Tag Archives: law

TRUTH & HONESTY

The concept of TRUTH: unvarnished, unbiased, unalloyed actual, real, provable TRUTH… is a commodity upon which the greatest philosophies are built or related to. So far in human history, no one has been able to connect for more than brief periods, to pure truth. This is not to belay the claims of strong connections to truth; there are millions of those, but they seem to be temporary. Moreover, each claim is subject to language and the meaning of words, not to overlook cultural beliefs of both claimant and listener. It is uncommon that a new “revelation” of truth will actually change cultural or other long-held beliefs. Columbus didn’t prove or reveal that the Earth is round – many already knew those things – but his success at finding a “new” continent gave millions of Europeans something new to “believe in,” but until a colonist or conquistador actually experienced being on this land, he or she had no idea what was actually believed-in. The existence of this land, north, south and islands, was absolutely true, regardless.

Let’s imagine, then, that so-and-so colonist were to visit her home country and try explaining how wonderful the new colony is and the beauty and bounty it offered. What would happen during that conversation? You might be able to perceive several dangers to truth already.

The teller’s enthusiasm – or perceived enthusiasm – would be heard by the listener with automatic reservation. Are conditions as good as she says? Isn’t she overstating how wonderful things are? Just thinking about winters over there makes me shiver!

Was any TRUTH conveyed? The teller wasn’t trying to lie to her correspondent, but did she actually share what her listener accepted as truth? Was such a conveyance even possible? Is truth possible only as a result of experience?

TRUTH has a lot to do with the welfare of nations and citizens: everything from public safety to public health, to macro-and micro-economics. Economists, or business “experts” are often asked about “inflation” these days. Everyone is impacted by rising prices for basic necessities of life, for example, and they would like to know why they rose so quickly and when they’ll return to “normal?” Those asked are likely to say that the “rate of inflation” is coming down to where it was four years ago. This might please many, but none of them will have heard the truth. The queried experts will have referenced a number, or value, concerning “inflation,” but proceeded to describe something else entirely. Even if said expert believed he or she was being accurate, the resulting “information” was unrelated to the topic asked about. BELIEF will have been conveyed… even honest belief, but no truth, per se. The listeners receiving that belief will probably accept it as if true, and even go on to repeat it as if it were. No harm was intended and, probably, none was done unless, that is, one of the listeners has a role in macro-economic policy somewhere. Let’s hope – and we all do – that the policy-making listener knows what “inflation” actually is and makes decisions on that basis.

Truth is precise and provable when experienced. A person touching a tree-trunk can rest assured that the tree exists in the exact form he or she can feel, see and possibly smell. If the observer is a good speaker and tells a person who has a decent command of their shared language, what the tree looks like, feels like and smells like, and exactly where it is, the listener, IF HE OR SHE BELIEVES THE SPEAKER TO BE HONEST, will have received some truth about a bit of reality, and be confident that is the case. How often we complete conversations with the general feeling that we have learned something that is basically true, or is close enough to truth to make a decision about or act upon. “True enough,” we say.

The description of a tree has no future impact on the life, health or fortunes of the receiver of that information. It won’t keep him from going to work, from eating meat or picking up his child from baseball practice. Even if the description by the observer/experiencer of that tree were wildly exaggerated to a point of nonsense, the rest of the listener’s life would be unaffected, unless he or she were to one day encounter that same tree and find that the observer had lied about it, thus changing their relationship for the future. There are, decidedly, different “levels” of truth that we all have learned to manage the impacts of. Indeed, we have learned to manage our own relationship with truth that connects to or emanates from ourselves. Neither society nor civilization could function OR IMPROVE, without a certain level of truthfulness that most members agree to. But, how to measure the levels or, to be more precise and truthful with ourselves: how to make judgments about “truthiness?”

Judging others is virtually automatic by age 12 or so, but the habit deserves more thought than it is typically afforded in today’s social-media environment. We are constantly assailed by strong opinions about people and topics, with little time spent on using our judgment power. Concepts slide into our consciousness without much analysis and become part of a background of belief – or “truth” – against which newer ideas are compared and sources thereof, judged. It doesn’t seem Prudent to try to socialize only in terms of absolute truth. Personalities would be overridden by analytics; friendship and love would be impossible: the strengths and weaknesses of individuals would be disregarded. The very essence of judgment, sympathy, empathy and charity would be subsumed in a distillate of pure truth. The joy of wonder and hope would be made unnecessary if humanity were defined only by pure fact.

If interpersonal relationships must include true feelings and honesty as essential parts of managed truth, where is unvarnished truth required in modern society? Education, government, law-enforcement and medicine. It is easy to see why, with a little reflection.

First, Education: Learning has been slipping badly over the past 40 years. It is crucial that there be real human teachers keeping students on course – it’s part of maturation – but there must be a high percentage of absolute truth conveyed. No human will be bias-free, but that’s useful in terms of engaging students in the subject matter: interaction with the teacher/professor. Healthy argument speeds internalization of crucial parts of the subject matter, and not the same argument for every student. Humans are essential, but each should be judged or evaluated on the true percentage of TRUTH that is conveyed – and learned – by students. Education by indoctrination is failing miserably.

Second, Government: Maintaining governing structures and processes that are most effective in lying to citizens and others will only hasten the demise of the nation. Advancement, free-enterprise and success of the citizens can only occur with a high degree of honesty in every interaction with government. When dishonesty is the order of the day, people commence to make their own decisions about which laws each will obey. If more than one person in 15 becomes criminal, society will implode. Moreover, dishonest government will lie most actively about budgets and debt, ultimately bringing [Society cannot survive] financial ruin down upon the people, generally, and on the nation.

Third, Law-Enforcement: The most basic covenant between citizens and their government in a Republic, is equal application of the laws. It is counter-productive entirely to create different classes of people based on how laws are enforced; it is beyond logic, fairness and honesty by any definition to enforce laws more harshly on citizens than on illegal entrants. Society cannot survive when its leaders dissipate the value of citizenship.

Fourth, Medicine: Crass industrialization – and politicization through money – of medicine, medical research and pharmaceuticals, has cheapened medicine to mere employment and made the medical “system” an untrustworthy power-player with access to the taxing/inflation power of the federal government. Worse, it spurs globalization for the potential marketing of marginally useful, if not dangerous products to billions, not just millions, of customers. The CARE element of healthcare must be restored to prominence, along with free-enterprise innovation and competition… to keep truth the key factor in care and honesty the key element of healing.

The concept of MERIT, or meritocracy, in all phases of governance and every facet of civilization and social/human advancement, is based on truth and honesty. The ability to actually perform the functions of critical work, or to acquire and grasp the knowledge to invent, innovate and execute increasingly technical skills, are crucial elements of merit. The originators of socialism in its various colors, are the source of “DEI” and other ideas that weaken or specifically deny merit as the right philosophy of honest, benevolent progress. All of such injections of “anti-merit” education, training, hiring and firing, including even in business, have occurred in entities controlled or involved with essentially socialist-influenced government.

Americans should compare ALL political candidates in terms of meritocracy or anti-meritocracy, regardless of related pejoratives employed by either “side.” Our standards of living, health, safety and comfort can be weakened in just a few years of twisting society towards sympathetic “equity” and away from meritocracy… and truth.

The Religious Question

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.

ARE WE DONE HERE?

riot-3If you are rescuing a family, maybe several families from, say, a flood, and to do so you are wading through the flood waters, pulling the boat carrying those you are rescuing (you also brought warm food, hot chocolate and dry clothes for everyone), should the people in the boat be whipping you to get the rescue done more quickly?

I can hear sensible people saying “No, how could they?” But, when the process is not taking place in a boat but in our income-redistributing welfare morass, then the rescued can vote their rescuers into greater hustle. Suggesting that they should not be voting is seen as extreme cruelty. Hmmnnh.

Ostensibly smart professors are attempting to “teach” student snowflakes about “white privilege.” Apparently, in their history-debasing opinions, being white means being guilty of… well, everything. Surely there cannot be any differences in productivity, inventiveness or innovation between peoples, groups, races, tribes or religions – those differences that we white people are supposed to celebrate… those differences? When seen in a macro view, “white privilege” is the politically (corrupt) correct way to undermine Judeo-Christian heritage, ethics, beliefs and the enlightened philosophies that underpin the United States.

Law originated among small populations based on self-interest of protecting oneself and one’s family. That meant protecting food sources, safe shelter, wives and children. Very soon it became clear that groups (tribes) of families were a source of safety and better food security. Agreements were made as to what land “belonged” to one group and where the boundaries were. The “laws” between groups or tribes were laws only because of the ability to enforce them.

Within groups natural differences manifested. Some worked harder or smarter than others. Some cheated or stole; some sacrificed to help others; some were better boundary protectors; some were better hunters; some, better gatherers. Economics developed not by theory, but practicality.

“Treaties” were negotiated with other tribes, bound in fact by military power. Wars were prosecuted over various encroachments including of land, of resources and even of women. Slavery of the defeated generally resulted. Still, there was progress, spurred by conflict and deprivation… and shared beliefs, ethics and morals. Groups comprised of members who shared concepts of “right” and “wrong” were stronger. Inevitably, rebellion against those concepts resulted in punishment, death or banishment.

With closer-knit communities of central buildings and surrounding farm or grazing lands, ever more rules of behavior were required and codified. Outside of each “city,” however, military strength made the “laws.” Slavery was common, especially of subjugated peoples, and of them, especially of those who had resisted subjugation the most or who had attacked the victors. Competing religions accentuated conflict and subjugation.

Still, economics spurred trade over greater and greater distances – economics spurred by envy and deprivation. Some tribes or, whole kingdoms, were better at producing certain goods. They may have had the good fortune of possessing lands with suitable ores, or which grew coveted spices or which had good salt. Trade and economics had their own rules and ethics. Soon there were contracts.

Two areas of Earth saw great invention and innovation: China, basically, and Europe from south to north. One, the far East, remained insular and severely hierarchical; the other, the “West,” based in small, competing nations, fought through serfdom and developed democracy, economic freedom and a remarkable urge to explore and colonize. From competition came freedom and the great sciences and mental explorations.

It is all rooted in the sweep of Judeo-Christian philosophy – the heritage the “West” is squandering, undermining and cheapening in a headlong rush to out-think God. Sadly, our federal government – and many states’ governments – have devised new “rights” and sanctions that reach directly to from-the-pulpit homilies and even scriptural readings. This in the one nation founded upon religious freedom.

America was founded by, in effect, Hebrews! That is, as the tribes of Israel and Judah were scattered by the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians, ultimately migrating into Europe and forming the royal houses of virtually every nation there, out of those nations came very strong people who sacrificed everything to get to the “New Jerusalem.” We are fools to deny the history of, well… white, Judeo-Christian peoples.

Is our success due to the “choosing” of the Israelites? Let’s leave that to religious scholars and recognize what may be proven: that Judeo-Christian mores include intellectual strength and education, strong moral strictures… and sacrifice – for family, for others, for the future. This is not in defense of churches, but of history. The economics derived from that belief-structure produced the greatest personal freedoms, scientific advancement and standards of living. Now we are running away from it, scorching the Earth as we go.

Is the new hatred of whites, Jews and Christians most particularly, rational? We are not perfect and do not claim to be. Neither are those who would destroy us. Will our haters willingly destroy this nation in order to make whites pay a price for imperfection?

Evidently.

Truth, Belief, Spirituality, Life, Death, Freedom

atomTHE BIG SIX.
It feels as though all the “old” ways are under assault at once. The arguments against what is and how it came to be, are endless. Overpopulation is an argument that’s so old it’s become new again. The reasons to limit – even reduce – population change with the winds of politics, but they’re certainly heating up again, now. Mankind has no clear basis for determining when population is “over,” or just larger, but there are plenty of worries… and theories – same things, sometimes.
TRUE SEX
Another, relatively new argument is about sexuality. The closer we can get to pure animalism the better, according to some. Animals, themselves, exercise better ethics about sex than do humans who want to act like animals. Even Federal and state governments are de-regulating sex, mostly by coercing straight people, who are the vast majority. Why it is a government problem is hard to compute.
Reconfiguring sex brings up issues like Freedom, Social Cohesion, Law, Justice and the Regulatory State. The social – and sexual – roles of males and females are shifting, and have been for a century, to the point they no longer have legal definition. Their denial is where legality matters. The original feminist rebellion, allegorized in the Garden of Eden story, is playing out to unintended results, all around us.
HOT TRUTH
Climate Change – measurable in less than half a lifetime – is a wonderfully heavy political tool for leftist, controlling types. Too many people on the planet is the source of it, of course, as we are the source for everything unpleasant, even, now, earthquakes and volcanoes. The chief agitators about climate change are the same who want to sunder sexuality, disrupt business, cut law free from its moorings and render education into government pigeon-holing.
COLD TRUTH
Religious institutions are being de-legitimized, despite Constitutional protection of religious freedom, but religion, itself – as in spirituality – is being lost at the same time, as if it were never more than decoration. The spirituality of life is dismissed as inconvenience, as millions of abortions are committed around the world, so strongly advocated by those who deny fatherhood and motherhood as oppressive.
Science, to socialist controllers, is the new religion. It’s technology, really, that provides cover for the erasing of tradition… and of spirit. Science somehow justifies top-down regulation; freedom, religious and otherwise, is its impediment.
FORMULA SIX
All areas of human testing, failure and success derive from the following elements of the formulae for Humanity:
1) Truth; 2) Belief; 3) Spirituality; 4) Life; 5) Death; and, 6) Freedom.
I have tried to identify another “root” or “end” to improve this sextet, but these encompass everything, I think. All other topics of debate, argument, war and peace, including those heated and cold, are “means” to these “ends.” My contention is that it is possible to devise governance that prevents the means from thwarting the ends for all… and for every individual, family, extended group or nation. So, in turn:
TRUTH is absolute, illimitable, pure. It bumps into beliefs – or the other way around – constantly, but it can’t be changed with a new truth (opinion) to take its place, and lies may stick to it only temporarily. Truth is the reason for experiment, discovery, curiosity and science, but it can’t be limited by any of those – it simply is.
TREWTH
Many of mankind’s troubles stem from attempts to define or re-define truth, as though different opinions represented differing sets of truths. Obviously that is impossible; there are only differing sets of beliefs or, corrosively, attitudes.
Truth may be described through evidence, but evidence, itself, requires constant, scientific (defined as examination and testing free of the pollution of beliefs) distillation. There are as many truths as there are atomic particles, all potentially discoverable, but true regardless. Humans are concerned with a tiny fraction of them.
PERSONAL TRUTH
Our greatest literature is about the revelation of truth, or about truths that conflict based on unequal beliefs about them. Often, unable to reveal absolute truth, literature will draw moral lessons from its obvious existence, even if imperfectly known, and present those as a form of proof of absolutes. Such are easily disregarded by skeptics, who insist that they are entitled to irrefutable proof of absolute truth if they are to respond to it in any way. Otherwise, their comfortable beliefs will suffice for this lifetime.
JUDGMENT
Legal battles are one forge for isolating absolute truth, hopefully stripped of all misunderstanding. Oddly, mere opposing “views” of what is true are the essence of “proof” that will convict or acquit a suspect. Recognizing that absolute proof of absolute truth is imperfectly achievable by humans, we invest judges and juries with the power to “rate” the quality of opposing views of truth, in order to convict or acquit. Neither outcome establishes “truth,” although one may come close. Whose opinion of what is true, is most plausible?
Even confessions must be proven, as individuals are known to admit to acts not performed for various reasons.
TRUTH IN POLITICS
Controlling types, politicians and others, find that controlling access to truth – thereby defining truth for the controlled – yields immense power. Science is their umbrella, and education, glorious, indoctrinating, “public” education, is their most effective tool.
The monopolistic ability to control the beliefs of most of the population, and therefore how that population grants power democratically, enables teachers – controlled through licensure and unionization – to define “truth” for their students. “Science,” then is more free to pursue the “truths” it wishes to discover and to ignore those it wishes to obscure – or, as happens, doesn’t believe in.
Truth controlled by politics is a dangerous, dangerous weapon.
TRUE LIES
The existence of truth spawns lies… some unintended. Lying, when on purpose, is purely human. There is no inherent requirement for lying that must be met to live well. Lying is easy in its simplest applications; many are harmless, even beneficial for the “ly-ee.”
“Do I look stupid?” The asker probably thinks he or she DOES look stupid in some situation, but usually receives an answer like, “Of course not!” Which might be a lie. “Do these clothes make me look fat?”
Of course not.
[Additional Truthiness to follow]