Sunday, January 9, 2011

Rules


When I asked Alex why he didn't want to go to BYU like his father and grandfather he said, "Because there are too many rules."  This makes me think, "Why should we have rules?"  While I can think of many answers to this, starting with an example of the traffic rules helping us to move at great speeds without injuring one another, I don't think that's the foundation of the issue.  The issue of rules really comes down to the war between good and evil -- all good is governed by rules, while evil is the absence of rules.

Evil defined
All evil can be summed up in two words, "I want."  People commit all sorts of crimes against themselves, their neighbors and humanity because they want something.  The desire for power creates wars.  The desire for good-tasting food creates illness.  Anger and bitterness come from not getting what we want.  Depression is the result of hopelessness in finding fulfillment of our desires.  From the littlest child to world superpowers all evil, or purposeful destruction, has a foundation of "I want."  These people have no rules, they are entirely governed by their desires, and thus cause destruction all around them.

Rules force us to look past what we want and see the needs of others.  Just as the red traffic light forces us to stop, even though we are in a hurry, in order to let others pass because they are in a hurry as well, many rules are given to help us put aside our own wants for our own or for the benefit of another.  In this vein, rules are essential to life because they prevent evil.

On the other hand, rules also promote good.  All that is good is bound by rules, laws and commandments.  From the tiniest baby we begin to learn rules that help us grow up to achieve all we can -- strength, power, love, peace, joy, happiness, and so forth.  Loving parents begin the process.

Growing up
We achieve maturity only as we learn and obey rules.  A child  has no rules to start life, he must be taught by his parents.  At first he is coddled in all his wants, but as time goes on and he is able to live by rules, he is taught them.  There are four methods of teaching children:
            1) Punishment
            2) Reward
            3) Commitment
            4) Love

I believe these are levels of growth; the most immature being punishment, and the most mature being love.  Children must be taught according to their abilities.

Punishment
The most immature children will only respond to punishment, or threats of punishment.  This may include pain, such as a spanking, but any threat will do.  Since the parents control everything the little child gets, has,or does, there are many ways this is done.  Withholding something a child wants, such as dessert after dinner, is a form of punishment.  Children who have temper tantrums are looking for attention from others so it seems the proper thing to do is pay no attention when it happens.  There are a myriad of ways to threaten or punish a child that do not necessarily include physical pain or injury.  Good parents use punishment creatively and individually.

Reward
The next level up is reward.  Children who are able to understand this teaching method are a little more mature because they can anticipate getting what they want.  They are willing to obey the rules, going against what they want right now in order to have something better later.  Parents must use this tool wisely or else the focus of the child becomes a never-ending string of rewards instead of instruction on the rules.

Commitment
It requires much more maturity to make and keep commitments.  Children under eight don't understand a promise in the binding sense and should not be required to keep them.  They may, however, be instructed that "we always keep our promises" when they don't.  During the early years the parents must model this behavior; if the parents don't follow-through with their promises then the child won't understand commitment.  Every word of the parent should be law to a young child. 

When he is old enough he can be expected to make and keep commitments.  This could start out easy such as cleaning the dog poop off the lawn.  A parent might show the child how it's done several times until he understands, then he is committed to doing it every day.  If the child fails, there is no punishment, only a reminder such as when the child asks:  "Mom, can I go to Ron's house?"  The mom asks, "Did you clean up the lawn?"  The child answers both questions at the same time.  Moreover, the reward for doing it is a "pat on the back."  "Good job!  Thank you for keeping your commitment, it really helps our family."

Love
The highest form of education in keeping rules is to make sacrifices for the benefit of the child.  This is demonstrated throughout childhood.  The ability for a parent to love a child requires two gifts: 1) an understanding of what benefits or helps a child to grow up, and 2) a willingness to sacrifice his own desires.  Mothers automatically fall into love with their children.  A child doesn't care if his mother is tired, he's hungry now.  A mother must put aside EVERYTHING in her own life in order to nurture the child.  The depth of her love is a product of the amount of sacrifice and the amount of benefit.  Expressed as a mathematical sentence it reads: (sacrifice) x (benefit) = love.  The more the sacrifice and the more the benefit, the more the love.

In infancy it's clear what benefits a child, nurturing physical growth.  However, as children grow love may increase or decrease.  Some parents believe they benefit their children by giving them what they want.  They feed them food they like that doesn't nourish the body.  They give them toys that don't instruct.  They stop spending time with them and guiding them, allowing the children to play or do what they want.  This is neither a sacrifice, nor does it benefit the children so there is no love in these.  Instead, love requires continual teaching of the rules.  Parents who sacrifice their desired lifestyle to be home with their children are demonstrating love because they automatically teach the rules of life better than any other childcare arrangement.  Children who understand the rules of life are benefited greatly by being enabled to find happiness and love.

Real benefit
The greatest good that we can do for another is not to give money or the goods and services money can buy, rather it is to teach the rules of life.  I shall never forget my photography teacher in high school, Mr. Lambert, not because he taught me about photography, which has been a very pleasurable hobby of mine ever since I was in his class, rather because he taught me one life lesson: clean as you go.  I didn't get it at first, but as I applied the rules of the darkroom to the rest of my life I found freedom in having things organized and not being plagued by mess all the time.  That lesson has served me well in every aspect of my personal and professional life.

The saying that starts, "give a man a fish..." is indicative of the benefit we can provide to others.  If we can teach someone the rules of fishing then he becomes independent.  This is growth, maturity, and freedom.  If a man doesn't know the rules of finance or business he will be relegated to poverty all his life -- even if he wins the lottery.  We therefore don't do the poor man good by giving money or goods, but rather teaching him the rules of trade and managing money. 

I find those who seek my help to get well don't know the rules of health.  Traditionally doctors have given drugs to relieve the symptoms of illness hoping that it would go away by itself, and it often does.  However, this provides no lasting benefit.  A young man came into my office with psoriasis, a skin disease that causes flaky white plaques all over the body and is considered "incurable."  It looks like leprosy and people who have it are embarrassed to show themselves.  This man wouldn't shake hands because he had so much rash on his hands.  He had been given cortisone and other creams to manage the symptoms, but they didn't work for any length of time.  We discussed the possibilities of what was causing it and decided to do an "elimination diet."  When he stopped eating all milk products the rashes went away.  He didn't believe it because he loved cheese so he tried some pizza and it came back.  Though he has a rule to follow, namely "no milk," he is now independent of the doctors for his treatment.  As long as he follows the rule he can live a happy and healthy life.  Learning the rules of health is a true benefit.

Protection
Those who keep the rules are protected from harm, while being ignorant of, or rebellious against, the rules leads to disaster.

A young child fell to his death because he didn't understand the law of gravity.  He didn't know what 32ft/s2 really means so he jumped off his roof with a blanket for a parachute.  Had he understood all the rules that governed parachuting he would have avoided tragedy.

Societies have never changed; people are the same no matter what place or time they find themselves.  Governments have always sought power as peasants have always sought security, thus not knowing, or not obeying, the rules of an independent population has always caused degradation to totalitarianism.  A population can only protect its freedom by having rules (a republic, or the "rule of law" like the Constitution) and living by them.

The Ten Commandments are a collection of some of the most basic rules of life.  E. Stanley Jones said, "We really don’t break the commandments. We break ourselves on them."  The rules don't change.  The people don't change.  Truth doesn't change.  Reality is forever.  Those who break the commandments eventually find misery and death, while those who keep these rules gain great blessings. 

True intelligence
We can go anywhere to gain knowledge.  The current teachings of our day are found everywhere.  But, they will change as our knowledge increases and needs change.  Knowledge of the world is not foundational, it is temporary.  It is made up of our current philosophies and theories as well as practical understanding.  We build bridges that don't fall down from a heavy load because we know the rules of engineering.  A thousand years ago they used different rules based on their experience, needs, and available materials.  Thus, over time knowledge is continually changing. 

Intelligence, on the other hand never changes.  It is an understanding of the rules that govern all aspects of life.  None of these rules have changed from the beginning of time to the present, nor will they.  Knowing these rules is intelligence.  The more Eternal rules we know and follow, the easier, better, and more fulfilling life becomes. 


3 comments:

  1. What Rules?
    There Are No Sacred Texts
    By Dennis Prager
    Tuesday, January 11, 2011
    A number of well-known spokesmen on the left have voiced reservations not only about the Republican decision to have members of Congress -- both Republicans and Democrats -- read the Constitution aloud at the opening of the latest session of Congress. They have also voiced reservations about the American veneration of the Constitution.

    Three examples:

    In a recent appearance on MSNBC, Washington Post staff writer Ezra Klein said: "The issue with the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person."

    Joy Behar asked her guests on CNN's Headline News, "Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand?"

    Congressman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., complained that "They are reading it (the Constitution) like a sacred text."

    What troubles Klein, Behar and Nadler?

    The answer is that for leftism -- though not necessarily for every individual who considers himself a leftist -- there are no sacred texts. The two major examples are the Constitution and the Bible.

    The demotion of the sacred in general and of sacred texts specifically is at the center of leftist/humanist thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If, to cite the most obvious example, the Bible is sacred, then I have to revere it more than I revere my own feelings in assessing what is right and wrong.
    But for the left, what is right and wrong is determined by every individual's feelings, not by anything above the individual.
    This is a major reason why the left, since Karl Marx, has been so opposed to Judeo-Christian religion. For Judaism and Christianity, God and the Bible are above the self. Indeed, Western civilization was built on the idea that the individual and society are morally accountable to God and to the moral demands of that book. That was the view, incidentally, of every one of the Founders including deists such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.
    This is entirely unacceptable to the left. As Marx and Engels said, "Man is God, and God is man." Therefore, society must rid itself of the sacred, i.e., God and the Bible. Then each of us (or the society, party or judiciary) takes the place of God and the Bible.
    Morality is then no longer a God-given objective fact; it becomes a human-created subjective opinion. And one no longer needs to consult an external source to know right and wrong, only one's heart. We are then no longer accountable to God for transgressions, only to ourselves.
    That is why when there is God-talk on the left, it is usually about "the God that is within each of us," not a God external to, let alone above, us, as Judaism and Christianity have always taught.
    This explains the belief that is universally held on the left that the Constitution is an "evolving text," meaning that it says what anyone (on the left) wants it to say.
    Conservatives, on the other hand, do not share this view. They do not believe the Constitution has something to say about everything they believe in. While the left sees the right to abortion in the Constitution (because the left believes in the right to abortion), those who oppose abortion do not believe that the Constitution prohibits abortion. They believe that the Constitution is silent on the issue. Precisely because the right does believe the Constitution is to be treated as sacred, it does not claim that whatever it supports is in the Constitution or that whatever it opposes is unconstitutional.
    There are humble individuals and arrogant individuals on the right and on the left. But there is no arrogance like leftist arrogance. If you hold a Leftist position, you know that you are smarter, wiser and more moral not only than conservatives, but more so than the Bible, more so than the Constitution, indeed often more so than everyone who lived before you.
    Same-sex marriage is a perfect example. The fact that neither Moses nor the Hebrew prophets, nor Jesus nor the Buddha nor any great secular humanist thinker ever advocated defining marriage as between members of the same sex does not cause the left to rethink its advocacy of same-sex marriage; it only proves to them how morally superior they are to Moses, Jesus, the prophets and everyone else who lived before them.
    That is why we must to treat the Constitution as sacred text. Because the bottom line is this: If it is not regarded as sacred, it is nothing more than what anyone believes about any social issue. Which is precisely what the left wants it to be -- providing, of course, that the "anyone" is a liberal.
    For the left, there are no sacred texts. There are only sacred (liberal) feelings.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is precisely how we can define evil as "a lack of rules."

    ReplyDelete