What is Left Behind

I went to see this movie last weekend, only because I was invited as a family outing.  I normally avoid disaster movies because they tap into a deep seated fear I used to have of the rapture and tribulation.  And that is directly what this claims to be addressing, but I agreed to go anyways.  That aspect wasn't as bad as I feared it would be, but only because the movie was so bad, and disconnected from any real discussion about the rapture.

I am not convinced that the rapture is going to happen, because the Biblical evidence to support that idea is pretty weak and vague.  And the very idea is not very consistent with most of the other stories and principles found in the Bible.  But I am aware of the fact that what I believe about the rapture has no effect on whether or not it actually may happen at some point in the future.

The movie was widely panned by critics and viewers alike, and I don't disagree with their assessment of its quality and message, but there are a few points that it brings up that I think are worth examining.  First off, all of the children disappear as well as the Christians.  It doesn't get very detailed about where the age cutoff for that is, but the idea is that "all children go to heaven."  This is fairly contrary to the Catholic idea of original sin, but fits with the protestant idea of the "age of reason" being the point at which people are capable of sinning.  It is the "feel good" way of approaching the issue in that context.

It also assumed that most people had no idea what was actually happening, even when it took place in a very dramatic fashion.  I would have assumed that most people have some inkling of the idea of the Christian rapture, but then maybe I am "sheltered" in that regard.  I am aware that based on our education system, there is a lot that most people graduating high school don't know. (Recent example: "What is 4th of July celebrating?")  But I have always assumed that enough people are aware of the idea, that it would quickly become clear what really happened, if it ever took place.  It would be hard to deny that reality if it happened in the way people claim it will, but people find ways to deny all sorts of things regardless of the evidence, and God doesn't usually do things the way we expect he will.  So those two concepts can easily account for the reason why everyone wouldn't necessarily repent immediately after observing the rapture taking place around them.

I was introduced to an incomplete knowledge of those types of ideas at too young of an age, resulting in an overly strong preoccupation with the fear of it happening.  That has eventually faded away over time, for a couple of reasons.  One is more confidence in my own faith in God, while another is a better understanding of various alternate interpretations of prophesy.  Getting older has an interesting effect on one's perspective on that idea as well.  I have talked to some people who look forward to it happening, an attitude I still can't account for.  But others have explained to me that it eventually seems like a positive alternative to dying.  I view the concept with dread because it seems in all practical ways to be identical to dying at a young age, which I am not in favor of.  The older you get, the less you have to lose in that regard, because the more of your life you have already lived.  Having hope of positive things still to come in the existing world is what makes the end of the world such an unattractive proposition.

I read "Win the World or Escape the Earth" a while back, which contends that God probably won't bring the world to an end in the way the church has traditionally expected him to.  Instead he will be refining and purifying it, similar to the way metal is refined in fire, and that the new creation will take place here, in the same way that Christians are made into a new Creation by Jesus, without actually replacing their physical bodies. (At least not immediately)  Basically it foresees the Christians as the ones "Left Behind" as God's Kingdom.  This approach to eschatology is much more conducive to trying to overcome evil in the world we live in, instead of just abandoning it because "it is all going to burn anyway."

Voting to Solve Problems

Reading the ballot guide for November's election was as depressing as usual.  Our government is in terrible shape, and no one has any idea how to even begin to fix it.  This is clearly true at the national level, and some states are worse off than others.  California is larger than most other countries, so with a system of government that doesn't scale well, we naturally are in worse shape than others.  Nearly everything they do seems to pretty clearly be making things worse.  Most of the measures on the ballot are to amend previous measures that have not worked as designed.  And most bills in congress seem to be the same as the state measures.  They are all convoluted combinations of regulations that are designed to be as confusing as possible, either by their creators, or by their detractors who were able to amend them with something that deliberately makes them terrible.  If we want to have measures on the ballot for voters to exercise authority over their representatives, how about requiring that no bill can be over 100 words in length, and all legislative votes are recorded by name and published within 24 hours, so we know what our representatives are actually doing to represent out interests in government.

I am watching the HBO series John Adams this week, for my third time.  It is very good at illustrating the types of negotiating and compromise that are required to successfully lead and govern a free people.  Representatives are held accountable by the people, and are not isolated from the real consequences of their decisions.  And even back then, on that scale, it was still difficult to achieve much, and the biggest complaint was that congress would not act.  Even that level of compromise and negotiation is unheard of today, and it is getting worse as the political landscape gets more polarized.  But that divide is based on the serious divergence of morals and values that has been taking place for quite some time.  And because the political divide is rooted in a moral divide, the opposing side can’t be compromised, and its followers aren't really respected enough to be negotiated with or listened to.  And so nothing ever really gets resolved.  And the country is too big for people to really notice that as it is taking place.

Criticizing the President

So the latest thing Obama is being criticized for is his "latte salute" to his Marine guards.  I am no fan of Obama's administration, but this is just ridiculous.  There are lots of things going on in the Whitehouse which are bad for America's future as a free country, so let's focus on those instead of some minor faux-pas.  But if we want to scrutinize that insignificant moment, let's do so fully.  Did the President break any rules by doing that?  Is he required to salute?  Actually, it would appear not.

Saluting is usually reserved for military members in uniform showing respect for one another and "the uniform."  (For example, this why in Top Gun, when the civilian specialist is introduced, the pilots are reminder not to salute her.)  Presidents used to never salute their military guards, including Eisenhower, who had been a general, and must have deliberately broken the habit once he left military office.  Reagan started the tradition, and encouraged Bush to continue it, and it has lived on.  Initially there was some concern over the practice, but the position of the military was that the president could salute whoever he wanted to.  Constitutionally this makes sense, because the President is supposed to direct the military, not the other way around.  It is good to have respect for existing traditions, but if the military had made a big deal about trying to prohibit Reagan from saluting, it would have set a bad precedent for the military dictating the president's actions in more important aspects of their relationship.

So it became a tradition for the president to salute his guards, and Obama is under fire, not for not saluting, but for doing it sloppily-one time.  Now I am all for the principle of "if you are going to do something, make sure you do it right," and I see all sorts of fallout from the American government making a habit of ignoring that maxim.  But it is a stretch to apply that principle to this situation.  Clearly Obama's detractors will jump on anything he does to criticize him.  It led me to wonder, would it be possible for him to do something they would actually support?

I couldn't think of anything he could do that would be above criticism from somewhere.  If he promised to give everyone free money, which he pretty much has, there are those who know where that is coming from.  What if it wasn't coming from taxpayers, like if he announced that he had convinced a few billionaires to voluntarily pay off the entire national debt as an act of patriotism?  There would be complaints about how that would affect the economy, and that the money could have been put to better use elsewhere, as well as the reasonable concern about what he may have secretly promised them in return.  Anytime a decision they agree with is announced, people will assume it is a political tactic to make it easier to swallow something much worse that is coming.  So if everything one does will be met with criticism, it leads to the logical conclusion that criticism should be ignored, which is a dangerous place to be.

Part of the problem is the scale to which the country and the government have grown.  The old solutions just don't work as well at that order of magnitude.  Then there is the constantly increasing number of existing laws and regulations that have to be navigated.  And then there is the media, especially independent journalism and social networks, which allows a wider and faster spread of news and ideas than ever before.  This can be good, in that it prevents important things from being hidden from public view.  But it also is the mechanism that allows the "latte salute" to rise to the top of the stack, as an emerging important national issue that we should all be aware of.

Recognizing your Enemy

In the world of diplomacy, modern states have this intriguing approach of officially refusing to even recognize the existence of their enemies.  I don't know how far back this trend goes in history, or where it started, but it is being applied to current conflicts with increasing frequency.

Most of the Arab countries in the Middle East refuse to recognize Israel, or at least it's right to exist, which is not the same thing.  Refusing to recognize that it currently does exist seems like the most immature reaction possible.  In refusing to recognize an entity's right to exist, at least in that case they are acknowledging the reality that it does exist, and stating not that is doesn't exist, but that it shouldn't.  That is an equally disturbing, but much less irrational reaction to the situation.  In turn Israel refuses to recognize Palestine, and all negotiations have to be done through numerous intermediaries.  This a huge stumbling block to diplomacy.  Pretending someone doesn't exits doesn't make them any less real.

We now see the same thing happening in the US in reaction to the rise of ISIS.  The Whitehouse is the only entity on the globe still calling it ISIL, because the name "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" calls attention to the administration's two biggest foreign policy failures, in Syria and Iraq.  The US government does at least acknowledge that the group calling itself ISIS does exist, but they refuse to acknowledge that it is Islamic, and that it is a state.  There does seem to be some grounds for not labeling them a state, but they do control their own territory.  If they are not a state, we don't have to declare war on them before attacking them, which seems like a political technicality.

Part of the issue is coming to terms with the fact that we are at war, whether we like it or not.  They are attacking us, regardless of whether or not we choose to defend ourselves or strike back.  Refusing to recognize that fact only makes the problem worse, since they continue relatively unchecked.

But it is not a traditional war, so many of the regular rules and standards don't apply.  We aren't facing uniformed combatants, and they have no state of citizens to defend.  They appear to have no honor, not hesitating to take advantage of the traditional rules of war, by hiding in hospitals, faking surrenders, using human shields, and all sorts of other atrocities with no regard for the consequences to themselves of others.  It basically begs the question: “Can they even be defeated by civilized means?”  But not recognizing them, and the threat that they present to peace and freedom, does not in any way diminish that threat.

In the same way, many people today, both inside and outside the church, refuse to recognize the existence of Satan.  He is out there, whether you believe it or not.  And even those who do believe he exists don't always recognize him at work.  He is the enemy, and he wants to destroy us whether we recognize it or not.

Religious Freedom

I am very much in favor of religious freedom, as well as freedom in general.  But we must determine where to draw the line.  There needs to be some limits to nearly everything in life, healthy boundaries.  How much religious freedom is too much, and who should determine that?  I think most of us would agree that child sacrifice crosses the line, but then again, abortion exists.  But for the sake of argument, let's assume that there was a religious sect that sacrificed all their male infant children in fire, as part of their religious beliefs.  I think we can agree that it would be acceptable for the US government to outlaw that practice, but making something illegal doesn't prevent it from happening.  So what should our response be when it does happen.  If the perpetrator doesn't deny the crime, and has no remorse for their actions, what should be done with them?

No fine or other basic penalty will prevent them from continuing that practice.  We could lock them up forever, which would stop them from continuing to kill infants, but what purpose does it serve for them to be alive in jail?  If we release them in the future, they would openly return to their previous ways.  Killing them seems harsh in our zero consequences culture, but logically seems fitting, based on their crime.  But that would amount to genocide if all strict followers of the religion were found and convicted.  And we have been taught to assume that is bad, but what are the alternatives?  (Endless conflict, violence, and suffering)

We have a similar situation with the rise of radical supporters of the Islamic State.  Their openly confessed religious beliefs are that God wants them to kill all infidels who do not join their cause.  This is different than Al-Qaeda, because in that case the challenge was identifying those who supported them in secret.  Once they were identified, we didn't hesitate to lock them up or kill them.  But now we have many people who are openly aspiring to follow that violent path, like the American recently apprehended in Turkey.  What should be done with people like that?  They haven't necessarily committed a crime yet, but they openly hope to take part in all sorts of brutal activity.  How should we respond to situations like that?

Should he make it a capital offense to advocate or promote killing Americans (also known as terrorism)?  If someone's anti-American beliefs are so strong that they won't recant them under threat of death, should we just kill them?  Faith is not an inherently good thing, apart from truth.  God condemned faith in false gods in the Old Testament.  Strong faith in ideas or principles that are false is dangerous.  But how should we respond to the misplaced faith of others, especially if it is too strong to be broken?  We can’t prove that we are right and they are wrong.  But shouldn't the right to self-defense over-ride the right to the free expression of religion?

The Rise of ISIS in the Modern World

The monumental rise of ISIS really confuses me.  How does a group that openly slaughters any who they don’t approve of, get so many supporters and followers?  How is it that no one has stood up to them militarily after months of open threats and demonstrations of cruelty and brutality?  They have picked fights with the US, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and so many other nations and people groups.

 

Being so opposed to the world community at large, where do they get their support from?  How are there so many people out there capable of supporting what ISIS stands for?  And do those people have a right to live?  How far should the freedom to believe what one wants extend?  Is there a limit to the types of beliefs that we should respect?  I do wonder how much of what I hear about ISIS is actually true.  There are constantly stories circulating about them executing hundreds of soldiers who had surrendered.  Now I am not a soldier, so it may not be my place to say this, but after the first week, it was well known that they were doing this.  Anyone who surrenders to ISIS at this point deserves what they get.  Failure is clearly not an option, and you need to defeat them or die trying.

 

US involvement will be very interesting to observe, due to the political issues surrounding the Middle East.  US leaders have to choose between what is clearly “right” (protecting thousands of innocent lives) with what is “popular” (no further US casualties in the Middle East).  And if they do the “right” thing, who are the right people to do it with?  It is pretty ironic to see the US aligned with Iran and Syria, in this conflict.  Those are the people we usually blame the existence of these kinds of terrorists groups on.  Can they exist without support from rogue states?

Based on the politics of American involvement in Iraq, this also leads to the question of whether elected leaders are supposed to do what their constituents desire, or what they believe is right.  And at what cost to themselves? (In their next election)  Getting re-elected should never be the primary goal of any politician.  But those who are facing term limits, like our re-elected president, don't have that to worry about.  Their only concern in that regard seems to be the legacy they leave behind, which can be both good and bad.  Public perception is not necessarily linked to reality, so decisions made now could be condemned of vindicated far in the future.

 

But it seems pretty obvious that something needs to be done, and it is pretty stunning to me, that it has taken so long for us to respond to what is happening.  And while international cooperation will help in solving the problem, I will admit that is a bit scary to me, centralizing too much power and control.  The principle of the separation of powers can be applied to different countries as easily as it can be applied to different branches of government, to keep things in check.  We just have to figure out where we believe those lines should be drawn, and fight to maintain them.

Diplomatic Solutions to Overt Aggression

Before I even get into examining ISIS, I totally overlooked another major issue in my last post, the conflict in Ukraine.  My first note about that is: has no one in the media read Tom Clancy's last book, Command Authority?  He predicted the initial conflict with a startling level of detail, as is his pattern.  How does that get no mention anywhere?


But our response has been pretty weak.  There are all sorts of commentators debating about whether we have a responsibility to get involved, since Ukraine is not technically a member of NATO.  There was very little press about The Budapest Memorandums, where both Russia and the US guaranteed to respect the borders of Ukraine, and never threaten them with force or economic coercion, in return for Ukraine giving up its stockpile of USSR's nuclear weapons. 


If our goal is to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we have to honor our commitments, and support those who give up their nuclear weapons or development programs.  No country will ever agree to give up their nuclear weapons after what has happened in Ukraine over the last six months.  Not only did Russia invade Crimea, and not Ukraine itself, but the US has done nothing to stop them.  I am not saying we should go launch ICBMs at Moscow tomorrow, but if we are unwilling to use nuclear weapons first in any circumstance, why have them?  Some would argue that it is the threat of retaliation that prevents a foreign nuclear attack.  But under that logic, we would stand by idle while a nuclear armed foe takes over the whole world, as long as they only use their conventional forces.  Not only have we not threatened to use our nukes to defend Ukraine from foreign invasion, but we haven't even threatened to use our own conventional forces to defend them either.  And they even killed American citizens with the downing of Malaysian Flight 17, which is an act of war that traditionally would have been legitimate grounds for a military response.


But similar to the endless situation in Israel, since we don't "recognize" the rebels, we can't declare war on them.  What does "recognize" even really mean?  Not acknowledging something, doesn't affect whether it exists.  (See atheists on God)  There is a similar problem in a much more extreme context in Syria and Iraq, but that is for my next post.  In the mean time, whether or not the US recognizes them, there are a bunch of Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine.  And despite Putin's claims otherwise, they are taking control of the area, whether we like it or not.


Not only have we not taken any action to stop them, but we haven't even accused Russia of the invasion that they are publicly denying is taking place.  So if we don't "recognize" it, and they deny it, does that mean it is not "really" happening?  And people aren't "really" being killed.  Our method of diplomacy, where in we don't even talk about the problems, is the worst possible approach.  And where does the UN fit into all of this?  Aren't they supposed to mediate these disputes, and can Russia's veto on the Security Council be used to prevent any response from them?  If so, what is the point of that organization?  Once again, victory is the only way to diffuse the numerous developing hotspots around the globe.