Knowledge Part 5:
It seems necessary at this point to examine further the use of reasoning to form religious or ethical beliefs. I think it starts with an observation that man is distinguished in the evolutionary process by the advanced ability to reason just as birds are distinguished by the ability to fly and fish to swim. All human societal advances have basically been achieved through the use of reason, not just blind acceptance of historical decrees by religious leaders. While religious or ethical beliefs are still beliefs, not facts, there is no real reason, it would seem, to not always seek to make religious and ethical conclusions logical. There are many examples of religious scripture in various faiths which become illogical with the passage of time as more and more is known about ourselves and the world in which we live. For any historical religious writings to be declared the REAL word of God, all the writing at a particular time would have to be able to stand the test of time-----that is, nothing in those scriptures can ever eventually be shown to be absurd, or simply wrong. For example, the earth is not flat, and stoning children for misbehaving are not beliefs anyone would take seriously today. The fact some of scripture is logically outdated and wrong does not make all scripture wrong, but it does eliminate, I think, labeling such scripture as the direct handiwork of God. Logic, the God given ability to reason, should prevail. One would have to believe God would dumb himself down to write partially true directives directed at select humans at any age, past or present.
When Jews and Christians push the notion that Jews are, or were, the chosen people of God, I find this rather absurd. If true, there would never have been a Holocaust, Christians would by now be in firm control of the whole world, and Christian or Jewish prayers would be answered right and left. If one observes the history of warfare over the centuries, always with God wrapped around the flag poles of opposing sides, one can only accept the absurdity of the whole scenario. It seems we humans always want to visualize God as looking like us, thinking like us, and needing us to win for Him this or that battle here on earth. Were it possible for this train of thought to lead us to any promised land, we would by now be there. Tribalized religion---complete with it's tribalized dress, tribalized rituals and tribalized titles---is a blueprint for conflict, for prejudice, and outdated dogma. In a truly globalized society, which seems more and more unavoidable, ethical or religious principles need to be universal and everywhere based on sound logical principles. In a heavily populated world, one in which no longer can any group be any isolated island, others have to count. The rationality of composite human thought, evolving over time, dictates certain notions of fairness as an expression of this rationality. Thus, whether it be called Christ's 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', 'what goes around comes around', Terrell's 'fair is fair', 'I am my brother's keeper', etc.----these all reflect the same principle: a principle which is the basic element of ethics and the core of all religions. This is not something transmitted from one people to another, or from one religion to others, but an understanding inherent in our human nature as rationale, ever evolving species of the created evolutionary process. To be missing this inherent rationale is to be mentally defective---a psychopath. Psychopaths, by definition, do not understand right from wrong.
There is no need to disrespect or denounce the historical great prophets or religious leaders of the past anymore than one would disrespect or denounce the historical great leaders in science or other disciplines just because they had limited understanding of their subject matter at the time. To dig in with any understandings, to refuse to ever change a belief, is to deny the God given ability for humans to use reason to better themselves and the world in which they live. Part of the beauty of the created evolutionary process, as it pertains to the human species, is the ability, over time, to increase, through reasoning, our knowledge and understandings in all areas, including our religious beliefs. A belief, by definition, is still a belief---which dictates the irrationality of attacking someone else for their religious beliefs. Religious hostilities and wars are de facto absurdities. I have never seen the commandment not to kill (except for defending yourself) which is present in all religions, listed with an * denoting that it is ok to kill people, preferably in great numbers, if their religious beliefs are not properly lined up. No sane reasoning could lead to such a conclusion.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
A VISUAL OVERWHELMING ASTONISHMENT
A Visual Overwhelming Astonishment:
This movie had not one word in it's entirety. Yet it stirs more insightful thoughts about the reality of our current world than all the politicians, media analysts, religious leaders, and informational gadgets combined. If anyone wants to escape past their gated little world of isolated security and pleasures to get a glimpse of what is converging upon us to create explosive chaos across our globe, this is the movie to do it. Let's just say it makes a powerful statement, without saying a word, about the awesomeness of nature, the diversity and nature of religion, endless insights into pictures from life's other side, the results of human reproductive irresponsibility---the consequences of which are seeped in the vacuous inanity of privileged empty-headed gluttonous affluent centers of modern civilization--- centers walled off from nature and the vast and ever growing masses of humanity living lives of hopeless desperation.
The movie is titled Baraka and is best seen on a large screen for full impact.
This movie had not one word in it's entirety. Yet it stirs more insightful thoughts about the reality of our current world than all the politicians, media analysts, religious leaders, and informational gadgets combined. If anyone wants to escape past their gated little world of isolated security and pleasures to get a glimpse of what is converging upon us to create explosive chaos across our globe, this is the movie to do it. Let's just say it makes a powerful statement, without saying a word, about the awesomeness of nature, the diversity and nature of religion, endless insights into pictures from life's other side, the results of human reproductive irresponsibility---the consequences of which are seeped in the vacuous inanity of privileged empty-headed gluttonous affluent centers of modern civilization--- centers walled off from nature and the vast and ever growing masses of humanity living lives of hopeless desperation.
The movie is titled Baraka and is best seen on a large screen for full impact.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
QUIETEST PLACE ON EARTH
The Quietest Place on Earth:
I just returned from 3 days wandering around in the Northern California redwood forests. Redwood trees are taller than any other living thing and can live over 2000 years. I was near the oldest known living redwood but Park officials will not disclose it's location since I would guess they don't want people trampling through some grove to get to it. It was alive around 800 years before the birth of Christ. These living giants have only one enemy---man. 96% of the ancient redwood forests has been destroyed by logging so, to me, these primordial havens are sort of precious---a chance to sense what the earth was like hundreds of thousands of years ago. Few ever walk around in these remaining forests---most of the trees are growing on extremely steep mountains and the horizontal trunk of a fallen redwood tree, which can take 400 years to become absorbed into the bio mass of the forest floor, can be twice the height of a human. The biomass of a redwood forest has 7 times the biomass (living and dead organic material) of that found in a tropical rainforest.
Besides the vastness and primordial nature of these forests there exists a quietness not found anywhere else. Except during a storm there is not even any wind. Just the bark of these giant redwoods can be a foot thick. It is also rich in tannins which are toxic to insects, and no insects means few birds. Like I say, these forests are quiet. No deer and rabbits etc. because the kind of plants and trees most such animals like, do not get enough sunlight to grow in a redwood forest. Thus you find such animals on the fringes of the forest, not in it. The thick bark also protects these trees from forest fires. One can often see charred portions of bark on a tree.
The height of an ancient redwood tree can be 30-40 stories high, around 370 feet. The diameter of a really big trunk can approach 20 feet and the circumference over 50 feet. The weight can be over a million pounds. Since the roots only go down a foot or two it amazes me these roots can support such tall and heavy trees for thousands of years. It takes a lot of water to sustain these trees and where they grow the rainfall averages 65 inches/year. Floods have little effect on them. While there is no obvious vibrant life forms in a redwood forests, it is estimated there are 1700 species of plants and animals that depend on a redwood tree during its life span. Almost all are microscopic. There are flying squirrels who live high up in the redwoods but they are nocturnal so are seldom seen. Present are populations of organisms which live their entire lives without ever coming to the ground.
Redwood forests are my favorite places to visit. It is hard to explain but a redwood forest brings a sense of time, a sense of connection with a time long ago, a reverence for the present, and a sort of melancholy realization that so much so important to us is so fleeting----in the redwood forests one feels a part of the evolutionary process, which brings to one an acceptance that time doesn't go---it is we who go---time stays. Like Jackie Gleason used to say, "Away We Go". Like it or not!
I just returned from 3 days wandering around in the Northern California redwood forests. Redwood trees are taller than any other living thing and can live over 2000 years. I was near the oldest known living redwood but Park officials will not disclose it's location since I would guess they don't want people trampling through some grove to get to it. It was alive around 800 years before the birth of Christ. These living giants have only one enemy---man. 96% of the ancient redwood forests has been destroyed by logging so, to me, these primordial havens are sort of precious---a chance to sense what the earth was like hundreds of thousands of years ago. Few ever walk around in these remaining forests---most of the trees are growing on extremely steep mountains and the horizontal trunk of a fallen redwood tree, which can take 400 years to become absorbed into the bio mass of the forest floor, can be twice the height of a human. The biomass of a redwood forest has 7 times the biomass (living and dead organic material) of that found in a tropical rainforest.
Besides the vastness and primordial nature of these forests there exists a quietness not found anywhere else. Except during a storm there is not even any wind. Just the bark of these giant redwoods can be a foot thick. It is also rich in tannins which are toxic to insects, and no insects means few birds. Like I say, these forests are quiet. No deer and rabbits etc. because the kind of plants and trees most such animals like, do not get enough sunlight to grow in a redwood forest. Thus you find such animals on the fringes of the forest, not in it. The thick bark also protects these trees from forest fires. One can often see charred portions of bark on a tree.
The height of an ancient redwood tree can be 30-40 stories high, around 370 feet. The diameter of a really big trunk can approach 20 feet and the circumference over 50 feet. The weight can be over a million pounds. Since the roots only go down a foot or two it amazes me these roots can support such tall and heavy trees for thousands of years. It takes a lot of water to sustain these trees and where they grow the rainfall averages 65 inches/year. Floods have little effect on them. While there is no obvious vibrant life forms in a redwood forests, it is estimated there are 1700 species of plants and animals that depend on a redwood tree during its life span. Almost all are microscopic. There are flying squirrels who live high up in the redwoods but they are nocturnal so are seldom seen. Present are populations of organisms which live their entire lives without ever coming to the ground.
Redwood forests are my favorite places to visit. It is hard to explain but a redwood forest brings a sense of time, a sense of connection with a time long ago, a reverence for the present, and a sort of melancholy realization that so much so important to us is so fleeting----in the redwood forests one feels a part of the evolutionary process, which brings to one an acceptance that time doesn't go---it is we who go---time stays. Like Jackie Gleason used to say, "Away We Go". Like it or not!
Sunday, September 16, 2007
NFL Scales of Justice
NFL Scales of Justice---The Ultimate Public Hoax:
There is no Kingdom quite as wonderful as the Society of Professional Sport Owners. It would be quite a remarkable search to find any instance when any owner or the whole cabal of owners were ever disciplined in any way by a court of law. I suppose one might argue we are so lucky to have such an angelic group guarding the best interests of the public in regards to our professional sport teams. You might think with the cost of tickets, outlandish player salaries, blackmail of cities right and left, and rampant criminal behavior among players, that the owners might have to answer to someone about something. Of course they do: they elect a Commissioner to watch over, in this case, the NFL. I wish myself and some of my friends could elect someone to be the police, judge, and jury regarding our conduct. There must, I am sure, be a theoretical limit to the power of a Commissioner. If a particular owner were to kill someone in public I think the Commissioner would lose control over that situation. How comforting.
If you don't see much of a turnover in the private ownership of Professional Football there is a reason. The average team is worth $975 million and the value grows at well above the inflation rate. In 2006 the operating expenses were $17.8 million on $204 million in revenue. Oh my, some profit. And we thought corporate CEO's were ripping us off. But certainly our investigative reporters would be all over this public rape for monetary gain. Hardly. The only squabble is between the owners and the players about how to divvy up the money. The owners grab hundreds of millions, the players grab mostly a few million but some tens of millions, and the fans---as the saying goes----the owners and players get the gold mine and the fans get the shaft. Why isn't the media all over this, demanding professional sports be accountable to some oversight other than a Commissioner elected by the owners? Well, CBS has a $3.7 billion deal with the NFL, Fox a $4.3 billion, and NBC $3.6 million. These contracts, good until 2011, award the NFL an average of $2 billion a year. If one listens ever so carefully, no where are you going to hear any employee of the networks bad mouth or bite the hand that feeds them.
Last week a Coach, one who has had phenomenal success in recent years, was caught cheating to win a game---taping signals from the other team. Wow. That, it would seem, is a little bit more damaging to the integrity of the sport than whether Ricky Williams smokes pot, or Terrell fought for pay parity with other top receivers, or some assistant coach in Dallas takes some sort of illegal drug (I think it might have been a steroid for his diabetic state, I kind of have forgotten), etc. Fortunately these Commissioners don't fool around. Tough as nails. Ricky is out of football for good, Terrell managed a rare victory, and the assistant coach was suspended for 5 games. But this coach who cheated and knew the plays the other team was going to run during the game, well---this was kind of touchy for the Commissioner. Like who knows who else knew and approved this, or what other franchises might be up to in this department. Interestingly, to the extent I am aware, all the screaming and anger about this came from everywhere except the owners themselves. Well the Wise and All Powerful Commissioner came down hard, at least the media portrayed it thusly----the Coach was fined $500, 000 dollars, the Owner $250,000 dollars and a top draft pick for next year was taken away. Tough? The Coach will likely never pay a penny (the owner will dip into his bag of millions) and pay the coach a miniscule amount of this bag of money---$500,000--- as a bonus to the coach (this is my guess, not fact). There is no suspension at all, no forfeiting the game in question----and does nothing to investigate what kind of cheating might really be going on across the league. Cheating is obviously not pot smoking or individual player misconduct on or off the field---and a Commissioner is smart enough to know from whence his own salary comes. And to the public?------wow, that's a lot a money, a really big fine. This is the same public who elected George Bush----not once----but twice. The communicative expertise to hoodwink the public is fine tuned down to a science.
I have a brilliant solution. Make Terrell Owens the Commissioner. Some sort of 'Fair is Fair' guy seems a perfect fit. Okay, that is my little funny Funny. But there ought to be some better way to get a Commissioner of Professional Football besides letting the owners choose one. Can't the fans have representation somewhere in this operation?
There is no Kingdom quite as wonderful as the Society of Professional Sport Owners. It would be quite a remarkable search to find any instance when any owner or the whole cabal of owners were ever disciplined in any way by a court of law. I suppose one might argue we are so lucky to have such an angelic group guarding the best interests of the public in regards to our professional sport teams. You might think with the cost of tickets, outlandish player salaries, blackmail of cities right and left, and rampant criminal behavior among players, that the owners might have to answer to someone about something. Of course they do: they elect a Commissioner to watch over, in this case, the NFL. I wish myself and some of my friends could elect someone to be the police, judge, and jury regarding our conduct. There must, I am sure, be a theoretical limit to the power of a Commissioner. If a particular owner were to kill someone in public I think the Commissioner would lose control over that situation. How comforting.
If you don't see much of a turnover in the private ownership of Professional Football there is a reason. The average team is worth $975 million and the value grows at well above the inflation rate. In 2006 the operating expenses were $17.8 million on $204 million in revenue. Oh my, some profit. And we thought corporate CEO's were ripping us off. But certainly our investigative reporters would be all over this public rape for monetary gain. Hardly. The only squabble is between the owners and the players about how to divvy up the money. The owners grab hundreds of millions, the players grab mostly a few million but some tens of millions, and the fans---as the saying goes----the owners and players get the gold mine and the fans get the shaft. Why isn't the media all over this, demanding professional sports be accountable to some oversight other than a Commissioner elected by the owners? Well, CBS has a $3.7 billion deal with the NFL, Fox a $4.3 billion, and NBC $3.6 million. These contracts, good until 2011, award the NFL an average of $2 billion a year. If one listens ever so carefully, no where are you going to hear any employee of the networks bad mouth or bite the hand that feeds them.
Last week a Coach, one who has had phenomenal success in recent years, was caught cheating to win a game---taping signals from the other team. Wow. That, it would seem, is a little bit more damaging to the integrity of the sport than whether Ricky Williams smokes pot, or Terrell fought for pay parity with other top receivers, or some assistant coach in Dallas takes some sort of illegal drug (I think it might have been a steroid for his diabetic state, I kind of have forgotten), etc. Fortunately these Commissioners don't fool around. Tough as nails. Ricky is out of football for good, Terrell managed a rare victory, and the assistant coach was suspended for 5 games. But this coach who cheated and knew the plays the other team was going to run during the game, well---this was kind of touchy for the Commissioner. Like who knows who else knew and approved this, or what other franchises might be up to in this department. Interestingly, to the extent I am aware, all the screaming and anger about this came from everywhere except the owners themselves. Well the Wise and All Powerful Commissioner came down hard, at least the media portrayed it thusly----the Coach was fined $500, 000 dollars, the Owner $250,000 dollars and a top draft pick for next year was taken away. Tough? The Coach will likely never pay a penny (the owner will dip into his bag of millions) and pay the coach a miniscule amount of this bag of money---$500,000--- as a bonus to the coach (this is my guess, not fact). There is no suspension at all, no forfeiting the game in question----and does nothing to investigate what kind of cheating might really be going on across the league. Cheating is obviously not pot smoking or individual player misconduct on or off the field---and a Commissioner is smart enough to know from whence his own salary comes. And to the public?------wow, that's a lot a money, a really big fine. This is the same public who elected George Bush----not once----but twice. The communicative expertise to hoodwink the public is fine tuned down to a science.
I have a brilliant solution. Make Terrell Owens the Commissioner. Some sort of 'Fair is Fair' guy seems a perfect fit. Okay, that is my little funny Funny. But there ought to be some better way to get a Commissioner of Professional Football besides letting the owners choose one. Can't the fans have representation somewhere in this operation?
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Knowledge: Part 4
Knowledge: Part 4
Lincoln would do poorly in the political world of today. I say this because Lincoln was a deliberate thinker, cautious to arrive at conclusions. Since studied logic formed the basis of his conclusions there is no way he could answer questions on major issues in a 30 sec or one minute time frame. His debates, when running for Senator, consisted of each candidate given an hour to address any issues of their choosing, then a half hour rebuttal; then a break, then do the same thing all over again. When Lincoln did debate he spoke slowly so the audience could digest the logic behind his arguments. After being nominated for President, Lincoln, which was the custom of the time, made no speeches. It was accepted back then that the previous speeches of the candidate were sufficient information for the pubic to pass judgment. Lincoln today would bristle at the notion he should seriously respond to all kinds of questions immediately, off the top of his head, like in some sort of game show with the clock ticking. Lincoln liked to think over important matters for days or weeks and would not be hurried. He would make little notes as thoughts came to him, store them up inside his hat, and then when he finished his research, which included input from those with varied opinions on the subject, he would write out his conclusions---often making several drafts. One can count Lincoln's major addresses on one hand; in 4 years of office he made fewer than 100 speeches, all written by himself. He had no speech writers. Is it really any wonder, with today's changed mode of Presidential operation, we generate over night so many half cocked policies that blow up in our face for any lack of deliberated logic regarding consequences?
But here I want to return again to using reason as the basis for religious beliefs.
I suppose the objection to this entails the notion such a basis is silly, that only God can give to us legitimate religious beliefs, that undertaking such a task through reason, as individuals, is an absurdity given our limited comprehension of these matters. We may be a lot of things, but we can't play God on morality.
Well, it would not be my inclination to play God or contest His vast superiority of knowledge. I prefer to play the fool in other aspects of my life, not on this issue.
But in the absence of God clearly communicating directly to all humans, I think it is reasonable to question the dictates of some human robed and titled religious leaders, whose dictates are directed to limited segments of humanity. If anyone is playing God here it is these religious leaders. It is not just on ethics or morals where God remains silent to us, but on all other areas of knowledge as well. Advances have been made in health matters, economics, science, math, etc, by using reason to further understanding in these areas. Perhaps the burden of proof is on the other shoe. Why, in the area of religion should we seek advancement or understanding of religion absent reasoning? In the past these robed and titled religious leaders were the last word on disease, science, and other areas with disastrous results. We called this governance by ignorance the Dark Ages. As far as I am concerned, in many respects, religion is still in the Dark Ages. What is the logical basis for rejecting reason as the basis for ethics and morality, or if you prefer, religion? For some, to use reason and logic as the basis for morality and ethics is to turn away from 'prophets' of the past. That is nonsense. It would be like saying to accept modern scientific principles one must reject the earlier pioneers of science as frauds. They are not frauds but heroes for progress. No matter what area considered, when the dominant knowledge claims of society are religious in nature, progress has been difficult. Once reason is allowed to drive religion, progress in this area will accelerate. How many people have been killed, tortured, and deprived of rights throughout history because of religious beliefs devoid of any logical basis. The historical list of religious abuses is long---including treating diseases like leprosy and epilepsy as punishment from God, burning witches, slavery as divine will, women as submissive to men, human and animal sacrifices to God, etc. Even today there are a whole litany of issues driven by mindless adherence to antiquated religious dogma---birth control; personal control over dying; homosexuality; population control; praying as a means to win games, job promotions, ending wars, solving poverty or disease; family values (as implemented by the religious right); recreational drug use as a criminal activity; and the list goes on.
A friend advised me, based on Part 3 of this musing, that health care is not a right, that having a home is not a right, that having a job is not a right---that these sort of things have nothing to do with liberty and justice for all. These, it was explained, are things people earn and are in fact part of anyone's responsibility to be a contributing member of society at large. I think they are saying, after all, people cannot expect to just exist and have all the necessities and comforts of life delivered to them. At a certain level I would agree this is true. According to Aristotle, to understand is to know what x is for. Let x in this case be government. It might be useful here to return once again to Lincoln's definition of good government: good government "is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men---to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life." I suppose, if life for all was on a level playing field, government would need only to exist to enforce fair rules of the game. But any reasonable examination of human lives reveals there is no level playing field: abilities differ, opportunities differ, environmental situations differ, etc. Yet for any society to remain healthy and be sustained for any real length of time, as Lincoln states, government must clear paths for the 'laudable pursuit of all'. Earlier it was stated religious values are not formed in a vacuum. Humans, left mired in unsuitable conditions, for example our drug war ravaged rural and urban ghettoes, often are incapable of accepting religious virtues that in other environmental situations would be considered commendable. Thus if the goal is a healthy and consequently more virtuous society, all must be given a chance to improve their lot in life. There is a difference between providing a fair chance and handing someone something for nothing. Good health care for a child may not be a right, but it is a necessity for the child to have an opportunity to compete successfully, to better himself/herself and become a contributing member of society. A job may not be a right, but good government realizes the consequences of any widespread unemployment. It is, after all, the responsibility of good government to eliminate economic ghettoes, not create them. In these drug war created ghettoes, where unemployment is often well over 50%, the jobless don't need welfare checks, they need jobs. The young kids need living wage jobs, not to be thrown in jail for 10 years for selling others marijuana. I know, they sell other drugs too. But take marijuana out of the mix, legalize it, and how lucrative would the remaining business be? Not very.
Lincoln would do poorly in the political world of today. I say this because Lincoln was a deliberate thinker, cautious to arrive at conclusions. Since studied logic formed the basis of his conclusions there is no way he could answer questions on major issues in a 30 sec or one minute time frame. His debates, when running for Senator, consisted of each candidate given an hour to address any issues of their choosing, then a half hour rebuttal; then a break, then do the same thing all over again. When Lincoln did debate he spoke slowly so the audience could digest the logic behind his arguments. After being nominated for President, Lincoln, which was the custom of the time, made no speeches. It was accepted back then that the previous speeches of the candidate were sufficient information for the pubic to pass judgment. Lincoln today would bristle at the notion he should seriously respond to all kinds of questions immediately, off the top of his head, like in some sort of game show with the clock ticking. Lincoln liked to think over important matters for days or weeks and would not be hurried. He would make little notes as thoughts came to him, store them up inside his hat, and then when he finished his research, which included input from those with varied opinions on the subject, he would write out his conclusions---often making several drafts. One can count Lincoln's major addresses on one hand; in 4 years of office he made fewer than 100 speeches, all written by himself. He had no speech writers. Is it really any wonder, with today's changed mode of Presidential operation, we generate over night so many half cocked policies that blow up in our face for any lack of deliberated logic regarding consequences?
But here I want to return again to using reason as the basis for religious beliefs.
I suppose the objection to this entails the notion such a basis is silly, that only God can give to us legitimate religious beliefs, that undertaking such a task through reason, as individuals, is an absurdity given our limited comprehension of these matters. We may be a lot of things, but we can't play God on morality.
Well, it would not be my inclination to play God or contest His vast superiority of knowledge. I prefer to play the fool in other aspects of my life, not on this issue.
But in the absence of God clearly communicating directly to all humans, I think it is reasonable to question the dictates of some human robed and titled religious leaders, whose dictates are directed to limited segments of humanity. If anyone is playing God here it is these religious leaders. It is not just on ethics or morals where God remains silent to us, but on all other areas of knowledge as well. Advances have been made in health matters, economics, science, math, etc, by using reason to further understanding in these areas. Perhaps the burden of proof is on the other shoe. Why, in the area of religion should we seek advancement or understanding of religion absent reasoning? In the past these robed and titled religious leaders were the last word on disease, science, and other areas with disastrous results. We called this governance by ignorance the Dark Ages. As far as I am concerned, in many respects, religion is still in the Dark Ages. What is the logical basis for rejecting reason as the basis for ethics and morality, or if you prefer, religion? For some, to use reason and logic as the basis for morality and ethics is to turn away from 'prophets' of the past. That is nonsense. It would be like saying to accept modern scientific principles one must reject the earlier pioneers of science as frauds. They are not frauds but heroes for progress. No matter what area considered, when the dominant knowledge claims of society are religious in nature, progress has been difficult. Once reason is allowed to drive religion, progress in this area will accelerate. How many people have been killed, tortured, and deprived of rights throughout history because of religious beliefs devoid of any logical basis. The historical list of religious abuses is long---including treating diseases like leprosy and epilepsy as punishment from God, burning witches, slavery as divine will, women as submissive to men, human and animal sacrifices to God, etc. Even today there are a whole litany of issues driven by mindless adherence to antiquated religious dogma---birth control; personal control over dying; homosexuality; population control; praying as a means to win games, job promotions, ending wars, solving poverty or disease; family values (as implemented by the religious right); recreational drug use as a criminal activity; and the list goes on.
A friend advised me, based on Part 3 of this musing, that health care is not a right, that having a home is not a right, that having a job is not a right---that these sort of things have nothing to do with liberty and justice for all. These, it was explained, are things people earn and are in fact part of anyone's responsibility to be a contributing member of society at large. I think they are saying, after all, people cannot expect to just exist and have all the necessities and comforts of life delivered to them. At a certain level I would agree this is true. According to Aristotle, to understand is to know what x is for. Let x in this case be government. It might be useful here to return once again to Lincoln's definition of good government: good government "is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men---to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life." I suppose, if life for all was on a level playing field, government would need only to exist to enforce fair rules of the game. But any reasonable examination of human lives reveals there is no level playing field: abilities differ, opportunities differ, environmental situations differ, etc. Yet for any society to remain healthy and be sustained for any real length of time, as Lincoln states, government must clear paths for the 'laudable pursuit of all'. Earlier it was stated religious values are not formed in a vacuum. Humans, left mired in unsuitable conditions, for example our drug war ravaged rural and urban ghettoes, often are incapable of accepting religious virtues that in other environmental situations would be considered commendable. Thus if the goal is a healthy and consequently more virtuous society, all must be given a chance to improve their lot in life. There is a difference between providing a fair chance and handing someone something for nothing. Good health care for a child may not be a right, but it is a necessity for the child to have an opportunity to compete successfully, to better himself/herself and become a contributing member of society. A job may not be a right, but good government realizes the consequences of any widespread unemployment. It is, after all, the responsibility of good government to eliminate economic ghettoes, not create them. In these drug war created ghettoes, where unemployment is often well over 50%, the jobless don't need welfare checks, they need jobs. The young kids need living wage jobs, not to be thrown in jail for 10 years for selling others marijuana. I know, they sell other drugs too. But take marijuana out of the mix, legalize it, and how lucrative would the remaining business be? Not very.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Knowledge: Part 3
Knowledge: Part 3
Whatever constitutes religious beliefs varies because people differ in their genetic and environmental makeup. People vary because their reasoning powers in terms of knowledge, priorities, and goals are disequalized. It seems there is no singular way to accomplish moral good---plus good is not a term which can be precisely defined. The amount of good generated is often impacted by one's environment. There is a difference between a good person and a good society. In either case the term is mired amuck in relativity, and always difficult to measure. Currently our government is less admired for any goodness, both domestically and abroad, than at any time in our history. Because there is no solitary reason for this fall from goodness, opinions vary widely as to why we have fallen. Unless all the polls are errant, there is no reasonable reason for disputing this dissatisfaction with the 'goodness' of our current policies across the globe.
Again I turn to Lincoln. According to Lincoln good government "is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men---to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life." It is no hap-pence for the word "all" to appear 3 times in this short statement. Nowhere in this statement, or in any other statements from Lincoln, can be found any assertion there would be more goodness in society if a particular religious group, ethnic group, cultural group, economic group, gender group, etc were to set government policies and laws. It also seems clear the only legitimate reason for accepting Lincoln's concept of government is if this concept elevates the welfare of society as a whole. History dictates any form of government which fails to maintain the welfare of all its' citizens will collapse as a consequence. The have-nots will always win. As a nation we seem to have currently lost, or to have at least ignored, this lesson of history. We have a vastly superior military power to back up our our demands (right or wrong demands)---yet it has become an embarrassing illusion that our might makes us right. In fact we are losing battles on every front---albeit the human carnage is impressive. In the killing game we are King. We lost in Vietnam, we are losing in Iraq, we are losing in Afghanistan, we are losing in the battle against poverty at home or abroad, health care at home or abroad, less exploitation of the environment at home or abroad, protecting the land, water, and atmosphere from pollution, controlling overpopulation, preventing death from preventable diseases across the globe, etc. Despite all this defeat on virtually every front, the expenditures on military adventures and equipment remain a priority which dwarfs any other priority. When one looks at where our government is, compared to the definition about good government supplied by Lincoln, the two are stark contrasts.
Still, it could be argued, religious beliefs have nothing to do with politics or government, that religious beliefs are strictly personal and independent of politics. Perhaps on paper, but in practice this seems unreasonable. The kind of religious beliefs upon which we actually act, are not formed in a vacuum. A child raised amidst adequate diverse adult support, emotionally and financially, is likely to see being kind and responsible to others as a virtue, a reasonable religious belief. A child raised locked behind barred doors and windows in an urban drug war zone is likely to see virtue in taking for himself/herself, by any means, those material needs for survival. Such a child is more likely to see kindness as weakness and ill fitted for his sense of anger at the world. A child raised in a tightly controlled small 'family values' environment is more likely to view others outside immediate family as irrelevant to much of anything, and at best nuisances to be avoided. Any 'I am my brother's keeper' is outside the circled wagons, an anathema to their 'family values'. Thus, absent any real community interaction, and/or social life outside immediate family, the perceptual nature of any reasoning process to form personal religious values is altered. When self reasoning is not the basis for one's religious beliefs, then one is most likely to simply pay lip service to some inherited religious dogma, at most attend some church services, and have one's religious beliefs play little role in the immediate priorities and focus of daily life. Some, for whatever reason, seek meaning to their life, or some sort of salvation in their future life, by grabbing hold of inherited religious dogma of this or that sort and then going after those 'heathens' possessing different inherited or reasoned religious beliefs, or who display indifference to the dogmas in question; then these 'dogmatists' either literally attack the disbelievers or become obsessed with making their inherited religious beliefs the law of the land. This seem familiar anyone? I am by my nature anti-dogma. If dogmatism, the absence of reason to reach conclusions, is wrong in every other area of human endeavors, then how can it be claimed right as the basis for religious beliefs?
There is some logic to a stance others really are irrelevant, that the only responsibility anyone has is to protect their own interests, their own needs, their own happiness etc,----some sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest. But I would argue there is little evidence this sort of Darwinian mentality brings any remarkable happiness. Drug lords, crime mafia types, corporate money or power driven CEO's, recipients of inherited wealth, cocooned families etc. never appear to be particularly happy campers---even though they certainly, if anyone does, lead lives of intense self interest for self gain or survival. If anyone is looking for a genuinely fun time, avoid these kind of people---like the song "I don't want your many mansions with the chill in every room.......". If such self interest indeed does not bring happiness, then reason dictates this to be a bad choice to be part of any religious portfolio.
Using reason to formulate religious beliefs is not the most difficult task. Human nature is hard wired to a basic universality of right and wrong, absent the medical condition of being a psychopath. Virtually everyone knows it is 'wrong' to steal. As Lincoln reflected: "This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." One could use this kind of reasoning to formulate many religious beliefs. For example: he who would not have his own possessions stolen, must consent not to steal from others. Those who deny others the right to steal, have no right to steal themselves, and under a just God, will be judged accordingly. Many of the more frivolous, albeit highly emotional, issues of the day can be resolved via this Lincolnian line of reasoning. This is a world of compensations; and he who would reserve the right to choose who they marry, must consent to allow others the same right to choose who they marry. But, one might argue, there are sexual 'norms' involved here. Really? What is too far from the norm?----Foot fetishes?
Oral sex?, S +M?, role playing? virtual abstinence?, sex daily?, using birth control?, not using birth control?, group sex?, heterosexual anal sex? homosexual anal sex? etc. Again Lincoln reflected, "In those matters which involve no one else individuals should have the freedom to do as they please." This in no way stops anyone from having any opinion or feelings about any of the above behaviors. Perhaps two more examples: This is a world of compensations; and he who would be free to dress as he chooses must consent not to impose dress codes on others. Those who deny freedom for others to dress as they please do not deserve such freedom for themselves. This is a world of compensations; and he who would value access to adequate health care for themselves or their kids must consent to valuing adequate health care for others or their kids. Those who deny others access do not deserve such access to good health care themselves. The basic point here is that reason should be the basis of religious beliefs---not feelings or inherited ancient dogmas. Religious beliefs generated by vigorous self reasoning will more likely carry with them the strength to adhere and follow such beliefs.
If I kind of lurch through this musing it cannot, given the complexities of it in my mind, be avoided. Aside from religious beliefs about behaviors, there is the question of divine intervention in our daily lives. The theologian Charles Hodge summarized the belief of many that "An infinitely wise, good, and powerful God is everywhere present, controlling all events great and small, necessary, and free, in a way perfectly consistent with the nature of his creatures and his own infinite excellence." This, on the face of it, seems unreasonable. There are many events in life which are clearly not fair, humane, wise, etc.. To attribute all these things to a God who is all wise, good, and powerful---controlling all events, is just a bit much. It is patently ludicrous. If, on the other hand, God works his wonders of the world through His created process of evolution, then all these 'bad events' can happen as part of a process which, over eons of time, is a wise and good process. We need not, in our search for religious meaning, miss the forest for the sake of the trees.
Lincoln, as I see it, used reason to formulate his religious beliefs. He used biblical scripture as part of his reasoning base. But it should be noted that on the major issues of his day---like slavery, Lincoln debated the issue, not by quibbling over the meaning of isolated directives in scripture---as did many of his day on both sides----but by using logic to formulate his religious belief slavery was wrong. Given the major tenets of Jesus' preaching, it seems strange the issue was ever in question. To 'know' Jesus is to be against injustice to anyone, let alone support any system of slavery. That of course, is exactly why blind adherence to isolated outdated HUMAN writings on religion is folly, and to follow blindly scriptural notations such as the earth is flat, or any such other absurdly outdated notions, is hardly something to be too smug about. Religion doesn't collapse because it grows instead of being some sort of static entity. As President, Lincoln was bombarded with differing religious pressures to do what God wanted done. Lincoln never really claimed God was on the side of the North, but rather pondered over, in his words, "In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time". After one such contentious meeting with differing religious viewpoints, Lincoln responded, "I shall be most happy indeed if I shalt be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty". He then concluded the meeting with this: "And if I can learn what it is I will do it." "if I can LEARN....". Learn, to Lincoln, was always a process of seeking sound logic and reasoning to resolve moral issues. Lincoln was not about to make moral decisions based on isolated purported religious dictated dogma from any source, especially when comparably robed and titled religious authorities had discordant dogmatic views, with of course God on each side.
Still to be answered is the question of whether God ever intervenes in the evolutionary process. This is a question which reverberates in my mind a lot, and has so for some time. I certainly no longer spend time praying for good health, financial gain, to be brighter, etc.----or even praying for others to recover from disease or survive financial problems, etc. And if I were the world's best football player, or the world's worst football player, I would not get in a circle, clasp hands, and ask for God's help to win the game. I think the evidence is clear---God is not normally involved in this kind of interference for anyone. If the Pope has pancreatic cancer the Pope is going to die and all the prayers of all his followers will not save the Pope. The created evolutionary process moves steadily on, according to divine mathematical laws; only Time stays---WE GO, the dumb and bright alike, those too of all religious persuasions. No exceptions. I suppose it can't hurt for me to file for an exemption.
Whatever constitutes religious beliefs varies because people differ in their genetic and environmental makeup. People vary because their reasoning powers in terms of knowledge, priorities, and goals are disequalized. It seems there is no singular way to accomplish moral good---plus good is not a term which can be precisely defined. The amount of good generated is often impacted by one's environment. There is a difference between a good person and a good society. In either case the term is mired amuck in relativity, and always difficult to measure. Currently our government is less admired for any goodness, both domestically and abroad, than at any time in our history. Because there is no solitary reason for this fall from goodness, opinions vary widely as to why we have fallen. Unless all the polls are errant, there is no reasonable reason for disputing this dissatisfaction with the 'goodness' of our current policies across the globe.
Again I turn to Lincoln. According to Lincoln good government "is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men---to lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all; to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life." It is no hap-pence for the word "all" to appear 3 times in this short statement. Nowhere in this statement, or in any other statements from Lincoln, can be found any assertion there would be more goodness in society if a particular religious group, ethnic group, cultural group, economic group, gender group, etc were to set government policies and laws. It also seems clear the only legitimate reason for accepting Lincoln's concept of government is if this concept elevates the welfare of society as a whole. History dictates any form of government which fails to maintain the welfare of all its' citizens will collapse as a consequence. The have-nots will always win. As a nation we seem to have currently lost, or to have at least ignored, this lesson of history. We have a vastly superior military power to back up our our demands (right or wrong demands)---yet it has become an embarrassing illusion that our might makes us right. In fact we are losing battles on every front---albeit the human carnage is impressive. In the killing game we are King. We lost in Vietnam, we are losing in Iraq, we are losing in Afghanistan, we are losing in the battle against poverty at home or abroad, health care at home or abroad, less exploitation of the environment at home or abroad, protecting the land, water, and atmosphere from pollution, controlling overpopulation, preventing death from preventable diseases across the globe, etc. Despite all this defeat on virtually every front, the expenditures on military adventures and equipment remain a priority which dwarfs any other priority. When one looks at where our government is, compared to the definition about good government supplied by Lincoln, the two are stark contrasts.
Still, it could be argued, religious beliefs have nothing to do with politics or government, that religious beliefs are strictly personal and independent of politics. Perhaps on paper, but in practice this seems unreasonable. The kind of religious beliefs upon which we actually act, are not formed in a vacuum. A child raised amidst adequate diverse adult support, emotionally and financially, is likely to see being kind and responsible to others as a virtue, a reasonable religious belief. A child raised locked behind barred doors and windows in an urban drug war zone is likely to see virtue in taking for himself/herself, by any means, those material needs for survival. Such a child is more likely to see kindness as weakness and ill fitted for his sense of anger at the world. A child raised in a tightly controlled small 'family values' environment is more likely to view others outside immediate family as irrelevant to much of anything, and at best nuisances to be avoided. Any 'I am my brother's keeper' is outside the circled wagons, an anathema to their 'family values'. Thus, absent any real community interaction, and/or social life outside immediate family, the perceptual nature of any reasoning process to form personal religious values is altered. When self reasoning is not the basis for one's religious beliefs, then one is most likely to simply pay lip service to some inherited religious dogma, at most attend some church services, and have one's religious beliefs play little role in the immediate priorities and focus of daily life. Some, for whatever reason, seek meaning to their life, or some sort of salvation in their future life, by grabbing hold of inherited religious dogma of this or that sort and then going after those 'heathens' possessing different inherited or reasoned religious beliefs, or who display indifference to the dogmas in question; then these 'dogmatists' either literally attack the disbelievers or become obsessed with making their inherited religious beliefs the law of the land. This seem familiar anyone? I am by my nature anti-dogma. If dogmatism, the absence of reason to reach conclusions, is wrong in every other area of human endeavors, then how can it be claimed right as the basis for religious beliefs?
There is some logic to a stance others really are irrelevant, that the only responsibility anyone has is to protect their own interests, their own needs, their own happiness etc,----some sort of Darwinian survival of the fittest. But I would argue there is little evidence this sort of Darwinian mentality brings any remarkable happiness. Drug lords, crime mafia types, corporate money or power driven CEO's, recipients of inherited wealth, cocooned families etc. never appear to be particularly happy campers---even though they certainly, if anyone does, lead lives of intense self interest for self gain or survival. If anyone is looking for a genuinely fun time, avoid these kind of people---like the song "I don't want your many mansions with the chill in every room.......". If such self interest indeed does not bring happiness, then reason dictates this to be a bad choice to be part of any religious portfolio.
Using reason to formulate religious beliefs is not the most difficult task. Human nature is hard wired to a basic universality of right and wrong, absent the medical condition of being a psychopath. Virtually everyone knows it is 'wrong' to steal. As Lincoln reflected: "This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." One could use this kind of reasoning to formulate many religious beliefs. For example: he who would not have his own possessions stolen, must consent not to steal from others. Those who deny others the right to steal, have no right to steal themselves, and under a just God, will be judged accordingly. Many of the more frivolous, albeit highly emotional, issues of the day can be resolved via this Lincolnian line of reasoning. This is a world of compensations; and he who would reserve the right to choose who they marry, must consent to allow others the same right to choose who they marry. But, one might argue, there are sexual 'norms' involved here. Really? What is too far from the norm?----Foot fetishes?
Oral sex?, S +M?, role playing? virtual abstinence?, sex daily?, using birth control?, not using birth control?, group sex?, heterosexual anal sex? homosexual anal sex? etc. Again Lincoln reflected, "In those matters which involve no one else individuals should have the freedom to do as they please." This in no way stops anyone from having any opinion or feelings about any of the above behaviors. Perhaps two more examples: This is a world of compensations; and he who would be free to dress as he chooses must consent not to impose dress codes on others. Those who deny freedom for others to dress as they please do not deserve such freedom for themselves. This is a world of compensations; and he who would value access to adequate health care for themselves or their kids must consent to valuing adequate health care for others or their kids. Those who deny others access do not deserve such access to good health care themselves. The basic point here is that reason should be the basis of religious beliefs---not feelings or inherited ancient dogmas. Religious beliefs generated by vigorous self reasoning will more likely carry with them the strength to adhere and follow such beliefs.
If I kind of lurch through this musing it cannot, given the complexities of it in my mind, be avoided. Aside from religious beliefs about behaviors, there is the question of divine intervention in our daily lives. The theologian Charles Hodge summarized the belief of many that "An infinitely wise, good, and powerful God is everywhere present, controlling all events great and small, necessary, and free, in a way perfectly consistent with the nature of his creatures and his own infinite excellence." This, on the face of it, seems unreasonable. There are many events in life which are clearly not fair, humane, wise, etc.. To attribute all these things to a God who is all wise, good, and powerful---controlling all events, is just a bit much. It is patently ludicrous. If, on the other hand, God works his wonders of the world through His created process of evolution, then all these 'bad events' can happen as part of a process which, over eons of time, is a wise and good process. We need not, in our search for religious meaning, miss the forest for the sake of the trees.
Lincoln, as I see it, used reason to formulate his religious beliefs. He used biblical scripture as part of his reasoning base. But it should be noted that on the major issues of his day---like slavery, Lincoln debated the issue, not by quibbling over the meaning of isolated directives in scripture---as did many of his day on both sides----but by using logic to formulate his religious belief slavery was wrong. Given the major tenets of Jesus' preaching, it seems strange the issue was ever in question. To 'know' Jesus is to be against injustice to anyone, let alone support any system of slavery. That of course, is exactly why blind adherence to isolated outdated HUMAN writings on religion is folly, and to follow blindly scriptural notations such as the earth is flat, or any such other absurdly outdated notions, is hardly something to be too smug about. Religion doesn't collapse because it grows instead of being some sort of static entity. As President, Lincoln was bombarded with differing religious pressures to do what God wanted done. Lincoln never really claimed God was on the side of the North, but rather pondered over, in his words, "In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time". After one such contentious meeting with differing religious viewpoints, Lincoln responded, "I shall be most happy indeed if I shalt be an humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty". He then concluded the meeting with this: "And if I can learn what it is I will do it." "if I can LEARN....". Learn, to Lincoln, was always a process of seeking sound logic and reasoning to resolve moral issues. Lincoln was not about to make moral decisions based on isolated purported religious dictated dogma from any source, especially when comparably robed and titled religious authorities had discordant dogmatic views, with of course God on each side.
Still to be answered is the question of whether God ever intervenes in the evolutionary process. This is a question which reverberates in my mind a lot, and has so for some time. I certainly no longer spend time praying for good health, financial gain, to be brighter, etc.----or even praying for others to recover from disease or survive financial problems, etc. And if I were the world's best football player, or the world's worst football player, I would not get in a circle, clasp hands, and ask for God's help to win the game. I think the evidence is clear---God is not normally involved in this kind of interference for anyone. If the Pope has pancreatic cancer the Pope is going to die and all the prayers of all his followers will not save the Pope. The created evolutionary process moves steadily on, according to divine mathematical laws; only Time stays---WE GO, the dumb and bright alike, those too of all religious persuasions. No exceptions. I suppose it can't hurt for me to file for an exemption.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
KNOWLEDGE : Part 2
Knowledge, Part 2:
So far this discourse, which might occupy my mindset for some time, has proceeded from the postulation that religious beliefs ought to be formulated by reason, not inheritance or blind adherence to human dictates formulated centuries ago. Any direct Word from God would be just that---direct---and universally available to everyone. To postulate God would issue ethical guidelines to us via human writings about another human years after this other human had died---which strangely enough is almost always the case in all major religions----is just unreasonable. Whatever God is, He certainly cannot be that inefficient, sloppy, inconsistent, and time dated ignorant. Having said that, it does not follow that the writings of prophets of the past contain no important insights on ethical matters----just that in the end reason need be the instrument of analysis for the formation and adoption of religious beliefs. These prophets help us with reason. With the accumulation of knowledge over time, religious beliefs become more fine tuned with reality. Like anything else not regulated by unchanging mathematical laws, religion is not a static entity. Those who claim otherwise hang onto outdated (by an increased knowledge base for reasoning) religious dictates whose foundation is purely a matter of faith. I suppose one, could, as a pure act of faith, continue to insist the world is flat, slavery is moral, or women deserve to be deprived of certain rights and privileges etc.
So far this discourse has used reason to generate a belief in the Creator and accept evolution as the created evolutionary process. My own deliberations on religious matters have been influenced the most by Abraham Lincoln. Using disinterested reason, Lincoln used logic to reach conclusions about all sorts of things. Lincoln starts with the universality of human nature. He never allowed himself to engage in any discussions on the superiorities or deficiencies of any group of humanity---including ethnic groups, religious groups, or cultural groups. None of this sort of stuff, according to Lincoln is important and are irrelevant to the formation of ethical principles. There are strong and weak, smart and dumb, good and bad people in all such groups. I am going to use murder as an example here. No matter what a person's religion, as far as I know, murder is considered wrong according to the dictates of their scripture. If one looks at murder rates per 100,000 people across the globe there are 6 countries with high murder rates and all the rest have murder rates at least half of the 6th place country. The U.S. is in sixth place. The highest is South Africa, then Russia, Lithuania, Estonia, Lativia, and then the U.S. The murder rate in the U.S. was 5.1/100,000 in 1960 and 5.6 in 2005. It was 9.8 in 1974, 1979, 1981, and 1991.
What the ups and downs signify I am not sure, but it is noteworthy (not relevant though to this discussion) that the murder rate in the U.S. is at least twice as high as all the countries in the world except the six mentioned above. Violence as a solution to conflict seems to be ingrained in our culture. There are 90 guns in the U.S. for every 100 citizens which makes us the most heavily armed country in the world. India is next with 4 guns per 100 people. Of course guns don't kill people, people kill people---but Americans need determine just what it is about our society which causes so many people to kill others.
Applying all of the above to Lincoln's disinterest in any such kind of analysis for blaming this on particular groups would result in the following. Let's postulate that the murder rate in this country for whites is 2.5 and for Hispanics is 7.5. That means, as a practical matter that for every 100,000 people 4 more people are killed by hispanics than by whites. That still leaves 99,995 people not involved in murdering anyone out of every 100,000 people. Even if there were a way to somehow prove that the reason for the difference was genetic, there is no reasonable system of justice which would punish all hispanics, or even be a reason to dislike the vast majority of hispanics. What matters, according to Lincoln, is a system of liberty and justice for all. This is not an arbitrary ethical principle but is based on reasoning that when the rights of all are respected and protected, the welfare of all is advanced. When Lincoln's universality of human nature is discarded in favor of prejudice toward this or that group for this or that reason---resulting in less than freedom and justice for all---conflict arises leading to violence amongst groups, and all civilizations have collapsed when justice and freedom for all passed a certain point of repression.
Thus, it seems to me, freedom and justice for all is a reasoned ethical principle which one could legitimately place in in one's religious portfolio. Of course Lincoln didn't invent this universality of human nature. I am not aware that Jesus or Buddha or any other major prophet in any religion incorporated ethnic slurs or depreciations in their teachings. Lincoln's unique strength is his use of language and ironclad logic to arrive at moral precepts. There is not a lot of dogmatic 'thou shalt not' in Lincoln's statement's or writings. Part of Lincoln's greatness was his independence from any kind of personal 'group' identification. Perhaps his being raised isolated from any group mentality enabled him to be free from any such shackles. Lincoln seemed to be very perceptive of the injustices heaped upon so many people for so many different reasons, most often prejudicial in nature, and he saw as the solution JUSTICE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL.
Part 3 to follow.
So far this discourse, which might occupy my mindset for some time, has proceeded from the postulation that religious beliefs ought to be formulated by reason, not inheritance or blind adherence to human dictates formulated centuries ago. Any direct Word from God would be just that---direct---and universally available to everyone. To postulate God would issue ethical guidelines to us via human writings about another human years after this other human had died---which strangely enough is almost always the case in all major religions----is just unreasonable. Whatever God is, He certainly cannot be that inefficient, sloppy, inconsistent, and time dated ignorant. Having said that, it does not follow that the writings of prophets of the past contain no important insights on ethical matters----just that in the end reason need be the instrument of analysis for the formation and adoption of religious beliefs. These prophets help us with reason. With the accumulation of knowledge over time, religious beliefs become more fine tuned with reality. Like anything else not regulated by unchanging mathematical laws, religion is not a static entity. Those who claim otherwise hang onto outdated (by an increased knowledge base for reasoning) religious dictates whose foundation is purely a matter of faith. I suppose one, could, as a pure act of faith, continue to insist the world is flat, slavery is moral, or women deserve to be deprived of certain rights and privileges etc.
So far this discourse has used reason to generate a belief in the Creator and accept evolution as the created evolutionary process. My own deliberations on religious matters have been influenced the most by Abraham Lincoln. Using disinterested reason, Lincoln used logic to reach conclusions about all sorts of things. Lincoln starts with the universality of human nature. He never allowed himself to engage in any discussions on the superiorities or deficiencies of any group of humanity---including ethnic groups, religious groups, or cultural groups. None of this sort of stuff, according to Lincoln is important and are irrelevant to the formation of ethical principles. There are strong and weak, smart and dumb, good and bad people in all such groups. I am going to use murder as an example here. No matter what a person's religion, as far as I know, murder is considered wrong according to the dictates of their scripture. If one looks at murder rates per 100,000 people across the globe there are 6 countries with high murder rates and all the rest have murder rates at least half of the 6th place country. The U.S. is in sixth place. The highest is South Africa, then Russia, Lithuania, Estonia, Lativia, and then the U.S. The murder rate in the U.S. was 5.1/100,000 in 1960 and 5.6 in 2005. It was 9.8 in 1974, 1979, 1981, and 1991.
What the ups and downs signify I am not sure, but it is noteworthy (not relevant though to this discussion) that the murder rate in the U.S. is at least twice as high as all the countries in the world except the six mentioned above. Violence as a solution to conflict seems to be ingrained in our culture. There are 90 guns in the U.S. for every 100 citizens which makes us the most heavily armed country in the world. India is next with 4 guns per 100 people. Of course guns don't kill people, people kill people---but Americans need determine just what it is about our society which causes so many people to kill others.
Applying all of the above to Lincoln's disinterest in any such kind of analysis for blaming this on particular groups would result in the following. Let's postulate that the murder rate in this country for whites is 2.5 and for Hispanics is 7.5. That means, as a practical matter that for every 100,000 people 4 more people are killed by hispanics than by whites. That still leaves 99,995 people not involved in murdering anyone out of every 100,000 people. Even if there were a way to somehow prove that the reason for the difference was genetic, there is no reasonable system of justice which would punish all hispanics, or even be a reason to dislike the vast majority of hispanics. What matters, according to Lincoln, is a system of liberty and justice for all. This is not an arbitrary ethical principle but is based on reasoning that when the rights of all are respected and protected, the welfare of all is advanced. When Lincoln's universality of human nature is discarded in favor of prejudice toward this or that group for this or that reason---resulting in less than freedom and justice for all---conflict arises leading to violence amongst groups, and all civilizations have collapsed when justice and freedom for all passed a certain point of repression.
Thus, it seems to me, freedom and justice for all is a reasoned ethical principle which one could legitimately place in in one's religious portfolio. Of course Lincoln didn't invent this universality of human nature. I am not aware that Jesus or Buddha or any other major prophet in any religion incorporated ethnic slurs or depreciations in their teachings. Lincoln's unique strength is his use of language and ironclad logic to arrive at moral precepts. There is not a lot of dogmatic 'thou shalt not' in Lincoln's statement's or writings. Part of Lincoln's greatness was his independence from any kind of personal 'group' identification. Perhaps his being raised isolated from any group mentality enabled him to be free from any such shackles. Lincoln seemed to be very perceptive of the injustices heaped upon so many people for so many different reasons, most often prejudicial in nature, and he saw as the solution JUSTICE AND FREEDOM FOR ALL.
Part 3 to follow.
BAGGY PANTS HALF MAST
Baggy Pants:
Several cities are now banning baggy pants which are worn in such a way to display under shorts or bare portions of ass. It is probably fair to say that a clear majority of people find this kind of dress offensive. Banning these pants is not going to cause the collapse of our society, as opposed to the legalized policies of the Bush administration. In that sense I guess the pants can be banned to keep the majority happy.
I admit to a certain hesitancy to regulate dress codes. I can see the reason on a job where you want all the employees to look a certain way to the public. Off the job is of course a different story. Like everyone else I find certain modes of dress unpleasing to my eyes. Those turbans look ridiculous to me. Wrap around attire(male or female) that looks like you are wrapped in a sheet is an eyesore to me. Practically any kind of attire on a really obese person is a good eyesight to be overlooked. I didn't use the word offensive here because that word implies to me that somehow something about my own personage is being compromised or assaulted by these unpleasant sights. Frankly, after about 50 yrs of age most people are an eyesore, certainly on a comparative basis. Someone once remarked that after the age of 50 everyone has the face they deserve. Maybe after 50 yrs of age a person should have to appear in public with a bag over their head. Then there are the real ugly. Ok, am not going to go there. One thing is for certain: I am not walking around in public with baggy pants half way down my ass. I think even these young ass exhibitionists would find this offensive. Or at least hilarious. When I see real obese women in spandex short summer shorts I find that hilarious.
In the big picture I just wonder on what basis we can ban baggy pants worn at half mast? I saw some kid recently in a store and every 30 seconds he had to pull his pants up after half his ass crack was showing or they would have fallen completely down. When I wander around Chicago I kind of find it interesting to see how different people dress and sometimes how little they are dressed. I don't mind half dressed people if they look good half dressed. No eye sore to me, more some kind of jealousy. I am not sure I would object if they were undressed. It seems to me the vast majority of people want to dress in a way they don't stand out or is fashionable to their group identity. Once, years ago I rounded a corner in Chicago and came face to face with a young nude gal who was followed by a good number of amused fans. I read in the paper the next day that the police came and took her away. I often wondered if she was mentally disturbed or just rebellious or what.
Freedom and justice for all seems to apply, for the most part, to dress. In my lifetime I have never known older people to approve of how a good many young people dress. Some young people are going to find a way to dress which will annoy older people while accentuating, in their mind, their own youthfulness and sexiness. The list is endless: long hair, body part rings, tattoos, sexually explicit sayings on teeshirts, form fitting spandex bottoms or tops, etc. Banning baggy pants will just be another challenge for these young people to find an even a bigger way to 'offend' older generations. Next might be spandex pants and shirts with no underwear which will detail every part of their body.
Not to worry: I ain't gonna wear spandex anymore than baggy pants half mast. And I am glad the young are not in the majority. I sure as hell would be annoyed if by law I was required to wear baggy pants half mast to satisfy some dress code of such a majority. When I was a kid my parents once gave me this game where you shot from this little gun arrows with suction cups on the end to knock over these little ducks moving across a little stage. The first thing I did was remove the suction cups and shoot the pointed arrows at others. Rather than ban half mast baggy pants maybe we could issue some of these suction cupless pointed arrow guns. If your aim is real good you could shout: "Bulls eye!". Retrieving the arrows for reuse would be illegal for sanitary reasons.
Several cities are now banning baggy pants which are worn in such a way to display under shorts or bare portions of ass. It is probably fair to say that a clear majority of people find this kind of dress offensive. Banning these pants is not going to cause the collapse of our society, as opposed to the legalized policies of the Bush administration. In that sense I guess the pants can be banned to keep the majority happy.
I admit to a certain hesitancy to regulate dress codes. I can see the reason on a job where you want all the employees to look a certain way to the public. Off the job is of course a different story. Like everyone else I find certain modes of dress unpleasing to my eyes. Those turbans look ridiculous to me. Wrap around attire(male or female) that looks like you are wrapped in a sheet is an eyesore to me. Practically any kind of attire on a really obese person is a good eyesight to be overlooked. I didn't use the word offensive here because that word implies to me that somehow something about my own personage is being compromised or assaulted by these unpleasant sights. Frankly, after about 50 yrs of age most people are an eyesore, certainly on a comparative basis. Someone once remarked that after the age of 50 everyone has the face they deserve. Maybe after 50 yrs of age a person should have to appear in public with a bag over their head. Then there are the real ugly. Ok, am not going to go there. One thing is for certain: I am not walking around in public with baggy pants half way down my ass. I think even these young ass exhibitionists would find this offensive. Or at least hilarious. When I see real obese women in spandex short summer shorts I find that hilarious.
In the big picture I just wonder on what basis we can ban baggy pants worn at half mast? I saw some kid recently in a store and every 30 seconds he had to pull his pants up after half his ass crack was showing or they would have fallen completely down. When I wander around Chicago I kind of find it interesting to see how different people dress and sometimes how little they are dressed. I don't mind half dressed people if they look good half dressed. No eye sore to me, more some kind of jealousy. I am not sure I would object if they were undressed. It seems to me the vast majority of people want to dress in a way they don't stand out or is fashionable to their group identity. Once, years ago I rounded a corner in Chicago and came face to face with a young nude gal who was followed by a good number of amused fans. I read in the paper the next day that the police came and took her away. I often wondered if she was mentally disturbed or just rebellious or what.
Freedom and justice for all seems to apply, for the most part, to dress. In my lifetime I have never known older people to approve of how a good many young people dress. Some young people are going to find a way to dress which will annoy older people while accentuating, in their mind, their own youthfulness and sexiness. The list is endless: long hair, body part rings, tattoos, sexually explicit sayings on teeshirts, form fitting spandex bottoms or tops, etc. Banning baggy pants will just be another challenge for these young people to find an even a bigger way to 'offend' older generations. Next might be spandex pants and shirts with no underwear which will detail every part of their body.
Not to worry: I ain't gonna wear spandex anymore than baggy pants half mast. And I am glad the young are not in the majority. I sure as hell would be annoyed if by law I was required to wear baggy pants half mast to satisfy some dress code of such a majority. When I was a kid my parents once gave me this game where you shot from this little gun arrows with suction cups on the end to knock over these little ducks moving across a little stage. The first thing I did was remove the suction cups and shoot the pointed arrows at others. Rather than ban half mast baggy pants maybe we could issue some of these suction cupless pointed arrow guns. If your aim is real good you could shout: "Bulls eye!". Retrieving the arrows for reuse would be illegal for sanitary reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)