Card Games: Rules for Veterans of War

No, this is not a post about our military. My brother and I invented a card game titled Veterans of War back in high school. A friend asked me for the rules, so I thought I’d share the rules of the game with my blog readers.

Veterans of War is a simple two player card game involving both luck and strategy. All you need is a regular deck of cards to play the game, which takes about 15-30 minutes.

The object of the game is to remove 13 cards from your deck before your opponent. Cards removed from the deck become veterans of war.

Rules:

      1.       Divide the deck up into two halves: red cards (diamonds and hearts) and black cards (spades and clubs). Each player chooses one half of the deck.

      2.       Each card is ranked by its number or letter. Aces are higher than kings, king are higher than queens, and so on and so forth.

      3.      At first, gameplay proceeds as in the well-known card game War. Both players sides shuffle their deck, and then each flip their top card over. The highest card wins and is set aside in the victor’s pile. The lower card is considered captured and removed from play. In ties, both cards are removed from the board. This process continues until both players go through their hands.

      4.       Players then sort through their victor’s piles, set the order of their cards, and then repeat the process outlined in step 3. Play proceeds until one (or both) players have all their cards captured or killed.  

      5.       If one player has a victor’s pile at the end of the process outlined in steps 3 and 4, the cards in the victor’s pile become veterans of war. They are considered “retired” from service, and cannot be used for the remainder of the game.

      6.       Play continues as in steps 3, 4, and 5, with the exception that veterans do not “fight.”

      7.       Cards must “fight” in one battle to be considered veterans.

      8.       Gameplay is over when one player attains 13 veterans of war.

Tips:

      Aces and twos can never be veterans of war. Use them strategically in later rounds.

      If you find yourself with a larger victor’s pile than your opponent, keep your lower-ranked cards in the back, where they will not run the risk of dying. Having low-ranked veterans is a major advantage.

            Have fun!

Eternal Opposition to Sin

The 10 Commandments are universal rules, universally broken. Even faithful Christians break the commandments. Sin is practically ever-present among fallen humanity.

But certain commandments are universally accepted in theory, even if they are nearly universally-ignored in practice. In the abstract, there are few defenders of lying, theft, or killing (at least, of the born.)  

Other sins are far more “popular,” so to speak. Many defend adultery and excuse taking the Lord’s name in vain as a harmless offense against a non-existent deity.

But in Christianity, opposition to sin must be universal. Christians oppose popular sins for the same reason they oppose unpopular sins – because they’re wrong! Lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Theft is wrong. Lust is wrong. Idolatry is wrong. They are wrong today, were wrong in the past, and will be wrong in the future.
If a sin is unpopular, Christians must oppose it. If a particular sin becomes popular, Christians must still oppose it. Moral law does not change when social customs change.

The Five Levels of Internet Trolling

I got into an incredibly unproductive argument with someone I had no idea existed this morning over Twitter. I will spare you the back and forth, but the gist of the conversation is shown by this Tweet.

Getting in arguments with people you barely know is rarely productive, especially if your conversation begins with an aggressive challenge. The 140 character limit of Twitter does not lend itself well to coherent, constructive argument. It does lend itself to quick, snappy fights, however. 

My "conversation" this morning got me thinking as to the types of Internet trolling - namely, the practice of posting inflammatory or unhelpful messages. There are several levels of trolling, each necessitating different responses.

Level 0 – This is a conversation between two people with opposing views, who discuss issues calmly, rationally, and without rancor. This isn’t trolling – this is what debate should be.

Level 1 – This is the most minor form of trolling. At this level, an individual jumps in on a conversation by making an aggressive point. E.g. "Such and such politician/pope did this foolish thing, which invalidates your point!" I, admittedly, have been guilty of this level of trolling on occasion. 

Level 2 – At this level, at least one party resorts to mockery to avoid argument. Conversations at this level and above rarely become productive, and should be avoided whenever possible. The tweet linked above is a perfect example of this level.

Level 3 – At this level, at least one party turns to personal insult. E.g.: “You’re fat,” “You’re ugly,” “You’re stupid,” “Your parents must have been drunk when they spawned you,” etc.

Level 4 – At this level, any hope of productive conversation is over; heated/discussion/mockery turns to threats of violence. E.g.: "I'm going to kill you." 

Level 5 – Red alert! At this level, conversation turns to action – harassment, prank calls, stalking, etc. Sometimes, this even requires police intervention to resolve. This thankfully only happens in a rare number of cases.

The Dangers of Dehumanization

Today is Valentine’s Day - a fact which has probably made abundantly clear to you. Normally, I would do my part to celebrate the occasion by tormenting you, faithful readers, with one of my poems, preferably with an appropriate Valentine’s Day theme. But I will spare you this travesty (and you should in return reward me with your undying gratitude).

Since this is Valentine’s Day, naturally this post will have an obligatory reference to love, suitable for the occasion. But my namesake, St. Paul, described love better than I ever could in a beautiful and famous passage in Corinthians 13. I could not hope to improve on his description, and will not attempt to do so.

Instead, I will examine love by considering an impulse contrary to love: dehumanization. Love, simply stated, is the desire for the good of another, or an action undertaken for the good of another. Dehumanization is the opposite impulse: a thought or action leading one to demean another person.

Dehumanization is a surprisingly common temptation. It is easy to view others as objects for one’s own gratification – to treat others as constructs, rather than real people. We may not personally believe in solipsism, but we often act like solipsists when it comes to our treatment others. We are the only ones who matter; others exist to serve us.

It is especially easy to dehumanize those we argue with – those defending just causes are perfectly capable of succumbing to this temptation. “Pro-life” activists can be tempted to forget the humanity of abortion advocates whom they spar with. Those who defend true marriage can be tempted to scorn their foes as hopeless and irredeemable sodomites. To my shame, I have become angry with my political opponents and responded to them with subtle personal shots. But those we argue with are people, created in the same image and likeness of God as we are, who demand our respect, if not our agreement.

The temptation to dehumanize others is not limited to our enemies. We can just as easily dehumanize those whom we claim to love. The lover who uses his or her significant other or spouse for physical or emotional gratification, the son or daughter who leeches off his parents – these are very real instances of dehumanization.

This form of dehumanization is more subtle and therefore more pervasive than the more hostile kind. After all, it is easy to recognize when we are treating our foes like dirt, and adjust accordingly. But dehumanization of friends and family often masquerades as love, and is all the more destructive because of this fact.

A Look at the Military Profession

The very profession of soldier is an interesting paradox. Soldiers are warriors called upon to fight and even kill for their countries if necessary. However, they are defenders of their homeland, called upon to keep peace. 

Christianity is largely composed of paradoxes; the Christian attitude towards the military profession is no exception to this rule. Christianity seeks peace, but praises those who are called to protect their homeland.

The Bible speaks favorably of soldiers and uses military metaphors frequently. Christ praised the Roman centurion for his faith. St. Paul spoke of putting on the “armor of God” to withstand the assaults of the devil. (Ephesians 6:11). The Church accordingly praises worthy Christian men at arms; Christian soldiers such as St. George and St. Martin of Tours have been canonized. In the medieval era, the Church praised holy wars and crusades in defense of Christendom.

But the Bible also demands peace; Christ Himself is the Prince of Peace, who exhorted His apostles to put up their swords when He was taken in the Garden of Gethsemane. During the medieval era, the Church instituted the Truce of God to prevent Christian knights from killing one another. Pope Benedict XV became famous for his efforts to encourage peace during World War I.

The profession of soldier is an honorable profession. Men were created by God with the charge to cherish and protect what they love. The military is the perfect profession for the fulfillment of this desire; men, through soldierhood, are given the opportunity and blessing to serve a cause higher than themselves.

In America, many fall into two harmful extremes when it comes to the military profession. The first is to treat all soldiers as heroes, to view all soldiers as selfless protectors of the free world who continuously put themselves in harm’s way for the good of the world and for humanity. The second is to see soldiers as deluded fools or monsters who willingly place themselves in the service of an American empire which rains down oppression on humanity. Both of these extremes are wrong.

The idea that American soldiers are stormtroopers in the service of an evil empire is lunacy. America, for all its failings, still (generally) shows much more moral sense than the rest of the world. American soldiers, as a whole, are masters of their field and consummate professionals. American soldiers are trained incredibly well, and tasked with extremely delicate situations which they perform to the best of their ability.

However, hero-worship of soldiers is ingrained the American psyche. The idea that “every soldier is a hero” is false - members of the military are not infallible. Some individuals use the service as an opportunity to engage in cruelty or violence. War crimes are not mere chimeras, and must not be swept under the rug.

Men and women in uniform should not be deified solely on account of their profession. Nor should they be condemned as villains for the stupidity of their commanding officers. Soldiers are engaged in a noble profession – and should be treated accordingly. But when they fail, they must be treated as other fallen men.

Milestones

This is the 200^th post on Gray Matters! 

Milestones are curious things. From a practical standpoint, they mean very little. Big numbers ending in zeroes stand for... big numbers ending in zeroes. There is nothing inherently different in post 199 and post 200.

But milestones do signify longevity. Much of the power of a long-standing tradition is in its age; people innately trust people or companies that have done something well for years. 

Age, on some level, indicates success. A marriage that lasts 50 years signifies years of love, dedication, and sacrifice. A Church that has existed for 2000 years (in the face of every persecution imaginable) signifies an ability to withstand the storms of time.

The 200^th post of any blog is something of a milestone; signifying a lot of writing on my part (and a lot of suffering on yours). At the very least, this 200^th post on Gray Matters signifies that I enjoy bloviating. (In my defense, not every post was mine.) And the fact that you are still scanning these words, dear readers, indicates that you either have a high tolerance for pain, or that you enjoy reading these rants.

God willing, Gray Matters will reach many milestones in the years to come.

An Agnostic on Evolution

The topic of evolution is much debated in some Catholic circles. Some Catholics strongly uphold the theory of evolution, while other Catholics utterly reject it in favor of strict creationism.

I am an agnostic on the question. I must confess that I really don’t care whether animals were formed by evolutionary means or were “pure” creations of God. Such a question does not affect my belief in the Catholic faith in the slightest.

If God chose evolutionary means to form His creatures: Awesome! Through evolution, His wisdom is revealed by his beautiful direction of a natural process to spawn a multitude of different creatures.

If God chose to create His creatures directly: Excellent! His power and omnipotence is shown by His shaping of each individual creature.

Whatever method God chose to achieve the multiplicity of animals on earth, the doctrines of the Catholic Faith remain true in either case. God made man different from animals, gifting man specifically with reason, intellect, and free will, and sent His Son as a human being to redeem us from our sin - this does not change regardless of whether creationism or evolutionary theory is "true."

The question of evolution is of course interesting for scientists, who will (and should) continue to experiment to discover the method God used to achieve the multitude of animals on earth. But the question of whether or not animals were formed by evolutionary means is in some sense an immaterial question for Catholics, at least from a theological standpoint.   

Gun Control: Yes or No?

The recent Aurora shooting has sparked calls for gun control. The logic behind gun control is simple: guns, especially assault weapons, can be used to kill a lot of people efficiently, and makes it easier for people to kill one another. Therefore, in the interest of public safety, powerful guns such as assault weapons should be banned or at least heavily regulated.

One common objection to this, the “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” meme, is overly simplistic. (And I loathe overly simplistic memes with a fiery passion.) People do kill one another with a variety of weapons, but guns make killing people a lot easier. It is a lot easier to pull a gun on oneself or another than to stick a knife in someone’s back.

Catholics are called to be pro-life in all aspects of their lives. Since guns are often used to take lives, the question arises: Should Catholics support responsible gun control in order save lives, protecting the common good?

There are two must better reasons to oppose gun control. The first is the deterrent effect of guns. Criminals deliberately seek to get around laws, while ordinary citizens obey them. Thus, a society which embraces gun control will, in the long run, have widespread gun ownership only in the hands of those willing to break the law.

Further, a disarmed populace is unable to defend itself effectively against shooters. A criminal is far less likely to attack a person who has the possibility of being armed than otherwise. The example of Switzerland is often cited as proof that widespread gun ownership of guns acts as a deterrent – gun crimes are comparatively rare in Switzerland, yet gun ownership is widespread in that country.

The second argument against gun control is more compelling. Guns allow individuals to protect themselves against tyrannical states.

A state in which gun ownership is outlawed is a state where government can oppress its citizens without any effective check on its power. Without gun ownership, citizens cannot effectively band together to defend themselves against the police power of the state.

Thus, widespread, responsible gun ownership acts as a check against tyranny.

The common good is therefore best served by widespread, responsible gun ownership, as both a deterrent against criminals and a check on governmental overreach.

In an ideal world, guns would be completely unnecessary. People would not need to live in fear of one another and of the government. But the world is not ideal, and people are imperfect, so widespread gun ownership, paradoxically, serves as a guarantor of peace and order.

In Defense of Quirkiness

I recently sparked a mini-controversy last week at my workplace, when I wore gloves to my workplace. I’ve also raised eyebrows over other seemingly odd habits, such as carrying around a stick to classes, perching on chairs, wearing sunglasses at night, etc.

I’d like to say I’m sorry for these quirks, but I’m not. They are deliberate, and I have adopted them for several reasons.

Besides, strange behavior is often only strange by accident. After all, fashion is a social construct, started by trendsetters and incredibly fickle. My odd fashion choices now may prove prophetic years in the future.

But there is actual logic behind quirky behavior. For one thing, it puts society's hypocrisy on full display. In a world that always claims to cherish non-conformity, it is striking how much societal pressure there is to conform to prevailing norms. People who do odd things are criticized for “being weird” or “not going with the flow,” and are not championed; instead, they are bashed for their strangeness. 

More importantly, odd behavior draws other people out of themselves. Most people are self-absorbed; odd behavior forces people to acknowledge the quirky habits of an individual. Odd behavior demands a human response, and evokes a semblance of concern from another people which polite behavior rarely does.

For humanity is depressingly object-centered. People ALWAYS notice a stick, or gloves, or any object out of the ordinary, yet rarely,observe the look on someone’s face when someone is sad, or joyful, or angry. Many people care a great deal about objects or fashion choices, but have little concern for the human person. 

We humans observe sunglasses on a man's head, but fail to see the sorrow in his eyes; we compliment a young lady on her new dress or hairstyle, but ignore the glow of her newly in love.

But human beings are PEOPLE – humans with thoughts, feelings, and emotions, and not merely constructs of bodies and attached objects. And any means by which I can help people understand that, even seemingly odd ones, I will utilize.

Even the caricature of caring wrought by quirkiness is better than no concern at all. So I'll keep wearing my sunglasses and gloves, thank you very much.

Our Masks of Personality

Human beings resemble icebergs - much about them remains submerged from the sight of the casual viewer. Most people wear masks that hide their true personalities, and put on a false face for most people to see.

Some people continuously crack jokes to hide sorrow. Others lapse into cynicism, snapping sarcastic remarks to cover up the pain of loss and betrayal. Others mask inner emptiness under a whirlwind of frenetic activity.

To truly get to know a person, one must get him to cast off the masks he wears to shroud his true self. And the masks people wear are often very difficult to remove.

Many humans hate to reveal themselves to their fellows. Our flaws and warts are often so ugly, and our shame in our imperfections is so great, that we don’t like others to see our failings. And so we hide them under the veil of a false personality.

Only among our friends do we drop our guard and show ourselves – and oftentimes not even among them.

Of course, not everyone wears a personality mask. There are two types of people who do not wear masks: insufferable fools and saints.

People without masks are often very irritating to be around. People who have not learned to shroud their personalities can be incredible pains in the neck, because they show their self-absorption. The foolishness, the silliness, the stubbornness of people obsessed with themselves, who fail to mask their personalities can be disturbing to behold.

Saints also eschew masks – but only because they have no need of them. However, they are so in-tune with the love of God that they need no mask to shroud themselves. The translucence of holiness makes them beautiful people.

As Christians, we must strive for ever-greater holiness, so that we have less and less need for our masks or personality. Only then shall our true personalities shine through, and we shall be truly ourselves without shame.

The Dangers of One-Step Thinking

Actions often come in chains. Every action produces effects, which in turn produce other effects. The theory of the so-called “butterfly effect” reflects the truth that one seemingly simple act can start a chain reaction of events capable of quite possibly changing the world.

Every act humans perform is potentially world-altering.

But many people act as if their actions have no effect on others, living as those they are solitary actors. Governments also act as though their laws and decisions have no subsequent effects other than the ones they intend. Both humans and governments are ultimately guilty of one-step thinking - considering actions without respect for their consequences.

This is true, in part, because humans live in the present and focus on their immediate future. The more distant consequences of human actions are often hidden and not immediately apparent – and thus they are ignored by individuals unconcerned with the future.

But although the consequences of human activity may be hidden from human eyes, they still exist. And the consequences of hidden actions can be devastating.

Governments often adopt policies that reflect one-step thinking. A common government policy, price controls, illustrates this trend perfectly. Government tries to restrict the sale of a certain good by lowering the price of the good. This skews the laws of supply and demand – people want more of the lower-priced good, creating shortages. To remedy the problem, government either has to eliminate the intervention altogether or further intervene in the economy, creating an infinite web of new regulations.

But government is hardly the only entity that engages in one-step thinking. Individuals also engage in activity that reflects one-step thinking, as well.

Many act as though “solitary” vices such as drunkenness, pornography, and masturbation affect only those who engage in them. But “solitary” sins isolate the sinner from his fellow man, leading the sinner to self-centered and concerned solely with his own desires. This in turn affects others, who are turned off by the sinner’s negative behavior. In the end, even “solitary” sin can create an interlocking web of suspicion and sorrow detrimental to humanity.

One-step thinking is incredibly detrimental to governments and individuals who engage in it.

But the fact that actions have chains of consequences is not entirely negative. It has an upside, as well.

Every good action people do affects humanity for the better. The virtues we uphold allow us to inspire others to follow us in virtue. The helping hand we lend others leads to others being willing to lend a helping hand for others. Good breeds good.

As humans, we must be aware that our every action for good and for ill has incredible influence on the rest of the world. We must live our lives as if every action mattered – because our actions can and do have effects far beyond what we humans, with our limited knowledge, can predict or foresee.

This post also appeared on the New Agora. Check it out!

The Principle of Community

As water seeks its own level, so too do people. People seek out those who perform certain activities, and practice certain behaviors, and form communites with those people.

Common interests are one factor in the formation of communities. Friends seek out friends with similar interests. Lovers (at least those who stay lovers for more than a month) similarly share common interests.

Virtue is also a strong determinant in the formation of communities. Good people tend to associate themselves with good people. Monks gather in tight-knit communities, churches are composed of individuals sharing common moral and religious principles, and humanitarians band together to form charitable organizations.    

Similarly, bad people also seek each other’s company. Criminals form gangs, cults isolate themselves into communities separate from the outside world, and politicians gather in Congress.

(That last part was only mostly in jest.)

People naturally seek their own kind. Common bonds between individuals, such as religion, political parties, and hobbies, unite people. Relationships and friendships are built on commonality and on shared bonds between people. People are comfortable around people they share a common bond with, even if that bond is merely allegiance to the same sports team. Conversely, people avoid situations where they feel out of place or like "a fish out of water.”

Common virtues and common vices similarly bond people together. Lechers tend not to associate with moral women, nor are nuns found in strip clubs.

This principle of community also holds true in romantic relationships as well. While it is true in part that “opposites attract,” it is also true that a relationship where both parties are completely opposite from each other will not survive. Good relationships thrive when common bonds, such as love of certain hobbies or activities or shared religion are present.

Virtue is a strong predictor of the solidity of relationships. People tend to end up with spouses who share similar interests and who possess a similar level of virtue. A person lacking virtue will usually end up with a spouse who similarly lacks virtue. A person possessing a great deal of virtue, by contrast, will usually end up with a person who similarly possesses virtue. And those virtuous couples tend to have more fulfilling relationships than those lacking in virtue.

The Timeless Church

Nations rise and fall, empires wax and wane, dynasties form and collapse. All earthly institutions rapidly appear and disappear. Those institutions which do survive for extended periods of time change substantially, until they become unrecognizable. Time is the great destroyer of all human endeavors.

But not the Church. The Church endures – and will continue to do so until the end of time. 

To be sure, the Church is not unaware of the passage of time. For example, theological questions originally left open for debate by theologians, such as the Immaculate Conception, She has now clearly defined. 

But the Church endures in substance, keeping the same basic teachings, performing the same sacrifice, and holding to the same moral principles as She did at Her founding. Numerous Popes have been killed, imprisoned, tortured, and enslaved, but Her Papacy has endured since Saint Peter. Her doctrines, although attacked by every form of heresy imaginable, remain intact, whereas the popular creeds of bygone eras have fallen by the wayside.

No other organization or religion holds that record. The constancy of the Church is a far cry from the mutability of every other human organization and every other faith. 

The Church has been beset from within and without by every form of pressure imaginable. Persecutors, heretics, and schismatics demanded that She conform Her teachings to what was powerful or what was fashionable. Nations and principalities have demanded that She submit to them. When She refused to do so, they unleashed every form of pressure imaginable to coerce or destroy Her.

But they fell, and She remained. And still She endures.

This constancy shown by the Church in the face of unimaginable pressure is nothing short of miraculous. It is one of the clearest proofs that the Catholic Church is truly the Church of God.

For a religion to be true, it MUST teach unchanging truth that lasts until the end of days. Moral law must be unchanging if it is to have any meaning. A changing conception of a God is no conception of God at all.

Only the Church has held to Her sacred, enduring mission and Her holy teaching, granted to Her by Jesus Christ. The constancy of the Church is a living witness to Her enduring truth.

Leaders and Lemmings

Men can be divided into two classes: leaders and lemmings. In the modern world, there are few of the former, and many of the latter.

A leader, simply defined, is one able to inspire people to do things they would not otherwise do. All men and women have the capacity to be leaders. All have the ability to lead by good example. Many, if not most, have the ability to lead by directing others. Leadership should be a common trait.

However, most people today do not possess the quality of leadership. Most people render themselves incapable of inspiring others to do good and avoid evil. And those few that do utilize the ability to direct people often do so to satisfy their own selfish ends, and not for the betterment of those around them.

Instead, they allow charismatic demagogues to lead them where they will. They are either blind followers of a particular person or ideology, or are slaves to their own disordered wills. Instead of being leaders, they act like lemmings, following wherever they are led.

Now, of course it is necessary for some men to follow others at times. Simple numerical truth dictates that only some can lead, while others must follow. But when men are called to follow, they are called to follow worthy causes and for good reasons; they are not called to blindly follow whoever tickles their ears or whatever strikes their fancy.

But blind, unreasoning following of unjustified authority is the order of the day. Men follow celebrities, pundits, “experts,” and demagogue politicians that tickle their ears, rejecting the dictates of their consciences and scorning traditional authority. They follow their own (badly formed) “consciences,” which tell them to do whatever they want with themselves. And they make themselves lemmings as a result.

This behavior is classic lemming behavior. And widespread lemming behavior is the sign of a self-destructing society. For a society where men and women are incapable of leadership cannot survive for long. If men are incapable of leading others – or even themselves – to live good and useful lives, then society is in peril.

On Blogging

Like most human actions, blogging is morally neutral. A blog can be a source of great good or evil, depending on how it is used.

At its best, blogging is a wonderful vehicle for the sharing of information and a useful forum for debate. At its worst, blogging becomes a forum for the equivalent of intellectual masturbation – the deliberate misuse of the intellect to spew ill-considered opinions for no fruitful purpose. Far too often, blogging is the latter.

Snide commentary, ad hominem attacks, and pointless rambling are antithetical to the purpose of blogging. Good blogging demands a willingness to seek and explain the truth, and exhibits fairness and respect for opposing points of view.