Divisive Certainly Does Not Mean Decisive

For some time now, I have been pondering the paradigm we as a country have created. Throughout political discussions, religious segregations, business relations and social separations it seems we have segregated ourselves so significantly that we can hardly walk the streets without classifying each other with words that end in -ist: you're a nationalist, you're an extremist; you're a religionist, you're an atheist; you're rich, you're poor. Or worse, especially during seasons of voting, you're a narrow-minded, unlearned, non-observant, impossible Republican and you're an amoral, guidance-less, overly open-minded, senseless Democrat. Why do we segregate ourselves when we should be putting as much effort into uniting our cause as we put into the most important efforts of life? May I suggest a few reasons why?

The current trend in society suggests that your diversity is what defines you, gives you character, strength and appeal or what gives you uniqueness in this world of mainstream tendencies; suggesting that certainly, someone with commonplace principles in society has nothing to offer the world. And so, we tend to highlight our significant differences, "I'm better because..." or "I have accomplshed..." or "Nobody has ever done what I have..." when in reality, doesn't the lifeblood of liberty reside in the foundation of who we are together? Doesn't it seem that with all of this overexprssion of segregation, there comes an unhealthy dichotomy?

Perhaps one of the greatest Presidents of The United States is Abraham Lincoln. He was a man who knew firsthand the significance, even necessity, of unity. One of his teachigns applies perfectly here: "I don't like that man. I must get to know him better." Can we even begin to imagine the good that would elute from this world if we were to follow that dictum? Yet, despite the overwhelming knowledge in each of us that says we should understand, respect, work with and love one another, we don't. We continue to separate ourselves.

Now, this blog is not meant to suggest that individuality is unhealthy. Yes, were we all to become a single, monotonous network, the world would not go forward. But it seems to me that there is at least one thing that would help us as country. As the political process goes on, we consistently hear men and women say, "When I am President (or Senator, or Congressman, or whatever), I am going to..." and far too often, what they said they would do is not done, or what they said they would not do is done. This reminds me of President Lincoln's saying, "If once you forfeit the confidence of your fellow-citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem."

However, instead of allowing this ridiculous trend to continue, we should set goals as a country, as a people, as friends, neighbors and societies. We now realize, no matter what political persuasion you may follow, that 1) the United States is in an astronomical amount of debt, 2) there are no long-term solutions in place to address the future of our energy sources and 3) nobody has a plan to address our problems effectively. Sadly, politicians are far too often concerned with their next election to sincerely concern themselves with our well-being. Sure, people with power stand up before us and tell us to vote for them, but in reality, they are not the only ones who are going to make the ultimate difference--we are! And so, we must concern ourselves with where we want to be in 10, 15, 25, 50 and even 100 years. We cannot just sit back and say that some leader will rise up and save us. Using Christian tradition as an example, the people of Jerusalem had been waiting years for their master, the Lord Jesus Christ. When He finally did come, they were ready to take up arms one against another and at last overcome, but Jesus taught them just the opposite - "Love your enemies" - and many other doctrines that required them alone to make a difference.

I've been ranting on too long. Let me make my final suggestion. Take the beautiful Constitution and Declaration of Independence in your hands and read them. Following the outline they have given us including dependence on the God of this country, world and universe and elect a leader. Then, with all of our convictions, let's work together as commonplace people, friends, neighbors, countrymen, citizens, businesses, groups, sects, organizations, gatherings and United States to accomplish specific goals. For example, no matter who our President will be, by the year 2025 let's get the country out of debt; by 2020, let's have a solution to our energy needs; by 2040, let's have enough reserve in Social Security for those who will not have it if today's trends continue. If we have goals in place, we know where we are and what we will or will not have accomplished. May we do so using kindness, understanding and respect for one another's diveristy that could very well bring us continuing liberty, and, I propose, will give us unity.

America the . . . not so beautiful

I wanted to post a little blip I wrote earlier this year:

America the Beautiful

It has always been easy for me to marvel and bask in the wondrousness of the America we call the Beautiful. Her history, her gregarious nature toward other countries, her mercy and desire to aid those in need have consistently made her the model of a nation under God. Alas, there is a gnawing pain that has been seeping slowly into my heart for the past several years, being nurtured by an America that is, well, to say the least, not so beautiful. That America’s beauty seems to be tainted by the endless chaos of criticism, inequality, heated debate, misunderstandings of freedom and directionless decisions of many of today’s politicians and misguided individuals.

It is becoming commonplace, in the ugly America, to disguise indulgence as freedom of speech and promiscuity as individuality—acts that suggest we are becoming a nation that is not interested in being under God, but rather a self-sufficient society swallowed up in the valleys of our self-centricity. Then again, perhaps my internal gnawing is increasing more so because as I grow older, the realization that my belief that there are still the likes of men in this world similar in nature to Benjamin Franklin and George Washington is being vehemently challenged by the eccentricity of modern man.

Moreover, it seems that men and women should be willing to either decline positions of importance if they come to the realization that they lack ability and present a sub-par character, or endlessly and publicly develop themselves for the betterment of mankind. Today, however, too many men and women simply seek to hide their idiosyncrasies in order to amplify their opportunity of obtaining position with no thought of how their me-centricity might affect the future.

Nevertheless, I still dream of America the Beautiful. I dream of her day when equality overpowers disparity, when credit is given when credit is due, when achievement awards are given to those who consistently try without ever reaching their goal, when there is a firm, fair and consistent court system. Indeed, I dream of the fulfillment of every man and woman’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness steadied by the moorings of this country’s foundation that proclaims In God We Trust.

Sincerely, with this year’s approaching 4th of July celebration, I wish to raise my voice of humble pride in thanks for who our founding fathers were and for working so diligently to make a Beautiful America; as well as raise my voice in prayer that this country finds the likes of such men once again. Finally, may we celebrate this beautiful time of year in remembrance of the lives of those men and women who fought for our freedom and may we not take it for granted and thus disgrace the work they accomplished. Yes, let the fireworks fly, the noise makers sound forth and the skies be filled with lights; symbolically suggesting that we still, even today, Let Freedom Ring!

Death's Demands and the Mercy That Follows Misery

My father passed away just days ago and like any normal mortal, my mind has turned to reflection. There is sadness in my heart, but interestingly, it is not necessarily because of the death of my father, but rather, it is more so because of the realization that there are those who, in similar circumstances, have no hope and even believe that they will never see their loved one again, that they will never enjoy a more purified communion than they had here on earth. Truly, I fear that others do not fully understand that there is more to life, death and heaven than is purported.

Death is a curious thing. It is tragic, yet peaceful; sudden, yet expected--though it always seems premature. I will not take a stand for any single Christian religion or another--despite my personal belief that there is only one true, comprehensive church in the world--for that is not necessarily my purpose with this blog, but, at the same time, I must promote to some degree a sense of awareness that I believe will, if heeded, lead a man or woman to that religion of truth. For now, however, we should discuss what death is all about and what heaven entails.

Many religious doctrines agree that death came into this world through Adam and Eve when they partook of a forbidden fruit (a fruit that, if you study Jewish tradition, is well-known). The scriptures are silent as to the chemical interactions and specifics of what took place within those two to cause the transformation from an immortal to mortal state. Such silence is necessary due to the fact that if we knew what transpired, wicked men would cause to take place the reverse process in this day and thus destroy the days of repentance and testing; ultimately disrupting the merciful plan God has laid out for us--including the necessity of death.

Death is not what most think it is. If one first understands why it is that mankind has a yearning to seek Deity, i.e. a higher power, death is, in fact, very easy to comprehend and much easier to handle.

The first step in making sense of death is to understand that there was and is a spiritual life before mortal life. A strange concept true, but what seems to correlate fully with why conscious, decision-making, human beings know that there is a God without "scientific" evidence and which makes sense of a Satan--the being who opposes the forces of God and who was never able to make it to the mortal stage of life and thus hates and seeks the destruction of God's children who did so. Such doctrine makes clear sense when considering that God would not create something, i.e. the devil, simply to destroy His own creation, i.e. His children. The devil was created by his own choices and decision to oppose God pre-mortally.

It is this pre-mortal knowledge that allows one to first know why it is that mankind has an innate desire to know and worship Deity and second to consider there is a post-mortal sphere as well. In essence, because we knew Him then, we desire to know Him now. Scriptural promises confirm that the post-mortal sphere will exceed all other realms in joy, happiness, kindness and love. The reason being, those who live such mannerisms on earth, i.e. keep the commandments of God, will be allowed to live together post-mortem, and those who do not, will not. It's quite simple really. This post-mortal realm, however, is what is so terribly confused by religions the world over.

Saturday morning cartoons depict best the situation. Angels are portrayed as having wings, living in the clouds and playing harps. The question I have for whatever religion teaches that doctrine is; how on earth is that more enjoyable than being here on earth where I at least have some dominion over my surroundings and an opportunity to progress? It is so extremely doubtful that God would teach of a world better than this one and simply make us float in clouds and play harps all day. Indeed, that heaven is taughty by men only and has no merit.

A better world, the one spoken of by Christ, would consist of the family unit, make possible an eternal union of man and woman, make extinct the aspect of death, offer a richer, fuller and more mobile body of flesh and bone, greater dominion over one's surroundings and a greater consciousness of reality than the harp-playing, cloud-dwelling circumstance so poorly taught by who knows who.

Indeed, I believe in a viable heaven where men and women walk and talk, travel and converse, build and serve, toil and work, invent and manage, love and live! For if it is by work, struggle, obedience and duties that we perform in life that brings us joy, these things should exist on an even greater scale in the heavenly realm. God did not say this life would be easy, and he says life is not easy. What he does say is that if we take His yoke upon us, life will be easier and thus happier. In His presence then, wherein that yoke is even more accesible, the rewards of similar actions will be even more enjoyable, even heavenly.

Interestingly, for the atheist then, it only makes clearer sense that there is a devil, which means there must be a God, for man can only disbelieve a God if he is prompted by His adversary to believe there isn't one. Yes, there is a great war in heaven; a war being faught for our souls.

Finally, the doctrines and opinions of extremism should be bridled by once again meeting in the middle, the meridian. Middle ground would suggest the intuitive; that we lived with God before this life and due to the lack of a physical body, we needed to come here to be tested and tried on how we will handle a separable spirit and body; to see if we would obey what God teaches. If we do so, we have the opportunity to enjoy a fuller, richer experience after this life with a purified spirit and an inseparable, perfected body. That we all may strive to achieve such an accomplishment is my hope and prayer.

Famously Infamous and Other Moral Malfunctions

Now don't get me wrong, I love good movies and television, but what is it with producers and their blind followers (i.e. actors and actresses in addition to those that watch their product) that make them think it's okay to promote that which they try to condemn? The inconsistency of people's morals seems to suggest that double-mindedness rules the infamous land of Hollywood--"infamous!" you clamor, "Hollywood is nothing short of FAME and STARDOM." Well, I beg to differ. Hollywood is only as powerful as we permit.

Let's use an extreme example for instance, Jerry Springer. In a valiant attempt to promote non-judgmental tolerance and acceptance of all people (yeah right), Springer invites men and women to flaunt their worst behavior, be their most devilish self and act out the most undesirable of traits; yet ultimately what Springer is accomplishing is the promotion of stupid people--not just those on his stage, but viewers likewise. Is there a person who does not see right through Springer? Is his goal really to help people, or to help himself at the cost of others?

While we're at it, let's talk about another talk show host, Tyra Banks. Sadly, I sat and watched 3.5 minutes of one of her shows the other night and asked myself if she really thinks she's helping people. Here you have a woman who gropes other women, has posed 98.9% nude (something she applauds herself for, not for posing, but rather for being 1.1% away from posing nude), shows revealing clips that are barely edited and all the while she indirectly suggests that girls and women should live lives of virtue, honor and chastity. Reality check Tyra--if you're going to try and tell people not to do something, don't show the things you're trying to get them not to do--make sense?

Are the inconsistencies and the double-mindedness beginning to come to light? If not, here's some more.

It is true that there are satirical movies that purposely make light of situations. On the other hand, other producers attempt to teach to their audience a serious lesson. However, their ability to teach that lesson is bridled by the mistakes they make in filming people "acting" out that which they are trying to suggest should not be done. When it comes right down to it, just because actors are "acting out" immoral or violent behavior, does not mean they are not doing the same wrong thing that the producer is often times trying to suggest should not be done. True, this all sounds like a jumbled mess of rubbish--perhaps on purpose; I wouldn't want to make any sense of senseless filmmakers' stardom.

Praise to the Praise-less

Despite my, and our, tendency to continually notice the downfalls of others in the world, today I am compelled to give credit, praise and encouragement to the achievements of those who work diligently for little reward and largely go unnoticed.

I recently heard a joke of an achieving salesman who sold two milking machines to a farmer with one cow--and then he took the cow as a down payment. Is there any greater achievement in salesmanship?

We often view a large monetary gain by a man or woman as a noteable achievement--at times with no comment on how the money was gained. However, I would like to thank those who strive daily and perform regularly for less to no monetary gain for doing what you do unselfishly. To you should be given the credit for making America, and every other country, great. To you should be given the credit for making neighborhoods, classrooms, policies, cities and states productive and successful. Indeed, to you should be given the title of high-class citizen no matter what economists or sociologists suggest.

With a heart of humility I say thank you for who you are and what you represent. Far too often the results of your work seem worthless and are not implemented. But someday, somehow, your efforts will make the world a satisfactory place.

To Marry or Not To Marry--Is That Really A Question?

With all the news about Warren Jeffs lately, in addition to a comment in the news by Hugh Hefner concerning his relationship with Holly Madison and company, and the acrobatics surrounding Britney Spears, my mind has turned, on several occasions, to pondering the . . . stupidity (for lack of a more appropriate word) of Americans. Now, I believe that the polygamist circumstances Warren Jeffs has formulated in Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah is abusive, wrong and illegal. However, is there something worse in the near-comical, sex-centric, non-committal attitudes of American "monogamists" these days?

Hugh Hefner considers himself a monogamist (despite living with three women--go figure). Hefner, along with his counterparts, may very well fit the definition of a novelistic, back-stabbing leech. He has dedicated his lifetime to devaluing women (no, there is nothing glorious or right in selling your chastity for a monetary price--for a valuable woman is worth more than gold), opening wide the path that leads to adultery, promoting addiction to pornography and taking advantage of "the little guy;" all at the expense of ill-spent finances, lost marriages, abusive acts, misguided people, less-than-desirable expectations and never-ending tragedy. He stealthily sends images of women into the minds of vulnerable youth. He is a sophisticated sleaze bucket, proverbially disguised in sheep's clothing. If he were to hear these things, would he care? Of course not. At present, it is generally accepted that every Hollywoodian and their counterpart has a naysayer who they can choose to ignore by taking advantage of their freedom of speech as a shield of justification for subversion and, more specifically, a man overcome by money knows no remorse.

What does that have to do with Warren Jeffs? Well, when it comes to polygamy, there is a sense of disgust with a man who would sleep with several women--heaven forbid Hefner, and myriads of other men, sleep with more than one woman!--and true, the problems with polygamy escalate when young women/children are involved. Notwithstanding, in the case of adulthood, here's the dilemma: since when did a marital contract (in essence, a piece of paper) determine that though a man be bound contractually--or, in Hefner's case non-contractually "committed"--to one woman, he can inconsequentially live with several more and proclaim to be a monogamist? Will the day arrive when the other women in such a man's life be given life insurance and health coverage as would be the case in a polygamist relationship? Sure it will--in fact that day is already here. If you're as astute as Hefner, simply start a business and insure the women in your life under the business name without claiming any obligation to them emotionally. Is he smart or is the court system simply superficially inconsistent (see my previous post)? Either way, Hefner's attempt to escape the titles of Polygamist and Adulterer is hypocritical at best.

Such sophistry of men has sadly trickled into the lives of what would otherwise be successful individuals--such as Britney Spears. Perceptions are skewed, market of moral values is having a 70% off sale and many continue to find themselves dissatisfied with the ones they "used to" love. It seems that there is a massive misunderstanding when it comes to what marriage entails. Though governments may allow people living together to become this or that, one thing remains--no matter how you display or portray it, marriage is the only bond that defines a true man or woman willing to work to love one another. Alas, as we continue to condone the actions of pitiful, non-committal men and gutless women to counteract, globally and nationally, we will continue to see men and women hold at arm's length the commitment of a lifetime--marriage. In the end, persons avoiding that commitment will continue to shrivel into their cave of self-gratification and low-class acceptance of their failure to become loving men and women.

Ultimately, would you rather rub shoulders with a polygamist man who has the decency to keep promises, offer commitment and work through the hard times as opposed to a man who marries one woman with the intent to hoard more for personal gratification and perhaps leverage? I'll stick to the middle, the Meridian if you will, and remain married to one woman, my dream come true, and courageously practice fidelity to her forever.

Freedom vs. Freedom-less

I read the headlines this morning of another judicial decision that goes against all rational, obvious, intuitive reasoning. Is anybody else bothered by the seemingly endless juvenility of decisions by some judges and juries? What is it that makes the court system able to put Martha Stewart in jail for several months (no, I am not suggesting she should not have gone to jail) while allowing a person who has committed a much more severe crime than she to go to jail for only days? Take for example the murderer who is released on grounds of one piece of evidence out of nine having been improperly analyzed (an extreme example). Though eight items of evidence affirm he or she is guilty, the one piece of evidence may allow a killer to walk the streets, unchanged, once again--depending on the variable of who is the judge and who makes up the jury. In such circumstances, does rational human thinking have anything to do with the decisions made in courts of law, or do we allow the "evidence" only to speak without regard to the fact that "evidence" is mostly an inanimate, passionless object? I think much of the seemingly erroneous court decisions have to do with the people's perception of what freedom actually entails. Subsequently, it seems many far too often suffer from allowing themselves to become so open-minded, their brains fall out. Once again, moderation, i.e. the Meridian, would seem to result in a fair, rational decision to be made .

I was riding the bus some years ago and listened to a young man tell his story of smoking illegal substances on the lawn of the capitol building. He told the police officer that confronted him that he was only pursuing his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The police officer then left him alone. Is that the most ridiculous thing in the world, or is it just me? Oh, I know, those who entertain such actions will only disagree with me, but we have to look at what history has taught us.

Activist groups use every and any method possible to fight the current war in Iraq in an effort to avenge and save the lives lost. Do they, however, consider the number of lives lost due to the lack of corralling the use of alcohol consumption in America and, perhaps, in their own lives? Why are we not fighting a war against drunk driving--a potentially homicidal act condoned and even promoted on various levels? The reality of freedom is, there is no freedom without boundaries set in place. Subsequently, it is difficult for courts of law to have firm, fair and consistent trials because the definition of freedom is severely misunderstood. Thus, freedom has more to do with restrictions than it does with being able to do whatever one desires.

For instance, how does one define freedom of speech? Is it giving the option to a still malleable high school student to take part in illegal, harmful acts in the name of free speech? Without any corralling, how can a young one have any direction in life? A street light may offer some understanding. When we obey the laws of street lights, we are out of harm's way--avoiding accidents and injury. Our freedom, then, to live and continue to drive offers us further existence. Thus, when controls and guidance are in place, the doors of freedom open wide saving us from putatively dangerous paths.

Alas, too many parents, too many lawyers and judges, too many intellectuals, too much of misunderstanding, hatred and selfishness drive the work of the world wayward. Perhaps the future will slap us across the head and reveal to us the stupidity of what is now considered the greatest intellectual era of human history, even the present. Ultimately, when unrestricted, mankind is destined to become freedom-less.