If you have read my posts, you know I like quotes. Albert Einstein is credited as saying, “If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.” In case you were wondering, complicity is defined, by Webster’s Dictionary as, “association or participation in as if in a wrongful act.” With this in mind, what Einstein was saying is if he were to remain quiet, he would be participating in a wrongful act or associated with doing something wrong. If you are a student of Einstein or his life, you would know he was referring to his feelings on his participation in the development of, what today, would be called a weapon of mass destruction. He felt strongly that he had a moral responsibility to speak up on the implications of what the ramifications of his work, if used improperly, would be.
Call it what you want but there is a time when being silent isn’t always the right thing to do. If one claims complacency, one needs to realize that being complacent, by definition (look it up) is selfish. Complacency is uninformed self satisfaction or choosing to be ignorant. If one claims to be apathetic, they basically proclaim they do not care one way or another. This stance nullifies any right to have a stance, opinion or stake in issue, matter or item. If one claims to be indifferent, by definition, they are claiming to be unbiased. An unbiased claim means they are free from all favoritism, emotion, feelings or prejudice; basically, they are completely neutral on the matter. Let’s recap – if you are complacent on a matter, you are selfishly ignorant by choice thus cannot be unbiased but are automatically apathetic. If you are unbiased you cannot be complacent because you have to be educated on the matter; however, you can be apathetic. You can be indifferent and unbiased but not apathetic and complacent. If you voice an opinion on a matter, you are no longer apathetic, indifferent, unbiased or even complacent. You may still be uninformed and self serving. Once you choose to engage, in any way, shape or form, you could be labeled complicit. Light bulb moment – a reason so many remain silent, maybe?
There is a buzz phrase in popular culture called, “silent majority.” We hear this “silent majority” supports x (fill in the blanks) and the silent majority will not support y. We also know it is an “unspoken” that if the silent majority finally gets fed up, “things would change. It is also rumored that the silent majority will not allow a, b or c to ever transpire. Who is this silent majority? More importantly, why are they silent? They are not complacent. They are not apathetic. They are not indifferent. They are not unbiased. So the question then becomes, are they becoming complicit? If indeed this silent majority exists, which I believe they do, why are they being silent?
Acts 18:9-10 states, “One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: ‘Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you.” Hmmmmm…I don’t know about you but I think that is very clear. We are living in a time when sin that used to sneak down a back alley or in the dark now proudly struts down Main Street in broad daylight and no one dares says a word. Why is that? A lie doesn’t become truth; wrong doesn’t become right; evil doesn’t become good just because it is accepted by the screaming masses.
Yesterday, there were two mosque bombings in New Zealand. As of the writing of this post, it is reported 49 are dead. This should be condemned by everyone. Furthermore, did you know, this horrific and grueling act was live streamed – meaning someone sat there as it was happening and recorded it and put it up for everyone to watch – on Facebook for 17 minutes. It remained on Facebook. The facebook “police” who shutdown posts, pages and everything else they find offensive or inappropriate, did not deem this inappropriate until it was brought to their attention by authorities. Does no one see something wrong with this? Facebook has, on more than one occasion, proved it’s agenda to control the narrative of free speech on its platform. It monitors and directs the narrative in various ways. If you actually sit and read it’s policies, terms, conditions, rules, etc. there is so many things you are agreeing to. In a move unexpected, another top executive opted to leave Zuckerberg’s empire after Zuckerberg announced radical changes. His changes include pushing the platform to more message based (which will alleged be encrypted) and private forums as well as having photos and posts automatically disappear from public view. So instead of addressing issues, he is going to offer a huge bait and switch tactic to open a new can of worms. People will drink this cool aide thinking it is “safe” or “cool” and so much better. Here’s an idea: #dropfacebook #back-to-old-diaries #just-say-no-to-facebook #there-is-no-such-thing-as-privacy-on-the-internet
It did not get a lot of publicity (yet) but it will… in a 4-3 decision, justices ruled that Remington could be held responsible in wrongful death lawsuit under Connecticut law. This over rules, lower court rulings and federal law. This ruling is directly tied to the shooting in Newtown by Adam Lanza. The plaintiffs argued the Bushmaster AR-15 style rife used by Mr. Lanza is too dangerous for the public and Remington “glorified” it in its marketing efforts to young people and those with mental illness. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued the rifles were designed “a military killing machine” that should have never been marketed to the public. They accused Remington of, “marketing to at risk males through ‘militaristic marketing and astute product placement in violent first-person shooter games.’ ” In addition, “The regulation of advertising that threatens the public’s health, safety, and morals has long been considered a core exercise of the states’ police powers,” Justice Richard Palmer wrote for the majority, adding he didn’t believe Congress envisioned complete immunity for gun-makers. Finally, Nicole Hockley, whose 6-year-old son Dylan died in the shooting, said a main goal of the lawsuit is to stop Remington and other gun makers from gearing their advertising toward troubled young men.“We have always said our case is about reckless sales and marketing to disturbed youth. We wanted our day in court. This is a step forward to ensure that manufacturers like Remington are not allowed to keep targeting people who are at risk.” That is a lot to take in. First, I need to be clear on a few points, the shooting itself is a terrible tragedy. We should all grieve the loss of any innocent life. Second, I cannot for one minute imagine or pretend to imagine the pain a mother feels when they lose a child in such a manner. I can imagine it is a gut wrenching, heart aching, soul aching pain like no other. I grieve for Ms. Hockley as well as the other families. I am NOT unbiased in this case because in this case, there are a series of variables purposely omitted from the narrative that if clearly understood paints an entirely different picture of the event. Do these details negate the pain, hurt and horror of them? No. They do; however, change the narrative, thus, bear bringing to light and NOT hiding in the dark simply to further an agenda just because a group does not like them. PERIOD. It is perfectly understandable the need to place blame somewhere. The fact of the matter is Adam Lanza, the individual who actually made the final decision to choose a tool and use it in a manner that caused harm to himself and others, is not available to stand in front of anyone; therefore, it is convenient to have a proxy to stand in his place (hence the victim’s familes need to blame someone.) Remington did nothing illegal, immoral or with malice or intent. To hold them liable would be setting precedence for suing Proctor & Gamble when teenagers eat tide pods; CutCo if a butcher knife is used in a stabbing or a kitchen mishap cuts off a finger; Honeywell if a space heater blows up a 1993 GMC Envoy with an after market plug and the heater was being used to heat the car… the possibilities are endless. With the logic used, I could build a case for each one. This case is about an agenda. This case has nothing to do about making anything safe but everything to do with making things unsafe. This case has nothing to do with the law but everything to do with unraveling the law. This is a clear example of silence being complicit on both sides of the issue. The problem is neither side wants to say anything because if they do, the other side may actually have to take a stance or defend themselves or worse yet, face the truth. Also, I must point out, I have never seen a gun ad, outside a gun magazine. Even in those magazines, I have never seen an ad that remotely targeted teens or were aimed in a video game style and as one who does copious amounts of marketing materials I can honestly say I look for such stuff.
I read an article this morning that actually touched on a couple issues headlining. Here is what I gleaned from the article. Public cynicism about America’s moral standards is high, as evidenced in the annual Values and Morals poll conducted by Gallup since 2002. In the latest poll, released last June, a record high 49 percent of respondents rated moral values in the U.S. as poor, and only 14 percent rated them excellent or good. “It’s the objective truth that norms of conduct are being violated,” Cullison said. “Where people differ is how outraged they are. If you’re getting what you want (in terms of policy), you’ll be more willing to look the other way. “This is revealed as hardworking, bright students of color, women and immigrants are benefiting from smart affirmative action policies that correct past injustice and exclusion,” Franklin said in an email. “Now, we must all question whether the scions of affluent white parents gamed the system to ensure admission for their average offspring.” Stop the train! I don’t question the respondents because I have no doubt the majority of Americans rate US moral vales as low. I think; however, it is the perception of them that is low. (Let’s go back to the silent majority – if the silent majority is truly a majority – would not morals be actually high? ) There is a difference between objective truth and absolute truth. As a Christian, I believe in absolute truth and the objective truth, whatever it is, relies in the author of the article’s definition. I’d be curious to see what he based his objectivity upon. In his statement, he clearly negates his own stance as there can be no objectivity when dealing with [cultural] norms and conduct – all of us know this; it is subjective based on peoples opinions. It is all thrown out of the window as soon as his partner states, “…students of color, women and immigrants…that correct past injustice and exclusion.” When you find nothing else wrong or you can not justify by any other means – in other words, you get caught with your hands in the cookie jar – you look for an excuse. If you read the article, it clearly states that moral ambiguity and decay which exists in our country today is up and accepted… get this… because of the Trump administration. I quit reading. It was at that point no longer a matter of unbiased reporting but a political propaganda piece.
In regards to the matter stated above, let us take a moment to touch on a few headlines that should be mentioned: the “scandal” currently making waves regarding bribing top universities in the nation. This has sent critics every where over the edge. Folks, don’t get your panties in a twist. This is nothing new. It has been going on since universities started. What is great to watch is how people are reacting. All of a sudden everyone is surprised and offended by it. Really? It took less than a week for folks to file lawsuits against the universities claiming discrimination – get this – because “they” were unable to gain access because of their oppressed nature – this coming from folks who did not gain access to the schools because of poor grades, their own merits or alleged monetary disadvantage. Stop the presses! Research the facts before you jump on the band wagon of “woe is me.” Affirmative action has prevented so many truly qualified and deserving students from attending the university of their choice because true imposed quotas have been met, financial aide is given out like maggots on poop in summer heat to many students – most of which are poor, labeled minority and beat the “system” and there are mountains of students who have worked their butts off and are lost in the bureaucratic minefield of red tape who don’t meet the current definition of any of the above so they cannot reap the benefits of their mind blowing work at the university of their dreams – so everyone needs to educate themselves!
When is it morally, objectively, subjectively or absolutely correct to murder an innocent life? Why is it that those who oppose free speech call those who do not hypocrites? When did words become a threat? Let me see if I get all of this correct… it is ok to oppose the death penalty because it is inhumane. Do not go sticking a sanitized needle into the arm of a convicted murderer sentenced to death (which by the way is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt) because that is inhumane… they sit there and peacefully die despite the fact they brutally killed and were convicted by a jury of their peers. HOWEVER, it is perfectly acceptable to murder an innocent baby, from the moment its heart begins to beat up to the moment they take their first breath. They never have the right or ability to speak on their behalf, nor does their earthly father HOWEVER, their mother can, simply because she feels she needs to, make the decision to kill them – with the assistance from a medical professional – who by the way – is in the exact same profession as the medical professional who proclaims it is unethical to stand at the side of the prisoner being executed because it violates their Hippocratic oath they swore to do no harm? If someone is seen wearing a shirt with Che Guevara on it with the caption “Power to the People” everyone should hail by raising their arm in solidarity but if someone wears a “Make America Great Again” shirt, they need to be arrested, accosted, suspended from school and deemed a nazi? Did I miss that day in history class? How in the world did it become acceptable for the Chairman of a political Party to come out a year before the elections and state on the record that certain networks – or any specific media for that matter – could not cover, host or partake in their debates because they “felt” they would not get fair coverage and wanted to get the coverage they wanted – and no one spoke up about it? That is exactly want the Chairman of the DNC did. Why is it OK for a sitting Senator of the United States of America who claims to have been legitimately elected, on the record, to claim they represent undocumented illegal immigrants who have constitutional rights? This is the same Senator who asked the CEO of a major bank, that since their bank was a lender to a pipeline construction project, should that pipeline have a disaster or leak, don’t they think they should be held liable – since after all, they financed the project. Why is it ok for another Senator to approve Sharia Law practices within the US? The list in this area goes on and on and on and on. My question is… who are voting for these people and why?
The list can go on and on. As this is a rather long post, I think I probably need to start wrapping it up. The question we all need to ask ourselves is – what are we doing? We do not exist in a vacuum. It would be great if we lived in our own little bubble and nothing affected us except our own issues. However, that is not possible. We need to be aware of what is transpiring in the world around us. We need to educate ourselves to the real issues and the impact it has on our daily lives. Believe it or not, it does have an impact. Just because we close our eyes to it does not mean it is not there nor does it mean it will not come knocking at our door. It may not directly hit us up side of the head but it may run over our children, our loved ones, our family, our friends, our church, our places of employment, our community and so on and so forth. Are we prepared? Do we know the giants we are up against?
The bigger question for all of us is this: why are we remaining silent? We may whisper in the recesses of our homes and if we are brave, maybe in quiet places when we venture out. How many of us are bold enough to stand firm in what we believe, claim to profess and hold dear? If pushed or questioned publicly, are we going to challenge the loud, boisterous, pushy, demonizing, antagonizing, bullying, overbearing voices who appear to be the voice of the people – if we are indeed the silent majority? When is the time to say, “Enough!” and come out of the shadows? Folks, we cannot wait until Rome is burning. If we continue to passively say, “Let’s see where this goes,” we may just find it goes in a direction and down a path from which there is no return.
I’m not calling for revolution or a revolt. I am merely calling for an end to silence. Scripture tells us time and time again that we are not to live in fear but in the peace of God and the strength that He gives. When we are tethered to the Word of God which is the Truth, nothing of this world can defeat us. It is time to truly walk with the Holy Spirit with the boldness and power we are given. We need not cower. In this world, we will have trouble but He has already won! We need to remember that. Our silence is not golden; it is like the 30 pieces of silver… a betrayal of who we are at our core. We need to remember that.
Comments are closed