Dr. Richard Land: July 2008 Archives

Over the last few months Randy Pausch captured the attention of much of the world as he had captivated his students for years. Pausch, an extremely popular Carnegie Mellon University professor of computer science, was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer. While that would be devastating news to anyone, you would expect it to be particularly excruciating for a 46-year-old father of three children (aged 5, 2 and 1).

Given a prognosis of a few months to live, Pausch responded with inspiring, even unnerving optimism. He decided to give his students a real "last lecture"--not a hypothetical "what I would say if I knew I was going to die" lecture, but a lecture from a man who knew he had a very limited time to live.

I doubt anyone could watch Randy Pausch's "last lecture" and not be moved and indeed, changed, by it. Randy was a sort of 21st-century, high-tech Renaissance Man, with multi-faceted interests and a charismatic, engaging personality. One former professorial colleague called him a "force of nature."

Pausch's "last lecture" has been viewed by millions on the Internet and read by hundreds of thousands in its book form. Why did Randy touch so many people? His example illustrated to all of us the transitory, even ephemeral nature of our earthly existence. As he so pointedly reminded us: "Many people have given last speeches without realizing it," citing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s awe-inspiring speech in Memphis the night before he was assassinated.

Randy Pausch told us to live life--carpe diem--seize the day. Among the many thought-provoking comments in the "last lecture," a couple stand out for me. First, "Never underestimate the importance of having fun. I'm dying and I'm having fun. And I'm going to keep having fun every day because there's no other way to play it." Second, "We can't change the cards we're dealt, just how we play the hand. If I'm not as depressed as you think I should be, I'm sorry to disappoint you."

Such courage in the midst of so much adversity is inspiring. I know it has inspired me, among other things, to take delight in the present, to enjoy "little things" more and to cherish every moment with loved ones.

As Randy's life and lecture remind us so poignantly, none of us can guarantee our next hour, let alone a day of our future existence. As Jesus reminded His disciples in "the parable of the rich fool," the rich man who trusted in his material wealth was a "fool" when he said to himself, "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry." Jesus reported God's reply: "Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee."

In this advanced civilization of ours, where medical technology postpones death more than ever before, it may take a Randy Pausch to remind us of how short our earthly sojourn may be and how realizing that should alter and re-order present priorities. I know it has done so for me.

The late Tony Snow, one of public policy's "happy warriors" (he always reminded me of the late Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the original liberal "happy warrior"), was a grateful man. "Grateful" might seem to be an odd description for someone cut down in the prime of life at 53 by colon cancer. He was always upbeat, friendly, a real "half-glass-full" kind of guy.

Tony was enormously grateful to his God and for his country. He once wrote, "If you think Independence Day is America's defining holiday, think again. Thanksgiving deserves that title, hands-down." When I first read that it startled me a little, because I'm really big on Independence Day, when we celebrate the incandescent brilliance and boundless courage of our Founding Fathers in their proclamation of timeless truths in the Declaration and in having the temerity to defy the world's first superpower--the British Empire.

Upon reflection, however, I believe Tony Snow was absolutely right. Thanksgiving embodies our nation's long-held belief (far predating the Declaration in 1776) that God has providentially blessed our land--and that blessings by definition are unmerited and undeserved.

Benjamin Franklin, on May 14, 1787, had called the delegates of the Second Constitutional Convention to prayer, saying that the delegates needed "the Father of lights to illuminate our understanding!" Franklin reminded the delegates of how they had sought divine wisdom and guidance during the War of Independence and concluded thus:

"Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. And have we forgotten that powerful friend! Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance! I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs the affairs of man...I firmly believe this...that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel."

George Washington must have agreed. On October 3, 1789, our first president urged the new nation to give thanks to the Almighty when he issued a presidential decree establishing a national day of Thanksgiving:

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Thanksgiving as the defining holiday of the noble experiment called America? I think so!

By now, virtually every American not on an expedition to Antarctica has heard about Rev. Jesse Jackson's crude and offensive remarks picked up by a live mic in a Fox News studio last Sunday.

Rev. Jackson expressed his extreme displeasure about Sen. Obama supposedly "speaking down to black people." Most observers believe the specific remarks that triggered Rev. Jackson's outburst were uttered by Sen. Obama in a Father's Day speech at a black church in which the senator admonished absent black fathers by saying, "We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child--it's the courage to raise one."

Rev. Jackson's son, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., issued a blistering repudiation of his father's comments saying that while he would always "love his father," he did "thoroughly reject and repudiate his ugly rhetoric." Rev. Jackson has apologized to Sen. Obama for his comments.

One point that I have not heard made in the barrage of criticism directed at Rev. Jackson is the extreme vulgarity of his comments. Some have talked about his "crude" language, but as far as I know, no one has pointed out that Rev. Jackson's comments are particularly beyond the pale for a man of the cloth.

As a minister myself, I am even more shocked that Rev. Jackson would state that he--how shall I put it?--wanted to remove Sen. Obama's procreative abilities. Am I suggesting that ordained ministers should be held to an even higher standard of conduct than non-ordained people? Yes, I am.

The New Testament is quite clear that people who would be pastors or ministers are held to a higher standard than other Christians (1 Tim. 3:1-7) and even other church officers such as "deacons" (1 Tim. 3:8-13). I, for one, do hold ministers, including myself, to a higher standard of conduct and that includes both not harboring such hostile and vicious thoughts toward others and not verbalizing them in such vulgar and crude language.

During a conversation about philanthropy and global issues at the Aspen Ideas Festival, Former President Bill Clinton made some comments about the lingering psychological impact of having been a prisoner of war. The context was a discussion about former South African President Nelson Mandela, who was imprisoned, unjustly and harshly, for many years by the whites-only, apartheid South African government.

Former President Clinton, praising Mandela's great, reconciling leadership of South Africa, spoke of Mandela's astonishing ability to forgive his oppressive captors. He asked Mandela how he could forgive them, and Mandela reportedly responded, "I felt anger and hatred and fear. And I realized that if I kept hating them once I got in that car and got through the gate, I would still be in prison. So, I let it go, because I wanted to be free."

So far, no harm, no foul. Unfortunately, President Clinton then went on to practice psychology without a license. Perhaps attempting to justify his own infamous temper, Clinton observed, "Every living soul on the planet has some highly justified anger. Everybody."

Then President Clinton observed, "If you know anybody that was ever a POW for any length of time, you will see that you go along for months or maybe even years, and then something will happen, it'll trigger all those bad dreams, and they'll come back, and it may last 30 seconds."

Was President Clinton questioning the emotional stability of another famous POW, Senator McCain? I don't know. However, I do have some unsolicited advice for former President Clinton. Go out of your way in the future to avoid comments that could be construed as criticizing a genuine Vietnam War hero. When you lied to avoid service in that war (some would call it draft-dodging) you disqualified yourself from such criticism. As my grandmother used to say, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

By the way, people who have heard Senator McCain speak about his forgiveness of his Vietnamese captors (as I have been privileged to do) marvel at his Mandela-like ability to forgive and move forward with his life, despite bearing in his body permanent physical handicaps of his torture.

Last Sunday (June 29) retired Army General Wesley Clark startled "Face the Nation" host Bob Schieffer by questioning Senator John McCain's military experience as a qualification for the presidency. Schieffer was asking General Clark about his description of Senator McCain as "untested and untried," and when pressed by Schieffer, Clark said, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." While these comments have caused considerable controversy, it is not the first time General Clark has questioned or downgraded Senator McCain's experience.

Last spring, when General Clark was supporting Senator Clinton (before she dropped out of the race), General Clark argued for Senator Clinton's superior credentials and experience (versus Obama and McCain): "If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as the first lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she's the most experienced and capable person in the race."

Now, according to General Clark on "Face the Nation," experience is trumped by "having good judgment" and "the ability to communicate" and, of course, according to Clark, Senator Obama has "incredible communication skills" and "proven judgment."

While judgment and communication skills are important, the most important and essential trait is character, and while there is no reason to question Senator Obama's character, there is tremendous evidence to affirm Senator McCain's--and the most compelling part of that evidence is his military experience.

Senator McCain, shot down and severely injured while flying a combat mission over North Vietnam, was held captive and brutally tortured for five and a half years. He survived and was considered both a leader and a hero by his fellow P.O.W.'s.

And yet, Senator McCain was offered early release to go home by his captors, once they discovered he was the son of Admiral John McCain, commander of the U.S. Pacific fleet. Senator McCain chose to remain and face years of continued torture and deprivation rather than abandon his fellow prisoners of war.

Surely, such courage and character tell us more than a little about what kind of president a man would be. Senator Obama might possess similar qualities of self sacrifice and courage under fire and torture. However, in Senator McCain's case, we need not speculate. We know.

It is a discredit to General Clark that he would question or downgrade Senator McCain's military experience as an important indicator of how Senator McCain would respond to the pressures that accompany occupancy of the Oval Office.

The verdict is now in from the U.S. Supreme Court--the Second Amendment means what it says. In a historic 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that no government entity--local, state, or federal--can totally ban...