You Might Be Living Under Tyranny If...

Comedian Jeff Foxworthy makes lists, mostly about being a redneck, but sometimes also about the culture and inside jokes about various locations. I thought we’d do a similar list (less funny) today, about living under tyranny. Because this has been quite a week for news.

We’ll take them individually.

Benghazi

You might be living under tyranny if your government scours the internet to find an American citizen to serve as scapegoat, to cover up its relationship with Islamist terrorists. We covered this in more detail Monday, specifically about that search for a scapegoat and the continued lying about it—with the hint that the purpose must be to cover up something much worse, which we don’t know about yet. I did link speculation by Glenn Beck from last October. Here’s a second, shorter clip (5th one down in this collection) from that same week in October 2012. In addition, Geraldo Rivera let slip that his sources currently corroborate what Beck has been saying (to the sound of crickets) for half a year.

I don’t know what Benghazi was really about. I do know that the tyrannists we are currently subject to went to great lengths to lie about what they were doing, about what happened, and why. They use obfuscation, repeated lies, and eventually claim, “That happened so long ago; what difference does it make now?”—a pattern we can count on. And there’s not much from these tyrants that one can count on. 

IRS Thuggery

You might be living under tyranny if the most powerful collection agency in the world creates an enemies list—and if you love your country, you’re on it.

I’ve been aware of the IRS enemies list for some time. I couldn’t locate the date in my notes, but it seems like within the last year that King Street Patriots let us know, at one of the Monday meetings, what was happening to them, which sounds very much like other stories this week. (King Street Patriots was mentioned on Rush Limbaugh’s Tuesday show; they’re definitely on this list of targets.) The amount of information required by the IRS was impossible to obtain, and ridiculously short-time-limited. They were getting the help of lawyers to help with the effort, in addition to the various other lawsuits they suffer pretty continually.

King Street and other groups were given impossible requirements, including having to provide copies of every email, text, tweet, or post given out or received, since inception of the organization; list of speakers, detailed subjects (including transcripts of what was spoken  in some cases, as if anyone hoping to become qualified for tax exempt status already has transcribing technology at the ready), and lists of participants, and in some cases the affiliations of family members of participants. It was horrendously intrusive, impossible to provide, and intended (I believe, as do many others) to intimidate and extinguish voices at odds with this administration.

What we know is that high level officials in the IRS, which is the collection arm of the executive branch (the Obama administration), sent the directive to flag for extra scrutiny any organization applying for tax exempt status if they had certain characteristics: the words tea party, patriot, or had as a purpose educating about the Constitution, or showing disagreement with the current government. Hmmm.

And that is not all. Oh, no, that is not all. Besides harassment based on patriotism and good citizenship, the IRS also provided the application materials—private documents—to enemy organizations.

The president is shocked, SHOCKED! After leadership in his executive branch has come out and apologized (claiming it was rogue underlings, which they’ve since had to walk back), so the actual deed is known and admitted to, the president says, if the allegations turn out to be true, that would be outrageous. But let’s be cautious and not assume they’re true just because the executive branch has already come out and said so (possibly to do damage control for what would be worse revelations if they waited?)

And Jim Carney, his spokesperson, also claimed the president was unaware and therefore guilt-free. But he was certain, if it turns out to be true, the president will be appropriately outraged. So the president, while cautiously not outraged yet, is preparing to be so if the need arises. And then appropriate action will be taken. Rest assured. (For some reason, I’m not resting well on that assurance.)

If you think targeting political enemies is unconscionable, if might not be comforting to learn your political enemies have a totally different moral take on it: Former NAACP chair, for example.

Media Control

You might be living under tyranny if the government has an unusual number of incestuous relationships with members of the media, but feels the need to place secret wiretaps on wide swaths of major media organizations, in case something is said they don’t like.

These relationships were pointed out as reasons the mediahas hesitated to cover Benghazi:

·         CNN president is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy secretary.

·         CBS president is the brother of Obama adviser on Benghazi.

·         ABC president is the brother of a top Obama adviser/speech writer.

·         Senior ABC correspondent Claire Shipman is married to WH Press Secretary Jay Carney. (She also happens to substitute anchor on Good Morning America and World News Tonight, and shows up on ABC News’ This Week with Christiane Amanpour, and previous worked as a White House correspondent for NBC News.)

But the administration didn’t think it had enough control, so it claimed, supposedly, that in order to find a leak of some possibly classified information (you know, like the New York Times used to print regularly to endanger our troops during the Bush administration), they needed all correspondence for two months of some 20 AP reporters and editors, not just anyone related to actually leaked material, and not just office phones, but private cell phones, emails, texts—you know, just in case.

Carl Bernstein, who helped take down Nixon, wasn’t moved by Benghazi, or the IRS scandal. But this! This is outrageous!

National Journal’s Ron Fournier, once the AP Washington bureau chief, finally sees the situation with clarity, not that it has hit home:

One common thing with Benghazi and the IRS scandal, is were being misled every day. We were lied to on Benghazi, on the talking points behind Benghazi, for months. We were lied to by the IRS for months. And now they’re sending a clear message to our sources: Don’t embarrass the administration, or we’re coming after you. 

The president’s response is, “Don’t ask me; that’s up to the Department of Justice” (which is particularly ill-named right now).  

The list isn’t complete. Scandals are coming fast and furious (yes, pun intended). The question is, now that we know we’re living under tyranny, is recognition the first step toward changing course? Will the tyrants be held accountable? We’ll see. 

I came across this list of 100 reasons the president could be impeached. I haven’t been through them all, but you might want to take a look for yourself anyway. Personally, I don’t see impeachment as a likely outcome.  

I’m thinking of The Princess Bride, near the end, where Westley decides to leave Prince Humperdinck intact but alone his cowardice (instead of wallowing in freakish misery as previously threatened). Self-disgust with no more power over the people—that would be a just end to the long list of injustices perpetrated against a Constitutionally free people.

Lies and Videotape

I was hopeful that the Benghazi hearings last Wednesday would yield so much enlightenment that the media would say, “Oh, now I see what you’ve been saying; this is really wrong.” I am overly optimistic that way. The media who filled the Pravda role all along checked for marching orders this time as well. And the new line seems to be, “These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.” Or, in plain English, “Sure, it shows some mistakes were made, maybe some incompetence, but there’s no real scandal here.”

I don’t know what could rise to the level of scandal in their parallel world. For me a few new details have brought up enough new questions for further investigation.

I want to back up first, to Egypt and the protest there.

On September 10, 2012, there was a report in Egyptian media that there would be a protest about the imprisonment of the Blind Sheik, who had perpetrated the first World Trade Center bombing. It was organized and planned, and unrelated to any obscure video.

Promptly following the planned protest in Cairo on September 11, the administration came out with an apology for a specific video that, between its online posting on July 2^nd and September 10^th (time to build up enough indignation to bring about a protest) had only received 17 views. [The link I used for this detail in October 2012 no longer exists.]

Even though the protest wasn’t related to this video, the administration was aware of it and ready with an apology, and a promise to prosecute the perpetrator (who sits in jail still, technically on unrelated “parole violation” charges). And then the administration used this video again as the explanation for the terrorist attack on the Benghazi embassy.

This isn’t an error. We now know that the description of events was scrubbed of any mention of terrorism or Al-Qaeda connection. Also deleted was any mention of prior requests for increased security over several months, even predating Ambassador Stevens’ replacing the previous ambassador to Libya, including specific requests in the couple of days leading up to the attack.

There was live real-time contact and surveillance informing the state department of what was happening in Benghazi. It was known immediately that it was a planned, heavily armed, terrorist attack. Never did anyone at the scene, or observing it, or aware of it, suppose it was a spontaneous protest that suddenly arose from people on the street for any reason.

Yet, out of thin air the administration decries this anti-Muslim video, with promises to prosecute the perpetrator, who, by inciting the protest, is culpable for the mayhem, including the deaths of four Americans.

During the attack, nearby military was ready to take off to mount a rescue. The battle continued for 6-8 hours; help arriving any time during that span could have saved lives, even though it is likely Ambassador Stevens was beyond rescue. Twice the rescuers were told to stand down. This order came from someone, but we haven’t been able to follow the line of authority to a decision-maker yet.

How did the administration become aware of this obscure video, when so few viewers had seen it online that apparently even most of the actors in it hadn’t bothered to view it? And why did the administration claim a protest planned and carried out for a previously known purpose was a spontaneous reaction to this video? And then why did they claim that a terrorist attack on our embassy was a spontaneous reaction to an unseen video?

Compared to the siege, the heroes who were killed, and so many details of the Benghazi story, the video seems a small peripheral detail. But if we understood the use of this video, we would understand this administration and its nefarious purposes.

Someone was assigned the task of finding an anti-Muslim video that could be used as a scapegoat at an opportune moment. At some point, well ahead of time, there must have been a planning session, an assignment made, and an employee (or more) set to the task of searching out such a thing to be used if/when the need should arise. (How many of the 17 views were administration minions carrying out their search?)

One would assume that situation room planners, holding the information that security needed beefing up in Libya, and was particularly dangerous in Benghazi, with specific information about a possible attack 2-3 days in advance, with the significant date of the anniversary of the 9/11 attack coming up, that someone would plan for various scenarios—including an attack on various embassy locations. I have no satisfactory explanation for why security was not beefed up, per repeated requests.

Since danger was known, one would assume that situation room planners would include protocol for reacting to an embassy attack, and on such a date have forces ready to react. But no such response protocols seem to have been in place; if they were, they were not followed.

Why is it acceptable with the administration to appear so incompetent that they hadn’t even considered the possibility that there would be an attack on or near 9/11 in a place that was requesting more security and giving warnings of a possible attack?  One could assume that the truth is worse than looking incompetent.

We don’t have a clear answer as to why the ambassador went into the extra dangerous Benghazi location on the vulnerable date. What was he attempting to accomplish that was worth such a risk? (Speculation here, from late October 2012 by Glenn Beck.)  I don’t know if we’ll get these questions answered, and more.

But the questions about the administration’s use of the videotape relate to just how deep into tyranny we already are. Spending war room planning time coming up with ways to blame American citizens—in ways that implicate the natural rights guaranteed us by God, and spelled out in the basic law of our land—is not the behavior of a freedom government. Only a tyranny would act this way. Getting the truth about the finding and using of this videotape would uncover the tyrannical power usurpation being carried out in darkness.

More on the Ultimate Career

There are a couple of myths, contrary to each other, that both need a reality check:

·         Women are as smart and capable as men, and therefore should do the jobs men do in order to fulfill themselves; taking time out to be a mother can be a nice hobby for some, if they can handle that as well, but the real living is in the traditional man’s world.

·         Women who are only mothering ought to be doing better than they are, like everyone else does, because it sure isn’t rocket science.

We’ll take them in turn. First, women are smart and capable. In fact, a higher percentage of women currently graduate from college than men. While there are a few jobs women aren’t as a rule physically strong enough to compete in (pro football for example), most jobs can be done by a woman. Some jobs are preferred by women, but practically everything is open.

The part that is untrue is that doing a man’s job is a better life choice than giving birth and raising children, which just gets in the way of that real life. Having children isn’t a hobby for some; it is the purpose of the rest—the ultimate career. (See the two quotes at the end of Monday’s post, Home Making.)

My friend's baby #9, with big sister looking on,
the hour he got home at 2 days old

I’ve been noticing in media for quite a long time that almost every TV character is a single, attractive, young adult with the story potential of connecting in love with possible other characters on the show. Married family people are anomalies. (As are unattractive, undesirable characters, for the most part.)

When a person in media is a parent, it appears they got that way without sacrifice. Example: remember The Cosby Show back in the 80s? Cliff and Clair Huxtable reminisce about high school dates, so they have known each other since childhood; presumably they got married during college, or between college and graduate school. She is a lawyer, which required no less than seven years of schooling post high school. He is an obstetrician, which must have taken about twelve years for college, med school, and residency training in the specialty.

They are still youngish parents in this show. The oldest child is in college, so probably 19 or so years old. There are five children, spread over, I’m guessing, some 17 years or so of childbearing. Clair looks to be maybe 40, but we could stretch that to maybe 43. (In fact Felicia Rashad was only 10 years older than the actress who played the oldest daughter.) So Clair got pregnant probably during her first year of law school, at age 23. I’m not sure of the other ages, but she probably gave birth again her first year after law school, as a working lawyer, at maybe 26. Then again at 28, and again at maybe 32. And then there’s a gap of, let’s say eight years, so she’s 40. (I really don’t remember the ages of the children, so I’m guessing, but this will do for our purposes.) The first three come while she’s either in law school or early in her career as a lawyer—while her husband is in med school and essentially unavailable to help with the diaper changing and walking the floor at nights.

We don’t see them until they’re upper-middle-class successful. They are one of my favorite TV families; the kids are realistically age appropriate, and the parents handle their immaturity with patience, eye rolling, and humor. They’re a great example. But we never got to see how this family survived pregnancies and babies with neither parent available for in-person parenting. Was it impossible? Technically no. But very improbable.

If we, as non-fictional humans, are unable to get through law school and med school simultaneously while giving birth to child after child, so that we look lovely and comfortable by our early 40s, maybe we should shrug off the comparison. Just doing the best we can, under whatever our circumstances, ought to be enough.

Which brings us to the second myth. Taking care of children at home is a challenging job. It requires so much patience and understanding, and toleration of messiness of many kinds. It does look like drudgery sometimes; sometimes it is. And it does look idyllically easy sometimes; sometimes (though rarely) it is. But there are challenging moments every day. And if we’re open to notice, there are also some blessedly beautiful moments every day. But one thing there isn’t is a perfect version out there, of someone whose house is always clean and beautiful, with décor and food and party planning always worthy of Pinterest and mommy blogs—some impossible myth we don’t measure up to.

We need to trust that, if God is entrusting his beloved children to us, He wants us to succeed in loving them, and with His help we can do whatever qualifies as enough and then some. Let go of the angst; it’s not helping anyone.

To end, I’m sharing a link to a piece about accepting less than perfection; I love their not-ready-for-the-blog photos.

And then, please enjoy this rather beautiful little video called, “Life Doesn’t Come with a Manual; It Comes with a Mother.”

 

The Good Part

Motherhood is one of the key ingredients in civilization, so I’m spending another day on it prior to Mother’s Day.

I came across something yesterday about the sometimes painful time Mother’s Day is to some women. I’m linking it, because it’s worth reading. Early on I experienced some of the angst. I had lost a child (I told this story here). Then I went through some of the challenges of fertility treatments—not as long and difficult a journey as for some, but Mother’s Day was awkward a few times.  My mother had similar years. She also lost a child. Then she went through a long series of miscarriages—and during those years, women came to her accusing her of being selfishly unwilling to have a child. I have a hard time imagining such conversations between women, but that is how she remembers the pain.

Fortunately, in our church, when it’s time for mothers to stand and receive their flower gift on Mother’s Day, all women age 18 and up are asked to stand and receive the gift. The thinking is, all women are either currently mothers, or future mothers, or have been mothers, or do some mothering to those around them, or, at the very least will experience the gift of motherhood in the next life. So no one is allowed to be left out. I don’t know if that entirely does away with all pain and awkwardness, but it is an attempt to love and honor.

The author, Amy Young of The Messy Middle blog, has a portion where she suggests ways to respond to various women’s situations, which is quite lovely. One of the lines made me smile: “To those who will have emptier nests in the upcoming year—we grieve and rejoice with you.”

Now, for what I want to share today:

Many years ago, for a Mother’s Day, I wrote a poem comparing the scripture story about sisters Mary and Martha with the need, as a mother, to give time and not just dutiful service. It’s a challenge mothers continue to face in the effort to make a civilized home. May God bless all women in their moment-by-moment efforts to make the most joyful choices!

The scriptures I refer to in the poem can be found in Luke 10: 40-42 and Matthew 25: 35-40. I use the classically beautiful King James Version of the Bible. 

Minerva Teichert painting of Mary and Martha with Jesus

The Good Part 

Sweet, young, faithful Mary,

Attending undivided to her most Beloved guest;

Thinking of the moment as a present

To be unwrapped with wonderment. 

And Martha, good and sturdy Martha,

Cumbered about much serving

While the others carry on without her.

She aches to sit with them,

Yet works to give a worthy table. 

The aching must have pained a bit too much:

If Mary would please help a moment,

To hurry the everyday along,

Then both could sit with their dear guest. 

“Martha, Martha, thou art careful

And troubled about many things:

But one thing is needful:

And Mary hath chosen that good part,

Which shall not be taken away from her.” 

One needful thing:

That Martha had not chosen.

She could not spend time for Him,

Or time with Him would be lost. 

In my own small, learning home,

I am cumbered about much serving—

Washing and peeling and cooking, too,

For many of the least and most

Of these my brethren, children, husband. 

They get so hungry and dirty.

Yet, how unaware is the little child

Of his clean shirt and slow-cooked supper.

Rather a sandwich and a story for dessert. 

I am the needful thing!

Myself a gift to one of these—

The same as sitting at His feet.

And if I choose that good part,

Time with my Beloved guest shall not be lost. 

—Linda Nuttall

     May 8, 1984

Home Making

It is a principle of the Civilization Sphere that the family is the basic unit of civilization. During this week before Mother’s Day, I’d like to take a look at some very positive and beautiful things about living together in a family home.
 

Perfection is not required. Earnest striving is enough, with God’s help, to sanctify the home for the family. The savage world may rage beyond the doors, but a civilized family protects its members from much suffering—and provides an abundant life.

The list today includes things that, in every category, I know people who are better at it than I am. But putting it all together, I think I can feel pretty good about the effort. As one friend of daughter Social Sphere said during the teen years, “Y’all are the most functional family I’ve ever seen.”

Mostly this list is what brings delight to me. I’ve been thinking about the word delight somewhat lately. Because it’s entirely positive, and yet the de- prefix often means the negative un-. So I used my faithful old dictionary and learned that the de- in this case comes from the Latin-based word for from: from light, literally, or from enticing or enchanting. What delights is what entices to do good or brings to mind what is good.

So, specifically, what delights in the family and home?

People who love one another is first. A family starts with the covenant between a man and a woman to commit to one another through whatever life throws at them, to choose to love through it all. And then, within that unit are added offspring—with the natural bonding that comes from falling in love with tiny little persons newly come from heaven. In my life, the crowning glory has been bringing children into the world, and watching them grow into civilized, brilliant, creative, God-serving adults. And the dessert is now getting grandchildren. I adore them. Everything about them delights me. Yes, I am idealizing for the moment, because dealing with them 24/7 is beyond my capability at my current age, but that isn’t required of me—which is one of the better perks of grandparenthood. We just get to enjoy the delight and let their parents deal with the more challenging moments.

My grandchildren, my delights

I want to look beyond the delights of the family members, because these things are part of an abundant life—and in an ever more savage outer world, we need to find ways to enjoy civilization within the home.

Make music. Enjoying music made by others is also important; sharing what we’re enjoying with each other is better. (We got to attend a concert of The Piano Guys last Thursday, which was a memorable and delightful couple of hours.) But making music in the home is something extra. It’s hard to beat having a piano in the home and someone who can play it while people gather around and sing. A guitar can serve as well. Patiently encouraging the development of music skill in family members is civilized, and civilizing. I have a sort of life rule that you shouldn’t miss the opportunity to learn a new instrument or a new language. To that end, I’ve learned enjoyment level skills playing piano, guitar, mountain dulcimer (play this in a weekly jam session), soprano and alto recorder, and ukulele. I developed the most skill vocally (good in choirs, because there’s not a lot of clamor for classical altos), and I currently lead the church choir. We also have a violin and cello in the house, that kids studied for several years. There are families more musical than ours, but we have had enough to delight.

Make good food. It’s possible to have a good home without a lot of cooking skill. But it adds delight. The conversation is more important than gourmet skill. But sharing delicious, healthful meals together adds delight. I’m in favor of simple, by necessity. I’m better at it than I used to be. Skill really does build over time. And sometimes putting in extra effort into food, to celebrate holidays or special family occasions, adds delight. One of my favorite parts of Social Sphere’s wedding celebration (nearly a year ago) was planning and preparing the food. I couldn’t do it every day, and it exhausts me just to imagine that much effort again. And yet finding those recipes, trying them out, putting things in the freezer to wait till last minute finishing—that was my fun. Who knew?

from Social Sphere's Houston reception

One thing I learned with small children (probably because it so much applies to me) is that the best way to prevent a meltdown/tantrum is to keep a child well fed and well rested. Carry food, and make sure a child doesn’t have to go too long. A quick drive through the fast food lane might be occasionally necessary, but a cooler with grapes, carrots, cheese, and some sliced turkey will be a better cure. Also allow for regular rest times. If you plan a schedule that runs over a child’s need for regular food and rest, you’re going to suffer the natural consequences. Don’t get mad at a child for that. Next time make the proper preparations.

Grow a Library. Going to the library is a good addition, and having a Kindle or Nook is handy. But having books to hold and share, read aloud together, and pass along is necessary for civilization in the home. I’m one of those who watch Beauty and the Beast and say, “The library is what she first fell in love with.” (Note: I think Mr. Spherical Model may have fallen in love with me becaues of my piano and my library.) My kids used to sleep with a stack of books. Books were something we shared together, and still do. All through their high school years we read aloud together. My granddaughter runs for a stack of books when I arrive; that is what we must do together. The concept of old, unneeded books is kind of foreign to me. Sharing the delight with a new generation is worth the space on the shelf.

Beautify the Home. This one is tougher for me. I have good intentions and occasional success. After all the family moved out, I finally recovered my pantry, and to me it is now a thing of beauty. But there are many more parts of my life not set in order yet. I have friends with lovely homes, full of art and color and coordination. My priorities were elsewhere (see Library and Music above). But I love being surrounded by beautiful, inspiring things as much as the next person. I believe in having meaning in the surroundings, so that is a constraint. Energy, time, and money are also constraints. A home needs to feel comfortable to live in while being beautiful. I’m a fan of Pinterest, online. So many ideas; so little time. I think it’s a great thing we can share ideas for free. There is a lot of delight to be had there, as long as you take it as a source, and not as a comparison causing a sense of failure. Décor is a matter of taste. But home beauty is about the sense of love you feel when you come in.

Believe me, this is a huge improvement

Making a home is making a place where family love can thrive. In monetary terms, homemaking doesn’t pay well. But, without a wife and husband putting love into making it happen, there is no way to buy it. And without it in your own home, for you there is no civilization. Make a home first, and then worry about the rest of the world.

As the great Christian writer (author of The Chronicles of Narnia) put it, “The homemaker has the ultimate career. All other careers exist for one purpose only—and that is to support the ultimate career.”

One more quote, from one of my favorite people, the late Gordon B. Hinckley, who was President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “Women who make a house a home make a far greater contribution to society than those who command large armies or stand at the head of impressive corporations.”

Free Exercise of Religion

I try not to be alarmist (even though I often feel alarmed at news in our country and our world). But I am alarmed today at stories from the last couple of days concerning the First Amendment right to freedom of religion.

Just to clarify, yet again, we do not get our rights from the Constitution; we get our natural human rights from God. For the sake of preventing tyrannical usurpation of those rights by government, we have several of them plainly expressed in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution, which became part of the Constitution before it was ratified.

One of my most frequently read posts is the Two Hundredth Post, from January 13, 2012. It’s a simple explanation of the meaning of the religious freedom clause. I suggest to our administration that they read it for a basic understanding. (The President’s teaching of Constitutional Law apparently failed to bring him to the level of basic comprehension.)

Government can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. End of subject. Self-evident. Except to the opposition to truth and freedom that is trying to tyrannize the rest of us, using some sort of twisted logic about how rude it is of believers to show any signs of religious belief around others.

Specifically today I’m concerned about the military. The Pentagon came out with a policy concerning religious expression: "Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense...Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis...”

The question here is what is meant by “proselytization,” so an Air Force spokesman, following pressure about the question, came out with an additional statement: “When on duty or in an official capacity, Air Force members are free to express their personal religious beliefs as long as it does not make others uncomfortable.”

Wait, the First Amendment doesn’t say, “The government shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion except when a person can be found to claim discomfort from being exposed to that free exercise of religion.” That exception isn’t there. Coercing someone to be baptized into a particular faith would be against the free exercise clause—but I believe there is no such case on record anywhere in the history of the US Military. So they must mean something else.

Who decides what crosses the line of discomfort? The intolerant non-religious person? Assurances aren’t very reassuring following these policy implementations:

·         Reference to God was stripped from the Rapid Response motto.

·         Bibles were removed from supplies at the Air Force Inn.

·         Air Force cadets were prevented from promoting charities for needy children.

·         A course on Just War Theory, in use for 20+ years, was removed from available training because it included a few Bible verses.

·         A Christian speaker was disinvited from a speaking engagement at an Air Force Prayer Breakfast.

·         An Air Force officer was commanded to remove a Bible from his desk.

We’re supposed to trust them to be sensible about the definitions of such words as “proselytize,” and “uncomfortable”? And if some official decides the arbitrary line has been crossed, the military person is subject to court martial—that means a criminal record, dishonorable discharge, and possible prison sentence.

Imagine what this means to chaplains. A young man comes to the chaplain prior to going out on a dangerous mission, asking questions about life and death and God. The chaplain expresses his personal view that God is eternal, there is life after death, and quotes John15:13: “Greater love hath no man that this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” It is intended to comfort as well as honor the soldier going out bravely to do his duty.

But it’s a New Testament verse, and therefore related to the wide range of Christian sects, but while still applicable to other religions, might not resonate with a non-Christian. What if a non-Christian young man follows such a conversation with an expression of disappointment to an officer: “I didn’t really get the comfort I wanted; the chaplain just gave me the usual stuff from his own Christian point of view.”

That could be interpreted by someone as the chaplain pushing his personal religious belief, even though he was just doing his job of offering comfort as best he knew how. The accusation of disapproval or discomfort is enough to put the chaplain at risk. Under these circumstances, this threat essentially does away with the position of chaplaincy in the military—where life and death questions, as well as the stress of being away from home and family, and facing severe conditions are part of the soldier's job and can’t be ignored.

Can anyone read the First Amendment and believe it says, “There should be no chaplains in the military, because their religious views might make an unbeliever uncomfortable”?

And what about conversations between fellow soldiers? Suppose one soldier asks a buddy what his plans are for Sunday. His friend answers, “I’m going to my church services. You should come; you might enjoy it.” Harmless enough. It’s simply an answer to a direct question along with a friendly invitation. But what if the first guy was hoping for companionship for some very non-religious activity, and he decides it makes him uncomfortable that his friend’s behavior is such a stark contrast?

If the standard is “someone feels uncomfortable,” that means all religious people are on notice to hide their religious beliefs and expression.

Can anyone read the First Amendment and believe it says, “There should be no visible, verbal, or other signs of religious belief among members of the military, because that might make an unbeliever uncomfortable”?

It would be nice if we could trust government officials to use common sense regarding our rights to the free exercise of religion. But such officials already have a shoddy record. We are in serious trouble if we are even having a discussion about preventing our military from having religion as a detectable part of their lives.

Meanwhile, in the private sector, a track relay team in Columbus, Texas, a small town between Houston and San Antonio, won their race but were quickly disqualified—because one of the runners pointed upward after finishing. Just to be clear, he used his index finger, not his middle finger. The UIL (University Interscholastic League, an association for high school inter-school competitions) judge claimed the gesture broke the rules—not because it was religious, but because it could be interpreted as taunting the other competitors. Such gestures include celebratory gestures, even including raising the arms overhead.

OK, but there was no taunting or even a glance at opponents, and no arms were lifted overhead. The gesture wasn’t even a standard religious symbol, such as making a cross (which wouldn’t qualify as taunting or celebrating either, but this judge might claim it did). This was simply a young man, making a small signal to give glory to God at a moment of team glory. But lifting a finger was enough to nullify the years of intense training by all of the team members, the success of these runners in this race, and their hopes of going on to state finals.

I can’t verify this from the information available, but I don’t think it was spelled out to these young men that pointing a finger toward God would disqualify them. They were probably told generally that celebratory gestures, such as doing a dance, or pointing at losers and taunting them, or otherwise showing bad sportsmanship would not be allowed. It is hard to imagine how that general policy would be interpreted in a young man’s mind as, “Oh, then I’d better not even point to God if I feel thankful to him.”

We often look at Nazi Germany and wonder, “How did they get like that?” The way it happened was, things like we are seeing started happening, and people shrugged it off, rather than stand up and put a stop to the foolishness. And pretty soon the foolishness became serious and life threatening.

Collectivism vs. Capitalism

Back in late March to early April of 2011, just a month into writing this blog, I wrote a series called “Anything Evil about Capitalism” parts I, II, III, and IV. (The first two define the terms wealth and capital, to prepare for making moral judgments in the third. The fourth is to additionally address inherited wealth. These ideas review portions of the Economic Sphere portion of the Spherical Model.) Over the weekend I watched last Friday’s episode of the Glenn Beck TV show that supported the assertion that capitalism is moral. Rabbi Daniel Lapin was the guest teacher wielding the chalkboard. So much of it was clear and sensible, I wanted to share it. [To see the video requires a paid subscription, but it's the first hour of Friday, April 26, 2013.]

Rabbi Daniel Lapin on Glenn Beck show, 4-26-2013
(note: erasing "freedom" and replacing with "$" was part of
the discussion, not the actual formula)

He also starts with defining terms, specifically defining collectivism and materialism, to prepare for making a comparison with their opposite. Here’s a part of the conversation:

Rabbi Daniel Lapin: We’ve been talking about collectivism, a whole lot. It’s one of the favorite words of the left side of the political spectrum. And I thought it would be helpful if we identify, first of all, what they say it is, and then what it really is.

Collectivism is, as it’s usually defined, as any kind of political, or social or economic philosophy that stresses our interdependence with one another. You and I agree with that. We couldn’t live without each other. We know that; we understand that.

Glenn Beck: Yeah, no man is an island.

Rabbi Lapin: We get it. That’s not what collectivism really is. What collectivism really is is a formalized, deliberate structure…deliberate attempt to create a moral matrix to legitimize taking things from one group of people and giving it to another. That’s what collectivism is all about. It’s essentially finding a framework of virtue about stealing.

He goes on to say that the “manure” that fertilizes the idea of collectivism is materialism, “the fundamental conviction that nothing that isn’t material matters in the world.”

Then there’s a need for more definition:

Glenn Beck: Define materialism. Because in my own head I was thinking it was about having all this great stuff. But you’re talking about that there is no spiritual part of the world, that it is only the material make-up.

Rabbi Lapin: Well, I can actually call upon an expert from the left to define materialism, no less an authority than, you might remember, Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco, speaker of the California State Assembly. Now, I'll give you in almost exact terms how he defined materialism.… What he said is, “If I cannot eat it, wear it, drive it, or make love to it, I’m not interested in it.” That’s a pretty good definition of materialism. If I can’t actually see it, touch it, make use of it, exploit it, benefit from it in some way, it doesn’t exist. In other words, there is no such thing as love. There’s no such thing as loyalty. There is no such thing as awe. There’s no such thing as staring at the heavens in wonder or biting into an apple and just wanting to thank somebody for giving that to you. None of that is true, because it’s all just firing of neurons in your cortex and your spinal column. There’s no mystery in life; it is all thoroughly basic and scientific.

This discussion of materialism clicked a lot of understanding of the enemy mind, connections I hadn’t made before. I expect some of that will come up in future posts. But this post we’re mainly limiting to the morality of making money. The definition discussion prepares us for the blackboard instruction. It contains this chart, which he then explains:

 

While he’s discussing that first line, he gives one of the best definitions of capitalism I’ve heard, and that’s what caught my attention.

Rabbi Lapin: If materialism and collectivism encourages competition about being a bigger victim, what does this [making money] philosophy engender? Competition to provide service. How beautiful is that! It’s figuring out, to recognize that you will succeed best at making money if you are obsessively preoccupied with supplying the needs of your fellow human beings.

In referring to Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and the technological products they’ve provided, Rabbi Lapin says, “The money they make is testament to how many of God’s children they pleased.”

Which is better? Making wealth for your use by providing service to others, or requiring wealth from service providers to provide goods and services to someone who did not earn it? Clearly, the answer is making wealth through service is more moral.

But what about those who can’t provide for themselves? The best answer is for those whose love makes them feel responsible for the weaker members of society to provide for them willingly. And where those closest can’t do enough, then the caring larger public of service providers will offer help. I’m more willing to trust that goodness to a people whose goal is to find ways to serve than I am to trust a people who look for ways to take wealth from service providers.