GoodAndEvil News

Go nu-cu-ler, as President Bush would enunciate

2005-02-25T19:28:00.000-08:00

Drop the bomb.

Stop the Democrats' unprecedented filibustering of judicial appoitments. America needs more constructionist judges on federal benches and the time to act is now. Let's find out early in this term if Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Spector will carry water for the president or not. Let's find out early whether Democrats will invoke the filibuster or allow a majority of Senators to approve judicial appointments. If the Democrats indeed filibuster, Republicans must employ the available rules change to allow judicial appointments to be approved by a majority vote of the Senate.

It will not be acceptable for Democrats to allow votes on some nominees they consider "acceptable," while turning away others they deem "unacceptable." True that some candidates may be stronger than others, but there is no place to draw the line between which nominees can be filibustered and which cannot. None can be filibustered. If a single Bush judicial nominee is filibustered, Republicans must act strongly and swiftly.

The elite judiciary that presides in many courts today is remaking the nation's laws in a way never foreseen by the Founding Fathers. This must stop. Republicans must not waste or miss the opportunity sitting before us right now. The Judiciary will be President Bush's chief legacy. Iraq will stabilize and troops will return home -- but the Judiciary will man the sentinels of power in the U.S. for decades to come.

Sen. Spector. Majority Leader Frist. The time to act is now.

Read it and Reap

2004-12-30T08:05:00.000-08:00

In a dream world, I'd have abundant time to research interesting topics and write meaningful -- and brief -- essays about them. But I don't have that time. Thankfully, however, many terrific individuals do -- and today they are called bloggers! If you haven't visited any other blog site than mine, I would ask you to do so. You will reap a wealth of information and understanding that is not available in any mainstream newspaper, magazine or from the big three TV networks. Here are links to a few of my favorite blogs:
realclearpolitics.com
powerlineblog.com
hughhewitt.com
nationalreview.com
washingtontimes.com
drudgereport.com

One of the refreshing things about the bloggers is that they have a point of view -- a bias, if you will -- that they admit to. Major media, like NBC, the New York Times or your local newspaper, pretend to be unbiased, but clearly are not. You can find a weblog that reflects any bias you want -- and then it is up to you to judge the value, the accuracy and the enjoyment of any site. If you don't like the site, if it has nothing to offer, you simply never return. On the other hand, I have found many reliable sites that offer perspectives I'd never get on my own.

When it comes to blogging, I am a novice, a pilgrim. A friend -- who'd started a blog of his own -- led me to a website that helps you create your own weblog site. That's what I've done, but I am terribly poor about adding creative touches and links to my site. Thankfully, again, others are masters at this. Among the best known internet news hounds is Matt Drugde, who first wrote about Monica Lewinski's stained dress...so many years ago. Internet bloggers continue to break important news stories that otherwise would be ignored by the mainstream media. It was bloggers -- including some of those I have linked -- who broke the story that Dan Rather's hit piece on Pres. George W. Bush's National Guard Service, was based on forged documents provided to CBS by a democratic operative in Texas. Rather has since announced his retirement, but CBS has yet to release the report of its internal investigation on the news fraud. And, through weblog links, I viewed several home movies of the Tsunami destruction that took hours or days to make it to the major networks.

If you use the internet for e-mail, for shopping, for research or for anything, please take five additional minutes and click on a link to explore one of these weblogs I've listed. Most weblogs offer a variety of brief current events news, with various links to related pieces and references. It's informative and it's fun. When you read blogs, you often are reading the news that will become the topic of the next day's radio talk shows.

Take care all. Happy New Year!

They say it's your birthday!

2004-12-11T21:23:00.000-08:00

Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.

Generally, there are just three times a year you can read that name in the newspaper: after a mass killing; when the Superbowl MVP collects his trophy; and at Christmas. Why?

What is it about Jesus’ name that so offends people? The free expression of Christian faith in society and in government has been stifled by those who march to a different drum.
But, what better time to reflect on Jesus than the celebration of His birth? No event has changed the course of human history like the virgin birth of Jesus. But, today, many would like to gloss over the true meaning of Christmas.

What is Christmas? What’s the reason…
…back of all this busy season?

It is a question that deserves contemplation. It is so easy to get caught up in the hustle and bustle of Christmas that we lose sight of the baby Jesus among the packages.

And, in an effort to be inclusive – in an effort to not offend others who believe differently – society has muted the meaning of Christmas. Christians watched as Nativity scenes became controversial displays. We watched as “Silent Night” and “The First Noel,” gave way to “Rockin’ Around the Christmas Tree.”
How could someone truly celebrate Jesus’ birth without also embracing Him and His teaching? One must believe He is the son of God, or Christmas is just another holiday – like Lincoln’s birthday. To embrace His teaching, one needs to know His word, the Bible. What is there to celebrate if Jesus was just another man or just a prophet?

But to express faith in Jesus involves risk. Some will wonder: what will others think? Will I be able to live up to His standard? Am I good enough?

And, …this is exactly what Christmas is about. God sent his son because none of us are good enough. God sent His son as an expression of His love for us. God sent His son that “whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16) This is indeed the reason behind the season! This was the cause of celebration and joy that accompanied His birth 2000 years ago. By all means…”hark the herald angels sing, glory to the new born king!”

But many today are offended by God’s word. They don’t like that the Bible has standards. They don’t like that the word separates good from evil, wheat from chaff. They reject the truth that is in God’s word. It troubles people to think that God has one way to heaven. But that is exactly what Jesus taught, “there is one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” (1 Timothy 2:5) He taught in the book of John that “no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” Why celebrate Jesus’ birth at Christmas, yet reject His teaching?

Scripture teaches it is God’s desire for “all” to come to know Jesus. And if – in an effort not to offend people who have other beliefs – we fail to introduce people to the one person who holds the key to eternal life, then we have not loved our brothers and sisters in the way Jesus taught.

And yet, if we say Jesus is the way, we risk persecution. If we are faithful and obedient to what the Bible teaches, it can offend people. This is the way it has been since Jesus walked the earth and this is the way it will be until He comes again. Proclaim Him and risk persecution; deny Him and live an eternal life apart from him.

At Christmastime this year, please think about the reason for the season.

Kerry...man of Catholic faith. Not.

2004-10-14T17:25:00.000-07:00

There is much to disagree about from last night's third and final presidential debate, but here is one item I've not heard anything about just yet.

Sure there is some chatter today about how Kerry talked his way around a question about his Catholic faith. Kerry was asked: "The New York Times reports that some Catholic archbishops are telling their church members that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you because you support a woman's right to choose an abortion and unlimited stem-cell research. What is your reaction to that?"

Kerry then danced his way through by saying, "I respect their views. I completely respect their views. ...But I disagree with them, as do many. I believe that I can't legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. ...Now, with respect to religion... I know that throughout my life this has made a difference to me. "

Here's where Kerry stepped in it... bad. Kerry: "My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, 'What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead.' And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people. That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth. That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith. "

So curious, isn't it, that when imbued by his faith, Kerry proudly boasts of fighting for the earth and for equality and justice -- but he sadly has no fight in him when it comes to fighting for the unborn (which, oh by the way, is part of the faith he was just bragging about.) Where are Kerry's "deeds," where are Kerry's "works" when it comes to fighting for the unborn.

Those deeds are easy to spot and hard to hide. A vote against partial birth abortion. Repeatedly voting to support a woman's right to kill her baby (and it's not just her baby by the way. It's someone else's baby too.) No siree. Kerry only fights for the things he believes in -- and he believes in women having a right to have their babies killed -- even in extreme partial birth abortions. That's the real Kerry.

Finally, for democrats who want to buy his logic not to impose his faith-based views on others, shouldn't you be upset that Kerry might impose his faith-based views on poverty and justice that he spoke about? Once again Kerry wants to have it both ways. He wants to be against abortion... and, oh yes, for abortion. He wants to vote against abortion, but only his honor keeps him from doing so... so, instead, he votes to kill near fully-delivered babies through the gruesome practice of partial birth abortion.

Yes, there are many topics and statements from last night's debate that have people chatting. But Kerry's pretzel-logic on his Catholic faith -- takes the cake. Kerry has no fight in him for things that matter, because he doesn't seem to know what matters.

Teachers' Union Dirty Tricks

2004-10-04T16:29:00.000-07:00

Have you heard what the teachers' union is up to in Jefferson County Colorado -- one of the 30 largest school districts in the nation? The local NEA-affiliate, Jefferson County Education Association (JCEA), was caught trying to grant graduate credit to its teachers for participating in campaign efforts on behalf of Democrats. It's certainly no surprise that the teachers' union supports Democrats, but what is surprising -- actually appalling -- is that they'd try to get graduate credit for teachers who leaflet neighborhoods with Democratic campaign literature.

The JCEA was caught red-handed by Pamela Benigno, Education Policy Center Director, at the Independence Institute in Golden. Link to them at i2i.org or phone Pam at 303-279-6536. The Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization.

According to the Institute, "Benigno has exposed a local teachers' union for making a promise it couldn't keep. The promise was academic credit for providing support to union-endorsed political candidates and issues."

The Institute issued a news release http://i2i.org/edteacherscredit.aspx-- that I've not seen picked up by my local Rocky Mountain News -- stating that the JCEA was telling its members that Adams State College in Alamosa would grant one semester hour of graduate course credit for teachers' participation in an Oct. 9 political rally and literature drop. "However, the Adams State College Board of Trustees Chair said no such agreement had been made," said Benigno.

"It's inappropriate, to say the least, that a teachers' union would offer academic credit as a way to entice teachers to promote the union's political agenda and in the process cheapen the value of academic credit," Benigno added.

On Friday Benigno sent a memo to Colorado Governor Bill Owens, Commissioner of Education William Moloney, Colorado Commission on Higher Education Executive Director Rick O'Donnell, Adams State College Board of Trustees Chair Peggy Lamm and Jefferson County Schools Superintendent Cynthia Stevenson to expose the fraud. "She urged them to take immediate steps to stop Adams State College from awarding credit for political activism," according to the Institute.

The release goes on to say that "after confirming the union's offer to its members, Trustee Lamm told Benigno that the college had never responded to the union's request. 'Adams State College never approved credit for this event, nor did we intend to,' she said."

In January of this year, I co-authored a paper with Benigno, "Should Colorado School Districts Stop Collecting Political Funds?" http://i2i.org/article.aspx?ID=963 The paper made the case that Colorado School Districts -- including the JCEA who is caught in this latest impropriety -- that publicly-funded school districts should cease using their public payroll systems to provide withholding services for teachers' union dues and fees. The Institute is continuing to look for legislative sponsors to carry a bill in the Colorado Statehouse to stop such practices.

According to the latest news release, "Benigno learned of the alleged plan to grant graduate credit for political activity from the disgruntled husband of a Jefferson County teacher. The caller said a JCEA representative had left a phone message soliciting his wife's participation in the event. The Education Policy Center's director confirmed the information directly from the JCEA before sending the memo. To fulfill the graduate credit requirements, the JCEA said teachers have to attend the political rally and distribute political literature to area voters. A JCEA representative told Benigno the total time commitment would be three to four hours.

Response to an unbelieving friend

2004-09-26T18:58:00.000-07:00

You posed two questions for my response:

1. How can someone support the sanctity of human life and at the same time support the use of force as a punisher of wrongdoing or as a defender of freedom?

2. Is all life equal? (You asked, "who besides humans has ever said human life is more valuable or holds more sanctity than other life?")

Before I present my arguments, let me discuss a couple of your ground rules or conditions. One, you said to "work from the assumption that we both believe God exists." I can find no common footing in this statement because you have not told me about your God. Is he a capital-G God or a small-g god? Is he creator of all things, who establishes right and wrong, good and evil? Or is he a generic, amorphous god without characteristic? Is he the creator that made man in his own image, or was he merely a watchmaker that started the universe ticking from an unformed primordial ooze? If your god is just someone or something that started everything ticking, what use is your god? You might as well call your god "nature," as the humanists and naturalists do. If your god simply made everything and then walked away, what purpose does he have today? If, on the other hand, the God we have in common is the Creator of all things, made us in His image, set man in authority over the earth and the animals and, most importantly, "has a plan a purpose for our lives" then, indeed, we have something in common or a common world view, if you will. But, I seriously doubt that I should assume we believe in the same god or share the same world view. And, absent a shared world view, most all of our logic, debate and argument will likely come to little effect as we have no basis for truth. For if there is no truth, we cannot persuade one another by rational arguments.

I must therefore violate your other condition, "do not present the Bible as literal truth because you don't believe it is." What then is the basis of truth for you? Is truth what man is able to reason in his mind? Is truth only the laws of nature (ignoring they were founded by nature's God)? Is truth what one person thinks, a collection of people think? Perhaps before I can even begin to address the questions that you posed to me - and which I reiterated at the opening of this letter - we must establish what is truth, because without truth there is no basis for rational argument.

So, your ground rules for debate leave me with little hope that you will be persuaded by my reasoning, but, I've gone this far, so let me try.

If there is no "truth" - no absolutes - that separate right from wrong and good from evil - then why shall we have this debate? If peace is no better than war, why does it matter what the most warring nation has been? If animal/insect/plant life is equal to human life, why not just let the rules of nature apply - that since man, in survival-of-the-fittest-mode, is the most able he can do whatever he wants to the other animal life and to the earth. Who's to say that killing a cat (or a human) as a ritualistic sacrifice is more or less worthy than killing a cow to eat? Why shall we have this debate if truth is relative and all viewpoints are equal?

And, if truth is not relative, then what is the basis for truth? How can truth be known? You pull the rug from under the Bible before the debate begins by stating the Bible is not true. If the bible is not true, then I again ask what is true and how do you know it's true? Is it good or bad to kill an unborn baby? Is it good or bad to kill invading insects that ruin crops? Is it good or bad to slaughter an animal for food? Is it good or bad to harness coal or wind or water to have electricity? Is it good or bad to mine the earth for oil and fossil fuels to heat homes and drive cars? How do you know? If there is no absolute standard for morals or other things, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute, I mean that which always applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute if there are to be morals or real values. If there is no absolute beyond man's own ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions. This, I am afraid - conflicting opinions - is what you and I have between us. And, it was based on these differences that I previously decided it was better not to debate with you. But, as you argued when you were in town, if we don't discuss the essential things of life we really will not have deep or close kindred relationships. But, if the beliefs continue to stand in contrast, I would rather have a brother than a debate partner. "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city." Proverbs 18:19

You say the Bible is not true, but I say that it is. I used to think that Christianity was a crutch - something to explain the unexplainable, something to prop you up when you needed a lift. Many people, I think, confuse "religion" with Christianity. "Religion" was instituted by man to commune with God, but Christianity - a belief in the life and teachings of Christ - is what God instituted to commune with his people. Religions - sects or denominations of people who tend to share similar spiritual viewpoints - have gotten off line many times over the ages. You made a claim in your note that "it's not like Christian beliefs have not changed in the last 2000 years and they will again." To which I would say that people's beliefs have changed, but God has not changed. The god of the bible is the same yesterday, today and forever - and just because man or man's religious beliefs have gotten off kilter from time to time is no reason to discount the Bible. Christianity is a relationship with God, not a relationship with a church. The truth and authority of the Bible has been the question of the ages. This debate is won in the hearts of men and women and children who freely chose to give their hearts to Christ. Until that debate is won in the heart of each man, I believe he will be incomplete, that he will suffer doubt and indecision about the purpose of life and of the existence of life ever after.

The Christian world view is the only one I have found that holds together, that is complete from beginning to end, that establishes a purpose for life and creates the groundrules to hold life together in the face of unexplainable and unspeakable tragedies and heartaches. So, it is only on this basis that I can present my arguments to you. If you dismiss the foundation of my arguments, you dismiss my argument. You have heard that Jesus is the rock, that He is the foundation - and for me he is.

Question 1: How can someone support the sanctity of human life and at the same time support the use of force as a punisher of wrongdoing or as a defender of freedom?
To answer the question, I will assume there is right and wrong and good and bad. (Sadly not all even agree to this anymore).

Is human life sacred? Yes.
Why? We are created in God's image and it is his desire that all men should come to know him in a personal way.

Then how can man ever be justified to kill another man? Because, at the same time that the Bible teaches Thou Shalt Not Kill, it also teaches justice and the establishment of governments to carry out justice. The actual translation of the sixth commandment in Exodus 20 is Thou Shalt Not Murder. Is killing justifiable as a punishment for murder? Yes. Someone who murders has broken the law and in a lawful land should and will face punishment for that murder. Is the death penalty the appropriate punishment, we can debate that another time. As laid out in scripture, government has the god-ordained responsibility to protect the innocent, reward good and punish evil. Does every government do this flawlessly? No, and when they do not, it is the responsibility of the people to reform the government. And if the government cannot be reformed, it sometimes (as in the birth of America) is the responsibility of good men to revolt and to establish a new and better government.

Is government ever justified then to go to war to protect its people and the freedoms of its people? Of course. Does this mean all wars are just. Of course not? But, at least in the U.S. - as opposed to the Taliban or Nazi Germany - we have a form of government that allows us to elect our leaders, to chose the people we want to lead us - and we have the constitutional protections to get rid of those leaders if it is warranted. Is the U.S. the most warring nation ever? Perhaps? Is the U.S. the worst nation ever? Far from it. People still flock to America as a beacon of freedom.

Can human life have sanctity and there still be justification for killing in defense or in punishment? You bet.

2. Is all life equal? No.
Only man is made in God's image. Only man was given authority "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. ...And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over it. I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky; and to everything that moves on the earth which has life, I have given."

Now, if you disagree with this evidence that life is not equal, then let's look at the natural evidence. Is any animal, insect or plant life equal to man in what they have been able to establish since creation? Do lions not still hunt for food and kill other animals? Have any animals cultivated crops, engineered buildings, given donations for the poor, built hospitals for the sick (don't many animals just eat their wounded?) If you aim to tell me that all life is equal, please be prepared to provide the evidence of that equality.

As it appears our correspondence may be marked by lags in time, if you will refresh the dialogue (as I attempted to do today) I will be better able to follow the argument. If we can stick to the two questions you raised - perhaps you could provide rebuttal to my positions - that would be good. But, if like me, you feel compelled to address other portions of my statements, I would ask that you address the questions I raised: Is there absolute truth and how do you know? Is your god the creator and what purpose does this god give for your life?

Please let us end this debate at any future point that it could begin to diminish, rather than improve, our relationship. I am after far more than intellectual understanding in this exchange. I think you and I understand each other full well. And if our understanding of each other's positions just drives us further apart, I want no part of the debate. My desire is to draw us together - not intellectually - but in our hearts.

With love...

What's wrong with CBS "thanking" supporters?

2004-09-15T18:19:00.000-07:00

What's wrong with CBS News "thanking" e-mailers for support of Dan Rather's story on Bush's National Guard service?

Today the KerrySpot http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp reports:

"The Bush critics are e-mailing CBS, saying 'good job, what courage' on this story. According to multiple posters at the liberal chat site DemocraticUnderground.com, the network's response to the positive emails is:

"Dear [e-mailer],
Thank you for taking the time to write. Your support is appreciated. As you can imagine, we've been inundated with negative emails. It's refreshing to hear from a viewer such as yourself. We strive for the highest level of journalistic integrity and will continue to do so, no matter what the cost. A free society demands free, unmuzzled media expression."

"CBS Evening News"

What's wrong with this official correspondence from CBS? These people aren't writing in about an entertainment show -- about some sitcom they liked -- they are writing about news -- about something to which there is objective truth! If CBS was concerned with the objective truth of the documents they relied on for their report, they wouldn't be thanking people for their support of an attack on President Bush -- while failing to thank others for their interest in the truth.

Since the scandal broke a week ago, I've personally accessed the CBS website twice and sent e-mails telling them to end the charade and fess up that the documents are fraudulent. Guess what? I didn't get any e-mail back from CBS thanking me for my interest in journalistic integrity.

What else is wrong with CBS above reply to "supporters." How can CBS possibly proclaim, "We strive for the highest level of journalistic integrity and will continue to do so." If CBS cares at all about journalistic integrity, they would be joining in exposing the truth that the documents are frauds, propped up by the network's own attempt to legitimatize them with dubious experts who are backing away from CBS faster than rats leaving a sinking ship. With lame defenses like, "the documents must be true because the president hasn't disavowed them," how can they possibly claim they care about journalistic integrity? John Kerry has not disavowed the claims of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth -- but I doubt that CBS interprets that to mean the veteran's claims must be true. Hardly.

CBS rightly closes its "thank you note," with a truism: "A free society demands free, unmuzzled media expression." CBS just learned this lesson bigtime as the unmuzzled and unwashed (pajama-clad) bloggers gave the big boys a spanking in what it means to truly have free media expression -- media expression not tainted with bias of the Big Media.

I'm still waiting for my "thank you note" from CBS -- thanking me that I cared enough to write because I don't want people misled by irresponsible reporting. I don't expect my thank you ever will come. Rather's retirement would be thanks enough for me.

New Media is old again

2004-09-12T13:10:00.000-07:00

As recorded in U.S. history, "In an era before modern communications, news was generally disseminated in hand-written letters that were carried aboard ships or by couriers on horseback. Those means were employed by the critics of British imperial policy in America to spread their interpretations of current events. " Today's equivalent of the letterwriters are the bloggers. And today's equivalent of British imperial policy is the media elite as represented by ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, LA Times and more. And, of course the courier today is no longer the horse, but the internet -- the World Wide Web.

The latest exploits of Rathergate (the Fraudulent memos trumpeted by Dan Rather about Bush's National Guard Service), as well as the Associated Press's blatant conjouring of news that never occured (the AP's "reporting" of booing at a Bush rally when he mention former President Clinton needing heart surgery), have proven beyond doubt that the existing imperial network media no longer can be trusted -- at least when it comes to politics. Sure, Old Media can still report a car crash or a sporting event, but often today they can't distinguish a true freedom fighter from a terrorist.

We have Samual Adams, an American Founding Father, to thank for the colonial era Committees of Correspondence, as he and his fellow correspondents disseminated hand-written letters to rally the people in opposing the Stamp Act.

USHistory.com states: "The committees were responsible for taking the sense of their parent body on a particular issue, committing it to a written form and then dispatching that view to other similar groups. Many correspondents were members of the colonial assemblies and also were active in the secret Sons of Liberty organizations.

"The first formal committee of correspondence was established in Boston in 1764 and was charged with rallying opposition to the recently enacted Currency Act and the unpopular reforms imposed on the customs service.

"In 1772, at the urging of chief propagandist Samuel Adams, a committee was formed to protest the recent decision to have the Crown, not the colonial assembly, pay the salaries of the royal governor and judges. Adams and his fellow correspondents rallied their neighbors to oppose this measure that had cost the colony its means of controlling public officials. In the following months, more than 100 other committees were formed in the towns and villages of Massachusetts. "

Today those committees of correspondence are no longer formed in the towns and villages of the colonies, but on blogspot and other websites. One committeeman -- say a Hugh Hewitt or a Powerline or The Corner on National Review Online -- spreads the news to others. Thanks so much to the above writers -- and to the other pioneers of our New Media. I do not know who might one day get the credit for New Media's Committees of Correspondence, but this has become the means by which thinking Americans get their news. It is person-to-person and trustworthy. If you land on a blog that proves itself untrustworthy, you simply never go there or never rely on it for truth.

Sign me up as a new volunteer in today's Committees of Correspondence -- the blogosphere. Count on me to pass on reliable news and information to my family and friends -- and to try to expand that circle of influence with this new blog, goodandevilnews.blogspot.com. Thanks to my journalist forefathers -- those of today -- and of Sam Adams' day. Blog on!

The Root of Evil

2004-09-11T13:51:00.000-07:00

Hack. Chop. Hack.

Wait, …what’s that sound?

Henry David Thoreau, 19th century naturalist, wrote these words. "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

Where are you? What has your attention?

I presume everyone would be against evil. Please, those who are NOT against evil, raise your hand. It even sounds absurd, doesn’t it?

When Thoreau wrote those words he didn’t worry about the definition of evil. When Thoreau pointed out that people "hacked" against evil, he didn’t wonder if people recognized evil. Thoreau merely made the point that some folks – the vast majority - are busy battling the outward manifestations of evil, rather than the root cause.

After reading his words it’s clear the efforts of the many hacking at "branches" should be redirected to assist the one who is hacking at the "root."

We see this all around us today. People fight against guns used in crimes. People decry Hollywood TV trash. People hack against the evils of smoking? People are hacking away across the U.S. at the "branches" of evil. But the roots are hardly nicked.

Why?

For starters, many people today have become so deluded they can’t even agree on what IS evil. The lines between good and evil are blurred by people’s self-centered desires. Standards of evil once were easy to recognize and define.

And - even though the forces of evil have tried to blur the line separating good from evil - we still recognize evil when we see it, don’t we? When we see a young boy, kidnapped, killed and left in a dumpster, we know that’s evil? And - of course - when we see the Oklahome City bombing or the Columbine High School massacre, we ABSOLUTELY know that’s evil.
But what has been the reaction of society to such evils. The people shout, "Stiffen gun laws! Eliminate violent video games! Toughen criminal sentencing!"

But are any of these efforts directed to the root of the problem?

No.

The problem is that America has lost its moral foundation. People today are confused about evil, afraid to agree about what is evil. Once widely held beliefs are now ambiguous.
Evil is having its way in America. Evil itself is blurring the line separating it from good. God warned in Isaiah 5:20: "woe to those who call evil - good, and good - evil." We are living in that day today.

When people increasingly become confused between good and evil, they are afraid to strike at the root. They spend their days in the often fruitless pursuit of hacking at branches.
Tougher gun laws won’t eliminate shootings. Tougher sentencing won’t eliminate terrorists. Getting rid of TV sets will not stifle the evil unleashed among us. The one thing that will hack at the root of evil is "good" itself. "Good" alone is the thing that will kill evil.

It has been said, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. You see, it is the absence of "good" that lets the evil flourish. So, what is the nature of "good?" What is good?

You know the answer before you read it. God is good. God alone is good. And, how do we know this? Look at the evidence. Where did the people turn when 13 were murdered in a school shooting? They turned to God. Where did people turn when a building was bombed in Oklahoma? They turned to God. Where did people turn when America rallied to defend Kuwait in the Gulf War? Where do people always turn for help when they are unable to help themselves? They turn to God.

Admit it. You know this in your heart.

It’s time to reopen our eyes. Good is good and evil is evil. Let’s apply the hatchet of truth to the evil of lies. Next time you want to make life better for our children and our nation, let’s hit "evil" with "good."

Tolerating intolerance

2004-09-11T13:02:00.000-07:00

I’m intolerant. Aren’t you?

I won’t tolerate being dirty and smelly. I won’t tolerate bigger kids picking on smaller ones. I won’t tolerate elected officials telling me what they will do with "their" money (as if it didn’t come from our taxes). And, I won’t tolerate exchanging the truth for a lie.

In this age of tolerance, I am so grateful when I hear about others who will not tolerate certain things. John Wooden, legendary UCLA basketball coach, told a story about the time star center Bill Walton came to him and told the coach, he had thought about it and he was not going to shave!

Wooden - who had a rule that his college players would be clean-shaven - turned to Walton and said respectfully, "I admire someone with convictions. Bill, if you’re sure this is what you’re going to do …we’ll miss having you on the team."

…Walton shaved.

The Wall Street Journal once editorialized, saying, "if you want to avoid major affronts, be intolerant of small affronts." The Journal was writing about issues of national security, saying that if a leader fails to respond firmly to a small affront, then that leader can look forward to more - and larger - affronts.

Amen, I say.

How refreshing that intolerance can be okay! Sure, Coach Wooden could have "tolerated" Walton’s flouting of team rules. And if he had, Wooden would have found himself tolerating more affronts: players late to practice, loafing or whatever.

Today we live in a society that seems hell-bent on compromise, on tolerating things that ages ago would have been considered ghastly or wrong. Many things that were once "certain" to the vast majority of society have become "relative" - certain or true to one person, but not to another.

Today so many things masquerade as truth that it is hard to tell the fake from the original. That’s what truth is: fidelity to the original. When people talk about a "true measure," they are asking whether an amount, say 12 ounces of flour, is true to the 12-ounce weight on the other side of the scale. Is the weight of the flour faithful (fidelity) to the original 12-ounce weight?

Today the false weights are many. The measure of success for too many today has become financial. The joke is: what do you call a man who is CEO of a Fortune 500 company, alcoholic, on his third marriage and his son is in prison? …A success.

The Bible has a warning that talks of a time when men and women "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" (Romans 1:25). We are living in that day again today. The lie is telling our children it’s OK to have "safe" sex, rather than telling them to wait until marriage. The lie is that it’s okay for a president to commit perjury. The lie is that stopping the life of an unborn fetus is not the same as killing a baby.

Where is the faithfulness to the original? Where, today, is the intolerance of things that aren’t right? In all this talk of tolerance – the one thing that society seems truly intolerant of, is men and women who speak up for a standard, for a moral absolute of right and wrong.

I’m intolerant of many things. I think most of you are too. There is something in most people that speaks out and says, "That’s not right," when they see injustice and hear lies. I hope those who believe "truth is relative" and that nearly any behavior should be tolerated, will respect my right to say these things. But more importantly, I hope others who read this and feel similarly will be encouraged to speak up and help the younger generation distinguish between a faithful measure of truth and a fraud.

If you tolerate weeds, they will take over your garden.