I See Hell

IM:  Gadfly, we have not heard from you since early March.

Old Gadfly:  I apologize for the lack of communication.  My father was very ill.  He experienced congestive heart failure at the end of October 2014 and initially was not expected to leave the intensive care unit alive.  He received some blood transfusions that turned his situation around and was released from the hospital with the expectation that many follow-up actions take place with specialists.  He agreed to let my wife and I be primary care providers from our home.  While it changed our routines, it was a true blessing because it gave my wife and me an opportunity to really get to know my father.

AM:  I was wondering why we had not heard from you, Gadfly.  How did things go?

Old Gadfly:  Most of my father’s care was through the VA system.  We experienced first-hand many of the concerns that have put the VA in bad light.  I would like to save that discussion for another day.

IM:  Why?

Old Gadfly:  There is something far more important to share.

AM:  What could be more important than the arguably criminal activity at the VA hospitals?

Old Gadfly:  As I process things going on in our society, there is something even far more important than the negligent or criminal behavior at VA hospitals.  It is spiritual accountability.

IM:  Tell us more, Gadfly.

Old Gadfly:  I was with my father in hospice, as he was dying.  The last words he spoke were on the 9^th of March.  He sat up in bed, reached for me, looked me in the eyes without any fear and said, “I see hell.”  He was not afraid, so I immediately recognized that he was a messenger—revealing a message for me and all living human beings.  There is a heaven and a hell.  All of us will be rewarded with one or the other based on choices we make in this life.

AM:    Your father did not say anything else after this?

Old Gadfly:  My father communicated in another way.  At around 4:00 AM on the 10^th of March, he sat up in bed.  He opened his eyes.  They shined and radiated pure joy.  He let go of my hand and reached out to entities in the room I could not see.  Who did he see?  Angels?  My mother?  Other family members?  There was no doubt that he had connected to a dimension that we might call the afterlife.

IM:  What are we to take away from this?

Old Gadfly:  Most of us are so consumed by our daily lives that we typically accommodate the easy path.  It is easier to be on good terms with those we know as opposed to enduring commands or principles.

AM:  Let me be the devil’s advocate.  What if I have a loved one who is engaging in behaviors that might be considered sinful by a God?  Should I not show compassion for this loved one?

Old Gadfly:  Absolutely.  Jesus was far more interested in the lost sheep than those that were not.  Yet, His role was not to celebrate being lost or to keep them lost, but to return them to the flock of salvation.

IM:  But there is a growing population that believes the state is just as capable of establishing the standards of moral behavior—as in a very recent US Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage.

Old Gadfly:  From a secular legalistic perspective, two Supreme Court Justices violated the law by not recusing themselves because they had presided over same-sex marriages before making a judgment in this case.  They violated the law (man-made law) by not recusing themselves in the case.  But, apparently, it was more important to violate the law than to advance a political agenda.  And what is that agenda?  That man determines rights, not God.  Of all the things that my father might have said as he was dying, he said, “I see hell.”  My Dad always offered good “fatherly advice” to me in my lifetime.  Why would I doubt his counsel at this existential point in his own life? 

 

 

Spin in the No Spin Zone

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gadfly, do you ever watch the O’Reilly Factor on the Fox News Network? 

Old Gadfly:  Are you trying to ambush me, IM?  Most of my progressive friends and colleagues would disown me if I claimed to watch Fox News, as if I’m not intelligent enough to process information and to triangulate some semblance of the truth.  However, unlike my progressive friends and colleagues who do not want to risk expulsion from the progressive club, I do watch Fox as well as a cross-section of other news sources, including my daily homage to The New York Times.  And while his style is unique and nontraditional, I appreciate O’Reilly’s attempt to analyze issues from different perspectives without the political spin that typically flavors arguments.  So, why did you ask?   

IM:  Did you watch the same-sex marriage segments earlier this week?

Old Gadfly:  I did.  Laura Ingraham provided some pushback on how O’Reilly worded his comments.  What was your reaction?

IM:  In order not to distort or reify the essence of O’Reilly’s words, let me repeat what he said, “the compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. . . . That is where the compelling argument is.  We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else. . . And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”  I thought this was a pretty bold statement for two reasons.  First, when O’Reilly says “compelling argument” I immediately wanted to know what exactly that argument is.  So, O’Reilly implied the “compelling argument” is compelling by saying so.

Old Gadfly:  Let me interrupt you for a minute.  You just reminded me of the Cretan philosopher, Epimenides, who is known for a unique paradox that demonstrates the nature of self-referential logic.  The paradox goes like this:  The Cretan philosopher Epimenides claims all the Cretans are liars.  Since Epimenides is a Cretan, he is a liar.  But, isn’t he being honest?  Honest people tell the truth.  You see the paradox? 

IM:  Yes.  When O’Reilly and others diminish Christian perspectives and insist any opposing arguments must spring from the same secular humanist worldview, they are resorting to self-referential logic.

Old Gadfly:  Exactly.  The secular humanists use what is called tautological rhetoric to advance their “compelling arguments.”  Now, what was the other point you wanted to make?

IM:  The other point was O’Reilly’s expression, “thump the bible.”  This is what Ingraham was challenging.  She was not claiming that those who oppose same-sex marriage from a biblical perspective were right or wrong.  She simply wanted O’Reilly to know that his expression was demeaning.  Whether one says “thump the bible” or “bible-thumper,” the connotation about the person being reified in this discussion is diminished.  This tactic, such as calling others with contrary views racist, homophobe, and so forth, is specifically designed to diminish the value of another person.  Al Sharpton recently called Bloomberg's gun control opponents anti-Semitic.  A quick search on the Internet sadly provides ample examples of the uncomplimentary meaning of “bible-thumper.”

Old Gadfly:  I remember O’Reilly getting irate with Ingraham, correcting her by asserting he never said, “bible-thumper.” 

IM:  Ingraham held her ground and explained that both expressions have the same meaning.  O’Reilly refused to acknowledge this, which indicates to me that he is comfortable with self-referential logic and willing to let a little spin enter the no spin room—after all, it is his room.

Old Gadfly:  Isn’t “bible thumper” also considered a cliché?

IM:  Yes. Ironically, as a form of humor on one of his programs, O’Reilly indicated he has no tolerance for clichés.

Old Gadfly:  Let’s get back on high ground.  Why do you think same-sex marriage advocates have the “compelling argument”?

IM:  You’re back to your educator’s midwife role, Gadfly.  Now I understand why you wanted me to read E. E. Schattschneider’s The Semisovereign People:  A Realist’s View of Democracy in America.[1]

Old Gadfly:  What are some of the key arguments that might help us to understand why the same-sex faction has a “more compelling argument”?

IM:  First, Schattschneider claims, “At the root of all politics is the universal language of conflict. . . . The central political fact in a free society is the tremendous contagiousness of the conflict.”[2]  As we have previously discussed, the contagiousness of this language of conflict is the essence of a meme.  Second, to achieve a compelling threshold, the scope of conflict requires expansion.  Expansion is achieved through visibility in the public domain, precipitated and sustained through amplitude and resources.[3]  This is why same-sex marriage advocates have made this a very public issue and are quick to point out that 53% of Americans now support same-sex marriage. 

Old Gadfly:  How is amplitude achieved in this case?

IM:  Mostly through the bull horn of liberal media (e.g., television, newspapers, magazines, blogs) that are overwhelmingly supportive of the same-sex marriage position.  A recent study[4] characterized those who are supportive of same-sex marriage:  “In addition to being younger, liberal, less religious, equality-minded, and more adventurous, apparently one’s love of television viewing and reading (magazines and blogs) would contribute to a more open mindset in terms of supporting same-sex marriages.”[5] 

Old Gadfly:  I have to say, it is the same idealistic drive for adventurousness that inspired Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, and others regarding the possibilities of eugenic experimentation.  Let’s get back to how conflict expansion is achieved through visibility in the public domain.  How do resources factor into this expansion?

IM:  Again, the liberal media, at local and national levels, and the bully pulpit of the Presidency serve as resources.  As a minority faction (remember as we discussed in our last conversation, this group represents 3.4% of the population), there is a commitment to investing more in the language of conflict than the opposing faction, because the latter represents the status quo.  Equating factions to political parties, here is how Schattschneider explained it:  “To understand the nature of party conflict it is necessary to consider the function of the cleavages exploited by the parties in their struggle for supremacy.  Since the development of cleavages is a prime instrument of power, the party which is able to make its definition of the issues prevail is likely to take over the government” (italics in the original).[6]  Government is an institution.  So is marriage.

Old Gadfly:  So, in this case, the “compelling” nature of the same-sex argument is merely amplifying a message while muffling or diminishing any contrary messages.  O’Reilly seemed to take sides, by defending some of his self-generated spin, thus amplifying one position while diminishing a contrary one.  O’Reilly is not as simple as he proclaims.  My sense is that because he is an astute observer of life and history, he’s simply acknowledging a modern, secular Zeitgeist and deliberately not taking sides.  Doing so might diminish his brand and future book sales.  Any closing thoughts on this topic, IM?

IM:  At the risk of being labeled a Bible-thumper, I found it intriguing that in a letter to Titus, the apostle Paul was very aware of Epimenides and the Cretan paradox.  If you’re not afraid to consult the Bible, Gadfly, check out The Letter to Titus:  “One of them, a prophet of their own, once said, ‘Cretans have always been liars, vicious beasts, and lazy gluttons’” (Titus 1:12).    

---

[1] Schattschneider, E.E., The Semisovereign People:  A Realist’s View of Democracy in America, (New York, NY:  Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1975).

[2] Ibid, p. 2.

[3] Ibid, p. 16.

[4] Lee, T., and Hicks, G. R.  (2011).  An analysis of factors affecting attitudes toward same-sex marriage:  Do the media matter?  Journal of Homosexuality, 58(10), 1391-1408.  Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/ 00918369.2011. 614906

[5] Ibid, p. 1400

[6] Schattschneider, p. 73.