“Find out just what the people will submit to and you’ve found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Frederick Douglas
"I'd give my right arm to be ambidexterous."
Yogi Berra
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
The State vs. the Individual
In human beings there is an inherent desire, want, need, for freedom. We are naturally attracted to the concept of “freedom”. Why is that? We are created in the “image and likeness” of God and according to Aquinas “freedom” is one of the attributes of God. We need freedom as a fish needs air in water to breathe. And like a fish out of water wanting to get back, a person who is caged in one fashion or another wants to rid himself of that cage, metaphorical or otherwise.
Over a recent dinner one of my sons brought up the aspect of government and the need for government. The question, or rather statement, that was brought into play was that we need government so that we can be free. I disagree with that statement. We need government to a lesser degree for order, i.e., driving down the right side of the street, ambulances being given the right of way, stop signs at cross streets, etc. Order is also necessary in society. But the more in the name of “order” that is either given or usurped by the hands of government the greater the chance that our freedoms will become less or even vanish. The total breakdown of freedom into totalitarianism has many examples through history, from Rome to Germany, the Soviet Union to Venezuela to Communist China. History is littered with societies, cultures, countries and peoples who have seen government consistently expand, gobbling up assets, money, land and most of all people with the end result of people being enslaved by the state.
The crux of our discussion came down to whom we should trust more in regards to the responsibility and cradle of freedom—the state or individuals. And where is and where should be that balance. Freedom cannot be separated from Truth. You cannot have a government stand long that talks about freedom of the individual when everyone, individually, is not protected by the same government. And government, by its very nature, once it begins denying an individual or a class of individuals protection from itself than it is just a matter of time before the remainder of that society will be in danger as well. With Nazi Germany it was the Jews that were under fire first, than Catholics, then Christians, and finally almost everyone who did not agree with the state. In the United States it is the unborn under assault with the elderly, through Obamacare, following. It’s a short jump from there to the marginalized which is anyone the state defines as not being enough of a contributing member to that state. And one thinks that will never happen? The state, in either its national form or local form is already trying to control us, especially the individual, more and more each day. Who would have thought ten years ago that California would want to ban fast food coupled when sold with toys. There is discussion to put a national tax on carbonated drinks because of the obesity problem in this country. Smoking will be outlawed soon on the University of Oregon’s campus. The individual and his or her freedoms as well as the ability to choose and the responsibility for those choices are quickly becoming obsolete by those who in some form represent the state. Wake up. If we are to trust something or someone to protect and maintain our freedoms it must first be we as individuals.
Over a recent dinner one of my sons brought up the aspect of government and the need for government. The question, or rather statement, that was brought into play was that we need government so that we can be free. I disagree with that statement. We need government to a lesser degree for order, i.e., driving down the right side of the street, ambulances being given the right of way, stop signs at cross streets, etc. Order is also necessary in society. But the more in the name of “order” that is either given or usurped by the hands of government the greater the chance that our freedoms will become less or even vanish. The total breakdown of freedom into totalitarianism has many examples through history, from Rome to Germany, the Soviet Union to Venezuela to Communist China. History is littered with societies, cultures, countries and peoples who have seen government consistently expand, gobbling up assets, money, land and most of all people with the end result of people being enslaved by the state.
The crux of our discussion came down to whom we should trust more in regards to the responsibility and cradle of freedom—the state or individuals. And where is and where should be that balance. Freedom cannot be separated from Truth. You cannot have a government stand long that talks about freedom of the individual when everyone, individually, is not protected by the same government. And government, by its very nature, once it begins denying an individual or a class of individuals protection from itself than it is just a matter of time before the remainder of that society will be in danger as well. With Nazi Germany it was the Jews that were under fire first, than Catholics, then Christians, and finally almost everyone who did not agree with the state. In the United States it is the unborn under assault with the elderly, through Obamacare, following. It’s a short jump from there to the marginalized which is anyone the state defines as not being enough of a contributing member to that state. And one thinks that will never happen? The state, in either its national form or local form is already trying to control us, especially the individual, more and more each day. Who would have thought ten years ago that California would want to ban fast food coupled when sold with toys. There is discussion to put a national tax on carbonated drinks because of the obesity problem in this country. Smoking will be outlawed soon on the University of Oregon’s campus. The individual and his or her freedoms as well as the ability to choose and the responsibility for those choices are quickly becoming obsolete by those who in some form represent the state. Wake up. If we are to trust something or someone to protect and maintain our freedoms it must first be we as individuals.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Quotes for the Day
"Without God, there would be no atheists."
G.K. Chesterton
"Mi casa es su casa. Mi esposa es.......mi esposa."
Marijo de Mattos 1989
G.K. Chesterton
"Mi casa es su casa. Mi esposa es.......mi esposa."
Marijo de Mattos 1989
Monday, November 1, 2010
Of Tolerance
Over the weekend one of my children made the statement that “tolerance” is a virtue. I began thinking about it and decided that maybe, before the discussion becomes any more heated, I should name the seven virtues—and then the seven deadly sins. But even before that, a little history. The virtues, to begin with, were initially four. They were constructed by a couple of the ancient Greek philosophers, specifically Aristotle and Plato. They are: temperance (not tolerance), wisdom, justice and courage. These were adopted by the Church Fathers and are referred to by their current name of the “four cardinal virtues”. Through the Catholic Church, they were in part, renamed and incorporated as and into the “Seven Heavenly Virtues”. Those are: chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness and humility. The Seven Heavenly Virtues were derived from the Psychomachia ("Contest of the Soul"), an epic poem written by Aurelius Clemens Prudentius (c. AD 410) entailing the battle of good virtues and evil vices. The intense popularity of this work in the Middle Ages helped to spread the concept of holy virtue throughout Europe. Practicing these virtues is considered to protect one against temptation from the seven deadly sins, with each one having its counterpart. Due to this they are sometimes referred to as the contrary virtues. Each of the seven heavenly virtues matches a corresponding deadly sin. The corresponding “deadly sins” are: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride.
What triggered the discussion was the Gospel of Sunday last.
(Luke 19:1-10) At that time, Jesus came to Jericho and intended to pass through the town. Now a man there named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector and also a wealthy man, was seeking to see who Jesus was; but he could not see him because of the crowd, for he was short in stature. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus, who was about to pass that way. When he reached the place, Jesus looked up and said, “Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house.” And he came down quickly and received him with joy. When they all saw this, they began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner.” But Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.”
This Gospel is about forgiveness specifically. Jesus was not being 'tolerant' of Zacchaeus, He was forgiving Zacchaeus. And there is a huge and important distinction. To be ‘tolerant’, coming from Funk and Wagnall, is to bear, sustain or to tolerate another’s beliefs, practices, etc. Tolerance denotes or intimates no change but accepting the individual as he or she is. It is not a virtue for a number of reasons. In “Charity” Christ forgave Zacchaeus and expected him to change—which he did, especially in regards to his interior life manifested by what he did exteriorly. Christ did not ‘tolerate’ Zacchaeus’ living and especially his work practices. If He had done that then Zaccaeus would not have changed and given half his wealth, made amends for this extortion, etc. The same can be said about the Lord’s encounter with the prostitute. In His response He asks the gal if no one has condemned her. She replies that no one has. He then says that neither does he condemn her. But He also adds that she is to commit this sin no more. He is asking for change. He is not being tolerant of her behavior.
Which brings me to the final point. Oftentimes we confuse the aspect of “condemnation” of a person with what that person is doing in regards to living a moral or ethical life. We are all called to preach the Gospel. Part of that is making sure that the people that come into our lives everyday know the love of Christ. And part of that love is to, if one is truly concerned about that person making it to the Kingdom, help that individual understand, and there are a myriad of ways of doing this and one definitely not by condemning, that he or she could possibly be driving their soul off the metaphorical cliff into the reality of hell. To not do that is against the virtue of Charity. But it is Christ and Christ alone who has the power of salvation in regards to heaven or hell.
What triggered the discussion was the Gospel of Sunday last.
(Luke 19:1-10) At that time, Jesus came to Jericho and intended to pass through the town. Now a man there named Zacchaeus, who was a chief tax collector and also a wealthy man, was seeking to see who Jesus was; but he could not see him because of the crowd, for he was short in stature. So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree in order to see Jesus, who was about to pass that way. When he reached the place, Jesus looked up and said, “Zacchaeus, come down quickly, for today I must stay at your house.” And he came down quickly and received him with joy. When they all saw this, they began to grumble, saying, “He has gone to stay at the house of a sinner.” But Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Behold, half of my possessions, Lord, I shall give to the poor, and if I have extorted anything from anyone I shall repay it four times over.” And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house because this man too is a descendant of Abraham. For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save what was lost.”
This Gospel is about forgiveness specifically. Jesus was not being 'tolerant' of Zacchaeus, He was forgiving Zacchaeus. And there is a huge and important distinction. To be ‘tolerant’, coming from Funk and Wagnall, is to bear, sustain or to tolerate another’s beliefs, practices, etc. Tolerance denotes or intimates no change but accepting the individual as he or she is. It is not a virtue for a number of reasons. In “Charity” Christ forgave Zacchaeus and expected him to change—which he did, especially in regards to his interior life manifested by what he did exteriorly. Christ did not ‘tolerate’ Zacchaeus’ living and especially his work practices. If He had done that then Zaccaeus would not have changed and given half his wealth, made amends for this extortion, etc. The same can be said about the Lord’s encounter with the prostitute. In His response He asks the gal if no one has condemned her. She replies that no one has. He then says that neither does he condemn her. But He also adds that she is to commit this sin no more. He is asking for change. He is not being tolerant of her behavior.
Which brings me to the final point. Oftentimes we confuse the aspect of “condemnation” of a person with what that person is doing in regards to living a moral or ethical life. We are all called to preach the Gospel. Part of that is making sure that the people that come into our lives everyday know the love of Christ. And part of that love is to, if one is truly concerned about that person making it to the Kingdom, help that individual understand, and there are a myriad of ways of doing this and one definitely not by condemning, that he or she could possibly be driving their soul off the metaphorical cliff into the reality of hell. To not do that is against the virtue of Charity. But it is Christ and Christ alone who has the power of salvation in regards to heaven or hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)