Monday, December 17, 2012

Writing on the Wall

EndofTime_sunset

The end is drawing nigh.

The significance of the latest election result in the United States looks to me like it's being flat out ignored. The conservative media continues to rail as they always have, yet there is something new here. Perhaps that is the cause of the lack of extrapolation, their jobs are at an end.

When someone rules this country as poorly and apathetically as the sitting President has, especially on the heels of the disgustingly obvious Benghazi lying and deceit, not to mention throwing trillions of hard working people’s tax dollars to his special interests and yet the people chose to reinstate him, there's been a quantum shift.

It means the majority of the people in this country prefer this style of being governed. They don't want to make a life for themselves, they want it to be given to them. And of course, this naive view of a Ponzi world will shortly come to a sputtering end. Those who produce will begin to smell the roses and pull up stakes. I don't know how the 'right' can think there’s some re-establishment coming in their future. The principles they stand for no longer have value in the slippery moral slope this country has become. By the way it's a slope and it's slippery.

I think it signals the end of any significant tie back to Christianity as the source of reality. The current residue is floating on cultural fumes; hardly grounded on rock as the analogy goes. The United States appeared to be the only country with some potential of blow-back against the onslaught of Satan's relentless, predictable tactics. Nope, that’s no longer the case. It is simply a matter of time as I guess it always was.

He truly does rule this world. That day is coming.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

When He Lies, He Speaks His Native Language – John 8:44

2016-ObamasAmerica-800

I recently watched two movies back to back. Dinesh D’Sousa’s 2016: Obama’s America and Tate Taylor’s The Help from the original story by Kathryn Stockett. Both impressed me with the immense diversity of culture yet underneath a real commonality regarding the human plight.

the-help-poster1D’Sousa lines up Obama’s behavior with an anti-colonial perspective that has a left wing flavor but does not spring from the same roots. In support, the film traces Obama’s past and chronicles his affiliations and relationships that would create such a view. Contrary to some other opinions, I found his connections believable and consistent with Obama’s own statements and behavior.

Beth Fouhy from Associated Press takes issue with Dinesh’s presentation calling it “almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best”. She thinks that the almost nonexistent contact with his father would prevent Obama from acquiring his views. Dinesh goes into this in some detail showing how Obama idolized his father causing him take on a mythological stature. This could only occur at a distance as his alcohol abuse and womanizing in closer proximity would prevent this view from being sustained. Also, if he has no impact in shaping his view then why would Obama write a book called “Dreams From My Father”? I’m not sure what Fouhy is attempting since the evidence cleanly supports Dinesh’s take on it.FrankDavis_Crop

175860929Following this she refers to the interview with Paul Vitz who provides a psychological opinion of the affect of absent fathers. She opens the next paragraph with “From there, the evidence D’Souza uses to support his assertion starts to grow thin”. Actually the opposite occurs. Vitz’s comments more accurately fit her ‘subjective’ classification. After this, Dinesh digs into some direct influence’s on Obama’s thinking that are heavily supported. So much so that he coins them Obama’s founding fathers. Obama acknowledges them directly in his various statements and writings.

screenhunter_139-sep-13-11-01Frank Marshall Davis: Long time Obama mentor and Communist party card no. 47544. He was on FBI’s security index which indicates he can be held in the event of a national emergency

Bill Ayers: Co-founder of Weather Underground which is a communist revolutionary group. He was involved in bombing public buildings as protest to the Vietnam war. He said he wasn’t a terrorist because his acts were not “random” but “Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States.” (FBI poster at left; standing on flag below)

JeremiahWright and ObamaRev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr: Pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ. Embraces black liberation theology. Famously said “God Damn America” in one of his rants and constantly derides America as evil. In describing the Sept 11 terrorist attacks he reasoned, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought home to roost”. Obama distanced himself as the 2008 election approached since most American's found Wright's views abhorent.

Edward Said: Obama studied under Said at Columbia University. Said served as a member of the Palestine National Council which allowed him to work closely with Yasser Arafat. He views America as a power with a “history of reducing whole peoples, countries, and even continents to ruin by nothing short of holocaust”. Said believes that violence is justified against Israel as the land properly belongs to Palestine. The state of Israel is basically a western plant to spread later day colonialism.

obamasaidThe West is guilty of a “subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture." We basically see Moslems and Arabs as “either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.”

PD*38867618This view can be clearly seen in Obama’s treatment of Israel vs the Muslim world. Our historical friend he shuns and our avowed enemy he befriends. His frequent and endless catering to the Muslim world casts doubt on any depth to his statement of being a Christian. Since the Koran says the disciples made up the story in the gospels and Jesus never died and therefore never resurrected. Since this Muslim sacred text cannot be in error it is at complete odds with the heart of the Christian beliefs. Obama has repeatedly and naively encouraged all religions (meaning the Christians because the Muslims cannot) to set aside their differences and focus on their common goals. Peace, harmony, charity blah, blah, blah. There is no mixing this oil and water.

RobertoUngerRoberto Unger: Taught Obama law at Harvard. He is a philosopher and politician from Brazil. He believes that natural underlying principles do not exist. Everything is merely historical carryovers from previous generations not necessarily the best to create a prosperous society. We need to acknowledge this and push forward with renewed non-institutions that better release the human potential or as he says, "make us more god-like".

I briefly perused Unger's "The Future of Religion" and found it consistent with the philosophically laden texts of my Divinity courses. Many words with all hidden meanings. A sample from page 3:

“The second obstacle to overcome is the sentimental attitude to religion. The false supposition that, with respect to claims about God and about God`s work in history, there is some middle position between believing in their (literal) truth and not believing in their (literal) truth. The slide from Feurerbach to Bultmann and beyond as an expression of a will to believe combined with a monumental dose of self-deception.

There is no such middle position. A common intellectual confusion allows us to pretend that there is one. It is one thing to suppose, in the tradition of Christian theology for example, that the narrative of transactions between God and humanity deepens (by analogy) truths already manifest to us in our relations with one another. It is another thing to turn the analogical imagination into a pretext for equivocation about the truth or falsehood of our religious beliefs.

The sentimental attitude to religion weakens the power religion to undermine us and our societies, and makes it easy for us to turn its scandalous provocations into a play with words. One of these sentimentalists about religion tells us that today we have belief without belonging. We are more likely to entertain pretend belief as a ticket to belonging.”Roberto Unger

To take some liberty I will attempt to translate. We cannot accept the literal truth of God's work in history (Christ's resurrection). This is self-deception. The historical side cannot translate into day to day perspectives or criticism of other beliefs. We mostly want to belong so we go along with the pretense of belief. Or something along those lines. Basically a complete denial of the only thing that gives religion any validity, the historical death and resurrection of Christ. If you'd like to read more be my guest but no doubt an intellectual unplugged from reality. Not surprisingly, much like the student he mentored.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/unger/english/pdfs/tanner_lectures/the_future_of_religion.pdf

obama_youth_04Interestingly Unger has recently released a video detailing why Obama should be defeated in 2012. Heading up the list is Obama's inability to "advance the progressive cause in the United States". His video 'Beyond Obama' goes into great detail as to Obama's failures and what he thinks needs to be done to right the country.

You could really throw Saul Alinsky in as well. While Saul came from another generation and passed away in 1972 he wrote the textbook for modern protest tactics. Like Obama his fundamental position was to take from the haves and give to the have nots regardless of whether it was earned or owed. Obama received 8 days of intense training at the Industrial Areas Foundation in Alinsky style tactics and taught his “Power Analysis” as a professor at the University of Chicago. Alinsky’s son says that Obama has learned his father’s lessons well and was “proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing.”Book_SaulAlinsky_BehindObama

When combined together it becomes fairly clear where Obama has derived his perspectives from. And his actions as a senator and now President confirm that view. The fact that this information was fundamentally invisible to the American public shows both the shrewd efforts to conceal the facts combined with the willingness of the public to choose a leader on entertainment type criteria. We have reaped what we have sown.

barry-soetoroObama prefers this type of voting constituency. That is why he gives away trillions to those who haven't earned it. He's trying to tip the scales where the producers are the minority and the looters are the majority and thus he locks in the vote. Case in point the recent video of a woman imploring people to vote for Obama because she received a ‘free’ government provided cell phone. (of course this was paid for by the American people) But the thought that Obama 'gave' this to her is exactly what he's been saying.Bill-Ayers-stomps-flag

The government 'allows' you to have what you have. You didn't make or earn anything. This type of dogma directly aligns with his upbringing and preferred influences. He will take what he has no right to and give it to those who haven't earned it. This is clearly evidenced in this film and supported by his own actions. This thinking dictates that Obama will work for the demise of America as it was intended to be, bleeding it's resources and efforts to those who will squander them. This, while thinking all along that he is doing what is right for the world.

thehelp_aibileenandmaemobley_cropsmSo how does this play into the dramatically different film "The Help". What's common is that two distinctly different cultures exist side by side without an inkling of the reality that exists underneath. The negro maids of the south bear the responsibility of raising their white employers children all the while being treated with the racial prejudice predominant in the 1960's. They won't let them use their indoor toilets so build separate ones for them to use outside. The endless abuse hurled onto their 'help' is tolerated for fear of termination and reprisal with the support of the entire community.Emma Stone

A book is undertaken by Eugenia Phelan (white) with the assistance of two of the maids that details the real goings on in the community. The predominantly white population wants their dirty laundry under complete wraps so they can continue the awful status quo. The book is finally published, turning the entire community on it's rear.

THE HELPIn some reverse way Dinesh's documentary does the same for Obama and his past. Unfortunately it doesn't look like the eventual positive resolution of the Help is what will result from Dinesh's work. It's fascinating for me to see the easy recognition and agreement with the thesis of prejudice in the Help in contrast to the desire to not acknowledge and willingly accept the abuse wrought onto the American people by this administration.

Prejudice knows no race, creed or color and is equally hurled and any and all. Perhaps the most hated people in AmericanThe Help are the white, middle class, middle management bracket. They have nothing and no one on their side. Every negative being hurled is always straight at them. They work their entire lives getting abuse from above and below while all their efforts are belittled and their production is stolen and given to others. Yet they are actually the heart of what has made America great.

This is all eerily akin to Atlas Shrugged. Eventually the producers will be sucked dry and the looters supply will dry up. At that point there will be an implosion of sorts as you see in Europe. Entire populations wanting to be 'given' what they think is their due. The country's leadership has already spent those assets and much, much more. The leadership that the unhappy population continually voted for so they could steal from the future. As we can see, it's a thinly veiled ponzi scheme. Perhaps Bernie Madoff wasn't so far off, he was just going with the flow.

Saturday, September 15, 2012

NewsDream

the-newsroom_b&wI caught the 2nd or 3rd episode of “Newsroom” many moons ago on HBO. I was intrigued by Aaron Sorkin’s writing as I was when his “West Wing” was on the video waves. Obviously, if you’ve read anything I’ve written, our views are diametrically opposed. Nevertheless, I appreciate good writing and the creation of characters that are more than skin deep.Aaron-Sorkin-The-Newsroom_Adj

Sorkin has a staccato style that I think more mirrors reality than his critics give him credit for. When people are familiar with one another, especially in a work environment, there’s a type of tribal communication that eventually takes hold and much is communicated with very few words. I like the way this is captured and exists in every relationship.

So I returned to Episode 1, (shout out to HBOGO), and seamlessly caught up on Season 1 in the proper chronological order. I then took up the weekly viewing on Sunday evening or in the subsequent days through activating my blessed PVR. While I thoroughly enjoyed the characters being developed, their interplay, their dialogue, I was, perhaps to a greater degree, thoroughly annoyed, by the unbridled liberal dogma. In the final episode of the season it turned into a tasteless, totally predictable, stream of propaganda for the left and the associated Democratic Party.

Cast_Leibovitz

Olivia-Munn-bikini-GQ-UK-August-2012_ADjNow to a great degree I expect this from Sorkin. On the other hand I don’t. If Munnthat’s all it was I would never have watched it at all. On the West Wing there were some issues that were at least wrestled over and both sides brought to light. It didn’t matter that the fictitious administration almost always came down on the left side of the tracks; at least there was an agreement on the problems that face the country and/or the people. And in the end it was simply a difference of vision. That is not what the Newsroom has become.

THE-NEWSROOM-Emily-Mortimer-Jeff-DanielsIn one of the opening dialogues Will (main character) is asked in a College auditorium what he thinks is great about America. He goes into a long dissertation on why American is not the greatest nation on earth then follows up with many great things in America’s past.EmilyMortimer-adj

While I don’t agree with which items are on which side of the list, at least it’s not a blanket negative condemnation of America. And basically that is what follows. A blind, relentless rejection of everything Republican and praise for all that is left wing.

JeffandAaronSo I heard that Sorkin had said that he didn’t know much about politics and was going to have a Republican consultant for Season 2. I don’t know whether he said it or not but if he did it’s a bunch of BS. Clearly Sorkin is well versed in the political issues of this day and the context of the show is to reestablish the historical contribution a supposed objective Newsroom provided in the last generation. So I don’t buy that, especially on the heels of West Wing. And second, why hire a Republican consultant?; no way it’s an admission of not being fair and balanced. I may watch the beginning of the second season to see if the trend continues or abates. But like Glee’s endless drumming about the Gay universe I can only bear so much to enjoy the trappings of the music. And the magic words of Sorkin are lovely icing but not to be eaten on a soiled cake.

newsroom-ad-1024x6121

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

It’s Just a Movie – The Fantasy that is ‘Contact’

ContactI recorded "Contact" the other day, thinking I would breeze through it and hit contact-1997-03-gsome highlights for my enjoyment pleasure. My remembrance is not altogether favorable but just in a general way. The highlights are quite specific: Ellie’s first signal (music!), machine CGI, all scenes with John Hurt playing H.R. Hadden and the closed eyes, "okay to go" scenario. As expected, I thoroughly enjoyed these pieces for the umpteenth time along with the score that is obviously magic.

Unintentionally, the items that detract Carl-Sagan-copyfrom the film were clearer than ever before. Not being a fan of Carl Sagan who wrote both a 'Contact' novel and contributed heavily to the film, it comes as no surprise. The entire religious presentation is a naive, surface appreciation of those issues as one would expect from a pseudo scientist. But even at that level you'd think the film would portray 'evidence = conclusions' in a logical manner. Nadda.

So Ellie's testifying before Congress, and they're asking her if she can supply a shred of evidence that contact_jodie-foster_05supports her claim that she actually went on this inter stellar journey. Her answer is no, she cannot. Now Ellie has been painstaking portrayed, the entire movie, as basing everything on facts, scientific facts. She pooh poohs religion as BS. Yet she tells Congress (when asked) that yes, she's asking them simply to 'believe' her.

So here's the deal. Shortly after this scene the White House Chief of Staff is talking to the National Security Advisor (who headed up the Ellie inquisition) and asking him what he thinks of the 18 hours of static on her recording device when apparently she took seconds to fall through the machine. Nothing is made of this. It wasn't raised at the Congressional investigation. He basically snorts in response but why wasn't this raised as evidence?

contact_jodie-foster_800When Ellie comes back on video after her "so called fake" journey she asked in a groggy tone, "What day is it?" "How long have I been gone?". They respond by saying it was only seconds, she fell right through. Yet, at the beginning of her testimony she mentions a journey of 18 hours!!. Didn't notice this until I watched it this time around. Where the hell did that come from! She had no idea how long she was gone. If the 18 hours came from the static on the tape why not mention that as evidence. Pretty conclusive considering that's impossible given the time frames.

contfullpodWhen I got to thinking I wondered about the chair they added to the sphere for her safety. During the insane wormhole journey it became dislodged or better put ripped from it's mooring. How is that explained if the pod simply dropped as expected. It couldn't handle the drop? It was designed as a safety device to at least handle the drop. She was magnetically locked into it. It fell off when she hit the net and subsequent water? It would have killed her if it smashed her head into the side of the sphere. Solid evidence that something beyond what they cameras captured had occurred.

large_contact_800Along with this is that she was on the floor of the pod. To get there she had to undo herself from the gear that had locked her into the seat. She was flat on her face, completely disorientated. Did she really have time, in the milliseconds that she dropped through the machine, to have the presence of mind to undo the suit and drop to the floor. And why would she, she's clinging to the chair out of sheer terror and imminent potential death. Contact-Machine

My final point is the phenomena that the machine itself caused. When the translucence began to occur on the sphere it was accompanied by an unbelievable generation of energy from the machine. No one had predicted or even knew how the machine operated. When it ramped up to 100% the light and power was blinding or how about mind blowing. This isn't even discussed as evidence that something beyond the sphere simply falling through had occurred. How did the rotation of the massive rings cause this phenomenal energy release? Why assume it was simply a light show with no purpose?

contact_machineWhen reading some reviews/discussions of this movie, Zemeckis (director) stated that heJodie-Foster-640 "intended the message of the film to be that science and religion can coexist rather than being opposing camps." I guess that's the core of why I'm blogging about this movie. They present a scientist who in the end acts like a non-scientist or better said, an idiot. And they present religion as nothing like it is in reality. So in that regard they do coexist, in the fantasy land that belongs to Contact. In the real world, science and religion do coexist, and in fact are one and the same. No effort needs to be made to align them with one another.

ArrayandEllis_800But this is only if 101411c1we're talking about real religion and real science. Not the pseudo science of evolution or the people who believe anything that makes them feel good regardless of the evidence. Jesus encouraged Thomas to put his hands in the holes in his sides (evidence) and believe the truth of his resurrection. (conclusion) If you don't believe that historical written record, then state why you don't and provide evidence that it's not what it's purported to be. What is common is that neither area is using evidence anymore. It is the subjective world of opinion that is preferred and best serves the needs of this current generation. How long am I to bear with you.

Friday, April 20, 2012

The Integrated Mind Map

It didn’t take me as long as I thought it would. I wanted to get something up while my train of thinking was still warm. There is a matching concept for each box from one side to the other. The left side falls out of the Christian faith while the right side falls out of a denial of the same. There’s a few other things I have already thought of adding but I’ll leave it as is for now. I’ll probably post a more comprehensive version in a few months. As important as the thoughts are in themselves, the way they are inexorably tied to one another is probably more critical.

IMC_3

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Integration and Integrity

Introduction

While I had the kernel of what I was going to say on this ‘topic’, I nevertheless performed an obligatory Google search. What I came up with simply added fuel to the already burning fire. In their reference article to integrity the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: “Integrity is one of the most important and oft-cited of virtue terms. It is also perhaps the most puzzling.” The reason for this is that there are two camps in defining the meaning of the word. On one side is the thinking that there is a moral aspect to this personal trait and in fact integrity is synonymous being moral. On the other side, the moral connection is removed so that “Persons of integrity may in fact act immorally.” What they do possess is a oneness or holistic way of thinking that supposedly avoids inner mental contradictions. Consistent with this is the following description of the roots of the word:

imageThe root of integrity is from the Latin word integritatem, meaning “soundness” or “wholeness.” In 1450, the French took that root a step farther and coined the word integrite, which meant to them not just to be whole, but to be “in perfect condition.” (etymonline.com)

What this gives us is a somewhat vague definition that causes us to think it is good to have integrity but not really sure why. This fits perfectly into what my discourse was going to be. In fact I would say that a lack of integrity is the very reason the word isn’t conclusively defined. From this post I hope to show whether moral standards should encroach on the meaning of the word and in the process show how it isn’t possible to possess much real integrity without being spiritual.

This topic may have been my Master’s thesis if I had had the time and money to finish those last 4 courses in 1979. Fortunately my path was diverted so that I could add a lifetime of experiences and flesh out the topic; a far more important endeavor.image

A Contrast in Thinking Methodology

I will start with a relatively straight forward topic and show how it applies. As referred to in an earlier blog post, JFK’s assassination was an event I took some interest in. The handling of the information surrounding the event by various parties gives a clear example of integration and the lack thereof. When a studying physicist (David Lifton) finally saw the Zapruder film he was immediately thrown into a tailspin as to how Kennedy’s head went back when he was shot from behind. On the other hand the Warren Commission didn’t seem to express any concern over this fact. They spun an implausible tale as to how the shots could come from a lone assassin behind the President when the evidence was quite contrary to that conclusion.

Lifton was compelled to search for a theory that explained all the facts at hand, while the commission was not. They were looking to put forth some type of conclusive public statement that would explain the majority of the evidence and assuage public unrest. Both goals have a purpose but Lifton’s is open ended so that he has no requirement to ignore anything. The commission on the other hand had a limited time frame and a stated need to ‘sew up the wound’ in the public consciousness. The latter purpose allowed the bending and/or ignoring of readily available information that was contrary to that purpose. Thus, none of the ‘grassy knoll’ eye witnesses reports are included in the Commission’s renderings; none.

This is simply an example. It’s a common day occurrence to have neither the time nor the inclination to gather all the facts. We respond to what’s easily available and do quick calculations of the return value on further investigation. Do I spend another 3 days searching on the internet for a cheaper product or does the 2 hrs I’ve already done suffice given the cost and travel time necessary to pick up the article in question? Now in the case of purchasing some towels or toe nail clippers it might not matter all that much. But when it is life determining information it’s a ‘whole other country’ as Forrest Gump would say.

So when a group of people are brought together to determine how a standing President of the United States get’s shot and killed in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses they should necessarily be forced to explain everything they can get their hands on. This would be what I call integrating the information which would naturally be done by men of integrity. Neither was the case.

Spiritual and Political

As I began earlier, the kernel of thought for this post was already in my mind. It had been precipitated by something I read in the introduction of William F. Buckley’s God and Man at Yale. I had many thoughts on the issue as the topic permeates all of everyday life in various degrees, but it was a particular event that was recounted in the introduction to that book which inspired putting keys to screen.

Buckley had skirted with the implication that your religious thinking would impact your political thinking/leaning. As can be readily observed there is a connection between Christian – South - Republican and the corollary Non-Christian – West/East Coast, North - Democrat. Yes, there are some exceptions, and some are prominent, but on the whole it is indisputable that these are the national tendencies. And it usually ends there.

In the introduction to the 25th anniversary edition Buckley states: (pg xxxii)

I spoke earlier about a set of sentences that many critics found especially galling. When I saw the suggested formulation, written out on the margin of my manuscript, in Willmoore Kendall’s bold green script, I suspected they would cause difficulty. But there was a nice rhetorical resonance and an intrinsic, almost nonchalant suggestion of an exciting symbiosis, so I let it pass: “I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.” The words “same struggle reproduced on another level” were not originally my own. In the prolonged defense of the book I did not renounce them...image

He gives a part reason why he did not ‘adjust’ the editor’s rewrite as “I was tickled by the audacity of the sally and not unamused by the sputtering outrage of its critics”.

So what was so objectionable, perhaps the most in his entire book, by formulating a direct connection between the spiritual and political struggles? So much so that Buckley refers to it as audacious.

Buckley answers: “The widespread objection was not only on the point that to suggest an affinity between eschatological prospects of heaven and hell and the correct role of the state in achieving full employment was something on the order of blasphemy. It was fueled by the ideological conviction of many Christian modernists that the road to Christianity, on earth, lies through the federal government.” (pg xxxiii)

So basically people like to keep their religion away from their politics and vice versa? The thinking that Christian nirvana is to be achieved through the government doesn’t appear that implausible. Again, why the objection? While I can see the reality of the objection, with the numerous levels of evidence to support, the cause is obscured. What’s so problematic about a Christian perspective being determinative of our political views? Isn’t it the case regardless? Don’t our views of life, love, values, eternity, creation/evolution completely determine our political leanings as well as all of our actions?

Lack of Integration

It might be helpful to exhibit what I consider to be a supreme example of a lack of integration.

And you need to understand, the people I speak of are integrated in a certain way. In fact I think everyone is integrated, meaning their actions are consistent with their viewpoints; as in the Warren Commission not including the ‘grassy knoll’ witnesses. To many this appears unconscionable but when you understand their mandate, their training, their method of choosing the ‘Best Evidence’ (Lifton) and discarding the rest, there is a displayed consistency.

In the above example the physicist would regard the Commission’s activities as ignoring critical facts, gross negligence and distorting the truth. The Commission would most likely think the physicist is involving irrelevant information and wasting time on endless details all the while placing too little emphasis on what’s obvious.

So the premises that you approach the information with will predetermine your results. And for the purposes of becoming integrated, in an all encompassing way, there is no alternative but to come with no presuppositions. This is akin to the physicist ‘style’ who attempts to explain all phenomena not just bits and pieces that might support his theory. In fact the validity of his theory will depend solely on its ability to do this.

The Turner Example

I was watching Oprah’s Master Class - Ted Turner, only because Mr. Turner was the topic and I had some respect for what he did to create CNN. I watched him with concern regarding his slide into the Time Warner merger then the AOL debacle as well his marriage/divorce to Jane Fonda. So I was a bit interested to hear what he had to say.

He commented on Carter boycotting the summer Olympics. “He made the decision to boycott it (Olympics) because the Soviets were in Afghanistan. We’re in Afghanistan now and they’re not boycotting our sporting events, thank goodness. Back in those days there wasn’t much else we could do I guess.” It sounds as though he makes no distinction between Soviet and American efforts in Afghanistan. Actually I would say he doesn’t make a distinction.

It wasn’t just Carter. Sixty-one nations boycotted the 1980 Olympics starting with Saudi Arabia. Carter called it “gross interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan” and a “blatant violation of accepted international rules of behavior.” Clearly the Soviet’s were the aggressors in this scenario consistent with their history of ‘invasion’ type expansions. (Korea, Vietnam, Cuba etc.) That was their M.O.

So Turner equates that activity with America’s presence in Afghanistan? We should be thankful that they don’t boycott us because we’re in there defending the Afghan people against a totalitarian takeover of their country? It doesn’t end here.

imageThe Soviets followed up with a boycott of the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. They claimed their athletes might be subjected to physical attacks and it was not safe in America. America has “chauvinistic sentiments and anti-Soviet hysteria are being whipped up in this country”. Not that America had invaded another country without provocation, but that there were anti-Soviet sentiments within the US. Then President Reagan called this a “blatant political decision for which there was no real justification. The result being it had been 12 years since the Soviets and Americans had competed head to head. To resolve this deadlock Turner started the Goodwill Games to bring these two powerhouses together again. At the ceremonies Turner summed up his view in the statement, “All the people of the world can cooperate together in sports and other endeavors in a worthwhile and beneficial manner irrespective of our different political, religious and other beliefs”.

From where I sit this is the perfect expression of a complete lack of integration. To some degree it boggles my mind. I know somehow to Mr. Turner this all fits, but it’s hard to see how. Clearly the wish and desire to be together supersedes everything else. Despite the fact that the Soviets had relentlessly pursued the subjugation and domination of neighboring countries both overtly and subvertly since they came into existence, Turner would propose we ignore this and be friends. Is this not like allowing a pedophile to play with children at a playground in hopes that they will become friends. The goal of friendship between human beings overrides the historically patterned danger one poses to the other. Is it not the same?

If we put aside our beliefs, both religious and the politics that fall out of them, why does anything matter or have value after that? To internally segregate the confirmed activities of an avowed enemy and separate them from an overwhelming desire to become friends is patently insane. Is it any wonder Turner lost $7 billion in his business dealings with Time Warner/AOL. How would Turners chosen inability to separate friends from enemies not affect his business activities? It wouldn’t.

Integrating Information

It is generally understood that incorporating all available information in making your decisions/choices is the best course of action. What you don’t know can only hurt you. And it’s not just having the information but knowing what it means that affects our lives.

imageIt is helpful to return to the case of David Lifton’s investigation of the Kennedy assassination. What intrigued David initially was the physics rejecting, rearward head snap coupled with the supposed shot from behind. As he combed through and reviewed the evidence he was forced to some conclusions that terrified him to the core. It challenged his fundamental views of how America worked and how he perceived life. My thesis is that when confronted with this type of life changing evidence, rather than process it to the dismantling/rebuilding of all that we have previously thought; we opt for a mental compartmentalization. Same would be true for Turner who prefers a pretend universe of fake friendship between nations to hide the awful reality of the conscious attempt by an enemy to destroy another nation.

Thus when Buckley suggests, or more precisely his chosen editor suggests, that there is a connection between religious and political views all hell breaks loose, literally. The centuries developed compartments between religion and any other mental disciplines are being called into question. That cannot happen, partly because there is so much at stake. Your views on religion or faith dramatically affect every aspect of your life, as they should. So here, more than anywhere, you will see extreme displays of ignoring information/facts so that preferred world views and activities can be maintained.image

In the two cases cited so far, and probably every other example that will come to mind (endless), the desire for mankind to be fundamentally good is unstoppable. Directly contrary to this is the Christian view, or more accurately God’s view, that man is not fundamentally good. His goodness can only be attained through a death and resurrection. These opposing camps are in a knock down drag out fight until the last day. The removal of religion and ones views surrounding it are the bedrock from which all else springs. Not just political views, but social, familial, financial, moral and any other thought that comes to mind. One can extrapolate how embedded this thinking has become considering the violent reaction to a line in a book, written by a student in 1951. And the desire of the world is to continue to severe any connection between what your core views of life are and the necessary implications of those views.  In support of this perspective I’ve taken it upon myself to make a mindmap (next post) showing the necessary views that fall out between Christian and non-Christian. In the current compartmentalized universe we live in, people may adhere to conflicting end mental products. For various and serious reasons, they have not followed through fully on the implications of their fundamental thinking. Not unlike Buckley’s fearful amusement at the fallout from crossing certain mental lines. As I have a comprehensive basis for connecting these dots, I welcome any challenge to how these should or should not align.

Summary

In summary this is really about allowing a seed to take root. That seed is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. There is unearthly pressure to prevent that from occurring. There are powerful mantras, accusations, world opinions that would ostracize you from society if you are to follow to those logical conclusions. These get further blurred on a daily basis. What was once outrageous, becomes accepted, then advocated, then demanded with consequences. I don’t see this trend abating in anyway. As my mentor once said, “As the world gets darker, the lights will only shine brighter”.