Category: Current Event

Posted on

lies

All parents of teenagers will tell you one thing:  sometimes teenagers lie.

 

Don’t get me wrong.  The Intramuralist has nothing against teenagers (save the added gray hair most of us adults seem to too easily acquire when a new young teen blesses our household.)  At some point, no less, they will lie.

 

It’s not that they’re bad or compulsive liars or even young persons who will seemingly be scarred for all of adulthood.  It’s not that they’ve developed an incapacity for truth nor a fondness for the frequency of fibbing.  No, in fact, I believe there exist multiple reasons for the deceit.

 

One, we might not like the truth; we might disagree with what they did and why they did it.

 

Two, the truth might make them look bad.  Who among us likes to look bad?

 

And three, sometimes it’s just easier to lie.  The truth can be too complicated.  In order for another to fully understand, there may exist too many details or too much complexity; hence, lying is simply easier to articulate.

 

The challenge, though, exists in what happens — in how we respond, what we believe — in interactions after the lie.

 

After a situation in which — regardless of reason #1, 2, or 3 above — in which our teens tell a lie, does that deem them never truthful again?  Does that make them incapable of telling the truth?

 

Of course not.  They probably still are typically more truthful than not.

 

Does that mean, though, that we should doubt everything they say?

 

Of course not.  They still have things to share, and we still need to listen.

 

But does it put their credibility in question — especially when the topics are trickier, the situation is more sensitive, and/or the potential consequences are more severe?

 

Of course.  Deceit and duplicity may be their default response when the circumstances become too intense.

 

And so I must ask:  what’s the difference between a teen and an adult?  Is it only teenagers who sometimes lie?  Is it only the immature?

 

Is it only teenagers who sometimes hide the truth because a significant rest of us might disagree? … because it might make them look bad?  … or the truth is too complicated?

 

I think one of the hardest things for us to wrestle with as adults is trusting the person who once has lied; harder still is trusting the person we believe has lied, even if the proof of their intentional fabrication was ambiguous at best.  That could be a grandparent or person in government.  It could be a person we know well or simply see on the news.

 

My point is this, friends…  “Once a liar, always a liar” is not a wise proverb.  The reality is that even a person who sometimes lies, still — most likely — tells the truth more often than not.  It’s not that the person who lied can never be trusted again; the challenge, though, is that his or her credibility is damaged because we can’t discern the exact moment of deceit.  The unfortunate reality also is, that “Lie once, lie again,” may be a wise proverb.  We simply don’t know when that lie will come again.  When the circumstances are more serious and the potential to look bad skyrockets, the potential for deception also increases exponentially… no matter the intelligence of the person… no matter a grandparent or person in government…  people will sometimes lie.

 

Sometimes teenagers lie.  And yes, so do gray-haired adults.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

a concerned citizen

Today the Intramuralist shares an interesting observation.  I’ve noticed something.  Put away your partisan hats.  Squelch any innate motive to passionately pounce.  Follow me here…

 

Each of us likes to claim we are honest and full of integrity.  Most of us believe we actually are honest and full of integrity.  But even the person who is not will still stake such a claim.  Sometimes they are aware they are not but they know the claim looks good/sounds good/is good.  Sometimes they are not aware.  And friends, intelligence has zero to do with the awareness of integrity.  As oft repeated amidst these posts, wisdom and intelligence are not synonyms.  I have a son who has Down syndrome, and while he may not score as high on some intelligence tests, he has incredible wisdom.  Wisdom is by far more important.

 

So I continue to wonder why administration after administration stakes the claim that they will be the most ethical… most transparent… and most responsible executors of government.  And I continue to wonder why administration after administration is not the most ethical… most transparent… and most responsible executors of government.  Again, no partisan pouncing; “administration after administration” includes all parties.

 

I am currently concerned about the extent of the Dept. of Justice and IRS scandals.

 

The DOJ privately sought affidavits — signed off on by Eric Holder, the Attorney General  — claiming they needed secret access into phone lines and computers, citing the potential criminal behavior of reporters.  The Associated Press, CBS, and FOX News each reportedly (thus far) were tapped; one reporter’s parents’ phone records were seized; the DOJ cited the reporter as a flight risk.  But there was no criminal suspicion; there was no probable cause; the DOJ unjustly scrutinized them — secretly.   The DOJ acted illegally even though they are supposed to be the administrator of justice in the land.  Questions:  who will be next?  Where else will the Dept. of Justice unjustly act?  Will we know?  Who in the administration knew?  This is alarming.

 

What concerns me as much — and what should unsettle every citizen — even though the DOJ activity is alarming  —  is the overreach of the IRS.

 

After the rise of the Tea Party in 2010, the IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups associated with either the party or 2012 election.  The tax-exempt status of those organizations was either delayed or denied.  Existing group status was upheld.

 

If you are no Tea Party fan, perhaps the overreach concerns you little.  Perhaps quietly somewhere in the back of your mind you’ve thought somebody should keep those rebel-rousing patriots in place.  Therein lies the problem… the fact that some thought it was ok… that our federal government secretly used their power to squelch the citizens’ influence… and the conclusion —  just like the Justice Dept. — that if it’s a conservative group this time, there will be a next time… and it may not be a group you dislike.

 

Back, no less, to what looks good/sounds good/is good…

 

There is no positive way to spin these scandals.  In regard to the IRS, we know that the IRS and White House have known about this scandal for some time.  We know that the two toyed deliberately with how to break this story to the public.  We don’t know exactly who knew what when, as the answers continue to be ambiguous.  The former IRS chief, Douglas Shulman, can’t tell us how it happened…  “I can’t say that I know.”  The acting IRS commissioner, Steven Miller, doesn’t remember who was responsible… “I don’t remember, to be honest with you.”  And Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS division that actually singled out the groups, pleaded the 5th Amendment before Congress yesterday.  She said she didn’t do anything wrong; but then again, she refused to testify.

 

These are seemingly intelligent people, friends — in both the IRS and DOJ — but from our limited perspective, they have not acted wisely.  Their actions continue to be disturbing.  They are not being ethical, transparent, nor responsible.

 

Hence, more questions:  what other motives are in play?  Who or what are they trying to protect?  Are they still claiming to be honest and full of integrity?  Or do they even realize they are not?  “NOT” is the key word.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

storms

With neighborhoods flattened and dreams blown apart, the pictures are both devastating and shocking.  It’s awful.  It’s hard to know what to say.

 

If I were to say anything, it would probably be something like this…

 

Life’s too short to take it for granted…

… we are promised no length to our days…

… we need to treat one another better and well.

(… we don’t always treat one another well.)

 

We never know from where life’s storms will come…

… we don’t know how strong they will be…

… some won’t be physical…

… and yet, man will never be stronger than the forces of nature.

(… do we ever think we’re stronger than nature?)

 

Here come the climate change claims…

… climate change, global warming, or insert the-most-politically-correct-up-to-date term here…

… there have been significantly fewer tornadoes in Oklahoma this year…

… the data always seems ambiguous…

… it also always omits any reference to a higher power…

… now is not the time for these claims.

 

Hopefully, too, the most important news stays the most important news…

… the destruction in the Sooner State is heartbreaking…

… the loss of life is paralyzing…

… especially the children…

… pause…

… the children.

 

Other current events remain significant…

… albeit paling in comparison…

… not even close…

… the overreach and abuse of the IRS…

… the overreach and abuse by the Department of Justice…

(… several are probably thankful for the diversion of the storms…)

 

Count your many blessings…

… name them one by one…

… count your many blessings…

… yes, see what God has done.

 

Yes, it’s hard to know what to say…

 

When all else crumbles to the ground, what will stand as our support?…

… what will we put our faith in?…

… will we put it in something that will actually last?

 

Or will we put it in something that can be flattened or God-forbid, blown away?

 

With prayers for those in the path of destruction…

 

… if I were to say anything…

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

IRS questions

If you spend some time with me for a while, you will soon notice I have a few quirky quirks and even odder (albeit fairly creative) obsessions.  I even have a favorite form of punctuation.  I absolutely adore the question mark!

 

Question marks.  What other punctuation mark spurs on continued discussion?  What other punctuation mark encourages dialogue — and thus, solution and growth?  What other mark allows best for active listening?  The Intramuralist has lots of questions.

 

Most recently, we have lots of questions about the IRS…  the branch of the federal government that reports to the Executive Branch, that was intentionally targeting conservative and religious groups…

 

Who knew what when?

 

Who is responsible?

 

Why can’t the acting director inform us who was responsible?

 

“Why did the IRS await until after the election to admit wrongdoing?”  (… from NBC’s Lisa Meyers…)

 

How can the commissioner say that “it is absolutely not illegal”?

 

Why were liberal groups not treated the same way?

 

How are we to believe the motive was not political?

 

Is “not remembering” a convenient way of not admitting truth?

 

Who in the White House knew?

 

Is it possible Pres. Obama could not have known?

 

Why didn’t the President answer who in the White House knew?

 

Is it a requirement for the Press Secretary to be honest and transparent?

 

Or are all press secretaries simply poised to diffuse controversy?

 

How significant is it that all parties are outraged at the IRS activity?

 

Can we trust the IRS as an objective enforcer of Obamacare?

 

Is it concerning that Sarah Hall Ingram, who served as the head of the office responsible for tax-exempt organizations — during the time they targeted Tea Partiers — now serves as the director of the IRS’ Affordable Care Act division?

 

Is that wise?

 

And perhaps my number one question this day…

 

Is there a better case for limited government?

 

Friends, that’s not a political talking point.  My opinion is this…  as the size of any entity increases, so does the potential for inefficiency and corruption.  That’s a logical conclusion.  Too many people are seduced by the power; people are not all motivated by what is good.  I don’t believe that the unscrupulous behavior in the IRS was known nor directed by the entire agency nor entire Executive Branch; there are many aspects of which we are unaware.  However, the simple fact that the federal government has grown in size, stature, and massive dollar amount is reason to pause — knowing the potential for greater overreach and abuse is more likely in the future.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the best we’ve got

There was a special election last week in South Carolina.  Granted, most deemed it “special” because the vote was held to replace a senatorial appointee.  However, the Intramuralist finds it “special” because of the uniqueness of the candidates.

 

While each candidate certainly sported a resume that deserved serious consideration, neither was noted most for any professional qualification.  The Republican candidate was Mark Sanford, known most as the former governor who resigned 4 years ago after lying about his whereabouts as opposed to being forthcoming about his affair.  The Democrat candidate was Elizabeth Colbert Busch, known most as the sister of popular satirist Stephen Colbert as opposed to any individual accolades.  From a distant, arguably judgmental vantage point, it seemed a poor choice of candidates.

 

Poor indeed.  Sanford won by an approximate 10% point margin.

 

While not a resident of the Palmetto State, part of me wonders if this is the wisest representation for the people of the 1st Congressional District.  A former governor… a man who left because of lies — granted, they were entirely regarding his personal endeavors — left his wife, children, and statehouse to pursue the object of his infidelity.  He is engaged to her today.

 

Ah, yes, I hear the rousing chorus of “amen’s.”  In fact, I read the screeching comments in cyberspace and selective editorials in the immediate aftermath.  “Is this the best we’ve got?” seemed the strong — and even oft articulated — implication.

 

Truthfully, I agree.  Is Sanford the best we’ve got?  Now many of you have participated in this dialogue long enough to know that the Intramuralist unabashedly believes in the giving of second, third, and even fourth and fifth chances.  Many times I have mercifully been on the receiving end of those grace extensions, and hence, I believe wholeheartedly in the generous outpouring to others.  But that outpouring is accompanied by one caveat.  Only one.  But a significant one at that.

 

In order to freely offer that second or even seventeenth chance, the heart of the recipient should be willingly repentant.  True, no man can fully gauge the heart of another, yet the question is:  was Sanford repentant of his actions?  Was he truly repentant of the destruction of his family?  Or rather, was he simply sorry he got caught?  Repentance and remorse are two totally different things.

 

Again come the “amen’s,” especially, I assume, from those who supported the candidacy of Sanford’s opponent.  Of course.  That’s the way partisanship sadly works in 21st century America.  When we desire the liberal candidate, we loudly pounce upon the indiscretions of one conservative Mark Sanford.  Oh, wait; many of us will then turn a blind eye to the indiscretions of a liberal Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner, two more whose unscrupulous behavior merited their political exit but are seemingly, currently, waiting for enough time to pass so they, too, can re-enter the political arena.  Again, let’s ask the question:  are they repentant of their actions?  Or are they only waiting for enough time to pass?  Better said:  has the heart of the man changed?

 

Too often we assume the heart has changed because the candidate in question advances our desired political cause.  Sorry, but that’s not enough for me.  Call me an idealist.  But the Intramuralist wants representation by a person who is wise and of solid integrity.  Note that I’m not talking about a man who is perfect and ever without error.  A man of solid integrity still makes mistakes.  But he doesn’t hide them.  He doesn’t repeatedly lie about them.  He doesn’t just “repackage his behavior” in order to make himself sound better.  He also doesn’t merely wait for enough time to pass so that we forget about the magnitude of his indiscretions —  and so he can resume a desired political career.  He is instead truly repentant for what he’s done.

 

“Is that the best we’ve got?”  The best, my friends, equates to nothing less than a man of integrity.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

the IRS

And then there was this…  (from the Associated Press…)

 

Lois Lerner, head of the Internal Revenue Service that oversees tax-exempt groups, apologized today for the IRS inappropriately flagging conservative political groups for additional reviews during the 2012 election to see if they were violating their tax-exempt status.

 

Lerner said organizations that included the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews. Speaking at a conference in Washington, she said the practice was initiated by low-level workers in Cincinnati.

 

The Associated Press is also now reporting that senior IRS officials were aware in 2011 of this behavior.  There are also reports that some Jewish groups were targeted.  Wow…

 

Here is an organization that is by no means supposed to be partisan.  And here in their supposed-to-be-nonpartisan existence, they intentionally decided to scrutinize specific conservative and religious groups more.  In fact, in multiple cases, groups were asked to provide a list of donors for review, typically a violation of IRS policy.  The IRS scrutinized activity based upon any overt, conservative leanings of the supporters.  Hmmm…  and one wonders why citizens continue to lose faith in government…

 

More and more government tends to emphasize “think like me.”  “Join me.”  “Do what I do.”  “Refute the voices of those who think differently.”  “Reject the two party system.”  “One party is always right.”  “I am always right.”  Friends, one huge, massive, like-minded, political group has never proved nationally beneficial; historically, the accompanying power with a singular massive party leads to corruption and inefficiency, and yet so many still seem to strive for such a dominant arrangement.  The partisan admission by the IRS is evidence of such corruption; it is also irresponsible and foolish.

 

Who asked them to do so?  Who persuaded their partisan directive?  Who guided them (as the Intramuralitst oft likes to say) to no longer oversee a united state of America?

 

According to Time Magazine — and a reaction on both the proverbial right and left…

 

“The IRS has demonstrated the most disturbing, illegal and outrageous abuse of government power,” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. “This deliberate targeting and harassment of tea party groups reaches a new low in illegal government activity and overreach.”

 

The revelation didn’t sit much better with groups on the left. “Even the appearance of playing partisan politics with the tax code is about as constitutionally troubling as it gets,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office.

 

So let me get this straight…

 

In addition to the known previous functions of the IRS, here is also now the government agency that is responsible for enforcing Obamacare.  My sense is that few Americans are aware of this role.  Beginning in 2014, this agency will be the one which requires each American to carry health insurance.  We will have to disclose our personal identifying health ID number to the IRS — in addition to the nature of our insurance and any additional information the IRS decides to demand.  The IRS is the enforcer.

 

Logical questions here, folks…

 

How can an agency that has admitted political bias be an objective enforcer?

How will we know the agency is free from continued corruption?

 

Great questions.  I’m unfortunately fearful of the answers.

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

to listen or reject?

On Sunday, the President gave the commencement address at The Ohio State University.  In his address, Obama included the following:

 

“Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

 

We have never been a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems, either. Because we understand that this democracy is ours. And as citizens, we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government. And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”

 

I appreciate the President’s comment that “we have never been a people who place all our faith in government” and that “we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems.”  The balance of those isolated statements seems prudent indeed.

 

However, the Intramuralist is concerned about one aspect contradictory of our mantra…

 

“… nothing more than some separate, sinister voices…”

 

No, I don’t care about that.  There are people on the right, left, middle, all-over-the-place who call certain somethings “sinister.”  That doesn’t alarm me.

 

“… tyranny is always lurking just around the corner…”

 

Lurking?  Lurking?!  Well, maybe.  But that sounds more like an emotional plea designed to drum up passion.  The President, his opponents, and supporters all seem to resort to emotional pleas when unfortunately deemed necessary.  I, for one, believe arguments should be debated more on their logic than on all the accompanying emotion.  But alas, I again digress…

 

“… And class of 2013, you have to be involved in that process.”

 

Excellent!  We need to get the younger generations involved!  You need to understand how government works!  … it’s efficiencies and inefficiencies; it’s up to you to change this… to improve it… to be involved.  Well said, Pres. Obama.

 

What concerns me?  One line:  “You should reject these voices.”

 

As long apparent amidst our postings, the Intramuralist always — yes, I said “always” —  encourages dialogue.  The only way to encourage dialogue is to also encourage active, sincere listening — and active, sincere listening of those who feel differently than you.  If your argument is solid — absent of logical loopholes — there should be no reason to outright reject opposing voices.  While there is no doubt Pres. Obama is an articulate, intelligent man, his admonition that the younger generation should simply reject the voices of those who passionately advocate for limited government seems unwise to me.

 

If — and I realize that’s a mighty big “if” — if we would entertain why there is a vocal desire for limited government — if we listened to those voices — what would we learn?  Would we learn about where government is both efficient and inefficient?  Would we learn about history? … where some governments have overreached and thus prompted national demise?  What’s wrong with listening to those voices as opposed to rejection?

 

Listening, my friends, is wiser.

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

what’s wrong with this law?

What’s wrong with “Obamacare”?

 

Please.  Pause.  As always, the Intramuralist attempts to stand as a beacon of respect.  You, my friends, have done an excellent job at modeling your diversity of opinion without succumbing to the temptation of disrespect.  Far too many intelligent people continue to justify disrespectful articulation when the moment serves them well.  As best as possible, we strive not to fall so infamously far.

 

It is no secret that the Intramuralist is no fan of the Patient Affordable Care Act.  Having read the entire legislation prior to its passage, we found multiple enactments, which were are not only prone to government overreach but also social concern.  When healthcare is proposed as a “one size fits all model,” the underlying reality is that as the model evolves and impure motive sets in, perceived economic drains on the system will be extracted.  If we can ensure continued care for 100 at the same price as the one-time surgery of 1, why would we choose the 1?  Funds are not limitless.  Hence, economically, it makes more sense to care for the 100.  It’s the survival of the fittest.  It’s natural selection.  Is it moral?  Of course not.  But when a person actually reads the legislation, the embedded motive of moral behavior is ambiguous.

 

Do not allow me to suggest that I believe the creators of this law were motivated by impure motive.  I do believe, however, that as the law evolves, the exponentially increased potential for impurity exists, as money and power never fail to pollute policy.  At some point in time — with the wrong people in charge — I believe Obamacare will be a dire, iniquitous law.

 

Allow me, no less, to return to my original question:  what’s wrong with this law?  Perhaps you even question the basis for my question.  Here is the reason for my current pondering:

 

According to Politico and The Wall Street Journal, congressional leaders have been holding closed-door discussions regarding how to exempt themselves from the law.  When Politico broke the story last week, the conversations collapsed — obviously because of the complete lack of positive publicity.

 

Reports are that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) initiated the discussions, although he denies such an account; he says he simply wants the law to be “workable for everyone.”  The loophole in Reid’s claim is that when the law was being crafted in 2009, Democrats repeatedly attempted to exempt themselves and/or their key aides.

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) had authored an amendment approved by the Senate Finance Committee that compelled Congress to partake, but yet, when brought to the floor by Sen. Reid, the bill’s language had been altered, exempting congressional aides and party leaders.

 

If this law is good, why are those who know what’s in it wanting to avoid it?

 

Oh, wait… I return to my original concerns about the bill…

 

Never mind the broken promises.  Never mind the poor P.R.  Never mind that when the town hall meetings got too tough, the town hall meetings were shut down.

 

Never mind that some Republicans seemed simply obstructionists.  Never mind that the legislation only passed through a partisan measure designed for the budget reconciliation process.  Never mind that premiums are now increasing and options for keeping existent care are decreasing.

 

This original, approximate 2000 page legislation was approved and opposed by those who never read it.  They never read it, yet they want to be exempt.

 

Hence, I ask again:  what’s wrong with “Obamacare”?

 

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

hmmm..

In all actuality, there are days the Intramuralist wonders the wisdom of what to publish.  We scan a sampling of the week’s headlines and editorials, yet quickly, we come across a slew of spewing that seems to make you go “hmmm”…

 

What do we write about?

 

Do we consider the nonpartisan Rasmussen Reports, and how…

 

“Confidence that the United States and its allies are winning the War on Terror has fallen to its lowest level in roughly two years.”

 

Or do we pay any attention to a presidential photo op, as detailed by Politico…

 

“Tuesday morning, a peculiar announcement trickled out of the White House press office: President Barack Obama would be holding a moment of silence for the victims of the Boston bombings.  At the White House.  By himself.  No press or other intruders allowed.  Except the White House photographer.

 

That Obama assumed Americans would want an iconic photo of him privately mourning the victims of the bombings was emblematic of a kind of hubris that has enveloped the president and his White House as the president commences his second term.”

 

No, those aspects aren’t that important to articulate.

 

How about the news as reported by Salon…

 

“So I’ve found it a sad commentary on GOP rebuilding that there’s been so much talk this week about the likelihood and desirability of a Jeb Bush candidacy.  And apparently one influential Republican, his mother, Barbara, agrees with me.

 

‘He’s by far the best-qualified man, but no,’ the former first lady told NBC’s Matt Lauer when he asked if she wanted her son, the former Florida governor, to run for president. ‘I really don’t.  I think it’s a great country.  There are a lot of great families, and it’s not just four families, or whatever.  There are other people out there that are very qualified.  We’ve had enough Bushes.’”

 

Am I the only one who thinks we need no more family ties to the Executive Branch?  No more Bushes and Clintons or Kennedys and Obamas or anyone else who has already occupied the oval space…  Nope.  Love that Barbara Bush… love how agree with her or not, she never seems to hide how she feels.

 

What about the news from Fox News’ Neil Cavuto and his notion that the media enacts a double standard for Obama and Bush actions in regard to the situation in Syria…

 

“What’s the difference between weapons of mass destruction and weapons of chemical destruction?  One gives you an excuse to bash a Republican president.  The other an excuse not to bash a Democratic president.  Nevermind this president drew the line in the sand on mass destruction weapons.  Democrats were all over that former president for getting wrong what most of they themselves were convinced George Bush had right.  And now they aren’t saying boo to this president that his worst fears are right.  So now repeating, that president is bad for pushing us into a war most Democrats supported because it sure looked like Saddam had bad stuff.  In fact, they used bad stuff.  This president is not bad for ignoring his own threats of consequences.  Now that we know Bashar Assad definitely has bad stuff.  I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong.  What I am saying is the double-standard in the coverage of each is very wrong.”

 

Does there exist a double standard?  I can’t answer that question.  Just the pondering is confusing.

 

So what can I answer?  2 things this day…

 

One, I can see why many persons intentionally choose to pay no attention to the news; it could drive a person crazy (… just sayin’).

And two, some things will always seem to make you go ‘hmmm.’

 

Respectfully… always…

AR

Posted on

the enemy among us

Extending the conversation from a wise friend in cyberspace, we were discussing the nation’s response to the tragedy in Boston.  We discussed Tuesday’s concept of whether or not we would simply forget the learnings after the “music fades,” so-to-speak, and return to our unfortunate, engrained, far-too-often divisive and defensive standing.

 

My wise friend made an excellent observation and then asked an even better question…

 

I am reminded, ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’  As long as we cannot come to some workable agreements on important issues among ourselves, it seems we leave ourselves vulnerable to destruction.   

 

My question is, without that tangible adversary, can we agree on what the ‘enemy’ to rally against is?  Is there a common goal that we can rally around without a tangible face of violence?  And even better than a common enemy, is there a unified love to rally for…?  Is there a common respect for the sanctity of life…?  Or is it ‘every man for himself’?  … each out for his own right to his own idea of liberty… her own idea of happiness.  Is there a higher standard we can agree upon?

 

Friends, just as a common enemy united us in Boston — going forward — what is it that propels us?  In other words, if a common enemy unites us like nothing else, who is that enemy as we continue forward?

 

I think we have two authentic, current challenges in this area:  we either deny the existence of an enemy — or we identify the enemy as someone who it’s not.  Allow me to respectfully share with you who it’s not…

 

It’s not the Democrats.

It’s not Pres. Obama.

It’s not the Republicans on Capitol Hill.

It’s not those who oppose gay marriage.

It’s not those for or against gun control.

It’s not the NRA, the ACLU, or any passionate, partisan advocacy group.

It’s not the teachers’ union nor Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin nor any other governor.

It’s not the academic elite.

It’s not even the uneducated.

And it’s certainly not any rhetorical 1, 2, or 17%.

 

No, it’s none of the above.  And until we recognize that, as a nation, we may forever be both polarized and paralyzed.

 

Who is our enemy?

 

It’s no longer the Soviets.  We no longer face a Cold War.  But we have to quit insinuating or proclaiming that the enemy is something or someone it is not.  Such may serve to net votes and drum up passion, but such is not wise; and such is not a process nor practice dripping of integrity.

 

In reality, the “enemy” can only be equated with one thing…

 

That one thing is not partisan…

That one thing is not an opinion…

 

That one thing is only one thing; it is evil.

 

The men who blew up the streets of Boston were motivated by evil.  Evil is prominent in more ways than we can ever know.  Evil is real.  Evil is the complete absence of God.  Evil is deep.  It dwells deep within the heart of far too many.  There is, no less, no such thing as any “lesser” of two evils.

 

That’s hard; it’s hard to specifically quantify.  But evil — yes, evil — as we are calling it what it is — is prominent in more ways than we know; we have to be willing to see it and say it, for that is our common enemy.  That is the enemy which unites us.  And that is what we must combat and God-willing, attempt to extinguish.

 

Respectfully,

AR