Tag Archives: Faith

Biden, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Family, Governance, Health Care, Immigration, Politics 2024, Religion, Representation, Taxation

THE PRIME COMMANDMENT

Leave a comment

As a cruise ship plows forward, forcing water aside, waves are created, however short-lived, and they are real… impermanent, but real. Perhaps that is because they last for more than a moment. From windows forty feet above, with the sun shining against the ship and water, there appear light and dark patterns – like lace – flashing into and out of view, only “real” because I have perceived their ephemeral patterns. Engaging someone’s consciousness: is that essential for reality?

Someone sitting at another window could not perceive the same tracery despite its reality to me for a flash of time. It’s much the same as Love or Anger or Sadness or a dozen… no, ten-dozen other emotions, the reality part, at least. Usually they flit across one’s being like a shadow, gaining reality only if your consciousness grabs hold and commits mental energy to one.

Suddenly, from a flash of fear or loathing of someone’s odd difference from your own self you have made a decision – a choice – to hate the different one, even for a few moments… a feeling that is no longer fleeting, but real. If left private, shared with no one else, it is neither bad nor good. While it may affect your own physiology, quicken your breath and pulse, you may choose from evil. You may release the ill-feeling before it becomes a belief. Only belief can render such a flash real.

Funny thing, belief. We all suffer from it, it is how we live. Faith requires it and Hope is made of it. Faith, compounded of hundreds of stories – ideas, really, that can’t be replicated or proven, on the surface, can’t be tested to establish some sort of “proof” for the benefit of others who doubt is premises. It need not be put to any test for those who have it. Faith is trust and that means trust in A source of the idea, or in THE source of the idea.

We, humans, live in faith. It surrounds our beings, functions and beliefs. Much is made of religious faith in this day of militant, feral atheism. Religious faithful especially are denigrated for beliefs in “mumbo jumbo,” although these besmirchments apply almost exclusively to Christians and Jews. One never sees “protesters” opposed to Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists. There are some opponents to Mormons: mostly a quirk of Christian intolerance – the same that underlay many wars, even AMONG Christians, but no worse than sectarian conflicts elsewhere. It has never been settled whether tolerance, per se, is good or bad. Tolerance of what?

But, in terms of faith, itself, those who trust in the solidness of soil, rocks, wood or ice are no less faithful, however shallow that faith may be. After all, if doubt creeps in, one need simply pick up another rock and have his or her faith restored. However, “science” shows us that rocks and other “solid” things are comprised of atoms which are mostly empty space, each part of which is a mere vibration of energy. So, how is it enough of these supposed “atoms” can hold up the weight of others of its kind, plus the weight of us, our rocks, cars and houses?

Well, let’s not worry about such things. Thank God they do… ummm, I mean, thank goodness. Same thing.

We trust in a lot of life we can’t control – or understand – so why is trust in God so singularly questioned? Does His / Her possibility threaten us? Is it because God proclaimed rules that humans are “commanded” to follow? Rules for Good and Bad and Love and Life and Death? One of those rules, that EVERY human once had faith in, Is “Thou shalt not steal.” It’s a pretty good rule, too: easy to understand and without compromise.

We expect, for example, to be impacted by government – an expectation that is so often realized that it becomes a “matter of faith.” We know government is going to limit or coerce us in matters of stealing and, frankly, in almost every action we take. We have FAITH in government’s intrusiveness for it is proven to us a hundred times each day… or, a thousand times, if we open our eyes and ears. It’s part of our belief system – giving us faith in the likelihood that “our” government will impact us similarly tomorrow. There is every reason to believe so.

Admonishing us to not steal implies the existence of private, individual ownership of “things,” “items,” “money” and so forth. In our illuminated existences we like to consider “rights” as something we possess, as well. Maybe we do… possess rights. How so? By virtue of birth? Do our parents give us these amazing, non-substantial things… these rights? Perhaps on a certain birthday?

If they are “parents,” in fact, they provide necessities like food, clothing, shelter, a bed, one hopes. Do children then possess a “right” to these things? Or must such rights be “earned? If earned, at whose expense? “Our” government says, “At all of our expense. We, collectively, will guarantee availability of these necessities for the children in our country whether or not their parents are able to – or choose to – provide them.” The government, in effect, creates those “rights” as extensions of the “Right to Life.” Really?

How can the government do this when it has no means (money) to do so?

This same government does its damnedest to pay for and otherwise facilitate abortion, although the government, per se, has no money. It would seem that “our” government has chosen to steal a thing from the “abortee:” its Right to Life, at the same time stealing the money needed to inflict the abortion, from all of the rest of us. Thou shalt not steal must have severe compromise built into it… hmmph.

One could leap to the presumption that the TWO parents of the human working to be born, had not only some right to copulate but, instantaneously, the OBLIGATION to provide for the child of their union. Further, it would be more honest and fair if there were some punishment or sanction for creating a child while denying any of the coincident obligations. Do they have a “right” to create an obligation for all of us not involved in the procreation? By whose authority?

Birth may be induced within a week or two of due date; other forms of early delivery may be employed up to two MONTHS earlier. In some jurisdictions the proto-mother can elect to terminate that life for convenience’ sake… even to the time of natural birth. Indeed there are instances of babies surviving abortion who have then been “eased” from life after delivery or while their heads are still in the birth canal… on the whim of the mother. That doesn’t seem different from murder.

Wasn’t that live baby a U. S. citizen by virtue of being born on U. S. soil? Who has the right to steal its Right to Life? Who can grant such a right to steal? Thou shalt not steal.

Does not the brand-new U. S. citizen have unalienable rights under the Constitution? Rights like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Was there some point… a single breath, perhaps, at which “we, the People…” invested “our” government with the power to take those rights away from a citizen? That’s a major theft, it seems Prudent to say. That baby owned those rights; they were stolen from him or her. Thou shalt not steal.

Our we-the-People-created government has not only assumed for itself the power to grant the right to murder one’s offspring, a U. S. citizen, for no reason, but also to steal the Right to Life from the recipient of the abortion process.

To sell the idea of child assassination as a net “good” requires a remarkable re-making of beliefs. The person / mother who is responsible for the life gestating within her, almost always sees her own life, and Right to it, as precious, if not sacred. In the course of her re-education she is brought to a belief about the new person for whom she is responsible, that is completely different: her baby has no rights and she has no obligation to defend either the baby or the rights. She must come to believe that the baby is anything but a baby: it’s a mass of cells, like a tumor; or, he or she is a parasite, invading mother’s physical sanctity and convenience. Well, if the re-education is thorough, the removal of the invading mass is “health care,” albeit for only one of the parties involved. At least the parasite has no name and can’t feel anything… the proto-assassin hopes.

Sadly, tragically, this is not the case after just a few weeks of gestation.

Imagine a company the business of which were the aborting of kittens or puppies – say, puppies. The mother dog’s guardian (one cannot “own” another life form we’re told) knows the bitch has allowed to be done to her what dogs do, doggy-style, and is exhibiting signs of pregnancy. The guardian, not wanting the expense of another dog/puppy, or puppies, decides to have some convenient “health-care” performed on the pregnant bitch and the unborn puppies excised… like parasites. “Planned Puppyhood” might then sell the fresh, wet-iced organs of the puppies to “science” for research.

A neighbor of the guardian tells her that she hasn’t noticed “Buttons” running around for a few days and asks if everything is okay… with the dog? “Oh, yes,” says guardian, “she was pregnant and I took her to “Planned Puppyhood” for an abortion; 3 pups were removed. She’ll be home by tonight. Thanks for asking.”

The neighbor recoils in shock. “How could you do such a thing?” she cries. You could have let Buttons give birth and brought the puppies to a shelter! There are places that will take them and find them good homes. Oh, gracious, I feel terrible! I would have taken them!” Neighbor is crying.

“Oh for Heaven’s sake,” exclaims the guardian. Having those puppies would have been more trouble than I could put up with. I just don’t have the time, with work and all. What’s done is done and things will be back to normal going forward. Calm down. I still love Buttons.”

Neighbor shares the tragedy with others and local news gets the story. Do you think PETA and hundreds of pet-lovers and veterinary assistants will be picketing the guardian? Signs will call her a murderer and puppy-hater. She did, after all, STEAL the right of the bitch to give birth to her puppies and nurse them. Thou shalt not steal.

Probably, Planned Puppyhood would never get a permit to open a new facility in guardian’s county: dogs don’t contribute millions of dollars to political campaigns… at least the smart ones don’t.

The facilitators of abortions, that is, proto-mothers (women don’t actually receive abortions, they participate, but the recipient of the abortion is the baby: the abortee, as it were) have developed a great faith in the new meanings of words they’ve been re-taught. The multiple aspects of Life and Humanity NOT being those things MUST BE TRUE. If they aren’t… OMG! Not that they intend the meaning of “OMG” literally, it’s a social media thing, the meaning of which has been stolen by vulgarity.

Apparently, “our” government has perfected stealing and, usually, when theft is the subject, money is the object, in most people’s minds. Some person steals your wallet and everything in it and they have not only your cash but your credit cards and identity. He or she could steal even your house as well as drain your bank account – stealing from your future. God forbid. Clearly there are multiple crimes possible and, let’s hope, “our” government will harshly sanction the thief in every case. After all, everyone recognizes the truth and justice of Thou shalt not steal. Just consider how firmly “our” governments deal with shoplifters after they steal from store-owners.

“That’s not a fair sarcasm,” some automatically say, “those people have insurance against theft.”

Sounds like a definition is being stolen right from under us: “stealing” isn’t stealing if the victim is wealthy, or insured, and not known face-to-face. No kidding? Thou shalt not steal.

Moreover, if “religious” people think that rule is sacred, having come from God – especially Jews or Christians – then to Hell with that. We’re not going to have religious doctrine shoved down our throats, it’s un-Constitutional. Now they’re stealing the meaning of “Constitution,” too. But, back to the money thing.

A truly clever group would want its theft of EVERYONE’S money… I mean, if they had a very damned good reason to pull that off, they would find a way to hide the theft and their hands in it from… well, everyone. To do that they’d have to steal some word definitions such as “Inflation.” Every public commenter, including the smart ones, say “inflation” when they mean “price increases.” Generally the “rate” they talk about is the rate of increase or decrease measured by the “CPI,” the Consumer Price Index. The true “CPI” is comprised of a market “basket” of things that consumers can’t avoid buying in the normal course of providing for themselves and their families. Our government has stolen the meaning of this measure.

The “basket” includes food, cleaning products, clothing, housing, energy, TV, phone and internet services, insurance, transportation, taxes and accounting, health care and medications, maintenance and household services, banking and credit services, education and child-care. There are more, but sustenance and advancement are possible from that list.

Everyone but the wealthy elite agonizes over rapid price increases for items in the market “basket.” It’s heard everywhere: “Eggs used to be 99 cents a dozen, now they’re $4.79!”

“Inflation is high,” someone replies. News commenters refer to the “rate” of inflation as the average rate of, say, 3 and ½% as proof that “our” president’s policies have “brought down” the rate of “inflation.” What a wonderful piece of work. All are misusing the term, “inflation.” By repeated, round-the-clock misuse, the meaning of inflation has been stolen. Here’s a little lesson:

Inflation means inflation of the money supply… simple. Inflation, by itself, doesn’t mean the increase in a price… of any thing. It does, however, REDUCE THE VALUE of all the dollars there are sloshing around the economy: one of the greatest thefts ever devised. Only governments can do that. Thou shalt not steal.

Inflation is a government policy. It’s not caused by changes in the weather or lunar cycles. Politicians decide to use inflation to their advantage, either to buy votes or to cover up errors they have made with other policies. “We, the people” are the last and least consideration when inflation is being contemplated. Any legislation that increases federal spending, cannot, by definition, “reduce” inflation. To say otherwise, perhaps by naming said legislation an “Inflation-Reduction Act,” is a complete lie, told by politicians to their constituents from whom they have just stolen monetary value of savings and pension plans and liquid cash assets. It is not only mendacious, but cruel. Thou shalt not steal.

But, why do prices go up after the government inflates the money supply? Supply and demand: the very essence of economics, trade, valuation of goods and services and, wait for it, TAXES! The insidious economics of “our” (federal) government results from constant “deficit spending:” spending more to operate the government than tax receipts and other revenues can cover, which sounds pretty stupid. But in order to do that, the government borrows the difference, virtually on a daily basis, for which it incurs an interest obligation – all done on “our” behalf.

That interest obligation is now greater than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS per year, and growing. Most of the money borrowed to fill annual “budget” gaps is basically air… (see: https://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2020/09/27/knife-edge-election/) … for which we pay real-money interest. It’s the theft that keeps on stealing. When your favorite politician sends you some re-election mail, be sure to send him or her a check, won’t you?

Inflation automatically, in a sense, causes reactionary DE-flationary effects, bringing balance back to the supply of dollars and the supply of goods and services to be purchased. The fastest adjustment is the higher price of things. Eventually, the price of labor also rises. All of these increases generate – wait for it – higher tax revenue! It’s a miracle! Or, it’s a policy… who’d have thought?

So, who can commit such a crime? Who benefits from this theft? Who can even DO the crime? “Our” government, that’s who. The rate of inflation IS high, BUT, and this isn’t good news, as a percentile increase, even the last FOUR presidents have been unable to increase the rate more than a total of 100%!

“Really? Where did it go?” one asks. Why, to the greatest deflationary mechanism ever invented: DEBT! It’s now over $35 Trillion!

“Whose debt is it?” you could rightly ask. Well, it’s YOURS, mine, all of ours. “How will we repay it?” could be the next logical question.

“We can’t unless we run surpluses in the federal budget for the next 50 years or so.”

“When will we do that?” Also a good question. Likely answer:

“Never. Our Reps and Senators will have to change their habits and, right now, their habit is to get re-elected and they have to buy a lot of votes.”

“So, it’s a debt that will never be repaid?”

“Yes. It’s indistinguishable from theft. In this case, the money has been stolen from generations into the future, to whom the thieves will never answer.” Thou shalt not steal.

Along the path of perpetual debt many meanings of words and principles have been stolen… and rights, as well. To maintain the lie of theft-as-debt, we are paying interest, which is a “current” obligation, competing with federal departments, like Defense, for limited resources, along with other key obligations comprised of horse-shit, chicken-shit and bull-shit, not to overlook the mountain of citizen and illegal welfare we feel compelled to pay.

Our “representatives” (a questionable term) have aided in this multi-generational embezzlement for decades, as it buys their votes, too. Aside from a handful in either House: a dozen in the Senate, perhaps thirty in the House of representatives – both parties have facilitated and voted for repeated deficit-spending packages, including “continuing resolutions” that merely continue rates of spending that exceed revenues… over and over and over. They lie, in other words; indeed, they fail to represent our interests TO or AGAINST the government, as directed by our Constitutional covenant. Instead they represent the government to us! They have stolen the term, “representative,” one of the worst of thefts. $35 Trillion. Thou shalt not steal.

Kidnapping is the most heinous of THEFTs and, if there are degrees of heinousness, kidnapping a child is a still greater level of evil. Yet, every weekday we willingly pass off our children to “public” education systems where ideological and unionized teachers and equally warped administrators divert children’s beliefs away from those of their parents. If a person’s beliefs are taken from him or her, it is a theft of the most personal property. Uniquely foul is the daily effort to make children question their own being: boys aren’t actually boys; girls not actually girls. For shame.

Such “teachers”… no, “educators,” are the worst thieves possible: willing to steal children’s selves. Ultimately, they are willing to perfect the theft by having kids be subjected to chemical sterilization and, if they can reach the nadir, surgical mutilation. In the process they may even get to rejoice the theft of the children from their parents, altogether. Oh, the glory! Once a thief… Thou shalt not steal.

Culture, Governance, Politics 2018, Responsibility

Leaders, Leaders Everywhere – Part One

Leave a comment

America, or shall we say, the United States in particular, has severe leadership problems. We decry them in terms of politics as “partisanship,” but they are much broader than simply that. During our 100 years of industrialization we seemed to have a pretty good pool of leaders – business, industrial, scientific, mercantile, military, religious, philosophical and political. They weren’t deemed to be perfect by everyone, but they were relative giants in society and with their influences they appear to have set standards for others who would be leaders. A handful articulated this role, most simply lived it and comported themselves in what might be described as statesmanlike, in that they took larger views of life and growth, exploration and discovery, and responsibility, in their fields.

We have leaders among us now, of course, but… well, they’re different. And I mean no slighting of women in history, also of course, and the phenomenon of this devolution of leadership seems, unfortunately to have afflicted them, too. How to describe it? Or, how to describe a cause of it?

Let’s consider who a few of today’s “leaders” are. We know them: Trump and some in his administration; certain Democrat leaders including Mrs. Clinton; Congressional leaders, both majority and minority party; numerous “celebrities” from the entertainment industries – indeed, “celebrity” is a critical component of most “leadership,” today; ultra-wealthy business and financial leaders, like Federal Reserve governors and the Chair-man or –woman; the heads of corporations like Google, Facebook, Disney, Microsoft and a hundred more… maybe 500 more… maybe 5,000. But we hear of these business/industrial leaders usually with a descriptive term before their name: billionaire. Maybe, multi-billionaire. It’s a clue to what’s happened to leadership.

Money? Is that all that’s wrong with today’s leaders? They’re disoriented by wealth? Prudence would say, “no, not just money, but it’s a part.”

Leaders often have power. Charles Krauthammer had power as a “thought-leader” for example. Was he a celebrity? Somewhat, thanks to television, but he was a columnist and never described himself as a TV personality. No billionaire, certainly, but he had power for two reasons I can discern: 1) He was a well-read, well-educated observer of things powerful and political, who lucidly expressed his opinion with refreshing honesty, clarity and consistency, and 2) He was honest to himself and to his readers, a refreshing and rare quality from which his power derived. It has been a treat to be alive and literate during his lifetime. Most people under, say, 40, would not list him in their panoply of “leaders,” sadly.

Throughout history the most powerful, threatening, feared person has been in charge. He (occasionally she) could push people around, command their virtual, or real, slavery and surface fealty, and literally take the profits of their work. They could even “lead” them into battles but never were they “leaders” in the sense that they were going in directions that others wanted to go or felt “right” about going. That is to say, the mission driving the King – or kingpin – was not shared by those afraid to not follow him. Mission and Leadership appear to be of a set, virtually inseparable. Does this illuminate any of the apparent differences between leadership during “America’s” biggest century and now?

Intentionally or not, every leader, by default, has some kind of “mission,” possibly only because he or she has articulated what it is that has spurred his or her actions. Lo, and behold! That sudden mission is agreed-to, thanks to our being awash in communications, by a group of people who, in the majority of instances, know only a thin shell of what issues are at stake. But, they are behind “the leader” all the way. One might say that the “size” of the leadership is a function more of the extent of the communications about the issues than it is about the quality of the leader or of the importance of the issues… or of the “principles” that motivate the leader and the followers.

In earlier times, when it could take days for news to reach a significant number of readers – always readers – powerful, or strong-willed people, at least, would start their journey towards a big idea, big goal, big industry or discovery, more nearly alone. His (most often, his) “followers” numbered in the single digits or low tens. It required courage, then. There were no happenstance leaders during the big century. Right or wrong they were real, and honest to their missions. If they and the mission failed, they faced failure… sometimes failure that meant the loss of everything. Lincoln.

Morality has a way of guiding, cajoling, molding and even forcing bad actions to end and bad actors to leave the stage of public influence. In fact, morality is essential to the success of leadership. Even today, when institutions and agencies do their level best to remove themselves from moral judgment, every person who claims to lead this or that movement – even “flash” movement – first lays out some “moral” position around which the latest crowd of followers might rally. Something is wrong and thanks to this “leader’s” vision, that wrong has been exposed and with (your) help, and money, that wrong will be ended and “things” will be set right. Communications unlike anything humans have been exposed to throughout evolution, play a big role in two ways: 1) newsworthy crowds can be assembled in a moment and, 2) the “wrong” that unites them need not be agreed to by even a significant fraction of the nation’s population.
What is “right” and what is “wrong,” anyway? Leadership, historically, has generally been connected to “leaders” who exercise courage in defense of what is “right.” Clear examples were seen during the American Revolution. Not only were the patriots fighting the government they were born under, but fighting with guns and cannons and real bullets. Not all of their fellow colonists were with them, many helped to fight against them. But motivating Washington and every Continental soldier who endured with him and other officers, was the powerful belief that what they were trying to do would yield a greater “good.” They believed they were doing what was right – not just more comfortable or more profitable, but right in terms of freedom, independence and justice.

The “patriots” comprised not even half of the British colonists… not even a quarter. Their mission would have appeared futile in many instances yet they soldiered on. How? They were both blessed and cursed by the paucity of information available to them. Cursed because they did not know the nature or size or deployment of the forces arrayed against them; blessed because they, unlike their modern descendants, were not burdened by too much thinking about their circumstances or by too much planning of how to avoid failure.

That is to say, they didn’t “know enough” to stop believing in the rightness of their mission: bumblebees unaware that they could not fly. The combination allowed their belief and trust in Washington and others to not just maintain but strengthen, until they flew in the face of the greatest possible headwinds. Is that “faith?” Trust in something one cannot see? Leadership is connected to that ability of humans – to believe in something greater than one’s self.

Modern leaders are more likely to be constrained by a flood of information. Indeed, most of our current “leaders” are called so because of financial success. Nearly every move they make is “hedged” in half a dozen ways such that they, personally, cannot lose. Even if their leadership of great businesses “fails,” they have arranged for a “golden parachute” that lets them leave wealthy. Their “leader-ship” carries minimal risk… to themselves. Their “mission” is personal gain and not the gain of a people or of a nation. They may be giants, dollar-wise, but are mis-identified as leaders. More and more, “success” is a measure of mere wealth. Even top political leaders leave office with more money than they entered with, and many become multi-millionaires by selling their celebrity – or notoriety. Money.

Culture

The Religious Question

3 Comments

Everyone seems to question religious doctrine these days… “everyone” meaning a large majority of Christians in Europe and the United States and Canada.  We think we have become “too smart” to believe that stuff.  That smartness is like an infection, similar to socialism, where our science, technology and ubiquitous governors (bureaucrats) are creating a much nicer world than “God” supposedly ever did.  The internet, gaming and pornography are meeting most of our needs; WalMart, Kohls and fast-food restaurants handle the rest.

And the rigors of marriage are so last Millennium – let the bureaucrats raise the kids.  I, mean, with pre-kindergarten, pre-school, K–12 and perpetual college, who really needs parents anymore?  The love-making part is OK, but even that’s becoming a big hassle; and courtship… forget it.  Hooking up and living together is fun but look at all the divorces.  No, that model doesn’t really work for us anymore.  If that’s the religious model, then let’s pass.  And it’s so expensive!  How much more pleasant driving around is.  Besides, my low-emissions hybrid helps to save the planet.

Oddly enough, Muslims are more serious about religion today than almost ever.  And the most serious expression of their most-serious religion is the destruction of Christianity – and of Christians, themselves, of course.  It’s as if we were in a race with terrorists to prove the unimportance of Christianity, except we’re not winning.  Muslims still want to kill us or convert us.  Jews are just as bad as Christians, in their book, so they are more than happy to kill them, too.  Jews are certainly willing to give up religious seriousness, along with Christians, so why do the Muslims care so much?  It’s a worthy question.

As Muslim terrorism has accelerated over the past 50 years there has been a parallel, mostly anti-Christian movement gaining steam in “the West:” atheism.   And this isn’t some “live and let live” form of God-less non-religion.  No.  It has become virulent… same infection, different strain.  Atheist don’t expend a lot of effort opposing Judaism, Buddhism or Hinduism – mostly they target Christianity.  Christmas makes atheists apoplectic, similar to its effect on Muslims.  Why on Earth do self-proclaimed non-believers – we’re talking scarlet-lettered “A” atheists, here, not agnostics or, presumably, not ignorant fools, but serious opponents of Christianity and its slightest mention… why the Hell do they care?

The broad network of atheists concentrate on the awful record of human organizations that operate in the name of doctrines other humans wrote stories about, derived dogma from, and implemented with motivations of personal and institutional power, as well as motivations of financial security.  There are thousands of years of policies and incidents – crimes, in fact – that belie the ostensible teachings of EVERY religious tradition.  Just collating and describing every human error will always yield plenty of material.  Indeed, an entire movement could be, has been, created out of the effort.  But that story is not complete, is it?

Nowhere in the vast network of atheist websites and their aggregation of terrible acts, is there a long list of extraordinary acts of charity by other humans deeply motivated by the overarching story of Christian sacrifice.

If your intention is to catalogue human failings, you will forever be busy.  You may also become blinded to phenomenal beauty, sacrifice, love and greatness.  However, rendering judgments about the existence of “God” based solely upon the much-edited and selected stories in the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, or upon the evolving catechisms of churches, will always be somewhat erroneous.

There are but two places to stand in the debate about the truth of God’s existence: He exists or He doesn’t.  The rest of arguments on either side are inevitably biased for each advocate’s personal advantage, comfort, satisfaction or smug superiority.  Barring personal experience with God, Himself, all of our words are opinion, more or less informed.  Hearsay, we might conclude.  And, in Prudence’ view, too fraught with mysteries that may be balanced only with faith.  This in no way denigrates faith.  Faith is the best glue religion provides to cause populations to share codes of morals and conduct.

Prudence tells us that God would not launch our long climb into perfection with a list of mysteries.  It doesn’t make sense that He would hold us to standards we cannot understand – there must be a logical structure to God’s Law, logic that humans can grasp and apply to our social organization.  Further, it seems reasonable to assume, following God’s Law must be good for people and for Life, itself, and, still further, and logically, for God, himself who never, by definition, acts outside of his own “Law,” since He is that Law.

So, for those of us who stand on the side of God’s reality, admittedly thanks to a measure of faith, there must be a value to God for the creation and existence of humans with the free will to choose between His law and earthly evil.  That is, there must be a BENEFIT to God to go to the trouble of creating humans.

Hinduism provides some insight to the logic of God’s existence, through the laws of Karma.  There is a near-universal understanding of what Christianity states as: “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” which is to say: “…so MUST ye reap.”  Karma is more complex than that, of course, because of its connection to re-embodiment of the soul.  Western Christianity does its best to suppress the possibility of being truly “born again,” but even the Bible includes references to it.  In one view, the New Testament provides the opportunity to return, through karma, to resume self-perfection, arriving after being “judged and found wanting,” agreeing to accept the rigors of a life that will provide the opportunities to “balance” what is “wanting” – karma.  Only by cleaning up all of our negative acts in whatever lifetime, can we achieve acceptance into “heaven,” if that is our goal.  Whether we call it Nirvana or Heaven, or some other, mankind generally believes in rewards in an afterlife for good living in this life.  Is there a logic to this?

There is if God also benefits.  What if – just consider – that God’s Law that tells mankind to “go forth and multiply,” applies equally to Him.  He is the Law, by definition, so of course it does.  In other words, individual perfection is logical if God is ENHANCED by humans’ choices to adhere to His Law and not succumb to the comforts of evil.  In other, other words, God becomes happier when his “children” do right.

Oh, that’s impossible, you might say.  God is all there is.  But, then, who are we to limit Him… if we are standing on His side, after all?  After all, you get to keep only what you give away!  In those other words, it is only the ACTION of charity – or of following the Law – that stays with your soul.  The other side of that is that an evil action must be balanced in order for your soul to progress into “Heaven.”  It’s very logical.

And, it’s not a mystery.  There is a value and purpose to being “good” and not “evil.”  Part of the value is that society and civilization, itself, holds together through the application of shared morals.  Society functioning, strengthening families and children, educating them and protecting them, is a value.  Only in strong societies do people have the opportunities to worship and, one hopes, to learn greater aspects of the Law.  No mystery there.

Atheists perform an important function.  They continuously expose our flaws, particularly  human failures in the guise of religion.  And well they should.  They may be blind to some things, but they’re searchlight-clear on crucial others.  If they can recognize, as Karma describes, that life is a series of tests and that earth is the testing place, then they might accept that belief in God is a test and that disbelief is also a test.  It really doesn’t serve anyone to attempt to determine whether others are passing or “failing” a test, only whether we, ourselves are passing.  If belief in God generates hatred and death, it is reasonable to think that a test is being failed.  Likewise, if disbelief generates hatred or worse, that is also evidence of a failure to pass.

Every event, whether we deem it good or bad, is an opportunity to choose good or evil.  One can stand in judgment of God if he or she wishes, and say that this or that earthquake, flood or disease is an indictment of God, but what is the value of that except to sow hatred?  If God were to place us all in nurseries so that we would be perpetually comfy and fed, free of disease – free of choices, in effect, what value would humans have?  There would be no growth, no strength, no ability to make ourselves more perfect.

If there were no standards to meet or tests to pass, life would be useless; there’d be no horizon, no mountains to climb, no wonder to fulfill by finding out.  No, you non-believers, that there are tests is not proof there is no God but, rather, that there is.

It is our response to the test that we can take with us, not our comfort.  Still, you should keep on holding up your mirror, reflecting back at us our flaws and errors in God’s name.  The original question, though, remains.  Why do opposing religions, best exemplified by Muslims in opposition to every other belief structure including atheism, become so hateful toward others?  What do they care?  I think the only care great enough is that their chosen enemies may be right.

Culture

CODIFYING TOLERANCE

1 Comment

The latest issue of the National Geographic has a trans-sexual boy, a de facto girl, on the cover. The balance of the issue explores multiple examples of “trans” children, primarily, and how girls grow up and are often mis-treated (by our standards) around the world. Throughout are stories of the very rare instances of genetic mis-firings that yield unusual development of reproductive organs in humans, animals and insects. A survey is quoted that says “milennials” (in the West and U. S.) see “gender” as a spectrum rather than just male or female. Hmmph.

So there is no misunderstanding, this old stump is decidedly uncomfortable with the publicity afforded sexual incongruity. I don’t like the new rush to normalize exotic behaviors, which has proceeded with such politicized demonization of those not embracing it, as to make declarations of normalcy statements of gross intolerance and even of hate.

We are on the wrong track, it seems to me, to be denigrating and attacking very tolerant Judeo-Christian moral guidance (and institutions) and the essentially Judeo-Christian mores of Western societies and of the United States in particular, while affording equal, if not superior credence to the abject tolerance of non-believers and refuse-to-believe-ers. One group, attempting to adhere to socially-strengthening traditions while having compassion and tolerance for new conditions, desires and loves, is trying to maintain ideals about family, sexuality and moral purity. The other, mostly young, instantly connected and instantly knowledgeable (regardless of reality) is rushing toward license and the intentional destruction of all moral strictures. “It is their right,” some trumpet.

For purposes of the most tawdry and SHORT-LIVED political expediency, sexual oddities have received legal status that not only offends faithful Jews and Christians, but which force “straight” citizens (over 95% of us) to change our habits, practices and even beliefs, if we are to not be labeled “haters” for expressing our own condition! Within this twist of social norms are corrosive, acidic re-definitions of words, and IN-tolerance of normality.
Every Christian expression must be stricken from the public arena, for example. Christian beliefs that are the foundation of law and social norming, may no longer be uttered, EVEN WITHIN CHURCHES in some views, as they are deemed offensive to a tiny, tiny fraction of society who, not needing to have actually heard the scripture that they claim would have offended them, need only to hear that it was heard by others. Instant media sweeps across their non-judging (non-thinking) consciences and yields the “offense” they seem to seek and celebrate.

Perhaps the worst example of the dangers of codifying tolerance is the experience of Aaron and Melissa Klein whose Gresham, Oregon bakery was put out of business by a lesbian couple whose feelings were hurt when the Kleins refused to apply their artistry to a custom wedding cake for the upcoming nuptials of the same-sex couple. They did not refuse to bake a cake, nor to sell them one. On religious grounds they refused to decorate a cake that would assist in glorifying a wedding that contravened their faith.

Immediately the lesbian couple garnered widespread support against the “discrimination” and supposed hatred exhibited by the Kleins toward same-sex weddings and therefore anyone who favored or accepted such ceremonies. Next, they filed a complaint with the State of Oregon , which resulted in a fine of $135,000, payable to the “offended” couple, which was ultimately paid. The Kleins’ business was shuttered very quickly as hatred toward THEM yielded threats, picketing, slanders and public intimidation.

The offenses toward the Kleins, engendered by the “flash-hatred” of social media in favor of all things homosexual, were not defended against by any state laws. Indeed, the state took the side of two people whose feelings were ostensibly hurt, helping them in their campaign of hatred and destruction so as to put the Kleins out of business, and to punish them for refusing to employ their artistic abilities for the benefit of an event that their faith forbade.

In effect, this couple was told that they might live according to their (Christian) faith ONLY inside their home or their church, and that adherence to faith is not legal if one has a business. There are many examples of private citizens suffering severe economic punishment for merely expressing their faith with no related “illegal” actions!

We are in the realm of thought-policing. Free-thinkers (without moral anchor) like to compare everyone with whom they disagree to Hitler. No doubt the Kleins are among those so compared. But, it was Hitler who first imposed rules that faith may be expressed only in church. Delightful company, he.