At the beginning of the semester, I decided that I wanted a pocket copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. When I went into the BYU Bookstore and asked where I could find a copy of these two important documents, i was given the uncertain response that they might be at the end of the current events/politics aisle. After a few minutes of searching, I was heartbroken to find a small booklet containing these two founding documents almost hidden behind other books. It is sad when the documents containing the purpose for the founding of our great country are stashed away to the side of books giving the most "popular" beliefs on current national issues.
Unfortunately, this small event in a single bookstore represents the state of the entire Nation. All to often, the traditional principles that are the foundation of our country are set aside for the rise of new principles of "tolerance" and "common good." I find it Ironic that the Declaration of Independence, which contains many solutions to current issues, is one of the most ignored documents in today's society.
Within the first few paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence we find two truths that many today do not understand. The first is the most basic principle of government - the Social Contract. Originating from John Locke, this idea explains the fundamental relationship between the government and the governed. It begins by stating that people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In order to ensure these rights, however, people need to collectively relinquish their right to complete freedom to the government. This is common sense, for in order for everyone to maintain these three rights, they must not be allowed to infringe on the three unalienable rights of others.
While many people (especially liberals) are familiar with the first part of the Social Contract, few are familiar with the second which states that the role of government is ONLY to protect these rights. That means that the sole purpose of government is to prevent Joe from harming Fred's life, liberty, or ability to pursue happiness. The Declaration of Independence states that once the government exceeds its intended role and becomes destructive to the rights of it's governed, the governed have the right and obligation to intervene. This brings out the problem with our current Health Care debate. On the positive side, it is prudent for the government to regulate the Health Care industry, for many companies are infringing on the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to some Americans. The government is wrong, however, in it's attempt to force every American to get insured. Americans will no longer have the liberty to chose to live without health care, a decision which has no effect on the rights of others. We see there that the government is trying to overstep it's bounds, and it is now the responsibility of the people to step forward and prevent this injustice from being done. I'm sorry if that sound too "conservative," but, well, the Declaration IS a conservative document.
The second truth in the Declaration is that God is very much a part of our country. The declaration states that universal rights are endowed by a "Creator." Many Atheists today are offended by this idea, and try to soften this blow to their ego, so to speak, by citing quotes by the founding fathers which seem in opposition to religion. The truth is, however, that even if some of the founding fathers did not like religion, there still is a God who inspired them to found the most powerful nation on Earth. In the D&C, the lord states that he "established the Constitution of this land by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose."
Furthermore, it should be understood that the lord is our only hope for a bright future. The lord promises us in the Book of Mormon that we will be blessed with freedom only if we (as the United States of America) serve him. This was the premise of the Constitution and our Republic. Both we founded, as the Declaration states, "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
To further support this idea, it can be understood that the Book of Mormon did indeed take place upon the continent of North America, specifically what is now the United States. All scientific theories aside, when the lord visited the Nephites, he stated that “This Land” would be free from kings and would be a choice land above all other lands. Notice he did not say “That land up north,” but “This land.”
My friends, “This Land” is now the United States. The promises in the Book of Mormon are ours. We will prosper as a nation only if we adhere to the commandments of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t really matter if that is “politically correct,” or if some people chose not to believe it - it is the truth. If we reject Christ and turn away from his Constitution, we will not only lose our freedoms, we will lose our identity as a nation.
I have much more in response to the Declaration of Independence, but i’m sure one and a half pages typed will translate into a blog post stretching from 0 to infinity. Let me leave you with the famous quote by Plato: “The price of apathy is to be ruled by evil men,”
P.S. If I don’t get some liberal response calling me an uninformed, radical, racist, fear mongering, hating, right wing extremist, I am going to be very surprised. You will have let the liberal community down. :)
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Aaron's Response to "Wealth and Poverty"
“Wealth And Poverty,” an essay written by BYU professor Richard E. Johnson, explores the social economic status of America. Although many people consider the rise of a “drugs, sex, and rock & roll” lifestyle to forecast the Second Coming, Johnson proposes that materialism, consumerism, social inequality, and world vanity are even greater predictors than traditional sin.
“Sinners are clearly self-indulgent, satisfying their whims and appetites for comfort or pleasure through sexual, chemical, or violent means. And innocent others clearly suffer because of their self-indulgence,” states Johnson.
It’s not difficult to see how this description applies to both “traditional sinners (thieves, addicts and prostitutes)” and an American people focused on supplying every one of their material desires – whether it be a larger house, top-of-the-line clothing, or frivolous vacations.
The United States typifies the saying, “The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.” The references for Johnson’s essay provide numerous examples and statistics about how the spread is widening between the rich and poor. Citing the Census Bureau, “the richest one-fifth of Americans households received almost twelve times the income of the same number of the poorest household in 1990.” That ratio increased by 12.5% since 1980, and most likely hasn’t improved during since.
Quoting another report by Coleman and Cressey, “the average real income (adjusted for inflation) of the bottom fifth of workers declined 10 percent from 1980 to 1990, while the real income of the top one percent jumped 122 percent during the same period.” I didn’t fully understand what Johnson was trying to emphasize when I read this statistic the first time. Billions, if not trillions of dollars, were transferred from 20% of the poorest population into the possession of a mere half-percent of the American people who already have their financial needs met.
Keep in mind that these statistics are discussing the average income of the American people. It’s scary to think that the gap is even wider, when you consider that the poor people in American are living off that income on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, while the rich continue to stockpile that extra income into savings and other assets. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
So what does the author suggest we do to solve this problem? Johnson recognizes that it would be wrong to push any political agenda. In facts, he suggests that by truly practicing Christianity, there would be no need for government intervention: “All would be taken care of through private acts of sincere charity.” Knowing that it would be possible to expect this, Johnson proposes a balance of both public and private efforts.
Johnson’s essay delivers an alarming description of the reality around us. Johnson notices that he doesn’t have an answer that would satisfy everybody. Political partisanship and philosophies about economics will stand as an obstacle to finding a public solution we can all agree on. This reinforces the necessity for each individual to demonstrate charity. The answer may be to give, serve, and love others, and to “wash the feet of the poor,” even as Christ himself.
“Sinners are clearly self-indulgent, satisfying their whims and appetites for comfort or pleasure through sexual, chemical, or violent means. And innocent others clearly suffer because of their self-indulgence,” states Johnson.
It’s not difficult to see how this description applies to both “traditional sinners (thieves, addicts and prostitutes)” and an American people focused on supplying every one of their material desires – whether it be a larger house, top-of-the-line clothing, or frivolous vacations.
The United States typifies the saying, “The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.” The references for Johnson’s essay provide numerous examples and statistics about how the spread is widening between the rich and poor. Citing the Census Bureau, “the richest one-fifth of Americans households received almost twelve times the income of the same number of the poorest household in 1990.” That ratio increased by 12.5% since 1980, and most likely hasn’t improved during since.
Quoting another report by Coleman and Cressey, “the average real income (adjusted for inflation) of the bottom fifth of workers declined 10 percent from 1980 to 1990, while the real income of the top one percent jumped 122 percent during the same period.” I didn’t fully understand what Johnson was trying to emphasize when I read this statistic the first time. Billions, if not trillions of dollars, were transferred from 20% of the poorest population into the possession of a mere half-percent of the American people who already have their financial needs met.
Keep in mind that these statistics are discussing the average income of the American people. It’s scary to think that the gap is even wider, when you consider that the poor people in American are living off that income on a paycheck-to-paycheck basis, while the rich continue to stockpile that extra income into savings and other assets. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer.
So what does the author suggest we do to solve this problem? Johnson recognizes that it would be wrong to push any political agenda. In facts, he suggests that by truly practicing Christianity, there would be no need for government intervention: “All would be taken care of through private acts of sincere charity.” Knowing that it would be possible to expect this, Johnson proposes a balance of both public and private efforts.
Johnson’s essay delivers an alarming description of the reality around us. Johnson notices that he doesn’t have an answer that would satisfy everybody. Political partisanship and philosophies about economics will stand as an obstacle to finding a public solution we can all agree on. This reinforces the necessity for each individual to demonstrate charity. The answer may be to give, serve, and love others, and to “wash the feet of the poor,” even as Christ himself.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Jarrett's Resposne to "Lifeboat Ethics"
If the world is like a spaceship then there are limited resources. We should all share and try not to trash the place. Garrett Hardin, author of this article, argues against these people who naively hold this belief. He says that instead of the world being a spaceship, it is actually more like a lifeboat. The rich are inside the boat and the poor are trying to get in it. He continues his analogy. If a lifeboat already holds 50 people, but there are 100 people in the water, what should we do?
We could let them all in, but then the boat would break and everyone would drown instead. “Complete justice, complete catastrophe.” Could we just choose a few more people to get in the boat? How should we choose each person? Could we just drive the boat away before people get on it? What could we do “adrift in a moral sea”?
I recently saw the film 2012 and it reminds me too much of this article. In the movie, the world is coming to an end. Governments across the world know that the end is near. However, they chose not to tell the public in fear of causing panic. Ships are built to withstand the earth’s destruction but there are only limited spaces for people. Only a select few can purchase tickets at a steep price. There are those who sneak on the boat. Ultimately a decision is made to let people onto the ship.
These are the kind of situations this article addresses. The idea of lifeboat ethics is applied to the “tragedy of the commons”, immigration policy, overpopulation and world hunger and poverty.
To keep this blog short, I will address only a few of these. The World Food Bank is an organization that gives food to poor countries. Garrett Hardin argues that this is not necessarily a good thing. If you look into the past, there have been similar organizations that have tried to do this same thing. These organizations have profited immensely while pretending to be “humanitarian”. It seems like these sorts of organizations are selfish, not selfless. This is not the only dilemma. If organizations like these keep providing food to poor countries they will never learn. Let me explain. Overpopulation will become a bigger problem. Because people are not educated, they have more kids. These countries will not learn to feed their own people, but instead become reliant on organizations that are trying to help them. In the long run, it only hurts them.
This is the idea of lifeboat ethics. It may not alleviate immediate pain and suffering but its ultimate goal is the same. They seem to be cruel and harsh but it makes sense.
We could let them all in, but then the boat would break and everyone would drown instead. “Complete justice, complete catastrophe.” Could we just choose a few more people to get in the boat? How should we choose each person? Could we just drive the boat away before people get on it? What could we do “adrift in a moral sea”?
I recently saw the film 2012 and it reminds me too much of this article. In the movie, the world is coming to an end. Governments across the world know that the end is near. However, they chose not to tell the public in fear of causing panic. Ships are built to withstand the earth’s destruction but there are only limited spaces for people. Only a select few can purchase tickets at a steep price. There are those who sneak on the boat. Ultimately a decision is made to let people onto the ship.
These are the kind of situations this article addresses. The idea of lifeboat ethics is applied to the “tragedy of the commons”, immigration policy, overpopulation and world hunger and poverty.
To keep this blog short, I will address only a few of these. The World Food Bank is an organization that gives food to poor countries. Garrett Hardin argues that this is not necessarily a good thing. If you look into the past, there have been similar organizations that have tried to do this same thing. These organizations have profited immensely while pretending to be “humanitarian”. It seems like these sorts of organizations are selfish, not selfless. This is not the only dilemma. If organizations like these keep providing food to poor countries they will never learn. Let me explain. Overpopulation will become a bigger problem. Because people are not educated, they have more kids. These countries will not learn to feed their own people, but instead become reliant on organizations that are trying to help them. In the long run, it only hurts them.
This is the idea of lifeboat ethics. It may not alleviate immediate pain and suffering but its ultimate goal is the same. They seem to be cruel and harsh but it makes sense.
Isaac's response to "A Crime of Compassion"
I greatly enjoyed this essay because of the controversy it addresses. Over time, the question of euthanasia has been heatedly debated without any conclusions made. On this subject, I myself am not concretely decisive because of the variance in individual situations. I do, however, have my own thoughts.
In “A Crime of Compassion,” Barbara Huttmann gives her point of view that it should be acceptable for medical providers to give in to temptation by the patient to allow death. Unfortunately, however, there is a problem. Many people who are ill have a way for survival, though they may be in pain during treatment.
On this subject, I believe the decision could be ethical whether it allowed or denied euthanasia, depending on the situation.
Pretend you are a nurse and you have a patient much like Mac who is chronically ill and is wasting away into nothingness on a hospital bed. Say there is no chance for survival, and his prolonged life is merely causing emotional stress on all who loved Mac. Mac pleas for death, a way to escape the pain, and find his way back to dwell with his maker. Moreover, his family cries because of his pain, and wants him to die so that he will no longer suffer. It seems that everyone wants Mac to go but your overseeing ‘doctor boss’. Mac looks into your eyes as his entire body is going through necrosis, and his flesh is rotting. Every slight movement shifts pressure to a new sore on his body, making Mac reminisce about the ‘good old days’ when he could move as he desired. Now he can’t even move without unbearable pain. His entire body convulses as he coughs, and he has a tear in his eye. “Please, just let me die,” he asks, but you don’t know what to do. You are torn inside; you love Mac and don’t want to disappoint. You feel that, though others claim you are trying to play God by being the one to let him die, you could also be attacked for playing God because you are the one to sustain the life inside this dying body. You want his happiness, but hate to think he’ll die at your hands.
What do you do?! Is it right to let Mac go? I would be torn in this case, unable to make a decision on the spot. I know I would at least question the thought of letting Mac go, but it would definitely be a matter of prayer and fasting to me.
On the other hand, again you are a nurse. You have a patient, Jill, who is clinically insane. Three times in the last year she has unsuccessfully committed suicide, and is in the hospital because of a self-inflicted deep cut on her wrist. Again, Jill looks into your eyes, tormented by mental and physical pain. She too simply wants a way out of this pain, and a way to her maker. She asks you to let her just die, but what do you do?
In this situation, I personally would give no thought to the option of death. I would only believe it to be an assisted suicide because Jill had a way of straightening out her life.
In conclusion, I believe that this subject is very situation based, and that, depending on the situation, it could be ethical to allow or refuse death. I would not be so bold as to try to play God without first praying about it, and I hope I never come to that decision.
In “A Crime of Compassion,” Barbara Huttmann gives her point of view that it should be acceptable for medical providers to give in to temptation by the patient to allow death. Unfortunately, however, there is a problem. Many people who are ill have a way for survival, though they may be in pain during treatment.
On this subject, I believe the decision could be ethical whether it allowed or denied euthanasia, depending on the situation.
Pretend you are a nurse and you have a patient much like Mac who is chronically ill and is wasting away into nothingness on a hospital bed. Say there is no chance for survival, and his prolonged life is merely causing emotional stress on all who loved Mac. Mac pleas for death, a way to escape the pain, and find his way back to dwell with his maker. Moreover, his family cries because of his pain, and wants him to die so that he will no longer suffer. It seems that everyone wants Mac to go but your overseeing ‘doctor boss’. Mac looks into your eyes as his entire body is going through necrosis, and his flesh is rotting. Every slight movement shifts pressure to a new sore on his body, making Mac reminisce about the ‘good old days’ when he could move as he desired. Now he can’t even move without unbearable pain. His entire body convulses as he coughs, and he has a tear in his eye. “Please, just let me die,” he asks, but you don’t know what to do. You are torn inside; you love Mac and don’t want to disappoint. You feel that, though others claim you are trying to play God by being the one to let him die, you could also be attacked for playing God because you are the one to sustain the life inside this dying body. You want his happiness, but hate to think he’ll die at your hands.
What do you do?! Is it right to let Mac go? I would be torn in this case, unable to make a decision on the spot. I know I would at least question the thought of letting Mac go, but it would definitely be a matter of prayer and fasting to me.
On the other hand, again you are a nurse. You have a patient, Jill, who is clinically insane. Three times in the last year she has unsuccessfully committed suicide, and is in the hospital because of a self-inflicted deep cut on her wrist. Again, Jill looks into your eyes, tormented by mental and physical pain. She too simply wants a way out of this pain, and a way to her maker. She asks you to let her just die, but what do you do?
In this situation, I personally would give no thought to the option of death. I would only believe it to be an assisted suicide because Jill had a way of straightening out her life.
In conclusion, I believe that this subject is very situation based, and that, depending on the situation, it could be ethical to allow or refuse death. I would not be so bold as to try to play God without first praying about it, and I hope I never come to that decision.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Ariel's Response to "I stand here Ironing"
Everyone, at some point in time, looks back on their life and wonders what they could have done differently. “If I had studied more could I have gotten that elusive A?” “Was it worth it to stay up until 3 am to finish all my homework?” We all have regrets some are more serious than others.
In “I Stand Here Ironing” the narrator reflects on the way she raised her daughter Emily, her firstborn child. When I first read this story I found it rather depressing. The narrator is full of self-doubt and uneasiness. Throughout the story she feels guilt and tries to justify her actions.
The back and forth motion of her ironing reflects her thoughts. The narrator is going back over her life, trying to smooth out the “wrinkles”, or come to terms with what she had to do as a young mother.
I think it is important to accept past decisions and move on. We all make mistakes and need to learn from them. Isn’t that why we’re here on Earth in the first place? If we had no regrets, there would be nothing for us to learn and we could all go back and live in heaven. Wouldn’t that be nice? Sadly, we aren’t perfect and need to live our lives the best we can.
I really liked the last line of “I Stand Here Ironing.” “Only help her to know - help make it so there is cause for her to know - that she is more than this dress on the ironing board, helpless before the iron.” The narrator wants her daughter to continue to grow as an individual but be uninfluenced by others and society. The narrator wants Emily to understand how important she is.
I was thinking about this and drew the parallel of how we need to live in the World but not of it. We all have different personalities but we share the same values. We have developed who we are and, hopefully, we are happy with the result. We should remember what we stand for and move past our mistakes.
In “I Stand Here Ironing” the narrator reflects on the way she raised her daughter Emily, her firstborn child. When I first read this story I found it rather depressing. The narrator is full of self-doubt and uneasiness. Throughout the story she feels guilt and tries to justify her actions.
The back and forth motion of her ironing reflects her thoughts. The narrator is going back over her life, trying to smooth out the “wrinkles”, or come to terms with what she had to do as a young mother.
I think it is important to accept past decisions and move on. We all make mistakes and need to learn from them. Isn’t that why we’re here on Earth in the first place? If we had no regrets, there would be nothing for us to learn and we could all go back and live in heaven. Wouldn’t that be nice? Sadly, we aren’t perfect and need to live our lives the best we can.
I really liked the last line of “I Stand Here Ironing.” “Only help her to know - help make it so there is cause for her to know - that she is more than this dress on the ironing board, helpless before the iron.” The narrator wants her daughter to continue to grow as an individual but be uninfluenced by others and society. The narrator wants Emily to understand how important she is.
I was thinking about this and drew the parallel of how we need to live in the World but not of it. We all have different personalities but we share the same values. We have developed who we are and, hopefully, we are happy with the result. We should remember what we stand for and move past our mistakes.
Virginia's Response to "The War Prayer"
“For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of-except he pause and think…. God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two-one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this-keep it in mind. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured.”
In Mark Twain’s writings of, “The War Prayer” he tells the story of a town praying for the victory and safety for the men of their village that have been sent off to fight in the war. The whole settlement is in the church praying for these things when a strange man comes into the church, takes over the pulpit, and explains to the good God-fearing townspeople what exactly they are praying for- the spoken prayer and the unspoken prayer.
“O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen”
How often do we fall prey to this? When we pray to help ease someone’s burden tomorrow- are we not also praying for that person to have some sort of burden that is so heavy for them that they would need our help? As we pray for ope, are we not also praying for a hopeless situation to test our hope in order to strengthen it? A song by Collin Ray, “What I need” goes hand in hand with the words of Mark Twain. “'Cause I prayed for strength and I got pain that made me strong. I prayed for courage and got fear to overcome. When I prayed for faith my empty heart brought me to my knees. I don’t always get what I want, I get what I need.”
In Mark Twain’s writings of, “The War Prayer” he tells the story of a town praying for the victory and safety for the men of their village that have been sent off to fight in the war. The whole settlement is in the church praying for these things when a strange man comes into the church, takes over the pulpit, and explains to the good God-fearing townspeople what exactly they are praying for- the spoken prayer and the unspoken prayer.
“O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it-for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen”
How often do we fall prey to this? When we pray to help ease someone’s burden tomorrow- are we not also praying for that person to have some sort of burden that is so heavy for them that they would need our help? As we pray for ope, are we not also praying for a hopeless situation to test our hope in order to strengthen it? A song by Collin Ray, “What I need” goes hand in hand with the words of Mark Twain. “'Cause I prayed for strength and I got pain that made me strong. I prayed for courage and got fear to overcome. When I prayed for faith my empty heart brought me to my knees. I don’t always get what I want, I get what I need.”
Zach's response to "What Christians Believe"
In the opening paragraphs C.S. Lewis poses a question that I have often pondered and that sets the tone for the rest of the passage. He writes, “If God created the world then why has it gone wrong?” The more I think about my life and about the challenges that I have faced the more I have realized what the answer for me may be.
It was a cold February night; my Mom would be leaving the next day for a buying show. For that reason we decided to celebrate Valentines early by going out for Spaghetti. It was a night much like any other. We were seated quickly; we walked past the old fashioned trolley and were seated near the bar. We placed our orders with quick confidence. We had been there hundreds of times and didn’t even need menus except to pass the time. I had a major English assignment due the next day, we began to discuss it.
“I have to write three letters like the letter between Caesar and Brutus, like in Shakespeare’s play.”
Our salads arrived and we began to eat. Then out of nowhere we began to hear loud pops, like balloons. We all listened intently; although it was not uncommon to have parties at the restaurant these sounds had a different character to them. One, two, three, “Call 9-1-1 he’s go a gun.”
A frenzy of movement, we all dove under the table and sat there like a twisted mess, each grabbing their own phones and placing the desperate calls for help. Another round of pops ensued, followed by a flurry of pops, then silence. Where was the gunman? Was he on the move? Was he coming for me and my family? Thousands of questions raced through my mind. What seemed like hours passed. We sat there, an uncomfortable mess of bodies.
Finally S.W.A.T arrived. Our liberators were finally here. We marched single file hands above our heads, escorted by men with guns. We finally reached safety across the street; it was now ok to breathe. My mom began to cry, as she held my little brother. It was over, it was finally over.
I share this story because I think that it helps illustrate C.S. Lewis’s point. A shooting and killing of innocent people are about as bad as the world can be. But I learned something very valuable from the ordeal. Weeks later, I was driving with my mother and brother, when my little brother of six said something profound.
“Mom,” he began, “You know when we were hiding under the table at Trolley Square? I was praying that Heavenly Father would protect us.”
Wow I thought. I didn’t think to pray, but my little brother who is half my age did. I learned something very important about the power of prayer and about God’s knowledge of each and every one of us. He knows us very personally and is always watching over us.
To answer C.S. Lewis’s question I would say, the world hasn’t gone wrong, rather we face challenges and obstacles, to grow and come closer to God.
It was a cold February night; my Mom would be leaving the next day for a buying show. For that reason we decided to celebrate Valentines early by going out for Spaghetti. It was a night much like any other. We were seated quickly; we walked past the old fashioned trolley and were seated near the bar. We placed our orders with quick confidence. We had been there hundreds of times and didn’t even need menus except to pass the time. I had a major English assignment due the next day, we began to discuss it.
“I have to write three letters like the letter between Caesar and Brutus, like in Shakespeare’s play.”
Our salads arrived and we began to eat. Then out of nowhere we began to hear loud pops, like balloons. We all listened intently; although it was not uncommon to have parties at the restaurant these sounds had a different character to them. One, two, three, “Call 9-1-1 he’s go a gun.”
A frenzy of movement, we all dove under the table and sat there like a twisted mess, each grabbing their own phones and placing the desperate calls for help. Another round of pops ensued, followed by a flurry of pops, then silence. Where was the gunman? Was he on the move? Was he coming for me and my family? Thousands of questions raced through my mind. What seemed like hours passed. We sat there, an uncomfortable mess of bodies.
Finally S.W.A.T arrived. Our liberators were finally here. We marched single file hands above our heads, escorted by men with guns. We finally reached safety across the street; it was now ok to breathe. My mom began to cry, as she held my little brother. It was over, it was finally over.
I share this story because I think that it helps illustrate C.S. Lewis’s point. A shooting and killing of innocent people are about as bad as the world can be. But I learned something very valuable from the ordeal. Weeks later, I was driving with my mother and brother, when my little brother of six said something profound.
“Mom,” he began, “You know when we were hiding under the table at Trolley Square? I was praying that Heavenly Father would protect us.”
Wow I thought. I didn’t think to pray, but my little brother who is half my age did. I learned something very important about the power of prayer and about God’s knowledge of each and every one of us. He knows us very personally and is always watching over us.
To answer C.S. Lewis’s question I would say, the world hasn’t gone wrong, rather we face challenges and obstacles, to grow and come closer to God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
