What is your truth?


My friend, who I’ll call Tim, asserts that he couldn’t use a gun against another person. I said, “Not even to protect your family?” He dodges the question every time.

Let me hasten to say that this posting isn’t about gun rights. It’s about how we look at ourselves, which affects how we respond to threats against the safety of our families, ourselves, and our country.

Tim is one of many people in our country who accept some or all of a soft view of reality that cannot, will not, insist on absolutes. That worldview is called postmodernism, which leads to the idea of tolerance. Hang onto that word.

It seems the elevation of tolerance to the level of a virtue is what has made the streets of London a very dangerous place to be. Especially if you’re in the military. Even in peaceful Sweden, mostly Muslim immigrants rioted last week, burning schools to the ground, torching cars, and throwing rocks at police. You know that’s not supposed to be. That sounds like Kabul, Baghdad, Cairo— maybe Pakistan. But not England, our mother country, nor Scandinavia, with their high standard of living and cradle to grave welfare state.

The Baitul Futuh Mosque in London

The Baitul Futuh Mosque in London (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But is it the USA? Could that happen in our country? In your town or my town? Before you say “no,” take a look at Flint or Dearborn, MI, or Murfreesboro, TN. Consider what might happen if we handle immigration and the assimilation of minorities like the UK and Europe have done. In a decade, 600,000 white Londoners have fled the city. Their place has been taken by a million Muslims, who have brought the norms of Afghanistan and Egypt to the streets of London.

We, like England and Europe, operate with the idea that we live in a civilized society and murderers will not carry out terrorism in the streets. Unfortunately, by importing hundreds of thousands of people who follow a religion that permits tribal violence, the British shouldn’t be surprised by this blight of terrorism. To stop it, they’ll have to shut out the barbarians.

And who are the barbarians? Most agree that the problem is not with 90% of Muslims, who simply want peace. It’s the radical Islamists. And that’s where the Brits and the Europeans—and many running this country—are weak, or naive. Some would say gutless.

In our desire to be nice, to be civilized, to not be judgmental (Who wants to be branded a bigot?), we appropriate this squishy “truth” that really isn’t truth. It says that reality is determined subjectively by each person. It says don’t judge, even though we make judgments every day of our lives. So to be fair, we can’t exclude because that would be intolerant.

No political correctness

No political correctness (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Christian idea of absolute truth is in direct contradiction to the postmodern view. I’m not saying that you must be a Christian to protect your family and your country. We must, however, dispense with this idea that no absolute truth exists. Otherwise, we can expect to become like London.

Is this an overstatement of the problem? How did you feel when you first heard about the attempted beheading of the British soldier by Muslim extremists? What about the non-intervention of bystanders during the assault? What is truth to you? How do you determine truth?

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

About samuelehall

A follower of Jesus, husband, father of 3 adult children, writer and learner.
This entry was posted in Families, Feared Classes, Finding Truth, Liberty, Our Constitution and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to What is your truth?

  1. Jerry says:

    Guns are probably not the subject. Weapons may be. The London killing was with knives, wasn’t it? Current US immigration laws probably include a criminal background investigation for immigration applications. US Naturalization requires certain pledges and allegiances to our country, doesn’t it? Keeping weapons out of anyone’s hands in the US is practically impossible, it seems. Explosives are cheap and well described on the internet. Background checks for purchasing guns are reasonable to me but not to many in the US.

    One recent Supreme Court case may hold a future answer. That is, DNA samples are legal to be taken by law inforcement for anyone who commits a felony. After a few years, a library of criminals’ DNA will be possible. Sharing of such DNA information through international law enforcement agencies may assist with keeping criminals out of the country.

    • samuelehall says:

      Jerry, I’m glad you brought this up. The issue truly is “weapons.” Butcher knives and cleavers were used in the gory London killing. Bombs were the weapon of choice at the Boston Marathon.
      Agreed, complete weapons control is impossible but if we can improve identification of baddies w/o excessive (different views on that, for sure) intrusion into personal liberties, we will have made our society safer.
      An example you may recall from the days when OSHA was being enforced: it’s a cartoon drawing of a cowboy enclosed in a metal cage with all sorts of safety devices to keep him from falling or getting bumped/dragged/kicked while protecting him from the hot sun, blizzards, lightning, and mean cows. Of course, the horse was staggered by all the weight and the cowboy could hardly see out of his protective vestments, let alone dally a rope over the horns of a wild maverick. But he was certified by OSHA as “Safe.”
      Finding the sensible middle ground isn’t always easy to do.

  2. Jerry says:

    I agree with your objectives to limit guns and immigration to the sane and law abiding.

  3. Jerry says:

    Your equation, Truth = Jesus Christ, reminds me of a book that I have just finished reading during my knee replacement surgery convalescence. The book is called “The Square Root of God” by a Disciples of Christ pastor, Timothy Carson, in Columbia, Missouri. He would challenge some of your concepts as well as some of mine.

    Another book called “Outliers” has a chapter (Chapter 6) called “Harlan, Kentucky”, which describes the influence of our culture (from several generations back) on our reactions to world events. I would recommend reading it.

    Anyhow, I agree that neither Great Britain nor the USA needs violent influences gaining ground through our immigration policies. On the other hand, I don’t think that we should limit our immigration policy to literalist or metaphorical Christians. Our constitution might suffer from that, don’t you think?

    • samuelehall says:

      Jerry, thanks again for new info.
      Don’t let your research lead you too far astray. Remember, we were just trying to keep the terrorists out. Nothing has been proposed by anyone to limit immigration to Christians.
      It’s essentially the dilemma we’ve got with the gun issue: try to identify those who would pose a threat to our citizens. Hard to do but we need to make some effort to: a) keep guns out of the hands of dangerous/unstable people; and b) keep dangerous/unstable people out of our country.

  4. Jerry says:

    Once we have accepted that absolute truth exists, what will we do with that knowledge? I gather that the absolute truth would somehow allow us to exclude those who don’t accept the absolute truth. On the other hand, maybe we would exclude the violent portion of those who don’t accept the absolute truth. As I have mentioned before , the Massachusetts Bay Colony right here on our continent (1600’s, as I recall) officially excluded (with the death penalty) those who did not accept the absolute truth. Is that what you had in mind? John Calvin had Michael Servetus executed for not preaching the absolute truth. As a matter of fact, Christianity has not always been gentle and kind to those who didn’t accept the absolute truth. What are our limits?

    • samuelehall says:

      Thanks again, Jerry; you’re always thinking out of the box.
      Truth is not something malleable that we can shape to suit ourselves. In reality, truth = Jesus Christ (John 1:14).
      No, I didn’t know that bit of history, so thanks for bringing that up, too. Servetus was quite an intellect, it seems, but he took on some brilliant minds. My reading indicates that your statement that Calvin had Servetus executed wasn’t quite correct. It appears that both Catholics and Protestants strongly opposed him.
      It’s hard for us to wrap our minds around the idea of executing someone for violation of orthodoxy. Today, the only ones who do that are Muslims, which excesses started this whole discussion, anyway.
      True, some Christians haven’t been gentle and kind to those who opposed them but I don’t think you can say that about Christianity. After all, Christianity per se is Jesus Christ, God himself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s