Showing posts with label People. Show all posts
Showing posts with label People. Show all posts

Thursday, December 1, 2016

First AID(S)

Dec 1 is a day set aside globally to recognise an ongoing fight in public health. This fight, unfortunately, is often overlooked in the US, despite a large number of sufferers - after all, there's a solution and it's well-managed, right?

Not quite.

True, antiretroviral therapy (ART) is available to combat HIV/AIDS, but it's no silver bullet. No these drugs, at best, keep the virus in stasis (provided the drugs are taken like clockwork) and bring a host of negative side effects to the patients.

Did I mention that these drugs meed to be taken for the rest of one's life and that they aren't always cheap? Right, fancy that.

To put that in more perspective, though, let me run you by some statistics:
  • In the US
    • > 1.2 million individuals are living with HIV
    • ~39 500 individuals were newly-diagnosed in 2015
      • 67% were gay & bisexual men
        • 82% of all male diagnoses
      • 24% attributed to heterosexual contact
      • 6% attributed to injection drug use
    • African-Americans are 13% of the population, but represented ~ 45% of new diagnoses
New HIV Diagnoses in the United States for the Most-Affected Subpopulations, 2015
    • ~ 13 000 passed away from AIDS-related complications
    • Approximately 37% are on ARTs
  • In Sub-Saharan Africa
    • Approximately 24.7 million people are living with HIV
    • In 2014, there were 1.5 million new infections
    • Roughly 1.1 million individuals died from HIV/AIDS complications in 2014
    • Only 39% of individuals are on ARTs
    • South Africa, where I grew up, has a 19.2% prevalence of HIV in the adult population
      • Only 48% of those are currently receiving ARTs
      • South Africa has the biggest HIV epidemic of any country in the world
  • In Asia and the Pacific
    • Roughly 5.1 million are living with HIV
    • 300 000 were newly diagnosed in 2014
    • 180 000 passed away in 2014
    • 41% are on ARTs
  • In the Middle East and North Africa
    • 230 000 people are living with HIV
    • There were 21 000 new infections in 2014
    • There were 12 000 new deaths in 2014
    • Only 17% are on ARTs

  • In Latin America
    • 1.6 million are living with HIV
    • 94 000 are newly-infected as of 2014
    • 47 000 have passed away in 2014
    • 44% are on ARTs
  • In the Caribbean
    • 250 000 are living with HIV
    • 12 000 were newly-infected as of 2014
    • 11 000 had passed away
    • 42% are on ARTs
  • In Eastern Europe and Central Asia
    • 1.5 million were living with HIV in 2014
    • There were 190 000 new infections
    • 47 000 passed away from HIV/AIDS complications
    • 21% were on ARTs
  • In Western and Central Europe
    • Approximately 1.2 million are living with HIV
    • Approximately 50 000 were new infections
    • Approximately 9000 passed away
    • 59% are on ARTs

So, now that you're just a slight bit more aware of the global AIDS crisis, please, get involved. There are a myriad of organisations committed to HIV/AIDS research and awareness, including the NIH, amfAR, UNAIDS, (Red) campaign, One, and more.

Maybe supporting an AIDS orphanage is more up your alley. If so, Beautiful Gate is one I know of personally, but there are many similar organisations around the world.

The point is, please, speak up, get tested, fight the stigma, and, most importantly, campaign for a cure.

Sources
  • https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/
  • http://www.avert.org/global-hiv-and-aids-statistics

Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Forest and Trees

Today, I want to speak to my fellow white people, particularly my fellow Christian white people.

Many of us are missing the point

Yesterday, an innocent man, Terence Crutcher, was shot. He was an innocent man inspecting his own car. He was tazed and shot because he did not immediately follow instructions. He was unarmed. He had his hands up and visible. Now, investigations are ongoing and this article has a fairly good summary of the due process that needs to be followed and the confounding legal questions, but the shooting is not what I want to highlight.

I want to highlight our response.

You see, Mr Crutcher is a black man and, unfortunately, he is now the newest name in a growing list of black men killed by police. He is now the next name on a list in the argument against police brutality and social injustice. You would think that, after such a tragedy, there would be mourning as a community in response. No, no. I only heard about the shooting via my wife. I saw nothing from any of my white friends except a post which showed how there are good relationships between black men and police.

Yesterday, in Langa, a peri-urban settlement (lit. a shack town) in Cape Town, South Africa, inhabited almost completely by poor black individuals, was in the midst of a protest against poor services delivery. The only word I heard from any of my SA friends was from one person who had to drive through the protest, recounting the shock of riot police, guns, and the smoke of burning tires, praising God and thanking the police that she made it through safely. My fellow white people, I am ashamed. You are focusing on the minutiae, the trees, when the problem is with the forest.

The protest of police vs black violence is not about shaming the police. It doesn't require you to defend the police or discredit the victim and find opposing evidence - there will always be evidence to oppose anything, provided the inclination is there. The issue is about respect and fair treatment under the law, something assumed by many of us white people, but still being fought for by many of our fellow black men and women.

Service delivery protests/riots, while terrifying, are happening because of a real problem. While we recount the horrors and fears experienced as an outsider passing through, let us remember that what many white people have and take for granted, our black brothers and sisters are fighting to obtain - and not because they cannot afford it, but because it has yet to be delivered.

Just because we, as white people, are not immediately impacted is not a sufficient excuse to dismiss the injustice surrounding us in society. When Christ gave the parable of the good Samaritan, he did not say that our neighbour extended only to those who looked/spoke/thought like us. No, the whole point of the parable is that loving our neighbour means seeing the hurt, the maligned, the needy, and doing what we can to help.

And that help? I'm not advocating at all for the White Messiah complex. For help to be actual help, it must be the right type of assistance/aid/support, given in the right manner, at the right time. To make a comparison, if someone drops on the floor, having a heart attack, you don't begin scolding the individual for any habit he/she might have that contributed to his heart attack; you administer CPR or find someone who can. When social injustice is shown, you don't tell the victims they're imagining things or that they've contributed to their own issues; you stop and listen, giving a willing ear and a heart willing to understand, and, should the opportunity present, take some measure of appropriate action.

Are we not called to weep with those who weep and mourn with those who mourn? What would it hurt to take a moment to empathise - to place ourselves, our families in these repeated cycles of injustice? Would it hurt to turn to a black friend, relative, or colleague and simply say, "I heard about what happened. I'm so sorry."? Take the initiative. Put yourself out there in love, seeking to understand or support. Make that connection. If nothing else, it's a start.

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Aotearoa, A Cultural Heritage

One of the amazing things I am grateful for from my time in South Africa is the exposure to other cultures and ideas, different ways of celebrating facets of life. One amazing way I was able to see this was through the international rugby scene.

You see, the first time you watch rugby, it can be a little confusing, seeing all the scrums and lineouts that are called seemingly at random until some of the rules are learnt, but something that stands out for anyone, whether a tenderfoot or a veteran, is the All Blacks.


You see, New Zealand has this amazing national policy celebrating their Maori heritage, after all, they were there on Aotearoa before the very first Englishmen ever called it "New Zealand". The policy was made as part of an effort to help retain the Maori culture by making it a part of the national image.

Now, most people may look at the Haka as a war dance, or something done before sports games to intimidate opponents, but it has a far richer meaning that, as a foreigner, I do not even begin to have the right to express.

I remember a couple years ago, when the NZ national basketball team was playing in the US in the Spain Basketball World Cup, the majority of the US was dumbfounded, watching the New Zealanders shouting, stomping their feet, slapping their bodies, and making ferocious grimaces. I remember watching the replay, listening to the ESPN commentators, watching the confusion on the US teams' faces. To me, it was priceless.


Now, New Zealand's not the only nation to do some kind of war dance before sporting engagements. Samoa has the Siva Tau, Tonga has the Sipi Tau, and many other polynesian nations have a similar performance. Even the University of Hawai'i football team performs a haka before games, though the NCAA does not allow them to do it with the other team on the field as they are not allowed to "intimidate" the opponents.






But the Haka goes deeper. Like I said before, it's a celebration of a deeper heritage. Take, for example, Jonah Lomu's funeral. Arguably the greatest rugby player, he was a national icon for New Zealand.


Or take this haka performed by the family of the bride at her wedding.


What I enjoy seeing, though, is my American friends' interest and celebration of the Haka. That awareness of celebration of cultural diversity is an amazing catalyst to begin discussing the problems within our own country. America is supposedly the melting pot, but as I wrote a long time ago (albeit far more naively), we seem to be more like a really chunky stew, or, better yet, a potjie. We have a diversity of cultures here. we are not a homogeneity of whiteness. There is African-American culture, various Hispanic cultures, Asian cultures, African cultures, Native American cultures (unfortunately, many are mere remnants), even varying European cultures, and yet, the only ones we routinely celebrate and accept are the last.

Now, I'm not talking about heritage months, but I am talking about what heritage months are symptoms of. I'm sorry, but if we have to put in place heritage months for cultures to be celebrated and recognised, then we don't really celebrate and recognise them, do we?

So, to Aotearoa, New Zealand, I applaud you for recognising and seeking to celebrate your cultural heritage.

America, what would you look like were you to truly accept and celebrate the diverse members within yourself?

Friday, July 22, 2016

The Christian Race

With police violence protests, #blacklivesmatter protests, and counter protests flying everywhere throughout the U.S. and much of the world, I thought I'd share something I read today that might, hopefully, spur on those of us who claim to follow Christ:

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
1 Corinthians 12:12‭-‬26 ESV

Tell me please, church, where it tells us to let our brothers and sisters struggle alone?

Paul is pretty clear here. As a white Christian, when Black Christians, Hispanic Christians, Asian Christians, Arabic Christians, Coptic Christians or other Christians suffer, I suffer. Why? We are one body.

Take a look at your body. When your toe jams into the doorway, it's not just your toe that is affected. When your tiny, seemingly purposeless appendix gets infected, your entire abdomen feels the pain.

We are all equal under Christ. There is no division by race, status, money, or language, but that doesn't mean we are all the same. Just as the body is composed of many parts, the church is a conglomeration of thousands of backgrounds, races, languages, social strata, and perspectives. If we are ever to achieve unity within the church, let alone the country, we need to begin by appreciating and supporting our brethren from different backgrounds. We need to apologise where necessary, lend a hand where needed, break bread together when able, and see each other's humanity and worth at all times.

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Taking a Bead

Okay, so I'm about to open a large can of worms. Unfortunately, I'm not the first one to do so and I have the feeling I will not be the last.

Something needs to be done about gun violence.

I understand the arguments in favour of owning guns - I am a prospective gun owner myself and I am very interested in the personal safety of my family. I also understand the cost-effective supplement that hunting provides to the family food budget. I even understand and appreciate the right to bear arms, both for personal security and as insurance against the government attempting to oppress its citizens through force and, to the latter effect, the opposition of many gun owners to a federal registry, making gun owners "targets" if "$#!+ hits the fan".

That being said, let's take a look at the statistics

In 2016 alone, so far, there have been:

  • 23 518 reported gun-related incidents in the US
    • 6 031 deaths; 12 359 injuries
      • 258 children (0-11) killed/injured
      • 1 289 teenagers (12-17) killed/injured
    • 138 were reported mass shootings
    • 519 were reported officer-involved incidents
      • 147 officers shot/killed
      • 372 perpetrators shot/killed
    • 988 were reported home invasions
    • 725 reported were of defensive use
    • 1 050 were reported accidental shootings
Unfortunately, I have no suicide data for 2016, but there were 21 334 gun-related suicides in 2014, with the numbers climbing from '99 to '14

Of course, the first, knee-jerk reaction is to declare all guns evil and protest for their complete and severe restriction. Before we do that, however, let's take a quick look at some of the current laws in the US

Owning
  • 18 to own shotguns and rifles
  • 21 to own all other gun types
  • May not own if there is a history or likelihood of family violence
    • May be denied sale or have guns seized
  • No civilian register/licensing records
  • Open and concealed carry laws vary by state
    • With or without a permit
  • Restrictions
    • Long guns (rifles/shotguns): regulated
    • Automatic: Subject to federal licensing, regulation
    • Handguns: permitted without a license
    • Semiautomatic: permitted without a license
    • Banned: sawn-off long guns, machine guns, silencers, armour-piercing rounds
      • Subject to appropriate registration
Buying
  • No set waiting period for lawful firearm purchase
  • Possession of a concealed carry waived background checks
Selling

  • Private sales are permitted
  • Private sellers need no background check
  • Dealers must carry a dealer's license
  • Dealers must pass a background check


Registration
  • Firearm dealers and manufacturers are required to keep records of gun and ammunition sales and manufacture
Storage
  • There are laws specifying safe storage of firearms
Marking/Tracing
  • All firearms sold in the US are marked and can be traced/tracked
Unlawful possession
  • Punishable by 10 years in prison
So, looking at the laws shows that there is some control already in place. Honestly, I'm fairly satisfied with what is in paper. 

So, then, what needs to change?

Well, for one, enforcement needs to step up. If sales and background checks are better enforced, then we would see, in general, guns being more in the hands of responsible owners. That, unfortunately, is a bit of a wishful dream at this point.

That being said, I am a proponent of a basic gun license for owners. I hold that prospective gun owners should prove themselves capable of the responsible ownership of a gun (maintenance, storage, responsible use) and aware of state & federal gun laws. We have established such a process for driving a vehicle, so why not a similar vetting process for firearms? Such a license (let's call it the new open carry license), would ensure more responsible ownership and that, coupled with a background check with a moderate waiting period, can help ensure more responsible dealer sales. The incentive for private sales to be responsible is the threat of losing that right; having a license just makes it easier to establish rapport. Additionally, the presence of gun licenses allows for easier law enforcement. Are you carrying? Do you have your license on you? If your answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, then you are subject to the law.

So, I've taken a look at the current statistics and I've taken a peek at the law. I've given you my perspective. Let's all become well-informed citizens and arrive at a safer, yet still free, environment for ourselves and our children.

Sources:
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Monday, April 4, 2016

Child Abuse Prevention Month

April is National Child Abuse Prevention Month

This month, the talk gets real. People don't like to talk about it, exposing some of the deeper, hidden shames in our society, but let me be clear:

Child Abuse exists and it is far more prevalent than you may think.

In the 2014-2015 year, in the state of Virginia alone, almost 50 000 children were reported as possible cases of abuse or neglect, 6 500 of them having enough evidence to be considered a founded report. (CASA of Central VA Fact Sheet)

In one year, in a state of 8.5 million people, 6 500 children were reported, with enough evidence, of being abused.

Sure, that's less than 0.1% of the state population, but that's 6 500 children who will become adults. That's 6 500 children who were fortunate enough that someone realised that abuse was happening and was able to gather evidence thereof. For each one of those children there are unknown others who are being abused or neglected, many, majority, of them by family members.

In my small city of Lynchburg, and its surrounding area, there are currently over 500 children reported as being abused.

Child abuse has lasting ramifications - and I don't just mean on mental health (See a couple immediate examples) and the perpetuation of abuse to future generations. The CDC is currently conducting an ongoing study on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), an inventory of 10 indicators of childhood trauma, and their prevalence (~ 65% of the US population has a score of > 1) and health implications, showing a remarkable correlation between chronic diseases and an ACE score as low as 1 (ACEsTooHigh).

For those of you curious enough, ACEs comprise:

  • Abuse
    • Physical
    • Emotional
    • Sexual
  • Neglect
    • Physical
    • Emotional
  • Traumatic Household Experiences
    • Separated/Divorced parents
    • Witnessing violence against mother
    • Family member was a alcoholic/drug addict
    • Family member was a mental health patient
    • Family member was in jail/prison

Oddly enough, ACEs were discovered during an obesity study in which a patient who had been losing weight significantly suddenly regained all her lost weight. When the researchers investigated this, they found that the patient in question had been sexually abused as a child and turned to obesity as a protective mechanism. In the process of losing weight, she was catcalled, which triggered memories of her abuse and she put the weight back on as protection (ACEsTooHigh).

Our children, the generations of tomorrow deserve a life free of the effects of abuse and neglect. Those who are trapped deserve a way out and understanding arms to lean on.

Begin the discussion today and let's all take a stand against Child Abuse in Virginia, in the US, around the world.

Virginia Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline: 1-800-552-7096
National Child Abuse Hotline: 1-800-4-A-Child (422-4453)

Resources
Court Appointed Special Advocates (Of Central VA)
Prevent Child Abuse (VA)
 - Fact Sheet
US Dept of Health and Human Services
ACEstudy.org
 - ACE Questionnaire
ChildTrends ACE Factsheet

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Erace

I want to take the time right now to speak on a serious topic that's been particularly heartbreaking for me.

Those of you who've been reading my blog for a while know I grew up in Cape Town and, while I may not currently live there, I have many connections back home and so, I see a large amount of what goes on and what some of the key issues are.

South Africa and the US have a good number of similarities, as far as social dynamics go. One such similarity that's been building in my awareness is the disparity of perception and treatment based on the perception of wealth and degree of whiteness.

And that grieves me.

At the University of Cape Town, a number of events have occurred within the past couple weeks. I won't pretend to know the full thought and intention, but they prompt me to see that many people, students especially, are fed up with the non-progress of social equality in SA.

In the US, I see the federal neglect of water quality in Flint, where ~ 63% of the population is non-white and 42% of the population is below the poverty line. I see awards ceremonies where black artists are awarded in an "urban" category, but don't even really place in the grand running, or where black actors and actresses are only recognised if they make movies and shows appealing to a broader (read: white) audience.

We still live in a society where one's degree of whiteness or affluence affords an individual certain subconscious benefits and, let's be honest, we judge affluence by adhering to a white standard of dress and decorum.

Here's where it hits home for me: my children will not be afforded the same generosity of subconscious treatment that I have received. They will be born into a society in which even a drop of melanin darker than an Italian or body features more akin to Africa than Europe are sufficient to unconsciously define them as "lesser".

For over 50 years in the US and over 20 years in SA, racial equality has been the law, but as many conservatives are quick to point out on issues like gun legislation: you can't legislate behaviour.

White America, white South Africa, open your eyes. Your brothers and sisters, your countrymen are overlooked, underrepresented, and unseen. 
When someone with a different background and a little more melanin than you moves into your neighbourhood, how do you respond? Do you act differently if they speak, act, and dress like you? 
What about a new hire at your work, do you assume that he earned the position if he's white, but was given a position to help "diversify" the company if he's hispanic, black, or another such marginalised group?  
How do you talk about other people groups? Are you "Us" and the others "Them"? 
How do you react when you see some white teenagers walking down the street compared to black teenagers?

Church, what about you? Look within your walls. How many different colours can you see?
Are you monoracial or diverse?
Do you have an even spread across racial lines or only a token few not of the majority?
Are you reaching across racial boundaries to show Christ's love?
Are you stepping out in faith where you might be uncomfortable to take on the plight of another?

Take a look at James 1:27. Need I remind you, Church, that we are all one people under Christ, as Paul makes clear that there is no division like Jew or Greek? Why, then, do we allow this disparity of treatment by race to persist? 

If these things are troubling you, maybe striking a chord, I urge you to read a couple posts (The Passion of the Chris & Sodomy: A South African Love Story) from a pastor friend, Brett "Fish" Anderson.

Now, all that said, here's the thing: I'm not much better.

I don't want you thinking that I'm giving all my money to the poor or that I go every weekend to the run-down parts of town to do some kind of charity work. I don't.

I don't want you thinking that I am that amazing white man who understands the entirety of the racial struggle and can serve as cultural translator for both parties. Ask my wife - I've earned the right to ask her her thoughts on the modern race dynamics and have come to the point that I recognise I don't understand. And that's okay, because I'm willing to put in the hard work to be humble and ask.

~ ~ ~

Some of you may be wondering why I'm targeting everything at the white population. After all, there is racism perpetrated by other groups and negative attitudes and behaviours from other sides as well. To put it simply, I am white. I have no right to dictate patterns of behaviour to those not like me, especially when people like me have contributed to the problems currently in place

Thursday, June 4, 2015

The Christian Role-Player

Christians and role-playing games have a complicated history. From the early beginnings of table top gaming, Christians have been leery of and quick to denounce such games as evil.

While images such as the above are comical, they do exist and such is a very common thought. Ironically, what I find humorous is the fact that similar video games aren't spoken out against near to the same degree, but I digress.

Honestly, I can see where such fears arose. I have played and do pay my fair share of rpgs. AD&D, AD&D 2.0, D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, D&D 5.0. Yeah, I've played a few. There's magic, fictional gods, fictional demons, non-human races, and a whole lot more, and yet, I would argue that it's not inherently evil.

Now, don't get me wrong, you have the freedom to make an evil character, but that, as in video games like the Fable, or Elder Scrolls series, is all up to the player.

Okay, so, what about the magic? The bible speaks out against magic.

True, but I would say you must consider two factors. 1) Are you trying to cast said magic in real life? 2) In-game, what is the source of the magic? (why I personally will never play a warlock)

Well, what about the other gods? What if you want to play a cleric?

Well, yes, clerics tend to have a god they worship. Now, again, you have a few choices. You can choose not to play a cleric, find a way to incorporate God as an in-game deity, pick a deity with characteristics that follow along with God, or you can remember that this is pure fiction.

So, what then are your tips for Christian gamers?

I'm glad you asked.


  1. Consider the setting. Is your character good or evil? If playing with others, ate they good or evil? What about your source of magic or deity? Personally, I stick to good or neutral characters and parties.
  2. What type of content is present? If you're playing a table-top, ask the DM. If it's a video game, check the rating and find some good review sites that talk about the content.
  3. Is it edifying? If you find yourself being drained, addicted, or are otherwise experiencing some negative effect, then stop. If it's getting in the way of you and God, then stop.
So, that's it from me. In a nutshell, I would say that most games are not evil. While certain ones may be (GTA, for example), majority leave it up to the player. 

As a Christian, though, if you're playing a game in an evil manner, we should definitely do some talking, as often times individuals allow themselves to be freer and expose the state of their hearts.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

On Race, Riots, and Response

It is with heavy heart that I hear the news of what has happened in Baltimore. My heart breaks for the family of the deceased, but my heart breaks even more for the travesty that has emerged following his funeral.

I speak as a white man and a foreigner. I do not claim the right to diagnose and prescribe the correct path of action which needs to be taken to bring about change. I will leave that to men such as Dr Carson, or Marcus Roberts, both of whom have spoken out against the rioting.

Instead, I'm going to offer my perspective and thoughts.

If you're going to react to the killing of your race by another, particularly by someone of another race employed in law enforcement, then rioting is not the answer. Were I in that situation, I would want to change the perception of my race. Peaceful protest, respectfully seeking talks and reconciliation. Encouragement of forgiveness.

Not rioting.

Rioting tells the law enforcement that I am violent. It tells them that I will not consider others in my demands. It tells them that greater force is needed to contain such as myself.

Were I in this position, this image is one I would be loathe to present, especially if I wanted fair and equal treatment. It sounds counter-intuitive, but that's exactly the means encouraged and employed by men such as Dr King. Violence may salve our immediate hurt and thirst for vengeance, but peace and forgiveness will set the bones.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Nothing to Fear

So, I was doing some thinking and a particularly juicy question popped into mind: "What can Hollywood show us about our fears as a society?" After some thinking, I narrowed it down (for those more versed in older movies, please help me out if I miss some).

In many older movies, the Great Enemy was either aliens or the Nazis/Russians (pick your era). Today, the antagonist varies between science (ranging from climate change to robots, to genetic modification), terrorists, a captor, and society gone mad/anarchic.

For the most part, it's fairly easy to break down what we fear: we fear weakness, and helplessness. We fear being subject to another individual or group with more or better power than we have. We also fearthe unknown - different ideologies, abilities, worldviews. As far as science goes, the trend seen is the destruction caused by our own foolishness or as the tool of a mad person.

What I find most interesting, however, isn't the similarities arcing through the decades, but rather one significant difference. You see, the locus of the fear, the identityof the antagonist has shifted. In the past, the enemy was an alien or foreign power. Today, that role is filled by single individuals. Those individuals could be the everyday man, an intellectual, a leader, it a small group or cell.

The fears, now, haven't changed. So, what about society has changed to provoke such a locus shift?

Well, some of it is political. We no longer fear the Nazis or Soviets and instead fear terrorists, because they are the dominant political threat. What I would argue, though, is that a great deal of this shift is due to a change in society's ideology.

In the last century, America has shifted from an axiomatic, society-first ideology to a more anarchic, self-first society. In D&D terms, we've gone from lawful good/lawful neutral to chaotic neutral. What this means is that, subconsciously, we have realised that we cannot trust our peers. After all, if everyone determines what is right by their own opinion, there is nothing preventing them from doing whatever is necessary to further their goals. In light of this, we have no time to bother with fearing an alien power; we're too busy fearing that the familiar might not actually be so.

What does this mean, then?

Well, I think society craves order. Now, I'm not calling for top-down, governmental order. Citizens will chafe at that and ultimately seek its downfall. Instead, what needs to change is the ideology of the masses. Until there is a sense of order coming from the ground up, society will never feel completely at peace.

Monday, November 10, 2014

The One about Respect - Redux

It grieves me that I feel I must re-hash this subject. Previously, I wrote on respect, respect given to authority, and the apparent lack thereof in the USA. After some recent conversations and reading of various comments sections, I feel that this is a message that needs to be brought back into the limelight (and perhaps with the backing and understanding coming from some greater maturity).

Respect comes in two forms: major and minor. I see minor respect every day here in the South. It is the consideration of others, others' needs, and others' humanity, manifesting itself through such actions as holding doors, offering up seats on the bus, or offering a lady your jacket. Major respect, though, seems to be something seldom or selectively given. This is the respect and deference given to someone because of his or her actions or position. Examples of this would be standing as a teacher or honored visitor enters the room, standing and/or saluting a veteran or current member of the armed forces, or maintaining a certain degree of decorum when discussing or in the presence of a person of rank or office.

What is so hard about offering such respect?

From my observations, I have seen this pervasive trend underpinning such lack of respect: people need to earn their respect. Now, yes, that is true, but it is also a completely subjective statement, which allows for someone to be given great or no respect depending on the attitude or opinion of the person giving/withholding respect.

I'm sorry, America, but how selfish and self-centred can you get?

Let me make this simple:

  • Every human being on this planet deserves a modicum of respect, which increases with age. Why? They are human. That's it. By dint of their humanity, they automatically receive a measure of deserved respect that cannot be taken from them. 
  • Every position deserves an appropriate degree of respect. The military gets this right, my high school got this right, why can't America? The teacher deserves respect from his students; the principal deserves even more. Police, firefighters, doctors, lawyers, CEOs, and even politicians deserve respect due to their stations.
  • Every action deserves some amount of respect. Right or wrong, heroic or criminal, an individual's actions gain or lose him respect.

Now, both of the latter two criteria are conditions which add to the first. Please note that they are additive. Also note that they are self-contained. Actions do not detract from respect due to rank and neither does rank detract from respect due to actions. a heroic janitor and an imbecilic CEO still receive respect despite their low rank or poor actions.

So, on to the question at hand: why do so many Americans show such disrespect to Mr. Obama?

Now, I get that many disagree with his policies and actions. I do as well, but that still only diminishes respect gained from one aspect of respect. You see, regardless of how much I disagree with his actions as president, he still has the full respect deserved for his position as president and for his humanity. That means, in discussions, I refuse to contort his name into defamatory statements (see, "Nobama"), I refuse to engage in ad hominem attacks, I refuse to entertain certain speculations and conspiracy theories regarding personal agendas/backgrounds which are non-conducive to polite discussion, and I refuse to flat-out bash the man for any mishandling (perceived or real). similarly, if I ever meet him in person, I will still look him in the eye, shake his hand, and treat him with the deference and consideration due his position.

America, what if I told you you can disagree with someone and still show respect?

Saturday, September 13, 2014

Talk Before You Think

So, I'm an external processor. That's fancy lingo for "I think through speaking," In reality, that works through a 3-step system

  1. Make a statement
  2. Realise that doesn't sound right/Receive feedback
  3. Repeat until the full thought or idea is properly fleshed out and conceived
This has resulted in a large wake of offended and hurt individuals and, sometimes, rightfully so. Jokes end up either scathing or falling flat. People remark at the heartlessness of some of my ideas or just stand in confusion as the vagueness doesn't make sense. 

The challenge comes when people take my first statement as the sum of my speech. Society says one should think before one speaks and, so for one who thinks as as he speaks, this creates many an awkward situation. Why? Well, many individuals don't allow me to move past step one. all you have to do to discover this is go to my Facebook page and scroll a while or search a couple of my blogs on more contested subjects to see that. 

Majority of the hurts I have caused could simply be avoided by asking a small question, or letting me know that didn't come out right. That doesn't mean a small amount of hurt won't still be there, but the greater gulf that could have been averted will be.

So, this is a PSA for all members of society, bear with us "Outies" as we make gaffes or blabber on. It's just how we think. Instead, give us constructive feedback and I promise you, you'll find we can be rather amenable.

Post Script:
For those of you who've followed me for a while, you know I'm an introvert. Yes, you can be an introverted external processor. We just tend to be very self-conscious and are very jealous of the few "sounding board" friendships we make. To Dad, Jesse, Hopchak, and G, thank you for being those crucial sounding boards.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Urgent Worship

Today, something strange happened at church.

Normally, we have a time of worshiping God through song, interspersed with announcements, offering, and prayer, followed by the sermon.

Today began in said manner, with the worship team leading. We made it through the announcements and offering and we just finished a song when the pastor came up and excused himself - one of the church members needed to be rushed to the hospital. The evening pastor had volunteered to cover the sermon with what he'd planned for tonight.

That little difference sparked a massive change. One of the worship team members stepped up to lead the congregation in prayer for their ailing member. There was a change of tone in the congregation that was shown in the following songs - Before the Throne of God Above, and Cornerstone, songs which praise God ad the eternal authority and power, for the ability to bring our burdens and pleas before Him. Standing up on that stage, bass in hand, I felt a renewed vigour in the congregation as they worshiped. As the evening pastor stepped up to the pulpit, he asked if anyone would mind taking his place in the prayer room during the service, to which 5 different individuals came to serve in that capacity.

What was the change? What sparked this renewed fervour and energy in our congregation?

Honestly, I think it was simply urgency. Rather than merely coming to praise God and worship Him for themselves, the church was gathered together as one body and one mind, praying, praising, and worshiping God, crying out to Him with full and heavy hearts. It was as though the service had gained gravitas, a sense of the awe, majesty, and magnitude of God, and the humility of spirit stemming therefrom.

That started me thinking. What if we, the global church, treated worship with that sense of urgency on a regular basis. What if the church had the same urgent spirit about the souls of unsaved individuals? What if the church had the same urgency for others in their congregations or their communities who were in need?

This sense of urgency, sometimes seen in third world or persecuted churches, I have yet to see outside of this instance in those American churches I've been privileged to visit. Not that I'm denigrating these churches - many have outstanding teaching, fellowship, and discipleship. I just don't see that same weight present. I don't see the realisation of pressing need, whether it be physical, emotional, or spiritual. I don't see that reverence and awe towards God, sparked by acknowledgement of God as sole Power and Benefactor. These are aspects of worship which are missing, aspects which defined the early church - moving in secrecy, under persecution, spreading a message of eternal life and hope for all people, and meeting the needs of the destitute, discarded, and helpless.

Brothers, sisters, I implore you to see the urgency of the Christian faith - possessing a message for the salvation of mankind and tasked with spreading said message for the duration of a time whose end we will not know. We are called not only to "make disciples of all nations", but to "serve the fatherless and the widows" as well and, for all we know, the deadline could be tomorrow!

So, let us not take lightly the burden of our calling. Let us not come to worship with cheap action and empty songs, but let us, as the body of the church, come together as one, moving, serving, and speaking as though tomorrow will never come.

Soli Deo gloria.

Thursday, July 31, 2014

When a Good Movie Misses an Opportunity

So, a couple of days ago, I had the opportunity to watch Blended for the first time - excellent movie. I thoroughly enjoyed the humour, the story and how it went about handling the issue of blending two families.

You see, it focuses around two families who've lost a parent - one through divorce and one through cancer - and, frankly, it does a very good job showing some of the struggles of the parents and kids adjusting to the difficulties that come with both. It doesn't make light of any of the situations, but handles them with respect, showing and treating them fairly, while maintaining a casual, funny atmosphere. There was just one thing that was mishandled, though.

One issue brought up in the movie is that Drew Barrymore's character's older son (~13 y.o.) has been discovered to be viewing porn and has apparently been deep into it long enough to be superimposing crushes onto the magazines he's reading. When she first discovers it, she freaks, tearing up the centrefold, but later we see her apologetically looking through the magazine section of a drug store for a replacement. Throughout the movie the other characters' issues are shown and resolved, but for this character, his issue with what manhood means is addressed, but never the porn. Throughout the movie it's played off with sideways jokes, nudges, and winks. It's treated as just a normal part of a boy's life, with Sandler's character even admitting to having a couple copies himself and commenting to Barrymore on her son's "old school" tastes.

Yes, we see some of the effects of porn played out in the kid's role, chiefly a stunted ability to interact with women beyond simply as vessels for lust,but never do we see an admonishment from Sandler's character in a fatherly role towards pornography or its effects. Now, I know it's not a religious movie, but you don't have to be religious to see some of the exploitative work and trafficking that is enabled by the porn industry.

It's good to see such an issue brought out into the open on the silver screen. I just wish the producers had done a better job addressing it.

Thursday, June 5, 2014

For Our Sons

I'm only a young man. I haven't seen much in my meagre 23 years. I haven't experienced or done much, either, but this is something that I'm beginning to understand the gravity and magnitude of that I think needs to be better understood by men at large.

Previously, I've clumsily typed my way around the red-herring modesty debate (I'm not going to link it, but it's somewhere here on this site), thinking that was a good approach to take, to chip in my two cents that men need to be proactive and work to prevent what many merely tell women to react to, that is, lust. Equally clumsily, I've spoken with friends who are feminists, trying to ascertain their positions (didn't quite get it, but hey, I was trying, right? [wrong attitude]).

I finally got around to looking at the #YesAllWomen making its rounds. It took me a while, because I'd dismissed it as "just another feminist outrage," but what caught my eye was that men I know whom I have never seen post anything feminist were sharing it, posting it. So, I gave it a look. To me, it was nothing flooring, but it piqued my interest. I did a bit of searching for articles about the movement, read a few of the latest twitter feed posts and realized something crucial - I don't understand.

I don't understand why my sister had to wait until she was older and still take a dog with her to go running, whereas I could've gone on my own whenever.
I don't understand the pressures of the media on women to look beautiful; after all, men's health puts the same standard on us men, right?
I don't understand why women don't feel comfortable walking to the shop after dark for a few quick necessities.
I don't understand why women have to say they have a boyfriend/fiance/spouse for their "no" to be heard.
Just to name a few.

Let me flip this scenario on its head:
Men, you are now the physically weaker sex. Society has relegated your role (traditionally) to cooking, cleaning, and minding the home. Some concessions have been made, however, and you can find work, though you might not be paid equally and you might be discriminated against. In fact, you might be hit on, harassed, or sexually assaulted by someone of the opposite sex who, being stronger than you physically and in the unwritten perception of society, is able to take their way with you, leave you, and still, no-one will fully believe you, stating that you were "asking for it" because of how you were dressed, had led the person on, hadn't said "no," etc.. You face pressure from part of society to change the way you act and dress because you're "making them lust." Conversely, you face pressure from the media and the market to fit an ideal of beauty because, let's face it, regardless of how smart or strong you are, everybody's only truly going to regard you based on how pretty you are; the applicable attributes only begin applying secondarily.

Swap shoes for a moment. Can you truly say "I don't understand" any longer? How about if I told you that the originator of #YesAllWomen is being bullied and pressured by the internet community, or that #YesAllWomenJokes has been made and is making its rounds. Can you not see the discrimination riding on the unwritten undercurrents of Western society?

I send my appreciation to the authors of #AllMenCan and #EachEveryWoman as they seek to keep this discussion on the table.

I'm only a young man. I haven't seen much in my meagre 23 years. I haven't experienced or done much either, but as I grow and (hopefully) become a father, I will teach my sons this message. Will you teach yours?

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Twisted Mirrors: Introduction

Twisted Mirrors is going to become an ongoing series, ultimately to cover the 7 classical Deadly Sins. This idea was spurred by my own investigation of my struggles with Lust and my discoveries thereupon (personal and research).

So, I hope you enjoy and learn from what I'm learning.

I won't necessarily be posting these in regular sequence, but they will all eventually be posted with the "Twisted Mirrors" tag.