Now That's a Good Question

 

There is a myth out there that the most significant part of a conversation is having the right answers. Well, right answers are much, much better than wrong answers, to be sure. But for the most part having the right question is really just as important.

The right question gets beyond the easy "yes" or "no" response. I'm sure border guards, bless their grilling hearts, are trained to ask those types of questions. Lawyers, principals, and even parents should likewise be skilled in asking the right questions.

I often hear questions these days, mostly about God and government, and usually the questioner has no real interest in the right answer—only a convenient answer. I'm thinking of such shallow questions that start with, "Where was God...?" or "Why doesn't the government...?" One of the results of a dumbed-down populace is the quest for the ever-present easy answer to a selfish question. It's this me-first mentality, with instant solutions in mind, that drives me absolutely crazy.

Don't people know that sometimes we need deeper questions to get more profound answers? (Good question, wouldn't you say, Maurice?)

Beyond God and government, we are faced with questions that may range from the ridiculous to the sublime, with ridiculous questions such as, "Should Winnipeg get an NHL franchise?" I suggest that the real question should be: "Should Phoenix and Atlanta keep their franchises?"

Or, when there are wussy questions about our severe Alberta climate, perhaps the real question should be: "Aren't you glad we're not living in Japan or China right now?" See the positive spin on the usual inane weather question? (Are you still impressed with me, Maurice?)

Then we shift to the more sublime, what with all the nonsense in the north of Africa. The one query that seems to be popping up a lot looks something like this: "Is it right for the United Nations and NATO to attack a sovereign nation?" That is a great question on a complicated issue, with no real answer in view. But I do suggest to you that this is the wrong question. The right one is as follows:

"Does any independent nation have the right to massacre its innocent civilians?"

Granted, a simple "no" should do here. To be sure, there is a fine line between defending the innocents and aiding a full-fledged rebellion. And in this case, who really is behind the rebels? We as responsible nations must look out for the genuine welfare of those who cannot look out for themselves. Where the bombing of Libya leads to, I dare not predict, but to simply stand idly by and pompously abuse those attempting to solve the problem is lame.

Funny, no one seemed to ask that questions when Rwandans were slaughtering fellow-Rwandans a decade or two ago. In fact, the world's landscape is littered with the bodies of men, women, and children—from East Timor to the Sudan to the Congo to Cambodia—because no one asked the right questions, no one stood up and asked, "Is there anything we can do?"

I hate war as much as any peacenik, but I love freedom more. And to watch Libyans kill each other is repulsive; but to do absolutely nothing about it is irresponsible. I say that guardedly, as I am no supporter of the United Nations, especially in the area of family rights. But for them to step in to stop further bloodshed, I laude them.

Short term pain for long-term gain, someone once said.

From my perspective, I think the less government intervention, the better. There is a place for the government, but the more intrusive they get, the more dependent we get. (And I am seeing the United Nations as one big mega-government.) However, when they work with other member-nations to preserve peace and punish crime—a Biblical mandate, by the way—then I can support them.

I don't know how the chaos in Libya will ultimately play out. I don't know if whatever (or whoever) replaces "Good Daffy" will be worse or better for the people. But I do know that whining about an institution (the UN or NATO, in this case) that appears to be doing its job is not good.

So, instead of ranting and raving against the United Nations and/or NATO with questions we really haven't thought through, perhaps a better approach would be to ask: "Is there any way I/we can help?" Now that's a good question.