For some reason General Motors and perhaps other car makers offered the consumer public cars with satellite radios branded variously Sirius, XM, or SiriusXM, some lacking the module or antenna necessary to make them work like a satellite radio. For those who valued or thought they might value the satellite radio sometime in the future; once discovered the lost value was measured in terms of hundreds of dollars, the amount necessary to purchase the parts and the labor involved in installing them. If the buyer of the car was to know he was buying a “brick” it was generally necessary for the dealer or private seller to bring it up or be honest with his answer when asked if the radio worked as a satellite radio. But who would think to ask if the satellite radio in a car was not what it was branded to be? That it was not fully functional as such? And how could a potential buyer at the point of sale test the radio without an active contract in effect on the radio?
So are we asking what module am I missing? We’re not going there. We all came with the module, installed and working. All sentient beings have it: angels and humans, seraphim, teraphim, and cherubim alike. We all come with a full place setting making the instruction for novices and experts alike, “Start from the outside,” meaningful and useful. This module we all have is what some among us say God got all wrong when he created the worlds and all that is in them. When He later that day said, “It is good,” his detractors suggest God should have immediately added, “But I can do better.” The presence of the module is at the core of why many argue against God’s existence, “If God exists why is there so much evil in the world?” The ever present module in all of us is free will.
The first to test the module’s full functionality was not Eve, nor was it Adam. The first test driver was the Devil. We take it he was not disappointed. Soon after a third of the host of Heaven followed suit, exercised their free will also. Actually 100% exercised their free will. Some chose to go with the new radical, yet popular trend of the day. Others resisted the trend. All beings everywhere exercise their own personal free will. It’s at the core of what we are, helps to differentiate us from all the other beings around us who have made various choices for good, evil, or indifferent. The alternative Creation of God is probably like a scene from The Wizard of Oz, monkeys in formation doing the Winkie chant, “O-Ee-Yah! Eoh-Ah!” (Or was it a subliminal Golden Age Oreo’s commercial?) Whereupon Dom DeLuise is heard in The End, “You can’t say that.”
God said, “Yes you can.” Utopians say that was His biggest mistake. Certainly they intend to do something about it. The insanity of Utopianism is exposed when they produce a list of what we subjects can and cannot think, say, or do. No carbon dioxide. It’s bad. No coal, under any circumstances. No fossil fuels. Too many people, we must do something about it. Common sense: unreliable. Opinions: sexist, phobic, or racist if different from the village’s concept of the common good. The rules pile up, pile on, require more regulators, demand larger and larger bureaucracies of regulators, need layers and layers of redundancies of regulators and bureaucracies to catch and bring into compliance those who somehow are sifted free from the trap the mind of the chief Utopian has set, from he who keeps all his or her other fellow Utopians in line.
You the reader might by now, or long ago, have asked, “Where is this all going?” Is the answer in the words of a former roommate, “In due time?” Or is the answer in the form of a frequent reply? “Get on with it.” The point: when truths conflict. Is it necessary for one truth to kill another truth in order to remain true to itself? Is it possible for two truths to live in the same house? Can they make that house of straw, stick, or brick their home? Utopians solve the home problem by settling for a village, by claiming there is no truth, no standard except that which accommodates the common good under the then current circumstances.
A Civil society needs the police and government in general for different reasons than a Utopia needs police or government. In a civil society individuals in the course of exercising their free will come into conflict with other individuals who exercise their free will. When passions rise, when one truth rises up against another truth, the police or courts are called upon. The police arrive, attempt to ease the tensions, hear both sides, and perhaps settle on an arrestee: an offender of the social contract our nation’s members entered into long ago.
Strange as it might seem when truths draw attention to themselves, often a conflict of a larger more immediate concern is avoided, left unattended. In Jerusalem, God spoke out loud for all to hear regarding His Son, very unusual. The people to no real purpose argued whether they heard thunder or an angel’s voice. They also argued if Jesus was the Messiah, how was it He could claim he would be crucified since contrarily everyone knew the Messiah was to live forever. Two sets of conflicting truths allowed God’s sound, His statement of revealment, to wander down uninterested side alleys, out of earshot, and out of mind.
Two truths are fighting in the streets and alleys of the nation today, vying for our attention before ballots will be cast in November. One truth is we are a nation of laws guided and upheld by the US Constitution. That truth argues those who will lead us must be knowledgeable of and adhere solely to the Constitution, according to the original intent of its authors. The other truth is the Left is more adroit in offense, more rallied in their use of the Constitution against Americans than the Right is effective using the Constitution in defense of Americans. It can be said over the years errant US Supreme Court justices have weaponized the Constitution, such that it might now be considered an American’s last resort for a redress of grievances. Meaning it’s becoming ever more likely the Constitution aimed obligatorily and dutifully at the Left will explode in our faces.
So while we fruitlessly argue Constitution or common sense, civil society or Utopia, we ignore the more urgent choice between the thunder of Trump and the voice of an angel Clinton. In so far as we argue past the significant differences between the two candidates while complaining Trump knows so very little about the Constitution, we ignore the Yuge choice of Wall or Bridge. We ignore the choice inherent in the candidates, between Originalist and Activist Supreme Court justices. We ignore the possibly irreversible determinative choice between national sovereignty and open borders; which is by far the most urgent choice of all.