The Time That a Twitter Fight Lead to a Blog About Religion & Spirituality

Many years ago (back before my career was where it is today - a point where I was on the verge of considering the prospects of becoming either a truck driver or a bar tender) I sold cellular phones, pagers, and accessories for such devices in order to make a living. We had a representative from the wireless company we were affiliated with who would come by every so often and she was always quick to give us new tips on how to be better salespeople. I remember her telling me that it's never a bad idea to get to know your customer by making small talk but she was quick to point out that there are two subjects that, as a salesman, you should never go near: Politics and religion. She was absolutely correct because there are no other subjects, short rivalries in college athletics, that will divide people as quickly as matters of state or those of spirituality.

It was a lesson I took to heart. To this day, I tend to allow that kind of conversation to happen as the result of some other participant having initiated it, and even then I usually only go so far as to hear out whatever they may have to say without putting myself in alignment with one perspective or another. Certainly, I have my own opinions, however I am very guarded in when, how, and with whom I share them. (The Rush lyric "by choosing not to decide you still have made a choice" doesn't apply to me in this situation, or at least I don't think it does.) Paranoia of either offending someone or of causing an argument gets the best of me every time as I am not an argumentative person. I wasn't always this way but as I've gotten older I find that I'm the kind of guy who would sooner look at things from multiple angles and seek out compromise. Age and maturity dulling a youthful ego, as it were.

I am a Christ-follower and I have been for the better part of my life, however I am also a ponderer of many things. You know how you used to sit and stare out a window as a kid, thinking about toys and the opposite sex? Yeah, I still do that, only I'm thinking about life and the world that surrounds us (and toys - okay, and sometimes the opposite sex, too). Despite my pondering, I haven't solved all the world's problems. I accept that there are things I will never fully understand and I'm content to accept that a great many of those things are mysteries that exist without what would be considered reasonable explanation to we mere mortals. To that end, I also accept that what my spirituality assures me of isn't rooted in logic but in faith.

It would seem to me that a majority of people share this stance, that there is some higher power out there and that the influence of he/she/it is why humanity and the world around us is what it is. There are those, though, who don't subscribe to this line of thought - atheists, who believe that there is no such thing as a deity and that unless it (whatever "it" is) can be proven by science that it cannot possibly be true.

Despite what you may think, I'm not going to try and vilify atheists. I say they're welcome to their own opinion because, who knows, they may be right. Yes, you read that correctly - I'm a Christian and if you aren't a Christ-follower as well I'm not going to try to convince you that you're wrong just because we may not agree on whether or not there is a God (for that matter, if you're Muslim, Buddhist, Wicca, or whatever else I won't bother to argue that my God is "right" and yours is "wrong"). Quite frankly, I think that's the kind of heavy-handedness that's driven people away from spirituality. Too much hellfire & brimstone, not enough tolerance of the fact that we were all blessed with the gift of free will.

All that having been said, a relative of mine who is also a Christian, took to Twitter recently to express some of their thoughts on atheism. The image below is a screen grab of the tweet they made and one reply to it.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the responses that followed were not exactly the most cordial of correspondence. It was very much the opposite as there seemed to be a literal cavalcade of Twitter users who were lined up waiting for their chance to respond with some sort of rebuttal to the stance expressed by my relative.

Theological discussions rarely seem to be able to transpire without breaking down into something that would more readily resemble an episode of the Jerry Springer Show. (Here again, another reason why I was coached to never bring up such things while making chit-chat with customers.) It bothered me to read the back and forth that ensued. Ultimately there were no points to be made, just the noise made by two sets of people aligned against one another.

It bothers me that people can't just talk anymore. Everyone wants to debate their own points without stopping to at least consider an alternative perspective. I blame the influence of the media but that's a blog topic for another time.

Atheists would seem to adore science because it gives them comfort in that it explains things. Spiritual people would seem to adore faith because it assures them they don't have to have an explanation for everything. I see myself somewhere in the middle - I accept that science gives us measurable, quantifiable truths about the world around us yet at the same time I accept that I will never be able to wrap my head around things like how it was that our species, our world, or our universe came to be.

Is it even worth arguing points like these? (I say that knowing that an aspect of most religions, Christianity included, is that in order to be considered a "true believer" one has to accept a given religions' perception of how our world was conceived.) In the grand scheme of things, what difference does it make where we came from? We're here, right now. Does the knowledge that we started back there, somewhere, improve our ability to lead moral, righteous lives? How much more advanced would mankind be if we'd let go of the pursuit of trivialities and instead took up the role of stewards to one another? I think it's about time we spent more effort on teaching the benefits of living considerate, noble lives as opposed to frivolous, self-centered ones.

Fun with Political Ads - Det Bowers & Tim Scott Edition

I don't talk much about my job here in my blog for specific reasons, main among them being the fact that I respect my employer enough for the opportunity they have given me not to bring the goings on of my office into public view. I will tell you, though, that I have been employed in the public sector for almost 7 years now and there was a point during that time where I was heavily involved in preparing election equipment and supporting it during elections. It made for long days (pulling a 15 hour shift on an election day wasn't uncommon), but I enjoyed the work as it had a real sense of importance to it. I recognized that the democratic process we value so highly in the United States could go on as it is intended because of efforts from people like myself. As such, I did my part to try and promote participation in elections, no matter how big or small they might have been - far be it from me to log all those hours then undersell the final product.

2014 is a big year for residents of South Carolina, politically speaking, as we will be casting votes for a number of seats including that of several senators, the lieutenant governor, and the governor (unlike many states, in South Carolina the lieutenant governor and governor do not run as a team although this will change in the future). There are some interesting races out there however it's a situation where the entrenched incumbents are difficult to dislodge, meaning their challengers have a real uphill battle to face.

All that having been said, I haven't been actively involved in elections for the better part of 2 years as my role has changed and I've taken on other responsibilities. I still do a bit of work with them but nothing near what I did previously. I can't say for certain but I feel as though my having moved away from the grunt work of elections has soured me somewhat on the electoral process. It's no longer something that I focus on so it doesn't resonate with me the way it once did, and I will be forthright in saying that's rather pathetic of me. (Self-tough love, it's the new trend in psychology.) The other end of that ignorance is the fact that I don't feel a sense of importance coming from this election because quite frankly I don't feel as though any of these candidates truly represent me. This issue with representation, of course, goes back to the metaphor - brilliantly depicted as only the creators of South Park can - of how political contests in this country typically boil down to a choice of either electing a giant douche or a turd sandwich.



I don't think conditions can be surmised any more plainly than that. As Americans, more often than not we know going into an election that we've got options but none of them are particularly ideal, so we pick the one that seems least likely to lead to regret. It's kind of like being the last man in the world and the only two women left are a Kardashian sister and Paris Hilton - do you attempt to rebuild the human race or just accept the fact that we had a good run but it's time to move on?

How, then, do we know which candidate is a giant douche and which is the turd sandwich? You don't get the luxury of having many secrets if you're running for office these days thanks to the prying claws of the media, a fact I am 100% certain is going to make politics interesting in the future when every candidate has to explain their drunken selfies and those videos they made while on Spring break. That sort of journalism is one way to find out who's who - I would say reporting of that nature is probably the most blunt method imaginable, however it might not be all that valuable seeing as how things can easily be taken out of context - but then you have the candidates speaking for themselves through their own ads, and that's exactly where I'm going with all this.

There are two candidates from South Carolina whose ads have made me laugh and roll my eyes, and for entirely different reasons. They are Det Bowers, a Republican running for his party's nomination in the U.S. Senate race against incumbent Lindsey Graham, and Tim Scott, a Republican and South Carolina's Junior Senator from Charleston. Before you go thinking this is a liberal rant against Republicans, I'll have you know that in terms of my political beliefs I am neither a donkey or an elephant. As I've gotten older I find that I tend to agree with the Libertarian point of view, so take that as you will.

I'm going to talk about these ads as if they exist in a vacuum because I truly believe that for some voters the content of these TV spots will be the only information off of which they'll base their decisions. I'd like for you, dear reader, to try and look at them in the same way even though you may be more informed about matters of politics than the average citizen. First, lets take a look at this ad from Bowers - pay particular attention to the last 5 seconds.



"Vote to restore trust...", said with a tone of voice that's somewhere between pleading for your life pitiful and "Please, sir, may I have a little more?" You can just feel those old puppy dog eyes of his (sitting just below those woeful eyebrows) watering up a tad as he says it for good measure. I can't tell if I should vote for him out of sympathy or if I should be concerned for the fact that he might injure himself on purpose if he doesn't win.

Next is a pair of ads from Senator Tim Scott, who has a number of distinctions for having broken racial barriers in the U.S. Senate as he is the first African American Senator from the South since the late 1800s and only the seventh black Senator, ever. (Let that sink in for a minute or two.) What I want you to take note of in this ad isn't Scott but rather the people around him.





Notice anything peculiar? No? Here's a hint.

  

Still nothing? 

 

How about now?

In this ad, Tim Scott has surrounded himself with a group of people who either have severe elasticity issues with the tendons in their necks or who have been very well coached in that they are to nod along as if to agree with anything he's saying.

Senator Scott: "My name is Tim Scott..."
Audience: *agreeing nod*
Senator Scott: "I like potatoes..."
Audience: *agreeing nod*
Senator Scott: "Han Solo shot first..."
Audience: *agreeing nod*
Senator Scott: "Go Gamecocks..."
Audience: *agreeing nod*
Senator Scott: "Y'all look like a bunch of bobblehead dolls..."
Audience: *agreeing nod*

I'm sure some marketing guru was brought in to assemble that scenario and he more than likely made what I make in a year off that one advert. I can only imagine the kind of coin that gets spent on these things, between production costs and the money spent on airtime. Nevertheless, it reminded me of an opinionated statement, which may or may not have been uttered by the one and only George Carlin, a man who not only understood comedy but had some tremendously wise moments of social commentary.

I mentioned earlier in this entry my feelings of being somewhat disenfranchised by the candidates running in this particular primary, but I never specified why. (Before I get into that, let me say that despite my misgivings I will vote in this primary and the full election in November. Not doing so would be a great disservice to the fact that the right to vote remains one of the purest symbols of liberty from oppression that we as American citizens have.) I feel for the first time in my life what I have heard others speak of when it comes to why they don't vote, and that is a sense of absolute disconnect between myself and the people I have to choose from to represent me in Washington, D.C. Never before has it struck me how they are all mostly rich businessmen, lawyers, or otherwise well-to-do individuals, and many of them are from families with established ties to politics. I'm not rich, I'm not a businessman or a lawyer, I'd say that I do alright at best, and my family is about as far removed from politics as we are from the surface of Mars. I think more people should be able to participate in politics without having hundreds of thousands of dollars and a garrison of yes men at their disposal. It's my opinion that that's the way it was intended to be when our democracy was established. Like a great many other things since then, the ideal of freedom through representation has been tampered with along the way. I guess only now am I old enough or wise enough to realize this.