Culture

Timely warning from the 13th century

Blessed Humbert of Romans was a Dominican preacher who died in 1277. He, along with how many thousands of other holy men and martyrs who devoted their lives to establishing Christianity over the last 2000 years, is now virtually forgotten. Fifty to seventy years of toil, strife, and heroism by Humbert can hardly be summed up in a small paragraph. But part of his undying legacy is a prediction that certain things would come to pass if we lost the Gospel:

* That demons would rule. Certainly this video on "Hamas Kindergarten" is that!

* That the world would be sterile. The plummeting birthrate across post-Christian Europe is this fulfillment.

* That hearts would have neither hope nor joy in their salvation. Western society living as though there were no tomorrow becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My sister lives half her time in France and the rest in London. She and her friends are the educated Western European elite. I am sure their attitudes are indicative of many.

I point out the growing Islamization, the falling birthrate, and ask: "What kind of world are you bequeathing to the grandchildren? Their answer: "That's their problem!"

As to Islamization, "It won't happen in my lifetime." Maybe. But is this not an inter-generational betrayal? The old cliché "the future belongs to those who prepare for it" holds too true.

Reviving the art of conversation

I’ve found that when a thread of conversation has developed, some patients have surprised themselves by realizing they’ve actually had a good time at the dental office. I never cease to be amazed at how well patients can talk through the impedimenta of four-handed dentistry. Editor: So asserts Dr. Matt Dunn DDS, a dentist by vocation, who makes time for such avocations as year-round extreme mountaineering on Saturdays and helping me on the radio most Sundays. Whatever you say, Matt; but personally, I never cease to be amazed at my hygenist's assumption that anyone could possibly reply to her questions with all those freaking impedimenta in their mouth. Dunn wrote this piece, with much obvious relevance to the art of talk radio, in his capacity as editor of the Articulator, magazine of the Metro Denver Dental Society. Here's the article in full:

Sitting in the chair at the barber shop the other morning, wearing a blue smock with a tight neck-band, I noticed my barber and I had to work a little harder at our usual leisurely conversation. We encountered newfound interference, in the form of a television screen blaring forth from the center of the shop.

Raising our voices a notch, we managed to discuss some sports, some politics, some updates on our respective families. Glancing left and right, I noticed most of the other patrons weren’t having too much to say as they absorbed the morning newscast. Scissors were moving, mandibles were not.

It was to be a day of catching up on things – sundry tasks, errands and appointments.

Standing in line at the bank, I counted two TV screens along the pathway towards the tellers, and two others anchored elsewhere across the lobby, all flashing headline news. Again, except for a customer on a cell phone, I didn’t observe anyone actually talking.

Later on, moving through the aisles of a big-box chain store, I noticed I was seldom out of reach of a flat-panel screen transmitting snappy music and promotional messaging.

Then, stepping into a sandwich shop, I had to chuckle over a red-lettered sign that encouraged patrons to get off of their cell phones while ordering their sandwiches.

A routine day in America – a series of banal observations. But threaded together, perhaps they raise the provoking question: What is the state of conversation in America today?

As our lives become more surrounded by the virtual, ever more infiltrated by portable media devices, by endless flat-panels and sound systems, with increasing opportunities to email and text message and generally avoid face-to-face dialogue – are we obliged to count such as social progress?

Moreover, in this sea of virtuality, where does dentistry fit in?

I like to think that dentistry remains one of the last bastions of genuine communication in American life today. No matter how much technology may have changed our lives, the dental office is still a place where people can have real conversations, and where they may find themselves looking forward to them beforehand, and feeling good about them afterwards.

Though we may suffuse our operatories with computer monitors and our reception areas with satellite sound, there is still no getting around the fundamental fact that there must be direct, personal communication with our patients – often over comparatively lengthy periods of time.

Patients cannot multitask their way through an appointment, and neither can we. Meanwhile, there’s no such thing as ersatz dentistry.

I aver that these are good tidings, and that they can make for some of the most rewarding moments in our lives as practitioners. Though the lion’s share of our discussion with patients will tend to be about oral health considerations, there will generally be time left over for free-ranging, open-ended, spontaneous conversation. As we get to know our patients, they get to know us.

When Dick Cavett once asked Jack Paar about the secrets of his successful television talk show, Paar said: “Don’t make it an interview, kid. Make it a conversation.” Paar, the forbear to Johnny Carson, was known to be a great listener and practitioner of the art of conversation.

In days gone by the “art of conversation” formed a part of our educational curricula, and the character attribute of being a “good conversationalist” was regarded as a worthy aspiration. It was assumed that it took some study, that it wasn’t an altogether natural process to arrive at the polished result. It involved the proper blend of give and take, politeness and raillery, humor and empathy.

Though conversation as an art may now be in decline in America – as Stephen Miller persuasively argues in his recent book titled Conversation – we dentists are in a position where conversation must necessarily occupy a portion of our daily activity, and where we may take advantage of what Jonathan Swift called “the greatest, the most lasting, and the most innocent, as well as useful pleasure of life.”

I’ve found that during some of the longer dental procedures, when a thread of conversation has developed and advanced around the treatment room, some patients have surprised themselves by realizing they’ve actually had a good time at the dental office. I never cease to be amazed at how well patients can talk through the impedimenta of four-handed dentistry.

Towards the end of a procedure, when we find we’re still conversing, we may be assured that all has gone well. And we know we can pick up where we left off at the next appointment.

Concerned about the limiting sphere of social interaction in modern society, philosopher Michael Oakeshott has addressed the need “to rescue conversation.” Surrounded as we are by multifarious obstacles to conversation, the dental profession may be partaking in just such an effort.

On whatever fractional scale, as we work to rescue teeth in our daily lives, we may also, without necessarily realizing it, be working to rescue conversation. A healthy enterprise, on many levels – and something that will never become another faceless errand in the American routine.

“To my taste, the most fruitful and natural exercise of our mind is conversation. I find the practice of it the most delightful activity in our lives.” --Michel de Montaigne

Quietly rewriting the Declaration

Why do progressives work so diligently to weed Christianity out of the body politic? They wish to rewrite the Declaration of Independence as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal (and must remain so), that they are endowed by the State with certain conditional Rights, that among these are Life, (provided it is of sufficient “quality”), Liberty, (if proper behavior and attitudes are maintained), and the pursuit of the Collective Good.”

Let us consider these items one at a time.

1. Undermining our society’s Christian foundations

Eliminate home schooling and force everyone to place their children in the hands of NEA propagandists to be indoctrinated with progressive biases.

Next, define religious schools as child abuse as pretext to shut them down and give the progressives a total monopoly over the minds of our children.

Pull down visible religious symbols, and prohibit any religious activity in school.

2. Instituting the culture of death

“Progressive” social democracy constitutes the culture of death: abortion, euthanasia, “mercy” killing. The camel’s nose under the tent flap begins with the notion of “terminally ill” patients. But soon it expands to the “terminally inconvenient." Elitists then decide if your “quality of life is sufficient” to allow you to live.

If the progressive purpose provides “security to all citizens”, the State then claims the right to enforce things in your life that benefit the State. “You must wear a motorcycle helmet! If you bang your head, and become a vegetable, it will cost too much to care for you!” True enough. But what about the next step? “Living too long is ‘unfair’ because you consume more than your “fair share” of welfare resources!”

“Upon receipt of this letter, you are hereby notified that upon reaching your 72nd birthday, your retirement and Social Security benefits are terminated. You will vacate your government apartment, surrender your accounts and possessions to proper authorities, and report to the euthanasia center by no later than 10:00 PM on January 16th.”

Another outrage: the progressive obsession with casualties in Iraq, used to undermine the war effort. 4000 brave men and women lost in the fight against a world-wide barbarous Islamic tyranny over the last 5 years. Regrettable, but what about the 3700 lives snuffed PER DAY by abortion? Or what about the 42,000 a year killed in automobile accidents?

3. Hypocrisy in action

Abortion, by far, is the biggest killer of Americans, with the total of over 1.2 million deaths per year! In 1973 we discovered we were expecting our son Glenn. The nurse casually asked my wife “do you want to keep it”? I remember the cold chill and horror I felt at the time. (My cherished son an “it”!) Yet tens of millions of Americans my son’s age have been murdered by their parents before they had a chance for life. If the progressives really cared about life, they would be on the other side of this issue.

Theologically we’re in trouble: King Manasseh of ancient Judah (697 to 642 BC) “..did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2Chr 33:2). His greatest sin was “he burned his sons as an offering in the valley of the son of Hinnom” (2 Chr 33:6). King Manasseh revived the ancient Canaanite practice of sacrificing children to Moloch. How many children were burnt alive in the 55 years that King Manasseh reigned? Tens of thousands? Even the piety of his grandson, King Josiah, was not enough to redeem the Jewish society from the punishing destruction of 586 BC.

Yet WE have “sacrificed” tens of MILLIONS to our false gods of selfishness and convenience! If people are an asset, how much richer and stronger our society would be today if the 50 million young people my son’s age were alive today! If people are an asset, why are we thus destroying the very future of the society?

Progressives strive to make children unfashionable. The very class of people most able to raise fine children are the very ones killing them! “Progressive” society prefers to subsidize generation after generation of welfare dependent single mothers who spawn illegitimate children for income!

We believe our God is a loving God. But He is also a just God. Can we really think we will NOT be held accountable for this unquestioned sin of abortion?

I saw a bumper sticker stating “A voice for choice: every child a wanted child!” I gagged! Why not this? “A voice for choice: Every Citizen a wanted Citizen /s/Adolph Hitler!” The roots of Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood go deep into Nazi Eugenics that any genuine liberal would abhor!

4. Finally, “liberty and the pursuit of happiness”

See how progressives handle these in areas they already control: on campus! speech codes, political correctness, intolerance of diverse points of view. The party line in spades! Imagine society completely controlled by progressives: Look what’s happening in Canada as we speak.

If our society wishes to preserve the liberties it now takes for granted, it must remember and heed the words of one of the founding Fathers, Patrick Henry: “Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

Flash: Santa is a conservative

The worst Christmas song I've heard this year has to be Bruce Springsteen's tuneless rendition of "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." Yet by forcing me to think about the lyrics, the Boss delivered a flash of insight: conservatives do the jolly old elf a grave wrong in calling him the patron saint of something-for-nothing Democrats. We should claim Santa as our own. Listing who's been bad and good, naughty and nice? Warning us not to cry (play the victim) or pout (cast blame and act entitled)? There's little difference, when you think about it, between St. Nick and St. Newt. George Will himself could hardly be more stern and judgmental. Santa Claus rightly understood is a far cry from the unearned redistribution of John Edwards or the syrupy hope of Obama.

Even if recast from the unnerving red-clad (red, Republican, get it?) bearded geezer of yore to the more kid-friendly persona of Mr. Rogers, as David Grimes recommended in Sunday's Denver Post, Father Christmas remains a no-nonsense apostle of good conduct, rigorous standards, and time-honored traditions. The "Santa's Coming" song, even when butchered by Springsteen, is just the opposite of that favorite left-liberal anthem, "Anything Goes."

Jeffrey Bell, writing in the Weekly Standard, offers a great Christmas gift for all of us on the right with this masterful summary of what the left really wants -- a total repudiation of St. Nicolas and his strictness, a hot revolution that would melt the North Pole faster than you can say Al Gore:

    "The goal of the left is the liberation of mankind from traditional institutions and codes of behavior, especially moral codes. It seeks a restoration (or achievement) of a state of nature, one of absolute individual liberty--universal happiness without the need for laws. The proposed political way stations chosen by the left in its drive toward this vision have [included]: abolition of private property (socialism); prohibition of Christianity and/or propagation by the political elite of a new civil religion to replace it; confiscatory taxation, especially at death; regulation of political speech to limit the ability of certain individuals or classes to affect politics; the takeover of education to instill new values and moral habits in the population; confiscation of privately held firearms; gradual phasing out of the nation-state; displacement of the traditional family in favor of child-rearing by an enlightened governmental elite; and the inversion of sexual morality to elevate recreational sex and reduce the prestige of procreative sex."

Some agenda, huh? It adds up to the exact opposite of "be good for goodness' sake." And notice, by the way, that this injunction from Santa Claus, courtesy of songwriter Haven Gillespie, doesn't merely appeal to utilitarian self-interest. Rather it invokes a moral absolute which, when obeyed, is its own reward. A pitch-perfect echo of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and "Theory of Moral Sentiments," in what you thought was just an empty Yuletide ditty. Mirabile dictu!

Lest we forget, however, the true reason for this season is neither St. Nick on the right nor Holiday Hillary on the left, but the baby born in Bethlehem. The Prince of Peace transcends liberal and conservative. He is a miracle even more mysterious than a large man ascending a small chimney. None of us is good enough to deserve His unspeakable gift, salvation and life eternal, yet none of us is so bad as to be disqualified from it. Here indeed is a present worth unwrapping. A merry and, yes, a holy Christmas to all.

"Me, the gunman, and God"

Security guard? That's not quite accurate. Jeanne Assam, the former police officer whose fearless shooting halted the massacre at New Life Church on Sunday, was first of all a church member, a Christ-follower. She was one of those voluntarily standing watch during the late service after having worshiped at an earlier service. She brought her gun to New Life that day in readiness to risk her life for the protection of others' lives, and for the defense of fellow believers' right to practice their faith unmolested. Good thing she did. Matthew Murray, the deranged killer, wanted Christians dead and set his own life at no value toward that end. Jeanne Assam wanted Christians protected and alive and safe -- and set her own life at no value toward that end. She advanced on him like David against Goliath, and with the same result. How instructive it is to read their contrasting accounts in today's Denver Post (see the foregoing links).

And how utterly backward, in light of all this, is Tuesday's letter to the Post by Robert Tiernan of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Though he condemns Mitt Romney for having "pandered to deists" and "ignored the rights of atheists," that's not what the Massachusetts Republican did in last week's speech. Rather, Romney explained precisely why an America where faith flourishes is a far better country -- a place where the self-giving typified by Assam can overcome the self-destructiveness tragically manifested in Murray.

Violence and bloodshed and lives on the line in places of faith, such as our state experienced this weekend in Arvada and Colorado Springs, are not as incongruous as they may seem. The Jewish festival of Hanukkah, concluding today, commemorates a desperate fight for survival 2100 years ago by believers in the biblical God. The Christmas story, retold in churches this month, includes soldiers slaughtering infants as one family flees for its life.

The newborn son of that family, Jesus of Nazareth, would grow up to tell his followers, "A time is coming when anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God" (John 16:2). His own execution was carried out soon thereafter, with that very motivation.

So the deadly hatred voiced by Matthew Murray is nothing new after all. "You Christians brought this on yourselves," he wrote on a website in the midst of Sunday's killing spree. "All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you as I can, especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems of the world."

Peter and his fellow apostles would not be surprised at this syllogism of evil, in the first century or the 21st. Robert Tiernan would no doubt disavow the murderer's conclusion; but would he completely reject the premise? As for Jeanne Assam, Christ-follower and armed churchgoer -- she, thank God, left home on the morning of December 9 fully aware of the risks that faith involves, and fully prepared to face them.