[Image downloaded from Huffington Post]
Job 31:5–6 (NKJV)
5 “If I have walked with falsehood, Or if my foot has hastened to deceit, 6 Let me be weighed on honest scales, That God may know my integrity.
I am not a "Libertarian" in the formal political sense of the word. I don't believe in a totally Laissez-faire governmental policy regarding all private transactions. I do not know Mr. Paul's comprehensive political stance and so I do not know to what extent I agree with him and where we might disagree. But this I do believe about him: I believe he is a man of integrity and that is an increasingly rare quality in politicians or any other subset of the human race.
"Integrity" is a much abused word today when and if it is used at all. For the most part, common use pretty much makes it analogous to "nice guy." Very seldom do we hear of folks describing a person they do not "like" as possessing it. So, our evaluation of a person's 'integrity" has more to do with whether or not his or her character, life style and personality appeal to us rather than defining their fundamental moral condition.
To me "integrity" involves two things: (1) a core set of commendable principles which are viewed by the person as "morally binding" on himself regardless of consequences, and (2) a resulting life-style and actions which reflect those principles (in other words - he is not a hypocrite).
Now some might think that everyone, at least to some extent, meets these requirements and hence everyone is, to just that extent, a person of integrity. I don't think so. I think the largest group of people lead "un-examined lives" in which each day is more reactive than determined. Most of us just deal with life as it comes on an almost reflexive basis, making decisions on the fly based on some "feeling" that we have at the moment. What this comes down to is a fundamental pragmatism that determines what is the best course of action based on the possible consequences that might occur. In other words... "right and wrong" alternatives are evaluated based on potential effects rather than an underlying foundational moral principle. This is not fundamentally consistent with "integrity" because, quite frankly, making decisions based on principle will, not seldom, bring forth consequences that might be pretty difficult, unpleasant or down right deadly.
Similarly, these principles must be commendable. One can say that the travesties committed by dictators like Josef Stalin or Adolph Hitler were grounded in certain fundamental principles and that they were willing to accept what ever consequences might occur when they pursued them. Here it is clear that the principles themselves must be commendable before the word "integrity" could be attached to a person. Obviously this means that some standard must be applied to distinguish between those principles that are commendable and those that are not.
I state, categorically and unapologetically, that the only criteria that can be used in this regard must come from "outside" man because no man or no culture, on their own, can arrive at such a standard. It is a pipe dream to think that mankind can ever overcome its own selfish and self-justifying bias. Job clung to his "integrity" on the basis that honest scales would indicate that he had honestly sought God's righteousness in his life and that his present circumstances were not, contra to his so-called friends, brought on him by God in retribution for some specific sin in his life. The criterion that determined whether his principles were commendable was the righteousness of God Himself as revealed in His law and His grace as it reflect His Person. It is only through the lens of the Kingdom of God and its righteousness that the commendable nature of any person's core principles can be evaluated. And this lens comes to us from outside man... not from his own reasoning.
Next to consider is this. A life consistent with these principles requires, in fact, it demands, that the first thing a person must consider when facing a decision, any decision, or dealing with any circumstance, is NOT what result might accrue... or what outcomes are possible. Those things are to be considered subsequently. What must be considered first is "What is Right?" and on what principle is this "rightness" determined.
Mr. Paul's Quixotish tilting at windmills yesterday reflected his fundamental adherence to this moral philosophy. The outcome of his effort is yet to be demonstrated. That's neither here nor there. What's important is that he did it and that should serve to remind us that "integrity" in such instances, win or lose, is its own reward.
I agree with Mr. Paul's fundamental political objective in this filibuster. The question of whether the President of the United States has the right to unilaterally determine whether an American citizen, on American soil, who is not immediately engaged in harmful activities, is to be killed or not is a question of severe concern and of immediate importance. John Dillinger was declared "Public Enemy No. 1" before he was shot down in cold blood in front of that movie theater. Mr. Paul is to be commended for reminding the nation that there is a principle involved here that actually takes precedence over the possibility that a terrorist act may take place.
That's take integrity ... and he has my respect.
"I think the largest group of people lead "un-examined lives" in which each day is more reactive than determined. Most of us just deal with life as it comes on an almost reflexive basis, making decisions on the fly based on some "feeling" that we have at the moment."
Preach it.
Posted by: Joel Loukus | March 07, 2013 at 09:29 AM
Amen
Posted by: Triston | March 07, 2013 at 11:26 AM