"Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," reads John 8:32. That this statement is the gospel truth is quite obvious. What is less obvious though, is what is meant by the truth, and what is meant by free. What exactly does the truth set us free from? Why is it that some would not wish to be free? As Christians, do we have the obligation to be free of pleasant illusions? And if so, what responsibility do we have for the pleasant illusions of others? Do we honor truth tellers, or reward hypocrites and liars who paint false, but pretty, pictures? Is it necessary to embrace unpleasant truth? I do not pretend to know the answers to all of these questions, but I do think about them, and my own life reflects my own provisional answers to these questions based on careful research and my own rather prickly personal experience (which is different from that of others--a fact I respect even if they do not respect it in return).
Before I get too far into the thorny issue of what the truth sets us free from, and why we may not always be enthusiastic to be free, it is important to look at the truth. What is true, and what therefore is of vital importance that we know. We can know many things, should we have the inclination, though not all of those things are worth knowing. For example, we can know all about how to make an atomic bomb, but such knowledge is not likely to be very worthwhile. The same would be true, for example, of the knowledge of how to commit sin in the most picturesque manner. It is relatively obvious that some knowledge is proper and some is improper, even if defining the precise barrier is difficult. It is that thorny task I would like to deal with at this point, because it is the subject of much disagreement and controversey.
Ephesians 4:29 states: "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that may minister grace to the hearers." This verse is certainly an important verse, but first it must be made clear what is corrupt, what is meant by communication, and what is good to the use of edifying and grace. It is only after we answer these three questions that we can determine what sort of communication this entails, and if this has any bearing on the sort of truth that sets us free. Is there any kind of truth that is corrupt communication or not?
The word used for communication in this verse is logos, the Greek word translated elsewhere as a title of Jesus Christ (as the Word). It refers to any words, thoughts, or writings that we may have. The word is of rather expansive meaning, and includes all forms of communication. Therefore, communication is a fitting word to use for this. So whatever this verse refers to, it can refer to any way we have of thinking and expressing those thoughts to others, which is quite serious.
The word used here for corrupt is sapros, which means rotten, worthless, bad, or evil. This word is used both for the literal sense of rotten fruit or meat, for example, as well as moral rottenness. Judging by the context of the word in the verse and passage, it is rather clear that the word is referring in this case to the moral rather than to the literal sense.
The word used here for edifying is oikodome, which refers to structure and architecture, and means building (as a verb here, not as a noun). The question, therefore, is what sort of building up is meant here. The verse itself refers to grace, and therefore suggests that the building up is not merely that of flattery, which builds us up, but is meant in the spiritual sense. As is true with physical construction, however, sometimes it is necessary to tear down an existing structure in order to build up a better one. Therefore, it would appear that this verse does not denigrate unpleasant truthtelling at all, but rather harshly condemns communication which entices others to sin. This is of some importance.
Several of my favorite stories in the Bible invovle the prophet Nathan. I was named after him and given, by some perverse sense of humor, a similar sort of attitude when it came to telling the truth. All of the characters in the Bible named Nathan or derivatives of Nathan (like the apostle Nathanael Bartholomew) are known for their rather blunt truth-telling, which is respected by godly characters. This will be more important later on, but suffice it to say for now that our attitude towards truth telling determines whether we are godly or not. The classic story of Nathan the prophet involves the sin of David and Bathsheba. David committed the sin of adultery, in private, and then covered up this sin by murder, behaving in both instances as a tyrant, by abusing his power as king for his own personal pleasure. Though his sin was private, though, his position in authority meant he had to be condemned in public, and that his sin and the price of his sin would be open to all as a demonstration of divine justice. And so it was.
Therefore, it is clear that Nathan's actions in publicizing the sin of David, which had hitherto been private, was not corrupt communication, even though it dealt with the sins of a powerful leader. The exposing of sin of leaders is a sacred duty of believers, and public confession of sin is the first step to restoration (as we saw in my previous post). Those leaders who deny the existence of their sin (all of us have sin, and thus have no room to be self-righteous or judgmental when it comes to dealing with the sins of others) and who punish those who expose the truth about them are not godly leaders. They are unrepentant and presumptuous sinners in danger of the gehenna judgment. Those who God places in positions of responsibility have very high standards to maintain, and their sins set the example for everyone else (without, of course, absolving people of their own personal responsibility). Therefore, the sins of leaders are taken very seriously by God. Both David and Paul (another example of a notorious sinner who became a leader in God's church, and who always remembered, and admitted, his previous conduct before conversion, as an example of the grace and mercy of God towards all of us sinners).
The consistent attitude of righteous individuals when confronted with sin is the acceptance of righteous judgment, no matter who that judgment came from. Truth is truth, whether it said by a small child, an old man, a parent, a child, a servant, or anyone else. Whether it was the righteous rebuke of Judah by Tamar or the repentant attitude of David when faced with the stern rebuke of the prophet Nathan, unplesanat truthtelling is edifying (as Psalm 141:5 makes plain). Therefore, no matter how unpleasant the truth, it builds us up by removing from us the pleasant fiction of illusion that surrounds us. The Bible does not whitewash its characters, but presents them in a balanced view, with both their virtues and vices in full view. Our lives as Christians should be without hypocrisy and without secrecy. We should be open to the view of all, and sometimes that view is not going to be very pleasant. We are all capable of grave sin (I speak of myself personally at least as much as about anyone else in this regard), and we all need mercy from God, for justice would be the death of us all.
What, then, do we need to be free of? It is clear that we need to be free of illusion. Illusion is all around us, and those societies that are more corrupt have more illusions than other societies. During the Middle Ages, for example, knowledge of the Bible was considered threatening to the preorogatives of the Catholic hierarchy, and therefore the faithful illiterate peasants of Europe had to content themselves with pretty pictures in stained glass windows in massive cathedrals, rather than having access to the true words of God, which spoke differently than the wicked leaders of the Catholic church. Our society is becoming less of a reading society, and more visual, and this is dangerous, as pictures lie and smooth over the complexities of life, but the truth lies with words, and the truth is always complicated and generally unpleasant. If we reject the truth, God rejects us. This is true of the dark truths about ourselves that lead us to repent of our sins and be baptized, realizing that on our own we are without hope of salvation. This is true of the dark truths about how we can become twisted by power, fame, and fortune, and how we can abuse our gifts and responsibilities for personal gain and for sinful pleasure. Truth is truth, regardless of the power and authority of the truthteller, and those who are godly will recognize truth and not judge merely by appearances.
Know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Are you willing to be free of the illusions that constantly surround us or not?
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Friday, March 10, 2006
The Importance of Choosing The Correct Call Girl...
A man named John Perfumo died today at the age of 91, according to the Associated Press. If he is remembered at all, it is for his role in an affair that threatened international security during the 1960's and that nearly brought down the Conservative government of Harold MacMillan in England, and led in part to its defeat in 1964 at the polls. Now, he would certainly not be the first person whose political position was threatened by an extramarital affair, indeed, I could mention that of quite a few people much better known by my blog reading audience. Nonetheless, this example is notable for its sensationalism as well as the aftermath of the case, which demonstrates that for all the severity of John Perfumo's sin/error, he was a more decent man than many I know of who have also been caught, figuratively or literally, with their pants down. This example, despite unpleasant, can be useful to us here and now.
John Perfumo was Secretary of State in England in 1963, a 48 year old with a promising political future in the Conservative Party, when allegations came out that he was having an affair with Christine Keeler, a call girl who was apparently also having an affair with a Soviet naval attache and military officer named Yevgeny Ivanov. When a letter he wrote to her was published though (writings are always getting people into trouble), he resigned from the cabinet and immediately became the center of a major national security storm in Great Britain.
It is here where the situation becomes somewhat complicated. It turns out that Perfumo met Keeler through a man named Stephen Ward, an osteopath who apparently profited from the prostitution of Keeler and another call girl, named Mandy Rice-Davies and whose apartment became an adulterous love nest for Perfumo, Ivanov, and (presumably) others. When the case went to trial Ward committed suicide via a drug overdose, despite vehemently denying that he tried to pressure Perfumo to give national security secrets to Ivanov (it was later determined that Perfumo gave away no state secrets, and thus he was not guilty of any security breaches, despite his appalling errors of judgment).
Perfumo was a wealthy man and had been an Oxford educated descendent of an Italian aristocrat who served in North Africa in World War II and who was elected to Parliament first in 1940. His war service was sufficiently exemplary to earn him the award of Officer of the Order of the British Empire. He also had a loyal and devoted wife, an actress named Valerie Hobson, who died in 1998. His wife stood by him during the trial and afterwards, but unlike most wayward husbands with loyal wives, he managed (somehow) to regain trust and reputation through a lifetime of service to the unfortunate, which merits our attention.
For though the Keeler scandal ended his promising political career, Perfumo had not finished his acts of service to the world. Though the scandal unsurprisingly forced him to withdraw from public attention, he still had something to do with his life. After a year out of work, he found unpaid work at Toynbee House as a helper at the noted charity for the poor in London's East End. Beginning as a dishwasher, he moved up to fundraiser, chairman, and president of the charity. He also served in a social club for recovering alcoholics, besides this.
For his charity work he was awarded in 1975 by the Queen the position of Commander of the Order of the British Empire. However, the shame of his scandal never departed from him. In 1989 a film named "Scandal" was made about the Keeler affair, despite the appeals from prominent friends (notably the late Bishop Jim Thompson) for filmakers to cease their labors.
What is most important for us, though, is the difference between Perfumo's reaction to scandal and that of those of us we are more familiar with. Though he, like others in his position, denied the truth when it first came out, he admitted his fault quickly and took personal responsibility for it. He was a man of honor who had blundered seriously, and he did not blame anyone else for his own mistakes. This is a rare quality in leaders, who are constantly trying to shift blame for their mistakes onto others, whether it is those who make the truth known or those who share in their errors. Not only this, though, but he sought to recover his reputation through acts of loyal and devoted service to the less fortunate of society, and continued in this labor for many years, despite having no apparent chance of regaining positions of power and influence. Ironically enough, by doing so he managed to demonstrate his own character and his own basic worthiness of respect and gratitude. In doing so, he managed to recover his reputation in large extent. Here is a truer analogue to the case of David and Bathsheba than most I am forced to hear from others concerning scandal-ridden leaders.
So, today died an old man, and a good man, who made a mistake and never ceased to pay for it. His actions, though, after the fact, demonstrate his basic decency of character. After all, such a sin as his is one that many can fall into. We may all fall into various sorts of temptations, and this is especially the case when someone has wealth, power, and influence. We may compare, however, the responsible actions of John Perfumo with the dishonorable actions of other leaders who have shared his flaw without sharing his nobility of character, and we may see that here was a man who received blame but suffered beyond what he deserved. There are others, however, who largely escaped the blame they were due (and today escape the blame they are due). However, if we do not pay for our sins now, we will do so later. It is better, like Mr. Perfumo, to repent, pay the price, and look forward to a more merciful judgment hereafter.
John Perfumo was Secretary of State in England in 1963, a 48 year old with a promising political future in the Conservative Party, when allegations came out that he was having an affair with Christine Keeler, a call girl who was apparently also having an affair with a Soviet naval attache and military officer named Yevgeny Ivanov. When a letter he wrote to her was published though (writings are always getting people into trouble), he resigned from the cabinet and immediately became the center of a major national security storm in Great Britain.
It is here where the situation becomes somewhat complicated. It turns out that Perfumo met Keeler through a man named Stephen Ward, an osteopath who apparently profited from the prostitution of Keeler and another call girl, named Mandy Rice-Davies and whose apartment became an adulterous love nest for Perfumo, Ivanov, and (presumably) others. When the case went to trial Ward committed suicide via a drug overdose, despite vehemently denying that he tried to pressure Perfumo to give national security secrets to Ivanov (it was later determined that Perfumo gave away no state secrets, and thus he was not guilty of any security breaches, despite his appalling errors of judgment).
Perfumo was a wealthy man and had been an Oxford educated descendent of an Italian aristocrat who served in North Africa in World War II and who was elected to Parliament first in 1940. His war service was sufficiently exemplary to earn him the award of Officer of the Order of the British Empire. He also had a loyal and devoted wife, an actress named Valerie Hobson, who died in 1998. His wife stood by him during the trial and afterwards, but unlike most wayward husbands with loyal wives, he managed (somehow) to regain trust and reputation through a lifetime of service to the unfortunate, which merits our attention.
For though the Keeler scandal ended his promising political career, Perfumo had not finished his acts of service to the world. Though the scandal unsurprisingly forced him to withdraw from public attention, he still had something to do with his life. After a year out of work, he found unpaid work at Toynbee House as a helper at the noted charity for the poor in London's East End. Beginning as a dishwasher, he moved up to fundraiser, chairman, and president of the charity. He also served in a social club for recovering alcoholics, besides this.
For his charity work he was awarded in 1975 by the Queen the position of Commander of the Order of the British Empire. However, the shame of his scandal never departed from him. In 1989 a film named "Scandal" was made about the Keeler affair, despite the appeals from prominent friends (notably the late Bishop Jim Thompson) for filmakers to cease their labors.
What is most important for us, though, is the difference between Perfumo's reaction to scandal and that of those of us we are more familiar with. Though he, like others in his position, denied the truth when it first came out, he admitted his fault quickly and took personal responsibility for it. He was a man of honor who had blundered seriously, and he did not blame anyone else for his own mistakes. This is a rare quality in leaders, who are constantly trying to shift blame for their mistakes onto others, whether it is those who make the truth known or those who share in their errors. Not only this, though, but he sought to recover his reputation through acts of loyal and devoted service to the less fortunate of society, and continued in this labor for many years, despite having no apparent chance of regaining positions of power and influence. Ironically enough, by doing so he managed to demonstrate his own character and his own basic worthiness of respect and gratitude. In doing so, he managed to recover his reputation in large extent. Here is a truer analogue to the case of David and Bathsheba than most I am forced to hear from others concerning scandal-ridden leaders.
So, today died an old man, and a good man, who made a mistake and never ceased to pay for it. His actions, though, after the fact, demonstrate his basic decency of character. After all, such a sin as his is one that many can fall into. We may all fall into various sorts of temptations, and this is especially the case when someone has wealth, power, and influence. We may compare, however, the responsible actions of John Perfumo with the dishonorable actions of other leaders who have shared his flaw without sharing his nobility of character, and we may see that here was a man who received blame but suffered beyond what he deserved. There are others, however, who largely escaped the blame they were due (and today escape the blame they are due). However, if we do not pay for our sins now, we will do so later. It is better, like Mr. Perfumo, to repent, pay the price, and look forward to a more merciful judgment hereafter.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Mango Diplomacy
Today I am going to talk about mangoes. But first, a quote from Winston Churchill, one of my favorite politicians of all time, and a man after my own heart: "What is the use of living," he asked, "if it be not to strive for nobler causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?" Those are very wise words from a pugnacious and perceptive leader.
“The United States is looking forward to eating Indian mangoes as part of liberalising trades and opening markets.”
– President Bush, in India, last Thursday.
Yes, this is a real quote. Apparently, the US imports 29% of the world's entire mango crop. I, for one, will not be eating mangoes, or any other kind of mangoes either, but not because I have anything against the people of India. Rather I have something against mangoes. That, however, is only because mangoes have something against me. That is a subject for later, though.
A lot of people like mangoes. The neareast Wally World (aka Wal-Mart) to my home is in a (formerly) rural area of Hillsborough County known as Mango. One of my friends had a (now deceased) lovebird named Mango. I am sure that many of my readers enjoy mango sherbert or mangoes in fruit salad and so forth. However, I can have no part in any sort of mango diplomacy.
The reason for this is that I (like one of my aunts) am seriously allergic to mango. My first experience with mangoes came when I visited Trinidad during the fall of 1990, when I was 9. During my time there for the Feast of Tabernacles, my family got the chance to visit a research farm in the mountains near the northern coast of the island of Trinidad. Included in this research farm was, lamentably, a mango grove. Needless to say, I was not particularly amused by the allergic reaction I received (hives, in this case) upon entering grove, without even touching any of the trees or fruit. Needless to say, I am one to remember when I have serious reactions to something.
It was to be quite a few years before I had any more run ins with that foul fruit. When visiting Pennsylvania during the Spring of 2004 (one of the last times, actually, that I saw my father alive) during a break in my religious studies (at Ambassador Bible Center) in the town of Milford, Ohio, my grandmother made a fruit salad that included mango. Needless to say, I was somewhat less than pleased with the outcome, which included an elevated heart rate, a migraine headache, skin crawling, numbness in the limbs, nausea, and other unpleasant reactions. After the incident I determined to do some research about the problem.
The reasearch I found was rather interesting. It turns out that my allergies to poison ivy and mango are related, because the same antigen is present in each. From all appearances, my first exposure to mango was through pollen, rather than through fruit, and this prevented tolerance from occurring. Before ever tasting mango, though, I had a very severe (nearly fatal) reaction to poison ivy, which made my face swell to such an extent that my eyes were nearly swollen shut. Needless to say, I try to avoid any further contact with poison ivy. Apparently, mango allergies are most common in those individuals who have atopic syndromes, most notably hay fever (yup, got that) and eczema. It is apparently related to an autoimmune problem where the body is hypersensitive to certain chemicals. Go figure.
It turns out that these conditions are often aggrevated by allergens and irritants, including perfume (check), laundry detergent (check), cigarette smoke (check), besides the allergies listed. Apparently, the allergic state is also increased by depression and high amounts of stress. At any rate, it is clear that I will be participating in any sort of mango diplomacy anytime soon. It remains to be seen whether the lifting of the embargo on Indian mangoes (apparently, India grows 41% of the world's mango crop, and there is some rivalry between India and Pakistan as to whose mangoes are better) will be noticed by those among my reading audience who enjoy the fruit. As for me, though, give me my strawberries and oranges, and leave me be. You can have the mangoes all for yourselves.
“The United States is looking forward to eating Indian mangoes as part of liberalising trades and opening markets.”
– President Bush, in India, last Thursday.
Yes, this is a real quote. Apparently, the US imports 29% of the world's entire mango crop. I, for one, will not be eating mangoes, or any other kind of mangoes either, but not because I have anything against the people of India. Rather I have something against mangoes. That, however, is only because mangoes have something against me. That is a subject for later, though.
A lot of people like mangoes. The neareast Wally World (aka Wal-Mart) to my home is in a (formerly) rural area of Hillsborough County known as Mango. One of my friends had a (now deceased) lovebird named Mango. I am sure that many of my readers enjoy mango sherbert or mangoes in fruit salad and so forth. However, I can have no part in any sort of mango diplomacy.
The reason for this is that I (like one of my aunts) am seriously allergic to mango. My first experience with mangoes came when I visited Trinidad during the fall of 1990, when I was 9. During my time there for the Feast of Tabernacles, my family got the chance to visit a research farm in the mountains near the northern coast of the island of Trinidad. Included in this research farm was, lamentably, a mango grove. Needless to say, I was not particularly amused by the allergic reaction I received (hives, in this case) upon entering grove, without even touching any of the trees or fruit. Needless to say, I am one to remember when I have serious reactions to something.
It was to be quite a few years before I had any more run ins with that foul fruit. When visiting Pennsylvania during the Spring of 2004 (one of the last times, actually, that I saw my father alive) during a break in my religious studies (at Ambassador Bible Center) in the town of Milford, Ohio, my grandmother made a fruit salad that included mango. Needless to say, I was somewhat less than pleased with the outcome, which included an elevated heart rate, a migraine headache, skin crawling, numbness in the limbs, nausea, and other unpleasant reactions. After the incident I determined to do some research about the problem.
The reasearch I found was rather interesting. It turns out that my allergies to poison ivy and mango are related, because the same antigen is present in each. From all appearances, my first exposure to mango was through pollen, rather than through fruit, and this prevented tolerance from occurring. Before ever tasting mango, though, I had a very severe (nearly fatal) reaction to poison ivy, which made my face swell to such an extent that my eyes were nearly swollen shut. Needless to say, I try to avoid any further contact with poison ivy. Apparently, mango allergies are most common in those individuals who have atopic syndromes, most notably hay fever (yup, got that) and eczema. It is apparently related to an autoimmune problem where the body is hypersensitive to certain chemicals. Go figure.
It turns out that these conditions are often aggrevated by allergens and irritants, including perfume (check), laundry detergent (check), cigarette smoke (check), besides the allergies listed. Apparently, the allergic state is also increased by depression and high amounts of stress. At any rate, it is clear that I will be participating in any sort of mango diplomacy anytime soon. It remains to be seen whether the lifting of the embargo on Indian mangoes (apparently, India grows 41% of the world's mango crop, and there is some rivalry between India and Pakistan as to whose mangoes are better) will be noticed by those among my reading audience who enjoy the fruit. As for me, though, give me my strawberries and oranges, and leave me be. You can have the mangoes all for yourselves.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Father and Son Debates
My father always loved to talk about government. It is unsurprising, therefore, that I do as well. However, it was one subject my father and I seriously disagreed about. Being somewhat patient (perhaps a bit too patient) about letting people prattle on about that which they know little or nothing about out of politness (my life would be nothing but a series of arguments if I had to harhsly correct someone every time they said something wrong--few people speak rightly much at all), it was a long time before I responded to the incipient debate. However, being somewhat irritable at times, eventually I replied. His beliefs and my beliefs, which are wildly different (and to which we both have held to dispite the difficulties they have caused) did not tear us apart, but the origins of those beliefs and the wide gulf between us, and the reasons for those differences, is emblematic of the distance that sometimes takes place between fathers and sons, even fathers and sons who care deeply about each other.
The Debate
My father (and no doubt much of my blog readership, to judge from the kvetching) was a firm believer in one-man, top-down government. People who wished to belittle my father often called him a "good German soldier" because he was someone who was a loyal follower. He was a hard worker in everything he did--whether that was driving 4 hours to church to and from church (yes, for those of you who were not so good at mathematics in school, that is 8 hours total) every week because of his firm devotion to one-man government in the church to his long years of bus driving, to his persistence as a farmer despite the fact that farms feature some of the hardest work for the least material reward possible in the entire world (something I know, amazingly enough, from personal experience). Except of course for school bus driving. Despite intimate and frequent experience with the arbitrary and capricious nature of tyrannical government in the religious, civil, and corporate world (more on that later), the lessons he took and the lessons I took from those experiences and stories are wildly different. To the day he died my father was a firm believer in "episcopal" government. Pity. The same was obviously not the case with me, as I have made abundantly clear on several occasions. The debate basically revolved around the biblical case for leadership, a subject far too large to get into here in sufficient detail, but which is necessary to look at at least briefly.
The Case For and Against Hierarchial Government:
While the case for Hierarchial government revolves around poor interpretation, ignorance of historical and biblical context, and the selection of too limited a sample of proof texts, it is worth examining that case in some detail, because it is a frequently posited claim and many people mistakenly hold to it. At first, it must be candidly admitted that the Bible does not sanction anarchy or people choosing what is right and wrong for themselves. The Bible is severe against the abuses of the powerful against those with less power, but it is equally clear that respect for human authority (within certain bounds) is vital as it teaches us how to respect God. At this point, the debate should merely be about what are the bounds where respect is owed to authority before rebellion (i.e. disobedience) is justified. That is not the case, however. Going further than this, the case often becomes an attempt to justify authority that is unaccountable and hierarchial, and where there is a clear distance between servants and served that approaches the distance between lords and peasants, or masters and servants, which is clearly unacceptable.
There are basically three areas of proof texts for this opinion. The first is the example of Moses, an often cited series of stories involving the penalty and heinousness of rebellion (a point that merits discussion). The second is the example of the monarchy of Israel and Judah. Third is the selective use of certain NT passages (1 Peter 5, Hebrews 13, and Romans 13 spring to mind most readily). Upon these three pillars the case for absolutism rests, and it is fortunate for us that these are very shaky pillars indeed. First of all, let us examine the case of Moses. Moses wished for his people to have the Holy Spirit working with him, was happy to delegate power to others (as Jethro advised and God mandated, whether that was Aaron, Joshua, or someone else fit), and did not wish the great power and responsibilty he had. This is in stark contrast to those who claim to follow his example in these times. There are times, regrettably, when it is necessary to govern societies under absolutism, but only until citizens are capable of rational thought and independent thinking, a task that requires education and should be diligently sought in all organizations and societies in order to remove all justification for tyranny. After all, we govern children differently from adults (thankfully), recognizing that with the age of reason comes certain freedom and personal responsibility. During the Wilderness travels, Israel had not reached that age of maturity. Both God and Moses wished for them to do so, but since they willfully refused to, the next best thing was to have a leader, as Moses was, who sacrificed himself for their best interests, as leaders are called to do in general. The next pillar is the monarchy. It should be noted that God was against the monarchy even starting, only accepting it as the (democratic) decision of the people of Israel. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 17 there are clear restrictions on the power and prestige of the monarchy. Included rather prominently in these restrictions is a prohibition on monarchs (and hence all other leaders) from viewing themselves as higher than their brethren. In short, leadership position does not grant one a superiority of position over equals (which is not merely other leaders, but everyone else in the entire community). Furthermore, God, though the prophets of this period, continually preached and acted against the wicked behavior of kings, sanctioning revolts (Jehu and Jeroboam spring to mind, as does Joash), defending the rights of citizens against the power of their leaders (as in the case of Naboth), and in pronouncing that tyrannical rule would lead to divine punishment. The third pillar involves certain passages in the NT. Three will be representative, as these are the most important. First, some misconstrue 1 Peter 5 (one of several "submit" passages in the NT) to mean that people have to submit to their leaders no matter what. Instead, the command to submit yourself to each other directly speaks of a mutual reciprocal obligation between human beings for mutual respect and responsibility. Far from advocating any sort of absolutism, it precludes it. Hebrews 13 is used in a similarly wrong fashion to attempt to show that the questioning of authority is akin to desiring that position of authority improperly. This is a common smear tactic. In reality, the chapter comments that those leaders who lead well are worthy of respect. When that is at question, though, to demand evidence of claims is not improper at all. Finally, Romans 13 (a chapter I have written a 40 page analysis of, much more detailed than I can be here) is often used improperly to justify an "obey leaders no matter what" mentality. After all, leaders punish evildoers and good people have nothing to fear at all, ever, from government, right? If you believe that I have some swampland in Florida to sell you, and I might be able to come up with some tundra in Alaska if you ask really nicely. Seriously, the chapter is an example of an implied social contract about 1600 years before they became popular, and goes like this: for a leader to have divine sanction for their position, they must punish evil and protect good people. Or, it may be phrased more negatively to say: those leaders who abuse their power of the sword to punish those who do nothing wrong have no divine sanction for their position. Think about that for a while.
Origin of Difference of Opinion:
It was not as if my father did not experience first hand tyrannical behavior from leadership. On the contrary, it appears to have occurred often (although, my father not being the philsophical sort of person, may not have added it up the way I do). He experienced abuse of power from government on two notable occasions. First, his college education at AC in Big Sandy was cut short during the late 1960's due to the Vietnam War. He was drafted, and since AC was not accredited he was not able to receive any academic deferrment. Instead, he had to serve four years of service at the AC farm and was unable to afford to finish his college education, a major regret of his. I should note here that he behaved honorably in this situation, as he did in general, as he did not burn his draft card or flee to Canada like many cowards did. He opposed war on principle, and suffered for his principles without complaint. If I view his restraint as somewhat inexplicable, it was certainly noble. The second occasion relates to the separation of my mother and father. After my mother and father separated, my mother for two years received welfare (technically, AFDC, with food stamps if I remember correctly). After my parents divorced some time later (a few years), my father (who was, as I have implied earlier, not a wealthy or even middle class man) had to pay not only child support but repay the government for the aid which my mother received. All of this on the salary of a bus driver. Shameful.
My father was not exempt from suffering rather serious abuse at the hands of the church as well. The way in which the church dealt with my parents' divorce was (as I have mentioned before in another entry) in all areas irregular and beyond excuse. My father, for his part, always considered himself "bound" (as in, he never saw sufficent reasons for the divorce to be legitimate, though he would have had a good case for "fraud" as my mother had a claim for "abuse" as well as "fraud"). When my mother left my father (in rather abrupt circumstances) my father was disfellowshipped for, I believe, not being able to keep control of his household. In addition, the yo-yo nature of the church's decision-making concerning the "bound-unbound" status of my parents after divorce made closure somewhat difficult, as church administration flip-flopped worse than a certain 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate. The collapse of Worldide(and my father's inability to deal with a type of government that was not rigidly top-down) also added a significant amount of stress to my father's life, though he bore it silently and (as usual) without complaint.
Finally, my father had to deal with some rather heinous examples of corruption and abuse of power in the business world. Despite (or maybe because of) being a loyal and dedicated worker, my father basically got the short end of the stick. For many years while being a bus driver, he was a member of the local AFL-CIO chapter. The bus driver's union worked hard and had a contract to drive the buses for the local school board. Then, due to some false promises by a large-scale company in the mid 1990's, the bus driver's union was crushed, pay dropped dramatically (about a third), and the company was still unable to (in the end) meet the contract for the same price that the school bus drivers had. In addition, now instead of a gradually increasing salary, my father's salary dropped precipitously every five years when a new contract was negotiated because a new company would come in and make the same false promises about keeping prices (read, wages) down and in the end would (out of political pique with the corrupt school board or out of inability to earn sufficient profits with high management costs) fail to win a bid on the contract after the five years were up.
Reasons For Difference
It should be clear by this point why my father and I had such seriously different opinions about government. My father suffered much without complaint, but because he was unable (or unwilling) to piece together the corruption on all levels of leadership together (which demonstrate a marked wickedness as a direct result of carnal human beings having power for which they do not have responsibility to the people they lead) he held to a false view of government, which he learned from people who were at best equally misguided, and at worse downright and deliberately wicked. I will leave God to judge that, though I have my own opinions on the matter. By the time my father had to deal with this, though, he was an adult and had made the decision (no matter how difficult it was) to endure all things as a good soldier. He was a good soldier, though not a German sense (in the sense his enemies claimed).
However, that was not the case with me. I grew up, from my earliest days, as a witness (and sometimes as an unwilling participant) in these examples of flagrant corruption and abuse by government. I learned from youth (both from these stories involving my family and from my own childhood experiences, recollection of which pains me to this day) that leaders in religious organizations, schools, governments, and so forth, care more about image and holding on to their own power than they do about serving the people. This is unacceptable. Since leaders cannot be trusted, and since they behave, on the whole, so wickedly, people must be able (and willing) to defend themselves. From youth I have had to stand up for myself, and could not expect help from any other (human) quarter. That sort of life does something to someone--not least of which it reduces the ability I have to trust others, especially others in power. Since authorities stand by without concern or participate in abuse, they cannot be exempt from accountability. Or else the suffering of my father and myself, and many others, would be in vain.
The Debate
My father (and no doubt much of my blog readership, to judge from the kvetching) was a firm believer in one-man, top-down government. People who wished to belittle my father often called him a "good German soldier" because he was someone who was a loyal follower. He was a hard worker in everything he did--whether that was driving 4 hours to church to and from church (yes, for those of you who were not so good at mathematics in school, that is 8 hours total) every week because of his firm devotion to one-man government in the church to his long years of bus driving, to his persistence as a farmer despite the fact that farms feature some of the hardest work for the least material reward possible in the entire world (something I know, amazingly enough, from personal experience). Except of course for school bus driving. Despite intimate and frequent experience with the arbitrary and capricious nature of tyrannical government in the religious, civil, and corporate world (more on that later), the lessons he took and the lessons I took from those experiences and stories are wildly different. To the day he died my father was a firm believer in "episcopal" government. Pity. The same was obviously not the case with me, as I have made abundantly clear on several occasions. The debate basically revolved around the biblical case for leadership, a subject far too large to get into here in sufficient detail, but which is necessary to look at at least briefly.
The Case For and Against Hierarchial Government:
While the case for Hierarchial government revolves around poor interpretation, ignorance of historical and biblical context, and the selection of too limited a sample of proof texts, it is worth examining that case in some detail, because it is a frequently posited claim and many people mistakenly hold to it. At first, it must be candidly admitted that the Bible does not sanction anarchy or people choosing what is right and wrong for themselves. The Bible is severe against the abuses of the powerful against those with less power, but it is equally clear that respect for human authority (within certain bounds) is vital as it teaches us how to respect God. At this point, the debate should merely be about what are the bounds where respect is owed to authority before rebellion (i.e. disobedience) is justified. That is not the case, however. Going further than this, the case often becomes an attempt to justify authority that is unaccountable and hierarchial, and where there is a clear distance between servants and served that approaches the distance between lords and peasants, or masters and servants, which is clearly unacceptable.
There are basically three areas of proof texts for this opinion. The first is the example of Moses, an often cited series of stories involving the penalty and heinousness of rebellion (a point that merits discussion). The second is the example of the monarchy of Israel and Judah. Third is the selective use of certain NT passages (1 Peter 5, Hebrews 13, and Romans 13 spring to mind most readily). Upon these three pillars the case for absolutism rests, and it is fortunate for us that these are very shaky pillars indeed. First of all, let us examine the case of Moses. Moses wished for his people to have the Holy Spirit working with him, was happy to delegate power to others (as Jethro advised and God mandated, whether that was Aaron, Joshua, or someone else fit), and did not wish the great power and responsibilty he had. This is in stark contrast to those who claim to follow his example in these times. There are times, regrettably, when it is necessary to govern societies under absolutism, but only until citizens are capable of rational thought and independent thinking, a task that requires education and should be diligently sought in all organizations and societies in order to remove all justification for tyranny. After all, we govern children differently from adults (thankfully), recognizing that with the age of reason comes certain freedom and personal responsibility. During the Wilderness travels, Israel had not reached that age of maturity. Both God and Moses wished for them to do so, but since they willfully refused to, the next best thing was to have a leader, as Moses was, who sacrificed himself for their best interests, as leaders are called to do in general. The next pillar is the monarchy. It should be noted that God was against the monarchy even starting, only accepting it as the (democratic) decision of the people of Israel. Furthermore, in Deuteronomy 17 there are clear restrictions on the power and prestige of the monarchy. Included rather prominently in these restrictions is a prohibition on monarchs (and hence all other leaders) from viewing themselves as higher than their brethren. In short, leadership position does not grant one a superiority of position over equals (which is not merely other leaders, but everyone else in the entire community). Furthermore, God, though the prophets of this period, continually preached and acted against the wicked behavior of kings, sanctioning revolts (Jehu and Jeroboam spring to mind, as does Joash), defending the rights of citizens against the power of their leaders (as in the case of Naboth), and in pronouncing that tyrannical rule would lead to divine punishment. The third pillar involves certain passages in the NT. Three will be representative, as these are the most important. First, some misconstrue 1 Peter 5 (one of several "submit" passages in the NT) to mean that people have to submit to their leaders no matter what. Instead, the command to submit yourself to each other directly speaks of a mutual reciprocal obligation between human beings for mutual respect and responsibility. Far from advocating any sort of absolutism, it precludes it. Hebrews 13 is used in a similarly wrong fashion to attempt to show that the questioning of authority is akin to desiring that position of authority improperly. This is a common smear tactic. In reality, the chapter comments that those leaders who lead well are worthy of respect. When that is at question, though, to demand evidence of claims is not improper at all. Finally, Romans 13 (a chapter I have written a 40 page analysis of, much more detailed than I can be here) is often used improperly to justify an "obey leaders no matter what" mentality. After all, leaders punish evildoers and good people have nothing to fear at all, ever, from government, right? If you believe that I have some swampland in Florida to sell you, and I might be able to come up with some tundra in Alaska if you ask really nicely. Seriously, the chapter is an example of an implied social contract about 1600 years before they became popular, and goes like this: for a leader to have divine sanction for their position, they must punish evil and protect good people. Or, it may be phrased more negatively to say: those leaders who abuse their power of the sword to punish those who do nothing wrong have no divine sanction for their position. Think about that for a while.
Origin of Difference of Opinion:
It was not as if my father did not experience first hand tyrannical behavior from leadership. On the contrary, it appears to have occurred often (although, my father not being the philsophical sort of person, may not have added it up the way I do). He experienced abuse of power from government on two notable occasions. First, his college education at AC in Big Sandy was cut short during the late 1960's due to the Vietnam War. He was drafted, and since AC was not accredited he was not able to receive any academic deferrment. Instead, he had to serve four years of service at the AC farm and was unable to afford to finish his college education, a major regret of his. I should note here that he behaved honorably in this situation, as he did in general, as he did not burn his draft card or flee to Canada like many cowards did. He opposed war on principle, and suffered for his principles without complaint. If I view his restraint as somewhat inexplicable, it was certainly noble. The second occasion relates to the separation of my mother and father. After my mother and father separated, my mother for two years received welfare (technically, AFDC, with food stamps if I remember correctly). After my parents divorced some time later (a few years), my father (who was, as I have implied earlier, not a wealthy or even middle class man) had to pay not only child support but repay the government for the aid which my mother received. All of this on the salary of a bus driver. Shameful.
My father was not exempt from suffering rather serious abuse at the hands of the church as well. The way in which the church dealt with my parents' divorce was (as I have mentioned before in another entry) in all areas irregular and beyond excuse. My father, for his part, always considered himself "bound" (as in, he never saw sufficent reasons for the divorce to be legitimate, though he would have had a good case for "fraud" as my mother had a claim for "abuse" as well as "fraud"). When my mother left my father (in rather abrupt circumstances) my father was disfellowshipped for, I believe, not being able to keep control of his household. In addition, the yo-yo nature of the church's decision-making concerning the "bound-unbound" status of my parents after divorce made closure somewhat difficult, as church administration flip-flopped worse than a certain 2004 Democratic Presidential candidate. The collapse of Worldide(and my father's inability to deal with a type of government that was not rigidly top-down) also added a significant amount of stress to my father's life, though he bore it silently and (as usual) without complaint.
Finally, my father had to deal with some rather heinous examples of corruption and abuse of power in the business world. Despite (or maybe because of) being a loyal and dedicated worker, my father basically got the short end of the stick. For many years while being a bus driver, he was a member of the local AFL-CIO chapter. The bus driver's union worked hard and had a contract to drive the buses for the local school board. Then, due to some false promises by a large-scale company in the mid 1990's, the bus driver's union was crushed, pay dropped dramatically (about a third), and the company was still unable to (in the end) meet the contract for the same price that the school bus drivers had. In addition, now instead of a gradually increasing salary, my father's salary dropped precipitously every five years when a new contract was negotiated because a new company would come in and make the same false promises about keeping prices (read, wages) down and in the end would (out of political pique with the corrupt school board or out of inability to earn sufficient profits with high management costs) fail to win a bid on the contract after the five years were up.
Reasons For Difference
It should be clear by this point why my father and I had such seriously different opinions about government. My father suffered much without complaint, but because he was unable (or unwilling) to piece together the corruption on all levels of leadership together (which demonstrate a marked wickedness as a direct result of carnal human beings having power for which they do not have responsibility to the people they lead) he held to a false view of government, which he learned from people who were at best equally misguided, and at worse downright and deliberately wicked. I will leave God to judge that, though I have my own opinions on the matter. By the time my father had to deal with this, though, he was an adult and had made the decision (no matter how difficult it was) to endure all things as a good soldier. He was a good soldier, though not a German sense (in the sense his enemies claimed).
However, that was not the case with me. I grew up, from my earliest days, as a witness (and sometimes as an unwilling participant) in these examples of flagrant corruption and abuse by government. I learned from youth (both from these stories involving my family and from my own childhood experiences, recollection of which pains me to this day) that leaders in religious organizations, schools, governments, and so forth, care more about image and holding on to their own power than they do about serving the people. This is unacceptable. Since leaders cannot be trusted, and since they behave, on the whole, so wickedly, people must be able (and willing) to defend themselves. From youth I have had to stand up for myself, and could not expect help from any other (human) quarter. That sort of life does something to someone--not least of which it reduces the ability I have to trust others, especially others in power. Since authorities stand by without concern or participate in abuse, they cannot be exempt from accountability. Or else the suffering of my father and myself, and many others, would be in vain.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
On Tyranny
Tyranny is a very unfriendly word, even though it was originally not invested with the same connotations it does today. In this particular blog (consider it an education entry, with some major detours into political theory) I will look at the meaning of tyranny, the origin of tyranny in Greek and Roman society, the moral questions invovled in tyranny and accountability (briefly), and close with a look at the moral obligations of common people with regards to tyranny. It is sad and unacceptable that in this age of such knowledge that many people are woefully unaware of the issues at stake when it comes to governance.
Definitions
According to www.dictionary.com, there are several definitions of tyranny. They are as follows (combining the definitions from The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary and Wordnet):
1)A government in which a single ruler has absolute power and is not limited by constitution, law, or a legitimate forum of opposition.
2)The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an aboslute ruler.
3)Absolute power, especially when exercized unjustly or cruelly.
4)Use of absolute power or a tyrannical act
5)Extreme harshness or severity, rigor.
Synonyms for tyranny include one-man rule, dictatorship, and absolutism, among others. The origin of the word is Greek, where its history properly begins.
It should be noted, however, before going into the early origin of tyranny, that any form of government which does not allow official opposition, is not ruled by a constitution (some comment on this will follow), and is not "legal" is tyrannical, even if that leadership behaves kindly towards those it leads. The lack of accountability to the people is sufficient to judge a particular leader or leadership as tyrannical. This is especially true if those leaders (as is common in modern times) write constitutions and bylaws but do not live by the restrictions on their power within them and where the common people have no ability to enforce the constitution and bylaws against those entrenched in power. Such behavior is ipso facto tyranny. It is also the case that any form of government where people are subject to authority without reciprocal accountability of that leader to them is despotic and tyrannical. Those who have power in any domain cannot be trusted to behave in accordance with God's law and the natural rights of man; there must be enforceable procedures to prevent abuse, and the general trend of society is to increase the prerogatives of governments and administrations to improper levels without sufficent oversight. In any just government, the people are the masters and the leadership serve the best interests of the common people. It is only in wicked governments and administrations where leaders lord it over people and exercise authority over them, as the Bible clearly states (in Matthew 20:25-27, Deuteronomy 17:7-20, etc.).
Origin of Tyranny in Greece and Rome
Originally, the tyrants in Greece and Rome were viewed favorably, especially because of the difficulties the common people had with the proud aristocrats who ruled over them. It is the traditional (and pernicious) longing of an oppressed population of people to seek a strong arm to defend their interests against an entrenched aristocratic elite (which is itself behaving tyrannically by avoiding accountability to the people and attempting to create and defend artificial distinctions between equals--for properly speaking, all people are equals or at least potential equals). In such societies, as were present in both Greece and Rome at pivotal moments in their history, the common people supported leaders against the constututions at the time to put into practice laws to defend the common people against their wicked aristocratic opponents.
At first, all went well. These leaders (whether a Solon or a Lycurgus in Greece or a Cincinnatus in Rome) led temporarily, did not seek power in a dynastic or permanent way, and stepped down at the first opportune moment. Though these people would technically be considered dictators and tyrants (dictator being the official term in Latin for tyrant), they deserve little moral censure for their behavior, though much for their precedent. In all of their cases, their refusal to continue power after the crisis passed which pushed them into leadership demonstrates their good faith that they were acting on behalf of the people rather than seeking to rule unjustly over them. Those who consider, for example, Abraham Lincoln to be a tyrannical leader would do well to look at the historical example and find that he too would fit into this category (as against, say, an FDR). George Washington likewise would fit into this category of leaders who may have exceeded their technical authority but did so only for the duration of a specific crisis. (I should add, in passing, though, that I do not believe Abraham Lincoln exceeded his constitutional authority, but merely offer a defense for him against those who would disagree with me on the finer points of constitutional law.)
That said, once the example of despotic rule had been set to deal with social crises, it became increasingly tempting for leaders on any side of a difficult dispute to set up dictators in ever more frequent crises, for ever longer periods. Both in Greece and in Rome republican systems of government eventually crumbled because societies ceased to defend their own liberties and instead relied upon leaders who at length took away their freedoms and became tyrannical kings and emperors. In Greece, the rise of the Macedonian dynasty destroyed the decaying democracies of Thebes and Athens. In Rome, Julius Ceasar the catamite (if the historical record can be believed) in life and death destroyed what remained of a long weakened Roman Republic. For much of human history, except for a few bright spots government has been marked by alternating tyranny and anarchy, both of which are equally wicked.
Moral Questions of Tyranny
There are essentially two moral questions involved in tyranny upon which all others decide. These two questions are, incidentally enough, vital for any serious and honset discussion about government. The first question relates to the abstract question about whether tyrannies are morally wrong by definition. That is, is there a moral dimension to government type (is there a form of government, in other words, that receives greater moral sanction than any other type). This question merits discussion on both a biblical and a philosophical level, because there is much confusion and deception involving this point. The second question is more practical, and follows from the first--namely, how is it that society can be organized so that anarchy is avoided without creating the monster of one-man rule or aristocratic privileges a la the ancien regime. We will examine those two questions briefly in turn.
The natural rights and natural equality of mankind have long spoken against tyranny. Throghout history, those of superior mental ability and education have either been members of the aristocratic elite or have sought to destroy the aristocratic elite. Regardless of which one is the case, if human beings are conceeded to be from one flesh and blood (i.e. we have a common origin), there is no just inequality of position and status that can be defended on logical and moral grounds. While the case would be too lengthy to make in detail, character does not correspond with race, social class, gender, age, etc. so it follows that these superficial distinctions are unjust if they are used to build up unaccountable positions of power in a given organization or society.
The biblical case is equally compelling, if somewhat more obscure. Again, time and space constraints forbid me from laying it out in full detail (I am at work on my own in doing that at length), but the brief result is that God's government is consultative government. The biblical evidence on that count is indisputable, but has been hidden a result of those who wickedly seek to deny God's word. Those who claim, falsely, that God's government is hierarchial and pyrimidal in nature are at best deceived, at worst deliberately and presumptuously sinning against the biblical record. The biblical case on the subject is present in both the OT and the NT. The desire for God to have equals to consult with and fellowship with is a powerful argument for the rationale for the ideal government among men. In the OT, the ideal government is demonstrated in Judges, with temporary leaders to deal with crises and with broad egalitarian government based upon villages and small towns (see Judges and Ruth). Monarchy, with its authoritarian prerogatives, is denigraded for its tyrannical tendances (see Deuteronomy 17 or 1 Samuel). The prophets continually comment against the tendancies of kings, priests, and aristocracies to take advantage of their positions of power (read Hosea, Amos, or even the condemnation of David by my namesake, to say the least of Elijah's prophecies or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel...you get the picture, right?). The NT is also clearly egalitarian in terms of its structure--regular members participated in the Jerusalem Conference (in Acts 15), no one (not even apostles) was exempt from moral censure in the case of sin, and 3 John (to give one example) speaks against the rise of church leaders who sought pre-eminance over congregations and sought to prohibit Christians from fellowshipping with others (to comment on this more would be impolitic).
Moral Obligations of the People
What then, are the obligations of the people with regards to the conduct of their leaders? In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the people to keep their leaders in line (the governors are those who are most difficult, and most necessary, to govern). Therefore, certain moral obligations follow for the people in order to fight and prevent (preventing can be prevented, and fighting what cannot) against the spread of tyranny. The people cannot rely on a strong arm to defend them, but must have a strong arm (and mind) themselves. Therefore, it is necessary for the common people to arm themselves with knowlege--both about their rights and responsibilities, and about the activity of those who perport to serve their best interests. These cannot be outsourced to others. Next, the people must fortify themselves with courage. It is far from an easy thing to speak out against the wicked, especially when those wicked are (as is often the case) in positions of authority. This is especially true because authority figures possess a great deal of resources for defamation and slander, and the "credibility" necessary to harm the reputations of the righteous in the eyes of others. God deals justly, but that justice often takes time, and being accountable only to God, in the practical sense, is not being accountable at all. It may become necessary, despite all the best interests and actions of the people, that serious resistance may be necessary to protect liberty (see Acts 5, 1 Kings 12, Exodus 1, etc.). When such occasions are regretfully necessary (and they should never be sought, only faced with the greatest reluctance) than it is important to remember that obedience to God sometimes demands rebellion against men (and women). Cowards do not deserve to be free, and tyrants (and in this sense I mean those who rule wickedly, not merely without constutionality) do not deserve to live. Sic semper tyrannis.
Definitions
According to www.dictionary.com, there are several definitions of tyranny. They are as follows (combining the definitions from The 4th edition of the American Heritage Dictionary and Wordnet):
1)A government in which a single ruler has absolute power and is not limited by constitution, law, or a legitimate forum of opposition.
2)The office, authority, or jurisdiction of an aboslute ruler.
3)Absolute power, especially when exercized unjustly or cruelly.
4)Use of absolute power or a tyrannical act
5)Extreme harshness or severity, rigor.
Synonyms for tyranny include one-man rule, dictatorship, and absolutism, among others. The origin of the word is Greek, where its history properly begins.
It should be noted, however, before going into the early origin of tyranny, that any form of government which does not allow official opposition, is not ruled by a constitution (some comment on this will follow), and is not "legal" is tyrannical, even if that leadership behaves kindly towards those it leads. The lack of accountability to the people is sufficient to judge a particular leader or leadership as tyrannical. This is especially true if those leaders (as is common in modern times) write constitutions and bylaws but do not live by the restrictions on their power within them and where the common people have no ability to enforce the constitution and bylaws against those entrenched in power. Such behavior is ipso facto tyranny. It is also the case that any form of government where people are subject to authority without reciprocal accountability of that leader to them is despotic and tyrannical. Those who have power in any domain cannot be trusted to behave in accordance with God's law and the natural rights of man; there must be enforceable procedures to prevent abuse, and the general trend of society is to increase the prerogatives of governments and administrations to improper levels without sufficent oversight. In any just government, the people are the masters and the leadership serve the best interests of the common people. It is only in wicked governments and administrations where leaders lord it over people and exercise authority over them, as the Bible clearly states (in Matthew 20:25-27, Deuteronomy 17:7-20, etc.).
Origin of Tyranny in Greece and Rome
Originally, the tyrants in Greece and Rome were viewed favorably, especially because of the difficulties the common people had with the proud aristocrats who ruled over them. It is the traditional (and pernicious) longing of an oppressed population of people to seek a strong arm to defend their interests against an entrenched aristocratic elite (which is itself behaving tyrannically by avoiding accountability to the people and attempting to create and defend artificial distinctions between equals--for properly speaking, all people are equals or at least potential equals). In such societies, as were present in both Greece and Rome at pivotal moments in their history, the common people supported leaders against the constututions at the time to put into practice laws to defend the common people against their wicked aristocratic opponents.
At first, all went well. These leaders (whether a Solon or a Lycurgus in Greece or a Cincinnatus in Rome) led temporarily, did not seek power in a dynastic or permanent way, and stepped down at the first opportune moment. Though these people would technically be considered dictators and tyrants (dictator being the official term in Latin for tyrant), they deserve little moral censure for their behavior, though much for their precedent. In all of their cases, their refusal to continue power after the crisis passed which pushed them into leadership demonstrates their good faith that they were acting on behalf of the people rather than seeking to rule unjustly over them. Those who consider, for example, Abraham Lincoln to be a tyrannical leader would do well to look at the historical example and find that he too would fit into this category (as against, say, an FDR). George Washington likewise would fit into this category of leaders who may have exceeded their technical authority but did so only for the duration of a specific crisis. (I should add, in passing, though, that I do not believe Abraham Lincoln exceeded his constitutional authority, but merely offer a defense for him against those who would disagree with me on the finer points of constitutional law.)
That said, once the example of despotic rule had been set to deal with social crises, it became increasingly tempting for leaders on any side of a difficult dispute to set up dictators in ever more frequent crises, for ever longer periods. Both in Greece and in Rome republican systems of government eventually crumbled because societies ceased to defend their own liberties and instead relied upon leaders who at length took away their freedoms and became tyrannical kings and emperors. In Greece, the rise of the Macedonian dynasty destroyed the decaying democracies of Thebes and Athens. In Rome, Julius Ceasar the catamite (if the historical record can be believed) in life and death destroyed what remained of a long weakened Roman Republic. For much of human history, except for a few bright spots government has been marked by alternating tyranny and anarchy, both of which are equally wicked.
Moral Questions of Tyranny
There are essentially two moral questions involved in tyranny upon which all others decide. These two questions are, incidentally enough, vital for any serious and honset discussion about government. The first question relates to the abstract question about whether tyrannies are morally wrong by definition. That is, is there a moral dimension to government type (is there a form of government, in other words, that receives greater moral sanction than any other type). This question merits discussion on both a biblical and a philosophical level, because there is much confusion and deception involving this point. The second question is more practical, and follows from the first--namely, how is it that society can be organized so that anarchy is avoided without creating the monster of one-man rule or aristocratic privileges a la the ancien regime. We will examine those two questions briefly in turn.
The natural rights and natural equality of mankind have long spoken against tyranny. Throghout history, those of superior mental ability and education have either been members of the aristocratic elite or have sought to destroy the aristocratic elite. Regardless of which one is the case, if human beings are conceeded to be from one flesh and blood (i.e. we have a common origin), there is no just inequality of position and status that can be defended on logical and moral grounds. While the case would be too lengthy to make in detail, character does not correspond with race, social class, gender, age, etc. so it follows that these superficial distinctions are unjust if they are used to build up unaccountable positions of power in a given organization or society.
The biblical case is equally compelling, if somewhat more obscure. Again, time and space constraints forbid me from laying it out in full detail (I am at work on my own in doing that at length), but the brief result is that God's government is consultative government. The biblical evidence on that count is indisputable, but has been hidden a result of those who wickedly seek to deny God's word. Those who claim, falsely, that God's government is hierarchial and pyrimidal in nature are at best deceived, at worst deliberately and presumptuously sinning against the biblical record. The biblical case on the subject is present in both the OT and the NT. The desire for God to have equals to consult with and fellowship with is a powerful argument for the rationale for the ideal government among men. In the OT, the ideal government is demonstrated in Judges, with temporary leaders to deal with crises and with broad egalitarian government based upon villages and small towns (see Judges and Ruth). Monarchy, with its authoritarian prerogatives, is denigraded for its tyrannical tendances (see Deuteronomy 17 or 1 Samuel). The prophets continually comment against the tendancies of kings, priests, and aristocracies to take advantage of their positions of power (read Hosea, Amos, or even the condemnation of David by my namesake, to say the least of Elijah's prophecies or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel...you get the picture, right?). The NT is also clearly egalitarian in terms of its structure--regular members participated in the Jerusalem Conference (in Acts 15), no one (not even apostles) was exempt from moral censure in the case of sin, and 3 John (to give one example) speaks against the rise of church leaders who sought pre-eminance over congregations and sought to prohibit Christians from fellowshipping with others (to comment on this more would be impolitic).
Moral Obligations of the People
What then, are the obligations of the people with regards to the conduct of their leaders? In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the people to keep their leaders in line (the governors are those who are most difficult, and most necessary, to govern). Therefore, certain moral obligations follow for the people in order to fight and prevent (preventing can be prevented, and fighting what cannot) against the spread of tyranny. The people cannot rely on a strong arm to defend them, but must have a strong arm (and mind) themselves. Therefore, it is necessary for the common people to arm themselves with knowlege--both about their rights and responsibilities, and about the activity of those who perport to serve their best interests. These cannot be outsourced to others. Next, the people must fortify themselves with courage. It is far from an easy thing to speak out against the wicked, especially when those wicked are (as is often the case) in positions of authority. This is especially true because authority figures possess a great deal of resources for defamation and slander, and the "credibility" necessary to harm the reputations of the righteous in the eyes of others. God deals justly, but that justice often takes time, and being accountable only to God, in the practical sense, is not being accountable at all. It may become necessary, despite all the best interests and actions of the people, that serious resistance may be necessary to protect liberty (see Acts 5, 1 Kings 12, Exodus 1, etc.). When such occasions are regretfully necessary (and they should never be sought, only faced with the greatest reluctance) than it is important to remember that obedience to God sometimes demands rebellion against men (and women). Cowards do not deserve to be free, and tyrants (and in this sense I mean those who rule wickedly, not merely without constutionality) do not deserve to live. Sic semper tyrannis.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Turin Medal Count Recap
Okay, while other people (the fine folks at Yahoo Sports have done a good job of this) discuss the human interest stories of Turin, from Scandinavian National Pride in hockey to retiring speedskaters to drunk downhill skiiers to fussy ice skaters, I prefer to look at the cold hard results of the medal count. After all, the Olympics is a competition where there are winners, losers, and results, and I like analyzing results, so here goes.
In order to simplify the task, I will look at some nations that performed well in the Olympics and some nations that did not perform so well. I will also try to make some regional comparisons so that we can look at the Euro-American Winter games, I mean, the Winter Olympics.
Winners:
United States:
Okay, so many people are going to be disappointed with 25 medals, which is 9 fewer than we won in Salt Lake City 4 years ago. But it is good to remember that even without hosting the Olympics and having an unfriendly crowd, we still managed to get our second highest medal total ever, that is, in the entire 80 year history of the Winter Olympics. That is huge. It proves that the US can compete in winter sports (where we are not exactly a global power) against other nations. Hopefully we can build on this in the future. If our skiing team had met expectations we could have won the medal count race with Germany. As it is, we have done better than most would have expected. We dominated the snowboarding medals and even got a bronze in curling. Sweet.
Sweeden:
Sweeden's 14 medals give it a record high amount in its history, and included a gold medal in hockey as well as 7 gold medals over all. Sweeden managed to be successful in cross country, curling, and the biathalon as well. Sweeden managed to do itself proud, and had some head-to-head victories against Norway, a generally much more heralded neighbor.
Finland:
Finland's 9 medals are a huge haul for the small nation, which did not have any gold medals but managed strong performances in hockey and ski jumping (where it got 2 silver medals). To put it in persepctive, Finland got alomst as many medals as China, which is a lot bigger. That's something to be proud of, for the Finns.
Let's Hear It For The Small Nations of Eastern Europe:
Estonia got 3 golds medals (!) in this year's Olympics, all in Cross Country. The Czech Republic got four medals, including a gold and two silver. Croatia ended up with a gold and two silver for three total medals, all in alpine skiing. Poland ended up with a silver and a bronze. The Ukraine got two bronze medals. Belarus got a silver medal, as did Bulgaria and Slovakia. Even little Latvia ended up with a bronze medal. While these nations did not end up with a lot of medals, any medal in these nations is something to celebrate. These nations managed to upstage larger rivals in some events, and even with minimal funding ended up getting solid results. This will hopefully bolster their attempts to compete on a global stage in the future.
Losers:
Non-north American English Speaking Nations:
Other than the US (25 medals) and Canada (24 medals), English speaking nations did not fare well in this Olympics. Australia managed only two medals and Great Britain managed only 1, even losing in curling to the United States in the bronze medal men's game (ouch). While Australia picked up only its second Winter Olympics gold ever, Great Britain's pitiful performance was a major diappointment.
Italy:
Okay, the host nations are expected to threaten for the leadership of the medal count at the Olympics, and Italy only managed 11 medals. Obviously, the home team is disappointed with throwing away their best chance for Olympic dominance. People failed to show up for marquee events, there was a major doping scandal, and no one other than the Poles enjoyed the food. All in all, the Italians did a poor job all around. Shame.
Norway:
Okay, in most nations 19 medals would be a success, but the Norwegians are used to dominating these games, and that did not happen. Norway ended up with only 2 gold medals, fewer than Estonia (see above). That has to hurt. One wonders what Norway did wrong to even fail in those events, like cross country and the biathalon, where it traditionally excels. Something is rotten indeed in the state of Norway.
Regional Comparison in Medal Count:
Europe: 21 nations (Germany, Austria, Russia, Norway, Sweeden, Switzerland, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Finland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Poland, the Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Great Britain, Slovakia, Latvia), 178 medals (60 gold, 58 silver, 60 bronze). Verdict: Very impressive.
North America: 2 nations (US, Canada), 49 medals (16 gold, 19 silver, 14 bronze). Verdict: Not too shabby.
Asia/Australia: 4 nations (China, South Korea, Australia, Japan), 25 medals (10 gold, 7 silver, 8 bronze). Verdict: Eh.
The rest of the world: Zero, zip, nada.
In order to simplify the task, I will look at some nations that performed well in the Olympics and some nations that did not perform so well. I will also try to make some regional comparisons so that we can look at the Euro-American Winter games, I mean, the Winter Olympics.
Winners:
United States:
Okay, so many people are going to be disappointed with 25 medals, which is 9 fewer than we won in Salt Lake City 4 years ago. But it is good to remember that even without hosting the Olympics and having an unfriendly crowd, we still managed to get our second highest medal total ever, that is, in the entire 80 year history of the Winter Olympics. That is huge. It proves that the US can compete in winter sports (where we are not exactly a global power) against other nations. Hopefully we can build on this in the future. If our skiing team had met expectations we could have won the medal count race with Germany. As it is, we have done better than most would have expected. We dominated the snowboarding medals and even got a bronze in curling. Sweet.
Sweeden:
Sweeden's 14 medals give it a record high amount in its history, and included a gold medal in hockey as well as 7 gold medals over all. Sweeden managed to be successful in cross country, curling, and the biathalon as well. Sweeden managed to do itself proud, and had some head-to-head victories against Norway, a generally much more heralded neighbor.
Finland:
Finland's 9 medals are a huge haul for the small nation, which did not have any gold medals but managed strong performances in hockey and ski jumping (where it got 2 silver medals). To put it in persepctive, Finland got alomst as many medals as China, which is a lot bigger. That's something to be proud of, for the Finns.
Let's Hear It For The Small Nations of Eastern Europe:
Estonia got 3 golds medals (!) in this year's Olympics, all in Cross Country. The Czech Republic got four medals, including a gold and two silver. Croatia ended up with a gold and two silver for three total medals, all in alpine skiing. Poland ended up with a silver and a bronze. The Ukraine got two bronze medals. Belarus got a silver medal, as did Bulgaria and Slovakia. Even little Latvia ended up with a bronze medal. While these nations did not end up with a lot of medals, any medal in these nations is something to celebrate. These nations managed to upstage larger rivals in some events, and even with minimal funding ended up getting solid results. This will hopefully bolster their attempts to compete on a global stage in the future.
Losers:
Non-north American English Speaking Nations:
Other than the US (25 medals) and Canada (24 medals), English speaking nations did not fare well in this Olympics. Australia managed only two medals and Great Britain managed only 1, even losing in curling to the United States in the bronze medal men's game (ouch). While Australia picked up only its second Winter Olympics gold ever, Great Britain's pitiful performance was a major diappointment.
Italy:
Okay, the host nations are expected to threaten for the leadership of the medal count at the Olympics, and Italy only managed 11 medals. Obviously, the home team is disappointed with throwing away their best chance for Olympic dominance. People failed to show up for marquee events, there was a major doping scandal, and no one other than the Poles enjoyed the food. All in all, the Italians did a poor job all around. Shame.
Norway:
Okay, in most nations 19 medals would be a success, but the Norwegians are used to dominating these games, and that did not happen. Norway ended up with only 2 gold medals, fewer than Estonia (see above). That has to hurt. One wonders what Norway did wrong to even fail in those events, like cross country and the biathalon, where it traditionally excels. Something is rotten indeed in the state of Norway.
Regional Comparison in Medal Count:
Europe: 21 nations (Germany, Austria, Russia, Norway, Sweeden, Switzerland, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Finland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Poland, the Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Great Britain, Slovakia, Latvia), 178 medals (60 gold, 58 silver, 60 bronze). Verdict: Very impressive.
North America: 2 nations (US, Canada), 49 medals (16 gold, 19 silver, 14 bronze). Verdict: Not too shabby.
Asia/Australia: 4 nations (China, South Korea, Australia, Japan), 25 medals (10 gold, 7 silver, 8 bronze). Verdict: Eh.
The rest of the world: Zero, zip, nada.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
A Thousand Shades of Gray
Leo Tolstoy, in the famous introduction to War and Peace, stated that every happy family is happy in the same way, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. If you listen to sappy love songs, they all tend to sound the same, with the same cliches and expressions. Happiness is certainly more pleasant than unhappiness, but it is not very deep. We do not think very much, or reflect very much, when we are happy. We just bask in the glow of our happiness, oblivious to anything that could threaten us, and hoping that these joyful moments of bliss could last forever. In my experience, they don't (perhaps you are more fortunate than I am in that regard). As someone who is not particularly happy a lot of the time (it is amazing how few people realize that, I do a lot of reflection, most of it rather unpleasant. I am happy when I am around others, talking and sharing stories. I am not happy alone, where my only comfort is my mind (and that is small comfort--the mind truly is a terrible thing, to spoof the NAACP slogan).
In these bleak days, it has become somewhat evident to me that within my family there is a wide variety of ways that people deal with grief. There are a variety of strategies that different family members use to try to escape/overcome/dull the suffering. Without naming names (except for my own, because I am generally someone who has little to hide, and who is vastly more harsh on myself than I am on others, as difficult as that may be to fathom), I will attempt to discuss the various ways in which my family is attempting to cope.
One way to cope with grief that most of my family is doing in one way or another is keeping busy enough that we don't think about the loss all that much. There's nothing like keeping your body and mind occupied through various means (some of them, like work and writing, productive, other ones (like playing computer games) are more escapist in nature). But this is one area in which most of my family has kept themselves from too much time to think. That is not to say that profound meditation/prayer has not occurred, it's just that it has tended to be uniformly sad, and quite frankly, not the most pleasant sort of thing. Even writing blog entries like this is difficult to me, because it means I have to think about what words to say about what the loss of my father means to myself and others, and that means I have to reflect upon the loss itself (which, although it may be helpful, is certainly depressing). It is much easier to escape, to busy the mind and shut off the suffering, and make one's heart a stone as much as possible.
Medication of the grief is another way in which my family is dealing with the loss. However, this is a much rarer solution, largely because many of us (myself included) do not drink all that often, although the use of antidepressants (not by me, though) also applies to some extent as medicating the grief. Here, sadly, fits a tragic tale that occurred when my grandfather Albright died. My uncle David never recovered from the death of my grandfather (to lung cancer, as he was a smoker) and drank often to medicate his grief. Four years later, depressed and despondent, he shot himself in the head, commiting suicide. Needless to say, I have taken the example to heart and have sought to avoid any substance which would treat only the symptoms of grief while exaggerting the despondency.
Another way in which I have (and perhaps others of my family have as well) sought to deal with the grief is by getting out of the house and trying to find company with others. I have not been so successful with the second goal as with the first, but when I am frustrated and annoyed, I don't like to be at home. I don't find much comfort for my difficulties there. I have some friends around, but not all that many (and very few my age, and even fewer who are my age that would be able to relate). Nonetheless, talking to others (even though the words they say--and the words I say for that matter--are not terribly helpful) is a good way to try to express the rather ambivalent feelings I have (then again, my feelings about just about everything are ambivalent, which is one reason I tend to avoid talking about feelings).
At any rate, there are many ways in which people deal with sorrow, some of these more helpful than others. Did I say that I tend to be even more crabby, cranky, and irritable when I am sad than normal (and I'm a rather crabby person most of the time anyway, but that's another story for another time)? Perhaps that is a bit obvious (though, again, people do not seem to understand or relate to me very well, especially when things are going poorly). Again, many members of my family have a good brave face (myself included), but that doesn't mean we do not suffer. It just means that the suffering is a bit beneath the surface. After all, some of us (again, myself included) do not trust other people very easily. We have reason not to, and that makes it difficult to let the barriers down, especially when we are not feeling our best. That may not be right, but that's the way it is, and we must deal with what is, not what we would wish to be.
In these bleak days, it has become somewhat evident to me that within my family there is a wide variety of ways that people deal with grief. There are a variety of strategies that different family members use to try to escape/overcome/dull the suffering. Without naming names (except for my own, because I am generally someone who has little to hide, and who is vastly more harsh on myself than I am on others, as difficult as that may be to fathom), I will attempt to discuss the various ways in which my family is attempting to cope.
One way to cope with grief that most of my family is doing in one way or another is keeping busy enough that we don't think about the loss all that much. There's nothing like keeping your body and mind occupied through various means (some of them, like work and writing, productive, other ones (like playing computer games) are more escapist in nature). But this is one area in which most of my family has kept themselves from too much time to think. That is not to say that profound meditation/prayer has not occurred, it's just that it has tended to be uniformly sad, and quite frankly, not the most pleasant sort of thing. Even writing blog entries like this is difficult to me, because it means I have to think about what words to say about what the loss of my father means to myself and others, and that means I have to reflect upon the loss itself (which, although it may be helpful, is certainly depressing). It is much easier to escape, to busy the mind and shut off the suffering, and make one's heart a stone as much as possible.
Medication of the grief is another way in which my family is dealing with the loss. However, this is a much rarer solution, largely because many of us (myself included) do not drink all that often, although the use of antidepressants (not by me, though) also applies to some extent as medicating the grief. Here, sadly, fits a tragic tale that occurred when my grandfather Albright died. My uncle David never recovered from the death of my grandfather (to lung cancer, as he was a smoker) and drank often to medicate his grief. Four years later, depressed and despondent, he shot himself in the head, commiting suicide. Needless to say, I have taken the example to heart and have sought to avoid any substance which would treat only the symptoms of grief while exaggerting the despondency.
Another way in which I have (and perhaps others of my family have as well) sought to deal with the grief is by getting out of the house and trying to find company with others. I have not been so successful with the second goal as with the first, but when I am frustrated and annoyed, I don't like to be at home. I don't find much comfort for my difficulties there. I have some friends around, but not all that many (and very few my age, and even fewer who are my age that would be able to relate). Nonetheless, talking to others (even though the words they say--and the words I say for that matter--are not terribly helpful) is a good way to try to express the rather ambivalent feelings I have (then again, my feelings about just about everything are ambivalent, which is one reason I tend to avoid talking about feelings).
At any rate, there are many ways in which people deal with sorrow, some of these more helpful than others. Did I say that I tend to be even more crabby, cranky, and irritable when I am sad than normal (and I'm a rather crabby person most of the time anyway, but that's another story for another time)? Perhaps that is a bit obvious (though, again, people do not seem to understand or relate to me very well, especially when things are going poorly). Again, many members of my family have a good brave face (myself included), but that doesn't mean we do not suffer. It just means that the suffering is a bit beneath the surface. After all, some of us (again, myself included) do not trust other people very easily. We have reason not to, and that makes it difficult to let the barriers down, especially when we are not feeling our best. That may not be right, but that's the way it is, and we must deal with what is, not what we would wish to be.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
In The House Of Mourning
When a loved one dies, as my father died last Wednesday at the age of 59, one often wonders what one could have done differently had one known how little time was left. Especially as was the case with my father, where neither my brother or I had the chance to say goodbye, there is a lot of unfinished business remaining for the living when someone has died. While I am in no shape at this particular time to detail many of the stories that could be said of him, I thought it would be useful, even at this time, to take some looks at what life is like of one who, like myself, is in the house of mourning. There are many others right now who are grieving the loss of loved ones as well, including a few friends of mine. Grief is an intensely personal matter, and it is difficult to determine if my experiences are like theirs. At the very least, though, talking about something means that it is no longer festering inside.
Reconciliation
My brother moved from Pennsylvania in the summer of 2001 after graduating from high school and never reconciled with our father. He had a difficult relationship with my father, and always thought (as we all did) that there would be plenty of time to make up, when it hurt a little less, when the wounds had healed. And often, in those intervening years, my father sought to reconcile with my brother. But time ran out, and it never came to pass. Instead, my brother and I cried while sitting in the funeral home swapping stories about our father with the open casket nearby and fellow mourners all around. As guilty as both my brother and I feel, my brother feels it worse. My father and I kept in close contact for many years, almost every week, and I visited on occasion (if not enough--there is never enough time). However, those five years my brother and father were estranged were the last five years of life my father had. That is a lot to live with.
Unfinished Business
Humans are creatures of drama. I do not mean this in the hissy fit or manipulative sort of way (though that can be the case as well), but in the sense that we like closure, and dislike when something ends without a farewell, without a fitting closing. After my father's stroke, I was able to communicate with him through my grandmother, who would relay messages back and forth, telling me my father's condition (gradually improving until the end) and telling my father what was going on with me. Still, even though I was aware my father was in rather poor health, he was gradually improving, so there was no goodbye. I said farewell to my father only after he had already gone, with my hand on his coffin, eyes closed, saying farewell. There was nothing more, at that point, I could do. Anything I could have done was in the past, and was closed off irrevocably.
Stories of the End
Of course, when a loved one has died, especially when one is not able to be at the bedside in the final days and hours, it is important to be able to visualize the scene, in order to give one some sort of peace. While at the funeral home, stories were told about how my father dealt with the nurses who cared for him around the clock. Since one nurse had cold hands, my father nicknamed her Frosty. Another nurse was hot, so my father called her Jalapeño. It was like my father to name things. My family is always naming things. He did his physical therapy willingly, seeking to recover as much function as he could after the stroke. He never wanted to be an invalid, and he couldn't stand anyone else taking care of him. He was always the one who had to take care of everyone else, do what needed to be done, no matter the cost. Such a cruel end inactivity and paralysis is to one whose greatest gifts were activity and physical strength.
What Remains For the Living
Only my grandmother remains in the old family farm, which for over 200 years has been farmed by my family line. Those days, to me at least, seem at an end. My uncle (by marriage) and my cousin (both of whom work full time at the state prison) still live in the area but are unable to devote full time to farming. Farming is a bad business anyway, with high costs for equipment and feed and low prices for farm commodities, be they milk, grain, alfalfa sprouts (a favorite item in the diets of deer and my own salads), or beef. My grandmother, at almost 83, is far too old to take care of a farm on her own. It looks like that part of my family history is rapidly closing as well, without seeming remedy. Whatever I may be, I am no farmer, and so it appears likely that the beautiful hills and creeks on what I affectionately call Miller's Crossroads (after my family) will soon be home to half a million dollar homes inhabited by suburbanites who care little for the history behind the farm. Nor would they care that I would walk down Nathan's creek (yes, it was named after me) and sit on hillsides by an old coal mine shaft and write nature poetry. Nor would they care that my family has been farming these hills since before the United States was independent from Britain. All of that history will be paved under driveways with perfectly manicured lawns inhabited by people with no sense of history and oppressive mortgages that keep them from buying furniture.
Closing Thoughts
I will probably be reflecting often in the coming weeks and months, and years, about the life of my father. Such reflection is natural and proper, even if it does make me very sad. My father always said that he would die young, and always careful to remind us about his life insurance policy. I know I never wanted to hear it. But he was right, a painful truth that is true for many members of my family (including myself). We specialize in speaking of bitter truths that no one wants to hear. My father died young, like all of his siblings. Those who have little time on this earth must accomplish what they wish without the ability to rely upon seniority or those other ways in which the mediocre rise through out-surviving the great. No, those who are set on this earth with but a little time to do their deeds must do what needs to be done at all times, because one never knows how much time is left to accomplish one's life work. And that is something I feel no less strongly than my father did.
Reconciliation
My brother moved from Pennsylvania in the summer of 2001 after graduating from high school and never reconciled with our father. He had a difficult relationship with my father, and always thought (as we all did) that there would be plenty of time to make up, when it hurt a little less, when the wounds had healed. And often, in those intervening years, my father sought to reconcile with my brother. But time ran out, and it never came to pass. Instead, my brother and I cried while sitting in the funeral home swapping stories about our father with the open casket nearby and fellow mourners all around. As guilty as both my brother and I feel, my brother feels it worse. My father and I kept in close contact for many years, almost every week, and I visited on occasion (if not enough--there is never enough time). However, those five years my brother and father were estranged were the last five years of life my father had. That is a lot to live with.
Unfinished Business
Humans are creatures of drama. I do not mean this in the hissy fit or manipulative sort of way (though that can be the case as well), but in the sense that we like closure, and dislike when something ends without a farewell, without a fitting closing. After my father's stroke, I was able to communicate with him through my grandmother, who would relay messages back and forth, telling me my father's condition (gradually improving until the end) and telling my father what was going on with me. Still, even though I was aware my father was in rather poor health, he was gradually improving, so there was no goodbye. I said farewell to my father only after he had already gone, with my hand on his coffin, eyes closed, saying farewell. There was nothing more, at that point, I could do. Anything I could have done was in the past, and was closed off irrevocably.
Stories of the End
Of course, when a loved one has died, especially when one is not able to be at the bedside in the final days and hours, it is important to be able to visualize the scene, in order to give one some sort of peace. While at the funeral home, stories were told about how my father dealt with the nurses who cared for him around the clock. Since one nurse had cold hands, my father nicknamed her Frosty. Another nurse was hot, so my father called her Jalapeño. It was like my father to name things. My family is always naming things. He did his physical therapy willingly, seeking to recover as much function as he could after the stroke. He never wanted to be an invalid, and he couldn't stand anyone else taking care of him. He was always the one who had to take care of everyone else, do what needed to be done, no matter the cost. Such a cruel end inactivity and paralysis is to one whose greatest gifts were activity and physical strength.
What Remains For the Living
Only my grandmother remains in the old family farm, which for over 200 years has been farmed by my family line. Those days, to me at least, seem at an end. My uncle (by marriage) and my cousin (both of whom work full time at the state prison) still live in the area but are unable to devote full time to farming. Farming is a bad business anyway, with high costs for equipment and feed and low prices for farm commodities, be they milk, grain, alfalfa sprouts (a favorite item in the diets of deer and my own salads), or beef. My grandmother, at almost 83, is far too old to take care of a farm on her own. It looks like that part of my family history is rapidly closing as well, without seeming remedy. Whatever I may be, I am no farmer, and so it appears likely that the beautiful hills and creeks on what I affectionately call Miller's Crossroads (after my family) will soon be home to half a million dollar homes inhabited by suburbanites who care little for the history behind the farm. Nor would they care that I would walk down Nathan's creek (yes, it was named after me) and sit on hillsides by an old coal mine shaft and write nature poetry. Nor would they care that my family has been farming these hills since before the United States was independent from Britain. All of that history will be paved under driveways with perfectly manicured lawns inhabited by people with no sense of history and oppressive mortgages that keep them from buying furniture.
Closing Thoughts
I will probably be reflecting often in the coming weeks and months, and years, about the life of my father. Such reflection is natural and proper, even if it does make me very sad. My father always said that he would die young, and always careful to remind us about his life insurance policy. I know I never wanted to hear it. But he was right, a painful truth that is true for many members of my family (including myself). We specialize in speaking of bitter truths that no one wants to hear. My father died young, like all of his siblings. Those who have little time on this earth must accomplish what they wish without the ability to rely upon seniority or those other ways in which the mediocre rise through out-surviving the great. No, those who are set on this earth with but a little time to do their deeds must do what needs to be done at all times, because one never knows how much time is left to accomplish one's life work. And that is something I feel no less strongly than my father did.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Hunting....
It's been a bad week to be a hunter. According to the Ludington Daily News, some small newspaper in Michigan, a 64 year old hunger was shot when his hunting buddy mistaked an elbow for a squirrel. This sort of accident reminds us that old people should not be allowed to shoot guns if they are too senile to shoot them correctly. (The same would apply to old people driving slowly and doing anything else that requires acute mental power and quickness). Apparently the old man was treated and released, as the friend was using only a .17 caliber rifle. How a camofloged elbow could be mistaken for a squirrel is beyond me. Maybe the friend just needed his eyeglass prescription updated. The police are investigating, as they should.
Then, of course, there is the famous, or infamous, case of Chaney's trigger finger. While hunting with some acquiantances, the hunting party flushed out a covey of quails, apparently (according to the Yahoo! News article). While one of the party was walking to collect the quails (and without waving his hand to show everyone where he was), Chaney flushed another covey of quails and sprayed shotgun shells in the direction of his hunting buddy, hitting him in the face, neck, and chest. Ouch. Remind me never to go hunting with the Vice President. It's not like I'd ever get invited to, anyway. Chaney forgot the number one rule of hunting, which even someone like myself (I'm no hunter) knows: always know what you're shooting at. It's a good rule in other areas besides hunting, though it is harder to apply there.
When I went to Pennsylania this past weekend for my father's funeral, I was reminded that my family farm has a "No Hunting" sign on it. My father was not a fan of hunters. It was not that he was squeamish about death--as a farmer it was not uncommon for cattle to be slaughtered--but it was that he saw the nobility of the deer and the lack of nobility of the hunters and their tactics. I remember once, as a teenager visiting my father in the summer, that as we were returning in the evening from an outing (watching a movie, probably), we saw a hunter in our farm, trespassing, and hunting out of season. The hunter was using a spotter to try to freeze the deer in place to make them an easy shot. The practice is illegal, but common.
My father (and I agree with him on this point) did not consider this to be in fair sport. A hunter using wicked means to get an easy kill (and then, no doubt, brag about his prowess to his friends and talk himself up as a great and brave hunter) struck my father, and I (even at that age) as quite unjust. This is not to say that all hunters behave thusly (for those hunters who wait for hours and hours freezing in tree stands in forests, rather than farms, waiting for a deer to come within range, I respect the dedication, though it would be quite boring to me personally, not being able to keep silent or still for very long without extreme difficulty), but that my conception of hunting was formed by experience in hunters behaving poorly. My conception of many things was formed in that way--which is unfortunate but nonetheless my experience.
I am glad that my father insisted our 130 farm was a refuge for animals (except for groundhogs--whose holes destroyed farm equipment with alarming regularity), with special care taken to dogs, cats, cows, horses, hawks, and deer. I am also glad that he chased off the hunter from our land, even though the hunter was much more heavily armed than we were. If people do not stand up themselves for what is right, then they will see nothing but wrong committed against them. This is especially the case where people are careless and wicked with deadly weapons.
Then, of course, there is the famous, or infamous, case of Chaney's trigger finger. While hunting with some acquiantances, the hunting party flushed out a covey of quails, apparently (according to the Yahoo! News article). While one of the party was walking to collect the quails (and without waving his hand to show everyone where he was), Chaney flushed another covey of quails and sprayed shotgun shells in the direction of his hunting buddy, hitting him in the face, neck, and chest. Ouch. Remind me never to go hunting with the Vice President. It's not like I'd ever get invited to, anyway. Chaney forgot the number one rule of hunting, which even someone like myself (I'm no hunter) knows: always know what you're shooting at. It's a good rule in other areas besides hunting, though it is harder to apply there.
When I went to Pennsylania this past weekend for my father's funeral, I was reminded that my family farm has a "No Hunting" sign on it. My father was not a fan of hunters. It was not that he was squeamish about death--as a farmer it was not uncommon for cattle to be slaughtered--but it was that he saw the nobility of the deer and the lack of nobility of the hunters and their tactics. I remember once, as a teenager visiting my father in the summer, that as we were returning in the evening from an outing (watching a movie, probably), we saw a hunter in our farm, trespassing, and hunting out of season. The hunter was using a spotter to try to freeze the deer in place to make them an easy shot. The practice is illegal, but common.
My father (and I agree with him on this point) did not consider this to be in fair sport. A hunter using wicked means to get an easy kill (and then, no doubt, brag about his prowess to his friends and talk himself up as a great and brave hunter) struck my father, and I (even at that age) as quite unjust. This is not to say that all hunters behave thusly (for those hunters who wait for hours and hours freezing in tree stands in forests, rather than farms, waiting for a deer to come within range, I respect the dedication, though it would be quite boring to me personally, not being able to keep silent or still for very long without extreme difficulty), but that my conception of hunting was formed by experience in hunters behaving poorly. My conception of many things was formed in that way--which is unfortunate but nonetheless my experience.
I am glad that my father insisted our 130 farm was a refuge for animals (except for groundhogs--whose holes destroyed farm equipment with alarming regularity), with special care taken to dogs, cats, cows, horses, hawks, and deer. I am also glad that he chased off the hunter from our land, even though the hunter was much more heavily armed than we were. If people do not stand up themselves for what is right, then they will see nothing but wrong committed against them. This is especially the case where people are careless and wicked with deadly weapons.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Better Lucky Than Good
Sometimes it is better to be lucky than good. The Super Bowl last night is a good example of such an occurrence. I have been a lifelong Pittsburgh Steelers fan (and there is little chance of that changing anytime soon), but to be honest, neither team played very well last night. This game could have been an absolute rout if either team had played well, and would have been a high-scoring thriller if both teams had played well. As it was, both teams played poorly overall, but Pittsburgh just had more big plays and fewer mistakes. And in the end, that is what won it. So, in this particular space I would like to comment on my observations of the game.
Hands Made Of Putty:
While neither quarterback was perfect, both quarterbacks did a decent job. Ben Roethlisberger passed a lot better than a hideous 22.9 rating would suggest. Both quarterbacks passed on the mark except for a couple of errant tosses. However, the receivers on both teams were dropping passes left and right, up and down, sideways and diagonal. It didn't matter if the passes were screen passes, first down passes, or would-be touchdown passes, but neither set of receivers could get a glove on the passes on a consistent basis. Hines Ward was a deserving MVP, but that is because he was simply able to get his gloves on two deep passes. That's all it took to be an MVP in this game. Jerramy Stevens, the trash-talking Seattle TE, caught a touchdown pass (on a somewhat questionable pick pattern) but dropped at least 3 other gift-wrapped passes. It's not like either secondary was doing well, the receivers on both teams just couldn't hang on to the ball.
Trick Plays:
Pittsburgh's offensive output was greatly enhanced by a couple of trick plays that really caught Seattle off guard. The Antwaan Randle El to Hines Ward flea flicker pass had been done earlier in the year (against Cleveland) for a TD, but apparently some Seattle DB's didn't study their tape well enough, because it worked for a TD again in the Super Bowl. Roethlisberger's canny scrambles (including the TD run that gave Pittsburgh a surprising halftime lead) and his long 3rd down pass to Ward that set up the touchdown run kept Pittsburgh's offense on the field and were critical in victory. That Cowher had enough faith in his players to use such trickery in the Super Bowl speaks highly of his credentials.
You're Killing Me Smalls:
On the other hand, Seattle just killed themselves with mistakes: a push-off for offensive pass interference that negates a touchdown pass, a holding penalty that negates a 1st and goal, a (questionable) clipping penalty that adds 15 yards to an interception return, and poor clock management and field awareness that ruined any chance at a last-second comeback. These sort of mistakes will come back to haunt Seattle as they replay the game over and over in their minds. This is not to say that Pittsburgh didn't make mistakes. The underthrown pass that led to the longest INT return in Super Bowl history comes to mind, as does two false start penalties on the opening drive, probably due to jitters. But Pittsburgh made fewer mistakes than Seattle, and on this day, it was enough.
Not So Special Teams Play:
Neither team had great special teams, but Pittsburgh's special teams were average and not poor, and that made a lot of difference. In 3 straight punts where Seattle could have pinned Pittsburgh deep in their own territory, Seattle punter Todd Rouen kicked touchbacks. While Chris Gardocki had one touchback himself, he did manage to down a punt on the two yard line, which was the best special teams play of the whole game. Seattle kicker Josh Brown was 1 for 3, and though two of the field goals were really long (50 and 54 yards--both missed), his team was depending on his long leg to cover for their penalties, and not finishing those drives was critical. So while we should give him a pass, those misses did change the complexion of the game considerably.
We're Going to Disney World Baby:
In the final analysis, though, the Steelers did what they had to do to win (without playing dirty and chippy like the Seahawks did). Bettis (aka "The Bus") will retire a Super Bowl champion, and looks strong as a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Cowher has now shed his label as a "can't win the big one" coach (here's hoping Tony Dungy wins one as well someday), and has to enter consideration in the Hall of Fame as one of the winningest coaches of all time. Roethlisberger has become the youngest QB to ever win the Super Bowl, even though he probably feels pretty rotten about his game. Willie Parker has outran his North Carolina ghosts with the longest run in Super Bowl history (76 yards and the game-winning TD). Dan Rooney and all of us who are Pittsburgh fans get one for the thumb. So, even if the game was less than beautiful and both teams were rather shaky, a lucky win is still a win, and it feels a lot better winning than it does losing. So, cheers to Pittsburgh.
Hands Made Of Putty:
While neither quarterback was perfect, both quarterbacks did a decent job. Ben Roethlisberger passed a lot better than a hideous 22.9 rating would suggest. Both quarterbacks passed on the mark except for a couple of errant tosses. However, the receivers on both teams were dropping passes left and right, up and down, sideways and diagonal. It didn't matter if the passes were screen passes, first down passes, or would-be touchdown passes, but neither set of receivers could get a glove on the passes on a consistent basis. Hines Ward was a deserving MVP, but that is because he was simply able to get his gloves on two deep passes. That's all it took to be an MVP in this game. Jerramy Stevens, the trash-talking Seattle TE, caught a touchdown pass (on a somewhat questionable pick pattern) but dropped at least 3 other gift-wrapped passes. It's not like either secondary was doing well, the receivers on both teams just couldn't hang on to the ball.
Trick Plays:
Pittsburgh's offensive output was greatly enhanced by a couple of trick plays that really caught Seattle off guard. The Antwaan Randle El to Hines Ward flea flicker pass had been done earlier in the year (against Cleveland) for a TD, but apparently some Seattle DB's didn't study their tape well enough, because it worked for a TD again in the Super Bowl. Roethlisberger's canny scrambles (including the TD run that gave Pittsburgh a surprising halftime lead) and his long 3rd down pass to Ward that set up the touchdown run kept Pittsburgh's offense on the field and were critical in victory. That Cowher had enough faith in his players to use such trickery in the Super Bowl speaks highly of his credentials.
You're Killing Me Smalls:
On the other hand, Seattle just killed themselves with mistakes: a push-off for offensive pass interference that negates a touchdown pass, a holding penalty that negates a 1st and goal, a (questionable) clipping penalty that adds 15 yards to an interception return, and poor clock management and field awareness that ruined any chance at a last-second comeback. These sort of mistakes will come back to haunt Seattle as they replay the game over and over in their minds. This is not to say that Pittsburgh didn't make mistakes. The underthrown pass that led to the longest INT return in Super Bowl history comes to mind, as does two false start penalties on the opening drive, probably due to jitters. But Pittsburgh made fewer mistakes than Seattle, and on this day, it was enough.
Not So Special Teams Play:
Neither team had great special teams, but Pittsburgh's special teams were average and not poor, and that made a lot of difference. In 3 straight punts where Seattle could have pinned Pittsburgh deep in their own territory, Seattle punter Todd Rouen kicked touchbacks. While Chris Gardocki had one touchback himself, he did manage to down a punt on the two yard line, which was the best special teams play of the whole game. Seattle kicker Josh Brown was 1 for 3, and though two of the field goals were really long (50 and 54 yards--both missed), his team was depending on his long leg to cover for their penalties, and not finishing those drives was critical. So while we should give him a pass, those misses did change the complexion of the game considerably.
We're Going to Disney World Baby:
In the final analysis, though, the Steelers did what they had to do to win (without playing dirty and chippy like the Seahawks did). Bettis (aka "The Bus") will retire a Super Bowl champion, and looks strong as a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Cowher has now shed his label as a "can't win the big one" coach (here's hoping Tony Dungy wins one as well someday), and has to enter consideration in the Hall of Fame as one of the winningest coaches of all time. Roethlisberger has become the youngest QB to ever win the Super Bowl, even though he probably feels pretty rotten about his game. Willie Parker has outran his North Carolina ghosts with the longest run in Super Bowl history (76 yards and the game-winning TD). Dan Rooney and all of us who are Pittsburgh fans get one for the thumb. So, even if the game was less than beautiful and both teams were rather shaky, a lucky win is still a win, and it feels a lot better winning than it does losing. So, cheers to Pittsburgh.
Friday, February 03, 2006
A Notice To My Readers
It has come to my attention that people have taken offense about some of my posts. Given the fact that there are vew few comments to my blog (and by comments, I mean very few people who send me their comments themselves, and not the comments that people make to others about what I write, which is more properly called gossip or slander), it is difficult for me to determine the precise nature of my audience. I only know my audience when they speak to me directly in some fashion. During the time I have written this blog I have had to deal with a few issues, and have generally been successful at doing so once I was able to explain myself and once those who were troubled or bothered by what I said were able to explain themselves.
I am a person of rather strong and public opinions, and there are times where the fierceness of my words can lead to a different perception than is intended. Despite the fact that I am a busy person, though, I am generally quick to respond to requests for explanation or clarification. I cannot answer your objections, though, if you do not come to me personally and privately about them. If you have comments to make (or even corrections, if you think I have made a mistake on a point of fact), there is a comment option at the bottom of the entry. All comments go to my personal e-mail inbox, and as long as you are not a spambot, and I'm sure most of those with objections would not be spambots (because most spambots always have nice things to say about entries and want you to help them advertise real estate, or Nigerian bank accounts, or something else that is equally bogus). And assuming you have something real to say, I will allow the comment, reply to it, and life goes on.
I would like to close this particular message by quoting what is on the top of my blog whenever it is read: "This blog, hopefully, will contain brief and humorous bits from my day-to-day life, with a minimum of philosophizing (though probably a lot of dry and ironic humor)." While I am a mostly serious person, this blog is intended to have at least a slight amount of humor about various matters. For example, 18 year old mayors, the blogging habits of pigeons (see previous entry), and so forth. What is stated here usually has at least some sort of an ironic bend to it (not always, however, funny).
I respect my (wide) audience well enough to open up about various subjects, even though I don't know all of the readers here personally (and some of those I know personally, I do not know very well). I enjoy giving my opinion (sometimes, perhaps a bit too much), and I enjoy hearing the thoughts and opinions of others. If you wish to express something about me, please give me the respect I give to you and discuss those thoughts and opinions directly to me. I don't bite, I promise.
I am a person of rather strong and public opinions, and there are times where the fierceness of my words can lead to a different perception than is intended. Despite the fact that I am a busy person, though, I am generally quick to respond to requests for explanation or clarification. I cannot answer your objections, though, if you do not come to me personally and privately about them. If you have comments to make (or even corrections, if you think I have made a mistake on a point of fact), there is a comment option at the bottom of the entry. All comments go to my personal e-mail inbox, and as long as you are not a spambot, and I'm sure most of those with objections would not be spambots (because most spambots always have nice things to say about entries and want you to help them advertise real estate, or Nigerian bank accounts, or something else that is equally bogus). And assuming you have something real to say, I will allow the comment, reply to it, and life goes on.
I would like to close this particular message by quoting what is on the top of my blog whenever it is read: "This blog, hopefully, will contain brief and humorous bits from my day-to-day life, with a minimum of philosophizing (though probably a lot of dry and ironic humor)." While I am a mostly serious person, this blog is intended to have at least a slight amount of humor about various matters. For example, 18 year old mayors, the blogging habits of pigeons (see previous entry), and so forth. What is stated here usually has at least some sort of an ironic bend to it (not always, however, funny).
I respect my (wide) audience well enough to open up about various subjects, even though I don't know all of the readers here personally (and some of those I know personally, I do not know very well). I enjoy giving my opinion (sometimes, perhaps a bit too much), and I enjoy hearing the thoughts and opinions of others. If you wish to express something about me, please give me the respect I give to you and discuss those thoughts and opinions directly to me. I don't bite, I promise.
What do pigeon bloggers rant about?
http://www.bloggersblog.com/cgi-bin/bloggersblog.pl?bblog=201063
Yes, California is now having pigeon bloggers with cell phones on their back texting (automatically, we hope) the air quality in various cities. You know the world has gone to pot when pigeons have blogs. I mean, if a pigeon can have a blog, just about anyone can. I heard about the story first on my drive to work this morning. Thinking about the story further made me wonder what pigeon bloggers rant about.
I mean, I know what I like to rant about (and, apparently, everyone else does too--when I went on the UCG Young Adult Cruise this weekend a random minister I had never met, and some people I didn't know from here in Florida had read my blog, and commented on it). But what do pigeon bloggers rant about? Do they crow about the high quality of cars in a given interchange, discuss their favorite statues, give each other tips on which parks to visit where the bread crumbs are the tastiest? What sort of things make pigeons unhappy? Do they stress out over runins with glass windows, or complain about that one time they got hit by lightning, or talk about their friends and relatives long gone?
I am, of course, being somewhat facetious (that is, jocular, or mocking). Still, for those who wish to hear the opinions and judgments of a rather dirty bird, you can go to http://www.parasitelab.net/netlab.php. This site will (soon, we hope) have the bird blog uploaded. I can't wait to hear what those birds have to say. For those who want to hear what I have to say, you know where to find me, but of course, you already knew that.
Yes, California is now having pigeon bloggers with cell phones on their back texting (automatically, we hope) the air quality in various cities. You know the world has gone to pot when pigeons have blogs. I mean, if a pigeon can have a blog, just about anyone can. I heard about the story first on my drive to work this morning. Thinking about the story further made me wonder what pigeon bloggers rant about.
I mean, I know what I like to rant about (and, apparently, everyone else does too--when I went on the UCG Young Adult Cruise this weekend a random minister I had never met, and some people I didn't know from here in Florida had read my blog, and commented on it). But what do pigeon bloggers rant about? Do they crow about the high quality of cars in a given interchange, discuss their favorite statues, give each other tips on which parks to visit where the bread crumbs are the tastiest? What sort of things make pigeons unhappy? Do they stress out over runins with glass windows, or complain about that one time they got hit by lightning, or talk about their friends and relatives long gone?
I am, of course, being somewhat facetious (that is, jocular, or mocking). Still, for those who wish to hear the opinions and judgments of a rather dirty bird, you can go to http://www.parasitelab.net/netlab.php. This site will (soon, we hope) have the bird blog uploaded. I can't wait to hear what those birds have to say. For those who want to hear what I have to say, you know where to find me, but of course, you already knew that.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
If a brother sins against you...
Occasionally I use this blog as a platform for ranting about my own shortcomings and those of others. Usually, of course, I am vastly harsher on myself than on others, but often it is necessary to point out less than flattering qualities in other people for their own good (and I am sure that those who point out my less than flattering qualities agree as well).
Matthew 18:15-17 states: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or tax collector."
Now, it is fairly clear and obvious what these verses mean. While putting them into practice is somewhat difficult (for me, as well as for you, no doubt), what they say is quite direct and straightforward. If someone says or does something that offends you, you have the responsibility to go to them. Some of us, like myself, are not very difficult to find. I generally am quick to answer my e-mails (perhaps too quick on occasion), and I even answer the phone. You can even, if you really want to, speak to me in person. I am generally accommodating to requests for explanation and clarification, when those are necessary. In other words, I am not a difficult person to go to if you have a problem (though I tend to be a bit prickly when it comes to criticism, a quality I am sure I am not alone in). I am a bit annoyed, to be honest, when people tell me unflattering things to my face. That said, though, I am vastly more annoyed when people do it behind my back. The Bible condemns that sort of behavior most strenously, and states that those who practice such behavior will not enter the Kingdom of God. Do you want to enter the Kingdom of God? I know I do.
Now, if you do not get a satisfactory answer from me (or anyone else) concerning your complaints, your next responsibility is to find a couple of brethren who are moderate and somewhat patient and then go to the person again, with impartial witnesses to determine the attitude of the brother or sister who offended you. This is not the opportunity to go find some friends and gang up on someone, but rather a request for honest mediation of a problem. I don't know of very many people who have done this in their complaints with me (there are few who do the first step, and few times in my life where some conversation has not resolved the basic issues to at least an agree to disagree level), but perhaps they should if they do not receive satisfaction in personal conversation. I am someone who speaks many works, and must be occasionally reminded that not everyone shares my bluntness and candor, or my oftentimes extreme views stated rather matter-of-factly as if they were obvious truths (at least they are obvious to me)...
It is only after personal conversation has failed and the person is unwilling to accept mediation with impartial mediators that someone should go to the church about an issue. Most people (you know who you are), however, take this as the first step, and never even bother to go to their brother at all. The Church at Corinth did it, and was upbraided (that is, corrected) for it. Now, I am sure I am not the person best suited to give such rather correctional messages (I try to avoid them, because I am all too aware of how often I fall short of the standards of perfection, and wish to avoid both the appearance and the reality of hypocrisy), but someone ought to.
Let me be blunt, much of the time I rant about people who are already dead and cannot defend themselves. People tell me all sorts of nasty things about Abraham Lincoln, who happens to be my favorite president and a personal role model of mine (though I am certainly willing to see his flaws and faults), all because they are pro-Southern and have very harsh views as to the president that lawfully and properly removed them of their illegetimate property. However, they consider it no small thing to insult someone who was a president of the United States. Likewise, people around me are often saying the most savage things about former president Clinton and his wife, commenting on their sexual lives (in sometimes unseemly detail and content) and considering them people of no moral principles whatsoever (and, to be honest, I do not view them very highly either, though some do based on political ideology). Again, these were people who God placed (for whatever reason, these matters are mysterious to me) in authority over us, and people feel no compunction about speaking wickedly about them.
However, many of these same people express the most wondrous stock and horror over fond leaders of their own being questioned. None of us are above questioning (again, I know I'm not, and I don't assume that others have much less that needs correction than I do), whether dead or alive. Those whose legacy extends far beyond their own lives merit the most questioning. That is because the legacy of their deeds lives on after they are gone, and that legacy itself may be the sources of many problems, besides many blessings. If we cannot see fault where fault lies in others, we are not judging as we ought. God is merciful, though, and for that we must all be thankful. If God was not forgiving, none of us would have a chance to enter His family. I truly wish that God has or will forgive those whom I criticize, for I know how strongly I ask for God's forgiveness for my own sins, which are legion. That said, before we can be forgiven, we must realize what we need to be forgiven of. It is for this reason that criticism can be a moral course of behavior, because people are often blind to their own sins, and often justify them. I only say this because I know myself well enough. We need to face up to what we are before we can become what God wants us to be. None of us are there yet, and we all have much work to do. That work, though, should be done in a way that is candid, open, and honest. And trust me, if I have a personal problem with you, I will not hesitate to bring it up to you myself. Don't say you weren't warned.
Matthew 18:15-17 states: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or tax collector."
Now, it is fairly clear and obvious what these verses mean. While putting them into practice is somewhat difficult (for me, as well as for you, no doubt), what they say is quite direct and straightforward. If someone says or does something that offends you, you have the responsibility to go to them. Some of us, like myself, are not very difficult to find. I generally am quick to answer my e-mails (perhaps too quick on occasion), and I even answer the phone. You can even, if you really want to, speak to me in person. I am generally accommodating to requests for explanation and clarification, when those are necessary. In other words, I am not a difficult person to go to if you have a problem (though I tend to be a bit prickly when it comes to criticism, a quality I am sure I am not alone in). I am a bit annoyed, to be honest, when people tell me unflattering things to my face. That said, though, I am vastly more annoyed when people do it behind my back. The Bible condemns that sort of behavior most strenously, and states that those who practice such behavior will not enter the Kingdom of God. Do you want to enter the Kingdom of God? I know I do.
Now, if you do not get a satisfactory answer from me (or anyone else) concerning your complaints, your next responsibility is to find a couple of brethren who are moderate and somewhat patient and then go to the person again, with impartial witnesses to determine the attitude of the brother or sister who offended you. This is not the opportunity to go find some friends and gang up on someone, but rather a request for honest mediation of a problem. I don't know of very many people who have done this in their complaints with me (there are few who do the first step, and few times in my life where some conversation has not resolved the basic issues to at least an agree to disagree level), but perhaps they should if they do not receive satisfaction in personal conversation. I am someone who speaks many works, and must be occasionally reminded that not everyone shares my bluntness and candor, or my oftentimes extreme views stated rather matter-of-factly as if they were obvious truths (at least they are obvious to me)...
It is only after personal conversation has failed and the person is unwilling to accept mediation with impartial mediators that someone should go to the church about an issue. Most people (you know who you are), however, take this as the first step, and never even bother to go to their brother at all. The Church at Corinth did it, and was upbraided (that is, corrected) for it. Now, I am sure I am not the person best suited to give such rather correctional messages (I try to avoid them, because I am all too aware of how often I fall short of the standards of perfection, and wish to avoid both the appearance and the reality of hypocrisy), but someone ought to.
Let me be blunt, much of the time I rant about people who are already dead and cannot defend themselves. People tell me all sorts of nasty things about Abraham Lincoln, who happens to be my favorite president and a personal role model of mine (though I am certainly willing to see his flaws and faults), all because they are pro-Southern and have very harsh views as to the president that lawfully and properly removed them of their illegetimate property. However, they consider it no small thing to insult someone who was a president of the United States. Likewise, people around me are often saying the most savage things about former president Clinton and his wife, commenting on their sexual lives (in sometimes unseemly detail and content) and considering them people of no moral principles whatsoever (and, to be honest, I do not view them very highly either, though some do based on political ideology). Again, these were people who God placed (for whatever reason, these matters are mysterious to me) in authority over us, and people feel no compunction about speaking wickedly about them.
However, many of these same people express the most wondrous stock and horror over fond leaders of their own being questioned. None of us are above questioning (again, I know I'm not, and I don't assume that others have much less that needs correction than I do), whether dead or alive. Those whose legacy extends far beyond their own lives merit the most questioning. That is because the legacy of their deeds lives on after they are gone, and that legacy itself may be the sources of many problems, besides many blessings. If we cannot see fault where fault lies in others, we are not judging as we ought. God is merciful, though, and for that we must all be thankful. If God was not forgiving, none of us would have a chance to enter His family. I truly wish that God has or will forgive those whom I criticize, for I know how strongly I ask for God's forgiveness for my own sins, which are legion. That said, before we can be forgiven, we must realize what we need to be forgiven of. It is for this reason that criticism can be a moral course of behavior, because people are often blind to their own sins, and often justify them. I only say this because I know myself well enough. We need to face up to what we are before we can become what God wants us to be. None of us are there yet, and we all have much work to do. That work, though, should be done in a way that is candid, open, and honest. And trust me, if I have a personal problem with you, I will not hesitate to bring it up to you myself. Don't say you weren't warned.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
A Salute To Brave Bloggers
Now, this particular blog (which has an alarmingly large reading audience, from what I could gather last weekend while I was on a Caribbean cruise) normally has a bit of a biting edge. However, I would like to use today's entry to show some appreciation to bloggers for freedom in totalitarian societies. Those of us who, like myself, grew up in free societies may often take for granted that we have the right in this country to spout off about just about anything we want to without fear of official persecution. People may not like what we have to say, but beyond harassment and verbal abuse, and the occasional lawsuit (none of those yet, *crosses fingers*) there is little they can do about it thanks to the First Amendment.
Most societies around the world, including those who have the most to hide (more on that later) are not so free. While there are many people who wish to take their leaders to task and hold them accountable for their actions (a noble, God-ordained task), some people must suffer more for their bravery and pluck than others. Some people risk death, torture, exile, and imprisonment and impovershment in order to speak the truth. These brave bloggers can be found in such corrupt societies as China, Iran, and Syria, among others. These people deserve our most profound thanks, as they live up to the high standards of morality for a free people without themselves being free. They shine a candle in the darkness in defiance against tyranny, and are worthy of our support for their attempts to bring the dark deeds of their wicked rulers into the harsh light of day. We who live in much more just socities often forget that the reason we have freedoms is for moral ends--even if those who are the most stringent in defending those freedoms are often themselves highly immoral and have rather ulterior motives for thier stands.
Technology is neither good nor evil. The same advances that allow these brave activists for democracy in benighted areas of the globe to reach a world audience (this would be termed a moral use of technology) also allow for greater immorality, such as the recent actions by google in allowing the Chinese government to block sites considered unfriendly to their wicked government, and in their allowing for US federal serveilence over certain web searches, a major breach of the privacy rights of American citizens. We must be ever vigilent on guard against the siren call of paternalistic and over-intrusive government seeking to make slaves of the people. After all, the people are supposed to be the masters of their leaders, not the other way around, according to the clear Word of God (see Matthew 20:26-28, Deuteronomy 17:6-14, Ezekiel 31, among other places).
Indeed, those societies (whether they be organizational or governmental or what) which seek to most stringently restrict the freedom of speech have the most to hide themselves. Those whose works are corrupt do not wish to have their works open to the scrutiny of other people. Those who have nothing to hide have no fear of their words and actions being open to the eyes of a candid world. Therefore, even without evidence, a heavy presumption of guilt of some kind must go to those who wish to avoid accountability. After all, if people are discharging their leadership duties effectively and in accordance with the laws of God and man, then they should welcome the investigation of others, because it would vindicate their good deeds. It is only those whose actions are corrupt and evil that would wish to prevent others from making a full discovery and disclosure of those deeds. We are all sinners, to be sure, so any investigation of our deeds will uncover some matters we would rather not admit. However, those who are righteous will admit their faults candidly. Those administrations which close off records of their deeds are the worst of hypocrites, being aware of their sin but refusing to admit it or repent of it.
So, for these reasons we must salute those who expose the wicked deeds of leaders who deny the truth and live a lie. We must have no corrupt communication in our behavior, realizing that the truth sets us free from the shakles of slavery to personalities and sin. It is selom popular to speak the truth, but in some countries it is extremely dangerous. So, for those who face official persecution for their truthtelling deeds, I offer my sincere praise and any support such that my words and deeds can provide to those who struggle valiently against the darkness.
Most societies around the world, including those who have the most to hide (more on that later) are not so free. While there are many people who wish to take their leaders to task and hold them accountable for their actions (a noble, God-ordained task), some people must suffer more for their bravery and pluck than others. Some people risk death, torture, exile, and imprisonment and impovershment in order to speak the truth. These brave bloggers can be found in such corrupt societies as China, Iran, and Syria, among others. These people deserve our most profound thanks, as they live up to the high standards of morality for a free people without themselves being free. They shine a candle in the darkness in defiance against tyranny, and are worthy of our support for their attempts to bring the dark deeds of their wicked rulers into the harsh light of day. We who live in much more just socities often forget that the reason we have freedoms is for moral ends--even if those who are the most stringent in defending those freedoms are often themselves highly immoral and have rather ulterior motives for thier stands.
Technology is neither good nor evil. The same advances that allow these brave activists for democracy in benighted areas of the globe to reach a world audience (this would be termed a moral use of technology) also allow for greater immorality, such as the recent actions by google in allowing the Chinese government to block sites considered unfriendly to their wicked government, and in their allowing for US federal serveilence over certain web searches, a major breach of the privacy rights of American citizens. We must be ever vigilent on guard against the siren call of paternalistic and over-intrusive government seeking to make slaves of the people. After all, the people are supposed to be the masters of their leaders, not the other way around, according to the clear Word of God (see Matthew 20:26-28, Deuteronomy 17:6-14, Ezekiel 31, among other places).
Indeed, those societies (whether they be organizational or governmental or what) which seek to most stringently restrict the freedom of speech have the most to hide themselves. Those whose works are corrupt do not wish to have their works open to the scrutiny of other people. Those who have nothing to hide have no fear of their words and actions being open to the eyes of a candid world. Therefore, even without evidence, a heavy presumption of guilt of some kind must go to those who wish to avoid accountability. After all, if people are discharging their leadership duties effectively and in accordance with the laws of God and man, then they should welcome the investigation of others, because it would vindicate their good deeds. It is only those whose actions are corrupt and evil that would wish to prevent others from making a full discovery and disclosure of those deeds. We are all sinners, to be sure, so any investigation of our deeds will uncover some matters we would rather not admit. However, those who are righteous will admit their faults candidly. Those administrations which close off records of their deeds are the worst of hypocrites, being aware of their sin but refusing to admit it or repent of it.
So, for these reasons we must salute those who expose the wicked deeds of leaders who deny the truth and live a lie. We must have no corrupt communication in our behavior, realizing that the truth sets us free from the shakles of slavery to personalities and sin. It is selom popular to speak the truth, but in some countries it is extremely dangerous. So, for those who face official persecution for their truthtelling deeds, I offer my sincere praise and any support such that my words and deeds can provide to those who struggle valiently against the darkness.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Reflections on the Death of an Old Tyrant, 20 Years Later
In my play "None Dare Call It Treason," the action begins with the death of the "Old Man," a tyrant whose death ushers a great deal of chaos and misrule into the land of Cog. In real life, this particular man, by the name of Herbert W. Armstrong, died on January 16, 1986, when I was (to the day) four and a half years of age. As such, at the outset I must say that I did not know the man myself at all, but rather my view of him reflects a second hand understanding of those virtues of his that many vociferously claim as well as those faults of his that others just as loudly proclaim.
Regardless of whether one idolizes or abhors HWA, there is no denying that he was a person of great importance, especially for those of us who were either converted or who through accident of birth were involved with the Worldwide Church of God. Unfortunately, the main source of information about his life is through his two-volume autobiography, which is the genre of literature where one is the least likely to find truth (this is because of all the things people lie about, they are most likely to lie about themselves, and then after that to lie about their enemies).
The claims made for HWA by his friends and supporters border on (if not cross the line of) the idolatrous. Some people behave as is every word he wrote was in red letter and was canonical (which is frankly ridiculous). Some people behave as if he were an apostle (which is against the qualifications in the Bible in Acts 1, among other places, which states that an apostle must have a direct apostolic calling from Jesus Christ and must have been instructed personally by him, qualifications which HWA did not meet). Others behave as if he had no sins of all to speak of, and that that only flaw he had was to be a poor judge of character (this seems to be quite true, but it would hardly be his only flaw).
There are others though, who just as vehemently claim the most outlandish and severe sins for HWA. While the allegations of his plagarism of certain literature from other British Israelite sources seems quite true, and negates any sort of idea one must have about his intellectual honesty, this is merely the least of the comments people have against him. There are bizarre allegations of him keeping a log of certain autosexual activities and allegations of incestuous relations with his daughter, which at this date can only be classified as hearsay. Given the length of time after the supposed events, any sort of evidence for or against seems somewhat difficult to fathom beyond savage accusations. As far as certain allegations to the reasons for his about face on the issue of divorce, I have my own opinions about it, but they must remain my personal opinions. It is obvious that both the pre-1974 and post-1974 decisions were lacking a certain moral sense. In such contentious issues, though, one can have excellent theory and woeful practice. I have commented earlier on my own rather tangled and complicated thoughts about divorce, so I will not repeat them here.
It seems a bit unfortunate to dwell on the negative, but the legacy of HWA has been quite negative. Those who hold him in the highest regard reflect poorly on his memory by their behavior as rigid and narrow minded people unwilling to see the tiniest human flaw in him or in his atrocious understanding of political theory (indeed, it is his views on government that have proven to be his most lasting legacy, and his most bitter). That said, the good parts of his legacy (including, but not limited, to the injunction to look at the Bible rather than to him) have been ignored as his successors have in many cases built up cults of authority around individuals or classes within the various orginizations of the Church of God. Thus while honoring HWA in words, they have not taken his advice seriously. Perhaps that is our fault and not his, but it reflects poorly on him.
HWA was in his age a maverick, a person of limited education but boundless zeal for the truth of God who sought (sincerely, from all I have been able to judge) to restore the truth of God and rid it of the pagan traditions that had been built around the Bible. He sought reasonable and straightforward interpretations of the Bible rather than tortured fictions. That his views were somewhat limited and flawed is inevetible, but he plowed a lot of ground and left a blueprint for how further eradications of the taint of paganism and wicked human tradition can be done. So let us remember him for that. He never saw the promised land, but at least he pointed the way for us to follow. We cannot be content merely to do what he did--we must go beyond, further and deeper, into the truth of God. But we have a lot to appreciate him for, even if he was, like all of us, merely a human being whose human nature held him down to the ground even as he reached up towards the heavens.
Regardless of whether one idolizes or abhors HWA, there is no denying that he was a person of great importance, especially for those of us who were either converted or who through accident of birth were involved with the Worldwide Church of God. Unfortunately, the main source of information about his life is through his two-volume autobiography, which is the genre of literature where one is the least likely to find truth (this is because of all the things people lie about, they are most likely to lie about themselves, and then after that to lie about their enemies).
The claims made for HWA by his friends and supporters border on (if not cross the line of) the idolatrous. Some people behave as is every word he wrote was in red letter and was canonical (which is frankly ridiculous). Some people behave as if he were an apostle (which is against the qualifications in the Bible in Acts 1, among other places, which states that an apostle must have a direct apostolic calling from Jesus Christ and must have been instructed personally by him, qualifications which HWA did not meet). Others behave as if he had no sins of all to speak of, and that that only flaw he had was to be a poor judge of character (this seems to be quite true, but it would hardly be his only flaw).
There are others though, who just as vehemently claim the most outlandish and severe sins for HWA. While the allegations of his plagarism of certain literature from other British Israelite sources seems quite true, and negates any sort of idea one must have about his intellectual honesty, this is merely the least of the comments people have against him. There are bizarre allegations of him keeping a log of certain autosexual activities and allegations of incestuous relations with his daughter, which at this date can only be classified as hearsay. Given the length of time after the supposed events, any sort of evidence for or against seems somewhat difficult to fathom beyond savage accusations. As far as certain allegations to the reasons for his about face on the issue of divorce, I have my own opinions about it, but they must remain my personal opinions. It is obvious that both the pre-1974 and post-1974 decisions were lacking a certain moral sense. In such contentious issues, though, one can have excellent theory and woeful practice. I have commented earlier on my own rather tangled and complicated thoughts about divorce, so I will not repeat them here.
It seems a bit unfortunate to dwell on the negative, but the legacy of HWA has been quite negative. Those who hold him in the highest regard reflect poorly on his memory by their behavior as rigid and narrow minded people unwilling to see the tiniest human flaw in him or in his atrocious understanding of political theory (indeed, it is his views on government that have proven to be his most lasting legacy, and his most bitter). That said, the good parts of his legacy (including, but not limited, to the injunction to look at the Bible rather than to him) have been ignored as his successors have in many cases built up cults of authority around individuals or classes within the various orginizations of the Church of God. Thus while honoring HWA in words, they have not taken his advice seriously. Perhaps that is our fault and not his, but it reflects poorly on him.
HWA was in his age a maverick, a person of limited education but boundless zeal for the truth of God who sought (sincerely, from all I have been able to judge) to restore the truth of God and rid it of the pagan traditions that had been built around the Bible. He sought reasonable and straightforward interpretations of the Bible rather than tortured fictions. That his views were somewhat limited and flawed is inevetible, but he plowed a lot of ground and left a blueprint for how further eradications of the taint of paganism and wicked human tradition can be done. So let us remember him for that. He never saw the promised land, but at least he pointed the way for us to follow. We cannot be content merely to do what he did--we must go beyond, further and deeper, into the truth of God. But we have a lot to appreciate him for, even if he was, like all of us, merely a human being whose human nature held him down to the ground even as he reached up towards the heavens.
Our Nation's Favorite Plagiarist Day
This is the first of two rants of the day. Consider it a 2 for 1 special. Today is MLK, a day in honor of a man whose work was nearly completely fraudulent, whose personal life was an insult to Christian morals, whose political behavior was (to put it mildly) highly shady, and who nonetheless commands a ridiculous degree of near-total adulation. In my role as the unpleasant truth teller (not because I am unpleasant, but because I deal in unpleasant truths), it is my responsibility to, in a small way at least, look at some of the reasons why MLK should not be the celebrated person he is, even for those of us who (like myself) are against the evils of racism in whatever form they appear. After that we will discuss some personal views of mine about MLK and how he has appeared in my own personal literature.
Thou Shalt Not Steal
MLK was a fraud. There is no way to deal with the truth about his flagrant disregard for standards of academic honesty or for his concern about giving credit to the work of others that he so shamefully stole without any credit or attribution being given. It is quite possible that MLK never had any original thought in his entire body of work. At any rate, it is somewhat certain that his doctorate degree is about as worthwhile as Charmin double-ply toilet paper (I think that's an original simile).
But let this not rest as a matter of opinion. The following site (http://www.martinlutherking.org/plagiarism.html) contains much useful information (and some dead links unfortunately) about the serious nature of MLK's plagiarism problem. A substantial portion, perhaps a majority, of the words of MLK's doctoral thesis were lifted from various authors without any attribution. This is theft on a grand scale. His stolen student essays, for example, are used as textbook lessons in plagiarism at some universities (such as the University of British Columbia). Even his most famous speech (the "I Have A Dream" speech) was stolen from a *nearly identical* speech by a man named Archibald Carey to the 1952 Republican National Convention. A side-by-side comparison of the speeches can be found at (http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html). The site is currently down, but I don't know how long that will last.
Stealing the ideas and words of other people is wrong. While some plagiarism is inadvertent, the wholesale thievery from MLK is evidence of someone who did not respect the intellectual property of ideas from other people. By appropriating the thoughts and exact phrases of other people who were much more profound and original thinkers (but, sadly, less famous), MLK has acquired a reputation for eloquence and intelligence he did not deserve. He was the Milli Vanilli of divinity studies, and his doctorate degree was not earned. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter the fame or political importance of the people involved. No one is above the law, or above accountability for their actions.
No Reverend At All
MLK had a problem with sex. He was far from alone in that, of course. Like many religious leaders (without naming names), he utilized his position as a supposed man of God in order to fulfull his many adulterous desires. Supposedly, of the 13 FBI tapes on MLK, 12 of them deal with his sexual escapades. Who knows what his widow thinks of all of that, but it reflects poorly on his character. Some of the tapes apparently involve his party-boy behavior before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Stockholm and involve his pleasure at being able to sleep with a white woman. I will withold comment on that.
What his behavior, which was apparently used by some in attempts to blackmail him for ulterior political motives (itself wrong), tells us is that MLK was not a person to take God and his religious beliefs very seriously. Just as he did not respect God's command not to seal, he did not respect God's concern for the sanctity of marriage. He was careless and arrogant, and thought himself above the standards that he as a minister sought to hold everyone else to. That reeks of the most disgusting hypocrisy. No human beings are perfect, but we should demand that heroic figures at least be good, not dispicable presumptuous sinners. They must at least struggle against their baser natures, rather than revel in them.
Political Machinations
MLK was a political opportunist. His personality is of the type that is valued in our society (which reflects poorly on us), and that is someone of no original or deep thoughts or moral convictions but merely someone who is skilled at marketing and manipulation of emotional sentiment. Think of Bill Clinton, for example. Same situation is there. Our society is sucker for anyone who can play on emotions, and those who can appear to be sympathetic will gain attention and become legends even without character or depth. That this is largely due to the emotionalism and lack of intellectual depth among the Baby Boomer generation is itself a big part of the problem.
The political machinations of MLK can be shown by his shallow flirtation with Communists. After all, despite the ulterior motives of the Communists, they were early defenders of the rights of blacks (as was, we must not forget, the Party of Lincoln, with less ulterior motives). Jewish leftist intellectuals were among the key figures in anticipating and leading the movement against segregation that eventually led to the destruction of Jim Crow laws. So, regardless of his convictions (if he had any), MLK demonstrated at least a shallow interest in their ideology.
Then, in the mid-1960's, when black radicals became more influential, MLK toed a more black nationalistic line. This included demands for reparations for slavery, a craven attempt to despoil the hard earned wealth of white America, and a completely unacceptable demand. The debt of slavery was paid in full by the deaths of the civil war. If anyone should pay reparations, it is those nations and peoples that sold their brethren and neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. Then again, they already have enough debts of their own. At any rate, it appears MLK was not that serious about reparations, but was merely trying to earn his bona fides as a black nationalist. He did not live long enough to demonstrate any true moral or political convictions.
MLK in the literature of Nathan Albright
I live just off of MLK, or SR-574 (or Buffalo Avenue), as I prefer to call it. To the extent possible, I generally prefer not to even mention the name. However, there is one way in which the name of MLK has appeared in my literature, in several of my plays. For my high school plays (which include "A Quiet Springtime Love" and "The Rape of Nicholas"), I renamed my school Martin Luther King High School in order to mock both the school and MLK. The school was not that great of a place (and its real name is not MLKHS, but rather C. Leon King High School), but just like MLK streets are in the worst neighborhoods, MLKHS was not that good of a school in fiction. It all makes sense. I once wrote, before finding out the truth about MLK, a rather nice essay about the Letters from a Birmingham Jail, but I suppose I had better write glowing praise for those who were responsible for the thoughts therein, rather than for the thief who stole the beautiful and weighty words and passed them off as his own. So should you.
Thou Shalt Not Steal
MLK was a fraud. There is no way to deal with the truth about his flagrant disregard for standards of academic honesty or for his concern about giving credit to the work of others that he so shamefully stole without any credit or attribution being given. It is quite possible that MLK never had any original thought in his entire body of work. At any rate, it is somewhat certain that his doctorate degree is about as worthwhile as Charmin double-ply toilet paper (I think that's an original simile).
But let this not rest as a matter of opinion. The following site (http://www.martinlutherking.org/plagiarism.html) contains much useful information (and some dead links unfortunately) about the serious nature of MLK's plagiarism problem. A substantial portion, perhaps a majority, of the words of MLK's doctoral thesis were lifted from various authors without any attribution. This is theft on a grand scale. His stolen student essays, for example, are used as textbook lessons in plagiarism at some universities (such as the University of British Columbia). Even his most famous speech (the "I Have A Dream" speech) was stolen from a *nearly identical* speech by a man named Archibald Carey to the 1952 Republican National Convention. A side-by-side comparison of the speeches can be found at (http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/whose_dream.html). The site is currently down, but I don't know how long that will last.
Stealing the ideas and words of other people is wrong. While some plagiarism is inadvertent, the wholesale thievery from MLK is evidence of someone who did not respect the intellectual property of ideas from other people. By appropriating the thoughts and exact phrases of other people who were much more profound and original thinkers (but, sadly, less famous), MLK has acquired a reputation for eloquence and intelligence he did not deserve. He was the Milli Vanilli of divinity studies, and his doctorate degree was not earned. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter the fame or political importance of the people involved. No one is above the law, or above accountability for their actions.
No Reverend At All
MLK had a problem with sex. He was far from alone in that, of course. Like many religious leaders (without naming names), he utilized his position as a supposed man of God in order to fulfull his many adulterous desires. Supposedly, of the 13 FBI tapes on MLK, 12 of them deal with his sexual escapades. Who knows what his widow thinks of all of that, but it reflects poorly on his character. Some of the tapes apparently involve his party-boy behavior before receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in Stockholm and involve his pleasure at being able to sleep with a white woman. I will withold comment on that.
What his behavior, which was apparently used by some in attempts to blackmail him for ulterior political motives (itself wrong), tells us is that MLK was not a person to take God and his religious beliefs very seriously. Just as he did not respect God's command not to seal, he did not respect God's concern for the sanctity of marriage. He was careless and arrogant, and thought himself above the standards that he as a minister sought to hold everyone else to. That reeks of the most disgusting hypocrisy. No human beings are perfect, but we should demand that heroic figures at least be good, not dispicable presumptuous sinners. They must at least struggle against their baser natures, rather than revel in them.
Political Machinations
MLK was a political opportunist. His personality is of the type that is valued in our society (which reflects poorly on us), and that is someone of no original or deep thoughts or moral convictions but merely someone who is skilled at marketing and manipulation of emotional sentiment. Think of Bill Clinton, for example. Same situation is there. Our society is sucker for anyone who can play on emotions, and those who can appear to be sympathetic will gain attention and become legends even without character or depth. That this is largely due to the emotionalism and lack of intellectual depth among the Baby Boomer generation is itself a big part of the problem.
The political machinations of MLK can be shown by his shallow flirtation with Communists. After all, despite the ulterior motives of the Communists, they were early defenders of the rights of blacks (as was, we must not forget, the Party of Lincoln, with less ulterior motives). Jewish leftist intellectuals were among the key figures in anticipating and leading the movement against segregation that eventually led to the destruction of Jim Crow laws. So, regardless of his convictions (if he had any), MLK demonstrated at least a shallow interest in their ideology.
Then, in the mid-1960's, when black radicals became more influential, MLK toed a more black nationalistic line. This included demands for reparations for slavery, a craven attempt to despoil the hard earned wealth of white America, and a completely unacceptable demand. The debt of slavery was paid in full by the deaths of the civil war. If anyone should pay reparations, it is those nations and peoples that sold their brethren and neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. Then again, they already have enough debts of their own. At any rate, it appears MLK was not that serious about reparations, but was merely trying to earn his bona fides as a black nationalist. He did not live long enough to demonstrate any true moral or political convictions.
MLK in the literature of Nathan Albright
I live just off of MLK, or SR-574 (or Buffalo Avenue), as I prefer to call it. To the extent possible, I generally prefer not to even mention the name. However, there is one way in which the name of MLK has appeared in my literature, in several of my plays. For my high school plays (which include "A Quiet Springtime Love" and "The Rape of Nicholas"), I renamed my school Martin Luther King High School in order to mock both the school and MLK. The school was not that great of a place (and its real name is not MLKHS, but rather C. Leon King High School), but just like MLK streets are in the worst neighborhoods, MLKHS was not that good of a school in fiction. It all makes sense. I once wrote, before finding out the truth about MLK, a rather nice essay about the Letters from a Birmingham Jail, but I suppose I had better write glowing praise for those who were responsible for the thoughts therein, rather than for the thief who stole the beautiful and weighty words and passed them off as his own. So should you.
Friday, January 13, 2006
A Case of Mistaken Identity
As I rest this Sabbath day, I am pondering two cases of mistaken identity. In order to protect the innocent (or guilty) I will only use first and last initials. These stories have been relatively amusing, but are quite intriguing and both relate to spiritual issues, and people in the United Church of God, ironically enough (both of them, as well as myself, have ABC connections, to make things even more coincidental). So, without any (further) ado, here are the cases of humorous and occasionally frustrating mistaken identity.
Case #1: Dissing The Wrong Albright Brother
A certain young lady lived in the Tampa Bay area for a time, and my younger brother had a crush on her for a long time. She wanted nothing of it, as she is a couple of weeks older. She even insulted my younger brother by saying he was not a member of the Pittsburgh Posse, something that mattered (maybe matters) a lot to him. While visiting Tampa for the summer (I was in college at the time) I met her a little, but did not know her all that well. So, when she went off to ABC, and whenever someone else brought up my name to her, she dissed me to all comers about how much of a rotten scoundrel I am. Such calumny is rather irksome to me, and it was not until a few months ago that the truth was discovered: all these years she mistook me for my younger brother. *Glares*. Look, if you want to want to diss me for what I have said and done, that is fine (I certainly have said and done enough). But don't even think of saddling me with someone else's reputation, unless it's a good one. Then it's okay.
Case #2: An Unintentional Prophecy
Some of my friends (jokingly, I hope) call me Nathan the Prophet. Once, however, I made a tragic and unfortuante, and entirely unintentional, prophecy, involving a young woman I barely knew who also has a close ABC connection. It all started in 1998, when I began writing a trilogy of plays called the "Church Kids Trilogy" of church kids gone bad (and I am putting that rather politely). I finished the trilogy in 2003. Now, I gave the beautiful (and somewhat hypocritical) heroine of the trilogy a very beautiful name, because I did not know anyone by that name at the time (and I still don't know that many people with the name, it is somewhat unusual in these parts, except among the mafia princesses of Tampa I suppose, whom I do not tend to know). Anyways, it turns out that the name I picked (which was the same name as the acquaintance of mine) ended up describing the person somewhat well (not perfectly, but too close for comfort at any rate). That said, perhaps it is irrelevant. If she has mended or mends her ways, whatever she did in the past (and all of us have a past) is irrelevant. God forgives us all, which we can be quite thankful for. As that is the case, it would not be right to comment too much about her deeds, especially if they are covered with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
And with that, I bid adieu.
Case #1: Dissing The Wrong Albright Brother
A certain young lady lived in the Tampa Bay area for a time, and my younger brother had a crush on her for a long time. She wanted nothing of it, as she is a couple of weeks older. She even insulted my younger brother by saying he was not a member of the Pittsburgh Posse, something that mattered (maybe matters) a lot to him. While visiting Tampa for the summer (I was in college at the time) I met her a little, but did not know her all that well. So, when she went off to ABC, and whenever someone else brought up my name to her, she dissed me to all comers about how much of a rotten scoundrel I am. Such calumny is rather irksome to me, and it was not until a few months ago that the truth was discovered: all these years she mistook me for my younger brother. *Glares*. Look, if you want to want to diss me for what I have said and done, that is fine (I certainly have said and done enough). But don't even think of saddling me with someone else's reputation, unless it's a good one. Then it's okay.
Case #2: An Unintentional Prophecy
Some of my friends (jokingly, I hope) call me Nathan the Prophet. Once, however, I made a tragic and unfortuante, and entirely unintentional, prophecy, involving a young woman I barely knew who also has a close ABC connection. It all started in 1998, when I began writing a trilogy of plays called the "Church Kids Trilogy" of church kids gone bad (and I am putting that rather politely). I finished the trilogy in 2003. Now, I gave the beautiful (and somewhat hypocritical) heroine of the trilogy a very beautiful name, because I did not know anyone by that name at the time (and I still don't know that many people with the name, it is somewhat unusual in these parts, except among the mafia princesses of Tampa I suppose, whom I do not tend to know). Anyways, it turns out that the name I picked (which was the same name as the acquaintance of mine) ended up describing the person somewhat well (not perfectly, but too close for comfort at any rate). That said, perhaps it is irrelevant. If she has mended or mends her ways, whatever she did in the past (and all of us have a past) is irrelevant. God forgives us all, which we can be quite thankful for. As that is the case, it would not be right to comment too much about her deeds, especially if they are covered with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
And with that, I bid adieu.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
We Are The Normal
I don't know how many people are enthusiastic about the New Horizons mission, which is supposed to arrive at Pluto in about nine years to begin exploring the Kuiper belt, where Pluto resides. Of the nine major planets (and scientists differ strongly whether Pluto should be considered a planet or not, though I firmly support its status), Pluto is the only one that has not been explored yet.
Pluto is a quirky little planet, which would largely explain why it is my favorite of the planets. I mean, it doesn't really fit in but it tries really hard anyway (it occasionally can be found closer to the sun than Neptune, has 3 moons, has an atmosphere of Methane, and has a somewhat askew orbit of the sun). It is sad when one can identify with a really cold rock covered in N2 and CH4 (and trace amounts of CO2), but so be it. In fact, I have been a fan of Pluto's for a long time, since I was a small child. Once, our pastor in Worldwide in Lakeland, FL (a man by the name of Guy Ames), gave a sermon about planets in the Kingdom of God. I responded to him (as I am wont to do) that Pluto was my favorite planet, and I gave the reasons why. Even as a very small one I was attracted to what was neglected, obscure, and disputed. Some things never change.
Pluto itself was only discovered in 1930 by a young research assistant named Clyde Tombaugh. He was only 24 at the age he discovered Pluto, and he had been hired by Dr. Vesto Slipher, the director of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Observatory (in Arizona). The observatory was named after Percival Lowell, who funded the observatory (and named it after himself, duh) and speculated on the existence of a supposed "Planet X" that had caused certain shifts that forced Neptune to deviate from its theoretical orbit. Similar calculations had been used to discover Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, of course, was far too small to be responsible for the deviations in Neptune's orbit, and the discovery of Pluto is considered to be serindipitous (or, in other words, lucky). In 1975, a moon was discovered for Pluto and was named Charon. Charon was found to be half the mass of Pluto.
Ever since then, there has been a great deal of skepticism about the status of Pluto. While some of us (fans of the underdog, if you will) consistently defend the planetary status of Pluto, others have long considered Pluto a planetary freak. It turns out, though, that Pluto was merely the first of many similar objects in the Kuiper Belt. There are a great deal of small, very very cold, binary objects (a planetoid with a relatively large moon orbiting each other closely) as well as comets in the area beyond Neptune. Therefore, many astronomers consider the solar system to consist of three zones: the rocky inner planetary region, which ends at the asteroid belt, the gas giant region, between Jupiter and Neptune, and the frigid Kuiper belt region of small and eccentric planetary objects extending from Pluto the points far beyond.
So, if you (like me) are a fan of the obscure and underdog planet of Pluto, here is hoping that the New Horizons project ends up uncovering more information about that most misfit of planets. While astronomers continue (thus far unsuccessfully) to seek after a large Planet X, the rest of us can rejoice in a small planet that continues to fight agianst the odds and the naysayers. Here's to Pluto, which turns out to be a lot more normal than most astronomers ever figured it to be until very recently.
Pluto is a quirky little planet, which would largely explain why it is my favorite of the planets. I mean, it doesn't really fit in but it tries really hard anyway (it occasionally can be found closer to the sun than Neptune, has 3 moons, has an atmosphere of Methane, and has a somewhat askew orbit of the sun). It is sad when one can identify with a really cold rock covered in N2 and CH4 (and trace amounts of CO2), but so be it. In fact, I have been a fan of Pluto's for a long time, since I was a small child. Once, our pastor in Worldwide in Lakeland, FL (a man by the name of Guy Ames), gave a sermon about planets in the Kingdom of God. I responded to him (as I am wont to do) that Pluto was my favorite planet, and I gave the reasons why. Even as a very small one I was attracted to what was neglected, obscure, and disputed. Some things never change.
Pluto itself was only discovered in 1930 by a young research assistant named Clyde Tombaugh. He was only 24 at the age he discovered Pluto, and he had been hired by Dr. Vesto Slipher, the director of the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff Observatory (in Arizona). The observatory was named after Percival Lowell, who funded the observatory (and named it after himself, duh) and speculated on the existence of a supposed "Planet X" that had caused certain shifts that forced Neptune to deviate from its theoretical orbit. Similar calculations had been used to discover Uranus and Neptune. Pluto, of course, was far too small to be responsible for the deviations in Neptune's orbit, and the discovery of Pluto is considered to be serindipitous (or, in other words, lucky). In 1975, a moon was discovered for Pluto and was named Charon. Charon was found to be half the mass of Pluto.
Ever since then, there has been a great deal of skepticism about the status of Pluto. While some of us (fans of the underdog, if you will) consistently defend the planetary status of Pluto, others have long considered Pluto a planetary freak. It turns out, though, that Pluto was merely the first of many similar objects in the Kuiper Belt. There are a great deal of small, very very cold, binary objects (a planetoid with a relatively large moon orbiting each other closely) as well as comets in the area beyond Neptune. Therefore, many astronomers consider the solar system to consist of three zones: the rocky inner planetary region, which ends at the asteroid belt, the gas giant region, between Jupiter and Neptune, and the frigid Kuiper belt region of small and eccentric planetary objects extending from Pluto the points far beyond.
So, if you (like me) are a fan of the obscure and underdog planet of Pluto, here is hoping that the New Horizons project ends up uncovering more information about that most misfit of planets. While astronomers continue (thus far unsuccessfully) to seek after a large Planet X, the rest of us can rejoice in a small planet that continues to fight agianst the odds and the naysayers. Here's to Pluto, which turns out to be a lot more normal than most astronomers ever figured it to be until very recently.
Monday, January 09, 2006
Some Guys Have All The Luck
As bad as my end of 2005 was (for reasons of family health problems), I cannot imagine someone who ended 2005 and began 2006 with as many self-inflicted problems as a certain Marcus Vick, former quarterback for the Virginia Tech Hokies, and younger brother of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick. How bad has the last month gone? Let's see:
December 17th--stopped and arrested for driving with a suspended license and gets a speeding ticket to boot
January 2nd--Leads Virginia Tech to victory over Louisville in the Gator Bowl. Video of the game shows him stomping on Elvis Dumervil after a tackle. He is soon kicked off the team, because he violated the school's no-tolerance policy after a previous guilty plea to 3 counts of contributing to the dilinquency of a minor, as well as sexual activity with a minor. Those charges had gotten him suspended for the entire 2004 season.
January 9th--arrested for three counts of brandishing a firearm
Marcus Vick is a talented football player, and his skills in running and passing are unquestioned. He may not be as good a football player as his brother is, but he's pretty close. His head is not in the right place, though. He is planning on playing in the NFL next year, if he avoids jail time, but whichever team drafts him is going to have to keep him out of trouble and find him some sensible role model. If he wasn't a football player, this guy would probably be in jail for a long time over his past indiscretions. He's lucky he's free to take his constitutional somewhere outside of the state penitentiary.
So, where does he go from here? Hopefully he lays low for a few months, cools his heels, practices football with his brother, and tries to repair his reputation as a spoiled, arrogant hothead with a penchant for guns, alcohol, and underage girls (that is not a good combination). If he doesn't, well, his jail is going to have one great prison football team, that's for sure.
December 17th--stopped and arrested for driving with a suspended license and gets a speeding ticket to boot
January 2nd--Leads Virginia Tech to victory over Louisville in the Gator Bowl. Video of the game shows him stomping on Elvis Dumervil after a tackle. He is soon kicked off the team, because he violated the school's no-tolerance policy after a previous guilty plea to 3 counts of contributing to the dilinquency of a minor, as well as sexual activity with a minor. Those charges had gotten him suspended for the entire 2004 season.
January 9th--arrested for three counts of brandishing a firearm
Marcus Vick is a talented football player, and his skills in running and passing are unquestioned. He may not be as good a football player as his brother is, but he's pretty close. His head is not in the right place, though. He is planning on playing in the NFL next year, if he avoids jail time, but whichever team drafts him is going to have to keep him out of trouble and find him some sensible role model. If he wasn't a football player, this guy would probably be in jail for a long time over his past indiscretions. He's lucky he's free to take his constitutional somewhere outside of the state penitentiary.
So, where does he go from here? Hopefully he lays low for a few months, cools his heels, practices football with his brother, and tries to repair his reputation as a spoiled, arrogant hothead with a penchant for guns, alcohol, and underage girls (that is not a good combination). If he doesn't, well, his jail is going to have one great prison football team, that's for sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
