Tag: Debate

The Man Who Hated His Country

The Man Who Hated His Country

Once upon a time, there were two men who attended university together. They became great friends, but as their college years drew to a close, each man developed very different views on the country they shared. One loved his country with all his heart, and saw mostly good. The other hated the country passionately, and saw mostly bad. Because of their drastically opposing views, they drifted apart after graduation.

Some fifty years later, fate would bring them together once again. Now in their seventies, they both chose the same town to retire in, and without either of them knowing it. Each man was ready to enjoy their golden years in peace, but that would soon change.

One day, they ran into each other at a local coffee shop. Once they got passed the surprise, they caught up over coffee. After a brief discussion, they soon discovered that they had no intentions of again becoming friends. For each man had maintained their respective ideologies, and had no intentions of changing. So the two men went about their day.

A local reporter found out about the two men and their shared past, along with their opposing ideologies. She marveled at the odds of them ending up in the same small town after all these years. So, she set out to interview the two men.

As the reporter tracked the men down and learned more about their story, she discovered just how different their views were. Then, she had an idea. She asked each man if they would be interested in debating each other publicly. Excited at the chance, they each accepted.

Excited about the opportunity for herself, the reporter wanted to milk this opportunity for all it was worth. She wanted sparks to fly. Anger to flair and egos to soar. For the more outrageous things got, the more attention the debate would get, and the more attention she would get as a reporter.

She didn’t care who was right or wrong, the entertainment value and her own “ratings”, were all that mattered. As expected, word got out, and hundreds of locals came to see the spectacle of these two going at it in front of a live audience.

Several judges were asked to over see the debate. And the winner would be determined by who was most convincing in their argument, and who best lived out their respective ideology.

The first man to speak went on about the many things he loved about the country, its amazing constitution along with limitless opportunities for everyone. For evidence, he cited his own speeches about his love, his support for law enforcement and his achievement of never having committed a crime. He also told everyone we should leave the past behind, and only look forward, and be grateful for how far we had come as a nation. With tepid applause, the man sat down.

The second speaker left little doubt that he hated his country, and with great passion. He not only cited all the reasons why, he also cited his own activism to demonstrate his hatred. He provided details about the protests he had joined over the years, the rioting he was a part of and the crimes he gladly committed, minus any incriminating details of course. He bragged about working through the legal system to expose the self righteous do-gooders’ who were elected to office, at the local church and even some in appointed positions in government.

He also bragged about defying the police at every chance, ignoring traffic tickets which had piled up for years and thumbing his nose at authority with pride. He went on about the time he created a scene the local PTA, once at a local city council meeting and the protests outside the governor’s mansion. And he couldn’t wait to de-fund the police. “Who needs them anyway?” he yelled at the crowd. To a passionate applause, he sat down.

When the two men finished the debate, the judges met in private chambers to consider their findings. Surprisingly, they deliberated for just a few minutes. Suddenly, they came back with their decision; the winner was the man who hated his country.

For his prize, he was awarded a trophy, an op-ed in the local newspaper and a spot on the local morning TV show. Many in the audience again applauded, some gasped. One person vomited.

The man who loved his country was shocked, and bemoaned the fact that this criminal had won. The man who hated his country was equally shocked, he was convinced the debate was rigged against him, and that all the “self righteous” would come out in unison against him. The audience was equally confused, because so many quietly liked the speech on love. So the judges offered an open forum after the debate to discuss and explain their findings.

Both contestants showed up for the forum, along with the reporter and many of the attendees. The man who loved his country complained to the judges that his way was right for the country, and that love is always the answer. And many agreed. He went on to say that the man who won had no respect for authority, and had carried out nothing but mayhem in the streets and seethed criticism for his country. “How could you reward such an individual?” he asked with disdain.

Meanwhile, the reporter sat their in glee, soaking up the delicious friction that filled air, which smelled a lot like a soon coming promotion. For word had already spread throughout the whole town.

After all the questions and complaints were expressed, the room fell silent. The head judge scanned the room waiting for everyone’s attention. Finally, the judge spoke. He explained that the contest was not about who was right or wrong, or even who they agreed with. Rather, who was the most convincing in their argument, and who offered the most evidence that they really believed and lived out their given ideology.

The judges went on to say that the man who loved his country mostly showed it in his speeches and emotional expressions. He had good intent, but offered very little evidence or follow through.

On the other hand, the man who hated his country was a man of action. A true activist with little reservation of getting involved and being a part of the change he wanted to bring about. Therefore, the convincing evidence was in mostly what he had carried out over the last fifty years, however wrong or criminal it might have been. Many in the audience remained angry and confused at the outcome.

The man who loved his country sat with his head hung low. He couldn’t look a single soul in the eye. He thought to himself how the judge was right. For he realized that much of his love for his country, however sincere, lacked any real concrete proof or follow-through. While sitting there, he remembered all the times had a chance to run for office, volunteer at a local charity and spend time with troubled youth, mow his neighbors lawn, but just couldn’t find the time. His 18 hour days at the office just didn’t allow for such volunteerism. He left that day with great sadness filling his heart.

The man who hated his country also struggled to keep his chin up and find any gratification in this whole charade. As he clutched his trophy in hand, he pondered all that he had just bragged about with passion unfurled; years of innocent people being slandered, personal property he destroyed, all the good people he brought down, questionable lawsuits, all because he didn’t like what they believed. Then, a deep sadness set in. The more he thought about it, the more he began to feel the very pain that he had spent years inflicting on others. He too left sad, and no longer clutching his trophy. He left it on the chair.

The reporter was no longer glee, but had waxed reflective. She couldn’t quite make heads or tails of everything that had just occurred. Her hopes of a boosted career had suddenly morphed into confusion. But it got her thinking. It turned out nothing like she had expected, and surprisingly caused a stir within her own heart.

In time, she realized this event really spoke to her. And she could not stop thinking about all that had been said, by both sides, and by the judge. The odd thing was, she found agreement with parts of both ideologies.

She conceded that she too loved her country, but that love without action does little for anyone. She began to understand that a strong and unwavering love for her country was crucial, and that any change should come from that place of gratefulness and acceptance for the place she calls home.

As a reporter, she made a pact with herself and her God to print the truth, regardless of which political party it hurt, or helped. And she vowed the never slander anyone personally, fudge the”facts” to fit some narrative or stray from what she knew to be true. “I have a job to do” she told herself. “and that’s to objectively bring the story to the public. I’m not a politician, I’m a journalist” she whispered to her self.

As an American and with renewed clarity, she vowed to not just stand for or against something, but to act for the good of her country. She committed to not just speak against abortion, but to find ways to show women options other than abortion, to help young woman avoid pregnancy until they’re ready for a family and to look for ways to improve the adoption process. She acknowledged that mere speech or protest is not enough, and that she must find ways to make her own contribution in making her country a better place.

From that time on, the reporter found new ways to love her country, but in action. To see its beauty both in its current glory as well as its flawed past. And without passing judgement on those who had gone before her, she remembered that she too is a sinner, and had no right to pass judgement on anyone. Especially those who lived in a different time.

From then on, when she saw a problem or felt like complaining, she looked for ways to step into the problem and become a part of the solution. She finally understood that those who hate the country are blind to its good, and those who love their country can see both its good, and the areas it can do better.

As she sat alone one night, she thought to herself; “any fool can be a critic, but only those who love their country can find ways to improve it. Any fool can tear something down, but only the wise can build a better tomorrow. Only the self-absorbed seek to divide, but it takes selflessness and hard work to bring people together and make a better country.”

America is great not because we accentuate our differences, but because we celebrate our oneness. We’re all Americans, regardless of where we are from. In that spirit, we find a way to work together, even within our varied points of view.

Please follow and like us:
Division, Hatred, Prejudice; There’s only One Solution.

Division, Hatred, Prejudice; There’s only One Solution.

Perhaps there’s never been more division in the U.S. than there is today, except maybe during our Civil War. Just because we’re not settling our differences on the battle field doesn’t mean they’re any less palpable. The anger and resentment is over the top, especially as a bolder version of free speech emerges. Is the U.S. once again at risk of splitting in two?

http://www.history.com

We share this majestic land called the United States, a great gift from our Creator. But we sometimes bicker like spoiled children who aren’t getting their way, and tantrums ensue as a result. Will we ever learn to live with one another, and do our best to work within the confines of our many differences?

http://www.countryliving.com

We must never forget, it’s our vast differences that makes us strong as a nation. And healthy debate amidst those differences is what makes us unique on the world stage. But have we gone to far in our disagreement? Has our healthy dissent somehow morphed into a dangerous form of division? A kind of division perhaps that may do irreparable harm.

Our country is a mixture of multiple religions, ethnicities and thousands of different philosophies about how to live, love, work and go about our lives. So, plenty of reasons to disagree, and remain divided. There is a way however to embrace a higher level of unity, and to thrive as a nation even with our varied points of view. The answer lies within a gift that our Creator gave humanity millennia ago.

Our God is fully aware of the difficult dynamic we find ourselves in, especially in regards to the many junctures at which we disagree. So, he gave humanity a simple but brilliant rule to live by; The Golden Rule.

-The Golden Rule basically states;

–DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU–

To quote a common and nonreligious source, Wikipedia states;

“The idea (of the Golden Rule) dates at least to the early Confusion times (551–479 BC), according to Rushworth Kidder, who identifies that this concept appears prominently in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and “the rest of the world’s major religions”. 143 leaders of the world’s major faiths endorsed the Golden Rule as part of the 1993 “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic”. According to Greg M. Epstein, it is “a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely”, but belief in God is not necessary to endorse it. Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be “found in some form in almost every ethical tradition”.”

www.wowamazing.com

Aside from our differences, the Golden Rule serves as a crucial guide as to what’s appropriate in our interactions with others, and what isn’t, regardless of religious or political differences. Knowing that not everyone acknowledges my Judea-Christian principles and beliefs, no one ever complains when I simply apply the Golden Rule. Truthfully, it’s the way everyone wants to be treated, regardless of what one believes.   

Jesus once made an alarming statement about division within a country.

…“Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.” Mathew 12:25 NIV

Are we on the brink of ruining our country? If so, will we heed Jesus’ warning?

Applying the Golden Rule will be the single most important aspect of preserving the country that most of us love and appreciate. Just the willingness to treat others with the kindness, grace and dignity that is due us all will go a long way in coalescing fractured relationships on any level, even within politics and religion. But this won’t happen without applying the Golden Rule, just agreeing with it is not enough.

www.wibw.com

It’s important to note however; the Golden Rule does not negate accountability, or turn a blind-eye to criminal behavior. The convicted criminal is still held accountable for their crimes, which is beneficial in the long term for the criminal. By holding the wrong doer accountable for their infractions, the Golden Rule is applied by reiterating that crime doesn’t pay, and that their actions are hateful towards their fellow citizens, and themselves.

The Golden Rule is also applied to the victim of a crime because the criminal is taken out of commission and kept from further harming the innocent. If we’re to maintain a healthy society moving forward, we cannot waiver on our criminal justice system.

A person can reason away the merits of The Golden Rule with some clever semantics and intellectual gymnastics. But when applied, it’s a powerful tool in bringing people together who may see things differently. And for our country to remain intact, this is crucial.

This doesn’t mean we always agree with one another, or pretend to. We must be honest and open as we exercise open debate, and respectful dissent. But it also means we don’t belittle or sacrifice another’s dignity in the process, for we are all made in the image of God, and we all have our blind spots. Because we are one nation, when we tear down others, we are tearing down a part of our nation, and ourselves.

www.blog.net32.com

Applying the Golden Rule to our everyday lives will heal many of our societal wounds. And allow folks who have a difference of opinion to come together and work things out. Or, agree to disagree, and get on with our lives. Sounds a lot better than yelling at each other from the sidelines, and allowing anger and hatred to reign in our streets, and in our homes.

The Golden Rule will secure the foundation of truth in any society, without having to have every detail of truth decided upon, or figured out. And part of that truth says that we’re to look out for one another, and bring out the best in others. And to gently, but fervently hold ourselves and others to the high ideals of a life of integrity. A life of honor. One that raises the bar of acceptable behavior, not waving the white flag to behavior that everyone knows is wrong. It’s hard work. But if we do the hard thing, we’ll save our nation.

Town And Country Magazine

Once the Golden Rule is rejected, no other philosophy, religion or approach to life can hold a society together without dictatorial rule. As a country, do we want that? Do we want fascism? Communism? That is not who we are. Or, is that where we’re headed? Shall we so easily give away the great freedom we’ve been given?

In God’s great love for us, he’s shown us the way to avoid the horror of communistic rule, and that is to live by the Golden Rule. Will we take this gift and apply it? Will you commit to doing so in your own life?

Please follow and like us:
Click here to subscribe