Rex M Rogers - Discerning What Is Best

Discerning What Is Best
with Dr. Rex M. Rogers

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 22 March 2012

After spending a week in the Middle East (MENA for Middle East and North Africa) here are a few of the things I’ve learned, confirmed, or reaffirmed:

*The MENA social and political turmoil the West calls “revolutions” can more accurately be described as “evolutions.“

*"Arab Spring” is a misnomer in that the social unrest in various countries in the region are not just Arab and not characterized by much that fits a metaphor like spring.

*Some protestors may want religious rule, but most want personal freedoms, economic opportunity, justice, and liberation from corrupt regimes.

*Much of MENA government-aided or generated turmoil the West assigns to religious influence is actually rooted in the classic triumvirate of power, politics, and greed.

*“Regional culture” exists but not generally to the level people in the West believe—the political and social culture of each MENA nation is different from other nations.

*The dominant religions of MENA are not impregnable socially or spiritually, meaning followers may turn and are turning to other faiths.

*The Christian Church exists in MENA as a minority religion, but while suppressed, oppressed, and in some countries persecuted, the Church is also resilient, strong, and unbowed.

*People are becoming followers of Christ in every MENA country and the Church is growing faster in Iran and Algeria than most other countries of the world.

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 21 March 2012

I’ve heard someone use the phrase “off the reservation” several times recently. I’ve never made a habit of using the phrase, but insofar as I ever have I don’t intend to use it again.

The idea is that a person or group is perceived as acting outside typical or expected parameters. The person or group is doing something that someone else thinks isn’t quite right, going off balance, headed in a wrong or unapproved direction.

The phrase dates to the late 19^th Century after most Indian or Native American tribes had been given (forcibly moved to) “Reservations,” large tracts of land in Oklahoma or Arizona, for example, land generally unwanted by non-Indians. The tribes had fought, sometimes over decades, an inevitably unsuccessful war for their ancestral lands and eventually surrendered in order for at least tribal remnants to survive. It was a period of systematic subjugation, even genocide, of the Red Man by the White Man.

From time to time in the next few years, Indians who left the reservation in frustration or desperation were called “renegades” and were hunted down because they’d gone “off the reservation.”

The phrase “off the reservation” is therefore an historical leftover. I hear it used, but I don’t like it. Even though I’m not particularly “politically correct,” the phrase strikes me as a kind of antiquated reference harking back to a sorry and shameful time in American history. The phrase perpetuates the idea that certain people or groups are subhuman and ought to be controlled for their own good.

This entire blog sprang fully developed into my mind when I heard a person use “off the reservation” during a conversation about how two different kinds of ethnic groups didn’t get along. The person who said it was making a point with which I agreed and is a man of character and solid values. But he seemed oblivious to the irony of using this particular phrase in the midst of a conversation about prejudice, hatred, and violence between people groups.

I don’t think using the phrase “off the reservation” is a mortal sin, not even a venial one. But I still don’t like its roots and what it implies. For me at least, I’ll find a different way to talk about someone or some group going rogue.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 20 March 2012

Tragedy is a fact of human life, or at least of human history. What seems to us to be terrible outcomes and heartbreak happen weekly somewhere in the world. Harm and death to thousands caused by disasters, floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, accidents, hurricanes, tornadoes, "Acts of God," so many they run together in our minds.

Is God even aware? Is he involved? And if he is involved, why does a loving and just God allow human suffering? Does he care?

Tragedies are sometimes explained by a Christian worldview in terms of "theodicy." It's an attempt to reconcile the character of God--omniscience, omnipotence, love, righteousness--with human degradation, pain, evil, and suffering, including that which emanates from nature's weather.

Theodicy is a word Christians should learn. It helps bring perspective, meaning, and perhaps understanding to tragedy. Think with me some more on this topic:

This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 19 March 2012

Many media outlets are using the term “anti-gay” for certain presidential candidates’ convictions that homosexuality is immoral. The term is, or at least could be, misleading.

It’s misleading because one who believes homosexuality is wrong is not necessarily ipso facto “anti-gay,” meaning against people who choose or live a homosexual or lesbian lifestyle.

To be honest, though, it could be. It is unfortunately true that some people who believe homosexual behavior is wrong also reject, demean, or otherwise dismiss gays or lesbians. It’s even sadly true that some of these people hate and a few have done violence to gay or lesbian people. None of this is justifiable under any moral code, of course, but still, these people act as immorally in different ways as they accuse gays and lesbians of acting sexually.

What I object to, though, is media’s easy equation of convictions about the morality of homosexuality with anti-gay attitudes and behaviors. Because one believes homosexuality is wrong, as I noted above, does not mean one is anti-gay—any more than a person believing heterosexual adultery is wrong makes him or her “anti-straight.” This logic is illogical.

I know many people who hold deep-seated views, based upon their religious convictions, that homosexuality in any of its forms is immoral, wrong, and a sin. Nearly all of these people are also compassionate toward those who involve themselves in homosexuality, and I don’t know anyone who wants to make homosexuality a crime. Nor do any of these people want to deny gays or lesbians their civil liberties, available and guaranteed to them like any other American—including immoral heterosexuals.

This means, for example, that one can believe homosexuality is immoral and improper while at the same time working productively with persons involved in gay or lesbian relationships. They can believe homosexuality is wrong yet be friends with, even appreciate the talents and personality of, gay or lesbian people, just like most of them do with heterosexuals involved in any number of immoral activities.

So it is inaccurate for media automatically to describe someone as “anti-gay” simply because he or she believes homosexuality is immoral.

As long as media persists in this inaccurate portrayal it does a disservice to the person being so-labeled, misleads the American people, and sacrifices the reputation of the media involved

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 17 March 2012

Why can international airline businesses build multi-million dollar jets capable of flying 450 people safely to the other side of the world but cannot install in Inter-Com that works?

In the last few hours on two huge jets, Delta and Cyprus Air, I never understood a word the pilot said over the com line and I missed much of what the flight attendants said on one of the jets. I also experienced this the past three weekends on trips to KS, PA, and OR. What gives?

If safety is a factor in what the pilot or flight attendant is saying, than we are not safe because we can’t hear at all, the sound is muffled, or it squawks. If customer service is the issue than we aren’t well served because we weren’t able to learn anything.

I mean, really, I’m not making this up. I experience this regularly. Sometimes it is so bad you hear nothing more than a whisper of static. Don’t maintenance people check com lines? Don’t flight attendants report they can’t hear and, if so, presumably the guy in 27B can’t hear either?

And if your company made and installed these communications devices wouldn’t you want to make them top of the line?

Well, what can I say other than to lodge a viewpoint? It would be laughable it if weren’t more important than an annoyance.

My recommendation? Fix the communications systems before “We have a problem, Houston” becomes more than a cliché.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2012 *This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Rex or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow him at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details: Written by: Rex M. Rogers; Published: 15 March 2012

Litter has bugged me for as long as I can remember. There’s something about trash strewn across God’s handiwork that grates on the eye, mind, and soul.

I’m strong on this but I don’t think goofy. If your cast-off stuff is truly biodegradable than I don’t get too worked up. Although even these kinds of products, depending upon where they are discarded, can harm the local ecosystem; that’s why it’s illegal, or should be, to jettison untreated effluvium from your boat’s tanks into inland or coastal waters.

Littering is, in my estimation, an act of disrespect, immaturity, and irresponsibility. To me, this seems like common sense. Here’re some more thoughts on the matter:

Subcategories