I don't know whether to laugh or be offended at the question posed by some CNN reporter: "Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street?"
Of course, from a practical, spiritual standpoint, if you believe Jesus is indeed God incarnate, then He is already occupying Wall Street. God is omnipresent, meaning he is everywhere. I always laugh when I hear preachers or missionaries talk about "taking God to ... " where ever - deepest, darkest Africa or Pakistan or China or Hollywood. Because the truth is, as I once heard Andre Crouch say, "We brought Jesus in here with us, only to find out once we got here that He was already here!"
But of course, that's not what the question posed by CNN reporters and others really means.
The premise is, can those who are involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement find validation in their actions in Jesus?
Which is funny in that, like so many of us, CNN only seems to bring up Jesus and what He would or wouldn't do when it suits their purposes. I mean, you don't hear Anderson Cooper asking "What would Jesus do ..." about education, political scandal, environmental disaster, or in his New Year's Eve ridiculous banter with so-called "B"-lister Kathy Griffin.
Just imagine how different our news would be if Chris Mathews or Bill O'Rielly or Diane Sawyer approached every newscast with a sincere, "What would Jesus do?" approach. Even if they don't believe in Jesus, just to sincerely ask the question.
Or, for that matter, what would Mohammad do? Or Buddha?
I don't for a minute think that any of them could give a solid answer to the question, but I do think the dialogue would be healthy for all of us. After all, as founder John Adams once wrote, "religion and virtue are the only Foundations, not only of Republicanism and of all free Government, but of social felicity under all Governments and in all Combinations of human society." Or, as another signer of the Declaration, Dr. Benjamin Rush, said, "the only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments."
Of course, to have that conversation, they'd need to actually read things like the Bible, or the Qu'ran, or the Torah, so they could have a basis on which to talk.
But that's the thing, particularly when most of us start to talk about Jesus - it's so much easier to just say what we "think" He would do, based on the image we have created of what He was/is like.
Of course, a God who is created in our image is not much of a god at all.
But a God who is bigger than us is frightening, because how can we even begin to understand His ways? What if He doesn't like what it is we want to do?
Let's be honest here: what if CNN asked the question, and the answer was clearly, "No, Jesus wouldn't occupy Wall Street." Do you think that would change the attitude of the news reporters toward the Occupy movement, or cause the Occupiers themselves to suddenly go, "Oh! Well ... never mind" and just slink off back home?
Even those of us who say we want to "know" Jesus approach that knowledge with some trepidation (if we're honest) because we don't change Jesus to fit our image; He changes us to fit His. And sometimes that's very uncomfortable.
Donald Miller, when he isn't waxing eloquent over sunsets and starlight and the way a Volkswagen bus rambles through the Western countryside, said of "spirituality" that "All great spirituality is subversive, including the spirituality of following Jesus. Jesus was poor because the truth is there is more to life than money, and money is only a tool. Jesus did not cower to the power of religious authority, because the religious authority was corrupt and misrepresented God. Jesus did not take a wife or even a girlfriend because there is more to life than romance and sex. Jesus did not associate his identity with a specific fashion because clothes themselves cover the truth. ..."
Basically, when we follow Jesus, Miller says (and I agree, even if I don't live it like I should), everything about our lives should become subversive because we stand against the things the world around us holds dear.
Because we humans have by nature take the good things God has given us and focus on them so strongly - like the child that is so enthralled by the birthday gift he fails to consider the giver - that we lose sight of their purpose. We focus on wealth and sex and beauty and brains and health and become obsessed with them - even with trying to make sure everyone has those things - rather than what Jesus said we should focus on, which was "glorifying God."
It's hard to glorify God when we're so caught up in glorifying humanity (which is to say ourselves).
How much of our pain is caused by worshipping those things that ultimately have no power to help us, no power to save us, no power to do much of anything but consume us?
Perhaps the most dangerous thing we can do is try to argue that God (or Jesus) is on our side. The fact is, I don't want God on my side; I want to be on God's side!
It's an interesting question, though. Would Jesus Occupy Wall Street? Would Mohammad? Would Buddha?
How would we know?
Here's one idea: read the book.
You want to know if Jesus would Occupy Wall Street?
Read the Bible and find out for yourself.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Why I still love the BCS
Every year - and remember, I was a Harris Interactive Poll voter from its inception until I left the business two football seasons ago, a Heisman Trophy voter and an AP voter before that - about midway through the college football season there will be something like 10 undefeated teams, and some sportswriter (or sportswriters) go into a panic.
"There's going to be 10 undefeated teams this year!" they'll write. "This is why we need a college football playoff!"
Now, we're down to eight. Of those eight, Alabama and LSU will play each other in two weeks; Oklahoma State and Kansas State play each other that same weekend. That will eliminate two of the eight.
Of those six, Houston doesn't matter. Hate to say it, Cougars - I love ya, I really do. But the league doesn't carry any cache, and neither does the program. So good luck to you, hope you go undefeated, and we'll see you in the Sugar or Orange or Fiesta, but not the BSC Championship Game.
Of those five, Boise State shouldn't matter. The only difference between Houston and Boise State is that Boise State plays an even worse schedule that Houston, but Boise State has built up personal cache because they beat Oklahoma in a major bowl game that only mattered to Boise.
Stanford still has to play Oregon. Clemson seems to have a very good chance of going undefeated (personally, I hope the Tigers do) but still has South Carolina at the end of the year.
All I'm saying is that, as usually happens, by the end of the year we'll probably be down to only two undefeated teams that matter, and those teams will play for the BCS title.
And once again, the BCS will work.
Even as I write that, understand I'd like to see a four team playoff. We've already got the format, with the BCS championship game played a week after the "big four" of the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, and Rose bowls.
Here is what I like about college football: every game counts.
Every game in the regular season is like a playoff game. You lose just once, and you know you're in trouble. Lose twice, and except for the rare occasion, and you're pretty much out of it.
I know playoffs are exciting. And I know that professional sports realize it makes good business to expand playoffs. As a fan, I love the 'second chance' of wild card teams as much as anybody.
But let's be honest - no matter what you say, it does make the regular season less important.
If you know you can lose, if you know you can finish in second or even third place, and still get into a playoff, then winning a division or league title doesn't matter nearly as much.
I point to the NCAA mens' basketball tournament. Coaches who are honest will tell you that winning the conference title doesn't matter nearly as much as playing your way into being one of the 65 - or more - teams in the NCAA Tournament. Heck, the truth is, virtually every conference has a post-season tournament, with the automatic bid going to the winner.
So coaches know everything that happens between November and March is only to get ready for post-season play. Shoot, you could go 0-25 (or however many regular season games your team plays) but if you get hot at the right time you could then win, say, four games in the conference tournament and six in the NCAA Tournament - 10 straight games - and be crowned national champion.
That's why I love college football the way it is. I love that every game matters.
And its hard to look back over the last 19 years of college football actually trying to manufacture a "real" championship game (Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, Bowl Championship Series), and say it hasn't worked. Oh, there have been teams that got left out of the championship game that probably belonged (Auburn, 2004), but it's pretty hard to argue with the teams that have wound up winning the crystal trophy.
I don't care that Boise State and Houston get left out. We all know year in and year out, the best teams play in the best conferences. If anything, I wish they'd just create that often-discussed but never acted on "Division 4," made up of the top programs that actually make money.
By the way- this idea proposed by NCAA President Mark Emmert, about conferences being allowed to vote to give scholarship athletes an extra $2,000 on top of their scholarship for spending money?
Who do you think can afford that? Only the top conferences, the SECs and Big Tens and so forth.
So where will the best athletes go? Same place they always have - where the money is.
The same place the National Championship Trophy always winds up.
"There's going to be 10 undefeated teams this year!" they'll write. "This is why we need a college football playoff!"
Now, we're down to eight. Of those eight, Alabama and LSU will play each other in two weeks; Oklahoma State and Kansas State play each other that same weekend. That will eliminate two of the eight.
Of those six, Houston doesn't matter. Hate to say it, Cougars - I love ya, I really do. But the league doesn't carry any cache, and neither does the program. So good luck to you, hope you go undefeated, and we'll see you in the Sugar or Orange or Fiesta, but not the BSC Championship Game.
Of those five, Boise State shouldn't matter. The only difference between Houston and Boise State is that Boise State plays an even worse schedule that Houston, but Boise State has built up personal cache because they beat Oklahoma in a major bowl game that only mattered to Boise.
Stanford still has to play Oregon. Clemson seems to have a very good chance of going undefeated (personally, I hope the Tigers do) but still has South Carolina at the end of the year.
All I'm saying is that, as usually happens, by the end of the year we'll probably be down to only two undefeated teams that matter, and those teams will play for the BCS title.
And once again, the BCS will work.
Even as I write that, understand I'd like to see a four team playoff. We've already got the format, with the BCS championship game played a week after the "big four" of the Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, and Rose bowls.
Here is what I like about college football: every game counts.
Every game in the regular season is like a playoff game. You lose just once, and you know you're in trouble. Lose twice, and except for the rare occasion, and you're pretty much out of it.
I know playoffs are exciting. And I know that professional sports realize it makes good business to expand playoffs. As a fan, I love the 'second chance' of wild card teams as much as anybody.
But let's be honest - no matter what you say, it does make the regular season less important.
If you know you can lose, if you know you can finish in second or even third place, and still get into a playoff, then winning a division or league title doesn't matter nearly as much.
I point to the NCAA mens' basketball tournament. Coaches who are honest will tell you that winning the conference title doesn't matter nearly as much as playing your way into being one of the 65 - or more - teams in the NCAA Tournament. Heck, the truth is, virtually every conference has a post-season tournament, with the automatic bid going to the winner.
So coaches know everything that happens between November and March is only to get ready for post-season play. Shoot, you could go 0-25 (or however many regular season games your team plays) but if you get hot at the right time you could then win, say, four games in the conference tournament and six in the NCAA Tournament - 10 straight games - and be crowned national champion.
That's why I love college football the way it is. I love that every game matters.
And its hard to look back over the last 19 years of college football actually trying to manufacture a "real" championship game (Bowl Coalition, Bowl Alliance, Bowl Championship Series), and say it hasn't worked. Oh, there have been teams that got left out of the championship game that probably belonged (Auburn, 2004), but it's pretty hard to argue with the teams that have wound up winning the crystal trophy.
I don't care that Boise State and Houston get left out. We all know year in and year out, the best teams play in the best conferences. If anything, I wish they'd just create that often-discussed but never acted on "Division 4," made up of the top programs that actually make money.
By the way- this idea proposed by NCAA President Mark Emmert, about conferences being allowed to vote to give scholarship athletes an extra $2,000 on top of their scholarship for spending money?
Who do you think can afford that? Only the top conferences, the SECs and Big Tens and so forth.
So where will the best athletes go? Same place they always have - where the money is.
The same place the National Championship Trophy always winds up.
Monday, October 24, 2011
A Do-Nothing Government
Right up front, let me apologize if you thought, from the title of this missive, that I was going to attack the current government as a "do-nothing government;" nothing could be further from the truth.
This current government, like so many before it, is far from "do-nothing."
Very far, I'm afraid.
I know this will offend the people who are concerned about the poor and feel the government should be doing more to help them; the people who believe the political system is corrupt and the government should do something to fix it; and the people who believe the economy is a mess and the government should do something to straighten it out.
But quite honestly, at this point, I think the best thing that could happen is that the president and congress stay deadlocked, unable to get anything done.
See, I have this great faith that, eventually, people will fined the best solutions.
I've seen it over and over. Go back to the horrible tornadoes that ripped apart much of north Alabama last spring. Go through north Alabama now and you'll find the people who are still waiting for help are those who are waiting for the government and FEMA, while the areas where things are getting done - where houses are being rebuilt and lives put back together -are areas where organizations like Christian Service Mission (just to name one of many) organized churches and volunteers and regular people from all over the country and provided the means to get started successfully rebuilding lives and communities.
Visit the gulf coast of Mississippi, ground zero for Hurricane Katrina. While New Orleans - which wasn't devastated by the actual hurricane but by a levee that broke because government hadn't taken care of it - still complains about people not moving back and government not keeping its promises to rebuild the communities, in places like Pass Christian and Bay St. Louis and Long Beach ordinary people organized by civic groups and churches came in to clean up and start the rebuilding process. Every day it seems like a new road is being finished and a new business being opened. As Biloxi mayor A.J. Holloway said, "This is going to be the year of ribbon-cuttings."
In 2008, a flood in destroyed huge parts of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. FEMA predicted that 40 percent of the city would be never recover. But Cedar Rapids is back on its feet today because citizens stepped up when needed and united to save property, rebuild, restore, and get the community back on its feet.
After World War II, the poverty rate in America consistently fell, until in 1969 it was at the lowest point in almost a century at 12.1 percent. But in 1965 then-President Lyndon Johnson instituted the well-meaning War on Poverty, and despite spending more on this war than in all the wars from the Revolution to the year 2000 (roughly $16 trillion), the poverty rate has not been affected.
I read a story the other day that was written to point out the unfairness of the state of Alabama's tough anti-illegal immigration law. In it, the owner of Max's Deli in Birmingham spoke out, saying that out of fear of reprisal even his legal immigrant workers had quit. But then the story goes on to say "To replace his legal workers, who he says feel compelled to leave because of the law, (deli owner Steve) Dubrinsky said he offered one job to a woman who wouldn't take the work because she would lose her food stamps. He also said he offered a job to another person who worked two hours before quitting. 'It's easier said than done,' he said of finding new workers."
Did you get that? A unemployed woman wouldn't take the job because she would lose her government benefits! With the government providing so many free benefits, many people simply choose not to work.
And can you blame them?
Maybe you remember reading about activists in Pennsylvania who believed government should provide the poor with free cell phones. And then there is this story where Connecticut's U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro wants government to provide free diapers.
Talk about your "nanny state" - this, to me, robs people of their dignity; the dignity that comes from being able to take care of yourself and your family.
Yes, I know the argument is that these people are not in a position to take care of their families if they wanted to.
But we've seen that all the good intentions of the government to take care of people over the last 60 years has only taken care of government employees, because it creates processes that create government jobs that enrich those people who get government jobs but only continues the cycle of poverty for those who find being taken care of by the government is easier than actually taking jobs (like working in Max's Deli) that could lead to self-sufficiency, dignity, and the beginning of the end of the poverty cycle.
That's why I'd like to see a "do nothing" government.
It would hurt for awhile. But eventually, I'm convinced, good people would step up and do what they should have been doing all along, what they used to do in the 1700s and 1800s during the times of the First and Second Great Awakenings when charitable organizations sprang to life all over the country to care for the poor.
We could learn from our forefathers. From 1818 to 1824, New York's "Society for the Prevention of Pauperism" annually printed its top causes of poverty. The first three causes were ignorance, idleness, and intemperance; then came "want of economy," imprudent and hasty marriages, and lotteries; then three specific institutions: pawnbrokers, brothels, and gambling houses.
And as hard as it would be to preach those nine issues now, even in the early 1800s the 10th reason for poverty might surprise you: "charities that gave away money too freely." (Taken from "The First Annual Report of the Managers of the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism in the City of New York, pp 12-22).
Even then, too easy subsidy of people's lives was seen as destructive, both morally and materially.
Somewhere, I read the story about a former advisor to one-time presidential candidate Michael Dukakis who said he did not give money to beggars because "I pay taxes for social workers to determine who is truly needy."
As long as government says it will solve the problem, citizens won't have to.
That's why if government would just stop, I believe even more good people would join in, and then we'd really see something good start to happen.
This current government, like so many before it, is far from "do-nothing."
Very far, I'm afraid.
I know this will offend the people who are concerned about the poor and feel the government should be doing more to help them; the people who believe the political system is corrupt and the government should do something to fix it; and the people who believe the economy is a mess and the government should do something to straighten it out.
But quite honestly, at this point, I think the best thing that could happen is that the president and congress stay deadlocked, unable to get anything done.
See, I have this great faith that, eventually, people will fined the best solutions.
I've seen it over and over. Go back to the horrible tornadoes that ripped apart much of north Alabama last spring. Go through north Alabama now and you'll find the people who are still waiting for help are those who are waiting for the government and FEMA, while the areas where things are getting done - where houses are being rebuilt and lives put back together -are areas where organizations like Christian Service Mission (just to name one of many) organized churches and volunteers and regular people from all over the country and provided the means to get started successfully rebuilding lives and communities.
Visit the gulf coast of Mississippi, ground zero for Hurricane Katrina. While New Orleans - which wasn't devastated by the actual hurricane but by a levee that broke because government hadn't taken care of it - still complains about people not moving back and government not keeping its promises to rebuild the communities, in places like Pass Christian and Bay St. Louis and Long Beach ordinary people organized by civic groups and churches came in to clean up and start the rebuilding process. Every day it seems like a new road is being finished and a new business being opened. As Biloxi mayor A.J. Holloway said, "This is going to be the year of ribbon-cuttings."
In 2008, a flood in destroyed huge parts of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. FEMA predicted that 40 percent of the city would be never recover. But Cedar Rapids is back on its feet today because citizens stepped up when needed and united to save property, rebuild, restore, and get the community back on its feet.
After World War II, the poverty rate in America consistently fell, until in 1969 it was at the lowest point in almost a century at 12.1 percent. But in 1965 then-President Lyndon Johnson instituted the well-meaning War on Poverty, and despite spending more on this war than in all the wars from the Revolution to the year 2000 (roughly $16 trillion), the poverty rate has not been affected.
I read a story the other day that was written to point out the unfairness of the state of Alabama's tough anti-illegal immigration law. In it, the owner of Max's Deli in Birmingham spoke out, saying that out of fear of reprisal even his legal immigrant workers had quit. But then the story goes on to say "To replace his legal workers, who he says feel compelled to leave because of the law, (deli owner Steve) Dubrinsky said he offered one job to a woman who wouldn't take the work because she would lose her food stamps. He also said he offered a job to another person who worked two hours before quitting. 'It's easier said than done,' he said of finding new workers."
Did you get that? A unemployed woman wouldn't take the job because she would lose her government benefits! With the government providing so many free benefits, many people simply choose not to work.
And can you blame them?
Maybe you remember reading about activists in Pennsylvania who believed government should provide the poor with free cell phones. And then there is this story where Connecticut's U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro wants government to provide free diapers.
Talk about your "nanny state" - this, to me, robs people of their dignity; the dignity that comes from being able to take care of yourself and your family.
Yes, I know the argument is that these people are not in a position to take care of their families if they wanted to.
But we've seen that all the good intentions of the government to take care of people over the last 60 years has only taken care of government employees, because it creates processes that create government jobs that enrich those people who get government jobs but only continues the cycle of poverty for those who find being taken care of by the government is easier than actually taking jobs (like working in Max's Deli) that could lead to self-sufficiency, dignity, and the beginning of the end of the poverty cycle.
That's why I'd like to see a "do nothing" government.
It would hurt for awhile. But eventually, I'm convinced, good people would step up and do what they should have been doing all along, what they used to do in the 1700s and 1800s during the times of the First and Second Great Awakenings when charitable organizations sprang to life all over the country to care for the poor.
We could learn from our forefathers. From 1818 to 1824, New York's "Society for the Prevention of Pauperism" annually printed its top causes of poverty. The first three causes were ignorance, idleness, and intemperance; then came "want of economy," imprudent and hasty marriages, and lotteries; then three specific institutions: pawnbrokers, brothels, and gambling houses.
And as hard as it would be to preach those nine issues now, even in the early 1800s the 10th reason for poverty might surprise you: "charities that gave away money too freely." (Taken from "The First Annual Report of the Managers of the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism in the City of New York, pp 12-22).
Even then, too easy subsidy of people's lives was seen as destructive, both morally and materially.
Somewhere, I read the story about a former advisor to one-time presidential candidate Michael Dukakis who said he did not give money to beggars because "I pay taxes for social workers to determine who is truly needy."
As long as government says it will solve the problem, citizens won't have to.
That's why if government would just stop, I believe even more good people would join in, and then we'd really see something good start to happen.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Random thought
As I watched the parade at The Citadel last week, I couldn't help but think of this quote from George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia." And this isn't a statement on war or peace, but rather the feeling the most men (if not most people) get when they see such a parade ....
"The men who were well enough to stand had moved across the carriage to cheer the Italians as they went past. A crutch waved out of the window; bandaged forearms made the Red Salute. It was like an allegorical picture of war; the trainload of fresh men gliding proudly up the line, the maimed men sliding slowly down, and all the while the guns on the open trucks making one's heart leap as guns always do, and reviving that pernicious feeling, so difficult to get rid of, that war is glorious after all.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
"The men who were well enough to stand had moved across the carriage to cheer the Italians as they went past. A crutch waved out of the window; bandaged forearms made the Red Salute. It was like an allegorical picture of war; the trainload of fresh men gliding proudly up the line, the maimed men sliding slowly down, and all the while the guns on the open trucks making one's heart leap as guns always do, and reviving that pernicious feeling, so difficult to get rid of, that war is glorious after all.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Why stop at Wall Street? Let's Occupy art, baseball, football ....
The voice on the other end of the phone shouldn't have surprised me, but it always does.
Gadsden Jevic was back.
Gadsden is one of my oldest, and closest friends. Over the years, we grow apart, but somehow he always manages to find me and it doesn't take long before we're like twin sons from different mothers again.
Anyway, Gadsden had been off doing what Gadsden always seems to do, which is find himself in the middle of something. In this case, it was the Occupy Wall Street protests, although I'm not sure he ever actually made it to Wall Street. He might have been in Atlanta, or more likely Greensboro.
But as always, he came back having gone off the deep end - again.
And I mean, waaay off the deep end.
Gadsden came back preaching about the evils of corporate America. For example:
- CEO's should, by law, not be allowed to make more than 20 times that of the lowest paid employee of the company. For example, if your lowest employee makes $40,000 a year, the CEO can't make any more than $800,000 a year. And if the CEO wants to make more, the company has to raise the salary of the lowest-paid employee first.
-- Banks should, by law, not be allowed to have any more than a set amount of assets that is appropriately in proportion to the smallest clients. Gadsden hadn't thought this one out as well as he had the first one; or maybe he just didn't explain it to me well enough for me to remember.
But then .... then .... THEN ...
"We shouldn't stop at Wall Street,'' Gadsden said. "It should apply to every day situations. No one person is better than another. Everyone's talents and gifts should be recognized as having equal value."
Which means? Again, in Jevic's words:
"You go into the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, and see all these paintings considered 'masterpieces,''' he said. "I think they should be side-by-side with some of those from those 'starving artists' you see who sell their stuff from a rented ballroom at a Days Inn. Or with the pictures from elementary school kids who could be inspired by seeing their art hanging in a famous museum. Imagine the sense of self-worth that would give them!"
It didn't end there.
"Let's take baseball,'' my buddy went on. "What's considered an excellent batting average? .300. But this year, Detroit's Miguel Cabrera hit .344. The Mets' Jose Reyes hit .337. I think baseball should make a rule that every hit a guy gets that puts his average one point over .300 should be credited to someone who isn't hitting anywhere close to .300. What would Delmon Young have given for another couple dozen hits that might have gotten him closer to .300? A new contract, better able to take care of his family, improved sense of self-worth.
"Or football. You love college football. We know once a team wins seven games it's guaranteed a winning season and a bowl game. That's all that should matter. So take LSU or Alabama or Oklahoma- every win above their seventh should be credited to Ole Miss or Kentucky or Kansas. That way those coaches don't lose their jobs, those players feel good for giving good effort. The Alabamas and Oklahomas can continue to play hard and win games, but those wins are credited to the needy and less fortunate!"
As bizarre as Gadsden began to sound, I could see his thinking as the logical extension of the Occupy Wall Street nobody-is-better-than-anybody else mentality.
Here's the thing: I knew Gadsden didn't go to hang out at one of those "Occupy ...'' movements because he believed in it. He saw it has a great place to pick up girls. That's one of the great traditions of protests: the girls are always passionate about the 'movement,' while guys realize passionate girls are emotionally vulnerable and ... well, at least that's what I've heard.
Have you listened to the way these protesters communicate? Repeating everything the 'leader' says? The first time I heard it (at the rejection of Civil Rights legend John Lewis at the Occupy Atlanta movement - see it here ) I couldn't help but think of that scene from Monty Python's “Life of Brian” where Brian, who has been mistaken for the Messiah, shouts to the crowd, “You are all individuals!” And the crowd shouts back: “We are all individuals!”
It's ridiculous, of course, like George Orwell's Animal Farm come to life.
"We have a process!" Gadsden said he chanted, along with the protesters.
Unfortunately, of course, no one knew what that process was.
Except the leaders. Of which, technically, there should be none because that would lead to the same mess the protesters were protesting.
Gadsden Jevic was back.
Gadsden is one of my oldest, and closest friends. Over the years, we grow apart, but somehow he always manages to find me and it doesn't take long before we're like twin sons from different mothers again.
Anyway, Gadsden had been off doing what Gadsden always seems to do, which is find himself in the middle of something. In this case, it was the Occupy Wall Street protests, although I'm not sure he ever actually made it to Wall Street. He might have been in Atlanta, or more likely Greensboro.
But as always, he came back having gone off the deep end - again.
And I mean, waaay off the deep end.
Gadsden came back preaching about the evils of corporate America. For example:
- CEO's should, by law, not be allowed to make more than 20 times that of the lowest paid employee of the company. For example, if your lowest employee makes $40,000 a year, the CEO can't make any more than $800,000 a year. And if the CEO wants to make more, the company has to raise the salary of the lowest-paid employee first.
-- Banks should, by law, not be allowed to have any more than a set amount of assets that is appropriately in proportion to the smallest clients. Gadsden hadn't thought this one out as well as he had the first one; or maybe he just didn't explain it to me well enough for me to remember.
But then .... then .... THEN ...
"We shouldn't stop at Wall Street,'' Gadsden said. "It should apply to every day situations. No one person is better than another. Everyone's talents and gifts should be recognized as having equal value."
Which means? Again, in Jevic's words:
"You go into the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, and see all these paintings considered 'masterpieces,''' he said. "I think they should be side-by-side with some of those from those 'starving artists' you see who sell their stuff from a rented ballroom at a Days Inn. Or with the pictures from elementary school kids who could be inspired by seeing their art hanging in a famous museum. Imagine the sense of self-worth that would give them!"
It didn't end there.
"Let's take baseball,'' my buddy went on. "What's considered an excellent batting average? .300. But this year, Detroit's Miguel Cabrera hit .344. The Mets' Jose Reyes hit .337. I think baseball should make a rule that every hit a guy gets that puts his average one point over .300 should be credited to someone who isn't hitting anywhere close to .300. What would Delmon Young have given for another couple dozen hits that might have gotten him closer to .300? A new contract, better able to take care of his family, improved sense of self-worth.
"Or football. You love college football. We know once a team wins seven games it's guaranteed a winning season and a bowl game. That's all that should matter. So take LSU or Alabama or Oklahoma- every win above their seventh should be credited to Ole Miss or Kentucky or Kansas. That way those coaches don't lose their jobs, those players feel good for giving good effort. The Alabamas and Oklahomas can continue to play hard and win games, but those wins are credited to the needy and less fortunate!"
As bizarre as Gadsden began to sound, I could see his thinking as the logical extension of the Occupy Wall Street nobody-is-better-than-anybody else mentality.
Here's the thing: I knew Gadsden didn't go to hang out at one of those "Occupy ...'' movements because he believed in it. He saw it has a great place to pick up girls. That's one of the great traditions of protests: the girls are always passionate about the 'movement,' while guys realize passionate girls are emotionally vulnerable and ... well, at least that's what I've heard.
Have you listened to the way these protesters communicate? Repeating everything the 'leader' says? The first time I heard it (at the rejection of Civil Rights legend John Lewis at the Occupy Atlanta movement - see it here ) I couldn't help but think of that scene from Monty Python's “Life of Brian” where Brian, who has been mistaken for the Messiah, shouts to the crowd, “You are all individuals!” And the crowd shouts back: “We are all individuals!”
It's ridiculous, of course, like George Orwell's Animal Farm come to life.
"We have a process!" Gadsden said he chanted, along with the protesters.
Unfortunately, of course, no one knew what that process was.
Except the leaders. Of which, technically, there should be none because that would lead to the same mess the protesters were protesting.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The lesson from Stephen Garcia's father
Today's Father of the Day has to be Gary Garcia, father of now-former South Carolina quarterback Stephen Garcia.
The younger Garcia, who was a fifth-year starting quarterback for the Gamecocks, was kicked off the team this week. He'd had a very volatile relationship with both Gamecocks' fans and the South Carolina head coach Steve Spurrier, a man who has always been notoriously hard on quarterbacks (possibly because none of his ever seemed to be as good as he was and he couldn't figure out why).
Garcia had a troubled career at South Carolina, both on the field (where he could be brilliant one game and abysmal the next, never quite able to settle into either role) and off (where he'd been suspended for a variety of issues, including allegedly failing drug tests).
Garcia was finally benched after yet another horrible performance in an SEC game (completing just nine of 23 passes with two interceptions in a come-from-ahead loss to Auburn). The story is that, after being benched for Connor Shaw, he apparently failed a drug test.
However, Garcia texted a reporter who follows the team to say he was "shocked and completely flabbergasted to be honest” by his ouster.
Most people would have said they expected it, that he'd been given more than enough chances as it was, and were ready to turn their backs on Garcia - although, let's be honest: fans turned on Garcia more for his frustrating interceptions and inconsistent play than anything he may or may not have done off the field.
Garcia's father?
First, what would you do in this case if it were your son? What would your public response be?
I've seen Little League dads blow up when their son was pulled from a game, much less the father of a starting quarterback in the SEC.
Yet Gary Garcia said of his son: “He kind of made his own bed, and this is the culmination of some of those earlier mistakes. ... This has got to be the worst two weeks of his life, but it’s not going to be the worst two weeks in his life going forward, I can tell you that. You deal with trials and tribulations, and you learn from it. Hopefully, he continues to learn and grow. We’ll let the dust settle for a couple of weeks and then look at what his options are.”
Here, to me, is the key phrase: "it's not going to be the worst two weeks of his life going forward, I can tell you that."
For most of us, losing the position of starting quarterback on the college team would seem like the worst thing that could happen.
And yet the father recognized this was only a game, that his son had a long life ahead of him, and the father hoped the son would recognize the consequences for his action and learn from them.
As much as some of us think college football is the be-all, end-all of life, the truth is, there has to be more for these kids. Having spent half my life around college football, I do know kids who made their years as a college football player the high point of their lives, and everything after was either looking back, or trying to keep those days alive by capitalizing on whatever fame they'd been able to cling to from that experience.
Garcia's father knew - and certainly hoped - that Stephen's life would go on and Stephen would have a chance to accomplish so much more. And he, Gary Garcia, hoped that Stephen wouldn't become one of those people whose reaction to stress or disappointment was to hurry off to find a bottle of Jack or a dime bag of pot to dull the pain.
Lord knows there are enough "adults'' out there who do.
It won't be easy for Stephen. Chances are very good that he will never be the center of attention that he has been for the last few years, that nothing he ever does again will garner the kind of public adoration - and truthfully, even the scorn simply reflected the adoration - he has had.
Once you've had that, it's easy to feel like you're not measuring up when later successes are done in the relative obscurity within which most of us live.
The lesson I pray my kids learn is that they do not measure their own worth or measure their success by the attention they receive or the reaction of the people around them.
I pray they learn it, because Lord knows their old man struggles - and he wasn't even a starting quarterback in the SEC.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Are cheap dates really a sign of progress?
I just read it in the New York Post: the price of sex has dropped to record lows! (see cheap dates).
It says (and I quote): "Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists."
Tell me that doesn't get your attention!
Now, I hate to quote myself (yeah, sure), but this fits in exactly with something I wrote back on March 11: Inflationary Sex.
In an effort to simply save time, I'll give you the highlights of that blog:
Sex is everywhere. And it's very appealing.
And we tend to think sex is happening everywhere except, perhaps, where we are. Certainly it seems to be happening a lot more than it used to.
And maybe it is.
But a lot of things happen more than they used to. I remember when I was a kid, it was a big deal to be a millionaire. Back then, it meant something. Now, there are so many millionaires that, quite honestly, it's not as big a deal as it once was. Oh, don't get me wrong; it's still nice. I wish I was one. But being a millionaire isn't quite what it used to be.
Maybe that's because so many more people have so much money, causing money to have lost some of its value.
And you know that's true. Call it inflation. Or the devaluing of the dollar.
Economies are based on the exchange rate of the dollar, and we like to keep the value of the dollar high. But there are disagreements over how to do that: do we save it, or do we need to spend it? Yet deep down we recognize that the more dollars that are out there in the market, changing hands, the less value the dollar has, even though some people say that's the best thing for the economy.
Do you see where I'm going?
Sex is like the dollar. (In fact, there are places where you can exchange dollars for sex, but that's another story).
Back in the old days, sex didn't seem to be quite so easy, so it maintained a certain value. Oh, we talked about it, and dreamed about it, and lied about it - just like we did when it came to how much money we made - but because getting it was so elusive, it really meant something.
Which is the way God meant it to be.
Think about all those books and movies and TV shows that picture people "hooking up,'' seeking and having sex with as many people as there are episodes in a season, making sex seem about as special as finding a penny on the sidewalk.
For all that activity, in the end what almost every one of those people want is a meaningful relationship with someone. They want something special with someone special that is shared only with the two of them (and I know you can find exceptions to this idea, but even those exceptions I'd argue are people who somewhere along the way lost the ability to have a real relationship with another person; we can argue about this one later, if you'd like).
What it means is that - to borrow a phrase - we have to learn the value of the dollar.
It's not easy, because so many people think they understand the value of the dollar. They'll do anything for a buck, while at the same time throwing money away on things they believe to be "necessities'' that really aren't; things our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents never even dreamed of and got along quite fine without.
Try getting someone to "save" today, when most of us live paycheck to paycheck, or even start our lives in debt, hoping we'll get caught up someday, down the road. Economists tell us that people in America just aren't saving the way we used to, and that's a major concern for the future of the economy.
And so the dollar is cheapened and loses its value. We can see what that has done to the country.
The same thing happens when relationships between people are cheapened, and sex is traded like a commodity.
If we saved money and treated it carefully and with respect, how much better would our economy be?
If we saved sex and treated it carefully - just decided today that we'd be monogamous for the rest of our lives - think of all the trouble, not to mention disease, that would end within a generation or two. We'd be so much healthier.
This is honestly why I worry far more about the purity of my sons than my daughter. I don't know how a young woman thinks, but I know all too well how a young boy thinks, and its the exact same way young boys have thought probably since Adam first saw Eve in her birthday suit and said, "Whoa! Man!"
(Later shortened to "woman").
I know, the feminists would say it's just women behaving just like men have for thousands of years.
To which I say, yeah -- and you call that progress?
Need more? Check this out: Why do so many young women drink themselves to oblivion
It says (and I quote): "Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists."
Tell me that doesn't get your attention!
Now, I hate to quote myself (yeah, sure), but this fits in exactly with something I wrote back on March 11: Inflationary Sex.
In an effort to simply save time, I'll give you the highlights of that blog:
Sex is everywhere. And it's very appealing.
And we tend to think sex is happening everywhere except, perhaps, where we are. Certainly it seems to be happening a lot more than it used to.
And maybe it is.
But a lot of things happen more than they used to. I remember when I was a kid, it was a big deal to be a millionaire. Back then, it meant something. Now, there are so many millionaires that, quite honestly, it's not as big a deal as it once was. Oh, don't get me wrong; it's still nice. I wish I was one. But being a millionaire isn't quite what it used to be.
Maybe that's because so many more people have so much money, causing money to have lost some of its value.
And you know that's true. Call it inflation. Or the devaluing of the dollar.
Economies are based on the exchange rate of the dollar, and we like to keep the value of the dollar high. But there are disagreements over how to do that: do we save it, or do we need to spend it? Yet deep down we recognize that the more dollars that are out there in the market, changing hands, the less value the dollar has, even though some people say that's the best thing for the economy.
Do you see where I'm going?
Sex is like the dollar. (In fact, there are places where you can exchange dollars for sex, but that's another story).
Back in the old days, sex didn't seem to be quite so easy, so it maintained a certain value. Oh, we talked about it, and dreamed about it, and lied about it - just like we did when it came to how much money we made - but because getting it was so elusive, it really meant something.
Which is the way God meant it to be.
Think about all those books and movies and TV shows that picture people "hooking up,'' seeking and having sex with as many people as there are episodes in a season, making sex seem about as special as finding a penny on the sidewalk.
For all that activity, in the end what almost every one of those people want is a meaningful relationship with someone. They want something special with someone special that is shared only with the two of them (and I know you can find exceptions to this idea, but even those exceptions I'd argue are people who somewhere along the way lost the ability to have a real relationship with another person; we can argue about this one later, if you'd like).
What it means is that - to borrow a phrase - we have to learn the value of the dollar.
It's not easy, because so many people think they understand the value of the dollar. They'll do anything for a buck, while at the same time throwing money away on things they believe to be "necessities'' that really aren't; things our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents never even dreamed of and got along quite fine without.
Try getting someone to "save" today, when most of us live paycheck to paycheck, or even start our lives in debt, hoping we'll get caught up someday, down the road. Economists tell us that people in America just aren't saving the way we used to, and that's a major concern for the future of the economy.
And so the dollar is cheapened and loses its value. We can see what that has done to the country.
The same thing happens when relationships between people are cheapened, and sex is traded like a commodity.
If we saved money and treated it carefully and with respect, how much better would our economy be?
If we saved sex and treated it carefully - just decided today that we'd be monogamous for the rest of our lives - think of all the trouble, not to mention disease, that would end within a generation or two. We'd be so much healthier.
This is honestly why I worry far more about the purity of my sons than my daughter. I don't know how a young woman thinks, but I know all too well how a young boy thinks, and its the exact same way young boys have thought probably since Adam first saw Eve in her birthday suit and said, "Whoa! Man!"
(Later shortened to "woman").
I know, the feminists would say it's just women behaving just like men have for thousands of years.
To which I say, yeah -- and you call that progress?
Need more? Check this out: Why do so many young women drink themselves to oblivion
Monday, October 10, 2011
Honestly, is a new government really so unthinkable?
I said it before (here: "Why Are Egyptians Protesting in English ..." ) so let me say it again:
The smartest way to overthrow a government is recruit college kids. It's smart, because college kids are at that age when they believe they are immortal.
They believe they can change the world.
They are always looking for a cause.
And when the cause also involves missing classes ... so much the better.
They are young, and everyone likes youth. They are articulate. .
There is one more huge reason why college kids make the best protesters, but I'll come back to that in a minute.
So when I watch the Wall Street Protests that are spreading to a big city near you, and I hear the organizers pushing for college kids to not only join in but, at one point, even organize a class walk-out to show support for the movement, I can't be surprised.
Hey, I was young once. And rebellion is in the historical blood line of America.
When I was in college, I made a point of memorizing the Declaration of Independence -- some of which I still remember to this day! And of course one of the great lines you rarely hear quoted is the one about "... when ever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it ..."
That has always been that part of the system of checks and balances that our founding fathers so believed in that has been the people's threat (for lack of a better word) over the establishment.
However ... there is another line in that same document that is not quoted enough, either. It goes "...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ..."
Meaning we don't overthrow governments on a whim, or without first experiencing a "long train of abuses and usurpations ..." And the truth is, this great experiment in government that is the United States of America is not so broke that the system, as designed by the founders, can't fix it. I honestly believe that.
But it will take a revolution.
Here is what we sometimes forget about our country: every four to eight years, we actualy undergo a revolution. The ruling head of the government is removed from office by the will of the people, only without guns but with the ballot box. And sometimes I think it is easy to forget, in the entire history of the world, how rare such a peaceful regular revolution is.
But back to what I'm hearing from these Wall Street Protesters.
The more I listen, the more I find myself thinking that so many of what these protesters are against are the same things conservatives are against:
They protest Wall Street bankers from getting preferential treatment from the Government, major corporations who benefit from huge tax breaks, the lack of opportunity for the poor.
So do most Conservatives.
The difference, of course, is that Conservatives (generally speaking) believe it was government that gave preferential treatment to Wall Street through bail-out money that most citizens opposed, that those major corporations that were "bailed out'' by the government then didn't have to pay taxes on that money; and that opportunity for the poor doesn't come from government taking care of the poor but from the free market allowing for the encouragement of creating businesses that need to hire more and more workers to meet growing demands.
The protesters, for all their protest of the government, seem to believe the answer is more government because governments are created to look after people and should therefore force some brand of equality - which is what socialism, in theory, is supposed to do.
And in a perfect world, socialism would work. However, what history tells us is that this is far from a perfect world, and when there is a limit to what people are allowed to accomplish when creativity and ambition are stifled.
As for the belief that government should somehow "level the playing field," I wonder if they understand that government makes money by forcing people to use its services, or by taxation?
Not that I complain. But it's true. And that is an interesting debate in itself.
I heard a guy the other day who, reflecting upon the passing of Steve Jobs, wondered how many of those Wall Street protesters carrying Apple products understood how those gadgets came to exist.
Eventually, college kids go back to school.
And when they leave, what they leave behind is a power vacuum. And who will be ready to step in and fill that vacuum?
That's the real question, isn't it?
There is no question we're getting ready, in 2012, for a revolution. Either the current administration will be removed, or it will withstand the challenge and remain in power.
(There is a third option, of course, of an actual over-throw of the government, but as reprehensible as that idea is, it should never be "unthinkable." We have to always be guarding against that possibility until, as the Founders said, it seems unavoidable to protect our "future security.").
Like Hermain Cain, I wonder why these protesters aren't surrounding the White House or the Capitol Building.
They might find a lot of other people willing to support them if they did.
And a government might finally feel compelled to listen.
The smartest way to overthrow a government is recruit college kids. It's smart, because college kids are at that age when they believe they are immortal.
They believe they can change the world.
They are always looking for a cause.
And when the cause also involves missing classes ... so much the better.
They are young, and everyone likes youth. They are articulate. .
There is one more huge reason why college kids make the best protesters, but I'll come back to that in a minute.
So when I watch the Wall Street Protests that are spreading to a big city near you, and I hear the organizers pushing for college kids to not only join in but, at one point, even organize a class walk-out to show support for the movement, I can't be surprised.
Hey, I was young once. And rebellion is in the historical blood line of America.
When I was in college, I made a point of memorizing the Declaration of Independence -- some of which I still remember to this day! And of course one of the great lines you rarely hear quoted is the one about "... when ever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it ..."
That has always been that part of the system of checks and balances that our founding fathers so believed in that has been the people's threat (for lack of a better word) over the establishment.
However ... there is another line in that same document that is not quoted enough, either. It goes "...Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes ..."
Meaning we don't overthrow governments on a whim, or without first experiencing a "long train of abuses and usurpations ..." And the truth is, this great experiment in government that is the United States of America is not so broke that the system, as designed by the founders, can't fix it. I honestly believe that.
But it will take a revolution.
Here is what we sometimes forget about our country: every four to eight years, we actualy undergo a revolution. The ruling head of the government is removed from office by the will of the people, only without guns but with the ballot box. And sometimes I think it is easy to forget, in the entire history of the world, how rare such a peaceful regular revolution is.
But back to what I'm hearing from these Wall Street Protesters.
The more I listen, the more I find myself thinking that so many of what these protesters are against are the same things conservatives are against:
They protest Wall Street bankers from getting preferential treatment from the Government, major corporations who benefit from huge tax breaks, the lack of opportunity for the poor.
So do most Conservatives.
The difference, of course, is that Conservatives (generally speaking) believe it was government that gave preferential treatment to Wall Street through bail-out money that most citizens opposed, that those major corporations that were "bailed out'' by the government then didn't have to pay taxes on that money; and that opportunity for the poor doesn't come from government taking care of the poor but from the free market allowing for the encouragement of creating businesses that need to hire more and more workers to meet growing demands.
The protesters, for all their protest of the government, seem to believe the answer is more government because governments are created to look after people and should therefore force some brand of equality - which is what socialism, in theory, is supposed to do.
And in a perfect world, socialism would work. However, what history tells us is that this is far from a perfect world, and when there is a limit to what people are allowed to accomplish when creativity and ambition are stifled.
As for the belief that government should somehow "level the playing field," I wonder if they understand that government makes money by forcing people to use its services, or by taxation?
Not that I complain. But it's true. And that is an interesting debate in itself.
I heard a guy the other day who, reflecting upon the passing of Steve Jobs, wondered how many of those Wall Street protesters carrying Apple products understood how those gadgets came to exist.
Do they realize that what started out as two men in a garage with ideas and passion would have been nothing more than two guys in a garage with ideas and passion had it not been for an IPO on Dec. 12, 1980, when Apple went public at $22 per share?
And that 'Big Bad Wall Street' raised $101 million that enabled Jobs to expand his ideas, create jobs and revolutionize the landscape of technology?
How ironic that the next time one of these Wall Street protesters makes, say, an iTune purchase, it can be traced back to some Big Bad Banker’s belief in Mr. Jobs and his company!
But the absolute best reason to use college kids when you're protesting the government?Eventually, college kids go back to school.
And when they leave, what they leave behind is a power vacuum. And who will be ready to step in and fill that vacuum?
That's the real question, isn't it?
There is no question we're getting ready, in 2012, for a revolution. Either the current administration will be removed, or it will withstand the challenge and remain in power.
(There is a third option, of course, of an actual over-throw of the government, but as reprehensible as that idea is, it should never be "unthinkable." We have to always be guarding against that possibility until, as the Founders said, it seems unavoidable to protect our "future security.").
Like Hermain Cain, I wonder why these protesters aren't surrounding the White House or the Capitol Building.
They might find a lot of other people willing to support them if they did.
And a government might finally feel compelled to listen.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Coming to terms with my birthday
I am approaching my birthday.
This has never been easy for me.
That sounds strange, I know. Who doesn't look forward to birthdays? It's the one day of the year that's yours, that celebrates the entering into this world of you! And even though there are thousands - if not millions - of people who share that birth date, it's still yours. Family and friends gather and sing to you, tell you how happy they are for you, and give you presents with no expectation of anything in return (at least not immediately).
But I've never been big on birthdays. I've always felt a little self-conscious about them.
Still, I've had some great ones.
My 13th birthday is one of the earliest I'll always remember, for two gifts: a Bible and a Football.
If you think that's an odd combination, you're not from the South. You've heard the old saying, "Football is religion." As I said many years ago and probably heard it from somebody else, "You know religion is important in the South because it's so often compared to football."
Of course, it wasn't just any football. It was "The Duke,'' the official NFL football (they were called "The Duke'' back then; it even had that stamped on the side). They were not inexpensive, and I knew it was an outrageously expensive birthday gift from my mother and father.
But equally as important to me was my first leather-bound Scofield Bible, New King James version. This was a "reference" Bible, with footnotes and references. For the first time, I was able to read a passage and immediately find cross-references - other passages in other parts of the Bible that spoke to the same issue or comparative passage. I have always loved research. I remember it took me something like five years to go through the book of Galatians, looking up every annotation and cross-reference for every chapter, verse, word.
And my name was inscribed in gold lettering on the cover. How cool was that?
You have to skip way ahead to get to the next birthday that stands out. The Trophy Wife, even before she was the Trophy Wife, once got us third row, center stage seats for a Sting concert. That was huge.
A decade later, after she had become The Trophy Wife, she surprised me again by not only having a whole bunch of my friends over to the house on a Saturday afternoon before an Alabama-Tennessee game, but had arranged for a birthday cake to be presented to me in the press box at Legion Field that night, to share with all the media covering that game.
Oh, and there was the week before my 16th birthday. Obviously, turning 16 was huge because I got my drivers' license. But what made that birthday particularly memorable is that my friend Lee turned 16 four days before me, and I refused to acknowledge her existence for those four days - which wasn't easy to do, considering our small group of friends that seemed to do things together every day, and the fact that every day she tried to remind me that she could drive legally by herself and I could not.
I'm not even sure how I came to decide to not acknowledge the superiority that having a drivers' license gave her over me for less than a week. It just seemed like the thing to do.
(On the other hand, it's been fun on every subsequent milestone birthday to make sure Lee heard from me for those four days that I remained "significantly'' younger than her. It's a wonder we're still friends at all.)
I've tried to come to grips with growing older. I know it's natural, and I know the alternative. I'm very aware of how my body has changed with age - weight gain that I used to never think about; eyes that used to be better than 20-20 but now are borderline in need of glasses (and certainly need reading glasses); the constant hissss echoing in my ears, a sign that my hearing is no longer as sharp, not to mention the certain pitches I no longer hear. And I look in the mirror and see not my father, but my grandfather, that farmer/lumberman/country-boy from the hills of very rural Georgia.
Now, I really am depressed
But it's OK.
I think.
I am a long way from being satisfied with who or what I am. Even at this advanced age, it feels like I'm still just getting started on the process. But I have finally ruled a few things out:
I won't be a major league relief pitcher, an NFL quarterback, a power forward for the Los Angeles Lakers, or compete in the 24 Hours of Le Mans.
I won't be performing jazz in a smokey club or be a country music recording artist (well, maybe I haven't quite given up on that last one).
I won't write a great world-changing novel, or produce an award-winning movie, or be the trusted advisor to a world leader (I never wanted to be the world leader, just his trusted advisor).
But I have had a taste of all of those, just close enough to get a sense of what it feels like.
I now have a much better understanding of how much I don't know. At the same time, I have a better grasp of what I do know. I still get caught up in things that ultimately don't matter, but I also realize they don't matter even as I'm caught up in them.
There is a sense of security in who I am and what I can and what I can't do that it has taken me a long time to get to. I lived most of my life believing that I should be able to do anything, trying to either fake what I couldn't do (if not out-right hide it) and dealing with resentment against those people who could do those things because it made me feel they were somehow better than me.
And recognizing that some people simply are better than me -- a lot of them, in fact. And that's OK.
In fact, it depresses me to think of how much more I could have accomplished if I had simply recognized my own limitations a long time ago and humbled myself enough to let other people do what they do and get us all to work together to make us all more successful.
But this isn't about being depressed.
Because I'm not. I have a great wife who loves me through all my mood swings, my paranoia and hypochondria and insecurities (although she still doesn't like it when I bring over Gadsden Jevic, my life-long shadow whose company - unfortunately - I still enjoy!).
I have great kids who, through a miracle of God and their mother's wisdom, actually seem poised to do what I always dreamed they would do: have a positive impact on the world based on their active relationship with God.
And I have great extended family and friends and dog (it's amazing how when you feel nobody loves you, your dog always does).
So Happy Birthday to me.
Don't feel compelled to mention it to me, however.
But a good book - now that I'm too old to play football - is always appreciated.
Besides, I don't expect to be going anywhere. There's still so much more to learn.
This has never been easy for me.
That sounds strange, I know. Who doesn't look forward to birthdays? It's the one day of the year that's yours, that celebrates the entering into this world of you! And even though there are thousands - if not millions - of people who share that birth date, it's still yours. Family and friends gather and sing to you, tell you how happy they are for you, and give you presents with no expectation of anything in return (at least not immediately).
But I've never been big on birthdays. I've always felt a little self-conscious about them.
Still, I've had some great ones.
My 13th birthday is one of the earliest I'll always remember, for two gifts: a Bible and a Football.
If you think that's an odd combination, you're not from the South. You've heard the old saying, "Football is religion." As I said many years ago and probably heard it from somebody else, "You know religion is important in the South because it's so often compared to football."
Of course, it wasn't just any football. It was "The Duke,'' the official NFL football (they were called "The Duke'' back then; it even had that stamped on the side). They were not inexpensive, and I knew it was an outrageously expensive birthday gift from my mother and father.
But equally as important to me was my first leather-bound Scofield Bible, New King James version. This was a "reference" Bible, with footnotes and references. For the first time, I was able to read a passage and immediately find cross-references - other passages in other parts of the Bible that spoke to the same issue or comparative passage. I have always loved research. I remember it took me something like five years to go through the book of Galatians, looking up every annotation and cross-reference for every chapter, verse, word.
And my name was inscribed in gold lettering on the cover. How cool was that?
You have to skip way ahead to get to the next birthday that stands out. The Trophy Wife, even before she was the Trophy Wife, once got us third row, center stage seats for a Sting concert. That was huge.
A decade later, after she had become The Trophy Wife, she surprised me again by not only having a whole bunch of my friends over to the house on a Saturday afternoon before an Alabama-Tennessee game, but had arranged for a birthday cake to be presented to me in the press box at Legion Field that night, to share with all the media covering that game.
Oh, and there was the week before my 16th birthday. Obviously, turning 16 was huge because I got my drivers' license. But what made that birthday particularly memorable is that my friend Lee turned 16 four days before me, and I refused to acknowledge her existence for those four days - which wasn't easy to do, considering our small group of friends that seemed to do things together every day, and the fact that every day she tried to remind me that she could drive legally by herself and I could not.
I'm not even sure how I came to decide to not acknowledge the superiority that having a drivers' license gave her over me for less than a week. It just seemed like the thing to do.
(On the other hand, it's been fun on every subsequent milestone birthday to make sure Lee heard from me for those four days that I remained "significantly'' younger than her. It's a wonder we're still friends at all.)
I've tried to come to grips with growing older. I know it's natural, and I know the alternative. I'm very aware of how my body has changed with age - weight gain that I used to never think about; eyes that used to be better than 20-20 but now are borderline in need of glasses (and certainly need reading glasses); the constant hissss echoing in my ears, a sign that my hearing is no longer as sharp, not to mention the certain pitches I no longer hear. And I look in the mirror and see not my father, but my grandfather, that farmer/lumberman/country-boy from the hills of very rural Georgia.
Now, I really am depressed
But it's OK.
I think.
I am a long way from being satisfied with who or what I am. Even at this advanced age, it feels like I'm still just getting started on the process. But I have finally ruled a few things out:
I won't be a major league relief pitcher, an NFL quarterback, a power forward for the Los Angeles Lakers, or compete in the 24 Hours of Le Mans.
I won't be performing jazz in a smokey club or be a country music recording artist (well, maybe I haven't quite given up on that last one).
I won't write a great world-changing novel, or produce an award-winning movie, or be the trusted advisor to a world leader (I never wanted to be the world leader, just his trusted advisor).
But I have had a taste of all of those, just close enough to get a sense of what it feels like.
I now have a much better understanding of how much I don't know. At the same time, I have a better grasp of what I do know. I still get caught up in things that ultimately don't matter, but I also realize they don't matter even as I'm caught up in them.
There is a sense of security in who I am and what I can and what I can't do that it has taken me a long time to get to. I lived most of my life believing that I should be able to do anything, trying to either fake what I couldn't do (if not out-right hide it) and dealing with resentment against those people who could do those things because it made me feel they were somehow better than me.
And recognizing that some people simply are better than me -- a lot of them, in fact. And that's OK.
In fact, it depresses me to think of how much more I could have accomplished if I had simply recognized my own limitations a long time ago and humbled myself enough to let other people do what they do and get us all to work together to make us all more successful.
But this isn't about being depressed.
Because I'm not. I have a great wife who loves me through all my mood swings, my paranoia and hypochondria and insecurities (although she still doesn't like it when I bring over Gadsden Jevic, my life-long shadow whose company - unfortunately - I still enjoy!).
I have great kids who, through a miracle of God and their mother's wisdom, actually seem poised to do what I always dreamed they would do: have a positive impact on the world based on their active relationship with God.
And I have great extended family and friends and dog (it's amazing how when you feel nobody loves you, your dog always does).
So Happy Birthday to me.
Don't feel compelled to mention it to me, however.
But a good book - now that I'm too old to play football - is always appreciated.
Besides, I don't expect to be going anywhere. There's still so much more to learn.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Car stories ... the American way
This is a fun week on the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
It's Crusin' the Coast - a week-long celebration of some of the finest old cars you'll ever see. Classic cars, vintage cars, tricked-out cars. Very cool.
Cars are just American. Cars were not invented in this country, but the production and development of the automobile was perfected here.
Cars fit the individuality of Americans. Historically, it's all about mobility and individual freedom - the essence of being an American. I also think it's one of the reasons the electric or hybrid cars are having a hard time catching on. American cars are supposed to have "muscle," and until electric cars mimic the throaty roar of a gasoline-powered combustion engine, they won't be accepted.
I realize this isn't particularly profound or new. It's a big country, and the ability of people to move at will - with no one to stop you - was one of the critical appeals of the New World.
Sometimes we forget just how big this country is. Years ago, on a trip to Europe, I was talking to a Belgian in Luxembourg. This was, I think, 1985. He spoke English, French, Italian, Spanish, and I don't know what else; I didn't speak anything but English, and this was his point.
"You Americans are so arrogant,'' he said. "Refusing to learn to communicate with other people around the world, only knowing your own language."
I told him that I'd had two years of French in grammar school, but it didn't stick. I told him that foreign languages were regularly taught in public and private schools, particularly French and Spanish.
"But here's the thing," I told him. "You can drive two hours in any direction from this spot and be in another country where they may speak French or German or Italian, because you're in any number of different countries.
"Where I live, I can drive two days in any direction and never leave the United States, never run into anyone that speaks anything other than American English.
"The truth is that people who live along the border of Mexico often do learn to speak Spanish. But otherwise, you're not going to run into any place where English is not the dominant language" (except perhaps Quebec, but I didn't want to confuse the issue).
To his credit, he admitted he hadn't really though of it like that, and it made sense.
People of other cultures and languages have always come to this country for opportunity. I assume they come to leave their culture behind, which also means leaving their language behind. My father grew up in a house where German was spoken inside the house, but outside they knew to learn English in order to be part of this great idea of being "American."
But I was talking about cars.
My first car was a 1967 Mustang. My best friend drove a big Chrysler Newport, what we used to call a land yacht. Another friend had a Volkswagen; another a Pontiac Bonneville; another a Oldsmobile 442; and so on.
It was a great variety of cars. Of course, gas was 34-cents a gallon (when I started driving). We could afford to be mobile and drive. We didn't even think of the cost of driving ... we just jumped in a drove.
There were stupid things, of course.
Kevil had the Volkswagen, the car with the static-filled AM radio (yes, back then cars only had AM radio), that only clearly picked up stations when it was hilltops. So when, say, Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4" came on, we'd have to pull over at the top of a hill and sit and listen to it if we wanted to be sure to hear it all the way through.
There were also modifications. We bought and installed our own stereos - 8-track players, later cassette players that we mounted either under the dash or in the glove box or, in my Mustang, a floor-mounted model that made it look like a center console.
Cars were simpler then - simply mechanical. We pulled an engine, changed the transmission from automatic to four-speed, cut the hole in the floor board to put in a clutch and a Hurst shifter on the floor. (Not my car; another guy's car - a Chevy Nova, I think it was).
I remember buying four over-sized tires, really cool rims, and air shocks to trick up my Mustang. Mitch and I spent a Saturday under my car in my driveway, taking off the standard shocks and putting in air shocks, running the air hose and pump into the trunk.
Two weeks later I realized the tires were too big and scraped on the fender when I turned, and the air shocks were just too bouncy, so off they all came.
And there was a quarter-mile stretch out in the outskirts of Fulton County, where we'd go to drag race. We never raced for titles (pink slips); we just raced to see whose car was fastest. Or just to race. It was stupid, of course.
Mitch had the land yacht. One night I hid on the floorboard in the back with a blanket over me. He had Lee in the front seat, and all the way back he kept trying to get Lee to talk about me, to say what she didn't like about me or what annoyed her about me. It could have been really stupid, but the funny thing is, I think the more "bad" Mitch talked about me, the more Lee defended me and kept saying, "Mitch, you don't mean that!"
Thanks, Lee. It's one of the reasons I think we're still friends (and Mitch, too).
Her reward? Finally, I got tired of hiding and just jumped up, scaring Lee to death. She banged her head in the windshield.
That reminds me of another stupid trick we tried to pull. We're riding along - I think it was Lee again, but maybe not - and Mitch said, "Oh, crap. We've got a flat tire."
He pulled over, he and I got out, we opened the trunk and started acting like we were changing the tire. It was night, and dark, and in reality what we did was I got in the trunk and left the trunk lid up. He got in and said, "Ray wants me to back up a little because the jack isn't level."
When he backed up, he ran over a block we'd put behind the car.
"Crap!" Mitch screams. "I think I ran over Ray!" and in a state of panic, he drove off as if he was terrified and didn't know what to do.
I honestly don't remember if that worked or not. I can't remember how that one ended.
All I remember is when Mitch pulled out, the trunk lid slammed down on my head and I was terrified of being locked in the trunk.
In the ice storm of 1972, the roads were completely frozen - rare in East Point, Ga. We were riding along in Kevil's Volkswagen and hit an icy patch on Headland Drive. We were right at an intersection, and the car did a series of 360s, spinning in complete circles. But when the spinning stopped, we were in the other lane, facing in the opposite direction.
In a supreme moment of cool, Kevil simply put the car in first gear and drove off, as if he meant to do that.
In the summer, we used to drive to Callaway Gardens to swim, hang out in the sun, whatever. One day riding down the interstate, we got another stupid idea. Kevil got in the back seat with Mitch or Jimmy (I don't know who), and I was in the passenger seat. There was no center console in the Volkswagon, so I was able to slide my left foot over to work the gas, and steered from the bottom of the steering wheel with my left hand. We drove down the interstate, passing cars, making sure they noticed it was a car with (apparently) no driver!
Stupid, stupid, stupid - but we laughed.
So much of our youth identified with cars.
No point to any of this. Unless you, too, understand the power of the automobile over an American boy.
Some of them never grow out of it - which is the point of Cruisin' the Coast!
It's Crusin' the Coast - a week-long celebration of some of the finest old cars you'll ever see. Classic cars, vintage cars, tricked-out cars. Very cool.
Cars are just American. Cars were not invented in this country, but the production and development of the automobile was perfected here.
Cars fit the individuality of Americans. Historically, it's all about mobility and individual freedom - the essence of being an American. I also think it's one of the reasons the electric or hybrid cars are having a hard time catching on. American cars are supposed to have "muscle," and until electric cars mimic the throaty roar of a gasoline-powered combustion engine, they won't be accepted.
I realize this isn't particularly profound or new. It's a big country, and the ability of people to move at will - with no one to stop you - was one of the critical appeals of the New World.
Sometimes we forget just how big this country is. Years ago, on a trip to Europe, I was talking to a Belgian in Luxembourg. This was, I think, 1985. He spoke English, French, Italian, Spanish, and I don't know what else; I didn't speak anything but English, and this was his point.
"You Americans are so arrogant,'' he said. "Refusing to learn to communicate with other people around the world, only knowing your own language."
I told him that I'd had two years of French in grammar school, but it didn't stick. I told him that foreign languages were regularly taught in public and private schools, particularly French and Spanish.
"But here's the thing," I told him. "You can drive two hours in any direction from this spot and be in another country where they may speak French or German or Italian, because you're in any number of different countries.
"Where I live, I can drive two days in any direction and never leave the United States, never run into anyone that speaks anything other than American English.
"The truth is that people who live along the border of Mexico often do learn to speak Spanish. But otherwise, you're not going to run into any place where English is not the dominant language" (except perhaps Quebec, but I didn't want to confuse the issue).
To his credit, he admitted he hadn't really though of it like that, and it made sense.
People of other cultures and languages have always come to this country for opportunity. I assume they come to leave their culture behind, which also means leaving their language behind. My father grew up in a house where German was spoken inside the house, but outside they knew to learn English in order to be part of this great idea of being "American."
But I was talking about cars.
My first car was a 1967 Mustang. My best friend drove a big Chrysler Newport, what we used to call a land yacht. Another friend had a Volkswagen; another a Pontiac Bonneville; another a Oldsmobile 442; and so on.
It was a great variety of cars. Of course, gas was 34-cents a gallon (when I started driving). We could afford to be mobile and drive. We didn't even think of the cost of driving ... we just jumped in a drove.
There were stupid things, of course.
Kevil had the Volkswagen, the car with the static-filled AM radio (yes, back then cars only had AM radio), that only clearly picked up stations when it was hilltops. So when, say, Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4" came on, we'd have to pull over at the top of a hill and sit and listen to it if we wanted to be sure to hear it all the way through.
There were also modifications. We bought and installed our own stereos - 8-track players, later cassette players that we mounted either under the dash or in the glove box or, in my Mustang, a floor-mounted model that made it look like a center console.
Cars were simpler then - simply mechanical. We pulled an engine, changed the transmission from automatic to four-speed, cut the hole in the floor board to put in a clutch and a Hurst shifter on the floor. (Not my car; another guy's car - a Chevy Nova, I think it was).
I remember buying four over-sized tires, really cool rims, and air shocks to trick up my Mustang. Mitch and I spent a Saturday under my car in my driveway, taking off the standard shocks and putting in air shocks, running the air hose and pump into the trunk.
Two weeks later I realized the tires were too big and scraped on the fender when I turned, and the air shocks were just too bouncy, so off they all came.
And there was a quarter-mile stretch out in the outskirts of Fulton County, where we'd go to drag race. We never raced for titles (pink slips); we just raced to see whose car was fastest. Or just to race. It was stupid, of course.
Mitch had the land yacht. One night I hid on the floorboard in the back with a blanket over me. He had Lee in the front seat, and all the way back he kept trying to get Lee to talk about me, to say what she didn't like about me or what annoyed her about me. It could have been really stupid, but the funny thing is, I think the more "bad" Mitch talked about me, the more Lee defended me and kept saying, "Mitch, you don't mean that!"
Thanks, Lee. It's one of the reasons I think we're still friends (and Mitch, too).
Her reward? Finally, I got tired of hiding and just jumped up, scaring Lee to death. She banged her head in the windshield.
That reminds me of another stupid trick we tried to pull. We're riding along - I think it was Lee again, but maybe not - and Mitch said, "Oh, crap. We've got a flat tire."
He pulled over, he and I got out, we opened the trunk and started acting like we were changing the tire. It was night, and dark, and in reality what we did was I got in the trunk and left the trunk lid up. He got in and said, "Ray wants me to back up a little because the jack isn't level."
When he backed up, he ran over a block we'd put behind the car.
"Crap!" Mitch screams. "I think I ran over Ray!" and in a state of panic, he drove off as if he was terrified and didn't know what to do.
I honestly don't remember if that worked or not. I can't remember how that one ended.
All I remember is when Mitch pulled out, the trunk lid slammed down on my head and I was terrified of being locked in the trunk.
In the ice storm of 1972, the roads were completely frozen - rare in East Point, Ga. We were riding along in Kevil's Volkswagen and hit an icy patch on Headland Drive. We were right at an intersection, and the car did a series of 360s, spinning in complete circles. But when the spinning stopped, we were in the other lane, facing in the opposite direction.
In a supreme moment of cool, Kevil simply put the car in first gear and drove off, as if he meant to do that.
In the summer, we used to drive to Callaway Gardens to swim, hang out in the sun, whatever. One day riding down the interstate, we got another stupid idea. Kevil got in the back seat with Mitch or Jimmy (I don't know who), and I was in the passenger seat. There was no center console in the Volkswagon, so I was able to slide my left foot over to work the gas, and steered from the bottom of the steering wheel with my left hand. We drove down the interstate, passing cars, making sure they noticed it was a car with (apparently) no driver!
Stupid, stupid, stupid - but we laughed.
So much of our youth identified with cars.
No point to any of this. Unless you, too, understand the power of the automobile over an American boy.
Some of them never grow out of it - which is the point of Cruisin' the Coast!
Can't legislate morality? We've done it for years!
"You can't legislate morality" - how many times have you heard that?
And yet, isn't that what laws are for, to set agreed upon moral standards that a community believes it needs to adhere to in order to have the quality of life and values that it supports?
I mean, most of us would say killing is immoral. So we pass laws saying killing is illegal; isn't that legislating morality?
Ah, but you and I know what people mean when they say, "you can't legislate morality." Usually, it's used when someone is trying to pass a law to prohibit some activity that a lot of people want to take part in.
For a number of years, I had a fairly successful afternoon drive-time radio show, a sports-talk show. It was successful primarily because of my partner (I was the sidekick), but I'd like to think I had something to do with it.
Anyway, my partner, Herb, loved gambling. Gambling was, for the most part, illegal in Alabama (there were two dog tracks where gambling was legal on greyhounds, and a failed horse track in Birmingham that became a third dog legal dog track because what else were they going to do with the facility?). This was during the time when Native Americans were getting licenses to open up casinos (which did happen in south Alabama).
State lotteries were the big thing, and my partner was very much in favor of all gambling.
I have always opposed legalized gambling, and it made for some very lively debates on our radio show.
Herb, my partner, always claimed that the problem was "Christians'' who were trying to keep people from doing what they wanted to do and were always trying to tell other people how to live. Although a Catholic himself, it was easy to blame "Christians'' for keeping gambling from becoming more legal than it was in the state of Alabama; for voting down state lotteries and a few other state-wide ballots that had to do with gambling.
It is true that in many churches, gambling is preached against as if it is a sin. And in many cases, it was organized church-members who rallied - and won - to keep state lotteries illegal. So I can see why Herb blamed the church.
Now I'm leaving that particular point for a minute, although I'll get back to it in the end.
Many Christians in America today do feel oppressed. They fall back on the concept that this country was founded on "Christian principles'' - which is true enough; it is impossible for anyone to argue that the Founding Fathers were not influenced by the thinking of the Reformation and Calvin and Knox and Luther and the Protestant movement in general.
But we in the church also like to claim the problem in this country is that "God has been taken out of the schools,'' laughable because unless you believe in a limited God, you can't take Him out of anywhere. And certainly no one can stop prayer in school (only audible, organized prayer).
Sometimes I think we in the church confuse the Bible for the Constitution.
So when faced with changes in society we don't like, we fall back on concepts of 'sin' and an argument that basically comes down to, "God won't like that!"
I'm not sure that's the right way to argue. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.
We don't have to take on the ills that have befallen our country by throwing the Bible at it. Truth is, too many people in this country today will reject those arguments flat out - and rightfully so!
But we in the church don't even need to use "The Bible'' as our trump card in political/sociological arguments. What we forget is that God and The Bible give us a blue-print for how to live happy, successful, prosperous, safe lives.
And so when we attempt to counter movements in this country, we don't need to say "because God says so" or "if you only believed in God!" We have the argument for which in a Democratic society there is no argument against, not even by the staunchest atheist out there: "I don't think it's what is in the best of a free and healthy society."
We don't have to say a thing about religion or faith or the Bible.
Let me go back to the gambling issue. When Herb and I argued gambling on the radio, he'd blame "Christians'' - of which he knew full well I identified as being one.
And I would counter, "It's not about the Bible. It's not about whether it's sin or not. I'm telling you I don't believe gambling is what is best for the country ...'' and I could proceed to give a long list of statistics as to why I believed gambling to be destructive toward a healthy society.
The man who probably personified the pro-gambling forces in Alabama, Milton MacGregor, was a frequent guest on the show. Milton and I actually got along (at least I think we did). Milton knew my stance, and he knew it wasn't based on emotion or "the Bible." He, I believe, respected my position - even as he disagreed with it.
My point is this: there is hardly a change that is taking place in America or the world today that I believe could be identified as "sinful" or against the teaching of the Bible that I can't argue from a position that it's not healthy for society because of the historical ramifications or potential consequences on society, without even mentioning Christianity, faith, the Bible, or God.
Until we, as Christians, learn to make our arguments that way, we're going to be derisively dismissed as "fundamentalists."
The simple truth is that you can't legislate personal morality. That requires a change of a person's heart, and I believe only God can do that.
But you can legislate societal morality. You can determine and get people to agree that certain things - murder, stealing, kidnapping, sexual abuse - are not healthy for society at large. And just as you can get people to agree on those issues, you can make equally valid arguments to oppose what we used to recognize as "vices" - gambling and prostitution, same-sex marriages, drug abuse, slavery, oppressing aliens.
We can't win arguments in the public square by quoting The Bible.
Fortunately, we don't have to. The Bible tells us who we were meant to live. We just need to argue that "we the people'' have a right to meet, discuss, and make a case for what we believe leads to a healthy, safe, prosperous community.
That is Democracy.
And yet, isn't that what laws are for, to set agreed upon moral standards that a community believes it needs to adhere to in order to have the quality of life and values that it supports?
I mean, most of us would say killing is immoral. So we pass laws saying killing is illegal; isn't that legislating morality?
Ah, but you and I know what people mean when they say, "you can't legislate morality." Usually, it's used when someone is trying to pass a law to prohibit some activity that a lot of people want to take part in.
For a number of years, I had a fairly successful afternoon drive-time radio show, a sports-talk show. It was successful primarily because of my partner (I was the sidekick), but I'd like to think I had something to do with it.
Anyway, my partner, Herb, loved gambling. Gambling was, for the most part, illegal in Alabama (there were two dog tracks where gambling was legal on greyhounds, and a failed horse track in Birmingham that became a third dog legal dog track because what else were they going to do with the facility?). This was during the time when Native Americans were getting licenses to open up casinos (which did happen in south Alabama).
State lotteries were the big thing, and my partner was very much in favor of all gambling.
I have always opposed legalized gambling, and it made for some very lively debates on our radio show.
Herb, my partner, always claimed that the problem was "Christians'' who were trying to keep people from doing what they wanted to do and were always trying to tell other people how to live. Although a Catholic himself, it was easy to blame "Christians'' for keeping gambling from becoming more legal than it was in the state of Alabama; for voting down state lotteries and a few other state-wide ballots that had to do with gambling.
It is true that in many churches, gambling is preached against as if it is a sin. And in many cases, it was organized church-members who rallied - and won - to keep state lotteries illegal. So I can see why Herb blamed the church.
Now I'm leaving that particular point for a minute, although I'll get back to it in the end.
Many Christians in America today do feel oppressed. They fall back on the concept that this country was founded on "Christian principles'' - which is true enough; it is impossible for anyone to argue that the Founding Fathers were not influenced by the thinking of the Reformation and Calvin and Knox and Luther and the Protestant movement in general.
But we in the church also like to claim the problem in this country is that "God has been taken out of the schools,'' laughable because unless you believe in a limited God, you can't take Him out of anywhere. And certainly no one can stop prayer in school (only audible, organized prayer).
Sometimes I think we in the church confuse the Bible for the Constitution.
So when faced with changes in society we don't like, we fall back on concepts of 'sin' and an argument that basically comes down to, "God won't like that!"
I'm not sure that's the right way to argue. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not.
We don't have to take on the ills that have befallen our country by throwing the Bible at it. Truth is, too many people in this country today will reject those arguments flat out - and rightfully so!
But we in the church don't even need to use "The Bible'' as our trump card in political/sociological arguments. What we forget is that God and The Bible give us a blue-print for how to live happy, successful, prosperous, safe lives.
And so when we attempt to counter movements in this country, we don't need to say "because God says so" or "if you only believed in God!" We have the argument for which in a Democratic society there is no argument against, not even by the staunchest atheist out there: "I don't think it's what is in the best of a free and healthy society."
We don't have to say a thing about religion or faith or the Bible.
Let me go back to the gambling issue. When Herb and I argued gambling on the radio, he'd blame "Christians'' - of which he knew full well I identified as being one.
And I would counter, "It's not about the Bible. It's not about whether it's sin or not. I'm telling you I don't believe gambling is what is best for the country ...'' and I could proceed to give a long list of statistics as to why I believed gambling to be destructive toward a healthy society.
The man who probably personified the pro-gambling forces in Alabama, Milton MacGregor, was a frequent guest on the show. Milton and I actually got along (at least I think we did). Milton knew my stance, and he knew it wasn't based on emotion or "the Bible." He, I believe, respected my position - even as he disagreed with it.
My point is this: there is hardly a change that is taking place in America or the world today that I believe could be identified as "sinful" or against the teaching of the Bible that I can't argue from a position that it's not healthy for society because of the historical ramifications or potential consequences on society, without even mentioning Christianity, faith, the Bible, or God.
Until we, as Christians, learn to make our arguments that way, we're going to be derisively dismissed as "fundamentalists."
The simple truth is that you can't legislate personal morality. That requires a change of a person's heart, and I believe only God can do that.
But you can legislate societal morality. You can determine and get people to agree that certain things - murder, stealing, kidnapping, sexual abuse - are not healthy for society at large. And just as you can get people to agree on those issues, you can make equally valid arguments to oppose what we used to recognize as "vices" - gambling and prostitution, same-sex marriages, drug abuse, slavery, oppressing aliens.
We can't win arguments in the public square by quoting The Bible.
Fortunately, we don't have to. The Bible tells us who we were meant to live. We just need to argue that "we the people'' have a right to meet, discuss, and make a case for what we believe leads to a healthy, safe, prosperous community.
That is Democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)