Normally, I like to use this space to write something thought provoking or at least funny. However, since Labor Day is coming upon us and Summer is drawing to a close, I just don't feel like it.
It isn't that there aren't plenty of issues from which to choose. Recently, I read an article about the 10 Commandments controversy that was very informative. It is here.
There is quite a bit of information listed that you won't get from the mainstream media. (As Usual)
I supported the war in Iraq. I still support the war in Iraq. Not only that, but I support the President. I even voted for him. I think then that I've earned a certain amount of objectivity in criticizing the way things are going in Iraq at the present time.
It seems that each day, there are reports of more US Soldiers killed in action. While it's true that everyone knew there would be casualties, that doesn't mean we want the casualties to continue a second longer than is absolutely necessary. It's the "...absolutely necessary..." part that is bothering me.
The administration insists that we don't need any more troops, but I'm not so sure. Granted, I'm not privy to the information the Secretary of Defense possesses. However, I do have some observations about the war in general. At the very least, there are some things that should be done differently.
Those are my observations. As a supporter of both the war and the President, I'd really like to see things turn around. Unfortunately, things seem to be taking a while and I wonder if someone ought to be doing something a little bit differently.
A recent report by the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism notes that most terrorist attacks by militant islamic groups occur on a Tuesday. Supposedly this is an important and sacred day for muslims.
I would like to point out, for what it's worth, that the recent attack on the UN Compound in Baghdad seems to continue this pattern. If you are responsible for guarding someplace like the UN Compound in Baghdad, Tuesday might be a really good day to be extra alert.
I finished reading Michael Durant's excellent book,
In the Company of Heroes, a few months ago, but I'm still thinking about it. Toward the end of the book he tells about attending a ceremony to honor Gary Gordon in his hometown of Lincoln, Maine. He was a medal of honor winner who died trying to rescue Durant and his helicopter crew. Durant was in Gordon's hometown prior to the ceremony. With some extra time on his hands he decided to go to the local library and look up a book describing previous medal of honor winners. By looking at the card inside the cover he could tell the book hadn't been checked out for many years. The last person to have checked it out was none other than Gary Gordon many years previously.
The concept of Destiny looms big in our history as a nation and seems to play a role in our invididual lives as well. Gary Gordon probably didn't think he was destined to receive the medal of honor, but in retrospect it seems that he was. Destiny is thought of as a predetermined course of history or events. If our future is indeed set out for us in advance, what is there left for us to do but read our lines as if we are cast in a theatrical production?
In the 1840's the term Manifest Destiny became a part of our national folklore. It embodied our desire as a nation to occupy the entire continent from the Atlantic to Pacific Oceans. Manifest Destiny suggests that we are pre-ordained for certain things, but we also must take some action to seem them come to fulfillment.
Manifest Destiny came to be used as a justification for seemingly endless expansion for a young nation. The concept has since come to be synonomous to some as representative of "American Colonialism". Despite the fact that this term has taken on negative connotations for some, the concept itself is still viable.
The Puritans who first settled this country saw the hand of God at work in their establishment of a free land, "God hath opened this passage unto us, and led us by the hand unto this work." (Alexander Whittaker in 1613) They realized that God would provide but that they would also have to act.
The problem with Manifest Destiny is that it assumes we know the divine will of God. In a general sense, I believe we do. But as a specific calling it seems a little more difficult to determine. Certainly, our sense of destiny should never be used to enslave or victimize other people. If we believe the God has a specific plan for our lives and for our country, shouldn't we seek then to determine that plan and then take whatever action is necessary to realize it? This question lies at the heart of Manifest Destiny.
Within the framework of certain inviolable principles, Manifest Destiny gives us a powerful tool for achieving success from both a divine and human perspective. Perhaps, it is the need for a certain moral code (or framework) that is behind the recent controversy over the Ten Commandments. Perhaps a close examination of our history as a nation will help the courts come up with a wise ruling.
I just received a letter from my good friend in Washington, Congressman Tom Delay. It begins like this,
"In the aftermath of US forces liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, we must continue..."
The letter goes on to inform me that I am among a select group of Americans receiving the National Public Opinion Packet. The leaders of our great country are asking for my opinion for a "Survey on America's Future".
The letter goes on. It goes on and on for four pages. This Tom Delay guy must give some long speeches because it seems like he has a lot to say. Finally, at the end of the letter he says he wants me to return my completed survey and contribution.
I'm pretty disappointed. I thought these Republicans had their finger on the pulse of America, or at least my pulse. I thought they were honestly searching for direction on critical issues. Now, I discover they're just after my money!
There's nothing wrong with fundraising and every campaign needs plenty of money to succeed, but I still find it a little discouraging. What if the letter had been a genuine plea for my opinion? It would've been a refreshing change from what we usually see in politics. I don't suppose the Democrats are interested in my opinion either.
Don't get me wrong. I support GWB just as much as any Neocon, but I'm a little offended by this type of fundraising. If you're going to ask for my money - then ask, but don't hide behind some phoney baloney survey to do it.
I wonder how much it would cost me to get to meet GWB and spend a night in the Lincoln Bedroom? Do you think my good buddy Tom Delay would be willing to arrange it?
If you haven't read the entry titled Brand X you should probably do so before reading the rest of this entry.
In the Episcopal church, the battle over homosexual clergy is only a symptom of the full-scale war going on in that denomination and in many others. Rather than split from the church to form their own denomination, those who feel the church ought to approve of homosexuality, are fighting within the church. They want the Church to officially approve of their views despite thousands of years of doctrine to the contrary. Why?
In my opinion, the reason for this is clear; Their true agenda is not to receive official approval for homosexual clergy, but to dramatically alter the core doctrine of the church. Those who view the Bible as the inerrant and inspired word of God stand in direct contrast to those who believe that the will of the majority, as embodied in changing cultural values, should have the final word. The latter see the church, indeed they see the very nature of right and wrong itself, as relative. They believe the church should "evolve" along with society and are, therefore, determined to see changes take place. The issue of homosexuality and it's place in the church is only one of many changes they are pursuing. They refuse to acknowledge the role of The Bible is any substantial way without distorting it through various "interpretations".
In The Miami Herald, Bishop M. Thomas Shaw of Massachusetts is quoted as commenting on the election of a homosexual clergy as "as evidence that the Episcopal Church was 'open to the movement of the Spirit,' and predicted that its openness to homosexuals would prove a 'wonderful evangelistic tool to strengthen the life of the church.'" How this Bishop could claim that diluting the very core of his church's beliefs would be beneficial is beyond my understanding, but he isn't alone in this sentiment. Bishop James L. Jelinek of Minnesota was also quoted in the Miami Herald article as saying, "None of us have any differences over God's love, where we have difficulty is over what it means to be human." Neither of these bishops mentioned the role of doctrine in the church but instead preferred to see it in very human and as a result, relative, terms.
The struggle here is a reflection of the hidden civil war currently raging in American culture. It is a result of the war between the Secularists and Traditional Religion. Those who would seek the church's blessing on homosexual activity are determined to challenge the status of scripture in determining morality. Unless they change traditional religion itself they are destined to become one of many inconsequential splinter groups that have existed throughout the history of the church. The Rev. Canon James D. Shoucair of Pittsburgh stated "I don't think there's any real question that this (Robinson's election) is a departure from the historic doctrine and theology of the witness of Scripture as it's been interpreted for 2,000 years."
This struggle within the Episcopal denomination has vast implications for our society. Without a consensus on the nature of right and wrong and without any objective means to come to that consensus, then any passing fad may become the model of how we "should" live our lives. Those who view the Holy Scriptures as the determinant of right and wrong should be concerned. At any time, our society may decide that those beliefs are not only immoral but also illegal.
The current struggle also has implications for other religious denominations. The Brand X anymore.
With all of the events in the news lately I've been thinking about a hypothetical company that I'll call Brand X. Brand X has been producing a mythical product which I'll call Widgets, for perhaps 100 years. During that period, they've established branch offices all over the world. They're a very successful company.
One of the reasons for their success is that they have very high standards. Each branch of the company has very rigorous procedures it must follow. These procedures are time-tested and proven to work so it is of utmost importance that the branch companies follow them.
Lately, though, some of the branch offices have stopped following the procedures defined by the Main Office. A manager of the most egregious branch has been called into the office for a conference with the CEO. What follows is an excerpt from a transcript of their meeting:
CEO: I hear that your branch has refused to follow some of our time-tested procedures. Is that true?
Manager: Yes, it's true. In fact, some of the procedures that the company deems most crucial have been abandoned.
CEO: We've had complaints from customers. They say they go to Brand X because they are assured of the consistent quality of our product and discover that it isn't as we claim in our advertisements.
Manager: Yes, I've heard of those complaints.
CEO: Well, does your new procedure produce quality results?
Manager: No, not as far as any objective criteria. Mostly we just decided to do our own thing because it felt less cumbersome and more inclusive than the past procedures.
CEO: But we're not supposed to be inclusive here... we have the very best product so we want to be exclusive. If we make our product just like everyone else then we'll lose business.
Manager: I know. Not only do I want you to overlook the potential quality control issues but I'd like the rest of the company to sanction them as the "best way to do things".
CEO: Why don't you just form your own company?
Manager: We don't want to have to go through all that work. Besides, Brand X has great name recognition.
CEO: So you want to break our rules and then you want us to give you our blessing even though we know that you're breaking from a proven, time-tested way of doing things.
Manager: Yes.
You might have figured out by now that my little allegory refers to the Episcopal Church and attempts by some of their members and clergy to radically alter church doctrine and practice. Of course, my allegory doesn't take morality into account or even the correctness of a certain doctrine.
I'm confused as to why anyone would want to radically alter the doctrine of a religious denomination rather than just establishing their own along with people of like beliefs. I think I know that answer to that, but I'll wait until a later post to discuss that topic.
Someone once said "Every man has his price" and I suppose that's true. I know it's true for me, but in a weird sort of backwards way. It isn't large sums of money that tempt me. I don't play the lottery and I've come to realize that money just isn't my main motivator. It's free stuff that really gets me.
In my real-life job I end up with sales people trying to contact me on an annoyingly frequent basis. They practically beg for my time, but do they ever offer free stuff? What they don't realize is that I'm a sucker for trinkets, tchotchkes, freebies, whatever you want to call them.
Recently, I made a momentous decision. I decided not to renew my subscription to Wired. Considering the fact that I've got about 5 years worth of issues stashed away in the garage, this was indeed a big decision. The reason? Well, I just didn't feel like a valued customer anymore. Maybe it was the fact that they forgot to send me an issue over the past year or it could be the fact that the issues arrive so late that I've already seen them at the newsstand before they come to my house. Or maybe it was the lack of free gifts. I see plenty of offers for free stuff to new subscribers, but what about me? I've been a loyal subscriber for a long time now. Shouldn't I get something?
I just subscribed, for the first time, to World and I'm happy to report that I received a free book Let Freedom Ring by Sean Hannity. Fortunately, I draw the line at some things. For example, The Weekly Standard was offering tote bags. Okay, I guess I'm not that desperate for free stuff. I still get the magazine but they can give my tote bag to someone else. Next year, maybe Wired will give away something to "new" subscribers. If it isn't a tote bag, they might just have me back. Until then, I'm shopping around.