Cultural Icons

“I, Matthew E. Robinson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, so help me God.

 

            The first time I said these words; I intoned them with little thought, simply repeating them after a bored-looking officer uttered the various phrases. Over the course of my military career, as my experience, responsibility, and scope of influence grew; the weight of these words took on new meaning. Eventually, I took the following oath as an officer, repeating them as promotions occasionally came my way.

 

“I Matthew E. Robinson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

 

            I also administered this oath to numerous soldiers as they reenlisted. The first few times I administered the oath, I read the words from a piece of paper provided by the reenlistment NCO. Then one day, a full Colonel looked on as I conducted the reenlistment. He watched me read the words and pulled me aside later and privately admonished me to memorize those words in order to look the soldier in the eye. “They deserve that level of respect for the words and their commitment,” he stipulated. He was correct and I can still recite the oath of enlistment. Oaths matter, even today in our rather feckless society. This is why I must respectfully disagree with those who rank R.E. Lee and other confederate officers as heroes worthy of emulation.

            The oath of enlistment is not a new part of the American military experience. The Continental Congress developed the first oath in 1775. Later, after the adoption of the Constitution, the military adopted an oath much the same as our current oath in the late seventeen hundreds. It has remained, relatively unchanged during the ensuing two centuries, serving as a reminder to all uniformed service-members that we serve a high calling, one to live out the ideals framed in our foundational documents. It is a mark of devotion to duty to remain true to those words, even at great personal cost.

            As our polarized nation stumbled toward war, a desperate President Lincoln turned to Lee, one of the brightest military minds of his day, offering him command of the Army. And Lee failed the test. He discarded his oath, walking away from his duty, depositing a stain upon his reputation that no fuller on earth can remove. He, and all the other officers that joined him, do not deserve accolades. We should not erect monuments to them, name no schools after them, or lift them up as men to emulate. In fact, we ought to remove those monuments that remain standing. These are men who devoted their professional abilities to support a cause, an economic system, a way of life that rested on the backs of enslaved men, women, and children. Theirs was not a noble or just cause. They, like Benedict Arnold, betrayed their nation and bear the same stigma. Their moral failure outweighs their martial abilities and the passage of time does not somehow expunge their turpitude.

            We must not succumb to the “noble-lost-cause” myth of the early twentieth century as part of an ongoing campaign to shroud the confederacy in a cloak of respectability. Whether or not they personally owned slaves does not matter. They chose to support and ignoble cause and share in its shame. It is not rewriting history to insist on a true evaluation of individual and group decisions and the behaviors that flowed from them. To honor men who failed to live up to their sworn duty not only wounds all men and women of color in our nation but also is a slap in the face to all service members who sacrificed, some to the full measure, in order to honor their oath. To continue to elevate these men to icon status is to disregard their moral failure.

            Our cultural icons reveal much about us and what we value. Yes, Lee and his generals were great tacticians, but their martial prowess does not outweigh their dishonorable choice. They did not place great value on their word and their honor. They took an oath to support and defend the Constitution and did not live up to it. When we elevate such men to hero status, we demean ourselves and clearly proclaim that we do not consider keeping our word important. Perhaps, now almost one hundred and sixty years later, we so often struggle with prevaricators in the public arena. We casually elevated such men as Lee, Hood, Brag, and others like them to hero status, and in doing that we diminished integrity as a required trait for honorable men. It is high time for us to remove the names of such traitors from the public spaces they now occupy.

           

 

 

 

Eating Meat?

            I enjoy grilling a steak. In fact, I enjoy grilling in general. During Spring, Summer, and Fall the aroma of searing meat frequently fills my backyard. So when I read the apostle Paul’s lengthy admonition in I Corinthians 8, I always pause and ruminate. How does God, through Paul, expect me to incorporate these words into my daily walk as a Christian? Growing up in West Texas whenever preachers reached for this text, they quickly pointed out that Paul was speaking about something deeper, something richer, something more than a prohibition on eating meat. No preacher wished to trample on the hallowed ground of Texas BBQ. We normally applied this passage to interpersonal relations within the context of body-life. How do I get along with my brothers and sisters? This is an appropriate use of the passage; however, might we apply this passage to our Christian witness in the public square?

            During recent weeks, our nation has increasingly examined the state of race relations, scrutinizing certain cultural icons. Proponents of Black Lives Matter, and other like organizations have renewed calls to remove statues of confederate soldiers and leaders, as well as some brand logos. Daily, my Facebook feed fills up with comments decrying these “attacks” on their cultural heritage. At some point in their post, they normally ask, “Where will this stop?” I wonder. I wonder if this is an appropriate time to apply I Corinthians 8 to my actions in the public square? Could God, again through Paul, be encouraging me to respond differently to these times?

            My first-century brothers and sisters faced a rather difficult issue, can I eat the meat offered in the local market? As I understand, the ancient Greco-Roman practice was to offer a sacrifice at the local temple. Then the temple authorities would sell the meat to a vendor in the local market, who would then sell it on to their customers. Consequently, one never really knew the source of the meat, rancher, or temple priest? Some early Christians, coming out of a pagan background, struggled with the possibility of eating meat offered to idols. In I Corinthians 8:4-8, Paul clearly shows that the idols have no real existence and consequently no effect, spiritual or otherwise, on the meat. Evidently, Paul felt no compunction about sitting down to a good meal, complete with some sort of meat. But under the unction of the Holy Spirit, Paul goes on to lay a significant challenge before us. In verses nine through thirteen, he tells us to consider our weaker brothers and sisters more important than eating meat. We have the right to eat meat, but love compels us to take a different course. Paul gladly gives up his rights in order to secure the fellowship of believers. Normally, we have applied this passage to a variety of interior body issues; one cup or multiple cups, weekly or monthly communion, and a variety of other disputes. But, what if we look outside our walls into the greater community and applied this passage to how we relate to others in and out of the faith community as we reexamine race relations.

            How might I be gracious when dealing with someone raising an issue that I never considered offensive? There are things that never give me pause, products emblazoned with seemingly benign, icons I consider non-threatening, which may daily wound my fellow citizens and believers. I might feel the urge to argue that I have every right to hold on to them. In fact, our Bill of Rights might very well provide me a basis for such an argument; but, what about a Pauline approach, one which surrenders rights for a higher calling. Instead of insisting on my rights, what if I laid them aside for a more unified society? In our society, we regularly clamor for our rights. We emblazon our vehicles with bumper stickers that read, “Come and Take It,” emphasizing our willingness to fight for our rights. Paul calls us to a more pacific approach, one that considers others as more important than our personal rights. We might find ourselves listening, empathizing, and considering more frequently. We might also find ourselves defending, moralizing, and ranting less frequently. For those of us who claim Christ as our model and master, we must think carefully about defending our rights. After all, New Testament authors frequently refer to themselves as slaves. This willingness to consider others first might be the salve our nation needs as it seeks to heal the open wounds of racism and prejudice.

            When engaging in the on-going conversation concerning monuments and other social icons, we ought to consider what our fellow citizens see and feel. Do they incur moral and spiritual injury through my rights? I may have a “right,” but does my exercising that “right” elide injury to the corporate body? As we sort through these contentious issues, we must tenderly seek a path that leads to unity and healing. As men and women of color, my fellow citizens and often my brothers and sisters in Christ, navigate our society they must confront images and icons that remind them not only of the darker portions of our past but also, of the daily slights and injuries inflicted upon them in support of my rights. Our intransigence in dealing with these wounds reopens them daily and greatly increases the rifts that so sorely vex our society. All citizens deserve the right to transact the daily activities of life with their spirits intact and uninjured. In the first century, Paul encouraged kindness in interpersonal relations.

            What could be more kind than setting aside my freedoms in order to ease the passage of others through our society? Two hundred and forty-four years ago we embarked upon a grand experiment, one, which theorized that a disparate group of people might come together, and form a working country. During the ensuing two centuries, we’ve often struggled with our corporate identity. What does it mean to be an American? What does right look like in our culture? Now we must expand our vision to include more of our citizenry, understanding that past actions, standards of behavior, no longer serve the corporate good. Insisting on my rights, especially when those rights demean my fellow citizens, serves no useful purpose and does not reflect well upon the Lord. Instead, let us embrace a kinder approach that puts other’s needs ahead of my own. Perhaps it is time lay aside meat for a more just nation.  

De Oppresso Liber

            “De Oppresso Liber,” the U.S. Army Special Forces Latin motto means to free the oppressed, noble words for a noble organization. Born in the midst of the Cold War, the Army Special Forces’ original mission focused on training indigenous forces in conflict with communist forces around the world. Their motto, much like the U.S. Air Force Air Rescue Service motto “That Others Might Live,” pointed toward a principled use of military might. Though I never served in the Special Forces, as a soldier, later an NCO, and eventually an officer, I took and administered oaths which included these words,”…to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” As a military professional, I promised to defend the honorable ideals laid out in our foundational documents, and when called to do so as a leader undertook the honorable task to the best of my ability. Now is one of those times.

            Several of our installations carry the name of confederate soldiers; Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort A.P. Hill, Fort Gordon, and Fort Jackson, to name a few. All of these are located in states that were part of the confederacy. As part of our continuing national effort to address issues of racial discrimination, some have called upon the Army to rename these installations. Others, citing long tradition, resist such efforts. I understand tradition. Tradition helps the Army, and other military branches, maintain their moral underpinnings in an often murky and chaotic world. Sometimes traditions help bind soldiers to a storied past. But in this case, we need to jettison these traditions as contrary to our foundational documents and oaths.

            No matter how we try and frame it, the installations listed above are named after men who broke faith with the Army and the nation in support of a way of life founded upon the oppression and enslavement of black people. To rename these posts requires intellectual honesty and bravery. Intellectual honesty to recognize the incongruity of honoring men who dedicated their professional skills and energies to dismembering the very union we take an oath to protect. Through their decisions to support the confederacy, they chose to trample upon the ideals they swore to protect. Such a bracing, yet honest view of our history requires intellectual bravery. As soldiers, we often must face our fears, whether in an arduous training environment or when we kit up, donning our full-battle-rattle, going outside the wire to face an enemy eager to do us bodily harm. As soldiers, we must muster both physical courage and moral courage. Now, we must face our past and show the moral courage necessary to set aside those traditions, which run counter to our fundamental beliefs.

            As an officer, I often faced soldiers to administer the oath of enlistment, which reads in part, “…that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” How ironic that I frequently administered that oath to men and women of color on an installation named after a man who took the same oath and then discarded it. He and others post namesakes would have kept these same soldiers in the chains of slavery. If I expect my soldiers to live up to that oath, then so must I. I must be willing to participate in the ongoing campaign to build a nation, which truly lives up to its ideals, those ideals laid out in our founding documents. We cannot continue to insult our brothers in arms of color by insisting that they serve on installations named after men who sought to keep their ancestors in bondage. It is time to lay aside that portion of our tradition and build a better one.

            Discarding long-held traditions is a wrenching, painful, experience. Traditions help give our lives stability and meaning; however, when our traditions separate us from each other, they cease to serve a useful purpose and should be abandoned. It is long past time to truly integrate our service history by renaming those posts bearing the names of those who actively sought to tear apart our nation, defending a way of life based on keeping men and women of color in thrall. Years before the nation embarked upon the path of desegregation, the Army, under the leadership of President Truman desegregated. It was a difficult process then, but it had to be done. In a like manner, we must move forward into new territory. It will be painful, but it must be done to support and defend the constitution, and all of our citizens in or out of uniform.

 

Listen, Just Listen

          All of us have watched the daily parade of chaos and wondered, how and why? The phrase, “surely we can do better,” roils my mind. How did we get to this dark place? What has caused this great hurt, which rends our society? Sadly, we’re witnessing the result of centuries of marginalization and prejudice. As a nation, we’ve long ignored this problem. Periodically we take some steps to ameliorate the issues only to see them rolled back either through ignorance or at time circumventing legislation. But we cannot continue to ignore them, and until we address those wounds that scar our nation so deeply, all the police, tear-gas, and rubber bullets in the world will not solve our problems. If we ever hope to fulfill the noble ideals that animate our founding documents, we must unflinchingly look at the societal structures that keep so many of our fellow citizens nibbling away at the margins of the American dream. Oddly, the unflinching look starts with listening.

            We must actively listen to those demonstrating and the millions of their supporters that exist in quiet desperation. We must embrace active listening. Active listening sets aside preconceptions and truly hears the message of the speaker. Most of us hear the first sentence or so and then spend the rest of the time constructing an argument against what we think we heard. This demeans both the conversation and the speaker. When we engage in active listening we honor the speaker, valuing their words, and in doing that we value them. True listening, deep listening involves humility and vulnerability. We humbly set aside our own preconceptions of what the problem is and hear what someone else thinks the problem is. We are vulnerable enough to accept the possibility of our own culpability. We carefully consider what they think the solution looks like, embracing the frightening possibility that the solution might involve alterations in the power-paradigm that we cherish as normal and right. In this act of listening, we may find common ground and from common ground, we may find the path to solutions that provide the salve to our common wounds. Active listening does not seek to assign guilt.

            When we deeply listen to someone, we do not look to prove guilt or innocence. We want, no we yearn, to hear their story. True listening involves an openness to the person and what they are saying. Frequently we conflate speakers with other perceived bad actors. This skews the conversation into unproductive areas. No white American wants to answer for hate spewed from the mouth or pen of a neo-nazi white supremacist. We reject association with such evildoers. In a like manner, peaceful protestors reject association with looters and others that either advocate or embrace violence as a solution. We must avoid the urge to delegitimize the call for reform simply because a few criminals grab our attention with looting and other criminal activities. It is manifestly unfair to obfuscate the conversation through this kind of diversionary tactic. We must learn to listen to those voices that cry out for justice.

            Perhaps this is the hardest part of truly listening to someone, we may find out that we through ignorance or intransigence we share culpability in an on-going miscarriage of justice. Ensconced inside our comfortable air-conditioned homes, behind our manicured front lawns, or lounging by our sparkling pools behind our privacy fences, we may unwittingly contribute to the continual perpetuation of economic and political suppression. We ignore the privilege that constructed and continually supports these cocoons. Actively listening to someone requires that I leave the safety of my carefully constructed cocoon and interact with the real world. And the real world is a messy, convoluted place, requiring thoughtful creative solutions to the problems that vex. We must listen to the sufferers, involving them in developing and implementing the solutions to the problems. Any solution that does not flow from active deep listening coupled with thoughtful conversation is most likely to fail.

Complementarian or Egalitarian?

            “Do you have a complementarian or egalitarian view of marriage,” my fellow teacher asked me, leaning back in his chair?

            Despite being married over thirty years, I had no idea. I knew I loved Christy, my wife. I knew that I believed what the Bible said about marriage. I thought, and still think, Christy and I enjoy a strong and wonderfully fulfilling relationship. But, notwithstanding my long association with Christianity, I had to admit ignorance regarding those two terms. Of course, by training, I can invade foreign countries and teach English and Social studies so my attempts at theology are at best fumbling and ill-informed. But that has never stopped me in the past. I’m comfortable working on user-level theology. As an English teacher, I understand that the definition of words is foundational. Not being able to define complementarianism and egalitarianism as they relate marriage, I looked them up, and here are the definitions.

            Complementarianism is the theological view that although men and women are created equal in their being and personhood, they are created to complement each other via different roles and responsibilities as manifested in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere. 

            Egalitarianism, within Christianity, is a movement based on the theological view that not only are all people equal before God in their personhood, but there are no gender-based limitations of what functions or roles each can fulfill in the home, the church, and the society.

            I’d never really thought of how Christy and I organized our marriage. I grew up in West Texas in a theologically conservative faith community. I suppose that when Christy and I married, while my theological view was complementarian, my practice was more egalitarian. Christy and I never really discussed those concepts and which paradigm best described our relationship. As in all marriages, there were inevitable disagreements with the attendant tense conversations; however, for the most part, we sorted through those difficult times without great dissension. There was one particularly painful and lengthy disagreement, but even then with the Lord’s help, we managed to find our way to a mutual understanding. So, as we close on forty years of marriage, what framework would best describe our marriage? More importantly, how would God have us structure our union?

            Over the years, I’ve come to think of our marriage in the terms of “one flesh.” In God’s economy, Christy and I are not two separate individuals. We are one flesh. In the Genesis account of creation, God takes a piece of Adam and from it, with His hands, He fashions Eve. He says, “…Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (English Standard Version Gen. 2:24) We rightly take this as a bit of poetic speech referring to sexual intercourse. But, we ought not to discard the spiritual implications of becoming one flesh. Christy and I function not as individuals in some sort of contractual agreement; instead, we function as one unified individual. I wish I could say that we always achieve this rather lofty and sublime goal, we do not; but, when we do, the result is intensely satisfying. It is becoming a unified whole that changes the marriage dynamic. In a small way, our marriage relationship replicates the relationship that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit share. And that is why I hesitate to embrace either the egalitarian or complementarian view.

            Both views focus on roles. Roles imply separate duties and destinies. At one point in response to a question from Phillip, Jesus says, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (English Standard Version Jhn 14:9) That is the example for the marriage relationship. When you see Christy, you see me. We are one flesh. Roles, no matter how you define them, imply things that she does and things that I do. Separate realms or distinctions. In God’s eyes, He sees one. I know that this does not fit well with standing alone before God in the final judgment, but I trust Him to sort out all the details of salvation. After all, He said He’d take care of that. What I do know is that Christy and I are one flesh, and that changes things.

            When I allow myself to think of our marriage in terms of roles and responsibilities, I open the door to evaluation and judgment. Am I doing the right thing? Is Christy exhibiting the proper respect due a husband? These and other similar questions occupy my thoughts. When I understand our relationship in the light of one flesh, my viewpoint changes. Then Paul’s words to the believers in Ephesus, “²⁸ In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. ²⁹ For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, ³⁰ because we are members of his body.” (English Standard Version Eph 5:28-30 italics mine), make more sense. I take care of my body. I try to feed it healthy food. Some might justifiably say less of that Matt. I make sure I get some exercise; enough sleep, and clean it now and then. When I feel poorly, I go to the doctor. In short, I cherish and nourish my body. When I understand that Christy and I are one flesh, I cherish and nourish our body, our relationship. I no longer think of myself as some sort of glorified CEO, handing out annual evals. Instead, I constantly seek what is best for us, knowing that the other part of the one flesh is doing the same. I do not do things that come between us because I remember that what God has brought together man should not tear apart. And this lies at the core of my understanding of the marriage relationship.

            ¹⁸ Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” (English Standard Version GEN 2:18 Knowing that I am incomplete, God, through Christy, has made me complete, one flesh. So I view our relationship as one of oneness. We are not two people in an egalitarian relationship; neither are we two people in a complementarian relationship. We are, indeed, one flesh. As the Apostle Paul said, “³¹ “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” ³² This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” (English Standard Version Eph 5:31-32) It is a profound mystery, one that defies easy explanation; but it is one that I find deeply satisfying.

 

 

News Consumption

            As we plunge deeper into the current election cycle, it behooves us to consider what news is, what it is not, and how we consume it. I remember when news came via either the three major broadcasting networks or a newspaper. We furrowed our brows in wonderment when a new network, CNN, started broadcasting. After all, we mused, how would they fill twenty-four hours a day with news? Then came the Internet with grand promises of an informed society. Sadly, the proliferation of platforms does not appear to have resulted in a well-reasoned thoughtful conversation over matters of national import. Instead, we shout at each other across a great gulf, periodically retreating into our self-created echo chambers to reaffirm our convictions, emerging to reengage in continual diatribe, and congratulate ourselves on standing up for what we believe. This is not the product of thoughtful consumption of news.

            Sometimes news challenges our “sacred-cows.” All too often, we cry “media bias” simply because the news does not line up with our particular viewpoint. If our news choices never challenge us, never makes us ponder, never makes us question, never make us uncomfortable, then we’re consuming propaganda. Producers of propaganda rarely seek to inform. Instead, they seek to reconfirm and strengthen existing biases. News informs. News presents facts. News seeks to sharpen our understanding of the world and how it works. We use the claim of “media bias” in order to avoid confronting truth that does not support our particular position.

            Thoughtful consumption of news requires a devotion to truth. Jesus famously said, “…and you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” (English Standard Version JN 8:32) And while Jesus apparently refers to himself in this passage, He also reminds us that a devotion to truth, even the prosaic truth of day-to-day life, frees us. Intellectually honest consumers of news not only insist on truth-telling in their news sources, but they also do not share spurious stories in their own social media accounts. We must understand that when we share a lie, we share in that lie. Legitimate news sources take great pains to ensure the veracity of their product. They know that their reputation depends upon their truthfulness. They employ fact-checkers and the editorial staff holds reporters accountable. A discriminating consumer of news can easily find reliable trustworthy news outlets and eschews frequenting those sources that must issue frequent retractions or simply ignore failure.

            An educated consumer of news understands the difference between news and opinion. Of course opinion pieces, well-written ones, traffic in the realm of fact. They do not twist the facts. However, news presents the who, what, where, when, and why, without opinion or bias. When we find ourselves focusing our news consumption on opinion pieces without perusing the news, we must take the time to recalibrate our consumption and focus more on news intake. Reading a good news article takes time and effort. Opinion pieces tell us what to think, news pieces present the facts and leave us to decide what we think. The allure and peril of a news diet focused on opinion and propaganda is we do not have to think. We let someone else think for us, trusting them to handle the truth. Then, when we confront facts that do not line up with our view-point, instead of girding up our intellectual loins and sorting through the facts and possibly adjusting our view, we raise the hue and cry of “media bias” and excuse ourselves from further thought.

            During several assignments in the Army, my duties included media evaluation, both domestic and foreign. I can safely say that all the reputable news outlets in the states provide reasonably unbiased news. A number of the major foreign news outlets are similarly trustworthy. All opinion contains bias or it would not be opinion. Far too many of us enjoy the salaciousness of opinion pieces and count them as news. In doing that we display our unwillingness to do the work of a good consumer and our willingness to remain ignorant. So as the election cycle grinds on, let us commit ourselves to the heavy mental lifting required of being good consumers of news and become a literate electorate. Let us leave the echo-chambers of comfort and instead confront the reality of the world around us. Let us make well-informed decisions regarding the future of our nation.

Why Pay Taxes

            I recently opened a letter from my municipal tax authority and saw that my property had gone up in value; consequently, my taxes also went up. This precipitated a flurry of angry postings and memes rocketing around my little social- media world, all of which decried the actions of my town. A common theme of, “they’re sucking us dry” ran through the comments. Really, are they actually sucking us dry? I wonder.

            I wonder what kind of society we want? I do not enjoy paying taxes; however, I do like civilization. I’ve lived in countries that exact very little in the way of property or other taxes and seen what kind of society that produces. Potholes that never go away mark the roads, ruining suspensions. The police provide spotty coverage at best and often require payment, which we label as bribes, to investigate and apprehend perpetrators. I watched an entire neighborhood go up in flames, hundreds rendered homeless in a few ash-filled minutes simply because no fire department serviced that neighborhood. Hospitals where they hand you a list of required supplies before they treat or admit you. Ambulances that run to only a few toney neighborhoods sit gleaming refusing to move when others call. Public education that is skimpy at best, leaving thousands of hopeless and shiftless young men easy recruits for criminal and terrorist organizations. I have seen the poor, destitute, and mentally challenged lying naked in the streets. These are the earmarks of low taxes.

            I’d rather live in a society that works hard to take care of those with less, a society that provides public education and the hope that accompanies it. I like driving on roads that do not jolt and judder my vehicles to splinters. I enjoy police, fire, and ambulances that not only come when I call but are also well trained and caring. I want a society which cares for those with less, heals their hurts, binds up their wounds, educates their young, and ensures that they do not live out miserable lives in cardboard boxes on steam grates. I know that these things cost, a fair amount, but the price, the human cost, of not paying taxes is too high. We give up a piece of our own humanity when we turn a blind eye to the suffering our refusal to invest in our culture and society creates.

            Yes, paying taxes is a pain. But the price of not paying is much higher, especially when I consider the damage to my soul my own selfishness causes. I do not want to emulate the early Scrooge of Dickens’s classic, A Christmas Carol. I want a nobler society, one which truly embraces family values.