Truth or Consequences

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.

So, why are we compelled to give equal treatment to ignorance and fact, to truth and lies, to love and hatred, to peace and violence? One of our political parties is mired in the morass left from allowing fear, hatred and violence to be used for political advantage. It is not right. Opinion can vary but truth and facts do not.

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.