Petty Pet Peeves and Annoyances

Some items from my personal list of petty pet peeves and annoyances.  These items have never before been published.  Yes, this is a rather frivolous post...

1. The word "fortnight" and any usage of it.
2. "ect." being used instead of the proper "etc."
3. "Toning."  (It's an exercise industry myth.)
4. Too-frequent check-ups by waiter or waitress at a restaurant.
5. Water glass constantly refilled by waiter or waitress without permission.  (I like to FINISH things!)
6. The ever-present smile. (What are they hiding?)
7. The ever-present dour look. (Can't you be happy about ANYTHING - or at least pleasant?)
8. Quiet talkers. (Speak up!)
9. Too-loud talkers.
10. Being told "dinner" is at 6pm but finding out that lengthy prep is just BEGINNING at that time.

More will be added to the list at an undetermined time.

Religion and the State

While on my bike ride yesterday listening to some lectures (again) on my I-pod,  at a moment the wind/headphone combination was not deafening, the speaker brought up how religion in the state (and in government by necessary inference) is inescapable.  I'll share it with you - processed through my brain and regurgitated to you using my words.  Hopefully it's somewhat intelligible.

Which human institution makes laws, recognizes laws, and enforces laws?  Easy question.  The state does it.  You can for practical purposes substitute the word "government" or more specifically "civil government" and we're still talking about the same thing.  Every law carries with it a sense of "thou shalt do this" or "thou shalt NOT do this" - it cannot be escaped.  Take any law, and consider that if you break it you are at least in theory - if not in practice - liable to some sort of punishment, even if it is very minor.  So, the state tries to influence your morality (your actions, "mores") through legislation.  Yes, every law is an imposition of morality.  Not only is it possible to "legislate morality" but it is the ONLY kind of legislation there is!  The concept of shalt and shalt not - the recognition of obligation, is the domain or religion, or at least in the domain of a place in which God or an ultimate authority is recognized.

Surely we can have a law code and laws without recognizes a god or God, can't we?  Not one that you can make sense out of.  Where is the authority behind a law or law code?  It has to reside somewhere.  If there is no authority behind a law or law code then that means it really has no backing and no legitimate power.  Consider any law and you will come to three possibilities regarding authority:

1.   The authority might reside in the individual.  If that is so, and there can be no higher appeal or authority in regards to that law, then we have a planet with billions of authorities and no one can legitimately have any say over what another person (authority) does to himself or anyone else.  This would be anarchy, and the whole idea of laws governing the society as a whole would not make any sense. 
2. The authority might reside in the people.  There is an ancient Latin saying: "Vox populi vox dei." which translates as "The voice of the people is the voice of God."  The "people" in this saying is the collective "people."  What is the problem with this?  This is a pure democracy - not a good thing.  There are no limits with this type of system.  If 51% of the people for whatever reason become persuaded that it is GOOD to kill you, to run over the old lady, or to do whatever evil (as we consider evil) deed you can think of, it would be by definition OK.  If the majority (i.e. the "people" is the ultimate authority behind legislation, then the rights of the minority are not protected - no one's rights are safe.  
3. The third option is that the authority resides in a personal, transcendent God - a being who is by definition just, good, and perfect.  Though humans are imperfect and are guilty of faulty application, if God has decreed through holy writ and divine fiat that certain things are right and certain things are wrong, then these become immovable limits to our folly.  They are safeguards that protect us from utter self-destruction - and they protect the (legitimate) rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.  The drafting and enacting of legislation can have a democratic element, but there are built in limits/safeguards. This is something a pure democracy does not and can not do.

Before I get ahead of myself, let me reemphasize the fact that in all three options I just listed, a "god" (i.e. an ultimate authority) is assumed and needed.  In any system where law has any meaning, an ultimate authority is needed.  You can't get away from it.  I'm sorry if I'm unnecessarily repeating myself, but I'm just trying to make things clear.  The ultimate authority of any system is the god of that system - because it is the ultimate authority.  You may not want to call it "God" but it is the "god" you (even if you're an Atheist)  appeal to nonetheless.  It is the ultimate authority you recognize.

So there is is.  You can't get away from the concept of God intertwined with the state.  You can't get away from some conception of religion - mixed with the state.  Out of the three options I listed above that last paragraph, which do you hold to?  Think about it next time you go on a long ride or run...

Training Update: December Ultra

I just thought I'd post an update on my condition and thoughts concerning my 50-mile 2011 Endurance Challenge Series Championship event in San Francisco, California .

Running has been going well.  The switch back to the Nike Frees after using the Vibrams has been a positive one.  As it turned out, my body could just not adapt quick enough to being virtually barefoot over long distances as Vibram Five Fingers causes you to be.  So, I'm not a die-hard Vibram Five Fingers Only ideologue!  As far as running goes, my principle is go as natural as practical and don't cheat.  I'm abiding by this.  I'm also enjoying my running as usual.  After taking two months off, I had to be careful with my run-length increases.  We're getting down to the wire now though, so I've got to go long.  I ran 22+ miles today.  Next week it will be a 26+ miler.  All four long run days in November will be 33-35 mile runs (God-willing!)  Please pray that I stay healthy.

Cycling days have also been enjoyable.  The long rides are a good way for me to have back-to-back long days without all the injury potential and impact which would result from two long-run days back-to-back.  It will be getting cold soon though, and I hate cold weather while riding.  I plan to increase my Wednesday ride to 80+ miles next week and through all the Wednesdays in November.

I'm not the best at any of this stuff really, but I really am convinced I'm cut out for long-distance events.  I'm patient, and I can easily put myself into a psychological state that accepts and even enjoys long-term effort.  I believe one of the keys to this is making the feeling/sensation of running and cycling normative in one's mind.  For instance, instead of the default feeling/sensation being sitting or lying down, what one considers their default sensory state should be the activity they hope to be able to do for long periods of time.  In this case it would be running.  I can truly say that when I settle into a nice long run in which the respiration is mostly aerobic (as opposed to anaerobic) sitting in an easy chair would NOT be more pleasurable.  There may be discomfort, but it's enjoyable.  It's not pain in a negative sense, and the effort feels like the most natural and desirable thing possible.

Going long is also a good time to listen to mp3 lectures and audiobooks on the IPod.  I do this all the time.

I'm looking forward to upping the long ride and run distances this next month and performing well on Dec 3rd.  I hope for a good performance, and I look forward to ultra training and competition being something I can continue engage in for decades to come.  Ultra distance athletes also often remain competitive through their 40's and until age 50 or so - unlike sprint athletes.

That's it for now, folks!

What Could Be More Important?

We are often told not to discuss Religion or Politics at the dinner table.  This general admonition seems to bleed into many of our other social engagements whether they be of a group nature or of a more personal, one-on-one nature.  What do we think of this?  What are we to make of it?  Do we follow this instruction/advice?

On a personal level I have to admit that I like things to go "smooth."  I generally don't like conflict.  As they say, I like to "get along."  However, there are times when our own immediate personal comfort should yield to what is truly important.  What do I mean by this?  Talking about running shoe models, the weather, sports, dogs, or my Star Wars action figure collection has a momentary sweetness and easiness, but spending time on these subjects does little to further those thing which, deep-down, we know we really care about.  I'm talking about (1) ultimate issues and our eternal state/destiny, and (2) this temporary life we live right now between the bookends of our conception and our death - and that of our posterity for that matter.  What could be more important?  The subject of Religion really covers both topics, but for simplicity let's just concentrate on its focus on the former.  The subject of Politics covers the latter topic.  Actually, all sorts of things have to do with the second topic, but Politics is more directly  concerned with the division and extent of civil power, law, and liberty.  It concerns the nature and basis of law, government, who governs, and how we are governed.  These things necessarily affect all the earthly pursuits and interests we could otherwise talk about. Because of this, Politics is of great importance.

This will not be a long exposition on our life on earth or our life (or the question of our life) in the hereafter.  I am simply and I think justifiably assuming that these things do matter to us.  When we meet with friends, or we meet with family, whether it be one-on-one or even at a family gathering, I propose that our discussion not be vain and fluffy.  Life is too short.  We care about ultimate issues, and let us not leave our engagements and our opportunities with that empty feeling that comes from non-engagement of those things we really find important.  Be bold, but measured.  Respect another person's right to voice their opinion.  Note that I am not advocating a respect for the substance of their opinion itself.  We believe certain things because we believe certain other things are necessarily wrong.  It is that simple.  Peel away the political correctness and be willing to call evil "evil" and good "good."  Anything else is simply dishonesty.  Many insist that we can not change their mind.  They will tell you that you can't change their mind and they can't change yours.  This is nonsense and wishful thinking.  How many times have we changed our own opinion about things?  We all have changed our minds about at least one thing - and these mind changes were not done in a vacuum.   Rarely is a mind changed (or the admission of a mind being changed) occur all at once.  One debater does not give up during a debate and tell his opponent and the audience "you're right.  I give up.  I now agree with you."  It just doesn't happen.  For one thing, our pride gets in the way.  For another thing, changes in position or philosophy  often happen incrementally.  Talking about Religion and Politics is therefore not useless, not a waste of time, and most likely will bring about changes - though they may not be immediately apparent.

I, for one, will not shy away from engagement in the topics which really matter.  What could be more important topics for discussion than those two forbidden topics, Religion and Politics?   Don't worry.  I'll be civil and no food-throwing or screaming will occur.

Thoughts on How We Critique Islam

This last Friday morning I listened to a popular morning show on the radio and listened as the host played and picked apart portions of a recorded lecture by the the recently killed Al-Qaeda operative Anwar Al-Aulaqi.  I have not provided you with either the recording of the lecture nor the full transcript of the host's dialogue and comments.  However, my message (reproduced below) to the host, an outspoken Christian, should give enough information for you to see where I'm coming from and what compelled me to send him this message.  The type of analysis he gave was not unique in any way, but giving a critique of that type of analysis/critique has been on my mind for a while - and I chose to do it this time.  I have left out the host's name and the station's call sign, but if you were listening to the same station on Friday morning you will know to whom it was addressed to and which station I was listening to.  Hopefully it provides some food for thought.  Thoughtful comments are welcome.  

My e-mail letter is reproduced below in blue:

[Host's name],

First off, let me tell you I listen to you on [station call sign] almost every morning - and agree with you on most things.  Secondly, I'm a Christian, married, homeschooling father of four.  I'm convinced that our nation and its leaders ignore the face and goals of Islam to our great peril.  I'm on your side.  However, I have to gently rebuke you as a brother for the method in which you analyzed a speech/lecture of recently-killed the Al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Aulaqi this morning.

1. You portrayed the submission aspect of Islam as if having a strong submission aspect alone makes a religion suspect.

2. You portrayed the "if Allah commands it, it is good" type of instruction seem as if it is unworthy of a true religion.

3. In the example al-Aulaqi gave of the hypothetical command of Allah for a 20-year old to stand on one foot for the rest of his life, you made it seem as if it was totally unreasonable for an almighty God to give a command like this and definitely unreasonable for an adherent to follow it.

4. You made a joking comment (not your exact words) to the effect of "That makes me want to sign up!" - as if Truth is like ice cream, and we should simply choose what looks most tasty and pleasurable.  

The problem with your line of critique is that these same types of arguments can and are used against Christianity!  It weakens our Christian witness and does not honor the God of Truth who is Truth Himself to judge Islam by a different standard than you are willing to use for Christianity.  Christianity has a strong submission element.  We are slaves of Christ - even as we are also free.  If God commands something, it is good.  Think of the conquest of Canaan.  Was that good?  Yes it was.  Have God's people ever been asked to do some seemingly crazy things?  Yes.  Consider God's command to Abraham regarding killing his one and only son Isaac.  Consider the various strange commands/requirements that God gave to the prophet Ezekiel.  Ezekiel had to lie on one side for a great many days and then the other.  He had to bake a special bread that God originally had commanded him to bake using human dung.  He had to roam around naked at one point.  I'm sure you get the picture!  Concerning my #4, remember Jesus telling the rich young ruler to give away all he had and follow him?  Would THAT naturally make one want to "sign up"?  

If we want to confront the opposition, [host's name], we can do much better than present things in such a way that they undermine our own position.  We need to be able to use the same standard(s) with our own position, or else we're just not being completely honest. We need to honor the God of Truth by not appealing to these types are arguments that are much too easy - but in reality are harmful to our own cause in the long run.

I hope this did not come off as too hard.  Iron sharpens iron - and this will be good for the kingdom. At least that's the idea I'm after.

All The Best,

Dan Sorenson