Thoughts on pain, suffering, and death

My mom is almost 92 and in pain today. She has fallen three times in the last six months, resulting in a fractured pelvis and, most recently, a compressed vertebra. She is in a rehab facility facing a long, slow recovery. My wife and I are on our way to see her, so this is going to be a short blog today. The point of my comments has to do with Christianity and my mom.

She's a Christian who has had powerful things to say this week. Once, while in the emergency room, she said she wondered how anyone could face problems like she was and not be a Christian. Later she said she was ready "to go home," a reference to her death and future life with God and Jesus in heaven.

The problem of pain and suffering is supposed to be the number one reason many have rejected the idea of a good God, since they believe such a God would stop these things from happening. I don't want to launch into a vigorous defense for God at this point, although one can be made on several levels.

Instead, I would ask skeptics what they have accomplished if they reject the idea of God. What would they say to my mom? They haven't rid themselves of the problem of evil by doing away with the existence of God. Pain and suffering are still there. So, what would they say to Mom? I guess something like, "Gee, that's too bad" or "Well, at least you had a long life." But those aren't comforting words.

I think there are enough reasons to believe there is a God and to trust Him even during times like this when loved ones suffer. I'll take God and hope any day over dark denials of His existence.

Political correctness

I am preparing a talk on the ruination of our language due, in part, to political correctness. Here's part of what I want to say.

One way to improve job status is to use politically correct terms. Note the following examples.

Body guards are now referred to as executive protection specialists. Trash collectors are now labelled environmental technicians.

Think about these terms, which have been generated to avoid offending groups of people.

a.      people of size (old term--fat)

b.     chronologically gifted (old)

c.      alternatively schooled (uneducated)

d.     cerebrally challenged (dumb)

e.      client of the correctional system (prisoner)

f.      sobriety deprived (drunk)

g.     underhoused (homeless)

h.     at Stanford students are now given NP instead of F

i.       you may not use these terms in newspaper ads: ocean view, within walking distance, master bedroom (can you figure out why?)

Then there are the terms made up to make a political statement. I'll let you figure out who they are referring to.

a.      psychosocially deprived

b.     unable to conform his conduct to the law

c.      botanical companions

d.     stolen, nonhuman animal products

e.      member of the mutant, albino, genetic-recessive global minority

f.      pro-choice

g.     visual rape

h.     intergenerational intimacy

i.       pet guardian

j.       economically marginalized

k.     motivationally dispossessed

l.       sex-care providers

m.   person of non-color

n.     processed animal carcasses

o.     undocumented resident/workers

Are we hurt by such language bending? Maybe. I agree that there are some improvements in the words chosen recently. But do you see how many of these terms are used to express a political slant rather than simply tell the truth? Now we are using language to make us more comfortable with behavior we used to dislike. Ah, the world marches on. 

Some sad news about the golden state of California

I read some sad statistics in today's newspaper from an article by Arthur Laffler. It had to do with California, a state I once was proud to be from. Take a deep breath – here we go.

Let's start with public education. California employs 231 full-time equivalent educators per 10,000 population while the US average is 286 per 10,000 people and Texas, with a much lower tax rate than California, employs 345 educators per 10,000 population. So the taxes which are so high in California apparently haven't bought us more educators. What are we getting for our money? Students in California ranked fourth from the bottom of all 50 states according to the US Department of Education test scores of children in grades K through 12. But, you say, maybe it's because we're such a large state. Not true. Compared to the four other huge states (New York, Illinois, Florida, and Texas), California is dead last in test scores.

Here's what really irritates me about these statistics. California's educators are paid at a much higher rate than other states' teachers. In addition, they are more highly unionized. The California teachers union is the largest single contributor to political campaigns in California over the past decade. And we wonder why their salaries go up much more than their test scores do. And guess which party gets the huge majority of the teachers' money?

Are you ready for some more discouraging statistics? California highway personnel are paid much better than any other state's highway employees, yet our highways out here are ranked dead last of all 50 states. Building roads here costs three times what it costs in Texas. California's corrections employees are the second-highest-paid corrections employees in the US, but we don't have enough prisons. The same thing is true for fire protection employees and hospital employees – we pay them much higher than other states do, but we have fewer of them. We also have one of the nation's highest poverty rates (13% above the national average in 2011).

None of this is good news for California. But I don't see any hope as long as liberal Democrats continue to run the state legislature. They've never met a tax they don't like.

Relativism--a curse on our society today

We are facing a scourge in our society today--moral relativism. I'd like to explore it in this blog as well as in future ones.

First, a definition. Relativists see no objective morality. Instead, moral opinions are like our tastes in ice cream--a personal preference. There are  no “oughts” out there.

           

This belief has had a huge negative impact on society today.  There is less emphasis on Western values (multiculturalism reigns--all cultures are equally valid and correct in their beliefs). It also suppresses free speech (don't suggest one idea is better than another), creates mental laziness (no need to compare ideas), and leads to political correctness (don't offend).

One type is cultural relativism, which says it's society that determines moral beliefs, but there are  problems with it. Contrary to what it believes (that societies can't agree on moral standards), there are shared beliefs among societies-- rape is bad, it is noble to die for others, unjust killing is bad, it's wrong to punish innocents. If  society

 determines morality, nothing is immoral. Think of slavery in 19th century. Also,if society determines morality, moral reformers are not heroes. That makes people like Corrie ten Boom, M. L. King, Gandhi, and Wilberforce immoral--seems crazy to believe that.

A second type, individual relativism, also has problems with it. For example,

relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing (take child abuse--all they can say, "I don't like it"). In addition, they can’t complain about the problem of evil. Here's the problem C. S. Lewis encountered in his atheist days:"My argument against God was that the universe  seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world really was unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fantasies."  One more problem for relativists--they can’t place blame or accept praise--why punish anyone? An additional problem has to do with using words like "unfair" or "unjust." Finally, they can’t promote an obligation of tolerance, since the term means to allow people to disagree. But disagreement indicates a difference of opinion in which someone may be right or wrong. These two terms don't mean anything to a relativist.

There's much more to say, but this is a good time to stop. More later.