through a fence, and came to rest with the plane’s nose extending out over the adjacent bay of water. Thank God no life-threatening injuries occurred.

Needless to say, our Delta flight was then told the airport was closed. With the storm intensifying and more airports closing, we wondered if they would return us home. After more delay, we were told we would be landing at Bradley International — although most of us knew not where that was.

Once landed (in Hartford, CT, no less), we found ourselves in a sea of stranded others… so many questions and confusion. Airline reps attempted to be clear; maybe busses would come; maybe they could get us to our desired destination sometime today. There were too many “maybes.”

Yet there amidst the hundreds stranded, we were given a blessed gift. Three other show choir families were experiencing the same flight and plight: two sets of parents, one set of grandparents. We recognized one another, but previous to this moment, I did not know them well. We huddled, put our minds together, assessing our options.

Deciding to take things into our own hands, we walked and talked. As a group, we shared all this unexpected, significant emotion… the challenge of being diverted… the fear of being stuck… the concern for our friends traveling alternate routes… the empathy for our friends no longer able to come… and the worry for our kids, who were separately en route. There was so much deep, dichotomous emotion — almost too much to handle.

“Too much to handle” for me was all this on top of what had happened earlier in my week. Thus, thrust together in Connecticut — feeling simultaneously totally overwhelmed and profoundly grateful — I couldn’t help but share the more prevalent feelings permeating my heart, that which happened before we ever took off. The way those men and women then reacted to the news of my sister’s death was beautiful… the tears in the women’s eyes… the immediate hugs… the questions, the sincerity, and the genuine concern… They loved this then semi-stranger in a way that was meaningful, authentic, and true. Any differences did not matter. They became, as I like to say, my best friends for a day.

Several hours later, we finally made it to Manhattan. The time included multiple phone calls, prayers, selfies in the abandoned baggage claim area, a drink in the pub, and then a two/three hour, at-times-treacherous but fun-filled van ride before pulling into Times Square near 5:30 p.m. As we each exited the van, saying “see you tomorrow,” we hugged one another, unspeakably aware of all the emotion the day entailed. Those friends will always be uniquely, deeply dear to me — what a beautiful role they serve… my “best friends for a day.”

FYI: Show choir season started again yesterday. I can’t wait for the months ahead. I love those kids… and it’s precious to be with your friends.

Respectfully… with great joy…
AR

Posted on

creating news

photo-1419107762371-d34cf8a2549a-1[First, a disclosure notice for all of our non-sports enthusiastists: stay with me; this is far more than a sports post.]

Yesterday my hometown Cincinnati Bengals played the Pittsburgh Steelers in the first round of the NFL playoffs. The Bengals have made the playoffs for the past five consecutive years. Only the Bengals, Patriots, and Packers have been to the last five postseasons.

In Cincinnati, leading up to this match up and all season long, the people have been pumped regarding postseason opportunities. We couldn’t wait! We’ve played well — albeit like every NFL team, losing a few games we wish we wouldn’t have or shouldn’t have — but it has been an excellent season of accomplishment. In Cincinnati, we’ve been talking about the growth of quarterback Andy Dalton, the development of backup A.J. McCarron, the stability of head coach Marvin Lewis, the talent of the running backs and wide receiver corps, and the strength of the entire team. It has been an excellent year. That’s in Cincinnati.

Outside Cincinnati, Dalton, McCarron & Co. are mentioned in the media — but such seems not the press’s primary focus. Outside Cincinnati, the media’s mantra is that there is no satisfaction in merely making the playoffs. Coming into yesterday, the Bengals had not won a game in the previous four years; in fact, they have not won a playoff game since January of 1991. That is the focus for those who do not live here.

Let me not suggest that those who live here are unaware of the record nor completely satisfied; my point (and this is where it becomes “far more than a sports post”) is that those who live here and those who don’t are focused on different things.

As recently acknowledged by the Intramuralist, we live in a contemporary news cycle that seems to create more news than it actually, factually reports. They assume angles and promote perspective that — while they may exist — may also not be the most accurate. They then promote their desired, chosen angle.

I am not suggesting that their angle is wrong.

I am suggesting, however, that their angle may not be of greatest significance to the people nearest the situation.

The media is creating the significance.

So my question is where else is the media promoting a perspective that is comparable to “outside Cincinnati”? … where are they creating news and promoting a perspective that does not resonate best with the people who are actually involved?…

… in regard to how they report on Donald Trump?…

… on Pres. Obama’s current leadership — negatively or positively?
… on climate change advances or consensus?
… on terrorism developments?
… on gun control lobbying and legislation?
… on Netflix’s “Murder for Hire” or Sen. Ted Cruz’s citizenship?

My point is that while news media may report fact, their presentation of the facts may emphasize angles that are out of touch with the people most involved. Media is choosing what angle to emphasize; we then are prone to respond to the emphasis — as opposed to the aspects of greatest significance to those who know the subject best.

Yesterday — granted, in a tight fought battle — yet for the fifth consecutive year, the Cincinnati Bengals lost in the first round of the postseason, this year to the Pittsburgh Steelers, 18-16. With all due respect to my favorite Steeler fans… daggone-it.

Looks like the media will have something, sadly, to still talk about.

Respectfully…
AR

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

mad

photo-1450849608880-6f787542c88aOver the weekend, a group of men took over the headquarters of a U.S. wildlife refuge near Burns, Oregon — a small city in the Eastern part of the Beaver State. The men are angry over the imminent imprisonment of two area ranchers who were found guilty of arson three years ago. The convicted men set a series of fires in 2001 and 2006, intending to protect their lands and cover up evidence of deer poaching, but one blaze went on to also burn 139 acres of federal property.

The ranchers were convicted by a federal jury in 2012. After a plea deal, one was sentenced to three months in jail — the other, one year. This past October, however, a U.S. district judge re-sentenced each man to five years in prison — even though their sentences had already been fully served. That judge — differing from the previous, presiding judge — felt the initial sentence was too lenient.

The men now occupying government property decided to protest. They are mad.

A couple clarifying, relevant notes: (1) the family of the convicted ranchers does not support how the protestors have behaved; (2) many of the protestors have come from other towns and other states; and (3) the convicted ranchers still turned themselves in to police custody.

I find myself pondering, no less, a Slate Magazine headline: “What in Tarnation Is Going on With All These Angry Ranchers?”

Let’s be clear…

They have a right to protest.
They do not have a right to federal land.

That is true of all the protestors we’ve seen in recent months…

People have a right to protest.
People have a right to voice their opinions.
People even have a right to rant.

They do not, however, have a right to destroy.
They do not have a right to threaten.
And they do not have a right to take someone else’s property for their own.

That’s the case regardless of the passion or protest — regardless of whom the protestors actually are… their agenda or any demographic category… be it in Burns, Baltimore, or some place of supposed higher learning, etc.

The protestors are mad. But their madness does not change what they have a right to do.

It does, however, sometimes change how we react. That’s the hard part.

We look at all these protestors — all these mad people — and while we may agree or not with the purpose for the protest, we sometimes allow our empathy for the person or cause to alter our acceptance of what’s right and wrong; we extend abundant grace to one but none to the other. We then too often find ourselves caught in the queasy quandary of believing it’s ok for some people to illegally occupy or destroy — but for others, it is not. That may say more about us than it does about them.

Yes, we can be a strange people… mad, if you will.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

here’s to 2016

IMG_5493 (3)After a year of atypical, ardent ups and downs, the Intramuralist and company set out to add some new experiences to our annual, end of year celebrations. Hence, this midwestern family of five found ourselves in the middle of Times Square as the ball and confetti dropped, ringing in the festive start to 2016.

It was actually fascinating; we had never done that before — “a bucket lister,” said one enthusiastic son. And so with an approximate 999,995 others, we did our best packed sardines imitation — albeit mostly without the odor and oil.

On one hand, the precautions were eye-opening in a “huge-A-Ha,” unfortunate way. We noted the thousands of police officers positioned to protect us; they were on every corner… in the streets… on the subway. It is a sad reality that such joy-filled public celebrations must now be guarded against those who set out to only destroy; the evil and terror has pierced our innocence. No doubt none in our family will soon forget the few officers thus actually armed with AK-47s.

Yet herded as we were into this unprecedented environment on NYC’s jam-packed 7th Avenue, there was something more eye-opening and encouraging than all the precautions, all the protection, and all who attempted to zap the joy of New Year’s Eve…

Picture this… picture the most crowded place you can imagine — a stadium, a massive conference room… people everywhere… with little room to do anything more than raise your arms with smart phone in hand in order to capture the next snapshot, chat, whatever.

But unlike such typical scenarios, where a crowd of massive size would be aware of varied interests and individual wants, needs, opinions, emotions, etc., we were all focused on the same thing; we were all excited about the same thing; we were all looking in the same direction — eyes focused — waiting and wanting for the big ball to drop.

Without a doubt, there is a inherently beautiful meaning accompanying the dropping of that New Year’s ball…

Instead of focusing on our differences and maximizing what we don’t have in common — noting that in an actual, estimated crowd of one million people, countless significant differences exist — we shared something greater. Indeed, it was far greater… so great, in fact, our individual differences did not matter…

… different genders, ethnicities, ages, faiths, etc. They did not matter. They were also not watered-down. Our differences did not have to be ignored or removed in order for the celebration to ensue. We were each excited about a celebration greater than self.

I was especially struck by my youngest son, that incredible kid who has never been disabled by his special needs. Note that previous to our trip, we had (sadly) cautioned him in regard to taming some of his typically more overt, overly friendly interactions in Manhattan. But sensing there was something different about this crowd — and people actually were interacting and were friendly — Josh said “hello” to an elderly New Yorker. Encouraged by a brief acknowledgement, Josh continued, “Hey,” he paused. “Want to be friends?” The man was first taken by surprise; he then lit up with a huge grin, articulating a hearty, warm Italian response, and said, “You just made my whole night!”


Our nights were each made — because our individual differences did not matter. We could simply, poignantly, “be friends.”

Oh, how I crave such… that we learn to accept and respect our differences — with no demanding-ness, no in-your-face-ness, no watering down nor need to force everyone else to “think like you/me”… no narcissism… no arrogance… no “mad-as-hell” rants or unattractive self-promotion…

It’s amazing what that big ball can do.

Here’s to 2016, friends… as we wrestle with our differences via respectful dialogue — always encouraging one another to grow.

Respectfully…
AR

 

Posted on

washing away 2015

photo-1418260555520-c1538e5c2df6Greetings, friends. ‘Tis time to say goodbye to another year. And while some years feel better to say bye to, it is my prayer that each is a year in which we can say we have learned and we have grown.

Some of the learnings of the past year have been challenging. Some of our experiences have been ones we’d like to forget; and some of the ways people have chosen to discuss what’s happening around us have been awful and disrespectful — albeit not here. Thank you for being committed to dialoguing with respect. Solution cannot come otherwise.

Since this blog began over seven years ago, we made a commitment to delving into all issues and ideas respectfully — knowing full well we would not agree on all things nor on all angles. Our growth comes not in convincing all others to finally “think like me,” so-to-speak; our growth comes through active listening, humility, and the willingness to be sharpened by persons other than self.

And so as another year washes away, my desire is to encourage you and thank you for being committed to that growth. It is my true privilege to pen these posts, interacting with you.

Also — in a bit of a foreshadowing teaser — I’m eager to share with you how we spent New Year’s Eve in our family. Alas, such shall wait for another day. 🙂

Blessings, friends. Allow me to take this time to wish you and yours a new year of deep peace and great joy… a year that isn’t quickly wanted to be wished away… and a year in which we each continue to grow.

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

sins of omission?

photo-1423477491197-ec2f29ac4d6bAt this time of year, some strongly suggest that there exists some so-called “war on Christmas.” Honestly, the Intramuralist has never been too keen on that idea; I’m not keen on utilizing the “war on,” politically-expedient terminology in any arena — save that which is actual war.

I do believe, however, there exists a vocal minority which wants no acknowledgement of the holiday…

… like at the University of Tennessee, where students and staff were told this year they were not allowed to throw any Christmas parties… “Holiday parties and celebrations should celebrate and build upon workplace relationships and team morale with no emphasis on religion or culture. Ensure your holiday party is not a Christmas party in disguise.” The university’s chancellor later apologized, recognizing a possible infringement of free speech.

… like at W.R. Castle Elementary in Johnson County, Kentucky last week, where kids were performing “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” but the school superintendent cut Linus’ speech because it contained a biblical passage. Linus speaks of the babe lying in the manger, then saying, “And suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host, praising God and saying, ‘glory to God in the highest, and on Earth peace, good will toward men.’  That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”

I don’t see either above as a “war.” I see it as… wait. Allow me one more current observation, first quoting that beautiful, beloved song…

Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me.
Let there be peace on earth
The peace that was meant to be.
With God as our Father
Brothers all are we.
Let me walk with my brother
In perfect harmony.

Let peace begin with me,
Let this be the moment now.
With ev’ry step I take
Let this be my solemn vow;
To take each moment and live
Each moment in peace eternally.
Let there be peace on earth
And let it begin with me.

A song so meaningful to many, played so eloquently often, this time of year. Microsoft even featured the hymn in one of their first TV commercials this month, billing it as a “special message” from their employees. They sang the entire song, entitling it: “Microsoft spreads the spirit of the season on 5th Ave.” The only problem is that they omitted the “with God as our Father” section of the song… uh, God would be the spirit of the season. (“That’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”)

That’s it. I understand that not everyone is convinced of the first coming of Jesus Christ. I get that; it’s not my job to play the convictor in the heart of another.

What concerns me, however, is our society becoming increasingly uncomfortable in acknowledging God and his rightful position in our society and in our lives. Christmas, Hanukah, and multiple other holidays are key moments when we acknowledge who God is and how as mankind we relate to him. Some instead want a removal of all acknowledgement. That, I believe, is dangerous. When we can no longer acknowledge God’s existence — when we spend more effort and energy on God’s omission than on our humble acknowledgement  — we have elevated ourselves to something we are not. We are also missing the meaning and spirit of the season.

December 25th is officially recognized as “Christmas” by the United States government; it’s one of only 10 American, federal holidays. Christmas is the commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

I respect both those who celebrate Christmas and those who do not —  those who wish to honor Jesus and those who do not. But sad is the day when the existence of God is omitted from the celebration.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

at risk society

photo-1445365813209-5ab6d8f397cb

As I sort through what’s most current in our conversation, I keep coming back to all the shouting going on. Truth is, I’m not all that fond of it. Someone, somewhere, says something seemingly foolish, and we are tempted to do primarily three things in response:

  1. Say something foolish back
  2. Lambaste an entire people group
  3. Attempt to squelch the speaker

I suppose, at times, we do all three.

With “the Donald” dominating the news flow, many have justified the disrespect right back… what an idiot… how stupid his supporters… he’s doing so much damage; someone please shut him up…

I get it. We want to stop the foolish speech. We don’t want to hear it anymore. We go so far to even question the embedded freedoms of the First Amendment. I thus sense an arrogance that disturbs me… in Trump… and in us.

It’s just that we are so good at thinking we are right. And when we think we’re right, we justify the screaming at others. We justify lambasting people groups. We justify not listening. And we subconsciously justify never being sharpened by different opinion. We have forgotten the good that can come from different opinion.

Let’s be clear: Trump’s idea of banning all Muslims conflicts with the religious freedoms also constitutionally embedded in this country. Trump’s perceived, specific, overly non-compassionate-toward-Muslims approach to dealing with the terrorists isn’t striking because it’s a popular idea; rather, it’s striking because it’s a direct contrast to Pres. Obama’s perceived, non-specific, overly compassionate-toward-Muslims approach. Trump tells us what new we need to do. Obama tells us what he’s already doing. (Ugh. Sigh. Fill in your exasperated uttering here.) My point is that neither approach seems effective. And yet, we jump on bandwagons, saying something foolish back, lambasting entire people groups, and eagerly wishing somebody would please shut up.

I tend to agree with a recent Washington Post editorial shared by a wise friend…

“…I am just as concerned about the destructive tone of the Trump campaign as I am about its demagogic content. How can you hear what someone else is saying, no matter how important, when you’re shouting? How can you bring people into a constructive search for solutions to our national problems when you do nothing but belittle them, and even suggest they are stupid, weak or corrupt?

A truly free society, one that gives its citizens the responsibility of participation, can function only to the extent there is civil discourse. We can engage in a mutual search for solutions only to the extent that we agree a problem exists. That can never happen unless we talk to each other, listen to each other and respect the fact that honorable people can reach different conclusions. When that sense of comity is missing, we are at risk.”

Friends, we are at risk. Most of us justify both the shouting and not listening to one another because we say “the other guy did it first.” It’s like which person chose not to listen first: then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, when he said his “single most important” goal was to stop Obama — or Obama, who pursued healthcare without working with a single Republican legislator? Tell me, truthfully: who’s the better listener and respecter of different opinion?

So I say it again: we are at risk. We are at risk because our leadership does not practice nor model civil, respectful discourse and solution. Do I blame Trump? No. While I’m no fan, I simply see him as the current most magnified manifestation of our lack of willingness to pursue a constructive, respectful search for solution.

I continue to wish for something better and more.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

inconsistent hate speech

525px-Speech_balloon.svg

The story seemingly gaining greatest steam in the wake of ongoing atrocity is the perceived hate-filled rhetoric of Donald Trump. I get it. He is a bold, straight-talker who says what he means and means what he says — sadly, unlike so many engaged in political narrative; the challenge is that some of what he says is ugly and disrespectful.

On one hand, so much of what Trump has said is not good nor true nor right; on the other hand (albeit a distinctly smaller hand at that), there is something refreshing about unfiltered straight talk.

Let us first be clear in regard to exactly the message that Trump has articulated that has currently dominated the news flow (yes, even more than Time’s interesting selection of Angela Merkel). After the San Bernardino killers’ identified connection to militant Islamic ideology, Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S., a proposal the Wall Street Journal labeled as one “that taps into voter anxiety about the recent spate of terrorist attacks yet likely runs afoul of religious freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.”

While his goal seems to be to eliminate the terrorist threat, few leaders of any partisan persuasion have embraced or endorsed Trump’s words. A resounding most have denounced his averred approach.

Trump proclaimed, “It is obvious to anybody the hatred [among Muslims] is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why, we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

I do appreciate recognition of the threat that adherence to militant Islamic ideology poses. The Intramuralist, for one, has been concerned about the unwillingness of some to specifically acknowledge the origin of the current terror, as it’s hard to root out the problem if one is unwilling to acknowledge what the problem actually is. Some (uh, not Trump) water the root down; some compare it to irrelevant organized religions; some make it about “extremism.” If we are going to solve the problem, then we must wrestle with the motive for this particular manifestation of extremism. Hence, while I will not affirm the use or encouragement of any hate speech, I will also not affirm the watering down of terror.

So about this hate speech — or shall we say — hateful, divisive speech…

Some words seem definitely hateful; some are more subjective; all is divisive. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders seemingly addressed it well…

“Throughout our history you have had demagogues trying to divert attention away from the real issues. This country faces some enormous problems… And somebody like a Trump is trying to divide us up… That kind of crap is not going to work in the United States of America.”

Ah, “divide us up.” Amen, Bernie… if only that kind of “crap” didn’t work; unfortunately, it’s already in play. Yes, too many, from too many supposed sides, already attempt to divide us up…

Trump advocated banning Muslims from America (note: people in the audience cheered)…
Hillary Clinton named Republicans as her number one “enemy” (note: people in the audience cheered)…
Then there are the examples of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, calling law student Sandra Fluke a “slut”… Obama senior advisor, John Podesta, calling the GOP “a cult worthy of Jonestown”…  and Organizing for America, which actually compared Republicans to “Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists”…
Such an incomplete account still omits the plethora of bipartisan comparisons to Adolf Hitler…  [Sigh…]

My point is that too many are too ok with division when it serves their purpose. Trump went too far; he forgets our commitment to being the land of the free and home of the brave. He, also, sadly joins the ranks of those who justify ostracizing an entire people group — when the entirety is undeserving but the rhetoric is self-serving. Such is intentional, divisive speech.

Divisive speech is common, deliberate, and disappointing. We are thus often inconsistent in our offense… and in our cheers.

Respectfully… always…
AR

Posted on

person of the year

IMG_5386Time Magazine will announce tomorrow their 2015 “Person of the Year.” Originating in 1927 with the selection of Charles Lindbergh (in an attempt to remedy the previous editorial embarrassment of not featuring the aviator on the front cover after his trans-Atlantic flight), each year the periodical selects a person, group, idea or thing that they believe has most influenced the news during the calendar year. Positive or negative impact is irrelevant; the selection simply signifies who/what has most influenced the news flow.

As mentioned by the Intramuralist in recent years, previous so-called “winners” include Walter Chrysler, Mahatma Gandhi, and Adolf Hitler… every sitting U.S. President except Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Gerald Ford… also, inanimate objects such as “The Inheritor” in ’66, “The Computer” in ’82, and “The Good Samaritans” in 2005.

So I’m pondering who may be announced tomorrow; many come to mind…

From foreign figures such as Francois Hollande, Vladimir Putin, and Bashar al-Assad… to surging new leaders here and abroad in Pope Francis and new House Speaker Paul Ryan… not to diminish entertaining individuals such as Abby Wambach, Tom Brady, and (“hello”) Adele…

Yet while each of the above significantly influenced the news flow in 2015, there are two selections I think stand out:

(1) The Candidate; and…
(2) The Terrorist

First, “The Candidate”… Some will clamor for “The Candidate” to be a specific someone. I’m not there yet. Allow me to share a small Intramuralist supposition…

Whenever there’s a personnel change for whatever the reason — good, bad, voluntary or involuntary — from a president to a pastor to any working professional — there is a tendency to over-emphasize what was perceived to be most lacking in the previous position holder when searching for someone new. For example, when Pres. George W. Bush was perceived by many to be too colloquial and casual in speech, candidate Obama’s eloquent oratorical skills became especially attractive.

With a personnel change occurring in the White House next year, we are again subtly assessing what characteristic seems most absent; it’s like taking advantage of the opportunity in front of us — albeit the over-emphasis can be blinding elsewhere. I see such in the current lure of two men in particular: the self-avowed Socialist, Bernie Sanders, whose authenticity has attracted multiple fans — and — in business mogul Donald Trump, whose straight talk entices many… even if that straight talk isn’t always true. The challenge is that when we over-emphasize what was previously most lacking, we miss important, necessary traits for the next office holder to possess. Hence, “The Candidate” could be our “Person of the Year.”

Second, “The Terrorist”… I really wish he/she/it wasn’t so deserving. There is no doubt they have dominated our headlines way too many times.

Persons connected with militant Islamic ideology have been wreaking havoc on innocent others since day one, month one, all of 2015. There was the massacre on northern Nigerian villages by Boko Haram, killing an estimated 2000 in January… the attack on Charlie Hebdo shortly thereafter… car bombs by al-Qaeda… mass shootings by Al-Shabaab in April… shootings, stabbings, suicide bombings, kidnappings, and decapitations by ISIS, ISIL, the Taliban, and more.

Let me be semi-subtle in my bottom line: “The Terrorist” has been too involved in the news flow.

With multiple attacks, the American public seems especially, increasingly irritated and angry that we have not made obvious, significant progress in halting these horrific attacks; the violence keeps happening. We struggle with what to call it. We struggle with what to do. Our leaders struggle. Should we be specific? Should we not? Should we change our strategy? Should we not?

Will “The Terrorist” continue to dominate? What would “The Candidate” say?

Perhaps only Time will tell.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

the only person left in the room

photo-1444047427283-88a67f631b3eAllow me a moment of total transparency: one night last week I got really mad at my spouse. I was really mad.

Earlier in the evening we were working through a challenging conflict with one of our sons. The son was not complying with our expectations. The situation was also not unfolding nor progressing in a positive way. It was frustrating, hard, and no fun for any of us.

As the conflict continued in absence of an immediate, foreseeable solution, my son left the room and my spouse and I pressed on with the dialogue. Yet with my son no longer present, I turned my frustration toward the only person left in the room: my loyal, loving spouse.

Oh, right. He wasn’t responsible. But in the moment, that didn’t matter to me. He hadn’t fixed the problem, even if my frustration wasn’t his fault. Still, it did not matter; I was really mad. I wanted the conflict to go away. So I justified my anger — no matter at whom it was directed.

Last week’s San Bernardino shooting was another gut-wrenching heartbreak. Once again, persons connected with militant Islamic ideology justified the intentional killing of innocent others. Across the country, we then reacted in different ways with different words, thoughts, passions, and stabs at solution. One aspect was obvious: the clear majority of us want the violence to stop. We want it to stop.

Chew on that for a moment… Whether an individual reaction manifested itself in a loquacious Facebook rant, a scathing newspaper editorial, or a call for increased legislation or military action, the bottom line is the same: we want the violence to stop. The repeated proclamation that “enough is enough” is a call for the innocent, evil killing to come to an end.

It is important, friends, to remember that we are not each other’s enemy. We are not the ones doing the killing. As much as we may disagree as to what to call the terror or what needs to be done to either diminish or eliminate the threat, it is truer still that we are not the enemy. We are not responsible for this evil exhibition.

And yet, we sometimes forget that. We forget that we are not responsible.

That glaring forgetfulness was obvious in last week’s New York Daily News. (Granted, it’s a paper struggling with declining readership, but…) In their sensationalized front page, they headlined the news with: “God Isn’t Fixing This.” Their subtitle read: “As latest batch of innocent Americans are left lying in pools of blood, cowards who could truly end gun scourge continue to hide behind meaningless platitudes.” They then featured multiple presidential candidates encouraging us to pray for the victims in California.

Then, too, came the flurry of copycat comments and proclamations — such as Gene Weingarten’s tweet from the Washington Post: “Dear ‘thoughts and prayers’ people: Please shut up and slink away. You are the problem, and everyone knows it”… or even the senator from Connecticut’s tweet: “Your ‘thoughts’ should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your ‘prayers’ should be for forgiveness if you do nothing — again”… or Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos: “How many dead people did those thoughts and prayers bring back to life?”… and still more who suggested we stop saying that “our thoughts and prayers are with you,” because as the rhetorical chorus imposed, our prayers aren’t working.

I have many sobering thoughts. Let me pose a simple, small few…

First, we are not divine beings; none of us are omniscient enough to know if or how our prayers are working. All we can conclude is that the violence has not stopped; no man can accurately discern the effect of the prayers.

Second, we must continue to remember that the clear majority of us — whether we lash out or stay silent — are disturbed at the violence. There is no need to judge the person who responds differently. We want the same thing; we want the violence to end.

And finally, when in our disgust, we turn our angst toward the sincere prayer of another — instead of focusing on the actual enemy — we resemble the conflict with my son and my spouse. We are yelling at “the only person left in the room.”

Remember that “the only person left in the room” is not the one responsible.

Respectfully… always…
AR