Pass the Knot

[VH_50]

As long as we're playing with geological metaphors:

 

Behold the lava flowing down the side of a volcano. It, too, seems inexorable, unstoppable, and guided by the hand of the Almighty . . . more than capable of destroying those who are foolish enough stand in its way rather than submitting to its power.

 

Except that, at a place called Heimay in Iceland, in the 1970s, a stubborn group of people led by a wild-eyed engineer decided that it might be possible to save their harboor, their livelyhood, and thus their town by cooling the front edge of the lava flow with seawater and thus diverting the lava in a new direction, away from the harbor. [see "Cooling the Lava," in _The Control of Nature_ by John McPhee (1989)]

 

And it worked.

 

 

"Do not doubt that a small, committed group of people can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead

 

Passing the knot . . .

[BubbaBear]

People...please follow the rules of this thread...go back to the beginning and read before posting...you only get one post here. (I am an exception because I am acting as Scoutmaster)

 

littlebillie...I forgive you THIS time!!

 

Bubba

[NJCubScouter]

I disagree with the "glacier" or "flowing lava" analogy for matters of social change. Regardless of what your religious beliefs are, individual human beings are beings of free will. We have both the physical ability to make choices and the intellectual ability to gather and evaluate information to make the right choice. (We don't always make the right choice.) Combining all these free wills into a collective decision-making process is a tricky thing, and sometimes the "collective will" can be difficult to determine, but what we do as a society is nevertheless the product of our individual choices. So things like social change don't just happen to us; some person, or usually a group of people, get the changes started and the rest of us either accept or reject them. This process works more "cleanly" in a democracy (or representative republic, if you like) than in a dictatorship, but recent history has shown that "free will" can topple even the seemingly strongest dictatorship.

 

Why is it important whether the analogy is correct or not? Because I think the analogy makes us forget that we and not forces beyond our control, determine our future while we are alive. (I suppose there are some who may disagree with this point on religious grounds, but oh well.) Again, individuals may find it difficult to have their individual wills translated into group action, but somewhere in the process, human beings are bringing about whatever change occurs.

 

The post about "holding back the lava" also implies that in the gay-policy debate (which is what we are really discussing here), the "lava" is the trend in society toward accepting immorality, while those with the water-hose are trying to protect morality. I reject this as well. What we have here are two competing moralities: The morality of those who believe the Bible, or whatever, justifies discrimination against gays, and the morality of those who believe that it is the discrimination that is immoral. There is a definite trend away from the former, toward the latter. But it is not a mindless force such as a glacier or lava; it is the collective result of people making different choices about how other people should be treated.

 

I don't get the whole knot thing, so I don't know whether I am passing it or not.

[Rooster7]

The "glacier theory" has some merit, but it's founded on a false premise. It presupposes that God is guiding the glacier to some ultimate destination. Furthermore, because God is guiding it, this theory assumes that the glacier knows right from wrong. This is contradictory to the bible. In reality, the glacier is simply a metaphor for humanity. God will not direct the glacier (i.e., humanity, mankind, "man") unless we seek Him to do so. God will allow us to drift in any direction we choose and suffer the resulting consequences. If we abandon God and his teachings, He will abandon us. He is our rudder. Without Him the glacier will not arrive at a "happy place". Man (collectively) is attempting to steer the glacier, but it is a futile endeavor. As man continues to ignore God (in worship and as the source of power and wisdom), the less influence God exercises and thus the glacier drifts more and more out-of-control. Mankind does not have the wisdom or power to direct its own course. We need God.

 

There are others, who believe that mankind can successfully direct itself. I find this fascinating because it highlights the crucial differences between liberalism and conservatism. If you break down the differences carefully, you will discover this truism. Liberals tend to believe that man is inherently and essentially good. Conservatives tend to believe that man is inherently and essentially bad. As you might guess, liberals more than conservatives embrace the idea that society will eventually figure out "what is right and wrong?"

 

Liberals trust big government, because they believe that mankind is noble. They believe, together, we will "make our way through the dark" and become one big happy world. Because man is "essentially good", liberals have faith in social welfare programs that give the recipients much more than the benefit of a doubt. They believe in second, third, and forth chances for violent felons. "Reformation, not punishment!" is their battle cry. They laud peace agreements, which are not closely monitored or backed by military might. They see no great need for a powerful military. They believe that we should trust the collective countries of this world (i.e., the U.N.) to make selfless, just, and high-minded decisions. They celebrate sexual perversity as diversity because "aside from one interpretation of God's word, whose to say its wrong?" They believe that a women's "right to choose" is more important than a "mass of tissue". For many, science is their religion. If a panel of judges removes God from our country's pledge, it will cause them no concern. They prefer a government without God. When the federal government takes control of an issue, they are pleased because they trust the outcome. And why shouldn't they? If one accepts the notion that man is basically good, these ideas are within the realm of reason. They honestly believe that humanity will overcome. Like a glacier with a collective mind and an invisible rudder, they're convinced that we will find that "happy place" and all will be right. If they had a song, it would probably be John Lennon's "Imagine".

 

Conversely, because conservatives believe that man is "essentially bad", they believe social welfare needs to be closely controlled or it will simply encourage laziness. As a deterrent and a preventative measure, they want strict consequences (i.e., long jail terms or the death penalty) for violent criminals with no possibility of parole. "Victims Rights!" is their battle cry. They know, given the opportunity, America's enemies will inflict as much harm as possible. They want peace treaties that can be enforced. They believe in a powerful military and want it deployed to protect significant interests. They believe that humanity is not wise enough to take life without cause or to manufacture it as if it were some kind of commodity. They believe the dismemberment of a fetus is exactly what it sounds like, murder. They do not trust institutions such as the U.N. because they often become instruments of the greedy. They know all organizations have the potential for evil. Because man is corrupt, they take God's word seriously. They don't justify immorality because it serves their purposes. If God is removed from our country's pledge, they will be very disturbed because they know God will not be pleased. When the federal government takes control of an issue, it gives them reason for pause. They do not trust big government because it puts power in the hands of a very few men (who are prone to corruption). Of course, there are conservatives that do not believe in God...but for the better part, conservatism has its roots in biblical teachings. If they had a song, it would probably be "Amazing Grace".

 

The original version of the glacier theory is flawed. To be sure, God will not guide this glacier unless we ask Him to do so. Without Him, our destination will not be pleasing to anyone. Does this mean we are doomed? No. Man, without God, will seek and fulfill his own sinful desires. However, as a nation truly "under God", we can find direction and fulfill a much more noble purpose. We should seek God's wisdom and intervention at every opportunity.

 

As an aside, because I'm sure I have offended a few folks, I'd like to clarify something. I do not believe liberals are evil. Although, I do believe that most are deceived about the nature of man. As a Christian, I believe you can be a liberal and be saved. I do not believe all conservatives are perfect, or necessarily God-fearing, God-loving folks. I do believe that conservative politics tend to reflect a belief in God and the fallen nature of man. I'm convinced that this philosophy represents our best hope in finding that "happy place" because it recognizes our need for God.

 

Of course, this is only my opinion (my personal belief). Like any man, I am prone to error. If you're a Christian, read your bible and come to your own conclusions. If you're not a Christian, then I guess you have two choices. Investigate further, or laugh it off at my expense. If you chose the former, great! If you chose the latter, I'm not offended. As a matter of fact, even if you are a Christian, you're free to disagree. If you want to believe I'm a "bigoted fool", you're free to do so. I don't think it would be justified, but it's your prerogative. I feel no ill will towards younor should you feel ill will towards me for expressing an opinion. If you do, then you should consider the possibility that I've "hit a nerve" and question it.

 

When I was about twenty, I was often quite irritated with those "backwater, self-righteous, war-mongering, right-winged, ultra-conservative, bible-thumping Republicans". Then one day I decided to challenge all of my preconceived notions about God and politics. Of course, because man is corrupt, I found plenty of incidences (adulterous evangelical preachers, bigoted politicians, etc.), which confirmed my original thoughts. However, rather than concentrate on "them", I started to probe myself. In my self-examination, I discovered that many of the things that conservative Christians had to say bugged me because they struck chords that rung true in my heart. They revealed things about myself that I didn't like. Reading the bible was down right scary because I felt as if I was reading my epitaph. The more I read, the more I was convinced that God was speaking directly to me. I became "born again". As my faith changed, so did my politics. I'm not suggesting that everyone who disagrees with me, consider re-examining everything they've ever thought was right and true. Yet, if you've never examined "the other side" with an open mind, then I suggest you try it. I feel if nothing else is true, I can honestly say that I have examined both sides of the political spectrum. I was brought up as a liberal Catholic. JFK was "the man" (in life and death). I know liberal politics and the social philosophy that inspires it. I also know conservative politics and the biblical teachings from where it derived its roots.

 

OkayenoughI'll pass this knot along to next the guy

 

[Quixote]

Thanks Rooster.

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, I don't want to spend much time on your liberal vs. conservative post because I can't find anything in it that relates to Scouting... unless you are suggesting that only conservatives have a place in Scouting, in which case I will have some comments!

 

I will say that I find your definitions to be overly simplistic and in some cases laughably so. People do not fall neatly into two camps, rather they define a broad spectrum, including moderates who pick and choose from the "menus" offered by both sides (a category in which I include myself, though I do partake of more of the "liberal" items than the conservative.) I have also observed that those who are on the "far ends" on either side tend to lump almost everybody else on the side opposite themselves. I have to laugh, for example, at far-right conservatives who call John McCain a liberal. He isn't one, believe me.

 

The funniest part of your post is about about how "conservatives" do not believe in big government. Give me a break, please. Take a look at every round of Congressional budgeting and appropriations and you will see all of the most conservative Republican names lining up at the trough along with everybody else. "Big government" is a favorite whipping boy of these folks, until they get a chance to have a courthouse, military base, or big highway in their district, or big "research grants" to one of the big businesses in their state. Then big government ain't so bad, I guess.

 

Some of your other comments are like a cartoon version of reality. I don't know many self-proclaimed liberals who favor "third and fourth chances for violent criminals" these days. As for "celebrating sexual perversity," well, just give me a break.

 

I also don't see liberals as believing in the essential goodness of man while conservatives believe man is essentially bad. Maybe you were just kidding about that. I think if you had taken a poll 30 years ago, you would have found most liberals saying man was essentially bad while conservatives would say that man was essentially good. How, or why, or even whether this has changed might make an interesting book, and probably has. But it hardly one of the "timeless verities" as you seem to suggest.

 

As you say, there are conservative atheists. There are also conservatives who are pro-choice on abortion. I know liberals who favor the death penalty. And it goes on.

 

It does not surprise me, of course, that you think the side you are on has God on its side. Pretty convenient if you ask me.

 

As for songs, I sort of go back and forth. Let's see what works for today. I am sitting at work at the end of a long day. I spent the morning on the phone fighting with the council office, because when my son showed up for the first day of Cub Scout Day Camp, they decided he was not registered for camp. (On about the fourth phone call, I finally got, "Oh yes, we did get your check, sorry about that." Meanwhile my son spent almost half the day sitting with the camp director instead of doing archery and nature-walk, mainly because his health form was sitting in the council office (about a half-mile away) in a temporarily lost folder, and they didn't think to fax me a new one that I could fax back until he had been there almost 2 hours.) After that gets straightened out, my wife's car battery turns up dead, and she just barely makes it it to pick my son up from his (as it turns out) half-day of day camp. So let's see, how about one by the Allman Brothers:

 

"Sometimes I feel like I been tied to the whippin' post."

 

Or in other words, sometimes a broad philosophy of life gives way to just getting through the day.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[NJCubScouter]

By the way, Bubba, with this whole "knot thing," I think you are confusing "having the gavel" (or "passing the gavel") with "having the floor." The guy with the gavel around here is SCOUTER-Terry (and his staff of moderators, though I have only ever seen one other, SCOUTER-Luke.) The rest of us just have the floor, when we behave properly, and only until the next post.

[VH_50]

One clarification of my earlier post, in light of subsequent comments:

 

I actually meant the "flowing lava" analogy as a contrast to (and a gentle poke at) the glacier analogy, with the lava standing for BSA's apparently steadfast commitment to banning gay leaders.

 

My point was (supposed to be) that just as even seemingly unstoppable "forces of nature" (lava yesterday, maybe glaciers tomorrow)can be stopped (or at least diverted) so too seemingly entrenched institutional polices (women barred from the voting booth yesterday, maybe gays barred from BSA leadership tomorrow) can be changed.

 

Apologies for any confusion I may have caused ["Remember, metaphors should only be used by trained professionals--don't try this at home! :-)]

[littlebillie]

VH-50

 

a man's speech should exceed his grasp, or what's a metaPHOR?

 

:-)