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:
The 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.
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...
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.
The 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.
It 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.
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”.
