Category: Current Event

Posted on

demandingness

60431f5bObviously, there is no bigger topic today than all the ugly that happened in Paris, why it occurred, and how we individually, corporately, and nationally respond. It’s challenging to wrap one’s mind around the killing of the innocent and the motivating evil. While there are moments in my day where the broad scope of the horror is “out of sight/out of mind,” so-to-speak, we cannot escape what happened. We cannot escape the fact that the threat of evil has not been extinguished. We cannot rid ourselves of the probable reality that terror will soon strike again.

Nothing compares to terror.
Nothing compares to evil.
Let me be clear.

I’m still struck by what dominated the news flow the week prior. Those silly red cups (although I now believe there were more upset about the uproar than actually involved in the uproar)… the pitfalls and perceived positives of socialism… Donald Trump’s latest loquacious soliloquy… and what was happening on the college campus. Oh, the college campus… Amid the weekend tragedy, we have omitted extended conversation about the current movement on college campuses across the country.

Before I say more, let me repeat what was briefly articulated above:

Nothing compares to terror.
Nothing compares to evil.
Let me be clear.

Prior to the explosions that rocked our world — and perhaps most significantly, rocked the peace and comfort of our daily lives, finally getting our attention in regard to the evil of ISIS and their adherence to the violence encouraged in the latter chapters of the Qur’an — there was quite the conversation on college campuses across the country.

After initial protests at the University of Missouri and Yale in regard to racial relations, the movement morphed into a question of free speech. What is allowed to be said? What is not? The conversation gained attention and intensity after the VP of the Missouri Student Association said in an interview with MSNBC that she was personally “tired of hearing that first amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment.” Missouri students were also encouraged to call police if they heard any “hateful and/or hurtful speech.” [Emphasis mine.]

Just a reminder, according to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we are guaranteed the freedom of speech. While there exist some limits on that freedom — such as “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater” — there is no law against unpopular opinion or distasteful advocacy. People’s feelings do not trump people’s rights.

I think what’s challenging for each of us is how to deal with those whose speech we find insulting. There are a lot of people who say a lot of things that I personally find incredibly inappropriate. Whether that be those who call for the killing of police, the killing of any innocent, or the picketing at a military funeral, I typically find their words to be disrespectful and by all means, awful.

I also respect their right to say what they feel. My then chosen response is to not validate them via my attention.

What becomes further challenging for us, though, is because we do feel a certain way, we sometimes become demanding instead of withholding our attention. We demand that those insulting us be silenced; we demand that their words be squelched. The embedded dilemma within such demands is that we are trumping feelings over rights.

Friends, activism is not a dirty word. Vigorously campaigning to bring about desired change is an activity that can make sense at the right time, right place, and in the right way. However, when activism turns into “demandingness” — when what we want and feel trumps all rights of another — that’s concerning. We can’t see anything but our own angle, passion, and opinion.

Seeing only our own angle, sensing only our own passion, and thus prioritizing our feelings can be a dangerous thing.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

peace, violence, & evil

photo-1444388204584-7d0da8506291To think that last week we were talking about polarizing red cups and football uniforms is a little embarrassing today. Witnessing the horror in the streets of Paris wakes us up.

I think it’s vital that what happened is not watered down in any way. I think it is equally vital that relevant facts are not omitted due to motivations of political correctness, sensitivity, etc. If we will not acknowledge who, what, and why it happened, then we will not wrestle with this well…

At least 129 innocent people died at the hands of evil, Islamic terrorists; over 300 more were injured. Sorry to be so blunt; these men were motivated by evil. As one man I’ve long respected said, “Oh, how deceived you are, to think that you can pave your way to paradise with blood from ‘infidels.’ ” Let us continue by being more blunt, no less…

Some say Islam is a religion of peace. Others claim it to be a religion of violence. Both are actually true.

There are two very different aspects to Islam. The early chapters (or “suras”) of the Qur’an — the compilation of Muhammad’s teachings after his death — are more about peace; whereas, the later suras are more about violence. The hostility, violence, controlling nature, and forceful missionary zeal of Islam (“accept Islam or suffer,” for example) developed in Muhammad’s later teachings, especially after he had some significant negative encounters with Jews.

Across the globe, in places where Muslims are more in the minority (such as North America and Europe), Muslims tend to follow the earlier suras — the more peaceful chapters — but where they are in the majority (such as in the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.), Muslims tend to follow the later, more violent suras.

Hence, the claim that Islam is a religion of peace may be true. Equally true is the assertion that Islam is a religion of violence. ISIS — and the 8 men who mercilessly murdered the men and women in France Friday night — are obviously adherers to the latter chapters of the Qur’an.

Note: these men were not mentally ill. They were not deranged nor drugged up, that we know.

They also were not Jewish nor Christian nor any other organized faith. It is both inane and illogical for any to liken all organized religion to what these evil men did. They killed the innocent because, as said in an online statement, Paris is “the carrier of the banner of the Cross in Europe.”

They added, “Let France and those who walk in its path know that they will remain on the top of the list of targets of the IS”… “and that the smell of death will never leave their noses as long as they lead the convoy of the Crusader campaign.”

The problem is not world religion. The problem is not Judaism, Christianity, nor any other belief system associated with God-honoring, Judeo-Christian values.

 The problem is evil. 

So how do we wrestle with evil? Great question. Sobering, too.

We can’t simply sit down with evil men and ask/order them to stop. Their motivation is not ours; they do not wish for peace. They do desire unity — but only as the different are destroyed. The grave reality is that evil is incredibly difficult — and arguably impossible — to humanly contain and control. I get the stern responses promising justice and revenge. I am just uncertain that such is fully effective.

So what can we do?

I solemnly see no more effective response than falling to our knees — individually and corporately — admitting our inability and brokenness, humbly asking for the good Lord to intervene.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

challenging

photo-1446080501695-8e929f879f2bWe’ve had seemingly all sorts of hot-button, available, challenging topics in recent weeks — some of which we have specifically covered — some, alas, that we have not. Allow me a brief, but insufficient review… a review of what’s happening simply in our schools…

A teenage girl was fiercely thrown to the floor by a school resource officer during math class at her Columbia, South Carolina high school. She was texting during class; she was defiant; people blamed people; the student and her desk were flipped forcefully backwards. The video then quickly went viral, and the officer was soon fired…

In Bremerton, Washington (as previously referenced here) a high school football coach has silently prayed on the field since 2008. While leading no one, multiple students joined in. He was suspended two weeks ago for praying publicly — because of the potential causing of teens to be coerced into an undesired religious practice — individual, silent prayer…

At the University of Missouri, racial slurs were directed at the student body president in September. The next month there were two more incidents — one involving a drunken white student at a black gathering — and a second involving a swastika and feces on a bathroom, residence hall wall. With the administration’s response perceived as piddling and pathetic, one student began a hunger strike. The protest gained ample, albeit minimal attention — that is, until last weekend, when the Mizzou football team announced they would not practice nor play until the university’s president resigned. He resigned on Monday. In the following days, threats against those who disagreed with the protests became vehement…

Also at the University of Missouri — related to the protests — there was a student photojournalist who attempted to chronicle the black students’ reaction to the president’s resignation. The journalist, however, was physically restrained from covering the event by multiple students, faculty, and staff. As this confrontation then quickly went viral, one professor who physically restricted press coverage also resigned…

And lastly… one more challenging topic…

At the known-to-be progressive, Township High School District 211 in Palatine, Illinois, there is a student athlete who is a transgender teen, one who was born male but identifies as female. The student has undergone hormone therapy but not gender reassignment surgery; in other words, the student born with a male anatomy still has visible, male parts. Her family sued the school in order to use the girls’ locker room — not a restroom with individual stalls and partitions — but the locker room, with open changing areas, showers, and prominent nudity. The U.S. Dept. of Education’s Office of Civil Rights ruled last week that the school is discriminating against the student by not allowing her to change clothes with the other girls. The district now has 30 days to “negotiate an agreement” to rescind “its discriminatory denial of access to the locker rooms” for transgender students or face up to $6 million in federal funding cuts in addition to a possible criminal investigation. Question: what are the rights of the totality of students?…

This is a mere sampling of current, hot-button conflicts. From Missouri to Yale, other challenging situations are occurring in our schools. Let’s first take a deep breath… a heavy sigh, if you will.

Each of the above causes me to step back, reflect, and refrain from simply, emotionally reacting. It’s too easy to simply react; it’s too easy in these challenging topics to simply go with my first, gut thought — assuming I’m all right — and also amazingly cognizant and compassionate toward all people.

Each of the above also then prompts me to revisit the definition of the word “challenging.” These are challenging topics.

“Challenging” seems the embedded, increased temptation to lose all respect for some people when articulating an opinion or perspective. In other words, we only respect some people; we only stand up for some people; we only love some people groups; we are only compassionate or empathetic toward some. “Challenging” means we only wrestle well with the so-called some.

What a challenging world we live in… yes, for some.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

red cups

IMG_5322We have such thin skin, it seems. I mean, what happened to the age old encouragement to let it roll off one’s back? Why do we get so upset? Why do we allow the little things to make us so mad and loud?

I just read another story surrounding the supposed controversy regarding Starbucks’ version of the red Solo cup. This year — as they always alter their warm beverage cups for the upcoming holiday season — instead of producing a cup comparable to past years in which the cup includes a snowflake, starburst, or wintery something, the cup is plain red… plain red. No flourish nor other wintery motif is included.

Yet there were immediately those many who seemingly have way too much time on their hands, who began complaining that the cup was “anti-Christian.” Many feel as if the simplicity of the design is simply the next battle step in the perceived “war on Christmas,” and it’s thus, one more way in which organized religion is removed from society as opposed to balanced and respected.

Then, as if on some social media cue, many more with also seemingly way too much time on their hands, felt it necessary to begin chastising those who were complaining about the cups — finding yet another opportunity to point out the speck in another’s eye as opposed to wrestling with the log in their own.

What is it? Why do people get so upset on both of the supposed stinkin’ sides? Why are they even creating “sides”?

First of all, let’s be objective and honest…

Snowflakes, starbursts, and wintery somethings have zero to do with Christmas. It’s like the school district which now bans Christmas cookies morphed into sleds and Santas — all inanimate icons that society associates with the holiday, but have no correlation with the day’s actual meaning. Christmas is society’s acknowledgement of the birth of Jesus Christ, the Messiah that people waited centuries for. He proclaimed himself as the Son of God, the only true, eternal bringer of hope, peace, and truth into this world.

I think Jesus, therefore, could care less about red cups.

I think Jesus would ask us to instead focus on what’s most important.

“Quit focusing on yourselves! Quit focusing on those who irritate you! Quit focusing on lesser things!”

Ok, so that’s not veritable scripture, but I can kind of hear him say it. 

I can hear Jesus say that the red cups have nothing to do with him. I can hear him say that picking on the people who are mad about the cups also has nothing to do with him. We have such thin skin, friends. We keep being loud about the wrong people and things.

We’ve spoken here about loving God and loving our neighbor. We’ve spoken here about getting ants in our pants and finding reasons and ways to instead only love some people well. We’ve spoken here about ways in which we each minimize God’s hierarchy and influence in the world and foolishly find a way to put someone or something else on the proverbial throne. We’ve spoken here about things that mean far more than the so-called “lesser things.”

Christmas is not about Starbucks nor their popular new Chestnut Praline Latte nor anything fitting with society’s increasingly, creative pumpkin obsession. If we’re going to be loud about anything, my sense is it should not be for or against red paper cups. My sense is it should also not be about people shouting about red cups.

If we are going to be loud, let’s do it most by encouraging one another to find lasting hope, peace, and truth in this world.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

separation vs. elimination

photo-1445768593937-05a3f7832b68And then there was this…

Joe Kennedy, an assistant high school football coach in Bremerton, Washington, was placed on paid administrative leave by the school district 10 days ago for bowing in prayer on the field following football games. He was not leading anyone in prayer — simply admittedly, praying himself.

Let me add three pertinent facts:

(1) Students often joined him.
(2) He never asked any students to join him.
(3) Kennedy has been doing this since 2008.

Kennedy was suspended because he engaged in an overt, religious display on the high school football field. He was suspended because he knowingly prayed to Jesus Christ in front of other people on public property — and most likely (although this point is opinion, not fact) someone, somewhere complained. Most likely, someone, somewhere complained that the exercise of Kennedy’s individual rights infringed upon their individual rights. So question: are one person’s rights more important than another?

Just asking, friends.

Said the district, “While attending games may be voluntary for most students, students required to be present by virtue of their participation in football or cheerleading will necessarily suffer a degree of coercion to participate in religious activity when their coaches lead or endorse it.”

In other words, a student’s required presence at the game may subject them to potential coercion to participate in a religious activity; the presence of Kennedy’s practice may pressure a possibly, trepidatious teen. Granted, remember that multiple students have been required to be at those football games for the past 8 seasons — the duration of how long Kennedy has silently, overtly bowed in prayer.

The district added, “Kennedy’s conduct poses a genuine risk that the district will be liable for violating the federal and state constitutional rights of students or others.”

What’s the risk? Is Kennedy harming other people? Are they harmed by being exposed to the seemingly sincere faith of one man even though it is a silent, individual representation? Is that bad?

So let me ask about 47 more questions… ok, just kidding… but here’s where my head is at the moment…

Do you agree with the suspension?

Is this a simple case of the separation of church and state?

Does the separation of church and state ever equate to attempts to eliminate all church in state?

Are we at the point now where school feels a need to prohibit the free exercise of religion?

Would the school district act the same way if it was a yamaka — or burqa?

Should we then outlaw any religious practice, observance, or display?

Are we not mature enough to observe what might be good and right and true of another religion?

Are we so easily seduced by another’s silent, individual behavior?

Do we thus need government to control it for us?

And how, by the way, can we actually tell if another is praying?

Can one discern if another is really communicating with God?

Is that allowed? …or only allowed if no one knows it’s happening?

Oh, so many questions… so many more inconsistencies… We certainly seem to struggle some days with what is good and true and right.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

a game?

photo-1413919873593-061d76ec8452

It’s just a game…

Or so we say.

Sometimes my sense is we’ve got the games and the non-games all mixed up. We discern some activities as a form of play or sport — and other activities as serious and life altering — when maybe they belong in the other so-called category. Once again, we have made something more important than perhaps it should be.

I look at the reactions of last weekend — a typical fall weekend featuring a full slate of college and pro football, the start of hockey and the NBA, and including baseball’s annual World Series. Then I look at the downcast reactions of those who lost the game…

From NY Mets manager Terry Collins and pitcher Matt Harvey, both disparagingly blaming themselves for allowing the Kansas City Royals to tie in the 9th inning and eventually win the Fall Classic… to Steelers QB “Big Ben” Roethlisberger after a tough loss, saying he “let this team down” and “this one is on me”… to all the anger and frustration in the Duke/Miami college football match up, in which an 8-lateral, loose, last-second play with all sorts of errors and inefficiencies (absent a meddling marching band) led to a suspension of the officials.

I get it. I mean no criticism of any of the above; I would be equally frustrated, as we are a competitive people. And as one who also enjoys winning, I understand the deep disappointment. I simply wonder if that disappointment has gone too far in us — and we’ve made games into something more than they actually are. We see it in adults. We see it in our kids. We see it in ourselves.

Let me not act, however, as if a game has no value…

Sports are of great value because they are a venue in which God can work on us to teach humility, hard work, and determination. They are a place where we can learn teamwork and selflessness; we learn to support one another. Also, when we fail, we can turn around and try again. We learn, too — hopefully — to turn around and congratulate the person next to us, knowing no one wins forever — and some will never win; not everyone gets a trophy. Sports are a venue in which we can see the manifest reality that life is not “all about me.” The value is actually in the humility and hard work — not in the winning.

That’s hard, I think, for most of us to handle — especially when we see the economic impact of sports and the big business it’s become. Note how “fantasy football,” for example, has even crept into our presidential debates. Millions of dollars are now exchanging hands there; hence, you know that some will declare a need to regulate or be involved (and, uh, get a piece of that). My point is that our games have become far more than games. No, it’s not just a game.

I think of Kansas City Royals pitcher, Edinson Volquez. Volquez started two games en route to the Royals championship last weekend. Yet nine days ago, hours before his first World Series start, Volquez’s father, Daniel, passed away in the Dominican Republic after struggling with heart disease. His family made the decision not to tell Edinson until after he was pulled from game one. Edinson then flew home to the funeral before returning to start Sunday’s final game.

Upon his return, Volquez was greeted overwhelmingly compassionately by his teammates… “Wow… I’ve got a lot of people that really care about what happened to me.”

Said teammate Eric Hosmer, “I know he’s going to be thinking about his dad and we’re all going to be thinking about it. We’re all going to try to do it for everyone on this team — everyone that’s lost a family member on this team. We’re all in this together.”

Teamwork… selflessness…

The Royals were determined to play hard and make people proud — utilizing the humility and hard work that helped them reach this moment. While no doubt winning was their desire, something tells me, too, the Royals realized what was a game — and what was not.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

neighbors

photo-1428190415133-29b766b213d1

I’ve realized I’m not always very good at something. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not down on myself. I am instead wrestling with the realization that there is something I passionately desire to always do well, and yet, I routinely fail in its application…

What’s the greatest commandment? What are we each most called to?
Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.
And the second?
Love your neighbor as yourself.

I get that we are not all adherents to historical scripture. My sense is we are each responsible for how we respond to such. What strikes me, no less, is even for those among us who choose not to embrace the teaching, so much of what’s there we still tend to believe… (i.e. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. etc…) Each of us embraces some aspect of the scriptures, even if unintendedly so.

What I wrestle with this day is the concept of “loving my neighbor as myself.” I then think of two questions…

First, who exactly is our “neighbor”?

I don’t think it’s a stretch to extend our “neighbor” well beyond the isolating definition of simply the person who physically lives next door. The idea seems more that it’s someone nearby, not living in our specific household, who thus may not share the same circumstances, lifestyle, or beliefs that we have embraced. That makes sense to me. Therefore, our neighbor seems more encompassing of all people. Such leads me to question #2…

What’s our consistency like?

We seem to live in a day and age when we are encouraged to only embrace the likeminded… to only love and respect those who think and act like we do…

We are encouraged to identify all sorts of person as our adversaries, enemies, and opposition. And every time we engage in such a discourse — falling prey to such a seductive lingo — we justify labeling a person or people group as something other than a “neighbor.” If they aren’t a “neighbor,” then we don’t have to love them.

Note that at the 2nd most recent presidential debate, CNN’s Anderson Cooper said the following:

“Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, ‘I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.’ You’ve all made a few people upset over your political careers, which enemy are you most proud of?”

With no candidate suggesting the answer was a radical terrorist group (which truly desires to take our heads off and thus seems to actually qualify), let us not find too much fault in any one candidate; it was a foolish question. No person — simply because they do not share your political or other core beliefs — is thus your “enemy.”

Yes, even the intelligent justify the inconsistency.

But still don’t let me pick on either the candidates or the questioner; my realization this day is I am not much better…

Too many times I have muttered something mean or sarcastic under my breath when exposed to a seemingly stupid statement… too many times I have thought the worst when a slow car has pulled right out in front of me… and too many times I have been disrespectfully steaming, furious at a Facebook or Twitter rant that has seemed so incredibly frustrating. Sometimes I’ve even ranted right back — loud enough for others to see and hear!

It’s not always what I’ve said; it’s sometimes what I’ve thought.

If we are going to “love my neighbor,” so-to-speak, we must quit justifying our disrespectful responses. Discussion and dialogue surrounding tense topics is fine. Disagreement is totally acceptable. But the allowing of differences of opinion to evolve into disdain of one another is where we totally fail in in loving our neighbor well.

Always wishing for something better and more… respectfully…
AR

Posted on

it’s the economy, uh, ______.

970ca55213 years ago, a sign hung on the wall of one prominent, presidential candidate’s headquarters. There were three lines on the sign. The first read, “Change vs. more of the same.” The last said, “Don’t forget health care.” It was the middle line which soon became the de facto slogan of Bill Clinton’s eventually successful campaign:

“The economy, stupid” … or as modified, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

The phrase was coined by Clinton’s chief strategist, James Carville. His point was that of all the issues, of all the things that concern the American people, of all things pressing on a person’s mind and thus relevant to their vote, it all comes down to how Americans are affected by the flow of money throughout society — how it affects their individual pocketbook. Carville’s colloquial cliché simplistically refined the presidential campaign. It’s so simplistic, so basic yet profound, that it uniquely mirrored a major motivation for our individual vote.

How does money flow through society? How are we affected by that?

I hear that in a lot of us. It makes sense. It affects us… how will I pay for college… how can I get ahead… how can I get a positive return on my investments… when will government quit taxing me so much… From the left and the right, even from the moderate middle, we are each concerned about the economy and how government handles our money.

As the 4th 2016 presidential debate occurred last evening — and as candidates again articulated newfound promises — the Intramuralist is keenly aware that a reasonable voting public must wrestle with the truth. The truth is that we must look at the logic behind the promises. In other words, a populist strategy — meaning basically, a person promises lots of things that lots of people like — does not make logical sense if it cannot be economically supported. It is not enough for a promise to simply sound good… regardless of how fond any of us are of the idea…

Free college. Free cell phones. Free you name it… Climate change initiatives. Corporate regulations. Even balancing the budget has some kind of cost.

So tell me, candidate: how will you pay for it? Where will you get the money? What will you cut? Or how will you generate more revenue? (And could we all quit hiding behind the cutting of some negative-sounding “loophole”? Be specific. Back it up. Make it make sense.) The promise is simply not enough.

One of the things, no less, that I respect about candidate Bernie Sanders is that he is well aware that his self-described, socialist policies cannot survive solely via promise; policies must be paid for; campaign rhetoric is insufficient, as promises can’t fund policy. Where I find equally, respectful concern is that Sanders has minimal restraint in utilizing “Peter to pay for Paul,” so-to-speak. He sees wealth as finite; he thus uses one person to pay for another — saying, in fact, that he will support a 90% top marginal tax rate…  90% (yikes). The Intramuralist believes that individuals are capable of creating wealth; we are capable of creating goods and services of value and worth to others. In other words, there is not some finite, proverbial “pie” out there that each of us is waiting to claim our rightful piece of. We can create “more pie.”

The point, no less, is that regardless of candidate, regardless of partisan side, a populist promise is not enough. It must be paid for; there are populist policies on all sides. With full acknowledgement that the word “stupid” does not resonate within Intramuralist vocabulary, the bottom line is that the economy is significant. It must make economic sense. Promises must be paid for — from whichever Democrat or Republican advocates for the cause.

Can they financially back up that for which they advocate? Is it economically feasible?

Sounding good, friends, is simply not enough.

We can’t just vote with our hearts. Our heads must also align. It is the economy… no stupid… just what’s economically sound.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

EQ

IMG_5136We did a crazy thing last Thursday. After a full day of work and regularly scheduled activities — even including a sweet, high school choral concert right before we headed out — we hopped in our car a little after 9 p.m. and drove the 814 miles to see our oldest, newly- indoctrinated college freshman. We spent approximately 39 hours with him (that’s if you count sleep time, too). So it obviously wasn’t our most practical of trips, but the benefit far surpassed the cost.

As we reflected upon the weekend, one thought stood out that seemed incredibly “blog worthy.” I mean, when seeing him for the first time in two months, it was well apparent that our boy was now a man. Certainly, like each of us, he has areas to grow in, but his growth was obvious — that direct turn into adulthood, with all the independence, joy, responsibility and awareness that accompanies the movement. I was immediately, humbly proud… and aware, too, of something bigger. Follow me here…

So many of us are concerned regarding society’s seemingly, downward sloping spiral; it’s as if as a world, we are quickly, morally digressing. We may vary in our perception of the cause of that spiral — be it a loss of virtue, faith, or respect for one another — or be it instead an embracing of humanism, individualism, or an “if-it-feels-good-it-must-be-right” mentality. But a clear majority of the country consistently vocalizes an impression that as a society, we’re on the wrong track.

I wonder if part of that perceived, wrongful direction is because of what we have modeled for the younger generation. I wonder if we have embraced and taught the wrong things which have thus led us down the wrong track. Have we taught our kids poorly — encouraging the embracing of lesser things? Have we been negligent role models? Have we embraced intelligence instead of wisdom? …material success instead of emotional health? … self-promotion instead of selflessly loving our neighbor?

Years ago my spouse and I read a fantastic book together, no doubt instrumental in our parenting. We read “Raising An Emotionally Intelligent Child,” written by John Gottman, Ph.D.

In it Gottman challenges parents to foster and develop the “intelligence that comes from the heart.” Instead of advocating for the best grades, best schools, and or best materialistic something, Gottman focuses on what’s better. He encourages parents to coach the following:

– Be aware of a child’s emotions.
– Recognize emotional expression as an opportunity for intimacy and teaching.
– Listen empathetically and validate a child’s feelings.
– Label emotions in words a child can understand; and…
– Help a child come up with an appropriate way to solve a problem or deal with an upsetting issue or situation.

Such is the core of emotional coaching — leading to emotional intelligence in the younger generation.

Emotional intelligence (EQ) is a term that gained prominence after the 1995 so titled book by Daniel Goleman. EQ refers to the ability to recognize and distinguish different feelings in oneself and in others. That awareness then guides a person’s thinking and behavior.

It seems to me that much of our society struggles with exactly that. We struggle with appropriate ways to solve problems; we struggle when wrestling with upsetting issues or situations; we struggle to listen to one another empathetically. And while many may be incredibly gifted or academically intelligent, we are not necessarily emotionally intelligent. The fact that our society and our leaders do not consistently treat one another with empathy and respect — or only treat a select, like few with such grace — shows a glaring scarcity of emotional intelligence.

Back then, to last weekend…

It was great to see my son adjusting to his new surroundings. While undoubtedly aware of the potential hurdles along his current path, I see in him a man who has sweetly grown… a man embracing the reality of where he is… a man more sensitive to and respectful of those around him… a man learning how to listen… a man who is working positively through challenging situations… a man who is intelligent, who was emotionally prepared to go to college.

It was a beautiful, reflective drive home… all 814 miles.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

socialism

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. listens to testimony. Over two hundred member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars attended a joint meeting of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. listens to testimony. Over two hundred member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars attended a joint meeting of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Lauren Victoria Burke/WDCPIX.COM)

As socialism has fascinatingly made its way into more of our national conversation — due to the impression that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders seems an authentic, affable candidate — I thought it would be wise to begin to discuss what socialism actually is. Note that such is not a simple nor easily contained discussion. There are multiple angles possible from which people perch.

According to Oxford Dictionaries, socialism is “a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” Oxford includes the following synonyms: “leftism, welfarism, radicalism, progressivism, social democracy, communism, Marxism, and labor movement.”

According to the Free Dictionary, socialism is “(1) any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Or… (2) the stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which the means of production are collectively owned but a completely classless society has not yet been achieved.”

According to Investopedia, socialism is “an economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. China, Vietnam and Cuba are examples of modern-day socialist societies. Twentieth-century socialist governments were overthrown in Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the U.S.S.R.”

Note that there exist multiple varieties of socialism, and there does not seem a singular definition that encapsulates every aspect. Just as there exist varied Republicans and Democrats — such as “Reagan Democrats,” “Log Cabin Republicans,” the “Agnostic Left,” and “Values Voters” — there are varied kinds of socialists, emphasizing varied aspects and/or political priorities.

Hence, also similar to Republicans and Democrats, there exist some common priorities among socialists: increased government ownership and control, increased social welfare, less competition, individual equality, and some level of redistribution of income. Note that under a fully socialist system, there would be no private property, no varied individual, economic status, and the government would be responsible for the basic necessities of our lives — therefore being responsible for the distribution of our wealth.

In addition to these common priorities among the varied strands of socialism, it is also wise to examine the effect of socialism throughout history. Russian mathematician, Igor Shafarevich, shared such in his iconic work,“The Socialist Phenomenon,” 35 years ago. In his much publicized research, one of the unique aspects of socialism that each of us should examine is the existence of three persistent abolition themes across the decades of varied socialist approaches:

(1) The abolition of private property
(2) The abolition of the family; and…
(3) The abolition of religion.

Friends, let me be very clear. Current day socialists may not agree with the common threads above; such, however, has been historically true of nations when socialism is implemented and embraced.

Let me also again state that Sen. Sanders seems an authentic, affable candidate. Yet similar to the understandable claims that the Tea Party pulled Republicans to a fringe right in 2008, claims can be equally asserted that socialism supporters are currently pulling Democrats to a fringe left.

Hence, my desire is not to criticize a candidate; rather, I believe it’s important to evaluate the wisdom of the system. What are the benefits of socialism? What are the pitfalls? Why are a significant many in the United States currently accepting of a historically, more oppressive system? And how can we be certain the extremes will not be executed nor embraced?

Just asking questions, friends… it’s always good to ask the questions.

Respectfully…
AR