Tuesday, December 16, 2014

I Heard the Bells On Christmas Day

I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day
Their old familiar carols play,
And wild and sweet the words repeat
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

I Heard the Bells On Christmas Day, is a beloved carol based on a poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and set to music by John Baptiste Calkin. I was reminded of this song several times over the past few weeks, since the polarizing grand jury decision not to indict Officer Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown. As we all know, what followed thereafter were riots, protests, accusations against the police, vitriolic debates, another tragic death of a black man—Eric Garner—at the hands of another white police officer, and more protests . . . My Facebook and Twitter feeds exploded with news stories and commentary from my amateur analyst friends on both sides of the issue.

My liberal friends—yes, I have those, everyone should have friends on the opposite side of the political spectrum—accepted the “black” narrative without hesitation or question. Many of my conservative friends posted stories countering this narrative, memes mocking Al Sharpton and the black protesters in Ferguson, news stories about cops going out of their way to perform acts of kindness, statistics disputing the ones spouted by the other side, and some stories and videos that were just mean and counterproductive. There was precious little, on either side of the issue, which endeavored to generate a solution, allay the obvious pain and anger of an entire community, or bridge the broadening gap between black and white. If anything, more damage has been done. And, it’s almost Christmas.

I thought how, as the day had come,
The belfries of all Christendom
Had rolled along the unbroken song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.

So, what are the facts: two black men are dead, two families are devastated, two police officers’ careers are irreparably tarnished, the black community is filled with fury, the justice system is in question, protests are disrupting the nation, and the age-old rift between black and white continues to widen. I don’t pretend to know the truth. Was Michael Brown an innocent victim? Was he a criminal who threatened the safety of a police officer? Was there malicious intent in the death of Eric Garner? In the end, the bigger picture is out of focus, because the real goal—the equality and brotherhood of all races—has been lost. And, it’s almost Christmas.

And in despair I bowed my head:
"There is no peace on earth," I said,
"For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men."

A quick history lesson: I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day was written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in the winter of 1864. (Read the whole story.) Christmas of 1864 was one of the darkest Christmases in our country’s past. The Civil War had been raging on for more than 3 ½ years, and would continue for several months more. The country was, literally, divided. Countless lives had been lost. The South was utterly decimated. And, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution—the one that ended the evil of slavery—had yet to be passed. The horror of the Civil War, in which Longfellow’s own sons were fighting, might all have been in vain. Yet, if you listen to the entire song, you see there is still hope.

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men."

Many of the efforts at protecting civil rights and achieving racial equality over the past few years have done more harm than good. Affirmative action, various lawsuits, and even the welfare system have served, in many ways, to create jealousy, cultivate discord, and keep poor minorities dependent and locked into a hopeless system. Perhaps this is intended; perhaps it is simply the result of a broken system and years of hatred and bigotry. Many poor people and racial minorities face a very different reality than the majority of Americans. It isn’t necessarily our fault, but that doesn’t relieve of us of the responsibility to care for our fellow man. Remember, it’s Christmas.

Christmas is about Jesus—not Santa or presents. Jesus—the greatest gift for all mankind—commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves. He didn’t say to love our neighbors as long as they deserve it, or love them as long as they agree with us politically, or love them when it is convenient. (See Matthew22:36-40)  It isn’t about who’s right or wrong, there is much, much more at stake—it’s almost Christmas . . .

Till, ringing singing, on its way,
The world revolved from night to day,
A voice, a chime, a chant sublime,
Of peace on earth, good will to men!


Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Intolerable Intolerance of "Tolerance"

When did “tolerance” become so intolerant?

Tolerance [tol-er-uh ns]  (noun)
1. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry.
2. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one's own.
3. interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., foreign to one's own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
4. the act or capacity of enduring; endurance:

The above is the definition of “tolerance,” according to Dictionary.com. “Tolerance” is a funny word. In our current politically-correct culture of “tolerance,” it has become dynamic, enigmatic, elusive, and hypocritical. “Tolerance” has, for some time, been the buzzword of liberal elites and left-wing intellectuals. The new definition of “tolerance” seems to be:

1. a blind acceptance of everyone and everything, including all religions, all sexual orientations, all political ideas, all life styles; freedom from critique
2. A permissive, even celebratory attitude toward anything and everything except that which is deemed “intolerant” or politically incorrect.

“Tolerance” is dogma. Every system of beliefs, every religion, or lack thereof, every lifestyle choice, and every worldview has become acceptable in our society except for the conservative, Christian, family-oriented worldview. A glaring illustration of this was recently observed in Houston, Texas.

In Houston, local pastors were issued a subpoena for local pastors to turn over “All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.”

No, these pastors were not inciting a riot, they were not calling their congregations to arms, they were not making terroristic threats. So, what could possibly have provoked the City of Houston to this blatant violation of freedom of speech and freedom of religion? These intolerant pastors had the audacity to speak out against a city ordinance that they believed was dangerous to the welfare of the women of Houston. The city ordinance in question is known as HERO, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance. This ordinance, among other things, would allow anyone—male or female—dressed as a woman to use either men’s or women’s public restrooms.

Houston pastors were concerned that sexual predators may take advantage of this situation and gain access to vulnerable women via public restrooms. These hate-mongering pastors then advocated for a petition to be circulated calling for a referendum so the citizens of Houston could vote on the matter. Not only did the city reject the petition, despite the fact that it had more than the necessary number of signatures (as per the legal requirements of our great American democratic system), when the petitioners had the audacity to sue the city to have the matter placed on the ballot, the City of Houston responded with their own lawsuit—all in the name of “tolerance.” For the rights of a few, the City of Houston is willing to sacrifice the rights, and even the safety, of the majority. Better to be “tolerant” than sorry. http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/188148-lawsuit-bathroom-law-city-houston-demands-copies-pastors-sermons-regarding-sexuality/

This is not the only recent incidence of pastors or ministers being persecuted for their “intolerant” beliefs. Two Coer d’Alene ministers are facing fines and possible jail time for refusing to perform same-sex marriages at their wedding chapel, The Hitching Post.  A city ordinance requires non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, housing, and all “public accommodations.” The Hitching Post is registered as a religious organization, but it is also a for-profit business and therefore falls under the “public accommodation” proviso. So, if these narrow-minded ministers dare to adhere to their constitutionally protected beliefs, and refuse to officiate same-sex marriages, they could face a fine of $1000 and 180 days in jail for each day they refuse to comply.
http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/18/government-ordained-ministers-celebrate-sex-wedding-go-jail/

The intolerance of “tolerance” is evident in other issues of conscience as well. From pro-choice proponents insistence on referring to pro-lifers as “anti-choice” (Does anyone call pro-choice activists “pro-abortion?”) to the excoriation of Jessa Duggar for daring to express her intolerant opinion that the Holocaust and abortion are comparable, to the obsessively PC treatment of Muslims in the media, it is clear that the doctrine of “tolerance” is duplicitous and self-serving.

Certainly some conservatives have, at times, been guilty of cruelty and bigotry toward minorities, homosexuals, or those with differing political beliefs. Cruelty and hate are never acceptable in the public discourse of a democratic nation. However, it is ridiculous for liberals to pretend that they are the compassionate and “tolerant” faction. And, it is foolish for anyone to blindly accept the beliefs and opinions of others without critique, like so many pretentious sheep. I mean, really, let’s call a spade a “spade.”

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

George Washington on Political Parties

"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, Sep. 17, 1796