While thinking about the suffering of Haiti and preparing for a Bible commentary, I opened to this passage.
"Sion will be my resting place forever; in her will I dwell, for I prefer her. I will bless her with abundant provision, her poor I will fill with bread. Her priests I will clothe with salvation, and her faithful ones shall shout merrily for joy. In her will I make a horn to spout forth for David; I will place a lamp for my anointed. His enemies I will clothe with shame, but upon him my crown shall shine."
These are actual words spoken by God to King David, the pact where God promises that King David's descendants will always rule in Sion. You need to understand that God is always speaking of the present time and also the future, so there is the "here and now" meaning to King David and the Israelites, but also the "here and now" for their spiritual heirs and descendants. Thus Christians, such as those in Haiti, who are suffering today from the woes of the world can take some comfort in knowing that The Almighty God will never leave them, so long as they do not leave Him. Sion is now the spiritual Sion, the heavenly Jerusalem, which since Jesus Christ is no longer a physical place but the place of global faith in God.
Rather than turning their back on God, I see the Haitians seeing Him with even greater clarity since the earthquake tragedy. Those who honor the pact with God, sworn by King David, will find that God never leaves them.
In the Bible the horn often symbolizes power and authority, as the King and the priests use it to make the great sound. But it also represents the cornucopia, the outflowing of abundance and goodness. The horn that spouts forth for David is not of noise but of the arrival of Jesus Christ. The more that one puts one's faith in God and in Jesus Christ alone, the more that the goodness that only Christ can bring will flow forth from that horn.
Worldly well being ultimately depends on human rationality, righteousness, charity and neighbor-first priorities... all of which are very much needed in the chaos that has delayed for an unacceptable amount of time the delivery of goods and assistance in rescuing to the Haitians. The more that everyone embraces the pact, so that not only those who suffer turn their faces to Jesus Christ in hope and solace, but also those who are empowered with worldly means to help them, the more that the horn with overflow with what is needed to live, but also with eternal life and righteousness. Honoring the pact with God is the job of not just those who suffer, but also those who do have what they need, and more. I hope that Haiti softens and converts the hard and arrogant hearts of many bureaucrats, aristocrats, politicians, and professional "do-gooders," such as NGO's.
When one does not turn one's own hands and feet over to Jesus Christ on an ongoing day to day basis, one stumbles over one's own bureaucratic and selfish thinking (even when "doing good") when disaster strikes. That is because one is not truly prepared to drop everything and let Jesus be Lord. How can one find a way around shipping and airport obstacles, and fallen concrete, on the first day, if one does not have hands already open in anticipation of the need?
I hope this helps.
Showing posts with label righteousness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label righteousness. Show all posts
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Understanding God: how God "thinks"
I am going to give you an analogy and a case study that will help you to understand "how" God "thinks" (by that I mean his perspective on human actions). My purpose is not to help you to try to understand what cannot actually be understood by humans (or even by angels, who while they share God's vision they cannot comprehend how its perfection originates in God, which is why they constantly praise God in heaven). Rather, I am going to help you to look at a sad and unpleasant earthly issue and be better able to make just, righteous and virtuous choices and thus form your own opinions accordingly. I've thought of a few analogy and case studies so here is the first one.
As you know, many people who oppose abortion understand that even certain forms of birth control have shades of abortion, since they destroy the created embryo by not allowing it to implant, etc. While the Catholic Church and others of their belief oppose all forms of terminating preborn life, they recognize that there is a difference between contraception (preventing the embryo from even forming in the first place) and abortion (destroying or hindering the growth of an actual embryo). Thus the Catholic Church opposes both but for different reasons, though both rest on the reverence and valuing of all human life. Contraception is opposed because there is a Biblical prohibition of "spilling one's seed on the ground," which means that all sex acts should occur in a marital situation that is open to the possibility of a pregnancy occurring. So contraception is opposed because it appears that God has instructed that the raw material of pregnancy should not be discarded, wasted or hindered from combining into a pregnancy. Abortion is opposed because it is viewed as not only being devaluing of life and irreverential toward God's commission to be fruitful and multiple, but because it also violates the Commandment against killing. So that is the medical and spiritual background against which this case study takes place.
One way people promote both birth control and abortion is to accuse those who oppose either or both of those practices of being "insensitive" and "cruel" in certain situations. The usual situation is whereby a victim of rape seeks an abortion. Now, the specific case study I want to give to you is the situation regarding why some people oppose giving "morning after" so called "emergency contraception" pills to a rape victim. In other words, working in slightly different ways, these pills create an environment hostile toward a pregnancy either occurring (if it has not yet happened) or the embryo if it is in place being able to attach and grow. Many people, including those of good will and emotional thoughtfulness, wonder how people can be mean as to "condemn" a rape victim to a possible pregnancy.
Before I move to the analogy, where I explain God's way of thinking in the matter, let me remind you that I am not an absolutist, as I have blogged before. I believe that a small child who is raped and pregnant and who is seeking an abortion for the good reasons of her extreme youth and her fragile health, should receive one, and the sin of abortion thus rests upon whoever allowed the rape to occur. I remind you that I blogged about the most recent case of this happening so that you are not distracted in reading my analogy by the thought that I am insensitive and inflexible, for I am not, obviously.
So let's go back to the case study, which is a teenage or adult woman (in other words, not a child as I outlined above) is raped and seeks immediate "after the rape" "emergency contraception," which is medicine that either aborts the newly formed embryo or prevents the sperm and egg from fertilizing, if they had not yet. So I am speaking of someone who could bear a child with the normal risks of pregnancy, but not the additional risk and trauma of a little child being raped.
Here is the analogy that helps shed some light on how God views this dilemma. Imagine there is a poor and primitive village of indigenous people in a remote area, where they barely eke out a living to support themselves, but are otherwise content. One day a man goes insane and kills a married couple, leaving their small child alive, but now with no one to provide for her. How would you feel if the village decided to kill the small child, because they could not support her in the place of her parents and, and this is the important point, the fact that she is now unsupported is the result of a crime.
So think this through. These well meaning villagers have now lost two pairs of hands and legs that used to raise food, build dwellings, haul water, etc due to the crime of murder, and now with that loss of sustenance providing married couple, the village is stuck with a burden, the little girl, that did not exist before, and all because of a crime.
I'll bet many of you have to haul yourself back from the slippery slope of "understanding" that the "poor indigenous" people just "might have to" make a "tough decision" and being "unable to support the little girl" "through no fault of their own" and "because of someone else's crime," they just "can't support the little girl due to this crime" and thus (how long can we delay saying it?)... they kill her, either outright or by allowing her to starve or perish due to wild beasts in the forest, or from exposure to the cold.
No, God would not "understand" that. God would think that the people who do have enough to eat and shelter don't deserve to have even the little they do have if they cannot raise, support and comfort the little girl whose parents, those two able bodied workers, were murdered. Odds are that God would hardly bless the future of the village who killed the child because "they could not support her." Indeed, these villagers would all have to answer to him when they receive on their inevitable death personal judgment.
Now that you understand "how God thinks" in the analogy, now look back to the case study. In both situations you have a helpless child due to a crime (in the case study, due to rape, in the analogy, due to the murder of the parents). God does not want to hear lame, selfish and craven excuses from a poor village who murders due to poverty, so how much less does God want to hear such excuses from a society that has health care, hospitals, welfare, parents and grandparents with salaries, and the potential for adoption?
It is a hard message to understand how God thinks because his thought is entirely based on love and justice. No human can ever live up to that, but they sure should not provoke the obvious because of greed and selfishness, or, and this is understandable, where shattered emotions and self pity due to the rape can lead, due to the weakness of human nature, of blaming the child for "ruining" their "plans." "My life has been ruined, I've been raped and if I have this child I have to pay money and lose a year of college before getting my high paid job and giving the baby away in adoption." Put in God's point of view, while he understands the broken, selfish weakness of humanity (after all, Eve had everything and she still wanted more in the Garden of Eden), it is hardly as noble and kind hearted as humans think they are being when they urge a rape victim to consider "emergency contraception" and/or abortion.
Back to the analogy. Maybe those lazy ass villagers ought to work a little harder to grow a few more crops, rather than just the bit they have, in order to not murder the child. Maybe their doing so would result in them discovering a vein of gold in a stream that they had not noticed before. Sometimes even those in extreme economic situations through genuine kindness can exert themselves even more to support a child, rather than say "We'd like to but we can't."
God is the ultimate democrat, because every life is equally precious in its creation and its potential in his eyes. Many people alive today exist because somewhere in their family tree someone did not abort a child due to rape in warfare or other circumstances.
I hope that this case study and the accompanying analogy has helped you understand one aspect-a very important one-of God's "thoughts." More so I hope this helps you to not have knee jerk reaction to even painful events when developing your own stance, attitudes, thoughts, feelings and ultimately policies and decisions, where you react to the obvious sympathy and empathy without considering all the routes that genuine mercy, virtue and righteous do take place.
As you know, many people who oppose abortion understand that even certain forms of birth control have shades of abortion, since they destroy the created embryo by not allowing it to implant, etc. While the Catholic Church and others of their belief oppose all forms of terminating preborn life, they recognize that there is a difference between contraception (preventing the embryo from even forming in the first place) and abortion (destroying or hindering the growth of an actual embryo). Thus the Catholic Church opposes both but for different reasons, though both rest on the reverence and valuing of all human life. Contraception is opposed because there is a Biblical prohibition of "spilling one's seed on the ground," which means that all sex acts should occur in a marital situation that is open to the possibility of a pregnancy occurring. So contraception is opposed because it appears that God has instructed that the raw material of pregnancy should not be discarded, wasted or hindered from combining into a pregnancy. Abortion is opposed because it is viewed as not only being devaluing of life and irreverential toward God's commission to be fruitful and multiple, but because it also violates the Commandment against killing. So that is the medical and spiritual background against which this case study takes place.
One way people promote both birth control and abortion is to accuse those who oppose either or both of those practices of being "insensitive" and "cruel" in certain situations. The usual situation is whereby a victim of rape seeks an abortion. Now, the specific case study I want to give to you is the situation regarding why some people oppose giving "morning after" so called "emergency contraception" pills to a rape victim. In other words, working in slightly different ways, these pills create an environment hostile toward a pregnancy either occurring (if it has not yet happened) or the embryo if it is in place being able to attach and grow. Many people, including those of good will and emotional thoughtfulness, wonder how people can be mean as to "condemn" a rape victim to a possible pregnancy.
Before I move to the analogy, where I explain God's way of thinking in the matter, let me remind you that I am not an absolutist, as I have blogged before. I believe that a small child who is raped and pregnant and who is seeking an abortion for the good reasons of her extreme youth and her fragile health, should receive one, and the sin of abortion thus rests upon whoever allowed the rape to occur. I remind you that I blogged about the most recent case of this happening so that you are not distracted in reading my analogy by the thought that I am insensitive and inflexible, for I am not, obviously.
So let's go back to the case study, which is a teenage or adult woman (in other words, not a child as I outlined above) is raped and seeks immediate "after the rape" "emergency contraception," which is medicine that either aborts the newly formed embryo or prevents the sperm and egg from fertilizing, if they had not yet. So I am speaking of someone who could bear a child with the normal risks of pregnancy, but not the additional risk and trauma of a little child being raped.
Here is the analogy that helps shed some light on how God views this dilemma. Imagine there is a poor and primitive village of indigenous people in a remote area, where they barely eke out a living to support themselves, but are otherwise content. One day a man goes insane and kills a married couple, leaving their small child alive, but now with no one to provide for her. How would you feel if the village decided to kill the small child, because they could not support her in the place of her parents and, and this is the important point, the fact that she is now unsupported is the result of a crime.
So think this through. These well meaning villagers have now lost two pairs of hands and legs that used to raise food, build dwellings, haul water, etc due to the crime of murder, and now with that loss of sustenance providing married couple, the village is stuck with a burden, the little girl, that did not exist before, and all because of a crime.
I'll bet many of you have to haul yourself back from the slippery slope of "understanding" that the "poor indigenous" people just "might have to" make a "tough decision" and being "unable to support the little girl" "through no fault of their own" and "because of someone else's crime," they just "can't support the little girl due to this crime" and thus (how long can we delay saying it?)... they kill her, either outright or by allowing her to starve or perish due to wild beasts in the forest, or from exposure to the cold.
No, God would not "understand" that. God would think that the people who do have enough to eat and shelter don't deserve to have even the little they do have if they cannot raise, support and comfort the little girl whose parents, those two able bodied workers, were murdered. Odds are that God would hardly bless the future of the village who killed the child because "they could not support her." Indeed, these villagers would all have to answer to him when they receive on their inevitable death personal judgment.
Now that you understand "how God thinks" in the analogy, now look back to the case study. In both situations you have a helpless child due to a crime (in the case study, due to rape, in the analogy, due to the murder of the parents). God does not want to hear lame, selfish and craven excuses from a poor village who murders due to poverty, so how much less does God want to hear such excuses from a society that has health care, hospitals, welfare, parents and grandparents with salaries, and the potential for adoption?
It is a hard message to understand how God thinks because his thought is entirely based on love and justice. No human can ever live up to that, but they sure should not provoke the obvious because of greed and selfishness, or, and this is understandable, where shattered emotions and self pity due to the rape can lead, due to the weakness of human nature, of blaming the child for "ruining" their "plans." "My life has been ruined, I've been raped and if I have this child I have to pay money and lose a year of college before getting my high paid job and giving the baby away in adoption." Put in God's point of view, while he understands the broken, selfish weakness of humanity (after all, Eve had everything and she still wanted more in the Garden of Eden), it is hardly as noble and kind hearted as humans think they are being when they urge a rape victim to consider "emergency contraception" and/or abortion.
Back to the analogy. Maybe those lazy ass villagers ought to work a little harder to grow a few more crops, rather than just the bit they have, in order to not murder the child. Maybe their doing so would result in them discovering a vein of gold in a stream that they had not noticed before. Sometimes even those in extreme economic situations through genuine kindness can exert themselves even more to support a child, rather than say "We'd like to but we can't."
God is the ultimate democrat, because every life is equally precious in its creation and its potential in his eyes. Many people alive today exist because somewhere in their family tree someone did not abort a child due to rape in warfare or other circumstances.
I hope that this case study and the accompanying analogy has helped you understand one aspect-a very important one-of God's "thoughts." More so I hope this helps you to not have knee jerk reaction to even painful events when developing your own stance, attitudes, thoughts, feelings and ultimately policies and decisions, where you react to the obvious sympathy and empathy without considering all the routes that genuine mercy, virtue and righteous do take place.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Urgent case study: rights definitions
I'm signed on and writing this before doing anything else because I just heard something on a talk show that helped me to realize a huge confusion that I can clear up right here and now. Hi young people, because this is especially for you, you'll see why in a moment. The previous two generations have become so mentally illiterate and sloppy that they no longer understand the definitions of the words they use in everyday speech but, most alarmingly, in politics and the search for social justice. It is no wonder that people are arguing over the correct way to solve huge problems because not only are they not discussing the same thing, defined the same way, they don't even understand what they are arguing for, on behalf of.
The first word I want to clarify, since that is what the talk show mentioned, is "rights." The talk show hosts played a sound byte from a politician where the politician claimed that they (politicians) "create" or "give" rights to people. No, that is incorrect, and the talk show hosts were quick to point this out. Yet I know that many of you would think that rights are created. They are not created; rights are in existence, continual existence. It is the depriving of rights that is the problem in society, so that is the first part of what I want to explain.
Every human being, just by virtue of existing, has certain absolute rights. They are not "rights" conferred by other human beings. To calm those social justice people (and believe me, I am on your side, I am coaching you though in a grave error) let me start with an obvious example. When you are born, no one had to give you a piece of paper saying you had the right to breathe the air. I mean, duh. If someone smothers you, though, they have deprived you of your rights. Do you understand that? When a human being is born they have rights already in existence, the complete set of rights all humans need and are born into, not given to them. Now you can understand the wording of the Founding Fathers better, where they recognize these inherent pre-existing eternal rights, not confer them. Believers understand that these rights are given by God when humans were created in the first place. Ethical non-believers understand that even if they deny a God, those rights are already in place, and don't have to be spelled out by a set of human beings, because it it "natural law" (believers use that term too), or "the right thing to do," or the "ethics of human rights" or other God-neutral but ethic phrases and philosophies. Both believers and non-believers who are ethical understand that genuine rights are eternal, inborn, and already in existence.
That is the first part of what the past two generations have warped and misunderstood. They have taken the eternal and inborn existence of rights and forgotten what that really means. When did this happen? Pretty much in the 1960's when people started saying "I want my rights." Yes, they were correct to perceive that those who suffered injustice were being deprived of rights. But "rights" became shorthand for remedies. Rights are not remedies. Rights cannot be created. They are already in existence. Rights exist and every thinking human, whether a believer or not, needs to protect the language in order to maintain clarity that all people have certainty of the rights that are inborn of being human.
So whether you believe in God or not you must understand that in the USA the Founding Fathers recognized that certain rights are in pre-existence. Go back to the example of the baby being born having the right to breathe air, even though no one wrote a piece of paper saying that that this baby has a license or permit under the law to breathe air upon birth. Anyone who is not insane or an idiot understands that. Thus it is really easy to understand that the right to be alive (including being able to breathe) is automatic upon coming alive (being born), duh. If someone takes a pillow and smothers the baby on birth, two things have happened. The baby's right to life was violated and so the baby was, to use the correct language "deprived of his or her rights." So you have "rights" and their opposite, which is not the "lack of rights" but the "deprivation of rights." And here is where it had become naturally confusing: not only was the smothered baby deprived of his or her rights (to life), but a civil crime was committed, assault, battery and murder. This is where the thinking became blurry during the 1960's and got worse and worse until now when it seems no one understands simple basic concepts and definitions anymore.
Just a pause, this is not going to turn into an abortion argument, so put that aside and let us work together for clarity about human rights. I am using the baby, full term, born in a wanted situation (presumably) for its universal ease in understanding, not for agenda. Keep that in mind when I start to also discuss in this case study civil (racial) deprivation of rights.
The Founding Fathers recognized every human being already has three basic "rights:" life (the right to be alive and not to have life truncated, such as in the smothering), liberty (the right to be free and not in bondage to another human being) and the pursuit of happiness (the right to lead one's life in search of sustaining and satisfaction). If you think about this, this is such a profound insight. In a pithy way the Founding Fathers summarized, using three simple words and phrases, these universal God given (or natural law/ethics) rights and pre-exist.
So you say, well, why was slavery and so forth legal when one has the right to liberty? Now you are getting it. Notice to ask me that question you said slavery was "legal?" It was not, correctly speaking, a right; many laws and social customs are violation of and deprivation of inherent rights. The civil rights movement started out using the verbiage correctly, but society started eroding their understanding of the fact that it happens every day throughout human society, this problem:
1. All humans have inherent rights not created by humans but eternal and already in place.
2. Some humans deprive other human beings of those rights.
3. Some deprivation of rights are actually legal under human made laws, but they are always wrong as they are deprivation of rights.
4. Human rights must always trump laws that deprive of human rights, but in reality we see that often the opposite takes place.
5. Rights cannot be created; rights already exist. What humans can do is restore those who have been deprived of their rights to no longer be deprived.
So now let me tackle the second core area of confusion about rights and the law. We now understand that rights already exist, totally without human creation or control. We also recognize that the problem is humans who deprive other humans of their rights. Thus slavery, while legal, was not "a right," (even if in the lingo people used that word) but slavery was, instead, a legal but unrighteous deprivation of human rights. Remember there is worldwide slavery still going on, both of servitude and sexual, and thus we must urgently understand that there is no "right," either legal or for "free market" reasons, for slavery in any form at all. Period. When slaves are freed they have not "gained" a right; their inherent rights have been restored.
So the second area of confusion exists around the terms "entitlement" and "reparation." Let's roll up sleeves and clear that up so we can actually get something done in this world before it is too late.
Remember that no one has a right to tax; taxing is a law, a mechanism, not a right. An entitlement is an expenditure of money gained by taxes, but it is a specific form of expenditure as a group is designated by "title" to receive funds. Thus that group is "entitled" because the name of the group segregates them from others so they receive special tax money. Let's use an obvious example.
The baby has been born and was not smothered, and so mother and father now have a person with a new title in their family "a child." Under USA tax law anyone who has the title "child" is entitled to being a tax deduction on the government tax forms. The baby was born with rights, but not with an entitlement. Entitlements are political, social, monarch or other human based decisions to confer or not, and has nothing to do with "rights." Too many people, both conservatives and liberals, think that they have a "right" to "entitlements." They may have a legal right, but we are speaking of human rights here. Human rights have become blurred by those who most advocate them by mixing them up with the concept of legal remedies and legal rights such as entitlements. Humans pass and enact entitlements for their own perceived fairness or merit agendas; humans do not create "rights" because human rights already exist.
So one must maintain clarity of thought and language, when one is debating or problem solving the giving of human laws/legal entitlements versus the problem of restoring deprived human rights. Too many well meaning people have ferocious arguments that are bull crap because they are not even speaking about either rights or entitlements/remedies/deprivation of rights (three different things). Do not "look" to law for "your rights," unless you mean "legal rights". In other words, no law states that a baby has the obvious human right to breathe the air. A law does say you can't smother a baby. If you look to human law for God given (natural, ethical) rights, you are lost from the very beginning, as human rights are in pre-existence, not conferred by law.
Human rights are like gold in a mine that is as yet undiscovered. The gold is already there and it's not there because some human "created gold" and then "injected it into a mountain," duh. Yet people can pass laws about who can own or explore the land. Those laws have nothing to do with the fact that the gold already exists, without the will or workings of mere human hands. Human rights exist and are eternal, no matter what a human being says or does. The problem is that many people deprive others of their human rights. It would be as if people told each other, "Well, the unmined gold in that mountain only exists if you have brown eyes, while if you have blue eyes that gold does not exist." We are not even speaking of the legality of pursuing the mining, we are speaking of a lack of reality of people who deprive others of their human rights, saying those human rights do not exist when they do, obviously, just as the gold exists whether you have brown eyes or blue.
This, young people, is one reason why faith in God gives, not takes away, strength, logic and clarity to human actions. Those who believe in God have a better comprehension of God given human rights. This is not because they necessarily "do better" or "behave better" or are "more moral" or "more ethical" than a well meaning atheist, for example. I'm not saying that at all. Rather, what I am saying is that non-believing human rights advocates live entirely within the framework of human created laws, and often they are caught and limited by the snares of human nature and laws. They say "you don't need to believe in God to be good," and that is true, but if they do not believe in God, then they believe only in the goodness of man, and that can only be understood, as a consequence, via deeds and laws. They inadvertently take their eyes off of the inherent truth of eternal inborn human rights (since they don't believe it is God given and inborn) and thus they think of rights as good behavior and laws. They put their own well meaning aim too low and too limited.
Like abortion, I am not making this about black/white slavery (notice I am speaking much of modern slavery, which is commercial/sexual and labor servitude) so do not try to discern agenda: I'm on everyone's side here. But I will now deliberately discuss the black/white slavery legacy in order to build upon the clarity of definitions by now tackling "remedy" and "reparations." I'm not using USA Native Americans in the case study because I need to keep this a global example.
First, to recap:
1. Human rights are inborn and pre-exist.
2. Human rights can be deprived, and often are, but are not created by humans.
3. Deprived human rights must be addressed and restored. In other words the depriving of rights must cease.
4. Entitlements are a special legal monetary consideration given to a designated group, which reflects the priorities of society.
5. Remedies are the means by which an injustice is corrected and rights restored, not "given."
Let's start with an easy example. Someone breaks into your house and steals your television. The police catch the person and give you back your television. The police "restore" your goods, your television, they do not need to write a law "giving you a right to own a television." You already had the right to the television.
Human rights are the same thing. The rights already exist, but some humans deprive others. Those humans need to be stopped from depriving others. When someone is stopped from depriving a person of their rights, all is automatically good again. The rights were always there, but someone blocked you from them. Now the rights are restored when the person stops depriving you of them.
But hold on, you say, damage is done when rights were deprived. I agree. But you must be clear in your mind what you are working on in a given moment: 1) restoring access to deprived rights and/or 2) compensating for the damage.
Let's say the thief smashed a window to get into your house to take the TV. If, in our silly but usefully clear example, TV represents a human right you already had, when the police remove the deprivation of your right as a problem (someone else had your TV) that concludes their role in this matter. Part of society must focus on ensuring that no one's rights are deprived. That is not the same as the part of society that now helps you to inventory the damage and get you back on your feet. The police do not fix your window, or give you money to have it fixed. They also do not take a window out of the thief's house and give it to you. Human rights campaigners must focus, like the TV recovering police, on removing obstacles to other people's access to their pre-existing human rights. Human rights should not at all complicate their essential first priority with issues of remedy and reparations, since those require human created processes, rules, law, procedures and logic. For example the homeowner may have an insurance policy and pursues remedy based not on human rights but the commercial agreement he or she has in place for insurance reimbursement.
Now, here's where we need to clear up the whole "slavery reparations" language. You might, being an attentive reader, now put two and two together and say, "Well, suppose the culture gives an entitlement that all people who had TV's stolen from them gets a $100 tax credit or payment to remedy that their rights were violated." Now you are talking! See? Now you are getting somewhere. You have separated the restoration of deprived human rights from the "picking up the mess left behind" process. That would be a logical use of the entitlement human made process, not right to address lingering damage from a now corrected deprivation of human rights. An entitlement is the creating of a group of people based on their title (titles such as senior citizens, social security recipients, children, people who had their TV's stolen) who now receive goods, services or usually monatary special consideration. Remember, a human baby has the pre-existing universal inborn right to be born and to breathe the air, a crime is committed (and that right was deprived) if the baby is smothered, but the decision to give a tax deduction to the successfully born baby is an entitlement based on the title "child."
Suppose someone tried to smother the baby in the hospital and while they did not succeed they did some real damage to the baby. This is now the area of remedy and it is entirely dealt with by human laws and processes. This is where morality must be one's compass and this is what the Bible means about being "righteous" and "just." Here's what I mean.
Righteousness and justice must be immediate and focused on the actual people involved in the problem. You go after the guy who stole the TV for remedy and damages, not anyone who ever stole a TV. You go after whoever tried to smother your baby (and perhaps the bad procedures of where this crime took place), but you don't sue every hospital and every person who ever wronged a child. In other words, remedy is targeted and immediate. Too many in society have drifted away from that understanding in their attempts to "recover" what is they are "entitled to." See? That's wrong language. No one is "entitled" to "remedy" unless an entitlement law exists that all people who had stolen TV sets (title) receive $100. Remedy is the attempt to provide justice and righteousness after a wrong has been committed, and there is a wide range of possible valid avenues for remedy, all based on human law, process and free will regarding goodness, charity and virtue.
Two people each had a TV stolen via smashed windows. One gets reimbursement from their insurance company. The other does not have insurance, but has a friend who owns a window business and the friend, through charity, rebuilds and replaces the window for free.
The term "reparations" is best understood as the financial punishment levied onto the combatant who is defeated in a war. So now, build on the foundation I have given to you about entitlements and remedy. If one country is attacked unjustly by another, yet defeats the aggressor at great cost, the aggrieved victorious country may well indeed impose reparations onto the aggressor losing nation. The most obvious example of that is World War I when huge, back breaking reparations were placed upon Germany, the aggressor and loser of the war. (And put aside all the nuance around who did what to whom and stick to the basic facts). In reparations you clobber the entire country because they are the unit by which the injustice occurred. So even the peace movement in the aggressor country would get clobbered by reparations, as no distinction is made. That's not entirely bad because we all understand enablers, whether willing or against their will. It's the theory that a country could not war if people such as farmers did not keep growing food and thus enable the war machine, even if the farmers themselves were against the war in the first place.
That is the slippery slope of reparations. They are strictly speaking logical but in reality there is a huge problem. The first problem is that it must be immediate. In other words, the second generation should not pay for the war of the first generation. The second problem is, as I stated, reparations are the largest and broadest of all entitlements. The title thus becomes "an entire country."
Those are the problems in logic and justice that even well meaning black/white slave reparations face, which is why it is a waste of time to discuss it, really. I am not at all marganizing what has been done, but I am trying to be your friend and your coach and teach you how to be alive and have your rights today. So bear with me as we use this sensitive subject in this case study.
You no doubt agree with me that reparations must be 1) immediate and 2) appropriately targeted. I bet you think I'm going to say it's "too late" for reparations, since legal slavery ended over one hundred years ago. Nope, I'm not going to say that. I'm going to help you get reparations. Here is what you need to do. You need to determine who took your TV or, rather, your ancestors' TV, and you have suffered as a result. Thus you need to research in Africa which tribes first captured your ancestors and name them as the first liable group for reparations. In general many Africans were captured and sold into slavery by rival African tribes. So you need to identify which ones were involved and proportion responsibility. Then you need to identify the European countries/monarchies that funded the slave capturing and transport. Your rights were first deprived by those who captured your ancestors, those who stole your TV, and by those who provided the capturing and transportation facilities. Your rights were then secondly in time sequence deprived by the slave owners who purchased and kept the slaves. Thus you must outline the shape of your "war reparations country" in order to appropriately target them. But in your case it is a virtual country, to use the computer term, who owe you reparations. Not to be political I will make up names, except for the USA.
Virtual reparations country: 30% the African tribes X, Y, Z who captured and sold slaves, 30% the European countries O, P, Q who seized slaves, provided men and ships to transport them, 40% the actual white people in the USA who sold, owned and profited from slaves.
You see the problem? Genuine reparations have one of two possiblities: 1) designate a country as being "guilty" such as was done in WWI or 2) identify those who actually conducted the wrong and apportion blame according to their actual participation.
So without taking sides, dear friends, I am simply teaching you the difference between genuine reparations and entitlements. A society could take the stance that every person who had an almost smothered child, or a stolen TV (and I'm not trivializing, but using the case study materials) gets an entitlement based on that title as a remedy. A society could try to designate that those who descended from an almost smothered child also receives an entitlement. The problem is that entitlement comes from your own participatory tax dollars, by definition. Reparations comes from "the other guy" the one who "actually did it." In order to do just reparations you have to research and apportion (wow, would that keep lawyers busy!) guilt and blame and then trace the descendants and apportion the cost of the reparations aka entitlement to them. You know that makes very little sense because the rule of reparations is that if done against a group you are indeed charging those who were innocent and against the war in the first place, and also their subsequent generations.
I don't want to get too far into transforming this into a slavery reparations case study since this is a case study about rights, and how rights are inborn and eternal, compared to human devices such as deprivation of rights, entitlements, remedy, crime and reparations.
But you see that many in public office, and privately, have their definitions all backwards and blurry and ultimately ineffective. As a result humans are farther from understanding their inherent God (or natural/ethical) given rights, rather than closer. So when I listen to political or legal debate I really find it so pointless because people are not even sure what they are arguing about factually and clearly, in truth. This is a problem of rights, entitlement and remedy policy in all parts of life in all societies and governments, where people have lost actual understanding of the ultimate motivation which is inborn rights of all humans and the removal of the means of depriving rights in the here and now. Without that first everything else is futile and even counterproductive fail. What good will it be if two hundred years from now people are arguing how to remedy the legacy of child sexual slavery and abuse, for example, if they allowed it to happen in the here and now? People, it's only one lived human life apiece, and one earth, and the consequences (and thus remedies) must happen in the here and now, based on universal recognition of authentic inborn human rights and removal of real deprivations of those human rights.
I hope that you have understood this and find it helpful.
The first word I want to clarify, since that is what the talk show mentioned, is "rights." The talk show hosts played a sound byte from a politician where the politician claimed that they (politicians) "create" or "give" rights to people. No, that is incorrect, and the talk show hosts were quick to point this out. Yet I know that many of you would think that rights are created. They are not created; rights are in existence, continual existence. It is the depriving of rights that is the problem in society, so that is the first part of what I want to explain.
Every human being, just by virtue of existing, has certain absolute rights. They are not "rights" conferred by other human beings. To calm those social justice people (and believe me, I am on your side, I am coaching you though in a grave error) let me start with an obvious example. When you are born, no one had to give you a piece of paper saying you had the right to breathe the air. I mean, duh. If someone smothers you, though, they have deprived you of your rights. Do you understand that? When a human being is born they have rights already in existence, the complete set of rights all humans need and are born into, not given to them. Now you can understand the wording of the Founding Fathers better, where they recognize these inherent pre-existing eternal rights, not confer them. Believers understand that these rights are given by God when humans were created in the first place. Ethical non-believers understand that even if they deny a God, those rights are already in place, and don't have to be spelled out by a set of human beings, because it it "natural law" (believers use that term too), or "the right thing to do," or the "ethics of human rights" or other God-neutral but ethic phrases and philosophies. Both believers and non-believers who are ethical understand that genuine rights are eternal, inborn, and already in existence.
That is the first part of what the past two generations have warped and misunderstood. They have taken the eternal and inborn existence of rights and forgotten what that really means. When did this happen? Pretty much in the 1960's when people started saying "I want my rights." Yes, they were correct to perceive that those who suffered injustice were being deprived of rights. But "rights" became shorthand for remedies. Rights are not remedies. Rights cannot be created. They are already in existence. Rights exist and every thinking human, whether a believer or not, needs to protect the language in order to maintain clarity that all people have certainty of the rights that are inborn of being human.
So whether you believe in God or not you must understand that in the USA the Founding Fathers recognized that certain rights are in pre-existence. Go back to the example of the baby being born having the right to breathe air, even though no one wrote a piece of paper saying that that this baby has a license or permit under the law to breathe air upon birth. Anyone who is not insane or an idiot understands that. Thus it is really easy to understand that the right to be alive (including being able to breathe) is automatic upon coming alive (being born), duh. If someone takes a pillow and smothers the baby on birth, two things have happened. The baby's right to life was violated and so the baby was, to use the correct language "deprived of his or her rights." So you have "rights" and their opposite, which is not the "lack of rights" but the "deprivation of rights." And here is where it had become naturally confusing: not only was the smothered baby deprived of his or her rights (to life), but a civil crime was committed, assault, battery and murder. This is where the thinking became blurry during the 1960's and got worse and worse until now when it seems no one understands simple basic concepts and definitions anymore.
Just a pause, this is not going to turn into an abortion argument, so put that aside and let us work together for clarity about human rights. I am using the baby, full term, born in a wanted situation (presumably) for its universal ease in understanding, not for agenda. Keep that in mind when I start to also discuss in this case study civil (racial) deprivation of rights.
The Founding Fathers recognized every human being already has three basic "rights:" life (the right to be alive and not to have life truncated, such as in the smothering), liberty (the right to be free and not in bondage to another human being) and the pursuit of happiness (the right to lead one's life in search of sustaining and satisfaction). If you think about this, this is such a profound insight. In a pithy way the Founding Fathers summarized, using three simple words and phrases, these universal God given (or natural law/ethics) rights and pre-exist.
So you say, well, why was slavery and so forth legal when one has the right to liberty? Now you are getting it. Notice to ask me that question you said slavery was "legal?" It was not, correctly speaking, a right; many laws and social customs are violation of and deprivation of inherent rights. The civil rights movement started out using the verbiage correctly, but society started eroding their understanding of the fact that it happens every day throughout human society, this problem:
1. All humans have inherent rights not created by humans but eternal and already in place.
2. Some humans deprive other human beings of those rights.
3. Some deprivation of rights are actually legal under human made laws, but they are always wrong as they are deprivation of rights.
4. Human rights must always trump laws that deprive of human rights, but in reality we see that often the opposite takes place.
5. Rights cannot be created; rights already exist. What humans can do is restore those who have been deprived of their rights to no longer be deprived.
So now let me tackle the second core area of confusion about rights and the law. We now understand that rights already exist, totally without human creation or control. We also recognize that the problem is humans who deprive other humans of their rights. Thus slavery, while legal, was not "a right," (even if in the lingo people used that word) but slavery was, instead, a legal but unrighteous deprivation of human rights. Remember there is worldwide slavery still going on, both of servitude and sexual, and thus we must urgently understand that there is no "right," either legal or for "free market" reasons, for slavery in any form at all. Period. When slaves are freed they have not "gained" a right; their inherent rights have been restored.
So the second area of confusion exists around the terms "entitlement" and "reparation." Let's roll up sleeves and clear that up so we can actually get something done in this world before it is too late.
Remember that no one has a right to tax; taxing is a law, a mechanism, not a right. An entitlement is an expenditure of money gained by taxes, but it is a specific form of expenditure as a group is designated by "title" to receive funds. Thus that group is "entitled" because the name of the group segregates them from others so they receive special tax money. Let's use an obvious example.
The baby has been born and was not smothered, and so mother and father now have a person with a new title in their family "a child." Under USA tax law anyone who has the title "child" is entitled to being a tax deduction on the government tax forms. The baby was born with rights, but not with an entitlement. Entitlements are political, social, monarch or other human based decisions to confer or not, and has nothing to do with "rights." Too many people, both conservatives and liberals, think that they have a "right" to "entitlements." They may have a legal right, but we are speaking of human rights here. Human rights have become blurred by those who most advocate them by mixing them up with the concept of legal remedies and legal rights such as entitlements. Humans pass and enact entitlements for their own perceived fairness or merit agendas; humans do not create "rights" because human rights already exist.
So one must maintain clarity of thought and language, when one is debating or problem solving the giving of human laws/legal entitlements versus the problem of restoring deprived human rights. Too many well meaning people have ferocious arguments that are bull crap because they are not even speaking about either rights or entitlements/remedies/deprivation of rights (three different things). Do not "look" to law for "your rights," unless you mean "legal rights". In other words, no law states that a baby has the obvious human right to breathe the air. A law does say you can't smother a baby. If you look to human law for God given (natural, ethical) rights, you are lost from the very beginning, as human rights are in pre-existence, not conferred by law.
Human rights are like gold in a mine that is as yet undiscovered. The gold is already there and it's not there because some human "created gold" and then "injected it into a mountain," duh. Yet people can pass laws about who can own or explore the land. Those laws have nothing to do with the fact that the gold already exists, without the will or workings of mere human hands. Human rights exist and are eternal, no matter what a human being says or does. The problem is that many people deprive others of their human rights. It would be as if people told each other, "Well, the unmined gold in that mountain only exists if you have brown eyes, while if you have blue eyes that gold does not exist." We are not even speaking of the legality of pursuing the mining, we are speaking of a lack of reality of people who deprive others of their human rights, saying those human rights do not exist when they do, obviously, just as the gold exists whether you have brown eyes or blue.
This, young people, is one reason why faith in God gives, not takes away, strength, logic and clarity to human actions. Those who believe in God have a better comprehension of God given human rights. This is not because they necessarily "do better" or "behave better" or are "more moral" or "more ethical" than a well meaning atheist, for example. I'm not saying that at all. Rather, what I am saying is that non-believing human rights advocates live entirely within the framework of human created laws, and often they are caught and limited by the snares of human nature and laws. They say "you don't need to believe in God to be good," and that is true, but if they do not believe in God, then they believe only in the goodness of man, and that can only be understood, as a consequence, via deeds and laws. They inadvertently take their eyes off of the inherent truth of eternal inborn human rights (since they don't believe it is God given and inborn) and thus they think of rights as good behavior and laws. They put their own well meaning aim too low and too limited.
Like abortion, I am not making this about black/white slavery (notice I am speaking much of modern slavery, which is commercial/sexual and labor servitude) so do not try to discern agenda: I'm on everyone's side here. But I will now deliberately discuss the black/white slavery legacy in order to build upon the clarity of definitions by now tackling "remedy" and "reparations." I'm not using USA Native Americans in the case study because I need to keep this a global example.
First, to recap:
1. Human rights are inborn and pre-exist.
2. Human rights can be deprived, and often are, but are not created by humans.
3. Deprived human rights must be addressed and restored. In other words the depriving of rights must cease.
4. Entitlements are a special legal monetary consideration given to a designated group, which reflects the priorities of society.
5. Remedies are the means by which an injustice is corrected and rights restored, not "given."
Let's start with an easy example. Someone breaks into your house and steals your television. The police catch the person and give you back your television. The police "restore" your goods, your television, they do not need to write a law "giving you a right to own a television." You already had the right to the television.
Human rights are the same thing. The rights already exist, but some humans deprive others. Those humans need to be stopped from depriving others. When someone is stopped from depriving a person of their rights, all is automatically good again. The rights were always there, but someone blocked you from them. Now the rights are restored when the person stops depriving you of them.
But hold on, you say, damage is done when rights were deprived. I agree. But you must be clear in your mind what you are working on in a given moment: 1) restoring access to deprived rights and/or 2) compensating for the damage.
Let's say the thief smashed a window to get into your house to take the TV. If, in our silly but usefully clear example, TV represents a human right you already had, when the police remove the deprivation of your right as a problem (someone else had your TV) that concludes their role in this matter. Part of society must focus on ensuring that no one's rights are deprived. That is not the same as the part of society that now helps you to inventory the damage and get you back on your feet. The police do not fix your window, or give you money to have it fixed. They also do not take a window out of the thief's house and give it to you. Human rights campaigners must focus, like the TV recovering police, on removing obstacles to other people's access to their pre-existing human rights. Human rights should not at all complicate their essential first priority with issues of remedy and reparations, since those require human created processes, rules, law, procedures and logic. For example the homeowner may have an insurance policy and pursues remedy based not on human rights but the commercial agreement he or she has in place for insurance reimbursement.
Now, here's where we need to clear up the whole "slavery reparations" language. You might, being an attentive reader, now put two and two together and say, "Well, suppose the culture gives an entitlement that all people who had TV's stolen from them gets a $100 tax credit or payment to remedy that their rights were violated." Now you are talking! See? Now you are getting somewhere. You have separated the restoration of deprived human rights from the "picking up the mess left behind" process. That would be a logical use of the entitlement human made process, not right to address lingering damage from a now corrected deprivation of human rights. An entitlement is the creating of a group of people based on their title (titles such as senior citizens, social security recipients, children, people who had their TV's stolen) who now receive goods, services or usually monatary special consideration. Remember, a human baby has the pre-existing universal inborn right to be born and to breathe the air, a crime is committed (and that right was deprived) if the baby is smothered, but the decision to give a tax deduction to the successfully born baby is an entitlement based on the title "child."
Suppose someone tried to smother the baby in the hospital and while they did not succeed they did some real damage to the baby. This is now the area of remedy and it is entirely dealt with by human laws and processes. This is where morality must be one's compass and this is what the Bible means about being "righteous" and "just." Here's what I mean.
Righteousness and justice must be immediate and focused on the actual people involved in the problem. You go after the guy who stole the TV for remedy and damages, not anyone who ever stole a TV. You go after whoever tried to smother your baby (and perhaps the bad procedures of where this crime took place), but you don't sue every hospital and every person who ever wronged a child. In other words, remedy is targeted and immediate. Too many in society have drifted away from that understanding in their attempts to "recover" what is they are "entitled to." See? That's wrong language. No one is "entitled" to "remedy" unless an entitlement law exists that all people who had stolen TV sets (title) receive $100. Remedy is the attempt to provide justice and righteousness after a wrong has been committed, and there is a wide range of possible valid avenues for remedy, all based on human law, process and free will regarding goodness, charity and virtue.
Two people each had a TV stolen via smashed windows. One gets reimbursement from their insurance company. The other does not have insurance, but has a friend who owns a window business and the friend, through charity, rebuilds and replaces the window for free.
The term "reparations" is best understood as the financial punishment levied onto the combatant who is defeated in a war. So now, build on the foundation I have given to you about entitlements and remedy. If one country is attacked unjustly by another, yet defeats the aggressor at great cost, the aggrieved victorious country may well indeed impose reparations onto the aggressor losing nation. The most obvious example of that is World War I when huge, back breaking reparations were placed upon Germany, the aggressor and loser of the war. (And put aside all the nuance around who did what to whom and stick to the basic facts). In reparations you clobber the entire country because they are the unit by which the injustice occurred. So even the peace movement in the aggressor country would get clobbered by reparations, as no distinction is made. That's not entirely bad because we all understand enablers, whether willing or against their will. It's the theory that a country could not war if people such as farmers did not keep growing food and thus enable the war machine, even if the farmers themselves were against the war in the first place.
That is the slippery slope of reparations. They are strictly speaking logical but in reality there is a huge problem. The first problem is that it must be immediate. In other words, the second generation should not pay for the war of the first generation. The second problem is, as I stated, reparations are the largest and broadest of all entitlements. The title thus becomes "an entire country."
Those are the problems in logic and justice that even well meaning black/white slave reparations face, which is why it is a waste of time to discuss it, really. I am not at all marganizing what has been done, but I am trying to be your friend and your coach and teach you how to be alive and have your rights today. So bear with me as we use this sensitive subject in this case study.
You no doubt agree with me that reparations must be 1) immediate and 2) appropriately targeted. I bet you think I'm going to say it's "too late" for reparations, since legal slavery ended over one hundred years ago. Nope, I'm not going to say that. I'm going to help you get reparations. Here is what you need to do. You need to determine who took your TV or, rather, your ancestors' TV, and you have suffered as a result. Thus you need to research in Africa which tribes first captured your ancestors and name them as the first liable group for reparations. In general many Africans were captured and sold into slavery by rival African tribes. So you need to identify which ones were involved and proportion responsibility. Then you need to identify the European countries/monarchies that funded the slave capturing and transport. Your rights were first deprived by those who captured your ancestors, those who stole your TV, and by those who provided the capturing and transportation facilities. Your rights were then secondly in time sequence deprived by the slave owners who purchased and kept the slaves. Thus you must outline the shape of your "war reparations country" in order to appropriately target them. But in your case it is a virtual country, to use the computer term, who owe you reparations. Not to be political I will make up names, except for the USA.
Virtual reparations country: 30% the African tribes X, Y, Z who captured and sold slaves, 30% the European countries O, P, Q who seized slaves, provided men and ships to transport them, 40% the actual white people in the USA who sold, owned and profited from slaves.
You see the problem? Genuine reparations have one of two possiblities: 1) designate a country as being "guilty" such as was done in WWI or 2) identify those who actually conducted the wrong and apportion blame according to their actual participation.
So without taking sides, dear friends, I am simply teaching you the difference between genuine reparations and entitlements. A society could take the stance that every person who had an almost smothered child, or a stolen TV (and I'm not trivializing, but using the case study materials) gets an entitlement based on that title as a remedy. A society could try to designate that those who descended from an almost smothered child also receives an entitlement. The problem is that entitlement comes from your own participatory tax dollars, by definition. Reparations comes from "the other guy" the one who "actually did it." In order to do just reparations you have to research and apportion (wow, would that keep lawyers busy!) guilt and blame and then trace the descendants and apportion the cost of the reparations aka entitlement to them. You know that makes very little sense because the rule of reparations is that if done against a group you are indeed charging those who were innocent and against the war in the first place, and also their subsequent generations.
I don't want to get too far into transforming this into a slavery reparations case study since this is a case study about rights, and how rights are inborn and eternal, compared to human devices such as deprivation of rights, entitlements, remedy, crime and reparations.
But you see that many in public office, and privately, have their definitions all backwards and blurry and ultimately ineffective. As a result humans are farther from understanding their inherent God (or natural/ethical) given rights, rather than closer. So when I listen to political or legal debate I really find it so pointless because people are not even sure what they are arguing about factually and clearly, in truth. This is a problem of rights, entitlement and remedy policy in all parts of life in all societies and governments, where people have lost actual understanding of the ultimate motivation which is inborn rights of all humans and the removal of the means of depriving rights in the here and now. Without that first everything else is futile and even counterproductive fail. What good will it be if two hundred years from now people are arguing how to remedy the legacy of child sexual slavery and abuse, for example, if they allowed it to happen in the here and now? People, it's only one lived human life apiece, and one earth, and the consequences (and thus remedies) must happen in the here and now, based on universal recognition of authentic inborn human rights and removal of real deprivations of those human rights.
I hope that you have understood this and find it helpful.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Second of a few end of calendar year thoughts
This will be short and to the point, but it is the "great unspoken," so I will once again speak and say it.
Another year has gone by, capping another decade that has gone by, without genuine justice, truth telling and peace in the Middle East.
I have found myself wondering often, as I see the evidence most clearly before me, if many humans have been so deluded that they genuinely prefer to see Armageddon type so called "signs" in the Middle East, rather than roll up their sleeves and achieve genuine and honorable peace and justice. You know who I mean.
The angels proclaimed their declarations from God upon the birth of Jesus of peace to men (people) of "good will." There will be no peace in the Middle East until people get back to work on it in the transparent and fresh air of truthfulness and genuine good will. Again, this comes down to living righteously, not self proclaimed self-righteousness.
Another year has gone by, capping another decade that has gone by, without genuine justice, truth telling and peace in the Middle East.
I have found myself wondering often, as I see the evidence most clearly before me, if many humans have been so deluded that they genuinely prefer to see Armageddon type so called "signs" in the Middle East, rather than roll up their sleeves and achieve genuine and honorable peace and justice. You know who I mean.
The angels proclaimed their declarations from God upon the birth of Jesus of peace to men (people) of "good will." There will be no peace in the Middle East until people get back to work on it in the transparent and fresh air of truthfulness and genuine good will. Again, this comes down to living righteously, not self proclaimed self-righteousness.
First of a few end of calendar year thoughts
Hi everyone. Rather than long postings I'm just going to type in a few musings, keeping them to a few moments of reflection. I hope these help to ease some of the angst and regrets that many have about the sadness of the 2000-2009 years.
Many have written really good columns reflecting on this somewhat nameless decade, mentioning how instead of having names like the "80's" or the "90's," the "00's" really have no verbiage except the old expression, the "aughts." Aught is an old fashioned expression that indicates when the digit 0 is used as a place holder in a number. Old school marms would tell their students to write on the chalk board, in the year 1800 for example, "one, eight, aught, aught" instead of saying to write "one, eight, zero, zero." So the best anyone could come up with is calling this nearly past decade "the aughts."
I know that many are thinking that "the aughts" is certainly a correct name as a pun, regarding the regrets and totally missed opportunities for any sort of improvement or enlightenment, peace, love and reconciliation, as those are the "ought" to haves, or the "oughts." Hardly anyone has wrapped themselves in glory the past decade and they have, instead, missed nearly every opportunity to make a wise and/or generous choice in most matters. Even what seemed like great advances or victories, or progress, nearly all ring hollow now, often surprisingly soon after these victories were achieved. I'm not being critical about specifics right now, simply summing up the zeit geist (the spirit of the times, where spirit means the mood of the times) of the past decade.
Regular readers know that one reason the aughts were the oughts was that many beliefs and goals have slowly been revealed as being imaginary, false, unjust or simply plain wrong headed. The truth is never slow to be revealed, for lies are revealed in a flash, the moment the truth is spoken in anyone's hearing. No, it is the acceptance that one has been deceived, taught wrongly, or self deluding that is slower than a snail's pace in dawning.
The aughts aka the oughts are the culmination of previous (snappily named) decades of delusion and misguided focus (on all fronts in all areas of secular life and of course tremendous amounts of false prophecy in the spiritual life). It is like vats of sad gooey slowly burning tar has fallen onto many people's heads, but that tar has been collected and cooking for several decades now.
Here is the second problem with the aughts aka the oughts. Not only do you have the first problem whereby this soon past decade is the culmination (unpleasant consequences) of lack of truth and very bad goals, but the second problem is that even when the truth dawned of bad choices, many continued to try to use the false tools to "fix" things, the tools that were fashioned based on error and delusion in the first place. Often people who claimed to "think outside the box" were those most guilty of being stuck in tar, gum and chains inside a false box to begin with.
The only way to make the next decade bearable is to return to genuine faith and reasoning, with authentic search and emphasis for truth and justice, and not the "identity theft" that faith, reasoning, truth and justice have been subjected to. If I had to give a sound byte or a slogan to help focus good intentions for the next decade it would be to regain authentic understanding of righteousness.
The righteous man or woman, boy or girl not only are the ones who will gain heaven, but they are the ones who have the correct leavening of faith and reasoning to live life honorably and to pursue genuinely virtuous goals. Without faith based righteousness (as opposed to the undesirable self righteousness) each person and their communities are like compasses that not only lack the needle, the markings of the cardinal directions, but also lack the proper container, and one is only grasping at agenda and illusion rather than the truth.
Many have written really good columns reflecting on this somewhat nameless decade, mentioning how instead of having names like the "80's" or the "90's," the "00's" really have no verbiage except the old expression, the "aughts." Aught is an old fashioned expression that indicates when the digit 0 is used as a place holder in a number. Old school marms would tell their students to write on the chalk board, in the year 1800 for example, "one, eight, aught, aught" instead of saying to write "one, eight, zero, zero." So the best anyone could come up with is calling this nearly past decade "the aughts."
I know that many are thinking that "the aughts" is certainly a correct name as a pun, regarding the regrets and totally missed opportunities for any sort of improvement or enlightenment, peace, love and reconciliation, as those are the "ought" to haves, or the "oughts." Hardly anyone has wrapped themselves in glory the past decade and they have, instead, missed nearly every opportunity to make a wise and/or generous choice in most matters. Even what seemed like great advances or victories, or progress, nearly all ring hollow now, often surprisingly soon after these victories were achieved. I'm not being critical about specifics right now, simply summing up the zeit geist (the spirit of the times, where spirit means the mood of the times) of the past decade.
Regular readers know that one reason the aughts were the oughts was that many beliefs and goals have slowly been revealed as being imaginary, false, unjust or simply plain wrong headed. The truth is never slow to be revealed, for lies are revealed in a flash, the moment the truth is spoken in anyone's hearing. No, it is the acceptance that one has been deceived, taught wrongly, or self deluding that is slower than a snail's pace in dawning.
The aughts aka the oughts are the culmination of previous (snappily named) decades of delusion and misguided focus (on all fronts in all areas of secular life and of course tremendous amounts of false prophecy in the spiritual life). It is like vats of sad gooey slowly burning tar has fallen onto many people's heads, but that tar has been collected and cooking for several decades now.
Here is the second problem with the aughts aka the oughts. Not only do you have the first problem whereby this soon past decade is the culmination (unpleasant consequences) of lack of truth and very bad goals, but the second problem is that even when the truth dawned of bad choices, many continued to try to use the false tools to "fix" things, the tools that were fashioned based on error and delusion in the first place. Often people who claimed to "think outside the box" were those most guilty of being stuck in tar, gum and chains inside a false box to begin with.
The only way to make the next decade bearable is to return to genuine faith and reasoning, with authentic search and emphasis for truth and justice, and not the "identity theft" that faith, reasoning, truth and justice have been subjected to. If I had to give a sound byte or a slogan to help focus good intentions for the next decade it would be to regain authentic understanding of righteousness.
The righteous man or woman, boy or girl not only are the ones who will gain heaven, but they are the ones who have the correct leavening of faith and reasoning to live life honorably and to pursue genuinely virtuous goals. Without faith based righteousness (as opposed to the undesirable self righteousness) each person and their communities are like compasses that not only lack the needle, the markings of the cardinal directions, but also lack the proper container, and one is only grasping at agenda and illusion rather than the truth.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Understanding God: His "emotions"
God does not have emotions in the way that humans think of emotions, where emotions are defined as strong feelings. God has what one needs to think of as perfect appropriate responses to human activities. God is beyond complete understanding, but it is important that you be on the right path toward understanding him truthfully, rather than think you understand him and are on a completely wrong path of supposed insight. So I thought of this analogy (of course!)
When I say that God has "perfect appropriate responses" this is what I am trying to say. Since God is total perfection, his "emotional" response to anything that a human does (or anything else) is perfect for the situation. God "feels" only what is entirely truthful and authentic and correct to feel, regardless of the situation, since obviously there is no situation in heaven or in the God created universe, all of which were created by God, that he does not already have complete insight regarding. Thus God has "emotions" that humans sometimes observe, but what they are is the perfect appropriate response that God give to a situation, even if the humans who observe God's response don't fully understand it. But do not kid yourselves. If you read the scriptures you will notice that people are rarely actually "puzzled" or "dumbfounded" by God's reactions... people can pretty much understand in advance when God is wrathful or when God is pleased, since Biblical people pretty much knew full well what to expect. So here is the analogy I thought of to help modern people understand God's "feelings" better.
Suppose that you lived in a city that had one courthouse and one judge, and that judge always rendered perfect justice. In other words, the judge never made a mistake in any case brought before him. Here's how to understand God's wrath. Imagine that a person drags an innocent person off the street, into the courthouse, and right in front of the judge shoots the innocent person dead. The judge would be wrathful but not with the tinges of human anger. That perfect judge, who has already rendered perfect judgment to all types of cases would not be, like a human, "angry," "shocked," or "scared." The judge's reaction would be wrath. Wrath is also called "righteous anger," because it is a combination of indignation at unjust behavior combined with the perfect comprehension of what happened, all the implications and having the perfect "final say" in what happens to punish that person.
Because God is all knowing, whenever a person sins or is unjust, it is as if that sinning or unjust person dragged a innocent person in front of God the judge and shot the person, and one better be prepared for God's wrath, either immediately (on the spot justice, which means during one's life) or deferred wrath (which means upon the person's death and judgment).
So that is how to understand in Biblical times and in present times God's "anger," which is really wrath. It means that it is punishment time, either immediate or delayed, for the sins and injustice that God, as judge, always observes since he is all knowing. People who think God does not see and know all sins and all injustice are like the person in the analogy who drags an innocent person before the perfect judge and shoots him right in his presence, doing so either for shock effect, terrorism, or because he actually thinks he is better than the judge and is showing the judge "how to get things done." God is always present and God already knows all the circumstances around every thought and deed of humans, and thus there is no defiance or shock value one can manipulate before God. Further, God, like the judge in the analogy, is going to render perfect justice regardless if the crime is done in an anger inducing way by a human or not.
When you understand that, you can more fully appreciate how often God holds back his wrath, deferring it, allowing some time (but not as much as you think) for repentance and conversion of the heart and soul back to God. You also can understand why God "doesn't seem angry" because "he allows the wicked to flourish," but then those wicked find out just how "angry" God "really is" because they all wake up in hell when they die.
So God does not get "angry" like humans do for imagined or real slights, out of fear or shock, or vengeance, or jealousy, or even what some imagine to be good reasons to be angry (like being in war, for example). God is only "angry" when a person sins or is unjust (and that includes sins of neglect, meaning they are not doing the honorable things in service to God and in charity that they should be doing.)
You can also use this analogy to understand how God can be "sad," "grieved," be "aggrieved" or have a "grievance." You see how flexible the root concept of grief/grievance is, because it means both grief as in sadness, and grievance as in having a complaint. Complaint is a similar word, where one may complain over an inconvenience, but to be "plaintive" is to be sad (as in plaintive music). God cannot be sad in the way that humans are because humans are sad when they are in a situation that cannot be changed, while God is the source of all help and so he is never in a situation he cannot "change." So God can grieve but he is not sad. Here's how to use the analogy to understand it.
Suppose that after the shooting is done in the analogy courtroom, the bystanders suddenly realize that the innocent person who was dragged in front of the judge and shot was the child of the judge himself. A human judge would of course feel unbelievable sadness and grief at having his child murdered in front of him, because that child is now dead and gone. God, though, receives that child "on the other side," in heaven, and thus God is not sad the way the human judge would be because God "fixes it." God is not stuck with being "without" the child because of course the child is now in heaven. The human judge would be remaining stuck in sadness, however, because he is now without his beloved child. So for a human sadness is added to anger, while for God sadness is not added to his righteous wrath.
However, both God and the human judge in the analogy would both feel grief. How to understand grief? Grief is what happens when one has to now tell the grandparents, the mother, the siblings, the cousins, and the friends that the child has been killed. Grief is seeing the sadness that others must endure because of that action. This is why St Paul in Ephesians warns not to grieve the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not made sad, but feels grief.
Now, to expand on the analogy to better understand God and especially grief, which he manifests, for lack of a better word, through the Holy Spirit. Suppose the innocent person who was murdered was not a child and perhaps not even a good person. Suppose the innocent person was a sinner or an evil doer, or an unbeliever. God would still feel grief for that person even though that person does not count among those who are saved and going to heaven. Why? Because only God takes no joy in injustice, whether against good people or "bad" people because it tarnishes in the darkness of sin both the person who performs the injustice and it cuts short the chance for the so called "bad" person to be redeemed. I say "only God" because just about every person I know succumbs to temptation to gloat at injustice if that injustice happens to someone "who deserves it." Some of the most unspiritual people I know like to post "karma is a bitch," because they are already gloating at a hopeful injustice happening in the future to catch up with an unjust person. In other words, the Bible warns that one will "reap what one sows," but that is different from an almost pagan hope that something bad will "happen" in the future, unrelated, to "make up for" something "bad" the person did in the past. That is trying to justify injustice with another injustice, a very unspiritual and incorrect take on reaping what one sows.
Anyway, remember, God knows the future, not only what will happen but all that could have happened. God knows if, for example, the innocent but sinful person who was killed in that analogy would have someday repented his or her ways and had been converted in heart and saved. But due to the injustice of the murderer that person's life ended and he or she receives perfect judgment, resulting in hell, if that be the case. The Holy Spirit grieves 1) at any injustice because it is against the good ways of God that God has enjoined upon humans 2) at the person who is not saved and goes to hell and 3) at the besmirching of the soul of the person who perpetrates the injustice. The Holy Spirit is not "sad" because as I said, God dispenses all perfect justice (both comfort and punishment) and thus is not ever in the helpless situation of sadness. The Holy Spirit of God does, most assuredly, feel deep grief (hence reference in scripture to the groaning of the Holy Spirit). It is not "sadness," it is grief... grief at the wrong road taken by humans, grief at the dirtying of their own and others' souls by humans, and grief at the unnecessary and avoidable chastisement that humans who perform and/or enable injustice must endure.
I hope that you have found this useful to think about and ponder. You can think of God's perspective of "joy" and "satisfaction" also in the way that "sadness" and "grief" were analyzed. Because God is the source of all joy and satisfaction, he does not feel per se those feelings which depend on fluxuating circumstances and processes required to reach those feelings which God already is (not "has" but "is"), but he does feel them, like grief, on behalf of humans in various situations. The one exception is creation, which God as Creator feels indeed as pure satisfaction, not self-satisfied the way humans are, but when God creates because all is good, and thus God is pleased with that. This is why God is able to appreciate a beautiful sunset alongside humans but of course from his perspective of its goodness, not only the aesthetics.
I just thought of a quick way artists can relate. Think of your favorite work of art and the time, either short or long, it took you to develop it. Part of your satisfaction with it is not just the aesthetics of it, which pleases you, but the method and time by which you achieved it. God created the entire universe with less than a sentence of speech, ha, so you can understand how God's aesthetic appreciation is pure as it is centered on its goodness, and not in the effort or cleverness or talent that went into its making. God didn't have to "work hard" to "paint" a perfect sunset. I hope that helps you understand! And "Hi" and "hey" to all the young people. God is not emo :-)
When I say that God has "perfect appropriate responses" this is what I am trying to say. Since God is total perfection, his "emotional" response to anything that a human does (or anything else) is perfect for the situation. God "feels" only what is entirely truthful and authentic and correct to feel, regardless of the situation, since obviously there is no situation in heaven or in the God created universe, all of which were created by God, that he does not already have complete insight regarding. Thus God has "emotions" that humans sometimes observe, but what they are is the perfect appropriate response that God give to a situation, even if the humans who observe God's response don't fully understand it. But do not kid yourselves. If you read the scriptures you will notice that people are rarely actually "puzzled" or "dumbfounded" by God's reactions... people can pretty much understand in advance when God is wrathful or when God is pleased, since Biblical people pretty much knew full well what to expect. So here is the analogy I thought of to help modern people understand God's "feelings" better.
Suppose that you lived in a city that had one courthouse and one judge, and that judge always rendered perfect justice. In other words, the judge never made a mistake in any case brought before him. Here's how to understand God's wrath. Imagine that a person drags an innocent person off the street, into the courthouse, and right in front of the judge shoots the innocent person dead. The judge would be wrathful but not with the tinges of human anger. That perfect judge, who has already rendered perfect judgment to all types of cases would not be, like a human, "angry," "shocked," or "scared." The judge's reaction would be wrath. Wrath is also called "righteous anger," because it is a combination of indignation at unjust behavior combined with the perfect comprehension of what happened, all the implications and having the perfect "final say" in what happens to punish that person.
Because God is all knowing, whenever a person sins or is unjust, it is as if that sinning or unjust person dragged a innocent person in front of God the judge and shot the person, and one better be prepared for God's wrath, either immediately (on the spot justice, which means during one's life) or deferred wrath (which means upon the person's death and judgment).
So that is how to understand in Biblical times and in present times God's "anger," which is really wrath. It means that it is punishment time, either immediate or delayed, for the sins and injustice that God, as judge, always observes since he is all knowing. People who think God does not see and know all sins and all injustice are like the person in the analogy who drags an innocent person before the perfect judge and shoots him right in his presence, doing so either for shock effect, terrorism, or because he actually thinks he is better than the judge and is showing the judge "how to get things done." God is always present and God already knows all the circumstances around every thought and deed of humans, and thus there is no defiance or shock value one can manipulate before God. Further, God, like the judge in the analogy, is going to render perfect justice regardless if the crime is done in an anger inducing way by a human or not.
When you understand that, you can more fully appreciate how often God holds back his wrath, deferring it, allowing some time (but not as much as you think) for repentance and conversion of the heart and soul back to God. You also can understand why God "doesn't seem angry" because "he allows the wicked to flourish," but then those wicked find out just how "angry" God "really is" because they all wake up in hell when they die.
So God does not get "angry" like humans do for imagined or real slights, out of fear or shock, or vengeance, or jealousy, or even what some imagine to be good reasons to be angry (like being in war, for example). God is only "angry" when a person sins or is unjust (and that includes sins of neglect, meaning they are not doing the honorable things in service to God and in charity that they should be doing.)
You can also use this analogy to understand how God can be "sad," "grieved," be "aggrieved" or have a "grievance." You see how flexible the root concept of grief/grievance is, because it means both grief as in sadness, and grievance as in having a complaint. Complaint is a similar word, where one may complain over an inconvenience, but to be "plaintive" is to be sad (as in plaintive music). God cannot be sad in the way that humans are because humans are sad when they are in a situation that cannot be changed, while God is the source of all help and so he is never in a situation he cannot "change." So God can grieve but he is not sad. Here's how to use the analogy to understand it.
Suppose that after the shooting is done in the analogy courtroom, the bystanders suddenly realize that the innocent person who was dragged in front of the judge and shot was the child of the judge himself. A human judge would of course feel unbelievable sadness and grief at having his child murdered in front of him, because that child is now dead and gone. God, though, receives that child "on the other side," in heaven, and thus God is not sad the way the human judge would be because God "fixes it." God is not stuck with being "without" the child because of course the child is now in heaven. The human judge would be remaining stuck in sadness, however, because he is now without his beloved child. So for a human sadness is added to anger, while for God sadness is not added to his righteous wrath.
However, both God and the human judge in the analogy would both feel grief. How to understand grief? Grief is what happens when one has to now tell the grandparents, the mother, the siblings, the cousins, and the friends that the child has been killed. Grief is seeing the sadness that others must endure because of that action. This is why St Paul in Ephesians warns not to grieve the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not made sad, but feels grief.
Now, to expand on the analogy to better understand God and especially grief, which he manifests, for lack of a better word, through the Holy Spirit. Suppose the innocent person who was murdered was not a child and perhaps not even a good person. Suppose the innocent person was a sinner or an evil doer, or an unbeliever. God would still feel grief for that person even though that person does not count among those who are saved and going to heaven. Why? Because only God takes no joy in injustice, whether against good people or "bad" people because it tarnishes in the darkness of sin both the person who performs the injustice and it cuts short the chance for the so called "bad" person to be redeemed. I say "only God" because just about every person I know succumbs to temptation to gloat at injustice if that injustice happens to someone "who deserves it." Some of the most unspiritual people I know like to post "karma is a bitch," because they are already gloating at a hopeful injustice happening in the future to catch up with an unjust person. In other words, the Bible warns that one will "reap what one sows," but that is different from an almost pagan hope that something bad will "happen" in the future, unrelated, to "make up for" something "bad" the person did in the past. That is trying to justify injustice with another injustice, a very unspiritual and incorrect take on reaping what one sows.
Anyway, remember, God knows the future, not only what will happen but all that could have happened. God knows if, for example, the innocent but sinful person who was killed in that analogy would have someday repented his or her ways and had been converted in heart and saved. But due to the injustice of the murderer that person's life ended and he or she receives perfect judgment, resulting in hell, if that be the case. The Holy Spirit grieves 1) at any injustice because it is against the good ways of God that God has enjoined upon humans 2) at the person who is not saved and goes to hell and 3) at the besmirching of the soul of the person who perpetrates the injustice. The Holy Spirit is not "sad" because as I said, God dispenses all perfect justice (both comfort and punishment) and thus is not ever in the helpless situation of sadness. The Holy Spirit of God does, most assuredly, feel deep grief (hence reference in scripture to the groaning of the Holy Spirit). It is not "sadness," it is grief... grief at the wrong road taken by humans, grief at the dirtying of their own and others' souls by humans, and grief at the unnecessary and avoidable chastisement that humans who perform and/or enable injustice must endure.
I hope that you have found this useful to think about and ponder. You can think of God's perspective of "joy" and "satisfaction" also in the way that "sadness" and "grief" were analyzed. Because God is the source of all joy and satisfaction, he does not feel per se those feelings which depend on fluxuating circumstances and processes required to reach those feelings which God already is (not "has" but "is"), but he does feel them, like grief, on behalf of humans in various situations. The one exception is creation, which God as Creator feels indeed as pure satisfaction, not self-satisfied the way humans are, but when God creates because all is good, and thus God is pleased with that. This is why God is able to appreciate a beautiful sunset alongside humans but of course from his perspective of its goodness, not only the aesthetics.
I just thought of a quick way artists can relate. Think of your favorite work of art and the time, either short or long, it took you to develop it. Part of your satisfaction with it is not just the aesthetics of it, which pleases you, but the method and time by which you achieved it. God created the entire universe with less than a sentence of speech, ha, so you can understand how God's aesthetic appreciation is pure as it is centered on its goodness, and not in the effort or cleverness or talent that went into its making. God didn't have to "work hard" to "paint" a perfect sunset. I hope that helps you understand! And "Hi" and "hey" to all the young people. God is not emo :-)
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sports talk, Rose, Vick, rehab and recognition
Here are my thoughts since these subjects are in the news.
I think Pete Rose should be considered for and voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Here is my reasoning. Yes, gambling and the implications, if not the reality, for throwing a game is rightly considered the greatest enemy to the integrity of the sport. (I would argue that illegal drug use and performance enhancers have overtaken gaming/game throwing to share the greatest threat category, however). So I was certainly in agreement when Pete Rose was banned for life, even though as a fan, I felt the agony along with him of such a finality.
Having said that, however, I have always felt he should be inducted according to his real accomplishments in the sport, minus the punishment he received. Punishing for a wrong doing must logically be separated by a fair minded people from now erasing, shunning or denying what was good and valid in his achievements. If his performance and statistics were achieved because he had clubbed guys on the opposing team on the head before the game, LOL, thus lowering their stats to increase his, of course that would be different. I'm being a little silly in that example just to make a point. Gambling and game throwing, while a severe threat to the sport overall, do not automatically mean either his accomplishments were ill gotten gains either via performance enhancement OR performance degradation of opponents, unless a conspiracy was uncovered where everyone was throwing games in unison. Without such evidence it is obvious that Pete Rose was correctly punished for his proven singular role, but he should still be recognized for his valid and legitimate accomplishments.
This is particularly obvious because after Pete Rose, we now have decades of "asterisk" baseball, where a muddle of baseball achievements will always be questioned because of the years of performance enhancement, such as steroid, usage. This era, by negative example, demonstrate even more the singularity of Pete Rose's misdeed and bad choice. While he committed an error that is considered a grave threat to the sport, the sport itself is now filled with statistics that result from widespread collusion in the use of performance enhancing drugs. This makes what Pete Rose did put in its proper perspective: punishment by banning from the game, yes, but ignoring his legitimate achievements, no. Consider him eligible and be honest in appraising his record and put him in his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame, is my advice.
This makes me think of Michael Vick, as I have thought about him during this week and these past months. Again, as a people, not just sports fans, you must ask yourself one question: Do you believe in punishment followed by a chance at rehabilitation and redemption, or not? Don't be hypocrites. Either you believe in the theory that one punishes according to the crime (and he was given a prison sentence, which he served, fines, loss of his income and job, etc, all as punishment and consequences, such as loss of endorsement opportunities) or you don't. You either believe a fit sentence is adjudicated, served, and then considered completed, or you do not. If you do not that means you don't think anyone can ever be punished enough, and that is a breakdown of both civil and moral code. Secondly, either you believe in rehabilitation and redemption, or you do not. Do not be a hypocrite and say that you are enlightened etc yet you will never trust someone again once he or she had erred. Either you believe in opportunity for redemption, or you do not. If you do not then you seem to fall into a category of considering others (not yourself of course) of being "once stained always stained." Like the hypocrisy of some about punishment, hypocrisy of not believing in redemption is also a breakdown of both civil and moral code.
So I believe that if a team wants to give a chance to Michael Vick, he should be made eligible and allowed to get on with life, consistent with what people SAY they believe about both punishment and rehabilitation/redemption.
Best of luck to both men, and all other people who find themselves in such a situation, and also those in the responsible positions to decide not to be hypocrites.
I think Pete Rose should be considered for and voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Here is my reasoning. Yes, gambling and the implications, if not the reality, for throwing a game is rightly considered the greatest enemy to the integrity of the sport. (I would argue that illegal drug use and performance enhancers have overtaken gaming/game throwing to share the greatest threat category, however). So I was certainly in agreement when Pete Rose was banned for life, even though as a fan, I felt the agony along with him of such a finality.
Having said that, however, I have always felt he should be inducted according to his real accomplishments in the sport, minus the punishment he received. Punishing for a wrong doing must logically be separated by a fair minded people from now erasing, shunning or denying what was good and valid in his achievements. If his performance and statistics were achieved because he had clubbed guys on the opposing team on the head before the game, LOL, thus lowering their stats to increase his, of course that would be different. I'm being a little silly in that example just to make a point. Gambling and game throwing, while a severe threat to the sport overall, do not automatically mean either his accomplishments were ill gotten gains either via performance enhancement OR performance degradation of opponents, unless a conspiracy was uncovered where everyone was throwing games in unison. Without such evidence it is obvious that Pete Rose was correctly punished for his proven singular role, but he should still be recognized for his valid and legitimate accomplishments.
This is particularly obvious because after Pete Rose, we now have decades of "asterisk" baseball, where a muddle of baseball achievements will always be questioned because of the years of performance enhancement, such as steroid, usage. This era, by negative example, demonstrate even more the singularity of Pete Rose's misdeed and bad choice. While he committed an error that is considered a grave threat to the sport, the sport itself is now filled with statistics that result from widespread collusion in the use of performance enhancing drugs. This makes what Pete Rose did put in its proper perspective: punishment by banning from the game, yes, but ignoring his legitimate achievements, no. Consider him eligible and be honest in appraising his record and put him in his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame, is my advice.
This makes me think of Michael Vick, as I have thought about him during this week and these past months. Again, as a people, not just sports fans, you must ask yourself one question: Do you believe in punishment followed by a chance at rehabilitation and redemption, or not? Don't be hypocrites. Either you believe in the theory that one punishes according to the crime (and he was given a prison sentence, which he served, fines, loss of his income and job, etc, all as punishment and consequences, such as loss of endorsement opportunities) or you don't. You either believe a fit sentence is adjudicated, served, and then considered completed, or you do not. If you do not that means you don't think anyone can ever be punished enough, and that is a breakdown of both civil and moral code. Secondly, either you believe in rehabilitation and redemption, or you do not. Do not be a hypocrite and say that you are enlightened etc yet you will never trust someone again once he or she had erred. Either you believe in opportunity for redemption, or you do not. If you do not then you seem to fall into a category of considering others (not yourself of course) of being "once stained always stained." Like the hypocrisy of some about punishment, hypocrisy of not believing in redemption is also a breakdown of both civil and moral code.
So I believe that if a team wants to give a chance to Michael Vick, he should be made eligible and allowed to get on with life, consistent with what people SAY they believe about both punishment and rehabilitation/redemption.
Best of luck to both men, and all other people who find themselves in such a situation, and also those in the responsible positions to decide not to be hypocrites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
