What does restoring honor mean?

Image via Wikipedia

I started this blog because I needed a place to process and share my concerns about the direction in which our country was headed.  I was inspired by the theme for this weekend's events and the statement "Restoring Honor Starts Here."

I spent Friday evening and 4 hours on Saturday watching the events organized by Glenn Beck; America's Divine Destiny and Restoring Honor Rally.  Whatever your opinions or feelings are about Glenn Beck, please read on and share with me your thoughts.

You may have heard any number of things about this event.  That it might be a "pit of hate" or that Beck was trying to steal the message of Martin Luther King, Jr. who years ago spoke on the same site and said that he had a dream.  The fact that Alveda King was a part of this did not matter.  There are already many reports that are trying to find evidence of hate and attendees that have something negative to say.  I am not surprised.  I am not surprised that they found some examples of t-shirts that had hateful things to say.  However, what they are not showing are the number of shirts that said "Restoring Honor Starts Here" or "Faith, Hope, and Charity."

So what does restoring honor mean?  It means returning to the principles on which this country was founded.  Restoring Honor Starts Here means that it begins with the individual.  If we each try to live honorably it will make a difference.  A great source to find out what he means by faith, hope, and charity is found at his site: "Make the Pledge-40 days and 40 nights." This also includes Martin Luther King's Pledge of Non-violence.  This is what he encouraged people to commit to in the days leading up to the rally....and beyond.

If you did not see the rally you can watch it online at C-SPAN's video library.  You can also see Rev. Al Sharpton's Reclaim the Dream rally at the same site.  I watched both in their entirety.  I encourage you to do the same.  The Taylor Marsh article below may also be of interest. I do agree with her statement that "no one owns a calendar day" and "real heroes live beyond a moment." I agree.  The real heroes, those who have set examples of how to live our lives, live on in us all.  I do not agree with many of the writers other views and come back once again to what the definition of "hate speech" is.  She could not find it at the rally, although she tried.  She claims, however, that Glenn Beck's hate speech will return on Monday. 

The main piece of evidence for this claim in this particular article is the fact that Glenn Beck said he believed that Barack Obama "had a deep-seated hatred" of white people; that he was racist."  There is a Youngturks video at youtube that discusses this.  What a "soundbite" will not give you is the background and what lead up to this statement.  This is the smoking gun for many of his critics.  How can we talk about tough issues without this language?  If you see evidence through a person's behavior, their background, their past actions, and their statements that they are racist what do you do?  As to the video's commentator mocking Glenn's claim that he believes most Americans are color-blind, he makes the standard "what would you know about racism?" statement.  That most Americans strive to live honorably and treat others as they would wish to be treated is not such a far fetched statement.  To use specific instances of where people fail in order to paint a picture that all of a "group" of people are racist or hate mongers is destructive and keeps us from achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr.  It is also a classic Saul Alinsky method.  Alinsky, who had no belief system by which he ordered his life, held great disdain for people who tried to live by some sort of moral code.  His weapon against them was to "make them live up to their own standards."  This was not a constructive and healthy challenge to help people live better lives, it was a tool to discredit and invalidate everything the opposition stands for.  It is pretty effective because we are all flawed human beings.  It is not difficult to find instances where we fail to live honorably.  Adding to this the fact that Saul Alinsky had not such constraints (the end justifies the means) and you've got a recipe for much pain and suffering.  Just because you can prove someone is not perfect does not invalidate every good thing you know about them. 

The other notable thing that Taylor Marsh does is to dismiss Alveda King's participation in the event by referring to her as an "anti-abortion activist."  Alveda King expresses that abortion harms blacks.  This then is used to marginalize her support for the rally.  I encourage you to research MLK's stance on abortion as well as the road Alveda King took in order to take a stand against abortion.  I would also encourage you to find out more about Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood's statements as well as other views.  The Eugenics movement of the early 20th century is worthy of your exploration.

One of the most ironic statements at the Planned Parenthood site includes:
"...attempts to discredit the family planning movement because it's early 20th century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because it's author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves."

Individuals who subscribe to the world view that is prominent in the pro-choice arena have on many occasions indeed disavowed our Founding Principles because the people who wrote the documents were not perfect. 

Is America perfect?

In answer to that question I share a concept that may be useful.  Some time ago, at my son's suggestion, I read a series of books by Orson Scott Card.  One of them, in particular, has had an impact on my life.  It is titled Speaker for the Dead.  The books and stories were enjoyable to read, but the concept of a Speaker for the Dead is the thing that has stayed with me. This concept arose from the author's frustration about how people were portrayed at their funerals.  Knowing someone's life story is important because we can learn where they succeeded, but we also need to hear about where they failed.  I encourage you to read the entire explanation but I share a portion here:

"...to understand who a person really was, what his/her life really meant, the speaker for the dead would have to explain their self-story--what they meant to do, what they actually did, what they regretted, what they rejoiced in.  That is the story we never can know and yet it is the only story worth telling." (Intro xi-x)


Glenn Beck ended his keynote address yesterday by re-stating that for us to move forward we need to learn our American story, successes as well as failures; find America's whole story.  We need to first restore honor on and individual level if we ever hope to achieve the dreams of our founders as well as the dream Martin Luther King, Jr. 

I see nothing hateful about that.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Taylor Marsh: Glenn Beck's King for A Day Rally (huffingtonpost.com)

What is your definition of "hate speech?"

Image via Wikipedia

The title link above takes you to a short video called "Prop 8--The Musical."  I guess this piece would be termed a parody.  This involves the goals of "comic effect" and/or "ridicule."  This particular performance uses what I guess the creators thought to be comic effect, but from where I sit it's especially heavy on ridicule.

A few years ago I was part of a group that was formed to help develop the understanding of different cultures; called, appropriately enough, a "diversity task force."  It is a worthy goal to foster understanding of different groups of people in order to combat stereotypes, and other misconceptions that hurt us all.  However, my experience in this group showed me that when it came to my culture these goals did not apply.  We arranged for presentations on the Latino culture, Islam, and Hinduism to name a few.  When it was proposed to do a presentation on Christianity, however, this was refused.  And, it was refused in a manner that was hurtful and insulting to me as a Christian.  One of the standard responses to the proposal was "that everyone already knows about that," however, many other comments demonstrated to me that quite a few people in our relatively small group did NOT know what Christianity was.  It was put forth that it was a "religion" not a culture.  If you look closely at one of the meanings of the word culture you will find it means the characteristics of a groups every day existence.  I had not looked up the word when I responded, but I pointed out that my Christian faith guided my behavior and decisions every day of my life, not just on Sunday.  Well, with every piece of evidence I put forth the responses became increasingly hurtful and insulting to me...in a diversity task force meeting.  Is that the definition of irony?  I think it qualifies.

I would like to add that I can be a very sarcastic person and during the discussion I had to remind myself that my faith did not support sharing hurtful words.  That rule is there in my belief system because I am aware of the destruction that can be caused by words.  So I did not share my hurtful words that would have only served to divide us more.  Did we ever do the presentation you ask?  No.  The group was disbanded and the administration of the organization cited "resource" issues as the reason.  I am sure that was a legitimate reason but I believe there was more to it than that. 

So, here we are.  We are told we cannot assume all Muslims are terrorists, cannot assume all who appear Hispanic are here illegally, and cannot make any sort of generalization about people of any specific race.  I agree with that.  However, there are certain judgments we need to make in some circumstances.  And we must do it in a way that does not create the belief that "all" are the same just because of their physical appearance and/or religion.  That is a difficult task but one we must perform in order to deal with important issues.  Martin Luther King's goal of making judgments based on the content of a person's character is perhaps the thing that will help us in the tough issues.

The exception to the goals of creating understanding and the appreciation and respect for others does not seem to apply to Christians in many circumstances.  This little musical about the Gay marriage issue is one example of that.  There are people who identify themselves as Christian who use hateful rhetoric when expressing their opinions on this issue.  That is an unfortunate fact.  There are also people who support Gay marriage that do the same thing.  That is another unfortunate fact.  The result of this is that we never really listen to each other in order to work toward agreements that would build respect for each other.

So, I am presented with the link to the musical along with a gleeful comment that the person really enjoyed it.  I watched it with tears in my eyes.  Then I started to wonder about the definition of hate speech.  I found an article about legislation in Canada that classified the Bible as hate speech.  I do not know the status of this legislation.  I use this article to make a point about the misuse of biblical verses.  I have the right, as a Christian, to make judgments about what I believe God wants us to do in order to live in this world.  It does not involve using biblical references in order to hurt others, but it does allow me to make judgments and decisions about what values and morals guide my life.  As I said in an earlier post, I disagree does not automatically translate into "I hate you." Truth however it is shared is not always easy to accept.  As James A. Garfield said:  "The truth will set you free, but first it will make you miserable."

If we are to truly live together in this world we need to start listening to one another and communicating in ways that demonstrate respect for one anothers views.

Some examples to ponder:

Were Helen Thomas' remarks about telling the "Jews to get the hell out of Palestine" hate speech?   Some say yes, some say no.

Are the statements on the website "Mexicans GO Home" hate speech?  (The racial slurs, in my opinion, qualify but do all statements made on this website qualify?)

Do hate speech and hate crimes occur in France's and Great Britain's "No-Go Zones?"  (These areas are apparently populated by large numbers of Muslims.)

 I leave you with the famous words of Martin Luther King Jr from his "I Have a Dream" speech.  Watch the video and ask yourself "what if."  What if we start to listen to each other and make judgments based on the actual, not assumed, content of each others character as opposed to hurling words that hurt us all?

If you get sick, Republicans want you to die quickly--Alan Grayson

Image via Wikipedia

There is an interesting video at youtube that lists some of the statements made by our elected officials that are of concern.  If you also consider that Alan Grayson also said recently on a radio program that, "Everyone who shouted 'Drill Baby drill' should be rounded up and thrown in jail" and Nancy Pelosi wanting to conduct investigations into who is funding the opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque there is a pattern that bears consideration.

To be fair, Nancy Pelosi did later add that maybe we need to look into the funding of the Mosque would be good too.  If you have not seen Peter Johnson Jr.'s commentary on the Mosque issue I recommend it.  He does the best job of expressing where I stand on this issue. 

That said, I'd like to share my reaction to Alan Grayson's remark.  When I heard him say this I wondered how he reconciled the "Complete Lives System" proposed by Ezekeil Emanuel.  The above link takes you to a paper written by him and some of his colleagues: "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions."  Among the eight simple principles for allocation are classified into four categories according to their core ethical values.  The one that concerns me is the "promoting and rewarding social usefulness."  I do not mean to say that I don't recognize that there are and will be times when there are shortages.  I just want to be assured that the individuals who are making the decisions have a strong moral base in the sanctity of life.  Have and will hard decisions need to be made? Yes.  I just want us to strive to make those decisions on certain basic values.

I believe that our system of government was established as a Constitutional Republic in order to ensure that we continued to make decisions based on our core principles.  We are abandoning the system of checks and balances and that is not conducive to using those core principles to make tough decisions.  This, coupled with statements made by the Fabian Socialist, George Bernard Shaw, urges us to take a closer look.   In this video GBS recommends that people come before a sort of "panel" and be asked to "justify their existence."  If they are not doing their share or perhaps a little more then he ultimately suggests some sort of humane gas to end that existence.

That sounds scary, but I do not intend to use it as a "scare tactic."  If you entrust your well-being to someone whom you have elected to represent you and those you love I believe you need to know their character and on what basis they make their decisions.  You don't have to agree with everything, but it's good to know when times get tough that the person has a core set of values that doesn't change.  I'd like to also add, for your consideration, a recent article that came to my attention via Hot Tea Radio.  The comment was titled: "Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Mo, which cancer drug has to go?" (or something like that :-)  The link takes you to an article that includes the phrase "death panels."  I know that phrase has been labeled a scare tactic, rhetoric, and/or propaganda, but I urge you to take a closer look at what people mean when they say that.  If my medical options have to change for whatever reason, I believe the decision-making should remain as close to my family, my doctors and myself as possible.  I feel that the further away it gets, the more like a "death panel" it becomes.  And it won't necessarily look like a "panel."  It will involve the slow, steady, and dispersed establishment of various restrictions and regulations that you might not even know about until it hits close to home.

This all leads me back to something I read in The Road to Serfdom.  Hayak writes on page 6:

"...the fatal flaw of socialist planning (is that) it "presupposes a much more complete agreement on the relative importance of the different ends than actually exists, and that, in consequence, in order to be able to plan, the planning authority must impose upon the people that detailed code of values which is lacking....and why, even democratic planning, if it were to be successfully carried out, eventually requires the authorities to use a variety of means from propaganda to coercion to implement the plan."

My belief in our system of government does not reflect an opposition to change.  It reflects the belief that the farther removed the decision-maker from those who are impacted by those decisions the more danger there is in abandoning those principles and values that are so important.  The checks and balances are there for a very good reason:  our government and country consists of flawed human beings. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Nancy Pelosi Calls For Probe Into Funding Of Opposition To 'Ground Zero Mosque' (huffingtonpost.com)
• Nancy Pelosi: Mosque Opposition Should Be Investigated (rightpundits.com)

Teapartyphobia

Image via Wikipedia

The title link will take you to an interesting article:  So You Want to Join the Tea Party?"  It's one of many out there, but I liked it because it gives you a flavor of the different kinds of people who found themselves at a Tea Party rally.  As I pointed out in an earlier post, there is "rhetoric" (or maybe to be more accurate, "propaganda") flying around that is meant to minimize, demonize, and, in some cases, silence the people who are self-identified with these movements.  I use the plural because the various groups cannot really be lumped into one "type."  There are some general similarities, but no complete agreement on every point.  I actually think it should stay that way.  More on that in a later post.... :-)

I've attended Tea Party rallies twice now.  The first time was because I believed that our government representatives were not adhering to the principles that have made this country great.  I also believed that if we abandoned those principles and fail to remain vigilant and vocal that we would lose our cherished freedoms and liberty.  I have to add, though, that it was not me I was necessarily worried about.  It was my children.  What kind of circumstances would they have in order to pursue their happiness?  And what was the result?  I've been referred to as a "teabagger" (warning: definition is quite graphic) and called a "racist, straight up" by Janeane Garofalo.  I think some of her statements qualify her for a diagnosis of "teapartyphobia."  What really frightens me, though, is her neuroscientific claim that "those people's limbic brain is pressing against their frontal lobes...."  That coupled with a bumper sticker I saw about a year ago that said:  "Frontal lobotomies for all Republicans: it's the law" makes me even more frightened.  Yeah, you could get a laugh out of that; call it comic relief, but I don't really think it is funny.  The youtube video that the link in her name above takes you to is done by someone who obviously disagrees with her and presents their own view of the situation that some will call propaganda also.  So be it.  At some point, though, you need to decide what your real world experiences tell you.  Any of you who know me at all know in your heart that I am not racist, I am not violent, and I strive to be an honest and honorable person.  Straight up, that's who I am and so are many other "tea party" members.  Are there "bad" people involved in this movement.  Yes.  Are there "bad" people in every group of people on the face of the earth?  Yes.  Generalizing about any "group" of people is, to me, a form of racism.

The link in the word racism takes you to the Anti-defamation League site.  I direct you there because there is a good discussion of what racism is as well as to point out the link to "homophobia."  The "phobia" designation is what prompted this post.  I have learned recently that I am also "Islamaphobic" if I find building a Mosque near Ground Zero to be insensitive and in no way conducive to building dialogue.  ADL defines homophobia as:  "hatred or fear of homosexuals--sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility."  Are there people who qualify for this label?  Yes.  Some people who identify themselves as Christians have done hateful and vile things.  Carrying signs that say "God hates gays" qualifies.  Believing that, according to the type of life I believe Christ wants us to lead, homosexuality is not a good thing for the individuals or for the society does not qualify.  "I disagree" does not automatically translate to "I hate you."


When people say "this is the greatest country in the world" most of them do not mean "we are better than everyone else."  What I believe most people mean is that our Constitutional Republic offers the greatest opportunities for people to experience "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  This does not mean everyone succeeds equally; just that they have the opportunity.  The word "happiness" is difficult to pin down.  I understand it to mean something closer to "happenstance." This, to me, means creating the circumstances that will lead people to achieve their dreams, not guaranteeing that they will succeed.  Who has not, at some point, thought, "Just give me a fair chance"?

In the Geography of Bliss, Eric Weiner travels the world to find the happiest countries.  He makes the statement on page 252 that:  "...let's not forget that the government is already in the happiness business.......Besides, what is the role of government if not to make citizens happier?"  Earlier in the book he makes a comment to the effect that "happiness" is in our founding documents.  I disagree and this is where the need to "define the terms" becomes important. We need to be speaking the same language.  Our government is not set up to guarantee happiness or success, but it is set up to create the best possible environment for everyone to succeed.  Equal chances and opportunities, not a guarantee of equal results. 

Finally, the articles below may be of interest.  The Huffington Post and the Dailykos articles, to me, are examples of propaganda.  In the "White Pride" article there is an individual identified as "the founder of the Tea Party."  There is no one founder of this movement.  If you find racist elements in this group it does not mean everyone is.  A generalization like that does not benefit anyone.  If you have a phobia; an "irrational fear" of something or a specific group of people then the cure is to find out why your fears are not rational.  We only get to do this if we talk to each other about the "hard stuff" and do it in a way that we actually hear and understand each other.

I leave you with another quote from The Geography of Bliss (page 327):

We base our happiness on the state of our relationships, and on those stolen moments where, for a brief shining instant, we lose ourselves in the pure joy of being.

Relationships are valuable, but they involve hard work at times.  Let's get to work.  Are you with me?

Related articles by Zemanta

• We're Not a Democracy, That's Why (socyberty.com)
• 'Tea Party Manifesto': Dick Armey On Jon Stewartart (huffingtonpost.com)
• White pride group urges Tea Party to be honest about its racism (dailykos.com)
• Santelli: Tea Party More a 'Philosophy' Than a Party (newsbusters.org)

Planned Economy or Planned Destruction? That 1934 Chicago Tribune Cartoon email

Image via Wikipedia

I received an email from a friend a few days ago.  It featured a political cartoon from April of 1934.  The link above in the title will take you to a 2009 Newsbusters.org article featuring this cartoon along with explanations of the characters depicted therein.

I find this cartoon interesting as a result of my reading Hayak's The Road to Serfdom.  One of the reviewers for another of his books, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, points out that Hayak "requires engagement on a level other than simple dismissal; he does not merely call names, or indulge in superficial, supercilious rhetoric."  The reviewer is one who has spent a "lifetime on the left" expressed that exposure to Hayak had "tempered his youthful confidence in government dirigism. " (That's the word for the day!  I love expanding my vocabulary.)  I share that quote because I like it on two levels.  The first is a clear expression of what Hayak does in his books.  He presents his opinions and observations of the real world in a dispassionate manner.  The second is that both an individual who purports to have a left-leaning world view AND an individual with an opposing world view are able to read Hayak and gain some wisdom.

I was also struck by his comment on the use of rhetoric.  I had a discussion some time ago regarding one of the chain emails I was researching.  I found the statement in question to be false.  My friend responded that it was just the individual's use of their particular style of rhetoric.  I replied that I did not think we should consider a false statement rhetoric.  We should consider it a lie.  (I know, I know, I used that word "should" again, but sometimes it might be necessary.)  At the wikipedia site discussing the term it states Plato's view:  "...it could be used to improve civic life, it could be used equally easily to deceive or manipulate with negative effects...."  Plato's view also expressed that: "the masses were incapable of analyzing or deciding things on their own and would therefore be swayed by the most persuasive speeches."  I guess he knew about the concept of "Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins" way before the book was written :-) So, I guess it comes down to the fact that "rhetoric" can be used to find truth or as a tool to deceive.

Now, back to the cartoon.  It is difficult to actually confirm that this is legitimate.  Even though the Newsbusters site takes you to a Chicago Tribune site where it was supposedly re-printed in 2009.  The "plan of action for the US" includes: "Spend, spend, spend under the guise of recovery--bust the government--blame the capitalists for the failure--junk the Constitution and declare a dictatorship."
This sounds familiar to me.  After having read Burton Folsom's New Deal or Raw Deal, being exposed to Cloward and Piven, reading a "disclaimer" at the beginning of a recent issue of our Constitution, and listening to the news it sounds very familiar.  If the cartoon is not legitimate I do not understand why the creator did not just change some names and bring it into current times.  It does, though, encourage us to look at history.

If history tells us that in times when there is a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic, individualistic, or profit-seeking along with a subtle or not-so-subtle praising of the collectivist forms of government and society the results have been catastrophic we need to consider these facts.  Our information comes in tirades against the "corruption", "crony-capitalism", and despicable acts by some who are operating in our supposed "free market" system.  I say "supposed" because I believe that our "free market" system has not been permitted to function as such for a very long time.  Along with this are the subtle influences on the formation of favorable views of "collectivist ideals."  This is most distressingly evident in the education of our youth.  AmeriCorps training materials, for example, include a document titled, "Poverty in America" which presents an "Individualistic Wealth Paradigm" and contrasts it with a "Collective Wealth Paradigm."  The comparisons present the "rhetoric" that individualistic is selfish, greedy and everything benefits those "at the top" and the collective is basically a utopia.  The statements sound true.  Who wouldn't want to end poverty?  The problem is that it does not, in any way, present or encourage a legitimate debate on the benefits of each system.  It also totally ignores the "unintended consequences" of each.  My question is this: "Do corruption, cronyism, and despicable acts somehow magically disappear in a collectivist system?"  I do not believe that they do and I also believe that the majority of Americans don't believe that either.  (I've just finished reading Anchee Minn's Red Azalea; her memoir of growing up in Mao's China.  I highly recommend it as a way to obtain information on the results of this collectivist mentality and where is has lead in the past.)


The term propaganda comes to mind at this point.  Propaganda being the selective presentation of information in order to influence people's opinions and behavior.  It is usually used to produce an emotional rather than rational response. 

To avoid totally emotional reactions we need to continue to seek out information from a variety of sources, make judgments on that information based on the character of the source, and be willing to question our long held beliefs about how various systems of government are supposed to work AND how they have actually worked in the past.  One of the issues Hayak discusses in his book is that of the unwillingness for people to admit that what they believed is in reality not true, or at least, it is not everything they believed it to be.  We need to continue to encourage and facilitate civil debate.  In order to do this we need to have information....lots of information, preferably from original sources.  We need to then ask ourselves if the information we have can be reconciled with our real world experiences.

I believe that if we do this we will be helping to maintain the liberty we have all come to cherish, and for which many gave "the last full measure" to defend and preserve. 

Email: Joys of Muslim Women

Image via Wikipedia

I've gotten an email a few times with the title listed above.  It is supposedly written by Nonie Darwish.  Urban Legends, at the top of the page (link above) states it is an incorrect attribution.  Nonie Darwish confirmed to them that she had not written the specific text in the email, however, she states that the contents are "to a large extent accurate."  She also stated that her book Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law contained her views in more detail.  Family Security Matters did an interview with her on this subject which can be found at this link.

There is also an email asking, "can Muslims be good Americans?" There is an interesting response to this email at Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy.
I believe it will be very interesting to read Nonie Darwish's book and then read the answers given at this website.

Another resource you may find valuable is an article "Coming to Grips with Shariah."  This article also includes a link to an NYPD report on the Radicalization in the West.  You can download the pdf file for your reference.  It is 90 pages long, but offers some valuable insight.  Other articles: Top Ten Reasons Sharia is Bad for all Societies  and Sharia Law a Brief Introduction may also be of interest to you.

I believe the answer to many of the concerns about Islam, whether they are about womens rights, compatibility of Islam and our Constitution, or building a mosque near Ground Zero are not one's that can be answered or summed up in an email, or, for that matter a blog post.  I will continue to research these issues and share with you what I find.  I believe we have to be diligent to check sources and read things carefully.  I found this to be the case when researching the Muslim Students Association after watching a frightening exchange between an MSA member and David Horowitz.  When you read their websites it appears that they express tolerance but if you read closely it does not include other religions.  I've found no site that clearly expresses tolerance for other religions.  The goal seems to be one way, developing understanding and tolerance for Islam, period.

And, for those of you who might be tempted to think along the lines of Shariah: "it can't happen here" consider the judge in New Jersey who refused to grant a restraining order to a woman after she divorced her husband (both Muslims) because although he had harassed and assaulted her he was acting according to his belief that it was his right.  In other words, according to Shariah law. It was later overturned, but remains cause for concern.
 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Frequent Muslim Speaker to Kids in New York Schools Supports Hamas, Hezbollah (pajamasmedia.com)
• SIOA Rally Calls for Halt to Plans for Ground Zero Mosque (prnewswire.com)

How do you know when you are in "hot water?"

Image via Wikipedia

The link above leads you to a great article by Peggy Noonan in the WSJ that a friend shared on FB.

After reading it I was reminded of something I'd read in book Team of Rivals about Abraham Lincoln.  In it was a quote from Seward that stated:

There are two antagonistical elements of Society in America, Freedom and Slavery.  Freedom is in harmony with our system of government and with the spirit of the age, and is therefore, passive and quiescent.  Slavery is in conflict with that system, with justice, and with humanity and is therefore organized, defensive, active and perpetually aggressive.  Free labor demands universal suffrage and widespread diffusion of knowledge.  The slave-based system by contrast cherishes ignorance because it is the only security for oppression.  Sectional conflict, Seward warned, would inevitably arise from these two intrinsically different economic systems, which were producing dangerously divergent cultures, values, and assumptions. (page 133)

I believe there are two intrinsically different economic systems at odds with each other in this country today.  So I've read a number of books so that I can better understand the values and assumptions of each.  I am, at present, reading the Federalist Papers and The Road to Serfdom.  It has been thought-provoking to say the least.

I had a great discussion with someone on FB today in regard to a James Madison quote that was posted:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money and will promote the General Welfare, the government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.

A friend responded that is was remarkable that so many understood the need for sustainable agriculture, sustainable energy, etc. that we cannot also get our minds around the need for sustainable federal and state governments that operate within the limits of the constitutional structure and practical realities.

I then paused for a moment....wishing I had said that :-)  I think I will buy that t-shirt that says:  "Reduce your Government Footprint."  :-)

Well, the discussion turned to the most recent town hall exchange between the poster boy for term limits, Fortney Pete Stark and one of his constituents.  During the exchange the woman makes a point about making healthcare a "right" then requires someone to provide that service and she likened it with "slavery" to compel someone to provide that service.

The response was a good one; that people have to be very careful with the language they use to avoid being trivialized and pointed out that Congress had not created a constitutional right for healthcare....and to posit a possible chain of events from the healthcare bill to compulsory labor is over-reaching to an almost silly extent.  (I was really enjoying this discussion because he was being reasonable, polite, and he didn't say it was "stupid" to present such possibilities.  Silly I can live with, when the discussion deteriorates to "stupid" it ends all debate.)


I expressed agreement with his position but added a couple of links for consideration:
One from the Huffington Post by Senator Bernie Sanders
and
One from townhall.com by Walter Williams
Both discuss the concept of healthcare as a "right" from different viewpoints.
I also added that the Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations also needed to be considered. I stated that, at this point, perhaps a formal constitutional right did not even matter.

He responded to the articles commenting, appropriately, that both individuals were spinning their own kind of rhetoric.  I'd be interested in others' opinions on these too.

I ended the discussion with a heartfelt thanks for the reasoned and civil discussion.  We all benefit from debate.  Not being sure of the etiquette in this situation I have not included the names of my FB friends.   Perhaps if they appear regularly I will get their informed consent to include their identity :-)

Finally, in closing I leave you with another Seward quote:
After his friends took offense when he gave a glowing eulogy for political rivals he said:
"They (his friends) cannot see how much of the misery of human life is derived from the indulgence of wrath."

All I can say to that is AMEN!

An Apology and Thoughts on the Power "Story" in our LIves

I start today with an apology.  I do that because something was brought to my attention by a friend who reads my blog.

It's about the use of the word "should."

First a personal story:  My mom struggled most of her adult life with some level of depression and anxiety.  She did not show it much, but those who loved her knew how difficult life was for her sometimes.  At one point she sought counseling.  I believe it may have been during the time when my father was showing increasing symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease.  She was dealing with a lot, not the least of which was losing her life's partner, but also with many people telling her what she "should" do.  Most of the should statements either made her feel guilty or stupid, or sometimes both.  The power of that one little word and how it was used had an impact on her that was not conducive to helping her make good and informed decisions.  She found wisdom from her counselor and it came in the simplest of ways.  He told her one day, "Phyllis, should doesn't mean sh*&;t."  It hit home and she used that realization to help her understand that although the person using the word might not have meant to communicate that she was shirking responsibilities and/or was stupid she was reacting to it as if they were.  Let's be clear, some people did intend to communicate that message, but they were thankfully few.

So, what does this story have to do with this blog?  Well, it was a truth, spoken in love by a friend.  She pointed out that I was using that word maybe a little too frequently and/or in contexts that might sound judgmental.  That might turn people off and as a result what I was truly trying to communicate might be lost.  So, for those of you who have read my posts and have had a negative reaction to my use of the word should, I apologize.  My goal is not to judge but to provide information that I think is valuable for us all.  I will strive to communicate in future in ways that will provide you with information that will lead to truth as well as help us all learn and grow.  Maybe I'll try to figure out a way for my computer to sound an alarm when I type the word "should" so that I can read the context to determine if another word or phrase would be better. :-)

The power of "story" is demonstrated in this situation.  When we learn things that are communicated to us in the form of story we not only absorb more information, we also retain the information longer.  It can be used to enhance our world and make our lives a little more enjoyable and at times even a little bit easier.

However, after reading the book, Whoever Tells the Best Story Wins" I was reminded how anything that can be used for good purposes can also be used for bad purposes.

Donald Davis, a professional storyteller, and, if you ask me, one of our National Treasures, said once that it is unfortunate that "telling stories" has become synonymous with lying.  The power of story to help us make sense of the world around us is incredibly valuable.  The power of a story to help us understand another point of view is something we all experience even if we are not fully aware of what's happening.  And its impact cannot be minimized (I almost say "should not be minimized" but caught myself :-)

This is why two of the stories I tell my students are, The Three Little Pigs, followed by The True Story of the Three Little Pigs (which is told from the wolf's point of view.)  I do this for two reasons.  The first is to demonstrate "point of view" and the second is for them to learn about the process of "finding truth."

I usually begin by discussing with them what usually happens when a couple of them get into trouble.  The adult, usually the teacher or principal, will ask each of them to tell their side of the story.  They will listen to both and then decide what to do.  I then make the point that, let's face it, when we tell our side we do so in a manner that will show us in the best possible light.  It's human and we all do it, including me.

I then tell the stories and ask the kids, "So, who do you believe is telling the truth?"  I've gotten some very interesting responses.  One of my favorites is that the pigs are telling the truth because "it's in a book."  I then dramatically pull out the wolf's book and say that he's got a book too, so now what do you do?  We then look closer at the characters in order to make a judgment about what actually may have happened.  I don't tell them who is telling the truth I lead them to the facts so they can decide.

That's what I will try to continue to do with this blog.  I hope you will join me in this journey because as the proverb goes, "There is wisdom in many counselors."  Together we can discover what is true and what will lead us all to the happiness we  pursue.

Restoring honor starts here and, with God's help, it will not end with me.

Email: Proposed 28th Amendment

Image via Wikipedia

You've probably seen it.  The chain email that discusses the proposed 28 amendment to our Constitution because:


Congress members can retire with the same pay after only one term  As this link shows this is not true.  The age at which they can begin to collect their pensions depends on years of service and can be found at this link.

They exempted themselves from many of the laws that they have passed.  An article at Senator Chuck Grassley (Iowa) senate web page has information regarding the Congressional Accountability Act signed in 1995 which made Congress subject to 12 laws that they had previously exempted themselves from.

The email singles out that they "exempt themselves from fear of prosecution for sexual harassment.  This is where Snopes response can be misleading. They cite the CAA mentioned above, which includes sexual harassment.  However, according to a July Politico report that is not exactly true.  While they may be subject to the sexual harassment law, the taxpayer, not the politician foots the bill. That's sort of like being exempt, don't you think?  (Stuff like this is making me wish there was a snopes site to check out the veracity of the snopes responses.)

The email also states that they exempted themselves from the Healthcare Reform. Snopes gives you the section of the bill that tells their readers that this is erroneous.  However, you might want to check out an article that gives you a little more information.   An exemption was carved out for Senate committee and leadership staff.  Also exempt are the President, Vice-president and all those Czars running around Washington.  So, the devil is in the details and definitions.  I am once again reminded that a presidential order was signed forbidding Federal funds being used for abortions.  That wasn't worth much since some states are already putting systems in place to use the funds for abortions.  Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Maryland have applied for and been granted exemptions.  


And, finally, as far as the actual process for amending our Constitution you may want to take this opportunity to start familiarizing yourself with what it actually says so that you armed with the truth. 

Maybe it would be a good idea to send this post, instead of the email, to 20 of your friends.  That way we can all get a little more familiar with our Constitutional Republic and that's a GREAT use of our time.

Truth or Consequences or Moral Education for the New Order

Image via Wikipedia

In May I sent an email out to some friends regarding moral relativism.  It included a link to a page that outlined what advice Contessa Brewer (MSNBC) was offering the GOP.  She offered this advice to the Republicans:

"Until they change policies--I mean, that's what it took for conservatives in Great Britain to win--is a real change in focus away from morals and values into things that affect people's daily lives."

I don't know about you, but I believe that morals and values affect people's daily lives.  The presence or absence of core morals and values affects just about everything.

Consider the link above to article.  In it Rasmussen did a poll in April of 2009 asking young people whether they preferred Capitalism or Socialism.  37% preferred Capitalism, 33% preferred Socialism, and 30% were undecided.  It also includes some findings from Josephson Institute's Report Card on Ethics of American Youth.  The high percentages of youth that admitted to stealing and/or lying in the past year are disturbing.

There are those pesky Commandments again.  You know, Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not bear false witness.  What's the big deal?

A couple of weeks ago I took an informal poll of friends and acquaintances regarding the use of a neighbors wireless signal.  I got everything from "not right and should not be done" to "if they are too stupid to secure it go for it."  One person said that as long as it is only temporary and for a short time it's OK.  What do you think?  Is this stealing?  Wireless signals weren't around when the tablets were handed to Moses so we have no specific answer to this..or do we?

How about lying?  How about cheating?  Last week the New Patriot Journal reported that FBI Director, Robert Mueller told Congress that he does not know how many of his agents cheated on an important exam.  The test questions pertained to the agencies policies for conducting surveillance on American citizens.  That combined with Mueller's own foggy understanding of what the rules are for conducting surveillance on Americans sort of worries me.  The fact that the FBI under the Patriot Act can issue "self-written" subpoenas and search warrants (National Security Letters) and forbid you to even tell anyone about it frightens  me.  Yeah, there are rules but does anyone really know what they are?

Then there's that confining sexual morality:
ABC Family, Tuesdays at 8p.m. airs Pretty Little Liars.  A friend of mine who has a teenage daughter overheard something on a show her daughter was watching on ABC Family.  It involved one teen telling another teen what kind of bra she should wear to let a boy "feel her up."  When asked about it her daughter said that it was  "no big deal"  Yeah, considering the content of Pretty Little Liars it would seem to be "no big deal."

What are the consequences of this moral relativism?  We entrust our freedom and liberties to people who cheat on the test.  No big deal?  We entrust our election process to groups that commit voter fraud and lie about the legitimacy of the registration forms.  No big deal?  Our youth are exposed to content on a FAMILY channel that shows little or no consequence for promiscuity and sexual experimentation.  No big deal?  Acorn members break into a home that was foreclosed and declare it a "foreclosure free zone."  Taking possession of something that does not belong to you is stealing, isn't it?  Or is it just no big deal?

There are serious consequences to moral relativism that many do not want to acknowledge.  I am not perfect, I am a flawed human just like you are.  I've broken a commandment or two.  However, having a firm idea of what is right and what is wrong helps us all.  A little lie, a little stealing, a little sexual promiscuity do have consequences.  We need to recognize where those first little steps can lead and try to lead lives as close to those 10 standards handed down to Moses so long ago.