November 24, 2009 at 11:28 am (Philosophy & Religion)
Tags: oxygen mask, airplane, airline, individual responsibility, compassion, golden rule
When you ride an airliner, the flight attendants always tell you that if the cabin oxygen masks are needed, you should put yours on first before helping others with theirs.
When I first heard this advice as a youngster, I thought it was oddly self-serving — as if at 35,000 feet it were suddenly every man for himself. Of course it makes perfect sense: If you pass out you won’t be very useful assisting anyone else. But I have found that the oxygen mask instructions are words to live by, whether airborne or not.
On the surface it would seem that helping others should be life’s “prime directive,” but it can only come second to individual responsibility, making sure that one’s own life is in order. How can the person deep in debt effectively give to those in need? How can the person steeped in vice give others moral guidance? The Bible, whose words have inspired centuries of selflessness, commands its readers to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Indeed, treating others as we would treat ourselves is the Golden Rule, but we can also infer that we’re only capable of helping others insofar as we are able to help ourselves.
Therefore, while compassion is a worthy virtue, it must be viewed as an extension of, not a substitute for, good stewardship of one’s own life.
2 Comments
October 30, 2009 at 3:30 pm (Uncategorized)
Tags: america, constitution, democracy, government, law, morality, morals, Politics, republic, united states
What is the primary and proper role of government? To prevent what is bad, to enforce what is good, or both?
Leave a Comment
October 20, 2009 at 5:37 pm (Life Observations, Philosophy & Religion)
Tags: busy, busyness, overcommitment, schedule, scheduling, time management
I was recently talking to a friend who felt like she was being pulled in several different directions, all of them away from her life priorities. For example, she strongly hoped to start a personal project that was close to her heart, but she was entangled in other commitments. It wasn’t merely that she was busy; it was as if all unassigned free time were being usurped by everything else that demanded it — of course leaving little or nothing for what was most important to her.
Her situation reminded me that time is a precious resource that must be carefully guarded. Where are we investing our time? Are we using it to fulfill our own life mission, or squandering it on someone else’s? Do we impose on others in a way that carelessly tramples their time?
One of my favorite books is Gordon MacDonald’s Ordering Your Private World
. In it he emphasizes the seriousness of budgeting one’s time for the sake of effective living. The following are four “laws” which he applies to all “unseized” time, that which has not been thoughtfully budgeted.
MacDonald’s Laws of Unseized Time
LAW #1: Unseized Time Flows Toward My Weaknesses
Because I had not adequately defined a sense of mission in the early days of my work, and because I had not been ruthless enough with my weaknesses, I found that I normally invested inordinately large amounts of time doing things I was not good at, while the tasks I should have been able to do with excellence and effectiveness were preempted.
…
LAW #2: Unseized Time Comes Under the Influence of Dominant People in My World
A famous “spiritual law” states that “God loves you and has a plan for your life.” Men and women who do not have control of their time discover that the same can be said about dominating people.
…
LAW #3: Unseized Time Surrenders to the Demands of All Emergencies
Charles Hummel in a small and classic booklet says it best we are governed by the tyranny of the urgent. Those of use with any sort of responsibility for leadership in vocation, in the home, or in our faith will find ourselves continually surrounded by events that cry out for immediate attention.
…
LAW #4: Unseized Time Gets Invested in Things that Gain Public Acclamation
In other words, we are more likely to give our unbudgeted time to events that will bring the most immediate and greatest praise.
–
Learn more about Ordering Your Private World by Gordon MacDonald
1 Comment
August 19, 2009 at 10:10 am (Life Observations, Philosophy & Religion, Sayings & Quotables)
Tags: brains, genius, intellectualism, smarts, wisdom
Who is the wiser person: the simple-minded individual who surrounds himself with smart people, or the gifted intellectual who relies only upon himself?
Leave a Comment
August 14, 2009 at 9:10 am (Life Observations, Philosophy & Religion, Politics, Sayings & Quotables)
Tags: authoritarianism, democracy, dictatorship, government, self-discipline, self-government
As people lose the ability to govern themselves internally, their desire increases to be governed externally.
Leave a Comment
August 11, 2009 at 7:01 pm (Philosophy & Religion)
Tags: abortion, creation, eugenics, euthanasia, human beings, humanity, life, sanctity of life
At no point must human beings attempt to assign a discrete value — in terms of money, quality of life, or otherwise — to other human beings.
Many a husband throughout history has been infuriated by a wife who discarded something she thought was garbage but which he treasured. By extension, how much more might we invoke the wrath of a supreme being by devaluing human lives that we did not invent and who may have worth far beyond what we can imagine?
Leave a Comment
July 9, 2009 at 3:16 pm (Popular Media, TV & the Media)
Tags: al sharpton, bill o'reilly, celebrities, celebrity, integrity, memorial service, michael jackson
I just watched Bill O’Reilly interview Rev. Al Sharpton on the issue of Sharpton’s remarks at Michael Jackson’s memorial service.
Bill O’Reilly and Al Sharpton video
A victim of my own curiosity, I watched part of the memorial service as it was broadcast live, and I did get to hear Al Sharpton’s speech. During his remarks he directed this statement toward Jackson’s children: “Wasn’t nothing strange about your daddy; it was strange what your daddy had to deal with.”
That comment caught me the moment he said it. Opinions aside, isn’t this statement dishonest, at best? Nothing strange about Michael Jackson — seriously?
The O’Reilly interview got me to thinking: Why is it that people think life can be so easily compartmentalized to the point that what we do in one sphere has no bearing on another? Al Sharpton essentially said in this interview that Michael Jackson’s success in entertainment should be viewed apart from his personal life. But people aren’t pie charts and life isn’t a school lunch tray. Benefit of the doubt is one thing, but are we not able to examine a person as a whole, integrating the good and the bad in an honest and healthy way? If we were really honest with ourselves, we might realize that in life we don’t get graded just on our “best work.”
1 Comment
June 30, 2009 at 9:48 am (Philosophy & Religion)
Tags: morality, perfection, preaching, religion, scandal, sin
There are two men: One touts high moral standards and attempts to live by them in all aspects of his life. The other knows what is right but does it only when it is to his benefit. If they both commit the same scandalous act, who is more guilty?
Leave a Comment
April 30, 2009 at 2:35 pm (Philosophy & Religion, Politics)
Tags: civil unions, cohabitating, cohabitation, family, gay marriage, heterosexuality, homosexuality, marriage, relationships, traditional marriage
I recently read a report analyzing the statistical differences between heterosexual and homosexual couples in several aspects. Among the report’s findings were the following:
- Most gay people don’t enter long-term partnerships, and those partnerships that do exist don’t last as long as heterosexual marriages, on average
- In places where gay “marriage” is officially sanctioned, very few gay couples take advantage of it compared to the percentage of heterosexuals who get married
- For many gay men, the definition of marriage does not include exclusivity or fidelity
If these things are true, then I’m confused: Why is the pro-gay political lobby in the U.S. fighting for the same marriage rights as heterosexuals, when the data would indicate that their community at large isn’t that interested?
Read the analysis here
Leave a Comment
January 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm (Philosophy & Religion)
Tags: children, civil unions, cohabitating, cohabitation, commitment, divorce, family, gay marriage, love, marriage, society, traditional marriage
I’ve been giving more thoughts to what marriage is all about. (See my last post on the topic.) It has occurred to me that there is one critical issue that people fail to understand about the matter.
Marriage is not about “love.”
That is, marriage is not about love as most people define it: romantic sentiment, high emotion, and (let’s be honest) sex. True, these things are important, even vital, motivators toward marriage. But the emotional tides ebb. No marriage escapes the latter part of “better or worse”: the sick kids, the late payments, the lost jobs, the in-laws, the big move, the disability, the empty nest, the schools, the funerals, etc. Too many couples are divorcing simply because they don’t understand what they really signed up for.
Isn’t marriage the cornerstone of society? Practically speaking, it’s how we get more people. And a man and woman who are emotionally healthy and committed to each other will raise children who will be well prepared to raise their own kids someday and continue the cycle. Jeopardized marriages jeopardize the entire cycle.
Marriage isn’t just about two people, it’s about everyone. It’s not just about romance, but about exemplifying true love — unconditional commitment to another’s well-being — to the community.
Where marriage as an institution is failing, we need to reinforce its pillars, not tear them down, because supporting marriage supports us all.
2 Comments
« Older entries
