Month: October 2015

Posted on

what are we talking about?

photo-1413977232283-134356f724b4We cry out over the killing of the innocent…

  • Some cried out for Matthew Shepard in ’98, beaten and tortured and left to die by two other, seemingly heartless young men, believed to have targeted Shepard because of his sexual orientation.
  • Most cried out on 9/11, when 2,977 people were murdered by Islamic terrorists, who specifically targeted those thousands because they lived on American soil.
  • And we all cried out after Charleston last June, when nine African-Americans were shot and killed while praying — at the hands of a young white man, saying he hoped to ignite a race war.

We cry out over the killing of the innocent. We even call them “hate crimes”… crimes motivated by the killer’s disdain of the different. And yet…

Last Thursday, a 26 year old, seemingly also heartless shooter, walked into Umpqua Community College in Oregon, shooting and killing nine innocent others. According to multiple reports, the shooter shot and killed those who identified themselves as Christians.

And what does our current national dialogue seem to be centered on?

Gun control.

From the Intramuralist’s vantage point — which admittedly, is a limited point of view — as each of ours is — here we have another awful, horrendous mass shooting… another incident in which the innocent die young. But unlike Matthew Shepard’s death — where we talked about the callousness and cruelty of a man killed because he was gay… and unlike the scene inside Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston last summer — where we talked about the callousness and cruelty of men and women killed because they were black… instead of talking about the callousness and cruelty of college students being killed because they are Christians, we talk most about gun control. Something doesn’t make sense.

Make no mistake about it; gun control is an issue worth discussing. It is an issue worth discussing after each of these tragedies; none of us wish to feel this way again. But if the conversation after Oregon focuses more on gun control than on the motive for the shooting, we are omitting an inconvenient truth. The students at Umpqua were killed because they admitted a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Then I take note of what’s happening around the world…

ISIS kills many; they kill many solely because they admit to being Christians.
I see Christians persecuted in North Korea, Somalia, and Iraq.
Christians are also often targeted in Africa — in Egypt, Kenya, and Nigeria.
They are targeted, too, in Afghanistan and Syria.

In other words, like it or not, ignore it or not, people who believe that God so loved the world that he sent Jesus to this planet to be their one and only saving grace, are being targeted in increasingly, multiple countries.

And only sometimes, we talk about it.

Let me say again that I have no issue when in response to tragedy, we respectfully debate what aspects of gun control are most effective. I also have no issue discussing the seemingly heartless targeting of innocent persons because they are gay or because they are black or because of some other, isolated factor; that targeting is — in my totally respectful, semi-humble opinion — wrong.

I do have issue, however, with the arbitrary acknowledgment of hate crimes. I have issue when we ignore the reason a man or woman was killed was because they had put their faith in Jesus. There exists an all too selective silence. I wonder why.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

curbing the violence

pie-chart-149727_640Another shooting. Another predictable, rhetorical cycle. It goes something like this:

There is too much violence!
When are we going to stop this?!
We need more gun control!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!
No, we don’t!
Yes, we do!

And hence, the disrespectful debate continues. We have lots of admirably passionate leaders and individuals, but the issue is never adequately solved.

My strong sense is that the issue of curbing gun violence is never adequately solved because we never deal with all that influences the issue. We rant and rave and pick and choose what aspect to jump on; we fulminate on Facebook or utilize Twitter to take others to task… “When will this stop?!” That’s the main idea; we want it to stop. Save for a less honorable few, yes, we all want it to stop.

But we tend to harp on aspects nearer and dearer to our hearts; we tend to repeat angles consistent with our favorite partisan proclamations. We blame people, presidents, and police. We blame groups and gangs who we perceive to most contribute to the existence of gun violence. We tend to emphasize singular aspects while ignoring other aspects — as opposed to wrestle with and acknowledge all angles of the problem. Such as (in alphabetical order):

1. Evil
2. Gangs
3. Law
4. Lobbyists
5. Mental health
6. Movies
7. Rap music
8. Sin
9. Terrorism
10. Video games

And more.

Many will address only one of the above. Addressing only one aspect, however, seems a futile attempt to adhere a tiny, tiny Band-Aid on a pulsating, gaping wound — that will thus continue to bleed. The Band-Aid makes us feel better… but it isn’t effective.

For example, many will understandably direct their angst toward the lobbyists — at the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA), suggesting the group’s approximate $3 million dollars spent annually distorts the legislative process. Many simultaneously ignore that the NRA isn’t included in the top 20 spenders — and were also silent when the American Medical Association (AMA) influenced healthcare and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) influenced mortgage lending legislation. AMA has spent $19.5 million and the NAR has spent near $16 million this year thus far. (Note that the Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest lobbyist spender, has spent $42 million in 2015.) We need to be consistent in our cries out against lobbyists’ influence — a stated passion of the Intramuralist.

Others examples of addressing singular aspects are seen in how some only focus on the perceived sins of the shooter — ignoring the potential mental health component or illness. Others still, will focus only on mental health — ignoring how evil so obviously permeates this world.

Forget not the impact of the music, movie, and gaming industries. Amazon, Forbes, and USA Today all show lists of the most popular video games dominated by celebrated violence.

I wonder, too, if the gunman’s motives are relevant… The shooter at Umpqua Community College in Oregon last week, for example, killed people because they were Christians. Said one witness via Twitter, if they were Christian, “Then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.” Seems like gun control isn’t the only issue here. Can we honestly wrestle with the religious persecution? Maybe the motive is the bigger picture.

My point today, friends, is that there are all sorts of angles and approaches when considering the violence on this planet. We have a desire to curb it, to stop it. But unless we are willing to wrestle with and acknowledge the totality of the problem — and the entire bigger picture — our efforts, as good and passionate as they may sound, may remain sadly futile.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

voting guide

8076635893_df93a7c514_bNo one should tell any of the rest of us how to vote. So let me try. 🙂

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a woman or a man. I, like you, have many female and male friends, and it is a fact that their gender does not automatically make them capable — or incapable — of being a wise President.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are black. Nope. I, like most of you, have friends who are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. Their race has not made any of them more — or less — qualified to be President.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they have no political experience. Let’s face it; many of the elect have had substantial, lengthy political resumes. Resumes do not necessarily equate to wisdom nor success; resumes do not teach them how to work with other parties nor people. Hence, a political resume will not automatically garner my vote.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Christian or faithfully adhere to some other religion. I’ve known far too many who pick and choose which aspects of their faith to serve and observe. I’ve known far too many believers and non-believers alike whose arrogance and lack of humility was a clear, non-permeable obstruction to effective leadership.

I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Democrat or Republican. I realize this may get somewhat trickier, but the reality is we have witnessed far too many on both sides of the proverbial, partisan aisle who have been either narcissistic, crooked, or both — none of which, with all due respect, is worthy of representing me. Sharing similar political leanings is simply not enough.

Hence, I will not vote for or against anyone solely because of their gender, race, religion, party, or other demographic factor. 

I will, however, vote for the following:

(1) Someone, as best as possible, that I believe to be ethical.

(2) Someone, as best as possible, who has demonstrated sound comprehension of economic principles. And…

(3) Someone, as best as possible, with whom I agree on multiple policy issues (…notice that I didn’t say “all” nor a single, specific one.)

In that order. That’s it.

If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether they truly comprehend the economy. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether we agree on policy positions — or if they are flip-flopping, evolving, or what. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, I cannot trust them to tell me the truth.

I want a candidate whose “yes” means “yes” and whose “no” means “no.” I want a person who will say what they think — as opposed to say what they think I want them to. This means more to me than consensus and agreement. (Note that I have yet to find a person with whom I agree on all things… not even in my own household.)

Too ideal for today’s culture? Too ideal for a culture where partisan politicians incite and divide more than listen and unite? Too ideal for a culture infused with a biased, 24 hour news cycle?

Back to that ideal candidate…

Did I mention I’d also like them to be a Bengals fan, support Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, and believe Tom Brady should be suspended for “Deflategate”?

Ok… maybe I am an idealist after all.

Respectfully…
AR