The 505th: Boots on the Ground

505_Inf_Rgt_DUI
The 505th Infantry Regiment’s unique and distinctive unit insignia.

The 505th Infantry Regiment, originally the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, is an airborne infantry regiment of the United States Army, one of four infantry regiments of the 82nd Airborne Division of the United States Army, with a long and distinguished history.

Under the command of Colonel James M. Gavin, the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment was activated at Fort Benning, Georgia on 6 July 1942, during World War II, as part of the U.S. Airborne Command. Colonel Gavin, then just 35, was an early airborne pioneer, who led the men of the 505th through some extremely grueling training.

Wikipedia

Introduction

There is a troublesome story that I read many years ago. It is a story of the church in modern society. A tale of self-centredness, licentious excess, self-deception, and delusion. It was also a story of courage, resolve, and perseverance under intense circumstances. A story of inequality at it’s most grotesque differentiation.

Based on that work of truth-based fiction, here is my unique perspective of that same story.

Continue reading “The 505th: Boots on the Ground”

Advertisements

The Relationship between Science and Truth

IMG_1478
The moon in daylight. f/8 @ 1/200 second.

It is important to recognize that modern science is NOT a pure philosophy representing a comprehensive worldview. Science is essentially a method of observation and measurement, based primarily on five traditionally recognized human senses, referred to as empiricism.

  1. Sight (vision)
  2. Hearing (audition)
  3. Taste (gustation)
  4. Smell (olfaction)
  5. Touch (somatosensation)

The rationalist presuppositions, theories, and conjecture of science DO NOT necessarily represent truth or reality in its entirety – not even close.

The philosophy underlying science does overlap with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.

Science in itself, however, does NOT represent the entirety of human knowledge or experience.

A very important distinction to make.

The push of science versus religion politics today is disingenuous at best, and merely an age-old attempt to limit human thought and experience to the realm of scientific rationalism within secular humanism. This alone has huge ramifications in Western society today.

An insidious war has been declared on faith, religion, and the supernatural by those raising their ugly, arrogant, rationalist head once again.

This time in the political arenas of Canada and the US, not to mention the rest of the civilized Western world.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The Nature of Truth: Communication Meltdown

truth and jabsolutes

Even for those of us who have been taught to think critically and to validate our sources, it is very difficult to know what constitutes truth anymore. When truth becomes relative and opinions are viewed as fact, we are heading for a meltdown in communication.

EclecticChoices, August 29th, 2017.

Sadly, social media is leading entire societies down that rabbit hole. Just ask Alice.

Speak the truth, write the truth, live the truth. Light chases away darkness. There is no other way to correct the orientation of an upside down world.

The choices we make today become who we are tomorrow.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Life Lesson: Truth & Justice Will Always Prevail

truth and justice

One of the most important things I have learned in my lifetime, is that truth, and subsequent justice, invariably has a way of wiggling itself out from behind a veil of darkness and into the light of public perception and eventual understanding.

It may take but a moment, it may take a lifetime, but factuality and fairness will have its day.

EclecticChoices, November 14, 2016

The choices we make today become who we are tomorrow.

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The Problem of Presupposition: Part 2

Recently, I wrote an article on the problem of presupposition and ultimately fallacy amongst progressive liberals.  From my experience, it is very difficult to understand, let alone reason with the liberal-minded of today because of their core belief system and their fundamental commitment to that ideology.

Of course, any ideology has a core belief system upon which an individual and/or group evaluates other belief systems and commitments. In a general sense, the aversion that conservatives and liberals have towards each other is rooted in their fundamental and often opposing presuppositions and their commitment to those presuppositions.

Before I venture further into this subject matter, I would like to offer a working definition of presupposition courtesy of another blogger on WordPress.

What is a presupposition?

So what is a presupposition? A presupposition is a core belief or core commitment that we use to evaluate other beliefs or commitments. “Pre” in this sense is not “pre” as in prior in time, as if you make up your mind beforehand. Instead, it means “pre” as in basis or eminence. A presupposition is foundational to your other beliefs and provides a basis or framework for your other beliefs. Additionally, a presupposition is not a matter of the mind only – it’s not a hypothesis or a purely cognitive supposition. It is a commitment – a matter of the mind and heart.

Jed Kampen, A Day in His Court

In many ways, I wish I had referred to Kampen’s article earlier. As one can readily ascertain from the provided definition, a person’s presuppositions are NOT something he or she decides beforehand, a matter of hypothesis or mental reasoning only, but a bonafide commitment to a worldview upon which they view or filter everything else.

This alone should bring more understanding, and perhaps a little humility into our discussion of political ideology. Now, for the sake of brevity, I will not delve into what core values constitute liberalism versus conservatism. Once again, Google is your friend here. I can personally recommend the many articles on Wikipedia concerning the aforementioned as a good starting point.

I mentioned in a previous post, that as a younger person, many of the liberal issues surrounding individual rights, like freedom of religion and conscience and freedom of speech, appealed to me as a Christian or follower of Christ. Likewise, some of the community aspects of modern socialism, including caring for the poor and disenfranchised, appeared to be very similar to my own Christian belief system. Included in that were the sociocultural elements of growing up, at least in part, in a small farming community in western Canada, where faith, the Church, and socialist politics (New Democrat Party, i.e. the NDP) were an integral part of life.

It is my understanding that many of our core values, including our belief system, are instilled in us at a very early age.

Unlike more than a few of my peers in college and university, my core values and commitment to Christ was stronger than I thought. When I encountered the myriad of contrary and contradicting ideologies in a radical socialist university setting, I was not as easily swayed as some of my fellow students. I take no credit for that – I attribute that to the sovereignty and purpose of God in my life.

Many were young, their minds were ripe for the picking by less-than-scrupulous liberal and socialist ideologues who sought to remake them (us) in their image.

Truth be told, I “went to war” against more than one of my professors on matters of morality and ethics, only to suffer some ostracism from a few classmates and retaliation from professors (or TA’s) when it came to marking my essays and exams.

So much for free thinking and open debate in university. The politically correct police were alive and well on campus, even back in the early 1980’s. It might be interesting to note that both the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church had colleges on campus, neither of which I chose to enrol in. Nevertheless, more than one of the aforementioned liberal-minded socialist professors were tenured at either one of those colleges. No surprise there, but bitterly disappointing to me at the time.

It did not take me long to figure out that modern socialism is rooted in secular humanism, and by definition is Godless. That small community of farmers, mentioned earlier, supported socialism and voted NDP because it benefitted them economically at that time. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, things have changed over the last 35 years or so. The socialist politics of yesterday have been swept away and replaced with conservatism almost universally in our province. The holdouts are unionists and those who depend on social services and the gravy train, especially those living in the more remote northern regions of the province.

Although modern liberalism is also rooted in secular humanism, there has been more tolerance and latitude for belief systems such as Christianity and its inherit morality and ethics. Unfortunately, what was true two or three decades ago in Canada, is no longer true today. As alluded to in an earlier post, somewhere along the line, liberalism expunged morality and ethics from its core values, at least in terms of absolute morality and ethics. Many of us who were once liberals, and Christian, have now sought shelter amongst conservatives.

Our nation has moved from legalizing abortion to euthanasia (physician assisted suicide). Politicians, lawyers, and judges have diluted the legal definition of marriage and family to something almost unrecognizable. The powers that be have chipped away, eroded, and limited freedom of speech. Political leaders are antagonizing the very principles of freedom of religion and conscience by repeatedly caving in to specific religious special interest groups. Just about anything in our culture that represents Christianity is under attack in the public realm by the aforementioned, amongst others. To disagree with an ideology, other than Christianity (apparently it is Ok to target Christians) and to question the morality and ethics of individuals or groups is to invite a barrage of vitriol and hatred, or worse.

Why do the aforementioned hate anyone or anything that would shine a light on that which is hidden in the darkness of their hearts and minds? Because they are as wholeheartedly committed to their ideology as I am to mine.

The question is “who is right?” Which ideology is vastly superior to the other? These are the questions we should be asking rather than just assuming (based on presuppositions) that all political and religious philosophies or ideologies are equal.

Nothing could be further from the truth. 🙂

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Culture Wars: The Left’s Big Lie

Culture Wars

Like most people who are busy with the process of life and living, rare is the moment that I have the time or inclination to watch or read the news. Nevertheless, this morning as I was reading the news online, I was surprised at the outbreak of another culture war in the US. This time the battle field is the national anthem, with Donald Trump and a rather large representation of booing American public lining up on one side of the scrimmage line to face-off against the Left, the NFL, and many of the football players et al who have decided to protest against Trump’s recent controversial tweets to fire athletes who don’t respect the national anthem.

The American national anthem, once considered to be a public tribute to honour American soldiers at sporting events has now become the rally cry of the Left and Democrats against racism and injustice. Some, like Jon Schwarz from the left leaning site The Intercept claim The National Anthem is a Celebration of Slavery. How misinformed Americans and the ever-present liberal media have moved from honouring American soldiers to racism and injustice is anybody’s guess at this point.

Somehow, I suspect that this is merely another desperate attempt by the Left, more specifically, the Democratic party to rewrite history and pin the racist tale on the Republican elephant instead of where it truly belongs, on the Democratic donkey.

American history, especially civil war history is not my forte, and I had to do some considerable digging to come up with the following facts of American history. Thankfully, journalist Dinesh D’Souza has succinctly summarized the necessary information as follows:

  1. While the secession debate was between the North and the South, the slavery debate was between a pro-slavery Democratic Party and an anti-slavery Republican Party.
  2. Two of the three Democrats that Lincoln identified as the champions of slavery—Stephen Douglas and James Buchanan—were Northerners.  Only one, Roger Taney, was a Southerner.
  3. Even after Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, the Democratic platform in 1864 sought a treaty with the Confederacy that would most likely involve a restoration of slavery.
  4. After the Civil War, the Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the Thirteenth Amendment freeing the slaves, the Fourteenth Amendment granting equal rights under law, and the Fifteenth Amendment giving blacks the right to vote.
  5. Jim Crow is entirely a legacy of the Democratic Party.  Every segregation law enacted in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials.
  6. After Republicans shut it down in the late nineteenth century, the Ku Klux Klan was revived in the early twentieth century by a progressive Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, who screened a pro-KKK movie in the White House.
  7. For decades the Klan served, in the words of progressive historian Eric Foner, as “the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.”  David Duke is an anomaly; virtually every KKK leader for the past 150 years has been a Democrat.
  8. As historian Ira Katznelson shows, in order to get the New Deal passed, progressive icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt made deals with racist Democrats to block anti-lynching legislation and to exclude African Americans from most New Deal programs.
  9. More Republicans than Democrats proportionately voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Bill of 1968.  The main opposition to the civil rights movement came not from the GOP but from racist Democrats.

According to D’Souza, “the reason for kneeling during the national anthem is to pretend that America, not the Democrats, is responsible for racial oppression.”

So are Democrats who pull down Confederate statues and protest the national anthem admitting the historical sins of their party?  Are these acts of honest public disclosure and humble contrition?

Not at all.  They are actually part of the Left’s big lie.  The big lie is to take the historical crimes of the Democratic Party and project them onto someone else.  Let’s blame America.  Let’s blame the South.  Let’s blame the white man.  Let’s blame everyone except the people who actually committed those crimes.

Dinesh D’Souza, Fox News, September 25, 2017

Regardless of how one feels about President Trump and his leadership, let’s get our facts straight. From a historical perspective, the actual party of racism was the Democrats. It was the Republicans who resisted that oppression.

So, anyone want to play Pin the Tale on the Donkey?

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.