Back in the dark days before science and progress and all the things we prize so much, humanity was ruled mostly by a series of tribes led by a leader who claimed either direct godhood or speakership with godhood. 'For some strange reason', it seemed that the god particularly favored the leader in that it invariably gave orders resulting in the leader having whichever property, goods, and women he wanted. These ancient 'gods' also had a tendency to value peace while the tribe was doing well and then suddenly demand war when the leader wanted to expand his territory or saw another tribe as a threat. There is no doubt that this convenience had been noticed by other tribal members, but that little seed of doubt would remain... Human leaders can be toppled, but gods are quite a different story.
One of the radical innovations brought into the world by Judaism and then Christianity was a knowable God whose precepts did not change, and to whom every man, especially leaders, were answerable. King David was punished by God for exercising his 'divine leadership' in order to take Uriah's wife for himself; King Ahab was punished by God for taking Naboth's vineyard. Under God, a leader cannot claim divine right to what he pleases. This goes on to modern times... when religion has gone wrong, even Christianity during some historical ages and in some parts of the globe, at the center you can often find a human being using it in order to gain personal power.
Socialism, whether its pretend-private form (fascism) or outright state-control form (Communism), by necessity sees Christianity as a threat. Socialism, especially liberal socialism, teaches that the world can be made a paradise as long as everybody agrees to follow the rules laid down by the human beings who created it. This devotion to the State (and hence, they argue, to the community - though the State, which speaks for the 'god' of the community, seems to deliver edicts that benefit the State more than the people... how about that?) must be paramount, and any secondary devotion to the family or another god must be suborned or destroyed. This was touted as a brand new thing, a non-religious (and therefore, somehow, pure) type of government meant to bring us into a new age, but scratch the surface and you will find the same old pagan tribalism as before.
That brings us to today.
Now the role of homosexuality in our society and our attitude towards refugees from the Middle East are really separate issues, and I do honestly believe that those on both sides of both issues should be wary of this argument being produced and spread by liberal Democrats. Have I been the only one to notice that, when 'gay marriage' is being discussed, we are a 'secular nation', yet when Syrian refugees unwittingly harbor terrorists, we suddenly have a 'Christian duty' to let them in with current vetting (or lack thereof) procedures?
Never mind your feelings about gay sex or Muslim terrorists for the moment. Ask yourself this. Are we a Christian nation, required to follow Christian edicts on aiding the needy equally with Christian edicts on forbidding sexual immorality? Are we a nation which, for cultural effect even among those who do not follow Christianity, has public schools offer prayers to the Christian God? Are we a nation that imposes a religious litmus test for leadership?
Or are we a secular nation? Do we follow the desires of our Christian forefathers to make this a country in which, as Christianity does demand, we permit only voluntary conversion? Is this a place where an atheist can have equal access to government programs and justice? Is this a nation which does not ban practices which, though they may offend God, do not cause imminent harm to innocent bystanders? Do we approach national security and response to violence, not directly as followers of a Lamb to the sacrifice, but with a no-nonsense desire to safeguard our borders first? Do we examine social welfare programs based on their cost, their merit, and their effect on our freedom, rather than enshrining a religious zeal in government procedure?
If the Democrats do not want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot appeal to Christian duty when trying to push for open borders or social welfare programs. If the Democrats do want this to be a Christian Nation, then they cannot use the government to force people to accept gay sex as identical to marriage, or to refer to decorated trees on public property at Christmastime as "mitten trees", or to ever, in any context (even the correct one), make reference to the "separation of Church and State".
When Democrats vie for a "secular state" in permitting the social issues they wish to promote, and then turn around and demand our "Christian duty" in government-controlled, government-mandated practices they wish to demand, they are the same as the leaders of the ancient tribalism, declaring themselves to be God (or God's direct servant) and using claims of divine power in order to force us all to follow flawed human beings as if they were perfect.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
Friday, November 13, 2015
The INTJ in Star Wars
The Meyers-Briggs personality sorter test is one of the most popular personality tests out there, such that it is even trusted in the educational and corporate world. Given that, it should come as no surprise that people have enjoyed illustrating the sixteen personality types in 'prayers', in soundbytes, and even in depictions of popular culture, which brings me to today's complaint. I am one of the rarest Meyers-Briggs types in existence, the female INTJ, and somehow I find that people never look past the word "mastermind" when trying to figure out which Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Twilight, or other such character fits the INTJ archetype. Somehow, for some reason, we are relentlessly typecast as the villain, even when the villain very clearly shows anti-INTJ traits!
Most Star Wars diagrams, for instance, claim that Emperor Palpatine is the INTJ in the series. There are several things severely wrong with this supposition. The INTJ does not seek power, and will only take it reluctantly if nobody else steps up to lead. Palpatine, on the other hand, actively disrupted existing systems in order to grab power. The INTJ, once in power, views his situation objectively and seeks efficiency, dwelling not on blame and punishment for mistakes, but merely on correcting the mistake and moving on. The INTJ is always making contingency plans, and is quick to change plans once he sees a problem with the status quo. Palpatine appears to lead by intimidation. The lead for the second Death Star's construction, if Palpatine had been an INTJ, would be glad to, as Vader put it, "explain it to the Emperor when he arrives" that they simply need more men to stay on schedule. The INTJ would evaluate the request, see if it seemed reasonable, and render an objective decision. Palpatine tended to slowly set up complicated plans, but he did not divert readily from them, even when they were beginning to go wrong. Finally, his very status as a Sith Lord casts the "T" and the "N" of his code into doubt, as the Dark Side of the Force is quicker and more easily accessed through anger, aggression, fear, and a desire for power.
Now, I am a properly-functioning INTJ. If the "bad guy" tended to be the INTJ, I would accept it, even though I do not like to think of myself as a "bad guy". In this case, though, as in most cases (Draco Malfoy is also often listed as an 'INTJ' even though he craves the approval of classmates who can barely speak and boasts about any rise in status that he might have been accorded), the shoe simply does not fit!
So who is the INTJ in Star Wars? The answer is not immediately obvious, until you look past the surface of each of these well-developed characters. The INTJ in Star Wars is Lando Calrissian.
Lando shows all of the traits of an INTJ through the two movies in which he participates. He cooperates reluctantly with Vader when it seems to be the best way to safeguard his people, but when he has had enough of cooperation, he clearly has already put a contingency plan into place. That plan is quickly and easily altered to meet the changing situation. Later, when he joins the Rebellion, he seems embarrassed about having been given the title of "General". He is not seeking power, but when it is thrust upon him, he takes his responsibility seriously. When he finds himself leading the Fleet into a trap, he figures it out first, and within a few minutes he has adjusted his strategy accordingly.
The INTJ action that impressed me the most, however, as an INTJ, was during his escape from Cloud City. He pulled out a microphone into the PA system, told his people that the Empire had taken direct control of the station, and urged them to leave before more Imperial troops arrive. This was not, in fact, a benevolent gesture, nor was it an evil action. He knew that the stormtroopers were uninterested in shooting civilians and would probably get into deep trouble if they did so. The Empire, reeling from the loss of the first Death Star, did not need news of an Imperial massacre to further encourage their enemies and risk increasing the forces of the Rebellion. So what did he do, when he sent that message? He filled the corridors with panicking families, making the stormtroopers work harder to find and safely target him and his companions, and giving himself the cover he needed to slip out a little more quietly. That level of quick-thinking and manipulation, able to dispassionately judge the level of danger and continuously change his plan in order to fit reality, is what makes an INTJ.
I have not yet found the INTJ in Star Wars or in Harry Potter. I can tell you for sure that neither Draco Malfoy nor Spock fit the bill.
Most Star Wars diagrams, for instance, claim that Emperor Palpatine is the INTJ in the series. There are several things severely wrong with this supposition. The INTJ does not seek power, and will only take it reluctantly if nobody else steps up to lead. Palpatine, on the other hand, actively disrupted existing systems in order to grab power. The INTJ, once in power, views his situation objectively and seeks efficiency, dwelling not on blame and punishment for mistakes, but merely on correcting the mistake and moving on. The INTJ is always making contingency plans, and is quick to change plans once he sees a problem with the status quo. Palpatine appears to lead by intimidation. The lead for the second Death Star's construction, if Palpatine had been an INTJ, would be glad to, as Vader put it, "explain it to the Emperor when he arrives" that they simply need more men to stay on schedule. The INTJ would evaluate the request, see if it seemed reasonable, and render an objective decision. Palpatine tended to slowly set up complicated plans, but he did not divert readily from them, even when they were beginning to go wrong. Finally, his very status as a Sith Lord casts the "T" and the "N" of his code into doubt, as the Dark Side of the Force is quicker and more easily accessed through anger, aggression, fear, and a desire for power.
Now, I am a properly-functioning INTJ. If the "bad guy" tended to be the INTJ, I would accept it, even though I do not like to think of myself as a "bad guy". In this case, though, as in most cases (Draco Malfoy is also often listed as an 'INTJ' even though he craves the approval of classmates who can barely speak and boasts about any rise in status that he might have been accorded), the shoe simply does not fit!
So who is the INTJ in Star Wars? The answer is not immediately obvious, until you look past the surface of each of these well-developed characters. The INTJ in Star Wars is Lando Calrissian.
Lando shows all of the traits of an INTJ through the two movies in which he participates. He cooperates reluctantly with Vader when it seems to be the best way to safeguard his people, but when he has had enough of cooperation, he clearly has already put a contingency plan into place. That plan is quickly and easily altered to meet the changing situation. Later, when he joins the Rebellion, he seems embarrassed about having been given the title of "General". He is not seeking power, but when it is thrust upon him, he takes his responsibility seriously. When he finds himself leading the Fleet into a trap, he figures it out first, and within a few minutes he has adjusted his strategy accordingly.
The INTJ action that impressed me the most, however, as an INTJ, was during his escape from Cloud City. He pulled out a microphone into the PA system, told his people that the Empire had taken direct control of the station, and urged them to leave before more Imperial troops arrive. This was not, in fact, a benevolent gesture, nor was it an evil action. He knew that the stormtroopers were uninterested in shooting civilians and would probably get into deep trouble if they did so. The Empire, reeling from the loss of the first Death Star, did not need news of an Imperial massacre to further encourage their enemies and risk increasing the forces of the Rebellion. So what did he do, when he sent that message? He filled the corridors with panicking families, making the stormtroopers work harder to find and safely target him and his companions, and giving himself the cover he needed to slip out a little more quietly. That level of quick-thinking and manipulation, able to dispassionately judge the level of danger and continuously change his plan in order to fit reality, is what makes an INTJ.
I have not yet found the INTJ in Star Wars or in Harry Potter. I can tell you for sure that neither Draco Malfoy nor Spock fit the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)