From time to time I like to go to lunch
alone and leisurely eat stuff I'm not supposed to eat and read the
news. Sometimes I will run into an acquaintance and we will pass a
few minutes with some pleasantries. Sometimes I will run into an
acquaintance who is aware that I write opinion columns and who takes
the opportunity to sound off about how insanely misguided I am and
who will run through every catchphrase about the liberal media,
godless Hollywood, the Muslim horde, the mark of the beast and how
our currency is going to collapse requiring said mark if one wishes
to survive. Of course, this is also justification for survival
training, arms and ammo caching and keeping an eye on the
misanthropes in D.C. who are all selling us down the river. Now that
the President has been to Cuba we're back to the Red Menace and did
you know that the President took 32 people with him to Cuba and it
cost us billions of dollars? I found out, too late of course, that
if one attempts to refute these arguments with facts (those pesky
things) then the conversation gets louder than a stump preacher on
Easter. In addition it is inevitable that there will be a reference
to scripture that commands us to allow people who won't (or don't)
work to starve. Then comes a constitutional reference to some part
of that document but for some reason he or she will not have a
reference to all of the court cases and amendments that have defined
that document. Everyone the scholar.
One of the things that I have a problem
with concerning the (liberal, except for Fox) media is that they seem
to think that they should treat ignorance with the same respect as
logic, truth and reason. I am aware that my characterization of that
will no doubt generate some controversy but it will not alter the
fact. Why isn't media asking for proof of outrageous statements or
allegations. Why do we allow misstated facts to occupy the same
space as truth? We are all, indeed, entitled to Freedom of Speech
and the right to express our opinions but we are not entitled to our
own facts. Facts are absolute and a just defense against lies and
accusations. Why is media not doing more to establish what the facts
are and showing the darkness of the lies? It is simplicity itself
that ignorance does not deserve the same space as truth and fact.
If only truth and fact were all that is
required to combat ignorance and tamp it back into the hole that it
crept out of we would be all right. But we also have to deal with
those who demand the public's attention to ignite the fires of tribal
hatred to fan the flames of ignorance and that is the deadly enemy of
the Republic. Even if all people have the right to free expression
is there some right that we give it equal consideration?
A person that I encountered on one of
my pleasant retreats was making sure that I knew of every insolent
thing that he disagreed with and told me that until we killed a few
hundred thousand Muslims we would never be safe from the Jihad. I
told him that we had already easily killed that many but I was
informed that they were not killed the right way. I didn't delve
into what would be the right way because, frankly, I was still hoping
to get back to my lunch which was by now becoming more difficult to
eat and keep down. I was told of how the Koran was an evil book and
that Islam is a murderous religion. That ISIL is the real Islam and
that all the others are apostate and set to be decapitated. I
reminded him of how our Judaic heritage was not devoid of mass murder
and pillaging but that did not seem to be of any consequence.
So, I have known this person for some
time and know that he professes Christianity but I was left there
wondering where the Christ is in all of this. How does a faith whose
leader and founder professes such tenets as expressed in the Sermon
on the Mount inform such a world view? When that source says that
His kingdom is not of this world how does that factor in?
Personally, I am a Separation of Church and State guy. To my way of
thinking the two are not compatible. So, when I am talking about
politics my opinion is informed by my faith but my faith bears no
supremacy in matters of government. I believe that the First
Amendment meant Freedom of Religion and that it lacks reason to
insist that the writers were all Christians and just didn't think of
it. I don't believe that it is incumbent upon the United States to
defend Israel no matter what that country does just so we can avoid
the curse attributed to scripture. I don't believe that when when
Jesus returns that the New Jerusalem is going to be in St. Louis. As
a matter of fact I don't believe that those things should have any
bearing on the conduct of the government of the United States of
America any more than they did on the government of Rome. Different
ballpark. I am quite content to defend Freedom of Religion and be
free to practice mine.
My Take is that I am under no illusion
that this missive will change any minds. What I would hope is that
where there is stridency there will be peace, that where there is
disagreement truth will prevail and that people will do their
darnedest to treat each other with love and respect and that hatred
and ignorance be tamped back into the pit from whence it came.
