The 2012 Election -- Some Thoughts

The 2012 election promises to be the most divisive election seen in America since the Civil War. Some people have even gone so far as to suggest that a Civil War could erupt if President Obama is reelected (Tom Head, county judge, Lubbock, TX August 23, 2012). The passion that is being fueled by irresponsible rabble rousers is threatening to undermine our principles of civil discourse. When we begin to govern on the basis of emotion instead of logic then we will truly be doomed.

I believe that Obama sees himself as a “World Citizen” more than an American. I suspect that a great amount of his anti-military stance comes from his deep seated hatred of American “imperialism”. His black and white (no pun intended) view of the world separates the haves and have-nots into oppressors and oppressed. Obama believes that if you don’t have wealth it must be because somebody took it away from you. He discounts initiative and hard work as avenues to achievement.

The only work he ever did was as a community activist – fighting to get what he felt the underprivileged in Chicago deserved. Having worked in Chicago he soon realized that “government benefits” could be exchanged for votes. Those votes resulted in power and in turn voters were rewarded with token improvements. The “Chicago style” party leaders realize it is advantageous to suppress the underprivileged so that their vote will elect the party and, in turn, be rewarded with token advancement.

The flames are also being fueled by the resurgence of “Objectivism”, made popular by the novel, Atlas Shrugged. The problem that was foreseen by Ayn Rand is that the token pot is drying up. Without opportunity for those with initiative to create wealth for themselves then they surely are not going to labor to create wealth for others. That was the downfall of Communism and the fallacy of Socialism. Those systems worked when the needs were considered minor and the achievers were willing to give up a small portion of their earnings to benefit those not achieving. The Marxist philosophy of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” does not work. Even the bible recognizes this aspect of human nature and puts a tithe at 10%. God surely realized the human condition and knew that we could give a tenth of our surplus without resenting it. Obama would ask for the inversion of that since his reasoning is that those who have achieved did so at the expense of others.

Obama’s claim that the successful businessman got there with the government’s help is consistent with his thinking. We agree that the government which we have developed for the common good and the infrastructure maintained for the common good is worthy of our tax support. However, the idea that the non-supporting portion of society, whose votes are rewarded with tokens, is deserving of a free ride on the backs of those productive elements of society is frankly, un-American.

Sexuality: Procreation or Recreation

I have always wondered why people have felt a compulsion to share their sexual preferences with others. I believe that what you do on your time is your business. What you do and with whom you do it is of no concern to me – unless you want to make it. In which case then you should be aware that my opinion may not agree with yours.

Sexual orientation has been at the forefront of several issues of late. From the ordination of clergy to the definition of family, the spotlight has been upon what turns you on. I suppose there is some perversion that causes people to want to know how others get their jollies. I do know that some people feel a compulsion to make others aware of their personal preferences and perversions. You have to ask yourself, “Is nothing sacred?”

I believe that sexual orientation is determined genetically and not a function of environment. I recall some scientific data that suggests that certain areas of the brain are active in homosexuals; those are not stimulated in heterosexuals. I do not believe that a homosexual lifestyle is consciously selected by individuals; but I do believe that homosexuals wish others to accept their choices without condemnation. This I agree with.

The issues of homosexuality and acceptance within the United Methodist Church are being raised as I write this. To my understanding, the UMC has always accepted homosexuals as individuals worthy of God’s grace without making a big deal of it. We understand that the sinful nature of man is pervasive and does not afford anyone the right to condemn others. I have always felt that I have enough to worry about with my own behavior and should not be critical of other’s life choices.

It does occur to me that there are two different perspectives, resulting in two different viewpoints – God’s and man’s. God in the Jewish Bible is clearly against all forms of sexual perversion. His interest was in procreation and propagation of His people. In the Jewish traditions there are even Mitzvahs mandating sex on the Sabbath. The role of sex and the stability of the family are paramount in the teachings of the Bible and traditions of the church.

Mankind has always succumbed to the more basic carnal desires of his nature, but in recent times those desires have been made increasingly public. As taboos have been dropped, the resulting publicity has been assumed to be an endorsement of the base carnal behavior. In fact the more a particular viewpoint is promoted, the more reaction will be generated and the less it will be accepted. This is the classic pendulum swing of society.

Today’s society has seen sex move from the bedroom to the TV set in the living room. It has moved from the biological to the recreational. The casual nature of sex in today’s world has diminished its attraction and desire by making it commonplace and readily available. It is no longer the reward of the husband and wife in a marriage; it is now a recreational sport engaged at the local bar.

The casualness of heterosexual sex and the openness of homosexual sex is becoming pervasive and as such undermining one of the cornerstones of the family. Sex should not be relegated exclusively to the realm of procreation and I believe that God would not frown upon the enjoyment of recreational sex. As a matter of fact I believe that love making is one of the bonding elements of a healthy marriage. What does disturb me is the diminished worth of sexuality brought about by its casualty.

###

Easter Egg Hunt

Easter Egg Hunt

A local church has an active outreach ministry which includes an after school mentoring program for elementary age students. During Holy week the Senior Pastor and volunteers decided that the leftover eggs from the previous week’s Easter Egg Hunt could be used to provide a fun time for the kids after they had finished their homework. The Senior Pastor and volunteers hid over 100 eggs in the church courtyard for the 6 elementary students to find.

The Senior Pastor left the group to go teach an adult Bible Study class. A few minutes later the sky started clouding up and rain began to threaten. The Associate Pastor decided to move the hunt from the outdoors into the sanctuary. The Associate and the volunteers hid the eggs and when the kids’ homework time was finished they gathered for the hunt. The Associate instructed the kids that they could each find15 eggs and that was all that they could have.

The Associate wanted to be fair to all by limiting the number of eggs that each could find to 15. The egg hunts that I remember would have resulted in some kids getting 20 eggs and some getting 10 and the adults holding a few eggs back so that everybody got some. If there were a slow child, an adult could always be counted on to give them a little assist in order to level the playing field.

It occurs to me that this is the way socialism works. With the best of intentions, socialists want everyone to have the same. What we observe is that the mad scramble to get eggs is reduced to lethargy because all will receive the same regardless of their initiative. When those who produce the most are rewarded the same as those producing the least, then there remains no incentive for effort.

###

Inverted Society

I watched an interesting documentary in which a Russian scientist took a group of wild foxes and selectively bred them for three generations. She selected the most aggressive ones from each generation and put them together and took the most docile ones and interbred them. By the third generation she had created a line of fully domesticated loving pets and a line of the most blood thirsty snarling beasts that you could imagine. She did this all in 3 generations of selective breeding.

That documentary got me to thinking about humans and the evolution of modern day society. There were geneticists in the early twentieth century who believed that humans could do much the same thing and create a super human race. Fortunately we know how that ended. Unfortunately, there is some tendency to see more popular societal traits proliferate and I sometimes wonder if we have not shifted our center of gravity away from the traits that defined our “Greatest Generation” – those parents of our Baby Boomers.

I seriously wonder if there is a correlation between our shift from an agrarian society to a metropolitan society and what many see as a declining social ethos. There is no doubt that urbanization has resulted in a secularization of society. Could this become a trend leading to a breakdown of civil structure as we know it? We already see the resistance to modernity and the catastrophic consequences. Could there be more to come?

Loss of Community

Many people long for the values expressed in small town Americana. Neighbors coming together to help each other, not just in times of crisis, but to raise barns and help harvest is a norm desired by many. Eating dinner with neighbors who drop in is commonplace in rural America. Could you imagine an urbanite eating with or even dropping in on a neighbor? That communal relationship was lost in the transition to the city. We often characterize the movement to the suburbs as a city sprawl but I wonder if it was in part a desire to regain some of lost Americana?

The community lost in the transition away from our farms appears to have been replaced by unifying areas of interest. Those interest areas are outside of homes and families, unlike the rural scene. Now the workers center their non-family interests on the workplace, the union, or the local sports team. While the rural breadwinner always involved their family in all activities, our urban breadwinner has developed a polarization that separates family, job, and interests. The latest workers seem to be revising their priorities towards interests, job, and then family. Even more disconcerting is the observation that family has been split into sex and relationship. Ergo, the future could see the complete demise of the traditional family, or at least the family values as we now know them.

A consequence of diminished family values is the loss of community. Is this directly correlated to the shift from agrarian to urban? It is impossible to be anonymous in a rural setting but it is easy to blend into a sea of humanity. In that sea you can avoid responsibility and rationalize your non-involvement in needs and issues surrounding you. In a rural environment you would be held accountable by your family, friends, and neighbors not only for your deeds but for your failure to act when it was expected that you would. How does this bode for the future? Is it possible that our urbanization will decentralize in an effort to regain community? Will our future communities be virtual instead of physical?

Re-centered Value System

Our values seem to have become redirected in the move from the farm to the city. Survival on the farm meant having the family and neighbors there to count on. In the city culture it seems that survival means climbing over those around you. Rudeness is rampant in the urban environment while graciousness and courtesy are the rules in rural America. The dog-eat-dog mentality and extreme competitiveness seen on city streets would not be tolerated in the agrarian community.

If there is any truth to the evolutionists’ theories then we will see future generations becoming more competitive and aggressive since those traits are characteristic of the more successful city dwellers. In the city those who are the most ruthless appear to be the ones held in highest esteem and therefore the ones most emulated. The meek and mild will be pushed out and subdued in the natural selection process.

The trend that is emerging is one of self-centeredness. That trend when combined with a community trend that brings people together in priorities that progress from interest, income, sex, and relationship to the ultimate “What’s in it for me?” does not predict a future nurturing cityscape. Will this direction become self destructive (forgive the pun)? Will the family structure continue its decline?

Legalistic versus Moralistic

The codification of English Common Law continues to remove common sense from the legal equation. The farmer always knew that he was responsible for the right half of the fence that separated his land from his neighbor’s. It did not require an act of the legislature. When the farmer went to the city he lost his space to the infringement of people, sights, sounds, and odors. Now there were rules for everything and if a rule did not exist then people didn’t seem to know what to do. It seems that in the city environment people will always push the limits to see how much they can get away with, or, perhaps more accurately, how much they can take that belongs to you.

In an agrarian society you did what was right, and that was taught to you by your religious leaders. What was right and what was wrong was ingrained in your upbringing. In the city environment, what was right and what was wrong was dictated by the various cultures living nearby. Leaving your possessions outside did not mean that you had abandoned them, or did it? If you came up with a great idea, was it yours or could it be taken by someone who overheard you? Different cultures have different answers. One thing is for certain, we should not have to be told what is right and what is wrong. If we do, then we need to realign our moral compass.

A nation without vision will perish (Prov 29:18)

How can we rebuild our community? How can we re-center our value system? How can we become more moral and less legalistic? It seems that we need visionary leadership. Prophets of doom and gloom are easy to come by. It is easy to say here’s what is going to happen if you don’t change your ways. It is much harder to state what we can achieve and here is the path to get there – Come follow me.

I do not have the solution, but I see the problem. Is there no one who can lead us?

###