The World Doesn't Know How to Not Grow Up

     Today I make my [triumphant?] return to the blogging world!  I've been thinking about this one for a while now, so I hope everyone likes it.

     Not to long ago, as I rode in the car, I was introduced to new song by Avril Lavigne called "Here's to Never Growing Up."  This song helped to open my eyes to a topic that lies at the heart of many of the problems of the world today.  You see, in the chorus, miss Lavigne sings an anthem of:

  

           We'll be running down the street, yelling "Kiss my %#$!"

          I'm like yeah whatever, we're still living like that.
          When the sun's going down, we'll be raising our cups,
          Singing, here's to never growing up.

To me, this is a really narrow and infantile view of what it means to never grow up.  To me this is a disgraceful twisting of an idea that holds so much beauty.  

Never Growing Up

     Certainly, I can agree with miss Lavigne that to be irresponsible, careless, and disrespectful is very immature, I part with her in the desirability of this.  We can all know that kids are definitely this way at times, but we can also know that there is a certain magic about being a child and seeing the world through the eyes of a child--magic that is not found in drinking all night and partying all day.  In fact, I might posit that rather than desiring to retain that magic, miss Lavigne rather does not want to have to be an adult.  

     This is an epidemic in US society, for Avril Lavigne is not alone in this mindset.  Everywhere I see the pathetic man-children that movies so love to portray.  I see the kind of people that never learned to work with others because of their own arrogance.  People that refuse to be adults and instead go to their chosen security blanket, be it drinking, video games, TV, drugs, or any other of the plethora of things that we run to to distract us.  We see the effects of immature adults everywhere: in the failing of families, in the half-witted political fights on Facebook, and in the way we treat the symptoms rather than the actual problems of society.  Then there are others who have resigned themselves to the "ways of the world."  

     Equally responsible for the state of the world, those who have given up on changing the world.  These people look back on the "good ol' days" and spend their time hoping the world might eventually go back to what it once was.  Maybe in their past they made genuine change, or at least strove for it, but now they separate themselves from the world that they once tried to save.  They watch with a passionless look of disinterest as the world tears itself apart in its own ignorance of its peril.  These people wait for the embrace of death to part them from their problems.

Learning to Fly

      Now comes the part where I use a movie to communicate a point.  This time, the movie is Hook.  Note: maybe some minor spoilers ahead, but nothing you wouldn't be able to predict from seeing the movie's trailer.  Hook is the story of Peter Pan after he left Neverland.  Having lived in the normal world for a while now, he's grown older and started his own family.  We come in on a Peter that has forgotten what is important in life.  He ignores his kids and wife and spends all his time at work.  Peter too has gone to the comfortable embrace of his own security blanket: work.  Over the course of his adventure to save his kids, Peter realizes that he has lost track of what is important in life and that he has grown up in the wrong way.

     

     Many of us, like Peter, have chosen to grow up in the wrong way--we're doing adult-y things but we're not handling them responsibly or taking the time to understand them.  We have been harmed by the world, so we choose to ignore it.  The problems around us seem insurmountable, so we run from them to find easier problems.  We given in to the idea that life is just a big, monotonous cycle to be squeezed of all the personal enjoyment as much as possible.  The world nor the people in it are not magical in our eyes.  They are husks the same as us, waiting for time to pass us by.  

     So when I say I never want to grow up it is this: I never want to lose the imagination of a child.  The excitement of a child when he sees what a beautiful and awesome world we live in.  The passion of a child when he sees something he wants to stand up for.  I never want to stand down and let the evil present in this world run me down.  I want to look out over a crowd of people and see individuals, each with their own life and personality and reason for breathing another day.  I want to stare down the problems the world throws at me and combat them with my dying breath.  This is what I mean by never growing up.  May the magic never leave your eyes.  

Backseat Tyrants

     The title of today's blog is not the name of a new punk band (to my knowledge, anyway).  Sorry for the disappointment.  Today I address the Facebook loudmouths who call for the impeachment of Obama.  Today I address those who call for the downfall of the "tyranny of government."  Today I address those who refuse to learn or consider things from a different perspective.  (Also, I realize this is a Sunday-ish blog, but it is not centered around a faith topic today--sorry to the none of you who are disappointed!) 

The Burden of Leadership

     Most of those who have never held true power in their hands have no idea what it means to be in leadership.  Even the most abusive of leaders can hold that power complicates matters, and the more power, the more complication.  Not all of mankind are quipped to be leaders of men--especially leaders of many men.  No matter what you have to say about politicians, there is a very real reason that they hold a position of authority.  Those of you who are convinced that politicians sit around in an office all day, playing solitaire on their computers, and accomplishing nothing in general hold wildly incorrect views of government.  These are men and women who work nearly all their waking hours.  If they are not catching up on new bills, they are meeting in committees or working on forwarding their own policies or coordinating with the press or interacting with messages from their constituents or a million other responsibilities they find sitting on their desk bright and early the next morning.  Power is not fun and those that have fun with power often find they truly have none.

     Observe with me the case of a class assignment: the teacher assigns each student into a group of five to complete a large assignment.  In the majority of cases, each group will find itself being led by a reluctant leader--increasingly more reluctant if the task requires each member to be assigned a specific task.  You see, no one likes to be the one to make people do things they don't want to do.  No one wants to have that extra responsibility of keeping track of the others' progress.  A true leader with real power performs many extra tasks upon the normal work load and has the added heat of being the scapegoat everyone points to when something goes wrong.

     True, some have the natural ability of leadership, but they too do not always enjoy the mantle of power.  So many times I have heard people complaining about how they were tired of being the leader.  In the adult world, though, leaders are not often given the choice of leadership in their jobs.  It is lead or leave.  And so we find ill-equipped leaders falling by the wayside, burned out by the constant uphill climb that power brings.  Not all are set aside for the task of leadership.

The Backseat Tyrant

     We all are familiar with the tendency of people to yell at their TV during sporting events, directing their heated (and useless) comments at the straw man coaches.  It is both a ridiculous stereotype and an annoying reality.  It is also a symptom of ignorance.  All of these screen-scolders have never had time coaching professional sports (I feel comfortable in this assessment--quite comfortable), but assume themselves to be qualified to correct those who hold arguably the highest positions in their field (pun unintended--but welcomed).  You might compare these situations to someone who has flown a plane on a video game attempting to instruct an air force ace on the basics of flight.

     Take these examples to the realm of politics.  A disappointingly small number of people have some manner of knowledge of how government works.  My Facebook feed is a near-constant source of humor as nearly every one of my "friends" attempt some sort of political commentary.  Various calls to "impeach the president" have lost their humor for me and become a source of disappointment and frustration--seriously people, learn the vocab!  You mean "recall!"  Nearly every American presumes to know how the government should be run and yet we still have problems.  Funny how such a vast source of reasonable knowledge fails to conjure up the solution to the problems of the U.S. government (sarcasm, for those of you who don't know me too well).  Feel foolish for a moment before saying something, that you might save yourself some foolishness in front of others. And remember: those people you seek to correct likely know what they're doing.

The Squirming Underling

     It is uncomfortable to be led, especially when the groups being governed are vast numbers of people.  Not everyone agrees.  In fact, few people agree with me.  And so I often find myself in a minority--on the losing side of majority politics.  No decision will ever be thought of as a good by everyone.  When leading thousands, you make a hundred enemies with every word you speak.  No one wants to be on the losing side; no one wants to be set aside for the satisfaction of the majority.  In group-voting situations amongst small groups of twenty or so, I feel myself getting angry with those that vote differently than me.  Why should they agree with anything but my own opinion?  While I leave as the losing side, I can respect a system that aims to satisfy its constituents.  

     In the same way, I can appreciate the decisions of the leaders who are positioned in government.  In consideration of a million different variables, these men and women have to find solutions to problems that have none.  While I may not always agree with the decisions of these men and women, my first response is not to go crying on the internet.  Sometimes I just have to consider the fact that they know something that I don't; that they have wisdom that I do not; that they are a heck of a lot smarter than I am, especially when it comes to politics.  At the end of the day, I have the ability to have my say in government and Facebook is not it.  If I am unhappy I can tell someone who can do something about it.  If I want someone else to lead me, I can vote and campaign for them.  There are a millions ways of having your say in government, if you have the will to speak up.

      All of this is to say, "Shut up and think," and "Don't like it?  DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT."  The world will not change just because you had a hissy-fit on Facebook.  Also, if you want to be a part of the solution rather than another complainer who does nothing for the betterment of the world, you should aim to learn about what you want to fix.  If you refuse to learn, shut up.  Seriously.        

First-World Christianity

     Having worked in a variety of different work situations, I have had a lot of insight as to the work ethic of the average person.  There are almost always going to be those who slack on the job and fail to invest any amount of effort into their work.  Enter what I'm calling the First-World Christian: he is an excellent student of the Word, likely a leader in the Church in some capacity, probably leads his own Bible study, and in general looks like a so-called "super-Christian."  At his regular job, though, we see a different person.  He grows impatient with the menial tasks given to him and likely considers his job to be below him.  He claims to think it is a misuse of time that might be better spent studying the Word or sharing the Gospel or doing other things "real Christians" should be doing.  Though he works with non-Christians in his work place, they likely have been placed under the category of "Not My Problem" or "Unreachable."  To the First-World Christian, the work of God is done pure through the work of the functions of the Church.  

A Weak Showing

     I am constantly baffled by those that surround me in the workplace.  Now, this is not to say that all those with whom I work are slackers, but there are several individuals who show their true colors in shoddy workmanship and spotty attendance.  Now, especially in this generation, it is not uncommon for people to be bad workers, but what irritates me the most is when those lazy workers claim to be empowered by the God of the universe.  How dare you claim to be strengthened by God, when you shrug off the slightest of burdens before they even have time to settle on your shoulders?  Surely the God who, on countless occasions, used the weakest of a group to perform the greatest of tasks.  Was not Gideon, the mighty warrior of God, considered to be the weakest of the weak?  

     These workers who openly declare Christ do far more damage to the visible image of God (Christians) than they can ever remedy through the work of the Church.  In emphasizing their work in the Church, they have neglected their role in loving and ministering to the world.  

Work as a Mission

     As Christians working in the world alongside those who do not share our beliefs, we hold a considerable amount of power in how they view Christ.  Those non-Christians who commonly rub shoulders with First-World Christians understandably view Christians as sanctimonious and arrogant.  Those who work with Christians who are constantly a benefit to their workplace either have a good view of Christians or at least have nothing bad to say about them.  Do we not have such a great opportunity to witness to others in the good work we do and the care we show in our actions?  I took on a class called Theology of Work and the theme that was underlying in every single message was this: there is no sacred/secular dichotomy.  Meaning the work we do for the Church directly is no more holy or ordained than the work we do for McDonalds.  So long as we are working for the right purpose, we are working in the service of the Lord.  "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31).

      So, Christians, I beg of you: treat your work like God commanded you to do it.  Don't forget about it and skip it in favor of churchy things, because that is not what God wants.  God commands us to work and to work well.  So go out and make a good impression.  Go out and save a life.               

You Are the Fire of God

     There always seems to be an unstated question (or often actually stated) in regards to reading the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and looking at the world today.  This question is, why doesn't God bring down a pillar of fire for all to see like He did for Elijah?  Why doesn't God send plagues of grand proportion to nations that displease Him as He did with Egypt?  Why does God not act in such visible ways as to inspire His followers into acts of admirable courage and devotion?  

The Way it Used to Be

     There is a bit of mistake in thinking that God acted constantly and always visibly "back then."  In fact, most of the big miracles God performs are separated by hundreds of years.  A worldwide flood, splitting rivers, and fire falling from heaven did not all happen within the lifetime of a single man.  The Israelites sometimes passed through several generations before another big miracle happened.  Just as we sometimes feel alone and abandoned by God today, so often did the Israelites--and often they were in much more dire situations.  The fact is that often enough people were able to reason in their own minds His absence from or His ambivalence towards the world.  They too did not always recognize the actions of God in the world.

Is God Really Working?

     The reason we often do not see the work of God as plain and obvious is because we look for that fire in the sky.  However, in searching for these signs, we will always be disappointed.  It seems that instead God prefers to work through people.  Instead of sending down a bolt of lightning to scare someone into belief, He sends a person to communicate with another.  He sets people in our path that we have the opportunity to aid or to learn from.  He sends people to give us hope and He sends them to give us direction.  God loves more than anything to work through us to accomplish His will.  He sends us to be His hands and feet in the world.  Not because He is incapable of acting (He could easily accomplish what He wanted to Himself, like when He struck down more enemies in a battle than the Israelites did ... using hailstones) but because He loves to work though us.  We are the fire that God sends to the earth--the fire that compels others to believe in Him and serve Him.  

Being the Fire

     So what does this mean?  This means we work to be the salt and light of the world.  Interact with others.  Help where you can and learn where you can't.  Don't be so set in your ways as to ignore wisdom when it is set before you.  Pray.  Read the Word daily.  Be a follower of Christ.  Christ lit the world on fire with His actions.  We should aim to do the same.

Make of "The Man"

     As I missed my last two posting dates (I was out of town, apologies), I figured I might pick up with the same theme of "The Man" for this post.  I believe this will be my last blog on this topic.  For now at least.

     

Watson - "People don't have arch-enemies."

Sherlock - "What?"

W - "In real life.  People don't have arch-enemies."

S - "That sounds a bit dull.  So what do people have in their real lives?"

W - "Friends, people they like, people they don't like, boyfriends, girlfriends ..."

 S - "Like I said, dull."

     I wanted to start with this bit of conversation from the BBC show Sherlock (which I highly recommend if you have not seen it yet).  This quote relates a lot to our topic of today.  Now, I would have to place myself somewhat in disagreement with Dr. Watson in his claim, but I will explain later that I also agree with him in a manner. 

An Enemy to Oppose

     In life, we all strive to find meaning.  Some people find meaning in their work, some in their faith, some in adventure, some in their relationships, and there are a million other ways that people find meaning.  The most simple way of finding meaning in one's life, however, is in adversity.  

     Just think: how easy is it to be the defender of something you love?  How quickly do you jump to the defense of those things you invest your time into at the slightest inkling of attack?  To be the defender of a cause makes one important, if only in their mind.  The cause might seem menial and worthless to one but to another it is a cause to die for.  Those that rush to the defense of a cause often make a caricature of their enemy.  They become twisted picture of all the things that are evil in the world.  Sometimes they are a single person or, more often, they take the shape of an organization or group.  

     Some go as far as to take it personally.  This self-made antagonist to their life story exists for the destruction of them, the hero of the tale.  And like Don Quixote they sally forth from their home to engage in mortal combat against an enemy like whom the world has never known.  In finding a cause to defend, people find an enemy to oppose and a meaning to their brief existence.

An Imaginary Mantle

     How often are specific people displayed under a single light in the world of the media?  Almost always a single source will apply a few strong traits to the characters they display for the simplicity of their information.  In a similar way, we tend to only apply a few traits to those that we have little access to.  For example, an increasing number of people apply simply "dumb" to their image of President Obama.  Now, these traits we apply to people may be true or not (as it is in this case - few dullards make it far in the realm of politics).  It seems somewhat ironic, though, that often people will characterize their personal arch-nemesis as lesser than themselves though they will ultimately fail their quest as it was impossible from the start.  The Obama that most criticize holds no position in reality.  He simply does not exist.  And thus we find most people living their lives fighting phantoms.  They swing their swords at enemies that exist only in their mind while others look on like they are crazy or foolish.  As we discussed in my previous blog, those that we place as our enemies rarely deserve the hatred directed towards them.

     And here I want to leave you to question those empty causes you might champion.  While it is healthy and good to have those things that you enjoy and stand up for, do not do so at the cost of another.  This is the problem that we face in the US: we stand ready to die for every last menial cause while those causes that matter find themselves without the necessary defenders.  Go and find meaning in your life, but make that meaning have meaning.

Morality of "The Man"

     In continuing with our theme of "The Man" this week, I want to look at "The Man" and his status as an evil figure in one's life.  Let us first look at some common (and popular) manifestations of "The Man:"

 - The government is definitely one of them today.  As an entity that has so much influence over the lives of so many individuals, it is bound to viewed in an unfavorable light by at least a few.  Often this "Man" gets people down by taxing the people, outlawing different things or activities, and exerting its power.

 - Corporations get a big hit on being "The Man" as anyone who has attained such wealth and power privately is bound to gain the ire of more than a few individuals, even those with the morality of saints.  Corporations get people down by "stealing" peoples' money, bullying other businesses, and corrupting the government.

 - I feel the police have a special place in being "The Man" even beyond their government position, because they so often are the face of the government to the people.

 - Your boss likely is a version of "The Man" in your own life.

 - Teachers are "The Man" in the lives of kids.

The list could go on and on, because it is inhabited by anyone who might hold a position of authority over someone else.  

     Now look at the practices of these groups that earn them the disfavor of those under them.  As we discussed in my last blog, the source of this comes from the desire of the individual to have control over their own fate.  The instant someone steps in and says, "you can't do that," suddenly that action becomes a whole lot more important to that individual.  I wonder how important marijuana might be had it never been controlled.  I wonder how big a part of life drinking might be to teens were there no legal limit to the drinking age.  People so often flock to those things that they cannot do they forget the long list of comforts they are afforded by the absence of those few.  "The Man" is the one who says, "no."

     Now, there are a variety of reasons this particular individual in power chooses to exercise power over another.  Maybe they are really evil tyrants out to ruin the days of all they hold authority over.  Maybe they do have some selfish motivation to hold another down for their own advancement.  But maybe they also have a good set of reasons for their actions.  Maybe they even have that denied individual's best interests in mind.  

      I don't want to say that all those in power are benevolent.  But I do want to point out that they, like you, are fallible humans.  They are not villains like those in cartoons out to ruin the day of another for no other reason than the please of it.  "The Man" might be a man or a woman who has a lot of legitimate concerns regarding the position they hold and the responsibilities they bear.  Do you ever stop to consider your own place as "The Man" in the life of another?

     The purpose of this blog was to get you thinking about who those individuals are in our lives that we do not give a fair amount of humanity to.  We all like to place an arch-nemesis in our lives to give purpose to our actions and to add motivation to our roles, but this isn't fair to do.  We could be missing out on a tremendous amount of growth.  We could be missing out on great opportunities.  We might even be missing out on a great friendship.

God and "The Man"

      It seems, should we regard the opinions of man (at some point in their lifetime), that “The Man” has been “getting us down” long before the rise of corporate America.  Since the dawn of mankind, there has always been someone to push humans from one place to another they do not desire to be.  The very first "Man" was in fact God.

     When mankind was placed on the earth, Adam and Eve were given free reign over the entire planet, including all the animals, plants, and lands.  The only thing they were denied was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.  We all know the ending of this particular story, though.  Almost everything was not enough for them.  Having control over that minuscule portion of their life was too much to bear.  And so they sought for control over every inch of their life--losing control of everything in this one act of attempted independence.  

     As Christians today, we are asked to willingly surrender control of our lives to God--something that goes against our very nature.  Man likes to be in charge of his own destiny.  Why else would there be such a high amount of debate concerning "free will" or "free choice" of man amongst religious circles?  I know personally that I like to have control over things.  In some situations I may opt to do something entirely myself to ensure it gets done the way I want it to be done.  I think the best illustration for this blog comes from camp last year.

     I was working with some friends at a camp as the worship band for the week.  It is a great job that has us playing music and hanging out with the kids.  This particular year, I got "encouraged" into going off of a thing they call the "big swing."  Basically, it has you suspended by two wires connected to two tall poles and the person is hoisted up and dropped to swing back and forth until gravity wins out against momentum.  The pertinent part of this story, however, was when I found myself suspended in the air (at this point only a couple feet high) without any power over where I wanted to be.  I squirmed around in an attempt to get where I wanted to be.  I looked helplessly at the ground--a forgotten friend that once allowed me to exert my own will over my position.  My panic only rose as the ground became a more distant sight.  Suddenly the thirty feet between me and my own will seemed to be a gaping chasm.  When it all was over I found assuredness and confidence in standing on two feet.  

     The purpose of this story is that I couldn't bear the idea of not having control over something as little as my own motion.  How much more am I resistant to the idea of surrendering my life to God?  We in America pride ourselves at having the ability to do anything and be anything we want to be, but that's not what being a follower of Christ is about.  Maybe I want to be a rock star, but God has called me into the ministry of a small-town church.  If I am what I profess to be, then I will go where God has called me.  

     So the purpose of this blog is to make you ask this:  Who is in control in my life?  Am I rebelling against God to wrest control of my life?  I pray that we all might dangle comfortably in the hands of God, prepared to do what He asks of us.

Some "house cleaning" as they say ...

     I want to start off to say I apologize for the long-lived hiatus I found myself on.  I shall try to never again have that happen.
     Secondly, I think I will be trying to set up more of a theme for each week so that my blogs do not seem so random.  I will be keeping my same Sunday, Wednesday, Friday posting schedule, so keep an eye out on those days.  I may occasionally be a day late, but I want to stick to those days as much as possible.
     Finally, I want to thank all of you who have read my blogs and I want to encourage you to comment on them.  I want to learn from these postings and I know you all know a lot more about these things than I do--these are simply my own perspectives.
    Again, thank you for your readership!  I hope to have a new layout for my blog soon, but we'll see how it all works out.

AMOAR

Keep Your Worldview to Yourself!

     On several occasions, I have seen someone post something religious on social media, only to garner a response of "keep your religion to yourself."  Now matter which side is acting in more ignorance (likely both hold an equal standing), I find this response to be quite amusing.  Humans are naturally emotive as to their standings and social media is a place where people are encouraged to share those standings.  Even more amusing is the fact that one can simply select those with whom they share and receiving these statements of standings.  One does not go to a democratic rally if one is highly opposed to democratic standings, especially when they have the temperament of an adolescent.

     Religion, as with anti-religion, shapes our worldview.  Someone who believes in God will have a very different view on life and their role than someone who does not believe in God.  Likewise, someone who believes in a different god will also hold a different view.  These views emerge out of everyday conversation--everything from the dreams we have, to our political standings, to our job.  One who demands that someone "keep their religion to themselves" basically is asking the other to shut up, because conversation absent a worldview is almost an impossible task.  One might be able to discuss the weather, possibly could converse about the quality of food, and only likely could talk about business.  Nearly all other topics, especially those of any intellectual substance, would be out-of-bounds.  Now, Facebook basically is a cesspool of human intellect, as these rules would demand, but I digress.

     No this person is not asking to keep worldviews out of conversations, just their worldview.  This person seeks the refuge and comfort in one's own views that ignoring another's provides.  While likely the "original poster," as one might call them, spoke poorly and also in ignorance, one cannot stop man from being stupid on occasion.  The tendency of humans to say stupid things, especially concerning things they are passionate about, should not bar one from speaking further about a topic.  If this were out into place, none would have the authority to speak but a select few who were either uninterested or unaware.

     So I ask you all to be kind and not respond to ignorance with ignorance.  While fire can be used to fight fire, ignorance only serves to fuel itself, especially when it is fueled by multiple sources.  And thus it blazes ever-onward, slowed only by well-meaning, intellectual conversation.  Do not tolerate poor thinking in discussions, but do not condemn those who do it to more extreme views.  One day you might find yourself well-entrenched in a battlefield that has been hard fought for no victory.             

The Hero of Legend

     It's funny how a seemingly normal man can be elevated into the title of hero in a single moment.  I'm not commenting on the propensity of certain humans to act in the aid of others--sometimes in the most extreme situations--but rather that of some humans to laud the actions of specific individuals according to fulfill selfish ambition.  

     Observe, if you will, the debates that rage amongst groups and the shining knights they present as their representatives.  The flowery language that adorns their character and the resolute steel of hard-line words that distinguish them from the filth of "that other guy."  There is no fault to be found in the presentations of these "unsung" heroes.  They represent you!  They stand for you!  They are your hero!  

      Now, I don't want to say that some off these individuals who get thrust into these positions are not truly heroes.  I would say a good portion of them are worthy of ceremony for their actions.  Sometimes, though, these individuals get pulled into a web of ambitious men and women whose cause needs a champion.  Sooner or later the hero becomes a saint and then the saint becomes a forgotten instrument of success.

     The easiest time to spot these "heroes" is during a presidential election.  Sometimes they are men who support certain candidates and sometimes they are the candidates themselves.  President Obama was one of these individuals.  As was the famous "Joe the Plumber" of the McCain campaign (though, obviously, President Obama's was a much more successful role).  President Obama's campaign was run masterfully: painted as the shining knight who would bring about the Change this country needed, Obama became an icon.  His name was equated with all manner of causes--a champion for the people.  And, in the end, the people chose their given hero to lead the nation.

     Eight years later, we find the hero a tarnished icon.  Few now believe in his capacity to bring about that promised Change.   The press that once sang his praises nows turns against him in an ugly rearing of their considerable power.  The one-time champion has become the butt of the joke.  

     I don't want to use this blog to rag on President Obama, though.  He isn't the focal point of today's topic.  He is just a readily available example of the kind of "hero" that gets raised into his position because of the actions of others rather than his own.  With such a short shelf-life, these individuals find themselves (as according to The Dark Knight) dying as the hero or becoming the villain.  Limited by the backing of those ambitious builders, they are unable to stand on their own feet.

     I wanted to write this to warn of the dangers of this kind of cause.  While the presence of a hero (real or constructed) is a good way to gain momentum for a cause, it is also a way of bludgeoning into the scene--often harming others.  It is a way of winning without thinking.  A way of getting a majority without acting with the majority's interest in mind.  Don't be afraid of having heroes, but do not elevate them into the realm of perfection that none can occupy.  

Well if HE says it ...

     It seems a common trend to reinforce one's views, even if simply on a personal level, by including members of your group who happen to be stars.  This, of course, is no coincidence as we seem to hold recognizable pop icons to a higher standard than the average person working a normal job without cameras being shoved in their faces.

     It is really easy to invent a special "star realm" where all those celebrities live; a realm filled with enlightenment and holding the best and brightest of our society.  This is the same kind of realm that holds teachers, who obviously only exist at school (though there have been reported sightings at such places as grocery stores) and politicians, who exist in a realm where everyone is an idiot and nobody actually knows how to do their job.  This awe-inspiring realm of the celebrity is one to behold, though.  Words they speak hold such power with ironclad opinions that they set forth amongst the less enlightened.

     This all, of course, is a bit hyperbolic, but I hope my point is coming across.  We give celebrities and icons far too much credit!  Why is it that a government official can say something and it will receive little response and yet some famous (and likely attractive) movie star will say the same thing and be branded a hero?  Do we think we know these people because of the characters they have played in movies?  Does their ability to play a role of a hero make them one?

     This realm is not limited to movie stars, though.  This week I opened my Facebook to the lovely sight of more of that blatant ignorance that typifies Facebook.  This time it took the form of a picture of Hank Jr. (can't say I know exactly who that is) and his apparent quote that "Obama is a Muslim who hates farming, hates the military, hates the U.S. and we hate him!"  Beyond the simple fact that this wasn't even quoted correctly (though the message was the same), I was irritated that people were standing by this statement.  What, since he's (apparently) well known he gets to make stupid statements like that?  What's even worse is that since Hank Jr. here has a larger audience he can spout his opinions at, these opinions become the representation of those who oppose Obama.

     A new trend I find even more annoying is that of stating political or philosophical opinions through the words of memes.  In this new brand of ingenuity, one becomes represented by an icon that not only has no distinct personality, it can be utilized by any number of people with any number of views.  I might not bother complaining about this, but it has become a common way of feigning a solid point, when in fact there is no foundation to their arguments.  Those who use these memes either think they are being clever, or they are simply going for the surface-level "grumpy cat: good" approach to persuasion. 

     Here's what I want to leave you with: if you hear about some celebrity stating their opinions, take them about as seriously as you would any passing stranger.  They are likely no more qualified in making statements than you are.  There is no special "celebrity training" that informs them of all the facts.  Don't being impressed by name-dropping either.  Look for reasoning.  And if you see a political or philosophical statement being expressed through a meme, laugh at it, because it serves no other purpose than to be the object of a joke.    

This is My &%#$ing Blog!

     A few weeks ago (approximately) I wrote a blog in defense of using profanity to make a point.  I want to expand upon my views of profanity and the ways it best communicates real meaning.  Because in the almost inescapable realm of strong language, there are but a few areas of legitimacy found.

     At the end of a pre-game speech in which he thanked the police and emergency workers for the work they do, David Ortiz said, "This is our &%#$ing city.  And nobody's going to dictate our freedom.  Stay strong."  Now, I understand his intention--trying to rally people together in such a sad moment--however, his speech would actually have been better without the taint of the f-bomb.  The way in which he used it almost literally meant nothing.

     You see, profanity in and of itself is usually considered poor and improper grammar.  The words themselves are taken  entirely out of their intended meaning (though this is not entirely uncommon in the English language).  They also often fill all manner of roles within the language that do nothing to modify or enhance the meaning of the words surrounding them.  Those that use them often have no idea what their meaning really is and those that claim to understand their meaning often have some manner of stupid tale that has no place in reality.  The only thing they tend to communicate is the displeasure of an individual (which is easily communicated by non-verbal cues) or the minuscule vernacular of the individual using them (which is also often made obvious through non-verbal cues).

     In the case of Mr. Ortiz' comment, it literally added no meaning to the meaning of the sentence.  That is, unless you want to take the f-word for its commonly accepted meaning today, but that  is obviously not the meaning Ortiz intended to communicate.  But years down the road, when the language has changed (maybe to an entirely new one), we will likely find some very confused researchers.  Even in listening to his delivery of the speech, I was further disappointed.  There was little vocal inflection--something that might have actually communicated more meaning to his message.  The word he seemed to be relying on for emphasis failed him and he was left with a rather uninspiring message.

     Now my meaning for this blog isn't to attack Mr. Ortiz, but rather the misconception that swearing is necessary in every situation and adds meaning to speeches.  If you've spent any manner of time on the internet, you know that people like to swear.  It'd be nice to see this trend lessen and people embrace a wider vocabulary that they utilize in expressing their feelings.  Until then, I guess we'll all just have to continue bracing ourselves for an onslaught of uncalled-for and useless profanity every time we enter our browsers.           

Righteous Anger

     Your stereotypical Christian is a level-headed one. He or she probably likely avoids heated arguments like the plague and speaks in politeness when rebuking another. Bottling up an inner rage, they find different outlets for their anger in healthy and unhealthy ways--but almost always in private. You see, to most Christians being angry is being sinful, but this is dissonant with the image of Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple courtyard.
     Nowhere in the Bible does it tell believers to not get angry, rather it tells us to not sin in our anger.  Anger in and of itself is not a bad thing; the Bible actually endorses what might be called "righteous anger."  This kind of anger, fueled by the pain of others rather than personal discomfort.  When Jesus saw the temple being misused, He stormed in and put and end to it.  There was no directly personal matter that was under attack in that situation; He was acting in the interest of the greater good. 

     I see many Christians today that claim righteous anger, but it seems more often that their anger is indignant and their actions motivated by pride.  Why do I say this?  Because the crimes of the recipients are unworthy of the punishment they receive.  I saw one conversation between two people in which the Christian threw a bunch of questionable "knowledge" at a non-believer who made the mistake of attempting an intelligent and critically-thinking conversation.  In a situation where one should have responded in love and understanding, she chose to grow prideful and insulted personally.  

     Righteous anger is done lovingly, even though the love is tough love.  The guilty are not left unsure of their crimes, nor can they honestly feel they were treated unfairly (though they likely will until they learn their lesson).  The anger is ultimately for the benefit for many, including the guilty.  This is of utmost importance to remember.

     What I want to boil this down to is this: anger is not always a bad thing.  In fact, it often can be a good thing.  However, the difference between good and bad anger lies in who is the victim: your ego or something outside yourself. 

A Fragmented Union

     On the sunny afternoon of April 15th the United States changed, but only for a moment.  On a politically-charged expanse, flagpoles adorned with adversarial messages of ignorance and derisiveness quietly were placed on the floor.  Neighbors that had only moments before been talking down to one another stood with hands on shoulders and looked upon each other with understanding eyes.  For a moment the people of this nation did not see themselves as divided people all vying for control, but became a part of a Union devoted to the empowerment of the citizen.  And together we wept as a nation.  But it was only a moment.

     In the midst of the silence, someone picked up their flag and ferociously started pointing a finger away from him.  He waved his banner high, the bright colors shone in stark contrast from the blue of the sky, still tainted by the smoke.  Soon another found their banner and rushed to the defense of the accused individual, shouting even more harshly than the first.  Fingers indicated a number of directs, flying from the bomb sites to other flags to innocent victims wondering why this had happened to them.  Almost as quickly as it began, that moment ended.

     There is no denying that the Boston marathon bombings had a huge impact on the United States, if not the world.  Once again, the U.S. found itself as the victim of another act of terrorism.  Thankfully, this time around, the loss of life was relatively low, though many, many were affected by the blasts, by injuries physical and psychological.  But this blog is not dealing with those directly affected by the bombings.  I wanted to talk about those who only knew what happened by the daily news.  

     You see, the bombing only silenced the petty political wars of man for a moment before becoming another weapon for those wars.  It was barely the next day when I saw on my Facebook feed a picture of the bombing with the message of someone's political aspirations.  It disgusted me to see the pain of hundreds, or even thousands, used as some point for someone's argument.  I'm not saying that we should not think in the aftermath of a horrible event, but we should not use these events as some sort of false fuel for our personal crusades.  We have become so accustomed to pitting ourselves against an antagonistic world that we no longer can view anything but our own as reasonable.  

     That is why I mourn for that brief moment that we mourned as a nation.  For that brief moment when we all knew who the enemy was.  That brief moment when we stood arm-in-arm as the people, determined to form a more perfect union.     

My Beef with Postmodernism

     Today I wanted to take a little time to explain one of the major themes of my blog: postmodernism.  I have held a quite oppositional stance in regards to postmodernism, which is probably somewhat obvious from my blogs.  Much of the reason I stand so firmly against postmodernism is reflected in a personal mantra I try to follow: "Ignorance is the enemy."   

     For those of you unfamiliar with this term "postmodernism," it refers to a popular mindset that there is not absolute truth, only subjective truth.  Each individual is free to develop what is true and pursue their own path to happiness, or enlightenment, or perfection.  No one can reasonably argue against another's viewpoint because their truth is not another's.  The main issues that it deals with are religion and philosophy.  The most common way it finds itself manifested in society is the "live and let live" way of living.

     Now, I want to say that it is a noble goal to live in harmony with one another, but ignorance is not the way to do so.  One does not build a stable relationship by avoiding any tough situations.  One does not have a healthy marriage when the couple never has an argument.  The real meat of a relationship is understanding the differences between your own way of thinking and someone else's.  Now this might not sound like it goes against what postmodernism stands for, but in practice, postmodernism finds the participants of a relationship simply avoiding the tough conversations because it gets nowhere.

     This is another fault that postmodernism has allowed to resurface in a big way: human pride.  In having our own personal truth, which goes uncontested, we grow arrogant that our own truth is obviously better than anyone else's.  So when we do have individuals who speak their mind about certain topics, we find they are often ignoramuses who simply like the sound of their own voice.  Thus the activity of reasonable debate grows more taboo in the company of friends.  

     It also further reinforces the mindset of "us vs. them" that seems to be extremely prevalent in U.S. society.  We make saints out of those who champion our cause and see only the straw men of our imaginations as the opposition.  Our well-meaning debates suddenly become games that hold a bloodthirsty crowd around the ring.  Arguments are left with either
victory" or "loss" rather than celebrating the victory of open minds. 

     So this is my problem with postmodernism: that it encourages people to convince themselves of their own rightness rather than go out and explore what people have to say.  The problems that our government faces are very much rooted in the problems of postmodern thinking.  The problems we as the voting and politically-active citizens face are because of those flawed ideas contained within postmodern thinking.  Please, if you get nothing else from my blogs, understand my motto and remember it: Ignorance is the enemy.    

Fear in the Modern Church

     The question was once posed, "Is it better to be feared or loved?"  While a thousand forgotten leaders have pondered their role in the progression of their nation, this is also a question that has been posed by Christians in relation to God: Is it better to love God or to fear Him?  The answer, as is prone to be in matters concerning God, is complicated: both.

     If you've ever been to Europe (which I have not, my information comes from others) something you might know is that the church buildings are very prominent in most, if not all, of the major cities that date back several hundred years.  In Germany, the churches are some of the few buildings that survived the harsh bombing in World War II.  These facts are not only a sign of the power of the church in those times, but also of the view of God they wanted to portray: one of a great and all-powerful God.  Upon entering these buildings, one is instantly humbled by the rich art and huge scale of their architecture.  Paintings on their interior invoke powerful feelings in the beholders.  

     Fast forward to today: most churches are not built in the same manner as they were in those former days.  This, though, is not reflective of the waning power and wealth of a collective church, but more reflective of a changing focus on the attributes of God.  Churches today are set in a modern style that blends in well with its surroundings.  Some sanctuaries now resemble concert halls more so than houses of God.  Most churches hold a variety of amenities that seemingly have no connection to the work of the Lord.  

     These two different styles of buildings hold very different styles of viewing God.  While those of former times may have viewed God as more a powerful and vengeful God, it seems that the people of today focus more on the Loving God portrayed in the Bible.  We can see this played out in many of the outlets of the Christian faith as well.  Worship songs, evangelism methods, and church attendees are a very noticeable part of this viewpoint change.  We can hear a lot of songs about God's love for us, but not as many that look at the awesome power and justice of God.  The ever-so-cliche line that "Jesus loves you" is another sign of the pushed view that our God is a God of love (though sadly this line finds itself often used as a weapon rather than a comforting word for a brother or sister in Christ).  One can also look at church congregations and see varying levels of formal wear, ranging from full suits to shorts and t-shirts.  

     Now, I want to take a time here to state that none of this is really a negative thing in the right context.  Nor am I trying to paint the old church as the prime example to aim for (if so, maybe I need to read my own stuff).  At all stages of its existence, the Church has been a flawed thing because it has been under the direction of flawed men and women. But there is a great deal of importance in the way we view God because it affects the way we serve Him.

     There is a very fine line between respecting a loving God and saying that "Jesus is my homeboy."  Likewise, there is also a big difference between a humble servant and a depressed, broken slave.  There is a delicate balance we must find in loving God and respecting Him.  The hard part of that is that this balance is loving God with all our heart and respecting Him with the same.  The nice part of this, though, is that they go hand-in-hand.  The more we respect the almighty creator of the universe, the more we can love Him and the more we love Him, the more we understand His great power and justice.

     I write this to ensure that we do not put God in a box, because He cannot be contained by the imagination of the greatest of us.  I write this to remind you that we have an amazing God who is greater than anything and everything; that there was a good reason great men tremble before God and fall prostrate before Him.  I also write to remind you that this God loves you with all His heart.  Remember that the next time you enter a church.   

In Response to "The Evolution Wars"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html

     Today's blog actually comes from a paper I am writing for class.  It's a bit lengthy, but I think it's pretty good.  Thanks for reading!  Please respond if you have something you want to say!

            I recently read the article by Claudia Wallis entitled “Evolution Wars.”  In this article, Wallis explores the teaching of macroevolution and intelligent design in schools and the movement behind these viewpoints.  I found this article to be only mildly informative as to the events surrounding the intelligent design/macroevolution controversy.  I also found it to be much in favor of the evolutionists’ point-of-view.  The relevant debate, however, seems not to depend upon one’s definition of the origins of man, but rather upon the purpose of the public educational system.

The Article

            Wallis’ article presents readers with the arguments of both the Darwinist viewpoint and the viewpoint of those who advocate intelligent design.  She then explores the methods the intelligent design community has used to further their cause and lessen the foothold of evolutionistic teaching as well as the response of the evolutionist community.  The quotes chosen to be used, questionable historicity, and language used in this article make it very much slanted towards the view of the evolutionists. 

            First, the quotes Wallis chose to use in this article, as well as the format she choose to use in presenting them, were used strategically in a manner that conveyed that all those arguments presented by the intelligent design community have been easily accounted for and answered by the Darwinist community.  This is simply not a matter of fact.  The work of not only the intelligent design community, but as well as many other anti-natural selection scientists, has posed major question regarding the origins of man.  Questions such as the “fine-tuning” of the universe as well as the lack of explanation for the energy in the universe have remained unanswered since they were posed.

            Wallis’ article also contains some convenient twists on historical facts.  The main error she makes here is that of omission, though it seems likely this was done deliberately.  At the mention of the Scopes trial (p. 28), she states that, “Tennessee famously banned the teaching of evolution and convicted school-teacher John Scopes of violating that ban in the ‘monkey trial’ of 1925.”  While these are all factual, they present Scopes as the helpless victim of government enforcement.  The reality is that Scopes was coerced into using the banned book by a set of individuals desiring to debate the law.  Scopes knew exactly what he was getting into and ultimately faced no punishment for his trial, though he faced a guilty judgment.  The arduous trial was used mainly as a weapon against the religious establishment; a weapon that would prove to be quite effective, especially when paired with the comically inaccurate, yet well-respected play, Inherit the Wind.

            The third problem with the article was that the very language used to describe either side of the debate made the intelligent design community out to be little more than right-wing radicals bent on ruining the day of scientific fact.  She hints at Behe being extreme with the inclusion of irrelevant facts in his description.  She boils down the intelligent design community as nothing more than “anti-Darwin” in several places.  Wallis goes along with the Darwinist-endorsed opinion that intelligent design is “unscientific,” classifying it as such later in the article.  Also often are the themes of the religious community being the big, bad, dogmatic wolf, forcing people into their will.  I find this especially ironic, as the scientific community gains its apparent unified viewpoint regarding the origins of man because of its extreme dogma on the topic.  These failings on the part of the writer impose a substantial amount of weakness to any amount of argument she might have attempted to make, but her question regarding what should be taught in schools is a very relevant thought in today’s culture.

The Problem

            The educational system of the United States has evolved into a large and very important part of our society as it has in all the world.  Individuals are not only legally required to attend school, they are practically required to out the absolute necessity of education in our culture.  One who desires to do more than work in the fast-food industry, or other such undesirable jobs, must at least complete secondary education.  As most students in America attend publicly-funded schools, they also play a large role in the political situation of the U.S.  Thus the rise of the evolution vs. intelligent design debate was no surprise as concerned parents wanted to ensure their children were not being brainwashed into a certain manner of thinking.  Their concern is a worthy one, but the reasoning for “teaching the controversy” goes far beyond simple religious freedom.

            Back in the humble beginnings of this great nation, the public school system was started as a means of teaching children how to read their Bibles.  I state this not as some ill-fated argument that the U.S. is a so-called “Christian nation,” but rather to discover the purpose of the educational system.  Back in those times, the ability to read the Bible was an important part of life.  So much so that the people decided it would be worth their money to pay someone else to educate their children in literacy.  Today, our schools teach more than simple English, but math, science, music, physical education, crafting, foreign languages, as well as a large amount of other courses.  What is the purpose of all this, though?  Many students often complain about seemingly frivolous classes (mainly math classes) that they will “never use in life” and, for the most part, they are correct.  So why is the educational system so vast?  I would argue that the purpose of the educational system’s vastness can be described in four different areas.

1.      Communication

One of the educational department’s main goals is to ensure the ability of citizens to communicate efficiently amongst one another.  Communication is vital to anyone who wants to be a part of the world on any level.

2.      Life Skills

Schools work to also develop skills, such as arithmetic, that are important for every field of work.  Schools also work to help develop students’ interests and shape them into a career.  Also, those “pointless” classes work to enable students to acquire new skills in life even after they have completed their education.

3.      Inter-Personal and Intra-Personal Skills

Public education works to ensure individuals are able to work in a community, as is required in almost every occupation available.

4.      Critical Thinking

Finally, schools work to develop the ability of students to think critically about the issues that surround them.  The ability to think critically is vital to the informed voter, worker, and citizen of a nation.

It is because of this last skill development that I believe the ability to “teach the controversy” in schools is extremely important.  As one of those topics that will seemingly never be resolved, it is important for students to be able to consider the facts for themselves and decide what is right.  Should we choose to simply teach one way or another we would be depriving them of this opportunity to become critical thinkers. 

This means I advocate the teaching of macroevolution in schools. Even as a Christian.  Though I am a decided young earth creationist, I also have an understanding that there are a lot of theories regarding how God created the universe.  Evolution coincides with some of them.  But just because I disagree with something does not mean that it should be stricken from the school curriculum. 

In conclusion, I think it is important for the U.S. educational system to be able to provide students with the ability to think critically and that means teaching about the existence of alternative views of the origins of man and the weaknesses of the commonly accepted scientific model, macroevolution.  If we fail to do this, we are training our next generation to fail.

The Sanctity of the Old

     I want to start by apologizing for both the lateness of this post as well as the entire absence of Friday's post.  I also want to encourage you all to comment on my posts should you have thoughts that you believe will expand and add to the topic.  I, by no means, am in possession of all the right answers and I don't want to pretend like I am.  Please, if you have a constructive comment to add, by all means post it.  Thanks for your readership!

     "The good ol' days" are often spoken of, but rarely reflect any manner of fact in reality.  The trend of seeing things as better "back then" is not a new one, but rather one that has stretched through human history for as long as there was a moment to look back to.  

     Christians, or even simply those who are religious, have a tendency to look happily at traditions and frown at those rising trends in the faith today.  One of the most notable looks at this is the attitudes of church members regarding the music in services.  Few will speak about the ever-revered hymns beyond the simple "they're boring" spoken by the over-exposed youth.  What is it that makes these songs inherently superior to those that are produced today?  Is the music quality that much more sophisticated?  This seems unlikely, as most hymns hold a rather simple structure.  Are their messages more theologically sound?  Doubtful, as some pretty deep stuff is the subject matter of many a new worship song.  No, the reason these things are held as the greatest good is because they have become safe--no one debates a song found in a hymnal, but those new songs are often questioned.

     Now I don't want to turn this blog into some sort of crusade against hymns--nor do I want to give off the impression that I do not like hymns.  They are simply the best representation for the point I want to get across here.  Humans desire to remain in the "safe zone" of life.  No one wants to go outside their comfort zone.  This is natural, though.  But what is natural is not always what is best.  We make saints of those who have long since passed and we make flawless work of those things we long to keep.  While retaining an optimistic outlook on the things of the past is an admirable view, there comes a problem when this view either distorts the past or it distorts our view of the present.

     Holding those "old things" at a higher level than those things being produced now is a special kind of irrationality--one that every one of us is guilty of.  We can actually gain a lot bigger and better perspective in life from the realization that not everything about those things was and is perfect.  That organ that is so beloved by churches today was once thought to be the work of the devil in its first days.  The deified Martin Luther King Jr. was hardly above reproach, but look at the work he was able to accomplish as a flesh-and-blood man in the service of God.  

     I think the same thing often applied to the main men and women of the Bible.  We think of just how much of a connection they had with God and just how naturally these acts of greatness came for them.  This is wrong, though.  Those men and women suffered from many of the same faults we all wrestle with.  Many described in the Bible questioned what they were being told to do.  Many questioned the existence of God, or at least His sovereignty.  The Bible is filled with perfectly flawed individuals.  Individuals just like you and me.

     So I leave you with this: go and be like those in the Bible.  The deeds God can and will accomplish through you are no less great than those accomplished through David and Paul.  find encouragement from the flaws we all share and overcome.

Is Government a Business?

     With the recent talk concerning the national budget and the ever-rising national debt, there has been a lot of talk concerning how to remedy the bad situation that we find ourselves in today.  Some of this talk leads to comparisons between the government and a business.  Many people have protested against this comparison.  Do I think government is a business?  No, but government (and those governed) have a lot they can learn from business practices.  

     I'm going to start off with a rough analogy: imagine Netflix is similar to our government.  We as the "constituents" pay subscription fees (like taxes) and we elect the members of Netflix leadership (for the purposes of this example).  We receive the benefits of Netflix quite happily ... for a while.  Pretty soon, though, someone starts thinking Netflix should start having an expanded movie selection.  So they phone up their local representative and that representative, desiring heavily to be re-elected, does their best work to ensure they get what they want.  Things continue to work fine until someone again decides they don't get enough from Netflix.  "I want music too," someone thinks and soon calls their representative, demanding that music be added to the services.  The representative tentatively replies that he can push that, but subscription fees might rise.  The caller slowly decides that that would be acceptable and, eventually, music would be added to the services.  This process would repeat and after prices have risen a decent amount, someone would start complaining.  Add in a few prices rises brought about by necessity (rising hardware costs, inflation, etc.) and people would be livid.  Netflix would be forced between raising prices to accommodate all the features that the people want or cutting features--a lose-lose situation.  Years down the line, people have become accustomed to Netflix providing their meals for them, forgetting what Netflix was meant to do in the first place.  The company, meanwhile, finds itself in a rapidly sinking ship.  In desperation, it tries to cut features--only to find a wall of opposition from the people.  Finding a greater fear of suggesting to raise prices, Netflix instead simply continues to comply with the wishes of the people, hoping salvation might come later ... when new leaders are elected.  This myth is to remain such, though, and Netflix crashes and burns in a big way.

     My analogy above is a bit strange, as a synthesis of government and pure business would be, but it illustrates the idea I want to convey: government could learn a lot from smart business practices.  Part of the flaw of government is an innate flaw in mankind--those who are in a position desire to remain in that position.  Those we elect into office will make promises and do things to appease their constituents that have ill effects on the state as a whole.  The other part of the flaw resides in the people, who demand that the government render an increasing amount of services.  In our analogy, if Netflix was behaving as a business should have, it would have refused to offer music as a service.  Netflix is a movie service, not a music service.  Even further down the line, Netflix could have cut certain features in order to maintain prices.  People would have complained, but in the end it all works out.  When the government attempts to cut funding for something, we end up with this:

We grasp on to every little thing like pathological hoarders, unwilling to part with even the smallest, most insignificant things.  The government, afraid of insulting or angering people, complies and nothing changes.

     Smart businesses do not find themselves in the situation the U.S. government currently finds itself.  This is partly because of the cold efficiency businesses can have in consideration to money, but also because they know how to maintain a balance.  The U.S. government can and direly needs to learn something from businesses, or it will meet the same fate as our fictional Netflix.

Just to be safe, the picture above came from Josh Ciesla on his Twitter.

We ALL Hate It! Completely!

Justin Bieber, Twilight, Nickelback, and Star Wars: Episode III.  These four things are all-in-all quite different from each other in nearly all aspects, but each shares a special place in pop culture that I find particularly annoying.  

Each of the items listed above are things people love to hate.  It's easy to tell these specific things that people attack in mobs simply because it is suddenly "cool" to do.  I take particular irritation at the numerous insults thrown at Star Wars: Episode III.  As a huge Star Wars fan, I enjoy that movie a great deal--even the cheesy dialogue.  I don't know why, but something about those films really gets me.  But the ability of people to criticize every thing imaginable about those movies because "everyone else is doing it" has made me quite hesitant to watch any of the prequels with others and very harsh when I do do so.  The incredible negativity that the crowd mentality can generate is incredible.  

The same thing goes for all the other things on that list.  When was the last time you heard something positive said about Justin Bieber?  Or Twilight?  Especially when you are discussing these things in a group containing more than four people, you will likely hear a large portion (or completely) negative things.  Humorously enough though, if a positive thing is said about these things in a more subversive manner or a more private setting around these same people, they will tend to generate a more positive air about them.  I'd encourage you to experiment with this: you'll likely to find this to be correct.

Now, at this point you might be thinking, "Well this is a surprisingly fickle blog," but rest assured: I have a more significant point to make than my irritation with Revenge of the Sith haters!  Taking this idea that there are things that people love to hate, there are people that we love to hate.  For some, it's those darn Republicans and others it's those Commie Liberals, but chances are, there's someone that those who surround you love to hate.  I know every time I fire up Facebook I am prepared to see another million reasons why Obama is the devil.  The amount of negative I see pointed towards Obama often makes me want to join the other crowd that claims him as a saint (but not really though).  We get so absorbed in the desire to gain acceptance into "the crowd" that we spit out the stupidest things.  Especially in the attacks directed towards Obama, they sometimes find themselves so far off the mark I often wonder if there is some other man named Obama who happens to be the President of the United States.  Please, do no abandon reason to popularity.

Even worse is the times I find myself party to loving to hate those that are around me.  We all have those in our lives that are particularly unsavory characters; those who often find themselves subject to the grotesque brew that is gossip.  It is very easy to join in on the bashing of these individuals when they sit innocently miles away from the place of conversation.  I don't care if they "deserve it," there is a reason gossip is looked down upon.  It is never positive.  Next time you find someone being unknowingly sacrificed for the entertainment of the group, try saying positive things about them, just see how people respond.

So I leave you all with a bit of junior-high advice: Just because everyone else is doing it does not make it right or acceptable.

Everyone's Stupid But Me

The title of this blog is highly reflective of my own mindset when I let it wander where it will.  It is also highly reflective of so many of the thoughts I see everywhere.  Facebook posts are evidence of this.  Ignorance runs rampant on the dusty fields of Facebook.  In one corner I can see one person screaming their opinion to no one and way over in another I can see someone else screaming their opinion either, again, to themselves or to a group of like-minded people.  The boldness that the internet brings people is entirely unhealthy for the debtaes that often find themselves on Facebook.  The realm of debate no longer finds itself in collections of real people, but is now manifested in the forums of text-based conversations where there is no physical image to relate to other than the straw men we build for those who dare oppose our view.  We sit back and think as the title of this blog suggests: that all other opinions besides our own are nothing but folly.

I might not find this so alarming but for the fact that our actions on the internet carry over to our actions in-person.  Our boldness in our Facebook posts encourages a boldness in real-life that stirs not positive mindsets, but spurs other-minded people to further entrench themselves within their own manner of thinking.  Tell me: when you see a post directly against what you believe plastered on Facebook for all to see, what is your thought process?  "Oh, what a lovely exercise of our freedom of speech" or "What a valid point" are not likely to be high on the list of responses.  This is reflective of two things: our personal ability to dismiss oppositional arguments as nothing more than stupidity and the extremely surface-level arguments that we use to justify our beliefs.  Somewhere along the line, our debates became more about entertaining the audience rather than presenting good reasoning for beliefs.  We approach arguments with the intent of injury on a personal level rather than wisdom on a group level.  

Every day I feel this intent within my own mind.  I really want to put out a statement that will REALLY make someone feel stupid.  I'll think for hours on end of what I could say that would "win the crowd over" to my thinking.  But I constantly remember that that is not what I am called to do.  We need to speak the truth IN LOVE.  This is applicable to all people, though, not just to Christians.  The only way we can actually make progess in this world is to work with people, not against them.  Life is not a competition sport meant to be won by some and not by others, but so often I find it treated as such.  There is no lasting joy in a argument you think you won because nobody retained any positive effect from its discourse.  We need to approach every situation involving two opposing views as an opportunity to grow in out thinking rather than a game to be won.  The only way anyone wins is if we behave as rational (mature) adults.

I was not originally planning on doing this topic for today, but my Facebook feed necessitated it.  Today people were waving the flags of their "sides."  While it's great to see people standing up for what they believe in, this is not an instance of that good.  What is happening on Facebook right now is people waving their flags in other people's faces.  People poking at others and provoking them into stupid arguments.  The intent of the flag-raisers is not to express pride in their own beliefs, but to cast shame on the beliefs of others.  These are the actions of those who think their own mindset is innately superior to others'.  I'm not being a hypocrite either here: I had to fight the temptation to throw up my own flag, to join the tussle of warring factions.  We're all guilty of creating straw men of our enemies and acting on our stereotypes.  These straw men have become more apparent as communication has become less and less personal.  

My adivce for people is this: get to know these people who hold opposing views.  Most people have fairly good reasons for believing what they believe.  Try not to debate people on the internet because it is so easy to speak to that straw man in our heads rather than the real person standing across from you.  And, most importantly, have an open mind!  An individual is not capable of holding all the answers in life, so why should we think that we are?  The more I talk to people, the more I realize I do not understand things.  This does not mean I change my views, but I have a better understanding of why others think the way they think and it gives me more incentive to find good reasoning for my own beliefs.  And, in the end, if my own beliefs hold no water, why am I holding on to them?