WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
NEW
Movie Links
10/12/2026
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs Update 07/03/2026
Favorite
Websites--updated 07/03/2026'
My Stuff
On The Web, Updated 06/28/2026
Audio-Visual Updated: 10/12/2026
Favorite
Articles --
last updated 08/13/2026
This Month's Scripture Verse:

1 But false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their indecent behavior, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep..
II Peter 2:1-3

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Showing posts with label Memorial Day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Memorial Day. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 1, 2021

Honoring Our Troops

 Yesterday was Memorial Day, and all too often honoring the troops on such a day has become an exercise in manipulation. Its is manipulative in that to honor the troops, we are often told that we must say that they are defending our freedoms whenever they are sent in harm's way. And that support often becomes a way of getting Americans to support our government's interventions and even wars.

In reality, honoring the troops begins with honesty. And honesty begins with admitting that our troops are not always sent in harm's way to defend our freedoms. While claims about the legitimacy of some actions taken by our government are understandable if not true, the legitimacy of other actions taken by our government are without merit. For example, while our nation's attack on Afghanistan is understandable after 9/11, our invasion of Iraq was not. While our nation's response to the invasion of Korea was understandable, our support for South Korea's dictatorship which preceded the invasion and our involvement in Vietnam was not. And none of that includes the coups our government has been involved in.

All too often we Americans don't want to be bothered with learning about what is happening in other nations until our government decides to attack them in some way, shape, or form. But whenever our government decides to intervene in a nation, whether it is an invasion like Vietnam or Iraq, or through smaller actions such as supporting coups and regime changes, we put our people at risk. And if our only response to each government intervention in another nation is to thank the troops and others for their service and show how sad we are if they are killed or wounded in action and grateful for their sacrifice, then our response is on par with those whose only response to each each mass shooting is to say to the victims and their families: 'Our thoughts and prayers are with you.'

Our honoring the troops begins before they are sent in harm's way. It begins with educating ourselves enough about the world around us to know whether a given government intervention is worthy of the sacrifices that troops and others are willing to make. And if a given government intervention is not worthy of the lives of those who will be put in harm's way, then honoring the troops includes speaking out against our government as it seeks to intervene where it shouldn't. 





Monday, June 5, 2017

ONIM For June 5, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.


Christian News

World News

Protest News

Trump News

Pick(s) Of The Litter







     

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For May 27, 2015


May 21

To Denny Burk and his blogpost calling the legal action against a Christian family bakery an effort to ruin them financially because of their refusal to provide services to same-sex weddings. This appeared in Denny Burk's blog.


If the family business was being sued for denying their business services to a particular function for Blacks or Hispanics, would we label the suit an effort to cause financial ruin? And yet when those in the LGBT community sue a business that is, in their view, participating in the marginalization of their community, why is that suit portrayed as an effort to ruin a family business?

To me, the issue here isn't one of agreeing/disagreeing with the plaintiffs in the court action. It has to do with the one-sided effort to market that court action to the public.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 22

To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting about how Robert Gates called on the BSA to accept gay troop leaders. This appeared in the Gospel Coalition website.

What is the broader principle of which Carter is writing? Is it that we should discriminate against gays in society?

Where the Conservative Church has failed here is that it has made indistinguishable the Biblical teachings on sexual morality from calls to publicly discriminate against those in the LGBT community. Had we paired the Biblical teachings on sexual morality with a defense of equality for those in the LGBT community, we could have seen a different public reaction to our beliefs.  But some were determined that that was not meant to be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To R. Scott Clark and his blogpost about how a Christian Jeweler had to refund money for jewelry made for a Lesbian couple after they learned what his beliefs about their sexual orientation were. This appeared in Heidelblog.

Is it possible that the reaction of the lesbian couple in the story is at least partially due to past, and even present, treatment of those in the LGBT community by the Conservative Church? After all, the Conservative Church has been in favor of criminalizing homosexuality, firing homosexuals from certain jobs because of sexual orientation, prohibiting same-sex marriages, and Jim Crow laws allowing Christians to discriminate against either those in the LGBT community or specific events. Do we honestly believe that that our past treatment of those in the LGBT community has had no negative or embittering effects on some from the LGBT community. 

In addition, why Dreher entitle the article in black-white terms. Yes, some from the LGBT community have not showed me respect. However, my experience has been that the vast majority of those from the LGBT community have treated me with much respect and as an equal even when they know what, because of the Bible, I believe about homosexuality.

It seems that some in the Christian community want the Church to unite around a persecution complex. That simply is not right. However, making people feel persecuted is an easy to manipulate them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 26


To Joe Carter and his blogpost about 5 facts about Memorial Day. This appeared in the Acton blog.

The problem with Memorial Day does not have to do with the sacrifices some of our service people have made, it has to do with why they were sent in harm's way in the first place. And that problem is maintained when we copy what is said to us that our troops are always defending our freedoms. The problem with that assertion is that whether our troops are defending our freedoms depends on why they were sent into harm's way in the first place. Vietnam is key example the assertion being wrong since our losing that conflict has not affected any of our freedoms.

So what other interventions are there of other reasons than to defend our freedoms? Did we invade Afghanistan to defend our freedoms? If so, why did we team up terrorist groups to do so? How about Iraq? How is it that our troops were defending our freedoms in Iraq when the invasion was based on lies? The list of conflicts that need be examined here can be quite long if we include with our invasions all of the coups and other interventions we participated in.

The trouble with Memorial Day is not due to the valor of our troops. Rather, it is because our leaders have chosen to use our troops' valor as a moral shield to protect their policies. And they count on days like Memorial Day to compensate those who made the biggest sacrifices. And they do so as long as the policies that caused some of our troops to sacrifice the most go unexamined.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Joe Carter and his blogpost on why it's everybody's responsibility to interpret The Constitution. This appeared on the Acton blog.

It is every citizen's duty to interpret The Constitution. Of course this doesn't mean that all interpretations will carry the same weight. And with interpreting The Constitution, the points made above are valid. The problem is that how people use the points above, especially point #3, will vary as much as how people interpret The Constitution itself.

Let's give an example. Conservatives look at point #3 and say that our founding fathers were looking to establish a limited federal government with an emphasis on states' rights. Those on the Left will point out historical facts that Conservative don't mention when asserting the original intention of the founding fathers: namely that the Constitution was written in order to expand the Federal Government's power to respond to insurrections such as Shays Rebellion. Also, the end of Federalist #10 seems to see The Constitution as emphasizing the Union over the states.  In addition, while some Conservatives claim that The Constitution is based on the Bible and the Judeo-Christian faith, Leftists will point to both the historical context of The Constitution as well as documents like Henry Knox's letter to George Washington and the Constitutional Debates to claim that The Constitution was written to maintain the class status quo.

Thus, using the 5 point guide above, especially point #3, does not make interpreting The Constitution any easier or more uniform.




Tuesday, May 26, 2015

The Day After Memorial Day

Sometimes one gains a better perspective of an event or celebration after it is over. Hopefully, that is what has occurred with me on the day after Memorial Day.

It seems to me that we are in too much of a rush to make the following point: Our troops defend our freedom. But how can one argue against that statement without, in someway, tarnishing the sacrifices they have made? This especially applies to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

And so we pile on accolade after accolade onto our troops. And it isn't as if they don't deserve our deep appreciation and respect. After all, our troops readily make sacrifices that many of us could not fathom let alone make ourselves. So here is the point. Whether our troops are defending our freedoms and whether those who died in action died for our freedoms really depends on why they were sent into action in the first place. Vietnam provides for considering that point. For we can easily observe how losing that conflict did not, in any way, affect our freedoms here. And when one considers the dangers and hardships our troops and their families must face, that they are not always sent to defend our freedoms is an outrage. So we might ask ourselves about what other conflicts were our troops ordered into action for other reasons than defending our freedoms.

But this automatic response, spoken as if in a trance, stating that our troops are always defending our freedoms shows what we might really be celebrating when we celebrate Memorial Day. Unconditionally declaring that our troops are always defending our freedoms indicates that we are celebrating those troops who immediately follow orders regardless. And it is that automatic and unqualified submission to authority which we could be celebrating on days like Memorial Day.

Even for the most devout Christian must recognize that there are  times not to follow the orders of those in authority. The Apostles who were ordered not to preach the Gospel declared that they must obey God rather than men provides one such example. And so when our troops are ordered into action for reasons other than defending our freedoms, it is time for our troops to question authority. It is time for them to learn so that they understand why they are being told to go to foreign places and fight certain groups or nations. It is time for them to understand why they are being told to kill those from other lands and to destroy the homes of people from other countries.

For without that understanding, what we have left to celebrate after our troops enter a fight is their unconditional willingness to follow orders. Such a willingness poses a great risk to the world when taken by those who serve in the most powerful military in the world.



Monday, May 26, 2014

Don't Let Them Use The Valor Of Our Troops As A Moral Shield

Every holiday that focuses on the military brings the same nebulous message: 'Support the troops because they are defending our freedoms.' Tragically, such a message relegates the courage of and sacrifices made by our troops to the role of a pet dog in a house full of turmoil. Certainly, everybody may be at each other's throats, but because everybody likes and pets the dog we learn to tolerate each other's actions. 

Thus, our leaders' call to support the troops  works likes a misdirection play in football where you fake giving the ball to one player so that there are fewer defenders there to tackle the real ballcarrier. The call to 'Support the troops,' whether it comes from the officials in our government or leaders from the media, is an emotional appeal to make sure one will pay more attention to what the troops suffer through than to why our leaders are sending them in harm's way. Then the claim, 'they are defending our freedoms,' tells us they are being sent for noble reasons. We might question our leaders' wisdom of sending them to a particular place but we won't question their motives. 

Because we become so engulfed in supporting the troops in their "defense" of our freedoms, the prospect of questioning why our troops are engaged in their missions can create an overwhelming amount of dissonance. That is because if our troops are not defending our freedoms, the decisions of our leaders makes the scars of our troops both unbearable for them and an indictment on us. 

So for many of us, the only way to handle the dissonance is to avoid it altogether. But because avoiding the dissonance requires our silent cooperation, the sending of troops for other reasons than defending freedom or helping others continues. 

Thus we have a choice. We can brave the dissonance, just as our troops brave the suffering and dangers of their missions, by thoroughly investigating the whys of each time they are being sent in harm's way or we can stay within the safety of our slogans. If we do the latter, then the only courage we will have displayed is vicarious as we continue to compensate for our guilt by admiring our troops' valor. At the same time, our troops will continue to suffer by being objects of power for our leaders whose reasons for sending our troops will remain a secret. And for as long as our leaders' reasons remain a secret, we will have fallen short of giving our troops the respect and honor they deserve.



ONIM For May 26, 2014

Christian News


World News



Pick(s) Of The Litter