Current Event – Page 89 – intramuralist ™

04/19/2015

something less than character

Ok, something somewhere is sticking in my craw here. True, that’s not a phrase the Intramuralist uses with any frequency. I’m not certain I even know exactly what a “craw” is. Since Google often makes each of us look a little smarter than we really are, I’ve learned that a “stick in your craw” means something unacceptable — something annoying, typically because we believe it to be wrong. Granted, when I look up the meaning solely of the word “craw” — meaning “the crop of a bird or insect” or “the stomach of an animal” — it still doesn’t make total sense to me; hence, we’ll go with the original “annoying” application. Something seems off.

Last week in a Boston courtroom, former NFL star, Aaron Hernandez, was convicted of murder. He was found guilty of murder in the first degree — killing previous friend/acquaintance, Olin Lloyd — a charge that carries an automatic sentence of life in prison without parole in the state of Massachusetts.

Like I said, something here still sticks in my craw.

Let’s not pile on this previous Patriots Pro-Bowler. A sin is a sin is a sin; each of us make mistakes; some simply seem far more grievous than others. So let’s begin by stating the facts…

In 2007, when only 17, Hernandez refused to pay his bar tab after drinking illegally and then punched a pub employee in the ear, rupturing the man’s eardrum. Although the Gainesville, FL police department recommended charging Hernandez with felony battery, the incident was settled privately, out of court.

In the summer of 2012, a double murder took place in Boston. Two years later — only after the murder of Lloyd — Hernandez was indicted for those killings (for which he will soon also be tried).

In the summer of 2013, a friend filed an assault charge against Hernandez for a previous incident in which the friend alleges Hernandez caused the loss of his right eye.

My conclusion? Herein lies a pattern of foolish behavior.

Yet from 2007 through 2013 — until the murder of Lloyd and the reports that Hernandez was at the scene of the killing — what did we as a public most hear about Hernandez?

Aaron Hernandez… drafted in the 4th round by the New England Patriots…. member of the BCS National Championship team… All-American at the University of Florida… top tight end recruit out of high school… great player… amazing talent… contributed mightily even as a freshman… leading the Gators… recognized as the nation’s top tight end after only his junior year… left college early, because he was so talented…

Goes to New England… becomes the youngest player on any active roster in the NFL… phenomenal player… earns “NFL Rookie of the Week” honors… makes millions… leads the team to the Super Bowl… awarded more millions…

In other words, because Hernandez was gifted on the football field, we heard all about his physical talent. We heard little about his character… even though the foolish pattern was ongoing the entire time.

With who else — within sports, politics, entertainment, etc. — do we focus on something less than character?

… because we are so attracted to their talent? … to their gifting or eloquence?

If we are attracted to something less than character, then perhaps we are the ones who have been fooled.

Respectfully…

04/16/201504/16/2015

leadership criteria

I’ve read many insightful leadership books through the years — books such as The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, How to Win Friends & Influence People, Change Your Questions Change Your Life, Strengths Finder, and the clever Who Moved My Cheese?

I’ve also learned of all sorts of aptly titled leaders — The Anywhere Leader, The Connected Leader, The Servant Leader, The 60 Second Leader, and The Leader Who Had No Title. (Granted, we are well aware that at an early age we’re roped into playing “follow the leader” — and the “leader of the band is tired.”)

Yet with multiple persons desiring to be our leader, it dawns on me that perhaps the best insight into what makes a wise, effective leader comes from a single, historical verse… a poignant, powerful verse. It reads:

“So he shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them with his skillful hands.”

To “shepherd” means to tend to — to guard, feed, and care. There is a component of rule there, but that rule comes only from a teacher of unquestionable virtue and wisdom. Also existent is a sense of delight, sincerely delighting in the people one is called to serve.

“Integrity” means completeness, fullness — in full measure. It’s an innocence marked by an integrity of mind; it’s a simplicity of mind, which is the opposite of mischief or ill-design. There is no evil purpose. There is only truth.

To “guide” shows the person’s position in relation to others — leading back and forth — often leading persons back if and when they migrate past wise limits. The leader must know the limits.

And “skillful hands” — implying the gentleness yet firmness that understanding and intelligence provide, so that the tending to, care, and leading is done in an effective, insightful way. It also implies intelligent words that each can comprehend.

As I look at this list, I wonder: are we taking this enough into account when we choose our nation’s leaders? Are we looking for someone who can shepherd? … can guide? … one who is marked by integrity and skillful hands?

Or… do we vote for someone for another reason?

… because they share (or don’t share) a certain ethnic, gender, or demographic identification?

… because they support a singular policy issue of which we’re passionate?

… or… because we want to elect the first of something? … African American, Hispanic American, woman, Mormon, etc., etc.?

Friends, I understand being attracted to candidates who share specific attributes and hold positions of which we are passionate. What I don’t understand is sacrificing the above wise criteria in order to feed those passions.

So I say again… “He shepherded them according to the integrity of his heart, and guided them with his skillful hands”… he cared for them and delighted in them in full measure… leading with unquestionable virtue — with both gentleness and firmness… effectively… wisely… intelligently… always in truth.

What a beautiful thing…

Respectfully…

04/14/201504/14/2015

dear hillary

Dear Hillary,

Congratulations! You have decided to again enter into the presidential race. Running the race is not easy — nor is holding true to your values when the campaign’s rigor and rhetoric attempt to throw you off. The Intramuralist wishes you well. Also, consistent with our practice, my audience and I have some questions for you. (We have questions for every candidate!) Hence…

Why do you want to be President? How are you uniquely gifted?

Do you believe you are the best person for the job — or woman for the job — or both?

Do you believe being a woman makes you more qualified?

How have you changed since the first time you ran? How are you more sincere?

You seem to struggle with transparency. Do you promise to always be honest and transparent going forward?

Why do seemingly few Democrats desire to run against you? Do you know?

What’s your relationship like with Pres. Obama? What would you say are his greatest strengths and weaknesses? What would he say are yours?

What’s your relationship like with Benjamin Netanyahu? Vladimir Putin? Al Sharpton?

Do you hold me to the same standards that you hold yourself? Are we all expected to be held to the same laws and standards? Or are there people that should be above the law?

What were your successes and mistakes as Sec. of State — especially in regard to the Arab world?

Are you comfortable with the phrase “radical Islamic terrorists”?

How do your political positions align with your faith?

What specific economic experience do you have?

How do we stop the rising costs of higher education and healthcare?

What are your ideas for the long term solvency for both social security and Medicare?

What would Bill’s role be in a potential presidency?

What are the benefits — and detriments — of having members of the same family become President (i.e. the Bush’s & Clinton’s)?

Did you tell the total truth about Benghazi? When you said a video was responsible, did you know that was untrue?

What did you delete from your home server?

How do you create an inspirational future with such a difficult, fractious past?

What about your newly crafted campaign image is most authentic?

And what about your newly crafted image is exaggerated for purposes of electability? (Note: every candidate will exaggerate something.)

The Intramuralist wishes you well, Hillary. We look forward to the ensuing, respectful conversation these next 18 months.

Let me also encourage you — and each of your competitors — to view this campaign as a job interview. Remember: you are the prospective employee. We, the public, are the employer. We are an equal opportunity employer, but we also will decide who we believe to be most fit for the job; we can only choose one. We thus expect each candidate to transparently present us with an accurate assessment of individual strengths and weaknesses — so we can make a wise, discerning decision. A wise decision would be best for all.

Respectfully…

04/12/201504/12/2015

salty

Is it true that it only takes a little bit of salt?

A pinch of salt… taking it with a grain of salt… a little bit of salt will do…

And is it true that it only takes an iota of salt to make things salty? Is an entire batch affected by the tiny bit?

I’m wondering today if society is straddling into dangerous territory, beginning to incorrectly apply the salty analogy. I’m wondering if we ever make questionable — often wrongful — “entire batch” conclusions. For example…

If a “tiny bit” of men act stupidly, does that mean women are smarter than men?

If a “tiny bit” of Christians misapply biblical truth, does that mean all Christians reflect God poorly?

If a “tiny bit” of Muslims conduct murderous acts, does that make all Muslims evil?

If a “tiny bit” of white officers shoot a black man, does that make all police officers racist?

If a “tiny bit” of offenders are innocent, does that make all offenders incorrectly charged?

If a “tiny bit” of protestors act violently, does that make all protesters violent?

If a “tiny bit” of politicians have been proven to be dishonest, does that mean all legislators lie through their teeth?

If a “tiny bit” of gun owners act irresponsibly with their guns, does that make all 2nd Amendment appreciators unworthy to keep and bear arms?

If a “tiny bit” of persons who oppose gay marriage are disrespectful in the articulation of their opinion, does that mean all who oppose gay marriage are disrespectful?

If a “tiny bit” of activists believe intimidation is justifiable, does that make all activists bullies?

If a “tiny bit” of television shows are non-fiction, does that mean all “reality shows” depict real life?

And if a “tiny bit” of one demographic group is bigoted, does that make them all bigoted?

Friends, I’m wondering where we’ve made wrongful conclusions about an “entire batch” because of our emotional reaction to a “tiny bit.” Where have we gone too far? Where have we weighted an instance or incident too much? Where does our logic fail to hold up — as we’ve (hopefully) humbly made some potentially wrongful conclusions?

Truthfully, I understand the mistake, as the “tiny bit” can be an actual, awful thing. But one or two or even 17 actual, awful things don’t dictate the flavor of an entire batch.

Respectfully…

04/09/2015

dealing with iran

For weeks the Intramuralist has resisted commenting extensively on the Iranian nuclear talks. The challenge is that I feel my perspective is very limited; granted, my perspective is most likely, comparably limited on multiple other topics that I feel far more comfortable commenting on, but this one seems different; it seems weightier… sobering. It’s also seemingly so hard to discern what is good and true and right.

The implications of negotiating with Iran are potentially huge, and too many people are attempting to talk us into simply adopting partisan opinion. The way I look at the possibility of Iran being able to create nuclear weapons, I see zero partisanship. In other words, my voter registration card should give no indication into the wisdom or foolishness inherent in dealing with a nation historically awashed in hostility.

The bottom line question is: will the negotiations deter nuclear development?

Great question. Hard to answer. Hence, what do we know for certain?

The deal is unfinished. Significant details are being negotiated by a set deadline of June 30.
Since Iran signed an agreement in November of 2013, it has been harder for them to produce weapons-grade nuclear material.
Iran has still continued to engage in activities that could lead to the production of nuclear weapons material in the future.
There remains ample concern about broader aspects of a nuclear weapons program, such as weapons design and missile development by Iran.
While the International Atomic Energy Agency reports no violations with the previous agreement, Iran has been working on a new kind of centrifuge, which “while not a formal violation, contradicts the United States’ understanding of the deal.” [Politifact]
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, who will oversee implementation of the new agreement, has expressed continued, ongoing hostility toward both Israel and the U.S.
Since the tentative deal last week, U.S. and Iranian officials have broadcast significantly different perspectives of the agreement to their citizens.
Specifically, Tehran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zari disputed a “fact sheet” released by the U.S. immediately following the tentative agreement, that referred to current sanctions being suspended rather than lifted.
The deal would allow Iran to use advanced centrifuges after 10 years.
The Obama administration is claiming that a nuclear deal with Iran is the best way to keep track of Iran’s nuclear activity.
Pres. Obama has been framing the debate over an Iran nuclear deal as a choice between his strategy or war. [U.S. News & World Report]
Congress has not been included in the deal making, as the deal has been negotiated by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.
There is bipartisan opposition in Congress — especially to bypassing Congress with such a deal — with Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) telling The Washington Post this week, “I do think they [Obama and his team] have some work to do to recognize that congressional oversight is appropriate.”
Israel is opposed to the deal.
Influential Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY) has also stated the Obama administration should not bypass Congress. Said the liberal senator, “I strongly believe Congress should have the right to disapprove any agreement.”
The administration is now actively lobbying individual congressmen to craft no new legislation regarding sanctions or negotiations with Iran at this time.
And… as shared at the onset of this post, pundits and politicians continue to attempt to get the watching public to simply adopt a perceived partisan opinion.

This is not a partisan issue. This affects what is wise for the entire world. I wish I knew what the best answer was. I wish I trusted Pres. Obama more — and the motives of each and every congressmen. I also wish the inherent wisdom of the deal was as easy to decipher as an indication on my voter I.D. card.

Respectfully…

[Note: primary sources leaned on for this post were CNN, The Hill, Politifact, Reuters, U.S. News & World Report, the Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post.]

04/07/2015

judgment day

Recently, it seems, I’ve heard an amplified chorus of the call to withhold judgment…

“Do not judge, lest you be judged.”

It also seems such is one of the most repeated biblical truths both Bible students and non-Bible students like to proclaim. No doubt the call to refrain from judgment is a wise practice indeed. The loophole, no less, lies in the meaning of the word, “judgment.” Too often it seems we equate the withholding of “judgment” — the rendering of consequences, a condemnation, or an eternal pronouncement, perhaps — with an absence of right and wrong. Let’s be clear: some things are right; some things are wrong; the challenge is that we often disagree on “some things.”

For example, I watched the University of Kentucky men’s basketball team, as they struggled emotionally in their post-game press conference, after being heralded all year as “the team to beat”… with so many saying it was impossible for them to lose… with one former professional coach even quipping that UK could be a playoff team in the NBA’s Eastern Conference. And then Kentucky did the unthinkable; they lost.

Here then were these 19 & 20 year old men, who are supposed to have something to say, albeit arguably just experiencing one of their greatest emotional letdowns of their young lives. Question: how many of us at 19 & 20 had the maturity to handle all things well? … especially with all the world watching?

So it was of little surprise that one player would do something wrong when asked about a member of the team to which they lost. Kentucky’s Aaron Harrison used a crude, racial term to describe Wisconsin’s Frank Kaminsky, likely believing the microphone would fail to pick up the slur muddled slightly under his breath. Harrison’s behavior was wrong. There is no arrogance in that assessment; there is no condemnation nor feeling that any other is better than Harrison. It is still true that Harrison’s behavior was wrong.

After the conclusion on the NCAA championship, much of the sports world will turn their attention to the infamous tournament this weekend at Augusta National, The Masters. Earlier I witnessed an ESPN commentator talk about the return of Tiger Woods. Woods is returning to the professional golf circuit after a two month hiatus. The question of the commentator was, “Which Tiger will show up?” … the one that dominated the sport for so many years, winning his first major at age 21? … or the one that has never been the same since his four month leave of absence in 2009-2010?

Woods sadly left the sport after very public revelations regarding his multiple, extra-marital affairs while married to Elin Nordegren. Please let no one pounce upon Tiger or rant about his obvious error. But also let no one act as if his error was not obvious. Tiger’s infidelity was wrong.

I found this particular commentator’s comments fascinating because in his posing of the question — as to “which Woods” it would be — the commentator never acknowledged that Woods dominance dissipated when his personal, moral image was pierced.

Granted, none of us need our moral failings repeatedly or disrespectfully rehashed by another — especially publicly — but it’s also ok to acknowledge the existence of moral failings; it’s ok to acknowledge right and wrong.

There’s no automatic arrogance in that acknowledgement. It’s not condemnation. It’s not compassion-less. It’s also not judgmental.

Respectfully…

04/05/2015

head, heart, & feet

If something is good, right, and true, it should change us from our head to our heart to our feet. Such has long been my mantra about faith. If a faith is good, right, and true it should totally change us… establishing the reasoning in our head, molding the emotions of our heart, and prompting the action of our feet. If any of the three are omitted, the validity of the faith may be in question. On a day such as Easter — a day unlike any other in the course of history — I find myself examining all three…

The reasoning in our head…

The Intramuralist will always advocate for a respect for all religion. Note that a respect does not equate to accepting all religion as equally good, right, and true. Hence, when I examine the world’s religions solely from a position of intellect, I don’t find myself spending much time, for example, on wrestling with the validity of Scientology. When I take note of the fact that the Church of Scientology was established by a science fiction writer, who taught that, Xenu, the dictator of the “Galactic Confederacy”, came to Earth 75 millions years ago, bringing billions of people here who were then killed by hydrogen bombs — etc. etc. — I will be respectful of Scientology, but I do not question if it’s true.

My head is most affected by the resurrection at the core of Christianity. The bodies of all other religious leaders are dead and decaying in a tomb somewhere. Jesus Christ’s dead body, however, was never found, and multiple persons attested to seeing him alive after his death. My head simply can’t let go of the unparalleled uniqueness of that account.

The emotions of our heart…

If a faith is good, right, and true, it should magnify the most virtuous, contagious, character change. Granted, we each are still capable of error, but for the most part, love, selflessness, compassion, humility, and empathy should be magnified — and magnified not only in singular, limited aspects of life, but magnified in how we interact with all people.

It’s the glaring flaw in the Islamic extremists desiring to murder the “infidel”… in the unaffiliated Westboro Baptist Church known for their hate speech… and in the plethora of people last week on Facebook — often in the supposed name of Jesus — on both sides of the religious freedom issue — who also utilized hate speech. My sense is so many of us have allowed our faith (or lack of it) to mold only a portion of our heart; it’s as if we only allow it to affect certain compartments — selfishly holding onto places were we say, “Sorry, God, but that doesn’t apply here.” No faith that is good, right, and true will advocate or encourage such justification.

The action of our feet…

Knowing what we know, therefore, and feeling what we feel — meaning our heads and hearts are totally submitted to the teachings of our faith — even to what’s humanly hard to comprehend — our feet should be moved into action. Our faith prompts our service…

It’s what I witnessed from afar in Mother Teresa, a selfless woman who intentionally chose to live among the poorest of the poor, attempting to meet more of their physical needs…

It’s what I witnessed in Chuck Colson, a once ruthless man who was so changed that he established a worldwide ministry to give hope to the hopeless — to encourage the imprisoned…

And it’s what I witnessed in my sister, a beautiful young woman who inspired so many so deeply, holding onto her positive, confident hope in Jesus, even as the shadow of death closed in.

A faith that is good, right, and true changes us. It changes our head, heart, and feet. It’s also contagious. Thanks, God…

Respectfully…

03/31/201503/31/2015

judgment

A friend directed me to a recent article about school suspensions and their effectiveness. The author, Ashley Nicole Black, began as follows:

“When I was in high school, I was almost suspended twice. Bad to the bone trouble maker that I was, the first time was for being late to ‘zero period”’(the optional early morning class for honors students) more than five times in one semester (I literally lived on the wrong side of the tracks and would get stuck behind long trains on my way to school). And the second time was for a stash of “drugs” that fell out of my backpack in front of a teacher. I carry pain pills on me at all times because I’ve always gotten debilitating migraines. So when a bottle fell out of my bag a teacher took pity on me and didn’t report me… doing me a big favor because I went to a zero-tolerance school where I would have been expelled for a bottle of aspirin.”

So today’s students are disciplined for tardiness and Tylenol. I get it. I get that schools need standards. I simply question how we measure.

One of the trends of the past decade, for example, is to eradicate bullying. Bullying is bad — no more celebration of “bad, bad, Leroy Brown.”

Campaigns have existed. Many have stood and cheered at their onset… The Bully Project… The National Bullying Prevention Center… Stop bullying now! I agree. I have cheered as well; there is no place for the aggressive, intimidating behavior that is intended to make another person feel lesser because of who they are. There’s just one, small, but still huge problem…

In the evolving, litigious society in which we live — in a culture that rarely, willingly cedes vengeance to the divine — we like to take things into our own hands (… stop it now, remember?). Please hear me; bullying should not be allowed in any form. But we are challenged in authentic discernment of the bullying, because we are not always fully capable of discerning the heart of another. We often examine only the external factors or behaviors, making judgments and decisions completely from them — because measuring the heart is hard… measuring motive might be errant. And so we arrogantly justify making judgments solely on the external. I think that’s dangerous. I think that’s also a gaping pitfall for even the seemingly most intelligent.

Several years ago, one of my three sons was suspended from school for two days. He had said something inappropriate to another and then shoved the elementary student strongly. My son was the agitator and completely in the wrong. (Tangent note: it’s ok to admit when our kids are wrong.) Because my son’s physical behavior was (1) a repeated offense, (2) accompanied by a verbal threat, and (3) because he aggressively attempted to dominate another student, suspension under the school’s bullying policy was considered. All incidents which meet such criteria are treated the same way.

I’ll say it again: I get it. There’s just one problem; this was my son with Down syndrome.

Now let me briefly offer two relevant side notes. Just because my son is deemed by society as “special” does not qualify him for sainthood; he, like every other thriving young man does some things well and some things not. He is just as in need of discipline as you and me. That means when he makes a mistake in my absence at school, the teachers and administrators will have my full support; we’re in this together.

My frustration, though, was not with the suspension — Josh deserved it. My frustration was the suspension possibly falling under the bullying policy. Bullying implies an internal intent — yet we as a society aren’t good at measuring the internal. We think we are; we make judgments off of the external instead because it’s far easier. The challenge is that man cannot fully judge the heart. We have blindly lost sight of that reality.

We live in a society which likes to think we know it all. In my opinion, that equates to failing to recognize that only a one, true God has the omniscience we subtly proclaim. If we recognized that reality — that judging the internal is not something of which we are fully capable — we’d be more comfortable with the subjective, less judging of the external, and be ok with tardiness and Tylenol.

Respectfully…

03/29/201503/29/2015

the best bracket

We always have to pick one…

Best Dressed Man
Sexiest Man Alive
Best Picture
Best New Artist
The #1 New York Times Best Seller

We make things into a competition… for everything from presidential nominations to “who will be the next Pope” to the People’s Choice Awards. We’re a competitive people. We like to crown one winner.

Such awareness leads me to the competitive manifestation found in the madness of March. Again today, college basketball teams will pair off on the tournament hardwood — each fighting to be the best… each wanting to win.

Many of us have joined in the contest — filling out our own brackets — entering either the annual office pool or family challenge, or perhaps even, simply competing for a point of personal pride. According to Slate.com in recent years, an estimated 45% of us filled out a bracket (…granted, approximately 43% of us have also already wadded them up and thrown them away). As evidenced by the 11.57 million people who completed a bracket on ESPN, “bracketology” has taken on a new meaning indeed.

I was struck this week by something else I found wadded up. This sheet was crumpled in the corner in one of my son’s upstairs bedrooms (…I know… shocking that I would find anything on the floor of a teenager’s room…).

Yet when I slowly unfurled this crumpled sheet, I found a goldmine of wisdom. Here, roughly designed with undoubtedly valiant efforts at perceived symmetry, was a bracket created by my 13 year old, sports fan son with special needs.

He did not use a pre-printed bracket, however; he made up his own.

On both the left and the right, he crafted slots for 16 teams, thus including 32 entries. But this bracket had a different title. It said nothing about the 2015 Men’s NCAA Championship. Instead, boldly printed on the top of the page was:

“BRACKIT FOR BEST MAN AND TEAM”

Then down the sides of the page, I sat still as I read the names. There I would find the listings of my son’s father…

… his brothers… some aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins.

I did chuckle — realizing Josh must have ran out of names to write — when added in on his “brackit” were LeBron James, the University of Florida, and our cat, Zipper. But I loved and admired his precious list.

My only pondering was why he never completed the bracket — why it was instead crumpled and discarded. So I soon asked, “Why no best man and team?”

To which my wise son responded, “There are lots of good teams. It doesn’t matter. Winning and losing are the same… if you win, you’re awesome; if you lose, you’re still awesome.”

It didn’t matter. No one had to win.

Respectfully…

03/26/2015

bizarre

On Monday, Texas Senator Ted Cruz became the first person to officially announce his candidacy for the President of the United States. One word of initial disclosure: while the Intramuralist has never endorsed a candidate nor has any plans to — although we will make observations regarding a candidate or campaign — of all candidates presumed to be running (including those who apply way too much effort attempting to convince us they’ve yet to make up their mind), Ted Cruz would not be my choice to be President. I’m not being critical. I’m simply saying there exist others that I personally believe would be better and more gifted at the job. I may be wrong.

Still, each candidate regardless of party, presents his or herself with a unique resume. Each candidate will have strengths. Each will also have weaknesses. One of my greatest — albeit arguably utopian desires — is that each candidate would transparently share their strengths and weaknesses with the watching public. After all, in any job interview, that’s what each employer wants to know… What are you good at? What are you not?

Hence, I was fascinated after Cruz’s announcement by a singular Tweet. Meredith Shriner, a political reporter for Yahoo News — a previous employee for both Roll Call and Politico and a journalism alum from Duke University shared the following on Twitter:

Shriner suggests talking about God-given rights is bizarre.

Bizarre. That equates to strange, peculiar, funny, outlandish, unusual, nuts, weird, wacky, and somewhere totally off the wall. Outlandish that rights are God-made.

While the Intramuralist would quickly suggest revisiting the Declaration of Independence — and its clear acknowledgement of rights endowed to each of us by our Creator — I suggest the more significant point is the questioning of a candidate because of his belief that God is the bestower of rights — life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and far, far more. When we refuse to recognize what our Founding Fathers knew and thus penned, we begin justifying entitlement.

Chew on that for a minute… When we believe that rights are determined by man and thus self, we feel entitled. When we feel entitled, we miss the humility prompted by submission to an omniscient, omnipotent Creator — recognizing God as the giver of all things good.

Hence, while I have no current intention of voting for Sen. Cruz, I find this reporter’s post to be somewhat foolish.

Bizarre, actually.

Respectfully…