Merry Christmas

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.

In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets;

in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom

he created the universe, who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being,

and who sustains all things by his mighty word.

Newtown Remembered

I continue to stand with those who remember the victims of all violent incidents, especially in America, including the horrific shooting in the Newton Connecticut School and the recent shooting in San Bernardino. I am increasingly saddened by the tragic loss of life and by the struggle of those who survive. I am also saddened by this nation's reaction to these events.

A friend of mine works for a nearby police department directing a television program called Make the Call about unsolved crimes. On this show the families and friends of murder victims are interviewed, giving us a personal account of the drive-by shootings, gang shootings, and seemingly random shootings so common in this area. I agree with him that "some of the victims were wonderful loving people and some were not, but we must never forget that they all had people who loved them".

The tragedy is that these people, or others, lost their way before losing their lives. I also agree with my friend that the grief of the families and friends is palpable and understandable. Ignoring the causes of these situations, it is a sobering reality check that the one injured or killed by an act of violence is not the only victim of the crime. It naturally inspires in us the desire to do what is possible to prevent this kind of violence.

The married couple accused of the San Bernardino shooting are described as ‘quiet and polite” with no “obvious grudges”. While the motive remains a mystery it is now being called an act of terrorism; we know that the husband was “radicalized” and his wife had recently entered the country from Pakistan. Their actions were well planned, they were both dressed in tactical gear, and they were prepared for a gunfight.

Those that support gun rights may or may not be correct about mental health being the primary cause, but it’s almost a given that someone psychologically prepared to kill innocent people is suffering from some form of mental illness. While it’s difficult for me to understand psychological causes as they relate to religious fanaticism, I would say this couple too lost their way.

What can we learn from this event? Ask yourself why the focus is still on the tools used during a crime instead of the underlying causes of crime, and you might get an insight into what is happening in this country. If you continue to let our nations leaders, the media, or anyone else distract you then you are part of the problem. Be part of the solution: Guns are just a tool, they are not the problem!

Thanks be to God

For the fruits of his creation, thanks be to God.

For his gifts to every nation, thanks be to God.
For the plowing, sowing, reaping,

Silent growth while we are sleeping,
Future needs in earth's safekeeping,

Thanks be to God.

 

 

In the just reward of labor, God's will be done.

In the help we give our neighbor, God's will be done.
In our worldwide task of caring, for the hungry and despairing,

In the harvests we are sharing, God's will be done.
 

For the harvests of the Spirit, thanks be to God.
For the good we all inherit, thanks be to God.
For the wonders that astound us, for the truths that still confound us,
Most of all that love has found us, thanks be to God.

Paris

God bless those killed and injured in the terror attacks in Paris. These attacks are a horrific reminder that evil is out there. It will always be out there! How do you feel about the Friday attacks in Paris?

1) People without common sense said:
 "Thank God they don't allow guns here, we feel especially safe."
2) People with common sense said:
 "How can anyone be stupid enough to believe we are safe in gun-free zones."
3) Politicians said:
 "I can't believe we fooled people into thinking they would be safe in gun-free zones."
4) Terrorists said:
 "It's like shooting fish in a barrel!"

When you create "gun-free zones" and disarm law-abiding citizens all you do is embolden criminals and terrorists. Don't make it easier for the bad guys to commit mass carnage in America.

Great Idea

Push Back

How to be a Good Example: Why two wrongs do make a right. Part 3 of 4

 

It’s also incredibly important to recognize that laws are not being created “for our benefit”, regardless of the government arguments or media hype. More and more what makes sense to some people is being established as the law for all people. Following the law is mandatory regardless of whether it’s right or wrong. Not following the law then becomes the wrong thing to do, and is criminalized.

 

But I digress: What I meant earlier about those who don’t follow the rules being better examples is that we (society) need people who refuse to follow "all of the rules all of the time". By obsessively following the rules the way I do I am contributing to the rise of an autocratic state. If there is no one to push back at the rules then new rules will continue to be created and applied to citizens at an ever increasing rate.

 

Take helmet laws for instance. California enacted laws which require bicyclists to wear a helmet, typically when riding on the road or a road-related area (such as a bicycle lane or path). In California it applies to those who are under 18 years of age, and their parent or legal guardian is “jointly and severally liable”. The law was later extended to scooters, skateboards, and inline skates.

 

Although it’s easy to argue that helmets decrease the risk of injury, it’s inherently difficult to measure whether differences in injury rates are due to helmet legislation or other factors. While I would agree that wearing helmets “makes sense” and I'll admit I'd want my child to wear a helmet, I’m not sure that people should be forced to wear helmets because "it’s the law".

 

This is even more obvious regarding motorcycle helmet laws. There are many riders who constantly push back against helmet laws. Sometimes publically by organizing events such as "biker rights rallies". One of the main points of contention is that bikers don't want lawmakers passing laws regarding how they ride. I agree and support their resistance to the law.

 

Regardless of whether a helmet reduces the risk of injury, is it fair to force people to wear helmets against their will? I’m using this group as an example, even though I realize it’s a weak example, because I recognize the value of helmet laws: It’s one of those that “make sense” to most of us. My point is that legislating safety is an example of laws that go too far, because it criminalizes those who push back.

Are You Talking to Me?

Right and Wrong

I’m sure that the early humans followed rules because it enhanced their chances of survival: “Don’t go out after dark by your-self”. Later humans followed rules because it enhanced their chances for success: “Buy low sell high”. Today it’s a lot different, we’re all following rules because someone else tells us we have to, and the list of rules is so long and complicated that no one can possibly know what’s right or wrong anymore.

 

Take stop signs for instance: I’ve always been amazed that people stop at stop signs. I agree that stopping is one of those rules that enhance survival: “Look both ways”. Nevertheless, it’s kind of a conditioned response to an arbitrary rule; we’ve been told it’s for our own good and we agree it makes sense so we do it. Still, do all those people who ignore the Don't Walk sign actually stop at an empty intersection? Or do they just approach the intersection cautiously, and if its clear, pass on through?

 

I'm sure you've noticed people ignoring stop signs. Stand near an intersection that has a stop sign and watch the traffic. Whether it's a light or a stop sign it’s obvious that most people are doing a rolling pause rather than actually stopping. I live on a corner with a stop sign, and what wakes me up at night isn’t the noise of a car that stops and then goes on, it’s the car that blasts through the intersection at speed.

 

On the other hand, there are a lot of rules that don’t make sense, which is why the California State Constitution, born during the Gold Rush, is 400 pages long with over 75,000 pages. Since 1897, as a response to widespread public disgust with the powerful railroads which controlled California's politics and economy, our constitution has been aggressively amended by initiative in order to remedy perceived evils.

 

The result is the third longest in the world (behind the constitutions of Alabama and India), and it has been described as "the perfect example of what a constitution ought not to be". Did you know that sunshine is guaranteed to the masses; or that animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship; or that bathhouses are against the law; or that women may not drive in a house coat; or that vehicles without a driver may not exceed 60 miles per hour?

 

In San Diego it is illegal to shoot jackrabbits from the back of a streetcar. In San Francisco elephants are prohibited from strolling down Market Street unless they are on a leash. In Blyth you are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows. In Chico bowling on the sidewalk is illegal.

 

In comparison with the California Constitution, the Federal Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1787. Its seven articles, followed by the first ten amendments (known as the Bill of Rights) has about 1,500 words. The Founding Fathers tried to protect their text from being amended too easily, although it’s still been amended 27 times. Even the Bill of Rights is under attack today.

 

One example: The Obama Care Rule has been marked by a slew of competing court rulings on the constitutionality of the individual mandate, which is the cornerstone of Obama Care. The law requires U.S. citizens to obtain health insurance or face financial penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. Never before has the federal government attempted to force all Americans to purchase a product or service. To allow this regulatory overreach to stand would undermine fundamental constitutional constraints on government powers and curtail individual liberties to an unprecedented degree.

 

Another example: As of March 15 2014 the Equine Equality Rule requires hotels, restaurants, airlines, and the like to modify “policies, practices, or procedures” to accommodate miniature horses as service animals. According to the Department of Justice, which administers the rule, miniature horses are a “viable alternative” to dogs for individuals with allergies or for those whose religious beliefs preclude canine accompaniment.

 

I understand that lots of people would say “These laws make sense to me, and they must be needed”. I agree that each of them was (probably) introduced to fix a problem, but I don’t think these kinds of rules are a good idea. Especially because most of the time they are introduced and passed without our knowledge, and when we are aware of them we accept them without considering the side-affects.

 

Not pushing back at government intervention into our lives is a big mistake, because without push back our government will continue to move ahead with more laws that limit our freedom. Another problem is that although it sounds like a good idea today, eventually it’ll be “re-interpreted” to mean something slightly different. The law that makes sense one day becomes a law that interferes with our freedom the next day. It’s a vicious cycle.

Break the Rules

Sandbox Rules

How to be a Good Example: Why two wrongs do make a right. Part 1 of 4

 

Recently I’ve been reconsidering my life, and re-imagining what it might have been like. I’m one of those guys that follows the rules; all of the rules, all of the time. I stand patiently at the corner near where I work, while watching others march into the cross walk ahead of me without waiting for the Walk sign, and sometimes despite the traffic.

 

The fact that they aren't following the rules bugs me, and what I’ve recently realized is that I’ve always been this way. The house where I grew up had a very big yard and I had a great sandbox as a kid. It was huge, more than 20 feet square although one side had a random shape that affectively cut off part of one corner; so it wasn't a full 400 square feet of sand. Still, there was plenty of room for imagination.

 

I spent a lot of time in that sandbox, building roads and playing with cars, and one of my best memories was playing with a rock that was about the size of your palm. It was oblong, very smooth, flat on the bottom and flat on top except for a bump that was offset from the center. I imagined it to be a super-secret car like Batman might have kept hidden in the Bat Cave; only to be brought out in the case of a serious emergency. I loved that rock!

 

A couple of years ago as I on-ramped onto the freeway in my squarish not so flat car, I suddenly remembered something that happened in my sandbox. My next door neighbor and I were playing cars, as usual, and we had built roads and a couple of small towns. Naturally with police cars, fire trucks, dump trucks, and trips to town, there was far more to do than the two of us could manage at once. Like kids are supposed to do we took turns deciding what the cars and trucks were doing at any given moment, stopping at the stop signs and going about daily life in the sandbox.

 

From what I remember it was serious stuff. Anyway, on this day my friend suddenly decided to cut across the open country with his car, not following the roads we had so carefully laid out in the sand. I was shocked and upset, and I remember trying to get him to go around as he was supposed to. He didn't want to, of course, and eventually I let it go, ignoring his rude sandbox etiquette and accepting his failure to comply with the rules.

 

Since my recent moment of recollection I’ve been questioning my life-long compulsion to follow the rules. Why don't I complain about the things that typically upset other people? Why do I just accept rude people for who they are, without saying anything? Why do I go out of my way to follow all of the rules all of the time? I’m beginning to envy those people marching into the cross walk without waiting. I’m also beginning to realize that they are a better example than I am.

Do the Right Thing

The People

Democracy and the Death of Choice: Why the liberal struggle for a better world will fail. Part 6 of 6

 

I believe that one of the problems of modern society is that the collective will of the people is being applied to everyone via an “all-powerful” central government. Our United States was formed by taking advantage of the differences exemplified by the colonists, and the individual states supported by the Bill of Rights, flourished on principles that were at times opposed.

 

This mixed regime incorporated the elements of the common good and encapsulated the virtue of its citizens, even with their flaws. The diversity found in this mixed regime model has been slowly but systematically replaced by a centralized government that is more concerned about conformity and less concerned about the rights of individuals.

 

I believe that once again the will of the people within each of these states should be allowed to flourish even if their principles are opposed to the ideals of the central government. Diversity is essential in the growth and health of any civilization, including our own. By allowing one all-powerful government to oversee and control our lives we are progressing toward a single regime; one which is ultimately unstable, for it will have nothing to check its weaknesses and abuses of power.

 

I would also argue that the Bill of Rights as found in our Constitution is more than a small collection of laws willed by The People. These rights were demanded by the states, were held as sacred by their citizens, and reflected our belief in human nature. By allowing these rights to be filtered by the conditions of dialogue and modified by the common will our society is being significantly changed; not progressing towards a better world.

 

By requiring relativism and tolerance modern liberalism is contributing to the failure of society as we know it by intimidating the individual in favor of the general will, ordered by nothing other than itself and administered by a central government. If preserving principles is indeed more difficult in a democracy than in any other regime because of liberalism, then the principles which we hold valuable will continue to be subjected to dialog and competition, and slowly replaced by principles unconcerned with Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By accepting conformity, the collective will of the people are allowing their own rights to be restricted to the extreme and by passing control of our lives over to a central government our freedoms will disappear, possibly forever.

My Dad was my Hero

Memorial Service

My Dad was my hero as I was growing up, and although I never told him that I loved him I think he always knew that.

 

There was something about my Dad that people really like in a person. He grew up on a farm, worked hard all of his life, and he did the best that he could at all times. Of course his way was always best, which made life difficult at times, but I don’t think it was about being better than everyone else, he was simply doing the best that he could.

 

As I was growing up my Dad seemed almost perfect and I wanted to be “just like him” in a lot of ways. He took me hunting even before I could carry a gun, and fishing even though I often snagged my line. He taught me how to ride a bike, drive a car, run a boat, and fly a plane. I’ve often said that if I could have been just half the pilot that he was, I would be one of the best pilots ever.

 

He let me hang out in the garage and watch what he was doing. He taught me how things work, how to build things, and how to fix things. I grew up with the confidence that there didn’t seem to be anything that my Dad couldn’t do, and do well.

 

After I left home I realized that my Dad wasn’t perfect and he wasn’t always the best example. He often called me a knucklehead while I was growing up; I learned to not call people names! He sometimes spanked me with a wooden hanger; I learned to deal with problems in a gentler manner! He was narrow-minded and opinionated; I learned to tolerate the ideas of others!

 

He wasn’t afraid to ask a high price when he sold you something, and he wasn’t afraid to tell you the price was too high if he wanted to buy something from you; I learned that money was not a good measure of value!

 

As an adult we didn’t see eye to eye on a lot of things, like politics, religion, or money, but somehow that didn’t stop him from being one of my hero’s. I will always remember him as a hard-nosed kind of guy, with a good side and a less than good side, and I will always cherish the time we spent together.

 

What I learned from my Dad, I condensed into my own personal mission statement, which is “To leave the world a better place than I found it, by being a positive influence to others, and by doing the best that I can at all times”. I think my Dad lived up to that mission statement too. He was certainly a positive influence on my life, and I expect the lives of many of you here today.

 

Tomorrow on Father’s Day I will honor my Dad as I always have, with respect and with honor. And for the rest of my life, Dad, you will remain one of my greatest hero’s. I am grateful for what you shared with me, and I will always love you. But then, I’m sure you’ve always known that.

It May be Too Late

The Common Will

Democracy and the Death of Choice: Why the liberal struggle for a better world will fail. Part 5 of 6

 

While I would defend the argument that we, as individuals, should “act in the best interests of society”, I’ve realized that the common will of the people is not always properly focused: Often it is guided by personal gain, or misinformation, or simply usurped by political and corporate power. The problem is that dialogue and affirmation by the people will not keep political evil at bay, nor will a misguided attempt to maintain a free and open society protect us from those who disagree with our ideology.

 

Unfortunately, natural law is too often forgotten or ignored and our rights are assumed to be dependent on existing law. As a result, if a person proposes some form of truth that we (society) did not make and also proposes that we can know this truth, such as a belief in God or the basic rights of individuals (including the unborn), then that person becomes a threat to liberal civilization. In other words, if you are thinking for yourself you are acting against the best interests of society.

 

I believe that goodness, virtue, and morality are not simply emotivist attitudes but do provide objective content. Human life is sacred and the human person is social. The economy must serve the people, we should recognize the responsibilities and limits of government, and we should participate in the essential roles of voluntary association.

 

I believe that we need to move away from “rights talk” founded on human will and move toward rights grounded in human nature. For instance, while I would argue that society cannot “in good conscience” discriminate against gay marriage, I would also argue that society should not continue to permit the murder of unborn children.

Yea ... sure!

Simon Says

Democracy and the Death of Choice: Why the liberal struggle for a better world will fail. Part 4 of 6

 

A researcher named Simon points out that modern democracy is the best regime today, not intrinsically, but as a result of historical circumstances that have exposed the tyrannical threats lurking behind monarchies and rule by the elite few. Nevertheless, he does think that in order for democracy to flourish and not simply to survive, it needs principles opposed to its own ideals. A pure regime is utterly unstable for it has nothing to check its weaknesses and abuses of power. Furthermore, a mixed regime also incorporates elements of the common good from the other regimes, since no regime fully and entirely encapsulates the common good and virtue of all its citizens.

 

This is the context for Simon’s brilliant insight, wherein he explains why the principles of democracy must be more profound, vital, and heartfelt: “This is the case since preserving principles is more difficult in democracy than in any other regime as a result of liberalism, which implies that the principles of society [and it’s desired ends] are not above deliberation and must be thrown into the universal competition of opinions” (Philosophy of Democratic Government, 124).

 

Simon has provided an insight that requires serious reflection, for to evaluate the health of society necessitates that we accurately describe the sort of regime that we actually live in. “Modern liberalism sees that there is no purpose of society other than the general will, a will that is ordered and guided by nothing other than itself. Goodness, virtue, and morality are simply emotivist attitudes that have no objective content outside of what one so determines.” In other words, the purpose of modern society is left up to the collective will of a people without a moral compass.

 

However, the classical and medieval understanding was that political society, like the family, existed “by nature” and not by human convention. It existed for the purpose of fostering genuine communal life, virtue, and friendship; three characteristics that are almost entirely absent from all modern and post-modern political society.

 

Mary Ann Glendon called attention to the fact that modernity is dominated by “rights talk.” This understanding has led to an unhealthy conception in liberal democracy. A fundamental error that characterizes much of modern “rights” theory is that “rights” are rooted not in human nature but in the human will, which in turn is manifested in a system of law.

 

Modern jurisprudence theory relies heavily on the self-sufficiency of human will. Laws are often considered right merely because they have become a part of the legal order of society, where in which the majority “will” of society takes precedence. In other words, law has become erroneously equivocated with “right.”

 

Father Schall sums up this dilemma poignantly: “The will then has no limit … if whatever is willed is right because it is willed and only because it is willed, then there arises a certain parallel between law and right. In a sense, there can be no conflict between law and right, for whatever is willed is right because it is willed” (Acting Reasonable: Democracy, Authority, and Natural Rights in the Thought of Jacques Maritain). The strongest will, the public will, trumps in all cases.

Christ Our Light

Dying He destroyed our death
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who
believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
John 3:16

 

 

Rising He restored our life
"I am the resurrection and the life; whoever believes in me, even if he dies, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.”
John 11:25

Liberal Agendas

Democracy and the Death of Choice: Why the liberal struggle for a better world will fail. Part 3 of 6

 

What I’ve recently realized is that all of this is built into the liberal agenda. The truisms on which modern liberal democracy is based are relativism and toleration, and they are the definitive doctrines of a liberal civilization. It is only on the conditions of dialogue and the affirmation of any and all forms of living that we can remain a free and open society; one progressing towards a better world. As a longtime liberal I’m finding these truisms less convincing today and not encouraging for our future.

 

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger noted that “Democracy is built upon the basis that no one [person] can presume to know the true way, and it is enriched by the fact that all roads are mutually recognized as fragments of the effort toward that which is better ... [In this model] a system of freedom [is] essentially a system of positions that are connected with one another because they are relative, as well as being dependent on historical situations open to new developments. Therefore a liberal society [is] a relativist society: only with that condition could it continue to be free and open to the future” (Address to Latin American Bishops, 1996).

 

This was not intended to be a positive review of the modern democratic model, and I found his description to be very disturbing. If our societal and governmental processes are built upon a system of laws that are subject to constant re-interpretation, then nothing can be considered to be ethical, unwavering, patriotic, irrevocable, or beyond question. I’m not sure this is a good thing because it introduces 1) the constant re-interpretation of principles, and 2) the forced normalization of civil conduct.

Not My Future

What will you be Thankful for after your rights are gone?

None of the Above

Democracy and the Death of Choice: Why the liberal struggle for a better world will fail. Part 2 of 6

 

My concern is that the world seems to be moving in both of these directions at once, and my worry is that it is inevitable. It’s a very subtle movement, almost imperceptible to those who are not paying attention. It happens daily, sometimes in secret and sometimes publically touted as “for our own good”. Unfortunately we’re all so busy living our daily lives that these changes go unnoticed, or at least uncontested, and in our own defense corporations and the government are skilled at using the media to distract us with “other stuff”.

 

When concerned citizens do notice what’s going on and challenge the system they are labeled as activists or trouble makers, or worse yet terrorists. These challenges and concerns eventually go away and the government or corporations go back to “business as usual”. The choices that we are losing are not just the right to choose “one of the above” or “all of the above”; it’s also the right to choose “none of the above”.

 

How you feel about the issues isn’t as important as the fact you no longer have any choice about the issues. We’re losing the option to say, “I don’t agree and will not comply with this requirement to fill in the blank”. We’re being forced to comply with laws that limit our actions (like the right to keep and bear arms) while at the same time we’re being forced to comply with laws that require our actions (like the acceptance of abortion). Notice how you feel about either or both of these issues, and what you’re willing to do or give up to make it right.

The Answer

It's scary how often the past tries to repeat itself.

 

SciFi Favorites

Democracy and the Death of Choice: Why the liberal struggle for a better world will fail. Part 1 of 6

 

One of my favorite science fiction TV shows was called Firefly. Imagine a high tech cowboy show set in the future without the Indians, although there were recognizable challenges and bad guys to contend with. Later, a full length movie was produced to satisfy the cult following this show spawned. The movie was centered around a group of really bad guys known as the Reevers, who were out there hunting anyone and everyone.

 

These guys were feared by all, including the government and military powers trying to control the various inhabitants of the settled planets. The problem was that the Reevers had no fear of death, and no civilized structure to control their behavior, so everything was permitted without exception. They were REALLY bad guys, living only to please themselves and cause havoc across the known universe. They were genuinely scary!

 

A more popular science fiction TV show called Star Trek introduced another scary group called the Borg. Initially they too were unstoppable and feared by almost everyone, but they operated in a very strict organizational structure. The Borg functioned as a collective, controlling behavior by suppressing individual thought and action. They considered “resistance to be futile” and everything was accomplished for the good of the collective.

 

Today, in the United States we seem to be caught in a similar struggle for limits. On the one hand we have groups (like the Borg) that want to limit choice by creating more control over the people, enforcing group behavior standards. Their push for public surveillance, secret courts, and subtle “adjustments” regarding the freedom of speech and privacy (among others) are moving us towards absolute control. We also have groups (like the Reevers) that want to remove the limits on choice and control of the people, permitting any and all behavior standards. Their push for acceptance of gay marriage, drugs, abortion, and unrestrained forms of behavior (among others) are moving us towards absolute chaos.