Month: July 2012

Posted on

convenience

In case the development somehow escaped you, climate convenience has recently, prominently returned to the news. “Climate convenience?”  Have you not heard of such?

 

My apologies; allow me to clarify.  What we now call “climate change” was once called “global warming.”  When society didn’t logically connect colder winter temperatures to the Earth’s supposed “warming,” the term was altered from “global warming” to “global climate disruption” to the now politically correct “climate change.”  Hence, the Intramuralist has arbitrarily decided to shorten “global warming/disruption/climate change/currently-most-convenient-name-to-call-it” to “climate convenience.”  (If I was in a more playful mood, I might suggest supporting scientists adopt the “a-b-c” tropical storm naming system; that way, they could have the names poll-tested ahead of time…  lest I digress…)

 

With the west’s wildfires and midwest’s heatwave — along with home and electricity loss, which tend to garner a bit more passionate attention — climate convenience advocates have utilized a seemingly more emboldened voice…

 

“Look out the window right now, and I think you can see climate change in action.”

 

“What we’re seeing here really is a window into what global climate change looks like.  It looks like heat; it looks like fires; it looks like this kind of environmental disaster.”

 

“Hard to believe that some still want to deny this.”

 

Now lest you believe the Intramuralist toes any partisan bent, allow me to state primary points previously penned:

 

  1. Experts disagree on whether or not the Earth’s temperature is rising.
  2. Many stand to profit by promoting their perspective.  And…
  3. Those on both sides of the debate have often spent more time criticizing opposing voices than objectively pursuing the truth.

 

So friends, allow me to be a voice of objectivity.  Note:  I am not a scientist.  But then again, most of those who boast a passionate opinion are also not scientists; too many of us simply adopt the opinion of the likeminded.  The Intramuralist believes such is a faulty and potentially foolish approach.  Hence, here is the challenge with climate convenience:

 

Most science omits any acknowledgement of God.

 

Now prior to prompting any blood pressure to boil, hang with me for a moment.  The Intramuralist made this comment elsewhere recently and was immediately trampled upon for perceived foolishness.  One man argued that it’s incomprehensible that “scientists are asked to accommodate the language preferences of religious folk.”  That man did not comprehend the point.

 

I am not suggesting that climate convenience is true.  I am also not assuming that climate convenience is false.  My goal is an objective pursuit of the truth.

 

In order to objectively pursue truth, we — and the scientists — need to ask if the presence of God has anything to do with the data recorded.  We need to ask if a divine power has any potential role in ecological changes.  Fascinatingly, students of historical scripture are aware of the countless environmental consequences based on the behavior of mankind.  Thus, my concern is whether as a culture we are humble enough, wise enough, and submissive enough to ask the question:  what could God have to do with it?

 

That’s hard for us.  As long as we omit any acknowledgement of God we can continue to assign blame wherever expedient without examining individual or national behavior.  We can continue to criticize opposing voices and assume we know truth.  We can also continue to simply yet passionately adopt the opinion of the likeminded.

 

We would be wiser to be humble and submissive… being good stewards of the planet… in objective pursuit of the truth.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

‘is it a cult?’

With divorce proceedings pending for celebrity couple, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, the Intramuralist has noticed one thing the media is not very skilled at.  (If you immediately mumbled “objectivity,” you would be correct — although such shall be saved for another day.)  The media — in all of its immediacy and intrusiveness — is not good at reporting on religion.  “How do we say this?  How do we slant this?  What exactly should we say?  Do we even know what it is?”

 

As many star watchers are aware, Cruise (although he once desired to become a Catholic priest) has been involved with the Church of Scientology for over 20 years.  Holmes, raised Catholic, converted to Scientology shortly after the couple began dating.  One roundtable reporters’ discussion I observed recently was rather amusing, opining on how their church may impact their divorce…

 

“Scientology?  What is it?  Is it a cult?”

 

There was a slight pause, until the discussion leader awkwardly suggested it’s definitively not a cult because the federal government has declared it appropriate by allowing tax-exempt status.  Sorry, I’m tempted to jump on a drippingly sarcastic tangent, noting how the government makes a plethora of declarations; I was also unaware that the government trumps God as the discerner of pure religion.

 

Avoiding the tangent, no less, the media stumbles when reporting on religion.  Do they not wish to offend anyone?  In addition to the colloquial “TomKat,” known scientologists include John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, and Greta Van Susteren.  Will Smith has often advocated their cause.  And both Sonny Bono and Al Jarreau experimented with an alliance.  These are seemingly ethical people.

 

The question, however, is not whether or not Scientology is ethical; the question is if it’s true.  Allow me to share a brief factual explanation in regard to what the Church of Scientology teaches…

 

Created by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard in the mid 20th century, scientology is a self-seeking religion, teaching that each of us are “immortal beings” who have forgotten our “true nature.”  Scientology is “knowing yourself, life, family, the universe, friends, the spirit, the world, and God.”  Sounds fairly wise.  Let’s continue with more facts…

 

Hubbard called himself a “celestial mediator,” claiming to have been an enlightened person who had acquired knowledge that no other person has ever possessed.  He then used the acronym MEST to represent the material, energy, space, and time of our universe.  He argued that MEST is the product or projection of a vast number of spirit creatures called “thetans” who became bored with a non-material existence and decided to emanate a universe to play in.  Over a long period of time, these “thetans” forgot that this reality, this universe, is a product of their own design, and they began to perceive it as being real.  According to Hubbard, this “agreed upon” reality is not the product of a self-existing creator God who exists outside of the cosmos as the Judeo-Christian worldview teaches, but is instead an illusion and a barrier to overcome in order to advance as an individual.

 

And one more fact…

 

People who have left Scientology (reportedly now Katie Holmes) claim that it teaches a “back-story” to the current human condition, but only those who have attained the highest levels within the organization are given access to the information.

 

Hubbard’s story goes something like this… 75 million years ago an evil leader called Xenu decided to eliminate the excess population from a galactic confederacy consisting of 26 stars and 76 planets (p.s. where’s Han Solo?).  With the help of psychiatrists, he tricked billions of people into submission and exported them to the planet Teegeeack or Earth.  The paralyzed victims were stacked around active volcanoes in which hydrogen bombs were placed.  According to the story, the bombs were detonated and the disembodied souls or “thetans” were captured and brainwashed into believing in the existence of a God and the devil.  Hubbard blamed the evil Xenu for planting the ideas of Catholicism and the image of crucifixion into the minds of the hapless “thetans.”  This process also deprived the “thetans” of their own sense of identity, resulting in their clinging to the few physical bodies that remained after the explosions.

 

Hence, back to the media’s questions:  “How do we say this?  How do we slant this?  What exactly should we say?  Do we even know what it is?”

 

Respectfully,

AR

 

 

[Note:  Information from Wikipedia, Probe, and the Church of Scientology International was combined and quoted in this posting.]


Posted on

a changed world view

Save for our summer guest writer series (coming in August – fire up!), rarely do I allow this space to be solely consumed by someone else’s words.  The following perspective was too significant to ignore.  With brief editorial commentary, here are the words of Eric Allen Bell, a filmmaker recently banned from blogging at the “Daily Kos” because of contradicting their desired perspective.  Bell was originally an outspoken supporter of the proposed construction of a 53,000 sq. ft. mosque in Murfreesboro, TN.  He was covering it for a documentary to be entitled “Not Welcome.”  Here are his initial remarks…

 

On the outer edge of town, off a small country road, there was a large parcel of land, right next door to a Baptist church, with a big sign that read, “Future Home of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro.”  Over the past 6 months that sign had been defaced twice.  Once it was broken in half and another time the words “Not Welcome” were spray painted over it…  Having not been much of a fan of Islam or Christianity or religion in general (and that’s putting it mildly) I saw this as something of a David vs. Goliath story – with fanatical Evangelicals bullying a peaceful Muslim population, which had been in the community for over 30 years without there ever being any trouble. 

 

Bell was a meticulous observer, watching the innocent advocates, the obnoxious opposers, even the media who promoted the issue…

 

CNN breezed through town and produced a quick hit piece painting all of the mosque opponents as uneducated rednecks and the Islamic community as everyday people who were being wrongly persecuted… [it] was called “Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door.”

 

Bell was convinced the Muslims were wrongfully targeted… until…

 

I could not believe the cartoonish way in which those who opposed the mosque were making their case.  I felt like I was on the right side of this thing – absolutely certain.  But in fact, I was wrong…

 

I went home to Los Angeles, showed my 25 minute short version of the documentary to some distributors and backers… And sure enough someone said they would back the completion of the movie.  It was decided that the focus would be on “the enemy at home” that being what we were calling “Apocalyptic Christianity” …  The Murfreesboro issue was to be used as something of a jumping off point to take a look at the expanding influence of the End Times Evangelical lobby in the United States and how they use their influence to manufacture consent for the bombing of oil rich Islamic countries and to influence policy on social issues.  The theme would focus on the problems we have in America, with our own religious lunatic fringe, rather than on a peaceful group of non-Christians who just wanted to build a place of worship…

 

But something kept nagging at me on a gut level.  Something about all of this didn’t quite feel right.  The Arab Spring, which I supported, started to degenerate into the Islamist Winter, and I grew more and more concerned.  I flew back to Nashville to shoot a conference on whether or not Islam was conducive with Democratic Values and on the way to my hotel room I learned that my cab driver was from Egypt.  I asked him how he felt about the fall of Mubarak, a dictator worth over $70 billion dollars while so much of his country was living in poverty and he told me he was concerned.  Concerned?  Wasn’t this good news?  The cab driver was a Coptic Christian and he told me that he feared for his family back home.  “If the Muslims take control, and they will, it will be very dangerous for my parents and my sisters.  I’m scared for them right now.”  After that conversation, I started to pay more attention to the news coming from the Islamic world in the Middle East.

 

Over the coming months I watched as the Muslim Brotherhood gained political power in Egypt.  I saw that cab driver’s worst fears come true as Coptic Christians were attacked by Islamic mobs.  I saw Tunisia institute Sharia, the brutal Islamic Law.  After Libya fell, the Transitional Council also instituted Islamic Law.  The nuclear armed Islamic government of Pakistan arrested and punished those who cooperated with the United States in killing Osama Bin Laden.  A woman under the Islamic government of Afghanistan faced execution for the crime of being raped.  Similar news stories emerged from Iran.  A man who typed “there is no god” as his Facebook status in Indonesia, the largest Islamic country in the world, was arrested for blasphemy.

Several Muslim men in England were arrested for handing out leaflets to Londoners demanding that homosexuals be executed by hanging for violating Islamic Law with their lifestyle.

 

And it struck me.  Even though these angry townspeople in Mufreesboro, TN had not articulated their concerns very well, they were only half wrong.  I remember meeting Frank Gaffney and interviewing him in front of the courthouse and asking him if he really thought that the peaceful Muslims here actually presented a real threat to America and he said no.  That caught me off guard so I asked if he really thought it was a credible threat that a community that makes up about one percent of the United States population was just going to suddenly rise up one day and try to take over the country and force Sharia Law onto all of us.  Again he said no.  Then he told me I was asking the wrong questions.  He suggested that I was only looking for answers that would support the conclusions I had already arrived at…  

 

It was at this time that I went to my backers and told them that we were not making an honest documentary… It was critical that we also show the very real threats that exist within Islam.  We needed to show that what is happening to these small communities of peaceful Muslims in America are the exception to the rule.  I wanted to show what happens to countries when they gain a Muslim majority, how women are treated, that homosexuals were executed, that free speech did not exist, that the forced Islamic Law was not consistent with Democratic Values… the response I received was, “Eric you are starting to sound like an Islamophobe.  We don’t want to make a movie that promotes fear.  Let’s just stick with the existing plan, okay?”

 

With objective research, Bell says the series of events “changed my world view.”  He attempted to educate his employers, having worked for the Daily Kos and Michael Moore among others, but they refused to even consider his fair-minded attempts.  They only wanted to support the conclusions they had previously arrived at.

 

Has Bell thus become a conservative?  “Not really,” he says.  He’s still opposed to the invasion of Iraq; he doesn’t care for Bush 43; and he supports gay marriage.  But he’s also pro-life.  Bell even still supports the right to build the mosque in Murfreesboro.  But he no longer believes that Islam is a peaceful religion; and he will no longer be part of a biased media that refuses to report otherwise.

 

Respectfully,

AR

 

(Intramuralist note:  Bell’s account was edited here due to space considerations; for a more complete perspective, see his article entitled, “The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam.”)

Posted on

one huge question

A great discussion occurred at the ballpark yesterday.  In one of those slow moments, hoping to teach our children well, one young person asked one huge question…

 

“What does it mean to sacrifice?”

 

Ah, terrific question!  She has heard the word often in today’s culture…   “shared sacrifice”…  “a sacrificial lamb”…  “sacrifice bunt”…  “sacrifice fly”…  “hard choices and shared sacrifice”… “all must sacrifice.” 

 

And then one seemingly discerning parent chirped in, “I don’t think many today have any comprehension of what it means to sacrifice.”  Touché.  Hearing the word and knowing what it means are two totally different things.

 

Man cannot sacrifice that which costs him nothing.

 

 

Sacrifice…  what it is…

 

An offering of something precious.  Precious.

A giving up of something for the sake of someone else.

Selfless.

 

 

What it’s not….

 

An offering of something worthless.  Worthless.

A giving up of something for one’s own sake — i.e. for publicity, attention, or “impression management.”

Selfish.

 

 

What today’s culture often acts as if it is…

 

Something we expect of someone else.

 

 

At this point in our fans-in-the-stands conversation, with now multiple adults chiming in, I suppose our one young person may have been overwhelmed, but to her credit, she listened attentively for a final question, confused with culture’s overuse of a word that made little sense…

 

“So what’s the opposite of ‘sacrifice’?”

 

A short pause and then…

 

“Indulgence.”

 

“Entitlement.”

 

“Expectation.”

 

 

Hence, all the Intramuralist offers this day is one simple question in response:

Which is more prominent in today’s culture…  sacrifice?  … or indulgence, entitlement, and expectation?

 

I wonder what the long term impact is… indulgence without consequence, entitlement in place of individual responsibility, all arguably, while feeling entitled.  I wonder how the prominence of such self-focused, guised virtues affects people and policy…

 

Perhaps that discerning parent was right.  “I don’t think many today have any comprehension of what it means to sacrifice.”   Hearing the word and knowing what it means are two totally different things.

 

Respectfully,

AR

Posted on

concerned

Now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/”Obamacare” has been ruled mostly constitutional and the Intramuralist’s analysis of the law itself has ceased, allow me to share my most significant, resulting concern…

 

The process to enact the law was fully partisan.  The sad reality is that this is an observation we ignore if we agree with the bill — with most bills.  But then again, this isn’t what concerns me most.

 

The process was divisive.  Due to the fact that the process was pushed from a partisan perspective, divisiveness was rampant.  One of my current, chief apprehensions about Pres. Obama is whether or not he’s a uniter or divider.  Then again, this also isn’t what concerns me most.

 

The process (notice there is much about the process) was manipulated, full of favors, negotiated behind closed doors, and rushed through Congress without congressmen reading the bill.  There is much in that observation that causes this semi-humble current events blogger to shake my head, wondering how so many seemingly ethical people can be comfortable with that.  But no, this still isn’t what concerns me most.

 

It also isn’t the content.  The advocates’ primary talking point for the last few months has been:  “the bill’s not perfect, but it’s a good start.”  Allow me to acknowledge there is some ‘good stuff’ in there; but allow me to also acknowledge there’s some ‘bad stuff’ in there.  Ignorance of that fact does not make this law wise nor even comparable to “perfect.”  Then again, the specifics of what’s embedded within the legislation are known to very few.

 

I’m also not most concerned about the new taxes.  I know, I know…  Even after the Supreme Court ruled the only way the mandated purchase can be constitutional is because it’s a tax, the White House Press Sec. said Friday (after the ruling) that it’s not a tax; “it’s a penalty.”  Geepers.  The Supreme Court ruled a “penalty” is unconstitutional; a tax — regardless of wisdom — is legal.  Still, the flurry of rhetorical contradiction is not my greatest concern.

 

Additionally, I’m not significantly concerned about some pundits’ reactions.  For example…

 

Democratic National Committee Executive Director Patrick Gaspard, tweeting almost immediately after the ruling:  “It’s constitutional. B—–s.”  Note that his “B” word rhymes with “witches.”  Nice.

 

Am I concerned about significant inflation and debt?  Of course… but not most.  Economically speaking, if coverage is mandated, specific services are required, and coverage is now free for many, someone has to pay for that.  Will it be the government, thus sinking into deeper debt?  Or will it be you and me?  What will be the effect on small business?  Small business now has 2 choices:  hire less than 50 people (so providing coverage isn’t mandated) or significantly raise the price of goods and services.  One amounts to fewer jobs — the other, higher inflation.

 

Am I most concerned about larger government?  Where inefficiency expands and individual liberty potentially diminishes?  Not exactly.

 

Ok, ok… what concerns me most?

 

Time and time again, our country passionately works to care for the least of these.  I believe that is our calling, as a nation, but even more so as individuals.  Ironically, however, time and time again, our justification for caring for those ‘least’ totally omits that this is what the God of the universe has long exhorted us to do.  The call comes not from a party nor any president.

 

Repeatedly, policy is advocated where we omit any recognition of a divine creator.  We pat ourselves repeatedly for doing what’s supposedly good and compassionate without acknowledging it was God who mandated the calling.  With healthcare, we can boast, “Finally!  We are taking care of the least of these!”  But God has been historically clear; any nation that refuses to acknowledge him — what he’s done and what he still calls us to do — ceases to exist.  Don’t take my word for it.  Study it.  Countries who negate their reliance on God are at some point utterly ruined and destroyed.

 

I believe in individually and corporately caring for the least of these.  I believe in being fiscally responsible.  And I believe in acknowledging God as the one who called us to do both.

 

Respectfully,

AR