What we have here is a failure to find divine guidance, heavenly inspiration or spiritual revelation. You would think that with all the different religious groups contributing to the controversy over the proposed Ground-Zero mosque that someone amongst the rabble would have seen the opportunity rather than the conflict. Surely somewhere in the tenets of their numerous faiths that, at least in one, there is some authoritative source that provides them with instructions on how to approach problems in their lives. Some principles to apply when there is a conflict that they need to deal with.
Wait! Perhaps it is not reasonable to expect the faithful of any of these religious groups to be knowledgeable practitioners of their faith’s orthodoxy or understand the practical application of their beliefs to real world situations. If only we had some recognized leaders or teachers of these faiths, or individuals that hold some authoritative position or standing within their respective communities involved in discussions and negotiations of the issues then we might hope for wise and sage guidance. I am not sure, but I do believe I have seen one or two acknowledged religious leaders attempting to weigh in on this issue. And thus with such knowledgeable spiritual leaders, particularly with their prayers and meditations on the dilemma confronting them, certainly we will see the wisdom of their faith illuminated in their comprehensive solution to the conflict.
After all, I would expect something much better than the trite and hackneyed positions offered by every media outlet, news anchor and politician salivating over the attention that they can glean from this strife-ridden conflict. The defense of religious freedom is a salient argument and position, but not exactly inspired. Most American’s of any religious or non-religious orientation know about the principle of freedom of religion; even if a surprisingly large number of them don’t seem to be able to apply the principle to anyone but themselves.
Religious tolerance is yet another argument put forth by some among the chosen, but clearly sprouting more from our traditional American values than a illuminating blessed vision from above. Not exactly the making of a new parable teaching the multitude or the faithful about the wisdom of the Almighty.
We even have the business moguls, diplomatic gurus and political luminaries offering to arrange for an exchange of site locations to alleviate the ire of the self-righteous hate and fear-mongers and to assuage the affront to the Islamic community of being ostracized. There is no indication whatsoever in the different versions of these proposals of a divine revelation toward a solution to the problem.
I just can’t believe that none of the leaders and representatives of the religious communities have even received a glimps of inspired insight about the opportunity presented by this conflict. That they are allowing the moment to slip away to demonstrate the bounteous rewards and blessings that their spiritual beliefs and principles gain for them, if only followed in the here and now.
Well there is still time. Perhaps a favored one will open themselves to the power of their God and hear the small gentle whisper that forces open the gate obstructing the way to paradise. Just make that simple choice to ask, “What can we do here to turn this turmoil of anger into a triumph of understanding?” With just a little thought, a little thinking out-side the box, a little opening of their own hearts, and a little faith in their Faiths; someone will surely find at least the mustard seed from which a powerful solution can grow. I suppose I could offer a hint, but then I think I have.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Burning Quran is to American Values, as Protesting Building a Mosque is to ___?
“As you sow, so shall you reap.” One of those often quoted sage insights into life that we rarely attend to because it is clearly too simple to be actually valid. Of course the same sages who would offer that advise would also council you that “to fail to learn the lessons of history will doom you to repeat them.” It makes you wonder what one can and should learn from our cultural legacies whether religious, political or societal.
Consider the Florida minister that plans to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack. What lessons has he learned from his religious background? Does his proposed action of burning another religion’s authoritative text spring forth from any particular biblical text or Christian principle? Surely burning a religious text is what we would expect from the teaching to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, or to “judge not, least you be judge”. But I am having difficulty reconciling his logic in connecting the “What would Jesus do?” test to assessing the righteousness of his position. And you have to wonder, even if the minister forgot to ask himself this question, did every member of his congregation also fail to see a lapse in the Christian values judgment that his decision suggests? Not clear that the minister has learned from his Christian faith much about how to treat others with humanity, charity or kindness.
But perhaps the minister is reacting from the teachings of his political milieu, from an American values tradition. Burning the Qurans would be protected by our American value in defending our freedom of speech or expression; however, while this value grants us the right to do such things the burning of books is certainly not viewed as an action that in any sense defends this right. And burning a religious text because you don’t approve of the religion yourself is not an action that supports or defends our right to religious freedom and tolerance. I suppose that here again members of his congregation can clearly explain how this event will bring honor or pride to their group even while they will have failed to live up to those American values that are so connected to preserving the freedoms our nation was founded to insure.
This leaves the minister with acting according to current social mores where hate and fear are common motivations for engaging in any number of behaviors. Now here we have a justification for his approach. In his narrow and primitive view that anyone who does not belong to his clan is a threat he is lead to take some offensive action that will cause them to be driven off. This reaction of hate and fear for anyone outside their own group is not uncommon in our country today. It resonates with the our political parties’ inability to work together, to find common cause, to compromise to achieve something of value for the public good, or to place country before party.
If the minister is wrong to burn the Quran based on any Christian, American or humanitarian value even though he lives in a society that recognizes his right to do so and will defend that right; then what do we conclude from efforts to stop a mosque being built ‘too near’ to the 9/11 Ground Zero site? Which American value is not betrayed in the case of the mosque that we see as being besmirched by burning Qurans?
Consider the Florida minister that plans to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack. What lessons has he learned from his religious background? Does his proposed action of burning another religion’s authoritative text spring forth from any particular biblical text or Christian principle? Surely burning a religious text is what we would expect from the teaching to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, or to “judge not, least you be judge”. But I am having difficulty reconciling his logic in connecting the “What would Jesus do?” test to assessing the righteousness of his position. And you have to wonder, even if the minister forgot to ask himself this question, did every member of his congregation also fail to see a lapse in the Christian values judgment that his decision suggests? Not clear that the minister has learned from his Christian faith much about how to treat others with humanity, charity or kindness.
But perhaps the minister is reacting from the teachings of his political milieu, from an American values tradition. Burning the Qurans would be protected by our American value in defending our freedom of speech or expression; however, while this value grants us the right to do such things the burning of books is certainly not viewed as an action that in any sense defends this right. And burning a religious text because you don’t approve of the religion yourself is not an action that supports or defends our right to religious freedom and tolerance. I suppose that here again members of his congregation can clearly explain how this event will bring honor or pride to their group even while they will have failed to live up to those American values that are so connected to preserving the freedoms our nation was founded to insure.
This leaves the minister with acting according to current social mores where hate and fear are common motivations for engaging in any number of behaviors. Now here we have a justification for his approach. In his narrow and primitive view that anyone who does not belong to his clan is a threat he is lead to take some offensive action that will cause them to be driven off. This reaction of hate and fear for anyone outside their own group is not uncommon in our country today. It resonates with the our political parties’ inability to work together, to find common cause, to compromise to achieve something of value for the public good, or to place country before party.
If the minister is wrong to burn the Quran based on any Christian, American or humanitarian value even though he lives in a society that recognizes his right to do so and will defend that right; then what do we conclude from efforts to stop a mosque being built ‘too near’ to the 9/11 Ground Zero site? Which American value is not betrayed in the case of the mosque that we see as being besmirched by burning Qurans?
Monday, September 6, 2010
Elections and the Economy – American Intelligence Test #7
Worried about the economy, concerned about your job, despairing over unemployment; then certainly you know what you need to do in the upcoming elections. At least this would be the conclusion one might reach in listening to the news anchors and political talking heads and wonks. But of course, what is obvious and patently clear to those with common sense and conventional wisdom need not be connected to reality nor demonstrate a modicum of wisdom or a smidgen of sound judgment. So what we have here friends and neighbors is another chance to gauge the vox populi’s intellectual gravitas.
The test format is just five questions plus a bonus question, and in some instances commentary to place a particular context to the question. Following the questions, I provide my answers. However you don’t use my answers as a guide to correctness. Your score is your responsibility to assess. A willingness to deceive yourself, as to the correctness of your answers or beliefs, is just another measure of the actual intelligence being measured. To paraphrase Lincoln:
Some of us can fool ourselves all of the time, and all of us can fool ourselves some of the time, but all of us can not fool ourselves all of the time.
Prepare yourself to be employed in a brief endeavor.
Q 1: Which political party is primarily responsible for the current economic environment?
Democratic Republican Neither Both Other
Context: Your answer should be able to withstand the ‘test of time’, it should encompass governmental actions and decisions over the last twenty, thirty or more years. In essence, it did not take just one or two years to get to where we are.
Q 2: Which political party’s policies and principles are best suited to deal with the current economy and restore the country to a sound prosperity?
Democratic Republican Neither Both Other
Context: Your answer should account for what a given party actual did when they were in power or not and not just what they said they were going to do when they were pandering for you vote.
Q 3: Which governmental action(s) are most likely to solve the problems in our economy?
A. Tax cuts
B. Stimulus packages
C. Infrastructure projects
D. Federal Deficit reduction
E. Government spending reductions
F. Reform Foreign Trade policy
G. Reform government bureaucracy
Q 4: After the election, how quickly can the government turn the economy around?
A. Within 1 year
B. 2 to 3 years
C. 4 to 5 years
D. Over 5 years
E. Never
Q 5: Who has the most power to address and solve the nation’s economic woes?
A. Presidency – the administration
B. Congress – the legislative body
C. You – the public
D. Financial industry – banking and investment companies
E. None of the above
Context: The power to control something necessitates the possession of the means to affect change and the ability to enforce adherence.
The Critical Bonus Question: During the upcoming political campaign which of these issues will be most important to your choice of candidate(s)?
A. Tax cuts
B. Education
C. Immigration
D. Family Values
E. Jobs Creation
F. Deficit reduction
G. None of the above
Ding! Times up. You’re done, and you can now evaluate if you scored high, low or in the middle. For those with an interest, here are my answers.
1: B Both parties have eagerly created their contributions to the economic policies and structures that have culminated in our current distressed conditions.
2: N The parties only have policies and principles that they espouse often and loudly, especially during their campaigns; but neither appears to understand that they have to build upon and be held accountable for delivering on those policies and principles for them to even have a chance of mattering. And more importantly, they have to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the failure of their efforts when they have demonstrated that they did not understand or appreciate the consequences of their actions.
3: C,D,F These activities come the closest to positive initiatives that the government could engage in to help the economy; but these items don’t directly address the underlying factors that cause our economic problems. The other items on the list can help treat the symptoms but are not agents to cure the economy.
4: E The government can’t actually fix the economy, the best that they can hope to do is to provide stabilizing actions to help contain the extent that the economy goes completely off the rails. So the government can never deliver the turn around, no matter how much time you allow them to stumble around trying.
5: C The economy is a product of the public’s behavior. “You reap what you sow” comes to mind. To add to those direct responsibilities that you need to own up to, the extent that the government contributes to the solution or the problem is derived from your choices anyway. See Question 1.
Bonus: G If you haven’t figured it out by now, the items in the list are not solutions. They are just political bait dangled before you to tempt you into swallowing the hook. If your candidate cannot clearly explain how they will implement a policy or program that will address any of those slogan issues and then explain clearly how that will produce a positive effect on the economy then welcome to the cook-out, you will be served up for dinner shortly.
You don’t have to care about this test or your view of my answers. But you are about to take a test that you won’t be able to shrug off, whether you pass it or fail it. The election doesn’t give you as many choices for each question, and it doesn’t give you any latitude in the consequences resulting from your choices. You will get what you asked for; because the reality of the world is that for every action/cause there is a reaction/effect.
The test format is just five questions plus a bonus question, and in some instances commentary to place a particular context to the question. Following the questions, I provide my answers. However you don’t use my answers as a guide to correctness. Your score is your responsibility to assess. A willingness to deceive yourself, as to the correctness of your answers or beliefs, is just another measure of the actual intelligence being measured. To paraphrase Lincoln:
Some of us can fool ourselves all of the time, and all of us can fool ourselves some of the time, but all of us can not fool ourselves all of the time.
Prepare yourself to be employed in a brief endeavor.
Q 1: Which political party is primarily responsible for the current economic environment?
Democratic Republican Neither Both Other
Context: Your answer should be able to withstand the ‘test of time’, it should encompass governmental actions and decisions over the last twenty, thirty or more years. In essence, it did not take just one or two years to get to where we are.
Q 2: Which political party’s policies and principles are best suited to deal with the current economy and restore the country to a sound prosperity?
Democratic Republican Neither Both Other
Context: Your answer should account for what a given party actual did when they were in power or not and not just what they said they were going to do when they were pandering for you vote.
Q 3: Which governmental action(s) are most likely to solve the problems in our economy?
A. Tax cuts
B. Stimulus packages
C. Infrastructure projects
D. Federal Deficit reduction
E. Government spending reductions
F. Reform Foreign Trade policy
G. Reform government bureaucracy
Q 4: After the election, how quickly can the government turn the economy around?
A. Within 1 year
B. 2 to 3 years
C. 4 to 5 years
D. Over 5 years
E. Never
Q 5: Who has the most power to address and solve the nation’s economic woes?
A. Presidency – the administration
B. Congress – the legislative body
C. You – the public
D. Financial industry – banking and investment companies
E. None of the above
Context: The power to control something necessitates the possession of the means to affect change and the ability to enforce adherence.
The Critical Bonus Question: During the upcoming political campaign which of these issues will be most important to your choice of candidate(s)?
A. Tax cuts
B. Education
C. Immigration
D. Family Values
E. Jobs Creation
F. Deficit reduction
G. None of the above
Ding! Times up. You’re done, and you can now evaluate if you scored high, low or in the middle. For those with an interest, here are my answers.
1: B Both parties have eagerly created their contributions to the economic policies and structures that have culminated in our current distressed conditions.
2: N The parties only have policies and principles that they espouse often and loudly, especially during their campaigns; but neither appears to understand that they have to build upon and be held accountable for delivering on those policies and principles for them to even have a chance of mattering. And more importantly, they have to acknowledge and accept responsibility for the failure of their efforts when they have demonstrated that they did not understand or appreciate the consequences of their actions.
3: C,D,F These activities come the closest to positive initiatives that the government could engage in to help the economy; but these items don’t directly address the underlying factors that cause our economic problems. The other items on the list can help treat the symptoms but are not agents to cure the economy.
4: E The government can’t actually fix the economy, the best that they can hope to do is to provide stabilizing actions to help contain the extent that the economy goes completely off the rails. So the government can never deliver the turn around, no matter how much time you allow them to stumble around trying.
5: C The economy is a product of the public’s behavior. “You reap what you sow” comes to mind. To add to those direct responsibilities that you need to own up to, the extent that the government contributes to the solution or the problem is derived from your choices anyway. See Question 1.
Bonus: G If you haven’t figured it out by now, the items in the list are not solutions. They are just political bait dangled before you to tempt you into swallowing the hook. If your candidate cannot clearly explain how they will implement a policy or program that will address any of those slogan issues and then explain clearly how that will produce a positive effect on the economy then welcome to the cook-out, you will be served up for dinner shortly.
You don’t have to care about this test or your view of my answers. But you are about to take a test that you won’t be able to shrug off, whether you pass it or fail it. The election doesn’t give you as many choices for each question, and it doesn’t give you any latitude in the consequences resulting from your choices. You will get what you asked for; because the reality of the world is that for every action/cause there is a reaction/effect.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Bad Eggs, an Egg-cellent Opportunity to Reform Regulatory Process
Half a billion eggs recalled resulting from the salmonella outbreak traced back to two Iowa egg farms; or lets be accurate egg-corporations. Now that’s a colossal Humpty-dumpty event.
And what helped bring about this potential epidemic of disease-ridden eggs, two huge home-grown entities. First and primary are the egg-producers, mega-farm companies that operates expansive egg mills with the sole purpose producing the most eggs at the lowest cost to generate the largest profits. Almost the very definition of the capitalistic enterprise model we all learn about in school; and egg-actly what we expect in America. What then went wrong with this successful approach to market-place production?
The failure that took place here is the same one that has taken place throughout the our nation and throughout the world whenever an enterprise owner(s) put their profit motive before any and all other considerations. In this case, the egg factories viewed that making their profit was more essential than the health and safety of the American consumer. Did they do it consciously and deliberately with full intention to spread a serious and potentially deadly disease across the country? No, they did not intend to purposely infect their product. However, they did overtly make decisions and impose operational procedures and conditions that promote the potential for such consequences.
How can we know this, that they knew they were taking risks with the public health? Well if you are issued environmental law violations and food safety violations, then you cannot claim that you were unaware of the potential risk your product represents. If you define operating procedures that increase the opportunity for conditions that either inadequately treat the containment of such disease outbreaks or that fail to monitor and detect the occurrence of the disease in your production facilities then you made overt decisions for which you are responsible. If you fail to take corrective actions in response to citations of operating procedures or environmental conditions then you are making a definitive decision to allow the risk and even to promote the risk.
Besides being held accountable for their on-going violations, these egg-producers are subject to and vulnerable to the lawsuits that harmed and endangered citizens could make against them. We will have to wait and see if and how this path may play out. But it will probably not be a swift journey, and there may well be some legal protection that has been enacted by the wise and informed leadership of our political legislative bodies.
But there is another set of players in this debacle, there is the governmental agency or agencies and their legislative creators that have failed to provide an adequate authority to perform the explicit function of protecting the public’s food supply. In the case of the legislatures, they have not endowed the agencies with an effective means and authority to penalize violators. In the case of the agencies, they have failed to employ the power that they do have to the best of their ability, and they have failed to adequately present information to their controllers (U.S. Congress or state equivalents) to the effect of the threats represented by the current circumstances in the system.
What will we see as a result of this egg-asperating situation? The House and Senate committees will hold hearing and may even propose some regulatory reforms that they will tout as the ultimate solution that will insure the safety of the American food supply. They may even find a way to pass the regulation despite the partisan bickering and obstructionism. Of course if they do find a way to pass the legislation, it will be weakened by caveats and constraints carefully crafted into the clauses and context to which the code will apply. Not to mention the attachment of ear-marks and amendments that will be unrelated to and either unsupportive of or detrimental to the egg-plicit purpose of the bill.
What won’t happen is Congress will not recognize nor seize the opportunity to actually create a efficient and effective approach to changing the nature of the regulatory approach to bring about a safe food supply for America. They will not see the way to reduce the cost of government bureaucracy to achieve these goals and at the same time incent the private corporations engaged in food production to compete for safety in their products not as a regulatory budget but as a profit seeking motivation under their own control.
In the end, the America people will be left with an unhatched opportunity for improving the safety of their food, and with the rotten egg of ‘business as usual’ government.
And what helped bring about this potential epidemic of disease-ridden eggs, two huge home-grown entities. First and primary are the egg-producers, mega-farm companies that operates expansive egg mills with the sole purpose producing the most eggs at the lowest cost to generate the largest profits. Almost the very definition of the capitalistic enterprise model we all learn about in school; and egg-actly what we expect in America. What then went wrong with this successful approach to market-place production?
The failure that took place here is the same one that has taken place throughout the our nation and throughout the world whenever an enterprise owner(s) put their profit motive before any and all other considerations. In this case, the egg factories viewed that making their profit was more essential than the health and safety of the American consumer. Did they do it consciously and deliberately with full intention to spread a serious and potentially deadly disease across the country? No, they did not intend to purposely infect their product. However, they did overtly make decisions and impose operational procedures and conditions that promote the potential for such consequences.
How can we know this, that they knew they were taking risks with the public health? Well if you are issued environmental law violations and food safety violations, then you cannot claim that you were unaware of the potential risk your product represents. If you define operating procedures that increase the opportunity for conditions that either inadequately treat the containment of such disease outbreaks or that fail to monitor and detect the occurrence of the disease in your production facilities then you made overt decisions for which you are responsible. If you fail to take corrective actions in response to citations of operating procedures or environmental conditions then you are making a definitive decision to allow the risk and even to promote the risk.
Besides being held accountable for their on-going violations, these egg-producers are subject to and vulnerable to the lawsuits that harmed and endangered citizens could make against them. We will have to wait and see if and how this path may play out. But it will probably not be a swift journey, and there may well be some legal protection that has been enacted by the wise and informed leadership of our political legislative bodies.
But there is another set of players in this debacle, there is the governmental agency or agencies and their legislative creators that have failed to provide an adequate authority to perform the explicit function of protecting the public’s food supply. In the case of the legislatures, they have not endowed the agencies with an effective means and authority to penalize violators. In the case of the agencies, they have failed to employ the power that they do have to the best of their ability, and they have failed to adequately present information to their controllers (U.S. Congress or state equivalents) to the effect of the threats represented by the current circumstances in the system.
What will we see as a result of this egg-asperating situation? The House and Senate committees will hold hearing and may even propose some regulatory reforms that they will tout as the ultimate solution that will insure the safety of the American food supply. They may even find a way to pass the regulation despite the partisan bickering and obstructionism. Of course if they do find a way to pass the legislation, it will be weakened by caveats and constraints carefully crafted into the clauses and context to which the code will apply. Not to mention the attachment of ear-marks and amendments that will be unrelated to and either unsupportive of or detrimental to the egg-plicit purpose of the bill.
What won’t happen is Congress will not recognize nor seize the opportunity to actually create a efficient and effective approach to changing the nature of the regulatory approach to bring about a safe food supply for America. They will not see the way to reduce the cost of government bureaucracy to achieve these goals and at the same time incent the private corporations engaged in food production to compete for safety in their products not as a regulatory budget but as a profit seeking motivation under their own control.
In the end, the America people will be left with an unhatched opportunity for improving the safety of their food, and with the rotten egg of ‘business as usual’ government.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
A Timely Proposal: Let’s Have A National Referendum to Kick Them All Out
Let’s give the American public the opportunity of a life-time. Let’s give them a national referendum on whether or not to completely dismiss (fire) every Senator and Representative currently holding a seat in the Senate and the House. No exceptions. We could even be gracious and require that the referendum only passes if more than 60% of voters support the referendum. [And that’s 60% of the votes cast, not one of those duplicitous procedures to preclude action so loved by our self-serving political parties that requires 60% of all registered voters to decide the issue.]
This referendum would allow the public to affirm whether the American people truly are fed up with the Washington ‘politics as usual’ shenanigans that have produced the deplorable economic, social, educational, national security, ecological, health care, and national debt situation for the country. It would provide the ‘mother of all wake-up calls’ to the political establishment, or it would signal that Americans are satisfied with their approaches to confronting the issues of the day. [Side note: If passed there would have to be a special election held to replace everyone, and the referendum would have to include precluding these just ousted individuals from running in the follow-up special election, or voters might be foolish enough to put them back in place.]
It has to be an all-or-none vote, because Americans have demonstrated over and over that they don’t like any other politician but they are happy with their own current Senator or Representative. It seems a small sacrifice to lose your own favorite son/daughter; but hard times call for hard choices. And I am sure that your political favorite would understand the value of their sacrifice in this just cause.
Imagine the staggering reaction that this would bring to all levels of government. If we could do it for the nation, we might also choose to do it at the state level. Politicians might actually start thinking about how to serve the public rather than the special interest groups. A double benefit to the voters is that this not only will scare the hell out of the politicians, but it will demonstrate to the special interest groups that they are vulnerable to the voice of the people too. What good will their huge contributions do for them, they can’t buy influence since the choice is to remove the objects they intend to influence.
So get out there and start asking your elected representatives to put this referendum on the ballot. What have they got to lose, if they think they have been doing a good job. And if they haven’t then aren’t they going to lose anyway? Ooop! No they won’t because you will vote them back in.
Well, it’s still a good idea.
This referendum would allow the public to affirm whether the American people truly are fed up with the Washington ‘politics as usual’ shenanigans that have produced the deplorable economic, social, educational, national security, ecological, health care, and national debt situation for the country. It would provide the ‘mother of all wake-up calls’ to the political establishment, or it would signal that Americans are satisfied with their approaches to confronting the issues of the day. [Side note: If passed there would have to be a special election held to replace everyone, and the referendum would have to include precluding these just ousted individuals from running in the follow-up special election, or voters might be foolish enough to put them back in place.]
It has to be an all-or-none vote, because Americans have demonstrated over and over that they don’t like any other politician but they are happy with their own current Senator or Representative. It seems a small sacrifice to lose your own favorite son/daughter; but hard times call for hard choices. And I am sure that your political favorite would understand the value of their sacrifice in this just cause.
Imagine the staggering reaction that this would bring to all levels of government. If we could do it for the nation, we might also choose to do it at the state level. Politicians might actually start thinking about how to serve the public rather than the special interest groups. A double benefit to the voters is that this not only will scare the hell out of the politicians, but it will demonstrate to the special interest groups that they are vulnerable to the voice of the people too. What good will their huge contributions do for them, they can’t buy influence since the choice is to remove the objects they intend to influence.
So get out there and start asking your elected representatives to put this referendum on the ballot. What have they got to lose, if they think they have been doing a good job. And if they haven’t then aren’t they going to lose anyway? Ooop! No they won’t because you will vote them back in.
Well, it’s still a good idea.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Americans Don’t Give-Up The Fight and Don’t Give-In To Fear, Why Would We Succumb To Hatred?
We take pride in America in our American Spirit, our Yankee ingenuity, and our can-do attitude. Americans rejoice in our commitment to freedom and its defense throughout the world. We acknowledge that “There is nothing to fear, but fear itself.” This is the country of immigrants, where you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and attain anything; the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Why then do Americans seem to lose the perspective these beliefs should give us on issues involving the Islamic religion? I suppose it could be that political leaders and operatives are always willing to latch onto any issue or message that provides them with the opportunity to get money. Just as we honor the Americans who have given their lives for our country, we generally despise our politicians who generally trade in lies, deceit, graft, and fraud; and we cultishly vote for which ever politician is running under the banner of the political party that we are devotedly aligned with regardless of their consistent and unrelenting failure to serve the public interest.
The conclusion from this philosophical dissonance between our allegiance to freedom and our disregard for supporting the rights that are defined by that freedom is that far to many Americans are willing to trade-in their principles, to abandon their responsibilities and run with the mob rather than stand up and be counted in defense of America. A defense of America by demanding that our laws are applied equally to everyone; that our liberty is preserved for all citizens; and that the rights of the minority are not sacrificed to the interests of the majority with disregard for justice.
Are we really willing to accept politicians who mislead us, who cultivate hate as a means of garnering political power, and who demean the very principles of America in which we take so much pride?
Why then do Americans seem to lose the perspective these beliefs should give us on issues involving the Islamic religion? I suppose it could be that political leaders and operatives are always willing to latch onto any issue or message that provides them with the opportunity to get money. Just as we honor the Americans who have given their lives for our country, we generally despise our politicians who generally trade in lies, deceit, graft, and fraud; and we cultishly vote for which ever politician is running under the banner of the political party that we are devotedly aligned with regardless of their consistent and unrelenting failure to serve the public interest.
The conclusion from this philosophical dissonance between our allegiance to freedom and our disregard for supporting the rights that are defined by that freedom is that far to many Americans are willing to trade-in their principles, to abandon their responsibilities and run with the mob rather than stand up and be counted in defense of America. A defense of America by demanding that our laws are applied equally to everyone; that our liberty is preserved for all citizens; and that the rights of the minority are not sacrificed to the interests of the majority with disregard for justice.
Are we really willing to accept politicians who mislead us, who cultivate hate as a means of garnering political power, and who demean the very principles of America in which we take so much pride?
Sunday, August 22, 2010
When A Separate Church And State Both Advocate A Common Principle
During this morning’s church service I had a serendipitous insight into a commonality of principle between a teaching of my faith and one of the tenets of our democracy. On the faith side, the homily emphasized the principle that discipline is a salient aspect of life. This insight relates to how that discipline carries not only to my faith but equally to my political philosophy.
Discipline is a normal part of growing up; and then if successfully acquired becomes a life-long lifestyle requirement if we are to endeavor to live righteously (or democratically in a narrower context). The discipline that God brings into one’s life is intended to provide instruction to guide and to strengthen the mind and the body to be able to endure and even flourish in our lives. If we are not taught the principles that we should live by, learn and understand them, and then be held responsible to adhere to those principles even when they are difficult, unpleasant or unpopular then we will suffer the consequences from our lack of discipline. It must cause us to expect that we will not be rewarded with the benefits and blessings that following those very principles provide. Many of us understand later in life that the discipline that our parents imposed upon us in our youth was beneficial to us; some I am sure never come to that realization. But we grew stronger and more prepared to deal with life because of that discipline.
Many people who believe in God also believe that He places trials and burdens into our lives that are also intended to strengthen us. It is often cited that “God does not place any burden on us that we cannot carry”. The take-away from this is that you cannot know what is righteous and gain the rewards that come from it unless you actually lead a righteous life. And that requires the discipline to follow what you believe in; including the fundamental principles that Americans have regarding our democratic system.
The same disciplinary perspective is demanded of a people that are dedicated to being free. The democratic nature of our nation is dependent upon our ability to follow the principles that define our freedom. This includes the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men. It may be difficult to accept that principle when you see someone or a group doing something that you disagree with, and it may require you to accept the rights of those individuals to choose to act as they have despite your views. And while this may be especially hard where there are emotional, religious or political issues at the point of contention between groups that you don’t approve of or accept into your own view of being American; it is explicitly in these circumstances that your need for discipline is the greatest. It may only be through discipline that we can retain and preserve our freedom. We must as surely have the discipline to hold fast to the principles that we are a nation of laws and that we must uphold the freedom of each and every citizen to their rights guaranteed by those laws.
Thus both the principles of my faith and of my country demand that I have the discipline to live in accordance with those principles. If I do not have the strength or the wisdom to follow those principles than I cannot hope to gain the advantages that they offer. If we do not do what is right according to our laws then how can we expect justice for ourselves? It does not matter if that right is based upon my faith or my politics. To expect a democracy to protect your freedom, it must be a democracy that protects everyone’s freedom in exactly the same way. If our desire to be a free nation is a righteous principle to live by and to live for, then we have to exercise the discipline of insuring that that same freedom is given to all citizens and is protected by our laws and our efforts.
Discipline is a normal part of growing up; and then if successfully acquired becomes a life-long lifestyle requirement if we are to endeavor to live righteously (or democratically in a narrower context). The discipline that God brings into one’s life is intended to provide instruction to guide and to strengthen the mind and the body to be able to endure and even flourish in our lives. If we are not taught the principles that we should live by, learn and understand them, and then be held responsible to adhere to those principles even when they are difficult, unpleasant or unpopular then we will suffer the consequences from our lack of discipline. It must cause us to expect that we will not be rewarded with the benefits and blessings that following those very principles provide. Many of us understand later in life that the discipline that our parents imposed upon us in our youth was beneficial to us; some I am sure never come to that realization. But we grew stronger and more prepared to deal with life because of that discipline.
Many people who believe in God also believe that He places trials and burdens into our lives that are also intended to strengthen us. It is often cited that “God does not place any burden on us that we cannot carry”. The take-away from this is that you cannot know what is righteous and gain the rewards that come from it unless you actually lead a righteous life. And that requires the discipline to follow what you believe in; including the fundamental principles that Americans have regarding our democratic system.
The same disciplinary perspective is demanded of a people that are dedicated to being free. The democratic nature of our nation is dependent upon our ability to follow the principles that define our freedom. This includes the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men. It may be difficult to accept that principle when you see someone or a group doing something that you disagree with, and it may require you to accept the rights of those individuals to choose to act as they have despite your views. And while this may be especially hard where there are emotional, religious or political issues at the point of contention between groups that you don’t approve of or accept into your own view of being American; it is explicitly in these circumstances that your need for discipline is the greatest. It may only be through discipline that we can retain and preserve our freedom. We must as surely have the discipline to hold fast to the principles that we are a nation of laws and that we must uphold the freedom of each and every citizen to their rights guaranteed by those laws.
Thus both the principles of my faith and of my country demand that I have the discipline to live in accordance with those principles. If I do not have the strength or the wisdom to follow those principles than I cannot hope to gain the advantages that they offer. If we do not do what is right according to our laws then how can we expect justice for ourselves? It does not matter if that right is based upon my faith or my politics. To expect a democracy to protect your freedom, it must be a democracy that protects everyone’s freedom in exactly the same way. If our desire to be a free nation is a righteous principle to live by and to live for, then we have to exercise the discipline of insuring that that same freedom is given to all citizens and is protected by our laws and our efforts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)