Category Archives: Beliefs

Reasons I Love Living In The South


Atlanta MapNot getting “right to the point” is a reason I love living in the South.

Southerners will get to the point, but the journey is circuitous rather than straight.  For someone from the south, getting to the point is like driving to Atlanta—you get there faster via the interstate, but you miss all the interesting stops in between.

Not, as my northern friends claim, that southerners are slowed by the hot, humid weather—it’s that we want to know the person to whom we are speaking.   We seek details that lend to understanding, thus providing insight into someone’s thinking.  We look for the fascinating stops along the way: the sharing of tales, joys and hardships that humanize a person.

Why hurry, the “point” is going to be there.

How Solomon Would Choose A Candidate


SolomonIn Proverbs 6 verses 6 through 19, King Solomon wrote:

There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17    haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18     a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19    a false witness who pours out lies
and a person who stirs up conflict in the community
.

No matter your political persuasion or party affiliation, King Solomon provides a benchmark against which a candidate can be judged.

Haughty eyes – This is Solomon’s way of describing someone who is arrogant, condescending, and full of self-pride. A wise leader is a humble leader: one who empathizes with those he or she leads, and someone who seeks out and listens to diverse opinions. In Proverbs 11 verse 2, Solomon wrote, “When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.”

A lying tongue – My father used to caution, “A man who lies to you, will steal from you.” There is no such thing as a “little lie.” A liar cannot be trusted, and does not respect those he or she lies to. Solomon also wrote, “A lying tongue, hates those it hurts.” Proverbs, 26 verse 28

Hands that shed innocent blood – It is a leader’s responsibility to care for and protect the helpless and innocent—to ensure that the use of force is justified and judicious. “It is not good to be partial to the wicked and so deprive the innocent of justice.” Proverbs 18 verse 5

A heart that devises wicked schemes – It is detestable for a leader to concoct dishonest plots in order to be elected or enriched. A wise leader cares more for those he leads, than he cares for himself or herself. Solomon also wrote, “A fool finds pleasure in wicked schemes, but a person of understanding delights in wisdom.” Proverbs 10 verse 23

Feet that are quick to rush into evil – An evil person is eager to get into all kinds of mischief—more concerned about his or her “wants” than the needs of those he or she leads. “The wicked crave evil; their neighbors get no mercy from them.” Proverbs 21 verse 10

A false witness who pours out lies – A candidate who spreads lies and rumors about his or her opponent cannot be trusted to govern fairly and wisely.   Solomon wrote, “A corrupt witness mocks at justice, and the mouth of the wicked gulps down evil.” Proverbs 19:28

A person who stirs up conflict in the community – A candidate who is willing to turn neighbor against neighbor, to divide rather than unify, is someone who is willing to forsake leadership for personal gain. Solomon got it right when he wrote, “who plots evil with deceit in his heart – he always stirs up conflict.” Proverbs 6:14

A leader who possesses attributes the antithesis of the preceding 7 things is: humble, honest, prudent, wise, discerning, fair and a unifier—Someone you may disagree with, but someone you can trust.

Enhanced Interrogation and Johnathan Gruber


The recently released Senate Intelligence Committee report on the use of torture subsequent to 9/11 and the uproar over Jonathan Gruber’s remarks about the necessity of subterfuge to pass the affordable care act, remind us there are people who believe an end may justify the means.

Gruber’s remarks expose the use of subterfuge to subvert the political process.  He admits, if it were known how the act would affect most people, the legislation would have never passed.  He concedes the law was written in a “tortured way” to hide tax increases and other defects.

Abraham Lincoln famously stated, “You may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.”  Unfortunately, many politicians believe they can fool all the people all the time.  There are politicians—liberal, conservative, independent, of all stripe—who utilize misinformation, innuendo and fear to win votes and pass legislation.  They use taxpayer money to pay “experts” and “learned people” to provide support for their causes.  They believe the means they employ are justified by the outcome they seek: sometimes public policy; other times filling their own coffers.

The Senate report on enhanced interrogation techniques forces a national debate about our beliefs and convictions.  Pricking our conscience, it occasions us to examine whether the end justifies the means.  It makes us focus on the kind of people we believe we are and the kind of values we will pass to further generations.  However, a lack of context undermines the effectiveness and calls in to doubt the intent of the report. 

To be relevant, any examination of an action must include the perspective under which the action was taken. To not do so, leaves out the precipitating cause and impedes a discussion as to what action should be taken in a similar circumstance. 

The enhanced interrogation techniques as described in the senate committee report were in response to the attacks of 9/11.  When viewed in the light of what occurred, it is understandable why good people permitted their use.

At the time, there was an expectation of further attacks.  Fear ruled the country: airports, train and bus stations were patrolled by armed soldiers and it took courage to attend a public event.  Bolstered by reports of anthrax filled envelopes, we were horrified at the concept of an imminent biological attack.

Our country’s leaders shouldered a grave and heavy responsibility for protecting the people they served.  The president was soundly criticized for lacking the covert intelligence that could have thwarted the attack.  From both sides of aisle, members of congress called for an increase in obtaining operational information. 

The people who were interrogated were not combatants fighting on a field of battle.  They were evil men who conceived and instituted a plan designed to purposefully kill or maim innocent people. Their involvement and guilt was beyond question; as was a certainty they possessed information that could prevent further attacks.

No, the end does not justify the means.  To believe so is to head down the slippery slope where the benefits of “outcomes” are exaggerated and “means” become more appalling. This understanding must apply to all circumstances: enhanced interrogation, as well as, political manipulation.  It is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical, to point your finger at one but because you agree with the outcome, to accept the other.

Enhanced interrogation techniques in the aftermath of an attack that killed over 3,000 people and the use of subterfuge and lies to insure the passage of legislation.  Both were means to an end: one to derail an attack and the other to pass legislation that otherwise would not have done so. When viewed in context, the report on enhanced interrogation techniques will give rise to a moral debate on whether we should sacrifice beliefs and values to prevent a deadly attack. While the other—purposefully misleading the people to achieve a political end—if left unchecked, will eventually lead to the demise of our democratic institutions.