Current Issue – Page 18 – intramuralist ™

06/30/201506/30/2015

#LoveWins

So let’s run with social media’s perceived favorite new mantra: #LoveWins. I agree. Nothing is bigger, better, more poignant or powerful. Above all things, there is love. My question is if we know what love is.

I am not attempting to be flippant or ambiguous. I just think we’re wavering in our definition and inconsistent in our application.

In Sunday’s post, for example, I referenced those way too many who followed their hashtags of “LoveWins” or “SinWins” with a self-justified “TakeThat.” My solemn sense is that any who embrace that style of communication have both a limited comprehension of the unspeakable depth of love in addition to the true depravity of sin. There is no place for a “TakeThat”… by any of us.

We don’t know what love is.

Love is not selective. Love is not oppressive. Love is not limited. Love means all lives matter.

It does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres.

Love means no “in your face” style of communication — a style, which unfortunately, immediately diminishes the credibility of our point. We can’t say “I don’t care if I offend you,” “I don’t care if you don’t feel respected,” or simply an “I don’t care” and truly comprehend what love is. Friends, that is not love.

There is no place for these self-justified, rhetorical slams…

against our LGBT friends who’ve felt oppressed for far too long
against our Christian friends who genuinely believe homosexuality is wrong
against Pres. Obama
against Bristol Palin
against the 2016 Presidential candidates
against the black community
against the white community

(… against… against… against…)

Let me be clear; it is completely ok to disagree with someone, and it is completely ok to disagree passionately with their opinion and/or behavior. What’s not ok is to embrace such hate-filled rhetorical slams. That’s not love. We can’t preach hate against any group and expect to be a non-hypocritical voice in regard to what love really is. Love is the only thing on this planet that prevails, but our inconsistent application shows we don’t really know what it is.

In one of the early weeks of the Intramuralist — geepers, some seven sweet years ago — we posted the following, (in my semi-humble opinion) exceptionally clever but true insight:

“We live in a culture where all we need is supposedly love, yet still, at times, it seems rare indeed. There exists way too much oppression, bigotry, and worship of man-made concoctions an earring short of a golden calf. Too many leaders have embraced a leadership style that values speaking louder (more than listening), subduing dissenting opinion (more than learning), and surrounding self with like thinking (more than being sharpened by another). To me, those contradict a love that makes the world go round.

What is real love?

I’ve heard it’s a splendored thing; it’s a verb; and it will keep us together. They say you can’t buy it, can’t hurry it, and some will stop in the name of it. Others question how deep it is, if it will still exist tomorrow, and what it really has to with anything. Some love rainy nights. Some rock ‘n roll. Be careful, though, as several will say it stinks, bites, and claim you’ve lost it. Yet as I ponder the wisdom in knowing the power of love, I am spurred on by something that’s real.”

May we each be spurred on by what’s real… by a splendored and powerful thing.

Respectfully…
AR

04/02/201504/02/2015

c’mon feel the noise

There are times the noise in my house is too loud. Sometimes it comes from one of my kid’s rooms. Sometimes it comes from my spouse or me. The reality is that when the noise is too loud, no one can hear.

Like many, I have been watching the ongoings in Indiana surrounding the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Also like many, I have yet to read the bill in its entirety.

My desire is to understand what this bill says and what it doesn’t — what it means and what it doesn’t — but transparently speaking, it’s hard to discern accurately because I can’t hear. There’s too much noise.

What I do hear is the rhetoric. What I do hear are the chants. What I do hear are the passions and protests and bold proclamations from all corners of the room telling the rest of us what to believe. And you know what? Sometimes I get sucked into believing them — allowing my emotion to determine reality — forgetting that I haven’t read the bill in its entirety.

The reality is that Indiana’s religious freedom act is similar (but not exact) to the law in 19 other states and the federal act signed by Pres. Clinton in 1993. It’s similar to the law Arkansas is currently considering. The specific language of the law has varied slightly as varied courts have made varied judgments. While the aim is to provide legal exemptions when primarily a business’s religious beliefs are substantially burdened, the concern is that the language creates the possibility of legalizing discrimination. Such is why Indiana congressmen are beginning this morning to discuss a so-called “fix” — ensuring LGBT customers, employees, and tenants are not discriminated against. Note that any time discrimination is believed to be the reality, more than simply someone — understandably — will make a lot of noise.

Therein lies a significant problem, no less. The noise on all sides keeps us from having the tough conversation this country needs to have. We need to respectfully discuss whether or not religious freedom ever equates to discrimination. And if it does: is that constitutionally allowed?

Because of the deep emotion already embedded in this topic, many of us will struggle with anything less than 100% agreement from another. Some obviously feel justified into verbally pounding another into like thinking — believing we all must agree on what discrimination is, is not, and what’s ok in the name of religion. And if we don’t agree, the other person must be either ignorant or idiotic. Way too many (on television and social media especially — outside the confines of real relationship) are generously justifying the ignorant and idiotic identifications. That’s concerning, as we will not make wise, lasting progress when we justify the use of tactics eerily similar to bullying — as outlined in our most recent post. Forcing a person to believe what we believe only magnifies the disrespect and prolongs the lack of a solution.

The reality is that multiple admired individuals disagree on how to legislate religious freedom and therefore if/how/and when to mandate compliance…

Is it ok to mandate that a Christian homeschooler adhere to all public school policies?
Is it ok to mandate that a Muslim inmate shave his beard? … or a Muslim t-shirt maker prints a satirical picture of Muhammad?
Is it ok to mandate that a Jewish deli serve ham?
Is it ok to mandate that any Christian, Muslim, or Jewish baker, photographer, florist, or leader serve at a gay wedding?

Is it ok to force another to contradict practices consistent with their faith? Is it ever ok to discriminate? And better yet: can we have that conversation?

I’m not comfortable adding anything to the “no shoes, no shirt, no service” mantra that is based solely on sexuality, ethnicity, or any other demographic, entire people group categorization. I also believe we must specifically discuss what is discrimination and what is not — and where can we be more respectful of all people… that includes respect for the LGBT community — and the Christian homeschooler, Muslim inmate, Jewish deli, baker, photographer, florist, leader, etc.

If a religious freedom law becomes an easy escape clause allowing people to be treated poorly, that does not seem wise. But if opposition to any law becomes a tactic designed to silence all opposing opinion, that seems equally unwise. Both ignore the deeper conversation that needs to be had.

What’s the relationship between religious freedom and discrimination? I’d like to have that conversation, but right now, there’s too much noise.

Respectfully…

03/15/2015

expectation number one

I’ve just started a new job, and I laid out specific expectations for the employees who report to me. Number 1 – Honesty. I told them, as long as you shoot straight with me, then I can trust the things you say. As soon as you tell me something that isn’t true — just once — then for the rest of our time together, I have to evaluate everything you tell me as to whether or not I can believe it.

This is the problem I have with the current leader of the free world. These are some things he’s said:

“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

We now know this to be patently false. Obamacare defines specific requirements it deems necessary for all health plans, and if yours did not include them, you’ve already had to kiss it goodbye. Politifact named that one the 2013 Lie of the Year.

There is “not even a smidgeon of corruption” at the IRS.

This was a strong candidate for 2014. The executive branch was using the IRS against its own people, targeting conservative groups. After numerous White House visits, a convoluted story of thousands of lost but now found emails, and several “I take the 5th”s later, only the blindest apologists accept this at face value.

“Here’s what happened [in Benghazi]…. You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here…who made an extremely offensive video directed at Mohammed and Islam. This caused great offense in much of the Muslim world…. Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.”

Ample evidence has been accumulated showing the attack to be a preplanned assault carried out by an al-Qaeda affiliated organization — and that there was no spontaneous protest outside the consulate the night of the attack over an anti-Mohammed video.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage.”

Top political advisor David Axelrod now admits that he convinced Obama to conceal his long held position in favor of gay marriage for political purposes. With no more elections standing before him, he now says that legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States is one of the things he has seen that represents “America at its best.”

“Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf. It bypasses the United States.”

A report published by Obama’s own State Department estimates that 70% of the oil transported by the Keystone Pipeline would be used in the U.S.

And last, the tried-and-true, oft-repeated…

I learned about Hillary’s use of a private email system “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.”

Except he personally had sent emails to “hdr22@clintonemail.com” for four years.

Over the years, The Intramuralist has taught me to be respectful in all circumstances. I respect the office of The President, and I will always respect the one who holds it, including the current occupant, as having authority over me. I am simply laying out the evidence that the man considers untruth a legitimate weapon in his political arsenal.

Just as I told my staff, I no longer have any way of knowing whether what he says it true.

– Guest Contributor

02/28/201502/28/2015

the dress

On Thursday the internet was flooded with a singular image (…perhaps to distract us from the massive internet regulations also adopted that day… but lest I digress…). The image could simply be coined as “THE DRESS.”

The picture posed on social media was of a new, colorful dress. Some saw it as white and gold; others saw it as black and blue; a small few found a minority variation. The ironic commonality between the two primary perspectives, no less, was that each person was certain they were right — 100% right. Each was also equally certain that those who saw any different perspective was clearly, completely wrong. In most minds, there was no logical way to view the scenario any differently.

That means households were divided… families were divided… communities were divided. In other words, the presumed certainty of opinion led directly to division. Some of that division was intense.

Prior to the suppression of the cyberspace intensity, an explanation of “THE DRESS” phenomena was put forth. Simply, sort-of-scientifically put, the way light enters our eyes and hits our retinas stimulates neural connections to the part of our brains that processes those signals into an image. In other words, there is a legitimate reason, based on light and neural processing, that two people can look at the exact same scenario from the exact same angle and still see two completely different things.

Allow me, no less, to quote an insightful, sweet friend: “The whole white/gold-black/blue dress thing was an eye-opening experience for my family… my teenage daughter said (somewhat dramatically), ‘This makes me question whether everything I see is true.’ The scientific explanation made us all feel a little relieved…YES, two people can look at the same thing and see something different. Our reality is shaped by our own perceptions. This was a great reminder of how important it is to be mindful of that when we disagree on other issues.”

What a fantastic point. Hence, I ask…

Where else are we so certain that our perspective is clearly, completely right — and any other perspective is clearly, completely wrong? … where do we have zero understanding, grace, or respect for the person who sees things differently?

On the root cause of terrorism?
On immigration and funding the Dept. of Homeland Security?
On the evidence for climate change?
On what happened on the streets of Ferguson, Missouri?
On Pres. Obama’s ambiguity addressing Islam?
On Tom Brady throwing footballs?
On limitations placed on unions?
On the effectiveness of another Clinton or Bush in the White House?
On an athlete accused of domestic violence?
On any perceived inequality or social injustice?

If we were individually humble enough to recognize the reality — that two people can make two totally different conclusions based on the exact same information from the exact same angle — how would it change how we interacted with one another? … how we spoke with and about another? How would it change our attempt to work together toward solution? And how would it alter the arrogance embedded within each of us when we believe we are so completely right and another is so clearly, completely wrong?

“Our reality is shaped by our perceptions,” as my wise friend said. Our perceptions, also — if not recognized for how limited they may be — often create increased, disrespectful division.

Always advocating for that understanding, grace, and respect…

Respectfully…

02/19/201502/19/2015

challenging authority

I will never forget that first official, performance review. As a rising, white collar professional with a great job and greater expectations, fresh out of college and ready to roll, it was finally time for my superiors to tell me how wonderful I was. 🙂 Yes, there are times we believe we have the world at our feet — and even more times when we need to be humbled (…uh, always and still…).

Truth told, my review was wonderful. On a scale of 1-5 with “1” being excellent, “3” being average, and “5” being the area in need of greatest improvement, of the 12 specific categories, I received all “1’s” and “2’s”… except for one. In a single category, I received a “3.” I was deemed “average” in one category.

Hence, being the ever mature, twenty-something that I was, I did the obvious, most seemingly honorable thing to do at the time: I pounced on the “3.” I challenged the authorities above me — not for the rave review just assessed — but rather, for the audacity of someone awarding me with a stinkin’ “3.”

Challenging authority is hard. Challenging it respectfully is harder.

Let me add one more “hard”: responding to a challenge respectfully is equally difficult.

Authority relationships exist in most life scenarios… in our homes, hobbies, associations, clubs, churches, government, etc. Authority exists in all of the above. In most organizations, there are persons bestowed with the responsibility of making decisions on behalf of other people. So how do we handle it when we legitimately, passionately disagree with some of the decision-making?

This past week, I’ve witnessed multiple, reactionary manifestations when authority has been challenged. Some reactions have been especially eye-opening…

The authority quickly attempting to sully the reputation of the challenger — as opposed to humbly weighing the worthiness of the objection.
Supporters of the authority jumping immediately to defend him or her — as opposed to thoughtfully weighing any critique.
The authority, challengers, and supporters of both engaging in instant ad hominem attacks — steadfastly attempting to turn attention elsewhere — as opposed to dealing with the root issue — and the issue that’s most current.

I’ve also watched…

One side call the other “ignorant.”
One side call the other “idiot.”
Another suggesting one belongs in a “cult.”
And still more rhetorically attacking what I term our “reputation jugular.”

Both sides feel justified in calling the other names and in all sincerity, utilizing despicable, disrespectful adjectives. Also, intelligence doesn’t always diffuse the disrespect; it typically only makes the disrespectful descriptions sound better.

Let’s be clear: authority can and should be respectfully questioned. No man nor human institution has life all figured out, so no man nor human institution is incapable of error. But it’s difficult to navigate through the challenging-of-authority process when other factors are in play. For example…

Listening well to other points of view is rare…
The sense of decorum is long gone….
Self-focus is often rampant…
None of us especially like criticism… and…
Social media has made the process worse (…did I say “far worse”?).

It’s ok to question authority if solution is the goal. It’s equally ok to push back on the questioner as long as one listens first, weighs the opinion, and is completely humble in response. There is no place for arrogance permeating any part of the process… even…yes… for a white collar professional with a great job, fresh out of college, who thought they were wonderful at the time.

Respectfully…

02/05/201502/05/2015

vaccinations

To vaccinate or not vaccinate… that is the question. This issue is currently heightened because of two reasons: one, there are over 100 cases of measles confirmed in the United States right now; and two, there are seemingly over 100 people running for President. 🙂 Note that any time campaigns are current, so is the motive to pounce upon an issue, politicizing something that should by no means be political. The politicizing pollutes the objectivity necessary to wrestle with an issue wisely.

Having thus invested much in this issue, I am struck by many aspects…

I am struck by the number who feel so strongly — by the parents… the educators… my respected friends in the medical community.
I am struck by the passion — the passion that prompts such strong, emotional expression — even, often, not always respectfully stated… I get it… I don’t always like it, but I get it… the harsh words many of us employ are not based in hate; they are based on the emotion this issue uniquely seems to elicit.
I am struck by how we individually weight (either overtly emphasizing or discounting) the opinions of others — from the medical experts to the holistic bloggers to the likeminded thinkers to also the non-parent — acting, for example, as if a person with no biological children has no valid vantage point.
I am also struck by how this issue knows no ethnic, gender, educational, partisan, religious, stereotypical, you-name-it bounds. Again, it’s not a political issue. (Caution: as one of you duly noted, beware of the political opportunist who attempts to now turn this into a targeted voter pool). Of the huge number of you who gave me feedback (thank you!), I heard you. Let me also add that you and your opinions do not fit into any nice, neat, descriptive, demographic group.

Here is the issue… We live in a society where freedom is cherished. We like freedom. We like choice; some of us embrace it more than others. But we are selective in when and where we embrace it. The key is how an individual choice affects other people. That’s what makes so many arguments so hard. As a culture, we tend to gravitate toward advocacy of government mandates when we believe individual choice infringes on another. Pick your issue; pick your controversy; the perceived harm on the life, health, or values of another is at the heart of our most challenging, cultural issues.

Like I said, I heard you… I am tremendously moved by the image of the African mother who walks miles just to ensure her child is vaccinated. I hear the deep, deep gratitude in those of you who lived through or parents lived through the painful, polio outbreak. And my heart breaks for the family whose sister contacted measles one year before the vaccine was approved, drastically altering each of their lives. Actually, I cried.

I also respect the parent who prayerfully pours into research and intentionally chooses not to vaccinate. I grieve for the mother who shared with me how her four month old daughter stopped breathing two weeks after her shots — or the infant male, who could no longer hold his head up, also two weeks later. While non-vaccination has not been the choice of this semi-humble parent, I will always respect the freedom of another to choose what they believe to be wisest and best.

Every choice, no less, has consequences. And when we make a decision that has the potential to negatively impact another, we must also be humble enough to accept the accompanying consequences… consequences such as the pediatrician’s office, which limits their practice to those who vaccinate their children — or the public school, which requires vaccinations to attend. Such are not unreasonable stipulations when we consider the so-called “greater good” — the life and health of others.

Note additional random feedback received in preparation for this post: I’m uncomfortable with increased government mandates; where do they eventually draw the line?… What role does big money play in the promotion? Pharmaceutical companies stand much to gain from a country that mandates medicine… How has the immigration influx changed the need for vaccinations? Their exposure to disease is different… Professionally, my job requires it… Mandatory flu shots — why does the union oppose?… People seem to pick and choose… So many vaccines taken at one time — that can’t be healthy… What about vaccines designed more to combat disease contacted via behavior as opposed to happenstance? My choice may differ there… There are many valid questions. We should all be asking questions.

As said from the start, this is a tough issue, and it’s tough to talk it well. As you know, I am no medical expert. But I believe in individual freedom. I also believe in “loving my neighbor well” and considering others in my choice. I respect the medical community. I respect the educational community. And I respect the parent — both in making a choice and graciously accepting the consequences.

Let me briefly share as I conclude, that one of my children once caught a life-threatening disease from another child. Because my own son’s immune system was compromised, it evolved into a gut-wrenching, critical situation; we spent 21 days in cardiac ICU — 2 of those weeks on a respirator. But one of the nuggets of wisdom I adhere to in life is that I refuse to allow my individual circumstance to dictate the totality of the truth. Do I wish that other child had already received that vaccination? You bet I do. But should that experience cause me to deny the individual freedom of another? Great question. Hard one, too.

May we be respectful of others in our answer. May we each accept the consequences of our decisions. And may we always love one another well.

Respectfully… with great grace…

01/27/201501/27/2015

feminism

I had opportunity this past weekend to sit down with a small group of high school girls — primarily seniors. Any time such a favorable moment arises, I feel adults should embrace it… not simply because of what we can teach them — but also because of what they can teach us. The younger generation has so much to offer.

This weekend these budding young women wanted to talk about feminism… great topic! They knew much; they were well versed. They were passionate and feisty and knowledgeable and humble and discerning all at the same time. Here was a group of young women — most of whom are about to embark on a brand new adventure come fall — and they are so desiring to figure life out (… I love it… granted, I omitted that the rest of us are still working on that figuring-life-out thing…).

They started by defining what they thought feminism is…

“Equal rights… equal rights for men and women… Equal value… no one is lesser or more… Everyone doesn’t have the same talents, but no woman’s talent is any lesser than a man’s… No one is lesser; no one is over anybody else.”

Most chimed in quickly; few conversational prompts were necessary. It was an energetic, lively discussion. When a slight pause ensued, another passionate gal — this one slightly meeker, however — boldly piped in: “I think that’s what feminism should be, but it’s not.”

I love it… I love how the teenage brain thinks. Ok, so just to be clear… I’m not affirming the days dirty clothes have strung across seemingly every inch of my oldest son’s bedroom — nor am I advocating any of the hygiene habits that at times borderline a bit on the obsessive-compulsive; but I love how the teenage mind thinks. There is so much to figure out — so much they don’t know; and they feel the freedom to think and wonder and wrestle, recognizing they have their whole life ahead of them. They don’t know it all… even when they act like they do.

So if that’s not what feminism is, what exactly is it?

Over the course of our evening together, we spoke of how so many only elevate themselves by stepping on someone else… how wise. For example… how the key to women’s success is that men must understand… the key to the racial divide is for white people to know — for black people to know… the key to any ethnic, gender, or cultural difference is for someone else to step aside. Notice how the supposed “key” is always focused on someone else?

What I loved about my time with these precious young women is that their focus wasn’t deferred to anyone else…

What do I think?
What can I do?
How can I value all people?
How can I respond in a wise fashion?

And our bottom line question: how can I support equality of any kind, if equality and value involve the lessening of someone else in the process?

Great question. Did I mention I love how teenagers think?

Respectfully…

01/15/201501/15/2015

clear, bold, and honest

Let’s be clear…

The Intramuralist is no political expert. In fact, far too many who consider themselves experts are — shall I say –“grace opportunities” for the rest of us. Far too also many seem to have embraced selective compassion in their accompanying expertise. My sense is such selectivity is too high a price to pay.

As an observer, no less — and a semi-humble one at that — it seems to me that we are facing quite the quandary. Across the globe, Muslim militants are killing innocent people. Manifest in multiple countries, people are being killed in the name of an Islamic god.

Long before 9/11, the huge list began accumulating (see an objective site). Since 1983, tens of thousands have been killed in the name of Islam… not in the name of another religion.

Let’s be bold…

It’s true that the majority of Muslims do not kill in the name of their faith. But the persons who are killing — be it on 9/11 some 14 years ago or in Paris, France last week — are each Muslim. That’s what they have in common.

I understand the impassioned plea of NBA great, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who asked us in a Time Magazine editorial last week to “stop bringing Islam into these discussions.” I get that he wishes for us to not associate the terror with his peaceful interpretation. The challenge is that the terror is associated with his religion.

Let’s be honest…

First, let’s acknowledge that the majority of Muslims do not kill the “infidel.” Second, let’s acknowledge that it is Muslims who are killing the “infidel.” Honesty means we begin by acknowledging truth. Many seem to struggle with such transparency.

On the eve of last September’s 9/11 anniversary, in a prime-time public address, Pres. Obama vowed to destroy ISIS; at the same time he proclaimed that the terrorists “are not Islamic.”

In the wake of last weekend’s PR misstep in France, Atty. Gen. Holder announced a coming “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism.” Is it violence? Certainly. Is it extremism? Without a doubt. But it also is terror conducted by Islamic radicals… not by Buddhists or Christians or Scientologists or anyone else.

State Dept. spokeman Marie Harf appeared on national news earlier this week. She was asked about the summit and was pressed to specifically state, in addition to the Islamic radicals, “What other forms of extremism are particularly troubling and compelling to you right now?” Harf named none… no one. She could not answer the question with any specifics.

It is thus obvious that at some point, our leaders huddled to determine how they would characterize the conflict. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist — nor that political expert — to discern that the administration has decided to avoid the word “Islamic,” including the phrases, “Islamic terrorism” and/or “Islamic radicals.” Press Sec. Josh Earnest wants us to believe that the administration is trying to be “as specific and accurate as possible” by using the term “violent extremism.” The non-political expert in me sees more avoidance than specificity.

Someone in the administration has directed leadership to avoid the clear and bold terminology, which would concede that a radical Islamic ideology is the common thread within the terror. We cannot assemble and solve, however, if we refuse to acknowledge and examine the common thread.

So the better question now is: why the avoidance? …what’s the motive?

Fear? Sympathy? Impression management? Something else?

I wish we knew. The intentional avoidance is extinguishing the administration’s influence and credibility; it’s also diminishing the probability of solution. Hence, I’ll say it again… let’s be honest.

Respectfully…

01/11/201501/11/2015

the rhetorical dance

As we witness the world’s reaction to the pursuit of the Islamic terrorists, there exists an evolving irony I just can’t seem to shake. I can’t quite put my finger on it, and yet it’s an inconsistency potentially saturated in some degree of ignorance and/or hypocrisy. Here are these terrorists… men and women motivated to kill based on religious reasons. So many leaders, however, tiptoe around the stated motive.

As previously referenced here, even though the terrorists shouted Muhammad’s name in France last week, our leaders were silent about the stated motive. In the initial public response by the White House last Wednesday morning, spokesman Josh Earnest even refused to call it “terrorism.”

But it’s not simply the omission of the motive that’s glaring; it’s the accompanying, rhetorical dance. In their first public comments, both Earnest, French Pres. Francois Hollande, and others declared multiple times that Islam is a “peaceful religion.” It’s as if the leaders of both France and America bend over backwards both to praise Islam and omit it as the killers’ motive at the same time. Their rhetorical two-step is a seemingly intentional attempt to both appease and ignore.

The dripping irony I thus see is the contrast with how America’s most popular religion is publicly articulated. According to Pew Research, over 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Christians are persons who have faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ. And yet, as previously discussed by the Intramuralist, there seems an intentional movement to remove any accreditation to God and Jesus in our country; there is very little public praise. No, I am not referring to the so-called “war on Christmas” or “war on teachers” or any other rhetorical misuse of military terminology. I do passionately believe, however, that although the pursuit is somewhat subjective, in recent years we have witnessed calculated, adrenalized attempts to remove the name of God and Jesus from our society.

Let me be more clear… I am not speaking about the separation of church and state; respected persons have valid perspectives on all sides of said argument. I am instead addressing the removal of church from state — the total removal of God’s name from far more than our state. Separation is the intent expressed by some, for example, for the expulsion of seasonal nativity scenes on the public square. Separation (albeit a comical stretch) is the school systems which no longer allow for the mention of Santa (… uh… even though Santa is already separate from the church and state). Many persons work to omit any reference to God or Jesus, with many also seemingly wanting to eliminate Christianity from the public narrative.

Just last week NBC aired a commercial in which the Pledge of Allegiance was articulated. The chorus echoed it as follows: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” They omitted God’s name; no one nation “under God” was acknowledged. In a later, apologetic statement — only after a social media uproar — NBC acknowledged the elimination was intentional.

So back to the evolving irony…

Our leaders are going out of their way to intentionally characterize the religion of Islam as one that is peaceful and rational. Less than 1% of America’s overall adult population identifies themselves as Muslim. Obviously, therefore, our leaders either believe or want us to believe that the terrorists are distorting the religion. My presumption is that in order to counteract the negative impression that is building by the multiple terrorist attacks continuing across the globe, our leaders are speaking out on Islam in order to paint a more respected impression. At the same time they publicly praise Islam, though, many are accepting of being quiet about the saving power of Jesus Christ.

Something is not ok about that. Something is inconsistent.

Respectfully…

01/04/201501/04/2015

the company we keep

(Soon this new year I may share my own resolutions. Until then… 🙂 )

My resolution for our leaders is to consistently act with wisdom and integrity. Integrity means their leadership is beyond reproach. It doesn’t mean we always agree with our leaders’ choices, but integrity does mean we don’t question their values, their decision-making process, and the core of their character.

So my mind is wandering somewhat today… looking deeper. As I examine questions of integrity, how does a person like Al Sharpton have such generous access to the sitting President of the United States? According to the White House visiter log — which was last released in August — Sharpton has already visited 61 times since Obama became President (and this prior to the tragic, racially-charged incident in Ferguson, Missouri). Granted, Sharpton’s been included in certain ceremonies and bill signings. He’s also visited to discuss specific policy initiatives — on civil rights, yes — but also regarding job creation, health care, education, and immigration. He has even been invited to Obama’s birthday party. Sharpton thus seems in close contact with Obama. Such an extensive relationship causes me to question this aspect of Pres. Obama’s leadership, as the company we keep, friends, makes a difference.

According to Politico’s senior staff writer Glenn Thrush, what melded the relationship between Obama and Sharpton was their “shared commitment to racial justice and a hardheaded pragmatism that has fueled their success.” Thrush further elaborates that Sharpton not only visits the White House regularly, but also frequently texts and emails with top aide Valerie Jarrett and Attorney General Eric Holder. As said of Sharpton by his colleague, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, “He’s the man who’s the liaison to the White House; he’s the one who’s talking to the Justice Department.” The relationship between Sharpton and Obama is ongoing and real.

Wanting to be respectful of all yet not in denial, let’s acknowledge that this is the same Al Sharpton that came to fame by loudly and falsely accusing and defaming a white prosecutor in the late ’80’s. He has made controversial, derogatory public comments about Jewish, Mormon, gay and lesbian people amongst others in the succeeding decades. He has faced questions of marital infidelity and also over a million dollars in unpaid taxes and penalties. He currently faces questions regarding inciting unrest directed toward the nation’s law enforcement.

The Intramuralist has long been an advocate of second and third chances, so-to-speak; each of us has something to offer, as we are capable of change. With the extended, inflammatory record of Sharpton’s, however, I find myself seconding the question posed earlier last year by New York Post editorial writer Michael Goodwin: “How is it possible… that he [Sharpton] carries so much tainted baggage from the past, yet still enjoys enormous pull with the political class?… Why isn’t he politically toxic?”

Why does Pres. Obama allow Sharpton such access and influence?

In all fairness, from our obvious, limited vantage point, we cannot discern exactly how much influence Sharpton actually has with Obama. We can’t tell how much he has altered or added perspective or policy on job creation, health care, education, immigration, etc. But that’s the problem: we can’t tell. If we can’t tell, then both the decision-making and hence, integrity are in question.

With the recent racial conflicts, Al Sharpton has been more visible, making louder public statements. He has somehow become the President’s “go to guy” on race. Sharpton has thus been very focused on the behavior of others — on the so-called large “specks in another’s eye.” Perhaps it would be first wise to wrestle with the “log” in his own.

Back to working on my own resolutions… my “specks” and “logs,” too…

Respectfully…