Essay #1: Sacrificial Self

The first of my essays, written on 9~14~2004.

Freedom seems to be the most valued idea in the modern Western culture. Politicians push for it, the media glorifies it, the people praise it, and the evilest of men seek to destroy it. Indeed, it would seem that freedom is the center and lifeblood of our existence in the civilized world. The great words of Patrick Henry, “Give me liberty, or give me death” continue to resound in the spirits of all those that benefit from the sacrifices made by Henry and his comrades. Now, in this age of individualism and politicism, there are entire law firms for the purpose of protecting civil liberties. Representatives argue to protect the rights of their constituents. Individual rights have grown to be the foremost ideal in our culture.
While there is no denying the benefits of such rights, such a significant ideological tenet should not go unquestioned. Just how important are individual rights? How important have we made them? More importantly perhaps are the questions: How does this affect our relationship with our Heavenly Father? and: Is there any situation in which these rights should be forfeited?
In regards to importance, the denial of human rights is a tragedy which should be condemned. Our society, however, has expanded this idea to suggest that the maintenance of these ideas is the single greatest cause in the modern world. Such a claim is, frankly, idolatrous. Priorities have shifted from the glorification of God through a Christian love for one another to the glorification of man by way of a deceptively inward focus. Individual rights have become powerful objects of obsession, which we can and will be called to lay down for society and the glory of God.
In the last several months, the internal opposition to American intervention in the Middle East has been increasingly based on the cost of American life, as well as time away from home for the soldiers, for a cause with an unclear conclusion. The argument that these causes are not worth the price is founded on such “inalienable” human rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, these arguments seem to discount the human rights of the oppressed masses overseas. It is entirely focused on “our boys,” which is, in essence, ethnocentrism. One must suppose that those making such arguments would have been opposed to French aid in the Revolutionary War. Granted, the French government had many motives aside from the proliferation of democracy and free society, but the essence of the debate remains. In fact, the foremost difference between these two examples is that the vast majority of the Americans in the Middle East have, in some form, volunteered themselves for this service to humanity.
To reflect again on the Revolutionary War, Patrick Henry himself, along with many others, notably the patriot Nathan Hale, gave up or risked giving up great personal freedom and affluence within the social structure of the British Empire. Hale gave up the first and likely foremost of traditional human rights: the right to life. To suggest that American soldiers in some way have more claim to such rights than those in the Middle East is directly disrespectful to the Founding Fathers and their fellow patriots. They chose to support an idea which was likely to lead them quickly to the hangman’s noose, but could allow their countrymen to prosper.
The essence of this idea is the concept of sacrifice. Sacrifice cannot be truly and thoroughly discussed without addressing the epitome of human sacrifice: Christ’s death on the cross. This is such a powerful example, to elaborate seems almost disrespectful. Jesus, fully human with all the “rights” thereof, willingly gave up life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the salvation of mankind, allowing us to enjoy these gifts from God to us. Outside redemption through Christ, our fate is limited to death, bondage, and the vain pursuit of a vain happiness.
“Human rights” it seems, is really a misnomer. Humanity has no claim to anything. All we have, whether material, legal, or spiritual, is God-given privilege. Our culture, however, cannot seem to accept this truth. Instead, we continue to persist in a campaign which, though with noble foundations, can only produce the seeds of ungratefulness and self-emphasis. Who are we to have the audacity to say that our lives are our own? Our lives and everything we are belong to God, and to those that He wills for us to serve with our time.

XLII

Former President Bill Clinton could have used the moments following President Bush's second inauguraal address Thursday to say something critical of his successor's policies. But he didn't. In fact, he was complimentary.

...

Clinton told a reporter for the Hearst Newspapers that he thinks Bush "wants to be as active in his second term as he was in his first, which is a laudable thing, and I told him I was absolutely convinced that you could do it if you just kept an agenda and kept working on it."

He noted that he does not believe "in all this lame duck stuff."

It's no secret that Clinton has not been aa fan of many of the decisions made by the Bush administration. But on Thursday he...set the right tone for a divided nation in offering the president encouragement rather than criticism. It was, in short, a classy thing to do.

* * * * *

This editorial in my local newspaper has brought me to the point of no return. I am no longer willing to repress my true feeling like some sort of heresy. Even as I write, I rebel against my own culture:

I respect Bill Clinton, the 42 President of the United States of America.

For the past decade, Mr. Clinton has been the punch-line in many a joke by my peers and mentors alike. However, I cannot in good conscience continue to contribute my obligatory chuckle to the ongoing mockery of this man. I certainly oppose a great portion of his policies, and do not hesitate to concede that his integrity and morality are not well suited for a man of such a grand office. I would hesitate, however, to judge him in any way, on either count. I cannot condemn on a moral basis, for the stone I would throw is a stone I am unfit to wield. (Granted, when first accused in the Lewinski scandal, Mr. Clinton was less than forthcoming, however, it is my feeling that any question of the sincerity of his eventual remorse should be questioned by no-one, save for the Heavenly Father.) As far as the question of his policies, I have no reason to believe that Mr. Clinton had any less desire to serve and effectively lead the nation than our current president.

Moreover, (as suggested in the above article) throughout President Bush's rather obnoxiously Republican administration, Mr. Clinton has been very encouraging and even co-operative in many bi-partisan and non-partisan programs, a quality that has been rapidly diminishing in American politics. It is for these reasons that, from this time forth, I shall do my best to speak with respect and due admiration for this true American, and withdraw my ashamed chuckle from the jokes of those who would use Mr. Clinton as a polictical pincushion or leverage for their self-righteousness.

My Letter

I am pleased to announce, my response letter has been printed.

...My Response

My response to Mr. Rudy's letter:

"Outdated World View"
EDITOR: In the letter by Jerry Rudy (“Explaining disasters” Jan. 6), Mr. Rudy argued that, in light of such disasters as the tsunami, we must turn from the “outdated world view” which suggests that such events are controlled, or at least affected by a supernatural being. While I respect Mr. Rudy’s desire for greater rationality, and agree wholeheartedly that we should do all that is within our power to predict and prepare for such catastrophes, his proposal forces me to wonder: What then shall we tell the survivors? We can only tell them that they were kept alive by a fluke. Without any such “outdated world view,” what is there to say to the victims’ families? We can only tell them that the death of their kin means nothing, just as their lives meant nothing. No, Mr. Rudy, I will not. It is by this world view that we have hope, it is by this world view that we have reason, and in this world view, I have found the rationality that drives me to help those in need.
~Aurenande

A Letter...

On January 6, a gentleman from my county sent the following letter to the editor of the local newspaper. The letter is as follows. My response, which has not yet been printed (as I write, only one day has past since the printing of the initial letter), will be published in the following post.

Explaining disasters
EDITOR: Homo sapiens, I think not. How can we call ourselves the wise or thinking man when we respond to the recent earthquake and tsunami in such an irrational way. Here we have an earthquake explained and understood by current geology -- an ocean wave we know to be a result of such shifts of the Earth's surface. We know that if large numbers of humans are living in the zone that will be affected by the quake and wave, many will die and many will survive. Humans have worked hard to develop these understandings. Yet, when the chips are down, we too often explain disasters through superstition and myth. Survival is explained by a beneficent supernatural being who turns his/her back on less deserving and perhaps is even punishing some.We are a caring creature, and I applaud any and all help we can give to those harmed by this calamity. I simply wish that we had used our rational capacity to create early warning and emergency systems rather than spending so much of our time and energy on an outdated world view.
-Jerry Rudy

A Series of Essays

It is my intention that, within the next few weeks, I should post the first of a series of short essays. Originally assignments from my studies, these endeavors have become the vessels for my foremost criticisms of Western society. Be aware, however, that, though the surface of my criticisms may seem harsh or unfair, I do have a deep respect for all who seek to do what is best for our nation and our society, whether through a position elected, appointed, or sentenced.

Your servant,
~Aurenande~