The Americans Who Risked Everything by Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr.

My father, Rush H. Limbaugh, Jr., delivered this oft-requested address locally a number of times, but it had never before appeared in print until it was published in The Limbaugh Letter. My dad was renowned for his oratory skills and for his original mind; this speech is, I think, a superb demonstration of both. I will always be grateful to him for instilling in me a passion for the ideas and lives of America's Founders, as well as a deep appreciation for the inspirational power of words, which you will see evidenced here.  - Rush H. Limbaugh III

"Our Lives, Our Fortunes, Our Sacred Honor"

It was a glorious morning. The sun was shining and the wind was from the Southeast. Up especially early, a tall bony, redheaded young Virginian found time to buy a new thermometer, for which he paid three pounds, fifteen shillings. He also bought gloves for Martha, his wife, who was ill at home.

Thomas Jefferson arrived early at the statehouse. The temperature was 72.5 degrees and the horseflies weren't nearly so bad at that hour. It was a lovely room, very large, with gleaming white walls. The chairs were comfortable. Facing the single door were two brass fireplaces, but they would not be used today.

The moment the door was shut, and it was always kept locked, the room became an oven. The tall windows were shut, so that loud quarreling voices could not be heard by passersby. Small openings atop the windows allowed a slight stir of air, and also a large number of horseflies. Jefferson records that "the horseflies were dexterous in finding necks, and the silk of stockings was nothing to them." All discussing was punctuated by the slap of hands on necks.

On the wall at the back, facing the president's desk, was a panoply -- consisting of a drum, swords, and banners seized from Fort Ticonderoga the previous year. Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold had captured the place, shouting that they were taking it "in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!"

Now Congress got to work, promptly taking up an emergency measure about which there was discussion but no dissension. "Resolved: That an application be made to the Committee of Safety of Pennsylvania for a supply of flints for the troops at New York."

Then Congress transformed itself into a committee of the whole. The Declaration of Independence was read aloud once more, and debate resumed. Though Jefferson was the best writer of all of them, he had been somewhat verbose. Congress hacked the excess away. They did a good job, as a side-by-side comparison of the rough draft and the final text shows. They cut the phrase "by a self-assumed power." "Climb" was replaced by "must read," then "must" was eliminated, then the whole sentence, and soon the whole paragraph was cut. Jefferson groaned as they continued what he later called "their depredations." "Inherent and inalienable rights" came out "certain unalienable rights," and to this day no one knows who suggested the elegant change.

A total of 86 alterations were made. Almost 500 words were eliminated, leaving 1,337. At last, after three days of wrangling, the document was put to a vote.

Here in this hall Patrick Henry had once thundered: "I am no longer a Virginian, sir, but an American." But today the loud, sometimes bitter argument stilled, and without fanfare the vote was taken from north to south by colonies, as was the custom. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was adopted.

There were no trumpets blown. No one stood on his chair and cheered. The afternoon was waning and Congress had no thought of delaying the full calendar of routine business on its hands. For several hours they worked on many other problems before adjourning for the day.
Much To Lose

What kind of men were the 56 signers who adopted the Declaration of Independence and who, by their signing, committed an act of treason against the crown? To each of you, the names Franklin, Adams, Hancock and Jefferson are almost as familiar as household words. Most of us, however, know nothing of the other signers. Who were they? What happened to them?

I imagine that many of you are somewhat surprised at the names not there: George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Patrick Henry. All were elsewhere.

Ben Franklin was the only really old man. Eighteen were under 40; three were in their 20s. Of the 56 almost half - 24 - were judges and lawyers. Eleven were merchants, nine were landowners and farmers, and the remaining 12 were doctors, ministers, and politicians.

With only a few exceptions, such as Samuel Adams of Massachusetts, these were men of substantial property. All but two had families. The vast majority were men of education and standing in their communities. They had economic security as few men had in the 18th Century.

Each had more to lose from revolution than he had to gain by it. John Hancock, one of the richest men in America, already had a price of 500 pounds on his head. He signed in enormous letters so that his Majesty could now read his name without glasses and could now double the reward. Ben Franklin wryly noted: "Indeed we must all hang together, otherwise we shall most assuredly hang separately."

Fat Benjamin Harrison of Virginia told tiny Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: "With me it will all be over in a minute, but you, you will be dancing on air an hour after I am gone."

These men knew what they risked. The penalty for treason was death by hanging. And remember, a great British fleet was already at anchor in New York Harbor.
They were sober men. There were no dreamy-eyed intellectuals or draft card burners here. They were far from hot-eyed fanatics yammering for an explosion. They simply asked for the status quo. It was change they resisted. It was equality with the mother country they desired. It was taxation with representation they sought. They were all conservatives, yet they rebelled.

It was principle, not property, that had brought these men to Philadelphia. Two of them became presidents of the United States. Seven of them became state governors. One died in office as vice president of the United States. Several would go on to be US Senators. One, the richest man in America, in 1828 founded the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. One, a delegate from Philadelphia, was the only real poet, musician and philosopher of the signers. (It was he, Francis Hopkinson not Betsy Ross who designed the United States flag.)

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, had introduced the resolution to adopt the Declaration of Independence in June of 1776. He was prophetic in his concluding remarks: "Why then sir, why do we longer delay? Why still deliberate? Let this happy day give birth to an American Republic. Let her arise not to devastate and to conquer but to reestablish the reign of peace and law.

"The eyes of Europe are fixed upon us. She demands of us a living example of freedom that may exhibit a contrast in the felicity of the citizen to the ever-increasing tyranny which desolates her polluted shores. She invites us to prepare an asylum where the unhappy may find solace, and the persecuted repost.

"If we are not this day wanting in our duty, the names of the American Legislatures of 1776 will be placed by posterity at the side of all of those whose memory has been and ever will be dear to virtuous men and good citizens."

Though the resolution was formally adopted July 4, it was not until July 8 that two of the states authorized their delegates to sign, and it was not until August 2 that the signers met at Philadelphia to actually put their names to the Declaration.

William Ellery, delegate from Rhode Island, was curious to see the signers' faces as they committed this supreme act of personal courage. He saw some men sign quickly, "but in no face was he able to discern real fear." Stephan Hopkins, Ellery's colleague from Rhode Island, was a man past 60. As he signed with a shaking pen, he declared: "My hand trembles, but my heart does not."
"Most Glorious Service"

Even before the list was published, the British marked down every member of Congress suspected of having put his name to treason. All of them became the objects of vicious manhunts. Some were taken. Some, like Jefferson, had narrow escapes. All who had property or families near British strongholds suffered.

· Francis Lewis, New York delegate saw his home plundered -- and his estates in what is now Harlem -- completely destroyed by British Soldiers. Mrs. Lewis was captured and treated with great brutality. Though she was later exchanged for two British prisoners through the efforts of Congress, she died from the effects of her abuse.

· William Floyd, another New York delegate, was able to escape with his wife and children across Long Island Sound to Connecticut, where they lived as refugees without income for seven years. When they came home they found a devastated ruin.

· Philips Livingstone had all his great holdings in New York confiscated and his family driven out of their home. Livingstone died in 1778 still working in Congress for the cause.

· Louis Morris, the fourth New York delegate, saw all his timber, crops, and livestock taken. For seven years he was barred from his home and family.

· John Hart of Trenton, New Jersey, risked his life to return home to see his dying wife. Hessian soldiers rode after him, and he escaped in the woods. While his wife lay on her deathbed, the soldiers ruined his farm and wrecked his homestead. Hart, 65, slept in caves and woods as he was hunted across the countryside. When at long last, emaciated by hardship, he was able to sneak home, he found his wife had already been buried, and his 13 children taken away. He never saw them again. He died a broken man in 1779, without ever finding his family.

· Dr. John Witherspoon, signer, was president of the College of New Jersey, later called Princeton. The British occupied the town of Princeton, and billeted troops in the college. They trampled and burned the finest college library in the country.
· Judge Richard Stockton, another New Jersey delegate signer, had rushed back to his estate in an effort to evacuate his wife and children. The family found refuge with friends, but a Tory sympathizer betrayed them. Judge Stockton was pulled from bed in the night and brutally beaten by the arresting soldiers. Thrown into a common jail, he was deliberately starved. Congress finally arranged for Stockton's parole, but his health was ruined. The judge was released as an invalid, when he could no longer harm the British cause.
He returned home to find his estate looted and did not live to see the triumph of the Revolution. His family was forced to live off charity.

· Robert Morris, merchant prince of Philadelphia, delegate and signer, met Washington's appeals and pleas for money year after year. He made and raised arms and provisions which made it possible for Washington to cross the Delaware at Trenton. In the process he lost 150 ships at sea, bleeding his own fortune and credit almost dry.

· George Clymer, Pennsylvania signer, escaped with his family from their home, but their property was completely destroyed by the British in the Germantown and Brandywine campaigns.

· Dr. Benjamin Rush, also from Pennsylvania, was forced to flee to Maryland. As a heroic surgeon with the army, Rush had several narrow escapes.

· John Martin, a Tory in his views previous to the debate, lived in a strongly loyalist area of Pennsylvania. When he came out for independence, most of his neighbors and even some of his relatives ostracized him. He was a sensitive and troubled man, and many believed this action killed him. When he died in 1777, his last words to his tormentors were: "Tell them that they will live to see the hour when they shall acknowledge it [the signing] to have been the most glorious service that I have ever rendered to my country."

· William Ellery, Rhode Island delegate, saw his property and home burned to the ground.
· Thomas Lynch, Jr., South Carolina delegate, had his health broken from privation and exposures while serving as a company commander in the military. His doctors ordered him to seek a cure in the West Indies and on the voyage, he and his young bride were drowned at sea.

· Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., the other three South Carolina signers, were taken by the British in the siege of Charleston. They were carried as prisoners of war to St. Augustine, Florida, where they were singled out for indignities. They were exchanged at the end of the war, the British in the meantime having completely devastated their large landholdings and estates.

· Thomas Nelson, signer of Virginia, was at the front in command of the Virginia military forces. With British General Charles Cornwallis in Yorktown, fire from 70 heavy American guns began to destroy Yorktown piece by piece. Lord Cornwallis and his staff moved their headquarters into Nelson's palatial home. While American cannonballs were making a shambles of the town, the house of Governor Nelson remained untouched. Nelson turned in rage to the American gunners and asked, "Why do you spare my home?"
They replied, "Sir, out of respect to you." Nelson cried, "Give me the cannon!" and fired on his magnificent home himself, smashing it to bits. But Nelson's sacrifice was not quite over. He had raised $2 million for the Revolutionary cause by pledging his own estates. When the loans came due, a newer peacetime Congress refused to honor them, and Nelson's property was forfeited. He was never reimbursed. He died, impoverished, a few years later at the age of 50.
Lives, Fortunes, Honor

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

The Unanimous Declaration of the 

Thirteen United States of America

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops 
among us;

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

WE, THEREFORE, the REPRESENTATIVES of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

[Signed by] JOHN HANCOCK [President]

New Hampshire 
JOSIAH BARTLETT, 
WM. WHIPPLE, 
MATTHEW THORNTON.

Massachusetts Bay
SAML. ADAMS,
JOHN ADAMS,
ROBT. TREAT PAINE,
ELBRIDGE GERRY

Rhode Island
STEP. HOPKINS,
WILLIAM ELLERY.

Connecticut
ROGER SHERMAN, 
SAM’EL HUNTINGTON, 
WM. WILLIAMS, 
OLIVER WOLCOTT.

New York
WM. FLOYD, 
PHIL. LIVINGSTON, 
FRANS. LEWIS, 
LEWIS MORRIS.

New Jersey
RICHD. STOCKTON, 
JNO. WITHERSPOON, 
FRAS. HOPKINSON, 
JOHN HART, 
ABRA. CLARK.

Pennsylvania
ROBT. MORRIS
BENJAMIN RUSH,
BENJA. FRANKLIN,
JOHN MORTON,
GEO. CLYMER,
JAS. SMITH,
GEO. TAYLOR,
JAMES WILSON,
GEO. ROSS.

Delaware 
CAESAR RODNEY, 
GEO. READ, 
THO. M’KEAN.

Maryland
SAMUEL CHASE,
WM. PACA,
THOS. STONE,
CHARLES CARROLL 
of Carrollton.

Virginia
GEORGE WYTHE,
RICHARD HENRY LEE,
TH. JEFFERSON,
BENJA. HARRISON,
THS. NELSON, JR.,
FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE,
CARTER BRAXTON.

North Carolina
WM. HOOPER,
JOSEPH HEWES,
JOHN PENN.

South Carolina
EDWARD RUTLEDGE,
THOS. HAYWARD, JUNR.,
THOMAS LYNCH, JUNR.,
ARTHUR MIDDLETON.

Georgia
BUTTON GWINNETT,
LYMAN HALL,
GEO. WALTON.

On Care For Our Common Home

I wanted to share a link with my readers on Pope Francis' much anticipated Encyclical Letter on the environment: Laudato Si On Care For Our Common Home (180 pages).

Also, I'd like to recommend today's (6/18/15) Diane Rehm's radio program on NPR, she had an excellent show discussing the Encyclical.  Further here's an article about the Encyclical from Catholic Answers by Jimmy Akin.  Finally, here are two great summaries of the Encyclical by Edward Pentin and Kevin Cotter.

Whose Ox Is Being Gored?

Whose Ox Is Being Gored?
by Bryan J. Neva, Sr.

You've probably heard the old cliché, "It all depends on whose ox is being gored?"  This cliché has its origins in the Bible in the Jewish laws concerning property in Exodus chapter 21:28-36:

²⁸ When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. ²⁹ If the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not restrained it, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. ³⁰ If a ransom is imposed on the owner, then the owner shall pay whatever is imposed for the redemption of the victim’s life. ³¹ If it gores a boy or a girl, the owner shall be dealt with according to this same rule. ³² If the ox gores a male or female slave, the owner shall pay to the slave owner thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. ³³ If someone leaves a pit open, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or a donkey falls into it, ³⁴ the owner of the pit shall make restitution, giving money to its owner, but keeping the dead animal.  ³⁵ If someone’s ox hurts the ox of another, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and divide the price of it; and the dead animal they shall also divide. ³⁶ But if it was known that the ox was accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has not restrained it, the owner shall restore ox for ox, but keep the dead animal.

Biblical scholars generally interpret this passage in light of our understanding of legal liability, retaliation, and restitution for loss or injury today.  Substitute “dog” for “ox” and “attacks” for “gores” in this passage and you’ll better understand the passage in light of our modern culture and laws.  (Lex Talionis is Latin for the law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offense committed in kind and degree.)

But actually this cliché "Whose ox is being gored?" owes its origin to Martin Luther in his defense in the 1521 Diet of Worms, Germany, Luther said that “most human affairs come down to depending on whose ox is gored.”  In other words, a given event will be seen differently depending on the degree to which the viewer’s self-interest is involved.

In any organization today, employees and managers will often behave badly because they feel as though their “ox is being gored.”  For example, employee productivity may be down because management imposed some whimsical work rule, which most employees feel is unfair, and they retaliate by being less productive.  Managers impose whimsical work rules because they feel their employees are behaving improperly and they want to put a stop to it.  It’s a catch 22 or a no-win situation.

As a manager, when you see employees (or other managers for that matter) behaving badly, do some detective work and try to figure out how their ox is being gored?  There’s usually a reason behind it that can be resolved in a positive manner.  Although most managers are not trained psychologists and have difficulty diagnosing why someone is behaving badly, they can try to talk with the employee (or manager) to first understand why they’re behaving the way they are.  If that doesn’t work, the manager can try to talk with their co-workers and colleagues to get their take on it.

For example, you as a manager may notice that your employee hasn’t been his usual self lately.  He’s been calling out sick a lot and taken a lot of unplanned, last minute vacation days.  He hasn’t been good about answering emails or telephone inquiries, and most of his work is slipping and falling behind schedule.  Some of his colleagues are complaining to you that he hasn’t been carrying his weight at work.  What do you do?

A foolish manager would reprimand him for his poor work performance and put him on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Unfortunately, his work performance doesn't improve quickly, and the employee is eventually fired.

A wise manager would talk to him privately in order to understand why he has been behaving this way.  After you do this, you discover that your employee’s wife is terminally ill and he has been busy taking her to doctor’s appointments and chemotherapy.  This makes the situation crystal clear for you now.  You thank your employee for sharing the cross he’s barring with you and you agree to give him carte blanche time off.  You even go a step further and allow him to work remotely from home.  The employee does these and eventually, his wife passes away.  But he’s so grateful for the compassion you showed him that eventually, he becomes one of your star employees.  His colleagues see how fair and compassionate you treated him and their work performance improves too.

In the case of the foolish manager,  he now has to hire a replacement, but the learning curve is so steep that the new employee takes several years to get up to a full performance level.  Plus the organization may have to endure a lengthy legal battle for wrongful termination under the Family Medical Leave Act.  The employee's coworkers learn what happened and, believing they're working for an unfair, ruthless manager, begin leaving in droves. And the ones who stay are even less productive and your organization is now in trouble.

You can see that how you choose to act as a manager can have a ripple effect throughout your organization.  There are many stakeholders who can have their ox gored.  In the prayer of St. Francis it says, "Grant that I may not so much seek to be understood as to understand."

The foolish manager's choice was just from the standpoint of the organization, but he showed no mercy or understanding, and the results were not positive for the organization.

The wise manager's choice was not just from the standpoint of the organization, but he showed mercy and understanding, and the results were positive for the organization.  And this is the key point.  You as a manager must balance justice with mercy, but you should tend towards mercy.  Remember, a given event will be seen differently depending on the degree to which the viewer’s self-interest is involved or whose ox is being gored.

Japan Airline's CEO cuts own pay to help save company (2008)

Pope: wealth that is not shared generates corruption

Gospel Reading for May 25, 2015MK 10:17-27

As Jesus was setting out on a journey, a man ran up,
knelt down before him, and asked him,
“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus answered him, “Why do you call me good?
No one is good but God alone.
You know the commandments: You shall not kill;
you shall not commit adultery;
you shall not steal;
you shall not bear false witness;
you shall not defraud;
honor your father and your mother.”
He replied and said to him,
“Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth.”
Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him,
“You are lacking in one thing.
Go, sell what you have, and give to the poor
and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.”
At that statement, his face fell,
and he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

Jesus looked around and said to his disciples,
“How hard it is for those who have wealth
to enter the Kingdom of God!”
The disciples were amazed at his words.
So Jesus again said to them in reply,
“Children, how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God!
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle
than for one who is rich to enter the Kingdom of God.”
They were exceedingly astonished and said among themselves,
“Then who can be saved?”
Jesus looked at them and said,
“For men it is impossible, but not for God.
All things are possible for God.”

Article is from Vatican Radio May 25, 2015

(Vatican Radio)  If you are wealthy, you should make sure your riches serve the "common good." An abundance of things lived selfishly is "sad", steals "hope," and is the origin "of all kinds of corruption," large or small. That was Pope Francis’ reflection in his Homily at this morning’s Mass celebrated in the chapel of the Casa Santa Marta.

In his Homily, Pope Francis reflects on one of the most famous passages of the Gospel: Jesus meets the rich young man who enthusiastically asks to follow Him and assures Him he will always live by the commandments.  But when Jesus tells him one last thing is needed - to sell his things, give everything to the poor and then follow Him - the young man’s attitude and willingness swiftly change. Suddenly, "the joy and hope" in the rich young man vanish, because he does not want to give up his riches.

"The attachment to riches is the beginning of all kinds of corruption, everywhere: personal corruption, corruption in business, even small commercial bribery, the kind that shortchanges you at the counter, political corruption, corruption in education ... Why? Because those who live attached to their own power, their own wealth, they believe they’re in heaven. They are closed; they have no horizon, no hope. Eventually they will have to leave everything."

Rich and sterile

"There is a mystery in the possession of wealth," says Francis. "Riches have the ability to seduce, to take us to a seduction and make us believe that we are in a paradise on earth." Instead, says the Pope, that earthly paradise is a place without "horizon", similar to that neighborhood the pontiff  remembers seeing in the seventies, inhabited by wealthy people who had built walls and fences to defend their property from thieves:

"And living without horizons is a sterile life; living without hope is a sad life. The attachment to wealth makes us sad and makes us sterile. I say 'attachment,' I am not saying 'good administration of one’s riches', because riches are for the common good, for everyone. And if the Lord gives them to one person it is so that they are used for the good of all, not for oneself, not so they are closed in one’s heart, which then becomes corrupt and sad."

Open your hand and your horizons

Wealth without generosity, insists Pope Francis, "makes us believe that we are powerful like God. And in the end it takes away the best: hope." But Jesus, he concludes, indicates in the Gospel the right way to live.

"The first Beatitude: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit,' or the stripping off of this attachment and making sure that the riches that the Lord has given one are for the common good. It’s the only way. Open your hand, open your heart, open up the horizon. But if you have a closed hand, your heart is closed as the man’s who threw banquets and wore expensive clothes;  you have no horizons, you do not see others who are in need and you'll end up like that man: far from God. "

Who Do You Believe?

Who Do You Believe?

by Bryan J. Neva, Sr.

We're all bombarded with too much information!  There's 24/7 news, information, commentary, and entertainment on television, the Internet, radio, and smart phones.  Newspapers and other periodicals offer even more salacious details, rumors, and photos we didn't get from the other sources.  Finally, there are millions of books out there on just about any subject we can imagine.  

So who do we believe as a trusted source of information when so much of what we read and hear is contradictory?  One week we are told to eat more meat and protein, the next to eat more fruits, grains, and vegetables.  One week we are told to drink a glass of red wine every day, the next to drink none at all.  One week we are told something or other is good for you, the next that something or other is bad for you depending on which expert is talking.

When I was a teenager in the 1970s, all the climatologist were predicting global cooling; today all the climatologist are predicting global warming. When I was a young man in the 1980s, it was socially acceptable to demean certain social or ethnic groups; today it's not.  When I was starting a family in the 1990s people were not very environmentally conscience; today they are.  But still, who do you believe?  

For starters, our parents didn't raise us to be fools!  They're our first teachers.  They taught us right from wrong and helped us to form our paradigms on life.  And if we were blessed to have been raised in a faith tradition, our place of worship also helped teach us right from wrong.  

In school, our teachers taught us reading and writing, language and speech, history, sociology, psychology, cultures, economics, government, mathematics, and science.  And then they helped us make sense of all this information by teaching us critical thinking skills and the scientific method.

So with our God given ability to naturally reason, why do so many people believe lies and live unrighteous lives?  It may simply be ignorance of the truth or a warped perception of reality.  You can't hardly blame someone's misguided beliefs if they were raised poorly or if they had a poor education can you?  But still, none of us had perfect childhoods or an education.  This is the nature versus nurture argument.

Something else to consider is that man is a social animal and most of us like to go along to get along.  So if a society condones or condemns certain things, people will generally go along with it.  Consider what happened in Germany in the 1930s and 40s.  Very few people had the courage to stand up against Hitler and the Nazi party.  Or consider North Korea today.  The society has become cult-like in their unquestioned devotion to their leader.  

The archenemies of the great Greek philosophers Socrates and Plato were the Sophists.  Socrates and Plato both believed that absolute truth can be known and discovered, whereas the Sophist believed that truth is relative. This is what we call moral relativism today, and it's the hallmark of secular-progressive thinking that has become so widespread.

Webster's defines truth as the true or actual state of a matter; conformity with fact, reality, actuality, or existence; a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, observation, or the like (such as scientific or mathematical truths). 

Beyond simply collecting and analyzing information, we need a compass or guide to help us sort through how we should act in response to all the information we're bombarded with.  For many of us, our faith supplies that moral or ethical compass or GPS.  It shows us exactly where we are and the direction we should follow to reach our goals.

Jesus said, "I am the light of the world.  Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.  If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.  I am the way, and the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me!" (John 8:12, 31, 32; 14:6).  And during Jesus' trial before the Roman Governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate asked him, "So you are a king?"  Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king, and for this reason I was born, and for this reason I came into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is committed to the truth listens to me!"  Then Pilate said to him sardonically, "What is truth?" (John 18:37, 38). 

"What is truth?" seems like a simple enough question, but the answer is not so simple at all when we're bombarded with so much information. Philosophers, scientist, and great thinkers throughout the ages have debated this very question.  And institutions of higher learning have dedicated themselves to discovering and discerning the truth in all its varied forms.  The late Pope John Paul II in 1993 publish an encyclical letter called "The Splendor of Truth" (in Latin Veritatis Splendor) where he asserted that absolute truth is knowable by everyone and in any culture writing, "in the depth of [man's] heart there always remains a yearning for absolute truth and thirst to attain full knowledge of it."

Throughout our history, mankind, by our very nature, has been drawn to the truth despite being deluded by lies, superstitions, misconceptions, misunderstandings, prejudices, and the like.

But truth can be a demanding task master.  Living a life of truth can be a hard, rocky, and difficult road to follow.  Falsehood is easy.  But committing ourselves to the truth can cost us a lot.  It can mean the difference between worldly success or failure, fame or obscurity, fortune or poverty, pleasure or pain, reward or sacrifice, life or death.

So why live by the truth if living a lie is so much easier and rewarding? That's the sixty-four-thousand dollar question!  But it's probably why so few of us actively pursue and live by the truth. Being bombarded with so much information, we can believe almost anything.  As the old saying goes, if you don't believe in something, then you'll fall for anything.

As for me, I believe that being committed to the truth is its own reward, and being a follower of Jesus Christ, the source and embodiment of all truth, gives us someone we can believe in.