This is an article I wrote recently for the Times-News to publish as a guest column. I'm not sure they will though. This article is a response to a man that wrote an article in response to the legendary pastor Mark Fox. Here is the article's link
http://www.thetimesnews.com/articles/evolution-34986-darwin-align.html
On Saturday, July 3rd, Mr. Tim Allen responded to a previous column Rev. Mark Fox had written on the issue of evolution, and predictably condemned Rev. Fox for speaking out against evolution. Most of the statements were attempts to marginalize Rev. Fox’s main argument, that we have shut God out of this country. The holes in Mr. Allen’s argument were too great to count.
Mr. Allen stated that Charles Darwin “supported evolution because he recognized inherent contradictions in the Bible’s accounts of creation.” This is, in no better words, false. Darwin had ten children, too of which died in infancy. When his younger daughter Anne fell ill, he became fearful. Because of the sicknesses and lack of resourceful medical attention of the time, Anne died at the age of ten. This sent Darwin into a whirlpool of depression, in which he responded like too many people do when they suffer traumatic events. Darwin refused to acknowledge a God that loves and cares for His creation. Thus, creating his theory on the basis bitterness and suffering.
Ever since the materialist belief has taken control of our culture, science has been researched on the presuppositions that it must be true, or that there is no supernatural being that created us (or cares about us if you are an agnostic). Richard Dawkins has made it clear that evolution must be true because we are here. This tumbles the argument into an abyss of circular reasoning. God is not real because he can’t be real, when the honest issue lies in the heart of the man making that statement. Is God non existent in our culture because He does not exist, or is it because we have killed Him because of our own personal suffering? The history of the creation of Darwin’s theory seems to scream the latter.
In the midst of Mr. Allen’s main argument, he stated a few passages in the bible that seem to contradict themselves. For example, according to Mr. Allen Genesis 1 says that God created animals before man, and Genesis 2:18-19 says that God created man before animals. In the Hebrew Scriptures the translation says that in Genesis 2:18-19 God had created the animals and brought them to Adam to be named. The key word here is “had,” referring to the creation of animals in past tense. Many Darwinists (or any bible skeptics), such as Mr. Allen, quickly scan through the bible and find contradictions such as these, and do not take the time to fully research them. As Rev. Fox quoted, “if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them.” I think C.S. Lewis understood when he said this that many people do not take the time to research the bible to prove their statement; they simply want them to be true.
We have three hundred or so manuscript fragments of the accounts of Alexander the Great that were written over four hundred years after his death. Yet, we assume what is written in the textbooks and novels to be true. For the New Testament Gospels we have over five thousand pieces of manuscript evidence. Some of these manuscripts are complete, some are partial, but they all point that the gospels were written in the time of the eyewitnesses, and all point that the New Testaments used now are true to the originals. Even still, we educate and test our students on Alexander the Great, but blow the whistle on any historical use of the bible because we cannot allow a “divine foot in the door.”
Even Darwin himself new the scientific impossibilities of evolution when he stated, “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Again, he refuses to acknowledge creation as a possible fact despite whatever evidence is in front of him.
Mr. Allen begs the question “why do conservative Christians propagate literalist creationism as if salvation depended on it?” I ask Mr. Allen to understand that some people’s salvation does depend on it. Not in nature, but by what it implies. “If part of the bible was fabricated and changed, why couldn’t anything else? Was Jesus who he said he was? Did he rise from the dead?” If one (particularly a claimed Christian) were to reject the bible as inherent, then they are likely to reject Jesus as well. “Well if Jesus was not who he said he was, then what about his commandments? What about love, mercy, and grace? What about the “orphans, widows, and poor folk?” Am I supposed to care about them? Jesus obviously wasn’t who he said he was and isn’t finite, so neither is his morality.” So regardless if the orphans, widows, and poor folk “give a flip about how the world was made,” our genesis determines a lot more than they (or we) might think.
Finally, Mr. Allen states that “Jesus constantly says to go and do and the only times he engaged in theological haggles was when the conservative, literalist Pharisees and Sadducees that confronted him with such questions.” The implications of this are rather bold, that conservative Christians do not care for the “orphaned, widowed, and poor folks.” Although I cannot speak for every follower of Jesus, I can say that I have watched Rev. Fox and many other “conservative” Christians go and serve, giving up days that most would use for vacation to serve the way Jesus commanded. They have built latrines, wells, and houses in Columbia South America, done dental work on those who cannot afford it, led pastoral conferences, helped the orphans find food, the widows to find finances, and the poor folks to find shelter in Africa as well as Haiti. Mr. Allen has very well pleaded that conservative Christians to prioritize their time and efforts towards loving, giving, and serving before engaging in debates. I can assure Mr. Allen that he has been misinformed of Rev. Fox’s priorities.
The world will never want God to be apart of our culture we will always have some reason to deny Him. From our manipulated science to our pain and suffering, we shut him out. Anyone who has ears should listen (Matt 11). Put away our selfish pride, because He is coming.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Our Daily Bread
Being an average high school student, I am required to perform all of the usual tasks: reading, mid-terms, exams, projects, speeches, and papers. But by far, the most difficult task of all is now upon me - the SAT. For those of you who don’t know, the SAT is a test that provides an idea of how capable someone is of succeeding on a college campus and any prominent university in the states requires a student’s SAT score upon acceptance.
As you may well know, my mother seems to be more stressed out about this score than I am. Requiring me to study every day until the test, she wisely helps me to prepare for my college years. Mother bought all of the manuals, how-to’s, and test prep books for the SAT (she’s even paid for a math tutor, because I am not so blessed in that area). Having taken the SAT in the past, I have realized my lack of skill for test taking. So, I diligently work towards a goal that I fear I cannot achieve solely on work ethic. It seems that no matter how hard I work or study, I am not able of achieving a prestigious score on these tests.
The day before one of my tests (which ended up being canceled because of ice on the roads), I spoke to my parents about going into town to hang out with one of my friends. “Why don’t you use these last few hours to study?”, my dad asked. Using the usual teenage tactics, I said, “Because I don’t need it. I’ve studied all week!” Without hesitating he countered, “Then you better score a perfect 2400.” I thought for a moment...he was right. Achieving perfection is almost impossible on these tests, so there is never a point where I “don’t need to study.”
Obviously, there is something else that I need - not just hours of browsing through books until my eyes fall out. No, I need divine intervention and blessing from my Creator. The grace of God is such a mystery. In 1 Corinthians 1:27 Paul writes, “But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame things which are mighty.” Needless to say, this put a sense of confusion in my idea of preparation. Would studying really help my test scores? After all, God does use the “foolish to put the shame to wise.” Should I even pursue wisdom?
If God is divine and omnipotent, then of what purpose or use is it for me to study and prepare, rather than do other things that God would be more pleased with? Jesus preaches against slothfulness (or laziness) throughout the New Testament, but what does He say about trusting God? When Jesus teaches us how to pray He tells us to pray in this manner: “Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.” Stopping at the last passage, I ponder, “Give us this day our daily bread.” I wonder to myself how good is it for me to work when I am supposed to ask God for my daily bread?
Man has always struggled with trusting God while wisely preparing for the future. In Exodus 16, the Lord had just lead his children out of slavery in Egypt and into the wilderness. They cried out, asking why God had sent “us (the children of Israel) out into this wilderness to kill this assembly with hunger” (Exodus 16:3). God heard their cries and rained down food upon them, but when they tried to save the food for the future, God sent maggots and worms to eat away their resources. In fact, the very reason why they were wandering in the desert for forty years was because they did not trust God to provide for their needs. It was obvious that it was God’s intention to break them of their distrust of His daily provision.
Where is the line drawn? How do we prepare for what is to come and continue to trust God and his providence? In no way do I intend to raise the issue of Armeneism vs. Calvinism (this discussion often loses sight of what is really important and at stake), but the issues are still at hand, and the principals still stand. If we take one extreme stance and neglect the other, we reject the clear teachings to either trust in God’s ultimate purpose, or to strive for His righteousness here on earth.
I am reminded of a particular experience when I used to play for a band named The Coliseum. We often played shows at churches or venues around the state of North Carolina. While taking part in this scene, I came across people of many different faiths. A particular group of musicians I met seemed to have a set of self-contradictory beliefs; not in definition, but by nature. While they seemed to have a passionate method to loving your neighbor as yourself, it was self-evident that they did not have the same passion of work and preparation for their art. One could arguably state that they took a legalistic stance for serving man, and an a-legalistic stance for serving God. I remember watching them as they worshiped on one particular night. Before they their last song, they made a statement for it. “This next song is a song we just started writing yesterday,” the front man announced. “We spent fifteen minutes writing this and then we said, ‘God, You write the rest.’” The first thing I must question from that statement is that they asked “God to write the rest,” as if He had not given them the first notes to begin with. As I went on to watch this performance, I noticed that this band were the only people worshipping to this music. Whether or not people should rise to worship to music that may not be pleasant is not the point. What I am asking is; does God really reward laziness? Obviously, he was not visibly working through this band the way the band themselves had intended, or even claimed He was; because it was reasonably accepted among the opinions of the viewers, that the band did not consist of much talent or skill. Of course, God could use even the laziest or unskilled of men for His ultimate purpose, but how can we offer up our half efforts on an altar, and expect God to bless it? Or maybe more appropriate for this situation, bless us.
This assessment may seem harsh for such a small subject. I am not claiming any evils or sins of this particular group of musicians. I am simply asking how can we present ourselves before our Creator (the God who made the universe), with an art that often brings so much intimacy between His Holy Spirit and our imperfect flesh; and expect He will be pleased with a half-done job? If this standard is measured with our offering of worship to the God of the universe, then it will certainly be measured to other standards.
In this particular instance, based on the band members’ beliefs of how Christians should react to loving your neighbor, giving to the poor, and completely sacrificing everything for the cause of ending poverty (there is certainly no laziness there), it is safe to assume that they were not really trusting God to take their fifteen minutes worth of work and turn it into a masterpiece. You cannot hold two contradicting philosophies of living to be true.
These principals apply to everyday life decisions: how much are Christians to be involved in culture? Should we pursue Godly politics? Is war ever justified? Is the death penalty ever necessary? Do we strive to end poverty? These are issues that are usually determined on the basis of what one believes. Too often does one take a legalistic approach to one of these questions, and an a-legalistic approach to the very next question posed. “Okay, here I believe that it man’s responsibility to resolve this issue, but here I believe it is God’s divinity that will resolve our problems, and man’s efforts are futile.” You cannot hold one standard based on your theology for one question posed, and the opposite for the next. The Church has seen such a split on this issue (man’s responsibility vs. God’s divinity) because we have refused to discuss the biblical relations and cultural consequences to both. We have given them names after men who read certain portions of scripture and left out the rest, and started a movement from it, stereotyping the beliefs of the other, creating a barrier between those who disagree on this matter. Some people do not realize that when you create a barrier between yourself and accountability, you create a barrier between yourself and truth. I do not believe that there “is no answer”. I simply believe that we have fallen into the cliché stereotype of thinking that we “cannot know”.
There are several references throughout the life of Jesus that could be related to this topic. Any time Jesus would be posed with a task, He would give us evidence to trust God to work through us. Matthew 14 states that when Jesus was feeding the multitude He blessed the loaves and fishes and gave it to the people. In the very same chapter, Matthew tells us that Jesus walked on water and commanded Peter to “Come”. When Peter saw the boisterous wind and the raging sea, he became afraid, and began to sink. Jesus said “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” Peter had obeyed Jesus by leaving the boat, but did not trust Jesus to protect him or complete the task. The most self evident of all of Jesus’ teachings to resolve this issue, is in his last words -
Jesus commands us to go and make disciples, therefore, commanding us to do work. But before He gives us this command, He establishes his authority in heaven and on earth. It is as if Jesus knew that this would be one of the biggest sources of descension within the Church. I believe with all my heart that He did, and left us His word to live by. We ought not to be deceived into thinking that God uses a “different reasoning of logic” with the world and its different “nations” (races, communities, sins, issues). This develops and unbiblical inconsistency of our theology, until we begin to say that “God works through man on this issue and doesn’t on this issue,” based completely off of religious self experience and what we want to be true or not true.
So where does this leave us? There are still issues in the world. The Church is still split. There are still people dying from starvation because of poverty and there are people still dying because of bad political policy. Both are caused by the works or the lack of works from man. What do we do? I still have the SAT coming up in two weeks. Do I study for 15 minutes and pray the rest of the two weeks until the test? Or, do I trust in my own understanding, and not seek the Lord’s blessing? Keith Green had it spot-on when he said, “Just keeping doing your best, and pray that it’s blessed, and Jesus takes care of the rest.”
As you may well know, my mother seems to be more stressed out about this score than I am. Requiring me to study every day until the test, she wisely helps me to prepare for my college years. Mother bought all of the manuals, how-to’s, and test prep books for the SAT (she’s even paid for a math tutor, because I am not so blessed in that area). Having taken the SAT in the past, I have realized my lack of skill for test taking. So, I diligently work towards a goal that I fear I cannot achieve solely on work ethic. It seems that no matter how hard I work or study, I am not able of achieving a prestigious score on these tests.
The day before one of my tests (which ended up being canceled because of ice on the roads), I spoke to my parents about going into town to hang out with one of my friends. “Why don’t you use these last few hours to study?”, my dad asked. Using the usual teenage tactics, I said, “Because I don’t need it. I’ve studied all week!” Without hesitating he countered, “Then you better score a perfect 2400.” I thought for a moment...he was right. Achieving perfection is almost impossible on these tests, so there is never a point where I “don’t need to study.”
Obviously, there is something else that I need - not just hours of browsing through books until my eyes fall out. No, I need divine intervention and blessing from my Creator. The grace of God is such a mystery. In 1 Corinthians 1:27 Paul writes, “But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame things which are mighty.” Needless to say, this put a sense of confusion in my idea of preparation. Would studying really help my test scores? After all, God does use the “foolish to put the shame to wise.” Should I even pursue wisdom?
If God is divine and omnipotent, then of what purpose or use is it for me to study and prepare, rather than do other things that God would be more pleased with? Jesus preaches against slothfulness (or laziness) throughout the New Testament, but what does He say about trusting God? When Jesus teaches us how to pray He tells us to pray in this manner: “Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.” Stopping at the last passage, I ponder, “Give us this day our daily bread.” I wonder to myself how good is it for me to work when I am supposed to ask God for my daily bread?
Man has always struggled with trusting God while wisely preparing for the future. In Exodus 16, the Lord had just lead his children out of slavery in Egypt and into the wilderness. They cried out, asking why God had sent “us (the children of Israel) out into this wilderness to kill this assembly with hunger” (Exodus 16:3). God heard their cries and rained down food upon them, but when they tried to save the food for the future, God sent maggots and worms to eat away their resources. In fact, the very reason why they were wandering in the desert for forty years was because they did not trust God to provide for their needs. It was obvious that it was God’s intention to break them of their distrust of His daily provision.
Where is the line drawn? How do we prepare for what is to come and continue to trust God and his providence? In no way do I intend to raise the issue of Armeneism vs. Calvinism (this discussion often loses sight of what is really important and at stake), but the issues are still at hand, and the principals still stand. If we take one extreme stance and neglect the other, we reject the clear teachings to either trust in God’s ultimate purpose, or to strive for His righteousness here on earth.
I am reminded of a particular experience when I used to play for a band named The Coliseum. We often played shows at churches or venues around the state of North Carolina. While taking part in this scene, I came across people of many different faiths. A particular group of musicians I met seemed to have a set of self-contradictory beliefs; not in definition, but by nature. While they seemed to have a passionate method to loving your neighbor as yourself, it was self-evident that they did not have the same passion of work and preparation for their art. One could arguably state that they took a legalistic stance for serving man, and an a-legalistic stance for serving God. I remember watching them as they worshiped on one particular night. Before they their last song, they made a statement for it. “This next song is a song we just started writing yesterday,” the front man announced. “We spent fifteen minutes writing this and then we said, ‘God, You write the rest.’” The first thing I must question from that statement is that they asked “God to write the rest,” as if He had not given them the first notes to begin with. As I went on to watch this performance, I noticed that this band were the only people worshipping to this music. Whether or not people should rise to worship to music that may not be pleasant is not the point. What I am asking is; does God really reward laziness? Obviously, he was not visibly working through this band the way the band themselves had intended, or even claimed He was; because it was reasonably accepted among the opinions of the viewers, that the band did not consist of much talent or skill. Of course, God could use even the laziest or unskilled of men for His ultimate purpose, but how can we offer up our half efforts on an altar, and expect God to bless it? Or maybe more appropriate for this situation, bless us.
This assessment may seem harsh for such a small subject. I am not claiming any evils or sins of this particular group of musicians. I am simply asking how can we present ourselves before our Creator (the God who made the universe), with an art that often brings so much intimacy between His Holy Spirit and our imperfect flesh; and expect He will be pleased with a half-done job? If this standard is measured with our offering of worship to the God of the universe, then it will certainly be measured to other standards.
In this particular instance, based on the band members’ beliefs of how Christians should react to loving your neighbor, giving to the poor, and completely sacrificing everything for the cause of ending poverty (there is certainly no laziness there), it is safe to assume that they were not really trusting God to take their fifteen minutes worth of work and turn it into a masterpiece. You cannot hold two contradicting philosophies of living to be true.
These principals apply to everyday life decisions: how much are Christians to be involved in culture? Should we pursue Godly politics? Is war ever justified? Is the death penalty ever necessary? Do we strive to end poverty? These are issues that are usually determined on the basis of what one believes. Too often does one take a legalistic approach to one of these questions, and an a-legalistic approach to the very next question posed. “Okay, here I believe that it man’s responsibility to resolve this issue, but here I believe it is God’s divinity that will resolve our problems, and man’s efforts are futile.” You cannot hold one standard based on your theology for one question posed, and the opposite for the next. The Church has seen such a split on this issue (man’s responsibility vs. God’s divinity) because we have refused to discuss the biblical relations and cultural consequences to both. We have given them names after men who read certain portions of scripture and left out the rest, and started a movement from it, stereotyping the beliefs of the other, creating a barrier between those who disagree on this matter. Some people do not realize that when you create a barrier between yourself and accountability, you create a barrier between yourself and truth. I do not believe that there “is no answer”. I simply believe that we have fallen into the cliché stereotype of thinking that we “cannot know”.
There are several references throughout the life of Jesus that could be related to this topic. Any time Jesus would be posed with a task, He would give us evidence to trust God to work through us. Matthew 14 states that when Jesus was feeding the multitude He blessed the loaves and fishes and gave it to the people. In the very same chapter, Matthew tells us that Jesus walked on water and commanded Peter to “Come”. When Peter saw the boisterous wind and the raging sea, he became afraid, and began to sink. Jesus said “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” Peter had obeyed Jesus by leaving the boat, but did not trust Jesus to protect him or complete the task. The most self evident of all of Jesus’ teachings to resolve this issue, is in his last words -
“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
Jesus commands us to go and make disciples, therefore, commanding us to do work. But before He gives us this command, He establishes his authority in heaven and on earth. It is as if Jesus knew that this would be one of the biggest sources of descension within the Church. I believe with all my heart that He did, and left us His word to live by. We ought not to be deceived into thinking that God uses a “different reasoning of logic” with the world and its different “nations” (races, communities, sins, issues). This develops and unbiblical inconsistency of our theology, until we begin to say that “God works through man on this issue and doesn’t on this issue,” based completely off of religious self experience and what we want to be true or not true.
So where does this leave us? There are still issues in the world. The Church is still split. There are still people dying from starvation because of poverty and there are people still dying because of bad political policy. Both are caused by the works or the lack of works from man. What do we do? I still have the SAT coming up in two weeks. Do I study for 15 minutes and pray the rest of the two weeks until the test? Or, do I trust in my own understanding, and not seek the Lord’s blessing? Keith Green had it spot-on when he said, “Just keeping doing your best, and pray that it’s blessed, and Jesus takes care of the rest.”
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Same Debate...
As I came to the table this morning and began to eat my daily breakfast of cheerios and strawberries, I came across an article written by one of my most loathed (and ironically favorite) columnists, Leonard Pitts. Leonard Pitts is known for his boldly liberal articles where he usually accuses a conservative politician, talk show host, or (if this week has not drug up the latest conservative to blame) community, accusing them of blatant racial discrimination. His ability to find the racist motive behind every problem in the entire history of mankind is still amazing to me. The latest column titled “A different kind of debate” Pitts describes his thoughts of the Republican candidacy of the upcoming 2012 presidential-election. A link to the article is provided below.
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1478213.html
Pitts makes known his wish for Sarah Palin to run for the Republican candidacy. The very next paragraph he states, “I know you’re waiting for the punch line. Maybe you figure I think you’d be a weak candidate who would pave the way for President Obama’s easy re-election.” Pitts predicts the matter in which the reader is interpreting his column. More so, (because his article is directly aimed towards Sarah Palin) he predicts the matter in which Palin will interpret the column. He goes on to say, “That’s not it, No, I want you to run because I believe a Palin candidacy would force upon this country a desperately needed moment of truth. It would require us to finally decide what kind of America we want to be.” In my response to Mr. Pitts’ article, my intention is in no way to defend Mrs. Palin, but to expose an often used (and too often successful) tactic to demonize anyone who dares to think differently than him or has the audacity to speak out against President Obama’s ideas of change.
His argument stands on his distaste for Palin. He begins with calling her the “avatar of the shameless hypocrisy” and goes on to accuse her of being a “process of stupidification creeping like kudzu over our national life.” Continuing throughout the article referring to her as a “school kid who failed to study for the big test” or the “latest iteration of an anti-intellectualism.”
Pitts obviously presents no argument for Palin’s “stupidification” or why our country would be forced to “decide what kind of America we want to be” if she was nominated for the presidency. We just get a nice big pile of “hate Palin” puke in our laps by the end of the article. I, for one, did not know there were multiple types of America’s, as if we had a list to choose from like browsing through a Home Owners magazine. No, we have one United States of America; a country where our founding fathers understood the corruption of man, and imbedded in our Constitution the principals that were endowed by our Creator before any senate, parliament, or presidential seat even existed.
There are two mistakes Pitts often makes in his judgments; one, he continuously rights as if everyone reading agrees with him. It is almost as if he is writing to his followers rather than trying to persuade the people of a different belief. Therefore, he has free reign to assume whatever he wants, and continuously rants too often without a legitimate cause. The second problem is that he often underestimates the will of his adversaries. One example would be his opinions of the “so-called ‘tea party,’” where Pitts has made known his opposition to the gatherings. Let me remind Mr. Pitts of a gathering that occurred near 240 years ago that was one of catalysts for our inevitable revolution, where many peopled met and protested against a tyrannical government (similar to our own presently).
Pitts seems so desperate to degrade Palin and glorify Obama that he crutches on the simple concept of Teleprompters. He goes on to say, “Mrs. Palin, if Obama is an idiot for reading a prepared speech off a teleprompter, what are you for reading your notes you’ve inked on your hand?” Pitts obviously misunderstands the often used attack against Obama and his use of Teleprompters. Palin is not referring to Obama’s “lack of memorization” skills. No, that is irrelevant. She is referring to Obama machine. The machine that uses his charismatic features and attributes to change our country to what they see best, contrary to our Constitution. It frightens me to think of team O brainstorming a speech to think of ways they might tickle the ears of our citizens into blindly following, like an ox to the slaughter. The even more frightening thing is its working.
I agree with Leonard Pitts on a certain degree. We will certainly be forced to make a decision the next election, regardless of who runs against President Obama. If the candidates are running for the presidential seat that the founding fathers originally intended the presidential seat to be, then no, America will not change its principals. But if we choose to send our politicians of to DC without accountability, then what will they do with the very document that limits their control? As Thomas Jefferson said, “If men were angels, then there would be no need for a government.” Jefferson understood that while all men are created equal, all men also equally have the potential for corruption. I have yet to see evidence of Pitts’ understanding of this wisdom.
I encourage Leonard Pitts to not make the same mistake our country made on Election Day November 2nd, 2009. Do not take the mindset that giving someone a chance to run our country and to see what happens is a good idea and will bring prosperity to our nation. A little league base ball player is never drafted to pitch for the Yankees, a freshman is college is never expected to perform heart surgery, do not play Russian roulette with America.
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/1478213.html
Pitts makes known his wish for Sarah Palin to run for the Republican candidacy. The very next paragraph he states, “I know you’re waiting for the punch line. Maybe you figure I think you’d be a weak candidate who would pave the way for President Obama’s easy re-election.” Pitts predicts the matter in which the reader is interpreting his column. More so, (because his article is directly aimed towards Sarah Palin) he predicts the matter in which Palin will interpret the column. He goes on to say, “That’s not it, No, I want you to run because I believe a Palin candidacy would force upon this country a desperately needed moment of truth. It would require us to finally decide what kind of America we want to be.” In my response to Mr. Pitts’ article, my intention is in no way to defend Mrs. Palin, but to expose an often used (and too often successful) tactic to demonize anyone who dares to think differently than him or has the audacity to speak out against President Obama’s ideas of change.
His argument stands on his distaste for Palin. He begins with calling her the “avatar of the shameless hypocrisy” and goes on to accuse her of being a “process of stupidification creeping like kudzu over our national life.” Continuing throughout the article referring to her as a “school kid who failed to study for the big test” or the “latest iteration of an anti-intellectualism.”
Pitts obviously presents no argument for Palin’s “stupidification” or why our country would be forced to “decide what kind of America we want to be” if she was nominated for the presidency. We just get a nice big pile of “hate Palin” puke in our laps by the end of the article. I, for one, did not know there were multiple types of America’s, as if we had a list to choose from like browsing through a Home Owners magazine. No, we have one United States of America; a country where our founding fathers understood the corruption of man, and imbedded in our Constitution the principals that were endowed by our Creator before any senate, parliament, or presidential seat even existed.
There are two mistakes Pitts often makes in his judgments; one, he continuously rights as if everyone reading agrees with him. It is almost as if he is writing to his followers rather than trying to persuade the people of a different belief. Therefore, he has free reign to assume whatever he wants, and continuously rants too often without a legitimate cause. The second problem is that he often underestimates the will of his adversaries. One example would be his opinions of the “so-called ‘tea party,’” where Pitts has made known his opposition to the gatherings. Let me remind Mr. Pitts of a gathering that occurred near 240 years ago that was one of catalysts for our inevitable revolution, where many peopled met and protested against a tyrannical government (similar to our own presently).
Pitts seems so desperate to degrade Palin and glorify Obama that he crutches on the simple concept of Teleprompters. He goes on to say, “Mrs. Palin, if Obama is an idiot for reading a prepared speech off a teleprompter, what are you for reading your notes you’ve inked on your hand?” Pitts obviously misunderstands the often used attack against Obama and his use of Teleprompters. Palin is not referring to Obama’s “lack of memorization” skills. No, that is irrelevant. She is referring to Obama machine. The machine that uses his charismatic features and attributes to change our country to what they see best, contrary to our Constitution. It frightens me to think of team O brainstorming a speech to think of ways they might tickle the ears of our citizens into blindly following, like an ox to the slaughter. The even more frightening thing is its working.
I agree with Leonard Pitts on a certain degree. We will certainly be forced to make a decision the next election, regardless of who runs against President Obama. If the candidates are running for the presidential seat that the founding fathers originally intended the presidential seat to be, then no, America will not change its principals. But if we choose to send our politicians of to DC without accountability, then what will they do with the very document that limits their control? As Thomas Jefferson said, “If men were angels, then there would be no need for a government.” Jefferson understood that while all men are created equal, all men also equally have the potential for corruption. I have yet to see evidence of Pitts’ understanding of this wisdom.
I encourage Leonard Pitts to not make the same mistake our country made on Election Day November 2nd, 2009. Do not take the mindset that giving someone a chance to run our country and to see what happens is a good idea and will bring prosperity to our nation. A little league base ball player is never drafted to pitch for the Yankees, a freshman is college is never expected to perform heart surgery, do not play Russian roulette with America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
