What a Dilemma!

I don’t want Clinton or Trump to win.  Whether democrat or republican we have the choice between a “conlady” or a self-important windbag.  I usually vote republican but this election cycle puts me in a position to deprive both parties of my vote for POTUS.  Knowing what I know, my conscience won’t let me do otherwise.

 

I will probably vote Libertarian this time.  I know that is a somewhat meaningless vote but it enables me to not only vote but, at the same time, make a statement.  OK, I know it is a statement that is worth less than a hill of beans.

 

For reasons made known in previous posts (you do read all my posts don’t you?) I cannot, in good faith, vote for either candidate.

 

I used to think, “All right, vote them in and everyone will see how inept they really are.”  But when Barack Obama was reelected I had to ditch that idea. I will continue to do my duty as a citizen as best I can but I will not violate my conscience.

 

Several comments regarding my last post were from people disgusted with Trump but will vote for him because he is “better than Clinton.” It is “the lesser of two evils” argument. But if I vote for Trump am I not still choosing evil even though a lesser one? What a dilemma!

 

Ultimately, American voters will decide who wins. Based on past elections, I am not optimistic.  I will, however, continue living with the results of elections even though I may disagree with them. I just hope for a more informed and moral electorate in the future. But, I ain’t holdin’ my breath.

Politics and Civility

Okay, I get it, a bunch of Americans don’t like Obama.  You have made your point clear.  A bunch of Americans didn’t like Bush either.  In both cases, the muck-throwing has been prodigious!  Shame on us!  How fortunate we are to be citizens of a country where they don’t lock you up or knock you off for criticizing the president/prime minister/king or dictator.  If we lived in one of these nations, a bunch of people would now be behind bars or deceased.

How privileged we are to be able to vote for the president and congress (the Supreme Court is another matter).  Come the next election, we can vote-out those we disagree with and vote-in those we think better represent our values.  Historically this is a new paradigm bestowed upon the world by the Mother of Parliaments and not every nation is ready or able to live within this concept.  Yes, we are indeed fortunate to live in a nation governed by and for the people.

In a couple of years, we will be able to express our opinions of Mr. Obama and his party by voting in an election.  We can go to the polls and fire those we disagree with.  In the meantime we can make our opinions known in letters to the editor, blogs and in the various forms of social media.

Unfortunately, what I have been reading across the political spectrum is distressing.  Never have I seen such hatred and invective.  So much of it is offensive, disrespectful, divisive and downright ungodly.  Some of it is simply false.  And, to make matters worse, too much of it comes from people who call themselves Christians.

It is possible to disagree without spewing hatred.  The lengths to which some go to express their hatred is astonishing…especially from those who should be known for speaking the truth in love…whether that truth is related to the gospel or any other subject.

How would you like to live under a Roman emperor or a cruel king or governor?  Well, as a matter of history, Christ and his followers lived in such a time.  And yet, we fail to see them respond with anything but Godliness.  About the strongest language I can recall is when Jesus called Herod a “fox” (Luke 13:32)  I challenge you who claim to be Christians to re-read some pertinent passages.

John 19:10-

• ·         Pilate’s authority (when he reminded Jesus that he had authority to crucify him) was given to him by God.

Romans 13:1-7

• ·         All authority is from God and we are to be subject to them.  We are not to resist their authority…to do so is to oppose the ordinance of God.

• ·         Authority is a minister of God to you for good.

• ·         It is necessary to be in subjection for conscience’ sake.

• ·         We are to render tax, custom, respect and honor to whom it is due.

1 Timothy 2:1-4

• ·         We are to pray for kings and all who are in authority.

• ·         We are to pray for them that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

• ·         This is good and acceptable in the sight of God.

1 Peter 2:13,14

·         “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, ¹⁴ or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.“

1 Peter 2:17

·         “Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.”

We live in a wonderful time when we can voice our opposition and act upon it in word and deed when we go to the polls.  But we must do it with honor and respect, praying for those in authority whether we agree or disagree with their policies.  It is high time we begin acting like the one we follow.

Getting Them “In”

Church leaders are lamenting declining attendance and seeking creative ways to get people into their buildings.  Preachers are even going to where the people are…imagine that!  (Sounds suspiciously like something Jesus did.)  But the goal appears to ultimately get people into their “worship services.” (We seem to forget that we are the “called out” not the “called in.”)

I hate to break it to you, but that’s not going to work.  People have better things to do with their time than to file into an auditorium, sing a few songs, listen to a few prayers, observe a few rituals, pay homage to a few traditions and listen to a monologue that may or may not be relevant…all the while staring at the back of the heads seated in front of them.

Some pin their hopes of getting people into their auditoriums on hiring a hotshot young Osteen-like preacher and a rockin’ band led by a highly talented choreographer/director/producer.  Unfortunately, without a large membership and a large budget, small congregations are left out in the cold.

The only way to increase attendance in assemblies is something any church of any size can do: fulfill their intended purpose namely, to build up our fellow disciples.  What we are doing now is just not cutting it.  When our assemblies become focused on encouragement, enlightenment and stirring up one another to love and good works…our assemblies will be packed.

Overweight, Oversensitive and Overheard

All this talk about overweight Americans has got me a bit skittish.  I have a very hard time losing weight and keeping it off.  I, along with New Jersey governor Christie, don’t need to be told I’m too fat.  I’ve been on the heavy side a loong time. So, I admit to being a little bit sensitive what with all this negative press.

Recently, for example, I was eating breakfast (fat or not, you should always eat breakfast) at our local grocery store foodbar.  Several groups of older men gather there to talk and drink weak coffee.  Some of them were seated behind me and I couldn’t help overhearing some comments that got my attention.

“Wow! He’s a big’un ain’t he?

“Did you see his body?”

“Yup, he must weigh 220!”

“Lookit them littlebitty horns.”

By this time I realized they weren’t talking about me.  After all, I weigh a bit more than that.

Talk Show Host

Ten Reasons I am Qualified

I wonder if there is any place I can audition to become a talk show host?  Let me modestly say I believe I have the talents to be the next star of a news show or a talk show on national TV.  Even though I am not blond (does white hair count?), beautiful, Irish or British, after watching some of these shows, I seem to have other necessary prerequisite skills.

1. I am always right about everything (always have been) and willing to remind listeners and guests of that fact.
2. I have a passable voice but, most important of all, I can be loud and/or shrill when necessary.
3. I can interrupt anyone at any time having practiced this skill for many years with my wife, children and others, especially at family gatherings (other than funerals).
4. I can also talk over others when what I want to say is obviously more important than what they are saying.
5. I know how to ask a question and then refuse to let the guest answer it by virtue of skill number four.
6. I know how to ask a leading, off-the-subject, off-the-wall, personal or embarrassing question just to see my guests squirm uncomfortably.
7. I am confident (and how!) I can invite an “expert” on to my show to interview and then prove I know more about their field than he or she does.  This is especially important for guests I disagree with or don’t particularly like.
8. I can also talk so much that we run out of time to let the expert explain whatever it is that they are experts of/on/about.
9. I am adept at interviewing authors without ever reading any of their books except the title, the introduction, the conclusion and the cover notes.  I’m going to cut them off at three minutes flat anyway.
10. When someone is too disgusted with my tactics to appear on my show, I have a number of things I can call them: Pinhead, dweeb, coward, sleazy, etc.

Finally, I don’t care what everybody else is saying, I am not a narcissist.

Science and Religion in Competition?

Several atheistic blogs I read are guilty of “scientism.”  Scientism is not science but rather deductions and speculations arising out of scientific observations.  Truth is truth no matter the source.  Scientism, however, sees science and empirical observation as the only source of truth.  Consider this definition:

Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Here’s an example from a blog called, Unreasonable Faith

Belief never invented a laser, or pressed a CD, or kept a ‘plane in the air, or restarted a heart – Science has done all of that and more, a whole bunch of times.” And, “Against this staggering work and monumental achievement (the proof that one of Einstein’s theories is correct – DW) on one single scientific project out of hundreds of thousands, there stand some old men in robes, telling us that God did it, because it says so in the n^th translation in the chain of some bronze-aged myths written by some camel-herders.

For the moment let’s ignore the ridicule and the reality that many respected scientists believe that “God did it.”  More to the point: science and faith are two different things and, thus, not in competition. Faith is defined as, “…the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). On the other hand, science is totally based on what can be seen. When interpretation of scientific observations moves beyond the observable, it becomes speculation. Speculation is fine and useful for building hypotheses but it is still speculation.  And there’s nothing wrong with speculations as long as they are recognized as such.  Just don’t ask me to accept them as incontrovertible truth.

Many religious people have rightly been resistant to speculations contradicting the concept of a Creator. Others have stubbornly held to their own religious speculations that are in obvious contradiction to observable and undeniable facts. This is foolish in light of the reality that observable facts (sans speculations) do not contradict the concept of a Creator God.  In truth, some of those facts call loudly for a first cause and a designer.

Science and faith operate in two separate realms. Faith presupposes the existence of a supernatural realm (things not seen). Science can only operate in the natural realm. To place them in competition is ridiculous.

---

Bandwagons

I’m not referring to actual wagons hauling actual band members. I’m talking about groups of people who have decided to think the same way without due consideration of all the information. Humans have a natural tendency to conform (fashions, fads, etc.) The few real non-conformists get the label “eccentric,” and summarily dismissed. That label applied to my father who always thought for himself. He was a curmudgeon with few friends, but he called it as he saw it (even if the way he saw it was screwed up). His main fault was making up his mind so solidly that it took a charge of dynamite to loosen him up to alternative thinking.

I especially notice the bandwagon effect expressed in blogs. For example, there are blogs where independent thinkers can express their independent thinking to other independent thinkers (bandwagons) and, in the process, lose their independence. Members of Political parties often confine themselves to party lines (bandwagons) instead of opening themselves up to other points of view. Members of certain religious groups are very often willing victims of “groupthink” (bandwagons) with their own special jargon. Atheists tend to stick together and parrot the current atheistic cant (bandwagons).

Bandwagons, I am thinking, come into being because people want to believe certain things and behave in particular ways rather than basing their personal philosophies and resulting actions on something substantial. Or, in the absence of substance, reserving their conclusions until they find it (it is, after all, okay not to have an opinion on everything).

While reading in the blogosphere, I notice that people who believe a certain way tend to read the blogs of others who believe the same way and merely applaud, cheer and conform to the thinking of the group. For them, “hopping on the bandwagon” becomes a convenient way to avoid thinking for themselves. Hats off to those brave and hardy souls who dare to disagree, challenge and debate those with whom they differ. We need to jump off our bandwagons and consider what others are saying. We might agree, disagree, challenge, debate, correct, suggest, applaud or, most important of all…learn.

My blogs:
Whitticisms: dwhitsett.wordpress.com
In the Charamon Garden: charamongarden.wordpress.com
Whitsett Carving: whitcarv.wordpress.com
Mission South Pacific: missionsouthpacific.wordpress.com

The Universe: Two Perspectives

My wife and I enjoy reading and watching mysteries – you know, Agatha Christie, etc.  I like to watch the television versions with her because I often get lost in the details and she doesn’t.  I have to have things spelled-out in simple terms. “Okay, was it the long-lost cousin who showed up from Kenya who took the papers from the study in the dark of night or was it the daughter who stood to lose her inheritance?”  “Who done it,” is easy for her (and Miss Marple), difficult for me.  I have noticed I have to do this with most things.

I can’t claim to have always been a solid theist.  In my university days, I followed in the footsteps of my father and began my studies as an agnostic.  My professors reinforced that position since most of them were either atheist, agnostic or ambivalent on the matter of belief.  Thanks to a teacher who helped me to see there are two sides to the question of belief, I came down on the side of faith in a Creator.  It just seemed much more reasonable.  Still does.

In my life-long attempt to get things straight, I have looked long and hard at the ongoing debate between theists and atheists. I have begun to see that whether to believe or not believe is largely a matter of perspective. We are part of an amazing, spectacular, unfathomable, intricate universe.  Before we even consider our microscopic little blue planet, there are the stars orbited by uncountable planets, gathered into galaxies numbering in the multiplied millions.  Then there is our tiny island with the only life we are presently aware of.  Intricate complexity and design is increasingly evident as we delve into the subatomic realms. Are the complexity, intricacy, design and order we see the results of accidental, random yet unobservable processes?  Is life the outcome of chemical processes that we don’t yet understand? How do we account for all this?

As for me, this is how it all boils down: The theist looks at the universe and concludes there is no way this complexity, intricacy, design and order could happen by itself.  The atheist looks at all the complexity, intricacy, design and order and concludes that it did indeed happen by itself. Two perspectives – which one makes more sense to you?

My blogs:
Whitticisms: dwhitsett.wordpress.com
In the Charamon Garden: charamongarden.wordpress.com
Whitsett Carving: whitcarv.wordpress.com
Mission South Pacific: missionsouthpacific.wordpress.com

A Healthy Skepticism

Will Rogers, with tongue firmly in cheek, once said, “All I know is what I read in the papers.” In the 21^st Century, we need to include television and the internet. For all the multi-faults of the multimedia, where else can we get current misinformation? Given those limitations, it is wise, if you ask me (you didn’t but I’ll tell you anyway), to take it all with a grain of salt (euphemism for skepticism).  Cousin Will also said, “It isn’t what we don’t know that gives us trouble, it’s what we know that ain’t so.”

My point: it is dangerous to base our conclusions on questionable data from questionable sources.  On the other hand, if the source has been consistently right, we can place a quantum of faith in what he, she or it reports.  So, how do we decide which sources to place our faith in?  Here are some thoughts:

1.       What is the background of the source?  For example, is the source is a solid member of some strange religious group founded on balderdash?  Then his or her conclusions may have the same foundation.

2.       Has the source been shown to frequently report “facts” that later prove to be fiction? Then we would be wise to withhold final judgment.

3.       Has the source has proven to be consistently accurate in facts that can be confirmed? If so, we can most likely assume accuracy in un-confirmable areas (I think I have just defined “faith.”)

4.       Is the source speaking from a biased point of view and more interested in party-lines and platforms than logical, open-minded consideration of the facts?  Then we can also expect the reporting to be positional rather than factual.

5.       Is the source a known conspiracy theorist?  I think you know where I’m going here.

Swagger, slide presentations and blackboards are not enough to produce confidence. Take a cup of media, crack the sources, carefully separating the yokels from the trustworthy reporters, add a tablespoon of skeptical salt, stir well,  pour into an unbiased pan, put in the oven and cook until it is not half-baked. I believe this is a good recipe for a measured response. I could be wrong but I don’t think so.

Thoughts on WikiLeaks

What do you think of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?

A writer could get in big trouble here.  Nevertheless, here goes.  Personally, I have mixed emotions.  I’ve had a few leaks in my life…water leaks that is…and I hate to see them.  They mean that I have some leaky pipes, places where rainwater can get in or some other regrettable fault in roof or plumbing.  In the case of water leaks, it is better to be aware of them in order to make needed repairs.  Fuel leaks, air leaks (drafts), and other sorts of leaks too personal to mention here…all signal problems that need to be dealt with.

In the same way, WikiLeaks exposes some faults and problems that need fixing.

1.       Somebody with access to state secrets has, for love, fame or money, spilled the state beans.

2.       Somebody is sloppy and careless with what they know that could harm others or be otherwise damaging/destructive/dangerous.

3.       Someone thinks that keeping secrets at all is counterproductive to their view of how the world should be.

4.       There are probably others I haven’t thought of yet (feel free to make a contribution here).

It turns out some of our folks have said some less-than-flattering things about leaders in other countries.  These have been “leaked” by the informants of Mr. Assange and there is hell to pay.  Our State Department is scrambling like a drowning rat to do damage-control.

But there are other significant leaks as well.  For example, reporters Juan Gonzalez and Amy Goodman have learned from U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks that the Bush administration drew up ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds.  Conclusion: we have more problems than we thought.  Monsanto is the very definition of a bully.  The rest of the world sees the U.S. as a bully.  So one bully is taking up the disgraceful cause of another bully…good grief!

It seems to me there are a couple of reasons for keeping secrets:

1.       It is vital to our nation’s defense, just like any other strategic matter.

2.       You’ve got something to hide that, if revealed, will bring you trouble/shame/disgrace, etc.

I have been very angry with Mr. Assange for his willy-nilly revelations made without consideration of the potential damage.  On the other hand, revelations such as the collusion of two bullies to force their agenda on others need to be exposed to the light.

Speaking of light, I can think of another bit of news that everyone needs to know.  It is the good news of a way of reconciling the created to their Creator and, hence, to each other.  It is a way to have peace on earth and good will among men with whom God is pleased.  It isn’t a secret, but we handle it like one.  Shame on us!  Maybe we need some professional help.  So, Mr. Assange, if you will contact me, I will tell you this secret and you can leak it for all you’re worth!