Not Just Reading, but Understanding is Fundamental

 

Oh my. What an interesting time we seem to be living in. There appear to be a recent proliferation of concerns about a number of different issues (gun violence/control and economy/taxation are a couple of examples). One thing I have noticed while perusing the many different opinions is the use of the word ‘fundamental’. Whether it’s a fundamental right, or a fundamental liberty, it’s used as part of an argument to bolster an individual’s assertion or position. Maybe it’s just me, but simply describing something as fundamental doesn’t immediately or automatically make it so.  I guess people presume you’ve done the research because they don’t back up this assertion with any evidence.  I may not be from Missouri, but I do tend to follow the state’s motto ‘show me’.

A very recent example of this use of fundamental is the to a certain degree implied argument that people around the world have a fundamental right to homeschool (my children are homeschooled, and I greatly value the opportunity given – full disclosure). I’ve looked at the situation which brought this out. To (greatly) summarize the situation:  a German family began homeschooling their children in 2006, in violation of German law. After being fined (and nothing I found says they paid the fines), and having German authorities come to their house and take their children to public school, they were asked by Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) to move to the United States in 2008.  Once they arrived they applied for asylum (they had other countries in Europe they could have chosen). The basis of their asylum application was they were being persecuted for homeschooling in accordance with their religious beliefs. The asylum case is now in front of a federal circuit court. An immigration judge in January 2010 granted them asylum, an immigration appeals court judge denied it in May of 2012.  The case is currently in front of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals with oral arguments in April 2013. The United States government is arguing against granting asylum. The government’s argument is: the family isn’t being persecuted or singled out for their religious beliefs by the law, as Germany does not allow anyone to homeschool their children. HSLDA is providing legal representation for the family and puts forward the following counterargument: the family is being persecuted because homeschooling is a matter of individual liberty and is therefore a ‘fundamental right’. Now, I’m no lawyer (and I don’t play one on TV), but the issue here is the application of the asylum law. In short, people are granted asylum if they can demonstrate they are being persecuted for religious reasons or because they belong to a particular social group.

Now, please keep in mind I am a homeschooling father so I am approaching this from a pro-homeschooling perspective. Here is how I see homeschooling involved in this situation: Both the United States and Germany (as well as a number of other countries) have addressed the issue of homeschooing in their laws. The United States allows it, with each individual state applying its own requirements. Germany (I know the German homeschooling law was made in 1938, so please don’t use the Hitler argument. Please?) forbids it. I know the law in my state, and I follow it. Maybe I disagree with it, but I still follow it. I have difficulty believing one of the rights upon which all other rights are built (which is one of the definitions of fundamental) is to homeschool. There may be (I can’t think of any off the top of my head) countries where there is no educational system whatsoever (there are most certainly communities where this is the case).  Are we to provide those communities with homeschooling curriculum, because it’s a fundamental right? That might be akin to that community being Eve, and we are the serpent providing them with the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It’s an application of our culture and beliefs without consideration of their culture.

Another argument is that homeschooling is essential to freedom of thought. This argument assumes the parents cannot tell their children what the school is teaching them goes against their religious beliefs. I cannot count the number of times my wife or I have commented to our children (either during an event or after) we did not believe something presented because of our religion. We also explained to our children WHY we didn’t believe that idea or concept. Yes, it’s work. It can be difficult. But sooner or later, our children leave us and they will encounter these things through their interactions in society. When we take the time to explain why we disagree with something, we are teaching our children freedom of thought. We are also teaching them logic and apologetics.

Since religion has been introduced as an issue, let me put this forward.  From a religious perspective, the imperative to ‘be subject to the governing authorities’ stated in Romans 13:1 appears to be ignored in this situation. Not paying the fines levied (bad law or not) is not being subject to the governing authorities.  Not only this, but we are to live peaceably with our neighbors.  How peaceable were they being towards their neighbors when they brought the authorities into their neighborhood?  Or with the media attention they brought in with their cause celebre? Before you respond, I know the counterargument is from Acts chapter 5 where Peter tells the Jews they must obey God rather than men.  I haven’t found a passage in the Bible where it commands us to homeschool our children. 

I understand there are those who are concerned that this case shows the U.S. governments ‘anti-homeschooling’ bias and this is a harbinger of coming persecution against American homeschoolers.  As I stated above, the case involves granting asylum, not whether or not one of the questions on a future immigration form will be ‘do you intend to homeschool your children?’ Maybe I’m a Pollyanna, or I’m stupid, but I just don’t see persecution coming because of that particular choice. Maybe because my reason for homeschooling is about the quality of the education my children receive instead of being based on a moral imperative. Please let me reiterate:  I’m thankful for the opportunity and the ability to homeschool, and do not want that taken away.  On the other hand, I’m not going to be a ‘chicken little’ responding with fright just because the government mentions the word ‘education’.  If I did, I will miss situations that are or will be a matter of concern.  But hey, what do I know?

You’re so Selfish!!!

 

     Well, it’s happened.  You would have to have been living under a rock the last week or so to not know Hostess has been allowed to liquidate its assets and shut down operations after over 80 years.  Those on the right and left – generally speaking – have their favorite ‘bogeymen’ involved in this situation:  For the left, we have the ‘corporate fatcats’ who fiddled while Rome burned around them (giving themselves extravagant raises while in bankruptcy).  For the right, we have the ‘labor unions’ killing the golden goose (going on strike – which appears to be the ‘straw that broke the camels’ back if your will).  Now, I really think both sides share a pretty close to equal blame.  We’re in a down economy (generally speaking – there are always some industries and sectors that are up), with elevated unemployment and underemployment, and both management and labor engage in practices better suited for a booming economy.  Both sides would have been better served if they acted in a practical manner.  However, what ended up happening was the follow-through of a sort of mutual suicide pact.  Both sides knew the end result of certain choices, but they made them anyway.  I show this picture of Hostess Donettes as a memorial to a fallen icon of American society.

     Reading through the articles and comments made by both sides made me wonder why we seem to have a ‘damn the consequences, I want what I want’ society?  I believe it has to do with the economics of our society.  I’m not talking about whether we’re in a recession or boom time.  I’m talking about capitalism.  If we have a capitalistic society, then we inherently have a selfish society.  What is the goal of every person in this society?  To accumulate as much wealth (or material) as possible for themselves, with little to no regard to the consequences to others.  To have a society that places the individual and individual wealth in a position of primacy, while attempting to provide services to take care of those who are unable to accumulate wealth, or not enough for certain contingencies and issues is a society at cross-purposes with itself.  Now, I’m not saying socialism or communism is the answer, as they are just as selfish.  Basically, as George Orwell so eloquently put it in his book Animal Farm ‘all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’.  The focus is on the collection of wealth, of making people subservient to the state and those who ‘represent’ the state.  Ultimately, it is a selfish society, as people are either in charge and gathering to themselves as much material and wealth as possible, or they are serving and worried about whether or not they will have enough to survive.

     What would be the alternative to this?  How about a society where the focus is not on the individual and/or the accumulation of wealth, but the focus is on the group, and ensuring everyone in our community has what is necessary?  Again, I’m not talking about what modern society understands as socialism, but what I am talking about is a society/community like what we see in the bible.  The book of Acts specifically.  We see in the early church where everyone in the early church brought their goods and wealth together and worked together to ensure everyone in the church was taken care of (to include widows).  If we truly consider ourselves a Christian nation, and are striving to follow His teachings, this should be our goal.  If we worry about ourselves, then our focus is not on others.  We are told God will provide for our needs.  If we believe that, then at some point we need to stop worrying and trust in that.

Shall they know us by our love, or by our accusations?

My title comes from John 13:35 (KJV) ‘ By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. ‘ I use this because in the last month or so I have read, seen and heard things coming from multiple ‘Christian’ communities seem to be anything but loving.  These have included the tearing down of an individual’s character, and whether or not someone is a Christian based on a particular belief. I’m not going to give any details because if you’re reading this you’ve seen what I’ve seen, or you’ve come across something similar in your own experience. Besides, it takes away from the point I’m trying to make.  Lack of a loving and charitable spirit can and really has been said about most other endeavors, to include politics, and societal issues.  I’m focusing on religion at this point.  Honestly, it’s because we have been given a wonderful example and it’s being ignored.

I have a difficult time personally when I see people being mean (for lack of a better term). I find this especially true when the accusers have little or no knowledge of the person being accused.  The verse I quoted above talks of love. One doesn’t have to dig very deep into the many commentaries available that point to this love, and the example of love that Christ gave us. One commentary I have come across recently is from the Blessed Theophylact. He was Archbishop of Orchid in Bulgaria in the late 11^th century. He wrote a series of commentaries on the New Testament.  At this time, the only one we have so far is for the Gospel according to John. One of his comments on this verse struck me as particularly relevant to the topic at hand:

‘Love prevailed among the disciples, and as a result they received the power to do miracles. If they had fallen out and separated they would have lost everything; for who would have believed men who raged against one another? This was indeed a great miracle of which Christ made them worthy, that the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul. [Acts 4:32]’ (emphasis mine).

I have no doubt that those who do not believe in Christianity enjoy when Christians focus their time and energies correcting one another. Some of these arguments are part of what drove me away from evangelical Christianity and their multiplicity of ‘subcultures’. If we are trying to witness the love of Christ to others, what kind of witness is it when we see the ‘raging’ against one another going on? And unfortunately it doesn’t seem to ever stop.

We are far better off when we humbly present our opinions and other things we’ve learned to a group. To use a further section of verses from the Bible, I would turn to James 3:13-18:

‘Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your heart, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.’

The self-seeking you see mentioned is that ‘I’m better than those other people because I know better’.  Whether or not one does know better isn’t going to make a difference if they’re coming off as arrogant and boastful. For those who are trying to convince others through harsh words and tones: what good will it do if no one will listen to you? Or conversely what makes you so sure you’re right? This is especially true for those areas delving into religion.

There are those who would argue that one shouldn’t worry about whether or not they offend someone with the message of the Gospel or Christianity.  To a certain degree I would agree with that statement.  However, it does no good, and in reality probably does more harm when the message is colored throughout with superiority.  I would say it works far better when you present your position in a positive light (i.e. ‘this is why I believe x’).  If you’re asked questions as to why you don’t believe or hold the other position, you can still point to the positives without being mean-spirited.

There are quite a large number of Bible verses I could use to continue to hammer this point home but I’m just going to use two more.  I would first point out James 4:11-12:

‘Do not speak evil of one another brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?’

If we’re judging others, we’re putting ourselves in the position of the one who actually IS the judge.  This ties back to Matthew 7:1-2

Judge not, that you are not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged: and with what measure you use, it shall be measured back to you.

I do not judge anyone’s salvation or faith because that’s not my place. I also do not attempt to judge anyone based on their statements or actions.  In all honesty, I have way too many issues to deal with in my own life to attempt to expend any energy trying to determine the eternal state of others.

What's more important?

One of the things concerning me these days is the idea or concept the most important thing is being on top or 'winning'. It doesn't matter whether it's politics, sports, or life in general, the most important thing seems to be, to quote Oakland Raider owner Al Davis, “just win, baby”.

While winning is understandable in sports (although sportsmanship is far more important and should be the first focus), it is extremely disturbing in politics. Although when one looks at politics, they can see how closely politics and sports seem to be. If you're going to have a representative government (whether parlimentary as in Europe or our own representative republic), politics is going to take on the qualities of the coliseum games of ancient Rome. Both sides fighting each other using tactics that almost shock the senses. It seems almost to the point in our modern society that politics have all the drama and bloodsport of professional wrestling. Listening to the radio these days, and how people on both sides are quickly getting to the point of 'the end justifies the means', it reminds me of a wrestling quote. The individual involved was talking about winning a particular type of match, and I'm paraphrasing here: “to win, to survive, you've got to get down in that gutter and do something so horrible, so violent, that the other person looks at you and says 'I quit'.”

Is that where our society is now? We have had other instances in our country's history where people who were passionate about their particular point of view decided the ends justified the means and the end result has been violence. If we are not careful, we have multiple issues that may lead up to violence between people. We need to work on our ability to not only communicate our ideas, but our listening ability to understand the concerns and fears of others, so we can better address those things and come to a peaceful and equitable solution.

Basic civility – it's what's missing from dialogue

This thought (my title) is something I've had knocking around my head for the past couple of days. It started when I 'turned off' talk radio on my way to and from work. I know people aren't happy (that seems to be what the talkers feed off of), but sometimes it just gets to be too much. I then tried to find other ways to keep informed about what's going on (straight news just isn't trustworthy anymore), but so many websites have far too much hate. Oh, a lot of times it's not out and out hate. It's often displayed as sarcasm, putting the opposition down, and generally being rude.

As I kept encountering these sites, something began to gnaw at me. Over the years, it seems the general conversation in our society has been getting less and less 'intelligent'. People no longer seem to have the want or desire to look into a topic in depth, they just want instant analysis. It's like people are 'microwaving' issues to get done with them faster. You know what happens when you microwave food, don't you? You end up altering the food's structure, that's why it will taste different than food cooked on a stove or in a oven. The same principle applies here. You 'nuke' the issue, and you end up altering the framework the issue is built around, and not for the better.

A byproduct of the this short-changing of analyzing issues, is the tactics for debate change. Now, instead of debating the merits of a position, those proponents of one side of an issue immediately 'attack the messenger'. Since this isn't my first trip around the sun, I've seen this in action on many occasions. Growing up in the midwest, I saw early on that during campaigns, the first person to 'sling mud' would lose the election because the general population wouldn't put up with this. In 1994, I saw this change. A race I was somewhat interested in became very ugly, with both candidates going for the dirt. What amazed me was the public seemed to actually enjoy this, as opposed to being disgusted with the campaign tactics. It was a rather sad milestone if you will.

Going further, once you change the tactics by attacking the messenger instead of debating the issues, now you've made those who you don't agree with the 'enemy'. I sometimes wonder who people worry about more, terrorists, or people of the opposing political party. This used to not be the case, and not so long ago. While thinking on this, I thought back to the attempt on President Reagan's life in 1981. One thing sticking out in my mind was while he was in the hospital recovering, the Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, a democrat, came to visit. I can't find any account, but I do remember hearing/seeing that the two spoke to each other as human beings, acknowledging they were on opposite sides of many issues, but this situation transcended politics. I wonder how a similar situation would play out today? If the things one sees on the internet are any indication, we've 'demonized' the opposition so much that such high minded ideas are almost out of the question.

You look back further in history, and people who were on opposite sides of major issues often had great respect for each other. Or at least didn't wish ill of each other. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas knew and debated each other for many years. While they may not have thought very highly of each other, during the 20 years they debated each other off and on they did not attack each other in public. At the beginning of our country, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were on opposite sides of the issue of how the country should be run. Yet, after both were out of politics, they became close friends, exchanging letters until their deaths in 1826. Is it so difficult to say to someone 'I don't like your political views or ideas, but I've nothing personal against you'?