Sheep and wolves

If you saw a pack of wolves masquerading as sheep would you conclude that sheep are ferocious?

Three things have happened in the last few days to inspire this post. First, over the weekend I was in a conversation with someone who obviously didn't care much for religion and she was going on and on about how many wars and how much killing has been done in the name of religion. Second, I am in the middle of a book titled, "A Peoples History of the United States." The book does not seem to make an argument either for or against religion in general but without giving many specific details it does point out that religion is used to influence public opinion in support of wars,  oppression of the poor and all kinds of evil. Third was last night while the T.V. was on and I heard Michelle Bachmann babbling about how she doesn't know what else God could do to get peoples attention in America because he's already sent hurricanes and earthquakes recently to punish us for immorality.

All three of the incidents above mainly focused on Christianity. It is a common argument challenging the truth of Christianity that people point out how much evil has been caused by different sects throughout the years. I wanted to write a blog about this because I can sympathize with that argument. I can understand why a person might see Michelle Bachman on T.V., read about the Salem witch trials or the Crusades and conclude that we might be better off without Christianity. However, I think the only way to come to this conclusion is to confuse the wolves with the sheep.

It is a testimony to the passiveness of a sheep that a wolf would want to disguise himself as one of them. Similarly, it is in evils best interest to be confused with that which is good. The fact that evil so often uses the name of Christ to disguise itself is more of a testimony to Christs goodness than to his supposed falseness. This is not meant to be a proof of Christianity, because it is not, but I want to make a point that if the words of Christ are true this is the way things would be. Here is an example:

Mathew 7:15-20, "Watch out for false prophets, they come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit will you recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

The next verse goes on to talk about how on judgement day many people who performed miracles, drove out demons and prophesied in Christs name will not get into heaven because they were never known by Christ. In other places in the gospels Jesus warns of false prophets and anti-christs that will deceive many people. Like I said, this is not a proof of Christianity, I'm just pointing out that from the beginning we have been warned of people doing evil under the cloak of the Christian religion. The fact that it happens should not be an intellectual roadblock to belief in God for anyone who takes the time to look into it.

The philosophy of Christ is refreshingly simple. It can be summed up with the words in Mathew 22:37-40, "Jesus replied, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."

If you can understand loving your neighbor as yourself but are confused about how to love God, Mathew 25:34-40 says, "Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
   “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
   “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"


If you want to love God, love the poor. That is why Jesus said the second commandment was like the first. The poor are our neighbors. Does Christs message sound like what Michelle Bachmann is always babbling about on T.V.? Does it sound like someone trying to gain support for a war?


We know that the philosophy of Christ was about loving your neighbor as yourself and loving the least among us. How then can we blame Christianity when people call themselves followers of Christ while they fight wars against their neighbors, oppress the poor and commit all kinds of evil? The only rational conclusion is that they are using Christs name, like he warned us people would do, but are not followers of Christ at all.

If you see wolves in sheep's clothing and then conclude that sheep are ferocious and we'd be better off without them, you will still be left with the wolves.

What's good for efficiency is bad for the spirit

This is an idea I've been thinking about a little bit lately. It's meant to be more of a generalization than a hard fact. Of course is wouldn't be hard to think of exceptions to this idea but I think it makes a lot of sense in an abstract way.

Cooking dinner vs. eating out - I enjoy preparing good food and cooking. I'm not sure why but there is something special about getting a meal on the table that you had to first think about, prepare and cook. I think it has something to do with the fact that you own the meal whether it is good or bad. You decided what to prepare as a main dish and you decided what to serve as side dishes, it's yours of which you can be proud or ashamed. At a restaurant you look at a menu, place an order and receive your dinner. If it's good you credit the restaurant and if it's bad you blame the restaurant. You're detached from the food, it's quick, efficient and does not have a lasting effect on your spirit. Also, what makes a good home cooked meal so special is the chance for failure which may happen more often than at a restaurant. The bitterness of failure makes success taste sweeter.

Backpacking vs. car camping - When my girlfriend and I were hiking the other day she mentioned that one of her favorite parts about backpacking was the effort it took to reach your destination. We were on our way down a canyon to a place called Fossil Springs. She was right, there is something special about having everything you need strapped to your back and hiking four miles to get to the campground. Something spiritual is lost with the efficiency of roads when you drive right up to a beautiful area and unload your case of beer. The effort of backpacking allows for a more enriching camping experience.

Disposable packaging and litter - Disposable packaging is all about efficiency. Throw it in the microwave and throw it away, it's easy. No need to carry around things like coffee mugs or water bottles, just throw away the styrofoam and plastic everyday, it's easier. But when you're out in the the woods and you see an abandoned sleeping bag thrown in the bushes, random trash all over the place and a bush littered with toilet paper the pain in your heart makes you realize that efficiency is being paid for by the spirit.

Painting vs. photography - Have you ever been to an art museum and seen paintings from a couple hundred years ago that you can barely distinguish from reality? I can make an image of the same or higher quality and share it with my friends in less than a minute. Was something lost?

Reading a book vs. watching a movie - I don't think this needs an explanation. If you can't relate to it I'd recommend The Mystery of Capital by Hernando De Soto if you think you'd like non-fiction or The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien if you think fiction would be more enjoyable.

Volunteering vs. donating money - There is a huge spiritual difference between writing a check and getting personally involved in the lives of the people that you'd like to help.

"I number it among my blessings that my father had no car, while yet most of my friends had, and sometimes took me for a drive. This meant that all these distant objects could be visited just enough to clothe them with memories and not impossible desires, while yet they remained ordinarily as inaccessible as the moon. The deadly power of rushing about wherever I pleased had not been given me. I measured distances by the standard of man, walking on his two feet, not by the standard of the internal combustion engine. I had not been allowed to deflower the very idea of distance; In return I possessed "infinite riches" in what would have been to a motorist "a little room." The truest and most horrible claim made for modern transport is that it "annihilates space." It does. It annihilates one of the most glorious gifts we have been given. It is a vile inflation that lowers the value of distance, so that a modern boy travels a hundred miles with less sense of liberation and pilgrimage and adventure than his grandfather got from traveling ten. Of course if a man hates space and wants it annihilated that is another matter. Why not creep into his coffin at once? There is little enough space there." - C.S. Lewis

Ron Paul

A friend of mine posted a video of Ron Paul on Facebook yesterday. I've heard about Ron Paul before but with all the politicians and voices out there I've never actually had the time to pay attention to anything he said. I've got to say I was pleasantly surprised. The video she posted is located here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyTZIXDAMS0&feature=related. It's the 1st of a 6 part interview that was banned from ABC. I guess people are up in arms that the media is ignoring him. I don't find that particularly appalling as others do because a. I think it would be a waste of my time to concern myself with what the mainstream media is or is not telling us because I don't think there is any chance of my activism actually changing anything and b. I don't really watch too many mainstream media outlets. Anyway, what I really wanted to write about was the interview.

I really liked what I heard Ron Paul saying. He wants a much smaller government that has more limited roles. Although I think there may be problems if the government gets as small as Ron Paul wants it, I definitely think it's time for the pendulum to swing in that direction. He wants government out of almost all wars, including the drug war, which is something I agree with. He also makes a lot of good arguments for why the government should stop interfering and how they've done a bad job at the things they have interfered with such as education and healthcare.

One issue that I find particularly important is that of immigration. I've heard he was anti illegal immigration before and that is part of the reason I've never given him the time of day. I think immigrants are very mistreated in this country and I wont vote for a candidate that runs on an anti illegal immigration platform. However, this is the issue I was most surprised to find myself agreeing with him on. He is anti illegal immigration but at the same time he is pro legal immigration. This is why I found his view acceptable. This is an emotional topic so I want to explain it using an analogy so that the argument might be more clear.

Let's look at traffic laws and pretend that people are pro and anti speeding on the freeway. I think the reasonable side would depend on the speed limit. If the speed limit were a reasonable 65mph I would be anti speeding because the law allows for a reasonable speed which eliminates any reason for breaking the law. Now, if the law was 10mph, I would say that the limit is unreasonable and I wouldn't think less of anyone for breaking it. Lets pretend that this issue is important in the 2012 primaries and that the current law is 10mph. I would be sympathetic to the speeders and more likely to vote for a candidate that shared my frustrations. Ron Paul's position could be summed up like this, 'Of course we don't want people speeding, so let's raise the speed limit to 65mph so that people don't have a reason to speed anymore. Then the problem will be much smaller and we wont have as much trouble enforcing our laws upon those who insist on speeding.' I can agree with that because at the moment I am sympathetic to speeders but I wouldn't be if the limit was 65. He changes the issue from pro/anti speeding to what is/is not a reasonable speed. That's refreshing.

Now to compare that analogy to the immigration debate. I am currently sympathetic to people who immigrate illegally because it's nearly impossible to immigrate legally. Compared to the speed analogy it would be as if the United States were 10,000 miles away and immigrants were only allowed to drive 1mph to get there. Ron Paul said in the interview that he would like to be much more generous with our legal immigration laws so that the incentive to immigrate illegally lessens or goes away. That's anti illegal immigration I can agree with. That's refreshing.

May 21st

People are saying that May 21st is going to be judgement day. This prediction doesn't happen all the time but it's not necessarily uncommon either. It's been unsuccessfully predicted many times in the past. Just for fun I listened to a Family Life Radio Broadcast today that was hosted by Harold Camping, the man who made the May 21st prediction. In a way I feel bad for him more than anything else. He's got this slow rambling voice that makes me think of a kind grandfather. He never raises his voice, gets angry or tries to be controversial. He just seems like a senile 89 year old man. I'm sure there are plenty of 89 year old men out there who would sound ridiculous if people listened to them and spread their ideas. 

He didn't really come across as a bad guy, just a guy who's spent his whole life thinking about the wrong stuff, or at least what I consider to be the wrong stuff. He's spent the last 50 years or so with the delusion that knowing when the end of the world was going to happen was important for people to know. From a Christian perspective though, why is knowing that important? If the end of the world was tomorrow or the end of the world was 1000 years from now or if there is never supposed to be an end to the world, would that change how we are supposed to act now? If we are supposed to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, would the world ending Saturday as opposed to 1000 years from now change that? I don't think so. So why would it be of utmost importance to spend your time trying to know something that is irrelevant to how you should live your life? The answer is that it's probably not important. After Saturday he's likely to be the most recent laughing stock of the world. That sucks because I think he's a senile 89 year old guy who spent his time unwisely but I don't necessarily think he's any worse than anybody else who misspent their time. Is the guy who did drugs till the day he died better? The billionaire who never gave two shits about the poverty stricken planet we're in? They alcoholic who thinks the whole world is meaningless? The self-absorbed woman who eats junk food all day and watches TV while her kids get raised by the school they attend? The list goes on and on. It's rare to find someone who lives well and I feel bad for all of us but especially Mr. Camping because he's no crazier than anyone else, he's just unfortunate enough to be listened too.

Hannity

I don't watch much T.V. but a couple nights ago I saw that a show called Hannity was on so I decided to give it a shot. I have to say it was just about the most appalling thing I've ever seen on T.V. The logic and thought process were atrocious. I know I wrote a similar blog a couple days back about Russell Pearce but this is a thought that's been developing in my little brain over the last few days so I wanted to give it another go.

Let's say that there is a complicated situation with one hundred people offering ideas and only one of them has a workable solution. Now lets say that these one hundred people start having debates with each other to try and create a following for their ideas. I think this is what was happening between Hannity and the guest that he had on his show the other night. It seems reasonable to me to think that while watching a political debate there is a good chance that neither person will have a workable solution to the issue that they are discussing. However, any time two people debate a topic there is a good chance one is going to appear more reasonable than the other. I think it is very important not to confuse 'He looks more reasonable than his opponent' with 'He has a workable solution to an issue.'

While watching Hannity it was very obvious that the political opponent that was invited to speak on his show had weak arguments. He was easily made to look foolish and, I suppose rightfully so, soundly defeated in the short "debate" (If you want to call it that. It was more like a one sided attack). Hannity then proceeds to push his own agenda without a smidgen of critical analysis. The logic seemed to be that since he defeated the leftist guest in a "debate", he must be correct. That is what I found so atrocious about the show. Without any reflection on his own ideas he carefully tries to lead the viewer into confusing, 'He looks more reasonable than his opponent' with 'He has a workable solution.' That's dangerous.

I'm admittedly a layman when it comes to this kind of thing. In the words of C.S. Lewis, I'm not trying to understand, I'm trying to misunderstand a little less completely. I don't know what the answers are but I know that we aren't going to find them if we focus all of our energy into tearing down the ideas of others instead of developing good ideas of our own. Be careful what you come to believe when you watch T.V. There is a lot of bad philosophy out there and it can't be made into something good by proving that it's better than something worse.

Acknowledging the monster behind you.

Have you ever heard the old nursery rhyme about the old lady that swallowed the frog to catch the fly and then a mouse to catch the frog and then a cat to catch the mouse and on and on? The old lady died... of course. I think there is more wisdom in that little nursery rhyme than meets the eye. I think the moral is that sometimes it's better to live with a problem if the only solutions are going to cause other problems that are more severe.

Try to apply that logic to Arizona's immigration problem for a minute. The AZ Legislature recently elected Russell Pearce to be the AZ Senate President and along with that comes a slew of anti-immigration legislation. Russell Pearce is so focused on solving the problem of undocumented immigration in front of him that he fails to see all the problems that his solutions are creating behind him in the wake of unintended consequences. We've already seen instances of violence between communities and the police department. We've seen local economies suffer because residents left in mass numbers to move to other states. And it looks as if the situation is only going to get worse. Recently, there was a bill introduced that would force hospitals to check the legal status of persons who receive emergency care and turn them over to federal authorities after their visit. I don't really feel like going into detail about the negative affects of this legislation because they are so obvious but if you'd like to read another blog that I think is an accurate prediction of what will ensue you can read it here - http://thepragmaticprogressive.org/wp/2011/02/10/a-whole-new-kind-of-death-panel/. 

The point I'd like to make is that I think it's very important to think critically about the motives of people who have a victim complex. Russell Pearce has a victim complex when it comes to undocumented immigrants. And rightfully so, I'm pretty sure he was shot once and had another run in that had something to do with drunk driving. (I might be wrong on the details but the point is that he has had bad experiences involving undocumented immigrants). People who view themselves as victims never feel like they need to be critical of their positions because they think they have a right to vengeance. In a way I can understand why Russell Pearce feels the way he does but I also think that we as a society need to think about the monsters behind his philosophy as he focuses all of his energy trying to rid the state of undocumented immigrants instead of critically examining the effects of his actions. Reason being that if we let him keep swallowing cats to catch mice, Arizona is going to end up like the old lady.

Egypt

Today I read that the protests in Egypt were successful in their attempt to force the resignation of their authoritarian president of 30 years. I feel like this is very good news to me even though I am not personally connected to the situation and do not even know anyone who is. It is inspiring to me because it is an example of real change. Not just a politician who says the word change and then either chooses not to change anything or doesn't have the ability to change anything but actual real change from the grassroots level. It really demonstrated the power of the people. I was having a conversation with my brother-in-law a few days ago and he mentioned how the social contract between the people and the government is what allows a government to stay in power. As soon as that social contract is broken the government has no control whether they remain "in charge" or not. On the peoples end, breaking that contract takes a lot of courage because if it fails to break completely they leave themselves open to continuing abuses from those in power. I am inspired by the courage it took for the people of Egypt to stand up to an authoritarian rule and collectively say, "We will not follow you any more. Our social contract is broken. You are not our leader whether the law says you are or not or whether you stay or not. We are free!"

That is inspiring!

Book Report - The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne

I just finished this book yesterday and had mixed thoughts about it. I like Shane Claiborne but I don't always agree with his opinions. I felt like he was really good at diagnosing problems but his solutions seemed to lack substance. He would hit the nail on the head when he would talk about how the church is apathetic and numb but then his solution would be an idealistic form of communism. If Christians just woke up and decided to share everything the world would be a better place. Sure, but if everyone on welfare decided to stop collecting government checks and actually organize and start businesses the world would be a better place too. I'm not actually proposing the latter as a plan, I'm just saying that talking about unrealistic goals is just that, unrealistic.

In the book he went on and on about Gods heart for the poor, the early church and how Jesus lived his life. I agree with all of that but I don't see how the book is emulating Jesus. Jesus said to do your good deeds in secret, not write a book about every good deed you ever did. Also, I don't understand how you can grasp the concept of the Gospel being good news for the poor and then go and write a book to an audience of rich people. The book isn't good news for the poor. You can look at the cover which is made to look like cardboard and duck tape and see that it's not something the poor are going to be excited about. The already have cardboard and duck tape. The book is good news for the rich because it frees them from money and a boring life of comfort. But good news for the poor? I'm not so sure.

I like Claiborne for his passion and recognition of a broken world that needs something new. But I wouldn't be surprised if this book was nothing more than an attempt by a man struggling with pride to make a name for himself. It's supposed to be an irresistible revolution but it was written 5 or so years ago and I hadn't heard about it till now. Must be pretty resistible. It doesn't seem to have gained a huge following. At the end of the book there is a three page list of "communities" that he says are part of the irresistible "revolution." It's almost like he's taking credit for them but when you look closer you can see that they aren't anything new. The CCDA is listed and my church is a member of that and has been since before the book was ever published. Willow Creek Community Church is listed and in the book Shane describes this as being a mega-church that took all the crosses out and had American flags all over the place to be "seeker-sensitive." That can hardly be considered part of his "revolution" but he lists all these organizations and makes it look like he's started something unstoppable when I really don't think he's had much impact.

Anyway, although I had disagreements, I think I still enjoyed this book and benefited from it. I came away from it with a better understanding of some of the problems we face in the world and also more of a will to take up the cause of the poor and the needy even though it probably wont be in line with what Shane suggests.

Book Report - From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman

I finished this book a few weeks ago and thought it was very insightful. This was the first book I've ever read that I underlined and marked pages for content that I wanted to revisit at a later date. I thought I'd write a blog highlighting some of the things I learned while reading this book.

Page 6- "First, when it comes to discussing the middle east people go temporarily insane, so if you are planning on talking to an audience of more than two, you'd better have mastered the subject." I thought this was particularly enlightening since everyone has an opinion about the middle east but it's rare to find someone who actually knows a thing or two about what really goes on.

Page 38 - Talked about people that continued to live in Beirut during war time and how they coped. A psychologist that studied peoples coping mechanisms there found that those who were able to block out everything that was going on around them that was not under their control were in the best physical and mental health. I thought this was interesting and I think it applies to other people as well as those living in Beirut. If you can't do anything about it, don't worry about it.

Page 354 - The Israelites used a mask of law to persecute the Palestinians. It is easy to confuse "rule by law" with "rule of law." It struck me as insightful because I think the same thing is going on in the United States to deal with undocumented immigrants. We justify all kinds of injustices by pointing to the law and saying, "What part of illegal don't you understand?" Just because something has been made into law does not mean that it is right or just. It was interesting for me to see this tactic being used in a different part of the world.

Page 364 - "One aspect of the arrogance of power is that it presumes knowledge." I liked this quote...

Page 381 - "In many ways, it was Israel, through its repressive and humiliating treatment, which managed to give the Palestinians a common experience of bitterness to reinforce their historical and cultural ties and cement them together." I thought this quote was also very insightful because I think it happens all over the world and in peoples personal lives as well. In an attempt to make their country more secure, the Israelites oppressed and contained the Palestinians. Instead of making them more secure, what it did was make their enemy hate them with more zeal. I think this happens to people in their personal lives when they try to get even with people instead of just let things go.

Page 430 - "The very existence of Israel as a modern state is slightly mind-blowing." That's for sure.

Page 431 - Friedman talks about what he notices while reading newspapers and about how there seems to be a spotlight on the Jews. I thought it was really interesting to read about what a journalist sees between the lines that a layman like myself might never notice. In this example he talks about how an Israeli solder made the front page because he grabbed a Palestinian youth while a story about Iran and Iraq attacking each other with long range missiles got buried in the back. The content of reporting on the middle east seems to be a bit unbalanced. What can you really believe?

A thought about my childhood

I'm reading a book right now by Thomas Friedman titled "From Beirut to Jerusalem." The craziness of the middle east is interesting to read about but it's even more interesting to think critically about. As I flip through the pages I can barely wrap my head around how unreasonable people over there can be. Everyone is scared of everyone else and they use that fear to justify the most egregious acts the human mind can fathom. Whether it be the Syrian government leveling an entire city full of non-combatants to crush a burgeoning  rebellion or a small terrorist faction creating a chair with a scalding hot phallus shaped mechanism to do what you'd imagine a terrorist faction would do with such a chair. The atrocities that occur in the middle east are almost beyond imagination for a person raised in Arizona who has never seen or been scared of war. Almost beyond imagination until I remembered something from my childhood that made me see everyone over there as an unlucky version of myself.

I'm pretty sure I am capable of committing every crime committed in the middle east and maybe even worse. Maybe not now that I'm an adult but I remember a time during my childhood when my mind and convictions were still malleable. I can remember sitting in church hearing stories about how the Jews used to stone people for committing certain sins. I never told anyone and felt really guilty but I remember thinking about how much fun it would be to take part in stoning criminals. I imagined a line of people with a "bad guy" a little ways away and getting to pelt him with rocks until he died. Now that I'm older I can't even look at the screen during a movie when someone is getting hanged but there was a time when I could have gone the other way. I guarantee if the adults in my life during that time hadn't taught me the morals that I've come to accept and had instead chose to teach me in a way that a lot of children are brought up in the middle east, I'd fit in just fine over there which is a sad thought. It's sad because I know I'm no different than anyone else, I'm just lucky to have been born into a culture that is less violent than other places.

It's interesting how reading a book can lead me to realizations that were completely unintended by the author. I find that to be very common while reading books. Anyway, I don't really know what the point of this realization is. I guess it's just that if luck is the only thing that kept me from being a middle eastern terrorist than I really don't have the option of hating them. I can only feel sorry for them and try to promote peace through peaceful means.