For U.S. voters who don't want to vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I have both good and bad news.
The Bad? News
The bad news first: I am not going to run for President myself in 2016. (Yes, I know some may consider that good news and may consider it bad news that I am considering the possibility of running in 2020.) But I honestly think I might be better qualified than Clinton or Trump in several ways, and I hope to improve my qualifications in the next few years.
The Good? News
Personally, I consider it good news that there are numerous alternative candidates running for President of the United States in 2016. Some are running as the official candidates of "minor" parties. Others are running as independent candidates.
You may believe that an independent candidate or a candidate of a minor party has virtually no chance of winning. And that may be true. But--please read on.
The majority of persons eligible to register to vote and to cast votes in the election, will probably not vote at all. I urge these persons to consider voting for another candidate that is on their state's ballot or to consider casting a write-in vote for a candidate not on the ballot. A wide variety of candidates with a big variety of different views are available to choose from. Instead of not voting at all, try to vote for a candidate you feel is better qualified than the two major party candidates.
If all (or a huge percentage) of the voters who would otherwise not vote decide to vote and vote for the same other candidate instead of Clinton or Trump, that candidate could win. Indeed, if all these persons voted for the same candidate, that candidate would win in a landslide.
According to a list on Politics1.com a few hundred different candidates are already running for President this year. More may still decide to run as election day gets closer. According to a Federal Election Commission webpage, as of August 17, 2016 (today), 1,845 candidates had filed a Statement of Candidacy with the Federal Election Commission to run for President. This is a much longer list than the one on Politics1. These two lists indicate there are a lot of alternatives to choose from.
Maybe it would be nice to take time to read a bit more about some, many, or all of the candidates. Who knows? Some little known independent candidate among the few hundred of them running would be your personal favorite. Or maybe you would prefer the nominee of the Prohibition Party, Green Party, Constitution Party of the U.S., Libertarian Party, Reform Party USA, Socialist Party USA, or one of the other parties offering candidates to choose from.
Perhaps most important, I pray for the best candidate to win, whomever it may be. And I hope and pray that we voters (and even those who don't vote) will seek to hold the winning candidate accountable (in the right way) for any wrongdoing they do after elected.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Laws Vs. Common Sense
Lots of things are so obviously wrong that it should not be necessary to pass a law against them. Furthermore, laws are not a substitute for common sense.
And some of the existing laws on the books likely contradict one another, so it would be impossible to obey them all. In fact, if a resident of the United States seeks to read all the federal, state, county, and city laws of the place where he or she resides, even if one reads for twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for one's entire lifetime, one wouldn't finish in a normal lifespan.
Therefore, none of us have even read all the laws. If we haven't read all the laws and don't know them, how can we obey them? The key to maintaining a civilized society is not in passing laws and obeying them, it is in learning common sense and applying it.
Two Examples
As one example, no law exists against eating 100 chocolate chip cookies at one time, but few people would try to do it, due to the known harmful effects from the calories, saturated fat, sugar, etc. It's common sense. And, I confess that although I've never eaten 100 chocolate chip cookies at once, I have eaten far too many at one time before. I learned from my mistake (at least I hope so).
Quite frankly, it would probably be better if no one ever ate a chocolate chip cookie. Eat fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains and grains, beans, nuts, legumes, etc., instead. Of course I can rationalize that chocolate chip cookies do contain flour, a grain.
Furthermore, eating a few of those cookies is a minor mistake (sin if you prefer). I may be better off if I never eat another chocolate chip cookie. But if I do (and I almost certainly will), I hope no one ever seeks to put me in jail or fine me for eating one (or several).
As a second example, no law exists in the United States now to prohibit abortions in the early stage of a pregnancy. But, I think even the most strongly pro-choice woman in the country would prefer to avoid the pain, expense, and health risks of an abortion if reasonably possible. It's common sense.
Personally, I am basically pro-life, but even pro-choice persons prefer preventing an unwanted pregnancy (by practicing sexual abstinence and/or using birth control) to having an abortion. Let's seek to prevent those unwanted pregnancies, rather than just preventing the abortions that are a symptom of underlying problems such as unwanted pregnancies and/or selfish sexual lust. I don't want to put persons in jail or fine them for an unintended pregnancy or for having an abortion. But common sense says to avoid undesired pregnancies and abortions whenever reasonably possible.
Laws and Common Sense
Below is a photo taken in June 2017 of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC. The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. I hope its nine justices use common sense in determining how to decide the cases that come before them. Perhaps more important is how we individuals use common sense in our daily lives in numerous actions that never get to the Supreme Court.
Laws help us do correctly. Fortunately, we have laws against speeding, driving drunk, stealing, committing murder, bearing false testimony, etc. I'm glad. But enforcing all those laws isn't easy. It is far better if persons learn from common sense that society functions better when we avoid disobeying these laws, and we voluntarily obey such laws. Also, we can all work together to teach (or remind) others who do wrong (in a loving way) the right course of action to take, rather than depending on a few law enforcement officials to do so.
None of us perfectly develop our common sense, and thus we never have perfect obedience to what I call "God's law," doing the correct thing. But the closer we come to doing so, the better off we and society will be. We may have a lot of freedom, but we need to use our common sense to exercise our freedom wisely.
NOTE: This article was last modified on July 28th, 2021.
And some of the existing laws on the books likely contradict one another, so it would be impossible to obey them all. In fact, if a resident of the United States seeks to read all the federal, state, county, and city laws of the place where he or she resides, even if one reads for twelve hours a day, seven days a week, for one's entire lifetime, one wouldn't finish in a normal lifespan.
Therefore, none of us have even read all the laws. If we haven't read all the laws and don't know them, how can we obey them? The key to maintaining a civilized society is not in passing laws and obeying them, it is in learning common sense and applying it.
Two Examples
As one example, no law exists against eating 100 chocolate chip cookies at one time, but few people would try to do it, due to the known harmful effects from the calories, saturated fat, sugar, etc. It's common sense. And, I confess that although I've never eaten 100 chocolate chip cookies at once, I have eaten far too many at one time before. I learned from my mistake (at least I hope so).
Quite frankly, it would probably be better if no one ever ate a chocolate chip cookie. Eat fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains and grains, beans, nuts, legumes, etc., instead. Of course I can rationalize that chocolate chip cookies do contain flour, a grain.
Furthermore, eating a few of those cookies is a minor mistake (sin if you prefer). I may be better off if I never eat another chocolate chip cookie. But if I do (and I almost certainly will), I hope no one ever seeks to put me in jail or fine me for eating one (or several).
As a second example, no law exists in the United States now to prohibit abortions in the early stage of a pregnancy. But, I think even the most strongly pro-choice woman in the country would prefer to avoid the pain, expense, and health risks of an abortion if reasonably possible. It's common sense.
Personally, I am basically pro-life, but even pro-choice persons prefer preventing an unwanted pregnancy (by practicing sexual abstinence and/or using birth control) to having an abortion. Let's seek to prevent those unwanted pregnancies, rather than just preventing the abortions that are a symptom of underlying problems such as unwanted pregnancies and/or selfish sexual lust. I don't want to put persons in jail or fine them for an unintended pregnancy or for having an abortion. But common sense says to avoid undesired pregnancies and abortions whenever reasonably possible.
Laws and Common Sense
Below is a photo taken in June 2017 of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC. The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. I hope its nine justices use common sense in determining how to decide the cases that come before them. Perhaps more important is how we individuals use common sense in our daily lives in numerous actions that never get to the Supreme Court.
Laws help us do correctly. Fortunately, we have laws against speeding, driving drunk, stealing, committing murder, bearing false testimony, etc. I'm glad. But enforcing all those laws isn't easy. It is far better if persons learn from common sense that society functions better when we avoid disobeying these laws, and we voluntarily obey such laws. Also, we can all work together to teach (or remind) others who do wrong (in a loving way) the right course of action to take, rather than depending on a few law enforcement officials to do so.
None of us perfectly develop our common sense, and thus we never have perfect obedience to what I call "God's law," doing the correct thing. But the closer we come to doing so, the better off we and society will be. We may have a lot of freedom, but we need to use our common sense to exercise our freedom wisely.
NOTE: This article was last modified on July 28th, 2021.
Saturday, July 9, 2016
New York World Trade Center: A Personal Perspective
I abhor the horrible loss of innocent lives on
September 11, 2001 when the New York World Trade Center was destroyed in a
terrorist attack. But, at least in a small way, I partially understand why some
persons hated the huge structure, even if I can't understand why they destroyed it. Please read on.
The New York World Trade Center was the largest
office building in the world at the time it was destroyed. I visited New York
City a few years before the World Trade Center's demise. Though I never went up
to the top, I did walk through part of what I guess was the first floor of at
least one of the twin towers.
The building itself seemed to possibly be constructed and
used for the wrong reasons in the wrong way. Though I enjoyed my visit to New York
City very much, the least favorite part of the visit was possibly the time I
spent in that World Trade Center.
On the day that I was in the building, at the time I
was there, a huge crowd of people (including me) was trying to go through the
building on to our destinations beyond it after getting off the subway, while
another crowd of people was waiting at the elevators to go up in the building.
A bottleneck in the World Trade Center had us waiting for what seemed like
several minutes in a crowd of people that barely moved for minutes.
The way the building was designed, there was only a
relatively small area for persons to wait for the elevators, or for persons to
walk through the first floor to other places. I think the architects,
engineers, or whoever designed it would have done better to have put in a larger
open plaza so that persons didn't crowd up waiting for the elevators or trying
to walk through the first floor to other destinations.
Listening to and Talking With
People in a Crowd at the World Trade Center
One person who was waiting in the crowd with me that
day said that another person had told her that some individuals had considered renovating
the building to make pedestrian traffic flow more efficiently, but that apparently
the way the building was designed, the support beams, etc. didn't allow alterations
that would make a large open area on the first floor to make it easier for
travelers to walk quickly through to other destinations and/or to have a large
area to wait for an elevator.
One person waiting in the crowd said that even if
the building wasn't destroyed by terrorism, someday it would be torn down due
to its poor design. The huge traffic jams on the first floor and the design
that apparently made modifying it extremely difficult and expensive seemed to rule out
other alternatives. Indeed, extensive renovations often are more expensive than
tearing a building down and building a new one.
By the way, some of those waiting seemed very nervous.
One person stated that she hated walking through it, not just because it took
so long due to the crowds of people crammed together, but also because there
were rumors that it was going to be attacked again. (The building had already
been bombed once, on February 26, 1993). I don't know where the rumors came from, and she
apparently didn't either. But obviously hatred continued.
As we waited for the crowd to move, those of us waiting
had plenty of time to talk. I did more listening than talking. But, I asked one
woman who said she had heard that some people were going to try to destroy it again, why persons wanted
to destroy it. She said look around. I did. And I saw businesses that reminded
me of the story in the New Testament about the money changers and salespersons that
Jesus drove out of the temple. If I
remember correctly, I saw businesses selling lottery tickets, alcoholic
beverages, tobacco, junk food, etc. There may have been businesses selling more
useful, quality products, but my eyes were focused on the ones selling harmful
products, and those products did seem to dominate.
Concluding Thoughts
Obviously, since the New York World Trade Center was
the largest office building in the world, it housed a lot of offices of various
types. At the time it was built, it was the tallest building in the world. And
its "twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry,"
according to a piece on Skyscraper.org. Persons of various nationalities, cultures, religions, etc.,
worked in the towers and visited them. The two 110-story towers were 1,368 and
1,362 feet high according to various websites. At least one child care center was
even in the building, according to news reports. But in the spot where I was on
the first floor, retail businesses selling harmful products seemed to dominate.
Though I hate the tragic loss of lives, in my humble
opinion, New York City is better off without its World Trade Center. In fact, New
York City may have been a better city long ago when the large lighthouse, Liberty
Enlightening the World (better known as the Statue of Liberty), was the tallest
structure in the city.
Probably the most enjoyable part of my visit to New York City was seeing that statue as I rode out toward Liberty Island and Ellis Island on a ferry boat. I could visualize in my mind immigrants from around the world sailing into the harbor, seeing that lighthouse lighting the way to a new life.
France may have donated that lighthouse to the
United States at the right time for the right reason. In contrast, I think the New
York World Trade Center may have been built the wrong way, by the wrong people,
for the wrong reason, at the wrong time. I may be wrong, but I think the city
is better off without it.
However, please don't misunderstand me. I am basically a pacifist. And I certainly don't condone or understand the madness that led extremists to crash jets into the towers as suicide bombers. But I do believe that when we do bad things, including building a huge building whose most visible elements include an overcrowded lobby with pedestrian traffic jams and money-hungry vendors selling harmful products, bad things happen.
I also believe that when we do good things, we make
good things happen. Let's seek to love even our enemies as Jesus taught. By
doing so, I think we can turn our enemies (if we have any) into our friends.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Taking Things Slower Has Benefits
Often it seems that life is fast-paced. Traveling quickly by jet aircraft and preparing food in a microwave oven are two examples of things getting done much quicker, at a faster pace, than was true long ago. But, I think taking things slower has benefits in at least some ways.
Travel
Recently I traveled from Lexington, Kentucky to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and back on a Greyhound bus. Most persons probably would have flown. But the prices and limited travel times (at least for budget airlines) led me to go via the bus.
I found the bus trip relaxing in some ways. I met many nice, interesting persons, enjoyed seeing the scenery, took time to read, did some editing work to revise a book I'd published shortly before the trip, etc. I doubt that I would have enjoyed a flight as much. I even slept a significant amount on the approximately 20 hours each way trip, though not as much as I'd planned.
I honesty think that, assuming I didn't get seasick, I might even enjoy devoting a few days to traveling on a ship across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe. Centuries ago, before steamships, when folks like Benjamin Franklin were on ships with sails, it might have taken a month or longer to sail across the ocean. I can visualize persons reading, meeting new friends, writing articles or books, and engaging in deep thoughts to gain new insights, as well as enjoying some nice relaxation, among many other activities.
Yes, I am confident there can be big advantages sometimes to taking travel a bit slower. I know I can see and enjoy my neighborhood, city, etc., more when I am walking or bicycling than when I am traveling in a car or on a bus.
Food Preparation
I love my microwave oven, which can prepare a lot of tasty food quickly. It likely even does some foods better than "conventional" cooking. I would not want to go back to the days when someone may have devoted a big part of a day to preparing food for a family, doing things like baking bread from scratch. But I am confident that old-fashioned cooking is better in many ways.
Forgive me for being nostalgic, but I have fond memories of enjoying a potato baked by my great grandmother in the coals of a fireplace. I remember the various homemade "delicacies" that my mom and grandmother prepared from scratch. And I myself still frequently soak pinto beans overnight; then, I devote a couple of hours to cooking them on the stove, while I busy myself doing reading, writing, browsing the Internet, sorting papers, etc., as they cook.
Multitasking
Many persons today seem to carry a cell phone with them almost everywhere and seem the majority of the time to be conversing with someone on it or playing games on it, etc. At the same time, they may be shopping, driving, baby-sitting children, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the huge amount of multitasking that takes place in modern society is a contributing factor toward many headaches, ulcers, and other illnesses.
Personally, I try to take things slower. I rarely carry my cellphone with me, and I seldom use it when I do. I try to do one thing at a time and to focus on it, rather than multitasking, with some exceptions such as cooking beans as I mentioned earlier, which aren't really a distraction as long as I set a timer for them (and set the timer near the door, so I can put them out of mind, relatively confident I won't go out and forget them).
Of course, I am single and not a parent. It may be impossible to be a parent and not multitask. Even I do a significant amount of multitasking. But I think that if most of us reduce the quantity of our multitasking, when reasonably feasible, our lives would improve.
Concluding Thoughts
Persons such as the Mennonites and Amish who have strong morals, good work ethics, and avoid using many modern inventions may have the right idea in some ways. A lot of people seem to go deeply into debt, then get stressed out working two or three jobs to pay for labor-saving devices or a second home or a boat.
And if we go slower, taking more time to talk to others and to listen to them, maybe we would do a better job of getting along with others. Personally, I am confident that we could resolve all (or at least most) conflicts much more fairly and peacefully if we took time to communicate openly and honestly and to sincerely listen to the points of view of others, to try to understand their side(s) of the issue(s), and to seek the right solution.
Maybe we all could sincerely be conscientious objectors. On the Philadelphia trip I mentioned earlier, a Mennonite ministering in Philadelphia on a Saturday handed me a CD (I was a bit surprised he had a CD.) with a sermon message titled "A True Conscientious Objector Today," apparently delivered by a person named Melvin Burkholder. I am basically a pacifist myself and enjoyed listening to it. Maybe we all could be conscientious objectors if through the grace of God we all sincerely followed the Holy Spirit's leading in treating all persons fairly.
I don't claim to always take things slower, but I do only rent a car a few times a year, taking time to walk, bicycle, and ride the bus much more frequently. And I live in a studio efficiency apartment that helps me limit how much stuff I acquire (though I found that one can fit several bookcases full of books even in a studio efficiency).
Furthermore, I am happy remaining single, which may be a simpler life than marriage. I do remain open to the possibility of.marriage if I meet the right person at the right time in the right way and develop a relationship slowly, but I think I may be called to be single and celibate.
I respect the right of persons to choose a fast-paced life, and at times I do, too. But in general, I think most of us, here in the United States anyway, can benefit by slowing down our pace of life, acquiring fewer possessions, and enjoying the simple pleasures of life more.
Travel
Recently I traveled from Lexington, Kentucky to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and back on a Greyhound bus. Most persons probably would have flown. But the prices and limited travel times (at least for budget airlines) led me to go via the bus.
I found the bus trip relaxing in some ways. I met many nice, interesting persons, enjoyed seeing the scenery, took time to read, did some editing work to revise a book I'd published shortly before the trip, etc. I doubt that I would have enjoyed a flight as much. I even slept a significant amount on the approximately 20 hours each way trip, though not as much as I'd planned.
I honesty think that, assuming I didn't get seasick, I might even enjoy devoting a few days to traveling on a ship across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe. Centuries ago, before steamships, when folks like Benjamin Franklin were on ships with sails, it might have taken a month or longer to sail across the ocean. I can visualize persons reading, meeting new friends, writing articles or books, and engaging in deep thoughts to gain new insights, as well as enjoying some nice relaxation, among many other activities.
Yes, I am confident there can be big advantages sometimes to taking travel a bit slower. I know I can see and enjoy my neighborhood, city, etc., more when I am walking or bicycling than when I am traveling in a car or on a bus.
Food Preparation
I love my microwave oven, which can prepare a lot of tasty food quickly. It likely even does some foods better than "conventional" cooking. I would not want to go back to the days when someone may have devoted a big part of a day to preparing food for a family, doing things like baking bread from scratch. But I am confident that old-fashioned cooking is better in many ways.
Forgive me for being nostalgic, but I have fond memories of enjoying a potato baked by my great grandmother in the coals of a fireplace. I remember the various homemade "delicacies" that my mom and grandmother prepared from scratch. And I myself still frequently soak pinto beans overnight; then, I devote a couple of hours to cooking them on the stove, while I busy myself doing reading, writing, browsing the Internet, sorting papers, etc., as they cook.
Multitasking
Many persons today seem to carry a cell phone with them almost everywhere and seem the majority of the time to be conversing with someone on it or playing games on it, etc. At the same time, they may be shopping, driving, baby-sitting children, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the huge amount of multitasking that takes place in modern society is a contributing factor toward many headaches, ulcers, and other illnesses.
Personally, I try to take things slower. I rarely carry my cellphone with me, and I seldom use it when I do. I try to do one thing at a time and to focus on it, rather than multitasking, with some exceptions such as cooking beans as I mentioned earlier, which aren't really a distraction as long as I set a timer for them (and set the timer near the door, so I can put them out of mind, relatively confident I won't go out and forget them).
Of course, I am single and not a parent. It may be impossible to be a parent and not multitask. Even I do a significant amount of multitasking. But I think that if most of us reduce the quantity of our multitasking, when reasonably feasible, our lives would improve.
Concluding Thoughts
Persons such as the Mennonites and Amish who have strong morals, good work ethics, and avoid using many modern inventions may have the right idea in some ways. A lot of people seem to go deeply into debt, then get stressed out working two or three jobs to pay for labor-saving devices or a second home or a boat.
And if we go slower, taking more time to talk to others and to listen to them, maybe we would do a better job of getting along with others. Personally, I am confident that we could resolve all (or at least most) conflicts much more fairly and peacefully if we took time to communicate openly and honestly and to sincerely listen to the points of view of others, to try to understand their side(s) of the issue(s), and to seek the right solution.
Maybe we all could sincerely be conscientious objectors. On the Philadelphia trip I mentioned earlier, a Mennonite ministering in Philadelphia on a Saturday handed me a CD (I was a bit surprised he had a CD.) with a sermon message titled "A True Conscientious Objector Today," apparently delivered by a person named Melvin Burkholder. I am basically a pacifist myself and enjoyed listening to it. Maybe we all could be conscientious objectors if through the grace of God we all sincerely followed the Holy Spirit's leading in treating all persons fairly.
I don't claim to always take things slower, but I do only rent a car a few times a year, taking time to walk, bicycle, and ride the bus much more frequently. And I live in a studio efficiency apartment that helps me limit how much stuff I acquire (though I found that one can fit several bookcases full of books even in a studio efficiency).
Furthermore, I am happy remaining single, which may be a simpler life than marriage. I do remain open to the possibility of.marriage if I meet the right person at the right time in the right way and develop a relationship slowly, but I think I may be called to be single and celibate.
I respect the right of persons to choose a fast-paced life, and at times I do, too. But in general, I think most of us, here in the United States anyway, can benefit by slowing down our pace of life, acquiring fewer possessions, and enjoying the simple pleasures of life more.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Cincinnati Zoo Killing a Gorilla Named Harambe: Was It Justified?
Many (maybe most) of you readers probably have read about the Cincinnati Zoo shooting a gorilla named Harambe on Saturday, May 28, 2016, after a three or four-year-old boy fell into its enclosure. Numerous news sources reported about it, including the Daily Mail, CNN, WLWT, and the Cincinnati Enquirer website.
You may not be interested in my opinion about it based on my very limited information. If so, please stop reading this article now.
First, I am confident that zoo officials who stated that a tranquilizer would not have killed an agitated gorilla fast enough to prevent it from doing harm know more about tranquilizers than most (if not all) of the persons criticizing them. I do support developing better tranquilizers, though.
Second, I am confident that zoo officials know better than most others that if the gorilla intended to kill the boy it could have done so easily during the perhaps ten minutes the boy was in the enclosure with Harambe, and that the gorilla at least part of the time was seeking to protect the boy.
Third, I am confident that zoo officials know better than most that it was necessary to get the boy out quickly and safely. I like to think that there was someone at the zoo that knew the gorilla well enough and that the gorilla knew well enough that the person could have entered the enclosure and coaxed the gorilla into allowing the boy to be removed. But if someone else had entered the enclosure and the gorilla had attacked and injured that person (in a misguided attempt to protect the boy?) or the gorilla had attacked and possibly killed the boy, the zoo may have faced criminal charges. I am trying very hard not to second guess the decision made by persons more knowledgeable than me about the situation.
Fourth, it may not be possible to make every zoo exhibit child proof, but I hope that this incident leads to improvements in safety. And if they give the animals more room to move around, I'd love that, too.
Last, we often focus on one interesting or unusual story at the expense of all the other news. I hope that the care and compassion shown for this boy and this gorilla help lead us to perhaps see the bigger picture and show more compassion for all God's creatures.
I began writing this article on Memorial Day and am posting it the day after Memorial Day. Maybe reading about this gorilla and boy will give us more incentive to find alternatives to war and violence. Let's all seek to treat everyone and everything with love and compassion.
NOTE: Minor editing was done on this article on May 31, 2016, less than a day after its original posting.
You may not be interested in my opinion about it based on my very limited information. If so, please stop reading this article now.
First, I am confident that zoo officials who stated that a tranquilizer would not have killed an agitated gorilla fast enough to prevent it from doing harm know more about tranquilizers than most (if not all) of the persons criticizing them. I do support developing better tranquilizers, though.
Second, I am confident that zoo officials know better than most others that if the gorilla intended to kill the boy it could have done so easily during the perhaps ten minutes the boy was in the enclosure with Harambe, and that the gorilla at least part of the time was seeking to protect the boy.
Third, I am confident that zoo officials know better than most that it was necessary to get the boy out quickly and safely. I like to think that there was someone at the zoo that knew the gorilla well enough and that the gorilla knew well enough that the person could have entered the enclosure and coaxed the gorilla into allowing the boy to be removed. But if someone else had entered the enclosure and the gorilla had attacked and injured that person (in a misguided attempt to protect the boy?) or the gorilla had attacked and possibly killed the boy, the zoo may have faced criminal charges. I am trying very hard not to second guess the decision made by persons more knowledgeable than me about the situation.
Fourth, it may not be possible to make every zoo exhibit child proof, but I hope that this incident leads to improvements in safety. And if they give the animals more room to move around, I'd love that, too.
Last, we often focus on one interesting or unusual story at the expense of all the other news. I hope that the care and compassion shown for this boy and this gorilla help lead us to perhaps see the bigger picture and show more compassion for all God's creatures.
I began writing this article on Memorial Day and am posting it the day after Memorial Day. Maybe reading about this gorilla and boy will give us more incentive to find alternatives to war and violence. Let's all seek to treat everyone and everything with love and compassion.
NOTE: Minor editing was done on this article on May 31, 2016, less than a day after its original posting.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
The Christian Restoration Movement and Restoration 200 in Lexington, Kentucky May 15, 2016
This afternoon (May 15, 2016) I attended an event in Lexington, Kentucky called Restoration 200, celebrating 200 years since the first Restoration Movement church congregation that was located in Lexington formed in 1816. The Restoration Movement itself began some years earlier, with the exact year depending on how one defines the movement. But the Cane Ridge Revival in Kentucky in 1801 was a key event.
I love the concept of "restoration." Today's event included music, prayer, communion, booths for various organizations, food truck vendors, and short messages from three ministers.
The three ministers spoke on "unity," "liberty," and "love," in that order. First, Jon Weece from Southland Christian Church where thousands worship spoke on "Unity." Then Barrett Coffman from Southside Church of Christ an acapella congregation near my apartment and the University of Kentucky that has a successful college ministry spoke on "Liberty." The third minister, David Shirey from Central Christian Church which has a significant ministy in downtown Lexington, spoke on "Love." The photos below were taken of the three as they spoke today (from top to bottom, Jon Weece, Barrett Coffman, and David Shirey, in the same order in which they spoke).
Ideally all Christians would seek to obey God perfectly and would be joined together as one large congregation working together toward this goal. Unfortunately, in actual practice all Christians fall short of perfectly obeying God, and Christians are divided into numerous groups that meet in various buildings in various congregations in various denominations with various beliefs.
In my opinion, one of the key movements that has sought to try to restore unity within the Christian faith is what is often called the Christian Restoration Movement, which is what the group that met today in Lexington from 3 p.m. till 5 p.m. is part of. The Restoration Movement, also sometimes called the Stone-Campbell Movement in honor of two men instrumental in its early success, has sought to unite the Christian faith in its basic beliefs.
Alas, after over two centuries of work not only has the Restoration Movement failed to restore unity within the Christian church as a whole, the movement itself has split into three factions, one group being Christian Churches known as Disciples of Christ Christian Churches, a second group known as nondenominational Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, and a third group known as acapella Churches of Christ. This permits illustrates the difficulty of uniting the Christian faith.
I have no illusions that today's event in Lexington will bring together the three factions that split. But I hope that the few hundred persons who gathered together today are part of a group of Christians committed to coming closer to obeying God's perfect guidance. I hope, pray, and trust that as Christians seek to unite together to do good things in accordance with God's desires, good things happen for Christians individually and for Christians collectively. Maybe somehow, in some way, today's event helps in that regard.
I love the concept of "restoration." Today's event included music, prayer, communion, booths for various organizations, food truck vendors, and short messages from three ministers.
The three ministers spoke on "unity," "liberty," and "love," in that order. First, Jon Weece from Southland Christian Church where thousands worship spoke on "Unity." Then Barrett Coffman from Southside Church of Christ an acapella congregation near my apartment and the University of Kentucky that has a successful college ministry spoke on "Liberty." The third minister, David Shirey from Central Christian Church which has a significant ministy in downtown Lexington, spoke on "Love." The photos below were taken of the three as they spoke today (from top to bottom, Jon Weece, Barrett Coffman, and David Shirey, in the same order in which they spoke).
Ideally all Christians would seek to obey God perfectly and would be joined together as one large congregation working together toward this goal. Unfortunately, in actual practice all Christians fall short of perfectly obeying God, and Christians are divided into numerous groups that meet in various buildings in various congregations in various denominations with various beliefs.
In my opinion, one of the key movements that has sought to try to restore unity within the Christian faith is what is often called the Christian Restoration Movement, which is what the group that met today in Lexington from 3 p.m. till 5 p.m. is part of. The Restoration Movement, also sometimes called the Stone-Campbell Movement in honor of two men instrumental in its early success, has sought to unite the Christian faith in its basic beliefs.
Alas, after over two centuries of work not only has the Restoration Movement failed to restore unity within the Christian church as a whole, the movement itself has split into three factions, one group being Christian Churches known as Disciples of Christ Christian Churches, a second group known as nondenominational Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, and a third group known as acapella Churches of Christ. This permits illustrates the difficulty of uniting the Christian faith.
I have no illusions that today's event in Lexington will bring together the three factions that split. But I hope that the few hundred persons who gathered together today are part of a group of Christians committed to coming closer to obeying God's perfect guidance. I hope, pray, and trust that as Christians seek to unite together to do good things in accordance with God's desires, good things happen for Christians individually and for Christians collectively. Maybe somehow, in some way, today's event helps in that regard.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
U.S. 2015 Bombing of Hospital, War, and Need for Alternatives
Please forgive me for pontificating on one of my hot-button issues. Perhaps it is because I grew up during the Vietnam War era, but I despise war.
I read in an April 29, 2016 New York Times website article that sixteen U.S. military officials are being administratively disciplined due to the prolonged accidental bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in 2015.
I understand that under stressful wartime conditions accidents happen, that decisions often must be made quickly with limited information, etc. But I think that makes it even more crucial to find alternatives to war.
What if instead of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan, one in the U.S. had been hit? What type of discipline would the United States government have sought for the offending country? In 1898 the U.S. went to war with Spain, and a primary reason was an explosion on the U.S. military vessel Maine that apparently was caused by a fire that led to an accidental ammunition explosion, as stated by a History.com piece, among others. How would the U.S. government have felt about an accidental hospital bombing in the U.S.? What about all the accidental bombings of civilians, including wedding parties, in other countries by the U.S. military?
I think the U.S. military is creating more terrorists than it kills by its military actions. Personally, I am tired of the war-mongering American military. As a March 27, 2016 Los Angeles Times website article noted, "Syrian militias armed by" the FBI and others armed by the CIA "have repeatedly shot at each other."
If the U.S. had not been involved in major military actions in Iraq and Syria, I think that ISIL would not have risen to power. Most persons in Iraq were probably happier and better off before the U.S. overthrew Hussein than they are now. Iraqis had more freedom of religion, and probably more dependable electrical power, water supplies, and experienced fewer violent deaths.
The U.S. has provided arms to a huge number of countries, often to oppressive leaders who used their weaponry to abuse their own people. Our nation even provided aid that helped Osama Bin Laden. He was called a "freedom fighter" and "sponsored by the CIA" according to an opinion piece on DefenceJournal.com article. Numerous other sources note U.S. military aid benefiting Bin Laden in his fight against Russia. Other U.S. military aid helped Saddam Hussein in his earlier years. And the U.S. currently supports an oppressive Saudi Arabian government, among others.
Even in our own country the abuse of Native American Indians and African-Americans has been horrendous. And we fought a horrible Civil War; that war led to the end to legal slavery in the United States. But many countries around the world abolished slavery without fighting a war to do it. Why didn't or couldn't we? I think we could have with better leaders.
Long before the Civil War, some leaders sought to abolish slavery in the U.S. For example, although Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, he apparently strongly disliked slavery and even condemned slavery in at least one early draft of the Declaration of Independence. If that segment had not been deleted, would slavery have been abolished earlier in the U.S.? Maybe our country would have remained part of England, never seceded, and the Revolutionary War averted. Jefferson in 1784 again sought to end slavery in a proposal that was narrowly defeated in the Continental Congress.
Concluding Thoughts
Somehow we must learn to solve problems peacefully. Sadly, those of us in the United States often do not know about abuses committed by U.S. military forces overseas. Even in the horrendous Abu Ghraib tragedies, the government denied them until photographic evidence emerged. And I think the first person that was prosecuted was the person who took the photographs.
Let's seek to love even our enemies as Jesus taught. Let's seek to "be good and do good" as Buddha advocated, as stated in approximate translations of his words into English on various websites. I think treating people fairly will help make this country and this world a much better place and greatly reduce the violence. You may think I am naive. Maybe I am. And if you have a better alternative, I'd love to read or hear about it. Thanks for taking time to read this diatribe.
I read in an April 29, 2016 New York Times website article that sixteen U.S. military officials are being administratively disciplined due to the prolonged accidental bombing of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in 2015.
I understand that under stressful wartime conditions accidents happen, that decisions often must be made quickly with limited information, etc. But I think that makes it even more crucial to find alternatives to war.
What if instead of a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan, one in the U.S. had been hit? What type of discipline would the United States government have sought for the offending country? In 1898 the U.S. went to war with Spain, and a primary reason was an explosion on the U.S. military vessel Maine that apparently was caused by a fire that led to an accidental ammunition explosion, as stated by a History.com piece, among others. How would the U.S. government have felt about an accidental hospital bombing in the U.S.? What about all the accidental bombings of civilians, including wedding parties, in other countries by the U.S. military?
I think the U.S. military is creating more terrorists than it kills by its military actions. Personally, I am tired of the war-mongering American military. As a March 27, 2016 Los Angeles Times website article noted, "Syrian militias armed by" the FBI and others armed by the CIA "have repeatedly shot at each other."
If the U.S. had not been involved in major military actions in Iraq and Syria, I think that ISIL would not have risen to power. Most persons in Iraq were probably happier and better off before the U.S. overthrew Hussein than they are now. Iraqis had more freedom of religion, and probably more dependable electrical power, water supplies, and experienced fewer violent deaths.
The U.S. has provided arms to a huge number of countries, often to oppressive leaders who used their weaponry to abuse their own people. Our nation even provided aid that helped Osama Bin Laden. He was called a "freedom fighter" and "sponsored by the CIA" according to an opinion piece on DefenceJournal.com article. Numerous other sources note U.S. military aid benefiting Bin Laden in his fight against Russia. Other U.S. military aid helped Saddam Hussein in his earlier years. And the U.S. currently supports an oppressive Saudi Arabian government, among others.
Even in our own country the abuse of Native American Indians and African-Americans has been horrendous. And we fought a horrible Civil War; that war led to the end to legal slavery in the United States. But many countries around the world abolished slavery without fighting a war to do it. Why didn't or couldn't we? I think we could have with better leaders.
Long before the Civil War, some leaders sought to abolish slavery in the U.S. For example, although Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, he apparently strongly disliked slavery and even condemned slavery in at least one early draft of the Declaration of Independence. If that segment had not been deleted, would slavery have been abolished earlier in the U.S.? Maybe our country would have remained part of England, never seceded, and the Revolutionary War averted. Jefferson in 1784 again sought to end slavery in a proposal that was narrowly defeated in the Continental Congress.
Concluding Thoughts
Somehow we must learn to solve problems peacefully. Sadly, those of us in the United States often do not know about abuses committed by U.S. military forces overseas. Even in the horrendous Abu Ghraib tragedies, the government denied them until photographic evidence emerged. And I think the first person that was prosecuted was the person who took the photographs.
Let's seek to love even our enemies as Jesus taught. Let's seek to "be good and do good" as Buddha advocated, as stated in approximate translations of his words into English on various websites. I think treating people fairly will help make this country and this world a much better place and greatly reduce the violence. You may think I am naive. Maybe I am. And if you have a better alternative, I'd love to read or hear about it. Thanks for taking time to read this diatribe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)